Some information about Calvin

[Albion]

I wouldn't say that the Church has so much changed as has grown. When I say that the Church hasn't changed, the general practices and doctrines have remained the same, just expanded on. The is evidenced in that the practices of the RCC are still largely the same as both the Jews and the orthodoxy, who also trace their history back to the first century.

You could make that point, but only in generalities, and then it wouldn't be anything that couldn't be said of a number of other Chrisitian churches nat the same time.

Luther laid the groundwork for all the other reformers in that he introduced the idea of a Christian church outside the authority of the Church.

As an inspiration, perhaps, but these still were never part of some unified front and can't be treated as though they were. Therefore, the idea of something breaking into pieces, etc. is wrong. The RCC splitting from the EO in 1054 was a much better example of that.

Except for the Church started in the first century and was established by Jesus himself when he appointed Peter as the first pope.

Christ didn't appoint Peter to be the first pope.

 

[Abrahamist]

You could make that point, but only in generalities, and then it wouldn't be anything that couldn't be said of a number of other Chrisitian churches nat the same time.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches can trace their origin back to the first century. I don't know of any other Christians Churches that can so I don't see that any number of Christian could make the same claim.

As an inspiration, perhaps, but these still were never part of some unified front and can't be treated as though they were. Therefore, the idea of something breaking into pieces, etc. is wrong. The RCC splitting from the EO in 1054 was a much better example of that.

I was never meaning to even imply that the reformation was ever a unified movement but just the opposite. My claim was that Luther believed that if everyone could read and interpret the Bible for themselves, they'd reach the same conclusions and this was proven false.

That other reformers went off on their own and started their movements quite independent of Luther supports my point.

There was no unity of vision or doctrinal understanding or unity of anything else in the reformation movement. Instead it was a bunch of people reinterpreting the Bible according to their own understanding without the guidance of the Church and founding new religions according to their own doctrine.

Christ didn't appoint Peter to be the first pope.

Jesus appointing Peter comes straight out of the Bible and so I don't know how you can deny that he did so.

 

[Albion]

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches can trace their origin back to the first century.

Sure. So can mine. It was founded before Peter got to Rome, in fact. And there are other churches that trace their origins back to the first century, too.

I don't see that any number of Christian could make the same claim.

Well you do now.

I was never meaning to even imply that the reformation was ever a unified movement but just the opposite.

No, it can only be fractured (as you claimed) if it were united in the first place.

My claim was that Luther believed that if everyone could read and interpret the Bible for themselves, they'd reach the same conclusions and this was proven false.

You've misrepresented Luther. I can only guess that you don't know much more about him than the basics if you can make an error like that. Luther believed that everyone should have access to the Bible. This was in a day when the main church of the West--the Church of Rome--forbid people to read the Bible. That does not mean that everyone who reads it can be expected to understand it the same way.

There was no unity of vision or doctrinal understanding or unity of anything else in the reformation movement.

That's untrue. Even today the Protestant Churches have more in common than the Catholic churches do. There are hardly any Protestant churches that disagree on the key themes of the Reformation--the 5 Solas, the priesthood of all believers, and the two sacraments of the Gospel. Meanwhile, the Catholic churches disagree among themselves on numerous items of belief and polity.

Instead it was a bunch of people reinterpreting the Bible according to their own understanding without the guidance of the Church and founding new religions according to their own doctrine.

Nonsense, the Reformation wasn't about everyone going his own way. The churches of the Reformation are renowned, or reviled as the case may be, for their emphasis upon doctrinal correctness.

Jesus appointing Peter comes straight out of the Bible and so I don't know how you can deny that he did so.

You said he was appointed pope. That doesn't come "straight out of the Bible." Jesus said he'd build his church on Peter, meaning that Peter would be the one to bring in the first wave of converts, which the Bible records he did on Pentecost.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Abrahamist;The point is that the system of the Catholic Church works in spite of evil people.

It is rather that the illusion persists despite evil abuses becoming institutionalized. It thrives on cognizant dissonance & the strength of denial.

The people in the Church aren't a 100% flawless and no one is claiming that they are

.
Except for the ones who become "popes" when they speak on faith & morals from St. Peter's chair.

Sometimes, through human error, evil people are given positions of power. The difference is that in the Church, when this happens, those people are not able to corrupt the establishment as a whole. They are no more able to change the Church as a man is able to change the weather.

I appreciate that you have an opinion on this.

It is not the man who is the Pope that has any real control over the Church. He, as an individual, might have enormous influence and power over certain other individuals in the Church, but he has no actual power to influence or change the Church itself.

The semantics of redefininig reality & actuality are the oldest trick in the world: "Did God say...?

Instead, the power belongs to the office of pope (not the man) and the power the pope has to keep the church from changing and to keep the teachings of the Church.

