Calvinism for my Catholic siblings

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2nd_Adam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CHESTERTONRULES said:
theogrit;5951100:
This seems inconsistent with Calvinism as I understand it.

For example:

Limited Atonement:
Jesus died only for the elect. Though Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not efficacious for all. Jesus only bore the sins of the elect.
calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct Chestertonrules. This is not an accurate portrayal of Calvinistic thought. True Calvinism supports unconditional election, irresistible grace and limited atonement. None of these 3 points supports the idea that all men can CHOOSE God. In fact, Calvinism teaches that man does not have free will and salvation is entirely of God. In other words, man cannot cooperate in the decision, he has no choice.

We can then talk about perseverance and total depravity. These 2 points are not compatible with Catholic teaching.

It is true about evangelism however, we are commanded. Our efforts make no difference because if the individual being evangelized is one of Gods elect they will be saved regardless of our efforts. If they are not one of the elect, they will perish regardless of our efforts. This is the real attitude of a Calvinist when it comes to evangelizing.

It is possible that there are people in Calvinist churches that do not fully understand what the teaching is. They may believe that we are all brothers and sisters and that our differences are minimal but these are not the teachings of the leadership of these churches. I hope we can all have civil discourse on these issues as I believe they are of the utmost importance.

BTW…Calvinism IS NOT the theology of the early church, Catholicism is! Read the ECF’s and you will see very clearly that Calvinism was not the teaching of the early church.
Click to expand...
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
theogrit;5951100:
Calvinism (insomuch as it relates specifically to Calvin) generally also affirms that every single person has the opportunity for salvation and the responsibility to rightly respond to God’s commands.
Click to expand...
This seems inconsistent with Calvinism as I understand it.

For example:

Limited Atonement:
Jesus died only for the elect. Though Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not efficacious for all. Jesus only bore the sins of the elect.
calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm
Click to expand...
Understandably so; however, I agree with both statements and find them consistent with one another. Concerning those who “suppress the truth” Romans 1:20,21 tells us, “ever since the creation of the world, [God’s] invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks” (NAB). The opportunity and responsibility for every created soul is to accord God the thanks and glory due Him. That all do not and that some wind up in eternal damnation surely highlights that the punishment due their sin was not propitiated by Christ, otherwise why would they be damned (if Jesus’ sacrifice was efficacious for them, having borne their sin)?

I know the detail of coherent presentation and understanding is a matter of the systematic theology differences between Calvinists and their systematic counters (as with Roman Catholics). That is, each world-view, that which finds particular atonement, that which finds universal atonement, and that which seeks to somehow either balance the two in paradox or otherwise discount either is (even mysteriously) bound to systematic considerations which make complete sense out of seemingly at odds principles revealed in God, the Scriptures, and the Church. Both Calvinism and Catholicism are to be admired for at least attempting this task.

We seem to occasionally rally back to Augustine’s prayer, Da quod jubes, et jube quod vis; “Grant what thou commandest and then command what thou wilt.” This is, perhaps, the essence of how particular atonement and universal responsibility are best meshed, at least in Calvinistic perspective.

PS. BTW, izoid or others, :hug1: I’ve read and agree with Calvin extensively, and certainly hope I did a fair though very basic presentation of both my views and his in my 2nd post on the board, here. I am a 5-point Calvinst, though I’d be the first to acknowledge that as a supralapsarian I might rightly be called a hyper-Calvinist by some.
 
2ndAdam, I’m listening to “Seven Reasons to be Catholic” by Peter Kreeft right now…You can get this and other great cds by Catholic theologians and converts here.
 
theogrit said:
PS. BTW, izoid or others, :hug1: I’ve read and agree with Calvin extensively, and certainly hope I did a fair though very basic presentation of both my views and his in my 2nd post on the board, here. I am a 5-point Calvinst, though I’d be the first to acknowledge that as a supralapsarian I might rightly be called a hyper-Calvinist by some.
Click to expand...
In post #74 of this thread you said,

"I think,
We all agree that man needs God’s grace, which TULIP affirms.
We all agree that God chooses men to salvation through Christ, which TULIP affirms.
We all agree that Christ’s blood is applied to the debt of life man owes to God, which TULIP affirms.
We all agree that God’s grace effectively accomplishes that to which it is applied, which TULIP affirms.
And, we all agree that God is Almighty, able to eternally preserve whatever He destines to preserve. "

While we may “agree”, our definitions are not the same. I read your linked response and it is a good synapsis of TULIP. When you compare TULIP with Catholic theology they are NOT in agreement.

