Why John Calvin was not a murderer

[Christian Liberty]

Deuteronomy 13English Standard Version (ESV)

13 “If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him. 5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil[a] from your midst.
6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace[b] or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, 8 you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. 9 But you shall kill him.Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 11 And all Israel shall hear and fear and never again do any such wickedness as this among you.

Even if you deny the absolute obligatory nature of this law on nations other than Israel, it is absurd to suggest that its enforcement would be unjust. God himself wrote this law and so its perfectly just. Some would argue based on change of circumstances (ie. a society that is overrun with heretics could not justify enforcing such a harsh law against a common problem) but even if that is true, Servetus was essentially the first of his time in a world where almost everyone did teach orthodox Christology. Clearly his execution was not unjust. If you think it was, you have a problem with God.

From John Knox:

Ye will not easily admit that Servetus was convicted of blasphemy; for if so be, ye must be compelled to confess (except that ye will refuse God) that the sentence of death executed against him was not cruelty; neither yet that the judges who justly pronounced that sentence were murderers nor persecutors; but that this death was the execution of God's judgment, and they the true and faithful servants of God, who, when no other remedy was found, did take away iniquity from amongst them. That God hath appointed death by his law, without mercy, to be executed upon the blasphemers, is evident by that which is written, Leviticus 24. But what blasphemy is, may some perchance doubt. If righteously we shall consider and weigh the Scriptures, we shall find that to speak blasphemy, or to blaspheme God, is not only to deny that there is a God, but that also it is lightly to esteem the power of the eternal God; to have, or to spread abroad, of his Majesty such opinions as may make his Godhead to be doubted of; to depart from the true honouring and religion of God to the imagination of man's inventions; obstinately to maintain and defend doctrine and diabolical opinions plainly repugnant to God's truth; to judge those things which God judgeth necessary for our salvation, not to be necessary; and finally, to persecute the truth of God, and the members of Christ's body.

James White explains John Calvin's pastoral concern for Servetus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCmu9B-K748




And finally this, from me:

Those of you who are not Christians, those who do not claim to believe in Christ or the scriptures, this is not directed at you. While you are free to engage if you want, I do not expect a pagan to take the laws of the living God seriously.

But for those of you who are Christians, yet condemn Calvin for this, how dare you? Have you no shame?

[hells_unicorn]

I'm echoing Christian Liberty's sentiments on this, and for those who want to read Knox's full defense of Servetus' execution, you can read the full tract at http://www.covenanter.org/Antitolera...xdefended.html

[heavenlyboy34]

Even if you deny the absolute obligatory nature of this law on nations other than Israel, it is absurd to suggest that its enforcement would be unjust. God himself wrote this law and so its perfectly just. Some would argue based on change of circumstances (ie. a society that is overrun with heretics could not justify enforcing such a harsh law against a common problem) but even if that is true, Servetus was essentially the first of his time in a world where almost everyone did teach orthodox Christology. Clearly his execution was not unjust. If you think it was, you have a problem with God.

From John Knox:



James White explains John Calvin's pastoral concern for Servetus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCmu9B-K748




And finally this, from me:

Those of you who are not Christians, those who do not claim to believe in Christ or the scriptures, this is not directed at you. While you are free to engage if you want, I do not expect a pagan to take the laws of the living God seriously.

But for those of you who are Christians, yet condemn Calvin for this, how dare you? Have you no shame?

Christ fulfilled the law. Quoting the Old Testament without viewing it from Christian context/perspective is the trap that Judaizers and similar heretics fell into. (not to mention a common bludgeon atheists use to smear all Christians)

Can you quote the gospels and Church Fathers to prove your argument?

[Christian Liberty]

Christ fulfilled the law.

Meaning what? That its no longer just to follow it? Keep in mind we're talking about the enforcement of the 1st commandment here. Not a ceremonial type and shadow.

