Protestants: Do You Believe in Free Will or the Monergism of Sola Gratia (by grace alone)?

[Contarini]

That is a difficult one that I cannot answer. The origin of evil is quite the mystery. How do you think rebellion entered this creation with the fall of Satan? I think we need to go beyond the fall of Adam and start with the fall of Satan and the fallen angels. We know the elect angels did not fall.

Fair enough–it’s a problem for everyone. But I think it may be a fatal problem for Calvinists. You get most of your rhetorical strength from focusing only on the postlapsarian world. You justify the harshness and grimness of your theology by talking about how we are all depraved because of Adam’s sin. But to account for Adam’s sin, and for that matter the sin of the angels too, you have either to invoke good old Arminian-style free will or admit that God predestined the very action on account of which you justify the predestination of some human beings to damnation. I think it’s fair to hold your feet to the fire on this one, because how you answer it will determine how the rest of your theology works. If Adam (and/or the angels) had libertarian free will and God simply foreknew their actions, then the philosophical grounds on which many Calvinists defend their doctrines (Edwards’ arguments in particular) go out the window. But if God predestined their actions, then you can’t simply invoke our postlapsarian depravity to justify your doctrine of predestination, since it applies to unfallen beings as well.

To have a serious debate about Calvinism, this issue must be addressed, because the conversation will go in one of two very different directions depending on which course you take.

One of the basic problems I have with Calvinism is the point at which you choose to start invoking “mystery.” Everyone does it at some point. But you do it after you have committed yourself to some pretty repellent theses about God, and before you can be made to defend the implications of those theses logically. That’s just too convenient–it makes your entire position thoroughly unconvincing.

I choose to do it earlier. I find the “mystery” to lie in the Biblical claim that God desires all to be saved, combined with the apparent fact that not everyone will be saved and the clear Biblical teaching that those who are saved are saved because God chose them. That way I preserve more of the richness and complexity of the Biblical teaching, I stand in agreement with a broader swath of the Christian tradition, and I avoid any danger of engaging in demon-worship. (I am not saying that Calvinists are demon-worshipers. But your fixation on God’s sovereignty to the exclusion of His moral attributes puts you closer to that hideous abyss than I am comfortable with.)

Edwin

 

[2nd_Adam]

Fair enough–it’s a problem for everyone. But I think it may be a fatal problem for Calvinists. You get most of your rhetorical strength from focusing only on the postlapsarian world. You justify the harshness and grimness of your theology by talking about how we are all depraved because of Adam’s sin. But to account for Adam’s sin, and for that matter the sin of the angels too, you have either to invoke good old Arminian-style free will or admit that God predestined the very action on account of which you justify the predestination of some human beings to damnation. I think it’s fair to hold your feet to the fire on this one, because how you answer it will determine how the rest of your theology works. If Adam (and/or the angels) had libertarian free will and God simply foreknew their actions, then the philosophical grounds on which many Calvinists defend their doctrines (Edwards’ arguments in particular) go out the window. But if God predestined their actions, then you can’t simply invoke our postlapsarian depravity to justify your doctrine of predestination, since it applies to unfallen beings as well.

To have a serious debate about Calvinism, this issue must be addressed, because the conversation will go in one of two very different directions depending on which course you take.

One of the basic problems I have with Calvinism is the point at which you choose to start invoking “mystery.” Everyone does it at some point. But you do it after you have committed yourself to some pretty repellent theses about God, and before you can be made to defend the implications of those theses logically. That’s just too convenient–it makes your entire position thoroughly unconvincing.

I choose to do it earlier. I find the “mystery” to lie in the Biblical claim that God desires all to be saved, combined with the apparent fact that not everyone will be saved and the clear Biblical teaching that those who are saved are saved because God chose them. That way I preserve more of the richness and complexity of the Biblical teaching, I stand in agreement with a broader swath of the Christian tradition, and I avoid any danger of engaging in demon-worship. (I am not saying that Calvinists are demon-worshipers. But your fixation on God’s sovereignty to the exclusion of His moral attributes puts you closer to that hideous abyss than I am comfortable with.)

