Posted on 06/18/2019 9:24:20 AM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
John Calvin retained many traditional Catholic beliefs. The following quotes were all taken (save the last two) from his quintessential work, Institutions of the Christian Religion.
5. Calvin accepted the primacy of the Roman Church in early Christian history: “I deny not that the early Christians uniformly give high honour to the Roman Church, and speak of it with reverence. . . . (IV, 6:16)
8. Calvin thought that sacraments produce real, beneficial effects: “They, by sealing it to us, sustain, nourish, confirm, and increase our faith.” (IV, 14:7) / “That sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, . . .” (IV, 17:10)
14. Calvin held that contraception was gravely sinful: “It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime.” (Commentary on Genesis [38:10])
15. Calvin accepted the Catholic and scriptural belief of the perpetual virginity of Mary:
(Excerpt) Read more at m.ncregister.com ...
Interesting...Martin Luther held to Mary’s perpetual virginity as well.
Thankfully, the Reformation brought God’s Word to the forefront again.
Over time, these things were all re-examined in light of Scripture and corrected when they didn’t match God’s written authority.
Blessed Saint Luther and Blessed Saint Calvin each played their part, while escaping the indoctrination received at the hand of Rome during their formative years.
God’s way is never to choose perfect men, since there was only One, but to perfectly use imperfect men, despite their imperfections.
Thankfully, by the grace of God, they persisted and opened the path of salvation Rome closed.
I guess he was sorta pro-life!
ML/NJ
16. Burning at the stake those who disagreed with him.
Catholic, yes. Scriptural, no.
Your post almost reads like a parody of the Protestant view... and is just silly. To believe this, you must consider all who came before to be morons who didn’t know any better... that would include the likes of St Thomas Aquinas, St Augustine, St Ambrose, St John Chrysostom, et al.
Remember that Christ promised the Holy Spirit to His Church to “teach all things.” You seem to think that Spirit was only promised for the initial age of the Church and then the Church was set adrift or on autopilot. You make a liar of Christ and deny the Spirit in rejecting the teachings of the Church.
Besides, what was compiled into Scripture was 400 years in the making. In your way of thinking, there wasn’t a Church until centuries after Pentecost... which is nonsense. You reject the teachings of the Church and neglect that it was the fully functioning Church (400 years old) which compiled the canon of Scripture for you to use in refutation of everything She teaches. Brilliant.
We’ve been around this rabbit hole too many times already on here. I can’t guarantee I’ll find any refutation by you interesting enough for further rebuttal. Doesn’t mean you aren’t welcome to try, though...
God bless.
This has clearly been taken out of context. Please look at Calvin's Institutes IV, 6:16,17 in toto.
16. Let us now come to the Primitive Church, that it may also appear that our opponents plume themselves on its support, not less falsely and unadvisedly than on the testimony of the word of God. When they lay it down as an axiom, that the unity of the Church cannot be maintained unless there be one supreme head on earth whom all the members should obey; and that, accordingly, our Lord gave the primacy to Peter, and thereafter, by right of succession, to the See of Rome, there to remain even to the end, they assert that this has always been observed from the beginning. But since they improperly wrest many passages, I would first premise, that I deny not that the early Christians uniformly give high honour to the Roman Church, and speak of it with reverence. This, I think, is owing chiefly to three causes. The opinion which had prevailed (I know not how), that that Church was founded and constituted by the ministry of Peter, had great effect in procuring influence and authority. Hence, in the East, it was, as a mark of honour, designated the Apostolic See. Secondly, as the seat of empire was there, and it was for this reason to be presumed, that the most distinguished for learning, prudence, skill, and experience, were there more than elsewhere, account was justly taken of the circumstance, lest the celebrity of the city, and the much more excellent gifts of God also, might seem to be despised. To these was added a third cause, that when the churches of the East, of Greece and of Africa, were kept in a constant turmoil by differences of opinion, the Church of Rome was calmer and less troubled. To this it was owing, that pious and holy bishops, when driven from their sees, often betook themselves to Rome as an asylum or haven. For as the people of the West are of a less acute and versatile turn of mind than those of Asia or Africa, so they are less desirous of innovations. It therefore added very great authority to the Roman Church, that in those dubious times it was not so much unsettled as others, and adhered more firmly to the doctrine once delivered, as shall immediately be better explained. For these three causes, I say, she was held in no ordinary estimation, and received many distinguished testimonies from ancient writers.17. But since on this our opponents would rear up a primacy and supreme authority over other churches, they, as I have said, greatly err. That this may better appear, I will first briefly show what the views of early writers are as to this unity which they so strongly urge. Jerome, in writing to Nepotian, after enumerating many examples of unity, descends at length to the ecclesiastical hierarchy. He says, "Every bishop of a church, every archpresbyter, every archdeacon, and the whole ecclesiastical order, depends on its own rulers." Here a Roman presbyter speaks and commends unity in ecclesiastical order. Why does he not mention that all the churches are bound together by one Head as a common bond? There was nothing more appropriate to the point in hand, and it cannot be said that he omitted it through forgetfulness; there was nothing he would more willingly have mentioned had the fact permitted. He therefore undoubtedly owns, that the true method of unity is that which Cyprian admirably describes in these words: "The episcopate is one, part of which is held entire by each bishop, and the Church is one, which, by the increase of fecundity, extends more widely in numbers. As there are many rays of the sun and one light, many branches of a tree and one trunk, upheld by its tenacious root, and as very many streams flow from one fountain, and though numbers seem diffused by the largeness of the overflowing supply, yet unity is preserved entire in the source, so the Church, pervaded with the light of the Lord, sends her rays over the whole globe, and yet is one light, which is everywhere diffused without separating the unity of the body, extends her branches over the whole globe, and sends forth flowing streams; still the head is one, and the source one" (Cyprian, de Simplie. PrÊlat.). Afterwards he says, "The spouse of Christ cannot be an adulteress: she knows one house, and with chaste modesty keeps the sanctity of one bed." See how he makes the bishopric of Christ alone universal, as comprehending under it the whole Church: See how he says that part of it is held entire by all who discharge the episcopal office under this head. Where is the primacy of the Roman See, if the entire bishopric resides in Christ alone, and a part of it is held entire by each? My object in these remarks is, to show the reader, in passing, that that axiom of the unity of an earthly kind in the hierarchy, which the Romanists assume as confessed and indubitable, was altogether unknown to the ancient Church.