Quoting the Old Testament without viewing it from Christian context/perspective is the trap that Judaizers and similar heretics fell into. (not to mention a common bludgeon atheists use to smear all Christians)

See, here's the thing. Sometimes atheists do it stupidly. But sometimes the problem is that Christians are stupid/inconsistent and not willing to acknowledge what their faith teaches. I understand why it would be in question whether the civil laws God gave Israel are OBLIGATORY on all nations (although, as an absolute standard of justice I believe that the penalties for breaking the moral law ARE binding on all nations), but even if not, such laws are perfectly just and we should not be ashamed of them. Most Christians today are shamefully ashamed of them because they have traded the justice of God for the justice of secular humanism. This is why we see it as totally fine (people here not so much, but in the wider world) to lock someone up and destroy their life for having drugs (which, while perhaps sinful, are not criminal) or owning an "illegal" weapon or not driving really fast without a "driver's license", yet we have as the foundational right the supposed "right" to worship false gods publicly and to try to persuade other people to worship the idol. And this is how we get to statism. Every society has a highest authority that cannot be challenged. In 'Murica it is the State, in the scriptures it is our God.

Servetus was a lying false prophet who denied Christ's divinity, and he went to Geneva preaching such. Every government in the world, Catholic or Protestant, wanted to execute him for this. And rightly so.

Can you quote the gospels and Church Fathers to prove your argument?

Matthew 5:17-18

I do respect the church fathers but considering none of them were running a State and thus never really had to deal with this... meh. Unless you find one who has an actual Biblical argument that says this is unjust, I'd say they were just wrong if they considered it unjust.

[hells_unicorn]

Christ fulfilled the law. Quoting the Old Testament without viewing it from Christian context/perspective is the trap that Judaizers and similar heretics fell into. (not to mention a common bludgeon atheists use to smear all Christians)

Can you quote the gospels and Church Fathers to prove your argument?

Christ fulfilled the law, but he did not destroy it. If capitol punishment is warranted for the most severe of 2nd table infractions (murder), it stands to reason that unrepentant heresy stands in a similar light regarding the 1st table. Romans 13 establishes the right of the civil magistrate to bear the sword against evildoers, and you should then consider Jesus' words in Matthew 10:28 and Luke 12:4-5. In light of this, it would be right to infer that Heresiarchs, for their role in condemning the ignorant to perdition, are at greater enmity with God than murderers.

As for Church Fathers, the matter gets a bit more complicated because during much of the earliest period the church was on the weaker side of the argument with pagan governments, all of which had no problem martyring the most pious of the early fathers. It is true that opinions on executing heretics changed during the Medieval Period, as this site notes Bishop Martin of Tours, Ambrose and Pope Siricius opposed the death penalty being used by the secular authority in the case of Bishop Priscillian, whereas Thomas Aquinas was a supporter of executing heresiarchs. Priscillian's heresy was much less serious than Servetus' as he wasn't renouncing Christ's divinity or promoting idolatry, but even you would have to admit there is something truly repugnant about any church official commanding everyone not to marry.

I'd argue that the case of Michael Servetus was a particularly egregious one given that he was not only promoting boldly Anti-christ viewpoints, but opportunistically trying to seek out places of weakness where he could victimize unsuspecting persons in Geneva who were trying to reform from the superstitions of Rome and the threat of Libertine thought. Similarly, Servetus himself supported the practice of executing heretics, so he was a real and present threat to anybody in Geneva who would have dissented had Servetus ever swayed the majority.

[Christian Liberty]

Christ fulfilled the law, but he did not destroy it. If capitol punishment is warranted for the most severe of 2nd table infractions (murder), it stands to reason that unrepentant heresy stands in a similar light regarding the 1st table. Romans 13 establishes the right of the civil magistrate to bear the sword against evildoers, and you should then consider Jesus' words in Matthew 10:28 and Luke 12:4-5. In light of this, it would be right to infer that Heresiarchs, for their role in condemning the ignorant to perdition, are at greater enmity with God than murderers.

As for Church Fathers, the matter gets a bit more complicated because during much of the earliest period the church was on the weaker side of the argument with pagan governments, all of which had no problem martyring the most pious of the early fathers. It is true that opinions on executing heretics changed during the Medieval Period, as this site notes Bishop Martin of Tours, Ambrose and Pope Siricius opposed the death penalty being used by the secular authority in the case of Bishop Priscillian, whereas Thomas Aquinas was a supporter of executing heresiarchs. Priscillian's heresy was much less serious than Servetus' as he wasn't renouncing Christ's divinity or promoting idolatry, but even you would have to admit there is something truly repugnant about any church official commanding everyone not to marry.