Edwin

Thanks for the excellent challenge. I never went this far into these deeper issues, and never felt compelled to. I am not a die-hard Calvinist in the sense that I live and die with whatever is defined as Calvinism. There are quite a mix of theological distinctives in the Reformed circles as you well may know. Hyper-Calvinism is unbiblical and heretical. All I know is that God does everything for His own glory. I know evil as revealed in scripture starts with the fall of Lucifier and not Adam. Why did God create Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels to have the ability to fall, and other angels who are elect that didn’t fall? The best answer for me is for His own glory and good pleasure. Why does God only save some and not all mankind? My answer is for His own glory and His own good pleasure… to the praise of His glorious grace. Do you think my conclusion is biblically centered and God glorifying? This issue I have with Arminianism and the Catholic view is in regards to making Christianity man-centered as to opposed to being God-centered. We are not the center of creation, but God is at the center of everything. I will always side with the position which IMO glorifies God over the other option of the mystery.

 

[Tom87]

Hello Anna,

I think it is extremely important to remember that the base of the “5 Pillars of the Reformation” is “Sola Scriptura”. Then it coninues with “Sola Gratia, Sola Christo, Sola Fide (Faith), Sola Deo Gloria (Glory to GOD alone)” We know the attributes of GOD and the path to salvation because of the scriptures. And therefore “Sola Scriptura” is the base of the five pillars. Now I’m on monergism everyday and it agrees with most of the founding protestant fathers, such as: Martin Luther, John Calvin etc. Who absolutely believed that salvation was not of themselves but by Grace alone through the instrument of Faith. “Sola Gratia” is one of the major reasons for the splitting of the church to form a Protestant faith. And because the basis of our faith depends upon the scriptures, how do you rectify the following passages with your point of view?

Ephesians Chapter 2:8-10, Titus 2:7, Titus 3:4-7, Acts 15:11?

Paul straight up says in Acts 15:11, “But we believe that through the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved.” The new testament Screams Grace Anna.

Your Brother in Christ,
~Tom

 

[Tom87]

By the way a little about me, I am a 5 point Calvinist. I believe in predestination, election of some to eternal salvation and others to destruction apart from any will of theirs. From a scruptural perspective I agree with Genesis 6:5, “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Therefore I believe that the “Will” of man seeks only evil. And if left to his “Free Will” without the Grace of GOD every man would be destroyed. I do not believe that GOD is fair, I believe he is a Just GOD.

 

[Anna_Scott]

By the way a little about me, I am a 5 point Calvinist. I believe in predestination, election of some to eternal salvation and others to destruction apart from any will of theirs. From a scruptural perspective I agree with Genesis 6:5, “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Therefore I believe that the “Will” of man seeks only evil. And if left to his “Free Will” without the Grace of GOD every man would be destroyed. I do not believe that GOD is fair, I believe he is a Just GOD.

Tom:

I will respond in another post.

First, I would like to say welcome to the Forums. This is a wonderful place to exchange ideas and learn some things along the way.

I have tried Protestant Forums on other websites; but I usually end up back here again.

There are people here with so much knowledge of Church History–members like Contarini, for example, always elevate the level of discussion.

I like the way you state your beliefs up front–very refreshing.

Please don’t be offended by a fierce debate–and there will be fierce debates.

In Christ,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

**1. If God desires that all be saved, and if Christ draws all men to Himself (as the Scriptures say); why would God not obtain that which He desires? **

All men everywhere are commanded to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. It is more than a choice, but a command of God. God does not draw all men to Himself in a way that saves all mankind

. . .God’s desire is not the same as His sovereign will. God does not desire that any should sin and rebel against His rightful rule.
**
You maintain that we do not have free will. Yet, you say it is more than a choice; we are commanded to repent and believe. According to your Monergistic beliefs, God does not give everyone the ability to follow the commandments of which you speak.**
2nd Adam;5782234:

We don’t know why God allowed Adam and Eve to fall, but we know God is glorified through a cosmic rebelliion against Him.

Without the fall,we would not know the love of God as revealed in the gospel in the same way as fallen redeemed creatures.

God is never the author of evil.

God did not give them a fallen nature. Adam is our federal head, when he disobeyed… we all fell with Adam. I think your view may not be Catholic here either.

**You are contradicting your own statements.

1. Christ asked the Father to forgive those who crucified Him. Did God answer that prayer or did He deny the prayer of His Holy Son?**

Jesus is the God man and obviously His was speaking within His human nature. We know God cannot learn, yet Jesus grew in wisdom. I believe in the hypo-static nature of Christ being fully God and fully man. You cannot comminngle to two natures of Christ.

**Are you saying God would not answer Jesus, because Jesus was speaking within His human nature? That does not make sense.

And—You did not answer my question: Christ asked the Father to forgive those who crucified Him. Did God answer that prayer or did He deny the prayer of His Holy Son?

I stated, “Free will is far more complicated than what I can comprehend. It involves knowing God’s creation in a way that only God can know.”

