ST. John Calvin

[Benedicta00]

I wouldn't call it so much anti-catholic as I would Pro-scripture.

And yet another false dichotomy. Do they ever end?

If you think that, then you know don't really know what being pro scripture is.

 

[Benedicta00]

Here are some quotes. It gives us insight into the early anti Catholic hate there was in the early days of the Reformation. That was brought over here on the mayflower. It is why we have it today. It is the last acceptable discrimination we have left in America. Protestants are taught as a article of faith to have a bias against anything Catholic.

Lutheran Smalcald Articles, Article IV: Of the Papacy.

"This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God. This is, properly speaking to exalt himself above all that is called God as Paul says, 2 Thess. 2, 4." Martin Luther

Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope: "And all the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents." See Treatise

Calvinist/Reformed/Presbyterian see Chapter 25, Article 6, Westminster Confession (1646) and Chapter 26, Article 4, Savoy Declaration (1658)
"There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof, but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God." Westminster Confession, Chap. 25, Art. 6 See this version with citations to 2 Thess. 2:3,4,8,9; Rev. 13:6
"There is no other Head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ, nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." Savoy Declaration, Chap. 26, Art. 4 (emphasis mine)
[Check your news paper and phone book yellow pages for those Reformed and Presbyterian Churches that follow the Westminster Confession or the Savoy Declaration.]

Baptist (Reformed) See Chapter 26, Article 4 of the Baptist Confession of Faith (London, 1689)

"The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." Cites 2 Thessalonians 2:2-9
_____________________________

Note that the above references to 2 Thessalonians 2:2-9 mean that the Pope/Papacy is not merely "an" antichrist but is THE ANTICHRIST!

Today

RETRACTIONS

The following groups appear to have modified their historic stance

Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) The foregoing link is their third and latest of which I am aware. I can't find the pertinent information on their new site. However, the Church at their former site made the following statement:

"For many the Westminster Confession reflects too much the spirit of its age. Attempts have been made to frame a modern Confession, but so far without success. The Church, however, has dissociated herself from those statements in the Westminster Confession that are hostile to the Roman Catholic Church and to the Pope." As I recall from their even earlier site, their retraction was made in 1984 or 1986!

Presbyterian Church in America. (PCA) Modified Chapter 25, Article 6 of the Westminster Confession to delete reference to the Pope being the Antichrist. Still maintains the other anti-Catholic provisions regarding "Popish monastical vows" (Chap. 22, Art. 7); forbidding marriage to "papists" (Chap. 24, Art. 3); and the "Popish Sacrifice of the Mass" as an abomination (Chap. 29, Art. 2.) Preface indicates "anti-Christ" provision was removed in 1973.

Orthodox Presbyterian Church. (OPC) Modified Chapter 25, Article 6 of the Westminster Confession to delete reference to the Pope being the Antichrist. OPC's version here, apparently the 1936 version, leaves the implication that the Pope may still be the "antichrist" in Footnote 14 with the cites to 2 Thess. 2:3-4, 8-9; Rev. 3:6. These cites were apparently removed in 1978. Still maintains the other anti-Catholic provisions regarding "Popish monastical vows" (Chap. 22, Art. 7); forbidding marriage to "papists" (Chap. 24, Art. 3); and the "Popish Sacrifice of the Mass" as an abomination (Chap. 29, Art. 2.)

Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARPC) Modified Chapter 25, Article 6 of Westminster Confession to delete reference to the Pope being the Antichrist. Also modified Chap. 24, Art. 3 by deleting the forbidding of marriage to "papists." Still maintains the other anti-Catholic provisions regarding "Popish monastical vows" (Chap. 22, Art. 7) and the "Popish Sacrifice of the Mass" as an abomination (Chap. 29, Art. 2) Their latest modification of the Westminster Confession was in 1984!

Presbyterian Church U.S.A (PCUSA) Tentative! Only because I cannot find their version of the Westminster Confession at their site. Extent of retractions/modifications unknown at present. Am assuming are similar to Presbyterian Churches above.

Cumberland Presbyterian Church/Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America Both appear to have replaced the Westminster Confession with their own confession.

Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids. This Baptist Church, which put the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith on the web, has a disclaimer (scroll down) similar to that of the Presbyterians disassociating itself from the claim the Pope is the antichrist.

It appears that the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) no longer believe that the Pope/Papacy is the Anti-Christ in light of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. This is confirmed by the rabid anti-Catholic Baptist group below, which goes berserk with such articles as Lutherans & Rome Together.

Nice confession of faith, huh? These are the two some folks here think we should call "Saint."

Does that sound like mere disagreements?

I would love to do a poll here asking what version of the confession baptists and Calvinist of all varieties still personally believe in.

 

[simonthezealot]

Here are some quotes. It gives us insight into the early anti Catholic hate there was in the early days of the Reformation. That was brought over here on the mayflower. It is why we have it today. It is the last acceptable discrimination we have left in America. Protestants are taught as a article of faith to have a bias against anything Catholic.



