Posts Tagged “John Calvin”

Another reason Calvinism is poisonous theology

Kenneth Hynek • 24th Aug 2009 • Religion, Catholicism, Religion, Christianity, History, Religion, Protestantism, Religion, Theology • , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Near the very end of ‘s series of articles — in the final article, in fact — was buried a comment that made me reflect on a certain tenet of : .

Like most Calvinist teachings, limited atonement is bollocks, though not because it is patently false. Rather, it mixes truth and falsehood in some measure. Unlike some other Calvinist tenets, it’s not the sort of thing that’s nice in theory but not workable in reality; the errors with this doctrine are purely within the realms of , , and .

And in fact, arguing against the tenet is quite easy. Far too many Protestants — including and perhaps especially those of a Calvinist bent — like to use John 3:16 as a forum or email signature. And while there’s nothing wrong with using Scripture in this capacity, there is a problem in that they often use this particular verse in ignorance of its complete meaning. This is especially the case for those who believe that false doctrine called limited atonement.

What does John 3:16 say, then? In the , it is rendered thusly:

For so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

For completeness, we should also consider the two verses that follow.

For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world: but that the world may be saved by him.

He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

One could exegete these three verses to assault another Calvinist tenet as well, but let’s table that matter for now and focus on two key points regarding atonement that the above verses teach, concerning its scope and the means by which man can attain its saving power.

John separates these two categories remarkably well. Concerning the first — atonement’s scope — he is explicit: “For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son…that the world may be saved by him.” Christ was sent into the world to save the world, not just an “elect” subset of the world. John makes no bones about this! The Gospel does not say that “God so loved his own, as to give his only begotten Son…that his regenerate may be saved by him.”

At this point, we could almost stop; noting only as much as we have already done is actually sufficient. Limited atonement — basically, that Christ’s death and only atoned for the sins of “regenerate” Christians — is obviously false, as Scripture itself indicates. Christ was sent to save all the world, and as such His death must necessarily have atoned for the sins of all the world.

So why does teach limited atonement?

There was a recent incident in the in which a deranged man shot up an exercise class at a gymnasium, before turning the gun on himself. On his blog, discovered some hours later, he detailed his reasons for killing…but also talked at length about his former pastor’s somewhat liberal stance on what Christ’s atonement meant. In his (errant) view, had already atoned for the sins he was about to commit, so he had to fear no eternal condemnation for either his pending murders or his present-day .

Presumably, he received a rather rude awakening when he pulled the trigger for the final time.

Now, why do I mention this?

It is not, by any means, a new heresy, this teaching that since atoned for the sins of all, all are saved regardless of their deeds or beliefs. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of the name of the relevant historical heresy that taught this…but I am fairly certain that such a heresy was seen in the earlier days of .

I half-suspect that in inventing the doctrine of limited atonement, Calvin was attempting to argue against this heresy; that he was doing so in a way itself heretical is rather ironic. Oh, to be fair, the doctrine also proceeds, logically, from other Calvinist tenets — if one is going to believe that some people are born already, and then inexorably, damned, it’s not exactly a leap of great distance to likewise believe that Jesus did not die to atone for the sins of all mankind. It may be patent stupidity to believe as much, but it’s not illogical.

The problem, however, is that such a view isn’t really defensible from Scripture.

Oh, one could attempt to sneak the limitation in by the back door and argue that BELIEF (or disbelief) is predestined. This addresses the other category John talks about — how mankind accesses the salvation that flows out of Christ’s atonement for our sins. About this point, John is fairly specific: “…whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting…he that doth not believe is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” John does leave it to later authors — Paul and James, especially — to expand upon what it means to believe in Christ, and Jesus himself gives plenty examples of what the full implications, obligations, and responsibilities of being a believer are.

And to be fair, one could get into a lengthy discussion about whether individual men and women are, in fact, predestined to believe, or predestined to eschew belief, in Christ.

But equally, so what? The issue is atonement, which we’ve already established cannot be limited, else Scripture be found to teach falsely. Even if some are predestined to never come to the faith necessary for access to the salvation that flows from that atonement (and I’m granting a very big “if” there*), this does not in any way mean that atonement itself is limited.

Now, I mentioned John C. Wright, and the good reader could be forgiven for wondering at this point just where he fits into the picture. As I noted previously, he said something that got this train of thought moving for me. Here, then, is his observation:

Christ bled and died for my enemies, the Leftists and the aries, as well as for those tempted by sexual sins and lures. Not only must I pray for my enemies, I must do so even though that act or prayer holds me up to their derision. Since Christ died for them, I cannot hold these people up to the scorn they deserve, or mock their weaknesses, since those things are of secondary or even of no importance in the grand scheme of things.

What this statement got me thinking about was the implications of, especially, the first sentence if it were somehow proven that limited atonement was a valid and true doctrine. Do you see how the calculus would change, good reader? For, if Christ did NOT die for the sins of our enemies, if He did not bleed for them, then we need not pray for them…indeed, since they are inexorably damned, it would be a waste of breath and effort to do so! And since Christ did not die for “them,” there is no reason to spare them scorn, mockery, or derision for their weaknesses and sins.

One could even go so far as to argue that one’s enemies cannot be called “children of God,” and so need not even be thought of as brothers and sisters…which, in turn, means that one is free to pour out even hatred upon them, without fear of bring condemned as a murderer.

You laugh, good reader, but I’m not inventing anything here; I have heard such arguments before.

And indeed, we can see exactly such sentiments expressed in the writings and deeds of , who once wrote that he would sooner murder — or see murdered — a good friend rather than see the man revert to being a ‘papist,’ and whose persecutions of Catholics were substantially more vicious and cruel than the persecutions Catholics are accused (rightly or wrongly) of carrying out against early Protestants.

