Posted on 06/26/2010 10:46:26 AM PDT by Natural Law
I am in agreement with the ideas of that website, as far as I’ve read.
I find the concept of God, a loving, true God, choosing my destiny and then punishing me for that choice abominable and unChristian.
If you disagree you’ll find I’m not a fertile pasture for this belief of Calvin’s - that is I’m not looking for an argument, nor am I interested in debating the “merits” of predestination.
If I read your question correctly, I think you are actually asking something else quite different from the question posed. I think, you are asking, "Who might we read about who was notable and published books now in existence who had this knowledge?" Right?
Otherwise, Tom the tailor, Dave the sheepherder, Steve the mason.
With respect to conscience neither is particularly irrational.
Throughout the Bible God consistently speaks by prophets when he is speaking in reference to the Church as a whole. Prophets oftentimes have specific messages meant for individuals (Saul) or communities (Ninevah). That is well established. It would be unusual if he did not speak through a prophet, no?
Samuel taught the wickedness of kings and urged the people to continue in God’s way with prophets and judges. The people chose kings and God was proved right again.
So you are surmising that the knowledge existed and needed to be rediscovered?
Are there Church Fathers who wrote the truth or do we have shards or scraps post-Apostolic age writings that were suppressed?
Or is the truth an esoteric knowledge passed along from commoner to commoner?
Having a job to attend to will require that I postpone a compilation of folks that held doctrines more closely aligned with a reformed position than that of the RCC.
More tomorrow or the next day.
But, to answer your first question, the knowledge has never been fully extinguished, in spite of the efforts by the RCC to cover over the truth with its demonic doctrines. Rediscovering it is therefore an exaggeration. Perhaps bringing it back into popular acceptance is more accurate.
Funny how so much of that escapes their attention.
So, let me see if I can follow this. Somehow, the popes get in office, without any clear direction in Scripture or from Peter on exactly how that is supposed to be done.
And once he;s in office, there’s this papal infallibility thing that *protects* him.
What I can’t figure is what happens with one pope decides one thing and another pope rescinds it, then who’s right?
Prove it true.
You made the assertion, it’s up to you to prove that the child was not his.
You are violating the very guidelines that scientists claim, that he making the assertion must provide evidence to back it up.
Posting an assertion that cannot be proved and claiming that it must be believed unless disproved is the exact same intellectually dishonest technique that scientists use in trying to promote their pet theories.
But regardless, whether in science or in a court, unfounded and unsupported assertions are not held to be valid without corroborating evidence. We are not obligated to believe any statement made without supporting evidence. What is it and where is it?
Innocent until proved guilty, remember?
Or shall we consider every priest simply accused of molesting children guilty until someone proves that they’re not?
Its obvious you didn't read my posting anymore carefully than you read Scripture. I said that without DNA proof I wouldn't conclude one way or the other. You see, My mind ISN'T made up BEFORE I see the data.
Don't try to tell me that that isn't a position submitted and reinforced by anti-Catholics daily on these threads. You are often wrong, but you are not a liar.
Just like the popes, eh?
Or maybe the priests we've read about lately who've admitted to molesting little boys?
It just amazes me that in light of Catholic church history, the lengths Catholics will go to to defame a man when their own priests and popes are guilty of far worse for far longer to a far greater degree.
You sure could have fooled anyone reading this thread.
Without the ability to fool or be fooled there would be no Calvinism would there?
No, the people did it were responsible, as were those in a position of authority who approved such an action. I thought this had been settled upthread. The problem I have with threads such as this is the odd amnesia certain parties develop when wishing to condemn Protestants for behaviors long established in the church from which they separated, behaviors that continued concurrently with the Protestant Reformation and were particularly prevalent in the so-called "counter-Reformation." Failing to acknowledge this due to some strange desire to depict the "other" as uniquely to blame is not honest.
