ST. John Calvin

Reformationist · Nov 1, 2007

lionroar0 said:
Belive it on what grounds and disbelive it on what grounds? That's the question.

You act as if discernment is a gift given exclusively to your denomination. Many parts of Scripture clearly reveal the nonsensical and unbiblical nature of your denomination's teachings. I am simply contending that Calvin, and many of the other reformers, were very adept at elucidating Scripture and, in doing so, revealed the error in the teachings of semi-Pelagian faiths like your own. If you choose to reject his interpretive work, I have not the power to change your mind, nor would I say I have the inclination to attempt to do so.

There are many still alive that honor Hitler. You either belive it or you don't.

Of what pertinence is Hitler to the discussion? Are you trying to draw a parallel between Hitler and Calvin, or perhaps between those who follow Hitler and those who believe Calvin was correct in his work? Or are you simply seeking to defame Calvinists as is so common in your crowd? Would it benefit the discussion to liken your Pope to that of a servant of satan? You make similar allegations when you draw these types of parallels.

Maybe we are all wrong about Hitler. Maybe the holocaust is just an invention by the Jews.

Maybe Stalin really wasn't the horrible person many people say that he was. Since we are fallible maybe we were wrong about them.

Maybe we should invite them for tea and crumpets and pat them on them back.

Your argument has no basis on reality.

Peace

Again, none of these things have the first thing whatsoever to do with a discussion about whether your denomination has the authority or the ability to determine the level of a person's sanctification. You make a ridiculous argument, and in consideration of the nature of most of your posts, that is truly saying something.

Benedicta00 · Nov 1, 2007

You act as if discernment is a gift given exclusively to your denomination.

It is a gift given to the Catholic Church.. yes. Prove it's not.

Reformationist · Nov 1, 2007

lionroar0 said:
Yes. There are many Saints in heaven that we don't know about.

How do you know that? If you don't know about them, how is this anything more than a presumption?

We honor those that has been revealed to us that they are in heaven with the title of Saint.

How is it revealed to you?

That's it. Nothing more.

Well, I hope there's more to it.

Benedicta00 · Nov 1, 2007

mont974x4 said:
Did those additional writings add things or clarify things? Many doctrines that are just traditions of men add things, which is why I refer to them as extrabiblical. They put more there than the text really allows for. This practice is not limited to the rcc, I see it happen all the time by legalistic people.

Surely you are not expecting us to just take your word for it? I disagree with you Mont, i think you have incorrectly interpreted those verse arbitrarily... so where do that leave us? How do we solve this Mont?

Shall we look to what the early Church then taught? Those who walked with those who walked with Christ? Those who were from the apostolic age?

mont974x4 · Nov 1, 2007

Benedicta00 said:
It is a gift given to the Catholic Church.. yes. Prove it's not.

You make the claim, use Scripture to prove it.

mont974x4 · Nov 1, 2007

Benedicta00 said:
Surely you are not expecting us to just take your word for it? I disagree with you Mont, i think you have incorrectly interpreted those verse arbitrarily... so where do that leave us? How do we solve this Mont?

Shall we look to what the early Church then taught? Those who walked with those who walked with Christ? Those who were from the apostolic age?

Nope, look to God and His Word. Never take anything from any person as gospel, test all things.

Kristos · Nov 1, 2007

Wis 3:9 They that put their trust in him shall understand the truth: and such as be faithful in love shall abide with him: for grace and mercy is to his saints, and he hath care for his elect.

Kristos · Nov 1, 2007

mont974x4 said:
Did those additional writings add things or clarify things? Many doctrines that are just traditions of men add things, which is why I refer to them as extrabiblical. They put more there than the text really allows for. This practice is not limited to the rcc, I see it happen all the time by legalistic people.

what are referring to Paul second letters?

Reformationist · Nov 1, 2007

Benedicta00 said:
just as you show me no such thing that condemns it or contradicts it.

Is this what you have, an argument from silence? The burden of proof that the practice is justified isn't on us, it's on you, for it is you that contends that it is something in which we should engage.

