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

[Anna_Scott]

Edwin:
To be honest, at times you have sort of lost me here.

I think what you are saying though is this…

(1) It is a grevious sin to the body of Christ to arbitrarily assign somebody to hell (presumably over theological differences) when in reality that somebody is a child of God.

I agree.

However the next question in my mind is whether this is more grevious than ignoring all theological differences and assigning somebody to heaven (presumably covering over theological differences) when the reality is that those theological differences are so severe that this person is not a child of God.

I would like to agree here. I have the motivational gift of mercy. But I am honestly not sure. The counter argument would be that at least with the latter you are preserving the purity of the gospel (as you perceive it). Ideally I want my boundaries to reflect God’s boundaries. But since a whole lot of us have a whole lot of different boundaries, there are going to be a whole lot of people in heaven wrong about this.

(2) I have thought I have heard you say throughout this that arbitratily assigning somebody to hell over theological differences when the reality is that somebody is a child of God is more grevious than killing other Christians for Christ.

I respectfully disagree. Logically killing other Christians for Christ has the same impact on the body of Christ as (1) above. Plus you are adding to this the sin of unjust killing (I will avoid the word murder for now) and possibly sadism. I would say option 2 has all of the negatives of option 1 and a few additional biggies like unjust killing.

(3) You want me to judge the actions of Calvin and Luther in light of their time periods in which killing other people for Christ was the norm and a good thing.

I would like to believe this. But I keep coming back the the question of whether Christians in a society 300 years from now that has rejected abortion should go easy on Christians in this time period who were pro-choice or Christians 200 years ago were pro-slavery. And the fact is that for me anyway, I do not give pro-choice Christians today a pass, nor do I give pro-slavery Christians 200 years ago a pass (now maybe I am consistently too black and white on this stuff…I am open to that possibility). So then the question in my mind is why should I give Luther and Calvin a pass. That would be kind of inconsistent of me, wouldn’t you think.

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. Anna

NotTooSmart:

I think we have some similar viewpoints. Appreciate your comments.

There were people who were able to recognize evil acts, even though the acts were considered to be normal or acceptable for the day.

If there were not such people, Christians might still consider “death by burning at the stake” an acceptable way to deal with heretics.

So, the actions of the Protestant Reformers matter to me. Some may disagree, but what matters to me is not really an arguable point.

However, when considering sins of the heart, the sadistic doctrines of Jonathan Edwards, who claims, “the sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever,” may be more grievous than murder. Only God can make that judgment.

Anna

 

[2nd_Adam]

A man-centered gospel is the belief that the determining factor in whether or not a man is eternally saved, in the end, relies (at some level) upon an act of his own will i.e. human decision. This is often called synergism because it is thought to be a cooperative effort between God and man. While a God-centered Gospel means that man has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with causing his salvation by “choosing God,” “deciding to follow Christ,” “asking Jesus into your heart,” and/or any other like phrases so common today. Sola fide and sola gratia as used in the Protestant Reformation mean that while the sinner is dead in his trespasses and sins God Himself sovereignly regenerates those whom He will. As His gift God gives them the faith to believe in Christ, and they repent of their sins. This is actually diametrically opposed to any of the seeker-friendly postevangelical movements e.g. the Purpose Driven Life as taught by Rick Warren. The sad fact is that the contemporary American Christian Church largely believes in synergism (man cooperates with God), while in stark opposition to the synergism of (edited by Adam) Roman Catholicism, the Reformers (even before John Calvin) taught monergism (soli Deo gloria). Yet to a great extent today the Emerging Church movement overall, and voices in this Emergent rebellion against Sola Scriptura like Rob Bell in particular, also strongly believe in synergism (at best). - Ken Silva

monergism.com/directory/link_category/Gospel/Classic-Essays-on-the-Gospel/