In the beginning was Calvinism

unknown | Steve Schlissel

[Gamecock]

An interesting read from our Messianic friends:

The Synagogue of Christ by Steve Schlissel Messianic Jewish pastor Messiah's Congregation, Brooklyn, New York.

The church wasn't born at Pentecost. It was Bar Mitzvah'd. No small matter, this. The church had a long, albeit dotted, history by the time the Spirit in Christ's fullness fell, and a glorious, albeit difficult, future. By Pentecost, the church, because of its history, its providentially-ordained organization and the Holy Spirit's promised guidance, was well-prepared to fulfill its function in the world.

The Belgic Confession, in Article XXVII, states, "We believe and profess one catholic or universal Church...This Church has been from the beginning of the world, and will be to the end thereof..." It has not, however, always had the same form. In the Garden of Eden God identified and separated the church (then consisting of two) using the essential elements, Word and Sacrament, Promise and Token, which would be present throughout the church's history, in some form or another. Our first parents were created to understand themselves and all things else in terms of a word. They had received the defining Word of God; they had heard the anti-word of the serpent. Choosing the devil's definitions, they had broken covenant with their Creator and entered into league with the destroyer, becoming co-pretenders with him to the throne.

God was not about to forsake His purposes, or to quickly formulate a "Plan B." He graciously and forcefully took back Adam and Eve-He redeemed them-by placing hostility between them and their new master (the Antithesis), by promising in their hearing the incarnation of the conquering, suffering Messiah (the Protevangelium, first proclamation of the Gospel), and by clothing them with God-provided coverings (the "Sacrament"), indicating in the clearest terms that their fig leaves (their instinctive effort at self-atonement/covering) were wholly inadequate and unacceptable. It is God who saves. Calvinism did not originate in Geneva; it is found in Eden. God's people, the covenant line, would henceforth be the people redeemed by Him to live, once again, in terms of His Word.

Calvinists are not the "church" founded by John Knox in Scotland. Knox founded no "church", but a Denomination. We are not the "church" founded by the Protestant Reformers. The Reformers founded no "church", but a Reformation. We are not the "church" founded by the Popes at Rome. No "pope" has founded any "church", just a (false) Administration. We are not the "church" founded by the Apostles at Pentecost. The Apostles founded no "church", but a Dispensation. We are not the "church" founded by Moses at Sinai. Moses founded no "church", but a covenanted Theonomic Congregation.

Calvinists are the Church founded by God in the very Garden of Eden. We are the Covenant Line of God's People, redeemed by Him to live in terms of His Word. We have stood the test of Time. And the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against us.

[dangus]

>>>>Pope Leo XIII "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty"

>>Calvinists: No you don't.

No, I think even Calvinists believe that God is present on Earth. Don't you?

[ladyinred]

Your statement is not neutral and loving. You use a capital letter to start catholic and a lower case letter for protestants. Bias ?

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and think that this is humor. I certainly hope so! I can't play in the big leagues around here, because I can't think all of you are wrong, or some of you are wrong, whatever! I will continue to mostly lurk and try to remember my caps! :-)

[Jerry_M]

All I can go by is the appearance of various UMC "spokesmen" who have applauded the Episcopalian actions as being "enlightened", "healthy", "a move in the right direction", etc.

Hopefully, there will be some "housekeeping" at your next conference, but I wouldn't count on it if these folks have their way.

[xzins]

All I can go by...

You're a pretty sophisticated guy -- good education, broad experience -- I imagine you can find a variety of things to go by.

[Jerry_M]

Recognize that some of the problems that the UMC (and Episcopalians) have are a direct result of the rise of post-modernism.

In other words, who cares what the core documents (Bible, "official" doctrinal statements, etc.) say, we are going to reject those "antiquated" authorities and pursue a more enlightened path.

That is why the battle within the SBC over the authority and nature of the Bible was so important a couple of years ago. By continuing to hammer on the importance of the authority of God's Word, the "enlightened" ones finally decided to find a new home, in the CBF and elsewhere. Of course, the fallout in a post-modern culture is the fact that some see us as Neanderthals who are hopelessly stuck in the past. What they don't see is the truth that we have our eyes on the future. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My Word...."

