View
221
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/12/2019 2001 Issue 2 - Michael Servetus: A Case Study in Calvin's Theonomic Application of the Law - Counsel of Chalcedon
1/10
Michael Servetus
A Case
Study
in Calvin's
Theonomic
Application of the Law
.
Robert
D. Stinson
I. The
Debate
t
has
been
variously referred to as
distorted'. , radiqal, "utopian" , and
" threatening, and this is by members of
the same general school of thought (those
outside of the tradition have not been quite
so kind; Barker. 11, 89, 257, 392)
Moreover, many regard it as an innovation
and
a more
recent
development,
rather than
an inherited
distinctive (245).
A
school
of
thought
bearing
the label'
Christian
Reconstruction' and characteristically
using
the term theonomy has been making
an
impact
on American religious and
political life in recent years" (9).
Westminster Seminary's symposium on
theonomy,
Theonomy: A Reformed
Critique,
represents to many
the
standard
academic and theological answer to
theonomy, despite the fact that theonomists
generally
regard
themselves as faithful
and
consistent champions of the
very
Reformed
faith that Westminster Seminary professes
to embody.
A. n Introduction to Theonomy
Dr. Greg Bahnsen, in By This Standard,
summarizes . he theonomic argument in
three
major
points : the authoritative and
objective character of morality in God 's
Law, the presumption of continuity in
Scripture,
and
the
obligation to socio
political morality in terms of God's Law
(this summary is by no means
comprehensive or
standardized, but is
intended to
be
a concise presentation
of
the
thrust
of the position; Dr. Bahnsen, for
instance, in Theonomy in Christian Ethics,
summarizes theonomy in ten points , and .
other
theonomic spokesmen have
summarized the position in different, but
equally validways; By 2-3; Theonomy xvi
xvii). Theonomy is often affirmed
within
the broad context of Christian .
Reconstructionism, alongside an
affirmation
of
traditional Calvinism and
covenant theology, presuppositiojlal
apologetics,
and
postmillennial eschatology
. (though Dr. Bihnsen denies any necessary
correlation between eschatology and
normative ethics; Sandlin; By 8). The
various distinctives of Reconstructionism
are beyond the scope of this study and will,
hereafter, be taken for granted; aspect
of theonomy will be treated exclusively.
First, theonomy emphasizes
the
authoritative and objective character
of
morality
embodied
in
God's
Law
, as
opposed
to autonomous systems of ethics
. which are subjectiveand are
defined by
sinful speculation" By 2). Theonomy,
taken literally, means G o d s Law" (it is a
compound of tht: Greek roots "theos,"
meaning God, and "nomos," meaning law;
The Covenant viii). Building lIpon the
presupposition
of
the Christian world view,
theonomy
asks the question, what should
be
man's
standard of morality/ethics?
Apart from the objective revelation of
God's
righteous law-requirements, man is
left without an adequate, authoritative
standard for living.
In
fact, man 's only
alternative, the theonomist claims, is
autonomy, which necessarily amounts to
chaos and tyranny (and without Biblical
law, man loses all principle moral objection
to chaos and tyranny, for he has no
standard in terms of which he may define
,right and wrong; Theonomy 5-7, 18-19).
"We cannot make our final appeal to
reason," says Gary DeMar, President
of
American Vision, an educational ministry
in Atlanta, "becallse our minds are tainted
by the effects of sin. We cannot make our
30 " THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon - February March, 2001
8/12/2019 2001 Issue 2 - Michael Servetus: A Case Study in Calvin's Theonomic Application of the Law - Counsel of Chalcedon
2/10
final appeal to the majority, because the
majority often enacts laws that perpetuate
self-interest...The Bible, the whole Bible,
is our final standard for every area of life.
Everything is under Christ's Lordship.
Everything we do must be done
in
obedience to him (DeMar 19, 22).
Second, theonomy insists
upon
the
hermeneutical principle
of
the presumption
of
continuity between the Old and
New
Testaments. Because He [Christ], writes
Dr. Bahnsen, did not come to abrogate the
Old Testament, and because not one stroke
of
the law will become invalid until the end
of
the world .. our attitude must be that all
Old Testament laws are presently our
obligation
unless
further revelation from
the.Lawgiver shows that some change has
been made
By
2-3). In fact, he says
elsewhere, to deny that dictates revealed
in the
Old Testament are unchanging moral
absolutes is implicitly to endorse the
position of
cultural relativism
in ethics ...
House
30). This certainly does not imply
that there are NO discontinuities between
Testaments, but simply that man is
obligated to presume continuity until
Scripture dictates otherwise. Theonomists,
in fact, admit to significant cultural
discontinuities as well as redempti ve
historical discontinuities in the law
House
32). An entire chapter in Dr.
