Roger Olson is my favorite Evangelical Arminians. He has a unique ability to be an anchor of doctrinal stability and a provocative juggernaut of theological inquiry that causes us to scratch our heads and, many times, reshape our paradigms. I have used his The Mosaic of Christian Belief in The Theology Program for over six years and I don’t plan on changing it any time soon. He has been on Converse with Scholars (twice I think). He is a great and well respected Evangelical author and professor. All of this to say, I have much admiration and appreciation for Roger Olson…he keeps us on our toes.
Having said this, his recent blog post about Protestant Purgatory makes me wonder what is going on.
Don’t take the title of this post seriously. It comes from Roger himself when he says, “Once again, as I write, I am aware that some critics out there may rip what I say out of context (because they have in the past) and publicly accuse me of adopting a Roman Catholic doctrine. I can see the (admittedly small) headline in some state Baptist newspaper now: “Baptist seminary professor Roger Olson headed toward Rome!” Well, this is not a Baptist newspaper, but it’ll do.
While I am a fan of Roger Olson, I am a contemplative critic of his thesis here. I don’t really know where it has come from. The very idea of Purgatory goes against everything that the Reformation was about. Let me back up. In essence, this is what I am hearing Olson say: “There are some Christians who have done some really, really bad things and had some really, really bad attitudes. Therefore, I am considering that these Christians have to enter into an educational corrective half-way house before entering Heaven. Let’s call this a ‘Protestant Purgatory’.”
For those of you not familiar with Purgatory, this is a doctrine held by Roman Catholics but rejected by Protestants and Eastern Orthodox. It is taken from the Lat. “purgare” meaning to purify. Officially and without internal debate, it can be said that Purgatory is a place that those who die in the grace of God (i.e. in a justified state) go to in order to be purified from the venial sins. “Venial” sins, as opposed to “mortal” sins, are sins that do not remove the justifying grace of God. They are the “small” sins, the white lies, calling in sicks when we were not sick, the candy thefts, and the “holy *%$# Batman’s” of our life. They are all those things that we forgot to do penance for (or simply did not have time!).
There is internal debate among Catholics concerning the nature and duration of Purgatory. Traditionally, it was a place of fire that could last millions of years. However, contemporary Catholicism has lightened the load quite a bit. Some current (and more palatable) descriptions I have heard include “a washing up before dinner” and “a timeless, instantaneous, and virtually painless purging of our wicked nature.” Either way, the idea is that there will be a time of suffering that all non-sainthooded Christians go through before entering Paradise. Very few escape its purging. But take heart, if you make it there, you are guaranteed to make it to Heaven eventually!
Biblically, Purgatory is very difficult to defend without reading the Tradition of the Roman Catholic church into certain passages. Theologically, the idea is that we must be completely clean before we get into God’s presence. No dirt under the fingernails. If we die and are “covered” legally by the blood of Christ, we need to have our fallen nature purged actually.
Protestants, including myself, believe that this amounts to a price-cut on the power and efficiency of the Cross. It is sort of a crucifix deflation. We believe that Christ paid for all sins and that there is simply no condemnation for those who have placed their faith in him (Rom. 8:1). Believers have been justified through the alien righteousness of Christ which was “imputed” or credited to our account. There is simply no way for us to atone for our own sin, not matter how big or small. Therefore, when God sees us, he sees Christ. Its that simple. No further cleansing needed.
Olson most certainly believes in the imputation of Christ righteousness and justification by faith. However, he seems to have fallen into this category that we all often trip into. Its a category that makes us pick up a bit of the load. Its a category that wants others to carry some of the load. Its a category that says “Grace is too radical.” Its the “other brother” in all of us that says “Father, this is not fair. He has just done too much wrong not to get punished at tincy bit.”
Using Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and Augustine as examples, Olson puts on display their dark side. No, not their dark side before accepting Christ, but their dark side post-Christian. In essence, this is what it comes down to:
Luther: Advocated the total annihilation of the Jews.
Augustine: Advocated the total annihilation of heretics.
Zwingli: Arrested and tortured Hubmaier until he recanted of his heresy.
Calvin: (you knew it was coming) Advocated the burning of the anti-Trinitarian Servetus.
Olson does not like these historic Christian titans acting in such a way. Without getting into the details involved here or the cultural toleration and advocacy of such, let’s just say that none of us do. Its Olson’s “solution” that that makes me scratch my head. While not assigning them to the fires of Purgatory, he does not want them to get a “free” pass. He thinks that some intellectual atonement needs to be made before they are granted access to paradise. In his words:
“[W]ith regard to Augustine, Luther, Zwingli and Calvin (among others) I’m faced with a dilemma. Are they in paradise now? Are they enjoying the bliss of being in the presence of Jesus? I am not their judge, but I would like to think so. But that presses me back to considering some concept like purgatory. Lull’s little dialogue book gave me the possible answer. (Remember–I’m talking about a hypothesis and not a new doctrine.)
What’s wrong with a Protestant believing that upon entering paradise a hate-filled Christian leader of the past who condoned torture and even murder (I don’t know what else to call the burning of Servetus even though it was technically legal–we still call “legal” stonings of women in certain countries “murder”) has to take a spiritually therapeutic “class” of correction?
