Posted on 02/12/2003 8:35:27 PM PST by rwfromkansas
Historic Protestant, Episcopalian doctrine is Reformed and Calvinistic.
The Episcopalian church that adheres to its historic doctrine is still Reformed in the United States.
X. OF FREE WILL. (39 Articles of Religion).
The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.
That is calvinism
XVII. OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION
Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption:they be made like the image of his only- begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.
that my friend is reform doctrine..
What about the ones you abuse?:
You accused me of putting words in your mouth, quote: "Trying to put words into my mouth again."
When I asked you to prove your accusation:
"Provide the exact quote wherein I "put words in your mouth". Give me my exact quote, along with the exact quote from your mouth along with the threads, reply numbers and dates so that they can be compared."
You replied, quote: "I will not take orders from you."
When drstevej previously asked you to back up your outrageous assertions, to wit:
"Why don't you write us a brief essay on the government structure of the cantons of Switzerland and explain how in a city state structure Calvin was a dictator in Geneva? Be sure to discuss his expulsion by the City government and then their request for him to return."
You replied, quote: "Why should I?"
RnMomof7 has been waiting and waiting and waiting for you to provide quotes she requested from the sources you claim for your outrageous statements, but so far, you have refused to provide them.
Instead, you accuse her of what you are guilty, quote, "More evasion and sidestepping."
And, still not being satisfied with the extent of your abusive behavior up to this point, you throw in one more abusive lick by projecting your behavior onto us again, quote:" You can work out your control issues somewhere else. Also, I do not care what you think of me or what words you speak against me. I pray for you because you need prayer. May God bless you abundantly."
I haven't yet even added to this list, the abusive behavior you engaged in against orthodoxpresbyterian, the_doc, jeanchauvin, et.al., in this thread when they, too, dared to ask you to back up your statements with quotes from the sources you claim.
And with such an extensive, public documented record of abuse, even a Pharisee himself would have been embarrassed to have written, quote: "I pray for those who abuse me."
This is not true. Their Eucharistic doctrine alone is not Calvinistic, much less their doctrinal authority founded in tradition, Scripture and reason.
May God bless you abundantly.
For those who do not know of the great Stefan Zweig, perhaps you know one of his circle of friends: Maksim Gorky, Rainer Maria Rilke, Auguste Rodin, and Arturo Toscanini.
For those interested in the very fair article written in the old Catholic Encyclopedia now available on the New Advent website, here is the link.
Congress did not declare war back in October.
:o) Sorry, doc, but you have a long pixel trail. I have a long memory.
You, on the other hand, won't even condemn the Inquisition--for the simple reason that it was an institution of RCism.
The Inquisition was a court. Like any court it was instituted to apply the law in the service of the preservation of public order. It was an alternative to war and vigilanteism. It was instituted to help solve the problem of the Albigensian heresy, which we would recognize today as the culture of death, as Albigensians advocated abortion, suicide, sodomy, and birth control.
I think there were good reasons for an inquisition, but like with bad cops, bad presidents,and bad CEO's I'm not willing to condemn something because sinful man was a part of it. Officially, the church opposed torture, and constantly tried to limit the power of the more enthusiastic inquisitors, but state interests, just like today, prevented the kind of policy the church preferred.
Frankly, I think that the Crusades and Inquisition are used as lightning rods to bolster the misinformed views of those who believe that the RCC is an apostate church.....and to convince others that this is the case. But the stereotypical recounting of these historic events are rife with exaggerations, falsehoods, and misinterpretations. The church is, and has always been woefully negligent in responding to her detractors, but any honest immersion into her past, or into her doctrine will mitigate any sense of ill-will or suspicion.
Actually, Congress authorized Bush to use whatever force was necessary to disarm Hussein.
A court would say that was a "declaration of war." The Constitution says only Congress can declare war; it does not say what words had to be used.
But I have Scriptural and historic reasons for that loathing (as did Luther, an Augustinian who had loved the Church of Rome until he saw what was really going on). And you have never been able to refute anything I have ever said in either category.
I notice that you are continuing to apologize for the Inquisition. I rest my case.
***
The Albigensians were a rag-tag bunch. But some of them were genuine Christians. Rome didn't bother to notice this. Rome killed 'em all. (Besides, the Waldenses whom the RCs persecuted to death included some of the finest Christians of their day.)
You are fortunate that American Protestants framed our Constitution, friend. No kidding. As much as American Calvinists loathe what the Church of Augustine eventually became, we would defend your religious freedom to the death. (A lot of Catholics would not return the favor, I'm afraid.)