We are attributing human attributes to an infinite God. We really do not have words to describe an infinite God, much less claim to know His “thoughts,” thoughts being a human attribute.**

We have the Scriptures which is revelation from above. Predestination and election is divine revelation from above… it is written.

**“It is written” in your opinion.

We can study Scripture and the Church Fathers and prayerfully seek God’s truth, asking for the discernment of the Holy Spirit. Yet, we are still human, with the inability to fully comprehend the infinite.**

Trure, but the Spirit reveals truth through the Scirptures by illuminiating truth to us (1 Cor 2)

**You just restated what I said, without addressing my point: we are still human, with the inability to fully comprehend the infinite.

1. How do you know that when you stand before Christ, He will not say, “I know you not”?**

God knows me because I am united to Christ; therefore, He is pleased with me because He is pleased with His Son Jesus Christ. We know that faith pleases God, and having trust in Christ alone is pleasing to God.

**I am quite certain God knows all of us; and we can only come to Him through His Son.

Yet, you still have not answered my question: How do you know that when you stand before Christ, He will not say, “I know you not”?

I certainly cannot answer that for myself with absolute certainty.**

Maybe your confidence is in self as compared to looking outside of yourself, which the gospel is news apart for us? It is external from us. The righteousness of Christ is an alien righteousness. If you look to Christ alone, then you can enter the real Sabath rest found in the finished work of Christ. Refocus away from self and look to the author and perfector of your faith (Hebrew 12)

I see lots of words and accusations against my faith, but no real substance in what you are saying.

If you think God is all powerful, all Christians have quite the dilemma of the begining of evil… both Catholics and Reformed Christians alike.

Are you saying God is not all powerful?

So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

. .Christ is the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. And the Elect were chosen before the foundation of the world. Remember my presupposition, that it is impossible for God to learn because He knows all things before they happen.

**Why do you keep repeating, “it is impossible for God to learn”? Again, God is infinite. “Learning” is a human attribute. IMO, the word “learn” does not belong in the same sentence with God.

Anna**

 

[Anna_Scott]

God did not give them a fallen nature. Adam is our federal head, when he disobeyed… we all fell with Adam. I think your view may not be Catholic here either.

Originally Posted by 2nd Adam
That is a difficult one that I cannot answer. The origin of evil is quite the mystery. How do you think rebellion entered this creation with the fall of Satan? I think we need to go beyond the fall of Adam and start with the fall of Satan and the fallen angels. We know the elect angels did not fall.

Fair enough–it’s a problem for everyone. But I think it may be a fatal problem for Calvinists. You get most of your rhetorical strength from focusing only on the postlapsarian world.

You justify the harshness and grimness of your theology by talking about how we are all depraved because of Adam’s sin. But to account for Adam’s sin, and for that matter the sin of the angels too, you have either to invoke good old Arminian-style free will or admit that God predestined the very action on account of which you justify the predestination of some human beings to damnation.

I think it’s fair to hold your feet to the fire on this one, because how you answer it will determine how the rest of your theology works. If Adam (and/or the angels) had libertarian free will and God simply foreknew their actions, then the philosophical grounds on which many Calvinists defend their doctrines (Edwards’ arguments in particular) go out the window. But if God predestined their actions, then you can’t simply invoke our postlapsarian depravity to justify your doctrine of predestination, since it applies to unfallen beings as well.

To have a serious debate about Calvinism, this issue must be addressed, because the conversation will go in one of two very different directions depending on which course you take.

One of the basic problems I have with Calvinism is the point at which you choose to start invoking “mystery.” Everyone does it at some point. But you do it after you have committed yourself to some pretty repellent theses about God, and before you can be made to defend the implications of those theses logically. That’s just too convenient–it makes your entire position thoroughly unconvincing.

I choose to do it earlier. I find the “mystery” to lie in the Biblical claim that God desires all to be saved, combined with the apparent fact that not everyone will be saved and the clear Biblical teaching that those who are saved are saved because God chose them.

That way I preserve more of the richness and complexity of the Biblical teaching, I stand in agreement with a broader swath of the Christian tradition, and I avoid any danger of engaging in demon-worship.** (I am not saying that Calvinists are demon-worshipers. But your fixation on God’s sovereignty to the exclusion of His moral attributes puts you closer to that hideous abyss than I am comfortable with.) Edwin**

**

2nd Adam:

I agree with Edwin’s statement, “Your fixation on God’s sovereignty to the exclusion of His moral attributes puts you closer to that hideous abyss than I am comfortable with.”

