Posted on 05/15/2010 5:07:33 AM PDT by GonzoII
No better account of this remarkable (though now largely obsolete) system has been drawn out than Möhler's in his "Symbolism or Doctrinal Differences." The "Institutes of the Christian Religion," in which Calvin depicted his own mind, were never superseded by creed or formulary, though the writer subscribed, in 1540, at Worms to the Confession of Augsburg, i.e. the second revised edition. To take his bearings in theology we must remember that he succeeded Luther in point of time and was committed to a struggle with Zwingli's disciples at Zurich and elsewhere, known as Sacramentarians, but who tended more and more towards a Christianity without mysteries. In 1549 he and Farel entered with Bullinger into a moderate view as regarded the Eucharist, the "Consensus Tigurinus," or compact of Zurich, which Bucer also accepted. Another compact, of the "pastors of Geneva " strengthened his hands, in 1552, on the subjects of predestination, against Jerome Bolsec, whom he refuted and cast into prison. Bolsec finally returned to the Catholic Church. In 1553 a controversy between the German Lutherans about the Lord's Supper led Calvin to declare his agreement with Melanchthon (the Philippists), but Melanchthon kept silence. Further complications ensued when Beza, softening the real doctrine of Geneva, drew nearer still to the Lutheran belief on this head. Bullinger and Peter Martyr cried down Beza's unauthorized glosses; but Calvin supported his favourite. Nevertheless, that "declaration" was dropped by Beza when, in company with Farel, he put together a "Confession of the French Church," and fell back on the creed of Augsburg issued in 1530, while not assenting to its 10th article. The Eucharist was to be more than a sign; Christ was truly present in it, and was received by Faith (compare the English Prayer Book, which reproduces his conception). Beyond these, on the whole, abortive efforts toward a common understanding, Calvin never went. His individual genius demanded its own expression; and he is always like himself, unlike any other. The many creeds fell into olivion; but the "Institutes" were recognized more and more as the sum of Reformed Theology. It was said after 1560, by the Jesuit St. Peter Canisius, that Calvin appeared to be taking Luther's place even among Germans. Three currents have ever since held their course in this development of Protestantism:To the modern world, however, Calvin stands peculiarly for the Reformation, his doctrine is supposed to contain the essence of the Gospel; and multitudes who reject Christianity mean merely the creed of Geneva.
- the mystic, derived from Wittenberg;
- the logical-orthodox, from Geneva; and
- the heterodox-rationalist, from Zurich (Zwingli), this last being greatly increased, thanks to the Unitarians of Italy, Ochino, Fausto, and Lelio Socino.
Why does this happen? Because, we answer, Calvin gave himself out as following closely in the steps of St. Paul and St. Augustine. The Catholic teaching at Trent he judged to be Semi-Pelagian, a stigma which his disciples fix especially on the Jesuit schools, above all, on Molina. Hence the curious situation arises, that, while the Catholic consent of the East and West finds little or no acknowledgement as an historical fact among assailants of religion, the views which a single Reformer enunciated are taken as though representing the New Testament. In other words, a highly refined individual system, not traceable as a whole to any previous age, supplants the public teaching of centuries. Calvin, who hated Scholasticism, comes before us, as Luther had already done, in the shape of a Scholastic. His "pure doctrine" is gained by appealing, not to tradition, the "deposit" of faith, but to argument in abstract terms exercised upon Scripture. He is neither a critic nor a historian; he takes the Bible as something given; and he manipulates the Apostles' Creed in accordance with his own ideas. The "Institutes" are not a history of dogma, but a treatise, only not to be called an essay because of its peremptory tone. Calvin annihilates the entire space, with all its developments, which lies between the death of St. John and the sixteenth century. He does, indeed, quote St. Augustine, but he leaves out all that Catholic foundation on which the Doctor of Grace built.
The "Institutes of the Christian Religion" are divided into four books and exhibit a commentary on the Apostles' Creed.
In form the work differs from the "Summa" of St. Thomas Aquinas by using exposition where the Angelic Doctor syllogizes; but the style is close, the language good Latin of the Renaissance, and the tone elevated, though often bitter. Arguments employed are always ostensibly grounded on Scripture, the authority of which rests not upon fallible human reasoning, but on the internal persuasion of the Holy Spirit. Yet Calvin is embarrassed at the outset by "unsteady men" who declare themselves enlightened of the same spirit and in no want of Scripture. He endeavours to refute them by the instance of St. Paul and other "primitive believers," i.e. after all, by Catholic tradition. It will be obvious, moreover, that where the "Institutes" affirm orthodox tenets they follow the Councils and the Fathers, while professing reliance on the Bible alone. Thus we need not rehearse those chapters which deal with the Nicene and Chalcedonian formulas.