[xzins]

The success you had in the SBC is a model for many of us. Our major impediment, organizationally, is that we have a denomination-wide meeting only once every four years. It makes progress very slow.

But it is certainly predictable.

We have moved from no position on homosexuality to where it is considered incompatible with Christianity. That is a huge statement, and the liberal opposition grinds their teeth over it, and engages in blatant disobedience regarding it. We have moved from full support for abortion rights to what is best described at this point as "rape, incest, and life of child." We are moving to bring accountability to individual bishops. We are moving in the direction of a confessing church that reaffirms the articles of relgion of John Wesley and the Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren.

All of the movement is in a biblical direction. It will continue because the delegations elected for the 2004 Conference are more than ever evanglical and orthodox.

Are greatest problem is with those "evangelicals" who are "EvangeLites." They fold too easily when confronted with career advancement, and they do not work in the harvest field to bring others to Christ. Like BudLite, they look great but have less filling.....evangeLITEs are the demise of any church. They are interested observers, not involved disciples. They are an "audience" and not a congregation.

[OLD REGGIE]

I've already the posted the difference between infallible, eternal authority and temporal authority about a dozen times, including once in this thread. Frankly, I'm getting kinda tired of it.

Your testy reply has nothing to do with my point. If it makes you happy just rail away. If you're tired take a nap.

[OLD REGGIE]

No, I think even Calvinists believe that God is present on Earth. Don't you?

I imagine so but not exclusively in the person of the Pope. Do you?

[dangus]

>>>> No, I think even Calvinists believe that God is present on Earth. Don't you?

>> I imagine so but not exclusively in the person of the Pope. Do you?

No, but where does that enter the conversation from? I'm puzzled by the way you seemed to use that quote as an indictment, when I think any Christian, whether Calvinist, Baptist, Orthodox, Catholic, or Lutheran would agree with it.

[dangus]

>>>>>> They didn't obey the Pope
>>>> I've already the posted the difference between infallible, eternal authority...
>> Your testy reply has nothing to do with my point.

OK, maybe I didn't understand your point. So what is the signifcance of the assertion that the Jesuits did not obey the temporal authority of the Pope?

[OLD REGGIE]

OK, maybe I didn't understand your point. So what is the signifcance of the assertion that the Jesuits did not obey the temporal authority of the Pope?

Quote from #72: "Actually, what it does is demonstrate that the "Reformation" was sinful. If the early Protestants were right, they should've done what the Jesuits did: Continue within the church to promulgate their viewpoints until they are adopted by the Church."

I replied with #104: "How did the Jesuits continue within the church after being banned by Pope Clement XIV? Certainly not by obedience to the Pope. Fifth column?"

The point being the Jesuits were banned by Pope Clement XIV. If they had "continued within the Church..." it certainly was in opposition to the Pope. IOW your claim is not factual on it's face. The Jesuits either continued within the Church in a fifth column mode (disloyal to the Pope) or continued outside the Church.

Did it ever occur to you it was impossible for Luther to "continue within the Church"? That he knew, despite the promise of safe conduct, that a trip to Rome was a one way trip to the stake. That he, just as Jan Hus who had also been promised safe conduct, was being set up for a painful death.

The Pope could not be trusted. The "Church" could not be trusted.

[dangus]

>> The point being the Jesuits were banned by Pope Clement XIV. If they had "continued within the Church..." it certainly was in opposition to the Pope. IOW your claim is not factual on it's face.

THat was my point: learn about the Jesuits. See how they succeeded in reforming the Church. They did it. You presume its false on its face because you presume it cannot be done. It can be done; it's been done.

The Church is not in the business of canonizing heretics and schizmatics. The fact that these "disobedient" Jesuits are now in the Church's good graces means that there was a way to do it. They told the Pope "You're wrong, we're right" and won.

