I have a question for Calvinists: Since NO heresy ever conceived has the power to forever cancel the eventual salvation of an "elect" persom, and since the removal of ALL heresies from the Earth wouldn't make one speck of difference to a "non-elect" person, since they won't be saved no matter how much pure Gospel is preached to them, why then the Calvinist obsession with attacking heresies????
Because Election, while unconditional, has conditions that prove its presence-that one is truly regenerate. True salvation requires a Saving Faith, which has to be a Biblical Faith. (I'm not defending harming if anyone for their beliefs, only answering your question.) We Reformed are not antinomians. A pure Gospel is required unto salvation. This is not actually even a Reformed thing... This is a Christian thing. A correct Christology is required for Salvation, since Salvation is by Faith in Christ alone, as Scripture, Church Fathers, and Councils together attest to. If one believes in another Christ, then they are not believing in the Jesus of the Bible, but in some other person conceived in and existing only in the mind, who cannot possibly save. Salvation is in the true Christ alone, which is why early Church leaders were so opposed to both the Gnostics and others who cut off Christ's humanity from His divinity. The first disputes were over the Nature of Christ.
Johnny, that's not what the Bible says! And the Pharisees believed in God too :) We also can't save ourselves by doing good, because we all have sinned before and therefore owe a debt that we can never pay. You see God Himself, in Christ, payed a debt that He owe, to cover a debt we couldn't pay. If a murderer stands before a judge and says, “but I was a really nice person”, should the judge say, “okay, it's fine.” Noo! It's not okay! Someone has to pay for that, and as it says in Romans and in the Old Testament, “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins”. He also had to be God; read Colossians 1:15-23, and John 1, and then read the book of Hebrews, at least the first couple of chapters. Jesus also, claimed to be the I Am (which is another way of claiming to be God, because that's the Name of God revealed to Moses), saying, “before Abraham, I Am”.
Johnny, calm down. And check out the history of the Church. It is filled with people caring for widows and orphans-and also, you don't know me or my church family personally, or you would know that we do care for people (I actually just got back from a hospital visit with a little girl who has leukemia. When was the last time you visited a little girl who has leukemia? I do not mention this to raise me up in any way. In fact, this was my first time making a hospital visit, but it is something that my church does regularly. I mention this so that you can know that you do not know what you are talking about with your accusations.) With regards to the Divinity of Christ, His Lordship, I would advise you to The Apostles appointed leaders and these men left letters and documents for us that we have to this day. These men are the Apostolic Fathers-among them Clement, Ignatius, and I think Irenaeus-and from them there are other leaders who likewise left documents for the Church.
Have you ever notice how Calvinists will NEVER say that John Calvin was WRONG ON ANYTHING. Not only does Calvin have many doctrinal errors (such as the Lord's supper actually being the "corporeal presence" of Christ, which “secures the immortality of our flesh,” ... (see Calvin's first quote below), but he was obviously wrong to call for the brutal attack and extermination of heretics (see second quote below). Calvin's teaching on the Lord's Supper: “To use the words of Augustine ‘this mystery is performed by man like the others, but in a divine manner, and on earth, but in a heavenly manner." Such, I say, is the corporeal presence which the nature of the sacrament requires, and which we say is here displayed in such power and efficacy, that it not only gives our minds undoubted assurance of eternal life, but also secures the immortality of our flesh, since it is now quickened by his immortal flesh, and in a manner shines in his immortality,” (I. C. Religion 4:17, 14). Calvin calling for the mass extermination of heretics: Calvin wrote, “Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the peoples to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.” (John Calvin: This was written 8 years after the death of Servetus by Calvin in 1561, addressed to Marquis Paet, chamberlain to the King of Navarre) And I could go on and on about Calvin's errors in doctrine, bit in Calvin's call for the mass murder of heretics he DEFINITELY kept him from being "above reproach." But, the point being is that Calvinists will never say that Calvin was WRONG on about anything. Again, we have ivory tower excuses that imply that Servetus brought it own himself. The sleazy lawyer defense: attack the victim enough and the perpetrator may be absolved of any guilt! This is exactly what Dr. Reeves does to Servetus. Notice the following quotes by Dr. Reeves. “the was something apocalyptic in Servetus where he is almost, at this point in his life, seeking it out,” (5:10-15). Hence, Servetus was just asking for “it”! “Servetus was already known as a