Is Calvinism a heresy?

[The Liturgist]

Actually, it was hardly limited to the 20th century. Tyrannies have left an enormous legacy of grandiose remains. The Incas and the Aztecs, to cite just a couple, were no slouches.

View attachment 336056

Indeed, the Aztecs were particularly horrifying for the mass human sacrifices, which included a program of systematic genocide called the Flower Wars, in which as many as 40 million people of rival city states defeated by the Aztec Empire were offered in tribute and murdered. And that barbaric custom started with the Maya. The Inca Empire was surprisingly short lived and grew at an extremely rapid pace before Francisco Pizarro decapitated it. One can envisage an alternate history where traders from a country less interested in conversion (consider the Dutch trade with Japan after the Catholics were banished and/or martyred) sold them rifles and the Incas went on to conquer the majority of South America and threaten Europe. However, the methods of Pizarro were ethically dubious.

In the case of the Aztecs, given the bloodshed they caused, I am forced to regard Hernan Cortes as a hero, and I wish to write a story depicting him as such. But the real miracle was the holy icon, Our Lady of Guadalupe, which is what spelled the end for the Aztec religion in its ancient horrible form.

Of course, there is the disturbing cult of Santa Muerte, which is officially denounced by the Roman Catholic Church, and at one time I reckoned it had Aztec influence, but the more I study the Aztec religion, the more I have come to the conclusion that Santa Muerte contains superstitions which arose from a syncretism of the beliefs of the Northern Mexicans, who the Aztecs referred to, like the Pueblo Indians and the other Native Americans of the US, as “Dog People.” Racism was a characteristic of Aztec society. It is also a myth that the Spanish engaged in biological warfare by intentionally infecting the Aztecs with smallpox; while it is true that the Mongol Empire had used biological warfare by catapulting plague victims over the walls of cities under siege, and that later on infected blankets were given to Native Americans, in the case of the Aztecs the Spanish were guilty only of fornication or adultery, or in some cases, legitimate marriage, and the massive adverse effect this had on the Mexican population was a disaster for the Spanish, in that it destroyed the economy that they hoped to take over and required the costly importation of large numbers of colonists from Spain, many of whom would perish of malaria, and most of whom, unlike their British counterparts, were not fleeing persecution (since the Jews and Muslims left or converted after 1492, and subsequently more of the conversos left due to the brutal Spanish Inquisition). Now, regarding Spain, there are two fallacious ways of viewing Spanish history, the “Black Legend” in which everything the Spanish Empire did is viewed in a negative light, which is partially a work of Dutch and English propaganda, and the White Legend, which is partially a work of Spanish propaganda, in which everything the Spanish Empire did is interpreted positively, and I reject both of these extremes as being absurd. Rather each individual action of Spain in its history must be evaluated on the basis of its own merits and the social context in which it occurred, objectively and without the ulterior motives of pro-Spanish or anti-Spanish propaganda.

But despite everything the Spanish did wrong, I feel completely confident in asserting that the Aztecs were worse. On the other hand, its difficult to tell what direction the Incas would have ultimately pursued; yes, they were an expansionist military power, but one could envisage a scenario where they were entirely converted to Christianity and became a force for good. The unfortunate current situation is that the Incas survive as an ethnic minority in Peru and as a very large segment of the population of Bolivia, at least the mountainous portion, but the Inca religion, complete with sacrifices of Llamas, which are beautiful animals, and also Alpacas, I fear, survives and is practiced by a minority of Incas who did not convert to Roman Catholicism, and this is a tragedy. There is also in the Bolivian silver mines a form of devil worship to the diabolical idol of “El Tio”, “the Uncle” who the miners feel must be appeased with libations of pure alcohol, coca leaves (from which cocaine is extracted, and which are chewed by the Incas of Bolivia) and other things, in order to prevent accidents. This kind of superstition, which puts the souls of the miners in mortal danger, makes me sick.

There is a bit of good news however: the Orthodox Churches are growing in South America, where the Roman Catholic Church has been adversely impacted by Liberation Theology, and the liberal doctrines of Pope Francis and the very problematic Amazonian Synod. The Orthodox will not make such compromises. In particular, the Polish Orthodox Church entered into communion with the Portuguese Orthodox, who later broke communion, but their former parishes in Brazil, who far outnumber the Portuguese parishes, then joined the Polish Orthodox Church as a diocese. So ironically, the Polish Orthodox Church, which has no presence in the United States, is thriving in Brazil. Meanwhile in Guatemala, the Syriac Orthodox Church received a large number of former Catholics of Mayan ethnicity who were persuaded by their archbishop to break communion with Rome, reluctantly, and in Mexico, the OCA has a large presence, and the Antiochian Orthodox Order of St. Ignatius, which is a charitable organization and not a religious order like the Benedictines, Dominicans or Franciscans (Orthodoxy doesn’t really have these orders, since each monastery has a certain amount of freedom to implement its own rule, and there is no need for friars since monasteries supply hieromonks and archimandrites who serve a similar purpose), has engaged in a major initiative in Tijuana and surrounding areas to save homeless teenagers from dying of exposure during the rainy season, and to feed them and help them survive and thrive.