Whatever spirit the man felt himself being led by, it was not the spirit of Jesus. And in like manner, whatever spirit gave rise to this doctrine of limited atonement was not the spirit of Christ.

One can only pray, then, that this alien spirit did not lead Calvin’s soul to ruin, just as one must pray that following his poisonous teachings will not lead millions more souls to ruin.

What else can one do? Christ died even for Calvin, and for those who continue to preach his bilgewater doctrines.

* * *

* I cannot state in strong enough terms how odious a doctrine Calvinist predestination is. If we were to abstract life as a swimming pool, in which those who come to know salvation are those able to tread water for a set time, Calvinist predestination would be the teaching that Jesus deliberately holds some people’s heads under the water and drowns them…”for the glory of God.”

It’s an ugly teaching, and a temptation I struggle to resist (and then more often than I care to admit) is the temptation to hope that it is a damnable teaching.

Powered by the iPod Touch.

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary: Historical Perspectives

Kenneth Hynek • 22nd Aug 2008 • Religion, Catholicism, History, Religion • , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

How have Christians throughout history regarded , specifically in regard to her perpetual ? Is there a major difference in regard to Marian theology that is discernible along the historic Catholic/Protestant divide?

In the modern era, we might answer “yes” to such questions. seems to be making a bit of a return, in the form of modern Protestants and non-denominational Christians actively denying the ancient doctrine of that Mary is the Theotokos, the God-bearer, the Mother of God. But historically, the answer is actually a resounding “no!”

didn’t think the doctrine was critical to Christian faith, but maintained that “we should simply hold that (Mary) remained a virgin after the birth of because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity.” (c.f. ‘That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew’, Luther’s Works, 1962, Concordia Publishing House)

Luther was insistent that was “the real and natural fruit” of Mary’s womb, and that she “bore no children besides Him.” Additionally, Luther fully agreed with interpretations of Scripture that identified the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus as being more distant relations (e.g. cousins).

Moreover, also rejected the notion that the mention of the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus in were meant to refer to siblings born of Mary. believed that Mary “continued a pure and unspotted virgin” after giving birth to Christ. (c.f. ‘Letter to a Roman Catholic’, 1749) likewise believed that Mary’s virginity remained perpetually intact after Jesus was born. (c.f. ‘Eini Predigt von der ewig reinen Magd Maria.’, Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, 1905)

— a Reformation historian — noted the reason why the affirmation of Mary’s virginity was almost wholly universal across all the major strains of Protestantism and its offshoots: by affirming the ongoing virginity of Mary, the Reformers (not unlike the Catholics) ensured themselves “the guarantee of the Incarnation of Christ.” Sola Scriptura may have prevented the believe in Mary’s virginity from being formally adopted as a doctrine in many (if any) of the churches which emerged out of the Reformation, and I suspect that this may have done a grave disservice to subsequent Protestant theologians where the issue of Mary was concerned, many of whom have since come to deny the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. (c.f. The Reformation: a History, 2003, Penguin Books)

And while it sounds like this should be a minor issue, look at where that denial has led us to: now we see again some Christians stumbling into false teachings like Nestorianism, and uttering denials of Mary as the Mother of God that they have no idea also necessarily imply that Christ was not fully human and fully divine all at once.

The Catholic Church obviously holds the belief that Mary was perpetually virginal, and has held that belief since…well, since was still one denomination, way back when the year took less than four numbers to write out. The formal doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity was promulgated in about 533 A.D. (at the ). That’s not to say that has not been marked by a few disagreements over the issue, though.

, for example, believed that the virginity of Mary was not preserved by the act of giving birth. While he evidently felt this was a proper emphasis on the nature and reality of Jesus’ human body, it should be noted that in reality, this position actually makes the very idea of a “virgin birth” (an integral part of Christian theology) impossible. Jovinian, who lived over a century later, set himself against Paul (c.f. 1 Corinthians 7) when he denied that virginity/celibacy was indeed a higher state than marriage. Helvidius repeated this commentary shortly thereafter, but was soundly denounced by, among others, Jerome.

And as was so ably noted:link-icon: by , “the Tradition of the Church in union with the biblical text [affirms that] Mary had no other children, a fact so commonly known throughout the early Church that when Jerome attacks Helvidius for suggesting otherwise, nobody makes a peep. In a Church quite capable of tearing itself to pieces over distinctions between homoousious and homoiousious, you hear the sound of crickets in response to Jerome, punctuated with the sound of other Fathers singing hymns to “Mary, Ever-Virgin.” The early Church took it for granted and thought Helvidius as credible as Dan Brown.”

And indeed, after Helvidius, no credible arguments were presented against the perpetual virginity of Mary until near-modern Protestantism jettisoned the doctrine.

Possible Objection #8: could not the early Church have been wrong? Could the early Church have mis-interpreted those passages from Scripture which make clear reference to the siblings of Jesus?

Response to Objection #8: it’s possible, I suppose, that this could be the case. But to believe as much, we would have to believe that over 1700 years of Christian scholarship was wrong about this particular issue, that 1700 years’ worth of Christian theologians and scholars had somehow remained ignorant of very commonly cited verses of Scripture, and that in 1700 years nobody had actually thought to read the original-language manuscripts in a proper context.

Which seems a bit…incredible. It makes more sense, I think, to assume that modern theologians who set themselves against the perpetual virginity of Mary have simply gone awry in their thinking, as did the Nestorians, as did Helvidius, and as did Tertulian.