Bahnsen's By
This Standard
is devoted to discontinuities
between the Old and New Testaments,
emphasizing the distinction between
redemptive aspects of the law (e.g., the
sacrificial system) and moral aspects of the
law (e.g., Thou shalt not kill), the former
having been fulfilled in Christ (the Lamb
of
God who offered Himself as the once
for-all sacrifice) and no longer literal ly
binding, the latter representing eternally
binding and unchanging standards
of
righteousness By 154-168). Cultural
differences between the societies in which
revelation was inscripturated and modern
societies are recognized as well.
Theonomists
do
not expect the case- laws
of
the Old Testament to simply be lifted
from ancient Israel and implanted into
modern America so that, for example,
American citizens are obligated
to build
fences around their rooftops. Rather,
theonomists recognize that the principle
of
safeguarding life is normative and binding
today, so that instead of fences around
rooftops, citizens should place fences
around swimming pools to
prevent
the
drowning of small children No 46-47).
Theonomists
do
not
practice nor advocate
anything like a
'direct' move from the
unchanging character of God,
or
the old .
covenant code, to modern law-codes, but
insist upon careful, responsible exegesis in
order to arrive at the faithful execution of
the intent
of
the law
No 50).
Nevertheless, it must be re- emphasized
that theonomy operates under the
presumption of continuity until Scripture
itself
directs otherwise, safeguarding
the
ethical unity of Scripture, finding its
unchanging moral standard revealed
throughout the whole Bible
House 44).
The third aspect
of
theonomy, and the
aspect that has excited most attention
and
disagreement, is the insistence upon the
obligation of socio-political morality in
terms of God's Law, including
Scripture's
penal sanctions for violators
of
the law
(Barker 171). Civil magistrates
in all ages
and
places
are obligated to conduct their
offices
as
ministers of God, avenging
divine wrath against criminals and giVing
an account
of
the Final
Day of
their service
before the King of kings ...The civil
precepts
of
the
Old
Testament are a model
of perfect social
justice
for all cultures,
even in the punishment
of
criminals
(italics added;
Theonomy
xvii). Unless
we affirm a sphere of neutrality, says
DeMar,
in
which God is not Lord and
King, then Paul's statement [2 Timothy
FebruarylMarch, 2 1 - THE COUNSEL
of
Chalcedon 31
8/12/2019 2001 Issue 2 - Michael Servetus: A Case Study in Calvin's Theonomic Application of the Law - Counsel of Chalcedon
3/10
3: 16-17] implies that the Bible is useful for
the
Christian
in
his social and political
duty, as much as in his personal life of
devotion to
the
Lord (20) .
t
is the socio-political application that
is the crux
oftheonomy
(Barker 13). It is
customary, within the Calvinistic tradition,
to
affirm the objective, authoritative
character
of God's
Law, as well as the
presumption
of
continuity in the believer 's
obligation to uphold the Law (Ferguson) .
However, many Calvinists stop short of
affirming an obligation to apply the Law
politically. Dennis Johnson, Associate
Professor
of
New
Testament at Westminster
Theological Seminary, contends, the mere
fact
that
a penalty was prescribed in the
law
of
Moses for Israelites who had
scorned their covenant privilege does not
automatically authorize a modern state to
purge
its populace with equivalent
punishments (Barker 191-192). John R.
Muether, Librarian at Reformed
Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida,
criticizes theonomy as a politicalized
gospel that threatens the Reformed doctrine
of
the spirituality of the church (Barker
258).
Sinclair
Ferguson, Professor of
Systemat ic Theology at Westminster,
affirms the usefulness and spiritual
obligation
of
the Christian to uphold the
law,
but
asserts that theonomy is foreign to
the
Reformed
tradition (Barker 348-349;
Ferguson).
Since
the origin
of theonomy is
presumably located in the Reformed and
Calvinistic circles, debates concerning
theological heritage have been granted a
place
of
prominence in the scholarship
of
advocates and opponents of theonomy. Its
opponents are eager to demonstrate
that
the
theonomic position cannot be attributed to
the fathers of the tradition, i.e., the
Westm
ln
sierDlvli
lt:s,the
NewEngland
Puritans , and most notably, John Calvin
himself
(Barker 299-312, 315-349, 353-
384).
W
Robert Godfrey, Professor of
Church History at Westminster, for
instance, claims that when it comes to law
and
civil government, Calv
in
and theonomy
do not bave much in common (Barker
312). William S. Barker, also a Professor
of
Church History at Westminster, and
editor
of
Theonomy: A Reformed Critique
concurs: John Calvin, with an emphasis
on
equity and natural law in the area
of
civil law, represents an entirely different
line of thinking from theonomists in this
regard (Barker 295).