You failed to respond to my statements, which bring to light the cold-hearted reality of your assumptions of salvation of the elect and to Hell (literally) with everyone else:

"I agree that God is granting a salvation/eternal life that we do not deserve. We deserve to die without eternal life. We deserve death/annihilation, as the remainder of God’s creatures.

You are missing my point entirely. I said, “It is unimaginable that God would create mankind, with the intention of sending most of His creation to an eternity of torment in Hell. It is possible that this is true, but how could a loving God do such a thing? If this is true, then I truly wish I had never been born.”

Are you O.K. with eternal damnation? Do you have compassion for those who do not make it into the circle of the elect; or would you just be glad you made it, forgetting about everyone else?

Remember, we are called to love God, and to love our fellowman as we love ourselves.

I said, “Imagine our friends and loved ones, who were not chosen as the elect, spending an eternity in Hell? How good would we feel about Heaven, knowing the fate of our loved ones? This is an unimaginable horror, and would make Heaven a Hell for me. Even with free will, an eternity of torment is a punishment beyond any crime ever committed on earth. I cannot comprehend a God who would do this. This is not the God I know in my heart.”

Isn’t God’s love and mercy greater than mine? I could not condemn someone to an eternity of torment, and I am certain God’s mercy is greater than mine."

Anna
**

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

=2nd Adam;5783132]Chestertonrules states that all have been made alive in Christ (Rom 5). Does official Catholic teaching support that all have been made alive in Christ in a universal sense apart from faith in Christ? What good is John 3 and the new birth if all mankind has already been made alive in Christ through the work of Christ, apart from faith in Christ?

From the Catechism:

1741 Liberation and salvation. By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage. "For freedom Christ has set us free."34 In him we have communion with the "truth that makes us free."35 The Holy Spirit has been given to us and, as the Apostle teaches, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."36 Already we glory in the "liberty of the children of God."37

For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.
Rom 11:32

For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.
1Cor. 15:21-22

Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. Rom. 5:18

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hello Anna,

I think it is extremely important to remember that the base of the “5 Pillars of the Reformation” is “Sola Scriptura”. Then it coninues with “Sola Gratia, Sola Christo, Sola Fide (Faith), Sola Deo Gloria (Glory to GOD alone)” We know the attributes of GOD and the path to salvation because of the scriptures. And therefore “Sola Scriptura” is the base of the five pillars. Now I’m on monergism everyday and it agrees with most of the founding protestant fathers, such as: Martin Luther, John Calvin etc. Who absolutely believed that salvation was not of themselves but by Grace alone through the instrument of Faith. “Sola Gratia” is one of the major reasons for the splitting of the church to form a Protestant faith. And because the basis of our faith depends upon the scriptures, how do you rectify the following passages with your point of view?

Ephesians Chapter 2:8-10, Titus 2:7, Titus 3:4-7, Acts 15:11?

Paul straight up says in Acts 15:11, “But we believe that through the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved.” The new testament Screams Grace Anna.

Your Brother in Christ,
~Tom

By the way a little about me, I am a 5 point Calvinist. I believe in predestination, election of some to eternal salvation and others to destruction apart from any will of theirs. From a scruptural perspective I agree with Genesis 6:5, “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Therefore I believe that the “Will” of man seeks only evil. And if left to his “Free Will” without the Grace of GOD every man would be destroyed. I do not believe that GOD is fair, I believe he is a Just GOD.

Tom:

Scripture has been quoted for both views throughout this Thread. I can state them again later today. Need to leave for some errends.

I am very familiar with the 5 Pillars of the Reformation or the 5 Solas.

I do believe that we are saved by grace; but I do not believe that God created some for eternal life, giving them “irresistible grace,” and others for eternal damnation–intentionally withhold irresistible grace.

I will repeat what I said to 2nd Adam.

I agree that God grants a salvation/eternal life that we do not deserve. We deserve to die without eternal life. We deserve death/annihilation, as the remainder of God’s creatures.

Monergism espouses cold-hearted assumptions of salvation of the elect and to Hell (literally) with everyone else.

It is unimaginable that God would create mankind, with the intention of sending most of His creation to an eternity of torment in Hell. It is possible that this is true, but how could a loving God do such a thing? If this is true, then I truly wish I had never been born.

Are you O.K. with eternal damnation? Do you have compassion for those who do not make it into the circle of the elect; or would you just be glad you made it, forgetting about everyone else?

Remember, we are called to love God, and to love our fellowman as we love ourselves.