radical,(9:13). Servetus “is already know as a real rabble rouser when is to comes to his theological position” (9:14-18). Servetus “was a man who like to fight, hot blooded, face to face” (9:55-58). Servetus “always has his eye on Calvin,” (10:23), Servetus “was almost a stalker “(10:45), “Ancient aliens have less hyperbole than Servetus does,” (12:12-17) (AS if Calvin did not engage in hyperbole-See Calvin’s quote above where he refers to heretics as “monsters” to be “exterminated”. Did Servetus ever use such hateful language??? Not that I am aware of? Indeed, Calvin often used Hyperbole in his institutes, often in the context of those who disagreed with him on his doctrines! Did we fail to mention that? But Calvin can do no wrong!!) Then, Dr. Reeves goes into a long defense of Calvin stating that Calvin had no real authority in Geneva. This is just flat out untrue, as a man with a ecclesiastical position in Geneva, Calvin had great influence in Geneva WHICH HE EXERCISED TO THE FULLEST. For an objective account of John Calvin’s role in the murder of Servetus, see the book. “Did Calvin Murder Servetus” by Standford Rives. (Check Amazon books). Then Dr. Reeves goes back to attacking the victim, Servetus. More quotes from Dr. Reeves about Servetus: “He challenges every doctrine, and pokes everyone in the eye” (16:02) “He has concocted, strange views about the trinity” (16:27) “Servetus was apocalyptic” (17:20) Therefore, Dr. Reeves assumes, that Servetus thus wanted to be Martyred, but there is no historical evidence to support this. And on and on the excuses for Calvin goes. Dr. Reeves states, “Calvin is NOT REALLY the monster here,” (29:43). Even thought John Calvin called for the "extermination" of "monsters" (heretics). In other words, Calvin was NOT REALLY the main reason why Servetus was put to death. The implication from this video is that Servetus and his strange views and strange behaviors were justification for him to be killed by Calvin. Again Dr. Reeves states, “a lot of that myth making , about Calvin the tyrant, the evil man who burns people alive needs to thrown out the window,” (30:50-53). In other words, let’s not look at the facts and the words of Calvin concerning heretics, and let’s just conveniently forget about what Calvin perpetrated upon Servetus, and the rest of the people of Geneva. Again, John Calvin was the main reason that Servetus was killed. And, furthermore, Calvin did nothing of substance to stop the murder of Servetus. But, Dr. Reeves never said that Calvin was just plain WRONG! Nor will followers of Calvin admit that Calvin was WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING. That is a sure sign of a cult. Following a man, and being blinded to his errors which were not few in number, nor small in magnitude. In all honesty, these Calvinists who attack the victim (Servetus) instead of the perpetrator (Calvin) are like those slick lawyers who attack the one who was victimized (somehow she brought it upon herself) rather than the one who is the perpetrator of the crime. Calvin was just wrong in calling for the mass murder of heretics and for being the chief instigator in the murder of Servetus, but Calvinists will not come out and plainly say that Calvin was wrong on both accounts. Why? Are they somehow blinded to the faults of Calvin? This video is a very sad witness for the Lord Jesus. Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,” (Matthew 5:43, 44). A good OBJECTIVE book on whether Calvin killed Servetus is “Did Calvin Murder Servetus” by Standford Rives. (Check Amazon books) This books shows-using historical documentation-that Calvin was the main perpetrator of the murder of Servetus. This book is extremely well documented. It is written from a historical perspective, not with theological bias which Calvinists have. I have yet to see the historical evidence contradicted concerning the author’s information on Calvin’s attacks on Servetus.
Thank you! We need to be careful not to follow the traditions of any man (like Calvin), but search the Scriptures daily, praying that God's Holy Spirit will reveal Truth to us. Cf. John 14:26; John 16:13; 1 John 2:27. “But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie-just as it has taught you, abide in him.” 1 John 2:27. God bless, Harry
Thank you! We need to be careful not to follow the tradition of any man (like Calvin), but search the Scriptures daily, praying that God's Holy Spirit will reveal Truth to us. Cf. John 14:26; John 16:13; 1 John 2:27. “But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie-just as it has taught you, abide in him.” 1 John 2:27. God bless, Harry
from what ive heard Calvin repeatedly warned Servetus to stay away from Geneva and warning him that if he was to go to Geneva the city counsel would burn him
I have thought long and hard on this video, since loading it about a year ago. I happily find Ryan Reeves to be an engaging teacher. But, I finally figured out what bothered me about Calvin, and indeed, this entire story: Calvin invested no reciprocal energies in persuading Geneva to cease and desist with the burning of heretics. Calvin pushed all his energies in the wrong direction. More to the present ... I am wondering if I would have such courage, as I expect from Calvin.
