Posted on 06/04/2010 5:43:13 AM PDT by markomalley
Appears as tho the guy wasn't much of a Bible student anyway, and still isn't...
This is foreign to the author of this piece as well as the people that 'welcome him home'...
I don't know much about the main line Protestant churches but it seems odd to me that the author apparently never did get the leading of the Holy Spirit...Otherwise, he'd never have backstroked across the Tiber...
This society was formed to allow coordinated public action on the part of disparate groups that agreed on “the new birth,” but disagreed on just about everything else.
ABSOLUTE RUBBISH, completely unsubstantiated nonsense.
Evangelicals agree on:
-Authority of scripture
-Basic tenets of orthodoxy as taught in the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds
-2 Sacraments or Ordinances (even as they disagree whether they are merely symbolic or the Real Presence)
-Justification by faith alone--which is really what emphasis on the "new birth" is about. Evangelicals all, be they Calvinist or Arminian, acknowledge salvation is a result of God's work, not my own--hence seen as a birth--not an accomplishment.
-Christian ethics (with some disagreement on pacifism and birth control)
-Assumption of the basic separation of Church and State governance.
-Rejection of non-biblicalyy proven Roman Catholic practices & doctrines, like mariology, prayers to saints, purgatory, the papacy, authoritative tradition etc.
All these things and more evangelicals have, and do agree on. Evangelicalism was established not so much to oppose Rome (as it wasn't that influential in America) as to oppose the revisonist liberal forces within mainline Protestantism--which had grown up out of the secular Enlightenement. Evangelicals saw (and see) themselves as better educated, more thoroughly prepared and intellectual, fundamentalists--who rejected that word, due to it's anti-intellectual associations. Inerrancy of scripture which has FULL AND FINAL authority over and above the Church, is key to evangelicalism--even more than the new birth.
MAIN POINT: There is at least as much agreement on these issues among those who self-identify as "evangelical" today as in a similar kind of list amidst those who self-identify as "Roman Catholic."
In fact, EVANGELICALS ARE MUCH MORE CONSISTENT IN VOTING ACCORDING TO THEIR RELIGIOUS ETHICS THAN ROMAN CATHOLICS. (Catholic voters who, after all, form a key voting block within the Party of Abortion, Euthanasia, and Socialism, the Democrats.)
Another proof of evangelical agreement is the number of non-denominational evangelical Churches today. Most have "gentle" baptist doctrines (believers baptism) and have fairly generic biblical preaching. Somehow--without a pope or Magisterium dictating to these what they must teach--there is HUGE continuity in what they say...inexplicably so, almost--UNLESS one takes into account the Holy Spirit working through holy Scripture, their authority, the one gigantic thing they do hold in common.
All in all, I'd wager that those things evangelicals agree about cover something like 95%+ of Christian doctrine and life... with mode and timing of baptism--and the depth of reality of the sacraments, as well as organizational (Church governance) making up most of the 5% difference. Hardly doctrinal chaos.
The Charismatic movement is also a point of differences...but one which is primarily not doctrinal...and washes equally over into Roman Catholicism as well.
Probably the most amazing thing is, WITHOUT organizational unity, historically enforced by government (as is historically the case of Rome...) is the high level of agreement amidst evangelicals.
How could my Church claim Calvin as a founder, and yet stray so far from his views? Was the whole Protestant way of doing theology doomed to confusion and inconsistency?
Calvin's likability (based on his non-21st Century religious intolerance), his views on the Church, and it's political authority are about all Bryan Cross delves into.
If one looked into your average 16th Century pope's tolerance, view of the Church and its political authority--one would find similar views. If one looked at other Protestant Reformers--on tolerance, the Church and its political authority--one would find similar views (even among someone like Menno Simons...founder of the persecuted pacifist Mennonites).
ALL 16th CENTURY LEADERS were intolerant of other views than their own institutions' and took for granted that Church and State were blended--and that there were religious crimes, for which execution was appropriate.
