Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I think some beliefs from the Catholic Church stuck with Calvin throughout his life. How could it not? One, as we've discussed, is the perpetual virginity of Mary. Even though there is overwhelming scripture that says otherwise, Calvin insisted on the Catholic interpretation. For one who put together such an elegant theology, his arguments are weak on this point. The Body and Blood of Christ in communion is another area where his past Catholicism stuck with him.
While all doctrine is important, to me some of these are "lower level" discussions than others. Far more important in my mind is understanding man's depravity and how we are totally lost without God's grace. Man is incapable of coming to a knowledge of God unless God so grants it. And God does not grant it to everyone, something that should give us pause.
But going back to the Body and Blood of Christ, I heard an interesting sermon by Sproul yesterday in which he stated some in the church believe blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is taking communion unworthily. Since I have never found a satisfactory answer for what precisely is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and I've never heard this before, I found it intriguing. Sproul pointed to Corinthians as his reference where people actually died for taking communion in an unworthy manner. I wondered if Calvin might have thought the same thing.
I thought that was rather interesting and underscores your point that, no matter what precisely the elements do or how/if they change, communion is to be taken reverently.
"I am sure you and everyone else stood up when they walked in. No, there is no comparison. We often show more reverence for wordily titles than for heavenly ones. God is not first on our list, even if He is on our lips."
I was actually in my pajamas one time! :)
Dr. E noted : Strangely, it looks like you [annalex] and Jo kus have a disagreement which would mean there's confusion in the Apostolic order of things.
Thank you, that was a good observation, Dr. E. No confusion. Souls in Purgatory can pray for each other, but not themselves, since they are still part of the Mystical Body of Christ. Annalex apparently is refering to prayers for THEMSELVES.
Annalex wrote : "No, the souls in purgatory lack the free will to pray and so they cannot reduce their stay."
Again, as I have noted before, this is a commonly held teaching, but is not dogmatically held. A council has not officially defined the extent of what the souls in Purgatory are capable of doing for the rest of the Body.
Regards
What terrible logic. It doesn't follow that because Jesus is going to prepare a place in heaven, that He also is not going to prepare a place to cleanse those who require it before entering into heaven.
Paul says in 2 Cor. 5:8 that when we die (absent from the body) we will be present with the Lord, not waiting in some way station.
As usual, Protestants twist Scriptures to try to get it to say what they want... Paul doesn't say what you claim, he says he desires to be with Christ in heaven than here on earth!
"We are confident, [I say], and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." 2 Cor 5:8
Paul also says Phil. 1:21-23 the options are to live here for Christ or die and be with Him, not in some holding pen.
Another misapplication of Scriptures. Paul is saying basically the same thing in 2 Cor 5. He'd rather be with Christ in heaven than here on earth in the flesh. But that speaks absolutely nothing about the existence or non-existence of Purgatory...
For to me to live [is] Christ, and to die [is] gain. But if I live in the flesh, this [is] the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better Phil 1:21-23
If this is how your "spirit" interprets Scriptures, I can see where the problems lie at your 'church'. Quite frankly, this says absolutely nothing about Purgatory's existence or non-existence. We go elsewhere to find its proof.
Regards
Faith. And how did Peter know that when Jesus healed the Blind man, it was not Satan? Faith...
You should know better.
Regards
And what the heck are you doing trying desperately to show the existence of a non-existent purgatory with non-existent scriptures to the point where you claim inane stuff like "souls in purgatory have no free will"? Where does that come from?
The literary gymnastics that you have to do to come up with some statement like that and defend it from scriptures is just exhausting to watch. Is the loss of free will in purgatory some kind of punishment?
jokus your problem is that you have no freedom to think for yourself. The church makes a pronouncement about what you are to believe and you then go through all kinds of scriptural gymnastics to prove it to us, who can plainly see that the doctrine espoused by the Catholic church is simply not scriptural at all. From praying to the dead, the bowing before statutes, from the physical (or accidental if your prefer) presence, to the rosary, to last rites, whatever, you get your marching orders from the Pope and then you twist the scriptures to make it seem scriptural to those who are too ignoraant to see what you are doing.
So don't make me laugh with your accusation that it is "Protestants as usual" who are twisting the scriptures to get what they want. It is Catholics who are in desperate need to find some scriptural basis for the unbiblical doctrines and practices that they believe. And it is Catholics who place the scriptures in a low position underneath the pronouncements of Popes and the traditions of men. So where the scripture clearly contradicts the declarations of the church, your obligation as a catholic is to follow the declarations of the church or be a heretic. And when the church later changes its mind, you are there with them. You've got no place else to go. Your loyalty is to those men who claim to hold the "keys" whether they do or not.
So don't try to accuse the Protestants on this forum of "twisting" the scripture to get what we want. Those you accuse hold the scriptures to a much higher standard than you. Your accusation is laughable.
"Orthodoxy has no opinion on this. We just don't know as we don't know whither the Spirit will go. We can say that salvation is found within The Church."
