As I suspect. There is no objective evidence with in your christian tradition to the giving the title of Saint to a person. Which is a Catholic practice.
Again, this matters not. And, as I previously stated, it is clear that your objection to our usage of the title is simply one against the person to whom we seek to pay honor rather than the fact that we are using a title that you errantly, or arrogantly, feel is the exclusive purview of your denomination. I've referred to Augustine as St. Augustine a number of times on this MB and have never once encountered an objection from any of you. I would expect the same lack of objection if I were to refer to any of those to whom your denomination believes they have honored with a title that you believe was yours to give. It is not the Roman church's designation of someone that makes their acts meritorious. All you do in bestowing the title, whether it is warranted or not, is that of recognition of what you perceive as holiness. What is plain to all who are not consumed with fealty to the leaders of your denomination is that you take no issue with our usage of the title so long as it is one that you, yourself, feel is appropriately bestowed. It's similar in nature to our employment of terms like "predestination" and "regeneration." We both use the terms, we simply use them in reference to a different set of beliefs regarding the role of God in the life of the believer. That you assume we use or, rather, recognize that the title is appropriately bestowed on someone whom your denomination does not recognize as deserving only proves that you think we justify using the title for the same pitiful, anthropocentric reasons that your denomination does. It simply is not the case. We believe John Calvin was deserving and we believe he played a role in God's plan to reveal the corruption in the continuing practices of your denomination. That said, he is deserving not because of what he did so much as what God did through him.
The above is the reason why the CC canonizes Saints.
Great. I'm not here complaining about your usage of the title on someone that I see as unworthy. That, however, seems to be your MO, and all based on the delusional concept that the OP referred to Calvin as St. Calvin on the same grounds that your denomination bestows the title which, in the eyes of many, though none whose opinion likely matters to you, serves as more of an indictment.
As we have shown it isn't just a grammatical device. There is an actual process. The above is nothing but another straw man.
And again, it matters not that you see such claims as a strawman. Your "process" is nothing that stands justified before God. It is merely the perception of man, based on nothing more than the elevation of the traditions of fallen man. In short, your application of St. vs. saint is of no consequence, for it is of no value before God. If you simply mean to applaud those you see as contributory to the establishment of the Kingdom of God, feel free. Your denomination doesn't consult me on whether I think a person fits the bill so I have no doubt that they care not what I think on the matter, just as I, and others who recognize Calvin's contribution, could care less that you and yours show disdain for him.
False dichonomy the ealry church was the Catholic Church and she recognized the Scritpures.
I understand that the "early church" was the Church
catholica, though all you contend in my eyes is that the church has been in error for a long time. But alas, such is the way of man, that without restraint he will pursue a road that elevates himself. Such has been the case in the Church body for quite some time, though I submit that the bridle that was put in place by the reformers did much to stem the tide of destruction that is left in the wake of denominations such as your own.
A stated the anti-catholicism is showing.
Why do you say this as if it should give me pause? If the Catholic denomination perverts Scripture, which they surely do, then as a child of God I am bound to be against that. Whether my views of Scripture are accurate or not, there is far too much of God's Word that explicitly refutes the views of your church for me to ever fall prey to the anthropocentric nonsense that is preached within her halls.
I'm well aware what anthropcentric means. It means centered around man.
God became man. He was born into this world as a man and God. Catholicism is centered around only one man that is Jesus who is also God.
That was clever, in a really misguided way. No lion, the term anthropocentric, while you are correct in understanding it to mean "man centered," refers to the emphasis that denominations like your own place on the
created man.
LOL. You know nothing about me.
I daresay that's true of my knowledge of everyone on this board, at least in the general sense. I know that you are devoted to defending your views and your denomination, however misguided that loyalty may be. My cursory knowledge of you may be insufficient to determine what type of person you are but I hold no illusions regarding your willingness, or lackthereof, to consider anything but what spews forth from the pulpits of your church.
He also was an ambassador for Christ..