note on Servetus " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulatory_system " "Michael Servetus was the first European to describe the function of pulmonary circulation, although his achievement was not widely recognized at the time, for a few reasons. He firstly described it in the "Manuscript of Paris"[19][20] (near 1546), but this work was never published. And later he published this description, but in a theological treatise, Christianismi Restitutio, not in a book on medicine. Only three copies of the book survived, the rest were burned shortly after its publication in 1553 because of persecution of Servetus by religious authorities. Better known was its discovery by Vesalius's successor at Padua, Realdo Colombo, in 1559."
+Marshall D'Arcy I see that Calvin was acttually an extremist in the same line that we consider other religious extremist to be...!! I would not like to live under such a tyrant.
What can one say of religion. It is clear that Christ did not suggest such behavior and in fact suggested it as wrong. How then did Calvin and much of so called Christendom come to such a fate. As Dr Reeves points out that many where doing the same thing. Dr Reeves likes to think of himself as a historian their for not required to explain the behavior only to report it. I object. He clearly wishes to explain other behavior in light of his deep understandings, which I know him to have from his posts, however I do not think him removed from the burden of explaining this lust for burning flesh on the part of so called Christendom.
+Marshall D'Arcy // There's actually not a trained historian anywhere who will comment on something for which there is no evidence. The only thing I am saying about it being a bloody age is simply the point that I can't understand why anyone would do this. If this is a sign of me avoiding the problem, I can understand your frustration, but the fact is the impulses to this type of thing are long, deep, and come from a culture I am not part of. So I explain away none of it (with any tradition) and assume that folks today will find it a major problem. But that is us reacting to history not avoiding historical evidence.
+Ryan Reeves Thank you Dr Reeves for your response however I must respectfully disagree. You are a part of the culture, as am I, that burned Servetus to death. If this is not true then I think the study of history has lost a great deal of it's importance. You might have heard something like this "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat the past". As such all historians have a burden to explain why what happened happened as best they can. They can not do this with any certainty but I think they must try and this is especially true for things like burning people to stakes. You may be aware of "The crucible" a play by Arthur Miller. It was fiction but could I truly say that. The impact of that play was because of it's relationship to history. It has been criticized as you well may know however even in the criticism I see history as it effects all of us. You do have a burden given to you by your knowledge and the teachers who taught you, I believe.
+Marshall D'Arcy // No I certainly understand where you're coming from. I suppose historians always have a compartmentalization in their heads: the one side that will avoid any moralizing of issues while history itself is being discussed, the other that certainly has emotional and philosophical responses to issues they see in the past. The trouble is too often over the centuries historians moralized first and historicized second! :) But then this video is only one part of a course I teach. When the course is live, much of this type of material is watched before class, then we ask the type of questions you are wanting addressed together, in a socratic conversation. My guess is you would be a duck in water in a conversation like that!