And yet the power is excercised & the office is occupied and doctrines are defined by the man. The power & the office do not exercise themselves. The doctrines don't define themselves, the man does.

It is a theocracy but the pope is not the king, Jesus is. The pope, as head of the Church, is not to rule the Church so much as to keep any other earthly authority from sitting on the throne instead.

And yet as "vicar of Christ" it is the pope who exercise kingly power, who asserts rule over earth both temporal & eternal as per the Two Swords doctrine outlined in the papal bull, "Unam Sanctum".

Luther and the other reformers introduced a system that right from the get go fell into corruption.

Fell? He got soteriology right but failed to reform ecclesiology & sacramentology in the external church structures. I don't think he rose to a great enough height to fall, maybe "stumbled".

Almost immediately after the reformation began, the reformers began splitting up among doctrinal differences.

RCC/EO split leaves you room to complain?

The reason was because the reformation took the power of authority away from the Church and handed it over to man.

That's classic projection in an anti-Protestant rant.

And so these men, many of them displaying all the same flaws of character as the popes they were attacking, introduced new doctrine based upon their own flawed human understanding of the Bible.

Human folly. Liars & fools calling each other liars & fools.
Hope your coffee is as good as mine this morning.

Luther didn't differentiate between the office of the pope and the man occupying that office. Because he disapproved of the man holding the office, he deemed the office itself unnecessary and formed a new Church where he actually had more power than the pope.

Nothing new under the sun. Prots are ad-hommed all the time.

So, from all this I gather you don't like Protestantism or Luther.
Thank you for this precious time we've shared.

 

[Rick Otto]

Luther laid the groundwork for all the other reformers in that he introduced the idea of a Christian church outside the authority of the Church.

The RCC laid the groundwork by abusing an illegitimate authority it had invented.

 

[Abrahamist]

Sure. So can mine. It was founded before Peter got to Rome, in fact. And there are other churches that trace their origins back to the first century, too.

No, your church was founded in the 16th century when Henry VIII decided he wanted a divorce and the Church said no.

Well you do now.

I meant without using whatever gymnastics you went through to come to the conclusion that a church that was founded in the 16th century was actually founded in the first.

No, it can only be fractured (as you claimed) if it were united in the first place.

I never claimed that the reformation was a united effort. Even at that, the reformation movement did fracture in that different movements that broke away from Church then splintered apart from each other. And this has continued to this day.

You've misrepresented Luther. I can only guess that you don't know much more about him than the basics if you can make an error like that. Luther believed that everyone should have access to the Bible. This was in a day when the main church of the West--the Church of Rome--forbid people to read the Bible. That does not mean that everyone who reads it can be expected to understand it the same way.

Then maybe I should go back then and reread and reevaluate my understanding of him. I'm not sure it's worth the effort though because what I do know about him leads me to think that he wasn't nearly as brilliant as he seems to think he was.

I've read more about him than I have read his stuff directly, though I have read the 95 thesis. I might have read the business about him claiming the Bible being clear stuff in there all on my own in that that might be just the way I interpreted his ideas.

I do know enough about Luther to know that he was no saint by any stretch of the imagination and that he did have a long history of trouble with authority. Both his antisemitism and his authority issues are kind of hard to miss.

I'm am familiar with his dispute with the Church and his doctrinal differences with the Church. From what I understand, I would have to say that the Church was right to excommunicate him. He way overstepped his boundaries and regardless of the issues that he might have been addressing, the Church would simply break down into chaos if priests and monks were allowed to ignore the hierarchy and chain of command as Luther did.

I have considered all five solas in depth and find all the five solas to be scripturally unsound, logically absurd and demonstrably false.

That's untrue. Even today the Protestant Churches have more in common than the Catholic churches do.

I can only guess that there is a large number of Protestant churches you are completely unfamiliar. The protestants include everyone from the Mennonites to the rock concert churches and the doctrines vary just as widely.

There are hardly any Protestant churches that dissent on the key themes of the Reformation--the 5 Solas, the priesthood of all believers, and the two sacraments of the Gospel. Meanwhile, the Catholic churches disagree among themselves on numberous items of belief and polity.

Sounds like you might be confusing individual priests or bishops with the actual teachings of the Church.

Nonsense, the Reformation wan't about everyone going his own way. The churches of the Reformation are renowned, or reviled as the case may be, for their emphasis upon doctrinal correctness.

Except for every single reformation church defined doctrinal correctness by whatever doctrine any particular reform church had dreamt up.

You said he was appointed pope. That doesn't come "straight out of the Bible." Jesus said he'd build his church on Peter, meaning that Peter would be the one to bring in the first wave of converts, which the Bible records he did on Pentecost.

That's a new interpretation on that verse I haven't come across before. The usual interpretation that I hear is that Jesus was talking about Peter's confession, not Peter. I reject that one (and did so long before becoming a Catholic) because that interpretation just doesn't make any sense whatsoever in the context of the rest of the conversation.