Imagine our friends and loved ones, who were not chosen as the elect, spending an eternity in Hell? How good would we feel about Heaven, knowing the fate of our loved ones? This is an unimaginable horror, and would make Heaven a Hell for me. Even with free will, an eternity of torment is a punishment beyond any crime ever committed on earth. I cannot comprehend a God who would do this. This is not the God I know in my heart."

Think about your statement, “I believe in predestination, election of some to eternal salvation and others to destruction apart from any will of theirs.” What kind of God would do this? In this view, we are puppets. It makes a mockery of the work of Christ in shedding His blood for salvation. It takes away the idea that the Gospel is good news.

I will write more later.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

From the Catechism:

1741 Liberation and salvation. By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage. "For freedom Christ has set us free."34 In him we have communion with the "truth that makes us free."35 The Holy Spirit has been given to us and, as the Apostle teaches, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."36 Already we glory in the "liberty of the children of God."37

For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.
Rom 11:32

For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.
1Cor. 15:21-22

Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. Rom. 5:18

CHESTERTONRULES:

I agree with this and your other posts.

I may be Protestant, but I cannot accept predestination of some to eternal life and others to destruction or Hell (whatever that may be.)

I appreciate your quotes from Catechism.

Anna

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

CHESTERTONRULES:

I agree with this and your other posts.

I may be Protestant, but I cannot accept predestination of some to eternal life and others to destruction or Hell (whatever that may be.)

I appreciate your quotes from Catechism.

Anna

Thank you.

You are a very charitable and thoughtful poster, even when you disagree with me!

 

[Anna_Scott]

Thank you.

You are a very charitable and thoughtful poster, even when you disagree with me!

You are very kind.

Unfortunately, I am not always “charitable” in my responses. Often, that very human element shows through, I’m afraid.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I think it is important to examine the reality of a doctrine that removes free will and espouses predestination of some to eternal life and some to destruction or Hell (whatever that may be.)

Many Christians still believe Hell is eternal torment. If God predestined some to Hell or destruction; it is a horror beyond anything committed by humans.

One of the most interesting quotes comes from Charles Darwin, in his private autobiography, “I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”

I am not taking a stance on evolution or any position on Charles Darwin. The above quote is to demonstrate the impact of a predestination doctrine, which claims God’s intentional creation of some for eternal damnation/hell, etc.

For the Calvinists, I would ask you to examine Calvin’s grace doctrine in light of Calvin’s own life.

Calvin’s role in the capture and execution of Michael Servetus is disturbing on so many levels. Yet, Calvin remains a hero of the Protestant Reformation.

I took this quote from an evangelical website. I am not claiming affiliation with this group or accepting all of their doctrines. This is simply an easy source to quote and examine John Calvin’s actions, and how they fit his doctrine of grace in his own life. It also involves Calvin’s doctrine of the “perseverance of the saints,” which is off topic; but I can’t easily separate grace and perseverance in this context.

**www.evangelicaloutreach.org
His Ashes Cry Out Against John Calvin, Dan Corner
**
Three important questions remain: (1) Can John Calvin be Scripturally justified for murdering Michael Servetus? (2) Does a murderous hate, according to Scripture, render one spiritually unable to accurately interpret the Scriptures? (3) Can a murderer be saved according to Rev. 21:8?

All these answers have a bearing on the credibility of Calvin’s popular “perseverance of the saints” doctrine, among others. Regretfully, Calvin’s version of Christianity is the prevalent view in our land, but is his view Scriptural? To answer in the affirmative is to say that Calvin’s double predestination is true, that is, some are predestined for Heaven and others are predestined for Hell without free choice on their part! (Augustine of Hippo, the Catholic theologian–earlier proponent of predestination from whom John Calvin drew ideas.) **This would violate many Scriptures, especially 2 Pet. 3:9:
**
“The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

Furthermore, Calvin’s teachings declare Jesus’ work on the cross was NOT infinite, because according to that teaching, He did not shed His blood for every human, but only for the elect – those predestined to be saved. **This is clearly refuted by 1 Jn. 2:2:
**
“He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Also, his “perseverance of the saints” doctrine would assert that God’s power will keep a truly saved person secure, in spite of grievous sins committed after regeneration and/or any doctrinal heresies that would be embraced, thus violating many Scriptural examples and warnings which prove the opposite!

It should be apparent that, from the founder down to us today, the “perseverance of the saints” doctrine (most commonly known as “once saved always saved”) has most often been a “license for immorality” taught under the banner of grace. See Jude 3,4.

