In the beginning was Calvinism

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.

This is an interesting list. I'll be interested to see OP's response (if his ISP will allow it.) Here's my humble opinion.

Though I would agree there is some confusion among Protestant denominations, it's been my experience that the denominations/groups that agree on the major articles of Christian faith (e.g. fallen nature of man, divinity of Jesus, atonement/redemption in Jesus, necessity of repentance, inerrancy of scripture) usually consider the remaining issues - typically ones that are genuinely subject to interpretation - to be secondary. (For example, being a premillenialist who thinks women can be pastors doesn't damn one's soul to hell.) Additionally I'd say the denominations/groups that agree on those articles tend to agree on matters like abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia.

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

When Teddy Kennedy, Daschle, Gephardt, and the rest of the Democraps begin spouting the exact same "talking points" it is a reasonable assumption they are working together. No?

The Church conducted the trial and convicted Hus of heresy. The Church then turns the convicted person over to the civil authorities to perform the execution.

Clean hands. NOT

Let's examine the philosophy behind this practice.

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.
Aquinas: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2

>> When Teddy Kennedy, Daschle, Gephardt, and the rest of the Democraps begin spouting the exact same "talking points" it is a reasonable assumption they are working together. No?

So because Wenceslas agreed with the Chuch, he must've been ordered to act by the church?

First, that statement is invalid. My housemate's girlfriend spouts the same talking points as the Dem leaders, but if she tells me that the judges will be approved if I let her sleep over, I'm not going to believe her.

Second, it's built on flase presumptions. Wenceslas was all but condemned as a heretic. He was probably saved from that because of the political situation. For all I know, he could have handed Hus over to save his own hide. So he's not using the same talking points... His talking points were Hus'!

>>The Church then turns the convicted person over to the civil authorities to perform the execution.

Yup!

>> "Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death." >>

Well, if this passage addressed what you were talking about, then what you're saying is that any damn idiot in Hus' place would know he was going to be killed if convicted.

But doesn't this hurt my first case about the Jesuits? Not in the slightest! Yes, they did risk death if they lost. Or, as in the case of Hus, even if they won. And it sounds harsh to suggest that the reformers should've risked death, but only when you realize the alternative they chose was war.

Understand, though, Aquinas does not write of people ignorant of Church teachings, nor of those who stand corrected of the Church teachings, nor of those who teach from outside the Church, but rather of those who represent their own teachings as the Church's!

Hus acknowledged the doctrine he was accused of spreading was wrong ("impanation", not receiving in two species), but denied the actions he was accused of. In this way, in the finding of the court, he was like the theives Aquinas wrote of: a liar who leads people into evil.

In fact, this now causes me to wonder about our dear prince. Did he knowingly deceive Hus, or was he mistaken? Did he wrongly presume the worst Hus would accept he was wrong, plead ignorance, and be censured?

I now think of a cop from an episode of Law and Order: Druggie shoots a lady, realizes what he's done, panics, and takes the lady's kid hostage. The cops talk him into releasing the kid, assuring him that given the circumstance, the worst he'd face is aggravated assault, 1-3 years. The lady, howver, had a few complicating health conditions and dies, so the shooter gets convicted of intentional manslaugher, instead. Was there any corruption? I ask that because now I really wonder if our dear prince expected the trial to be over simply whether Hus' teachings were heretical (in which case Hus *would*'ve gotten off if convicted), not expecting Hus would deny ever teaching them (in which case his heresies would be considered lies, and result in his death).

Well, if this passage addressed what you were talking about, then what you're saying is that any damn idiot in Hus' place would know he was going to be killed if convicted.

Understand, though, Aquinas does not write of people ignorant of Church teachings, nor of those who stand corrected of the Church teachings, nor of those who teach from outside the Church, but rather of those who represent their own teachings as the Church's!

Will you go on record as saying the execution of "heretics" was ever justified?

Do you disagree with John Paul II?

* The Vatican Information Service (VIS) reported that on Dec 17th, 1999, Pope John Paul II made the following apology regarding the burning at the stake of Hus, while speaking before an international symposium on Jan Hus held at the Vatican:

"Today, on the eve of the Great Jubilee, I feel the need to express deep regret for the cruel death inflicted on Jan Hus and for the consequent wound of conflict and division which was thus imposed on the minds and hearts of the Bohemian people."

