ST. John Calvin

[jckstraw72]

Did the single statement of Eastern Orthodoxy being "the Church of Christ's better half" encompass all of it or was there more?

sounds like a pretty good thing to me .... other Lutherans were even in contact with Orthodox Patriarchs for a while.

 

[Benedicta00]

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.

Ref, that's not what a denomination is... there is a reality here that you guys just can't get around and that is the history.

I mean it's true, Christ sent out His 12 and they established bishoprics and diocese all over and that is just the way it is... it is just what it is.

We can't be a denomination, Catholics or Orthodox, it's impossible... we are those diocese that were established by the apostles Christ sent out.

I don't know what else to tell you, denial of this is just not honest.

Denominations are individual sects of Christianity that protest and brake away from the Church, aka, these dioceses, and/or who protest and brake away from each other.

 

[Thekla]

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.

I've said this before in another thread, so sorry if its a repeat :
the earliest attested use of this word occurs in the late 14th century; to apply it to things that preceded the word (historically) would be not unlike referring to a portion of the north american continent, circa 1400 AD as "the United States".

 

[Benedicta00]

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.

It has plenty to do with it... you said he was opposed to much or Orthodoxy.. no he wasn't, he shared the same view with them on Mary and the sacraments and the DL (Divine Liturgy) and he was big time against the pope.

But where he agreed with Catholicism was he also believed that Mary was conceived with out sin.

 

[Reformationist]

sounds like a pretty good thing to me .... other Lutherans were even in contact with Orthodox Patriarchs for a while.

Well, if that's all there was to it then you don't have much basis for your claims, as Luther thought that the Roman half of "Christ's church" was led by the servant of satan. Couple that with the fact that Luther spoke vehemently against many of the things that the Orthodox church holds to be true so, again, I'm not sure what case it is you guys are trying to make by acting as if he was on good terms with your denomination.

 

[Reformationist]

Ref, that's not what a denomination is... there is a reality here that you guys just can't get around and that is the history.

I mean it's true, Christ sent out His 12 and they established bishoprics and diocese all over and that is just the way it is... it is just what it is.

We can't be a denomination, Catholics or Orthodox, it's impossible... we are those diocese that were established by the apostles Christ sent out.

I don't know what else to tell you, denial of this is just not honest.

Denominations are individual sects of Christianity that protest and brake away from the Church, aka, these dioceses, and/or who protest and brake away from each other.

Well, you see Benedict, "the Church" isn't what you refer to as your church. "The Church" are the saints of God, called to bear witness to the truth in His revelation, i.e., the Bible. When you break away from the Truth that the Bible clearly reveals, which your denomination most certainly has done, you are no longer part of "the Church." As I said, you should really read Luther's De Servo Arbitrio. He considered it his finest work and, with the children's catachism, the only work of his that deserved to survive. It speaks directly to the heart of what "the Church" is, and it certainly isn't the Roman Catholic denomination. "The Church" are the faithful believers who rely on the grace of God rather than the traditions of men for their salvation. All of the rest, the stuff your denomination sees as vital to the faith, is nothing at all and certainly not binding upon the believer.

 

[Reformationist]

I've said this before in another thread, so sorry if its a repeat :
the earliest attested use of this word occurs in the late 14th century; to apply it to things that preceded the word (historically) would be not unlike referring to a portion of the north american continent, circa 1400 AD as "the United States".

Well, thanks for sharing that. I fail to see how its pertinent as neither your denomination nor the Roman denomination are "the Church."

 

[Reformationist]

It has plenty to do with it... you said he was opposed to much or Orthodoxy.. no he wasn't, he shared the same view with them on Mary and the sacraments and the DL (Divine Liturgy) and he was big time against the pope.

But where he agreed with Catholicism was he also believed that Mary was conceived with out sin.

LOL! So he was against the pope and shared an understanding of Marian belief and a view of the sacraments and divine liturgy and what? Is that supposed to mean he held the rest of their views in high regard. He spoke against many of the things they regard as true. His entire theology is built around his understanding of Scripture that was developed as a member of the Augustinian order, much of which the EO denomination rejects altogether.

You guys are trying to build a bridge between Luther and the EO as if one is warranted. I share some views about doctrine with the Roman church. Does that mean it is justifiable to now claim that I hold the entirity of your faith as viable?

Again, whatever point you're attempting to make here is lost on me and I think it's likely because the claims have no foundation to begin with.

 

[Rick Otto]

I've said this before in another thread, so sorry if its a repeat :
the earliest attested use of this word occurs in the late 14th century; to apply it to things that preceded the word (historically) would be not unlike referring to a portion of the north american continent, circa 1400 AD as "the United States".

And yet somehow, maybe it's just the way you put it Thekla, ...it sounds like a fun thing to do:
"What year did Christopher Columbus discover The United States?"...
Sounds like a great question for a "This Is Spinal Tap" version of a "Jeapordy" show, with Alex Trebec over the legal limit.


Reformationist!
Don't forget Luther was fond of robes!
I wonder if he had a stash of incense?
Anybody know?
What about his rosary? Did he have or keep one?
Is it in a museum or a legend?
I wonder what a Disney movie about Luther would look like.

 

[Benedicta00]

LOL! So he was against the pope and shared an understanding of Marian belief and a view of the sacraments and divine liturgy and what? Is that supposed to mean he held the rest of their views in high regard. He spoke against many of the things they regard as true. His entire theology is built around his understanding of Scripture that was developed as a member of the Augustinian order, much of which the EO denomination rejects altogether.

You guys are trying to build a bridge between Luther and the EO as if one is warranted. I share some views about doctrine with the Roman church. Does that mean it is justifiable to now claim that I hold the entirity of your faith as viable?

Again, whatever point you're attempting to make here is lost on me and I think it's likely because the claims have no foundation to begin with.

what else is there to agree with? The divine liturgy, or the Mass is a biggie... Luther was really ticked off at Calvin for doing away with it.

The sacraments, all 7, confession even, are biggies... Mary of course was NEVER his beef, nor was it Calvin's

And he had issues with the pope as we all know... that is more then enough common ground.

What Luther never ever did was ever deny apostolic succession. Another biggie.

But the biggest and the summit of our faith, the Eucharist.. never denied Christ's substantial presence.

Luther's error was "faith alone" and that is why he did not work something out the the EO. I think the Russian Church (?) invited him to talk with them but he ened up going it alone.

 

[Benedicta00]

Well, you see Benedict, "the Church" isn't what you refer to as your church. "The Church" are the saints of God, called to bear witness to the truth in His revelation, i.e., the Bible. When you break away from the Truth that the Bible clearly reveals, which your denomination most certainly has done, you are no longer part of "the Church." As I said, you should really read Luther's De Servo Arbitrio. He considered it his finest work and, with the children's catachism, the only work of his that deserved to survive. It speaks directly to the heart of what "the Church" is, and it certainly isn't the Roman Catholic denomination. "The Church" are the faithful believers who rely on the grace of God rather than the traditions of men for their salvation. All of the rest, the stuff your denomination sees as vital to the faith, is nothing at all and certainly not binding upon the believer.

These diocese or churches were all established by the apostles, just saying...

So each apostle founded diocese would be a denomination IYO? I'm sorry but that's an absurd premise.

Look, you need to know when to conceded a point... you don't have factual history on your side.

 

[Reformationist]

Mary of course was NEVER his beef, nor was it Calvin's

Nor is it a beef with Protestants. We honor Mary as well. What we don't do is elevate her to a near level of deification, as if, in life, she was given the power to determine whether she would bear the Savior. Yes she was obedient because, like many before her and after her, she was given the grace of God. Her acquiescense to the will of God never stood as a determining factor in the efficacy of God's eternal plan any more than, in death, does she holds the reigns or serve as the conduit or whatever other such nonsensical level of control you guys think she has over the dispensation of God's grace. She obeyed because God worked in her the desire and ability to do for His good pleasure.

But the biggest and the summit of our faith, the Eucharist.. never denied Christ's substantial presence.

Neither did Calvin. Neither do I. What's your point?

Luther's error was "faith alone" and that is why he did not work something out the the EO. I think the Russian Church (?) invited him to talk with them but he ened up going it alone.

It wasn't an error. It was only an error to your denomination and the EO denomination, as you both place emphasis on the works of man and assume, wrongly, that such works lead to justification. Your works, none of them, none of the Pope's works, none of Peter's works, none of Mary's works, none of the head of the EO denomination's works, none of Michelle's works, none of Don's works could ever, ever contribute to justification as they are, of their own merit, filthy rags before God's righteousness. We are saved by works Michelle. It's just not our works that save us.

 

[Reformationist]

These diocese or churches were all established by the apostles, just saying...

So each apostle founded diocese would be a denomination IYO? I'm sorry but that's an absurd premise.

Look, you need to know when to conceded a point... you don't have factual history on your side.

What point shall I concede Michelle? Is it that your denomination is "the Church?" LOL! Hold your breath for that one. As I said, AT BEST you're PART of the Christian community. I've never made the claim that the different diocese established in the early church period were different denominations so please, if possible, refrain from such nonsense. What you seem to fail to realize is that the halls of your church buildings do not constitute the entirity of the Christian church, nor even the seat of authority. The Truth of the Gospel is preached though the world may see your denomination as the face of Christianity, you're not, any more than "the Church" was what people recognized as "the Church" in the time of Elijah.

 

[Benedicta00]

Nor is it a beef with Protestants. We honor Mary as well. What we don't do is elevate her to a near level of deification, as if, in life, she was given the power to determine whether she would bear the Savior. Yes she was obedient because, like many before her and after her, she was given the grace of God. Her acquiescense to the will of God never stood as a determining factor in the efficacy of God's eternal plan any more than, in death, does she holds the reigns or serve as the conduit or whatever other such nonsensical level of control you guys think she has over the dispensation of God's grace. She obeyed because God worked in her the desire and ability to do for His good pleasure.