I will ask you a straight question. Do you believe that Calvinism and Catholicism teach the same things, are they in agreement on TULIP?

Do you believe that Catholicism teaches truth or is it heretical?
 
A quick question for the Calvinist Protestants here:

Jews were seen as God’s chosen people–the elect if you will, and now select Christians are the elect, how does your theology rectify these two groups of people if Christ only died for some?
 
Dancelittleewok said:
A quick question for the Calvinist Protestants here:

Jews were seen as God’s chosen people–the elect if you will, and now select Christians are the elect, how does your theology rectify these two groups of people if Christ only died for some?
Click to expand...
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. - Gal 3

Please study Ephesians chapter 2, Romans chapters 9, 10, and 11, Hebrews 11, and I think Rev 20. There is only one people of God in which there is no Jew or Gentile distinction. The true Jew believed in Jesus as the Christ, the promised Messiah throughout the Old Testament.
 
2nd_Adam said:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. - Gal 3

Please study Ephesians chapter 2, Romans chapters 9, 10, and 11, Hebrews 11, and I think Rev 20. There is only one people of God in which there is no Jew or Gentile distinction. The true Jew believed in Jesus as the Christ, the promised Messiah throughout the Old Testament.
Click to expand...
That makes more sense. Do you mind explaining this remnant theology you’ve alluded to in multiple posts?
 
izoid said:
While we may “agree”, our definitions are not the same. I read your linked response and it is a good synapsis of TULIP. When you compare TULIP with Catholic theology they are NOT in agreement.

I will ask you a straight question. Do you believe that Calvinism and Catholicism teach the same things, are they in agreement on TULIP?

Do you believe that Catholicism teaches truth or is it heretical?
Click to expand...
I love my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ. I might even consider myself to be part of the ancient tradition of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the way established by our Lord and His Apostles, but I am Reformed through and through, and I do not bear any illusions that even modern predominant Catholicism is in agreement with TULIP or vice versa. I find it encouraging when we are both tolerant of one another and willing to listen and hear. Indeed, I’ve found most modern Catholics to be far more exemplary of love and peaceableness than my Reformed family, but that we disagree is quite evident.

Do I believe that Catholicism teaches truth or is it heretical? I do believe Catholicism teaches truth, but not all truth all the time (for Eastern Orthodoxy does well to emphasise mystery and that we cannot know all there is to know about God), and not even the some truth we’re blessed with infallibly. That is, the history and changes within Catholicism denotes an air of error in Catholicism every bit as much as it does in Calvinism. Much is made of the disunity among Protestants, and rightly so, but Catholicism too is not so consistent as it may appear, and neither Constantinople nor Martin Luther set out to separate from Rome, that’s simply how it played out to both the benefit and chagrin of all. Christ’s Church remains one and whole, despite our attempts, appearances, and elocutions otherwise.

Is Catholicism heretical? Ah, those are strong words - “Catholicism”, “heretical” - they are warrior words. Are they heavenly words, are they in the language of heaven? Well, those are remarkable questions. I would be in favour of perhaps toning down the rhetoric a bit - not that rhetoric’s a bad thing, if we even can agree on what the word rhetoric means or how it’s meant. Is truth and error important when it comes to theology and the things of God? They most certainly are. Are Catholics and Calvinists participant in both truth and error? They most certainly are. I do not call Catholicism heretical, just as I do not call the Pope antichrist. I certainly am aware that some of my fellow Calvinists have and do, and that some of my dear Catholics have equally disparaged Calvinists, even if heretical is found a fair word between us. I think we’ve made some progress from the days we tended to lop one another’s heads off, and while I agree that “heretical” is a term worth keeping in one’s arsenal, I find it better reserved for more heavenly forces or heavenly attitudes than most we Christians too often display. “Orthodoxy” is perhaps a better though even more confusing term to discuss. At least it’s something we each like to claim and don’t mind sharing a lamb shank over.
:hug1:
 
Dancelittleewok said:
That makes more sense. Do you mind explaining this remnant theology you’ve alluded to in multiple posts?
Click to expand...
I believe Scripture reveals a remnant saved by grace throughout redemptive history. God’s work of redemption could be first seen in Genesis 3, right after the fall. God in His grace, redeems elect sinners from each generation for His good pleasure and His own glory through Jesus Christ. The first redeemned sinners could be Adam and Eve, but I’m not sure. However, we can see Abel being an elect of God (Genesis 4 and Hebrews 11). Additional remnants saved by grace include Noah and his family, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, etc… (see Hebrews 11).

