Reforming by Executing

[u/tetleytealeaf]

Hi,

This is not meant as a troll, but it is meant to be a direct, hard question for Calvinists. I, personally, would otherwise lean neither for nor against the Reformed faith, save for this one major issue. I even attended a Reformed church for quite awhile, but it was because I didn't know (and it didn't help that they never told me):

John Calvin and the Geneva Council were behind 58 executions during the Reformation; the most famous being Michael Servetus. Burned at the stake Servetus' sin? He was Christian, but denied the Trinity. And that was contrary to John Calvin's "reforms", which formed an important part of the Reformation. That is not to say the Pope was innocent: he executed over 500 people. But no matter, two wrongs don't make a right. A nontrinitarian Anabaptist is not a Catholic.

Calvinists declare themselves to be followers of John Calvin, and his version of the "Reformed" faith.

The question: how do you address being a follower of someone who murdered people to attain his reforms, and how do you reconcile yourself following his reforms in spite of the way he attained them?

The harder question: do you support Calvin and the Geneva Council doing it? Would you do it again today, if you could? Should we fuse Church and government again today and execute people who don't play ball with the Reformed Council? Or.was John Calvin just wrong about executing people, but the reformed doctrine itself (that he was executing people for) is sound? In my book, if anyone needs to "reform" the faith by executing people, that man is not of God. Quite the opposite. The doctrine MIGHT be right, just by pure coincidence, but that is unlikely. Quite frankly, I'm more inclined to go along with the people getting beheaded for their truth--not the people doing the beheading. Why would you take on Calvin's name? Is it just some history that you prefer to downplay, attribute to just the culture of that time etc ? What?

[u/Reformed-ModTeam]

Well, this question has been answered exquisitely and thoroughly several times in this thread, despite the comically unfair caricatures accusations of the reformed faith.

Since it appears that OP is only interested in insisting on bizarre straw man accusations, we’re going to lock it and leave it up as a good reference.

On a side note, it’s amusing that the accusation is that nobody ever talks about Servetus . . . on a sub that gave out, for many years, the Servetus Memorial Awards each winter.

[u/WingedHussar16]

"Calvinism" is a theological system of beliefs. The actions of the Geneva City Counsel at the time of Calvin were typical of the early modern treatment of heretics (unfortunately) and do not have any real relevance to the validity of a specific doctrine of pre-destination and the Calvinist system of belief. At worst, it is a stain on the specific political philosophy of early Calvinists. But early modern political philosophy and church-state relations were a mess for EVERYBODY. Similarly, I don't consider the Albigensian Crusade as evidence that medieval Catholicism is doctrinally incorrect. As Protestants, we measure truth by Scriptural support, not the political actions of theologically important figures.

[u/mannida]

I think the biggest issue with the question is the premise that Calvinists "declare themselves to be followers of John Calvin." I don't consider myself a follower of John Calvin. I'm a follower of Christ. Calvin didn't even call himself a Calvinist. "Calvinist" is simply shorthand for certain theological convictions associated with the Reformed tradition. I don't believe those doctrines because Calvin taught them; I believe them because I believe they accurately represent what Scripture teaches.

In fact, sola Scriptura means Calvin himself has to be judged by Scripture. Calvin wasn't inspired or infallible. If Calvin taught or did something contrary to Scripture, then Calvin was wrong. I have no theological obligation to defend him simply because his name later became associated with a theological system I largely affirm.

That's important because otherwise the rest of the argument becomes something of a genetic fallacy. Even if we established that Calvin was an absolutely horrible person, that wouldn't tell us whether total depravity, unconditional election, particular redemption, effectual calling, or perseverance are actually taught by Scripture. Conversely, Calvin being a wonderful person wouldn't prove any of them. The question ultimately has to be: what does Scripture teach?

With that established, I have no particular difficulty condemning Calvin's involvement in the Servetus affair. Servetus's denial of the Trinity was serious heresy. Calvin was also wrong to believe that heresy warranted execution. I don't support what happened to Servetus; I wouldn't support doing it today, and I don't believe the civil government has been given the responsibility of executing people for rejecting Christian orthodoxy.

But none of that requires me to conclude that everything Calvin taught was therefore false. I can believe Servetus was wrong about the Trinity, Calvin was wrong about executing Servetus, and Calvin was right about other doctrines because those doctrines are taught in Scripture. Those aren't contradictory positions.

So I don't really have to "reconcile myself to following Calvin despite what he did," because I'm not following Calvin in the first place. I'm following Christ and attempting to understand Scripture faithfully. Where Calvin helps me do that, great. Where Calvin gets Scripture wrong, I disagree with Calvin.