 

[FireDragon76]

Actually, it was hardly limited to the 20th century. Tyrannies have left an enormous legacy of grandiose remains. The Incas and the Aztecs, to cite just a couple, were no slouches.

View attachment 336056

The Incas and Aztecs built what they did for very practical purposes, from their worldview.

I was thinking more of Fascism as an ideology, where aesthetics drove everything about societies like Germany or Italy in the 1930's. Not because they believed in it, but because they wanted everybody else to think they did.

 

[FireDragon76]

Indeed, the Aztecs were particularly horrifying for the mass human sacrifices, which included a program of systematic genocide called the Flower Wars, in which as many as 40 million people of rival city states defeated by the Aztec Empire were offered in tribute and murdered. And that barbaric custom started with the Maya. The Inca Empire was surprisingly short lived and grew at an extremely rapid pace before Francisco Pizarro decapitated it.

The Aztec's rationale is not dissimilar to things you'ld find in the Bible, like Abraham sacrificing Isaac, or Samuel ordering the slaughter of the Amalekites. Mass killing is hardly a new thing, and in the premodern era, was not considered particularly morally problematic. Cultic sacrifice has deep roots in human consciousness. In Mesoamericans belief systems, blood and life belonged to the gods, and by propitiating them with blood, the sacrifices served to perpetuate their society.

Cortez, and especially Pizarro, were not good individuals, even by Spanish standards. When Pizarro returned to Spain, the Spanish crown reprimanded him for his regicide of a vanquished king.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Aztec's rationale is not dissimilar to things you'ld find in the Bible, like Abraham sacrificing Isaac, or Samuel ordering the slaughter of the Amalekites.

Nonsense. Firstly, Abraham did not actually sacrifice Isaac. Furthermore, with regards to indigenous populations apparently exterminated by Israel when it moved into the Holy Land, those verses can be read using Alexandrian exegesis, and probably should be, given that in many cases, there is no evidence that such genocides actually happened. It’s a bit like the Psalm Super Flumina, which has the controversial line “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” If we eisgetically read this Psalm using a pure Antiochene historical-literal hermeneutic, it sounds horrible, and some churches have deleted verse 9 or are deeply embarassed by it, for example, the 1962 Canadian BCP removes it.

This is a mistake, because if we read this book exegetically, together with the Apocalypse, and the other books of Scripture, it becomes clear that Babylon is a typological symbol of sin and evil and corruption, and the “little ones” are not actual Babylonian children, but rather the sinful passions and temptations, that induce us to engage in various perverse activities, like lust, gluttony, avarice and so on, and which must be struggled against.

I find it ironic that liberal Christians want us to not take verses by St. Paul condemning Christianity literally, but at the same time they want us to take certain verses in the Old Testament literally, and in so doing reject the exegesis that the Early Church historically applied to those verses.

There is a reason why in the Chaldean Church, whose members largely live in Baghdad, which is built next to, and partially atop, old Bablyon, and is a short distance from Seleucia-Cstesiphon, and whose primate is called the Patriarch of Bablyon, children sing all of Psalm 137, including verse 9, without believing that the Psalm implies that God will reward people who dash them, as literal Bablyonian children, against the rocks, because that is not what Psalm 137 means, and it never was what Psalm 137 meant; the idea that it did mean something along those lines is a misinterpretation dating back to a period of Jewish Nationalism in the early Second Temple era during the Hasmonean dynasty, after the triumph of the Maccabees, which to be clear was a good thing, but the nationalism which followed under the rule of the likes of King Herod was toxic and led to the crucifixion of our Lord and the martyrdom of many of His apostles. Fortunately, Christ our God was resurrected and His apostles received a crown of martyrdom.

Also it should be stressed that anyone killed before the coming of Christ had the unique opportunity to follow our Lord out of Hell, for one of the reasons he allowed himself to be crucified was to free those souls captive in the underworld. This is why the Paschal Homily of St. Chrysostom refers to Hell as overthrown and despoiled, because our Lord left it a ruin, a shadow of its former self, by evacuating anyone who wished to follow him to Heaven. You may not be familiar with the doctrine of the Harrowing of Hell, because as far as I am aware John Calvin rejected it, but it was the teaching of the early church and it remains the teaching of traditional Christian denominations.