I'd argue that the case of Michael Servetus was a particularly egregious one given that he was not only promoting boldly Anti-christ viewpoints, but opportunistically trying to seek out places of weakness where he could victimize unsuspecting persons in Geneva who were trying to reform from the superstitions of Rome and the threat of Libertine thought. Similarly, Servetus himself supported the practice of executing heretics, so he was a real and present threat to anybody in Geneva who would have dissented had Servetus ever swayed the majority.

I wouldn't even say that just believing in or expressing a belief in heresy is necessarily capital, but actively going around trying to persuade people to follow you in the heresy. Its one thing to say "I don't believe Jesus is God", its another thing to try to convince other people to deny Christ's divinity.

I am less certain that this law (Deut 13) is meant for those who are clearly outside the church and who clearly do not profess to be part of the church (like, for instance, a professing Muslim or Buddhist, who has no affiliation with Christianity) but certainly if someone comes under the guise of Christianity and starts preaching deld be punishable.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I wouldn't even say that just believing in or expressing a belief in heresy is necessarily capital, but actively going around trying to persuade people to follow you in the heresy. Its one thing to say "I don't believe Jesus is God", its another thing to try to convince other people to deny Christ's divinity.

I am less certain that this law (Deut 13) is meant for those who are clearly outside the church and who clearly do not profess to be part of the church (like, for instance, a professing Muslim or Buddhist, who has no affiliation with Christianity) but certainly if someone comes under the guise of Christianity and starts preaching deld be punishable.

I'm not sure where in the Bible it says to execute heretics.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not sure where in the Bible it says to execute heretics.

Deuteronomy 13.

[hells_unicorn]

I'm not sure where in the Bible it says to execute heretics.

Read Deuteronomy 13. Exodus 22:18 also clues one in on how God feels about women who parade around saying God is talking to them and telling them that we shouldn't marry, have children, or consume meat, such as the founder of Seventh Day Adventism Ellen G. White. (also see 1 Timothy 4:1-3)

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not sure how exactly to deal with the rise of charismaticism, but I'm not sure someone claiming God is talking to them necessarily makes them a witch. Its possible that they're a deluded charismatic, which I don't know that that warrants execution. Could you help me out here HU?

[Sola_Fide]

Deuteronomy 13.

God said that to the special situation in Israel. What does that civil command have to do with today?

[Sola_Fide]

I'm not sure how exactly to deal with the rise of charismaticism, but I'm not sure someone claiming God is talking to them necessarily makes them a witch. Its possible that they're a deluded charismatic, which I don't know that that warrants execution. Could you help me out here HU?

Man, the list of heretics is piling up. What kind of government would you need to keep that kind of control over the population? Much more than what we have today, for sure.

[Christian Liberty]

Man, the list of heretics is piling up. What kind of government would you need to keep that kind of control over the population? Much more than what we have today, for sure.

First of all even if that was true it wouldn't disprove the point.

But, I don't think this is how the law is supposed to be enforced either. The government should not keep surveilance on everyone or go door to door like a Gestapo looking for heretics. But if two or three witnesses confirm that a person is preaching heresy... well... yeah.

Of course, I know that you think pretty much everyone other than you is a heretic so of course you'd think government would have to be massive to enforce this

God said that to the special situation in Israel. What does that civil command have to do with today?

You have yet to prove that this is a "special situation" and the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that a civil government that does this today would be unjust.

[erowe1]

Even if you deny the absolute obligatory nature of this law on nations other than Israel, it is absurd to suggest that its enforcement would be unjust. God himself wrote this law and so its perfectly just.

It wasn't unjust for Israel to obey the commands that God gave Israel within the contexts in which those commands applied. But that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be unjust for other people to do similar things outside of those contexts. If somebody tried to do what God commanded Abraham to do in Genesis 22, that would be unjust. The same is true for those who would apply the laws that were strictly for Israel outside of the boundaries God placed on those laws.

Also, what did Servetus do that would subject him to the death penalty according to this passage? And if he was to be killed according to this passage, then shouldn't the method have been stoning?

[Christian Liberty]

It wasn't unjust for Israel to obey the commands that God gave Israel within the contexts in which those commands applied. But that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be unjust for other people to do similar things outside of those contexts. If somebody tried to do what God commanded Abraham to do in Genesis 22, that would be unjust. The same is true for those who would apply the laws that were strictly for Israel outside of the boundaries God placed on those laws.

How does this follow? Genesis 22 was obviously a command for Abraham specifically, and was never normative. But how could a law like Deut 13 be unjust just because it was applied outside of Israel? How does that follow at all?

Also, what did Servetus do that would subject him to the death penalty according to this passage?

A Christ who is not God is a different god.

And if he was to be killed according to this passage, then shouldn't the method have been stoning?

Maybe. But that wouldn't make it "murder" to kill him by burning. Calvin wanted him beheaded (which admittedly isn't stoning either.) This seems like a particular equity/general equity issue. But even if not there's a difference between "improper procedure" and "murder" as a charge

[erowe1]

How does this follow? Genesis 22 was obviously a command for Abraham specifically, and was never normative. But how could a law like Deut 13 be unjust just because it was applied outside of Israel? How does that follow at all?

It's the same thing. Deuteronomy 13 is explicitly just for Israel, just as much as Genesis 22 is just for Abraham. The very words you quoted say so. We have no more of a right to change the terms of God's covenant with Israel and arrogate to ourselves the rights to do things God has never authorized for us to do than we have to say that God commands us to sacrifice our sons on altars.

[heavenlyboy34]

It's the same thing. Deuteronomy 13 is explicitly just for Israel, just as much as Genesis 22 is just for Abraham. The very words you quoted say so. We have no more of a right to change the terms of God's covenant with Israel and arrogate to ourselves the rights to do things God has never authorized for us to do than we have to say that God commands us to sacrifice our sons on altars.

This^^ +rep

[hells_unicorn]

I'm not sure how exactly to deal with the rise of charismaticism, but I'm not sure someone claiming God is talking to them necessarily makes them a witch. Its possible that they're a deluded charismatic, which I don't know that that warrants execution. Could you help me out here HU?

If anybody is trying to pass off their "visions" or "dreams" as a binding rule of faith, or even goes so far as to try and add it to the biblical canon, it's a pretty clear case of bold heresy via demonic communications. I tend to favor church censures and excommunication over civil magistrate involvement if we're dealing with a 1st offense, but unrepentant distortions of special revelation via spiritual communications is definitely a case of 1st degree idolatry and worthy of magistrate involvement.

P.S. - It should likewise be noted that civil magistrates only have jurisdiction over limited domains, as do particular choices, so banishment or deportation is another option, particularly if someone has adopted their errors from foreign communications or are themselves a foreign national. This approach was taken with Pelagius and his followers, who were under the rule of the Roman Empire.

[hells_unicorn]

It's the same thing. Deuteronomy 13 is explicitly just for Israel, just as much as Genesis 22 is just for Abraham. The very words you quoted say so. We have no more of a right to change the terms of God's covenant with Israel and arrogate to ourselves the rights to do things God has never authorized for us to do than we have to say that God commands us to sacrifice our sons on altars.

Was the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" explicitly just of Israel? Is homosexuality okay for everyone to try because the issue was not mentioned by Jesus and has very limited reference in the New Testament?

[Tywysog Cymru]

These three posts are all related so...

Deuteronomy 13.

Read Deuteronomy 13. Exodus 22:18 also clues one in on how God feels about women who parade around saying God is talking to them and telling them that we shouldn't marry, have children, or consume meat, such as the founder of Seventh Day Adventism Ellen G. White. (also see 1 Timothy 4:1-3)

You have yet to prove that this is a "special situation" and the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that a civil government that does this today would be unjust.

There were certain laws given to that nation of Israel, which no longer exists, that do not apply to civil governments today. America is not Israel, neither was 16th century Switzerland or any other country for that matter. If God wanted us to continue following the civil law of Israel then He would have told us.

[erowe1]

Was the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" explicitly just of Israel? Is homosexuality okay for everyone to try because the issue was not mentioned by Jesus and has very limited reference in the New Testament?

No. Those belong to the universal and eternal moral law of God that was already in effect on all people prior to God's covenant with Israel. The New Testament is a good guide to this. But we wouldn't be without recourse even if we had no New Testament writings at all. But we still would be wrong to make the covenant He made with Israel at Sinai into something it was never intended to be, just as we would be wrong to do so with Genesis 22.

[Sola_Fide]

Was the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" explicitly just of Israel? Is homosexuality okay for everyone to try because the issue was not mentioned by Jesus and has very limited reference in the New Testament?

No. "You shall not kill" is the moral law that obliges all men everywhere. That is different from the civil laws of Moses.

