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.

[Lexinom]

Not as cranky as evolutionists.

[CobaltBlue]

Spanking naughty tails? How kinky. Would you prefer if they put on fishnet stockings first?

[dangus]

No, seriously... it was a bad joke.

[dangus]

The scripture demands a unified church, free of schism and division, and insists that one such church shall persist. I pointed out how the protestant church does not meet that scriptural requirement.

I got back the same, tired old ad-hominem attack that gets posted on eevery thread.

>>gamecock responded with a general comeback in the same vien as your list.

I deny that. Gamecock's was a cheapshot that made no arguments, just a vile ad-hominem attack. It would have been legitimate if the Catholic Church actually *were* ambiguous as to whether the molestation of children were acceptable, but it obviously isn't the case.

[dangus]

>>Yea but no one calls them father or looks to them as demi gods

*eyeroll*. Catholics consider priests demigods? Oy veh!

[dangus]

>> Hula masses
Hula masses? By Protestant standards, what is so wrong with Hula masses? (Or do you confuse Hula with belly dancing?)

>> Irish orphanages run by the RCC
At least someone was taking care of the poor.

>>where all sorts of shenanigans were going on.
So desperate for a sneer, we're believing Hollywood?

>> Poofter priests
Ya know, I've resisted for months going down this road, but here goes:

15 months ago, I was scrambling to find a new home. Responded to an ad to share a house. It was a gorgeous house. The guy who ran it was Pentecostalist preacher, who had "left" Mississippi because "judgmental people down there didn't understand [his] ministry." I was leaning towards renting the house, had returned with the papers filled out when he puts his arm around me and says, "You know son, there's nothing in the bible that condemns masturbation."

I had a girlfriend, who before I met her had went from Catholic to Pentecostalist, with very Calvinist beliefs. I tried being ecumenical and went with her as she went to various churches. Of about 5 churches, three of the pastors tried pulling alpha-male (sexual dominance) stuff on me because she was a hottie and they very obviously wanted a shot at her.

If these guys were Catholic, they'd've landed on the front page of the newspapers for their behavior. There are queers in the protestant churches. They just shuffle over to a new ministry when things get too hot. The only difference is that they shuffle *themselves* along, so the newspapers don't smell scandal. And after my experience with Alyson, I sure am glad that I go to a church where the priests are celibate.

Now what I find truly fascinating is this: When it was the fundamentalist preachers getting attacked, every *church-going* Catholic I knew considered the media hype an attack on Christianity. There was some low-borw humor, but no-one, NO-ONE I know ever used the "shenanigans" of the televangelists as an attack on Protestantism, as every one of the most preachers I ever heard of (except Billy Graham and Pat Schuller) were pulled down. We understood that the messenger is not the message.

But I for one am finally getting sick of this crap.

[dangus]

>>>>Im confused by your response to the above questions...this post does not seem like a slam to me.

>>Sure it was.

>>The RCs here on a continual basis slam Protestants for many things. They claim that there are thousands of different denominations, and that list is supposed to show how those denominations are divided. Contrast that to the one true unified rc church where everyone believes the same and they are the ones who are the true church.

>>There is the slam. Or the attempted slam.

>>Follow the context.

No, my post #12 was a slam. My post #7 was not a slam. It was a demonstration of a very valid logical point. Or does anything which contradicts your doctrine constitute a "slam"?

[dangus]

This may surprise you, but I totally agree with your statements. Long before the issue of pedophilia arose, I had actually been insisting that the US Catholic Church, under the leadership of USCCB President Cardinal Bernadin, was utterly spiritually bankrupt, and that the New American Bible (1970s edition) which they published amounts to apostasy.

Shocking? Scandalous? A cause to question the church's authority? Just the opposite. Every institutional church (Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, yes, Presbyterians, Orthodox, UCC, etc.) had been through the same exact crisis. In many cases, the conservatives abandoned the church altogether, forming smaller, subschisms (Missouri Synod Luthernas, "American Anglicans," PCUSA, etc.)

The difference is in the Catholic Church, the Church itself could not be corrupted by the evil of man; Christ promised so. There was no "Lambeth conference." I knew I was right, Bernadin was wrong, and the funny thing is (if we ever could confront each other in a debate), I could prove that my views were the views held by the magisterium. And I could know that I would never have to worry about the magisterium endorsing Bernadin.

[dangus]

I should also add, Ironically, it was Alyson who stirred my apologism, and made me much "more" Catholic.

[dangus]

OOps:

US Catholic Church=US Catholic Council of Bishops, not the people within the Church.

[Dr Warmoose]

The scripture demands a unified church, free of schism and division, and insists that one such church shall persist. I pointed out how the protestant church does not meet that scriptural requirement.

Your argument fails on every point:
Demands made in Scripture are just that - demands. God commands all sinners to repent, yet few do. Demands are made all of the time in Scripture, and rarely every fulfilled. The only demands that really do find its completion are those that God demands of Himself.

Your argument also fails in its presumption that the demand is fufilled by the church, yet Paul writes to the first church (the one that the RCC claims descendancy from) exhorting them to be free of schisms and division. Clearly that is the optimum, yet unachieved state of the Church. Little has changed in two thousand years.

There is no singular protestant church (noting your use of the definite article). Therefore whatever you tried to point out is invalid.

To say that because the protestant church has allegedly failed makes it aximatic that the Roman Catholic Cartel has succeeded is a non-sequitor.

You probably get what you feel are ad-hominems because that appears to be the only level of debate that you can comprehend and appreciate.

[dangus]

>>Your argument fails on every point:
>>Demands made in Scripture are just that - demands. God commands all sinners to repent, yet few do. Demands are made all of the time in Scripture, and rarely every fulfilled. The only demands that really do find its completion are those that God demands of Himself. >>

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. Learn about Ignatius of Loyola or Francis of Assissi or Catherin of Sienna (or dozens of other reformers) before you accept that schism was necessary because of the sinful state of the church.

That being said, what I argued was not that the bible commands that there be one church, but rather that it insists that there *shall* be one church. "I shall build my Church (singular), and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." Doesn't say, "should not prevail against it." It says "shall not."

>> There is no singular protestant church (noting your use of the definite article). Therefore whatever you tried to point out is invalid. >>

No, that's my POINT, that the very commonly used Protestant apologetic that all the protestants who agree with the given apologist comprise a single "church of all believers" regardless of their denomination is not valid.

>>To say that because the protestant church has allegedly failed makes it aximatic that the Roman Catholic Cartel has succeeded is a non-sequitor.>>

Except that's not what I'm saying. I never claimed my one post was a comprehensive apologetic. I plainly acknowledge that one could read what I wrote, agree with it, and become an Orthodox Christian.

>> You probably get what you feel are ad-hominems

Oh right... I only "feel" the cheap shot about pederast priests was an ad hominem...

[mdmathis6]

The Church was indeed formed from the foundation of the World....The Southern Baptists have been teaching what our Messianic Jewish friends are saying from practically the times that the Southern Baptists have been a denomination...as well as CMA churches, and Pentecostalists and many others! What did Christ say..."Before Abraham was...I AM!"?

[CCWoody]

Evoltionists...

I remember, after a round with one, he concluded that the many breeds of "dog" is proof of evolution, to which I quipped: "Sometimes a dog is just a dog." He was pretty cranky that day with my Freudian styled sentence. Go figure!

Woody.

[CCWoody]

***Spanking naughty tails? How kinky. Would you prefer if they put on fishnet stockings first?***

Actually, I prefer that they are all tied up. This is why my Calvinist friends will not let me be the keeper of the handcuffs when Pope Piel finally sits on his throne. I said it sounded kinky, volunteered, and they said no. Bummer! But, there is always glad cling wrap. A man must improvise.

Woody.

P.S. the fishnet stockings is good too, but quite tame actually.

[Gamecock]

So now you are lowering yourself to bashing folks behind their backs? (not pinging them when you are bashing them)

I got back the same, tired old ad-hominem attack that gets posted on eevery thread

Perhaps you missed the irony of what I posted. Maybe I am tired of the ad-hominems RCs make. This was a thread about Calvinism and you have to regurgate the Catholic line about 1.5 million proddie denominations, variance in doctrine, etc. You know good and well that Calvinists are dead set against abortion, women in leadership, and severl other of your own ad-hominems.

If you or your buddies want to lower the tone of a thread too that level, I have, and will continue to pile on!

[DoorGunner]

"... I totally agree with your statement."

It is good that we can agree on something. I hope that we (all) can begin to perceive that there are other points upon which we can agree.

One point, on which I think that you and I can agree, is that the epidemic of molestation throughout all denominations, etc. (as well as all of society) is but a symptom of a deeper evil. It is evil, and very harmful, in itself; and should be vigorously resisted wherever found. But we should not imagine that solving this issue would not solve the underlying soul sickness.

Further, I believe that it is wrong for (us) non-Catholics to use this issue to "bash" Catholics. To do so, I think, proves nothing, and keeps us from discerning the underlying evil. It is this underlying evil which all Christians must resist, and we should not allow any surface issue, no matter how evil in itself, to turn us away from this endeavor.

I do not intend this to be the start of an argument, at least not today.

DG

[Dr Warmoose]

Actually, what it does is demonstrate that the "Reformation" was sinful.

The 'Reformation' as in each and every deed, or the 'Reformation' as a philosophical/theological abstract? In case of the former, then the argument against Rome is similar unless you think Tomás de Torquemada and his merry men were in perfect Scriptural obedience. In the case of the latter, you need to explain why simony and indulgences don't have the prominence now as they did then at the time (and cause) of the Protestant break-off. You do recall the bulk of Luther's protests in the 95 Thesis, right?

It is also interesting that you talk about "Protestants" then jump to "Reformation". Thomas Aquinas and Augustine were rather "reformed" in their doctrines yet were not classified as "Protestant". The "Reformation" was an attempt to correct centuries of Roman assualts and abuses on Biblical doctrines, it wasn't until the Protestant movement where that Augustinian remnant could actually observe and speak of true doctrine without fear of being tortured or immolated by Rome's brutal monopoly of all things religious.

... before you accept that schism was necessary because of the sinful state of the church...

Why? look no further than Rome's attempt to destroy Martin Luther. Ignatius of Loyola and Francis of Assissi had no fear of reprisal from a jealous "church" because they were protected under the basic concept of the Mark 3:23 Principle. Luther's opposition to the kleptocracy which defined Rome's leadership through the sale of indulgences was as offensive as a Republican recommending that the 16th Amendment be repealed. Of course they wanted Luther dead! (Which seems to be the ultimate debate technique - agree with us or be tortured. Truth through edict and sword)

...the bible commands that there be one church, but rather that it insists that there *shall* be one church. "...

No one argues that, it is just that your doctrinal myopia (undoubtably a result of being spoon-fed filtered Roman synthesized "truth") prevents you from recognizing that the Roman Cartel has it wrong as most Protestant denominations - in that the church is not formed by simply opening doors to whoever cares to wander in, (or in Rome's case whoever is compelled to convert or suffer pain and death), but is put together by the Paraclete. This "church" needs no intermediary other than Jesus Christ, and it doesn't need to have some Dope of a Pope conjure up fresh revelations to placate the social and political expediences of the moment.

The "church" of believers isn't realized the moment they kiss the Pope's ring, it is when the Spirit regenerates. Rome would have everyone believe that they hold a person's soul in their hands. (Though Vatican II seems to have reversed that "truth" into a more moderate "truth")

...Except that's not what I'm saying. I never claimed my one post was a comprehensive apologetic....

Then you are elephant hurling, because your argument was based (and appears to still be based) on the contested concept that the "church" God had in mind was a political organization centered in Rome. To mischaracterize all of Protestantism because some low-lifes ordain a faggot as a bishop, or the American Religion follows the Roman Catholic pattern of syncretizing every possible pagan and secular belief and practice into something titled "Holy Church Tradition" - then hypocritically saying all of the Protestant movement is a sham, is not what I call a solid arguemnt for the divine perfection of Roman Catholicism.

[mdmathis6]

"The scripture demands a unified church, free of schism and division, and insists that one such church shall persist. I pointed out how the protestant church does not meet that scriptural requirement."


It seems to me that the Catholic Church itself is full of schisms and various groups that differ in belief and doctrine. Are the Russian Catholics different from the Roman Catholics(yes there is a Russian Catholic Church which is not the same as the Russian Orthodox!)? Then you have various orders in the church such as the Fransican order. Doesn't seem to me that the Roman Catholic church is THE ONE(borrowing from the Matrix), that its own adherents pretend that it is. (At least if we go by your discription as to how Protestants are...)

[Dr Warmoose]

"The Church was indeed formed from the foundation of the World"... [have been] saying from practically the times that the Southern Baptists have been a denomination...as well as CMA churches, and Pentecostalists and many others

You must have an interesting definition of the "church" particularly since those denominations you have mentioned tend to fall into the infralapsiaran free-will camp. The "church", according to that particular doctrine could not have possibly have existed unti each and every person of the "church" made their free-will decision to not reject Christ.(or whatever the "choice" is these days)