- Book I considers God the Creator, the Trinity, revelation, man's first estate and original righteousness.
- Book II describes the Fall of Adam, and treats of Christ the Redeemer.
- Book III enlarges on justifying faith, election, and reprobation.
- Book IV gives the Presbyterian idea of the Church.
We shall best apprehend Calvin's master-thought if we liken it to modern systems of the Unconscious, or of physical predetermination, wherein all effects lie folded up, as it were, in one First Cause, and their development in time is necessitated. Effects are thus mere manifestations, not fresh acts, or in any way due to free will choosing its own course. Nature, grace, revelation, Heaven, and Hell do but show us different aspects of the eternal energy which works in all things. There is no free will outside the Supreme. Zwingli argued that, since God was infinite being, He alone existed -- there could be no other being, and secondary or created causes were but instruments moved entirely by Divine power. Calvin did not go to this length. But he denies freedom to creatures, fallen or unfallen, except it be libertas a coactione; in other words, God does not compel man to act by brute force, yet he determines irresistibly all we do, whether good or evil. The Supreme is indeed self-conscious -- not a blind Fate or Stoic destiny; it is by "decree" of the sovereign Lawgiver that events come to pass. But for such decrees no reason can be rendered. There is not any cause of the Divine will save Itself. If we ask why has the Almighty acted thus and thus, we are told, "Quia ipse voluit" -- it is His good pleasure. Beyond this, an explanation would be impossible, and to demand one is impiety. From the human angle of sight, therefore God works as though without a reason. And here we come upon the primal mystery to which in his argument Calvin recurs again and again. This Supreme Will fixes an absolute order, physical, ethical, religious, never to be modified by anything we can attempt. For we cannot act upon God, else He would cease to be the First Cause. Holding this clue, it is comparatively simple to trace Calvin's footsteps along the paths of history and revelation.
Luther had written that man's will is enslaved either to God or to Satan, but it is never free. Melanchthon declaimed against the "impious dogma of Free Will," adding that since all things happen by necessity according to Divine predestination, no room was left for it. This was truly the article by which the Reformation should stand or fall. God is sole agent. Therefore creation, redemption, election, reprobation are in such sense His acts that man becomes merely their vehicle and himself does nothing. Luther, contending with Erasmus, declares that "God by an unchangeable, eternal, infallible will, foresees purposes and effects all things. By this thunderbolt Free Will is utterly destroyed." Calvin shared Luther's doctrine of necessity to the full; but he embroiled the language by admitting in unfallen Adam a liberty of choice. He was likewise at pains to distinguish between his own teaching and the "nature bound fast in Fate" of the Stoics. He meant by liberty, however, the absence of constraint; and the Divine wisdom which he invoked could never be made intelligible to our understanding. What he rejected was the Catholic notion of the self-determining second cause. Neither would he allow the doctrine laid down by the Fathers of Trent (Sess. VI Canon 16), that God permits evil deeds, but is not their author. The condemnation struck expressly at Melanchthon, who asserted that the betrayal by Judas was not less properly God's act than the vocation of St. Paul. But by parity of reasoning it falls upon Calvinism. For the "Institutes" affirm that "man by the righteous impulsion of God does that which is unlawful ," and that "man falls, the Providence of God so ordaining" (IV, 18, 2; III, 23, 8). Yet elsewhere Calvin denied this impulse as not in accordance with the known will of the Almighty. Both he and Luther found a way of escape from the moral dilemma inflicted on them by distinguishing two wills in the Divine Nature, one public or apparent, which commanded good and forbade evil as the Scripture teaches, the other just, but secret and unsearchable, predetermining that Adam and all the reprobate should fall into sin and perish. At no time did Calvin grant that Adam's transgression was due to his own free will. Beza traces it to a spontaneous, i.e. a natural and necessary, movement of the spirit, in which evil could not fail to spring up. He justifies the means -- sin and its consequences -- by the holy purpose of the Creator who, if there were no one to punish, would be incapable of showing that he is a righteously vindictive God. As, however, man's intent was evil, he becomes a sinner while his Creator remains holy. The Reformed confessions will not allow that God is the author of sin -- and Calvin shows deep indignation when charged with "this disgraceful falsehood." He distinguishes, like Beza, the various intentions concurring to the same act on the part of different agents- but the difficulty cannot well be got over, that, in his view, the First Cause alone is a real agent, and the rest mere instruments. It was objected to him that he gave no convincing reasons for the position thus taken up, and that his followers were swayed by their master's authority rather than by the force of his logic. Even an admirer, J. A. Froude, tells us:
