ST. John Calvin

[Rick Otto]

You conveniently forget the later martyrs of the faith.
The ones martyred by the "error free" crowd.

 

[Benedicta00]

Bapstism saves?

Baptism of the Spirit, yes...water baptism, no.



You continue to duck my question regarding the passages I posted about who the saints are ( a bit more back on topic with the OP) and how they disprove the RCC ideal of saints vs Saints.


As for our side discussion, you missed my point and did not address the diference beteween essential and non-essential doctrines. However, since you did admit you see me as a brother, you have (in practice) proven my point, that our overall unity is not in doctrines but in Christ (in His work in us and who we are in Him).

Duck your question?? Mont, I debunked every post you made. Your argument is not with the Catholic Church but with scripture.

You have posted scripture in order to disprove scripture, instead of backing up, slowing down and giving some thought to this.

Christ said, there will be those who will be called great in heaven and those who will be called least. Instead of trying to discredit Christ words with other parts of scripture, try to reconcile them with other parts of scripture.

I feel bad for you, I really do because I know if you were to do that honestly and open to what it may lead... it may turn your world upside down.

I know it is extremely hard to see even for a minute that you just may have been wrong about the Catholic Church and that the Catholic Church is not a stupid, or evil or as anti scripture as you have been lead or mislead rather to believe.

 

[Benedicta00]

and did not address the diference beteween essential and non-essential doctrines

There is no such thing... that is why i can not address it.

Prove to me that there is even such a thing? Show me anyone in the early Church or show me where in scripture anyone taught that there is such a thingas essential and non-essential doctrines? There all essential least God would not have given them to us.

 

[Rick Otto]

Doctrines of eschatology are less essential than doctrines of soteriology.
You can't address it because your unreal position can't afford to be wrong about anything.

 

[Reformationist]

You have very, very poorly understood what I have said.

I don't deny that I rarely understand the reasoning of those in your denomination so you may be right.

You do not know that Calvin received final justification, or that in reality he received the hope of his salvation.

You're absolutely right. Not sure how that changes anything though. The same could be said about any and every member of your denomination that dies appearing to have faith in God. Shall we lose hope simply because we are not certain or, like faithful believers, acknowledge that judgment is the purview of God alone and trust that whatsoever He judges to be so, is.

His life did not show the fruits of one who was successful at putting to death the passions of his flesh, denying himself, taking up his cross and following Christ.

By whose measure? Yours? Your denominational leaders? Well, thankfully, that is not the measure by which we are judged before God. I would say that Calvin, and many of the reformers, exhibited a pronounced dedication to the will and purpose of God.

Your claim that he was justified is without merit, for it is merely your opinion and has no basis in fact.

It's based on my understanding of the manner in which God justifies and indwells the sinner. While I acknowledge that I am fallible and, therefore, capable of error with regard to the redemption of Calvin, I would say the "facts" upon which I base my estimation of God's role in Calvin's justification are certainly biblically based. He sought to share the truth of the Gospel and, in doing so, exposed the corruption in your denomination. That, in and of itself, does not merit anything before the judgment seat of the Almighty but Calvin's grasp of the Truth of Scripture is evident to most believers who seek to acknowledge that God's purposes will be manifested.

His final state is unknown.

As is the state of every single person your church has every proclaimed to be a saint, regardless of whether you capatalize the word.

And as such, holding him up after death with the TITLE SAINT is improper. You don't know that he is in heaven. You can't prove he is in heaven. You have no evidence that he is in heaven.

Your claim lacks valid foundation.

Please, for my edification, enlighten me as to how this exact same thing cannot be said about every person who ever dies, excepting Jesus. I'll just take it as a shared given that we both acknowledge that He is in Heaven.

W

e are taking exception to the blasphemous nature of the act of giving someone like Calvin, Luther, Hus, etc the TITLE Saint, which is NOT the practice of Protestantism.

It is only "blasphemous" to you and your arrogant crew who presume that acknowledging the holiness of a particular believer and venerating him/her for their contribution to the manifestation of the Kingdom of God is their exclusive right. It simply isn't. The fact that we submit that Calvin should be revered is, or should be, neither here nor there to you. You don't agree. What should that mean to us? I'll tell you what it means to me. Absolutely nothing. I could care less that you despise Calvin. Those who hold to lies, as does your denomination, are bound to hate those who bring light to their error.

Why here in this forum was this done?

Why does it matter? Do you think this was an attempt to bring the Catholic church crumbling to its knees? You don't even think such a thing is possible. Do you now seek to claim ownership of a forum other than OBOB?

To stir things up, to take enemies of the Catholic Church and parade them in front of us using a TITLE reserved for those that lived the most holy of lives, a title of great honor, to give to Her enemies that was sure to get a rise.

Well, if you already have your own conspiracy theory, why ask me? It's ridiculous how much you think the world revolves around your corrupt church. It is your denomination that arrogantly presumes the authority of "reserving" the title of saint. Blame yourselves for your arrogance. In the meantime, we will acknowledge that Calvin did live a holy life and is due our honor and care not whether it gets a rise out of your denomination.