Everyone should know that Calvin merely served as a witness in Servetus' trial. He was not judge, jury, or executioner. Servetus was already on the run from another country with a death sentence on his head. He was captured and held trial. Calvin's job was to simply serve as a witness in the trial to prove if the allegations against Servetus were true. Servetus was put on trial by Geneva's Little Council of Twenty Five. It should be known that this Council was not friends of Calvin, but his enemies. Servetus, also being enemies of Calvin, was arrogant and confident in the trial, since he figured the Council would side with him against Calvin. His arrogance led him to not give a substantial defense for himself, instead opting to lob insults at Calvin. However, Calvin's calm, cool reasoning and expert logic caused the Council to find Servetus guilty. Servetus was shocked and couldn't believe it. (Let it be known that four other cities recommended a verdict of guilty, too) Some facts: Calvin pleaded with the Council to issue a beheading rather than a burning at the stake, but his pleas were denied. Servetus, too, believed heresy justified the death sentence. Death for heretics is not something Calvin invented. It was what everyone believed in those times. Calvin had no political power, being a foreigner himself. Calvin didn't want Servetus to die, but to recant of his errors. He spent time with him during and after the trial, visiting him in jail, trying to convince him to change his views. It wasn't Calvin's decision to burn Servetus at the stake, but Geneva's Council of Twenty Five. We constantly see synergists/Arminians using the Calvin and Servetus historical event as a blot against Calvin's reputation, which you can see isn't exactly a blot against him at all. Usually, Arminians are just repeating what they heard other anti-Calvinists say. They aren't quoting things they learned by actually taking the time to sit down and study the issue themselves. They aren't concerned with accuracy or historical fact. As long as they can make Calvin look as bad as possible, they think they gain a foothold against Calvinism itself. Ironically, Calvinism has nothing to do with John Calvin, as it comes from the pages of the Bible, and not what Calvin taught. Thus one can rightly conclude that this ad hominem attack against Calvin is a sure sign of desperation by anti-Calvinists.
thenowchurch Yeah because Calvin was forced to help otherwise he could have been implicated in a conspiracy? You do realize he only was a witness because the person who accused Michael would have been burned at the stake for a false accusation? So wait.. you'd do the following? Risk your life to save a heretic, who denies it and changes his name. Then when hes accused by another individual and you're listed as a source, you'd deny it? So that TRULY innocent man dies?
It was Vienne (France) not Vienna (Austria) where Servetus was arrested by the Catholic authorities. Kind of ironic that Calvin would co-operate with Catholics against a fellow Reformer. This was a pretty balanced presentation, which is unusual when it comes to the Servetus affair. Just to add a couple of points: 1) It was Servetus's views on baptism that got him into trouble as much, if not more, than his views on the Trinity. Why Reformed Baptists today are enamoured with Calvin is beyond me - he would have persecuted them vehemently. Their heritage comes from Servetus as much as Calvin. 2) Sebastian Castellio deserves mention in any consideration of the Servetus affair. He took a brave stand against Calvin after the death of Servetus, and also suffered harsh treatment as a consequence. I'm a Trinitarian, but I appreciate Servetus tremendously. He and Castellio paved the way for the religious freedoms that we in the West have subsequently benefited from. I look forward to seeing Servetus in heaven. His dying prayer, "Jesus, son of the eternal God, have mercy on me", will be heard by our gracious God. He wasn't perfect, but he was a martyr and a hero.
As a Reformed Baptist, I am fairly confident that John Calvin wouldn't have executed me... at least not after I have been given a chance to articulate and explain my beliefs. But if he would've wanted me executed, it wouldn't make me respect the man any less... and it wouldn't rest of his theology any less true. The man is in Heaven now with saved people from a large breadth of different dispensations, traditions, and denominations. At least he now sees that the most important thing is not how or when we are dunked into or sprinkled with water, but the object and nature of our Faith-if it is a Saving Faith in Christ, made possible by the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit... I think he always knew that. But my people (of the sort that we are now) didn't exist yet, so he didn't really have a chance to respond to our systematic theology.
Your use of the term "conspiracy theories " to dismiss and trivialize positions is disingenuous. Conspiracies are factual and are utilized extensively throughout history and present day.
Soul Sleep is one of the most unambiguously Biblical Doctrine there is, it is stated in no uncertain terms multiple times yet Platonist Christians just can't accept it.
Your comments about Servetus "seeking it (his martyrdom) out" is an incredulous statement. The "strange things" Servetus did was not a death wish it was boldness. His reading of scripture led him to conclude, rightly, that the Philosophical concept of the Trinity nor the word "trinity" was in the Bible. Further study led him to believe that the doctrine was being imposed on the scriptures. He sis not want to have his own views and be left alone; he wanted to share with the world error of the doctrine of the trinity. That is what drove his public stance. WE as Christians are by Christ called to stand fro the truth!! you bias is glaring is these comments.
I have a question for Calvinists: Since NO heresy ever conceived has the power to forever cancel the eventual salvation of an "elect" persom, and since the removal of ALL heresies from the Earth wouldn't make one speck of difference to a "non-elect" person, since they won't be saved no matter how much pure Gospel is preached to them, why then the Calvinist obsession with attacking heresies????