As Calvin’s own theology allowed for his actions against Servetus, many in our day are sexually immoral, liars, drunkards, filled with greed, etc., while they profess salvation. This is a ramification of Calvin’s perverted grace message – a teaching which has “spread like gangrene” from a man who could openly burn another to death and for the remaining 10 years and seven months of his life, never publicly repent of his crime.

"Servetus' ashes will cry out against him as long as the names of these two men are known in the world." (The Heretics, p. 328)"**

Clearly, not all Protestants accept the doctrine of grace as defined by Calvin.

Anna

 

[Contarini]

=
For the Calvinists, I would ask you to examine Calvin’s grace doctrine in light of Calvin’s own life.

Calvin’s role in the capture and execution of Michael Servetus is disturbing on so many levels. Yet, Calvin remains a hero of the Protestant Reformation.

I think that’s unfair. Sure, Calvin’s acceptance of the common belief of his day that heretics should be executed is disturbing. But I think the claim that this somehow counts as evidence against Calvin’s view of predestination (which was hardly original with him anyway, any more than was his attitude to heretics) is highly dubious at best.

Edwin

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I think that’s unfair. Sure, Calvin’s acceptance of the common belief of his day that heretics should be executed is disturbing. But I think the claim that this somehow counts as evidence against Calvin’s view of predestination (which was hardly original with him anyway, any more than was his attitude to heretics) is highly dubious at best.

Edwin

I’m going to have to agree with Edwin on this one.

 

[NotTooSmart]

I’m going to have to agree with Edwin on this one.

I really would like to agree with Edwin on this one too. It would make it much easier on me.
But…I am not sure of that.

Anna has a point, at least in my mind.

When I learned of certain inconvenient facts like this concerning Calvin and Luther (the Jews) it raised a whole set of disturbing questions in my mind.

Particularly when I read in James 3 and even 1 Timothy on the qualifications of teachers and church leaders.

The question in my mind is this. Calvin and Luther wouldn’t even be pastors in my church, what right do I have to view them as authoritative teachers of the historical church, particularly in the light of Scriptural qualifications for leaders and teachers.

I know that the argument then is that I am looking at the 16th and 17th century time periods through my 20th century worldview. And I should cut these guys some slack because,well what they did and believed was common in their days.

That is so not very convincing.

First of all, there were Christians of that time period who were not into “killing other Christians for Christ”. Now they did often ended up “killed for Christ by other Christians”, but they were around.

Second, I would expect people that I consider leaders and teachers in the church to reject the prevailing evils of their day as opposed to going with the flow. That would include abortion for this generation, slavery for the generation 200 years or so ago, and killing other Christians for Christ for the generation 400 years ago.

This would be like Christians say 300 years from now in a hypothetical society that has come to reject abortion giving pro-choice Christians of this generation a pass because abortion was ok in our society. If I am not going to give pro-abortion Christians today or pro-slavery Christians 200 years ago or so a pass, so why should Luther and Calvin get one.

Am I being too flipping unrealistic here? Maybe this is another thread.

Fortunately my early Protestant heroes are men like John Wesley and Michael Sattler:thumbsup:, and not so much Calvin and Luther.

Anyway, carry on with your Monergism debate.

Edit…thinking about this more

Of course this argument does not necessarily mean that what Calvin taught is not true. But, the argument in my mind is more about whom I should and should not regard as authoritative teachers of Scripture.
</Butting In>

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I really would like to agree with Edwin on this one too. It would make it much easier on me.
But…I am not sure of that.

Anna has a point, at least in my mind.

When I learned of certain inconvenient facts like this concerning Calvin and Luther (the Jews) it raised a whole set of disturbing questions in my mind.

Particularly when I read in James 3 and even 1 Timothy on the qualifications of teachers and church leaders.

The question in my mind is this. Calvin and Luther wouldn’t even be pastors in my church, what right do I have to view them as authoritative teachers of the historical church, particularly in the light of Scriptural qualifications for leaders and teachers.

I know that the argument then is that I am looking at the 16th and 17th century time periods through my 20th century worldview. And I should cut these guys some slack because,well what they did and believed was common in their days.

That is so not very convincing.

First of all, there were Christians of that time period who were not into “killing other Christians for Christ”. Now they did often ended up “killed for Christ by other Christians”, but they were around.

Second, I would expect people that I consider leaders and teachers in the church to reject the prevailing evils of their day as opposed to going with the flow. That would include abortion for this generation, slavery for the generation 200 years or so ago, and killing other Christians for Christ for the generation 400 years ago.