 

[The Liturgist]

Cortez, and especially Pizarro, were not good individuals, even by Spanish standards. When Pizarro returned to Spain, the Spanish crown reprimanded him for slaying royalty.

I never said Pizarro was a good man; if you had read my post more carefully you would have noticed that I questioned his ethics, and indeed those of Cortes. However, in my opinion Hernan Cortes was a hero for bringing an end to the evil Aztec Empire, which ranks with the empire of Tamerlane, the Ummayid Caliphate, the Fatimid Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as one of the most wicked and bloodthirsty regimes ever to exist.

Fortunately, because of Cortes, it was overthrown and Christianity was introduced, with only minimal bloodshed of the leaders, even if Moctezuma and the nobility were tricked; frankly, it is better to decapitate a regime than to engage in a genocidal slaughter of its population, which Cortes was not guilty of. The fact that Mexico is a solidly Christian nation is largely due to Hernan Cortes. I am not claiming he is a saint, but rather a military hero, there being quite a difference between the two.

 

[The Liturgist]

I was thinking more of Fascism as an ideology, where aesthetics drove everything about societies like Germany or Italy in the 1930's. Not because they believed in it, but because they wanted everybody else to think they did.

On the contrary, the massive public works of Mussolini and Hitler, via his architect Albert Speer, were entirely reflective of the actual beliefs of Fascism and National Socialism (which by the way are two separate ideologies; they are related to each other, and indeed to communism, in that all three represent totalitarian systems of government, but they are not the same, and for that matter we could include the Apartheid government in South Africa which was neither fascist nor Nazi but nonetheless an evil totalitarian one-party state as an example. But it is important that we differentiate the ideologies of these movements as well as the similarities rather than dismissing them all as “Fascist”, when really only some of the Axis powers, and also neutral Spain and Portugal, were fascist. Also, Oswald Mosley, although he styled himself a fascist, had ideological differences with Mussolini, which is not to say he would have been good for Britain; on the contrary it would have been a nightmare had his movement gained any real power, but fortunately for the entire world that did not happen.

 

[FireDragon76]

Nonsense. Firstly, Abraham did not actually sacrifice Isaac.

In the current biblical telling of the story. However, some Jewish scholars themselves believe originally Abraham did sacrifice Isaac in the original telling of the story, before it was redacted some time in the 1st millenium. You can even find echoes of this in some Jewish hymns that speak of Isaac's sacrifice for the nation, such as in the 'Akedah. Later Jewish moralists may have gone back and redacted the story to give it an ending that better fit the sensibilities of the time they lived in.

Furthermore, with regards to indigenous populations apparently exterminated by Israel when it moved into the Holy Land, those verses can be read using Alexandrian exegesis, and probably should be, given that in many cases, there is no evidence that such genocides actually happened.

Could you please explain what you mean by Alexandrian exegesis? Most American Evangelicals believe the story literally happened- not just laypeople, but also pastors that go to seminaries.

There is a reason why in the Chaldean Church, whose members largely live in Baghdad, which is built next to, and partially atop, old Bablyon, and is a short distance from Seleucia-Cstesiphon, and whose primate is called the Patriarch of Bablyon, children sing all of Psalm 137, including verse 9, without believing that the Psalm implies that God will reward people who dash them, as literal Bablyonian children, against the rocks, because that is not what Psalm 137 means, and it never was what Psalm 137 meant; the idea that it did mean something along those lines is a misinterpretation dating back to a period of Jewish Nationalism in the early Second Temple era during the Hasmonean dynasty, after the triumph of the Maccabees, which to be clear was a good thing, but the nationalism which followed under the rule of the likes of King Herod was toxic and led to the crucifixion of our Lord and the martyrdom of many of His apostles. Fortunately, Christ our God was resurrected and His apostles received a crown of martyrdom.

So, in your hermeneutic of the Bible in the religion you are a part of now, you repudiate any tribalistic or nationalistic readings of the Old Testament? How exactly does that work out, given that so much of the Old Testament is within a tribalistic or nationalistic setting? And how exactly is that different from liberal Protestantism?

Also it should be stressed that anyone killed before the coming of Christ had the unique opportunity to follow our Lord out of Hell, for one of the reasons he allowed himself to be crucified was to free those souls captive in the underworld. This is why the Paschal Homily of St. Chrysostom refers to Hell as overthrown and despoiled, because our Lord left it a ruin, a shadow of its former self, by evacuating anyone who wished to follow him to Heaven. You may not be familiar with the doctrine of the Harrowing of Hell, because as far as I am aware John Calvin rejected it, but it was the teaching of the early church and it remains the teaching of traditional Christian denominations.

