120 Biblical Unitarian Trailblazers of the 16th Century (Five Hundred 5)

Although sometimes lumped in with enlightenment rationalism, the biblical unitarian movement came to prominence right from the start of the Reformation.  Essentially, as soon as bible translations started getting into the hands of regular people, a great many Catholic doctrines came under scrutiny.  In this episode you’ll learn about three major biblical unitarian trailblazers of the sixteenth century, including Claude of Savoy, Adam Pastor, and Michael Servetus.  These men did not give definitive shape to the larger groups that soon emerged, but they tread along the path, preparing the way for those who would come after.

This is lecture 5 of a history of Christianity class called Five Hundred: From Martin Luther to Joel Osteen.

All the notes are available here as a pdf.

—— Notes ——

Claude of Savoy (Claudius Aliodus) (1500?-1560?)

• Itinerant preacher
• 1534 – exiled from Basel and Bern
• 1534 – Henry Bullinger (1504-1575), Zwingli’s successor in Zurich, wrote a defense of the dual natures’ doctrine to refute Claude’s teachings.
• Claude’s confession of faith:

“’The Lord thy God is one.’ Whence then are there two others? particularly since it is written [Rom. 11:34]: “Who hath been his counselor?” That man alone, whom Mary conceived and brought forth, is called Jesus, which is proved [by Luke 1:31 -32]: “Behold thou wilt conceive and bring forth a son and thou shalt call his name Jesus; and he will be called great and the Son of the Most High.” Who therefore is so holy, so great, who is called the Son of God, but he who was conceived in the womb of the Virgin and born?

Therefore a Christian should acknowledge none other to be the Son of God than him whom Scripture so declares. Behold, the same man, the first born of Mary, is called the Savior and not some divinity of Christ.  He is declared to have saved us by his blood, not by his divinity. For this reason he himself says of himself [John 6:54]: “who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.” He does not say. “who eats my deity.” Therefore I am not held to eat the deity of Christ but rather his flesh and to drink his blood.

They blaspheme therefore who say of the Virgin that she is the Mother of God, for she did not bear God but Christ. If heaven and earth cannot contain God, how much the less the womb of a woman? In any case, if Jesus were thus divided into God and Man, the Virgin would not be the Mother of Christ, but only of a part of him.

Observe also the expression “this day” [I have begotten thee: Ps. 2:7; Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5], which indicates a definite time. He was not, therefore, begotten eternally of the Father, as they [the orthodox] falsely imagine. But when came the fullness of time he sent his Son made of woman. Therefore he is precisely called the Son of God, who is made of woman.

The Father gives testimony concerning him [cf. Matt. 3:17]: “This is my Son with whom I am well pleased.” Concerning whom is this said, unless it be about him who had been baptized? For surely the divinity of Christ is not said to have been baptized, but only the man was shown forth.  Again [John 1:29]: “Behold the Lamb who taketh away the sins of the world.” In that he is said to be a Lamb, nothing of deity is included, but exactly what is appropriate for sacrifice. It is also sufficiently shown, by the declaration [Heb. 2:16]: “he took not on him (assumpsit) the nature of angels, but he took on the seed of Abraham” that the Father, wishing to reconcile the world to himself, willed to do this by a creature and by blood, and not by any divinity. But the Father was in him through the plenitude of the Spirit reconciling himself to the