Nice confession of faith, huh? These are the two some folks here think we should call "Saint."

Does that sound like mere disagreements?

I would love to do a poll here asking what version of the confession baptists and Calvinist of all varieties still personally believe in.

Straight to the chase...
Just because someone considers Rome the seed of the anti-christ does not mean they are not sanctified!

If you take a look at that web page you cut-n-pated that from one could come to the conclusion that outside of Rome we are all (except your church of course) destined for an eterity in hell..

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

John Calvin (July 10, 1509 – May 27, 1564) was a French Protestant theologian during the Protestant Reformation and was a central developer of the system of Christian theology called Calvinism or Reformed theology. In Geneva, he rejected Papal authority, established a new scheme of civic and ecclesiastical governance, and created a central hub from which Reformed theology was propagated.

The Title of this thread caught my eye.

Now that is how I should have named my "character".
Is there also a St Martin Luther?
[oops, there is a thread on that also LOL]

 

[Reformationist]

No, your faith, i.e set of beliefs which include anti Catholic bias and disdain, hatred for the pope, was brought over here on the mayflower.

Calvinism came from Calvin, hence it's called Calvinism. Your belief originated in the 16th century and 300 years later it was brought over here on a boat and because of paranoia, thinking the pope wanted to take over the new world, anti Catholic rhetoric and propaganda (aka lies, myths and misconceptions) spread about.

Ppl in America who hate the Catholic Church do so because of the bigotry and discrimination the early English colonist created out of a inordinate fear of the Church. IOW, you were taught to hate the Church.

LOL! You sure do seem to enjoy telling people to look into American history and rattling off nonsensical conspiracy theories about Protestants banding together for no other purpose than to bring down the leader of your denomination. Get over yourself. Your leader just isn't that important in the scheme of my life. I trust in God. I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to despise your pope. In fact, I know very little about him, other than that he is German. Not sure why they always assume a different name but, pomp and circumstance has always been a part of the workings of your denomination. Nonetheless, the only problem I have with your church is that they purport unbiblical tripe and call it the truth. Other than that, Michelle, they mean quite little to me, though that is no small thing.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Straight to the chase...
Just because someone considers Rome the seed of the anti-christ does not mean they are not sanctified!

I would say there is a very high probablity that they weren't.

Sanctification is the process of becoming like Christ, not just inimagination, but in reality, in one's life, one's actions, one's thoughts, one's devotion.

If someone can believe that the Catholic Church is the seat of the anti-christ, then they have not progressed far in this process of sanctification.

If you take a look at that web page you cut-n-pated that from one could come to the conclusion that outside of Rome we are all (except your church of course) destined for an eterity in hell..

Horsefeathers.

.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Darlin,
As for St. Martin, his complete exegesis was from the plain reading of scripture and studies from the ECf's such as Augustine (the calvinist ) and others.

As for the UN-"St" Martin, his exegesis was injured by his failure to understand some key concepts of Christianity. Why he falied to understand them is a matter of dbate, but many believe it is because he suffered from a bipolar diorder that affected how he saw reality. Bipolar's, and obsessive compulsives claim him as one of their own. This can be verified by a quick google search.

I find it to be the only rational explanation for the stark contradictions and contrasts his life represented.

.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Michelle, if your denomination had one ounce of authority in deciding whom the Lord reckons holy then this may carry some weight. As everything they pronounce is based on nothing more than conjecture that is based, itself, on the unbiblical premise upon which they operate, your opinion of Calvin is of very little value. It matters not to me that you are bothered by our admiration of him. If my views on Scripture were as unbiblical as those of your denomination and someone brought a great awareness to the unbiblical nature of those views as Calvin did to the teachings of your denomination, I wouldn't be too fond of them either.

Well, since you want to accuse the Catholic Church of operating on an unbiblical basis, it is now up to you to PROVE it. Otherwise, stop slamming our Church and faith.

If we want to get into what is unbiblical, well, let's look:

Well, thankfully, for those of us who have a proper understanding of the mercy of God in pronouncing us simul iustus et peccator for the sake of His Son's righteous atonement, Calvin and Luther will be with God in Heaven due to His grace in imputing unto them the merit of Christ's vicarious atonement, and not because of their obedience.

Your words do not show a proper understanding of God's mercy at all.

Your words show that you believe that once your sins are forgiven, they are forgiven forever, right? No chance they can be recalled and you made accountable for them, right?

.

 

[mont974x4]

huh, and here I thought they only spoke of his humanity. Good thing God is so big that he uses such imperfect beings as mere humans for such great works. It only goes to show His glory more and more.

Martin Luther, John Calvin, and all beleivers are in fact saints, whether the RCC thinks so or not. The Bible is God's Word and that is where He set the standard and the definition.

 

[lionroar0]

The Puritans, thankfully, saw the corruption in the Catholic faith and, thus, cast aside the traditions of man in favor of the simple doctrine of God's grace in redemption. That your denomination has yet to realize its arrogance regarding God's grace in redemption is not within my power to rectify.

The Puritans were also escaping protestant persecution.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Michelle, if your denomination had one ounce of authority in deciding whom the Lord reckons holy then this may carry some weight. As everything they pronounce is based on nothing more than conjecture that is based, itself, on the unbiblical premise upon which they operate, your opinion of Calvin is of very little value. It matters not to me that you are bothered by our admiration of him. If my views on Scripture were as unbiblical as those of your denomination and someone brought a great awareness to the unbiblical nature of those views as Calvin did to the teachings of your denomination, I wouldn't be too fond of them either.

The Church does not claim what you have posted. It does not decide who the Lord beckons.

umm Calvin set himself up as the sole authority in geneva. He either exiled or burned any one that disagreed with him.


Peace

 

[lionroar0]

huh, and here I thought they only spoke of his humanity. Good thing God is so big that he uses such imperfect beings as mere humans for such great works. It only goes to show His glory more and more.

Martin Luther, John Calvin, and all beleivers are in fact saints, whether the RCC thinks so or not. The Bible is God's Word and that is where He set the standard and the definition.[/QUOTE

]

They may be saints but they are not Saints.


Peace

 

[mont974x4]

huh, and here I thought they only spoke of his humanity. Good thing God is so big that he uses such imperfect beings as mere humans for such great works. It only goes to show His glory more and more.

Martin Luther, John Calvin, and all beleivers are in fact saints, whether the RCC thinks so or not. The Bible is God's Word and that is where He set the standard and the definition.[/QUOTE

]

They may be saints but they are not Saints.


Peace

Show me where the RCC ideal on this is found in Scripture.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Despite the incessant posturing of those in your denomination, the title of "saint" is not the exclusive purview of your denomination. A saint is one who is justified by God. Again, unless you intend to contend that only those within the halls of your denomination will be justified before God, then you make a distinction without a difference. We are not applying your tradition. We are acknowledging that we believe John Calvin has personified the traits of a faithful believer, though we are well aware that he was a fallible human who made mistakes along his journey. Your presumption that someone is only a saint if your denomination pronounces them such is only recognized as such by those who submit to your denominational leaders authority to pronounce someone holy as if they can do more than recognize what only God do.

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

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

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.

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

His final state is unknown.

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.

You know, you'd think that those of you who scream foul whenever someone makes a disparaging remark toward your denomination would be less inclined to make similar comments about people that non-Catholics hold in high regard.

We 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.

Why here in this forum was this done?

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.

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

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

You guys moan and groan whenever anyone intimates or implies that your denomination teaches contrary to the express revelations of the Bible claiming that it is wrong to do so on the grounds that it implies you are "un-Christian." What a ludicrous statement. That's what we're all saying about each other's beliefs. If we're right, and what we believe is true Christianity, then your views most certainly cannot be Christian. Every time you guys rail about the views of the reformers, you're doing the exact same thing, calling them, and those that follow those beliefs as practitioners of un-Christian doctrine.

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

The reformers threw a lot of that out.

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.

In short, get off your high horse. We're not saying anything you're not.

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

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.

.

 

[mont974x4]

People are saints whether or not the RCC thinks they are.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Show me where the RCC ideal on this is found in Scripture.

The litany of the saints in Hebrews.

.

 

[thereselittleflower]

People are saints whether or not the RCC thinks they are.

the TITLE SAINT does not mean there are not other saints in heaven, but that we cannot know for sure if they are in heaven or not.

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.

.

 

[mont974x4]

the TITLE SAINT does not mean there are not other saints in heaven, but that we cannot know for sure if they are in heaven or not.

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.

.

Again, show me where the RCC ideal is of "Saints"?


The Bible simply breaks people into two camps, beleivers and non-beleivers, the saved and the not saved, those within the Church and those outside the Church, the Saints and the Sinners.

There is no basis for the RCC's teachngs. I'm sure we will all be quite surprised to see who is, and is not, in paradise.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Again, show me where the RCC ideal is of "Saints"?


The Bible simply breaks people into two camps, beleivers and non-beleivers, the saved and the not saved, those within the Church and those outside the Church, the Saints and the Sinners.

There is no basis for the RCC's teachngs. I'm sure we will all be quite surprised to see who is, and is not, in paradise.

OF course the bible gives the Catholic Church basis for holding up particular people, because of the holiness and sanctity of their lives, to the rest of christinaity as examples to imitate and follow.

Paul did so in the litany of the saints in Hebrews.

Paul lifts himself up to be imitated and commands christians to imitate him.

.

 

[lionroar0]

You guys moan and groan whenever anyone intimates or implies that your denomination teaches contrary to the express revelations of the Bible claiming that it is wrong to do so on the grounds that it implies you are "un-Christian." What a ludicrous statement. That's what we're all saying about each other's beliefs. If we're right, and what we believe is true Christianity, then your views most certainly cannot be Christian. Every time you guys rail about the views of the reformers, you're doing the exact same thing, calling them, and those that follow those beliefs as practitioners of un-Christian doctrine.

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