Because Election, while unconditional, has conditions that prove its presence-that one is truly regenerate. True salvation requires a Saving Faith, which has to be a Biblical Faith. (I'm not defending harming if anyone for their beliefs, only answering your question.) We Reformed are not antinomians. A pure Gospel is required unto salvation. This is not actually even a Reformed thing... This is a Christian thing. A correct Christology is required for Salvation, since Salvation is by Faith in Christ alone, as Scripture, Church Fathers, and Councils together attest to. If one believes in another Christ, then they are not believing in the Jesus of the Bible, but in some other person conceived in and existing only in the mind, who cannot possibly save. Salvation is in the true Christ alone, which is why early Church leaders were so opposed to both the Gnostics and others who cut off Christ's humanity from His divinity. The first disputes were over the Nature of Christ.
Christology (and therefore Trinitarian Theology) has always been and will always be a deciding factor of Orthodox, Biblical, saving Christianity.
Johnny, that's not what the Bible says! And the Pharisees believed in God too :) We also can't save ourselves by doing good, because we all have sinned before and therefore owe a debt that we can never pay. You see God Himself, in Christ, payed a debt that He owe, to cover a debt we couldn't pay. If a murderer stands before a judge and says, “but I was a really nice person”, should the judge say, “okay, it's fine.” Noo! It's not okay! Someone has to pay for that, and as it says in Romans and in the Old Testament, “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins”. He also had to be God; read Colossians 1:15-23, and John 1, and then read the book of Hebrews, at least the first couple of chapters. Jesus also, claimed to be the I Am (which is another way of claiming to be God, because that's the Name of God revealed to Moses), saying, “before Abraham, I Am”.
*paid a debt He didn't owe
Johnny, calm down. And check out the history of the Church. It is filled with people caring for widows and orphans-and also, you don't know me or my church family personally, or you would know that we do care for people (I actually just got back from a hospital visit with a little girl who has leukemia. When was the last time you visited a little girl who has leukemia? I do not mention this to raise me up in any way. In fact, this was my first time making a hospital visit, but it is something that my church does regularly. I mention this so that you can know that you do not know what you are talking about with your accusations.) With regards to the Divinity of Christ, His Lordship, I would advise you to
The Apostles appointed leaders and these men left letters and documents for us that we have to this day. These men are the Apostolic Fathers-among them Clement, Ignatius, and I think Irenaeus-and from them there are other leaders who likewise left documents for the Church.
Have you ever notice how Calvinists will NEVER say that John Calvin was WRONG ON ANYTHING. Not only does Calvin have many doctrinal errors (such as the Lord's supper actually being the "corporeal presence" of Christ, which “secures the immortality of our flesh,” ... (see Calvin's first quote below), but he was obviously wrong to call for the brutal attack and extermination of heretics (see second quote below).
Calvin's teaching on the Lord's Supper:
“To use the words of Augustine ‘this mystery is performed by man like the others, but in a divine manner, and on earth, but in a heavenly manner." Such, I say, is the corporeal presence which the nature of the sacrament requires, and which we say is here displayed in such power and efficacy, that it not only gives our minds undoubted assurance of eternal life, but also secures the immortality of our flesh, since it is now quickened by his immortal flesh, and in a manner shines in his immortality,” (I. C. Religion 4:17, 14).
Calvin calling for the mass extermination of heretics:
Calvin wrote, “Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the peoples to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.” (John Calvin: This was written 8 years after the death of Servetus by Calvin in 1561, addressed to Marquis Paet, chamberlain to the King of Navarre)
And I could go on and on about Calvin's errors in doctrine, bit in Calvin's call for the mass murder of heretics he DEFINITELY kept him from being "above reproach." But, the point being is that Calvinists will never say that Calvin was WRONG on about anything. Again, we have ivory tower excuses that imply that Servetus brought it own himself.
The sleazy lawyer defense: attack the victim enough and the perpetrator may be absolved of any guilt! This is exactly what Dr. Reeves does to Servetus. Notice the following quotes by Dr. Reeves.
“the was something apocalyptic in Servetus where he is almost, at this point in his life, seeking it out,” (5:10-15). Hence, Servetus was just asking for “it”!
“Servetus was already known as a radical,(9:13).
Servetus “is already know as a real rabble rouser when is to comes to his theological position” (9:14-18).
