P
placido
Guest
Great. John Calvin – like Calvin 95 – was a mere man, not infallible … we are free to ignore both.
placido
- Status
placido
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Dear Friend in Christ,
Actually, Catholics now do study Reformation theology and I know one priest who has earned a doctorate in such and has written a study on justification by faith.
As St Thomas Aquinas said, “All truth, regardless of who speaks it, comes from the Holy Spirit.”
Yes, there are many points on which Catholics and others can agree with John Calvin.
I am simply pointing out that as a Protestant theologian, Calvin accepted that Mary was Ever-Virgin and also her title of “Theotokos” or “Bearer/Mother of God.”
It is simply a contemporary myth that the Reformers rejected large “T” Tradition based on the early Councils of the Church. They did not and Luther and Lutherans have always affirmed they accept the teachings of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils. Calvin, together with all other Reformers of his day, rejected the idea that Mary had other children.
The only person who made the claim that Mary had other children was a man in the fourth century and St Jerome, who translated the Bible, refuted him. I will find the link to Jerome’s letter and will post it here.
God bless you
Alex
G
graceandglory
Guest
A
AwGusTeen
Guest
Hmmm…
Consider this:
Genesis 14:14 (King James Version)
“14And when Abram heard that his BROTHER was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.”
Interestingly, Lot was the NEPHEW of Abram - not his brother. The reason? Hebrew has no word for “nephew”. So much for the “…simple reading of Scripture…” statement.
Pax!
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
We must also pay some attention to the cultural context of the Word of God.
And by this I also mean the cultural context of Anglo-American society and language.
References to the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus are said to confirm our Lord had natural brothers and sisters by the Virgin Mary.
In fact, not only did the Reformers themselves reject this, but many of us for whom English is not our first language, would find this quite laughable.
My cousins were all called “brothers and sisters” when I was growing up. Our English language and contemporary culture is 2,000 years removed from the culture in which our Lord lived - but many cultures would still relate to it. And let’s remember that Aramaic is still used liturgically in the Assyrian Church.
Our friend here uses the name “Calvin” but disagrees with Calvin on the issue of the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God.
That is his right.
But it reminds me of an episode in the life of Alexander the Great. After a major battle, Alexander was visiting his wounded men.
Coming upon a man with no visible wounds on him, Alexander asked him what was wrong with him that he was among the wounded.
The man said, “I am afraid of battle . . .”
Alexander then asked him his name, to which the visibly shaking soldier responded, “Alexander, Your Majesty . . .”
“Oh,” said Alexander the Great. “You have the same name as I do. Well, then, either change your behaviour . . . or else change your name!!”
(I feel so blessed to be able to relate this story here . . . yes, I need to get a life . . .
)
Alex
And by this I also mean the cultural context of Anglo-American society and language.
References to the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus are said to confirm our Lord had natural brothers and sisters by the Virgin Mary.
In fact, not only did the Reformers themselves reject this, but many of us for whom English is not our first language, would find this quite laughable.
My cousins were all called “brothers and sisters” when I was growing up. Our English language and contemporary culture is 2,000 years removed from the culture in which our Lord lived - but many cultures would still relate to it. And let’s remember that Aramaic is still used liturgically in the Assyrian Church.
Our friend here uses the name “Calvin” but disagrees with Calvin on the issue of the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God.
That is his right.
But it reminds me of an episode in the life of Alexander the Great. After a major battle, Alexander was visiting his wounded men.
Coming upon a man with no visible wounds on him, Alexander asked him what was wrong with him that he was among the wounded.
The man said, “I am afraid of battle . . .”
Alexander then asked him his name, to which the visibly shaking soldier responded, “Alexander, Your Majesty . . .”
“Oh,” said Alexander the Great. “You have the same name as I do. Well, then, either change your behaviour . . . or else change your name!!”
(I feel so blessed to be able to relate this story here . . . yes, I need to get a life . . .
