ST. John Calvin

[SeraphimSarov]

Dude, Obi said "just wood & paint".

That he did. Yet, just as the Bible, containing the words of God, is holy, so is an icon containing an image of God is holy.

& no, I don't use ritual or ceremony to dispose of a worn-out or damaged bible.

How do you dispose of a Bible then? Do you not believe that an object like the Bible, which again contains the very words of God, can be holy? I don't know of any special ritual used to dispose of icons either; it's just done reverently.

 

[Reformationist]

The Bible never declares itself to be any such thing.

Um..okay. So, for me to believe that your denomination has the authority to morally bind my conscience, I have to start with the presumption that they do? Seriously? Or is there some other method for determining if I should submit to their authority? Let me guess, this is where you start invoking the names of church fathers, as if they were never wrong about anything, right?

I've already told you that your claim here is false.

No it's not. The RC denomination makes the same claims.

Of course God protected the canonization process from error. Obviously. What seems to be flying over your head is the fact that God still used man to do it. Were they just robots during this process, as you are implying?

No, of course they weren't robots. What does that have to do with anything? If God protected them from error during the canonization process, that has nothing to do with whether your denomination is the Church that Christ established. Your point is moot.

There is no such thing as luck.

Yes, I agree. How about "God save you from that nonsense you believe?"

Again, right back at you: do you? I already did have to admit that. Let's see you do it.

Ooooh...wow....um...I...don't....know...if...I...can....admit...to...being...fallible....

Well, okay. I'm fallible. Of course I could be wrong. As to your response, how would you refute my argument if it flew in the face of the teachings of your denomination? Would you simply tell me I was wrong because you understand it differently?

Right. Because you flatly refuse to offer any kind of debate and would rather refer to my faith as a dungheap.

KjellBjarne, I've got over 13,000 posts and in that time I've learned mostly that people, especially RC and EO reject a view out of hand the second it runs contrary to what their denominational authorities present as the truth. I am competent to defend my views from Scripture. We needn't go beyond Scripture to see the falsehood of your beliefs. That, to me, says more about the spurious nature of your faith than anything.

Now that I think about it, I am not willing to continue discussion with you if that's the only way you can make your points. May God bless you.

Well, that is certainly your choice. I pray that God blesses you as well.

 

[Reformationist]

could you list the "perversions" ?

Um...the nature of fallen man, the efficacy of God's grace, God's elective purposes. Those, in and of themselves, show manifold errors in your denomination's beliefs.

 

[SeraphimSarov]

KjellBjarne, I've got over 13,000 posts and in that time I've learned mostly that people, especially RC and EO reject a view out of hand the second it runs contrary to what their denominational authorities present as the truth. I am competent to defend my views from Scripture. We needn't go beyond Scripture to see the falsehood of your beliefs. That, to me, says more about the spurious nature of your faith than anything.

You've got over 13,000 posts... big deal; you still argue with such venom that I get the impression that you're more concerned with proving your opponents wrong than showing them your gospel. My beliefs are spurious and false... yeah, that's vitriol, not argumentation.

As of now I am unsubscribed from this thread. Mock me and my beliefs all you want.

 

[sunlover1]

"O", you're not hinting that you personaly agree with ... never mind. [ ]

OBLIO!

JUST wood & paint?
Then why can't I find one at a garage sale?
Why aren't they simply chucked into a dumpster when they fade & chip?
Why do they have to be made just so, to qualify for icon status?
Don't they have to be ceremoniously disposed of?

Hey man, you ain't jivin' me, is you?
You got a lot of 'splainin' to do, "Lucy"!

Did you give this any thought before you posted? Surely you wouldn't treat a Bible that way...

Hey Kjell, aamof I have purchased a few of my Bibles
(at least) at garage sales.
Everytime I saw a Bible at a sale, I bought it.
(Thought it was a worthwhile thing to "collect"

Couldnt (at that time) understand why anyone
would SELL one, but shoot, now I too need to
dispose of some. (and I don't have garage sales,
so now what?)

I am not really interested in my Duay Rheims,
Geneva Study Bible, RSV, etc.
I love my NLT and KJV, and the rest collect dust.

What do I do with the ones that have become
so tattered they're in five pieces?

Sorry for the rabbit trail.
Otto's fault.

 

[Kvikklunsj]

What a ridiculously unbelievable rationale. You presume that Luther's, and other reformers', rejection of the nonsense your denomination preaches is evidence of the Truth. The reformers also rejected the teachings of the Orthodox faith, and any other who, like your own, presume that the glory of man is central to the Gospel. Does that make their views right as well?