[heavenlyboy34]

No. Those belong to the universal and eternal moral law of God that was already in effect on all people prior to God's covenant with Israel. The New Testament is a good guide to this. But we wouldn't be without recourse even if we had no New Testament writings at all. But we still would be wrong to make the covenant He made with Israel at Sinai into something it was never intended to be, just as we would be wrong to do so with Genesis 22.

This^^ And the proper translation is "thou shalt not murder", HU.

[hells_unicorn]

This^^ And the proper translation is "thou shalt not murder", HU.

The implicit definition of murder is there regardless of whether the word "kill" or "murder" is employed.

No. "You shall not kill" is the moral law that obliges all men everywhere. That is different from the civil laws of Moses.

So the 6th commandment is a binding moral law upon all men everywhere, but the 1st and 2nd commandments are not? The civil laws of Moses, unless they reflect a ceremonial peculiarity of Israel, are binding if they reflect the moral law. Idolatry is soul-murder, and only in atheistic nations like America would people trivialize it by not heeding the words of Matthew 10:28.

No. Those belong to the universal and eternal moral law of God that was already in effect on all people prior to God's covenant with Israel. The New Testament is a good guide to this. But we wouldn't be without recourse even if we had no New Testament writings at all. But we still would be wrong to make the covenant He made with Israel at Sinai into something it was never intended to be, just as we would be wrong to do so with Genesis 22.

So since the natural decree of marriage in Genesis 2:24 is also before God's covenant with Israel, why shouldn't we infer that some sort of civil punishment is in order for sodomy, adultery, and other gross violations of the 7th commandment? Furthermore, God expressed his hatred for blasphemy right in Genesis 11:28 when Abraham's brother Haran tempts God to perform the same miracle by saving him from the fire that was spared Abraham. There is stuff all over the pre-Mosaic period of violations of the Moral Law as reflected in the first 4 commandments where God deals some heavy punishments for their violation.

Tell me again how Jesus "came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it" if we are under no binding obligation to follow both the 1st and 2nd tables of the law?

[hells_unicorn]

There were certain laws given to that nation of Israel, which no longer exists, that do not apply to civil governments today. America is not Israel, neither was 16th century Switzerland or any other country for that matter. If God wanted us to continue following the civil law of Israel then He would have told us.

The 10 commandments were given to that nation of Israel, do they no longer exist? It's interesting to note that America, the first nation to ever not declare the existence of any God, has a government that behaves as though either most of all of the 10 commandments don't exist.

[erowe1]

So since the natural decree of marriage in Genesis 2:24 is also before God's covenant with Israel, why shouldn't we infer that some sort of civil punishment is in order for sodomy, adultery, and other gross violations of the 7th commandment?

We should infer that there is a punishment. We just shouldn't infer that we have the authority to inflict it on God's behalf on those outside the Church.

9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.

12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”

-- 1 Corinthians 5:9-13

[erowe1]

The 10 commandments were given to that nation of Israel, do they no longer exist? It's interesting to note that America, the first nation to ever not declare the existence of any God, has a government that behaves as though either most of all of the 10 commandments don't exist.

Most of the 10 Commandments were part of God's eternal universal moral law already before the covenant made at Sinai. All of them except for the sabbath command are also given to the Church. But with the sabbath command we are explicitly given liberty. So merely being in the 10 commandments doesn't make a commandment obligatory for all people of all time.

[heavenlyboy34]

The implicit definition of murder is there regardless of whether the word "kill" or "murder" is employed.

It is? So if I shoot dead someone who is trying to kill me, I'm a murderer? Uh, no. "Murder" and "kill" have very different meanings, even though both imply at least one person's death.

[erowe1]

It is?

Yes. In the original Hebrew there is no distinction. The word used in "Thou shalt not kill," is the same word as the one used when God commands someone to kill someone else. It is the context and common sense that tells us that "Thou shalt not kill" is about immoral killing, and does not apply in cases where killing is justified.

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes. In the original Hebrew there is no distinction. The word used in "Thou shalt not kill," is the same word as the one used when God commands someone to kill someone else. It is the context and common sense that tells us that "Thou shalt not kill" is about immoral killing, and does not apply in cases where killing is justified.

Thanks! Seems like a distinction without much difference, but your insight is appreciated, brother. *hugs*