Neither did Calvin. Neither do I. What's your point?



It wasn't an error. It was only an error to your denomination and the EO denomination, as you both place emphasis on the works of man and assume, wrongly, that such works lead to justification. Your works, none of them, none of the Pope's works, none of Peter's works, none of Mary's works, none of the head of the EO denomination's works, none of Michelle's works, none of Don's works could ever, ever contribute to justification as they are, of their own merit, filthy rags before God's righteousness. We are saved by works Michelle. It's just not our works that save us.

So you are saying you are closer to Catholic/Orthodox theology than we all realize?

That's really good to know...

You believe Christ is substantially present in the Eucharist? Word.

 

[Benedicta00]

What point shall I concede Michelle? Is it that your denomination is "the Church?" LOL! Hold your breath for that one. As I said, AT BEST you're PART of the Christian community. I've never made the claim that the different diocese established in the early church period were different denominations so please, if possible, refrain from such nonsense. What you seem to fail to realize is that the halls of your church buildings do not constitute the entirity of the Christian church, nor even the seat of authority. The Truth of the Gospel is preached though the world may see your denomination as the face of Christianity, you're not, any more than "the Church" was what people recognized as "the Church" in the time of Elijah.

Okay time for a brief history lesson.

Protestantism isn't a Church... it's a lose body of believers (part of the mystical church). They're assemblies are not a 'church' , but an assembly of believers all gathering to worship as a community.

This is what a denomination is, these various assemblies that gather to worship as a community.

Catholic and Orthodoxy are churches, not assemblies. We have legitimate apostolic succession.

How can what the apostles founded be a denomination?
This is what i need you to explain to me?

 

[Reformationist]

So you are saying you are closer to Catholic/Orthodox theology than we all realize?

I doubt it but, of course, I'm fallible.

That's really good to know...

Guess that depends on your perspective.

You believe Christ is substantially present in the Eucharist? Word.

If by "substantially" you are referring to a real presence then, yes, I believe in the real presence. I don't believe in the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation but I believe in the real presence of Christ in communion.

 

[Reformationist]

Catholic and Orthodoxy are churches, not assemblies. We have legitimate apostolic succession.

This is where you err Benedict. You presume that because someone in your denomination holds a seat of authority that is recognized by your denomination then they maintain some measure of legitimacy and authority to preach the Word. The problem is, you guys elevate your man made traditions to the level of Scripture, and no I am not interested in your explanation of big T vs. little t, and then expect that is should be regarded as truth simply because the Apostles established a seat of authority that you claim ownership of. Couple that with the clear perversion of Scripture in your doctrines and any authority you presume to have is shown to be false.

How can what the apostles founded be a denomination? This is what i need you to explain to me?

What the Apostles founded weren't denominations. No clue what bearing that has on your denomination but, there you have it. Your denomination isn't what was founded by the Apostles. It is simply a collection of people who claim to hold some self-appointed level of authority that you forfeit when you preach unbiblical views.

 

[Reformationist]

This is all becoming a bit monotonous and as this thread was never about the legitimacy of the authority of either the Roman denomination or the EO denomination, I fail to see the point in spending all this time addressing those issues.

Take care all, and have a blessed night.

 

[Thekla]

And yet somehow, maybe it's just the way you put it Thekla, ...it sounds like a fun thing to do:
"What year did Christopher Columbus discover The United States?"...
Sounds like a great question for a "This Is Spinal Tap" version of a "Jeapordy" show, with Alex Trebec over the legal limit.

ROFL ... even my son's howling at that one !

Reformationist!
Don't forget Luther was fond of robes!
I wonder if he had a stash of incense?
Anybody know?
What about his rosary? Did he have or keep one?
Is it in a museum or a legend?
I wonder what a Disney movie about Luther would look like.

ohhhhh ... thats scary ... I'm walkin' away from that one ....

that one goes to eleven ...










that Disney Luther thing is haunting nightmares ....

 

[Benedicta00]

This is where you err Benedict. You presume that because someone in your denomination holds a seat of authority that is recognized by your denomination then they maintain some measure of legitimacy and authority to preach the Word. The problem is, you guys elevate your man made traditions to the level of Scripture, and no I am not interested in your explanation of big T vs. little t, and then expect that is should be regarded as truth simply because the Apostles established a seat of authority that you claim ownership of. Couple that with the clear perversion of Scripture in your doctrines and any authority you presume to have is shown to be false.



What the Apostles founded weren't denominations. No clue what bearing that has on your denomination but, there you have it. Your denomination isn't what was founded by the Apostles. It is simply a collection of people who claim to hold some self-appointed level of authority that you forfeit when you preach unbiblical views.

Simple honest look into first century history will prove that I'm right.