Christian faith: Calvinism is back

[gurneyhalleck1]

Triple predestination and they go right over a cliff, man…

Well… the Bible does use that language. He probably doesn’t hate them enough to double predestinate them… but, you know, He doesn’t send sins to hell.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Triple predestination and they go right over a cliff, man…

I’ll see your triple predestination and raise you a Christ only died for elect felines.

 

[theoldman]

My friend all five points of Calvinism are condemned heresy. It is contrary to everything we know about God and His infinite mercy.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Isa. 55;8 “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my ways your ways” ,saith the Lord

What we know about God and His infinite mercy would hardly fill a thimble !

this old man

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Being a cat-fan I’ll see that hand! My black and white cat, Connie, big blimp that she is, has a heart of pure gold…loving little ole girl. She’d be part of the feline elect. My other one, the calico, Vickie, that cat is a grouchy, moody, weird little old flake. I don’t know if she’d make the 30,000 Jehovah’s witness feline quota of saved cats LOL…

Thinking about how few people are eligible for salvation in this Calvinist joke model we have going it reminds me of the old Get Smart episodes where Max would steadily bargain down until there was nothing left but pathetic.

Max to Kaos agent posing as a doctor: “I’m going to report you to the American Medical Association!”

Dr: “I don’t belong to the AMA, Mr. Smart”

Max: “aghh huh, uh well then I’m going to report you to the Better Business Bureau! How do you like that!”

Dr.: “I’m not a member of that body either Mr. Smart”

Max: “How bout the Automobile Club?”

It’s like Calvinism:

Sinner: “I’m going to heaven, Mr. Calvin!”

Calvin: “No you’re not.”

Sinner: “I have free will and mixed with God’s grace I will!”

Calvin: “No you won’t”

Sinner: “Fine then I’ll go to the lowest mansion of heaven”

Calvin: “I think not”

Sinner: “Ok, how bout purgatory?”

Calvin: “There is no purgatory, friend”

Sinner: “How about Nirvana with a touch of existential nihilism?”
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I’ll see your triple predestination and raise you a Christ only died for elect felines.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Isa. 55;8 “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my ways your ways” ,saith the Lord

What we know about God and His infinite mercy would hardly fill a thimble !

Well, we do know this much: Calvin and his followers were, as a general rule, anything but representative of “God and His infinite mercy”!

John Calvin’s Sanction of Torture (of the Libertines) and Belief that the Extra Torment Caused by an Inept Executioner Was the “Special Will of God”

---

*The emperor Honorius kneels at the tomb of Peter, not in the temple of Hadrian: *

There in Rome is to be found the tomb of a fisherman, there the temple of an emperor. Peter is there in a tomb, Hadrian is there in a temple. A temple for Hadrian, a memorial chapel for Peter.

The emperor comes. Let us see where he hurried off to, where he wished to kneel: in the emperor’s temple or in the fisherman’s memorial chapel?

Laying aside his diadem, he beat his breast where the fisherman’s body lies; it’s on his merits that he reflects, in the crown he received that he believes, through him that he is eager to reach God, by his prayers that he feels and discovers he is assisted.

• St. Augustine, Sermon 360B:26

Sermon of Saint Augustine Preached at Boseth When the Pagans Were Allowed In. (Date, 404).

Newly Discovered Sermons, ISBN 1565481038, p. 382.

 

[MarkBrown]

A Calvinist would see your quotes with a response of

St Batholomew’s Day 1572. Feel the love!? Catholics were not too merciful or representative of God’s love that day and the weeks that followed.

Let’s be careful throwing rocks, think Jesus said something about that at one time.

Fr. Mark

 

[raumzeitmc2]

A Calvinist would see your quotes with a response of

St Batholomew’s Day 1572. Feel the love!? Catholics were not too merciful or representative of God’s love that day and the weeks that followed. Let’s be careful throwing rocks, think Jesus said something about that at one time.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with “throwing rocks,” but simply with presenting some historical facts - facts which our Protestant friends would naturally prefer be kept hidden.

But what does not St. Paul say?

“Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” Ephesians 5:11.

Now I should point out that the whole St. Bartholomew’s “massacre” is a rather complicated piece of history - much too much to go into now. A good place to start however, might be the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the that tragic day: Saint Bartholomew’s Day

But even were we to grant the worst possible that can be said about the Catholic involvement in the affair, what would that be in comparison to the enormous number of atrocities committed against Catholics by the violent and self-appointed Calvinists?