Keep in mind that we are talking about an event that took place nearly two centuries after the Reformation. It took place in a place that was nearly entirely Calvinist and it is doubtful that the average person in Salem had ever even met a Catholic.
So, do you suppose that Cotton Mather or Increase Mather came up with burning at the stake for witches by their own little lonesome? You know they didn't. Wasn't there some fancy Latin-titled book published by the Catholic Church dealing with the specifics of witch burnings?
Again, those responsible for the action were responsible, as were their leaders. I acknowledge this, but Catholics have difficulty acknowledging this.
Why is that, do you suppose? Is it somehow disobedient to acknowledge the errors of your church? I guess it's a difficulty that I don't have because I don't "follow" any Puritan hierarchy. They were professing Christians who fell into error due to historical tradition. It happens. Traditions are sometimes wrong, wouldn't you agree?
I’m not making the mistake in logic that you think.
I’m not denying that Calvin could have done some bad things, although I’m not familiar enough with his history to know what they are.
My point if the inconsistency in certain parties in condemning him for certain alleged actions when they adhere to a denomination whose history is rife with their own bad things.
As RC has pointed out, burning at the stake was not a new Calvinistic idea. It had a long history by the church whose adherents love to finger point and condemn it.
And if you read history, some of the burnings which some like to credit to Calvin;s account were not his doing. He opposed at least one that he was alleged to have done, and the burnings were not his decision. Catholics love to portray him as the absolute dictator of Geneva, who was in the position of making the sole decisions of life and death for these people and a careful reading of history shows that these people went to trial and that there were others involved in the decisions to execute them and burn them, a tradition established by the RCC.
Catholics are hardly in a position to point fingers and cast stones about any of the behavior they condemn Calvin for in light of their own church history.
We are all sinners saved by grace
lol. Your description of Geneva is ludicrous but typical of anti-Protestant bigots who know nothing of history other than what their biased catechism teaches them. Geneva was governed by an elected representative government of two councils, a larger council like our House of Representatives and and smaller house, like our Senate. (I'm repeating your history lesson hoping it sinks in this time.)
Proclaiming "the chief duty of man is to glorify God," Calvin...
Pity that is not what Rome considers to be the chief duty of man. Rome would be a lot less corrupt if it understood that truth.
Regarding Calvin's Geneva...
1. From 1536 to 1538 Calvin had great authority in Geneva. This was his first attempt at reform, but he pushed the reform too quickly, for the city was not ready for any kind of stern discipline. The city council removed Calvin and Farel from Geneva and Calvin went to Strassburg for three years. This was undoubtedly a great time of discouragement for Calvin. 2. In Calvin's absence, matters deteriorated sadly in Geneva. Some of its citizens came to realize that he had been right in seeking a church in which Christian law would rule. They saw, as he did, that infidelity was the root cause of their troubles. After various political conflicts, and when their freedom seemed in danger, the people of Geneva implored Calvin to return. On September 13, 1531, amid great rejoicing and enthusiastic ovation, Calvin entered Geneva a second time. In this ordeal, God worked a tragedy into a blessing, creating a situation in which the people of Geneva welcomed Calvin and his reform. CALVIN'S SECOND REFORM (1541-1564) 1. It is easy to see the wonderful providence of God in bringing John Calvin back to Geneva. This free and independent city with its democratic institutions was at that time, of all the places in the world, the most admirably fitted to be the scene of the great reformatory labors of Calvin. 2. Upon his return to Geneva, Calvin drew up a Church Order, a set of rules for governing of the church. It was based upon the teaching of Scripture that Christ has ordained four offices in the church: pastors, teachers or professors, elders, and deacons. The cornerstone of Calvin's form of church government was the office of elder. Pastors were to preach and to exhort the people. Elders were men of unusual stamina and spiritual insight who supervised the people, and visited and assisted the pastors. Deacons were general servers. Through this type of government, based on the Bible, Calvin was able to instruct and discipline the people spiritually. Calvin labored to set forth a theocracy that would be an example of Christian life and government, and also be a citadel of evangelical truth that would conquer the power of Rome in all other lands. 