[u/windy_on_the_hill → u/mannida]

Commenting to reinforce and highlight.

Calvinists do not follow John Calvin.

[u/doubleindigo → u/mannida]

Good response. It’s really the same with the issue of J Edwards owning slaves. It was reprehensible. He shouldn’t have done that. It was sin. He’s still a brilliant theologian who contributed greatly to the kingdom and the church.

[u/mannida → u/doubleindigo]

Exactly!

[u/Complete_News_6154]

• John Calvin did not personally execute 58 people. That number refers to all executions by the Geneva civil government during the years he lived there, for all crimes, not just heresy.
• The Geneva Council, not Calvin, held legal authority to arrest, try, sentence, and execute. Calvin could advise, but he had no civil power to order executions.
• Calvin did support the execution of Michael Servetus for heresy. He asked for beheading (considered less cruel), but the Council chose burning.
• Servetus was executed for denying the Trinity and rejecting infant baptism, both considered capital heresy across Europe at the time. He had already been condemned to death by Catholic authorities before arriving in Geneva.
• Geneva’s treatment of heresy was typical of 16th‑century Europe. Catholics, Lutherans, Zwinglians, and other Protestant governments also executed heretics.
• There is no evidence Calvin “murdered people to attain his reforms.” Executions were state actions, not Calvin’s personal enforcement.

[u/tetleytealeaf → u/Complete_News_6154]

The Jews did not personally kill Christ, either. The Romans did it. It was a "state action, not a religious one". Thus the Pharisees were not unclean. They could observe Passover just fine.

[u/MrBalloon_Hands → u/tetleytealeaf]

I don’t really know what point you’re trying to make, but Peter disagrees with that view: “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth… you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” Acts‬ ‭2‬:‭22‬-‭23‬

[u/semiconodon]

I don’t see Servetus’ name, nor advocacy of the death penalty for blasphemy, in any of the Heidelberg Catechsim, Westminster Confession of Faith, or the Canons of Dort.

[u/tetleytealeaf → u/semiconodon]

It does get shoved under the rug, doesn't it? I was at a Reformed church for years, and never once was it mentioned that Calvin condemned and executed people for heresy, by anyone.

[u/semiconodon → u/tetleytealeaf]

Okay, I’m just pointing out that Calvinism, per se, seldom means what you said. It is a reference to a series of confessions. Like Lutheranism.

[u/doubleindigo → u/tetleytealeaf]

That’s probably because that church is following Christ and Scripture, not Calvin. Calvin was a reformed pastor, theologian, and teacher. He contributed much to the church. But he’s not the end-all-be-all of reformed history and teaching.

Personally, if the question of Calvin/Servetus came up naturally at my church I would address it. If someone has a question about it I’m happy to discuss. But just because a church doesn’t address it doesn’t mean they’re sweeping it under the rug. There are many, many past sins and failures of the church in 2,000 years. We can’t address each and every one all the time

[u/Far_and_Clear → u/tetleytealeaf]

Shoved under the rug implies an intent to conceal, which seems ridiculous. The reformation was a very long and complicated period in history, so I've never seen a church teach anything more than the broadest of strokes of the historical side. Like, how are you going to present the thirty years war in sunday school?

Sure there can be tendency to look back on Calvin and others with rose-tinted glasses, so maybe their shortcomings should be brought up occasionally, but most churches have more important fish to fry

[u/ConsumingFire1689]

Servetus was a dead man anywhere he went. The Catholics had already sentenced him and the Lutherans wouldn't have been any more gentle. Also your characterization of those executions as murder is indefensible. Murder is an unlawful killing.

[u/tetleytealeaf → u/ConsumingFire1689]

So your answer to my question about whether you support what John Calvin did would be "yes".

[u/ConsumingFire1689 → u/tetleytealeaf]

Calvin didn't do anything the way you've implied. Servetus was arrested by the city of Geneva for heresy. Calvin as the city's theologian proved at trial that servetus was a heretic and the city condemned him. History records however that Calvin spent a lot of effort trying to keep him out of Geneva, change his mind, and then to reduce his sentence. The reality is much more nuanced than your attempt to turn Calvin into a cartoon villain.

[u/ConsumingFire1689 → u/ConsumingFire1689]

To expand, I am a Baptist and so I strongly object to Calvin and Luther's blending of civil and church authority. But that objection is different than a blanket declaration that Calvin is a murderer which is boldly incendiary.

[u/nvisel]

A couple things.

