2001 issue 2 - michael servetus: a case study in calvin's theonomic application of the law - counsel...

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


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


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


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


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 '


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


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


8/10

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


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


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

2001 issue 2 - michael servetus: a case study in calvin's theonomic application of the law - counsel...

Documents