Michael Servetus

[PatrickM]

Who was he, and what was his role in church history?

[A. believer]

Who was he, and what was his role in church history?
Michael Servetus was a heretic from the Reformation era who was sentenced to burn at the stake by a tribunal in Geneva. His name is most often associated with the Reformer/theologian Jean Calvin who is often wrongly said to have ordered his sentence. Truthfully, though, Calvin had no authority in the matter, and he, himself, was imprisoned by the same authorities who sentenced Servetus just a short time before Servetus's sentencing. Here's a fascinating article on the whole affair.

What Love Indeed (http://www.whatloveisthis.com/stickelberger.html)

[Bulldog]

Michael Servetus was a heretic from the Reformation era who was sentenced to burn at the stake by a tribunal in Geneva. His name is most often associated with the Reformer/theologian Jean Calvin who is often wrongly said to have ordered his sentence. Truthfully, though, Calvin had no authority in the matter, and he, himself, was imprisoned by the same authorities who sentenced Servetus just a short time before Servetus's sentencing. Here's a fascinating article on the whole affair.

What Love Indeed (http://www.whatloveisthis.com/stickelberger.html)

Not to mention one of the pioneers of Unitiarianism.

[PatrickM]

Michael Servetus was a heretic from the Reformation era who was sentenced to burn at the stake by a tribunal in Geneva. His name is most often associated with the Reformer/theologian Jean Calvin who is often wrongly said to have ordered his sentence. Truthfully, though, Calvin had no authority in the matter, and he, himself, was imprisoned by the same authorities who sentenced Servetus just a short time before Servetus's sentencing. Here's a fascinating article on the whole affair.

What Love Indeed (http://www.whatloveisthis.com/stickelberger.html)
Though this man was no saint, literally or figuratively, it is sad as to how he died.

Your link contains much words to defend Calvin’s approval of this man’s execution. Has anyone ever heard of this author? Well on a site promoting his book, we read:

About the Author:
Emanuel Stickelberger was a business man who wrote historical novels (Calvin and Zwingli). The University of Basel granted him the honorary degree of Doctor of Theology.

Apparently, this book is a fictional novel, and it’s author’s qualifications are not very impressive as an expert in historical matters.

And a few excerpts from this fictional novel (again, per you link):

“Calvin had no doubt whatsoever as to the danger that threatened his life work from this angle. He was about to make the city entrusted to him a fortress for the pure doctrine . . .” Interesting motivation.

“Even during the first days of the trial, Calvin wrote to Farel that he wished to spare the people's seducer from a painful death.” However, not to spare him from actual execution. Again, all this according to this author’s “fictional novel.”

“He made every possible effort, gathered the preachers in order to bring about by unanimous petition a moderation of the death penalty.” Perhaps true, however, not much comfort, as it was still the death penalty!

“Moreover, had Calvin's wish been granted and the fire penalty mitigated to an execution by sword, little fuss would have been made about it.” I’m not too sure, as a sword execution isn’t much fun, either.

On the other hand, much of this is account is rather optimistic, according to Dr. Bruce Shelley, Senior Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Denver Theological Seminary.

In his book, “Church History in Plain English”, though it is true Calvin did not desire to see Servetus burned at the stake, in seeing his possible position of power slipping away, “he did support the silencing of the ill-balanced thinker (Servetus).”

I think it interesting how some people, even today, can be so zealous towards their “theology”, as to miss Christ’s greater “theology”, such as love your enemies, do good to those who despitefully use you, repay not evil for evil, but overcome evil with good.

[A. believer]

Though this man was no saint, literally or figuratively, it is sad as to how he died.

Your link contains much words to defend Calvin’s approval of this man’s execution. Has anyone ever heard of this author? Well on a site promoting his book, we read:

About the Author:
Emanuel Stickelberger was a business man who wrote historical novels (Calvin and Zwingli). The University of Basel granted him the honorary degree of Doctor of Theology.

Apparently, this book is a fictional novel, and it’s author’s qualifications are not very impressive as an expert in historical matters.

And a few excerpts from this fictional novel (again, per you link):

“Calvin had no doubt whatsoever as to the danger that threatened his life work from this angle. He was about to make the city entrusted to him a fortress for the pure doctrine . . .” Interesting motivation.

“Even during the first days of the trial, Calvin wrote to Farel that he wished to spare the people's seducer from a painful death.” However, not to spare him from actual execution. Again, all this according to this author’s “fictional novel.”

“He made every possible effort, gathered the preachers in order to bring about by unanimous petition a moderation of the death penalty.” Perhaps true, however, not much comfort, as it was still the death penalty!

“Moreover, had Calvin's wish been granted and the fire penalty mitigated to an execution by sword, little fuss would have been made about it.” I’m not too sure, as a sword execution isn’t much fun, either.

On the other hand, much of this is account is rather optimistic, according to Dr. Bruce Shelley, Senior Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Denver Theological Seminary.

In his book, “Church History in Plain English”, though it is true Calvin did not desire to see Servetus burned at the stake, in seeing his possible position of power slipping away, “he did support the silencing of the ill-balanced thinker (Servetus).”

I think it interesting how some people, even today, can be so zealous towards their “theology”, as to miss Christ’s greater “theology”, such as love your enemies, do good to those who despitefully use you, repay not evil for evil, but overcome evil with good.On what basis do you question the author's credibility? His historical works are well-respected, and yet you casually dismiss his historical account, as if we should believe that you know better. Apparently, you didn't come here to learn something about church history, but rather to take an opportunity to slam a great theologian who was gifted with a pastor's heart.

I have little regard for the judgments of those who judge the actions of people in other time periods by the standards of their own. In the sixteenth century, there was no concept of separation of church and state. Calvin did approve of (although he played no part in) the execution of a man whose goal was to infiltrate the church with his heresies and to imperil the souls of a nation. It may not mean anything to you that Calvin pleaded for a more humane method of execution and that he diligently prayed for the conversion of the heretic before his death, but it was because of Calvin's love for his neighbors that he would desire that the newly reformed church of Geneva not fall into greater heresy than it had come out of under Roman authority. It's the duty of the state to protect its citizenry, and when the state and the church are one, that duty extends to protecting their souls. You can stand here with your 21st century perspective, criticizing Calvin for not holding to modern day presuppositions about supposedly self-evident, God-ordained notions about the separation of church and state, and most people will probably applaud you. But for those who love God and who are willing to think more critically about the matter, it's apparent that Jean Calvin was a godly man whose primary motivation in life was to glorify God.

[PatrickM]

On what basis do you question the author's credibility? His historical works are well-respected, and yet you casually dismiss his historical account, as if we should believe that you know better. Apparently, you didn't come here to learn something about church history, but rather to take an opportunity to slam a great theologian who was gifted with a pastor's heart.

I have little regard for the judgments of those who judge the actions of people in other time periods by the standards of their own. In the sixteenth century, there was no concept of separation of church and state. Calvin did approve of (although he played no part in) the execution of a man whose goal was to infiltrate the church with his heresies and to imperil the souls of a nation. It may not mean anything to you that Calvin pleaded for a more humane method of execution and that he diligently prayed for the conversion of the heretic before his death, but it was because of Calvin's love for his neighbors that he would desire that the newly reformed church of Geneva not fall into greater heresy than it had come out of under Roman authority. It's the duty of the state to protect its citizenry, and when the state and the church are one, that duty extends to protecting their souls. You can stand here with your 21st century perspective, criticizing Calvin for not holding to modern day presuppositions about supposedly self-evident, God-ordained notions about the separation of church and state, and most people will probably applaud you. But for those who love God and who are willing to think more critically about the matter, it's apparent that Jean Calvin was a godly man whose primary motivation in life was to glorify God.
Not necessarily the author's credibility, but his accuracy, as he was obviously biased, writing a historical "fiction" novel. His background is one of "business man", which hardly makes him an expert in the field.

Although Calvin did not want him burned at the stake, he still thought a sword "execution" was better? What did he do to merit execution? Did he kill someone? No, he merely commited the sin of disagreeing with Calvin.

Not necessarily my personal standards, as in my BC days I would have said "hangin's too good for him." But since receiving Christ, I rather go along with His statement when the soldiers were crucifying Him, to ask God to forgive them, for they knew not what they did. Who committed the greater sin, a man who was obviously in error in his doctrine, but who did not actually harm anyone, or a Roman soldier who put to death the Son of God?

I don't stand here with any 21st century perspective. I stand with the "sola scriptura" perspective, such as love your enemies, do not repay evil for evil, etc. These are not 21st century perspectives, but Jesus' perspectives.

And where did you pull out this "separation of church and state" statement? No where did I imply this. For the record I deplore how it's turned out today.

Indeed, "Jean" Calvin was a Godly man, who did much to propagate the gospel. I would like more people to realize, however, he was human, and made mistakes, some rather radical, and take things with a greater perspective.

[Lotar]

What credentials do you have that qualify you to declare his book a work of fiction? Does coming from a business background all of a sudden disqualify him from having any knowledge of history?

The man did much more than just disagree with Calvin.

I guess attacking Calvin's character somehow justifies your own heretical beliefs? That because heretics have been persecuted in the past for their beliefs, and that Jesus was persecuted for His beliefs, that you must be somehow right, or at least not far off? Am I correct in this assessment of the reasoning behind this thread?

[A. believer]

Who committed the greater sin, a man who was obviously in error in his doctrine, but who did not actually harm anyone, or a Roman soldier who put to death the Son of God?

I don't stand here with any 21st century perspective. I stand with the "sola scriptura" perspective, such as love your enemies, do not repay evil for evil, etc. These are not 21st century perspectives, but Jesus' perspectives.

And where did you pull out this "separation of church and state" statement? No where did I imply this. For the record I deplore how it's turned out today.

Indeed, "Jean" Calvin was a Godly man, who did much to propagate the gospel. I would like more people to realize, however, he was human, and made mistakes, some rather radical, and take things with a greater perspective.
If Servetus "did not actually harm anyone," it's not for lack of trying. His goal was to gain power and to make his heresies the "orthodox" teaching of the church. Heresy has always been a threat to God's people, and that threat has been dealt with in various ways throughout church history. But in the sixteenth century the thinking was that the church and the state worked together as one to further the common good of the people. Sixteenth century Geneva was a Christian society, and the execution of Michael Servetus was for the purpose of protecting the church from falling into heresy.

Jesus tells us to love our enemies, but the Old and New Testaments also teach that governing authorities are God's ministers and that they hold the power of the sword to carry out judgment, and that, I believe, was the rationale for the execution of heretics in the sixteenth century. There may not be many people who see it that way today, but to presuppose the self-evident nature of commonly held 21st century notions, and then to impose these notions as a standard by which to judge 16th century figures smacks of self-righteousness and cultural blindness.

Today and throughout church history there have been different and competing theories as to the role of Christians and the church in civil affairs, and it takes greater wisdom than either you or I possess to make a fair judgment about Calvin in this matter. It's just not so self-evident as you, apparently, want to make it.

[Bastoune]

Quite a few "disagreements" regarding Servetus and Calvin's role in executing him:

http://www.geocities.com/uuclarksville/Sermons/servetus.htm
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/ashes.htm

Can't say for sure who is really "orthodox." It's all relative.

[A. believer]

Quite a few "disagreements" regarding Servetus and Calvin's role in executing him:

http://www.geocities.com/uuclarksville/Sermons/servetus.htm
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/ashes.htm

Can't say for sure who is really "orthodox." It's all relative.Yes, not only Scripture but even historical events are "all relative" without an "infallible interpreter" to tell us what's really true. The problem is, there are so many competing infallible interpreters of reality, (as well as competing interpretations of the infallible interpreters), that I need an infallible interpreter to tell me which infallible interpreter to listen to. And, of course, how do I know which person is telling me infallibly which infallible interpreter to listen to?

What to do?

Skepticism is wonderful polemic tool, isn't it--until it's turned back upon oneself.

[Bastoune]

Including those who defend St. Jean Cauvin de Geneve to the death... :rolleyes:

Servetus was about as much a threat to orthodoxy as the Anabaptists were to Luther's movement.

The best source is always an objective one.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Sebastian Castellio, one of Calvin's earlier lieutenants, decided to speak out against the murder of Servetus, stating:
When Servetus fought with reasons and writings, he should have been repulsed by reasons and writings. To kill a man is not to protect a doctrine but only to kill a man.

[A. believer]

The best source is always an objective one.

And that would be?

[Lotar]

You don't think the Anabaptists were a threat to the orthodoxy of the Church? Somebody needs to catch up on their history.

I find it suprising that a Catholic would critisize Calvin for supporting the execution of someone spreading the Arian heresy.

[PatrickM]

You don't think the Anabaptists were a threat to the orthodoxy of the Church? Somebody needs to catch up on their history.

I find it suprising that a Catholic would critisize Calvin for supporting the execution of someone spreading the Arian heresy.
I guess it depends on which history book you read. What, exactly was the threat the Anabaptists posed to the "orthodox church". And by the way, which orthodox church do you refer?

What I read about the Anabaptists, they merely wanted to be free from state-required infant baptism, forced upon them by Zwingli's city-church state. They wanted to be baptised based on a knowledgeable acceptance of Christ, not mere infant-baptising.