3. Calvin put great emphasis upon Christian education. He knew that the Reformation would only be effective as people knew and obeyed God's Word. He devised a catechetical system for the young which was carried all over Europe. Primary and elementary schools were set up to educate the people, so they could be better Christians. Calvin established the Academy at Geneva, the first Protestant University, where thousands of young men were trained for the ministry of the Word. From these efforts, the gospel and Presbyterianism spread all over Europe. John Knox, like thousands of others who came to sit as admiring students at Calvin’s feet, found there what he termed “the most perfect school of Christ that ever was on the earth since the days of the apostles.” 4. For the next twenty-four years, Calvin labored in Geneva to bring about an effective reform in that city of Switzerland and in all of Europe. Apart from The Institutes, Calvin also wrote many other works, including commentaries on most of the Old and New Testament books. Calvin was the greatest exegete and the prince of commentators of the Reformation. He had a thorough knowledge of Greek, Hebrew and Latin, and through the printed page he supplied the Protestants with ammunition to fight the Roman Church. One feels amazed at the extent of his work. Arminius, the originator of a theology opposed to that of Calvin's system, gave an unbiased opinion of Calvin's works, saying: “Next to the study of the Scriptures, I exhort my pupils to pursue Calvin's commentaries, which I extol in loftier terms than Helmick himself; for I affirm that he excels beyond comparison in the interpretation of Scripture, and that his commentaries ought to be more highly valued than all that is handed down to us by the library of the fathers; so that I acknowledge him to have possessed above most others, as rather above all other men, what may be called an eminent gift of prophecy.” 5. Calvin was also responsible for putting much of the Bible into the French language so the people could read God's Word. Calvin's works had a further effect in giving form and permanence to the then unstable French language in much the same way that Luther's translation of the Bible molded the German language. 6. It was Calvin's theology and form of church government that triumphed in the Protestant Church of France, the Reformed Church of Germany, the Church of Scotland, the Reformed Church in Hungary, the Reformed Church in Holland and in Puritanism in Old and New England. 7. Calvin died in the year 1564 at the early age of 55. Beza, his close friend and successor, described his death as having come quietly in his sleep, and then added: “Thus withdrew into heaven, at the same time with the setting sun, that noble brilliant luminary, which was the lamp of the Church. On the following day and night there was intense grief and lamentation in the whole city; for the Republic had lost its wisest citizen, the Church its faithful shepherd, and the Academy and incomparable teacher.” ... INTRODUCTION
The rest of the link is equally informative.
The funny thing about a Roman Catholic apologist trashing the "theocracy" of Calvin is that the Roman Catholic apologist not only bows down to a theocracy (in the form of the Vatican papacy) it believes that theocracy actually distributes salvation.
Pot/kettle/black.
Calvin rightly understood that neither a city, a government, a theocracy, a church nor a pope can confer salvation. That job belongs to the Holy Spirit alone by the work of Jesus Christ alone according to the will of God alone for the glory of God alone (which is our chief duty.)
For the record, I think it is deplorable to torture and execute people because of what they do or do not believe about God.
Nevertheless, that was the way heresy was dealt with in the Judeo-Christian world from the time of Moses until just a few centuries ago. This DOES NOT make it right, but it does put it in perspective. Just over a century ago Americans were executed for stealing cattle and though we would never do that today, that doesn’t mean that America was a bunch of barbarians in the 19th century. Punishment for crimes (and in the Christian world heresy was a crime until a few centuries ago) needs to be looked at in terms of what was the norm at that time, not what is the norm today.
The TRUTH is that it was horrible what Catholics and Protestants did to each other during the religious wars. I don’t think we will ever know which side had more blood on their hands (historical accounts of these wars are among the most biased works ever composed), the point is that there was far too much blood and BOTH sides were guilty.
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.