The idea that 16th Century Rome was somehow more tolerant than Calvin is utterly laughable--especially in light that shortly after Calvin's death TENS OF THOUSANDS of French Calvinist civilians were murdered....to Pope Gregory's delight (he even minted a medal in honor of this slaughter)(Saint Batholomew's Day Massacre).
Yes, the medieval saints were peaceable--but, they also lived in a time when only ONE CHURCH was allowed--and to rebel against it--was to rebel against the king--and resulted in burning to death. So they were tolerant under the umbrella of one organization--which allowed some some discussion and descent--but ONLY SOME....beyond which was certain death.
I too, am not a big fan of the person Calvin. I'd probably have been one of those brought up before the Consistory for "blasphemy." Calvin merely took the previous Roman Catholic assumption of Church and State mixed seriously...and used what he--and virtually everyone else in his day--thought was appropriate measures to enforce his new bible-based vision of Christianity.
It took his followers--applying the principle of EVERYONE UNDER GOD'S LAW (which meant NO "divine right of Kings") to develop American religious tolerance and democratic, representative institutions. It was from the persecuted Calvinists (who quickly became persecutors...when allowed, in England, and New England) to finally acknowledge the Church and State operated in different spheres...which mostly do NOT overlap, at least when it comes to the use of force.
American religious liberty was BORN of Protestant experience....NOT from Roman Catholicism, which for almost all of its 1500+ year history has had a reliable enforcer of its religious doctrine and monopoly in the form of the State.
When did serious religious tolerance and liberty blossom in Europe, Latin America and the rest of the Western world? Only AFTER it bloomed in America--the founders of whom were culturally...Protestant.
But you did not address the author's main assertion along those lines: that John Calvin would not recognize, much less approve of the wide diversity of sects, all of whom call themselves evangelical, such as stated in the following extracts:
Is he wrong about what he asserted regarding John Calvin?
In other words, the strawman argument is making a re-statement about what Evangelicals believe. An answer to the author's assertion is to document whether John Calvin would have agreed with what modern evangelicals have become.
For every one Protestant who becomes Roman Catholic, there are four Roman Catholics who become Protestant.
Post tenebrux lux.
One of the difficulties in arguing against Roman Catholic arguments is assumptions of authority. Calvin taught (even if he didn’t practice) that scripture alone is final and fully authoritative. Obviously, he himself was a huge authority...who acted in very authoritarian and dictatorial ways—and assumed an authority of the government, which today we find reprehensible.
So for one, evangelical individualism, while at odds with Calvin’s practice, is NOT at odds with Calvin’s principle; namely that the Bible alone has full and final authority.
This principle is why Protestants generally, and Calvinists in particular, have no problem in differing with Calvin when they think he was wrong and not biblically sound (as on the authority of the Church/State alliance). Calvin is not an infallible pope, whom we must logically defend...his own teaching undermined his personal authority.
Personally, I think evangelicals go too far with individualism,...and I agree that the Church itself has an interpretive authority above that of the individual.....however still it’s authority is derivative from the Apostles, of which the only objective record of we have is in scripture. Apostolic authority, which Rome sees as exercised through the institution acting upon Tradition...the Magisterium, is, properly, the Church acting in submission to the Bible....the only reliable place Apostolic tradition can be proven. So we have what seems to be an irony...the Church with authority to interpret the bible, but, with responsibility to submit its authority to that same bible.
In a religiously tolerant and free society however, such individuality and “chaos” is inevitable however....as we cannot have any “official” church, or religion, lest we lapse back into burnings-at-the-stake religion. Therefore the yearning for a unified Church is yearning for an illusion...as up until the last couple hundred years, religious unity existed ONLY as coerced by the sword.
This is one reason I find Roman Catholicism as an historic institution so repugnant...the amount of blood on the institution’s hands over history (even if it technically was on the State’s hands...reality says the Church is responsible).
Bottom line is yes, the individualist spirit, while having gone too far, is contrary to Calvin....and Calvin himself in practice is contrary to the development of religious tolerance, Calvin, like the 16C generally, in the West is universally acknowledged as morally wrong on tolerance.... praise God for religious tolerance and freedom!
