Posted on 04/22/2008 2:00:13 PM PDT by annalex
Of what? Calvin proposed wholly unorthodox, unheard-of before theological heresy. Which pope did anything similar?
Well, I'm not a defender of Calvinism - but that's not quite true. Calvin got a lot of his ideas from Augustine.
“Which pope did anything similar?”
"... Honorius I was condemned and excommunicated for heresy by the sixth general council in 680. The heresy in question was Montheism in which Jesus is seen as a divine-human, rather than the orthodox belief of physeis that he is both fully God and fully man. Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople wrote to Honorius asking him to decide the question that was causing much division at the time. Instead of clarifying the view of the Church, Honorius did nothing. His lack of action was so scandalous that for 3 centuries, each new Pope had to state at his coronation that he: smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics. The Roman Breviary contained the condemnation of Honorius on the Feast of St Leo II right up until the 18th century. "
“Someone suggested Mark.”
Only an arch HERETIC or an APOSTATE would suggest studying Mark before Matthew!!!!!!
I protest!!!! and I am officially splitting off from this hypocritical and heretical “Bible study” and will be starting my own Bible study!!!
So there!!!
;)
Even assuming all your quote suggests, all Honorius did was not clarifying the proper doctrine in the face of heresy. This has nothing in common with Calvin who simply started a new religion and claimed the leadership of the Holy Ghost in doing so.
“As Papertyger commented, they are requirements within the God-given jurisdiction of the Church to regulate the lives of the faithful (Matthew 18).”
annalex & papertyger, let’s look at an example:
“Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.” Col 2.
Paul here is saying not to allow anyone to “pass judgement” on you in matters of food or drink. St. Paul told believers not to allow anyone, no one, nobody to pass judgement on them regarding food and drink. He is laying out a principle of personal freedom that flows naturally out of Jesus death on the cross. (Col 2; 14-16)
Do you think that the RCC now has the authority to “pass judgment on [believers]in questions of food and drink”???
You asked for something similar, I gave you something similar (in your frame of reference).
*****************
“This has nothing in common with Calvin who simply started a new religion and claimed the leadership of the Holy Ghost in doing so.”
Calvin did not “start a new religion”. He sought to reform Christianity. You're just worked up.
Mohamed started a new religion.
How many languages you I have to tell you "yes" in before you get it?
Frankly, I regard your reading of Col 2 of the same pedigree as the Pharisee's accusation against the disciples for harvesting on the Sabbath.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths, 17 Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. 18 Let no man seduce you, willing in humility, and religion of angels, walking in the things which he hath not seen, in vain puffed up by the sense of his flesh, 19 And not holding the head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God. 20 If then you be dead with Christ from the elements of this world, why do you yet decree as though living in the world?
Indeed, Christians are free from the dietetic and calendaric restrictions that the Judaizers attempted to impose on them.
OK, technically, Calvinists are Christians, but I cannot think of a more radical departure from Christian patrimony than the fantastical notion of predestination to hell. This goes to the ontological essence of God.
I very much agree with you on this. I debate them regularly
I was hoping you would eventually hit upon a language that forced you to use common sense! :) (it's a joke)
************
“Frankly, I regard your reading of Col 2 of the same pedigree as the Pharisee's accusation against the disciples for harvesting on the Sabbath.”
An intriguing notion. Please explain further.
How could the defense of Christian freedom against legalism be viewed as Pharisee-ism?
I have not forgotten about this; I have an inquiry out to how to handle the mechanics on an online bible study.
The interaction issue is difficult.
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.