I can imagine (only imagine, you realize!) Zwingli entering the pearly gates (imagery–because there’s no reason to believe paradise has gates!) and being greeted by Hubmaier who says ‘Ulrich, it’s nice to see you here. I’ve completely forgiven you. But Christ has assigned me as your tutor and guide during your orientation to paradise. Here, sit down, let me offer you some correction about treatment of people with whom you disagree.'”
What is wrong with hate-filled Christians going through corrective therapy as a consequence for their sinful thinking? Really? Are we being serious here? If Olson had simply said that we will all be learning in heaven, if Olson had said that all our thinking be instantaneously sanctified upon entering Paradise, maybe if this was not in the context of Purgatory, I might have been able to follow him a bit more. But to suggest that certain people are just too bad to get a true free pass evidences how difficult it is, even for someone as astute as Olson, to comprehend how radical God’s grace is and how sinful we all are. To single out these fellas is problematic as it seems, like the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, to place a breaking point on the grace of God.
I can’t help but think of the brother of the prodigal son who simply could not accept the free acceptance of his brother. I am sure the brother would not have complained had his father made the rebellious son go through some corrective training on family etiquette and loyalty. But the Father did not. There was no punitive correction of any kind. Grace is that crazy.
Are they in Paradise now? Are the enjoying the bliss of Jesus? I am not sure if Olson is truly teetering here between “maybe” and “maybe not”, but, by the grace of God, Christ purchased them and covered all their pride, murders, and ill-will toward others with his blood. A corrective course for those few who were really bad Christians is not the icing on the cake to the cross, even if they were taught by Jesus. There is simply no condemnation for those who are in Christ.
123 replies to "Baptist Seminary Professor Roger Olson Headed Toward Rome"
I think this demonstrates the slippery slope of trying to explain away everything that scares us about God. First it’s Arminianism, then purgatory, then inclusivism, then universalism, and then you’re explaining how even animals can have their souls saved, since “I refuse to believe in a God who would let an animal suffer for no reason!”
Could it be that the resurrected body is an important factor in the Corinthian passage?
Everyone who dies before the last trumpet is still without a glorified body. As the bible states this is an undesired state to be in. Perhaps in this intermediate state sanctification continues but only within the limits of the fallen mind – as on earth. In the intermediate state we experience consciously a continued sanctification with which we must cooperate as is true here on earth.
But as soon as we receive our glorified bodies the process of sanctification is carried through to completion, helped by the fact that we are no longer limited by our corruptible mind/body.
Another important thing to remember is that just because something happens “in the twinkling of an eye” doesn’t mean that it is necessarily experienced as such. Think about how a dream that feels really long could happen in the “twinkling of an eye”. In the same way we may experience our “purging/glorification” as a process even though in reality it happens in a second or two.
Jacques,
The first part of what you say is plausible with this passage in particular, but sounds a bit like trying to scramble to explain why purgatory is true when it seems more likely that it is not. Take again, for example, the thief who immediately is with Christ in paradise. One might say that he can still be with Christ in paradise as he continues to be sanctified, but this seems like explaining purgatory out of existence by definition. Supposedly, purgatory exists to sanctify less sanctified or incompletely sanctified Christians so that they can be in the presence of Christ (until then they cannot enter because they are not perfect and they cannot be with the Holy One). If the resurrection does this, why another process. Now if sanctification is love toward Christ, then certainly we will grow in that, but why an extra process of purging when there is no need of it? And why does the Bible never mention this very important doctrine, but instead indicates that to be absence from the body is to be in the presence of Christ (i.e., salvation itself).
The second part I have to reject since it attempts to make the language used say the exact opposite of what it is meant to convey. Paul is attempting to explain that this happens in a moment, not that it seems like a moment. It is in the twinkling of an eye (i.e., a blink), not just like a blink of the eye.
Finally, if one can be in the presence of Christ without being fully sanctified/glorified, and will be glorified when the resurrection occurs, why exactly does he or she need to go through an extra process in order to be glorified? He or she will already be glorified without the extra process, as the other Christians who do not die before Christ returns. If you want to say that we’ll simply grow in our love toward Christ, that’s fine; but my point is what is the extra process for?
Dave,
I don’t have a problem with growing in knowledge per se, which is a different question than the one here. I think that the knowledge the NT is talking about is knowing God and who we are in a comprehensive way, but not in an exhaustive way (in other words, I don’t think we become omniscient). This is not in the Bible, but I don’t think the reverse is in the Bible either. It is perhaps a theology gained from an understanding of our finitude and otherliness from God. I realize some may make the argument that if we are connected to God through Christ (for instance in some form of theosis) then perhaps we will have access to His, not our, knowledge and know all things through Him; but I don’t think the passages you quoted make this necessary. I don’t have a major theological objection to it though, as I think either way we are speculating.
Hodge,
I agree that the Roman Catholic understanding of Purgatory is by and large completely unbiblical. However, I’m considering how a protestant may understand some kind purging process that follows death and must be completed before we can enter the new creation. What must be purged is the sin sickness in our bodies, minds and souls. I have no idea how sin effects us on a metaphysical level and so I don’t know whether it exists in my body only or whether it taints my mind and soul as well.
If my body only, well then death destroys it and when I am raised I am healed and whole.