Theonomists (with the notable exception
of
the late Rousas
J
Rushdoony), however,
expend
much effort in demonstrating that
the principles embodied in theonomy were
commonly accepted
by
the fathers, in
general, and
by
Calvin, in particular. Gary
North
, in the Publishers Preface to
The
Covenant Enforced
argues: Biblical law
served the basis of Calvin's ethics. This is
why
he should be classified
as
a sixteenth
century theonomist. But it was more than
simply his commitment to the requirement
of
obeying God's law that made him a
theonomist. He also held a social theory
that
was essentially theonomist in
approach (xii). DeMar, in
Theonomy:
n
Informed Response
states: There is a very
direct thinking process that leads someone
who views Calvinism to be the most
consistent expression of Christianity to
adopt
the distinctives of theonomy.
Theonomy is Calvinism's judicial theology
applied .Theonomy is the application of
Reformed theology to the sphere of ethics
(26). An examination of Calvin's
practica l writings, says James B. Jordan in
the Editor's
Preface to
The Covenant
Enforced
will reveal that he used the
Mosaic
law, including its judicial aspects,
as the foundation for. social, political, and .
legal wisdOm, and-generally favOred .
imitating
the
Mosaic laws in the modern
world (xxxiii). Dr. Bahnsen writes:
32 -
THE
COUNSEL
of
Chalcedon - FebruarylMarch,
2 1
8/12/2019 2001 Issue 2 - Michael Servetus: A Case Study in Calvin's Theonomic Application of the Law - Counsel of Chalcedon
4/10
Calvin saw thi: law of God as directing
life into the paths of righteousness; it was
taken to be as applicable to the individual
believer as the society in which he lived,
in
which society it served to restrain the
public evil of men Theonomy 3).
B
Calvin
and
Theonomy
Considering the fact that theonomists
and non-theonomists within Reformed
circles desire to be loyal to and consistent
with the teaching embodied in Calvinism,
it
would be profitable to examine
Calvin's
writings with regard to theonomic
principles.
In Book 2, chapter 7 of the Institutes
Calvin takes up a discussion
of
the
traditional division of the moral law into
three uses. In discussing the first use of
the law - the punitive/pedagogical use -
Calvin affirms the authoritative and
objective characterof .morality.
The
.first
part
is this: while itsh9WS God's
righteousness, thatis, the
righteousness
alone acceptable to God, it warns, informs,
convicts, and last)y condemns every man of
his own unrighteousness (italics added;
354). Attempts at righteousness that are
not grounded in revelation, Calvin
continues, are counterfeit acts of
righteousness (355).
t
is only in the law,
Calvin argues, that man finds objective
standards of right and wrong:
But
after he
is compelled to weigh his life in the scales
of the law, laying aside all that
presumption of fictitious righteousness, he
discovers that he is a long way from
holiness, and is in fact teeming with a
multitude of vices, with which he
previously thought
himself
undefiled
(355). In his sermons on Psalm 119,
Calvin stateS: .if we be desirous to order
our life as it becometh us, to have it rightly
governed, and to be pure and simple, we
must hold to the way which GOD
hath
set
before us (24).
Let
us have an eye to the
commandments of God, he exhorts
the
believer,
let
our eyes be settled on them,
and look not on our own reason, nor
of
our
natural sense, neither yet
of
any other thing
that lieth in our own power. for our life is
outrageous
if
we pass the limits and bounds
which he hath appointed
us
(18-19).
Calvin, then, certainly
taught
that
righteousness is to be found in the Law, to
the exclusion of any other source (i.e., our
own reason, our
natural
sense, our
ow
power, etc.).
With regard to the presumption
of
continuity between the
Old
and
New
Testament, Calvin argues,
Now
we can
clearly see from what has already been said
that all men adopted
by
God into the
company of his people since the beginning
of
the world were covenanted to him
by
the
same law and
by
the bond
of
the same
doctrine as obtains among us ... The
covenant made with all the patriarchs is so
much like ours in substance and reality
that
the two are actually one and the same
Institutes 428-429) . Since there is, then ,
an essential unity between the Old and
New
Testaments, it follows
that just
as the
Old Testament saints were ohligated to
uphold the law, so are the saints in the
New
Testament age: if no one can deny that a
perfect pattern of righteousness stands
forth in the law, either we need no rule to
live rightly and justly,
or it
is forbidden to
depart from the law. There are not many
rules,
but
one everlasting and unchangeable
rule to live by. For this reason we are
not
to refer solely to one age
David's
statement
that the life of a righteous man is a
continual meditation upon the law [Ps.
I :2], for it is
just
as applicable to every
age, even to the end
of
the world (362).
Whatever has been declared in Scripture,
says Calvin,
it
is fitting to take as
perpetual, even as necessary (353).
Calvin, of course, was
not
ignorant of
some discontinuities. For example, he
FebruarylMarcl), 2001 - THE COUNSEL
of
Chalcedon - 33
8/12/2019 2001 Issue 2 - Michael Servetus: A Case Study in Calvin's Theonomic Application of the Law - Counsel of Chalcedon
5/10
recognized the redemptive/typological
nature
of ceremonial law, and
acknowledged
that
such ceremonial
precepts
were
not
concretely binding
upon
the New
Testament believer: they [the
ceremonial
laws] have been abrogated not
in effect ut only in use (italics added;
364). Elsewhere
he says,
what
is
more vain or absurd than for
men
to
offer
a loathsomestertch frOtn the
fat of cattle
in order to reconcile
themselves
to God? Yet
that very
type
shows
that
God did not
command
sacrifices
in order to
busy
his
worshipers with earthly
exercises. Rather,
he
did so that he
might
lift their minds higher, i.e., to Christ
(349). Calvin, furthermore, argued for a
covenantal
discontinuity
in
some other
senses: that
believers, with the
inauguration of the
New
Covenant, are no
longer under the law as a curse; that
spiritual
blessings were represented,
in the
Old Testament, by temporal blessings; that
the Old was external, while the New is
internal; and that
the
Old was
confined to a
geopolitical
nation,
while
the
New
is
international (362; 450-460).
Nevertheless, the
believer
is still to operate
under the
assumption
of
continuity
in
the
law, for [Christ] sufficiently confirms that
by his coming nothing is going to be taken
away from the observance of the law. And
justly - inasmuch as he came rather to
remedy transgressions
of
it (363). Calvin,
theiefore,affirmed , he theonomic principle
of the presumption of continuity.
As previously stated, the first two
princip les of theonomy
ate
generally
accepted
among Calvinistic Christians.
t
is the
principle of
the socio-political
application of the law that is
subject
to
most controversy. There is no shortage of
Calvinistic scholars who deny Calvin's
affirmation
of
this distinctive.
In
fact,
even Rousas
J. Rushdoony, champion
and
pioneer
of the
Christian
Reconstruction
movement,
when
referring to comments
made
by
Calvin in B.ook 4, chapter 20
of
the
Institutes,
accuses Calvin of heretical '
nonsense ,
at
this point: Calvin favored
'the common law of
nations.' But
the
common
law of
nations in his day was
Biblical law,
although
extensively
denatured
by
Roman
law.
And
this
'common law of nations' was increasingly
evidencing a new religion, hutnanism (9).
North,
howev'er, rebuts that the guarded
affirmation in the
Institutes
of a universal
law of nations in preference to Mosaic
law, Calvin rejec ts in hiS sermons on
Deuteronomy 28 (Political 693). Is this
evidence
of
a contradiction in
Calvin's
thinking, or is it simply a demonstration of
a refinement in Calvin's thought
(for
Calvin delivered his sermons
on
Deuteronomy from 1555-1556, late in the
course
of
his theological development)?
Whatever the case, valuable insight into the
question of the,responsibility of the civil
magistrate to enforce God's Law can .be
gleaned from the controversy
between
Calvin and Michael Servetus.
II. A Case Study in Theonomy :
The
Michael Servetus
Affair
The
Calvinistic tradition is often
characterized by fierce theological
disagreement,
ranging
from internal
disputes on theonomy; apologetical
methodology, etc., to external disputes on
predestination
and
f r ~ will. Calvin,
in
his
own
day, was certllinly no st ranger to '
controversy. In fact, his magnus' opus, The
Institutes
of
the Christian Religion, is not
simply an exercise in systematic theology, .
but
an
~ p o l o g e t i c a l
treatise;
addressedto
'
the Catholic King F t a n i ~ I, intending'to :
vindicate French Protestants against the
slanderous accusations of heresy and
sedition (1 :9-31).
AmongCalvin's
opponents,
h o w e v ~ r
his )11ost notorious '
was the
heretical
philosopher and
theologian, Michael Servetus.
Christian
34 - THE COUNSEL of Cbalcedon - February/Marcb, 2001 '
8/12/2019 2001 Issue 2 - Michael Servetus: A Case Study in Calvin's Theonomic Application of the Law - Counsel of Chalcedon
6/10
History
magazine,
in
an article entitled
The
Servetus Affair, states: if Calvin is
remembered for anything beyond his
doctrine of predestination, it was his part
in the trial of Michael Servetus (29) .
Thomas J. Davi
s
assistant
professor
of
religious studies at Indiana University
Purdue University
of
Indianapolis , agrees,
calling the affair one of only two matters
of substance [the other, predestination]
mentioned in most textbook treatments
of
Calvin (237), t is from this incident,
Davis continues, that the common image
of
Calvin as cold, intolerant, and bigoted
arises (238-239). An investigation of the
matter, however, demonstrates that Calvin
was neither eager
nor
cold in the
condemnation
of
Servetus, nor was the trial
a
product of
personal bigotry
or
intolerance. Rather, the Servetus affair
prompted Calvin to a remarkable
demonstration of pastoral warmth (toward
Servetus) and fervent loyalty (to the
Law
of God). In a society which has baptized
the notion of popular sovereignty, and in a
nation which has divorced
God's
Law from
the sphere of public policy, it is not
surprising that Calvin's loyalty to the Law
has come to be regarded as intolerant and
misguided (Political 85).
111
a society
which
has
haptized rhe
n()t ion
of
popular sovereignty,
and in
a nation
which
has divorced
God's
Law
from
the
sphere of public
policy, it is not surprising th,tt
Calvin's lovalty
to
the Law
has
.
come to be regarded as
intolerant and misguided.
A. Michael Servetus in History
Michael Servetus was, according to
Philip Schaff, one of the most remarkable
men in the history of heresy (786). His
mental endowments and acquirements
were
of a high order, and placed him far above
the heretics of his age and almost on an
equality with the Reformers, and though
he had much uncommon sense, he
lacked balance and soundness (786-787).
Much
of Servetus'
childhood is
shrouded
in mystery - Schaff suggests that he was
born in Villanova, Spain
in
1509,
but
Eugen Lachenmann insists that he was
more probably born in Tudela, Spain in
1511 (the confusion is
due
to
inconsistencies in Servetus' own claims
about his childhood during his trials at
Vienne and Geneva; Schaff 712;
Lachenmann 371). The son ofa lawyer,
Servetus was expected to enter into the
legal profession, and until 1530, most of
his energies were diligently spent in that
direction as he studied at the Universities
of
Saragossa and Toulouse (both of
which
were strictly Catholic and wary of the
Protestant movement). t was at Toulouse
that
he first
saw .a complete copy
of
the
Bible, and though he
subjected
it to his
speculative fancy, he eventually adopted
the Protestant
pr
inciple
of
the
supremacy
and sufficiency
of
the
Bible
(Schaff 712-
713).
Though he demonstrated early promise
,
Servetus' journey toward international
infamy was swift. In 1525, he was
employed as the amanuensis to Juan de
Quintana, Franciscan friar and chaplain to
Holy Roman Emperor Charles V but in
1530, probably on suspicion of heresy,
he was dismissed (714). F
rom
there,
Servetus traveled
throughout Switzerland
. where, in 1531, he completed his first
book,
Errors on the Trinity
a
remarkable
treatise on the Trinity and Incarnation iti
opposition to the traditional and
ecumenical faith which accused
Trinitarians of tritheism and atheism,
provoking the ire
of
Catholics and
Protestants alike (716,
718)
. The
next
year,
he
published
his
dialogue on
the
FebruarylMarch, 2001 - THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon - 35
8/12/2019 2001 Issue 2 - Michael Servetus: A Case Study in Calvin's Theonomic Application of the Law - Counsel of Chalcedon
7/10
Trinity in which he retracted the
theological
assertions
of
his former
work
as
childish
and made several formal
concessions regarding the doctrine,
but
he
maintained that neither the ancient Church
nor
the Reformers understood the Bible so
that
he could
agree with neither party
entirely (Lachenmann 371). Servetus,
however, failed to placate the Protestants,
for in his dialogue regarding Justification,
published
the same year,he rejected
Luther
' s doctrine
of
justification as well as
the Lutheran and Zwinglian doctrines
of
the sacraments (Schaff 720) .
Disgruntled
with his lack
of
approval
among his' theological peers, Servetus soon
left Switzerland for France, assumed the
name Michel de Villeneuve, and from 1532
to the mid, 1540s, devoted
himself
to the
study of geography, astrology, the classics,
and
most
significantly, medicine .
t
was in
the medical discipline that he made his
most lasting contribution, publishing a
significant
book
on the 'medicinal
use
of
syrups, and becoming the first to describe
the
pulmonary
circulation
of
the
blood
( Servetus ;
Schaff
724) .
During the years, however, Servetus was
by
no means theo
10
gically stagnant,
but
was
gradually
developing the thesis for
what would amount to his most significant
theological production, Restitution o
Christianity, in which he sought to prove
that primitive Christianity had been
corrupted by the early ecUmenical
counci ls (Lachenmann 311). He
continued, furthermore, to invoke the
disrepute
of
the leading churchmen
of
the
day,
Protestant
and Catholic. In 1534, in
What
amounted to history 's most
momentous
no
show , Servetus
challenged
the
young John Calvin to a
public debate in Paris,
but
he never arrived.
In
1538, he
was
forced to leave the
CatholiC UniverSity
of
Paris due to his
views
on
the juridical value
of
astrology
(371) . In 1540, he began an eight-year '
correspondence with Calvin (who 'had
earned an international reputation with the
publication
of
his Institutes in 1536) on a
wide range
of
issues, from the analogy of
circumcision and baptism (which Servetus
denied) to baptismal regeneration (which
he affirmed; Schaff 725-732). In the
course
of
these discussions, ' he would
effect his most significant departures from
traditional orthodoxy, denying Christ's
deity and hypostatic union, and reasserting
his denial
of
the doctrine
of
the Trinity,
regarding it as the creation
of a t h r ~
headed Cerberus (728-731). Calvin was
so revolted by Servetus' contentions that ,
in a letter to Guillame Farel
on
February
13
, 1546, he declared:
I f
he [Servetus]
comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go
out alive
if
my authority has weight
(Lachenmann 371). Calvin, however,
never induced Servetus to come to Geneva
and left him severely alone (SChaff 730).
Reaching a point
of
mutual irritation,
Servetus finally broke the correspondence
in 1548, accusing Calvin
of
worshiping
a
fabulous monster
of
the enslaved will
(731).
In
1553, after years
of
intense discussion
and theological development, he secretly
published his Restitution o Christianity
(the title is an obvious reference to
Calvin's
Institutes
o
the Christian
Religion , formally expounding
n e l e t i ~
theological system ofApollinarianism,
Sabellianism, Christopaniheism, semi,-
Pelagianism, chilialism, etc., (CalvinI47, ',
490-493;
Durant481;
Lachenmann 371-
372;
Schaff
740, 742, 745-747, 756). His
Restitution was
a
manifesto '
of
w
ar
against Roman and Protestant Christianity, '
and Rome accepted the challenge (Schaff
733-734). Following the paper-trail of
Servetus ' lengthy correspondence with
Calvin, the Inquisition identified Servetus
as
the
author of the work and, on April 4,
36 'I1II ; COUNSEL ofChalcedon - FebruaryfMarch, 2001
8/12/2019 2001 Issue 2 - Michael Servetus: A Case Study in Calvin's Theonomic Application of the Law - Counsel of Chalcedon
8/10
1553, arrested him on a charge of heresy
(some suggest that Calvin was actively
instrumental in Servetus' capture, though
he denied cooperation with Catholic
authorities as a calumny ; Lachenmann
372; Schaff 758).
On
AprilS,
he was brought before a
court in Vienne and, during the two days
of
examination, he denied that he was
Servetus, claiming to have adopted the
name of that scholar that he might measure
himself with Calvin in dialectics
but
never
intending to differ with the teachings of the
Church (Lachenmann 372;
Schaff
761). In
the early morning of April 7, Servetus
escaped Vienne. Nevertheless, the trial
continued and, on June 17, he was
condemned to the stake; his books and his
effigy were burned in his stead
(Lachenmann 372).
Initially intending
to
flee to Spain,
Servetus found the escape-route unsafe and
decided, instead, to go to Italy and live out
the rest of his days as a physician (Schaff
764). For some unknown reason, however,
his route
took
him directly into the home of
his arch-nemesis, Calvin's Geneva. With
little discretion, Servetus
took
up lodging
in Geneva, excited attention with his dress
(he was fond of wearing gold chains and
rings), and boldly attended a church
service. During the service, he was
recognized and arrested (764).
From August
15
to October 26, Servetus
was tried on thirty-eight charges which lay
little stress on the Trinitarian problems
but attacked primarily the basal ideas of
the Restitution that all Christianity which
had previously existed was corrupt, that the
Reformation was un-Christian, and that all
who differed from Servetus were damned
(Lachenmann 372). After solic iting the
opinion of
four other Swiss cities - Bern,
Basel, Zurich, and Schaffhausen - the
Geneva Council, on October 26, with no
member dissenting, passed sentence
of
death on two counts
of
heresy -
Unitarianism and the
rejection of infant
baptism (Durant 484). Following the
condemnation, Calvin
pleaded with
Servetus to reject his errors and embrace
the true faith, but his plea fell on
deaf
ears.