This would be like Christians say 300 years from now in a hypothetical society that has come to reject abortion giving pro-choice Christians of this generation a pass because abortion was ok in our society. If I am not going to give pro-abortion Christians today or pro-slavery Christians 200 years ago or so a pass, so why should Luther and Calvin get one.

Am I being too flipping unrealistic here? Maybe this is another thread.

Fortunately my early Protestant heroes are men like John Wesley and Michael Sattler:thumbsup:, and not so much Calvin and Luther.

Anyway, carry on with your Monergism debate.
</Butting In>

The point has some validity when considering the lives of the men in question, but it doesn’t necessarily reflect upon their views.

On the other hand, I believe the Doctrine of the Perseverence of Saints and/or OSAS can lead to some poor decision making.

Hmmmm…

 

[Contarini]

The question in my mind is this. Calvin and Luther wouldn’t even be pastors in my church, what right do I have to view them as authoritative teachers of the historical church

I don’t think you need a “right.” I don’t see why you should grant them some kind of official authority. Any authority they have comes from the extent to which their teachings illuminate Scripture in conformity with the historic Christian tradition. In my opinion, many of their distinctive teachings should be rejected because they are misinterpretations of Scripture, breaking with historic Christianity. Either way, the fact that they were sinners and often caught up in particular cultural sins of their era isn’t really relevant.

And frankly I’m pretty sure that my rector in New Jersey was prochoice, though I never asked her. I certainly disagreed with her on other moral issues. Yet I accepted her authority. So I probably have a less perfectionistic view of pastors than you do in the first place.

I know that the argument then is that I am looking at the 16th and 17th century time periods through my 20th century worldview. And I should cut these guys some slack because,well what they did and believed was common in their days.

That is so not very convincing.

First of all, there were Christians of that time period who were not into “killing other Christians for Christ”. Now they did often ended up “killed for Christ by other Christians”, but they were around.

If you are thinking of the Anabaptists, they also claimed that other Christians were not really Christians. From my perspective that may be worse than killing.

There were a few folks who took more moderate and tolerant views without unchurching historic Christianity, true.

Second, I would expect people that I consider leaders and teachers in the church to reject the prevailing evils of their day as opposed to going with the flow. That would include abortion for this generation, slavery for the generation 200 years or so ago, and killing other Christians for Christ for the generation 400 years ago.

One should indeed expect this, but one should also recognize that culture is very blinding and that otherwise good and holy people can fall into serious error through the influence of their culture.

This would be like Christians say 300 years from now in a hypothetical society that has come to reject abortion giving pro-choice Christians of this generation a pass because abortion was ok in our society. If I am not going to give pro-abortion Christians today or pro-slavery Christians 200 years ago or so a pass, so why should Luther and Calvin get one.

Well, I would not “give them a pass” in the sense of saying that their views are OK, but I would “give them a pass” in the sense of listening to the other things they say which *are *valid.

Also, abortion is very different inasmuch as it is a break from the historic Christian position. By the 16th century the persecution of heretics had been accepted Christian teaching for centuries. Slavery is a more complicated case: the acceptance of slavery as an evil but not necessarily morally evil was the traditional stance, but the idea that race-based slavery was a positive good was a modern innovation.

Edwin

 

[NotTooSmart]

I don’t think you need a “right.” I don’t see why you should grant them some kind of official authority. Any authority they have comes from the extent to which their teachings illuminate Scripture in conformity with the historic Christian tradition. In my opinion, many of their distinctive teachings should be rejected because they are misinterpretations of Scripture, breaking with historic Christianity. Either way, the fact that they were sinners and often caught up in particular cultural sins of their era isn’t really relevant.

The thing is, every Christian makes choices (either conscious or unconscious) as to what Christians present day and in the historical church they will allow to be major influences on their Christian development and growth.

And frankly I’m pretty sure that my rector in New Jersey was prochoice, though I never asked her. I certainly disagreed with her on other moral issues. Yet I accepted her authority. So I probably have a less perfectionistic view of pastors than you do in the first place.

Yup, I must be perfectionist in that regard. If my pastor were to announce he is pro-choice on Sunday, I am hunting for a new church the next Monday.

If you are thinking of the Anabaptists, they also claimed that other Christians were not really Christians. From my perspective that may be worse than killing.

There were a few folks who took more moderate and tolerant views without unchurching historic Christianity, true.

Yes, I did have some of the Anabaptists in my mind. I was not aware that is what they claimed though. I guess I am not surprised. It would be difficult to accept the same folks who are torching and drowning you as brothers and sisters in Christ.

However, I don’t get the line of thinking that it is worse than killing for Christ.