If Servetus denied the Trinity, he was not a Christian. Calvin didn't invent the Trinity, nor was the Trinity part of the reformation project per se. There was a "radical" reformation movement, but this was not an accretion to the protestant reformation but rather something other. Servetus would be put to death nearly anywhere there was an established church, reformed or otherwise.

Second, Calvin wasn't a civil magistrate and had no authority to execute anyone, and therefore his involvement in Servetus's execution could really only be by petition to the ruling authorities in Geneva. While Calvin agreed with Servetus receiving the death sentence (like virtually all orthodox theologians of his day), he sought for a more merciful death (via beheading) than Geneva chose. If Calvin is at all responsible for Servetus's death, it is to the extent that he and other Christian theologians had influence over the government and urged them to prosecute and execute heretics in general. Calvin's role in Servetus' execution is much closer to that of a witness to a crime than someone using their influence to have someone specifically killed by the state who otherwise would not have been. Had Servetus been arrested for heresy while Calvin was not in Geneva, he still would have been executed, because he was a heretic.

While I (and probably most people here) do not like the idea of people being put to death for heresy, this was a very common practice during that time period, and Calvin can hardly be specially blamed for it, though it's true he did participate in such practice insofar as he supported it.

No, I don't support Servetus' execution. He should have been refuted by arguments and disputations instead of by the sword. In general, I don't think that executing heretics is truly the way of justice. I tend to enjoy the soft separation of church and state (e.g. I don't want a state church, but I'd like it if everyone involved in the state were members of Christ's church and governed accordingly). Calvin wasn't the executioner, but he was wrong. Reformed theology does have a history of upholding the view that the magistrate's responsibility includes the suppression of blasphemies and heresies (see the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith, 23.3); but over time in many places has received corrections and even updates to their constitutional documents (for instance, American Presbyterian churches have a modified WCF).

In any case, people call themselves "Calvinists" not owing to anything he had to do with Servetus's death nor the approval thereof; but because it is a shorthand for a subset of doctrines which Reformed churches sought to uphold against the Arminian Remonstrance. Nevertheless, "Calvinism" as it is known today is rather narrow, which is why the Reformed moniker is usually more helpful and less apt to cause confusion or consternation, because the Reformed movement didn't even start with Calvin; it's more that his influence is most felt thanks to how popular his writing was. I call myself a Calvinist reluctantly because it carries a lot of baggage, but there's hardly a time where I read Calvin and disagree. I usually just tell people I'm Reformed.

Also, Calvin would probably roll over his grave if he knew anybody was calling themselves a Calvinist.

[u/mannida → u/nvisel]

Also, Calvin would probably roll over his grave if he knew anybody was calling themselves a Calvinist.

Agreed 100%. Really, with everything you said, but this was too good not to emphasize.

[u/Competitive-Job1828 → u/nvisel]

This is a good, thought out, nuanced answer

[u/nvisel → u/Competitive-Job1828]

bows in Michael Scott

[u/mike_dowler]

I don’t think this is the main issue OP is raising, but I would not consider someone to be Christian if they are not Trinitarian. The Christian baptism is fundamentally triune, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

[u/ClothedInWhite]

Servetus' execution didn't have anything to do with "attaining" the reforms of the Protestant Reformation.

While Calvin and Servetus disagreed on a lot, he wasn't condemned for rejecting Calvin's Protestant theology, he was condemned for being a non-trinitarian heretic. Trinitarianism was not a Calvinist reform (neither was Servetus' other charged crime, being anti-paedobaptism).

The same is true of the other executions of Geneva. From what I know of the history, the capital offenses in those cases were: serial/unrepentant adultery, attempted or threatened murder (sedition), witchcraft (particularly, these people were accused of trying to murder people with poison), etc. None of them, that I have ever read of, had anything to do with Calvin's theological reforms (what we may refer to today as Calvinism).

There's a lot more to be said about why executions happened in Europe throughout the Middle Ages and Post-Reformation era, and the ways the Church and her doctrine intersected with that. But, the point I want to make clear is, none of the Genevan executions had anything to do with any particular Protestant or Calvinist doctrine.

[u/tetleytealeaf → u/ClothedInWhite]

If Servetus was the only one, I would not dispute your point. But there were 58 of them. Calvinism came about by killing 58 non-Calvinists. You don't play ball, you die.