All you show me is YOUR arbitrary application of what *you think* or what you have been indoctrinated to think they mean.

Which, once again, is no different or no less than the arbitrary application of what you think or what you've been indoctrinated to think.

On who's authority do you speak? Why is your interpretation of the bible so much more pure than that of the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, century Christians?

Michelle, you and your cronies are the only people that give credence to your denomination's authority. As I've repeatedly reminded you, those who styled them "the Church" in the days of Elijah were certainly not those that God had reserved for himself yet they were defintely those that went about claiming to have ecclesiastical authority. Your posturing is nothing more than the same as was described in the days of Elijah. Your denomination is simply the organization that styles themselves the Church but is, in fact, not The Church.

Tell me what makes you biblical interpretation so much more superior?

Well, my understanding places God at the center of the Gospel message. Your's, well, someone else presides in your denomination.

Reformationist · Nov 1, 2007

lionroar0 said:
Biblical support has already been shown.

Where???!!!! You guys keep saying this but it has never actually found its way into this debate.

Now if you would like explicit instruction from the Bible well there isn't any. Just as there are no explicit Biblical instruction that everything that we belive must be explicitly mentioned in the Bible.

Anything at all that indicates that the robust practice of canonization is justified? Anything?

mont974x4 · Nov 1, 2007

Kristos said:
what are referring to Paul second letters?

Yes, but also all the NT writings. I am reminded of Christs example in the gospels as He clarified what the spirit of Law was and freed us from the legalistic letter of Law and the rules that pharisees added to it.

Benedicta00 · Nov 1, 2007

mont974x4 said:
Did those additional writings add things or clarify things? Many doctrines that are just traditions of men add things, which is why I refer to them as extrabiblical. They put more there than the text really allows for. This practice is not limited to the rcc, I see it happen all the time by legalistic people.

He was taught by the apostle John, Mont. So John taught him wrongly?

I really am getting impatient.. SHOW me please where the bible says every thing must bow down to it??

This notion you have that everything we believe and practice MUST be found in scripture has no scripture basis itself.

So doesn't than mean you have to reject that notion?

This notion you have is just Protestant extra biblical tradition of men and the irony is, the premise is just a contradiction of their own logic.

If the bibles doesn't say that all things must come from the bible ONLY then you MUST dismiss sola scripture.

Benedicta00 · Nov 1, 2007

mont974x4 said:
You make the claim, use Scripture to prove it.

But scripture doesn't say I have too...

So tell me Mr. Mont, who says I have to...huh?? Luther? Who's he to bark demands to us?

mont974x4 · Nov 1, 2007

Benedicta00 said:
He was taught by the apostle John, Mont. So John taught him wrongly?

I really am getting impatient.. SHOW me please where the bible says every thing must bow down to it??

This notion you have that everything we believe and practice MUST be found in scripture has no scripture basis itself.

So doesn't than mean you have to reject that notion?

This notion you have is just Protestant extra biblical tradition of men and the irony is, the premise is just a contradiction of their own logic.

If the bibles doesn't say that all things must come from the bible ONLY then you MUST dismiss sola scripture.

STop putting words into my mouth. I never said we bow down to the Bible. The Bible, in the verses I posted already, show it to be authoritative and adequately equips us. The Bible also tells us to test things and to study for ourselves. I have posted those verses before as well. You disregard God's Word in favor of the teachings of men and I don't understand why.

Benedicta00 · Nov 1, 2007

Where???!!!! You guys keep saying this but it has never actually found its way into this debate

I had a long exchange with Mont really getting into the scripture foundation... you can go back and find it.

I also briefly shared some of the same with you.. you can go look for that too.

mont974x4 · Nov 1, 2007

Benedicta00 said:
But scripture doesn't say I have too...

So tell me Mr. Mont, who says I have to...huh?? Luther? Who's he to bark demands to us?

It is becoming clear that you have no proof, or at least no desire to show it.