I now think of a cop from an episode of Law and Order:

We are not speaking of fantasy land. The RCC was responsible for the torture and execution of so called "heretics". Do you justify it.

For the record, I don't believe this practice was ever justified whether by Protestants or Catholics, so it isn't necessary for you to throw the "look what the **** did" dirt.

What... you didn't think I thought killing "heretics" was still recognized as a good idea, did you? My *point* was:

1. that Jan Hus succeeeded in transforming the Church: Because of him, the Church allowed the Czecks to offer communion in both species (universal practice now) and offer mass in the vernacular (universal practice now).

2. to refute the assertion that brought Jan Hus up: that the church could not be dealt with on the level because of double-crosses. (Not that I'd assert that over 2000 years of history you can't find a few real nasty deeds.)

I skimmed past getting into debates over the sort of things of which all parties were guilty of, if you thought this meant I thought burning people at the stake was an acceptible form of justice, all I can say is: Ouch!

>>For the record, I don't believe this practice was ever justified whether by Protestants or Catholics, so it isn't necessary for you to throw the "look what the **** did" dirt.

So why do you bring it up? The issue was whether it was possible to reform the Church. You don't reform an *inerrant* church. My point was that many people throughout history did reform the church. Your counterexample (which I was at first ignorant of) only proved my case.

>> "Ecumenical theological analysts have often identified Romanism..."

"Ecumenical" theological analysts who use terms like "Romanism" hardly sound impartial, and obviously do not inclde amongst themselves actual Catholics.

The term is "Catholic." The misnaming, "Roman Catholic" is often accepted, even by Catholics, to distinguish the Roman Patriarchy from the other Patriarchs who refuse communion with the Roman Patriarchy. Even as such it's misleading, since about half of the other Patriarchs have sided with Rome ("Byzantine Catholics").

Catholicism is the belief in the Catholic, that the true Church is universal. Romanism would be the belief in Rome, and would seem a more fitting term for people who worshipped Jupiter and Ceasar. It cannot even mean having the belief in the *authority* of Rome, since the authority of the Cathoic Church is not seated in Rome, but rather in the Vatican City, across the river from Rome.

Hence, people who use the term "Romanism" are either:
1. People so burning with opposition to Catholicism that they cannot even give it a fitting, non-inflamatory name (I presume OP fits into this category), or
2. Slack-jawed idiots who heard the word used as a perjoritive when they were children and never learned that it was not a proper term.

Neither group represents disinterested moderators.

What analysis?... there was none. All it had was some conclusions by anonymous "ecumenical" people. And what I'm saying is whoever they were, they were strongly partisan.

>> When believers recite the creed with the church of all ages, saying "I believe in...the holy catholic church", catholic is an improper noun.

Actually, the earliest reference contrasted those in union with the apostolic bishops with the gnostics. The apostolic bishops referred to themselves as "catholic" becuase they believed that the truth was universally attainable, as opposed to the gnostics who believed in hidden meanings which only a select few enlightened people could ever penetrate.

By the way, it's not an "improper noun," it's an adjective.

Because there are others who consider themselves "catholic", the use of the adjective "Roman" is generally considered acceptable to MODIFY the term "Catholic". I think its kind of silly, since no-one objects to the "Disciples of Christ," "Christian Church," "Church of Christ," "Church of the apostles," or "Church of Latter-Day Saints," even though obviously all Christians believe those names apply to themselves.

The use of the name "Roman," alone, however, comes from a slander which alleges that Catholics worship the Pope. It is plainly false, and if you are going to invent names for Churches, even the name "Denny's" is preferable to "Roman."

>>It refers to the aggregate of the elect of God yet alive and those saints who are in heaven awaiting the eschaton.

Actually, that's the "communion of saints."

What analysis?... there was none. All it had was some conclusions by anonymous "ecumenical" people. And what I'm saying is whoever they were, they were strongly partisan.

When believers recite the creed with the church of all ages, saying "I believe in...the holy catholic church", catholic is an improper noun. Actually, the earliest reference contrasted those in union with the apostolic bishops with the gnostics. The apostolic bishops referred to themselves as "catholic" becuase they believed that the truth was universally attainable, as opposed to the gnostics who believed in hidden meanings which only a select few enlightened people could ever penetrate.

Agreed. "Gnostic" is derived from the Greek gnosis, or knowledge, and reflected their belief in secret knowledge tied to their dualism between spirit and matter. At any rate, the point is that big-C Catholics don't have exclusive claim on the term catholic. Would this not run contrary to the thrust of the creed (which we share)? It summarizes what is necessary to believe to be a Christian and does not prescribe membership in a specific organization.