I wonder how many of the other points have been mischaracterized.
If you are referring to Servetus, Calvin was the one person who argued against burning him as an an execution method after he was convicted by the secular government of Geneva.
Actually, I don't believe your premise. MANY of the Church Fathers wrote the exact things Christians believe from the Reformation until this day.
[ealgeone, please post a few, thanks]
Remember that Christ promised the Holy Spirit to His Church to “teach all things.” You seem to think that Spirit was only promised for the initial age of the Church and then the Church was set adrift or on autopilot. You make a liar of Christ and deny the Spirit in rejecting the teachings of the Church.
Again, your premise are flawed - and tragically so.
The same Christ appeared in Revelation to take away the right to even be a church from those churches that failed. The Holy Spirit existed then too.
Besides, what was compiled into Scripture was 400 years in the making.
Actually, your statement is flawed in two ways:
1. 2/3 of Scripture existed before the birth of Christ.
2. During the lives of the Apostles, their writings were considered to be Scripture, as Peter declares of Rome.
In your way of thinking, there wasn’t a Church until centuries after Pentecost... which is nonsense.
Again, you are failing to use logic, but starting with a straw man.
The universal church began at Pentecost, when believers were sealed by the Spirit permanently and joined to the Bride of Christ.
In every age, God has had his own, who have not bowed their knee to Baal.
You reject the teachings of the Church and neglect that it was the fully functioning Church (400 years old) which compiled the canon of Scripture for you to use in refutation of everything She teaches. Brilliant.
Again, sadly, I point out that your premised straw man is false. From there, it careens downhill and leaves a collision at the bottom. Friend, you need a course in logic.
We’ve been around this rabbit hole too many times already on here. I can’t guarantee I’ll find any refutation by you interesting enough for further rebuttal. Doesn’t mean you aren’t welcome to try, though...
Guess if you find anything but a straw man, you can present it and we can discuss it. At this point, I've taken a few moments to correct your first post.
Look. I have three kids. I ain’t having no more
So the seed ain’t going home no more !
10-14 kids ? You’re NUTS !
Sure looks scriptual to me.
We hear that farce again and again. That it was the civil government and not the churches that murdered those people. No civil government existed at the time without the full approval of the church. That’s no different than saying we don’t torture her because we use rendition. If we capture some terrorists, and send him to Jordan to get his nuts shocked off, that’s just a word game. We were responsible for it. The church was responsible for the murder of those people and did not have clean hands because they turned them over to somebody else to do the Dirty Work. The Dirty Work that they agreed with and wanted. The papacy was one of the greatest mass murderers in history, and guys like Calvin weren’t much better.
Thus sayeth pgyanke: "Besides, what was compiled into Scripture was 400 years in the making...
If Moses lived somewhere around 1600-1400 BC and John completed Revelation in 90 AD then your 400 year figure is only approx. 1000 years off.
That is absolute nonsense. The civil government booted Calvin out of Geneva years before this incident and they didn't need church approval to do it.
Then you are looking at the wrong scripture. Nothing in the gospels or the epistles talks of Mary being a perpetual virgin, but instead there are several references to the brothers of Jesus. James being the most prominent, then there is Joses, Jude, and Simon (Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56). The epistle of Galatians 1:19 speaks of the Lord's brothers (not generic, familial).
Two questions:
Why does it matter if Mary was a perpetual virgin or not?
Does it affect my salvation with God if I believe one way or another?
Because it add something that is not in scripture that the Catholic church has tied to doctrine. This is a heresy that needs addressed.
Does it affect my salvation with God if I believe one way or another?
Not from what I can see, but it begs the question that if you believe as doctrine something that is not in scripture, are you not deluding yourself? To believe what the Catholic church does of Mary sets her up to where she does not belong. They elevate her to the status of a deity, believing her to be divine. This is also heresy.
I grew up Calvinist, went to Lutheran churches for over a decade, now go to a more Pentecostal type church. 1 thing in common, many Catholic converts, who all told me that they never read the Bible. I had a friend that just got married in a Catholic Church, there wasn’t a Bible to be found in the pews.
That’s a crying shame. It’s everything Luther and Calvin were against.
amen
Calvin drove the prosecution. The civil government was nothing more than a church puppet. The Catholics had already sentenced him to death by slow burning. When he was arrested in Geneva, he was already on the run as an escapee from a Catholic prison before they could carry it out. It was a religious murder. The papacy and the early protestants were murderous of anyone who defied them.
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.