Servetus “was a man who like to fight, hot blooded, face to face” (9:55-58).
Servetus “always has his eye on Calvin,” (10:23),
Servetus “was almost a stalker “(10:45),
“Ancient aliens have less hyperbole than Servetus does,” (12:12-17) (AS if Calvin did not engage in hyperbole-See Calvin’s quote above where he refers to heretics as “monsters” to be “exterminated”. Did Servetus ever use such hateful language??? Not that I am aware of? Indeed, Calvin often used Hyperbole in his institutes, often in the context of those who disagreed with him on his doctrines! Did we fail to mention that? But Calvin can do no wrong!!)
Then, Dr. Reeves goes into a long defense of Calvin stating that Calvin had no real authority in Geneva. This is just flat out untrue, as a man with a ecclesiastical position in Geneva, Calvin had great influence in Geneva WHICH HE EXERCISED TO THE FULLEST. For an objective account of John Calvin’s role in the murder of Servetus, see the book. “Did Calvin Murder Servetus” by Standford Rives. (Check Amazon books).
Then Dr. Reeves goes back to attacking the victim, Servetus. More quotes from Dr. Reeves about Servetus:
“He challenges every doctrine, and pokes everyone in the eye” (16:02)
“He has concocted, strange views about the trinity” (16:27)
“Servetus was apocalyptic” (17:20) Therefore, Dr. Reeves assumes, that Servetus thus wanted to be Martyred, but there is no historical evidence to support this.
And on and on the excuses for Calvin goes. Dr. Reeves states, “Calvin is NOT REALLY the monster here,” (29:43). Even thought John Calvin called for the "extermination" of "monsters" (heretics). In other words, Calvin was NOT REALLY the main reason why Servetus was put to death. The implication from this video is that Servetus and his strange views and strange behaviors were justification for him to be killed by Calvin.
Again Dr. Reeves states, “a lot of that myth making , about Calvin the tyrant, the evil man who burns people alive needs to thrown out the window,” (30:50-53). In other words, let’s not look at the facts and the words of Calvin concerning heretics, and let’s just conveniently forget about what Calvin perpetrated upon Servetus, and the rest of the people of Geneva.
Again, John Calvin was the main reason that Servetus was killed. And, furthermore, Calvin did nothing of substance to stop the murder of Servetus. But, Dr. Reeves never said that Calvin was just plain WRONG! Nor will followers of Calvin admit that Calvin was WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING. That is a sure sign of a cult. Following a man, and being blinded to his errors which were not few in number, nor small in magnitude.
In all honesty, these Calvinists who attack the victim (Servetus) instead of the perpetrator (Calvin) are like those slick lawyers who attack the one who was victimized (somehow she brought it upon herself) rather than the one who is the perpetrator of the crime.
Calvin was just wrong in calling for the mass murder of heretics and for being the chief instigator in the murder of Servetus, but Calvinists will not come out and plainly say that Calvin was wrong on both accounts. Why? Are they somehow blinded to the faults of Calvin?
This video is a very sad witness for the Lord Jesus.
Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,” (Matthew 5:43, 44).
A good OBJECTIVE book on whether Calvin killed Servetus is “Did Calvin Murder Servetus” by Standford Rives. (Check Amazon books) This books shows-using historical documentation-that Calvin was the main perpetrator of the murder of Servetus. This book is extremely well documented. It is written from a historical perspective, not with theological bias which Calvinists have. I have yet to see the historical evidence contradicted concerning the author’s information on Calvin’s attacks on Servetus.
Harry Murphy Thank you for a very informative and insightful post!
Thank you! We need to be careful not to follow the traditions of any man (like Calvin), but search the Scriptures daily, praying that God's Holy Spirit will reveal Truth to us. Cf. John 14:26; John 16:13; 1 John 2:27.
“But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie-just as it has taught you, abide in him.” 1 John 2:27.
God bless, Harry
Thank you! We need to be careful not to follow the tradition of any man (like Calvin), but search the Scriptures daily, praying that God's Holy Spirit will reveal Truth to us. Cf. John 14:26; John 16:13; 1 John 2:27.
“But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie-just as it has taught you, abide in him.” 1 John 2:27.
