![\"Burning](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/385\/2015\/06\/Dollarphotoclub_38223817.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nWhen I\u2019ve written about Calvinism I\u2019ve not infrequently heard \u201cthat\u2019s just a caricature of Calvinism,\u201d or that I don\u2019t understand what Calvinism actually teaches (neither of which are true).\u00a0\u00a0While it\u2019s true some of my critiques may not apply to some modern American Calvinists (who in all honesty, probably shouldn\u2019t call themselves Calvinists), when I talk about Calvinism I\u2019m talking about the\u00a0theology of John Calvin<\/em>\u00a0himself.<\/p>\n I think the irony that often occurs isn\u2019t that I don\u2019t understand Calvinism, but that many modern Calvinists have never actually read what John Calvin taught. Calvinist writer and pastor Tim Callies completely agrees<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201cMany, and no doubt most Calvinists have never read a word<\/em> of John Calvin<\/strong>. Instead they reluctantly call themselves Calvinists because they feel John Calvin was gifted by God to understand and interpret the Scriptures and that he restored to the church doctrine that had been lost for hundreds of years.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Perhaps one of the chief issues in modern Calvinism is that many don\u2019t understand what their founder taught, or how he lived. I honestly don\u2019t understand how one could be a Calvinist without first reading Calvin himself; I certainly wouldn\u2019t want to be a Christian without reading what Christ said, or part of any other movement following the teachings of a person without\u00a0actually reading<\/em>\u00a0the teachings of\u00a0that<\/em>\u00a0person.<\/p>\n When reading Calvin there\u2019s no shortage of problematic\u00a0stuff one will find, as\u00a0Zack Hunt articulately wrote about recently<\/a>. From teaching that God not only picks who will go to heaven but also picks who will go to hell (before they\u2019re even born!) and that God is the agent who ordains every act of evil in the world, there\u2019s plenty of things to find in Calvin (aka, actual Calvinism) to be reprehensible. I concur with Hunt when he writes that a God who creates people for the purpose of torturing them (Institutes, 3.21.5), and who ordains all evil acts (1.17.5) is certainly a monster.<\/p>\n However, Calvin\u2019s theology isn\u2019t the primary deal-breaker for\u00a0me. My primary point of departure from Calvinism\u00a0is looking at how Calvin lived, and being able to see that he didn\u2019t grasp (or was just completely unwilling to obey) one of the most basic things Jesus taught: enemy love. And this brings us to the execution of Michael Servetus\u2013 my primary \u201cdo not pass go\u201d moment with Calvin.<\/p>\n Michael Servetus (1511-1553)\u00a0was a theological enemy of Calvin and the two had mutual disdain for the other (Servetus thought Calvin was obnoxious and in return, Calvin felt Servetus was pompous). Servetus rejected orthodox Christianity (issues such as the trinity), holding what would correctly be called heretical views. In those days heretics were executed, and at one point Servetus was arrested- but released for lack of evidence. Soon after, he was re-arrested by the\u00a0Catholic church and convicted of a capital offense\u2013 thanks to John Calvin, who sent some of Servetus heretical writings\u00a0to the authorities. However, Servetus escaped from prison and was free to write again.<\/p>\n Calvin had previously\u00a0vowed that if it were at all possible, he\u2019d have Servetus killed, but his escape from prison thwarted those\u00a0hopes. It wouldn\u2019t be long however before Calvin could fulfill the vow he made against Servetus in 1546:<\/p>\n \u201cServetus wrote to me a short time ago, and sent a huge volume of his dreamings and pompous triflings with his letter. I was to find among them wonderful things, and such as I had never before seen; and if I wished, he would himself come. But I am by no means inclined to be responsible for him; and if he come,\u00a0I will never allow him, supposing my influence worth anything, to depart alive.<\/strong>\u201d\u00a0[1]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n As much as I dislike Calvin, Servetus was either an idiot or had a death wish, because instead of fleeing to safety he showed up at church one night in Geneva to hear Calvin preach (he\u2019s certainly guilty of antagonizing Calvin). Calvin of course, didn\u2019t miss the opportunity and had\u00a0his friend\u00a0Nicholas de la Fontaine arrest Servetus on 40 capital charges of heresy. During the trial, Calvin wrote that he hoped the verdict would\u00a0come back as death[2], and it did. Servetus was ultimately burned at the stake\u2013 atop a pyre of his own books and green wood to draw out his death\u2013 which reportedly took 30 minutes.<\/p>\n \u00a0And thus, John Calvin was responsible for having his enemy killed.<\/p>\n Now, both sides tend to overplay their hand on the death of Servetus. Those who stand against Calvin will often call it murder, and those strongly in the Calvin camp will try to explain it away as just the \u201cculture of the time.\u201d (Aren\u2019t we supposed to stand against evil in culture?) Certainly this was not murder in the sense that Calvin walked up and personally killed Servetus\u2013 but he\u00a0did<\/em>\u00a0collaborate with the local government to have him killed\u00a0on two occasions. Also, it is true that Calvin tried to get Servetus to repent of his theology and when that didn\u2019t work, he sought to have him beheaded instead of burned alive. However, I find the Calvinist tendency to play the \u201che tried to have him beheaded as an act of mercy\u201d card\u00a0a bit disingenuous, as if beheading an enemy is somehow morally superior to burning one.<\/em><\/p>\n In addition, Calvin wasn\u2019t simply an innocent bystander in a violent culture\u2013 he was actually one of the folks promoting it. Calvin once wrote that those who\u00a0objected\u00a0to killing heretics were just as guilty as the heretics themselves:<\/p>\n \u201cWhoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are\u2026<\/span>\u201d\u00a0[3]<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \u00a0So, not only does he argue killing theological enemies to be good, but Calvin argued that one was not even morally free to oppose it. Furthermore, Calvin argued that the blood of no one\u2013 not even a person\u2019s own family should be spared:<\/p>\n \u201c\u2026\u00a0we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory.\u201d\u00a0[4]<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \u00a0Got that? We must not spare our own families of bloodshed\u2013 in fact, we must \u201cforget all humanity\u201d when doing combat for God\u2019s glory.<\/p>\n (And don\u2019t even get me going on the fact\u00a0that Calvin was somewhat famous for his abusive speech toward others<\/a>\u2014 aka, the sin of reviling as condemned by Paul.)<\/p>\n Calvinism is, by definition, the teachings of John Calvin\u2013 a man whose\u00a0actions show me either\u00a0(a) he didn\u2019t understand Jesus or (b) he didn\u2019t want to obey Jesus. Why in the world would I want to build the totality of my Christian theology on a foundation erected by such a person? \u00a0If Calvin didn\u2019t understand something so basic as torturing and killing people is something a Jesus follower probably shouldn\u2019t do<\/em>, I have zero confidence<\/em> that he ever understood the more complex theological issues.<\/p>\n And\u00a0this\u00a0is my primary deal breaker:\u00a0before any discussion on sovereignty, evil, or predestination, I am unable to move past the fact that Calvinism\u00a0is a theological system designed by someone who\u00a0had no moral or theological objections to brutally killing those\u00a0who disagreed with him.<\/p>\n \u2026<\/p>\n [1] Henry, Paul. The Life and Times of John Calvin, Vol II. Whittaker & Co, London. Pg. 181<\/p>\n [2] Calvin to\u00a0William Farel<\/a>, August 20, 1553,\u00a0Bonnet, Jules (1820\u20131892)<\/a>\u00a0Letters of John Calvin<\/em>, Carlisle, Penn:\u00a0Banner of Truth Trust<\/a>, 1980, pp. 158\u2013159.\u00a0ISBN 0-85151-323-9<\/a>.<\/p>\n [3]\u00a0Marshall, John (2006).\u00a0<\/span>John Locke, Toleration and Early Enlightenment Culture<\/i>. Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History. New York: Cambridge University Press. p.\u00a0325.\u00a0<\/span>ISBN<\/a>\u00a0<\/span>0-521-65114-X<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n [4] ibid.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" When I\u2019ve written about Calvinism I\u2019ve not infrequently heard \u201cthat\u2019s just a caricature of Calvinism,\u201d or that I don\u2019t understand what Calvinism actually teaches (neither of which are true).\u00a0\u00a0While it\u2019s true some of my critiques may not apply to some modern American Calvinists (who in all honesty, probably shouldn\u2019t call themselves Calvinists), when I talk […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1638,"featured_media":11994,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[305,34],"tags":[3211,496],"class_list":["post-11993","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-calvinism","category-theology","tag-calvinism","tag-john-calvin"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n
\n
\n