I am familiar with the doctrine of the harrowing of Hell. It isn't explicitly taught in Lutheranism as such, but it also isn't denied. There are also plenty of hymns in our hymnals that allude to this indirectly.

 

[The Liturgist]

So, in your hermeneutic of the Bible in the religion you are a part of now, you repudiate any tribalistic or nationalistic readings of the Old Testament? How exactly does that work out, given that so much of the Old Testament is within a tribalistic or nationalistic setting? And how exactly is that different from liberal Protestantism?

In the Gospel According to Luke, our Lord shows how the Old Testament is about Him. The entire OT must be interpreted in the light of Christianity. We know that Jewish nationalism was offensive to God because He made this clear, and we know that the Old Testament does not say what the Jews thought it said.

This is not my hermeneutic either, but is rather the hermeneutic of the Early Church Fathers of the Exegetical School of Alexandria. I am merely following in their footsteps. That is what differs my view from liberal Protestantism, because most Liberal Protestants take content such as Psalm 137:9 literally, whereas it is obviously not meant to be taken literally, while at the same time they refuse to take what the Holy Apostle Paul said about homosexuality, or many other things, literally, and many of them say hateful things about St. Paul, and this is wrong. I interpret the New Testament literally and the Old Testament as typological prophecy with some historical elements, but not using a purely literal-historical method.

 

[FireDragon76]

In the Gospel According to Luke, our Lord shows how the Old Testament is about Him. The entire OT must be interpreted in the light of Christianity. We know that Jewish nationalism was offensive to God because He made this clear, and we know that the Old Testament does not say what the Jews thought it said.

This is not my hermeneutic either, but is rather the hermeneutic of the Early Church Fathers of the Exegetical School of Alexandria. I am merely following in their footsteps. That is what differs my view from liberal Protestantism, because most Liberal Protestants take content such as Psalm 137:9 literally, whereas it is obviously not meant to be taken literally, while at the same time they refuse to take what the Holy Apostle Paul said about homosexuality, or many other things, literally, and many of them say hateful things about St. Paul, and this is wrong. I interpret the New Testament literally and the Old Testament as typological prophecy with some historical elements, but not using a purely literal-historical method.

I don't see how it's completely different. Both are relying upon a Christocentric hermeneutic, though perhaps understood in different ways.

I'm pretty certain whoever wronge Psalm 127 meant it literally. It is a Psalm of lamentation, and much of the Old Testament expresses xenophobia and hostility to "the nations". Whether your Church interprets it literally or not is another matter.

 

[The Liturgist]

However, some Jewish scholars themselves believe originally Abraham did sacrifice Isaac in the original telling of the story, before it was redacted some time in the 1st millenium. You can even find echoes of this in some Jewish hymns that speak of Isaac's sacrifice for the nation, such as in the 'Akedah

So what? As I have often told @BobRyan , the opinions of Jewish scholars are utterly irrelevant to Christianity. Since they reject Christ, they have no knowledge of the correct interpretation of Scripture. And frankly, many of the ideas they have come up with since their break with the Early Church are utterly absurd, for example, the concept of Kaballah, which is an occult emanationist system evocative of Zoroastrianism, Manichaenism or Valentinism, or the belief of the Karaites that there is no devil, and that the serpent that deceived Eve was merely a particularly cunning snake.

Regarding the Akedah, it is still justifiable to say that Isaac offered himself as a sacrifice, even though he was not actually sacrificed. But since this hymn is not used in Christianity, it is irrelevant. Only the Apostles and their successors, the Church Fathers, can be regarded as having any interpretive authority.


If St. Isaac was sacrificed, Israel would literally not exist (the existence of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Joseph represents a part of the Old Testament which should be taken literally, since it explains why a group of Semitic language speakers wound up in Egypt and wound up speaking Hebrew, a Semitic language with Egyptian influences).

 

[The Liturgist]

I don't see how it's completely different. Both are relying upon a Christocentric hermeneutic, though perhaps understood in different ways.

I'm pretty certain whoever wronge Psalm 127 meant it literally. It is a Psalm of lamentation, and much of the Old Testament expresses xenophobia and hostility to "the nations". Whether your Church interprets it literally or not is another matter.

