Posted on 03/16/2015 9:20:18 AM PDT by RnMomof7
I intend to offer, over the next several weeks, a four part series on Calvin's response to Rome's doctrine of Scripture as discovered in the fourth session of the Council of Trent. It's my impression that very few Protestants today -- even the confessing kind -- have informed views on what Rome actually says about the most important theological issues of every age (namely, how we know anything about God and his ways, and how we sinners can be reconciled to the God whom we have offended by our sins).
The first and foremost purpose of this brief series, then, is to let readers see what Rome, in her own words, says about Scripture, and to let Calvin guide us in an intelligent (and, ultimately, biblically based and theological nuanced) critique of Rome's doctrine. Careful attention to Rome's teaching on Scripture (not to mention Justification, the Sacraments, etc.) and careful critique of the same will, I think, shed light upon the reason(s) that confessional Protestants remain, well, Protesters -- that is, why they refrain as a matter of principle from expressing doctrinal solidarity with Rome.
A secondary reason for offering this series is that I suspect Calvin's own teaching on Scripture in response to Trent might surprise -- even challenge -- Reformed folk at some points, and there's few things more beneficial to any confessional group than being surprised and challenged by the Genevan Reformer on matters where, perhaps, no surprise or challenge is anticipated.
A brief word of historical context: The Roman Catholic Council of Trent convened in 1545 with the express intention of responding to the teaching of both magisterial (Protestant) and radical reformers. It met on and off until 1563. Already by 1547, however, the Council had tackled some of the fundamental issues at stake in the Reformation -- namely, Scripture, Original Sin, Justification, and the Sacraments. By the end of that same year (1547) Calvin had produced his Antidote to Trent (in Selected Works of John Calvin, Tracts and Letters, vol. 3), and stood ready to administer the same to anyone who was foolish or unfortunate enough to confuse Trent's poisonous teachings for something nutritious.
Stay tuned for the first installment of our consideration of Trent's teaching and Calvin's response to the same. - See more at: http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/03/calvin-contra-rome-on-scriptur.php#sthash.zruncDVc.dpuf
Sola Scriptura ping
Thanks for posting!
Even Protestant theologians laugh at this old hat that has been repeatedly debunked.
Are you going to follow this series? Cause if you are I will read along with you
I was going to. But if you have some extra time on your hands feel free to post the future editions.
Name one.
Rather than play internet theologian, it might help to sit down and really, really read this article albeit a long one by someone who has really studied Calvin.
I had read this a long while ago over a two day period and it took me some time to find its author whose name I had forgotten.
But since you asked to just name “one” here it is although I could provide you several more. Recycling these old hat theories have been exposed for their utter uselessness by Catholic scholars whose works are standard fare in major universities.
Anyway, here we have a Protestant scholar who turned Catholic by reading Calvin.
Enjoy:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/how-john-calvin-made-me-a-catholic/
No I will let you do it :)
I too would like a list of serious (or even non serious) theologians that would disagree... I think this comment is "blowin smoke"
Please try reading the article from a scholar (earlier posted on your thread) whose study of Calvin led him to the Catholic Church.
I still await names
I loved it, too. I grew up in an Evangelical Church in the 1970s...
I was raised a Presbyterian, the Church that prides itself on Calvinist origins, but I didn’t care much about denominations.
I discovered that Calvin upset my Evangelical view of history.
___________________________
That is one disjointed story. None of it makes any sense. It would be the Papist equivalent of saying you were raised in a Roman Catholic church but then touting you E.O. view and Anglican influence.
Apparently, you missed the “reasons” he provides why Calvinism is self contradictory and the assaults he make of other Protestant beliefs.
I didn’t read that far. He demonstrated from the start that he is very confused. Not worth my time.
Oh, now I get it. Indeed, I suspected so much. Indeed, expecting Bible Christians to read the works of Augustine, Aquinas, the brilliant works of Newman or Benedict XVI (the theological Einstein of our times) is beyond impossible.
Joel Osteen is more coherent than he.
You wouldn’t know if you quit reading at the start just like the start of Genesis seems fanciful.
The author is deeply confused from the beginning. Why look to him as an authority?
If he is the best you have perhaps you should stop digging and apply a different argument.
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.