If however it is part of me, my mind, my spirit, my body, my whole self – then it would still need to be healed while I wait for my resurrection.
If the intermediate state is a conscious one and we are not yet changed – since the passage in Corinthians says that only at the last trump will we be raised and changed – then we must surely continue to submit to the healing of our fallen psyches.
If however the intermediate state is an unconcious one then there is no purgatory and we will be changed when we are resurrected at the last trump.
The Luke 23 passage is problematic for me as Jesus was on the cross dying when he addressed the thief and would then spend 3 days and nights in the grave and only then be resurrected on the 3rd day. I haven’t studied this enough but I’ve heard it said that the comma placement could change the passage significantly, as in, “I tell you this day, you will be with me in paradise.”
On second thought it is not actually problematic for Jesus and the man to be together in Paradise that day, since paradise is the place in Sheol were all the righteous go to await their resurrection.
As such Sheol itself would be the place of continued sanctification. The Catholics say we can’t be in Christ’s presence and purgatory at the same time, but again this is not a reflection on the catholic concept of purgatory.
Therefore if we are being purged in paradise then we are being purged in the presence of Christ and will be completely purged/fully sactified/glorified at the second coming when we receive our glorified bodies. Which is again why I think maybe having our resurrected bodies is such a vital part of the process.
Roger Olson is my favorite Evangelical Arminians.
Shouldn’t the first sentence read “Evangelical Arminian” (no “s”)?
Jacques,
A purging process makes sense to me because of our experience in the here and now, but does sanctification of the soul continue after it is disembodied? I don’t know. What is clear, and that in which we seem to both find agreement is the believer does not have to go through any other extra process to be in the presence of Christ (cf. Paul, “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord”).
I probably would not share the common idea that paradise is one part of a two part holding place, as I think it is parallel to heaven, Eden, the presence of God; but if we agree that believers can be in the presence of God after death that is sufficient.
The idea that one Christian must go through some extra purging process, however, runs counter in my mind to the biblical evidence of the depth of ALL of our sin.
I do also think that you have identified the point to pursue, if it can be known from Scripture, and that is whether Christ cleanses our spirits, but our bodies remain corrupt, or whether both body and spirit are corrupt even after justification and initial sanctification. If the former, and there is no immediate glorification of the spirit in parallel to what happens to the body at the resurrection, then there may be a process of sanctification that continues in the presence of Christ; but if transformation of the soul is parallel to the body and immediate upon death (cf. 1 John 3:2, where we will be like Him as a result of our seeing Him as He is), or the spirit is cleansed already at justification/initial sanctification, then the process of sanctification is over for both body and soul at death (the soul is glorified and will be later joined to a glorified body, so corruption exists no longer for either one).
Of course, we should also answer the questions, What is sanctification, What is salvation, What is this process, etc.; but these are questions that cannot be pursued here at length, and certain definitions seem to be assumed.
that should be “the idea that one Christian as opposed to another must go through some extra purging process . . .”
“Protestants, including myself, believe that this amounts to a price-cut on the power and efficiency of the Cross. It is sort of a crucifix deflation. We believe that Christ paid for all sins and that there is simply no condemnation for those who have placed their faith in him.”
One may disagree with Purgatory but to say so because it deflates the power of the cross is an overstatement. First off, Christians already believe in some type of purgation in this life. If one commits a sin and seeks the forgiveness of God Christians believe that the sin is forgiven but the consequences of the sin remain. No one would say that deflates the power and efficiency of the cross. So how does Purgatory do so, when the teaching says basically the same thing? Those who go to Purgatory are not condemned. They are not going to a “kinder, gentler, version of hell”. The souls in purgatory are being purified, cleansed, in short sancitified. The souls in purgatory are not atoning for their sins as some second payment. If you are so inclined, read St. Catherine of Genoa on Purgatory, and you will see that the souls in purgatory would have it no other way, namely they are experiencing the purifying love of God that cleanses the soul. It strikes me that Dr. Olson is trying to give due justice to 1st Cor 3. Also one could not read the Fathers of the Church and not come away thinking that our illustrious leaders commended the practice of praying for the dead, especially at the altar.
Tom,
Prots do not believe that we undergo a purging process for the purpose of justification. That’s where your RC theology is conflicting with ours. Our sanctification is a result of justification and a growing in love toward God, but we can stand before Him now because of Christ’s sacrifice. We can die and be in His presence without having to go to a kinder, gentler hell (which I take it to mean a far, far worse place than this life). To say that one must still be justified by a purging in order to stand in God’s presence is what is being referred to as deflating the cross. Do you understand that now? You, of course, may not agree with our theology, but that is why it is said.
BTW, 1 Cor 3 isn’t talking about a purging in order to be justified. It’s not even talking about the person being burned up. It’s talking about what various teachers are teaching, whether human wisdom or the Holy Spirit’s. Please read the context. If someone teaches human wisdom and seeks to convince people naturally, they’re works will be burned up, even though they are still saved, since they’re teaching a lower form of wisdom and not complete foolishness or evil. This has nothing to do with the believer in general, or any process through which he or she must pass.