By the way, it's not an "improper noun," it's an adjective.

Right, it's an adjective, but not a proper one for the foregoing reasons.

Because there are others who consider themselves "catholic", the use of the adjective "Roman" is generally considered acceptable to MODIFY the term "Catholic". I think its kind of silly, since no-one objects to the "Disciples of Christ," "Christian Church," "Church of Christ," "Church of the apostles," or "Church of Latter-Day Saints," even though obviously all Christians believe those names apply to themselves.

I do. These names are misrepresentative and it would be unfair just to pick on Catholics. Most of these groups are less than 300 years old, and much what many Christians believe - this dispensational nonsense for example, invented by Darby in the nineteenth century - is very new. One of my biggest pet peeves are those who claim "We believe the Bible" while excluding the ecumenical creeds and in effect despising history. We have much to learn from our Catholic brethren in this regard.

The use of the name "Roman," alone, however, comes from a slander which alleges that Catholics worship the Pope. It is plainly false, and if you are going to invent names for Churches, even the name "Denny's" is preferable to "Roman."

We protestants do have grave concerns about the Mass and elements of what we would consider idolatry, but I personally believe that, however corrupt, all of the elements for salvation are present in the Roman Catholic Church.

It refers to the aggregate of the elect of God yet alive and those saints who are in heaven awaiting the eschaton.

Actually, that's the "communion of saints."

I would submit they are one and the same.

>>At any rate, the point is that big-C Catholics don't have exclusive claim on the term catholic.

True... That's why the adjective "Roman" is considered legitimate as a modifier of Catholic. It's the term "apostolic" (in conjunction with "catholic") which is the basis for creed-based Catholic apologism. (Of course, Orthodoxy is also apostolic.) We *do* leave it in lower cases in the creed, and always have, because the RCC does recognize that "catholic" does not mean "Roman Catholic."

>> We protestants do have grave concerns about the Mass and elements of what we would consider idolatry,

Actually this is one thing that strikes me odd just now: (and you seem quite reasonable) Protestants are all uneasy about what they often characterize as "worshipping" saints, icons, priests, Mary, or whatever. I've always thought this kinda silly, since we're simply not doing what Protestants think we're doing.

But we *do* adore the Eucharist. That's one reason why the Church is so adament abou TRANSubstantiation, instead of CONsubstantitation: If bread is present, it amounts to adoring bread, which *would* be idolatry. Since Protestants (with a few exceptions) believe that it's just bread, I would think that *this* is where accusations of idolatry arise from. I mean, we don't adore the saints, Mary, the priests or relics, but we *do* adore what y'all think is just bread.

thoughts?

I'm not trying to start a fight... I just want your take on this:

You have a book, such as the "Book of Discipline," which establishes Methodist docrine. And we are talking doctrinal points, not merely disciplinary, when the book says "homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching." And the book is obliges bishops to consent to it. The book, I'll presume, is based on scripture, but it is necessary to have such a book, since not all Christians interpret scripture exactly the same way the book does.

These statements are essentially true, right?

Now, the UMC isn't very old. Suppose it was 2,000 years old. And in those 2,000 years, various new issues popped up. Suppose the UMC would every once in a long while hold a conference to address the new issues as they popped up, and, if, and only if, there was a consensus at the conference, they would add to the book.

Now what you would have is what the Catholic Church calls "the magisterium." These conferences would be "ecumenical councils."

Is this unreasonable?

So why do you bring it up?

Because it seems you were justifying the practice.

"And it sounds harsh to suggest that the reformers should've risked death, but only when you realize the alternative they chose was war."

IOW Luther should have:
1. Submitted with his tail between his legs.
2. Passively resisted, trusted the promise of "safe passage" and accept the inevitable finding of guilty and allowed himself to be burned at the stake.
--or--
3. Being convinced the Pope was a liar, actively resisted the "invitation" to go to Rome, accepted the protection of Prince Frederick, and be accused of being solely responsible for the following "war".

Have you ever read the 95 Theses of Luther? Are you aware of the reforms made through the "Counter Reformation"? Do you believe the RCC was absoloutely correct especially in the sale of indulgences? Do you believe it was possible for a reformer to survive?

When you get to be a big boy you'll understand that the RCC earned the reformation.

