ST. John Calvin

[Reformationist]

You've got over 13,000 posts... big deal;

Wasn't bragging. I was simply noting that so that you were aware this wasn't my first time discussing these issues.

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.

LOL! It's not my Gospel that I desire that people know. It is the Gospel. I am aware that I often fall prey to my emotions and, as a result, become unpleasant and argumentative. I apologize but, to be honest, there isn't much I could say that wouldn't offend you. My beliefs about justification, if I feel any conviction about them, demand that I see your views as unChristian. I would venture that you'd not be to pleased with such a claim. Shall I deny it simply for the sake of us getting along? That may be your style. It's certainly not mine.

My beliefs are spurious and false... yeah, that's vitriol, not argumentation.

It's only vitrol and agumentative to you. To me, it's the truth about your views.

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

Well, see ya.

 

[Reformationist]

Luther actually spoke rather highly of the Orthodox...

Really? He was opposed to quite a bit of what they believe. Could you cite some resources to support this claim?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[Reformationist]

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.

I've told you before and, apparently, I'll tell you again, you can peddle that "we're not a denomination" nonsense in the OBOB forum, cause there and the EO forum are the only place that is going to get any mileage. At best you're a denomination of Christianity.

 

[Reformationist]

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.

You should read Bondage of the Will. It debunks everything you've said here. All of it. Luther masterfully handled the corrupt Roman church and the nonsensical and unbiblical views that they espouse. You clearly know nothing about Luther, which is odd because you constantly rail against him. Strange...that's the same thing you claim Protestants do in regard to your church. What do they call that again... ...oh yeah, being a hypocrite.

 

[Reformationist]

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

Describe the nature of fallen man in his natural state, according to your denomination's view, and we'll go from there.

 

[Reformationist]

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.

First off, I didn't start the thread. Secondly, "being holy," or rather, being made holy, is something that happens to us as God sanctifies us. We are holy, that is, set apart unto the glory of the Lord. We are holy because God has counted us as such for the Lord's sake. It is you and yours that seek to glorify sinful man. In your denomination, "being holy" simply means doing whatever your denomination says to the extreme. You only contend that those who follow the precepts of your denomination can be holy because you think it is man, not God, who makes himself holy.

 

[Reformationist]

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.

Neither Calvin, nor anyone else besides the head of your denomination, claims infallibility so far as I'm aware. I needn't prove Calvin was right, nor could I. You either believe he accurately understands the Gospel or you don't. Attempting to shield yourself behind some mythical level of infallibility changes nothing. It simply makes you even more confused.

Your denomination is the one claiming infallibility. It is on you to prove it, and you've clearly not done so.

 

[Reformationist]

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

It's just what the Bible says man's natural disposition is. Nothing more. Not sure why that would make anyone cry, unless, of course, it caused them to see with greater clarity the magnificence and gravity of the grace of God in their salvation. That makes me cry.

The view that man becomes a child of God because of a choice he makes apart from the regenerative grace of God would make me cry as well. It speaks only of personal glory and, without fail, renders evangelism a futile effort to overcome man's ignorance and obstinacy on the power of our words. I take great comfort in knowing that God gathers His elect and will not fail to save a single person He intends to save, despite their obstinacy, for God's graciousness is such that when He creates them anew, the creation willingly submits to Him and seeks to serve Him in all their ways.

That is the glory of God.

 

[Thekla]

Describe the nature of fallen man in his natural state, according to your denomination's view, and we'll go from there.

you're the one who knows it as a distortion; I was hoping you'd share your view of this teaching and its error -- you apparently know it better than me.

Rather I meant for you to clarify by expounding on your understanding...

 

[Reformationist]

you're the one who knows it as a distortion; I was hoping you'd share your view of this teaching and its error -- you apparently know it better than me.

So you do not want to discuss the EO stance on the fallen nature of man?

Rather I meant for you to clarify by expounding on your understanding...

Well, your denomination denies mankind's inherited guilt of original sin.

So as not to waste time hearing from you that I have distorted, or incorrectly understood, the beliefs of your church, please explain mankind's fallen nature as it relates to a need for God's grace.

Thanks,
God bless

 

[Imperiuz]

About the heretics false claim that we are saved by Faith alone:

Matthew 7:21-23

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Prepare for the wrath of God almighty, you false teachers!

 

[Thekla]

So you do not want to discuss the EO stance on the fallen nature of man?



Well, your denomination denies mankind's inherited guilt of original sin.

So as not to waste time hearing from you that I have distorted, or incorrectly understood, the beliefs of your church, please explain mankind's fallen nature as it relates to a need for God's grace.

Thanks,
God bless

thats an extraordinarily big topic; so to break it down:
To start, the EO has never taught "original sin". However, I am not certain of what your understanding is of the concept; this is why I wanted you to describe it (and you say you know our understanding -- so you are in the better position to start with explanation).



However, I will start with a brief description of "ancestral sin", the term in EO. Please understand, that my description will be imperfect.
Consistent with the teaching of the early Church, we do not believe we inherit Adam and Eve's "guilt". The effect of the fall was death -- a parasite-- this is what we inherit. This parasite, the "disease of death" is what can lead to our distortion, or the distortion of the image and likeness of God in which He created us. So, we are only responsible for our own sins.

I hope the bite is not "too small", but maybe this way we can see that we're communicating.

Thank-you !

 

[Reformationist]

About the heretics false claim that we are saved by Faith alone:

Matthew 7:21-23

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Prepare for the wrath of God almighty, you false teachers!

You see, it is this type of rhetoric and perversion of both Scripture and the words of your opponant that only shows you are incapable of competently engaging in debate. That passage speaks of a mere profession of faith. As you can see from the immediate context, these people sought to justify their profession of faith by their works, i.e., "have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?" He clearly differientiates their profession of faith, even when backed by claims of works, with a true possession of faith, by which we are accounted righteous.

I understand. Young kids who know so little of Scripture, like yourself, rarely take notice of anything beyond the hot air that they belch out.

 

[Reformationist]

thats an extraordinarily big topic; so to break it down:
To start, the EO has never taught "original sin".

I know. That is one of the many places your denomination is in error.

However, I am not certain of what your understanding is of the concept; this is why I wanted you to describe it (and you say you know our understanding -- so you are in the better position to start with explanation).

My understanding is that you believe you do not stand before God as guilty through the imputation of guilt for Adam's sin. You simply believe, so far as I understand, that man inherits a tendency toward sin due to the effects of his sinful environment yet the conscience remains inclined to good.

However, I will start with a brief description of "ancestral sin", the term in EO. Please understand, that my description will be imperfect.
Consistent with the teaching of the early Church, we do not believe we inherit Adam and Eve's "guilt". The effect of the fall was death -- a parasite-- this is what we inherit. This parasite, the "disease of death" is what can lead to our distortion, or the distortion of the image and likeness of God in which He created us.

There is nothing in the Bible that even comes close to supporting such a theory.

So, we are only responsible for our own sins.

First, we are in agreement that we are reponsible for our own sins. We are volitional creatures, corrupted though we may be by the stain and influence of sin, we sin because we desire to sin in accordance with our fallen nature. Second, if you do not accept that Adam's progeny inherit guilt before God, do you, likewise, believe you are responsible for your own salvation?

I hope the bite is not "too small", but maybe this way we can see that we're communicating.

Thank-you !

I don't think it's too small a bite, though I wonder how long you and I will be able to discuss these issues as our views of most biblical issues seem to be as different as night and day.

 

[Thekla]

My understanding is that you believe you do not stand before God as guilty through the imputation of guilt for Adam's sin. You simply believe, so far as I understand, that man inherits a tendency toward sin due to the effects of his sinful environment yet the conscience remains inclined to good.

I don't understand "imputation", sorry - meaning I don't know what the term means in your tradition.
Its not the enviornment, per se. Rather the image of God in us is distorted,dim. As for the point of the conscience -- we were created for communion with God. The conscience can become eventually hardened, seared through persistent sin (hard-hearted). But before that point, it can be awakened or active (as Paul mentioned about the non-Jews who followed the Law though in ignorance of God).

There is nothing in the Bible that even comes close to supporting such a theory.

Thats difficult to address with not much to go on -- so perhaps you could help. What part of the concept of ancestral sin is not supported; it is supported through an understanding of the fall. Maybe if you could explain the meaning of original sin in terms of the fall, I might get a better idea of how to proceed.

First, we are in agreement that we are reponsible for our own sins. We are volitional creatures, corrupted though we may be by the stain and influence of sin, we sin because we desire to sin in accordance with our fallen nature. Second, if you do not accept that Adam's progeny inherit guilt before God, do you, likewise, believe you are responsible for your own salvation?

we are not responsible for our own salvation - salvation is of God. He will "save who He will". Although we do not agree that sin is our natural, created nature -- we were created with the ability to come closer to or go further from God. As God is life, to not be "in communion" with Him (as Adam and Eve were in the garden) is death. Further, how can we desire what is of God without God -- for without God is death.

I don't think it's too small a bite, though I wonder how long you and I will be able to discuss these issues as our views of most biblical issues seem to be as different as night and day.

If we don't need to finish the discussion today -- then we can discuss this as long as opportunity and God allows

God bless !

 

[Benedicta00]

I've told you before and, apparently, I'll tell you again, you can peddle that "we're not a denomination" nonsense in the OBOB forum, cause there and the EO forum are the only place that is going to get any mileage. At best you're a denomination of Christianity.

some evidence will go a long way... you are just not being intellectually honest or historically accurate.

 

[Benedicta00]

Really? He was opposed to quite a bit of what they believe. Could you cite some resources to support this claim?

Thanks,
God bless

http://www.unicorne.org/orthodoxy/articles/alex_roman/luther.htm

Martin Luther on the Mother of God

A Lutheran acquaintance recently pointed out to me the great veneration that Martin Luther had for the Blessed Virgin Mary throughout his life. Luther believed that the Theotokos remained a Virgin always: "Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . 'brothers' really means 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers." (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39).
Luther also called Mary the "Mother of God:" "God says . . .'Mary's Son is My only Son.' Thus Mary is the Mother of God. (ibid.)

"God did not derive his Divinity from Mary; but it does not follow that it is therefore wrong to say that God was born of Mary, that God is Mary's Son, and that Mary is God's Mother . . . She is the true Mother of God and Bearer of God . . . Mary suckled God, rocked God to sleep, prepared broth and soup for God etc.

" For God and man are one person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus, not two Christs . . .just as your son is not two sons . . . even though he has two natures, body and soul, the body from you, the soul from God alone." (On the Councils and the Church, 1539).

Martin Luther also had this to say about the veneration of the Theotokos: "The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart." (Sermon, September 1, 1522).

"She is the highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom and holiness personified. We can never honour her enough." (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

And what, according to Luther, is the relation of the Theotokos to us? "It is the consolation and superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his Mother, Christ is his Brother, God is his Father. (Sermon, Christmas, 1522).

"Our prayer should include the Mother of God . . . What the Hail Mary says is that all glory should be given to God, using these words: 'Hail Mary, full of Grace, The Lord is with Thee, Blessed art Thou among women and blessed is the Fruit of Thy Womb, Jesus Christ. Amen!" You see that these words are not concerned with prayer but purely with giving praise and honour. We can use the Hail Mary as a meditation in which we recite what grace God has given her. Second, we should add a wish that everyone may know and respect her . . .(Personal Prayer Book, 1522).

John Calvin and other Protestant Reformers also maintained that the Virgin Mary is "Mother of God." A number even included the "Hail Mary" prayer at the beginning of their liturgies. A number of Lutheran theologians after Luther himself continued to use prayer beads to count both the Our Father and the Hail Mary prayers.

The relationship of Lutheranism to Orthodoxy is an interesting one. The "Confession of Dositheus" was developed to oppose Protestantism. However, when Luther himself went to debate with Roman Catholics, he actually defended Eastern Orthodoxy as the Church of Christ's "better half." (That is apparently the origin of that popular term.)

At the time of the Second World War, a Ukrainian Byzantine-Rite Lutheran Church developed in Western Ukraine. These were former and disaffected Ukrainian Catholics. They made a number of attempts to adapt some of the Eastern Rite to their Lutheran worship and even produced a Ukrainian Lutheran "Sluzhebnik" or Service Book with a special liturgy. I am in touch with a Lutheran Pastor in Germany who is currently collecting information about Ukrainian Lutherans.

There is also a "Lutheran-Rite" and independent Orthodox Church in the U.S. called the "Evangelical Catholic Church." While not accepted by mainstream Orthodoxy, this group is formed from former Lutherans of German background. They try to keep some elements of their Lutheran heritage, but maintain that Martin Luther was, in fact, trying to focus the Reformed Christians of his day toward the Orthodox Church.

Something similar happened with the Czech hero and martyr, Jan Hus, about whom Taras Shevchenko wrote in his poem, "The Heretic." Hus also became a central figure in the Pan-Slavic movements of the nineteenth century. Martin Luther declared Hus "My saint."

After Hus was burned at the stake on 6 July 1415, the University of Prague declared him a martyr and saint. The Czech churches, separated from Rome, began painting his image in churches and erecting statues to him everywhere. An Englishman, John Payne, was interested in the reforming ideas of Hus and came to Prague. He was soon led to Orthodoxy and went to Constantinople where he was consecrated Bishop with the name "Constantine Anglikos." He returned to Prague and was Bishop to the Orthodox Czechs who became Orthodox under the inspiration of Jan Hus! This has also been studied by Russian Orthodox theologians who maintain the conclusion that Hus was preaching the values of Orthodoxy that had been lost under Roman Catholicism: married clergy, Scriptures in the national language, Communion in both kinds etc.

The friend of Hus, Jerome of Prague, left the Czech lands and travelled in Eastern Europe. He received Orthodoxy and was baptized in Latvia. He returned to Prague where he was also burned as a heretic on 30 May 1416. There is interest in his possible glorification as an Orthodox saint by the Czech Orthodox Church. His Orthodox baptismal certificate has been located in Latvia.

More study is forthcoming on this topic and also on the relationship between Luther, Lutheranism and Orthodoxy. As an endnote, the great Lutheran theologian, Jaroslav Pelikan, who wrote on Eastern Orthodoxy for many years, has recently been formally received into the Orthodox Church.

 

[Reformationist]

some evidence will go a long way... you are just not being intellectually honest or historically accurate.

Not sure what "evidence" would suffice for you. You have already rejected that you are a denomination of Christianity, which means you either submit that the RC church comprises the entirity of Christianity within its membership, or, you contend that you are not part of the Christian community. As I know it is not the latter that you seek to purport, my guess would be that you contend the former. If neither, well, you acknowledge that you are are denomination of Christianity.

Denomination: A religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices.

 

[Oblio]

Then why can't I find one at a garage sale?

c.f. eBay

keyword 'Icon'

 

[Reformationist]

http://www.unicorne.org/orthodoxy/articles/alex_roman/luther.htm

Um...as I seemed to have missed it, maybe you could point out which part of this was supposed to support the claim that Luther actually spoke rather highly of the Orthodox. Did the single statement of Eastern Orthodoxy being "the Church of Christ's better half" encompass all of it or was there more?

As to the rest, I have no clue why you posted Luther's view on Mary. That has nothing to do with the discussion.