To represent man as sent into the world under a curse, as incurably wicked-wicked by the constitution of his nature and wicked by eternal decree-as doomed, unless exempted by special grace which he cannot merit, or by any effort of his own obtain, to live in sin while he remains on earth, and to be eternally miserable when he leaves it-to represent him as born unable to keep the commandments, yet as justly liable to everlasting punishment for breaking them, is alike repugnant to reason and conscience, and turns existence into a hideous nightmare. (Short Studies, II, 3. [...To be continued..].The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III
Copyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by Kevin Knight
Nihil Obstat, November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
www.NewAdvent.org
"but the difficulty cannot well be got
over, that, in his view, the First Cause
alone is a real agent, and the rest
mere instruments."
PREDESTINATION, SALVATION, AND DAMNATION
Calvinism and Catholicism Contrasted
THIRTEEN POINTS ON PREDESTINATION AND SALVATION
1. God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future events.
2. However, this does not mean fatalistic necessity, for the destruction of human liberty.
3. Consequently, man is free whether he accepts grace and does good or whether he rejects it and does evil.
4. God desires that all men obtain eternal happiness.
5. Christ has died for all men, though not all avail themselves of the benefits of redemption.
6. God preordained both eternal happiness and the good works of the elect.
7. God predestined no one positively to hell, much less sin.
8. Consequently, just as no one is saved against His will, so the reprobate perish solely on account of their wickedness.
9. God foresaw the everlasting pains of the impious from all eternity, and preordained this punishment on account of their sins.
10. However, He does not fail therefore to hold out the grace of conversion to sinners, or pass over those who are not predestined.
11. As long as the reprobate live on earth, they may be accounted true Christians and members of the Church, just as on the other hand the predestined may be outside the pale of Christianity and of the Church.
12. Without special revelation, no one can know with certainty that he belongs to the number of the elect.
13. With our faith in Christ and perseverance in obedience (2 Pet 1:10) we can have what is called a "moral certitude" of our salvation.
SUMMARY OF CATHOLIC TEACHING
1. God knows all things, including those who will be saved (THE ELECT). 2. God's foreknowledge does not destroy, but includes, free will. 3. God desires all men to be saved. 4. Jesus died to redeem all men. 5. God provides sufficient grace for all men to be saved. 6. Man, in the exercise of his free will, can accept or reject grace. 7. Those who accept grace are saved, or born-again. 8. Those who are born-again can fall away or fall into sin. 9. Not everyone who is saved will persevere in grace. 10. Those who do persevere are God's elect. 11. Those who do not persevere, or who never accepted grace, are the reprobate. 12. Since we can always reject God in this life, we have no absolute assurance that we will persevere. 13. We can have a moral assurance of salvation if we maintain faith and keep God's commandments (1 John 2:1-6; 3:19-23; 5:1-3,13).
IMPORTANT DISTINCTIONS
1. Predestination is not predetermination :
"Predestination is nothing else than the foreknowledge and foreordaining of those gracious gifts which make certain the salvation of all who are saved." (St. Augustine, Persever 14:35)
Predestination is God's decree of the happiness of the elect. God's infallible foreknowledge (and thus predestination also) includes free will. God's foreknowledge cannot force upon man unavoidable coercion, for the simple reason that it is at bottom nothing else than the eternal vision of the future historical actuality. God foresees the free activity of a man precisely as that individual is willing to shape it, predestination is not predetermination of the human will.
2. Election is a consequence of God's foreknowledge :
By definition, the ELECT are those whom God infallibly foresees will be saved (Rom 8:28-30). By this definition, it is impossible for the elect to be lost, precisely because God foreknows who will not be lost. But since election depends on God's infallible foreknowledge, we simply have no way of knowing whether or not we are in that category -- God knows with certainty His elect, but we do not. The elect are predestined in the sense that God knows them, and enables them by grace, to be saved.
