Would Calvin be banned from CF

[Cajun Huguenot]

No. Luther was not a priest.

You are mistaken. Let me quote from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopaedia: "Luther was ordained to the priesthood in 1507."

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[cajunhillbilly]

Actually, The Roman Catholic Church did much to clean up the ethical and moral corruption that existed prior to the Reformation. Those actions (plus more) are known as the Counter-Reformation.

On matters of Doctrine I think they made several errors a test of orthodoxy. At the Council of Trent they made orthodoxy far more narrow than it had been during much of the Middle Ages. If their anathemas were retroactive then some of the ancient saints are anathematised along with the contemporary Protestants.

Protestants too defines orthodoxy and we too made orthodoxy very narrow.

I believe there are Christians in all true Churches. I believe all that hold to the Apostles and Nicene Creeds fit the definition of "true Church." This is why we accept the baptisms of Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Baptist etc... (no J.W.’s, Mormons or other Christ denying, heretical groups).

Coram Deo,
Kenith

I would agree with you as to what defines orthodoxy. I believe that we are saved by faith in the merits of Christ alone. That as I understand it is the teaching of the Catholic Church, Now I think they kind of nuliify that with their teaching on meritoriuos works,etc. But read the best of the medieval theologians and you will find they all point to the death and resurrection of Christ as the only meritoriuos ground of salvation. If anyone can honestly say that they are trusting in Christ alone for salvation, they are my brothers and sisters in Christ. Perhaps I have problems with their understanding of what is meant by justification, etc. but they are still trusting in Christ as their Saviour. :crosself:

 

[Irishcat922]

And Luther was ordained a priest he performed his first eucharist while his Father was present, and He said he was scared to death not because his Father was there but because he believed he was handling the Lord's body.

 

[Irishcat922]

Alot of the Reformers did, Lay down there lives for the Lord Jesus, at the hands of your spiritual ancestors.

 

[Filia Mariae]

You are mistaken. Let me quote from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopaedia: "Luther was ordained to the priesthood in 1507."

In Christ,
Kenith

You're right, thank you.

 

[Filia Mariae]

And Luther was ordained a priest he performed his first eucharist while his Father was present, and He said he was scared to death not because his Father was there but because he believed he was handling the Lord's body.

Yes?

 

[Beoga]

Not allowed: "The Pope is the Anti-Christ"

funny thing is, i think someone voted that the pope is the antichrist in one of the teen threads. i think they were joking though...hmm, interesting.

Calvin probably would have been kicked out of cf.

 

[Archbishop 10-K]

And Luther was ordained a priest he performed his first eucharist while his Father was present, and He said he was scared to death not because his Father was there but because he believed he was handling the Lord's body.

As all Catholics should. Well, not scared to death, but awed.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Thomas More was not killed by someone who believed in the Reformation. Henry the VIII, who had More killed was anti-Reform and pro-Catholic (doctrinally) but he was pro-Henry VIII even more so. Remember the Pope Leo gave Henry the title "fidei defensor" (Defender of the Faith) for his treatise against Luther (I think Thomas More actually wrote most of it for Henry).

Henry had Protestant William Tyndale killed and he had Thomas More killed. He did not discriminate about who he had murdered, just so long as it helped Henry VIII.

Dominus Vobiscum,

Kenith

 

[Ave Maria]

I honestly don't know but I voted no because I don't think he would be. I don't know why he would be banned. What was so controversial about him? Sorry, I don't know much about theologians.

 

[cygnusx1]

Thomas More was not killed by someone who believed in the Reformation. Henry the VIII, who had More killed was anti-Reform and pro-Catholic (doctrinally) but he was pro-Henry VIII even more so. Remember the Pope Leo gave Henry the title "fidei defensor" (Defender of the Faith) for his treatise against Luther (I think Thomas More actually wrote most of it for Henry).

Henry had Protestant William Tyndale killed and he had Thomas More killed. He did not discriminate about who he had murdered, just so long as it helped Henry VIII.

Dominus Vobiscum,

Kenith

Yes , he was a tyrant , but God overuled it for good

 

[theFijian]

I honestly don't know but I voted no because I don't think he would be. I don't know why he would be banned. What was so controversial about him? Sorry, I don't know much about theologians.

Methinks you probably shouldn't have voted then

 

[Cal]

Calvin would have been banned before he reached 10 posts. CF is very pro Roman Catholic, which is why I have been banned and warned so many times, even when posting standard reformed views in this room. We are not free to even express our reformed beliefs in here.

 

[cygnusx1]

Calvin would have been banned before he reached 10 posts. CF is very pro Roman Catholic, which is why I have been banned and warned so many times, even when posting standard reformed views in this room. We are not free to even express our reformed beliefs in here.

I never get any warnings except over this issue............many RC are mods and they JUMP on anything that questions the validity of those teachings............you have to walk a tight rope......still it's good for me to learn patience.....

I have absolutely nothing against RC it's just the system..........but I better shut up now...

 

[Archbishop 10-K]

Christian Forums is very pro Roman Catholic

Really? I'm used to Christian forums which get you banned pretty easily for being Catholic.

So, that's pretty interesting.

 

[BronxBriar]

Calvin would have been banned before he reached 10 posts. CF is very pro Roman Catholic, which is why I have been banned and warned so many times, even when posting standard reformed views in this room. We are not free to even express our reformed beliefs in here.

Agree 100%

In this "ecumenical" age the truth has to worded ever so delicately. The rule is that it is more important to 'nice' than to be honest. Calvin and company would be gone in a heartbeat.

 

[Irishcat922]

Agree 100%

In this "ecumenical" age the truth has to worded ever so delicately. The rule is that it is more important to 'nice' than to be honest. Calvin and company would be gone in a heartbeat.

​

​

Compromise
​

​

by Charles H. Spurgeon
​

​

"Believers in Christ’s atonement are now in declared union with those who make light of it; believers in Holy Scripture are in confederacy with those who deny plenary inspiration; those who hold Evangelical doctrine are in open alliance with those who call the Fall a fable, who deny the personality of the Holy Ghost, who call justification by faith, immoral, and hold that there is another probation after death.... Yes, we have before us the wretched spectacle of professedly orthodox Christians publicly avowing their union with those who deny the faith, and scarcely concealing their contempt for those who cannot be guilty of such gross disloyalty to Christ. To be plain, we are unable to call these things Christian unions, they begin to look like confederacies in evil.... It is our solemn conviction that where there can be no real spiritual communion there should be no pretense of fellowship. Fellowship with known and vital error is participation in sin."

Not much to add to that!

 

[Ebb]

As far as I know, we are still allowed to discuss Calvin's Commentaries, and there is a thread on the Institutes.

Calvin's Commentary on 2 Thess 2 included:
"and yet the minds of the ancients were so bewitched, that they imagined that Nero would be Antichrist. 6 Paul, however, does not speak of one individual, but of a kingdom, that was to be taken possession of by Satan, that he might set up a seat of abomination in the midst of God's temple--which we see accomplished in Popery"

http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comment/calvin/comm_vol42/htm/vii.iv.htm

 

[michael servetus]

I think there are a lot of sites he would have been banned from.

But Paul wouldn't have lasted long either!

 

[Cal]

I think there are a lot of sites he would have been banned from.

But Paul wouldn't have lasted long either!

And I'm not sure Jesus would have been a long-timer here as well!