But we *do* adore the Eucharist. That's one reason why the Church is so adament abou TRANSubstantiation, instead of CONsubstantitation: If bread is present, it amounts to adoring bread, which *would* be idolatry. Since Protestants (with a few exceptions) believe that it's just bread, I would think that *this* is where accusations of idolatry arise from. I mean, we don't adore the saints, Mary, the priests or relics, but we *do* adore what y'all think is just bread.

There are differing opinions on the elements of the Lord's Supper which ought to be recognized.

Transsubstantiation - the Catholic doctrine. The bread becomes the physical flesh through miraculous operation, and the wine becomes the real blood. This is consisitent with the adoration you mentioned and is a rigorously literal interpretation of the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper.

Consubstantiation, which you mentioned, is the view of the Lutheran Church and does not hold that the bread is just bread. In fact Luther based the doctrine of the ubiquity of the physical body of Christ to support his view of the Lord's Supper. Christ's physical body is everywhere. Interestingly, Luterans do not like to speak of Christ as having a Divine and Human nature.

The "High" Calvin-Bucer Reformed view, held by Presbyterians and Continental Reformed Christians. To quote Calvin:

“I am not satisfied with those persons who recognise that we have some communion with Christ, but when they would explain what it is, make us partakers only of the Spirit, omitting all mention of flesh and blood.” John Calvin, Institutes 4:17:7.

Believers are lifted up through a mysterious work of the Holy Ghost and through that operation feast on Christ in Heaven. It is a true means of grace, but only for true believers. Note the contrast with the Lutherans: Christ is physically present somewhere else in the Universe in human bodily form, consistent with the scriptural account of His ascension in like form. The Catholic teaching seems to me at odds with the account of the Ascension.

The "low" Zwinglian memorial-meal view: This, moreso than consubstantiation, accurately depicts what you described as the Protestant view. This is, unfortunately, the view most prevalent in modern evangelical American Protestantism, both liberal and conservative. It comports well with their free-willism and low view of the majesty of God and is reenforced by their music, light and happy worship styles, and overall shallowness.

Thanks.

>> I'm not sure in the Catholic tradition if a later ecumenical council can modify what an earlier council had decided.

If you're curious, the answer is no. Later councils must presume the accuracy of doctrine defined by previous councils. That is (largely) what is meant by "Tradition;" Tradition and Scripture are presumed to be in accord.

HOWEVER, Canon law may be changed. The councils decide doctrine, which is considered infallible once decided; but discipline is fallible and errant and may be changed.

>>Our Book of Discipline can change EXCEPT in our constitution, articles of religion, and confession of faith.

It sounds like it contains canon law (which can be changed) and doctrine (which, like your articles, confession and constitution cannot be.) In fact, the product of Vatican 2 was called the "Dogmatic Constitution."

I think there's been several reasons, some are innocent misunderstandings, and others are the perpetuation of teachings which may not have been so innocent.

"Pray" has become synonymous with "worship" to many Protestants. But this is not what the word means. It means to beseech, plead or request. Hence, when I filed a lawsuit, it was actually entitled a "prayer" to the federal court!

When Catholic "pray" to the saints, they are not worshipping the saints, they are beseeching them to join them in worship. Listen to some of the prayers of Catholics:

"...Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death..."
"...Pray for us, so that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ..."
"...And I ask the blessed virgin Mary, all the angels and Saints, and you my brothers and sisters to pray for me to the Lord, our God...."

They are asking the Saints and Mary to join them in their prayers to God, no differently than they ask friends or relatives to join them in prayer. But to Protestants, it *looks* like worship.

To worship means to place oneself under the command of a deity. So such prayers aren't worshipping the saints, since it is understood that the saints are merely worshipping God themselves. Also, keep in mind, the wills of the saints have been purified, so their will is perfect obedience to God. (Actually, for this reason it is improper to pray to someone who has not been declared venerable.)

Some of the misunderstanding is not so innocent. Anglicans and Calvinists revived the errors of the iconoclasts, who claimed it improper to construct any images, citing the wording of the 1st commandment. By that argument, art and photography would be idolatry. The point is that what is forbidden is the creation of idols. The Jews themselves, under the command of God, created images and even presented themselves to the images! However, the largely illiterate masses were denied acces to icons and statues. To the illiterate, these were the ways of recalling their Catholic heritage. Banning them was an attempt to erase history. Ironically, statues have returned to many Anglican churches.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.