[PatrickM]

What credentials do you have that qualify you to declare his book a work of fiction? Does coming from a business background all of a sudden disqualify him from having any knowledge of history?
Well, his book is described as an historical novel by a web site which is promoting it! And what do you think a "novel" is, a documentary on historical facts?
The man did much more than just disagree with Calvin.
Things worthy of death? And, please do not start about my 21st century realative moralising. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever. According to Reformist teaching, all things must be measured by "sola scriptura", not cultural realativsm, be it 16th century, or whatever. Even Augustine denounced killing, to the point of stating suicide is murder.
I guess attacking Calvin's character somehow justifies your own heretical beliefs? That because heretics have been persecuted in the past for their beliefs, and that Jesus was persecuted for His beliefs, that you must be somehow right, or at least not far off? Am I correct in this assessment of the reasoning behind this thread?
Actually, no. The reason behind this thread is to try to get people to see beyond any one person's teaching, "orthodoxy", and to see the what the Body of Christ is really about. Not about this person, and his/her teaching, or that person. "I am of Paul, I am of Apollos".

[Lotar]

Well, his book is described as an historical novel by a web site which is promoting it! And what do you think a "novel" is, a documentary on historical facts? There is a difference between a historical novel and historical fiction.


Things worthy of death? And, please do not start about my 21st century realative moralising. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever. According to Reformist teaching, all things must be measured by "sola scriptura", not cultural realativsm, be it 16th century, or whatever. Even Augustine denounced killing, to the point of stating suicide is murder.
When did Jesus say anything about capital punishment? The OT mandates it.

Augustine wasn't exactly welcoming to the heretics in Hippo. Considering that it was Arians who were responsible for the death of Augustine and the burning of his city, I don't think he would have minded much.


Actually, no. The reason behind this thread is to try to get people to see beyond any one person's teaching, "orthodoxy", and to see the what the Body of Christ is really about. Not about this person, and his/her teaching, or that person. "I am of Paul, I am of Apollos".
Which is you just restating what I said in a more favorable light.

I don't think that anyone here would say that there isn't a certian amount of Christian liberty, but that does not mean you can believe anything. Heresy is not to be taken lightly, and is spoken about at length by the Apostles, and warned against by Christ.

[Lotar]

I guess it depends on which history book you read. What, exactly was the threat the Anabaptists posed to the "orthodox church". And by the way, which orthodox church do you refer?

What I read about the Anabaptists, they merely wanted to be free from state-required infant baptism, forced upon them by Zwingli's city-church state. They wanted to be baptised based on a knowledgeable acceptance of Christ, not mere infant-baptising.
Then you have not read a full account of the reformation.

[PatrickM]

There is a difference between a historical novel and historical fiction.
Which is . . . ?
When did Jesus say anything about capital punishment? The OT mandates it.
I think His actions, i.e. dying on the cross, refusing to fight by saying His Kingdom is not of this world, else His disciples would fight, being silent before Pilate, etc.
Augustine wasn't exactly welcoming to the heretics in Hippo. Considering that it was Arians who were responsible for the death of Augustine and the burning of his city, I don't think he would have minded much.
Yet did he actually ascent to anyone actually being killed for heresy???

And as long as we are thinking for Augustine, I actually do think he would have minded. "to live is Christ, to die is gain."
I don't think that anyone here would say that there isn't a certian amount of Christian liberty, but that does not mean you can believe anything. Heresy is not to be taken lightly, and is spoken about at length by the Apostles, and warned against by Christ.
"Not to be taken lightly"?? This is far from killing people for it. And, yes, you can believe anything. God will judge whether you're right or wrong. "Vengence is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay", not us.

And what examples do we have regarding the Apostles and heresy? Did Paul agree to have people put to death? He refuted them, he even asked God to curse some, but death?? Please site example of the Apostles?

[Lotar]

Which is . . . ?
One is a work of fiction, one is historically accurate.


I think His actions, i.e. dying on the cross, refusing to fight by saying His Kingdom is not of this world, else His disciples would fight, being silent before Pilate, etc.

Grasping at straws her, aren't we?


Yet did he actually ascent to anyone actually being killed for heresy???

And as long as we are thinking for Augustine, I actually do think he would have minded. "to live is Christ, to die is gain."

Augustine was never in a position to be able to sentence a heretic to death.

Have you actually even read any of his works?


"Not to be taken lightly"?? This is far from killing people for it. And, yes, you can believe anything. God will judge whether you're right or wrong. "Vengence is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay", not us.

You can believe anything, you just can't be a Christian and believe anything.

Should we not punish those who commit murder, who steal, who rape, ect? It is not our place to take vengence, but it is the government's right and responsibility to enforce the Law.

Romans 13:1-3
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;



And what examples do we have regarding the Apostles and heresy? Did Paul agree to have people put to death? He refuted them, he even asked God to curse some, but death?? Please site example of the Apostles?

The Apostles were never in a possition of governmental power. God Himself did strike down heretics.

[PatrickM]

One is a work of fiction, one is historically accurate.
Then why call one a "novel"? Why even make any differential?
Grasping at straws her, aren't we?
For what? For using Christ's example as one for us to follow???
Augustine was never in a position to be able to sentence a heretic to death.
And that, you believe, is the only reason he did not do such?
Have you actually even read any of his works?
LOL. Grasping at straws, yourself? Well, in his book I, chpt 27 is where he is against murder, even to the point of suicide to avoid sinning. If he was so much against murder for such a just individual cause, how much more must he have been against killing one who had not done any harm to anyone, other than have a different belief?

You can believe anything, you just can't be a Christian and believe anything.
Amen to that. But then, should we follow the logical conclusion, and kill anyone believing anything against our beliefs? Where do you draw the line?
Should we not punish those who commit murder, who steal, who rape, ect? It is not our place to take vengence, but it is the government's right and responsibility to enforce the Law.
This is exactly my point. Did Servetus commit such acts as murder, rape, etc? And what about punishment fitting crime? And one cannot use the 16th century as an excuse. Did God's voice cease until now? Does not His word apply to all generations? Are we going to be able to use this excuse when facing Him, Well, you know, it was the 16th century, and all, God, you know, even the Roman Catholics were doing it!
Romans 13:1-3
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;

No argument here. But isn't there a higher law? Hitler was in power as a governing authority in Nazi Germany. Should Christians have gone along with his extermination of the Jews? No, I am not comparing anyone to Hitler, just using the logical conclusion of solely following man's government and neglecting God's Word.

"Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to yu more than to God, you decide" was Peter's response to the then governing authorities in Jerusalem, Acts 4:19.

The Apostles were never in a possition of governmental power. God Himself did strike down heretics.
Exactly. And was He less potent to do the same in the 16th century, than in Biblical times? Does He, now need our help to fulfil His will?
"Vengence is mine, says the Lord, *I* will repay. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God," Heb 10:30,31.

[Lotar]

Then why call one a "novel"? Why even make any differential?
Because of the style of writing. Not much of a reader, are you?

For example, the book Black Hawk Down is a historical novel because it is historically accurate and write as a novel.


For what? For using Christ's example as one for us to follow???

For compairing apples and oranges.


And that, you believe, is the only reason he did not do such?

Given that he never had the oppertunity, we cannot assume he would do one or the other.


LOL. Grasping at straws, yourself? Well, in his book I, chpt 27 is where he is against murder, even to the point of suicide to avoid sinning. If he was so much against murder for such a just individual cause, how much more must he have been against killing one who had not done any harm to anyone, other than have a different belief?

:D From his book I? I guess that asnwers my question. I do not know of any christian who does not believe suicide is a sin. How does that have any parrallel to capital punishment?


Amen to that. But then, should we follow the logical conclusion, and kill anyone believing anything against our beliefs? Where do you draw the line?

No, killing a false teacher who is leading Christians astray. There is a difference.


This is exactly my point. Did Servetus commit such acts as murder, rape, etc? And what about punishment fitting crime? And one cannot use the 16th century as an excuse. Did God's voice cease until now? Does not His word apply to all generations? Are we going to be able to use this excuse when facing Him, Well, you know, it was the 16th century, and all, God, you know, even the Roman Catholics were doing it!

One is a crime of harming or destroying a persons mortal body, another is harming or destroying their immortal soul. Which is the graver sin?



No argument here. But isn't there a higher law? Hitler was in power as a governing authority in Nazi Germany. Should Christians have gone along with his extermination of the Jews? No, I am not comparing anyone to Hitler, just using the logical conclusion of solely following man's government and neglecting God's Word.

"Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to yu more than to God, you decide" was Peter's response to the then governing authorities in Jerusalem, Acts 4:19.

When a crime is committed, it is clear that it is the governments responsibility to decide the punishment. He was not an unrightly persecuted man, you may think his punishment was to harsh, as did Calvin, but you cannot claim that he was innocent like the Jews.


Exactly. And was He less potent to do the same in the 16th century, than in Biblical times? Does He, now need our help to fulfil His will?
"Vengence is mine, says the Lord, *I* will repay. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God," Heb 10:30,31.

Agian, apples and oranges. Do you deny that God uses us to do His works?

[Bastoune]

You don't think the Anabaptists were a threat to the orthodoxy of the Church? Somebody needs to catch up on their history.

I find it suprising that a Catholic would critisize Calvin for supporting the execution of someone spreading the Arian heresy.
God always guards his people and His Gospel. I am not "supporting" his execution nor am I "condemning" it. By what legal authority could Servetus be killed in Geneva?

I have some interesting (secular) articles on this whole affair from a librarian friend in Lausanne... in French. They cite sources from the era. Good stuff. I wish I had a link (in English).

[Lotar]

Really all I know about what happened is that he was teaching the Arian heresy and he got burned at the stake for it. If he really was spreading the heresy, I can't object to harshly to what happened. Personally, I don't think I'd like to see anyone burned at the stake, but it was different times and different methods.

If it were up to me, I'd just have locked him up and threw away the key, along with all those WoF teachers. ;)

[II Paradox II]

God always guards his people and His Gospel. I am not "supporting" his execution nor am I "condemning" it. By what legal authority could Servetus be killed in Geneva?
He was executed under the civil law of the canton of Geneva. His execution by burning for heresy was an element of imperial law that Calvin had not changed through his influence over the city's civil affairs (though he did try unsuccessfully to change the excution method to the moe merciful beheading).

IMO - It was a sad affair that helped cap off a less than wonderful tradition in Europe of getting rid of heretics by force.

ken

[II Paradox II]

I should add as well that Servetus was also condemned to death by burning under the civil law of Vienna (catholic) for heresy, but he escaped the prison and his soon impending death with the help of some friends. He later was also condemned by the ecclesial courts of Vienna as well, though I think they only recommended excommunication and the burning of his books. In addition, the court at Vienna requested Geneva hand Servetus over so they could execute him but geneva refused and executed him themselves.

So, to answer the question more fully, Servetus was condemned by two civil courts to death by burning and one ecclesial court to lesser punishment.

ken

[2+2=5]

Michael Servetus,
Who was he, and what was his role in church history?

Hello all :wave: --
I was also wondering about Servetus, and also Gruet :confused: . Does anyone know of an UN-biased and accurate account of what happened to Michael Servetus and Jacques Gruet :help:. It seems like every site I look at, the story is totally different. Anyway, thanks for any help!
God bless--

[II Paradox II]

I was also wondering about Servetus, and also Gruet :confused: . Does anyone know of an UN-biased and accurate account of what happened to Michael Servetus and Jacques Gruet :help:. It seems like every site I look at, the story is totally different. Anyway, thanks for any help!
God bless-- Unbiased account? Good luck! ;)

Honestly, an issue invested with as much emotion, religious and emotional significance I doubt you will ever find an account of this episode that is not *highly* colored by the biases of those examining it. However, that being said, your best best is probably to get sources from all sides and try to extract a middle-ground position from the extremes.

Here are some sources though that you may want to consider:

1) Check out http://www.servetus.org/servetusbiography.html . It is a site dedicated to servetus by those sympathetic to his cause and ideals. Though you might think this would be biased, it actually seems relatively balanced. Anyways, read the biography section there to get a good idea.

2) You may want to check out "the Reformation in the Cities" by Steven Ozment. I'm pretty sure he treats this subject in that book...

3) You may also want to look up "Hunted heretic; the life and death of Michael Servetus" by ronald bainton. He is well known for his excellent biography of Luther so I imagine his treatment of Servetus would be of a similar quality...

ken

[PatrickM]

Because of the style of writing. Not much of a reader, are you?
LOL. I guess not everyone can be as prolific as you!!!
For example, the book Black Hawk Down is a historical novel because it is historically accurate and write as a novel.
The writer used quotes and information from the *actual* people who are still alive and could get an accurate, first hand account of the events.
Apples and oranges.

For compairing apples and oranges.
So there's a time where we *shouldn't* follow Christ's example of living? Pray, tell me these situations.

:D From his book I? I guess that asnwers my question. I do not know of any christian who does not believe suicide is a sin. How does that have any parrallel to capital punishment?
Why this reaction? Have you read this chapter? He is using suicide as an *extreme* example of how *any* murder is wrong. The context of the chptr. is the suicide of a person attempting to stop himself/herself from sinning. Even in such a noble cause as that, Augustine was pointing out it is still wrong to *kill*.
No, killing a false teacher who is leading Christians astray. There is a difference.
:scratch: Did you read your own words? Killing is ok for leading Christians astray.
Paul mentions such people. 2Tim3:8,9, "Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these resist the truth, men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; but they will progres no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs (J&J) also was."