__________________________________
Why would you say salvation is found within the church?
As I read SCRIPTURE salvation is found by believing in JESUS CHRIST. I go to church to give glory to my SAVIOR and for fellowship.
"Jesus Christ, having all power and authority from the Father, gave the Apostles the power to forgive or bind sins. If a person makes a valid confession with contrition, that person's sins are forgiven in heaven."
_______________________________
I'm unfamiliar with any SCRIPTURE that indicates any supernatural powers extended beyond the Apostles.
We call that basic philosophy. Blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed (John 20:29)
"As I read SCRIPTURE salvation is found by believing in JESUS CHRIST. I go to church to give glory to my SAVIOR and for fellowship."
The Church has always taught that Christ is where the Eucharist is and the Eucharist is in The Church which is the Body of Christ on Earth. We believe that we are a Liturgical People and advance in theosis within the Liturgical Community which is The Church. As I said before, however, we simply don't know what happens outside The Church and in any event, as Agrarian pointed out earlier, it simply isn't for us to say.
It is mystical Voodoo alchemy. If you believe it's Gold, then it becomes gold even though it's still (by all appearances) lead. Hey, can I sell you a box of lead colored gold bricks? Only $200 an ounce.
I'm confused by why you think your position is "philosophical." Are you saying tht "philosophically" the bread is the physical body of Christ, but in reality it is bread?
I take the premise of the parable metaphorically: landlord is Christ and the Kingdom of Heaven is a lending institution. This is by necessity, because it is a parable we are dealing with. But I refuse to ignore elements of the parable because if they are mentioned, they are of essence for our understanding. Regarding this question of yours, we are to presume that the proceeds fo the sale into slavery satisfied the debt. There is nothing however in the original judgement that suggests that the slavery was temporary: "his lord commanded that he should be sold, and his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made".
a failure to forgive others is considered to be the single most spiritually dangerous thing that a person can do
Yes, it is a difficulty, because we are certainly commanded to do works of charity and mercy, and the debtor failed at that. I would take into account two factors: (1) the debtor was passionate about the debt owed him (v. 28); (2) the debtor volunteered to pay off the ten thousand talent debt (v.26). It is then reasonable to conclude that the failure to forgive the small debt was a venial sin of passion, -- the debtor was driven by the reasonable to him desire to collect what was rightly his and repay the landlord. This is, of course, the secondary meaning of the parable: that the economic view of sin as debt, under which the debtor invincibly operates, is really supplanted by the law od charity and mercy.
your reading was likewise heavily influenced by the specifics of the Catholic spiritual/confessional life
That could be, but if you carry out of this the impression that a failure of charity is generally treated lightly in Catholicism, that would be a wrong conclusion.
it is *precisely* what St. Gregory of Nyssa is saying, so I'm not sure how you can take him as support.
In the passge cited, he simply states
"...the indebted man was delivered to the tormentors until he should pay the whole debt; and that means nothing else than paying in the coin of torment the inevitable recompense, the recompense, I mean, that consists in taking the share of pain incurred during his lifetime, when he inconsiderately chose mere pleasure, undiluted with its opposite; so that having put off from him all that foreign growth which sin is, and discarded the shame of any debts, he might stand in liberty and fearlessness
This passage is a beautifully stated Catholic concept of redemptive suffering, contains no speculation about forgiveness of every sinner, and describes the conclusion of the parable with precision.
I made you laugh? Perhaps before you get upset, I ask you to consider the verse in question presented by blue-duncan and tell me if I had a right to refute his interpretation...
BD wrote : Paul says in 2 Cor. 5:8 that when we die (absent from the body) we will be present with the Lord, not waiting in some way station.
I responded (causing to laugh, no doubt) : "As usual, Protestants twist Scriptures to try to get it to say what they want... Paul doesn't say what you claim, he says he desires to be with Christ in heaven than here on earth!"
The Bible, which I quoted, says : "We are confident, [I say], and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." 2 Cor 5:8
Now tell me, Marlowe, does this verse say anything more than "I prefer to be with the Lord absent the body (in heaven)"? Paul says he prefers to be in heaven. It says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the events that occur after our death, or whether there is or is not a Purgatory. This is a twisting of Scriptures that any thinking person can readily see.
Sorry if I tweaked your button, but before you presume that I don't know how to think, perhaps you should, for yourself, look at the verse in question.
Catholics are not in desperate need for anything but the grace of God. We don't need to "proof-text" our beliefs from the Scriptures, as Apostolic Tradition and Scripture come from the same source. They merely cannot contradict - which they don't. But it is not our belief, nor the Bible, that the Bible alone is the sole source of our faith. THAT, my friend, is NOT found in Scriptures. Perhaps you should practice what you preach by NOT following a "doctrine" that is nowhere in Scriptures.
Regards
Can you explain to me why Christ, who promised that the Church would exist for all time, would NOT bestow supernatural powers upon His Church after the first generation? Does not Christ intend for His visible community to continue to preach the Gospel, to Baptize in the name of the Trinity, and to bring the world to Christ? Do you think this is possible by man alone?
