Should heretics (non-calvinists) be burned alive?

"Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death, knowingly and willingly incur their guilt. It is not human authority that speaks, it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for His Church." John Calvin

Calvin said that if you don't believe heretics should be killed, you are worthy to be killed.

Should heretics be burned at the stake, as Calvin practiced? If you say no, you should be glad you don't live in Calvins day, or else he might have burned you alive!!

He executed 57 people, and excommunicated 66. He even surpassed Augustine in severe treatment!! Like Augustine, Calvin quotes Lk 14:23 to support and justify persecuting and punishing heretics.

(Beza, Calvins successor at Geneva, also wrote a tract justifying burning heretics, i.e murdering non-calvinists)

"And you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." 1John 3:15

Can we trust the unsaved to interpret the bible for us??

Can we really trust the scripture views of a man who so sinfully abused Lk 14:23??

Can we trust the scriptural interpretations of a man who would have us killed if we disagree with his doctrines?

these things are news to me

Unfortinately, there are many who try to conceal these things. But let the truth be known!

Calvin was, to put it lightly, a very bad man who had (in my estimation) a very bad theology. Calvin was obviously governed by a different spirit and a different motivation then the Holy Spirit and by love. I am not sure how anyone can say that Calvin knew the heart of God, or knew God at all.

The Synod of Dort as well, which condemned Arminianism, is also not very well known about. The Synod consisted of 133 Calvinists, and about 8 Arminians. The Arminians were in prison for "treason" and were not even allowed a say nor a vote in the Synod. The Synod, of 133 Calvinists, voted in favor of Calvinism and condemned Arminianism, along with Arminians.

The Synod of Dort was not an open discussion/dialog/ or a debate. It was a trial against the remonstrants (arminians) to judge weather their writings were in alignment with orthodoxy (Calvinism). When it was found that the Arminians did not agree with the Calvinists, the Arminians were condemned as heretics.

After the Synod, some arminians were sent to a life long sentence in prison. Anyone found preaching Arminianism would either lose all his property and money, or be banished. Just as Augustine did to the Pelagians, as anyone found even in agreement with the Pelagians would have their goods taken and be banished.

This type of theology, and this type of persecuting Spirit, traces back to Augustine who severely persecuted Pelagius and others, excommunicating and banishing them for disagreeing with and challenging his doctrines.

But Augustine condemned non-Catholics while Calvin condemned non-Calvinists.

Luther himself, who was also a student of Augustine, advocated right before his own death the burning of Jewish synogogues. Hitler actually admired Luther so much that he started his invasion on Luthers birthday.

All of this seems like the same Spirit that Mohammed and the jihadists are governed by.

Granted, the 5 points were made into 5 points in contradiction to the remonstrants 5 points. (Which arminian points the Calvinists imprisoned them for)

It was this horrific Synod of Dort that birthed the official 5 points of Calvinism!!

But both Calvin and Augustine [b]explicitly[/b] taught each of the points: Total depravity (inability: lost of freewill) as the premise, which then leads to the conclusions of Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistable Grace, Perseverence of the Saints.

But these men proved by their actions that they were not lead, nor taught by the Holy Ghost.

You cannot cast the baby out with the bath water. But you can cast the deception out with the deceiver. I believe that false teachers came after Paul left, and decieved even the elect. They came in wearing sheeps clothing, but were ravenous wolves!!

I'm sure you wouldn't throw out "Justification by Faith Alone" after Luther called for the eradication of the Jews, would you?

I do not throw out justification by true faith. But I do throw out Luthers justification by antinomian faith, who even in an antinomian rage called for the burning of St. James epistle!! Apparently Luther thought that he taught as an Apostle while James taught as a heretic....

Hi Jesse,

Have you ever read Calvin's Institutes of Religion?

Your quote:

"Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death, knowingly and willingly incur their guilt. It is not human authority that speaks, it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for His Church."

It doesn't surprise me that Protestants wanted to create an environment where they were in complete control. It would be a natural reaction to the severe persecution they had witnessed and experienced in their lifetime.

Guilt by association was one of the things everyone was up against. In England, a man could not get certain jobs unless he had some sort of perceived [i]innocence by association[/i] with known believers of whichever political colour was accepted by the government.

Do we think it was better when 'tender consciences' were granted mercy so as not to be put to death, or was this the beginning of a culture of religous tolerance which has paved the way for today's lukewarmnesses?

These were normal for the culture. Rulers were putting 'heretics' to death all the time.

There is no doubt that it was common place for Roman Catholics and Calvinists to burn people alive who disagreed with them.

But you cannot justify it by saying that it was normal and common. It was these tyrants that made it normal and common!!

Throughout Catholic and Calvinist history, there have been plenty to oppose such unscriptural treatment. The pelagians, the arminians, and later the quakers all taught that it was wrong to burn people at the stake who disagreed with you.

So while many Catholics and Calvinists believed it was ok, there were plenty in the culture who said otherwise.

Justifying it because the culture accepted it is like justifying canabalism because that society accepts it, or Nazi Germany because that society accepted it.

It would be like justifying the Romans feeding Christians to the lions, because (as your arguement was) it was "normal for the culture. Romans were putting 'Christians' to death all the time."

Can you justify the crucifixion of Christ because it was "normal for the culture. Romans were crucifying people all the time"?? Does the fact that it was normal and common make the horrificness of Christs crucifixion any less??

I am THRILLED to hear that Luther recanted of his proposition to burn the Epistle of James! Praise God!!

If he had not died directly after calling for the burning of the jewish synogogues, who knows, maybe he might have recanted that too.

It is unfortinate that Calvin never repented of murdering non-calvinists. To his own death he defended the burning of individuals at the stake as the will and command of God.

Joh 16:2 - You will be expelled from the synagogues, and the time will come when [b]those who kill you will think that by doing this they are serving God. [/b]

He executed 57 people, and excommunicated 66. He even surpassed Augustine in severe treatment!! Like Augustine, Calvin quotes Lk 14:23 to support and justify persecuting and punishing heretics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is some startling information! I'm adding it to my list of things to investigate.

In your investigation, see:

* Samuel Fisk, Calvinistic Paths Retraced, Murfreesboro, TN: Biblical Evangelism Press, 1985, pg 115

* Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through The Centuries: A History of the Christian Church, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981, p. 311

* Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol VIII, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Reprinted 1995, Third Edition, Revided, pp. 492, 493

* Dan Corner, The Believer's Conditional Security, Evangelical Outreach, 2000, p 36

I think the bible clearly preaches Total Depravity before one is born again. After we have been made free from the law of sin and death, I believe we have the freedom to choose life or to continue in sin.

If I have a choice before conversion, then I have something to glory. "I chose Christ", but "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", therefore, I am incapable of making any choices unless it was given me by the holy Ghost. For "no man can come to Me except the Spirit draw him".

I have heard also of the teaching that "whomsoever will can come", however, we need to take into consideration other verses to make it complete. The "Whomsoever" is not referring to just anyone, but those who have eyes to see the kingdom of God.

"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." There needs to be a balance.

Even though the man Calvin may have been a murderer, he was also a scholar. Like Paul, he knew the scriptures, even though he may have damned his own soul.

1 Corinthians 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.