Were Calvin and Luther 'saved'?

[easternstar]

I'm thankful for the Protestant Reformation in some ways, but not in others. Were Calvin and Luther saved? Can you be an unrepentant murderer and be saved? Because that's what they were. They and their followers threw off a corrupt and murderous RCC only to become murderers themselves, proponents of a state-churchism that suppressed, persecuted, and killed dissidents. So, how were they different from their RCC adversaries who did likewise?
Also, the Protestants proposed a doctrine of the atonement that was hideous and worse than the RCC ever held, that of PSA. PSA makes its God a monster instead of the loving and merciful God that Jesus taught. I hate PSA with a passion. Given a choice of being forced to accept PSA or become a RC, I'd choose the latter. But thankfully, the Calvinists, Lutherans, and other Protestants can't kill me today for rejecting PSA.
So, despite Calvin and Luther being professed Christians, I wonder if they were actually saved. I don't see how anyone could advocate and participate in killing other Christians and still be saved, if they didn't repent of that reprehensible and evil act.

 

[JonC]

We cannot know, but I think they may have been

But not by either of their fruits (or some of their fruits). They were a product of their time.

We can look at George Whitfield and his support for slavery and ask the same question.

Or of John Owen and his persecution of Quakers.

They were wrong and blind to their sin. But they were also products of their time and traditions.

 

[Walter]

I'm thankful for the Protestant Reformation in some ways, but not in others. Were Calvin and Luther saved? Can you be an unrepentant murderer and be saved? Because that's what they were. They and their followers threw off a corrupt and murderous RCC only to become murderers themselves, proponents of a state-churchism that suppressed, persecuted, and killed dissidents. So, how were they different from their RCC adversaries who did likewise?
Also, the Protestants proposed a doctrine of the atonement that was hideous and worse than the RCC ever held, that of PSA. PSA makes its God a monster instead of the loving and merciful God that Jesus taught. I hate PSA with a passion. Given a choice of being forced to accept PSA or become a RC, I'd choose the latter. But thankfully, the Calvinists, Lutherans, and other Protestants can't kill me today for rejecting PSA.
So, despite Calvin and Luther being professed Christians, I wonder if they were actually saved. I don't see how anyone could advocate and participate in killing other Christians and still be saved, if they didn't repent of that reprehensible and evil act.

We need to remember that when people during this time held and taught beliefs that church authorities (and many times state authorities) believed were very dangerous and could cause someone who became convinced of these heretical beliefs to be damned to hell and lead others to Hell as well, they were thought worthy of execution to prevent further pread. The state often burned heretics at the stake. The thinking was that they would burn for eternity in Hell for spreading heresy, might as well get started.

 

[JonC]

We need to remember that when people during this time held and taught beliefs that church authorities (and many times state authorities) believed were very dangerous and could cause someone who became convinced of these heretical beliefs to be damned to hell and lead others to Hell as well, they were thought worthy of execution to prevent further pread. The state often burned heretics at the stake. The thinking was that they would burn for eternity in Hell for spreading heresy, might as well get started.

Another point is the Roman Catholic Church, Calvin' and Luther all believed in uniting church and state. To them opposing the church was opposing the state

 

[easternstar]

I'm not buying the 'products of their time' thing. The Anabaptists and Baptists were of the same time, yet they didn't murder others for their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

 

[JonC]

I'm not buying the 'products of their time' thing. The Anabaptists and Baptists were of the same time, yet they didn't murder others for their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

It should not be that way, but it is.

Many Baptist leaders, pastors and theologians were pro-slavery, even owning slaves. Many Baptists made supporting slavery a part of orthodoxy.

Were all of these Baptists unsaved? Maybe. But I doubt it.

Are all professing Christians who are Democrats lost because of that party's stance on abortion? Maybe. But I doubt it.

 

[easternstar]

It should not be that way, but it is.

Many Baptist leaders, pastors and theologians were pro-slavery, even owning slaves. Many Baptists made supporting slavery a part of orthodoxy.

Were all of these Baptists unsaved? Maybe. But I doubt it.

Are all professing Christians who are Democrats lost because of that party's stance on abortion? Maybe. But I doubt it.

Slavery was evil, and so is abortion. But killing others in the name of Jesus is on another level.

 

[JonC]

Slavery was evil, and so is abortion. But killing others in the name of Jesus is on another level.

Not really. Assume they were not saved. Then what would be the difference?

Anyway, people do that all the time. Read threads here about the death penalty.

 

[easternstar]

Not really. Assume they were not saved. Then what would be the difference?

Anyway, people do that all the time. Read threads here about the death penalty.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

 

[JonC]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

I am saying that people who support the murder of millions of unborn babies are no less excusable than Baptists who murdered people because of their race or people who persecuted Christians in the name of God.

That is just my opinion.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

Luther was, in my opinion, probably the most arrogant man to ever claim to be a Christian. He was baptized the day after his birth by a Catholic Priest. Therefore, he probably considered himself to be born-again. His only disagreement with the RCC was the charging for indulgences.

He added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28. When challenged by the RCC and others, he responded that he knew what the Greek stated but he thought it should be there.

Additionally, he wanted to eliminate a number of books from his Bible because they did not comport with his believes - James, among others.

Finally, concerning his treatise on the Jews - "Of Jews and Their Lies". Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party used it to justify their persecution of the Jews. He and Hitler might have been friends - the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Quote from his treatise:

First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire. That would demonstrate to God our serious resolve and be evidence to all the world that it was in ignorance that we tolerated such houses, in which the Jews have reviled God, our dear Creator and Father, and his Son most shamefully up till now, but that we have now given them their due reward.

Second, that all their books their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible, be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted. For they use all of these books to blaspheme the Son of God, that is, God the Father himself, Creator of heaven and earth, as was said above; and they will never use them differently.

Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country. They may do this in their own country or wherever they can without our being obliged to hear it or know it. The reason for this prohibition is that their praise, thanks, prayer, and doctrine are sheer blasphemy, cursing, and idolatry, because their heart and mouth call God the Father *Hebel Vorik* as they call his Son, our Lord Jesus, this. For as they name and honor the Son, thus they also name and honor the Father. It does not help them to use many fine words and to make much ado about the name of God. For we read, "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain" [Exod. 20:7]. Just as little did it avail their ancestors at the time of the kings of Israel that they bore God's name, yet called him Baal.

Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it, because their blasphemous and accursed mouth and heart call God's Son *Hebel Vorik,* and thus also call his Father that. He cannot and will not interpret this otherwise, just as we Christians too cannot interpret it otherwise, we who believe that however the Son is named and honored thus also the Father is named and honored. Therefore we must not consider the mouth of the Jews as worthy of uttering the name of God within our hearing. He who hears this name-from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away. And may no one be merciful and kind in this regard, for God's honor and the salvation of us all, including that of the Jews, are at stake!

 

[easternstar]

I am saying that people who support the murder of millions of unborn babies are no less excusable than Baptists who murdered people because of their race or people who persecuted Christians in the name of God.

That is just my opinion.

With that I can agree.

 

[kyredneck]

I hate PSA with a passion.

Hm, you and @JonC should be 'two peas in a pod'.

 

[easternstar]

Luther was, in my opinion, probably the most arrogant man to ever claim to be a Christian. He was baptized the day after his birth by a Catholic Priest. Therefore, he probably considered himself to be born-again. His only disagreement with the RCC was the charging for indulgences.

He added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28. When challenged by the RCC and others, he responded that he knew what the Greek stated but he thought it should be there.

Additionally, he wanted to eliminate a number of books from his Bible because they did not comport with his believes - James, among others.

Finally, concerning his treatise on the Jews - "Of Jews and Their Lies". Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party used it to justify their persecution of the Jews. He and Hitler might have been friends - the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Quote from his treatise:

First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire. That would demonstrate to God our serious resolve and be evidence to all the world that it was in ignorance that we tolerated such houses, in which the Jews have reviled God, our dear Creator and Father, and his Son most shamefully up till now, but that we have now given them their due reward.

Second, that all their books their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible, be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted. For they use all of these books to blaspheme the Son of God, that is, God the Father himself, Creator of heaven and earth, as was said above; and they will never use them differently.

Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country. They may do this in their own country or wherever they can without our being obliged to hear it or know it. The reason for this prohibition is that their praise, thanks, prayer, and doctrine are sheer blasphemy, cursing, and idolatry, because their heart and mouth call God the Father *Hebel Vorik* as they call his Son, our Lord Jesus, this. For as they name and honor the Son, thus they also name and honor the Father. It does not help them to use many fine words and to make much ado about the name of God. For we read, "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain" [Exod. 20:7]. Just as little did it avail their ancestors at the time of the kings of Israel that they bore God's name, yet called him Baal.

Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it, because their blasphemous and accursed mouth and heart call God's Son *Hebel Vorik,* and thus also call his Father that. He cannot and will not interpret this otherwise, just as we Christians too cannot interpret it otherwise, we who believe that however the Son is named and honored thus also the Father is named and honored. Therefore we must not consider the mouth of the Jews as worthy of uttering the name of God within our hearing. He who hears this name-from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away. And may no one be merciful and kind in this regard, for God's honor and the salvation of us all, including that of the Jews, are at stake!

I used to think Calvin was worse than Luther. I still believe Calvinism is worse than Lutheranism, but I think Calvin and Luther were equally reprehensible.

 

[easternstar]

Hm, you and @JonC should be 'two peas in a pod'.

Really? Interesting. I thought most Baptists believed in PSA.
I don't really care for any of the Protestant atonement theories.

 

[JonC]

Hm, you and @JonC should be 'two peas in a pod'.

Yea....I like him already.

 

[Tea]

Were Calvin and Luther saved? Can you be an unrepentant murderer and be saved? Because that's what they were.

I'm not aware of any evidence suggesting that Luther was guilty of murder. Regarding Calvin, I assume you're talking about the case of Michael Servetus, who was executed by burning. It's important to note that Calvin didn't directly kill him. Servetus was sentenced to death for heresy by the Geneva Council. Although Calvin backed the death penalty, he advocated for a less brutal method of execution.

 

[JonC]

Really? Interesting. I thought most Baptists believed in PSA.
I don't really care for any of the Protestant atonement theories.

Not initially. But today most believe some form of the theory.

I like the traditional Anabaptist theory (although today more are moving towards Arminianism). They are Protestants (only because they joined that movement) but did not develop their theories from existing RCC theory. I don't care for Catholic theories (RCC or Orthodox) either. I'm picky.

Basically I believe that the Atonement is spelled out clearly in God's Word. Throughout history Christians focused on the priority of aspects, but agreed on the actual Atonement. This changed in the 10 century.

So I believe if we take God's words, without explanations about what they "really" teach, then we have an accurate overall view.


I think you are going to be a great addition to the BB....as long as you have think skin.

 

[easternstar]

I'm not aware of any evidence suggesting that Luther was guilty of murder. Regarding Calvin, I assume you're talking about the case of Michael Servetus, who was executed by burning. It's important to note that Calvin didn't directly kill him. Servetus was sentenced to death for heresy by the Geneva Council. Although Calvin backed the death penalty, he advocated for a less brutal method of execution.

Luther supported killing dissenters.
So, what you're suggesting is that Calvin was a 'less brutal' murderer. Calvin was despicable.

 

[easternstar]

The only ones who did not kill or persecute others for their religious beliefs were Anabaptists, Baptists, and Quakers. The RCC, Anglicans, Calvinists, Lutherans, and Zwinglians all killed others for their religious beliefs.