Edwin:
I will defer to your analysis of Calvin’s doctrines. You are a church historian and have years of study. I won’t pretend to be able to compete with you, when it comes to history. I mean that in a complimentary way. I always learn from you, Edwin.
I think the problem is that I have studied just enough to discover that the
great Protestant Reformers were not so
great. That does not mean that I reject all their doctrines, nor does it mean that reform was not needed.
I can’t get past the actions of Christian leaders, such and Calvin (and Luther.) That does not mean that I am expecting perfection or that I think any Christian is above falling into sin.
You said Calvin “thought that he would be sinning if he allowed Servetus to go on spreading his poisonous ideas. He saw it as his duty to denounce Servetus and to seek his death if Servetus ever came to Geneva.”
Calvin may have believed it was his duty to denounce Servetus and seek his death; but I cannot excuse burning “heretics,” because it was acceptable or dutiful at that point in history. One could excuse any number of atrocities committed throughout history by the same logic.
I agree with NotTooSmart’s statement: “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.”
Just as there have been people blinded by their cultural norms; there have also been people who have risen above the prevailing norms and fought to end the evils of their day. I would expect Christian leaders, especially those known for reform, to fall in this category, especially if I am going to accept their doctrines and the religious affiliations grounded in those doctrines. Obviously, I am asking too much.
I find myself in a very difficult situation. I am a Protestant who is appalled with many of the actions and writings of Protestant Reformers. Subsequently, the foundation for my Protestant religion is on shaky ground–not a good place to be. Granted, the Catholic Church was engaged in burning heretics, etc. also. I’m not claiming that Calvin or Luther invented these things.
So, it is almost a reflex action to lash out at Calvin; and, yes, I have pulled statements out of context. Putting things in context does not help me, either. We are back to reprehensible actions, somehow, justified by the norms of the day.
Then we come to the most important issue at hand—free will vs. the predestination of some to be the “elect,” and all others to destruction/damnation/eternal torment (whatever a person believes “Hell” to be.)
In your response to NotTooSmart, you stated,
*Fundamentalists hide from themselves the horror and blasphemy of what they believe by the frivolous secular excuse that they don’t actually want to kill those whom they happily condemn to hell.
That reveals how far from traditional Christianity they are. The idea that beliefs about people’s eternal destiny are irrelevant and the only thing that matters is civil toleration is an invention of the Enlightenment.*
We agree on this issue.
I have been trying to get those who believe in predestination to respond to the realities of their beliefs, but they will not respond.
Tom87, who claims to be a “5 point Calvinist,” who believes in “predestination, election of some to eternal salvation and others to destruction apart from any will of theirs”----never responded, when asked questions that would force him to face the harsh really of his beliefs.
When 2nd Adam was asked to address these realities; he suddenly “needs a break from me.”
This was the post to 2nd Adam, that I wish someone who believes in predestination, would find the courage to answer (2nd Adam, I am not asking you to answer, since we are on a break–sounds like an episode of “Friends.”
*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.
*
Frustrated and feeling less than charitable today–I’m sorry I let you down, CHESTERTONRULES (you did say I was charitable in my responses.)
Anna
Justification by faith alone is the heart of the gospel of God’s grace. If you reject a forensic justification, you might as well live out your life as a Catholic Christian to the glory of God.