)Alex
A
AwGusTeen
Guest
No Calvin - we are not arguing with the Word of God; we are simply disagreeing with your human and fallible interpretation of His Word. Why should we believe that your interpretation holds more truth than 2,000 years of Church teaching?
Further, your approach in this thread has been somewhat sophomoric in my opinion. (I.e. disprove me or I am correct.)
Argumentum ad ignorantium!
Pax!
A
AwGusTeen
Guest
All have sinned? Hmmm…
Romans 3:23-25: “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.”
Here, Paul is quoting the old testament (Psalm 14: 1-7). Those passages make a distinction between “evil doers” and “my people” also called therein, the “company of the righteous”. The context of these verses clearly shows that not all have sinned, but all “evil doers” have sinned. If all have sinned, then there are no righteous, a scenario that would put this scripture in conflict with itself. Clearly, this cannot be and only happens when verses are taken out of context.
If, however, in Romans, you believe that Paul is referring to personal sin, then you must make exceptions for infants and small children as they cannot have committed personal sin. Thus, making such an exception, invalidates Paul’s use of the word “all”.
Pax!
P
placido
Guest
Jumping to apostolic succession from Matthew 16:19? That is news to many of us who have never met a Catholic using Matthew 16:19 to defend Apostolic Succession. Or, may be (just may be) Calvin 95 does not even know what Catholics mean by Apostolic Succession.
Here is the Gospel According to Calvin 95, Chapter One Verse One: "In the beginning was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God."
Yes, according to Calvin 95, the Word of John 1:1 is the Bible.
placido
C
Calvin_95
Guest
I disagree on your statement concerning the “whole point of Christianity”; it would be laughable if not so serious.Oh Calvin,
You have yet to even say anything relevant about Mary as the Mother of God, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, Queen of Heaven, etc… As it is though, I am glad to see you here again.
Anyway, where does it say that James was Jesus brother? Consider also that Scriptures say that one James was the son of Zebedee in one place and another James is the son of Alphaeus and Thaddeus
We too accept the Word of God over the precepts of men. That is the whole point of Christianity. I think you can agree with that. I also agree that Scriptures leave no room for debate. You rightly stated your last sentence is your opinion. Obviously, I cannot change that even if it is untrue. But there is a fine line between telling somebody but they are doing and giving an opinion. The OP was opened for a healthy debate on Scriptures. Go read it. You now have the task to show us how these are precepts of man. You have to show HOW it contradicts Scriptures! That will be very hard for you though. It is even hard for your scholars. You also rightly stated that John Calvin is a mere man and not infallible. Very convenient to use that statement when he contradicts what you say.
I have stated the facts with the very words of Jesus and of Mary and your precepts trump both of them; so what debate is there? NONE!
Since you just decided to join; the comments of the Catholic stance is shocking; Not. Thanks for your opinion. Good day.
C
Calvin_95
Guest
Only those who love the pure word of God; will love the humility of the birth mother of Jesus, called Mary; who recognized her need for humility before God and her desperate need for a Savior and the privledge God gave to her by choosing her among any he could have created. That is the kind of love Mary showed; respect for the word of God and for the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. What you call love is total disrespect for Mary and for God in my humble opinion. To worship someone/something other than God is a grave sin according to Scripture; not me, but Scripture. Thank God for the elect of God who can who have eyes to see and ears to hear, which Mary was a shining example…
K
KathleenGee
Guest
What church do you go to, Calvin?
How long have you been a Christian?
How long have you been a Christian?
C
Calvin_95
Guest
Revisionist and/or imaginationary history? Read the plain words of Mary and Jesus; it is not too difficult to understand; very straightforeword that an unbeliever can understand. She called God her SAVIOR; saved from what? Sin. Who has sin? Sinners. Anyone want to challenge these facts? Good luck.
C
Calvin_95
Guest
I believe that you believe the bible was written and inspired by the Catholic church, which neglected to write itself into the NT; I have a different and biblical view concerning that I would be happy to discuss on the appropriate thread.
M
moondweller
Guest
Being devoted to Mary makes you devoted to Mary, not Jesus. Unless you’re making her part of the Godhead.
If Mary sees God face to face then why does she have to pray? On what objective source do you base all of this?
M
moondweller
Guest
Do you have a Divine Source to back up all your Marian doctrines?
M
moondweller
Guest
In Rom. 3:23 Paul is not quoting the Psalm but rather making a true statement: “All sinned (aorist, not perfect, tense; i.e., in Adam) and (continually, present tense) fall short of the glory of God. Being justified as a GIFT by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (via the cross).
In that verse God is looking at Adam’s federal headship involving us ALL (who are his posterity). In that verse He looks at the whole human race as fallen and lost in their federal head, Adam; and then as individually continuing in sins. IOW, when Adam had once sinned, in Eden, he continually fell short, out of Eden, as did ALL his race (posterity), by him and after him.
Sorry, folks, Mary is a part of Adam’s race, his fallen posterity. She’s is included as part of the “ALL.” Unlike Christ who is Himself another “Adam,” the “second Man” (1 Cor. 15:45,47).
G
graceandglory
Guest
You do know Jesus is the Word of God, right?
Jesus Christ is the Word made Flesh.
Also, Catholics understand that we are to only worship the one true God.
Worshiping any other created being is a sin according to scripture and tradition.
Mary is not a deity, she is not God, and we do not worship her. If we did, then you should be able to find a Catholic source saying that indeed, we do worship her. Then we would need some correction.See the Catholic Catechism:
G
graceandglory
Guest
Well, you would be wrong then. As Catholics, we are universal. Therefore, those who are faithful Catholics all believe the same thing. Please, show some integrity and stop assuming what we believe. It is free online to search out what Catholics believe, then you can choose to agree or disagree based on an honest assessment.
As Catholics, we believe that GOD is the author of Sacred Scripture. We believe that Scripture is all about JESUS, and that it points to JESUS, Who is the WORD, who is to be worshipped. The Bible is not to be worshipped.
As for the Catholic Church not being in the scriptures, have you not read the book of the Acts of the Apostles? Which churches exactly do you think Paul was writing to in his letters? That would be the CATHOLIC Church at Corinth, the CATHOLIC Church at Thessalonica, The Catholic Church in Galatia, etc. There was only ONE Truth in the beginning, and there still is only ONE truth today. When the canon of scripture was closed (as per the Catholic Church), the Catholic Church continued to maintain the faithfulness to the early Church and the earliest believers. If you don’t believe me, you can look it up. I’m not talking about something that must be believed on faith, this is historical, and can be verified by research.
When I was a bible-only protestant like you, I truly believed that Church History started with the Reformation. I couldn’t have been more wrong. HOWEVER, you will not find anything on protestant bible bookstore shelves that go back to before LUTHER.
Scripture and Inspiration
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm
C
Calvin_95
Guest
I already explained that sufficiently from a biblical point of view, which you disagree with. You avoided the question, “how can God be born and be eternal?” Because the answer is so evident that you must side-step it and use a profusion of words to walk around the obvious. God has no Mother, if He did He would be a CREATURE; Jesus the God-man was born in the likeness of human flesh because this is the “tool” or “means” which He chose to reveal Himself into our little time-space box rather than in the holy of holies. You obviously are unable to comprehend the two natures and the relationship and importantance this has for man. I suggest you read and study your Bible on this topic before you continue on wit this discussion, which is really not a discussion.
G
graceandglory
Guest
Sir, you are the one who needs to read. You are relying on your own very minute understanding compared with 2000 years of Christian thought.
Is Christ 100% God? Is He 100% man?
Mary is the Mother of God the Son. She is not the Mother of God the Father.
I suggest you read about the nature of the Trinity. Or do you not believe in the Trinity, either, since it’s not in the Bible? The Catholic Church made that up too.
- Status