Years later, Calvin wrote:
I
was
even
willing to risk my own life to win him to
our Lord,
if
possible ( The Servetus ...
29) . Passionately, Calvin appealed to the
Geneva Council for a more merciful form
of execution. The Council refused
(Latourette 759; Schaff 783-784). Two
hours before his execution, Servetus
had
begged Calvin for a pardon, to which
Calvin responded that he
had never
thought of revenging
himself
on
him
for
any personal injuries, and exhorted him to
ask forgiveness of God; but finding
that
what he said was unavailing, he, '
according
to St. Paul's command, went away from the
heretic, who was condemned
by
his own
conscience' (Dunn 40). On October 27,
1553, Servetus was burned at the
stake
.
B. The Justification o Servetus
Execution on Theonomic Grounds
To
Calvin's opponents, as stated earlier,
the Servetus affair has gone down in
history as an outburst
of
cruel
tyranny
instigated
by
a personal intolerance
and/or
an understanding of the relationship of
church
and
state peculiar to his day.
The
suppression of outspoken religious dissent
by force, wrote George P. Fisher, former
Professor
of
Ecclesiastical History
at
Yale,
was an inevitable result of the principles
on which the Genevan state was
established. The Reformers can never be
fairly
judged
unless it is kept in
mind
that
they were strangers to the limited
idea of
the proper function
of
the state,
which
was
come into vogue in more recent
times
(222). However, he states elsewhere, the
Servetus affair was
a
melancholy example
of
the prevailing idea (Davis 237).
FebtuarylMarch,
2001 - THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon - 37
8/12/2019 2001 Issue 2 - Michael Servetus: A Case Study in Calvin's Theonomic Application of the Law - Counsel of Chalcedon
9/10
Alexander
Fraser Tytler Woodhouse lee,
quoted
in Thomas Davis
's
essay, Images
of
Intolerance, expresses admiration for
Calvin's
intellect
but
condemned him for
his
'intolerance
and .spirit of
persecution' (237). Calvin biographer,
Georgia Harkness, asserts: the
responsibility [for Servetus' execution]
rests heavily enough upon Calvin, and
it
rests still
more
heavily
upon
the intolerant
spirit
of
he age (44).
Ascribing Calvin's participation in the
Servetus affair to a certain social condition
or to
personal bigotry is quite fallacious.
Rather, Calvin saw
in
Servetus' execution
the faithful administration of the Biblical
Law's
penal sanctions
with
regard to
blasphemy. Calvin was
fulfilling
what he
believed to be the theonomic duty
of
the
civil magistrate.
Calvin's
doctrine
of
the
absolute authority
of
Scripture, Harkness
writes, is the source of much of his
intolerance
(l08).
Schaff, who was ..
neither sympathetic to' a theonomic
hermeneutic nor to Calvin'5 involvement in
the Servetus affair, nevertheless admits:
Calvin's
plea for the'
right
and duty .
of
the
Christian magistrate to
punish
heresy
by
,
death, stands or falls with his theocratic
theory and the binding authority of the
Mpsaic code .
His
arguments are chiefly
drawn from the Jewish laws against
idolatry and blasphemy, and from the
examples of the pious .kings of Israel
(792) . .
In Book II -of the
Institutes,
Calvin
expounds. and affirms the traditional
understanding of the political use of the
law. The second function
of
the law,
says Calvin,
is
this: at least
by
fear of
punishment
to restrain certain men who are
untouched
by
any care for what is
just
and
right unless compelled
by
hearing the dire
threats in the law. :.the law is like a halter
to
check the raging and otherwise
limitlessly ranging lusts
of
the flesh
(358). Calvin's presupposition of the
abiding validity
of
the law
's
penal
sanctions is c'6bspicuous here and in his
theological
justi
fication for Servetus'
death.
The execution
of
Servetus,
though
largely approved as
just
by Catholics
and
Protestants
at
the time, did provoke some
significant disapproval. Not only
dissenters and personal enemies, says
Schaff,Ubut
alsO
, as
Beza
admits, .some
orthodox and pious people and friends of
Calvin were dissatisfied with the
severitjl .
of
the punishment (790). In 1554; CalVin
responded by publishing his
Defense of the ;
Orthodox Faith
and theHoly
Trinitjl
gainst the Prodigious Errors
of
Michael
Servetus
in which he explicated and
defended the duty of the civil magistrate to
punish heresy.
Servetus'
execution, Calvin
argued, was justified on Biblical grounds.
Making reference to the sanctions in
Deuteronomy
13
against idolatry, Calvin
argued, We ought to trample under
foot
every affection
of
nature when
it
is a
question of his [God's] honor. The father
should not spare his son , the brother tile ' .
