Um, that’s not how I understand Calvinism. In the hypothetical, “Hitler” was pre-selected for guilt, shame, remorse, and turning himself over to God. That was just as much part of the pre-selection as was “on his way to heaven”.
Paradoxically, the doctrine of pre-selection inspired some of the great missionary efforts: since God had of course preselected people for heaven, and since that clearly required evangalisation, Christians were such as Livingston were clearly under an obligation to go out and be part of that process.
Oh yes, he does. Just not necessarily before shuffling off this mortal coil. And also, he could have a quite intense time in The Fire before moving onto Glory.
But the repentance itself would not “earn” him heaven, which is what I understand the OP to be asking. He seems to be under the impression that Christians universally believe that sincere repentance and acceptance of God’s Grace inevitably leads to salvation–that God cannot/will not deny Heaven to a repentant sinner. Calvinists, as I understand it, pretty strongly reject that: even “visible saints” may well not be part of the elect, as God is ineffable, and in his ineffable wisdom may well choose not to save even the most repentant.
I look at this the other way around - I hope Hitler made it into Heaven because that signifies that God’s mercy presents greatly improved chances for the rest of us.
(Of course, being an agnostic this is largely an academic view.)
Yes, that’s how I interpret John 3:16, and I really don’t see any other way to interpret it, with the proviso that he doesn’t renege before he dies.
My understanding of Calvinism is not that it denies that interpretation, but it finds additional verses to support the tenet that God already knows who will meet those conditions before they are born, and that it is impossible for people to make that choice through their own unaided will.
My first thought here was that all Hitler did was kill white people. Any denomination of Christianity that believe all white should be killed would also believe Hitler had an express ticket straight to God’s smiling face. Jew-hating Christians would give Hitler high esteem as well. So I guess it depends on which heaven one is trying to get to.
But possibly only after a few billion years in Purgatory, which is the catch.
When I was a kid the nuns told us that if we wore a Miraculous Medal we would be guaranteed that we wouldn’t die without having the opportunity to confess to a priest, which seemed like a pretty good deal to me. You could do whatever you wanted and then get a plea bargain at the end. But that was never official Church teaching.
I don’t believe the first part of that sentence is true. As far as I know, Anglicanism has never had an official doctrine concerning the requirements for salvation. After all, QEI wanted the church to be a ‘via media’ or middle way between Catholicism and Protestantism, so there was room for a considerable variety of individual belief.
For certain, in the modern Episcopal church, there is no official doctrine other than what is in the Nicene Creed. Although I’d be surprised if anyone would deny Hitler’s eventual welcome to glory based on the scenario in the OP. (Quite a few Episcopalians/Anglicans are universalists, believing that eventually everyone gets into heaven regardless of their state at death).
Looking up Touhou’s darling little Shiki Eiki who judges the souls of Gensokyo led to the definition of her status as Yama of Xanadu. The Wiki page on Yama states that in hinduism:
*The man Ajamila had committed many evil acts during his life such as stealing, abandoning his wife and children, and marrying a prostitute.
Moment of his death he involuntarily chanted the name of Narayana (another Sanskrit name for Vishnu) and achieved moksha, saved from the messengers of Yama. Although Ajamila had actually been thinking the name of his youngest son, Narayana’s name has powerful effects, and thus Ajamila was released from his great sins.*
So other religions have get-out-of-jail-free cards as well.
In Hinduism, there are lots of folklore and stories which some believe and others do not. Many Hindus believe in the Gita or Bhagwat Gita, which describes the soul as eternal (as opposed to immortal in Christianity). Moreover, the soul cannot be burned , pierced … and it cannot feel pain or pleasure - so a hell to torture a soul is futile. Pleasure and Pain are believed to arise from the senses (basal instincts for survival) and the soul is described to be devoid of it.
Some in Hinduism believe of karma - where the soul goes through a lot of births and rebirths to attain the ultimate goal - Nirvana or Moksha - or supreme knowledge…
Some Hindus are atheists and do not believe that what happens after death is KNOWABLE. Scriptures support this view too.
Unlike the Abrahamic religions (Islam, Christianity, …) Hinduism and Buddhism to an extent leave lot of room for interpretation for the individual follower.
I was speaking of the Anglican Church at the time of its creation and for some time afterwards, when it did not differ in doctrine from the Roman Catholic. Although use of that specific name for that specific time might be anachronistic, I do not think the Anglicans have ever signed on with the “faith alone” doctrine, therefore necessarily requiring good works.
From the point of view of a practising atheist the question is sort of amusing. From my mediocre knowledge of the Bible it would appear that part of the history of the idea goes back to stories like the conversion of Saul. Now Saul had the advantage of a direct communication from God to let him see the error of his ways, whilst the OP’s nominal Hitler, and indeed the rest of us, are required to repent of our own volition. So Hitler might have what he thinks is a legitimate complaint. If Saul gets the luxury of a personal communication from God, to show him in no uncertain terms that executing Christians isn’t on, whilst Hitler is slowly being roasted on a spit by Beelzebub and minor demons gnaw on his entrails, Adolf might complain that perhaps God might have seen his way clear to have given him a tap on the shoulder sometime before his demise.
This of course forms part of the mysticism of the church. The answer given is that Adolf had been given the knowledge, and it was thus down to him to accept it. But once accepted, and sincere repentance done, that is it. Clean. Saul lived on to become Paul and found the church, but it isn’t the subsequent actions that mattered. In principle Saul could have died the day of his conversion too, and remained saved. It isn’t a criticism that can be levelled at the Christian faith that they could accept Hitler as saved as in the OP’s scenario, rather it is part of the miraculous grace of the faith. It is clear that through the centuries theologians have wrestled with this, and possibly invented purgatory to help soften the idea. Purgatory turned out to be a good little earner for a while, so it was quite a neat idea.
[QUOTE=WheatCat]
I do not think the Anglicans have ever signed on with the “faith alone” doctrine, therefore necessarily requiring good works.
[/QUOTE]
You’re both wrong. Article XI of the Thirty-Nine Articles, which was carried over from the 1553 Articles, unambiguously endorses justification by faith alone.
Yes, the next Article stresses the importance of good works, but specifically warns that they ‘cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God’s judgement’.
The answer to this is given in the parable of the workers in the vineyard that all got paid the same wage no matter what time they started working, if it be the entire day or the last hour. The people who worked (for God) hard ‘all day’ got paid what they agreed upon and thus had no basis to complain.
It is also seen with the ‘deathbed conversion’ and acceptance of the thief on the cross.
It goes into how it is God’s choice if and how to use the person’s life and for how long.
Aside: But would undo the need for the unscriptural ‘Purgatory’: It also offers the possibility of a new start in a new body. Many denomations, do not support this, even though Jesus says it outright but adds is hard for most to accept, but John the Baptist was the ‘reincarnated’ Elijah. So in OP’s conjecture it is even scripturally possible that Hitler had to continue his work for God in another body with a fresh start and a life dedicated to God.
Henry VIII denounced Lutheranism before his break with Rome, and I thought remained mostly Catholic in doctrine after the break, and his leading prelate and theologian Thomas Cranmer survived through the reign of Edward VI. I wrongly assumed their successors did not make any changes as radical as removing the necessity of good works.
Henry loathed Lutheranism and Lutherans, and remained pretty Catholic in doctrine until his death (except in matters of church doctrine, natch). Cranmer was indeed his favourite churchman, mainly because Cranmer delivered the divorce from Katherine which Wolsey could not organise. But Cranmer was very Lutheran in his views.
For what it’s worth, the 39 Articles are considered something short of infallible dogma by the Church of England, and are considered even more, uh, ‘fallible’ by other Anglican bodies (like the Episcopal Church). They express what the faith of the 16th Century Church of England was, but not necessarily what Anglicans believe today.
You can certainly find Anglicans and Episcopalians who believe in Purgatory and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, for example. (Cranmer rejected the ‘Romish doctrine of purgatory’, and took what seems like a receptionist view of the eucharist).
Also, the whole Catholic vs. Lutheran ‘faith vs. works’ debate was largely a debate over words and emphasis, and I think those two churches issued a statement some years ago to the effect that the divide wasn’t actually that great. For both Catholics and Lutherans, sincere faith in Christ leads naturally to good works.
“When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him; lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison.I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite.”
Luke 12:59.
What place or state of being does ‘prison’ represent in that passage, if not for purgatory? (Or something that you might choose not to call purgatory, but amounts to the same thing.)
But that was never official Church teaching.