And I find you're interpretation not much better. If Jesus had just said, "And on this rock I'll build my Church" and left it at that, I think there might be room for your interpretation but as it is, he followed that statement by saying, "Whatever you bind on earth," etc. Jesus said this to him in room with other people and after he had twice identified Peter and so it's pretty clear he's talking specifically to Peter here. And so Jesus gave certain authority to Peter that he was not giving to anyone else that was present when the conversation was taking place.

And so, going by the bible text itself, I find your interpretation lacking because it requires ignoring that Jesus gave specific authority to Peter that was not given to anyone else.

 

[Albion]

No, your church was founded in the 16th century when Henry VIII decided he wanted a divorce and the Church said no.

Yeh, we've all hear that one before. I'd recommend putting it in the popular myths file with "Catholics worship the Pope."

I never claimed that the reformation was a united effort. Even at that, the reformation movement did fracture

Well, it can't fracture unless it was whole and one previously. Since you say you don't claim that, you can't make a case for the not-united becoming fractured.

Then maybe I should go back then and reread and reevaluate my understanding of him.

Sounds good to me. He's a very interesting personality at the least.

I'm not sure it's worth the effort though because what I do know about him leads me to think that he wasn't nearly as brilliant as he seems to think he was.

Hmmm. The rest of German society considered him to be the greatest Bible Scholar of his time, he did have an earned Doctorate degree which was rare and very demanding in that age, and even Time Magazine styled him the most significant figure in Christian history upon the 450th anniversary of the beginning of the Reformation.

IOW, you may be wrong about that.

I do know enough about Luther to know that he was no saint by any stretch

Thank heavens for that! He was a real person, not some Catherine of Siena with a glazed look in her eyes that people mistook for piety.

 

[Abrahamist]

It is rather that the illusion persists despite evil abuses becoming institutionalized. It thrives on cognizant dissonance & the strength of denial.

If that were the case, I would most definitely not be a Catholic. I am as skeptical as they come.

Except for the ones who become "popes" when they speak on faith & morals from St. Peter's chair.

There are a number of certain guidelines that pope has to follow when sitting on the chair of St. Peter. It is not like they can just on a whim speak from the Chair of St. Peter and make up any nonsense they want.

I appreciate that you have an opinion on this.

I came to this conclusion before entering the church based upon historical evidence.

The semantics of redefininig reality & actuality are the oldest trick in the world: "Did God say...?

Not really. It's kind of like the presidency. The office of POTUS has the authority, not the actual president himself. The actual man only has whatever power the presidency affords him and no others. A president does not have the power to redefine the US government or to declare himself a dictator or anything like that.

There have been some really bad presidents but we don't target the office as being flawed because of that. We target the individuals. Would you argue that bad presidents are a good reason to get rid of the office of the president?

And yet the power is excercised & the office is occupied and doctrines are defined by the man. The power & the office do not exercise themselves. The doctrines don't define themselves, the man does.

Only under very strict guidelines.

And yet as "vicar of Christ" it is the pope who exercise kingly power, who asserts rule over earth both temporal & eternal as per the Two Swords doctrine outlined in the papal bull, "Unam Sanctum".

Unam Sanctam, not Sanctum.

The doctrine establishes the Pope is the sole ruler of the Church, that is true. But again there are sever limitations to the ways the pope can exercise this power.

Fell? He got soteriology right

No he didn't. His "faith alone" doctrine is unsupported by scripture. Luther knew this and so tried to edit books out of the Bible. In fact, every one of the five solas are demonstrably false.

but failed to reform ecclesiology & sacramentology in the external church structures.

Neither of these things needed to be reformed. Then again, neither did the Church as a whole.

I don't think he rose to a great enough height to fall, maybe "stumbled".

You are correct here, but not quite for the reasons you think.

RCC/EO split leaves you room to complain?

The nature of the split was different. The cause, as I understand it, had to do with a disagreement over the specifics of practice. After the schism, the EO did not split up into a million and one different denominations. Even though EO congregations are self governing, they are still united theologically.

Also, although they have abandoned or modified some Catholic doctrines, their practice is still very much tied to historical Christianity and still very similar to that of the Church.

(staff edit)

That's classic projection in an anti-Protestant rant.

It's not a projection. If the reformation had been in anyway unified, you might have a leg to stand on here. (staff edt)

Human folly. Liars & fools calling each other liars & fools.
Hope your coffee is as good as mine this morning.

Yes, that was the case. The difference I suppose is that the liars and fools who were priests and popes weren't trying to rock the boat but were mostly just out to make a dishonest buck. Some of them, like Johan Tetzel, might have even had some awareness that they were liars and fools. Luther, however, appears to have seriously been under the delusion that he wasn't a liar and a fool but a mouthpiece for God called to introduce new doctrine and start a new church.

If the Church needed reforming, it hardly seems likely to me that God would call a liar and a fool to do it. One of the reasons (by far not the only one) I reject Luther as a mouthpiece for God is because if God had intended a break from the Church, I would think that he would choose someone quite a bit more humble, someone like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Vincent De Paul, someone whose character and history reflects good will and charity and who had a noticeable, measurable and indisputably positive influence and impact on the world.

Instead we got an antisemite who had serious issues with authority.

That kind of tells me that God just might have been trying to leave us a few clues about few things.

My coffee was excellent this morning. Thank you.

Nothing new under the sun. Prots are ad-hommed all the time.

I think in this case, the character of a person is important, or at least related. If someone claims to speak for God but then demonstrates a character that is consistently contrary to the things of God, I think it's safe to say the person isn't really God's mouthpiece.

So, from all this I gather you don't like Protestantism or Luther.
Thank you for this precious time we've shared.

(staff edit)

 

[WinBySurrender]

I believe the topic is John Calvin and/or Calvinism. So why are there only two uses of his name in the nine most recent posts on the thread? Can we get back on topic, please?

 

[Abrahamist]

Yeh, we've all hear that one before. I'd recommend putting it in the popular myths file with "Catholics worship the Pope."

Except for it has quite a bit more historical support. Henry viii did break from the Catholic Church and establish himself as the head of the Church of England.

I am kind of being unfair in that England did have quite a bit of problems with the Church during Henry's reign. The divorce seems to be the straw that broke the camels back more than the actual cause itself but it was a factor.

Well, it can't fracture unless it was whole and one previously. Since you say you don't claim that, you can't make a case for the not-united becoming fractured.

Semantics. Let me rephrase this then. Different groups of reformers and protestants splintered and continue to do so to this day.

Sounds good to me. He's a very interesting personality at the least.

Hmmm. The rest of German society considered him to be the greatest Bible Scholar of his time, he did have an earned Doctorate degree which was rare and very demanding in that age, and even Time Magazine styled him the most significant figure in Christian history upon the 450th anniversary of the beginning of the Reformation.

I never said he didn't possess a brilliant intelligence. He did and there is no denying that.

But at the same time, he appears to have grossly overestimated his own wisdom. He was not brilliant or wise enough to be able to foresee the long term consequences of his actions and apparently too arrogant to understand this.

He did a tremendous amount of damage, possibly more than any other single individual on the planet, to the unity of the Christian Church, all the while apparently convinced he was doing the right thing.

He introduced doctrines, like Sola Scriptura (and the the other solas) that are absurd, demonstrably false and that open up the doorway for all kinds of abuses that the Catholics never even dreamed of.

His brilliance, in part, served to make his failures epic and wide reaching in scope.

IOW, you may be wrong about that.

I don't think I am and it may be that Luther himself might have realized as much before his death. I have read that he felt frustrated by the lack of unity among the reformers (really, what did he expect). I've even read that he once said, "I got rid of one pope and created 3000 in his place." I have been unable to confirm a source for that quote but regardless of whether he said it or someone else, it's still the truth.

At the end of the day, Martin Luther was a brilliant fool and liar.

Thank heavens for that! He was a real person, not some Catherine of Siena with a glazed look in her eyes that people mistook for piety.

The saints were all real people. I don't know a whole lot about Catherine of Siena but I do know of people like St. Francis of Assisi and St. Vincent De Paul and they were real people that lived hard lives so that they could serve others.

Luther was not one of these guys. These guys were humble servants to humankind. Luther was anything but humble.

 

[Albion]

Except for it has quite a bit more historical support. Henry viii did break from the Catholic Church and establish himself as the head of the Church of England.

You're beginning to choose your words and claims a little, so that's good. But the Roman Catholic Church didn't break away from the Church of England until 1570. Henry was the head of the church as Elizabeth 11 is, but that means little more than being, in theory, its protector, which existed in the Catholic church at many points in its history and the Eastern Orthodox church which long saw the Emperor as the head of the church in about the same way. For many years, politicians chose the Catholic bishops of central Europe.

Let me rephrase this then. Different groups of reformers and protestants splintered and continue to do so to this day.

Well, no more than the Roman Catholic Church which has experienced more people leaving and greater splits than any other Christian church. You really don't have a point with this attack, try as you might.

He introduced doctrines, like Sola Scriptura (and the the other solas) that are absurd, demonstrably false and that open up the doorway for all kinds of abuses that the Catholics never even dreamed of.

His brilliance, in part, served to make his failures epic and wide reaching in scope.

Just somebody "wingin' it" with history online. When there's no serious attempt to be accurate, it's just words.

 

[WinBySurrender]

Maybe that will work ....