It is completely different in that the hermeneutic I follow is of Patristic origin rather than being the result of postmodern theologians who adhere to ideas such as Liberation Theology, Womanist Theology and Queer Theology attempting to force an interpretation onto the scriptural text which disagrees both with a literal reading of the New Testament (and the old) and with what the Early Church Fathers said.

There is no possible way one can read the New Testament as it is written and not come away with the understanding that homosexuality, fornication, adultery and so on are inherently sinful, yet where these verses clash with the modern secular zeitgeist, postmodern theologians have come up with various nonsensical reasons to ignore them.

This is why I support the confessional movements in Lutheranism, Methodism and the Reformed churches, and the Continuing Anglican movement and the Global South, because these movements have the potential to save these large and important denominations from the destructive influence of postmodern theologians, which is needed in order to stop the loss of members to even less traditional denominations like the Sabbatarians and Pentecostals and the evangelical Megachurches.

 

[FireDragon76]

So what? As I have often told @BobRyan , the opinions of Jewish scholars are utterly irrelevant to Christianity. Since they reject Christ, they have no knowledge of the correct interpretation of Scripture. And frankly, many of the ideas they have come up with since their break with the Early Church are utterly absurd, for example, the concept of Kaballah, which is an occult emanationist system evocative of Zoroastrianism, Manichaenism or Valentinism, or the belief of the Karaites that there is no devil, and that the serpent that deceived Eve was merely a particularly cunning snake.

You don't think Jews might have some expertise in what is essentially a Jewish national origins story? Are you aware most major translations of the Bible in the 20th century onwards, like the Revised Standard Version, have involved Jewish scholars, and not just Catholics and Protestants?

 

[The Liturgist]

You don't think Jews might have some expertise in what is essentially a Jewish national origins story?

That depends on the Jew. If we had access to the likes of St. David, St. Solomon, St. Isaiah, St. Elias or St. Esdras, or earlier Hebrew figures like St. Moses or St. Abraham, that would be valuable. The opinion of those Jews who reject Christ however is entirely irrelevant. This is not, by the way, to say Christians have any business engaging in anti-Semitism, and indeed I don’t think it would be possible to venerate Martin Luther as a saint like Saints Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague, (who were officially glorified as martyrs by the Czech and Slovak Orthodox Church), primarily because of the horrifying and unprovoked anti-semitic tract he composed with illustrations by Lucas Cranach the Elder. But I do like confessional Evangelical Catholic Lutheranism of the form practiced by the LCMS/LCC, AALC, ELDONA and the Mission Province of the Church of Sweden very much.

However, one can reject anti-Semitism without accepting the truth of Judaism in its present forms. Indeed at the same time as I reject the doctrines of Karaite Judaism and the Beta Israel, I advocate for increased rights of the Karaite Jewish minority in Israel, and the Beta Israel, both groups of which are mistreated by the Chief Rabbinate (for example, Karaite butchers can’t call their butcher shops Kosher, and the Chief Rabbis pushed very hard to try to require the Beta Israel to be recircumcized (yes, that is a thing).

Are you aware most major translations of the Bible in the 20th century onwards, like the Revised Standard Version, have involved Jewish scholars, and not just Catholics and Protestants?

Of course I am aware of that, and I would note that several of these translations have been disastrous, although I am not blaming this on the involvement of the Jews (I own a Jewish Annotated New Testament, which is interesting if not a source of doctrine).

For example, the RSV is infamous for mistranslating “a virgin shall conceive” which is the accurate reading as confirmed by the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Ge’ez Bible, and the Peshitta, as “a young woman shall conceive.”

In general, I prefer to avoid the Masoretic Text, which is the only surviving Hebrew text aside from the Dead Sea Scrolls, since we have tragically lost Origen’s Hexapla and versions like Symacchus. Consequently, I believe that for official dogmatic purposes, we should primarily translate from the Septuagint, the Peshitta, the Vulgate and the Ethiopian Ge’ez Bible (which is used by both the Orthodox Christians and the Beta Israel), and use the Masoretic text for reference only, or in the rare case where the Masoretic preserves a Christological reading missing from the Septuagint (I can think of only one such occurrence, Psalm 1:12 if I recall; in almost every case the Septuagint Psalter is vastly preferrable, compare, for example, Psalm 96:5 in a MT psalter like the Coverdale or KJV with the corresponding verse, Psalm 95:5 in an LXX Psalter translation, such as the Jordanville Psalter, the Psalter According to King David, the Psalter in the Challoner Douai Rheims, or the Lancelot Brenton Psalter, for a case in point.