3. Free will can resist and reject God's grace :
"You stiff-necked people...you always resist the Holy Spirit" (Acts 7:51). The angels possessed grace and perfectly intact intellect, and yet many of them freely sinned and rejected God. Adam and Eve possessed grace and a perfectly intact nature, and yet they freely sinned. How much more so is it possible for the born-again Christian, who possesses grace but also a wounded nature and a darkened intellect, to sin also. Paul mentions sins which keep a man from the Kingdom of God: fornication, adultery, homosexuality, theft, greed, and so on (1 Cor 6:9-10).
When Jesus was expressly asked what one must do to gain eternal life, he answered, "keep the commandments," and went on to list the moral commandments of the Decalogue (Matt 19:16-21). Revelation describes those whose lot is the burning pool of fire and sulfur, the second death: "cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste" and so on (Rev 21:8). Aren't born-again Christians capable of these sins? And if they die in these sins, how can they possibly inherit heaven? If Adam and Eve could fall from grace, surely we can fall from grace as well. Surely we can harden our hearts and resist the Holy Spirit.
4. We cannot confuse Election with being "Born Again" :
The set of those who are "born again" (in Catholic and historic Christian understanding those who have been regenerated "of water and Spirit" in the Sacrament of Baptism -- John 3:3,5; Acts 2:38) is not necessarily co-extensive with the set of those who will persevere and gain eternal life. Born-again Christians can and (sadly) do fall away. Otherwise free will and (mortal) sin are merely fictitious for a Christian during this life of testing and pilgrimage. Otherwise all the language in Scripture of persevering to the end in order to be saved (cf. Matt 10:22; 24:13; Phil 2:12-13) makes no sense.
CALVINISM AND CATHOLICISM CONTRASTED
Calvin : God's sovereignty determines the will.
Catholic : God's sovereignty includes free will.
Calvin : Predestination as predetermination.
Catholic : Predestination as infallible foreknowledge.
Calvin : God desires only the salvation of the elect.
Catholic : God desires the salvation of all.
Calvin : God provides grace only to the elect.
Catholic : God provides grace to all, though not all accept it.
Calvin : Christ died only for the elect.
Catholic : Christ died for all men.
Calvin : God predetermines some for hell.
Catholic : Men merit hell by their own wickedness.
Calvin : The elect include all those born-again.
Catholic : The elect are those who persevere to the end.
Calvin : Grace co-opts human free will.
Catholic : Grace perfects the free will that cooperates.
Calvin : Those in grace (born-again) can't fall away.
Catholic : Those in grace can freely sin and lose grace.
Calvin : The elect will unfailingly persevere.
Catholic : The elect are those who have persevered.
Calvin : The elect are assured of their salvation.
Catholic : Yes, but only God knows who they are.
Calvin : Predestination eliminates merit and guilt.
Catholic : Predestination includes merit and guilt.
The Pelagian heretics held that man alone (apart from God's grace) is responsible for his salvation. Calvinists start with the opposite premise that God alone is responsible for man's salvation.
CALVINISM IS UNREASONABLE
Calvin located the reason of predestination solely in the absolute will of God. But by making God alone responsible for everything, Calvin abolished the free cooperation of the will in obtaining eternal happiness. Therefore he was logically forced to admit an irresistible efficacious grace, to deny the freedom of the will when influenced by grace, and to completely reject supernatural merits (as a secondary reason for eternal happiness).
Not only is God completely responsible for the salvation of the elect, but He must also be responsible for the damnation of the reprobate, even to the point of directly willing their sins. Since God wills everything good for the elect, as well as everything bad for the reprobate, Calvin maintained that Christ died only for the elect (this is challenged by Geisler's recent book Chosen But Free, see link below):
"As Scripture, then, clearly shows, we say that God once established by his eternal and unchangeable plan those whom he long before determined once for all to receive into salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, he would devote to destruction.
"We assert that, with respect to the elect, this plan was founded upon his freely given mercy, without regard to human worth; but by his just and irreprehensible but incomprehensible judgment he has barred the door of life to those whom he has given over to damnation." (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion Book III:21:7)
Salvation and damnation depend wholly on the will of God -- man is completely predetermined to one or the other by irresistible grace or the lack thereof, without any cooperation or resistance of his will. Since grace is irresistible, the will of the predestined is not free to cooperate with grace to perform meritorious good works, and so salvation is purely arbitrary. Even more disturbing, since concupiscence is likewise irresistible without God's grace, the will of the reprobate is not really free to sin and perform culpably evil works, and so damnation is not caused by demerits.