I agree that Christians should put less emphasis on personal interpretation, or what the “passage means to me” and more on what their Church teaches. Does that go against the grain of (hyper)individualism? Yes, and it should—as submission to authority is a Christian virtue, one not well appreciated especially in America.
This is one reason I am a creedal/confessional Christian. I buy into what my religious fore-bearers believed, and don’t make it all up as I go along...me, alone with my bible... We learn and live in community, not as isolated individuals. That community need not be determined and dictated by one historic and demonstrably fallible institution or one fallible pope, or one fallible tradition. This is why an infallible text is important...
I also agree that personal experience is no basis of assurance. 1st John for example gives this test for assurance: Are we walking in obedience and love of Jesus? I also agree with Calvin that holy Communion is another way of assurance given us by Christ Jesus.
None of these things point logically to Rome however. They are reasonable criticisms of (many, not all) evangelicals, but not proofs for the Magisterium or the papacy.
I think a better word might be "Primacy, not in the sense of superiority, but similar to the British Parliment witht he Prime Minister be3ing the "First among equals."
You are more than welcome to rant to your heart’s content about the Catholic Church. It is a very popular pastime enjoyed by millions around the world.
And, in the midst of your rant, you did answer the question: Calvin would NOT, in fact, recognize what Protestantism has developed into over the centuries.
Thank you for answering the question.
Now, please, carry on about how the Catholic Church is the root of all that is evil in the world. I’m rather enjoying it.
OK, that works for me too.
Not trying to start an arguement here, but People can "Beleive" all sorts of strange things. Wouldn't be better to find out what the Earliest followers of Christ taught as the truth?
What did they practice, How did they deal with various issues?
Bible-believing Christians preach the Gospel, not politics.
I do like some of the comments on that article, however. Here Kevin Davis writes...
"I can’t remember the number of times, while reading the Institutes, that I’ve been amazed by the spiritual depth and humility of Calvin, not to mention the riches found in his commentaries on Scripture. Calvin could certainly, at times, be unyielding in his position as a Genevan reformer (not surprising, considering the precarious situation of the Reformation and the threats from without and within), but his dogmatic and exegetical work are models of Christian discipleship."
And this comment by Bojidar Marinov...
" Amazingly, the most individualistic of all nations on this planet are the USA and Switzerland, both established by Calvinist populations in history. Obviously the author has his own subjective ways of interpreting Calvin and the Evangelical tradition. There is more. In fact, the whole article is like that, based on subjective bias, not objective scholarship."
So even among all the lies and misdirection, the truth prevails.
As God wills.
You may wish to discuss this with Leoni. He seems to believe that Catholic doctrine regarding which Church is "true" has not changed and does not include what he calls "so-called Orthodox Churches," that is — Churches not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
PS I thank you for your prayers.
Exactly what I was thinking. It didnt sound at all like it was a theological decision at all to him.
The Catholic Church is the oldest Church. You will be in my prayers.
Actually, the Jerusalem Church was the oldest. I think Antioch is the next oldest Church.
Maybe Rome is in the top 5, probably not though.
Those are all local “churches” which is part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the Catholic Church for short.
http://www.christiantruth.com/Beckwith-Response-to-Return-to-Rome.html
This comment from two people that don't know the difference between "the correct "Born from above" and the incorrect "born again"
The thin gruel offered by the usual list of Romanists leaves much to be desired. Allow me to nominate Bodijar Manirov, that great Irishman , as our first weekly winner. This being the First Friday of the month of June, I would trust the Spirit is leading all faithful Hearts. Like myself , being Spirit led, you might yet convince the usual list of sinners who oppose your every word, to listen to the voice of the Sacred.
The market is way down today so I must sublimate my efforts to some other endeavor for the interim.
Answer - The Body of Christ is the true Church. It is not a building not a denomination not either Catholic nor Orthodox.
THe Body of Christ is true believers in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. I am a solid Calvinist and I came out of the VRS church...as the book of Revelation warns us...
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.