I don't see any recommendation for *killing* these above who were of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith. As a matter of fact, Paul uses the same line of reasoning as Gamiliel. Leave them alone. And the circumstances are exactly the same.

One is a crime of harming or destroying a persons mortal body, another is harming or destroying their immortal soul. Which is the graver sin?
I didn't think man has such power to destroy another's soul. I thought Jesus said, "No *man* can pluck them out of my hand."

Can you enlightment as to the "sola scriptura" for such power?
When a crime is committed, it is clear that it is the governments responsibility to decide the punishment. He was not an unrightly persecuted man, you may think his punishment was to harsh, as did Calvin, but you cannot claim that he was innocent like the Jews.
Also, apples & oranges. Your contention is the government has the final authority for meteing out punishment. It is irrevelant as to what your opinion is regarding innocent or guilt. Again, that is the government's responsibility. So when Hitler's government said the Jews were guilty of what *he* considered a crime, the government was right in killing them?

The issue is the power of government, not the matter of innocence here.
Agian, apples and oranges. Do you deny that God uses us to do His works?
What, exactly, is your definition of "apples and oranges"? Vengence, in my book, is taking action for a wrong doing. And God said, He will repay.

God does use us to do His works, when they are spelled out for us, and when they do *not* contradict His Word.

Paul's dealings with such is found in 2Tim2:17-19, "And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some (just as you accuse Servetus of doing). Nevertheless the solid foundations of God stands, having this seal; 'The Lord knows those who are His,'".

I don't know how much more apple & apple this example could be. I don't see Paul recommending these to be killed in any way, or by any fashion. He relied on the solid foundations of God to stand for itself.

[2+2=5]

Hey Paradox :wave:
Unbiased account? Good luck!
:D Good point. Thanks for the information though, I’ll check it out :).
BTW, do know of any sources for Jacques Gruet also :confused:
God bless--

[II Paradox II]

Hey Paradox :wave:

:D Good point. Thanks for the information though, I’ll check it out :).
BTW, do know of any sources for Jacques Gruet also :confused:
God bless--
hmm... I don't know of any sources for Gruet...

anyways, have a good day :wave:

ken

[PatrickM]

He was executed under the civil law of the canton of Geneva. His execution by burning for heresy was an element of imperial law that Calvin had not changed through his influence over the city's civil affairs (though he did try unsuccessfully to change the excution method to the moe merciful beheading).
I'm sure that was of much more comfort to Servetus. Oh, good, you'll merely cut my head off.
IMO - It was a sad affair that helped cap off a less than wonderful tradition in Europe of getting rid of heretics by force.

ken
I concur. Perhaps kinda like, "you meant it for evil, but God turned it for good," said Joseph?

[PatrickM]

I should add as well that Servetus was also condemned to death by burning under the civil law of Vienna (catholic) for heresy, but he escaped the prison and his soon impending death with the help of some friends. He later was also condemned by the ecclesial courts of Vienna as well, though I think they only recommended excommunication and the burning of his books. In addition, the court at Vienna requested Geneva hand Servetus over so they could execute him but geneva refused and executed him themselves.

So, to answer the question more fully, Servetus was condemned by two civil courts to death by burning and one ecclesial court to lesser punishment.

ken
But wasn't this second court the one at odds with Calvin? Servetus escaped a Spanish prison, being held there for this. He had hoped to find refuge in Geneva, the safe-haven for Catholic heretics! The enemy of my enemy is my friend, I guess.

Poor guy couldn't win for loosing!

[II Paradox II]

I'm sure that was of much more comfort to Servetus. Oh, good, you'll merely cut my head off.
At least according to Servetus International Society he actually asked for this particular method of execution.

"When the sentence was announced to Servetus he broke down completely, for he had expected acquittal, or at the worst only banishment; but he soon regained composure, sent for Calvin, and begged his forgiveness. Farel, minister at Neuchatel, had that morning arrived at Calvin’s desire. He tried to get Servetus to renounce his errors and thus save his life. But Servetus remained true to his convictions, only begging for another form of death, lest the suffering at the stake cause him at last weakly to recant. Farel accompanied him to the place of execution, where a large crowd had gathered, and there he died with a prayer upon his lips (October 27, 1553)"
http://www.servetus.org/servetusbiography.html

Of course, you may want to verify this for yourself from other sources. Personally, I wouldn't be big on either way of going out but on the whole I'd prefer the quick to the slow...

I concur. Perhaps kinda like, "you meant it for evil, but God turned it for good," said Joseph?
Although I am not radically opposed to state/church mixture, on the whole I don't think it has pushed the church in the right direction. As such, to the extent situations like this pushed people to reflect on the wisdom of such associations it had a good effect even if it was not the best actual situation.

ken

[Lotar]

LOL. I guess not everyone can be as prolific as you!!!

The writer used quotes and information from the *actual* people who are still alive and could get an accurate, first hand account of the events.
Apples and oranges.
:rolleyes:


So there's a time where we *shouldn't* follow Christ's example of living? Pray, tell me these situations.

Obviously, those in government have a different set of standards to follow.


Why this reaction? Have you read this chapter? He is using suicide as an *extreme* example of how *any* murder is wrong. The context of the chptr. is the suicide of a person attempting to stop himself/herself from sinning. Even in such a noble cause as that, Augustine was pointing out it is still wrong to *kill*.


Why this reaction? Because Augustine wrote nearly 100 books, and you act as though there is one. It shows that you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.


:scratch: Did you read your own words? Killing is ok for leading Christians astray.
Paul mentions such people. 2Tim3:8,9, "Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these resist the truth, men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; but they will progres no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs (J&J) also was."

Read in context, it was obvious that I was talking about capital punishment :rolleyes:


I don't see any recommendation for *killing* these above who were of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith. As a matter of fact, Paul uses the same line of reasoning as Gamiliel. Leave them alone. And the circumstances are exactly the same.

Pray tell me, where Paul said to "leave them alone"


I didn't think man has such power to destroy another's soul. I thought Jesus said, "No *man* can pluck them out of my hand."

I thought you weren't a Calvinist.


Can you enlightment as to the "sola scriptura" for such power?

Look up the warnings about false teachers.


Also, apples & oranges. Your contention is the government has the final authority for meteing out punishment. It is irrevelant as to what your opinion is regarding innocent or guilt. Again, that is the government's responsibility. So when Hitler's government said the Jews were guilty of what *he* considered a crime, the government was right in killing them?

Being a Jew isn't something considered a crime in the bible, while being a false teacher is.


The issue is the power of government, not the matter of innocence here.

So you think the government doesn't have the right to use capital punishment?


What, exactly, is your definition of "apples and oranges"? Vengence, in my book, is taking action for a wrong doing. And God said, He will repay.

