This week’s reading was quite fascinating. I’ve been pondering my stance on toleration and such for a little while now and my thoughts align fairly well with Locke’s ideas. Locke states that “tolerating those who differ from us in matters of religion is so fitting to the Gospel and to reason that it seems monstrous for men to fail to see this clearly” (2). The Bible repeatedly tells us to love our enemies. Of course, this means that we should share the Gospel with them, but it certainly doesn’t mean that we should force them to convert. As Locke says, “God hasn’t ever given any man the authority to compel someone else to join his religion” (3). You can’t force conversion onto someone; that defeats the whole purpose. This brings me to a point that Locke brought up. He says,
Even if the magistrate’s opinion in religion is sound, and the road he tells me to follow really is the one endorsed by the Gospel, if I am not thoroughly convinced of that in my own mind I won’t reach salvation by following it. No road that I travel along against the dictates of my conscience will ever bring me to the home of the blessed. (12)
I had never really heard this stated this way before. It makes sense, because if you are not fully convinced of the method of your salvation, then you don’t really have full faith in it. On the other hand, Jesus said that there was only one way to salvation. However, he simply said that “no one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6 ESV). I think that, as long as someone is relying on Jesus for their salvation, it doesn’t really matter what all else they do. I know this is dangerous territory and I can easily be misunderstood, so allow me to clarify a little. Of course there are heresies and other pitfalls to avoid, but I believe that the doctrinal differences between Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. do not exclude any of them from heaven. I may disagree with some of them, but I do not believe that my denomination is the only true way to heaven. We like to debate about predestination and free will, but I think that even these pivotal doctrines fall under the “frivolities” that Locke says “are the sorts of things that make enemies of Christian brethren who agree on the substantial and truly fundamental part of religion” (11). We may disagree about some things, but that shouldn’t blind us from seeing that we are all God’s children.
P.S. I commented onCaroline’s and Mackenzie’s posts
Comments