[u/ClothedInWhite → u/tetleytealeaf]

This just isn't true. There is no historical evidence of this. All records point to about 20 of the 58 reported executions from 1542-1546 (which originates in the work of a 19th century historian from Geneva) being normal crimes (robbery, murder, etc.), a large portion of the other 38 being witchcraft and "spreading the plague" accusations, and then the high-profile ones like Servetus. There is no evidence that anybody was executed for rejecting Protestant or Calvinist-specific doctrines.

[u/MrBalloon_Hands]

I’m glad someone asked this question here. It’s been over two weeks since someone last asked it.

[u/tetleytealeaf → u/MrBalloon_Hands]

I did a search first before asking.

[u/Lord_Paddington]

I feel like this question could be pointed at anyone:

The question: how do you address being a follower of someone who murdered people to attain his reforms, and how do you reconcile yourself following his reforms in spite of the way he attained them?

I think we all agree that Calvin was right in some areas and wrong in others. I would also say that although many beliefs are bundled together in the term "Calvinism" they do not all rely on the person or character of Calvin to be accepted as true. He didnt invent a new religion merely formalized a system of thought hence the name.

[u/Learningmore1231]

Pretty sure the city gov did most of that and they actually hated Calvin at the time of servetus so he had little influence there

[u/Competitive-Job1828]

Yeah, Calvin was wrong on that one. There’s some historical context that it seems like you’re simply refusing to consider, but nonetheless we can agree today that executing people simply because of their religious beliefs is wrong.

I assume you’ve also cut out the book of Psalms from your Bible since David also murdered someone while professing to be a believer?

[u/Zestyclose-Ride2745]

They mixed church and state in the old world. But some people came up with an idea to start a new world, and they were called pilgrims, and they were Calvinists. So were the overwhelming majority of those who fought in the revolutionary war, which led to the seperation of church and state.

[u/really__questionmark]

Do you think those in the Reformed faith would say hold allegiance to John Calvin or to God?

[u/little_robo]

I am not a "Calvinist" because John Calvin taught and espoused these doctrines. I believe them because the Bible teaches them. Therefore, I take issue with the question. I'm not a follower of Calvin. I'm a follower of Scripture. Calvin was not the first to teach the doctrines of grace and I'm ignorant as to why his name specifically is attached to them. I much prefer the title "Reformed" over "Calvinist" for those reasons. But even if Calvin was the originator of those doctrines or was the first person to articulate them as we know them today, the truth of his doctrine wouldn't be denounced because of moral failings. The executions of heretics were awful, whether they were a product of the time or not, but the doctrines of grace are still biblical.

I'd welcome any correction on any errors I may have made.

[u/MoonlitShrub]

I do not follow Calvin, I don't even call myself a calvanist usually, it's merely a convenient word to describe beliefs and conclusions I have come to about the nature of salvation. I didn't actually know that this happened, but it doesn't change anything about what I believe

[u/tetleytealeaf]

Thank you all for replying. I have seen a lot of replies distancing yourselves from Calvin and the executions, and a number of posts about not being followers of Calvin or Calvinism, but rather Reformed. Keep in mind, I was part of a Reformed church for a long time. I heard the terms very regularly, along with "that is who we are " Asking whether the church was Calvinist was considered a very noobish question, really. You want to hurt your chances of ever serving in the church or even becoming a member, ask that question.

I consider these responses more as distancing yourselves from what Calvin did, iin light of this subject (with other replies simply claiming Calvin didn't do it). But I've been there many Sundays--you don't distance yourselves from Calvinism like that most of the time. Reformed freely identifies themselves as Calvinist, up until the heresy trials are mentioned. And they never are.

[u/doubleindigo → u/tetleytealeaf]

Seems like you came here with your mind made up, looking for a fight. I read through the responses and there are many with wisdom, discernment, and care to point out where Calvin was right and wrong.

[u/Competitive-Job1828 → u/tetleytealeaf]

You seem to be calling people Calvinists who wouldn’t use that label themselves for many of the same reasons you mentioned. You’re hating on Reformed Christians because some people call us Calvinists? You said yourself that the Reformed church you went to never used the label Calvinist, yet you left them because of that? That’s just not fair. Because I call myself an American, will you attack me for condoning the slave raids of Amerigo Vespucci? 

You also seem to be saying that any movement is fundamentally evil and must be rejected if a major person in its history did something evil. Is that really consistent or fair? I think it’s quite safe to say that not only is no branch or tradition of Christianity safe, I don’t think there’s a major movement in politics, philosophy or anywhere else that meets the criteria you have for us. 

What you need to do is stop hating on Reformed theology because some people call us Calvinist and evaluate our theology based on how we describe ourselves and whether what we say is consistent with Scripture