So please, don't preach to us about what you would expect.

This is nothing more than a backhanded slap to our face.

Truth be told, I don't expect you guys to do anything but what you do. I'm more surprised when your input reflects a reliance upon God for your salvation. 'Course, they say that every monkey can find a banana every once in a while, even if by accident.

The excpetion here is that we have 2000 years of Chrsitian teaching from the apostles on forward to point to.

Is it supposed to mean something to me that there have been 2000 years of man centered teaching? Man is fallen. I wouldn't expect otherwise. The beliefs of the reformers have been a part of the Christian community since its inception. This is reflected clearly in the Bible.

The reformers threw a lot of that out.

What the reformers "threw out" were the unbiblical additions that the corrupt church had added during its 1500 years.

It is very easy to see who is right if one is honest enough to take an honest look at the historical treacings of the Church from the apostles forward.

That's why I converted to Catholicism. It was the only honest choice.

I understand. You pay homage to the anthropocentric views of man and Scripture Itself be damned. Well, it's your dime, spend it how you will.

Yes you are. You are denying the ancient teachings of the Church which don't support your beliefs.

I deny everything that goes against what the Bible Itself clearly expresses. It is the fallibility and sinfulness of man that gets in the way, not the clarity of the Gospel.

Protestantism departs from those ancient teachings of the apostles to varying degrees, with some versions only having a slighth resemblance to that ancient Christian faith.

Catholicism, on the other hand, has not departed from it, and is the only Church to hold firmly to it all.

I agree that there is unity in the Catholic faith, unity in error. The fact that you brag about the egregious error that exists at the root or your faith shows any who are willing to take notice that wisdom is truly not the domain of the proud but, rather, those whom God has chosen to maintain His truth.

 

[Reformationist]

And so the TITLE SAINT is reserved for those who we can know, by their exemplary holy life on earth, and by manifestations of their sanctity and holliness in heaven.

More man centered and unbiblical teaching. Our "holiness" is the product of God's work in us. You see the works of man as the basis for his justification before God, when the truth of Scripture is that the holiness of man is nothing but filthy rags before God. Ours is an imputed righteousness, for apart from the work of Christ, we stand only condemned.

You know nothing in regard to those who have passed. You can hope that they are with their Creator. You can pray for peace on the matter. Ultimately, you know nothing more of their eternal disposition than do we with regard to the fate of Calvin. It is all in God's hands and man's "righteousness" will get him nowhere except hell.

Again, your posturing places you in no better position than those whom you errantly accuse of making presumptions about Calvin.

 

[Reformationist]

We don't moan and groan. It is not the practice of Protestanism to give the title of Saints. It is the practice of the Catholic Church.

It is not the views of the reformers to Canonise Saints nor did they teach this nor practiced it.

It is the practice of the CC.

You post is nonsensical.

The title of Saints (which is not a protestant practice) was given to the reformers.

Then we are accused of moaning and groaning.

Peace

Awww...poor wuttle guy....is him upset because we're endorsing the practice of honoring someone that we feel was used greatly by God to reveal the manifold errors in your denominations teachings? Well, too bad. No one is submitting that we engage in the vile practice of assuming that Calvin is due honor by God for what God did through him. We are simply admiring him, venerating him, if you will. You guys should be pretty familiar with the concept.

 

[Reformationist]

The CC does not appoint Sainthood to any one.

It recognises a Saint.

Peace

Actually mont974x4, the Catholic denomination recognises who it believes to be a Saint based on how well that person abided by the man centered doctrines of their denomination.

This, of course, is irrelevent with regard to someone's justification before God.

 

[Reformationist]

That in mind then, we are stating we recognise that these men were made as Saints by God.
No harm No foul...You see these guys were incredibly important tools of God to help in our right understanding of Christianity! They are truly saints to US! That it offends some of you guys, SORRY!

Exactly simon. Now you've got it.

 

[Reformationist]

But the issue within Calvinism is that if Stalin and Hitler were created by God to destroy mankind, and basically they lived their lives according to what God made them for that would make them obedient to God’s Will, simply because they are doing what they were designed to do. Basically, they were obedient to God and their reward is Hell.

And this shows nothing but ignorance of both Calvinism and the will of God. Some are created for persecting the Church. They do so because they, like all who are unregenerate, are naturally opposed to God. God doesn't work into their natures evil that isn't there by nature. Where you err is in assuming that if God accomplishes His purpose through the uncoerced evil of unregenerate man, or regenerate man for that matter, then God is somehow liable for their actions. You presume that it would be unjust for God to hold someone accountable for the evil they commit simply because He created them to serve His purpose of bringing His will to pass through even the ungodly actions of man. Fortunately, Paul addresses, and rebukes, this very nonsense:

Romans 9:17-21
For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

This passage is so clear in refuting the accusations you level against Calvinism that you should not need it to be explained.

The nonsensical logic in Calvinism is that if Stalin and Hitler lived to build mankind then they would be doing contrary to the Will of God.

Nothing but a strawman. You make this claim with the erroneous foundation that man could ever do a single thing that was contrary to the sovereign will of God. It simply isn't so.

