Contradictory Christian Life and a "Few Remarks" About Predestination - Eliza Colbert

Ah yes, the wonderful predestination debate. Being raised a Calvinist, I shall...

Skip this debate and blog about something else. But, so that I won’t be accused of being like the people who Calvin says “all but require that every mention of predestination be buried,” I shall make a few remarks about the subject before moving on. This topic is a difficult one and I have been in many debates about it. There are strong feelings on every side of the issue and people often end up talking past each other (which is why I don’t like discussing it). All those discussions and debates never helped anything, more often they only ended up hurting feelings (and sometimes caused existential crises). As of right now, I’m not really sure how to express what I think about the issue (which is another reason I’m not dedicating my whole blog post to it). I know that I wholly believe in the sovereignty of God and I also believe in the free will of man. How those work together, I’m still thinking about. But here’s the thing, I don’t think it’s that big of an issue. Don’t get me wrong, it’s important, but I don’t think it’s worth destroying friendships over. What I think is important (and something most of us can agree on) is that humans are guilty of sin against God and we need Him to save us. I don’t know how all the details work out and I don’t think we’re meant to know all the details. We’re all sinners and we need Jesus and that’s all I’m going to say about it.

Those “few remarks” we’re a bit longer than I had anticipated. Sorry, I guess this is going to be a long one. What I wanted to blog on was the Geneva Ordinances. I don’t have a particular one to quote or write about, I just have a question. Should the church make these sorts of regulations? I tend to lean towards no and here’s why. When you start making the Christian life mandatory in this way, it ceases to be the Christian life. Wasn’t that the whole issue Luther and Zwingli had with good works? The Catholic Church was making them mandatory rather than voluntary and the reformers didn't like that. Forcing someone to attend church services defeats the purpose of having said services. The stories at the end of the section about the court cases kind of demonstrate this. One of these accounts was about a woman who prayed to the Virgin Mary while living in a Protestant community. (I already have an issue with the fact that she’s on trial for this). To rectify her error, the court ruled that she must attend a church service three times a week for six weeks. If that didn’t work, then she was to go to church every day for another week. This type of thing is so foreign to me (separation of church and state and all). It’s like they’re saying, “Oh! You don’t believe what we believe? Here, let’s force you to sit in church and shove the Bible down your throat until you agree with us.” I just find it strange that the people who advocate this kind of church regulation were the same people who were complaining about how the Catholic Church was forcing them to do a bunch of things. I thought the Christian life was supposed to be marked by voluntary service and good works not be forced onto society under threat of punishment. It just seems a little contradictory to me.

P.S. I commented on Anna Kate’s and Will’s posts.