. brother,
n )r
the husband his own
wife.
If
he
has
some friend who is,dear
to him
as .
his own life, let him
put
himto
death
(Harkriess 107). Elsewhere, Calvin'
appealed to the
Old
Testament in defense
of
capital punishment
fot
blasphemy . .
Reformation).
Calvin ,cqntinued, in
his'
Defense,
to
justify
the punishment of
heretics
by
appealing to Romans
13
arid to
various incidences throughout the'
New
- :
Testament (e.g.; the judgmerit
of
Ananias
and Sapphira, the delivery
of
Hymeneaus .
and Alexander
to
Satan, etc.;
Schaff792)
.
Though he vigorously sought to repel
heresy, however, .Calvin never
advocated
the wholesale slaughter of heretics. More
broad-minded than many of his
successors:'
says Harkness, he. recognized
three grades of error - that which
could
be
38 THE COUNSEL ofChlilCcdon - FebruarylMarch, 2001
8/12/2019 2001 Issue 2 - Michael Servetus: A Case Study in Calvin's Theonomic Application of the Law - Counsel of Chalcedon
10/10
pardoned with a reprimand, that to be
mildly punished, and that to be
exterminated by death (110).
t
is where
heresy amounted to obstinant blasphemy,
idolatry, and sedition that Calvin affirmed
the obligation to punish by death.
The theological/exegetical merits or
demerits
of
Calvin's defense
of
Se
rvetus'
execution will not be treated here. What is
to be noted, however, is
that
for Calvin,
Servetus was a blasphemer and an idolater
(in that he worshiped another God) and,
therefore, brought himself under the civil
sanctions prescribed in Scripture for such
offenses , namely, death. What is apparent
in the Servetus affair - the affirmation
of
the socio-political application of God's law
- is explicitly stated in Calvin's
commentary on Psalm 72:
By
the terms
righteousness
and
judgment,
the Psalmists
means a due and well-regulated
administration of government, which he
opposes to the tyrannical and unbridled
license of heathen kings, who, despi sing
God, rule according to the dictates
of
their
own wilL.From the words we learn by the
way, that no government in the world can
be rightly managed but under the conduct
of
God, and
by
the guidance
of
the Holy
Spirit ..David teaches us that the people
would enjoy prosperity and happiness,
when the affairs of the nation were
administered according to the principles of
righteousness ...
(Theonomy 3).
III Conclusion:
Calvin the Theonomist
What has been
of
primary concern
throughout the preceding pages is the
question of Calvin's affirmation of
theonomy as a matter
of
historical fact.
t
has been demonstrated that Calvin affirmed
the heart of the theonomic system by
practicing and/or teaching the objective
and authoritative character of morality in
God's Law, the presumption
of
continuity,
and the socio-political application of
God's
Law. To dispute that theonomy is Biblical
is one thing, but to dispute that theonomy
is Calvinistic is another, as
Michael
Servetus would attest.
North
writes, the
Calvinist social ideal is the ideal of
Christendom .. this is what the debate over
theonomy is all about (86). Rejecting
theonomy, he continues, is
not
Calvinistic
,
but
Lutheran (83 -86). For
Calvin
,
the
possibility
of justice
and order
outside
of
God's law was unthinkable, as
evident
in
Article 3 of the Geneva Confession of
Faith of 1536: Because there is only one
Lord
and
Master
who has
dominion
over
our consciences, and because his will is
the
only principle
of
all
justice, we confess
all
our life to be ruled in accordance with the
commandments of his holy law in which is
contained all perfection of justice .. (Reid
27).
Works Cited
Bahnsen, Greg L.
By
This Standard:
The Authority
of
God s
Law
Today.
Tyler,
TX: Institute for Christian
Economics
,
1985.
.
No Other Standard:
Theonomy and Its Critics.
Tyler, TX:
Institute for Christian Economics, 1991.
Reformation Theology:
n
Exposition
o f
John Calvin s Institutes
o
he
Christian Religion.
Vol. 1 Audiocassette.
Covenant Media Foundation. 1981-1983.
81
vols .
.
Theonomy
in
Christian
Ethics .
Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
Reformed, 1984. Barker, William S., and
Robert Godfrey, ed. h
eonomy: A
Reformed
Critique.
Grand
Rapids
:
Zondervan, 1990.
Calvin, John.
The Covenant Enforced:
Sermons on Deuteronomy
27
and 28.
Trans. James B. Jordan. Tyler, TX :
Institute for Christian Economics, 1990.
FebruarylMarch, 2001 - THE COUNSEL
of
Chalcedon - 39
Recommended