Since our book, The Believer's Conditional Security has exposed the John Calvin - Michael Servetus scandal, some dye-in-the-wool Calvinists have futilely tried to protect their leader from the obvious by endeavoring to shift the blame away from John Calvin and confusing the issue.They continue to maintain it was not John Calvin who was responsible for his inhumane unscriptural death! They say things like this:
● It was the Geneva Council of 25 who issued the sentence. That group was responsible and John Calvin is not guilty at all.
● John Calvin had no civil authority and was not a judge in Geneva.
● The Roman Catholic church wanted Michael Servetus killed.
● Other Reformers agreed with the judgment.
●● Their conclusion is: It is, therefore, a slanderous lie to try to blame John Calvin for the death of heretic Michael Servetus.The truth is:
1. NO NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE can be offered as support for any of those lacking statements cited in behalf of John Calvin.
2. What the Roman Catholic church wanted or what other Reformers desired is not relevant. The subject is: How responsible was John Calvin in the merciless unscriptural execution of Michael Servetus? If it was solely the Geneva Council, then Calvinism is still exposed as being ungodly and unscriptural, for they are to blame! Either way Calvinism is wrecked at the foundation either by John Calvin or The Geneva Council!
3. Besides the Trinity, Michael Servetus rejected infant baptism, which John Calvin taught! Regardless of his doctrines, however, no heretic is to be put to death now in the New Testament, especially not with the slow tortuous method used by John Calvin.
4. John Calvin boasted it was he himself who put Michael Servetus to death! The Calvinists of our day are trying to deceive people about this fact. Was John Calvin wrong? Why did John Calvin think he was the one who put Michael Servetus to death? The answer could only be because he felt he brought about the end result. No other bit of information is needed than that! John Calvin was the guilty one.
5. As hard as it is to imagine, John Calvin afterwards went further from God's truth (if that is possible), in his effort to transfer the guilt of heretics and blasphemers, which included Michael Servetus, to anyone who felt it was unjust to put such a person to death! Imagine that! Such was, obviously, given to silence his critics in the minds of some -- the gullible.
Again, John Calvin came up with that "revelation" in a self-serving way to protect himself against unfavorable judgment. Remember, there is nothing in the Bible to support John Calvin's statement about transfer of guilt.
Hence, just like the so-called prophet (really false prophet) and founder of Mormonism (Joseph Smith), who would come up with "prophecies" to benefit himself and add to his large number of wives when he would see one he wanted, John Calvin did something similar, but without adding wives.
But Herod said, "I beheaded John. Who, then, is this I hear such things about?" And he tried to see him.
Just like Herod in the execution of John the Baptist, John Calvin also claimed full responsibility. A major difference was: Herod was merciful enough to have John killed quickly, while John Calvin refused and had him burnt at the stake with green wood resulting in a slow, excruciating and inhumane death! Wicked Herod was more merciful than John Calvin, the founder and "greatest theologian" in Calvinism. It is unthinkable for a person to kill an animal the way John Calvin killed Michael Servetus, yet that heretic did and he remains exalted!
Finally, the theology of Calvinism allows a Christian to burn another at the stake and not lose his salvation for such a non-Christian act, since that is how Calvinists view John Calvin and he did that very thing!
**Documentation for the various aforementioned points about John Calvin, and much more, are available in The Believer's Conditional Security, which can be purchased at Evangelical Books.