[dangus]

This is very interesting, and heartening... what organization is this that you are part of... From what you say, you sound Methodist... Are you actually winning over the UMC?

[xzins]

We think we are winning and the progress I demonstrated to you is evidence of our advances.

Yes, I am methodist.

Recent attacks against us by the liberals indicate that they know their days are numbered.

[OLD REGGIE]

"The Church is not in the business of canonizing heretics..."

Joan of Arc:

1431 Convicted of heresy and burned at the stake.
1920 Canonized by Pope Benedict XV.

This convicted "heretic" is now Saint Joan of Arc!

[dangus]

>>That he, just as Jan Hus who had also been promised safe conduct, was being set up for a painful death.

>>The Pope could not be trusted. The "Church" could not be trusted.

I looked up Hus. Seems he instigated a riot at a University which resulted in the severe physical abuse of the members of a papal commission which had been sent to investigate his claims. Orders were issued for his arrest. He turned himself in. He plead innocent, was found guilty and was burnt at the stake.

That said, it does appear that Hus (or, Huss) was treated unjustly, as I accept the non-Catholic sources I looked up as reliable.

But what lessons do we take from this? Luther was greatly disturbed by Huss' unjust treatment at the hands of Catholic officials. On the other hand, Huss had disagreed with the Church on the issue of whether both species (bread and wine) should be distributed at Holy Communion. Although he lost his life in pursuit of this cause, he won the issue. In 1436, the Vatican consented to allow his homeland (Czeckoslavakia) to distribute both species. Today, the practice is universal when it does not present an impedence to the mass.

[dangus]

WHOOPS!

Looks like I incorrectly criticized an action of the Catholic Church as unjust towards Hus. Yes, Hus was promised safe passage, but it wasn't from the Vatican... it was from his political ally, King Wenceslas IV's brother Sigismund! Wencenslas IV was a sponsor of Hus, and had the hobby of killing businessmen and clerks he considered corrupt.

[dangus]

WHOOPS!

Looks like I incorrectly criticized an action of the Catholic Church as unjust towards Hus. Yes, Hus was promised safe passage, but it wasn't from the Vatican... it was from his political ally, King Wenceslas IV's brother Sigismund! Wencenslas IV was a sponsor of Hus, and had the hobby of killing businessmen and clerks he considered corrupt.

[OLD REGGIE]

WHOOPS!

Looks like I incorrectly criticized an action of the Catholic Church as unjust towards Hus. Yes, Hus was promised safe passage, but it wasn't from the Vatican... it was from his political ally, King Wenceslas IV's brother Sigismund! Wencenslas IV was a sponsor of Hus, and had the hobby of killing businessmen and clerks he considered corrupt.

WHOOPS!

Do you intend to convey the fiction that Emperor Sigismund wasn't working directly with the Church?

Let's assume Sigismund was working completely independently of the Church. Why then did he turn Hus over to the Church to be tried?

Hus was tried, convicted of heresy, and turned over to the civil authorities to be burned at the stake.

The Church had clean hands. NOT!

The Errors of John Hus
as proclaimed by THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE 1414-1418
[Condemned in Council and by the Bulls "Inter Cunctas" and "In eminentis" Feb. 22, 1418.]

Hus Condemned

[dangus]

>>WHOOPS!

>>Do you intend to convey the fiction that Emperor Sigismund wasn't working directly with the Church?

From the sources I've seen, no-one has asserted that he was. Even the article I read which I felt tricked by only left it to the reader to presume it was the Church that had promised safe passage; it did not assert the Church had.

If you had some evidence (beside the blind presumption that the Church is always the source of all evil), please provide it.

>> Let's assume Sigismund was working completely independently of the Church. Why then did he turn Hus over to the Church to be tried?

I can think of 1000 reasons. Being a known drunkard, he may even have been aware of the seriousness of the charges against Hus. Heck, for all I know, he could even have been having an affair with Hus' wife.

>> The Church had clean hands. NOT!

I don't know. But you at least have to provide the basis for an assertion to be taken seriously.