There are Catholics that I have read who do not consider me as a Protestant a Christian. For that matter, there are some strains of ultra fundamentalist who do not consider us Pentecostal/Charismatics types to be Christian. I can deal with this rather easily. They are just wrong.

However, it these types ratched it up another level and started gaining authority and killing us heretics for Christ, I might have to deal with this with my life.

One should indeed expect this, but one should also recognize that culture is very blinding and that otherwise good and holy people can fall into serious error through the influence of their culture.

But if they fall into teaching and believing heresy in their moral theology, how can I trust them in their other theology.

Well, I would not “give them a pass” in the sense of saying that their views are OK, but I would “give them a pass” in the sense of listening to the other things they say which *are *valid.

Again, I wouldn’t go so far to say that what Calvin said was not true because he torched Michael Servetus. It is more to me about who I allow as influences on my Christianity.

But, I guess I am a perfectionist in that regard.

Also, abortion is very different inasmuch as it is a break from the historic Christian position. By the 16th century the persecution of heretics had been accepted Christian teaching for centuries. Slavery is a more complicated case: the acceptance of slavery as an evil but not necessarily morally evil was the traditional stance, but the idea that race-based slavery was a positive good was a modern innovation.

Edwin

Of course there are differences. My point is that every culture seems to have its unique set of evils that it accepts and promotes. Today we accept abortion and reject slavery and killing Christians for Christ. 200 and 500 years ago it was different. And in 300 years it will be another set of moral evils that today we can not even anticipate.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I think that’s unfair. Sure, Calvin’s acceptance of the common belief of his day that heretics should be executed is disturbing. But I think the claim that this somehow counts as evidence against Calvin’s view of predestination (which was hardly original with him anyway, any more than was his attitude to heretics) is highly dubious at best.

Edwin

I don’t think you need a “right.” I don’t see why you should grant them some kind of official authority. Any authority they have comes from the extent to which their teachings illuminate Scripture in conformity with the historic Christian tradition. In my opinion, many of their distinctive teachings should be rejected because they are misinterpretations of Scripture, breaking with historic Christianity. Either way, the fact that they were sinners and often caught up in particular cultural sins of their era isn’t really relevant. . .

. . .One should indeed expect this, but one should also recognize that culture is very blinding and that otherwise good and holy people can fall into serious error through the influence of their culture. Edwin

Edwin:

You are very wise and your viewpoints as a church historian always elevate the level of discussion. I agree with you more often than not.

Granted, Calvin had plenty of company in his day, when it came to executing “heretics.” I can understand your defense of his actions in view of historical context; and Catholics were also involved in the execution of Servetus.

The problem is that today, in our historical context, Calvin and Luther, are hailed as the great Protestant Reformers. Many Protestants are unaware of the darker side of either one.

I think it is important to examine what latitude Calvin saw in his doctrine of grace for the elect. Did Calvin believe that salvation through “grace” removed his accountability for sin? Or was he blinded to his own sin by what was considered normal for his day–executing “heretics,” for example.

I agree that “culture is very blinding and that otherwise good and holy people can fall into serious error through the influence of their culture.” However, Calvin and Luther were known for reformation–a departure from the accepted beliefs of the Catholic Church. I think many Protestants put the Reformers on a pedestal. They do not belong there.

I agree that we can better understand one’s actions by viewing them through the lens of acceptable behavior of the day. But if we are not careful, sin becomes relative to our times; and man makes himself the judge of sin, not God.

Quote contained in my last post:

“As Calvin’s own theology allowed for his actions against Servetus, many in our day are sexually immoral, liars, drunkards, filled with greed, etc., while they profess salvation. This is a ramification of Calvin’s perverted grace message – a teaching which has “spread like gangrene” from a man who could openly burn another to death and for the remaining 10 years and seven months of his life, never publicly repent of his crime.”

I agree with your statement, “In my opinion, many of their distinctive teachings should be rejected because they are misinterpretations of Scripture, breaking with historic Christianity.”

I disagree with your statement, “the fact that they were sinners and often caught up in particular cultural sins of their era isn’t really relevant.” I think our actions are the best indicator of the beliefs we hold to be true. It is one thing to fall into sin and come to repentance; it is quite another to live out your life without acknowledging a sin as grievous as slowly burning someone to death.

I do see evidence all around me of Protestants who hold a doctrine of salvation, through grace alone and faith alone, deluding themselves into believing that no sin can cause them to fall from their secure position. Calvin definitely contributed to that delusion, as did others throughout history.

Anna