See also OP's #696 to Siobhan and Matchett's #723, also to Siobhan.
Thanks for the full disclosure, although it was entirely unnecessary.
I notice that you are continuing to apologize for the Inquisition.
More an explanation than an apology. I'm just guessing here that the subject of the debate is Resolved: Inquisition is proof that RCC is evil. I'm saying no it's not.
You are fortunate that American Protestants framed our Constitution, friend.
Well, I am not convinced (haven't thought about it too much, though it sounds pretty unlikely) that religious freedom derived from Calvinism, but I'll concede that point for now.
As much as American Calvinists loathe what the Church of Augustine eventually became, we would defend your religious freedom to the death.
Yes, because without the RCC to mock, criticize, "loathe", a lot of protestants wouldn't have anything to believe in.
I'm just guessing here that the subject of the debate is Resolved: Inquisition is proof that RCC is evil. I'm saying no it's not.
I have never framed the debate that way. If you like, I will be a little clearer. I would say that the cruelty displayed by the Inquisition typified the RCC in the timeframe of the Reformation. (And I can prove this.)
Of course, I would suggest from that that the RCC was apostate by the time Luther came on the scene in the Sixteenth Century. But my real arguments are from the Scriptures (e.g., John 16:1-4).
...without the RCC to mock, criticize, "loathe", a lot of protestants wouldn't have anything to believe in.
Bingo. A lot of Protestants in our day don't know the Lord Jesus personally any more than the average RC does.
A lot of FReepers have a pseudo-Christianity which is defined only by their opposition to RCism. That is spiritual lunacy, of course. (It's one of the reasons why I don't spend a whole lot of time on the anti-RCC threads.)
Maryland, whose assembly was controlled by Catholics, passed the Toleration Act of 1649, granting religious freedom to all professed Catholics. But that changed when the protestants gained political predominance. Not only did Catholics lose their right to publicly celebrate their faith, but also their vote and the right to serve in public office.
The Quebec Act of 1774, which granted religious freedom to England's newly acquired Canadian territory (French Catholic's)was horror to the American colonies. The Continental Congress demanded that it be repealed, and added yet one more grievance to the colonies rebellion. In 1776 a delegation was sent to the French Canadians to get their support for the American colony's revolution. They declined because they prefered religious freedom to an alliance with Puritan's that wouldn't even allow the celebration of Christmas.
It's starting to look like religious freedom might have been a political expedient since Catholic France had assisted the colonies in their victory over England.
That should read all professed Christians
LOL A Freudian slip no doubt.
Thanks for that info, I was unaware of that Act.
The Maryland example you cited occurred well before American Protestant thinking had completely gelled in an understanding of the necessary separation of Church and State.
Remember: The Sixteenth Century Reformers brought with them much of the Roman baggage of Church-Statism, and the Seventeenth Century Puritans were still mired in the error of Church-Statism. In the Eighteenth Century, the Great Awakening generated an enormous new interest in Christianity. The human leader of the revival, George Whitefield, specifically attacked the presumption inherent in Church-Statism.
The Great Awakening is what ultimately sounded the death knell for Church-Statism in the soon-to-be Republic. By the time of the Framing of the Constitution, the Presbyterians and Congregationalists were largely opposed to the idea of Church-Statism, and crucial lobbying by the growing Calvinistic Baptist movement (especially lobbying by a Massachusetts Baptist minister named Isaac Backus) gave them considerable support for a religious freedom clause in the First Amendment. (The Baptists helped to convince Jefferson that Church-Statism was a bad idea even though he never fully grasped the theological argument--since he was not a Christian himself.)
Even the Episcopalians, who had sympathies for the Church of England, realized from the very circumstances of the Revolution that Church-Statism was theologically unworkable.
In short, the separation of Church and State, as established in the First Amendment, was not an accommodation to the French Catholics. The RCC was still the enemy of true Christianity in the minds of most Americans (as was largely Catholic Canada, of course). With the exception of Maryland, the American colonies were thoroughly Protestant. They didn't like Romanism at all. But the Framers realized on Scripturally conscientious grounds that the Constitution of the nation had to shut out even the possibility of Constantinism. The Framers realized that Constantinism was an error of Romanism!
These mature Protestants knew the history of the Reformation (and the longer history of the RCC) a lot better than you do, I'm afraid. They knew that religious coercion through physical violence had long been typical of the RCC.
This is why I have said that the establishment of the U.S. Constitution was a kind of delayed flowering of the Reformation.
When did it finally gel?
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.