For Calvin, whom God selects, He saves; whom God rejects, He damns.
CALVINISM IS UNBIBLICAL
But consider what this means and whether this is biblical :
1. No truly free will (denied by experience, and by the Gospel commands to repent, reform, obey the commandments, perform works of charity, and persevere to the end).
2. Thus no merit or demerit (denied by the whole Bible which testifies to the rewards and punishments God will apportion to all men according to their deeds, e.g. Matt 16:27; Rom 2:5-10; 2 Cor 5:10; Rev 22:11-12; etc).
3. God desires salvation only for the elect. (Denied by 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Matt 23:37; Ezek 18:23-32; 33:11; etc).
4. Christ died only for the elect. (Denied by John 3:16-17; 4:42; 1 John 2:2; 4:9-14; Rom 5:6,18; 2 Cor 5:14-15; 1 Tim 2:6; 4:10; etc).
5. God provides grace only to the elect. (Denied by Titus 2:11; John 1:9,16; Rom 2:4; etc).
6. God directly predetermines the salvation of the elect, including their good works. (This ignores any cooperation of the will with grace).
7. God directly predetermines the damnation of the reprobate, including their sins. (This is denied by James 1:13-14; Sirach 15:11-20; 1 Cor 10:13; and ignores any true resistance and rejection by the will).
8. The elect will be saved with no merit of their own. (This denies heavenly reward).
9. The reprobate will be damned for no fault of their own. (This denies true guilt and deserved punishment).
Between these two extremes the Catholic dogma of predestination keeps the golden mean, because it regards eternal happiness primarily as the work of God and His grace, but secondarily as the fruit and reward of the meritorious actions of the predestined.
CATHOLIC TEACHING ON PREDESTINATION AND SALVATION
The process of predestination and salvation consists of the following five steps :
A. The first grace of vocation, especially faith as the beginning, foundation, and root of justification (Council of Trent, session VI, chapter 8)
B. A number of additional, actual graces for the successful accomplishment of justification and sanctification (1 Cor 6:11)
C. Justification itself as the beginning of the state of grace and love
D. Final perseverance or at least the grace of a happy death
E. The admission to eternal bliss and glorification (Rom 8:28-30)
The Calvinist position is consistent with itself, but is not consistent with human experience or the Scriptures. It cannot be reconciled with the cooperation and resistance of free will, sin and virtue, the possible loss of grace, punishment and reward, and the universality of redemption and grace. Calvin's God is arbitrary and despotic.
The Catholic position is consistent with itself, with human experience, and with the Scriptures. God's foreknowledge and foreordination of the elect to heavenly glory includes His universal desire and sufficient grace to save all men, our free cooperation with His grace, good works which truly merit heavenly reward, and the real possibility -- during this life of testing and pilgrimage -- of rejecting grace and salvation and thus deserving the punishments of hell.
From an article by Jim Burnham (edited by Phil Porvaznik), see also an excellent article showing the possible compatibility of the "Five Points" of Calvinism with St. Thomas Aquinas on predestination and Akin's new book The Salvation Controversy available from Catholic Answers
A Tiptoe Through TULIP by James Akin
Three interesting books by Catholics (Robert Sungenis) and Protestants (Norman Geisler vs. James White) on salvation, predestination, free will, and the biblical, historical, and philosophical issues are
Not By Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification
Chosen But Free by Norman Geisler by a "moderate Calvinist" responding to "extreme Calvinists" (5-point Calvinists) such as R.C. Sproul
The Potter's Freedom by James White a Reformed critique of Geisler's book
About | Apologetics | Philosophy | Spirituality | Books | Audio | Links
In no way is the Catholic view confirmed in scriptures. That is why for them Chuch tradition trumps scriptures, and why the Catholic church burned those who tried to get the scriptures into the hands of the people.
Calvinism is biblical Christianity. It’s interest is the glory of God, and doesn’t concern itself much with man’s happiness or man’s free will. The only freedom it is concerned with is freedom from sin.
Exactly.
Most Calvinists were not born into Calvinism..They came to it because that is what the bible teaches .
The Catholic Church gave you the Bible...where do you get this stuff at?
Heavy reading for this rainy Saturday morning. Thank you for posting; I read it once, and see that in order to understand it, I must read it again.
But it really contaminated my prayers of joy and praise to Almighty God this morning, with such heavy, cold and unloving pronouncements.
Best to leave it for later, when joy and gratitude toward Christ, Who loved us enough to offer His life for our Salvation, shall have blessed the day with more love, peace and laughter.
I don't see how Calvinism can be concerned with freedom since it teaches that everything we do is determined by God; good or evil.
Mark for a later read.
http://www.noraid.com/Holocaust.htm
Irish Holocaust
Ethnic Cleansing in Ireland
“...SOME PROTESTANT CHURCH MISSIONS IN ENGLAND SOUGHT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SITUATION BY TRYING TO “PROSELYTIZE” THE STARVING CATHOLICS.
THE STARVING VICTIMS WERE OFFERED FOOD IN RETURN FOR RENOUNCING THEIR CATHOLIC FAITH AND CONVERTING. DURING THE FAMINE THERE WERE MORE THAN 125 MISSIONS IN IRELAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONVERTING CATHOLICS...”
It is heavy, I printed it out and read it (only the first part) with highlighter in hand...I think that's enough for now.
I’ll get the popcorn ready. I imagine we’ll have to reincarnate Orville Redenbacher by the time we get to Part II.
The words are perfectly clear and easy to understand; it just seems that there is no humility, peace, lovingkindness, or other evidence of the two great commandments in them.
The mind and heart instinctively seek the Creator and Redeemer in His Almighty Glory, instead of this proud maledicted screed.
The early Christian church compiled the bible..there was no Roman Catholic church then..
If indeed the RC have us the bible it just shows how right Martin Luther was.. the church needed to be brought back to its true roots..
Did you know most of the founding Fathers were calvinists? Inalienable rights and all :)
and??? There were plenty of protestants killed during the reformation ..by CATHOLICS ..Luther was hunted like a criminal.. there are no clean hands ..Men are sinners with their only hope in Christ
RnMomof7:
And that Church grew up in a Roman/Greek Culture, not a Northern European Calvinist Culture. The Church was described as Catholic as early as St. Ignatius of Antioch’s 7 exant letters to various Churches in circa 107 AD. The Creeds of the early Church speak of the Catholic Church, not Calvinist, Christian, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, etc, etc, etc.
The Canon was not formally settled well until the end of the 4th century at which time various Synods and Councils [Rome 382 AD, Hippo 393 AD; Carthage 397 AD] debated the Canon and with respect to the Carthage 397 AD, its decrees were sent to Rome for affirmation, to thus give the Council canons authority over the entire Western Church. The Eastern Church also under the influence of the St. Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, also drew up a list of 27 NT books in the late 4th century reflecting the consensus of the East.
One one finds is that Hebrews was always looked at with questions in Rome, given that it had a better idea of what was authentically from St. Paul given that in God’s providence, it was in that eternal city that St. Paul was martyed, as was St. Peter. In the East, the book that was most question was Revelation.
St. Athansius, who was run out of Alexandria several times by the “Arius supporters” fled to Rome where his influence most likely got Rome to accept Hebrews as being used in Sacred Liturgy in the Eastern Church, which was among the major criteria used to accept a book into the Canon. Rome came around to accepting Revelation before the East and it seems that Rome’s influence for that book influenced St. Athansius to accept it into the canon, as his Easter Letter circa 370 AD affirms.
In closing, it was the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” that determined the canon, the undivided Roman/Latin West and Greek/Byzantine East. Even Martin Luther recognized as much for he when as for to say, we owe the “Papist much for it is because of them that we have the Sacred Scriptures”
The Roman church did not"give us the NT" The New testament is inspired by the Holy Spirit and was written and compiled before the Roman institution existed . I am a catholic..belonging to the universal church of Christ that is composed of the "called out" ones..We are the invisible church found all around the world , known only to God. We have different churches, different denominations , but are united in Christ, by grace through faith ...
One thing the Catholic Church has that no other church has is Saints.
Okay, if your invisible how do you know about all these other churches, seeing only God knows them?
Is that like the invisible man?
that is composed of the "called out" ones out"
How does that work? Called out and invisible?
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.