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. - Rom 11

New Testament remnant:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 1
 
theogrit said:
I love my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ. I might even consider myself to be part of the ancient tradition of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the way established by our Lord and His Apostles, but I am Reformed through and through, and I do not bear any illusions that even modern predominant Catholicism is in agreement with TULIP or vice versa. I find it encouraging when we are both tolerant of one another and willing to listen and hear. Indeed, I’ve found most modern Catholics to be far more exemplary of love and peaceableness than my Reformed family, but that we disagree is quite evident.

Do I believe that Catholicism teaches truth or is it heretical? I do believe Catholicism teaches truth, but not all truth all the time (for Eastern Orthodoxy does well to emphasise mystery and that we cannot know all there is to know about God), and not even the some truth we’re blessed with infallibly. That is, the history and changes within Catholicism denotes an air of error in Catholicism every bit as much as it does in Calvinism. Much is made of the disunity among Protestants, and rightly so, but Catholicism too is not so consistent as it may appear, and neither Constantinople nor Martin Luther set out to separate from Rome, that’s simply how it played out to both the benefit and chagrin of all. Christ’s Church remains one and whole, despite our attempts, appearances, and elocutions otherwise.

Is Catholicism heretical? Ah, those are strong words - “Catholicism”, “heretical” - they are warrior words. Are they heavenly words, are they in the language of heaven? Well, those are remarkable questions. I would be in favour of perhaps toning down the rhetoric a bit - not that rhetoric’s a bad thing, if we even can agree on what the word rhetoric means or how it’s meant. Is truth and error important when it comes to theology and the things of God? They most certainly are. Are Catholics and Calvinists participant in both truth and error? They most certainly are. I do not call Catholicism heretical, just as I do not call the Pope antichrist. I certainly am aware that some of my fellow Calvinists have and do, and that some of my dear Catholics have equally disparaged Calvinists, even if heretical is found a fair word between us. I think we’ve made some progress from the days we tended to lop one another’s heads off, and while I agree that “heretical” is a term worth keeping in one’s arsenal, I find it better reserved for more heavenly forces or heavenly attitudes than most we Christians too often display. “Orthodoxy” is perhaps a better though even more confusing term to discuss. At least it’s something we each like to claim and don’t mind sharing a lamb shank over.
:hug1:
Click to expand...
I appreciate your tone and approach to this discussion. It is certainly unique among my experiences with, and as a past, Calvinist. I asked you those questions because they help me asses where you stand. Too many here on these boards give the appearance of nuetrality in order to hide their true motives.

When we do dicuss, it is very important that we reflect the truth of our belief. Differences are not something to be afraid to reveal, they will help us to better know each other.

Do individuals within the Catholic church have disagreements? Absolutely! The difference between Catholics and protestants is that Catholics have an authoritative church to establish what is true. Our differences are settled by the Church and not by man, unlike in protestant denominations. If I disagree with the Baptists I can always become a Methodist or a Lutheran and on and on and on. In the search for truth we must recognize that only one competing theology can be true. It is not up to me to make that call, God has given that authority to His Church, as the pillar of truth,
 
izoid said:
I think it is GREAT that you are not a staunch Calvinist anymore, good for you. You posted a thread entitled, “Calvinism…” and I think that it is important that the TRUE Calvinist beliefs be discussed.

From your post it seems like you have moved away from Calvinism and I think that is good. Maybe a better title for the thread would have been…my move from Calvinism.
Click to expand...
I’m quite settled in the truths of Calvinism and the 5 solas of the Protestant Reformation. However, I have grown in ecumenicism with my Christian siblings who do not see things just like me. I’m a staunch Calvinist in doctrine, but not a staunch Calvinist in trying to make others think like me, because we all know in part. God is a tremendously big God, who can know all His ways?
 