The advantage to these translations is that the LXX predates the corruption in Judaism at the time of Christ by 200 years, the Ge’ez by at least as long, possibly much longer, and the Peshitta and Vulgate were translations from the Hebrew and Aramaic by the Church, for the Church and have always been in ecclesiastical custody.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Indeed, the Kaiserhymne, which was modified for each successive emperor, is really beautiful. In a bizarre twist, Germany adopted it with the lyrics written by the liberals who tried to overthrow the regional governments in 1848, whereas Austria developed its own, as did East Germany, but neither of these national anthems were especially memorable. In contrast, the Kaiserhymne was wildly popular in the 19th century, and there are several interesting derivatives of it that many people are unaware of. For example, the Kaiserwaltz by Johann Strauss II.

Also, as another fun fact, the national anthem of Prussia, and later the “First Reich”, the German Empire formed in 1871 and replaced by the Weimar Republic after WWI, has the same melody as the British national anthem “God save the King,” and you hear that melody in some Prussian military music. And indeed, to this day Liechtenstein still uses that melody.

Now if i recall, all of these were composed in a reaction to the Dutch national anthem, which was the first modern national anthem as such, although it is not particularly good, in my opinion.

My favorite national anthems, that I can think of off hand, in no particular order, are those of the US, France, Germany and the Austrian Empire, UK and Liechtenstein, the Soviet Union and Russia since 2001, Czarist Russia and Russia from 1991-2001, Poland and Romania, especially the Polish lyrics (“March, march, Dobrowski, march from Italy to Poland!”). Belgium, Spain, Italy, Sweden (Du Gamla, Du Fria), and that of Canada, which if I recall is derived from a Mozart melody.

However I am sure there are others that I like and I am forgetting them. In particular, I can recall an anthem which is none of the above, but i can’t remember whose it is.

As always, thank you for your excellent post. Two things which you may not be aware of -

1. The tune, Austria, was put to the words of "Deutschland, Deutschland Uber Alles," which gained infamy under the Nazi regime.

2. Probably in response, a compiler of The Psalms for Singing used by the RPCNA, used the tune for Psalm 94. I find the words and the melody quite appropriate and touching.

 

[The Liturgist]

As always, thank you for your excellent post. Two things which you may not be aware of -

1. The tune, Austria, was put to the words of "Deutschland, Deutschland Uber Alles," which gained infamy under the Nazi regime.

2. Probably in response, a compiler of The Psalms for Singing used by the RPCNA, used the tune for Psalm 94. I find the words and the melody quite appropriate and touching.

I was aware of no. 1 but not no. 2 despite owning an RPCNA Psalter. Just out of curiosity how familiar are you with the RPCNA and the other Covenanting Presbyterians? There is one in Devrock that I like watching.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The fact that Mexico is a solidly Christian nation is largely due to Hernan Cortes. I am not claiming he is a saint, but rather a military hero, there being quite a difference between the two.

Cortez was indeed important. But Juan Diego was I think the key here, with a major assist by Jesus' mom. And Junipero Serra, who worked hard for the native populations in the Americas against Spanish misgovernance.

Sorry I didn't see this thread earlier.

 

[oikonomia]

Remember, Paul planted and Apollos watered but who gave the growth?
God causes the growth.

Thanks the Lord for these two brothers Hernam Cortes and Jusan Deigo. And they planted and watered I am pretty sure though
I know nothing about them. God causes the seed of divine life to grow in man. May He do so much more in Mexico.

What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Ministers through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave to each one of them.
I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused the growth.

So then neither is he who plants anything nor he who waters, but God who causes the growth. (1 Cor. 3:5-7)

 

[Nagomirov]

Orthodoxy doesn't count Calvin/Calvinism among the heretics either. Then again, Orthodoxy doesn't make that claim of anyone outside of the Church. For us, it's heterodox.
That said, if we are addressing 5 point "TULIP" Calvinism, all five points are contrary to Orthodoxy, some points more egregious than others.

Ошибаетесь. Труд «Послание патриархов восточно-кафолической Церкви о православной вере 1723 г.»:

"Но что говорят богохульные еретики, будто Бог предопределяет или осуждает, ни сколько не взирая на дела предопределяемых или осуждаемых, – это мы почитаем безумием и нечестием; ибо в таком случае Писание противоречило бы само себе. Оно учит, что всякий верующий спасается верою и делами своими, и вместе с тем представляет Бога единственным виновником нашего спасения, поскольку то есть Он предварительно подает просвещающую благодать, которая доставляет человеку познание Божественной истины и учит его сообразоваться с нею (если он не противится) и делать добро, угодное Богу, дабы получить спасение, не уничтожая свободной воли человека, но предоставляя ей повиноваться или не повиноваться ее действию. Не безумно ли после сего без всякого основания утверждать, что Божественное хотение есть вина несчастия осужденных? Не значит ли это произносить страшную клевету на Бога? Не значит ли это изрекать ужасную несправедливость и хулу на небо? Бог непричастен никакому злу, равно желает спасения всем, у Него нет места лицеприятию; почему мы исповедуем, что Он справедливо предает осуждению тех, которые остаются в нечестии по развращенной своей воле и нераскаянному сердцу. Но никогда, никогда не называли и не назовем виновником вечного наказания и мучений, как бы человеконенавистным, Бога, Который Сам изрек, что радость бывает на небе о едином грешнике кающемся. Верить таким образом или мыслить мы не дерзнем никогда, доколе имеем сознание; и тех, которые так говорят и думают, мы предаем вечной анафеме и признаем худшими всех неверных".

You're wrong. The work "The Message of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith of 1723":

"But what blasphemous heretics say, that God predestines or condemns, regardless of the deeds of those who are predestined or condemned, we regard as madness and impiety; for in such a case the Scripture would contradict itself. It teaches that every believer is saved by faith and his works, and at the same time represents God as the sole culprit of our salvation, since that is, He first gives enlightening grace, which gives man knowledge of Divine truth and teaches him to conform to it (if he does not resist) and do good pleasing to God in order to receive salvation without destroying a person's free will, but allowing it to obey or disobey its action. Is it not insane after this, without any reason, to assert that Divine will is the fault of the misfortune of the condemned? Does this not mean uttering a terrible slander against God? Does this not mean uttering terrible injustice and blasphemy against heaven? God is not involved in any evil, He equally desires salvation for all, He has no place for hypocrisy; why do we confess that He justly condemns those who remain in wickedness due to their corrupt will and unrepentant heart. But we have never, never called and will not call the culprit of eternal punishment and torment, as if man-hating, God, Who Himself said that there is joy in heaven for a single penitent sinner. We will never dare to believe or think in this way as long as we have consciousness; and those who say and think this way, we anathematize forever and recognize all infidels as the worst".

СИМВОЛИЧЕСКИЕ КНИГИ КАФОЛИЧЕСКОЙ ПРАВОСЛАВНОЙ ЦЕРКВИ

Как пишет блаженной памяти митр. Макарий, «как нарочитое руководство при обстоятельном изложении этого учения, как пробный камень для поверки своего Верования, должно признавать» только «два, нарочито составленные, исповедания православной веры, в руководство всем православным»:

«а) Одно – около половины ΧVΙΙ-го века (1640 г.) в Киеве, для охранения чистоты православия как от мнений Лютеран и Кальвинистов, так ещё более от мнений Римских католиков и бывших униатов. Это – “Православное Исповедание Кафолической и Апостольской Церкви Восточной”. Вначале оно рассмотрено на Соборе Киевском, и вскоре (в 1643 г.) на Соборе Ясском; потом рассмотрено и одобрено всеми четырьмя восточными Патриархами, и единодушно принято всей Греческой Церковью. Наконец, и для всей Церкви Русской одобрено и утверждено Патриархами Иоакимом (в 1685 г.) и Адрианом (в 1696 г.), который даже назвал эту книгу “боговдохновенной” (разумеется, не в строгом смысле), и Святейшим Правительствующим Всероссийским Синодом...

б) Другое – в последней половине того же века (в 1672 г.), на Соборе Иерусалимском, для охранения чистоты православия от заблуждений Кальвинистских, под названием: “Изложение православной веры Восточной Церкви”. Истину и чистоту этого Изложения снова засвидетельствовали все Святейшие Патриархи и другие Архипастыри Церкви восточной, когда послали его от себя (1723 г.) в ответ Христианам Великобританским, как истинное изложение и мудрование православной веры, и тогда же сообщили для той же самой цели и нашему св. Синоду; принял и засвидетельствовал и св. Синод Всероссийский, издавши в 1838 году это исповедание на русском языке, под заглавием: “Послание Патриархов православно-кафолическия Церкви о православной вере”, для руководства всем православным [3].

Вообще надобно помнить, что символической книгой какой-либо Церкви можно назвать только Изложение веры, изданное от лица всех, правительствующих в ней иерархов, и, следовательно, от лица всей Церкви, а отнюдь не исповедание какого-либо частного Верующего или даже Иерарха, как бы он знаменит ни был».