God bless, Harry
Very informative. I always had this image of Calvin twirling his moustache and chuckling as Servetus was roasted. As always, it's never that simple.
from what ive heard Calvin repeatedly warned Servetus to stay away from Geneva and warning him that if he was to go to Geneva the city counsel would burn him
Read "Out of the Flames".
I have thought long and hard on this video, since loading it about a year ago. I happily find Ryan Reeves to be an engaging teacher. But, I finally figured out what bothered me about Calvin, and indeed, this entire story: Calvin invested no reciprocal energies in persuading Geneva to cease and desist with the burning of heretics. Calvin pushed all his energies in the wrong direction. More to the present ... I am wondering if I would have such courage, as I expect from Calvin.
note on Servetus
" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulatory_system "
"Michael Servetus was the first European to describe the function of pulmonary circulation, although his achievement was not widely recognized at the time, for a few reasons. He firstly described it in the "Manuscript of Paris"[19][20] (near 1546), but this work was never published. And later he published this description, but in a theological treatise, Christianismi Restitutio, not in a book on medicine. Only three copies of the book survived, the rest were burned shortly after its publication in 1553 because of persecution of Servetus by religious authorities. Better known was its discovery by Vesalius's successor at Padua, Realdo Colombo, in 1559."
+Marshall D'Arcy I see that Calvin was acttually an extremist in the same line that we consider other religious extremist to be...!!
I would not like to live under such a tyrant.
What can one say of religion. It is clear that Christ did not suggest such behavior and in fact suggested it as wrong. How then did Calvin and much of so called Christendom come to such a fate. As Dr Reeves points out that many where doing the same thing. Dr Reeves likes to think of himself as a historian their for not required to explain the behavior only to report it. I object. He clearly wishes to explain other behavior in light of his deep understandings, which I know him to have from his posts, however I do not think him removed from the burden of explaining this lust for burning flesh on the part of so called Christendom.
+Marshall D'Arcy // There's actually not a trained historian anywhere who will comment on something for which there is no evidence. The only thing I am saying about it being a bloody age is simply the point that I can't understand why anyone would do this. If this is a sign of me avoiding the problem, I can understand your frustration, but the fact is the impulses to this type of thing are long, deep, and come from a culture I am not part of. So I explain away none of it (with any tradition) and assume that folks today will find it a major problem. But that is us reacting to history not avoiding historical evidence.
+Ryan Reeves
Thank you Dr Reeves for your response however I must respectfully disagree. You are a part of the culture, as am I, that burned Servetus to death. If this is not true then I think the study of history has lost a great deal of it's importance. You might have heard something like this "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat the past". As such all historians have a burden to explain why what happened happened as best they can. They can not do this with any certainty but I think they must try and this is especially true for things like burning people to stakes. You may be aware of "The crucible" a play by Arthur Miller. It was fiction but could I truly say that. The impact of that play was because of it's relationship to history. It has been criticized as you well may know however even in the criticism I see history as it effects all of us. You do have a burden given to you by your knowledge and the teachers who taught you, I believe.
+Marshall D'Arcy // No I certainly understand where you're coming from. I suppose historians always have a compartmentalization in their heads: the one side that will avoid any moralizing of issues while history itself is being discussed, the other that certainly has emotional and philosophical responses to issues they see in the past. The trouble is too often over the centuries historians moralized first and historicized second! :) But then this video is only one part of a course I teach. When the course is live, much of this type of material is watched before class, then we ask the type of questions you are wanting addressed together, in a socratic conversation. My guess is you would be a duck in water in a conversation like that!
Everyone should know that Calvin merely served as a witness in Servetus' trial. He was not judge, jury, or executioner. Servetus was already on the run from another country with a death sentence on his head. He was captured and held trial. Calvin's job was to simply serve as a witness in the trial to prove if the allegations against Servetus were true. Servetus was put on trial by Geneva's Little Council of Twenty Five. It should be known that this Council was not friends of Calvin, but his enemies.
Servetus, also being enemies of Calvin, was arrogant and confident in the trial, since he figured the Council would side with him against Calvin. His arrogance led him to not give a substantial defense for himself, instead opting to lob insults at Calvin. However, Calvin's calm, cool reasoning and expert logic caused the Council to find Servetus guilty. Servetus was shocked and couldn't believe it. (Let it be known that four other cities recommended a verdict of guilty, too)
Some facts:
Calvin pleaded with the Council to issue a beheading rather than a burning at the stake, but his pleas were denied.