Interesting post. I think some people don’t agree with Christianity because of the “free pass” issue mentioned in the comments re: Hitler, for instance. Muslims are very much bent on justice. If they don’t get it here, they get it in the hereafter. To think someone such as George Bush would get away with killing thousands of their people just has no place in their minds. They already think he should be trialed for war crimes, but to think he would get a free pass from God because he is an evangelical Christian…not happening in their minds.
So how do we balance the justice part of God? I don’t believe in purgatory and I am thankful so much for God’s grace, but I do understand how people who have been wronged here yearn for justice and a Hitler type getting off scot-free makes them angry!
Hodge,
I did NOT call purgatory a “kinder, gentler” hell. That is the caricature that Protestants make of the Catholic teaching. The other caricature is that purgatory is a place where I atone for my sins. Neither of those are the teaching of the Church.
That being said, your reference to the context of 1st Cor 3 begs the question, “who decides whose teaching is correct?” Is it the individual believer or the divinely given authority established by Christ? If it is the second, then who is that divinely given authority?
Tom,
I’m sorry, but you’re mistaken. The RCC does teach that purgatory involves three things: 1. that it is a purging of sin; 2. that is affected by our prayers; and 3. it involves PAIN!!! Now, you can call that what you like, but the vast majority of those who have believed in purgatory as it was developed in the Middle Ages saw it as a kinder, gentler hell, so the original description was accurate.
Secondly, this is why I will never become a Roman Catholic. Your argument is absurd. Texts can communicate without a magisterium. Otherwise, why did you allude to the Bible and the Church Fathers? You should have just said that my leader says it to be so, so it is. You’re being inconsistent. The context is SO clear, and yet, you have to argue against it in order to support your magisterium. So you have to argue against what is known to be true from the context (btw, can you give a reference where this passage was stated ex cathedra to mean what you have interpreted it to be here? I was unaware that ex cathedra statements are usually concerning the interpretation of specific passages of Scripture). And where exactly did the authority come for you to pronounce the RCC as the rightful authority because you recognize it as such? Did it come from you? Methinks it did.
Also, I find it a bit ironic that you say Olsen is trying to give justice to 1 Cor 3, and then go on to render the passage’s context irrelevant because your leader says otherwise.
Michael,
Olson’s point about these men was not that they sinned and then found absolution, it was that after BEING SAVED they committed terrible acts and never repented. So where does that leave us?, does that now mean that I can be saved, go get in my car and run down 100 people and die (maybe I crashed my car). I’m covered right? and that makes it OK and God’s just going to chuckle and say Paul, Paul, Paul?
Some would say, “Well he was never saved”. But what if I really was?? what if my writings where building a new doctrine?. Would you excuse me or condemn me?
Let’s say Calvin was alive today, and the events in Geneva where taking place now. Not one of us, no matter how good Calvins theology, would venerate him. We would all denounce him as a monster. If he lived in even the most remote village we would still feel the same, but add 500 years and we can simply dismiss it without a thought and follow what he teaches. But you wouldn’t even consider following someone like that today…
Where does that leave the Gospel?, if we make saints out of these men who in the name of Christ committed terrible acts and we simply gloss over them then we are no better. I have a serious issue with the whitewashing that Calvin gets in reformed churches, I even asked a reformed Pastor about Servetus and his comment was “Well, he was going to die anyway”. Great, so you just showed me your commitment to truth and the Gospel.
-Paul-
Paul,
I wonder if this discussion is based on the belief that A) Even people who continue to live in license are Christians; B) forgiveness (i.e., a blotting out of our sins as thought they never happened) is a point in time rather than a continual work that the cross accomplishes in our lives; and C) a lack of reflection upon this statement made by Christ:
“Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. “And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the [age] to come. Matt 12:31-32)
Notice that any sin will be forgiven in this age and the age to come except the blasphemy of the HS, which I believe to be a complete rejection of Christ’s lordship over one’s life that is continually being impressed upon the individual by the HS.
If all sins will be forgiven to the one who comes to Christ, both now and in the age to come, then what more is there to atone for?
“Let’s say Calvin was alive today, and the events in Geneva where taking place now. Not one of us, no matter how good Calvins theology, would venerate him. We would all denounce him as a monster. If he lived in even the most remote village we would still feel the same, but add 500 years and we can simply dismiss it without a thought and follow what he teaches. But you wouldn’t even consider following someone like that today…”
I’d be careful with this. Calvin’s actions are a result of his application of the law and gospel in terms of destroying chaos in the community. Servetus’s actions were leading to war within the community. It’s hard for modern Westerners to imagine why it was a good in Calvin’s mind, but let’s try to refrain from the idea that our horrible society is superior in letting chaos thrive unchecked, lest we also condemn God for His commands…
to destroy the Canaanites.
Hodge,
The three points you mention 1. Purging of sin (yes) 2. Our prayers are involved (yes) 3. Involves pain (yes).
In the Christian life we 1. Die to sin, in other words sin is being purged from our lives 2. Our prayers and sufferings assist others (Col 1) 3. Growing in holiness is not easy and I dare say involves pain (1st Cor 9). So nothing you said militates against the Catholic teaching.
You may not like the Catholic teaching but to argue against a caricature is not helpful.