Because He was talking to Christians, not governments. To use thw Hitler example, should we have stayed out of the war?


God does use us to do His works, when they are spelled out for us, and when they do *not* contradict His Word.

You have yet to show the contradiction.


Paul's dealings with such is found in 2Tim2:17-19, "And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some (just as you accuse Servetus of doing). Nevertheless the solid foundations of God stands, having this seal; 'The Lord knows those who are His,'".

I don't know how much more apple & apple this example could be. I don't see Paul recommending these to be killed in any way, or by any fashion. He relied on the solid foundations of God to stand for itself.

And yet he says that they otherthrow the faith of some. Should we not try to prevent this?

[II Paradox II]

But wasn't this second court the one at odds with Calvin? Servetus escaped a Spanish prison, being held there for this. He had hoped to find refuge in Geneva, the safe-haven for Catholic heretics! The enemy of my enemy is my friend, I guess.

Poor guy couldn't win for loosing! In 1532 he was summoned to Spain for the inquisition. He fled that worked under an assumed name of Michael Villeneuve in Paris. Under this name he was acquitted by another local french inquisition for astrology in 1538. Soon after he went to work a physician for a bishop in Vienna while simultaneously writing anti-trinitarian works and goading Calvin in particular over the issue through letters. During this time he also sent Calvin a copy of his yet unpublished work, "the restoration of christianity".

In 1553 he published 1000 copies of the said work under his assumed name. Calvin managed to get one of these sent to him. Upon receipt of it he used it and the previous copy with servetus' name on it as proof of servetus' identity and sent word of it to the archbishop of Lyon. He passed it on to the inquisitor in Vienna who had servetus arrested and tried. Using his resources (he was a rich man) he managed to escape prison in Vienna. However, the court still sentenced him in absentia to "death by slow burning".

Later, when Geneva had captured Servetus, the court in Vienna tried to have him extradited for execution but Geneva denied this (most likely for political reasons) in favor of trying servetus themselves.

So in answer to your questions:

1) He didn't escape from a spanish prison, but a Viennese prison. The spanish inquisition wanted him too, but he was never captured by them.

2) The Viennese court was at odds with Geneva, but not over whether servetus deserved death. They both sentenced him to death by burning.

3) He was heading to naples, not geneva, for safe haven. Servetus was already well known to several major reformers (such as Oeccalampadius) and he had already managed to get warnings from several protestant cities. He was in Geneva because it was a safer route to northern italy than the others he had considered. The protestant lands were not safe for arians or other non-trinitarian heretics.

4) As many scholars have noted, the reformation wasn't about every issue, but only a few issues. Rejecting the trintarian doctrines as they had been received by church tradition and scripture was a grave offense in both protestant and catholic lands.

ken

[PatrickM]

1) He didn't escape from a spanish prison, but a Viennese prison. The spanish inquisition wanted him too, but he was never captured by them.
I stand corrected. Thank you.
2) The Viennese court was at odds with Geneva, but not over whether servetus deserved death. They both sentenced him to death by burning.
Understood. My point was Calvin/Geneva actually *agreed* upon the same thing, kill the heretic.
3) He was heading to naples, not geneva, for safe haven. Servetus was already well known to several major reformers (such as Oeccalampadius) and he had already managed to get warnings from several protestant cities. He was in Geneva because it was a safer route to northern italy than the others he had considered. The protestant lands were not safe for arians or other non-trinitarian heretics.
I understand he was actually warned *not* to go through Geneva, as they had it out for him. I guess one more error on his part? :D
4) As many scholars have noted, the reformation wasn't about every issue, but only a few issues. Rejecting the trintarian doctrines as they had been received by church tradition and scripture was a grave offense in both protestant and catholic lands.
I agree, and have never defended his doctrine. Only the manner of his punishment.

[II Paradox II]

Understood. My point was Calvin/Geneva actually *agreed* upon the same thing, kill the heretic.
yeah, they did. At the time I can't think of any state church that wouldn't. It was just standard practice at the time...

I understand he was actually warned *not* to go through Geneva, as they had it out for him. I guess one more error on his part? :D
I imagine he probably knew the threats involved. Supposedly he was a somewhat brash man, so I have no doubt that he probably would've gone, even if he had been warned...

ken

[PatrickM]

Lotar,

Regarding my previous quote of Augustine; yes, I left out the title of his book to which I was referring, “City of God”. I simply quoted it as “book 1”. I am well aware he wrote many books. You got me. I had hoped to keep this discussion on an intellectual plain, and not have it turn to personal denigrations.

Also, you’re right. I don’t know much. I pray God will continually teach me His ways.

So are you saying Michael Servetus should have been executed for the crime of having a different, heretical doctrine?

So are you saying it was admirable for Calvin to desire his execution, but by beheading instead of burning at the stake?

Then, IF it became the law of the land for today, 2004, to execute heretics, and assuming all the conditions were met according to your standards, i.e. a person was teaching a destructive doctrine, leading innocents astray, and this person was convicted of such a crime in a legitimate court of law, would you be in favor of such an execution, today?

Is the execution of a heretic theoretically right, or is it theoretically wrong, current laws notwithstanding?

Time and place are irrelevant regarding God’s Word concerning right and wrong. “The Word of the Lord endures forever” and “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.”

[Lotar]

Lotar,

Regarding my previous quote of Augustine; yes, I left out the title of his book to which I was referring, “City of God”. I simply quoted it as “book 1”. I am well aware he wrote many books. You got me. I had hoped to keep this discussion on an intellectual plain, and not have it turn to personal denigrations.
I am sorry if you took it personally, I did not mean it as such. I was only meaning that you read rather deeply into one of his statements, when it seemed that you had little knowledge of his works. But whether you do or not, your analogy is baseless, since suicide has always been considered a sin but no connection between it and capital punishment was ever drawn.


Also, you’re right. I don’t know much. I pray God will continually teach me His ways.

I pray He does as well.


So are you saying Michael Servetus should have been executed for the crime of having a different, heretical doctrine?

Given the proper warnings, I can't say I would be against it.


So are you saying it was admirable for Calvin to desire his execution, but by beheading instead of burning at the stake?

Calvin desired that Servetus be given a humane death, yes I consider that admirable.


Then, IF it became the law of the land for today, 2004, to execute heretics, and assuming all the conditions were met according to your standards, i.e. a person was teaching a destructive doctrine, leading innocents astray, and this person was convicted of such a crime in a legitimate court of law, would you be in favor of such an execution, today?

I would be more in favor of a life sentence.


Is the execution of a heretic theoretically right, or is it theoretically wrong, current laws notwithstanding?

Theoretically, I see no problem with it. Think of me as evil if you wish.


Time and place are irrelevant regarding God’s Word concerning right and wrong. “The Word of the Lord endures forever” and “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.”

Actually time and place are relevant. ;)

[PatrickM]

I am sorry if you took it personally, I did not mean it as such. I was only meaning that you read rather deeply into one of his statements, when it seemed that you had little knowledge of his works. But whether you do or not, your analogy is baseless, since suicide has always been considered a sin but no connection between it and capital punishment was ever drawn.
Thanx.

As for the Augustine quote, I still think you are missing my point. I KNOW suicide has always been considered a sin. And, indeed, this chapter is not talking of capital punishment.

I am trying to point out Augustine's opinion on murder, in general. IF he consideres suicide MURDER (the point), and he uses an extreme example of how bad suicide is, such as one committing suicide even to stop from sinning, it's still bad, then he obviously has a negative opinion of murder (which he includes in "suicide").

Perhaps a quote will help? "It only remains for us to apply the commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill,' to man alone (as opposed to plant & animal life), *oneself* (his implication that suicide is killing oneself) or others. And, of course, one who kills himself kills a man (which Augustine is against).

In what scriptural example (apart from dispensationalsim) would one of God's current commands be subject to certain times, vs being an emperical decree?

Thank you, also for your honesty. At least we can agree to disagree? As long as IF a law were to be passed, you wouldn't encourage *my* legal prosecution? :D

[Lotar]

Thanx.

As for the Augustine quote, I still think you are missing my point. I KNOW suicide has always been considered a sin. And, indeed, this chapter is not talking of capital punishment.

I am trying to point out Augustine's opinion on murder, in general. IF he consideres suicide MURDER (the point), and he uses an extreme example of how bad suicide is, such as one committing suicide even to stop from sinning, it's still bad, then he obviously has a negative opinion of murder (which he includes in "suicide").

Perhaps a quote will help? "It only remains for us to apply the commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill,' to man alone (as opposed to plant & animal life), *oneself* (his implication that suicide is killing oneself) or others. And, of course, one who kills himself kills a man (which Augustine is against).
Yes, I know what you are trying to draw from it, but you are really drawing something out that isn't there. Augustine was against killing, whether yourself or another. That has always been the position of the Christian Church, but it was never applied to the government.


In what scriptural example (apart from dispensationalsim) would one of God's current commands be subject to certain times, vs being an emperical decree?

In Paul's writings. Certiantly there are God's laws that do not change, but we are also bound by what is culturally acceptable, which do change.


Thank you, also for your honesty. At least we can agree to disagree? As long as IF a law were to be passed, you wouldn't encourage *my* legal prosecution? :D

We can agree to disagree.
IF the law was passed, maybe it'd get you to shut up about the molinism ;)

[PatrickM]

Got a LOL outta me, there!

Love ya, bro.

Paddy

[A. believer]

Patrick,

This thread has progressed a lot since I last posted, but I just wanted to clarify one thing, and to ask one question.

First, I'm not advocating cultural relativism. I'm not saying that it was okay to kill heretics in the sixteenth century, but it's not okay to kill them today. What I'm saying is that human beings, even regenerate human beings are still influenced by cultural ways of thinking to the point where we can be blinded to what's right. And when we stand in judgment of other generations, we need to keep in mind that we, too, are heavily influenced by our own culture. Now, though, I'm disinclined to believe that capital punishment for propogators of heresy is the best course of action, I'm at a complete loss as to what an "ideal" society (while sin remains) would look like and how it would operate. As distasteful (and scary, because of the great potential for abuse) as I find the idea of capital punishment for propogators of heresy, I don't know of any precedent in history that we should seek to emulate. People in the sixteenth century operated within the context of sixteenth century thought, and we operate within the context of 21st century thought. If they could see us, they could make some severe judgments about us as well.

Now my question is this. Do you believe that capital punishment is always wrong or just that it's inappropriate for propogators of heresy? If you believe that it's always wrong because Jesus taught us to forgive our enemies and He never used violence Himself, I strongly disagree with your reasoning. But I get the impression that that is your position. And if so, then no wonder we're so far apart on this.

[PatrickM]

What I'm saying is that human beings, even regenerate human beings are still influenced by cultural ways of thinking
If we are to contend for “the faith once for all delivered to the saints”, the faith must be once-for-all in it’s influence. Peter says God has given us “*all* things pertaining to life and godliness”. This was 2,000 years ago, yet it states we have all things pertaining to life, implying we need nothing more than God’s word in regards to living life according to God’s will. This same Word, according to 2 Timothy, makes the man of God complete, thoroughly equipped for *every good work*. We need nothing else, no “cultural influence” to live godly lives.

In the light of these statements, I cannot see how Christians should allow their culture to influence them. Romans admonishes us not to be conformed to this world, but to be transformed, be different than the culture around us, my the renewing of our mind.
to the point where we can be blinded to what's right.
If you are implying Calvin may have been blinded to what’s right, I can agree with you on this. This is not to say the man did not make tremendous contributions to the faith. Merely that he was human, and such, perhaps we give too much attention to his teachings rather than God’s teachings. And please to do respond with they were one in the same, as there is only one Word of God, we need no more. I like your signature quote regarding this.
And when we stand in judgment of other generations, we need to keep in mind that we, too, are heavily influenced by our own culture.
I realize you said you are not advocating cultural relativism, but that is exactly what you are saying here. If not, please define what cultural relativism is?
As distasteful (and scary, because of the great potential for abuse) as I find the idea of capital punishment for propogators of heresy, I don't know of any precedent in history that we should seek to emulate.
We need not emulate *any* previous historical culture, as, I said above, we have God’s Word to emulate. Paul said “be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.”
People in the sixteenth century operated within the context of sixteenth century thought
I think this is too broad of a statement. There was as much diversity in the 16th century as there is today, hence all the wars, no?

In addition, it’s the miracle of the universality of the gospel that makes missionary work possible. We can take the same gospel to any culture in the world and it works, as it is in truth, not man’s words, but God, the creator’s words.
Now my question is this. Do you believe that capital punishment is always wrong or just that it's inappropriate for propogators of heresy? If you believe that it's always wrong because Jesus taught us to forgive our enemies and He never used violence Himself, I strongly disagree with your reasoning. But I get the impression that that is your position. And if so, then no wonder we're so far apart on this.
Through this thread, numerous texts, even in response to one of your previous questions, am not opposed to capital punishment per se, but it must fit crime, biblically, as the example given by God (prior to the law, I might add), Gen 9:6, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed.” I don’t see any crime other than murder as an appropriate crime justifying capital punishment. And I cannot see any example in God’s word where execution is an acceptable punishment for teaching contrary to God’s word.

[A. believer]

If we are to contend for “the faith once for all delivered to the saints”, the faith must be once-for-all in it’s influence. Peter says God has given us “*all* things pertaining to life and godliness”. This was 2,000 years ago, yet it states we have all things pertaining to life, implying we need nothing more than God’s word in regards to living life according to God’s will. This same Word, according to 2 Timothy, makes the man of God complete, thoroughly equipped for *every good work*. We need nothing else, no “cultural influence” to live godly lives.Not sure what you mean by not "needing" cultural influence. It's not a "need", it's an "is."

In the light of these statements, I cannot see how Christians should allow their culture to influence them. Romans admonishes us not to be conformed to this world, but to be transformed, be different than the culture around us, my the renewing of our mind.Yes, of course we're to be transformed, and those who are in Christ are being transformed. But that transformation isn't complete until our sanctification is complete, and that doesn't happen in this lifetime.

The reality is, there is a great deal of disagreement and debate among true regenerate believers as to the correct way in which we're to live out "the great commission" in the world in which we live. I don't claim to know all the answers, and frankly, if you're implying that they're self-evident for a Bible-believing Christian, then I don't believe you've given the matter sufficient thought.

If you are implying Calvin may have been blinded to what’s right, I can agree with you on this. This is not to say the man did not make tremendous contributions to the faith. Merely that he was human, and such, perhaps we give too much attention to his teachings rather than God’s teachings. And please to do respond with they were one in the same, as there is only one Word of God, we need no more. I like your signature quote regarding this.LOL I just changed my signature, but not because I've changed my mind about its validity or anything. It's vitally important that we prayerfully read and study Scripture ourselves if we've been so blessed as to have the ability to do so. And it's absolutely true that the Scriptures stand in a separate class from the writings of later theologians. And I certainly reject the idea that William Whitaker (the author of my previous signature quote) was rejecting--that the Scriptures aren't perspicuous (i.e., that they weren't written to be understood without some further special inspiration or additional revelation.) But that doesn't mean that God has in mind that each individual Christian is supposed to approach his study of Scripture as an individual--operating separately from the rest of the body of Christ. God says that some within the body are specially gifted as teachers, but we know that godly theologians/teachers are both teachers and students, themselves, of the rest of the body. We all learn from one another.

I realize you said you are not advocating cultural relativism, but that is exactly what you are saying here. If not, please define what cultural relativism is?Cultural relativism is the idea that there really is no objective standard by which any given cultural norm can be judged. A cultural relativist, for example, cannot say that forced slavery, for example, is wrong. He can only say that he finds it personally distasteful. I, on the other hand, can judge by the standards God has revealed in Scripture and in the human conscience, that forced slavery is wrong. What I can't do, though, is to presume that if I lived within an entirely different cultural context, I'd necessary recognize certain things as wrong that I can recognize while living in the culture I'm in. And what I also can't do is to presume that some of the things that I accept as acceptable or even good aren't necessarily really sinful.

When King Asa brought reform to Israel, he failed to remove the "high places"--places that were set apart to worship idols, but that God had never sanctioned as proper for worshipping Him. King Asa was culturally blinded, but he was still praised by God, (although not for this failure).

We need not emulate *any* previous historical culture, as, I said above, we have God’s Word to emulate. Paul said “be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.”Indeed, but we, as the church of Jesus Christ, work together to carry out the great commission, and we don't have perfect vision as to the correct way to do that. So we pray for guidance, and we mess up a whole lot, while God's strength continues to be made manifest through our weakness, and all the glory goes to Him alone.

I think this is too broad of a statement. There was as much diversity in the 16th century as there is today, hence all the wars, no?

In addition, it’s the miracle of the universality of the gospel that makes missionary work possible. We can take the same gospel to any culture in the world and it works, as it is in truth, not man’s words, but God, the creator’s words.Amen! But if you've been to different parts of the world and visited various churches, you'll see variations in cultural norms.

Through this thread, numerous texts, even in response to one of your previous questions, am not opposed to capital punishment per se, but it must fit crime, biblically, as the example given by God (prior to the law, I might add), Gen 9:6, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed.” I don’t see any crime other than murder as an appropriate crime justifying capital punishment. And I cannot see any example in God’s word where execution is an acceptable punishment for teaching contrary to God’s word.What about the punishment for false prophets in the Old Testament?

The apostles lived during a time when the church was under persecution--there was no Christian civil authority. In the sixteenth century, the church and the state were united. Now, again, I'm not justifying the execution of heretics, but I can understand the thinking of those who felt it was.

[michael servetus]

Dude, I was wrong!

[Rep Daddy]

Where you are now, are they impressed with your "The Trinity is a three headed cerbus comment?"

[Bastoune]

Dude, I was wrong!
LOL!!!

Michael Servetus, jetzt bist du DEUTSCHER geworden?!?!? ^_^

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

You don't think the Anabaptists were a threat to the orthodoxy of the Church? Somebody needs to catch up on their history.
One must be careful of how "Anabaptist" is defined. Zwingli over in Zurich was quite orthodox, and on par with Luther and Calvin. The term is often used to describe heretical groups that were also seditionists (and therefore justly deserving whatever penalty the state issued). These groups were actually closer to Deists and Modern day Unitarian/Universalists in beliefs, albeit far more militant.

I find it suprising that a Catholic would critisize Calvin for supporting the execution of someone spreading the Arian heresy.
Yes, in light of the fact that Servetus already carried the death sentence in Catholic Europe.

[PatrickM]

LOL!!!

Michael Servetus, jetzt bist du DEUTSCHER geworden?!?!? ^_^
LOL!, Nein, er ist ein AMERIKANER-DEUTSCHER!

[michael servetus]

LOL!!!

Michael Servetus, jetzt bist du DEUTSCHER geworden?!?!? ^_^Ich warin der Lage, meine Bitterkeit in Tätigkeit umzufunktionieren

[michael servetus]

Where you are now, are they impressed with your "The Trinity is a three headed cerbus comment?"
They weren't as impressed as God was.:cry:

[PatrickM]

One must be careful of how "Anabaptist" is defined. Zwingli over in Zurich was quite orthodox, and on par with Luther and Calvin. The term is often used to describe heretical groups that were also seditionists (and therefore justly deserving whatever penalty the state issued). These groups were actually closer to Deists and Modern day Unitarian/Universalists in beliefs, albeit far more militant.

Indeed, as with all Christian sub-groups, the Anabaptists had their fringe elements. However, I prefer to remember them as they were when such men as Menno Simons joined them. They were pacifists, and were as "sola scriptura" as anyone.

They didn't even call themselves Anabapstists. This was a perjorative used to castigate them, when they really didn't believe the first "infant" baptsism was valid in the first place. Hence the "Re-baptisers" was incorrect.

And be careful what one calls them, as they are now, today, the Mennonites.

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater!