CALVIN: Is this a staw man?

[drstevej]

Still whistling

 

[MrPolo]

I would not call the comments in the OP a strawman as much as ad hominem. I would also like to know what Ormly, if that's who is quoted in the OP, constitutes "renouncing Catholicism". He obviously renounced it. So the concern is that he didn't renounce it "fast enough" in a formal way?

 

[Ormly]

Ormly didn't write the OP. You will have to address the guy "still whistling".

 

[drstevej]

I would not call the comments in the OP a strawman as much as ad hominem. I would also like to know what Ormly, if that's who is quoted in the OP, constitutes "renouncing Catholicism". He obviously renounced it. So the concern is that he didn't renounce it "fast enough" in a formal way?

Ormly didn't write the OP. You will have to address the guy "still whistling".

I wrote the OP and am still whistling while waiting for the one quoted to either: [1] acknowledge that the characterization was erroneous; [2] respond to my documentation showing the characterization is libelous.


*whistles "Tip toe through the TULIPs with me."*

 

[Ormly]

I wrote the OP and am still whistling while waiting for the one quoted to either: [1] acknowledge that the characterization was erroneous; [2] respond to my documentation showing the characterization is libelous.


*whistles "Tip toe through the TULIPs with me."*

Sorry. Can't do it. Won't do it. Calvin was a sham, full of legalism; a poor example of one who was to express the love of God by his leadership. You would do well to understand that "FACT".

 

[drstevej]

This thread can be closed

 

[MrPolo]

This thread can be closed

Apparently the speed with which Calvin rejected Catholicism was paramount.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Apparently the speed with which Calvin rejected Catholicism was paramount.

John Calvin also rejected Martin Luther's interpretation of the Eucharist as well. Funny how the Protestant Reformation had no reformation at all...

 

[drstevej]

Melancthon was open to Calvin's view. However, this is unrelated to the success of the Reformation. The Reformation did not argue for apostolic succession.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Melancthon was open to Calvin's view. However, this is unrelated to the success of the Reformation. The Reformation did not argue for apostolic succession.

Just a simple observation...

Reformation would be bringing together something as one again. The key word here is one. Yet when John Calvin and Martin Luther and Zwingli got together they all had their own interpretation of scripture and they all felt their interpretation of scripture was inerrant or infallible. Consequently it caused an immediate division in the "Reformers" and did not bring together a new and reformed church but rather many reformed churches.

This was my point... that they did not succeed in bringing together One Church as reformed. Instead different churches based on the leaders personal and infallible interpretation of scripture. Otherwise Martin Luther and John Calvin would have stayed together.

 

[drstevej]

Just a simple observation...

Reformation would be bringing together something as one again. The key word here is one. Yet when John Calvin and Martin Luther and Zwingli got together they all had their own interpretation of scripture and they all felt their interpretation of scripture was inerrant or infallible. Consequently it caused an immediate division in the "Reformers" and did not bring together a new and reformed church but rather many reformed churches.

This was my point... that they did not succeed in bringing together One Church as reformed. Instead different churches based on the leaders personal and infallible interpretation of scripture. Otherwise Martin Luther and John Calvin would have stayed together.

None of the three claimed infallibility.
They differed.

Calvin was a pastor of a city state and did not organically unite woth other reformed city states. Lutheranism was received in Scandinavia but none of these national churches united with each other.

They did not accept apostolic succession. So there was no need to organize a single ecclesiastical structure. Yet they recognized each other as true churches.

You misunderstand the nature of the Reformation. You are trying to make them shadow Catholics. They rejected apostolic succession.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

None of the three claimed infallibility.
They differed.

I am sure John Calvin would disagree with you. In fact he was sure of his interpretation of scripture that he could not reconcile to Martin Luther's interpretation. The reason is because John Calvin saw his interpretation as being the only possible interpretation based on his personal interpretation of scripture using scripture to interpret scripture. This is called being infallible which is the same as inerrant.

Unless you are claiming that John Calvin taught his interpretation of scripture to have error? Are you?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Calvin was a pastor of a city state and did not organically unite woth other reformed city states. Lutheranism was received in Scandinavia but none of these national churches united with each other.

They did not accept apostolic succession. So there was no need to organize a single ecclesiastical structure. Yet they recognized each other as true churches.

You misunderstand the nature of the Reformation. You are trying to make them shadow Catholics. They rejected apostolic succession.

The fact is that Martin Luther taught Sacramental Union and John Calvin rejected this theology as absurd. They had councils that continued even after Martin Luther's death to reconcile the churches.

Also, you will find that the Lutheran church does subscribe to Apostolic Succession and has tried to maintain records of their priestly ordinations as having a link to an Apostle. Do you believe otherwise?

 

[drstevej]

I am sure John Calvin would disagree with you. In fact he was sure of his interpretation of scripture that he could not reconcile to Martin Luther's interpretation. The reason is because John Calvin saw his interpretation as being the only possible interpretation based on his personal interpretation of scripture using scripture to interpret scripture. This is called being infallible which is the same as inerrant.

Unless you are claiming that John Calvin taught his interpretation of scripture to have error? Are you?

They disagreed on that point. One of 15 at Ratisbon. Both thought they were right. The Reformers disagreed on many points yet agreed on the foundational doctrines.

Luther was the more adamant in this discussion. And ironically Melancthon was inclined to Calvin's understanding.

Zwingli and Calvin differed yet Geneva did not anathematize Zurich.

You still do not understand Protestantism.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

They disagreed on that point. One of 15 at Ratisbon. Both thought they were right. The Reformers disagreed on many points yet agreed on the foundational doctrines.

Luther was the more adamant in this discussion. And ironically Melancthon was inclined to Calvin's understanding.

Zwingli and Calvin differed yet Geneva did not anathematize Zurich.

You still do not understand Protestantism.

What I know of "Protestanism" is not full and probably has much to be added. I do not deny this.

But I am not so blind or without knowledge to know that these churches were divided and have grown more divided since their creation.

Also... did John Calvin teach that his interpretation of scripture had error?

Or is this a qiuet way of saying that I was correct and that John Calvin is not infallible in his scriptural interpretation?

 

[drstevej]

(sung to "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious")

Super-Zwinglian-Calvinistic-Eucharistic-Notion,
For a Zwinglian or a Calvinist, it's part of their devotion
If you say it's Lutheran, you'll always cause commotion,
Super-Zwinglian-Calvinistic-Eucharistic-Notion!


When I was just a little lad, about the age of seven,
Me father said Christ wasn't here, that He was up in Heaven,
So when I took the Supper, and ate the bread and wine,
I didn't get the bod'ly Christ, but only the divine!
Super-Zwinglian-Calvinistic-Eucharistic-Notion!


On Sundays, when my faith was firm, I lifted up my face
And looked above to heav'n, which was Jesus' dwelling place,
Assurance and the strengthening of faith was up to me,
Effected by the bread and wine, as signs externally!
Super-Zwinglian-Calvinistic-Eucharistic-Notion!


A Lutheran came into our town, proclaiming presence real.
He said that Jesus' blood and body both were in the meal.
Christ bids we eat and drink in order that the sacrament
Grant us holy absolution which is the meal's intent!
Super-Zwinglian-Calvinistic-Eucharistic-Notion!


Now the Gospel all is new as I receive communion,
I eat Christ's body and His blood in sacramental union,
I see the light, I now am Lutheran, but here is now the twist:
Am I Gnesio-Lutheran or a Crypto-Calvinist?
Super-Zwinglian-Calvinistic-Eucharistic-Notion!

 

[drstevej]

What I know of "Protestanism" is not full and probably has much to be added. I do not deny this.

But I am not so blind or without knowledge to know that these churches were divided and have grown more divided since their creation.

Also... did John Calvin teach that his interpretation of scripture had error?

Or is this a qiuet way of saying that I was correct and that John Calvin is not infallible in his scriptural interpretation?

Of course Calvin is not infallible in his Scriptural interpretation. Neither he or any other Protestant claims that. You are not listening. You are trying to make Calvin a Pope which he was not and never claimed to be.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Cute little toon. Too bad you did not have a Youtube of it with actors and music.

 

[drstevej]

Cute little toon. Too bad you did not have a Youtube of it with actors and music.

I didn't write it, wish I did. Some interesting historical/theological insight in that parody.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Of course Calvin is not infallible in his Scriptural interpretation. Neither he or any other Protestant claims that. You are not listening. You are trying to make Calvin a Pope which he was not and never claimed to be.

You misunderstand me...

I have no intent to equate Luther or Calvin to a Pope. Far from it, believe me.

What I am saying is that they both took a stance that their perosnal interpretation was correct or without error. They both would not budge on this even at death. As you little ditty says they are different and greatly so. But it is because they saw their interpretation as without error that people follow them and what they taught. So they are seen as providing the correct teaching of scripture and they are not seen as being inerrant in this. This is what a Catholic calls an infallible teaching.

Infallible = without error


Or are you saying Calvin could be wrong in his teaching of scripture?