Tom,
I wasn’t attempting to militate against it. I was simply correcting you. The person in purgatory has to go through a painful process in order to purge him or herself of their remaining imperfections so that they can be justified. That’s not the Prot view. We don’t go through purging in order to be justified because we view the cross as accomplishing complete justification for us. In the RC view, justification is only initially accomplished in the believer, but then must be worked out when he further sins. Purgatory makes sense in this system, but Prots will then view it as a deflation of the cross, since in our minds the death of Christ accomplishes our justification by itself, not with our cooperation. That was my only point. Your objection is to our theology, but we are not being inconsistent by calling the concept of purgatory a deflation of the cross.
BTW, I actually like the Catholic teaching because it gives some satisfaction to my self righteous tendencies. I can just boast that I’m in heaven for what Christ has done through ME, since I accepted Him and then burned off the rest. I’m just committed to the Scripture and it indicates something completely different by its teachings concerning glorification and the presence of Christ.
Hodge,
re your last statements in comments #67 and 68 above:
We don’t live in an Old Testament theocracy any more so I don’t think there can be a legitmate connection between the actions of Calvin or any other reformers and what God commanded His people to do back then.
Frankly, demanding death for disagreeing with one’s Christian beliefs is appalling to me if it comes from one of the reformers– Calvin, Luther, or whoever–from the past or if it comes from any modern day religious zealot in any religion. I do not believe that God has given NT believer’s any authority or warrant for such actions whatsoever.
Cheryl,
What does keeping chaos at bay in the community have to do with Old Testament theocracy? If someone were to be actively planting bombs in the community, would you say they should be put to death? We need to remember that their context is completely different from ours. I don’t condemn the RCC for condoning the execution of what they perceived to be chaotic agents in the community, i.e., people who will bring destruction to the community. I disagree with who they identified as chaotic agents often, but not they they condoned the destruction of them. Or do you think that Osama bin Laden should not be killed? Are you a monster if you say yes? I realize terrorists and instigators that will bring war and death to the community may be different in our modern minds, but in Calvin’s they are probably not, since he lives in a world devastated by war brought about by religious dissent. Your condemnation, and those Arminians who constantly bring this up, is convenient, since you never have to walk in his shoes; but he had to, and I’m not going to condemn him for it, especially when there is precedence for it in both the Old and New Testament.
Good point Hodge,
I don’t have an answer yet (it’s something I’m digging through), and I understand Grace, but how do we deal with people who commit atrocities in the name of God? Especially Christians.
John 18, Simon Peter cuts off the ear of the sentry and got rebuked for it, when I look at the lives of the Apostles I don’t see any activity like what Luther, Augustine or Calvin did. So how do we deal with that? It certainly colors any opinion I have about these men, and by my way of thinking it should. Are those the fruits of their faith?
-Paul-
Hodge,
If there is a New Testament precedent for putting people to death for their beliefs it totally escapes me. Could you please point it out to me?
Osama bin Laden is, IMO a completely different situation. He has set out to destroy people systematically.
Please tell me how Servetus, for instance, was destroying the community in a manner anything similar to bin Laden? Teaching different ideas is a bit of a different thing that ordering terrorist attacks against others is it not? Can a person really be blamed if his different religious ideas bring about war? I guess the only solution back then was to never state a differing opinion to the one held by whoever happened to be in power at the time and all would be well. After all, to do otherwise invited being burned at the stake and it was all well and good because people might fight over what he said if he was allowed to open his mouth. I just don’t get it.
Or how about the Jews or German peasants that Luther wanted to exterminate? Was it all well and good for such views to be expressed by people that claimed to follow Jesus?
Do you honestly believe that God gives a blessing to those who do these things?
And I honestly don’t know what Arminianism has to do with this whole thing. Do you really believe that because this happened God wanted these people to go out and kill others because they had different beliefs? I know, I know, God had obviously preordained that these people be heretics and that others kill them for their heresey, right?? It just doesn’t seem to fit at all with the way the New Testament tells us to treat false teachers and heretics. Mark them, yes. Turn away from them, yes. But kill them?? I don’t think so.
And yes, this has probably been a rant. But to me this whole idea of these reactions by Christian people is appalling.
Hodge,
I agree that talking about Bin Laden, someone who is committed to destroying ALL Christians, innocent or not, in the same breath with the Christian reformers is not a valid argument. Nor should it be assumed that everyone who disagrees with Calvin’s actions are automatically Armianians or against the gospel of grace he preached.
Under the argument you presented, it sounds as if you are saying it would then be okay for modern day Christians to kill members of cults or atheists because they also disagree with us, and are creating ‘chaos’. We know this is not a sound biblical teaching.
You are always pointing out the fallacies of such arguments to others yourself, are you not? 🙂
Paul,
“I understand Grace, but how do we deal with people who commit atrocities in the name of God? Especially Christians.”
I think it is more consistent to see them in two categories: 1) genuine Christians who fall into sin in the likes of David; and 2) false Christians, who according to the NT, make up the majority of the visible church. The first are acting in accord with their old nature, but still have a new one and forgiven in Christ and the second are consistent with their unredeemed nature.
I think we need to remember that justice was enacted upon Christ for the first group, so we should not seek more justice as though our Savior’s death wasn’t good enough and we need more blood. That’s important I think.
“I look at the lives of the Apostles I don’t see any activity like what Luther, Augustine or Calvin did. So how do we deal with that?”
