Calvin & Servetus (Revisited)

Geoff Ashley writes:

In August of 1553, Switzerland, home of the reformer John Calvin. Two months later he was executed. To read many internet articles, Calvin systematically stalked and slaughtered any person who dared oppose him. This picture of Calvin painted by his critics is a caricature greatly distorting the truth.

Before harshly judging Calvin a heartless tyrant, let us first hear the facts of the case. Here are a few things to consider:

1. Heresy was a capital crime in Geneva. Unlike the modern, Western separation of church and state, the world Calvin inhabited was one in which no such division existed. To be guilty of theological error was to be guilty of criminal offense. This political system existed as the norm for the vast majority of the world. Indeed, all the Protestants and Roman Catholics who were consulted at the time agreed with the execution.

2. Calvin was not the ultimate authority in Geneva. He certainly was no dictator as he is often portrayed by the misinformed. The magisterial council (who formally decided the case) opposed Calvin (who was not a citizen of Geneva) and used the trial to demonstrate their authority over him. Calvin did not have final power to condemn or save Servetus.

3. Servetus was not condemned for Arminianism, but for Pelagianism (the denial of original sin), Modalism (an anti-Trinitarian heresy), Pantheism (a rejection of the fundamental distinction between Creator and creation) and other serious theological errors. To read most internet sensationalism, Calvin opposed anyone who opposed Calvinism. In truth, he opposed anyone who opposed the gospel.

4. Nearly two decades earlier, Servetus asked Calvin to leave the safety of Geneva to discuss their differences. Though Calvin was wanted by the authorities in the area in which they were to meet, he went at the risk of his own life to reconcile Servetus to the truth of the gospel. Servetus never showed.

5. Calvin corresponded with Servetus before and during his imprisonment, imploring him to recant. One letter read, “I neither hate you nor despise you; nor do I wish to persecute you; but I would be as hard as iron when I behold you insulting sound doctrine with so great audacity.” Reflecting later, Calvin wrote, “I reminded him gently how I had risked my life more than sixteen years before to gain him for our saviour. I would faithfully do my best to reconcile him to all good servants of God. Although he had avoided the contest I had never ceased to remonstrate kindly with him in letters. In a word, I had used all humanity to the very end, until he being embittered by my good advice hurled all manner of rage and anger against me.”

6. Calvin visited Servetus in prison and prayed with and for him. J.I. Packer stated, “Calvin, for the record, showed more pastoral concern for Servetus than anyone else connected with the episode.”

7. As Bruce Gordon wrote, “Heresy was a capital offense, but Calvin did not want Servetus to die.” When the council ordered execution by burning at the stake, Calvin alone intervened to appeal for a more merciful beheading. The council refused.

Of Calvin’s role in the Servetus affair, the historian Paul Henry writes:

…a nearer consideration of the proceeding, examined from the point of view furnished by the age in which he lived, will completely exonerate him from all blame. His conduct was not determined by personal feeling; it was the consequence of a struggle which this great man had carried on for years against tendencies to a corruption of doctrine which threatened the church with ruin. Every age must be judged according to its prevailing laws; and Calvin cannot be fairly accused of any greater offence than that with which we may be charged for punishing certain crimes with death.

While we might disagree that Calvin is completely exonerated from all criticism in the case, the actual circumstances should greatly temper the rabid accusations which are often leveled at him.

Calvin and the leading reformers of his day approved the death of a heretic. But does this blemish invalidate the whole of their teaching? Do David’s actions regarding Bathsheba and Uriah nullify the Psalms? Does Peter’s cowardice and prejudice negate his epistles? There is only One Who has ever perfectly passed the litmus test of character. Such unfortunate failures and flaws in His people highlight all the more the grace God lavishes on such dreadful sinners as us.

Years later, on the verge of death, Calvin wrote, “With my whole soul I embrace the mercy which [God] has exercised towards me through Jesus Christ, atoning for my sins with the merits of his death and passion, that in this way he might satisfy for all my crimes and faults, and blot them from his remembrance…I confess I have failed innumerable times to execute my office properly, and had not He, of His boundless goodness, assisted me, all that zeal had been fleeting and vain…For all these reasons, I testify and declare that I trust to no other security for my salvation than this, and this only, viz., that as God is the Father of mercy, he will show himself such a Father to me, who acknowledge myself to be a miserable sinner.”

Luke 23:34 – Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do

There is a meaningful and significant textual variant at Luke 23:34 in our Bibles. The variant has been placed in brackets in the following citation:

[But Jesus was saying, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”] And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves.

It may be something of a surprise to learn that many scholars (even those scholars who believe the Bible to be the very word of God) are not convinced that these words (attributed to Christ) were actually part of the original New Testament text.

Dr. James White is a critical consultant for the New American Standard Bible Update (1995). Here he is (below) discussing this verse with Alan Kurschner.

It really is a fascinating study, lasting just under an hour. Along the way, we learn a great deal about the field of textual criticism which seeks to ascertain the original words of the Bible.

Here is a link to the two graphics referred to in the program. The first is the textual data taken from Reuben Swanson, New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Luke (London, 1998) and the second is a blow up of the relevant portion of Codex Sinaiticus:

For those who would like to read a recent article on this same theme by Alan Kurschner, here is a link to check out.

How Sovereign is that?

God’s control is absolute in the sense that men do only that which He has ordained that they should do; yet they are truly free agents in the sense that their decisions are their own, and they are morally responsible for them. It’s hard to grasp that mentally. Actually it blows our minds. Yet these two things are taught constantly in the Bible: (1) God is totally Sovereign and (2) man is totally responsible.

Furthermore, while man’s motives may be impure, even the attempts to thwart God’s eternal plan, in fact, only serve to further it.

In Genesis 45:5 and 50:20, the Bible tells us that God planned the attempted murder and enslavement of Joseph so that He could eventually rescue millions of people from famine.

Genesis 50:20 – “As for you, YOU MEANT EVIL against me, but GOD MEANT IT FOR GOOD, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.”

Joseph tells his brothers that their plan was wicked – “You intended it for evil.” But God’s plan trumped their plan, Joseph explains, “But God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.”

As my friend, Dr. James White has commented, “The action of selling Joseph into slavery was, without question, an evil one. No one would argue this. Yet, Joseph says that God intended the action for good. God was working in the very same situation to bring about His intended purpose. The motivation of Joseph’s brothers was evil: the purpose of God in the very same action was good and pure.”

The story of Joseph teaches us that while man’s motives are often times impure, and while man is totally responsible for his actions, even the attempts to thwart God’s eternal plan in fact only serve to further it. How Sovereign is that?