2nd_Adam said:
I’m quite settled in the truths of Calvinism and the 5 solas of the Protestant Reformation. However, I have grown in ecumenicism with my Christian siblings who do not see things just like me. I’m a staunch Calvinist in doctrine, but not a staunch Calvinist in trying to make others think like me, because we all know in part. God is a tremendously big God, who can know all His ways?
Click to expand...
The 5 solas, one of which is sola scriptura. Can we adress this one first and then we can look at the rest, once this one has been disected? I would like to present my argument in the form of a logical argument if possible. I would appreciate you showing me my error and then defending your position.
  1. In order for a doctrine to be considered authoritative for faith and practice it MUST be found in scripture.
  2. Soal scriptura is not found in scripture.
  3. Sola scriptura is not authoritative for the practice of faith.
 
izoid said:
The 5 solas, one of which is sola scriptura. Can we adress this one first and then we can look at the rest, once this one has been disected? I would like to present my argument in the form of a logical argument if possible. I would appreciate you showing me my error and then defending your position.
  1. In order for a doctrine to be considered authoritative for faith and practice it MUST be found in scripture.
  2. Soal scriptura is not found in scripture.
  3. Sola scriptura is not authoritative for the practice of faith.
Click to expand...
Sure, but point number 1 is already challenged through the Westminster Confession of Faith (my understanding of it). At least point number 1 needs to be qualified by what you mean by it. Here’s the WCF:

Chapter I
Of the Holy Scripture

I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.

II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: Of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Of the New Testament: The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul’s Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians I, Corinthians II, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians I , Thessalonians II , To Timothy I , To Timothy II, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John. All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.

III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

.
 
VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture
 
This is a quote from the following protesnt website: the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Godfrey.html.

“The Protestant position, and my position, is that all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand”.

Can you please direct me to the scriptural evidence for this definition.

I appreciate your posting the 1st chapter of the Westminster confession but since we are discussing sola scriptura I would prefer to get the proof from the scriptures themselves. In fact, your posting a source outside of scripture to define sola scriptura would seem to violate the very premise of sola scriptura. I know you didn’t mean to use it as proof but as assistance in defining sola scriptura but I find it rather long and confusing myself.
 
izoid said:
The difference between Catholics and protestants is that Catholics have an authoritative church to establish what is true. Our differences are settled by the Church and not by man, unlike in protestant denominations. If I disagree with the Baptists I can always become a Methodist or a Lutheran and on and on and on. In the search for truth we must recognize that only one competing theology can be true. It is not up to me to make that call, God has given that authority to His Church, as the pillar of truth,
Click to expand...
It’s interesting to bring up the doctrine of authority, and I know there are important differences between us on this issue. The Reformed legacy of Calvin is no stranger to Church authority, though both “Church” and “authority” convey different things in context.
My understanding is that at least since Vatican II the RCC has counted certain of us “separated brethren”, conveying to me that we remain familial brothers under God our Father and Christ Jesus, the Husband of His Bride. Our Westminster Confession affirms,
“The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that fills all in all. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.” (XXV.I-III. Note: It’s in the same section, Of the Church, which later notoriously decried the Pope as Antichrist, which reference has been removed by most Reformed groups using the Westminster Confession, but which still views a disparity of contention between the Pope and Christ – We view Christ as the true Head of the Church and seat of authority).
Further, as to a disposition of authority within the Church, our Confession affirms,
“The Lord Jesus, as king and head of His Church, has therein appointed a government, in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the Gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.” (XXX. I-II, Of Church Censures)
And,
“ It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.” (XXXI. II-III. Of Synods and Councils)What I mean by this, is that we too value Church authority to “establish what is true”, and where “differences are settled by the Church and not by man”. I know we differ on the interpretation of these words, but it is not a matter of lacking authority, only a matter of the degree and/or quality of that authority.
Interestingly enough, I find some RCC claims and prosecutions of authority to be as historically insufficient as that of my own Presbyterianism, the later of which I’ll illustrate, and which may be somewhat supportive of your claim.

Presbyterians in America are notorious for their divisions. In my lifetime, Southern Presbyterians (already split from the North during the American War of Northern Aggression), splintered over conservative orthodox theology. The denomination to which I belong, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), upon it’s inception, weakened earlier claims to Church authority in our Book of Church Order, in order that a local congregation might keep the property for which local congregant members had paid. Upon separating from the Presbyterian Church in the United States (the Southern Presbyterians, mentioned earlier) the Church headquarters enjoined civil lawsuits to lay Church claim to properties local congregations had paid for. In leaving one church and forming another some congregations lost physical properties and facilities for which they had nonetheless paid. Upon inception of the PCA, guides were established to insure that a local congregation would maintain its just rights of ownership.

This aspect of physical ownership and conflict between the physical and spiritual, even between the Church and State, has been problematic not just for Presbyterians, but throughout the history of the Church. Authority, as reflected in the stewardship of what God ultimately owns, both of our substance and our spirit, has always been a difficult issue in application, and remains so for Catholics and Protestants alike, whether corporately or as individuals.

PS. Lost room to include Bible proofs. Sorry for length.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top