I would actually say that we don’t see the apostles do this sort of thing because they have no influence in the Roman government. When they do, as Paul with the prisoners, they always back the government (e.g., Paul stating that the government bears the sword for a good reason in killing chaotic agents, and Peter saying that the Roman government is to be honored and prayed for, as those who suffer for their evil do so rightly). So I think that those Christians who have some influence of government would rightly back it in its decisions, yet hope that it did so with as less cruelty as possible (i.e., exactly what Calvin does in his petitioning against Servetus being burned). So I do think the fruits of our faith seek to destroy chaos, and unfortunately, humans make themselves agents of chaos to a degree that we must back God’s institutions (i.e., the civil government) in destroying them for the sake of the innocent.
I won’t address some of what you said because I think I’ve answered this already, but . . .
“Can a person really be blamed if his different religious ideas bring about war?”
Cheryl,
Servetus was doing more than just teaching different religious ideas. He was on a radical crusade to slander orthodox Christianity by which the community was bound together, and revile government authority in a manner that would lead to war. If you’re inciting people against the government and trying to dismantle the very foundation of the community’s peace, then what is the government left to do? Is it being unjust for dealing with the problem and attempting to extinguish the sparks that would ignite a destructive fire in the community? Again, we say, so be it, but modern licenses toward chaos are not a part of Calvin’s world. We may disagree that this is an instance of appropriate application of that authority, but it is a responsibility nonetheless.
“Or how about the Jews or German peasants that Luther wanted to exterminate?”
Are you talking about the peasants in the Peasant Rebellion? Is government supposed to let people rape, murder and pillage so that they are not one day condemned by a more enlightened generation that hasn’t seen a violent war on their land and in their houses for over 150 years?
Cheryl,
Calvin didn’t kill Servetus. He condoned the government for doing so. All he did was condemn him as a heretic, i.e., he marked him, as you would do; but to mark one as a heretic in his culture is to give him over to death as a rebel against the community and instigator of war. Calvin even originally says to him that he doesn’t want to persecute him, but that his rebellious tone is going to bring people to have no mercy when he is condemned for his rebellion.
“I agree that talking about Bin Laden, someone who is committed to destroying ALL Christians, innocent or not, in the same breath with the Christian reformers is not a valid argument. Nor should it be assumed that everyone who disagrees with Calvin’s actions are automatically Armianians or against the gospel of grace he preached.”
1. Bin Laden incites to destroy the community in war. Servetus incites to destroy the community in war. What’s the difference here? That he didn’t specifically say that his followers should go to war with the orthodox, but instead just took a course of action that HE KNEW would lead to it?
2. I didn’t say that those who condemn Calvin’s actions are all Arminians. I said this is constantly brought up by Arminians in some sort of attempt of arguing that Calvinism must not be of God via ad hominem.
“Under the argument you presented, it sounds as if you are saying it would then be okay for modern day Christians to kill members of cults or atheists because they also disagree with us, and are creating ‘chaos’. We know this is not a sound biblical teaching.”
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I don’t think the Church has the authority to kill anyone. It’s not a civil government. It’s a spiritual one, and its condemnations are spiritual. My point is that the one sword should not work against the other and condemn it when it does what it is made for (i.e., to keep what it views as chaos at bay by sometimes putting the death penalty into play). I think civil government is sometimes wrong in its identification of chaotic agents (e.g., the Romans identifying Christians as chaotic agents within the community), but that should not lead me to condemn Christians for backing the government’s right to make those decisions.
I personally would not back our current government killing people of other beliefs because orthodoxy is not the foundation of our society, nor are they inciting anyone to war any time soon. I would not…
therefore see them as chaotic agents within the civil community even though they may be within the spiritual community. Do you see the distinction?
Hodge,
You made this comment above referring to the types of things Luther, Calvin and others did that we have been discussing here:
I would actually say that we don’t see the apostles do this sort of thing because they have no influence in the Roman government.
But look at what Paul says about himself before he became a Christian.
I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God, even as ye all are this day: and I persecuted this Way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and journeyed to Damascus to bring them also that were there unto Jerusalem in bonds to be punished. Acts 22:3-5
So then, I thought to myself that I had to do many things hostile to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And this is [fn] just what I did in Jerusalem; not only did I lock up many of the [fn] saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests, but also when they were being put to death I cast my vote against them. And as I punished them often in all the synagogues, I tried to force them to blaspheme; and being furiously enraged at them, I kept pursuing them even to [fn] foreign cities. Acts 26:9-11
Before He knew the Lord he was doing exactly what Calvin and the other reformers were doing. After he came to Christ, we don’t see him hauling anyone to prison or approving of their deaths for their religious beliefs, do we?
And if he had the influence with the governments to do it before he was a Christian, how could it be that he had no influence to do anything like this after he became a Christian??
Cheryl,
All I see him doing is admitting that he misidentified who he thought were chaotic agents. He never says that he should have never condoned the government for using the sword. In fact, in Rom 13, he tells us otherwise.
And doing exactly what Calvin and other Reformers were doing? They’re persecuting Christians? Again, all they did was condemn who they view as chaotic agents.
I don’t understand your last point. He was rejected by the Jewish community (which didn’t actually have the legal right under Roman law to put anyone to death btw) after he became a Christian, and had no influence with the Romans beyond what we see in Acts. He supports government at every turn.
I can see that it in the context that civil government must make laws and go by them, and convict the guilty, but not in the context that Christians themselves are justified biblically in doing what Paul did prior to his conversion, killing those like Stephen who simply disagreed with Jewish law, regarding God.
I think the more important distinction is what Jesus taught: ” Render unto Caesar’s what is Caesar’s, and what is God’s to God.”
I think sometimes Christians blur the difference, and that is where I think Calvin and Luther erred in their own actions after the reformation. But of course the most biblical example IS the the apostle Paul who was shown the difference. by God Himself. After all, before Paul was converted he killed folks like Stephen, thinking he was justified by God in doing so, until the Lord showed him the difference.
Remind me again how we got from purgatory to this? 🙂
Again, it’s important to remember that neither Calvin nor Luther killed anyone. They are obedient to God by speaking well of His civil servant’s decisions and they are being obedient to God by exercising church discipline. This just has results in their communities that we have come to believe are harsh; but there is nothing unbiblical about it.
You were the one who brought it up, so perhaps you can tell us? Up to then I think we were discussing the topic of the post. 🙂
Oh that’s right, because Olsen was saying that they deserve to go through some sort of purgatory for this, etc., etc.
see, it did have something to do with the post. does that count? 🙂
Sorry, I didn’t get that from Olson’s post, only that he was saying we shouldn’t condemn those who personally agree with the Catholic’s point of view, rather that we should not make the same mistake that Calvin did, and condemn them unilaterally as not being Christian because they don’t agree with our point of view that purgatory is not supported biblically.
Perhaps it is a matter of reading comprehension? 🙂
Hodge,
You do have a point that Paul lost his influence with the Jews and so maybe had no way of continuing what he had done before he became a Christian.
However, I still do not see any NT writer condoning or even suggesting death for heretics in any way.
And here is a very telling quote from Calvin himself regarding Servetus death. (By the way, it seems he did have some official capacity in the town of Geneva at the time all of this happened.)
Defense of Orthodox Faith against the Prodigious Errors of the Spaniard Michael Servetus, published in early 1554. “Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his Church. It is not in vain that he banishes all those human affections which soften our hearts; that he commands paternal love and all the benevolent feelings between brothers, relations, and friends to cease; in a word, that he almost deprives men of their nature in order that nothing may hinder their holy zeal. Why is so implacable a severity exacted but that we may know that God is defrauded of his honour, unless the piety that is due to him be preferred to all human duties, and that when his glory is to be asserted, humanity must be almost obliterated from our memories? Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face.
Note he seems to say he destroyed Servetus–he doesn’t just agree with the government’s decision. And it was for heresy and blashphemy that he did this. And notice he says that this is not done by human authority but by a perpetual rule for His Chruch.
http://www.a-voice.org/tidbits/calvinp.htm
Hodge,
Again, as CMP has pointed out in his bottom line : “There is simply no condemnation for those who are in Christ.”
And, if in fact you disagree that isn’t the bottom line in Olson’s post also, please address what HE said point by point, bibiically and theologcally to prove otherwise, instead of generalizing and defending it from a strictly personal Calvinisitic point of view.
Then perhaps I, and others here, can sync with you.
Hodge,
I’ve gotten in on this discussion late. Just a couple questions. If the government is doing something that we as Christians consider to be highly immoral (i.e. using taxpayer funds to fund the murder of helpless unborn children) don’t we have a duty to speak out against such a thing?? Furthermore if secular governing authorities are going to execute somebody in the name of God simply for holding to a heretical religious doctrine shouldn’t we also speak out against both the religious persecution and the misuse of God’s name as a pretext for their actions??
This thread has certainly meandered a bit since Hodge and I were talking about “sudden sanctification” at death, but I came across this in Romans 6 and thought it might apply, in Hodge’s favor:
“… anyone who has died has been freed from sin.”
mbaker,
That’s Ok if you didn’t pick that up. I won’t hold your lack of reading comprehension against you. 😉
Cheryl,
“And he [Calvin] took full responsibility for it even though he preferred beheading over burning and technically the city council, not Calvin, condemned Servetus” (Olsen).
Why? Because the civil and spiritual are combined as one in Calvin’s day. One could not make a spiritual discipline without it being also civil. There is no separation of Church and State in that sense. My point is that Calvin didn’t kill Servetus. He didn’t behead him. He didn’t pronounce death upon him at the civil proceeding. He condoned it, thought it was right, and realized that his actions in obeying God and exercising Church discipline had fatal results that would make him unpopular, especially to those outside the community who were not threatened by Servetus, since it’s easy to judge the matter when you don’t have to endure the destruction your lenience creates. Again, you are imposing your culture on Calvin and then condemning him with it. Please use the Bible to condemn him. Please show me where he was not to exercise Church discipline, cooperate with and condone the decisions of the civil government, etc. I’ve already said that the NT writers wouldn’t suggest death to heretics because the Roman government wasn’t a Christian one. There was no unity of the Empire founded upon Christianity. They killed heretics (i.e., Jews and Christians) because of their disruption of the community. So one would not find it there because that is not a situation for first century Christianity. It is for sixteenth century Christianity.
mbaker.
here are a few examples for you:
“What’s wrong with a Protestant believing that upon entering paradise a hate-filled Christian leader of the past who condoned torture and even murder (I don’t know what else to call the burning of Servetus even though it was technically legal–we still call “legal” stonings of women in certain countries “murder”) has to take a spiritually therapeutic “class” of correction?
I can imagine (only imagine, you realize!) Zwingli entering the pearly gates (imagery–because there’s no reason to believe paradise has gates!) and being greeted by Hubmaier who says “Ulrich, it’s nice to see you here. I’ve completely forgiven you. But Christ has assigned me as your tutor and guide during your orientation to paradise. Here, sit down, let me offer you some correction about treatment of people with whom you disagree.”
You might wonder–why call that “purgatory?” Well, don’t you suppose (as I do) that Zwingli would view it as a kind of purgatory? That is–as a kind of purgation of his errors and hateful attitudes? Imagine Zwingli having to sit at Hubmaier’s feet and learn from him! Could this be the meaning of 1 Corinthians 3:15?”
And
“But I find it the only acceptable alternative, for me, anyway, to thinking of great Christian heroes of the past being in hell.”
So you’re saying that it’s not his point to say that these theologians had to go through his concept of purgatory? I don’t get it. Are we reading the same thing? His whole point is that purgatory is a nicer option for him to believe in for these people, since if they didn’t have it, they deserve to be in hell.
Hodge,
A here is a question from back up the thread a ways. You said, Servetus was doing more than just teaching different religious ideas. He was on a radical crusade to slander orthodox Christianity by which the community was bound together, and revile government authority in a manner that would lead to war.
How did he revile government? I have not read anything along those lines.
And if the quote I gave from Calvin in my last comment really expressed what he believed, it was heresy and blasphemy that was an issue in his mind. Not the unity of the community. As a matter of fact, it doesn’t sound like anything to do with other men at all were the driving force of his zeal. Rather it was simply that he felt God was defrauded by the heresy and that the heretic therefore had to be destroyed. At least that is the way I read his quote.
I’m not familiar with that, but how does it square with all the space and time given to the indulgences which profess to reduce the amount of time spent in purgatory? Why would one want to spend less time in purification? And why does the Church have the authority to reduce the amount of time spent there — since everyone in purgatory is saved and loved, why doesn’t God want to give them as little unpleasantness as possible? Doesn’t this blaspheme God in the same way that claiming that Mary gets to order Jesus around does?
-Wm
Michael,
I would say yes to both questions with a qualification. The government in Calvin’s day was not executing Servetus simply because he held a different belief. It is for reviling government authority, as Servetus did, inciting the community against itself, overthrowing the unity and bringing it to war with that heresy. This wouldn’t be the case in our modern context in most countries, especially in the West. Church and State are separated, so Church discipline in our context does not usually lead to civil judgments. We’ve made this distinction, and in my opinion, it is a good distinction to make; but I don’t want to condemn others in the past who sought to do what was right and were not privileged to have our modern hindsight on the matter.
And I would only be vocal against a government that does not allow for me to speak against it if it gave me a direct order in contradiction to a direct order given by the Lord. Otherwise, I can talk about the evils of abortion and what not, but not in a direct manner defying the government. I think that is the pattern we see in the NT. Of course, we live in a country that allows for this, but I would still do it in a very respectful manner, since government is a servant of God and made up of my God-given superiors in terms of civil jurisdiction.
Cheryl,
You have to read what Servetus wrote, what he did in terms of his hostility in writing and preaching it, and couple that with his continual defiance of government authority by escaping from jail and secretly injecting his heresy into the community even when on the run.
“And if the quote I gave from Calvin in my last comment really expressed what he believed, it was heresy and blasphemy that was an issue in his mind. Not the unity of the community.”
Both/and, not either/or. That’s what I’ve been attempting to communicate. Heresy by itself is nothing much to get too worried about. Calvin says this when Servetus marks up the refutation Calvin sent to him. Calvin says he doesn’t hate him or want to persecute him, but that it is his hostility in attempting to inject this heresy into the community that will force him to become like iron against him. This defiant heresy is what threatened the unity of the community.
Hodge,
So are you saying that if the Church makes themselves the government (as it did de facto in the Middle Ages through the Reformation Era) then it is fully justified in executing anyone who dared to loudly disagree with them doctrinally?
Dave,
Thanks. It’s good to have at least one post in my favor. 🙂 Maybe Rom 7 also, as it speaks of dying and the law which judges us in this life having no more jurisdiction to do so?
Michael,
I’m not sure what you mean by the Church making itself government. The government is a separate body than the Church. I don’t know any society where the Church is the civil government as well. There is influence because Christians are in civil government though, and civil government has the duty to protect its citizens from things that would bring death to them, like unnecessary wars caused by heretics or defiance of authority that is like leaven in a community and breaks down all societal structures. I keep trying to communicate this, and many seem to continually return to this idea that the Church is just killing people who have alternate opinions; and of course, “loudly” is a tamer word than rebellion, but the government does need to deal with it either way.
But if the Church were to become a civil government, then I suppose it would be charged with the same things with which civil governments are charged. I don’t think it should enact civil judgments upon people for spiritual issues, unless those spiritual issues also are illegal and threaten the community.