ST. John Calvin

[lionroar0]

Wrong, again. Becoming a trend with you. My beliefs do not give authority to your denomination to identify or establish anything with regard to a person's sanctification, in this life or the next. You err, yet again, in assuming that your denomination's empty pronouncement of perfected sanctification carries any weight with anyone but those who misguidedly acknowledge your leaders as authoritative.

So the protestation goes on no evidence to the contrary has been provided. That your denomination has a means to recognize a Saint.

That would depend on how you employ the phrase. I am most certainly justified, right now, before the judgment seat of God and He is, through His indwelling, sanctifying me daily. This is an ongoing process and will remain an ongoing process so long as I reside in sinful flesh.

False dichonomy. Being in the flesh does not make automatically sinful.

Christ died in the flesh to redeem not only our souls but also our flesh.

Your denomination has nothing beyond its own inflated, overblown, and unjustified proclamation of authority, which gives you nothing beyond fealty from those who subject themselves to her error and ridicule and disdain and, at times when God is giving us pause, compassion from all others that you are such a large group of misguided people. Just because your denomination pompously and pretentiously presumes to speak for God means nothing more than that their sense of self-worth is egregiously inflated. I do not debate your denomination's practice of "canonization" because it is a non-thing to me, barely a blip on the radar of things with which I need concern myself. Once again, and for your enlightenment, it is your world that revolves around the lies of your denomination, not mine.

Me thinks thou protests too much and not giveth any evidence that your denomination has a means to recognize Saints.

It was over before it started because all of the bluster by those in your camp is based on nothing more than your denomination's pretentious presumption that she even has, much less exclusively has, the authority to establish or recognize who is and is not worthy of veneration.

I did post a few times that there are others Churches that do have Saints.

Your argument has brought you back full circle.

Peace

 

[Reformationist]

Me thinks thou protests too much and not giveth any evidence that your denomination has a means to recognize Saints.

Once again, your posturing is shown to be pointless. That which you self style the "means to recognize Saints" that you believe makes your denomination's recognition of someone authoritative and somehow binding is nothing more than tripe and has no true authority over any issue. They, your denomination, has no authority to pronounce anyone just, as they know not what it means to be truly justified before God. In fact, they have authority over you only because you submit to them. Their authority is upheld only by them and carries no weight before the judgment seat of God. For me, a saint is a believer. That God governs history such that He uses some in greater ways than others and extends more sanctifying grace to some than to others shows me nothing so much as that He is God and He will manifest His will as He sees fit. Your denomination's incessant need to pay homage to the creation as if their works are anything but unrighteousness without the sanctifying grace of God shows their anthropocentric nature. Either way, I could care less whether you walk about with a bloated and unjustified sense of denominational pride. They, the leaders of your denomination, are only men and, like everyone else, fallible. Their rulings mean nothing to anyone who sees them for what they are. Their pronouncements mean nothing to any who have spent time in the Word and see their sham for what it is. And their authority, well, they haven't any so it's a non-issue.

I did post a few times that there are others Churches that do have Saints.

And like your denomination, they have no authority to establish anything, much less who is and is not worthy of honor. You may honor them, just as you may honor anyone of your choosing. That and a $1.50 will get you a soda out of the vending machine where I work.

Your argument has brought you back full circle.

Well, when people peddle the same nonsense over and over, like you have, the only thing that will stop these circular discussions is if someone, like myself, recognizes that there are far more productive things that they, or rather I, could be doing than wasting their, that is to say my, time with those who presume, though won't admit, that they are infallible, as they presume that their denominational leaders are infallible.

 

[lionroar0]

John Calvin though known as the man whom burned servetus actually had nothing to do with it!

In case you missed it.( no sarcasm intended) Posts do get lost in these thread.

I thought this was interesting. Could you post more information on this?

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Once again, your posturing is shown to be pointless. That which you self style the "means to recognize Saints" that you believe makes your denomination's recognition of someone authoritative and somehow binding is nothing more than tripe and has no true authority over any issue. They, your denomination, has no authority to pronounce anyone just, as they know not what it means to be truly justified before God. In fact, they have authority over you only because you submit to them. Their authority is upheld only by them and carries no weight before the judgment seat of God. For me, a saint is a believer. That God governs history such that He uses some in greater ways than others and extends more sanctifying grace to some than to others shows me nothing so much as that He is God and He will manifest His will as He sees fit. Your denomination's incessant need to pay homage to the creation as if their works are anything but unrighteousness without the sanctifying grace of God shows their anthropocentric nature. Either way, I could care less whether you walk about with a bloated and unjustified sense of denominational pride. They, the leaders of your denomination, are only men and, like everyone else, fallible. Their rulings mean nothing to anyone who sees them for what they are. Their pronouncements mean nothing to any who have spent time in the Word and see their sham for what it is. And their authority, well, they haven't any so it's a non-issue.

Much protesting and no evidence.

And like your denomination, they have no authority to establish anything, much less who is and is not worthy of honor. You may honor them, just as you may honor anyone of your choosing. That and a $1.50 will get you a soda out of the vending machine where I work.

More protesting that that others are wrong and no evidence to show that your denomination has a means to recognize Saints.

Well, when people peddle the same nonsense over and over, like you have, the only thing that will stop these circular discussions is if someone, like myself, recognizes that there are far more productive things that they, or rather I, could be doing than wasting their, that is to say my, time with those who presume, though won't admit, that they are infallible, as they presume that their denominational leaders are infallible.

Same old dance and no evidence from your denomination that it recognizes Saints.

Peace

 

[Benedicta00]

My Christian tradition steers clear of nonsense that is unbiblical.

Really? So does mine.. but yet we don't agree... fancy that.

 

[simonthezealot]

In case you missed it.( no sarcasm intended) Posts do get lost in these thread.

I thought this was interesting. Could you post more information on this?

Peace

I did, I showed how their were 4 seperate churches or diocese for lack of remembering their term whom were called on in the decision of what to do to servetus, I showed their response in whole and the summary which was have him put to death...Though surely Calvin may have been able to halt it, it was these 4 groups making that deciion...I posted all this shortly after your post..

 

[simonthezealot]

http://vlib.iue.it/carrie/texts/carrie_books/longhurst/index.html

Early in September the Council had sent copies of the trial records to the pastors of the churches in four other cantons-which had liberated themselves from Roman oppression-seeking their opinions on the trial. The replies, which were finally received in Geneva on October 18, were (not surprisingly) in unanimous agreement that Servetus was guilty. Justice dictated that the votes be entered in the trial records:

[SIZE=-1]The Church of Berne: In a thousand ways Satan seeks to obscure the light of truth with a fog of pernicious dogma. This Servetus considers himself free to question all the essential doctrines of our religion, to overthrow it and utterly corrupt it by reviving the poison of the ancient heretics. We pray that with God's help you may put your own and other Churches beyond the reach of this pestilential man.[/SIZE]​

[SIZE=-1]The Church of Zurich: We think you should proceed against this man with much faith and zeal particularly since our Churches have the evil reputation abroad of being heretical and favorable to heresy. But God, in His holy providence, at this hour gives you the opportunity to free all of us from such a hurtful suspicion. We do not doubt that your lordships will know how to prevent the further spread of that man's poison.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]The Church of Schaffhausen: We do not doubt that you will repress this Michael Servetus according to your praiseworthy prudence, lest his blasphemies waste away like a gangrene the Church of Christ. To engage in long reasonings to overthrow his errors would be to indulge a fool in his own madness.[/SIZE]​

[SIZE=-1]The Church of Basle: We know you will not fail, either in Christian prudence or in saintly zeal, to remedy this evil which has already caused the ruin of many souls. Servetus is worse than all the ancient heretics combined, for he vomits all their many errors from a single blasphemous mouth. Like a snake he hisses his curses against that sincere servant of God, John Calvin. If he refuses to depart from his perverse opinions, use the power you hold from God so that he may never more trouble the Church of Christ. The Lord grant you, for that purpose, His spirit of power and wisdom.[/SIZE]​

October 26, 1553, the Council voted to condemn Servetus to death

Here ya LR...

 

[lionroar0]

Here ya LR...

Thanks. I'm the one that missed your responce.

Peace

 

[Rick Otto]

no evidence from your denomination that it recognizes Saints.

We reconize 'em plenty, pardner.
We jes' don't converse.
Not big on Statues & Icons either, cool as those art forms are.

 

[lionroar0]

We reconize 'em plenty, pardner.
We jes' don't converse.
Not big on Statues & Icons either, cool as those art forms are.

saints or Saints?

Peace

 

[IamAdopted]

saints or Saints?

Peace

Show me the difference.

 

[Benedicta00]

Recognizing ppl and thinking they're great does not a Saint or even saint make.

 

[Rick Otto]

we know.
It is belief in Jesus Christ that makes one a saint.
Conflating it into a title is almost as bad as using "Father" as a title.

 

[simonthezealot]

Not big on Statues & Icons either, cool as those art forms are.

Right on! AND our Creator is clearly NOT big on em either!

 

[Benedicta00]

And like your denomination, they have no authority to establish anything, much less who is and is not worthy of honor. You may honor them, just as you may honor anyone of your choosing. That and a $1.50 will get you a soda out of the vending machine where I work.

That only works if your perception is reality.

The reality is the Catholic and Orthodox Church recognizes holiness in a person. This is so clearly laid in scripture when Jesus said by the fruits you are going to know and he gave us a list of fruits, they are called the beatitudes. A person is blessed if he is or does, X Y and Z.

So our question to you is, what do you base you honoring them as a Saint on?

Sainthood is about sanctity, thus the name, Saint. It is about being holy, reaching perfection of soul which is nothing more then holiness, sanctification.

Our Saints who died with the mark of faith displayed the fruits of the Holy Spirit that Paul listed and we can look at their life and according to the beatitudes, we can see that they are "blessed"... blessed to us means you are walking in holiness, and after death, you are in heaven... that's why you are blessed, because you ran the race, kept your focus on Jesus, live the beatific life and you made it, you have your crown, heaven.

What we do when we believe we have a true Saint (one who reached full sanctification while on earth) is we ask God to hear their prayers for us and if God grants our prayers through their intersession, then God has given us confirmation, yes they are in heaven and not going through purgatory. *We* don't get to decide anything, God reveals it to us.

What y'all are doing is talking about what makes a person a doctor of the Church. That it totally separate from a martyr or Saint. Although Doctors can also be martyrs and Saints as well and 10 times out of 10, they are.

Being declared a doctor of the Church is recognizing that a certain person was endowed with an incredible gift and his theological expressions were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The Catholic Church has made only a few Saints actual doctors of the Church. Augustine is one, St. Theresa of Avila is one, St. Theresa, Little Flower is another.

If you guys want, I guess... you can recognize Calvin in your circle because you think he was a "doctor" endowed with a special gift of the Spirit where what he wrote was under the Holy Spirit's inspiration... just don't expect us to agree with you and don't go around making a case that he was holy because his actions said otherwise.

One can also validly argue that because his fruit was so off the mark of what it should have been, he could in no way have been inspired by the Holy Spirit to write theology.

I can respect that you believe he was guided by the HS to write all that he did, I don't agree with it but I do respect that is what you think.

But where we get defensie is, honoring with the title Saint as if his behavior is something we all should admire as Christian behavior. That is what we find blasphemous.

 

[IamAdopted]

That only works if your perception is reality.

The reality is the Catholic and Orthodox Church recognizes holiness in a person. This is so clearly laid in scripture when Jesus said by the fruits you are going to know and he gave us a list of fruits, they are called the beatitudes. A person is blessed if he is or does, X Y and Z.

So our question to you is, what do you base you honoring them as a Saint on?

Sainthood is about sanctity, thus the name, Saint. It is about being holy, reaching perfection of soul which is nothing more then holiness, sanctification.

Our Saints who died with the mark of faith displayed the fruits of the Holy Spirit that Paul listed and we can look at their life and according to the beatitudes, we can see that they are "blessed"... blessed to us means you are walking in holiness, and after death, you are in heaven... that's why you are blessed, because you ran the race, kept your focus on Jesus, live the beatific life and you made it, you have your crown, heaven.

What we do when we believe we have a true Saint (one who reached full sanctification while on earth) is we ask God to hear their prayers for us and if God grants our prayers through their intersession, then God has given us confirmation, yes they are in heaven and not going through purgatory. *We* don't get to decide anything, God reveals it to us.

What y'all are doing is talking about what makes a person a doctor of the Church. That it totally separate from a martyr or Saint. Although Doctors can also be martyrs and Saints as well and 10 times out of 10, they are.

Being declared a doctor of the Church is recognizing that a certain person was endowed with an incredible gift and his theological expressions were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The Catholic Church has made only a few Saints actual doctors of the Church. Augustine is one, St. Theresa of Avila is one, St. Theresa, Little Flower is another.

If you guys want, I guess... you can recognize Calvin in your circle because you think he was a "doctor" endowed with a special gift of the Spirit where what he wrote was under the Holy Spirit's inspiration... just don't expect us to agree with you and don't go around making a case that he was holy because his actions said otherwise.

One can also validly argue that because his fruit was so off the mark of what it should have be, he could in no way have been inspired by the Holy Spirit to write theology.

I can respect that you believe he was guided by the HS to write all that he did, I don't agree with it but I do respect that is what you think.

But where we get defensie is, honoring with the title Saint as if his behavior is something we all should admire as Christian behavior. That is what we find blasphemous.

As we do some of the preists in the cc and some of the popes in the cc and some of the tradtion brought in. For as you say we shall know them by their fruit..

 

[Reformationist]

That only works if your perception is reality.

The reality is the Catholic and Orthodox Church recognizes holiness in a person.

No. The Catholic and Orthodox denominations recognize what they believe to be holiness in a person, and that measure of holiness is defined by works. Works based faith begets works based veneration. Nothing more, nothing less. It's all about the works for you guys.

This is so clearly laid in scripture when Jesus said by the fruits you are going to know and he gave us a list of fruits, they are called the beatitudes.

Who will you know Michelle? Did Jesus say, "Hey, if someone displays these attributes it would be appropriate if you give them the title of Saint and fall to your knees and kiss statues of their image? Yeah. Good luck with that.

A person is blessed if he is or does, X Y and Z.

Again, you rattle off things that are neither being debated nor support your denominations anthropocentric practices.

So our question to you is, what do you base you honoring them as a Saint on?

Well, I don't assume to make distinctions about holiness because, unlike your denomination, I recognize that my ability to determine such things is only skin deep. And yes Michelle, that does mean I'm saying they don't recognize that that is as much as they can do as well. I cannot read the heart of man any more than the leaders of the Catholic and EO denomination can so whatever way that I may "honor" them has more to do with the visible manifestations of their fiath, i.e., adherence to the Word of God, an unshakeable dedication to preserving the sanctity of God's Word from the corruption that is so prevalent in much of Christendom today, a clear endowment by God for the dispensation of His truth. All of these things, while edifying, speak of God's graciousness more than anything particular or inherent to the person.

Sainthood is about sanctity, thus the name, Saint. It is about being holy, reaching perfection of soul which is nothing more then holiness, sanctification.

You might as well say that it has to do with determining the number of hairs on your head as you'd have more luck with that than regarding something you have absolutely no ability to determine.

Our Saints who died with the mark of faith displayed the fruits of the Holy Spirit that Paul listed and we can look at their life and according to the beatitudes, we can see that they are "blessed"... blessed to us means you are walking in holiness, and after death, you are in heaven... that's why you are blessed, because you ran the race, kept your focus on Jesus, live the beatific life and you made it, you have your crown, heaven.

What we do when we believe we have a true Saint (one who reached full sanctification while on earth) is we ask God to hear their prayers for us and if God grants our prayers through their intersession, then God has given us confirmation, yes they are in heaven and not going through purgatory.

Michelle, your denomination has no ability to determine the level of someone's sanctification. The only thing I can say about such an assertion is that it is rubbish.

What y'all are doing is talking about what makes a person a doctor of the Church. That it totally separate from a martyr or Saint. Although Doctors can also be martyrs and Saints as well.

Being declared a doctor of the Church is recognizing that a certain person was endowed with an incredible gift and his theological expressions were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Oh. Okay.

The Catholic Church has made only a few Saints actual doctors of the Church. Augustine is one, St. Theresa of Avila is one, St. Theresa, Little Flower is another.

Well, one out of three ain't bad I guess.

If you guys want, I guess... you can recognize Calvin in your circle because you think he was a "doctor" endowed with a special gift of the Spirit where what he wrote was under the Holy Spirit's inspiration... just don't expect us to agree with you and don't go around making a case that he was holy because his actions said otherwise.

And here is revealed the spurious nature of your understanding of holiness. Add to that the fact that you felt inclined, for reasons beyond my comprehension, to qualify your concession by letting us know we shouldn't expect you to agree and that it is in our "circle" that we would recognize Calvin. To that I will simply say, whose "circle" would we seek Calvin to be recognized in if not ours? Yours? The only way Calvin, or anyone, could be recognized in your "circle" is if they espoused the unbiblical nonsense that your denomination peddles. And what in the name of all that is holy would make you feel the need to tell us to not expect you and yours to agree? You truly must think us insane if you think we would even desire recognition amongst those who have such little knowledge of the truth of Scripture and whose hopes rest as squarely on their own shoulders as on the Cross. No Michelle, you needn't worry. Any acceptance by your denomination would simply show that we had deviated from and compromised the Truth for a lie.

One can also validly argue that because his fruit was so off the mark of what it should have be, he could in no way have been inspired by the Holy Spirit to write theology.

Which "fruit" is this of which you speak? Please, as you clearly fancy yourself an expert on the history of Calvin, enlighten us as to what it is that you know that disqualifies him.

I can respect that you believe he was guided by the HS to write all that he did, I don't agree with it but I do respect that is what you think.

Michelle, backhanded comments are not tokens of respect. The insults you have leveled are of no consequence to me so you needn't attempt to cloak them as anything less than what they are. Don't worry though. I place little value in the judgment you render about me and my views and such drivel would never incite me to request that you be banned. That's the tactic of other people, self-righteous people that feel that their own behavior is beyond reproach.

But where we get defensie is, honoring with the title Saint as if his behavior is something we all should admire as Christian behavior. That is what we find blasphemous.

First, we are not presumptuous enough to expect anyone to believe Calvin was worthy of honor. You either believe he was, or you don't. We don't fall prey to the arrogant notion that a fallible inspection of someone's life justifies awarding them a title that indicates a level of sanctification we have no ability to validate. Secondly, doing so is no more insulting than your denomination presuming that their recognition of someone's holiness means anything more than that they fancy themselves in the place of God.

 

[Kristos]

we know.
It is belief in Jesus Christ that makes one a saint.
Conflating it into a title is almost as bad as using "Father" as a title.

... we might well ask ourselves if ... spiritual life is even possible without the testimony of the Lives of the Saints. The answer to this, I believe, must be "no." True spiritual life begins when we live in Christ and Christ lives in us, right here on this earth. And the Lives of the Saints bear witness to us that the Life of Christ on earth did not end with His Ascension into Heaven, nor with the martyrdom of His Apostles. His Life continues to this day in His Church, and is seen most brilliantly in His Saints. And we, too, in our own spiritual lives, are to enter into that continuing, never-ending Life.
—The Place of Lives of Saints in the Spiritual Life, by Hieromonk Damascene

 

[Reformationist]

... we might well ask ourselves if ... spiritual life is even possible without the testimony of the Lives of the Saints. The answer to this, I believe, must be "no." True spiritual life begins when we live in Christ and Christ lives in us, right here on this earth. And the Lives of the Saints bear witness to us that the Life of Christ on earth did not end with His Ascension into Heaven, nor with the martyrdom of His Apostles. His Life continues to this day in His Church, and is seen most brilliantly in His Saints. And we, too, in our own spiritual lives, are to enter into that continuing, never-ending Life.
—The Place of Lives of Saints in the Spiritual Life, by Hieromonk Damascene

Plenty of us recognize that the living Word is present and actively ruling irrespective of the testimony of the lives of people your denomination lifts up for praise.

If that helps you recognize the hand of God, embrace it. Many of us need not look to the lives of others to see the hand of God, for we see it alive and well in our own life.

 

[mont974x4]

Sainthood is about sanctity? Well, since to be sancified implies being set apart and holy, and it is He who does that to all beleivers then all beleivers are saints. It has nothing to do with perfection, approval by a denomination, or the attribution of miracles to the individual.