 

[Reformationist]

The puritans came here to get away from what they called organized religion and the English monarchy. They were Calvinist in their theology and their tolerance was only for themselves. They persecuted and discriminated against other Christian faiths that weren't theirs. They did not want them here. They were trying to create what they called the pure Christan faith, this is where the name "puritan" came from. By the grace of God, they didn't last long but other various groups similar in belief popped up. It's all the same, it's Calvinism. They all just go by different names.

The Puritans, who taught the same tenents of faith as the Calvinists, came here to get away from the teachings of Calvinism. Okay. Well, at least you're consistant in not making any sense.

But like with everything else, we have to ask, on who's authority did they speak? Especially when they called the pope, the son of Satan? As a Calvinist, do you really stand behind that statement?

Their authority is no less or no more than that of the Pope. And, as far as the Pope being the son of satan, well we are all born as children of the devil and it is God who changes our familial affiliation.

 

[Reformationist]

Predestination is ridicolus and completely unbiblical.

Well, seeing as your own church professes a belief in predestination, you may want to ammend that statement young fella.

Why don't you heretics make a new prayer?: He** and God bless daz grozz saint Fhûrer Adolf Hitler, truly ein Mahn of Güd!

LOL! You are truly a worthy representative of your denomination.

 

[Reformationist]

How miserable it would be to be in danger of losing my salvation because I had a bad day...to think that I can be saved this day and not the next.

Who would want to live in such danger? On such a rollercoaster? To serve such an unmerciful and ungracious god?

But that's just the thing mont. They don't see their salvation as exclusively the work of God so it is necessary that they see maintaining salvation as a synergistic process as well.

At least they're consistant, though that is far less God centered than acknowledging God's preservation of His children.

 

[Reformationist]

Mont, the bible says that
our salvation is conditional, based on our faith

And how did you come to have that faith?

and if we endure to the end or if we squander it and let it be trampled under the feet of men.

And why do some endure to the end and others don't? The Bible is clear on the issue of perseverance. God purposes the ultimate rejection of those who appear to be believers to reveal their lack of affiliation, not a loss of it.

I think maybe if you truly read the whole book of Matthew you may gain some much needed insight. We were never guaranteed salvation upfront, in the past tense. How is it even possible to have something in the past tense?

Those whom God has elected before the foundations of the earth, these same He gathers unto Himself through His Son. Of this we have assurance.

Honestly, do Catholics simply disregard the book of Romans? It alone refutes much of what you believe and does so quite explicitly. As smart as some of you are, you'd think that these glaring passages would show you the falsehood of your denomination. Ah well, understanding is, itself, a gift from God.

 

[Thekla]

But that's just the thing mont. They don't see their salvation as exclusively the work of God so it is necessary that they see maintaining salvation as a synergistic process as well.

At least they're consistant, though that is far less God centered than acknowledging God's preservation of His children.

how can "synergy" deny the work of God when we are created ?

if there is no room for synergy, why did Adam and Eve fall ?

 

[lionroar0]

Awww...poor wuttle guy....is him upset because we're endorsing the practice of honoring someone that we feel was used greatly by God to reveal the manifold errors in your denominations teachings?

By using a Catholic practice nontheless. I guess the christian tradition that you practice is so deficient that it has to steal from the CC and then try to pass it off as it's own.

What hypocricy!!!

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

The Puritans, who taught the same tenents of faith as the Calvinists, came here to get away from the teachings of Calvinism. Okay. Well, at least you're consistant in not making any sense.

Try to keep up okay.

What she posted was that they were Calvinistic in their theology not that they practiced the same tenets of faith as the Calvinist.

 

[lionroar0]

Well, too bad. No one is submitting that we engage in the vile practice of assuming that Calvin is due honor by God for what God did through him. We are simply admiring him, venerating him, if you will. You guys should be pretty familiar with the concept.

We are familiar with that it is not a protestant practice to give honor and venerate those that have passed on to heaven and give them the titles of Saint.





Peace

 

[Rick Otto]

We are familiar with that it is not a protestant practice to give honor and venerate those that have passed on to heaven and give them the titles of Saint.

You are UNfamiliar that it IS a Prot practice give honor, but NOT worship* deceased believers, ALL of whom scripture calls "saints", in opposition to CC tradition of making it INTO a title, instead of a simple adjective.
Just another CC nicolaitane practice that subtracts from scripture on one hand while adding to it on the other .

*dulia

 

[Benedicta00]

Awww...poor wuttle guy....is him upset because we're endorsing the practice of honoring someone that we feel was used greatly by God to reveal the manifold errors in your denominations teachings? Well, too bad. No one is submitting that we engage in the vile practice of assuming that Calvin is due honor by God for what God did through him. We are simply admiring him, venerating him, if you will. You guys should be pretty familiar with the concept.

But, but, Calvin is not due any honor or veneration what so ever, that is where y'all err. It's vile to think he is...

But with that said, I hope he did find mercy. The neat thing about Christianity is, we are never with out hope... it's virtue , you know... we only have it, because God gives it.