Luther actually spoke rather highly of the Orthodox...

 

[Thekla]

Um...the nature of fallen man, the efficacy of God's grace, God's elective purposes. Those, in and of themselves, show manifold errors in your denomination's beliefs.

ok, so whats the deal with the 'nature of fallen man' ?

 

[Benedicta00]

What a ridiculously unbelievable rationale. You presume that Luther's, and other reformers', rejection of the nonsense your denomination preaches is evidence of the Truth. The reformers also rejected the teachings of the Orthodox faith, and any other who, like your own, presume that the glory of man is central to the Gospel. Does that make their views right as well?

Luther didn't reject Catholicism or Orthodox teaching... he rejected certain aspect of it. He rejected far more of Calvin's teaching then of Catholic and Orthodox.

Where he lost it with the Church was when bitterness set in and then his emotions turned to hatred for the bishops and the rest is history. that's when he wanted to throw out the Latin Rite, so to speak.

You have to understand when we see hatred and bitterness like what Luther clearly showed toward the Catholic Church this is how we know this split was not from God... Luther displayed the rotten fruits of the enemy which is resentment, bitterness and hatred.

Sadly, this "spirit" of bitterness, hatred and resentment is passed down to those who rebel. We see on here, all the threads that are nothing more than uncharitable, unfounded attacks against Catholicism

I have seen this disillusioned view of Luther and Calvin agreeing... no, they were on total opposite ends of the spectrum. Luther hated Calvin for doing away with the Liturgy and the sacraments. Luther also didn't believe that man's free will was restricted.

Luther rejected Orthodoxy for one reason only, HE, Luther wanted to be pope. He wanted to be the head of his own "reformed" church and if you don't believe that, read up on him.

You will see when all the peasants went crazy being their own authority of scripture, Luther said, "They were better off as papists." He never intended for all this to happen, he thought he was going to be the only reformer there was. That he was reforming the Catholic Church.

From all that we have seen in retrospect, Luther plan didn't work, it backfired greatly, this is how we know it was not God's doing.

And the Catholic and Orthodox teaching the "glory of man" ... this is another false premise, it's an illogical conclusion that you have personally drawn.

If we don't agree with the doctrine of men from the 16th century, we glorify man...

it's just an illogical and baseless claim, a strawman's calim, a logical fallacy.

 

[Benedicta00]

And i just want to address this one time and one time only... a great deal of ignorance is being revealed here when someone calls Orthodoxy or Catholicism a denomination...

If anyone can please show me how either is a denomination??

Who did we (the Catholic Church and the EO) break from?

I know EO broke union with the bishop of Rome.. but when did we, either church who has vaild apostolic diocese ever 'break' away from that?

You all realise.. right..? that a denomination is when one breaks away from apostolic succession...y'all know that right?

The Catholic and EO churches haven't broken succession. How can either of us be a denomination? It's illogical.

 

[simonthezealot]

Who did we (the Catholic Church and the EO) break from?

As far as Rome you broke from TRUTH, just as soon as ya'll started promoting papal primacy...

 

[simonthezealot]

Luther didn't reject Catholicism or Orthodox teaching... he rejected certain aspect of it. He rejected far more of Calvin's teaching then of Catholic and Orthodox.

Where he lost it with the Church was when bitterness set in and then his emotions turned to hatred for the bishops and the rest is history. that's when he wanted to throw out the Latin Rite, so to speak.

You have to understand when we see hatred and bitterness like what Luther clearly showed toward the Catholic Church this is how we know this split was not from God... Luther displayed the rotten fruits of the enemy which is resentment, bitterness and hatred.

Sadly, this "spirit" of bitterness, hatred and resentment is passed down to those who rebel. We see on here, all the threads that are nothing more than uncharitable, unfounded attacks against Catholicism

I have seen this disillusioned view of Luther and Calvin agreeing... no, they were on total opposite ends of the spectrum. Luther hated Calvin for doing away with the Liturgy and the sacraments. Luther also didn't believe that man's free will was restricted.

Luther rejected Orthodoxy for one reason only, HE, Luther wanted to be pope. He wanted to be the head of his own "reformed" church and if you don't believe that, read up on him.

You will see when all the peasants went crazy being their own authority of scripture, Luther said, "They were better off as papists." He never intended for all this to happen, he thought he was going to be the only reformer there was. That he was reforming the Catholic Church.

From all that we have seen in retrospect, Luther plan didn't work, it backfired greatly, this is how we know it was not God's doing.

And the Catholic and Orthodox teaching the "glory of man" ... this is another false premise, it's an illogical conclusion that you have personally drawn.

If we don't agree with the doctrine of men from the 16th century, we glorify man...

it's just an illogical and baseless claim, a strawman's calim, a logical fallacy.

What a bunch of bull...TYPICAL bene your broadbrush sweeping generalizations of your view of the reformists with NO facts to back it. Blah..Blah..Blah..Blah..Blah..Blah..Blah..Blah..Blah..Blah..Blah..Blah..

IGNORE!

 

[Benedicta00]

Well SZ, all you have to do is provided reputable evidence that disputes it... care to?

And the sense of scandal you display is truly ironic... as much as you guys lay on us about the Catholic Church and the popes...

 

[Benedicta00]

Uh, Eastern refers to the Theology, not the Geography.

Well that isn't just Eastern either.

 

[Benedicta00]

Well then, we look forward to your public denunciation of the Roman Catholic practice of placing so many people on pedestals, both literally and figuratively.

Thanks for proving my point.. it's just hypocritical and ironic to want to call your heroes Saints... why would you want to? Knowing what being declared a saint entails... Thesosis and intersession.

Being a big hero does not make a person a Saint. Being holy does.

 

[Rick Otto]

Common sense will suffice to repute nonsense.
The irony isn't in a sense of scandal, it is in the unselfconscious claims of being "The One True Church","Error Free", & Infallable coming from the One True Inquisitors who are rife with scandal to this very day.
Without those claims, the comparing of transgressions would have weight. As it is, you claim perfection & lean on "You did it,too" as an excuse for trespasses.
You pull the rug out from under yourself.
When you burned christians, you shot yourself in the foot. You're still limping.

 

[Benedicta00]

The Mormons quote from the Bible as well. By that standard, they must be right as well. What your denomination does is pervert the Truth of Scripture.

Exactly... so what is the thing that made Calvin right and everyone who disagrees with his exegesis wrong?

I'll be waiting for an actual answer.

 

[Benedicta00]

That isn't what makes them true

Okay then what makes Calvin theology true? The bible? You know how many claim that?

Check out the sig.. that is what Luther said on the matter, he more than likly was referring to Calvin... Luther knew what was up in his day, we even had this "bible proves my case" notion back in his day.

So tell me what is it about Calvin's exegesis that sets him apart form the rest?

 

[simonthezealot]

Thanks for proving my point.. it's just hypocritical and ironic to want to call your heroes Saints... why would you want to? Knowing what being declared a saint entails... Thesosis and intersession.

Being a big hero does not make a person a Saint. Being holy does.

Bene don't be confused about who is a saint. The simple answer will come to you if you simply open your Bible to 1 Corinthians, chapter 1, and look at verse 2, and then you will know for all time what a saint or who a saint really is.

In 1 Corinthians 1, Paul identifies himself as the author, and he identifies the recipients as "The church of God, which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus (or set apart), called saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." Now, there you have a definition of a saint: one who is sanctified in Christ Jesus and who calls upon the name of Jesus Christ. In any place, in any city, anyone who has been sanctified in Christ Jesus, through salvation, who calls upon His name as Lord--is a saint! The word means "set apart," or "holy" (hagios is the Greek word). Anyone who is a Christian is a saint--anyone! You find that, that term is used in many, many places to address Christians.

In 2 Corinthians 1:1, there is a greeting with "all the saints who are in Achaia" and this is a typical Pauline expression, as it was throughout the life of the early church. Ephesians chapter 1, "to the saints who are at Ephesus." It is simply a term used to describe any Christian.

Now the way I look at it Hus Calvin and Luther are all very saintly people based on Paul's explanation, along with a number of my friends around here!

 

[Benedicta00]

We petition Saints for their prayers. We do not pray to icons, they are just wood and paint, as Scripture is paper and ink.

Wood and paint that tells beautiful story.

Ish, were you aware the ppl don't paint a icon, they write it?

It's use to serve as a way of teaching the gospel to those who can't read.. also the same with stained glass windows, they aren't just decoritve they tell the gospel story for those who can't read.

 

[Benedicta00]

ok, so whats the deal with the 'nature of fallen man' ?

It's evil, corrupt, and in no way can choose God... it is so counter to Orthodox theology it would make you cry.