Servetus, too, believed heresy justified the death sentence. Death for heretics is not something Calvin invented. It was what everyone believed in those times.
Calvin had no political power, being a foreigner himself.
Calvin didn't want Servetus to die, but to recant of his errors. He spent time with him during and after the trial, visiting him in jail, trying to convince him to change his views.
It wasn't Calvin's decision to burn Servetus at the stake, but Geneva's Council of Twenty Five.
We constantly see synergists/Arminians using the Calvin and Servetus historical event as a blot against Calvin's reputation, which you can see isn't exactly a blot against him at all. Usually, Arminians are just repeating what they heard other anti-Calvinists say. They aren't quoting things they learned by actually taking the time to sit down and study the issue themselves. They aren't concerned with accuracy or historical fact. As long as they can make Calvin look as bad as possible, they think they gain a foothold against Calvinism itself. Ironically, Calvinism has nothing to do with John Calvin, as it comes from the pages of the Bible, and not what Calvin taught.
Thus one can rightly conclude that this ad hominem attack against Calvin is a sure sign of desperation by anti-Calvinists.
Your right that Calvin did not burn Servetus , but he was the snitch that turned him in.
thenowchurch
Yeah because Calvin was forced to help otherwise he could have been implicated in a conspiracy? You do realize he only was a witness because the person who accused Michael would have been burned at the stake for a false accusation?
So wait.. you'd do the following?
Risk your life to save a heretic, who denies it and changes his name. Then when hes accused by another individual and you're listed as a source, you'd deny it? So that TRULY innocent man dies?
It was Vienne (France) not Vienna (Austria) where Servetus was arrested by the Catholic authorities. Kind of ironic that Calvin would co-operate with Catholics against a fellow Reformer.
This was a pretty balanced presentation, which is unusual when it comes to the Servetus affair. Just to add a couple of points: 1) It was Servetus's views on baptism that got him into trouble as much, if not more, than his views on the Trinity. Why Reformed Baptists today are enamoured with Calvin is beyond me - he would have persecuted them vehemently. Their heritage comes from Servetus as much as Calvin. 2) Sebastian Castellio deserves mention in any consideration of the Servetus affair. He took a brave stand against Calvin after the death of Servetus, and also suffered harsh treatment as a consequence.
I'm a Trinitarian, but I appreciate Servetus tremendously. He and Castellio paved the way for the religious freedoms that we in the West have subsequently benefited from. I look forward to seeing Servetus in heaven. His dying prayer, "Jesus, son of the eternal God, have mercy on me", will be heard by our gracious God. He wasn't perfect, but he was a martyr and a hero.
As a Reformed Baptist, I am fairly confident that John Calvin wouldn't have executed me... at least not after I have been given a chance to articulate and explain my beliefs. But if he would've wanted me executed, it wouldn't make me respect the man any less... and it wouldn't rest of his theology any less true. The man is in Heaven now with saved people from a large breadth of different dispensations, traditions, and denominations. At least he now sees that the most important thing is not how or when we are dunked into or sprinkled with water, but the object and nature of our Faith-if it is a Saving Faith in Christ, made possible by the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit... I think he always knew that. But my people (of the sort that we are now) didn't exist yet, so he didn't really have a chance to respond to our systematic theology.
I do appreciate the religious freedom, though. :)
Your use of the term "conspiracy theories " to dismiss and trivialize positions is disingenuous. Conspiracies are factual and are utilized extensively throughout history and present day.
Man!!! I Just love your videos!!! Thank you so much
Soul Sleep is one of the most unambiguously Biblical Doctrine there is, it is stated in no uncertain terms multiple times yet Platonist Christians just can't accept it.
Your comments about Servetus "seeking it (his martyrdom) out" is an incredulous statement. The "strange things" Servetus did was not a death wish it was boldness. His reading of scripture led him to conclude, rightly, that the Philosophical concept of the Trinity nor the word "trinity" was in the Bible. Further study led him to believe that the doctrine was being imposed on the scriptures. He sis not want to have his own views and be left alone; he wanted to share with the world error of the doctrine of the trinity. That is what drove his public stance. WE as Christians are by Christ called to stand fro the truth!! you bias is glaring is these comments.