Reformationist · Nov 1, 2007

Benedicta00 said:
It is a gift given to the Catholic Church.. yes. Prove it's not.

What a nonsensical approach and an utter waste of everyone's time. Prove it's not? Prove it is. I've read the Scriptures. The Scriptures are clear in most places and do not require ordination by your denomination to understand. The beliefs of your denomination are just simply not supported by the Bible. That's why you have to elevate the authority of your leaders so that when your members notice the clear discrepancies, they can't think for themselves and recognize the errors of your denomination. The truth is, many far more learned than I have read and studied the Scriptures and they see the teachings of your denomination for what they are, utter fallacy. It takes submission to your leaders to see Scripture the way they present it. A clear reading of the Word would not lead one to believe Catholic doctrine.

Reformationist · Nov 1, 2007

Benedicta00 said:
Surely you are not expecting us to just take your word for it?

Michelle, how is this different than what you expect us to do? How do we know that what your church teaches was taught by the Apostles when we have the writings of the Apostles available to us and they so clearly contradict much of what your denomination believes? Why is Polycarp's input any more valid than, say, mont's? Was Polycarp infallible? Why should we submit to the teachings of your leaders? A lot of people believed the world was flat for many, many years, until they realized that it wasn't through exploration. You act as if continuity demands accuracy. So each subsequent generation was regurgitating eactly what they'd be taught. How does that make it true?

simonthezealot · Nov 1, 2007

Benedicta00 said:
He was taught by the apostle John, Mont. So John taught him wrongly?

Bene...
The only KNOWN writng by POLYCARP was an epistle to the Phillipians (I believe). The Martyrdom of Poly was written by the church at Smyrna and what we see of it nowadays has been heavily interpolated, ... You speak as though these words are Polycarps himself and that is being very DECEPTIVE, unless your going to say you didn't know any better, if that's the case you shouldn't quote him...

Benedicta00 · Nov 1, 2007

mont974x4 said:
STop putting words into my mouth. I never said we bow down to the Bible. The Bible, in the verses I posted already, show it to be authoritative and adequately equips us. The Bible also tells us to test things and to study for ourselves. I have posted those verses before as well. You disregard God's Word in favor of the teachings of men and I don't understand why.

No, no. I am NOT putting any words into your mouth. You asked a question, did PolyCarp clarify scripture or something to that effect... where does scripture say he would even have to?

Christianity was in it's infancy then, the practice of the faith was STILL being established, so honoring the martyrs of the early Church is NOT going to be in scripture... I would be impossible for it to be when these ppl came after.

And the whole of revelation ended when the last apostle died. The apostle John out lived his own writings. Are you saying if he taught something orally after he wrote, it should have been dismissed and considered "adding" to scripture?

All the scriptures say about itself is that it is true and good to use to teach. In no way does it says it is all that we have in the way of revelation.

Where do the apostles ever say they are infallible only if they write it down? Where do they condemn their own oral teachings outside of their writings? Where do they say, "test my oral words against my written ones"?

And please do not deflect, I am asking you. I have my beliefs about scripture and what it teaches us and you have yours, apparently neither the twain shall meet, so how do we solve this?

We are both God fearing, Christ committed Christians who are moved by the Spirit to love God above all else... so tell me, how can we truly know with out a doubt the correct teaching of faith and morals?

Looking to what the early Church believd and practice seems sensible to me... they were much closer to the apostolic age then we are.

You do say their beliefs should fit the bible... we don't necessarily disagree... none of their writing did go against scripture and you really aren't even looking into this. If you were to actually listen to what our practices really are, then you would see at the very least, nothing we believe is a contraction scripture.

If it is, you will have to show me... take PolyCarps teaching and show how scripture contradicts it?

ST. John Calvin

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Well-Known Member

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Well-Known Member

The Christian Anarchist

The Christian Anarchist

Servant

Servant

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

The Christian Anarchist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Christian Anarchist

Well-Known Member

The Christian Anarchist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency