ST. John Calvin

[simonthezealot]

Yeah, so why aren't they called saints by their respective legacies? I've seen many Lutheran churches named for saints - but none St Martin - maybe I'm wrong - please correct me. I've never seen a St John Calvin either... Are they worthy? How about anyone since then? Where are your saints?

P.S. For obvious reasons, I doubt the Orthodox church would ever recognize them, but only God truly makes a saint.

I do know for a fact their is a St John Calvin church, though my guess is these guys would be horrified by that label being attached to them! (being obedient to our LORD)
All glory to God alone!

 

[simonthezealot]

He was taught by the apostle John, Mont. So John taught him wrongly?

A little insight on our friend!Polycarp seems to have held a Protestant view of salvation, combining the freeness of eternal life with the necessity of a resulting life of good works. Notice his exclusion of works, without any qualification, his reference to those who "only believe" (faith alone), and his references to the substitutionary nature of Christ's life and death:
"'by grace ye are saved, not of works,' but by the will of God through Jesus Christ....If we please Him in this present world, we shall receive also the future world, according as He has promised to us that He will raise us again from the dead, and that if we live worthily of Him, 'we shall also reign together with Him,' provided only we believe....Let us then continually persevere in our hope, and the earnest of our righteousness, which is Jesus Christ, 'who bore our sins in His own body on the tree,' 'who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth,' but endured all things for us, that we might live in Him." (Epistle to the Philippians, 1, 5, 8)

 

[Rick Otto]

IIRC, the original texts were written in one case (only upper case?); capitalization (when translated) is at the discretion of the translator.

Thek!
Do you personaly think that that amount of discretion is ever enough to alter a revealed truth?

Originally Posted by Benedicta00
He was taught by the apostle John, Mont. So John taught him wrongly?

Even if taught correctly, his learning skills may have been uneven.

Originally Posted by Kristos
Yeah, so why aren't they called saints by their respective legacies? I've seen many Lutheran churches named for saints - but none St Martin - maybe I'm wrong - please correct me. I've never seen a St John Calvin either... Are they worthy? How about anyone since then? Where are your saints?

P.S. For obvious reasons, I doubt the Orthodox church would ever recognize them, but only God truly makes a saint.

Yes, only God makes believers.
His, not our, saints are everywhere. Some even outside of sects.
The naming-after-saints was learned from pagan temple naming habits, and I first notice it at Constantinople, where Constantine had temples built for the Christians.
So the calling a temple "church" & owning real estate property as a corporate entity got a jump start there.
The whole "Are they worthy?" thing is a bit gauche.
Historical noteriety need not evoke swooning epiphanies.

 

[lionroar0]

You act as if discernment is a gift given exclusively to your denomination.

The above sencte is just a straw man argument.

Since I have already shown repeatly that there are others that are into the practice of canonizing Saints. Not only that but have asked repeatly for evidence to call Calvin a Saint and none has been produce.

Many parts of Scripture clearly reveal the nonsensical and unbiblical nature of your denomination's teachings.

Claim with no evidence.

I am simply contending that Calvin, and many of the other reformers, were very adept at elucidating Scripture and, in doing so, revealed the error in the teachings of semi-Pelagian faiths like your own.

Assertion with no evidence.

If you choose to reject his interpretive work, I have not the power to change your mind, nor would I say I have the inclination to attempt to do so.

Another straw man argument.

I can accept or reject the entirety of his work. I can also accept part of it and reject other parts and tha would not be enough to honor him as a Saint.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Where???!!!! You guys keep saying this but it has never actually found its way into this debate.

Yes it has but it has been categorically been dismissed, because it was not explicit.

But since the Bible does not say that everything that must be belived must be explicitly written in the Bible. I don't see the relevance why it must be explicit in the Bible.

Anything at all that indicates that the robust practice of canonization is justified? Anything?

All ready has.

Peace

 

[jckstraw72]

theres nothing in that excerpt from Polycarp that we dont accept ...

 

[Benedicta00]

Well since you are so certain, show me where in the Bible it says that the RCC endows Sainthood? Show me where men, any men, get to determine whether a person is least or greatest in Heaven?

I have... I have also showed you what the very early Church practices were. it is up to you to show me just exactly how this contradicts what is written in the bible and Christianity in general.

It is YOUR assertion we are unbiblical or unscriptural.. it is YOUR burden to show us just how.

Show me the scripture that forbids the Communion of the Saints.

 

[Yeznik]

Thek!
Do you personaly think that that amount of discretion is ever enough to alter a revealed truth?

Even if taught correctly, his learning skills may have been uneven.

Yes, only God makes believers.
His, not our, saints are everywhere. Some even outside of sects.
The naming-after-saints was learned from pagan temple naming habits, and I first notice it at Constantinople, where Constantine had temples built for the Christians.
So the calling a temple "church" & owning real estate property as a corporate entity got a jump start there.
The whole "Are they worthy?" thing is a bit gauche.
Historical noteriety need not evoke swooning epiphanies.

Hello pot meet kettle.

Well it seems that pagan naming convention has actually has permeated deeply into the American Protestant culture. Let start with the Lincoln monument, pagan style complete temple with a giant statue. The statue of Liberty the concept, holding the Torch, and don't forget her crown, cannot be a goddess without a crown. And how about her dress, looks like its done after the pagan Greek style statues. So one of the greatest monuments of the greatest "Christian" countrys in the world is a statue of a pagan goddess welcoming people into a "Christian" country. But wait there is more, if statues are not your cup of tea, there is also an obelisk at the country's capital.

 

[lionroar0]

Lets not forget those dome's (copola's) at the US Capital and basilica style govenrment buildings at the US Capital either.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Of what pertinence is Hitler to the discussion? Are you trying to draw a parallel between Hitler and Calvin, or perhaps between those who follow Hitler and those who believe Calvin was correct in his work? Or are you simply seeking to defame Calvinists as is so common in your crowd? Would it benefit the discussion to liken your Pope to that of a servant of satan? You make similar allegations when you draw these types of parallels.

I was not even trying to draw a parallel. I was showing the silliness of your argument.

As if people should just accept without any evidence that Calvin is worthy of honor.

First, we are not presumptuous enough to expect anyone to believe Calvin was worthy of honor. 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.

First, we are not presumptuous enough to expect anyone to believe Calvin was worthy of honor.

WOW !! Really then why keep trying?

Now the clincher

You either believe he was, or you don't.

Here is the question, wich for some reason you haven't been answer for several posts when asked. When asked all you do is get up on your soapbox about the "evils of the Catholic Church" and "our Anthropocentric God. " As if He was a different God.

Here it is again.

On what grounds should people belive that he should be honored as a Saint?

To answer this question we also need to ask the inverse.

On what grounds should Calvin not be honored as a Saint?

Maybe he did good things that he should be honored as a Saint or maybe as just a saint.

But untill the question starts being answered we will never know now will we?

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Again, none of these things have the first thing whatsoever to do with a discussion about whether your denomination has the authority or the ability to determine the level of a person's sanctification.

Which I keep telling you it's a straw man argument. Your arguing your own made up argument.

You make a ridiculous argument, and in consideration of the nature of most of your posts, that is truly saying something.

What is the nature of my posts and what is this something that is saying?

Peace

 

[mont974x4]

He is a saint for the same reason I am, you are, and any other saint is a saint...because we are children of God, joint heirs, a royal priesthood called by Him.

 

[Reformationist]

Nothing good has come from my participation in this thread. I've been ungodly to others and have been on the receiving end of ungodliness from a few who seem to think the problems in this thread are, in no way, attributable to their own behavior. I've yet to see a single shred of evidence that the practice of canonization, whoever it is that's doing it, is biblically justified. I will continue to view Calvin as someone that is worthy of my esteem dispite the fact that he likely thought he was someone who was not. I could care less what those of you who have such disdain for the man feel about him and I'm wasting my time being exposed to your derision.

 

[IamAdopted]

Praise God that all who are called by the Name of Jesus are indeed the royal priesthood.. For He is our high preist and we are His workmanship...

 

[Rick Otto]

Yeznik;Hello pot meet kettle.

Not quite.

Well it seems that pagan naming convention has actually has permeated deeply into the American Protestant culture.

Perhaps, but do our transgressions excuse those of "The One True Church" ?

Let start with the Lincoln monument, pagan style complete temple with a giant statue.

What church is that?

The statue of Liberty the concept, holding the Torch, and don't forget her crown, cannot be a goddess without a crown.

True, but only a distratction from, not realy relevant to the naming of churches after saints.

But wait there is more, if statues are not your cup of tea, there is also an obelisk at the country's capital.

True enough. I don't care for that junk either, but none of those are pagan temples or christian churches so your commentary is irrelevant except to try & diminish by comparison the pagan practices of the RCC.
Anti-Protestantism is alive & well here.

 

[Rick Otto]

Not only that but have asked repeatly for evidence to call Calvin a Saint and none has been produce.

Calvin was a believer. The Bible calls believers saints even if you don't. The evidence is in the scriptures you render of no effect with your traditions.

 

[jckstraw72]

The evidence is in the scriptures you render of no effect with your traditions.

thats a stupid thing to say.

 

[Yeznik]

Not quite.


Perhaps, but do our transgressions excuse those of "The One True Church" ?


What church is that?

True, but only a distratction from, not realy relevant to the naming of churches after saints.

True enough. I don't care for that junk either, but none of those are pagan temples or christian churches so your commentary is irrelevant except to try & diminish by comparison the pagan practices of the RCC.
Anti-Protestantism is alive & well here.

Rick,

I thought you from all people would enjoy the satire and sarcasm in my post. My point is these national monuments are based off of pagan concepts and foundations. It is intrinsically programs into American Protestant culture, I mean look at the dollar one side says In God we Trust right next to it is a pyramid with an eye on top of it (maybe the eye for Ra?). So what I am trying to get American Protestants to understand is when they cry foul that the Ancient Traditions of the Churches of name buildings after Saints or icons, that they don’t see all the pagan undertones in their own national monuments.

But if I have hurt you by my comments, I apologize.

 

[Benedicta00]

I've yet to see a single shred of evidence that the practice of canonization, whoever it is that's doing it, is biblically justified

I ask again, how could it be in the bible? "Saints" were still under construction so to speak.

What we have as evidence is what the first generations of Christan from the apolistic age practiced after Acts and we can see evidence of canonization. Also Revelation speaks about the martyrs and the Saints.

If you disagree with it fine... if you think the bible has to be the all and end all, fine but don't act like we are pulling this stuff from the clear blue sky. There is reasonable implicit biblical mention of it and the early Church clearly practiced this, so there really is no reason to doubt our practices as something that God condemns.

The truth here is, you reject it because the Reformers did, not because there is a lack of biblical evidence. The Reformers told you there was and you believe them.

The Catholic Church and the ECF tells us it is biblical and that is why I believe it.

 

[mont974x4]

I have not read the reformers works, I have read the Bible. The Bible calls us saints, under construction or otherwise, we are saints. Pretty straight forward, IMO. If you want to set the writings and traditions of men on an equal footing as Scripture, that is your decision, but you should know that it is dangerous as it leaves us open to following bad teachings and outright false teachings.