Someone wrote an article, 'Calvin murdered Servetus?'
A knowledgeable man commented thus:
I'm sorry to say that it is a very poorly written and researched piece of writing.
If King David was guilty of murdering Uriah the Hittite (which he was), then Calvin was most certainly guilty of murdering Michael Servetus.
The writer's first point in his defense of Calvin is: "This was a civil trial carried out by the State, not the Church. Calvin was not the judge. He was not a juror. He was not the executioner. What he was, was the prosecution’s star witness."
What the writer doesn't tell his readers is that Calvin tried to transform Geneva into a theocratic state. In other words, civil law and religious law were inseparable.The state had to obey the teachings of the church, according to Calvin. So, in the case of Servetus , the "civil" trial was in fact an ecclesial trial.
The writer says: "Calvin was not the judge. He was not a juror. He was not the executioner. What he was, was the prosecution’s star witness."
No, he wasn't officially the judge. No, he was not officially a juror. He was not even the prosecution's star witness. HE WAS THE PROSECUTOR! Besides his theological degrees, Calvin also studied law (his father was a lawyer) and he was the official prosecutor in Servetus' case. It was directly because of Calvin's efforts that Servetus was burnt at the stake.
The writer says further: " “There is no biblical precedent for murdering a person for heresy.” Deut. 18:20 reads, "But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, ...that prophet shall die.""
Only problem in citing that proof verse is, that Servetus was not a prophet, nor did he claim to be one. Calvin's problem with Servetus began after being close friends with him (Servetus was a brilliant physician, pioneering the dissemination of knowledge about the pulmonary relationship between the heart and the lungs), Calvin sent him a draft of his writings for comment (Servetus was also an armchair theologian). Servetus returned the manuscript with lots of annotations and remarks that he made in the margins. Calvin was enraged and Servetus became his enemy.
The writer then goes on to say that Jesus did not change any of the Old Testament laws. But he did!
"“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ BUT I TELL YOU, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. Love for Enemies
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matthew 5: 38-48)
Calvin did not only murder Servetus in a most explicit manner, but he was also directly responsible for the deaths of more than fifty other people. He employed a number of arbitrators to go around the various parishes of the church to see that people were behaving themselves according to the Old Testament laws. Besides believing that he was a "little god", he believed that people like himself were "lesser magistrates".
I'm afraid that the writer of the article that you cite, exculpating Calvin from blame of being a murderer, contains, fatuous and inaccurate arguments and statements at every turn.
If his arguments and statements were in fact true, then all who believe others to be heretics, have the right to execute them.
This is patently untrue and unchristian.
Sing F Lau
Well said, JKL. 'CALVINists' would reconstruct history at all cost to remove the stigma and blood associated with Calvin!
David Bishop
This is a thinly disguised piece of revisionist history. I guess Griffen's next move is going to be to try to persuade us that Zwingli didn't really authorize the murder of the Waldenesians, or that Luther didn't really write to his friend... Myconius to tell him that the Anabaptists should be put to death.
These men disregarded Christ's law (1 Cor. 9:21, Gal. 6:2) in order to strengthen their own political positions. Be that as it may, this doesn't mean their theological view was wrong. Anyone who claims that it does has fallen prey to the genetic fallacy. Just because Einstein denied the existence of a personal God does not mean Einstein's math was wrong. In my opinion, attempts to justify Calvin's actions in respect to Servetus are a waste of time.