I sure don't.
As for Scriptural verses, consult the following:
"Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." 1 Tim 4:14
"Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit." Heb 6:1-3
The Church passes the power of the Holy Spirit through the "laying of hands", a practice found even in the OT when Prophets passed along their mantle to their successors.
"Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." James 5:14-15
Again, the Church, with supernatural powers given by God, heals the sick and forgives sins. Another supernatural power beyond the Apostles.
Regards
LOL. Don't you remember? "'Free will' is a "gift from God." /sarcasm
"Furthermore, I have the comfortable certainty that I please God, not by reason of the merit of my works, but by reason of His merciful favour promised to me; so that, if I work too little, or badly, He does not impute it to me, but with fatherly compassion pardons me and makes me better. This is the glorying of all the saints in their God." -- Martin Luther, "Bondage of the Will" -- (xviii) Of the comfort of knowing that salvation does not depend on free-will' (783)"I frankly confess that, for myself, even if it could be, I should not want 'free-will' to be given me, nor anything to be left in my own hands to enable me to endeavour after salvation; not merely because in face of so many dangers, and adversities, and assaults of devils, I could not stand my ground and hold fast my 'free-will' (for one devil is stronger than all men, and on these terms no man could be saved) ; but because, even were there no dangers, adversities, or devils, I should still be forced to labour with no guarantee of success, and to beat my fists at the air. If I lived and worked to all eternity, my conscience would never reach comfortable certainty as to how much it must do to satisfy God, Whatever work I had done, there would still be a nagging doubt' as to whether it pleased God, or whether He required something more. The experience of all who seek righteousness by works proves that; and I learned it well enough myself over a period of many years, to my own great hurt. But now that God has taken my salvation out of the control of my own will, and put it under the control of His, and promised to save me, not according to my working or running, but according to His own grace and mercy, I have the comfort¬able certainty that He is faithful and will not lie to me, and that He is also great and powerful, so that no devils or opposition can break Him or pluck me from Him. `No one,´ He says, `shall pluck them out of my hand, because my Father which gave them me is greater than all´ (John 10.28-29). Thus it is that, if not all, yet some, indeed many, are saved; whereas, by the power of ´free-will´ none at all could be saved, but every one of us would perish.
jokus: Faith.
Why jokus, you sound positively like an Arminian Protestant. One has to wonder why you don't take Joseph Smith word on "faith".
Calvin believed, as Presbyterians believe, that the Lord's Supper was more than simply a memorial; he believed that Christ was spiritually present in the sacrament which seems clear from Scripture. How could any Christian deny this?
But in no way did Calvin assert it was anything like what the Romanists believe. Far, far from it.
This perverse opinion, after it was once received, engendered numerous other superstitions. First of all comes that carnal adoration which is mere idolatry. For to prostrate ourselves before the bread of the Supper, and worship Jesus Christ as if he were contained in it, is to make an idol of it rather than a sacrament. The command given us is not to adore, but to take and eat. That, therefore, ought not to have been presumptuously attempted...43. OTHER ABUSES ARISING OUT OF AN IMAGINARY BODILY PRESENCE.
I know, every time someone points out the errors of Rome then pull out the ol' Jack Chick argument.
We know from our friend jokus discussions with P-Marlowe in #8653 that "Apostolic Tradition and Scripture come from the same source. They merely cannot contradict - which they don't." Yet we know that there WAS a conflict in which the Church first stated if one pays for indulgences they would get out of purgatory. Later the Church reversed that order. What happened? Did the Bible reconstituted into something new to keep in harmony with Apostolic Tradition? Or did the Church fathers misread the scriptures and a mistake was made?
So much for "Apostolic Tradition".
Thanks Dr. E. I noticed your excellent post to A-G after I posted my comment. Unfortunately I'm in a hurry so I'll have to read later. Calvin make so much more sense than some of the things I've been reading lately. ;O)
I appreciate your trying to explain the obvious contradiction in your belief system.
But your explanation isn't exactly accurate. The question was: "Do the souls in purgatory pray each other out of purgatory?"
And annalex' answer, in contradiction to your own, was: "No, the souls in purgatory lack the free will to pray and so they cannot reduce their stay."
It seems disingenuous of you now to say annalex was speaking about their own prayers for themselves, when clearly the question was regarding praying for others.
But you have shown us a good example of how to try and evade uncomfortable errors.
A council has not officially defined the extent of what the souls in Purgatory are capable of doing for the rest of the Body.
Perhaps that's because there is no Scripture to support the idea of purgatory and thus it's difficult to defend.
FWIW, if someone or something wanted to keep people enslaved to a bureaucracy, I cannot think of a better plan than to tell them there's a place they have to endure after death before they see the Lord's face. And the length of this deprivation is determined by how "good" a person is and how much money he gives to that bureaucracy.
Ingenious.
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.