__________________________

Источник: Макарий (Булгаков), митр. Введение в Православное Богословие, §151. СПб., 1897. С. 415-418

SYMBOLIC BOOKS OF THE CATHOLIC ORTHODOX CHURCH

As the blessed memory of Mitr writes. Macarius, "as a deliberate guide in the detailed presentation of this teaching, as a touchstone for verifying his Belief, should recognize "only " two deliberately composed confessions of the Orthodox faith, as a guide for all Orthodox":

"a) One – about half of the twentieth century (1640) in Kiev, to protect the purity of Orthodoxy both from the opinions of Lutherans and Calvinists, and even more from the opinions of Roman Catholics and former Uniates. This is the “Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East.” At first it was considered at the Council of Kiev, and soon (in 1643) at the Council of Iasi; then it was considered and approved by all four Eastern Patriarchs, and unanimously accepted by the entire Greek Church. Finally, it was approved and approved for the entire Russian Church by Patriarchs Joachim (in 1685) and Adrian (in 1696), who even called this book “inspired by God” (of course, not in the strict sense), and by the Most Holy Governing All-Russian Synod...

b) Another – in the last half of the same century (in 1672), at the Council of Jerusalem, to protect the purity of Orthodoxy from Calvinist errors, under the title: “Exposition of the Orthodox Faith of the Eastern Church.” The truth and purity of this Exposition were again attested by all the Most Holy Patriarchs and other Archpastors of the Eastern Church when they sent it from themselves (1723) in response to the British Christians, as a true exposition and wisdom of the Orthodox faith, and at the same time they informed our Saint for the same purpose. To the Synod; received and witnessed and St. The Synod of All-Russia, which published this confession in Russian in 1838, under the title: “The Message of the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith”, for the guidance of all Orthodox [3].

In general, it should be remembered that the symbolic book of any Church can only be called an Exposition of the faith, published on behalf of all the hierarchs ruling in it, and, consequently, on behalf of the whole Church, and by no means the confession of any private Believer or even a Hierarch, no matter how famous he may be."

__________________________

Source: Makarii (Bulgakov), mitr. Introduction to Orthodox Theology, §151. St. Petersburg, 1897. pp. 415-418

 

[Nagomirov]

Orthodoxy doesn't count Calvin/Calvinism among the heretics either. Then again, Orthodoxy doesn't make that claim of anyone outside of the Church. For us, it's heterodox.
That said, if we are addressing 5 point "TULIP" Calvinism, all five points are contrary to Orthodoxy, some points more egregious than others.

Кальвинизм был осужден как ересь на Константинопольском Соборе 1633 года. Появление в Константинополе в тридцатых годах 17 столетия изданного в Женеве "Исповедания веры", приписываемого иезуитами патр. Кириллу Лукарису, вызвало большое смущение среди православных. Оно было наполнено кальвинскими мыслями. Вследствие этого патриархи Феофан Иерусалимский и Митрофан Александрийский прибыли в Константинополь. Здесь в 1633 г. состоялся собор, под председательством константинопольского патриарха Кирилла Беррийского, На соборе кальвинизм, а также все принимающие его за православное исповедание были преданы анафеме.

Calvinism was condemned as heresy at the Council of Constantinople in 1633. The appearance in Constantinople in the thirties of the 17th century of the "Confession of Faith" published in Geneva, attributed by the Jesuits of Patras. To Cyril Lukaris, caused great embarrassment among the Orthodox. It was filled with Calvinistic thoughts. As a result, Patriarchs Theophanes of Jerusalem and Mitrofan of Alexandria arrived in Constantinople. Here in 1633 A council was held under the chairmanship of Patriarch Kirill of Berry of Constantinople, At which Calvinism, as well as all those who accept it as an Orthodox confession, were anathematized.

 

[Nagomirov]

Orthodoxy doesn't count Calvin/Calvinism among the heretics either. Then again, Orthodoxy doesn't make that claim of anyone outside of the Church. For us, it's heterodox.
That said, if we are addressing 5 point "TULIP" Calvinism, all five points are contrary to Orthodoxy, some points more egregious than others.

Это совершенное незнание вами греческого православия, которое осудило на Соборах кальвинизм. Кальвинизмом был заражен Константинопольский патриарх Кирилл Лукарис, который издал свое исповедание, содержащее кальвинистское учение. Оно было осуждено восточными патриархами, сначала на Константинопольском Соборе. Потом на Иерусалимском Соборе, потом на Ясском Соборе. Осуждено как ересь!

This is your complete ignorance of Greek Orthodoxy, which condemned Calvinism at the Councils. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Loukaris, was infected with Calvinism and published his confession containing Calvinist teaching. It was condemned by the Eastern patriarchs, first at the Council of Constantinople. Then at the Jerusalem Council, then at the Iasi Council. Condemned as heresy!