Very impressive. I see why it took so long to compose it.
Actually I composed the post very rapidly, from memory.
Your perception of "it took so long to compose" was caused from you posting on Wednesday, but I didn't check my private email until late Sunday, which is where I got notification of your post. I'm very busy most weeks, and as a general rule don't log onto christianforums.com regularly - it isn't a priority in my life...
Karl.C said:
And yet many people self-identify as Calvanist yet know nothing of what Calvin taught, and his dependence on Augustine and neglect of scripture.
OK. And your point?
You highlight it below in a very unimaginative invention, or else you are ignorant of Calvin's writings, commentaries & teachings (?)
Karl.C said:
I don't. I identify as RCC because it simplifies life, and often avoids a lot silliness -
I also let myself be identified temporarily as a Calvinist for the purpose of discussing certain doctrines usually identified with them.
Actually, I need to clarify my earlier remark. I do not identify as a "Roman Catholic", but do identify as a member of the International Christian Ekklesia administered from Rome = the One Church, One Spirit" A.Paul encouraged all believers to participate in, aka the RCC. As you should know, "Church" doesn't refer to any material infrastructure, which is why I prefer the Greek word Ekklesia which better describes the gathering of citizens (in this case, of the promised kingdom). Also as you should know, the English word "Catholic" meaning "universal" or "all embracing" is derived the Latin word catholicus. I use the word "International" in the same context limiting the extent to Christ's brethren (I'm not an adherent of Universalism). Thus, in abbreviation, I acknowledge membership of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC).
What biblical grounds do you have for calling yourself a Calvinist? Calvinism fragmented rapidly into a whole heap of splinter groups, which one is your focus.
Karl.C said:
Being RCC is a way of life, a particular mentality that reflects the example set by Jesus.
Jesus was not bound by the "Magisterium" of His day.
Thats because Jesus was the God appointed Magisterium of His day!!! Albeit, even he was answerable to a higher authory = John 5:30 "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me".
Karl.C said:
Did Peter, John, James, Paul, Matthew, Mark & Luke call themselves "Bible believing Christian"? I'd rather be known as a disciple of Christ - by faith, perception (Jn 14:9 = horaō) & experientiality (John 14:7,9; 17:3 = ginōskō)
Yes - in that they were ones who professed belief in the teachings of Christ while maintaining the belief in all that the scriptures said.
If you read Matthews Gospel you will note that Jesus' disciples were as thick as a brick. Jesus highlights the point when he reprammands them with the words "...Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? How is it that ye do not understand..." (Mt 16:9-11)
Also from the Gospel witness, while Jesus was with them, they were oblivious about the foretellings of the prophets! Loke 9:44-45 "Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men." [45] But they did not understand what this meant. It was hidden from them, so that they did not grasp it, and they were afraid to ask him about it".
According to the NT, it wasn't until after the resurrection and Jesus' appearance unto the disciples that the penny slowly began to drop...and even then there was confusion...as A.Paul makes absolutely clear...
And if you become conversant with the multitude of heretical sects and teachings that arose within "Christianity", even within the time of the disciple's ministry & alluded to in the writings of A.John, A.Peter & A.Paul it is obvious that establishment of a central authority was critical for the survival of a unified church (as Jesus had prayed to his Father to maintain in John 17).
Antioch & Alexandria (each had their own pope), for centuries were the main seats of power & theological conflict, but when they came to logger heads both Papacies deferred to the apostolic Papacy in Rome for arbitration. You should note that the Roman Pope never personally attended any of the Eccumenical councils or Synods held outside of Rome, but sent delegates to represent him - more often than not as an observers. In ancient times the Roman Magesterium was the last court of appeal (ditto today, given in the RCC the local Bishop (within proscribed limits) is self-determinate in his attendence to his flock).
I'm sure you are conversant with modern "christian" history and that pretty well every heresy from the past has been resurrected because of the "Reformers" and most particularly through Calvinistic groups. The Cambellites sprang forth a huge bunch of abberant groups such as the Christadelphians, Mormons & Millerites. Imu, from the later sprang forth the JWs & SDA and like. Oneness Pentecostals (pure Sabellianises) are a direct result of the ill advised protestant confessions that sprout similar sentiments and deny the true Sonship of our Messiah. Just a fact of history!
There are emphatic scriptural reasons why the Eccumenical Churches (east & west) have never declared the Holy Spirit hommousios (consubstantial) with the Father or the Son. Do you have an inkling of what they are? And despite scripture, in their impropriety that is what the Reformers attempt in their confessions of faith which as is well demonstrated leads to the reinstitutation of Sabellianism(aka the Oneness Churches)! Unscriptural & pure paganism as another group of "Reformers", the Socians, regularly accuse and is easily provable from scripture.
Karl.C said:
If you subscribe to TULIP then you are subscribing to Calvin's appeal to Plato, Plutarch & Augustine not scripture! Gnosis vs Ginōskō.
I do not subscribe to TULIP - as I have said many times. Calvin did not subscribe to TULIP either.
You started on a positive note and then went downhill!
Calvin invented, formulated & promulgated "the five points" that the anagram "TULIP" summarises!!! Admittedly, "TULIP" wasn't codified until the Synod of Dort in 1618/19, held to investigate the Arminian objections to it. So it was one of Calvin's fabrications, and was so rampantly taught that its absurdity caught the attention of those "Reformers" who were cognisant of the teachings of the scriptures.
It is not true that Calvin did not subscribe to scripture.
I didn't say Calvin didn't subscribe to scripture! In fact, I pointed out that in his "Institutes" vol 1,in which he articulates his theory of "Total Depravity", after extensive elaboration on Plato & Plutarch he succumbs to a glancing reference to two verses in all of scripture before elaborating from Augustine. If anything, in my reading of Calvin's writings, he was extensively economical in his use of scripture. I would surmise, as also the Council of Trent seems to have surmised, that was because the far weight of scripture opposed Calvin's opinion and he was forced to "mine" scripture to give his ramblings credence.
Karl.C said:
What has the Pope got to do with anything? He is answerable to the Magisterium. He is not authorised to make any independent decisions or pronouncements.
He is part of the Magisterium - indeed the head of such.
But he does not have the power of veto!
Interestingly, on the weekend I read in the news that through some Vatican machinations, Pope Francis just undid one of Benedict's administrative protocols, so that (within limits) local Bishops could be more independent of the Vatican. Rather than power grabbing Francis is divesting the power of the Vatican administrtion (the Magisterim which is independent so unaffected).
When he speaks with the authority of the rest of the Magisterium his pronouncements are infallible. That is not scriptural and one should not be bound to such traditions of men.
Depends on whether you believe Jesus left his Church rudderless, or set in place a mechanism to sustain it! Aka A.Peter's commission. So it isn't a tradition but a concrete establishment by the will of God. Of course the RCC holds that the Magisterium is guiding by the Holy Spirit as Jesus promised at John 14,15 & 16.
My observation is that the rudderless churches (all of protestantism) is in decline worldwide, and especially in the USA. In fact, here in Oz and I presume elsewhere in the last few decades we have had a big influx of protestant clergy wanting to convert to the RCC (which is problematical) so special facilitations have had to be made.
Neither of our countries have based our governments on the model of the Vatican.
The Vatican is based on a Monarchy model = God appointed sovereign over his subjects... The USA is based on the French self determinate model = God has no role in a society. Oz when federated in 1901 picked the best bits of the USA experiment and rejected the worse bits, thus we don't have a President & we have no need for a Bill of Rights (our rights are secured by common law).
Karl.C said:
Sure the RCC has had a chequered past, but then you have to have a knowledge & understanding of European politics to be able to actually discuss the history rationally.
Checkered is an understatement IMO.
Is it possible that you are unfamiliar with the history of the persecutions conducted by Calvinists and by Protestants in general, and the bloody inter-warfare amoungst themselves. It is a sad tale in European history, that non-Christians like to use as salt into the wounds.
Far grosser than anything the RCC ever got up to. At least the RCC didn't embark on genocidal policies. For instance: there was the Baron that had his children bath in the blood of the "herctics" he had masacred (which was silly, just raised sympathy for them). Then there were the regular incidences in Switzerland where a Calvinist family day consisted of rounding up Anabaptists, put them in a sack, throw them in a water-way and watch them try to survive (none did). Then there are the mass roundups & church/meeting place burnings of men, women & children (mainly the later).
It is all well documented and readily available.
I am familiar enough with European politics and history to discuss the scriptural or non scriptural nature of RCC.
And I am more than familiar with each subject to discuss the scriptural invalidity of the independent churches. It is one thing to be in disagreement and schism, it is another to introduce heresy, actively murder whomever disagrees with you and disseminate hatred against another person who professes belief in Jesus Christ.
I wasn't born into the RCC. When I was led (Jn 6:44) to choose the RCC I took the biblical advice (Mt 7:17-19), and made my choice based on the fruit of the tree.
My rhetoric against the non scriptural nature of RCC does not require pamphlets of the kind you referred to in order to be valid.
But they need your articulation, and testing of your understanding of what the RCC actually teaches rather than what you misunderstand it as teaching. Then we can examine the voracity of the RCC teaching against scripture.
For instance: I assume you object to the RCC referring to Mary as co-redemptrix in our salvation. Note however that the RCC does not argue that Mary is con-redemptrix. The prefix makes all the difference. In Trinitarianism the Son is hommoosios with his Father. That is: con-substantial but not co-substantial. Think co-operation. And scripturally, if Mary hadn't co-operated and subjected herself to the Father's will, well, we'd be discussing a failure in God's plan of salvation.
Now lets compare that teaching with the near to 100% unscriptural teaching of "TULIP". Nice philosophical presumption posited primarily from Plato, but the greater witness of scripture refutes the premise. Scripture has it that mankind through the fall was injured but not irrecoverably, and we have free choice (an essential) in accepting the gift of salvation. God is therefore proved just & compassionate, and if we are doomed we have noone to blame but ourselves.
I have had a close read of Mt. 25:32-46
Do you practice the principle, or were you one of those who voted against Obamacare because it undermined their wealth? (Imu, a valid reason to vote against the bill was the unbalanced cost of administration, and not enough money actually going into healthcare). I hope you perceive the difference in attitude. In the 19th century in the UK private benevolent funds arose to do what Obamacare aimed to do,,, at least one is still around - they are called "the Oddfellows".
The fact that you missed the fact that this is a judgment of nations and the part where the Lord refers to His "brethren" rather than the world in general speaks volumes.
Guess you haven't read Hebrews 2. At the time of Jesus' ministry he didn't have any brethren in the way you want to apply the term, unless of course you apply the term exclusively to the Samaratans. I presume you are aware that the only mass conversion referred to during Jesus' ministry was amoungst with the Samratans (John 4). And I presume you are aware that Jesus never directly revealed himself as the Christ to any Jew, including the disciples. When Peter made the realisation Jesus declared "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven", and then after investing Peter, Jesus "Then charged his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ" (Mt16).
JWs & like are big on the exclusivity of Charis end game, and sure if things are scarce you have to be restrictive in your allocations, but when things are plentiful there should be no constraint. Jesus exemplified that in the parable of the good Samaritan, and several other teachings!
Your discussion of this matter indicates to me that you have been hanging with RCC too long as you seem to think salvation of individuals depends on good works rather than reflects good works.
Well the RCC teaches the reflection not the action, but without action there is no reflection.
I live within one of A.John's main principles = "But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?". Now those you attempt to restrict this verse to their family or local enclave miss an important function of Christianity. As Christians we are all encouraged by the scriptures to draw others to Christ, and there is a myraid of ways we can do that. In my eyes, everyone has the potential to be my brother, sister or child, so unless they openly reject me, they are my brother, sister or child = my brethren. And I am duty bound to care for them. That to me is a Christian mentality...
The part the priest of the RCC plays in that process is what is debatable and indeed what the Reformation was all about.
It is my observation that in symbolism the RCC is a very Jamesian Church, which A.Peter conformed to, antagonising A.Paul. So to my mind, the divide you speak about is just Pauline vs Petrine philosophy as it evolved into the antagonism between Alexandria & Antioch. Of interest to me is that all the heresies of the early Church tended to orginate from Pauline territory on one hand, and the most strident fighters against those heresies also came from Pauline territory. Nothing amazing in that really, given A.Paul wrote about the conflicts in his charges and the rise of heresy.
I don't claim the RCC is perfect (neither does the Vatican), but despite its warts I couldn't find an alternative that reflected A.Paul's description of "The Church".
Archbishop Newman (originally CoE) in a memoir written before his conversion to the RCC lamented that he had spent his life antagonistic towards the RCC, but ultimately he concluded that from his research at Oxford, the RCC was the only viable Church. So he resigned from the CoE & Oxford, and converted to the RCC...