We should all keep in mind that, after all, it was not the Catholics, but the Calvinists, who were the persecutors. Catholics had been exhausted from the endless violence against them by these wicked and unjust aggressors, and were thus merely trying to defend themselves and the ancient faith.

But just how violent were the Calvinists? Here is but the smallest sampling:

In the Protestant Revolt there was something more than the mere breaking away of the northern communities from the jurisdiction of Rome; much more than the nationalism to which Professor Carlton Hayes ascribes perhaps too much importance. There was a spirit in Protestantism in its first phase that sought something more than freedom; it sought nothing less (and this was more evident in Calvinism than in Lutheranism) than the utter destruction of the Catholic Church. Here was a hatred that began manifesting itself by the burning of churches and convents, the violation of nuns, the torture and execution of priests, the defiling of the Cross and the unspeakable desecration of the Blessed Sacrament.

Within a year the Calvinists, according to one of their own estimates, "murdered 4,000 priests, monks and nuns., expelled or maltreated 12,000 nuns, sacked 20,000 churches, and destroyed 2,000 monasteries " (Novuvelle Collection de memoires relatif a l’histoire de France, Ch. XI, p. 512) with their priceless libraries and works of art. The rare manuscript collection of the ancient monastery of Cluny was irreparably lost, with many others. Sacred vessels from the churches were melted into money to pay German mercenaries, who were urged to be ruthless.

Coligny took an active part in many of the atrocities. He displayed such cold and vindictive cruelty, especially to priests and nuns, that Catholics came to call him Holofernes.(21)

The Persecution of Catholics in France by the Protestant Calvinists By William Thomas Walsh, Excerpted from “Philip II”

 

[MarkBrown]

raumzeitmc2,

You miss the point. Both sides committed horrible acts. Phillip II, which Walsh appears to think was a great person, condoned the Council of Blood in the Netherlands. Antwerp in 1576 was destroyed by Catholic troops and the people slaughtered. For every Walsh their is a Louis-Pierre Anquetil who wrote the Esprit de la Ligue in 1767 giving a fair accounting of this Catholic attrocity. While Phillip II was happy about it, and Pope Gregory at first, until he learned the true nature of event, other Catholics leaders denounced it, like Charles father in law Maxamilian II. Catholics will say it was political or a defense of the faith in France. Anglicans will tell you what Good Queen Bess did and the outlawing of Catholics in England was also political. Guess what? Both are wrong and have to violate the commands of God and the teachings of the Church to enact such cruelity.

I could give a list of Catholic attrocities, you Calvinist and guess what, we both are correct.
There is no defense of what some Catholics and Protestants did during the Reformation in the name of God. It is sickening. Both sides need to repent and then look to the future, not the 400 year past.

Both sides did during the Reformation which John Paul II in Paris (1997) said “Christians doing things which the Gospels condemn.”

Disagree with Calvinism, great. Bringing in attrocities that happened 400 + years ago has no bearing today on Calvinism or Catholicism. It actually prohibits actual discussion and resolution. I have this same type of discussion with anti-catholics who dig up the past and try to plaster it on the Church of today, totally ignoring the 400 years of change between then and now. You and I have wasted to much bandwidth talking about horrible actions of 4 centuries ago and have not moved the discussion forward.

Fr. Mark

 

[peary]

I’m sorry if I gave offense when I made the comment. Obviously, Christian churches which follow the teachings or spirit of Calvinism are Christian. My earlier comment was stated poorly.

But I think that Calvinism is very dark and posits a God unlike the Father Jesus talked about. I think it misses Christ’s message of hope, love and salvation. However, its an opinion which I can’t defend by argument - its just my sense.

Calvinism ebbs and flows with how society goes - if society is ‘depressed’ or in a funk, Calvinism becomes a more popular theology to follow. When society has a period of upliftment and a positive attitude, Calvinism sinks like a rock.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

raumzeitmc2,

You miss the point. Both sides committed horrible acts.

My point was simply this: that it was the Calvinists who were the unjust aggressors; Catholics were and remain the innocent party.

It was the Calvinists who, with absolutely no right, no justification, went about shedding innocent blood, violating nuns, torturing priests, burning churches etc. Catholics were on the defensive.

Phillip II, which Walsh appears to think was a great person, condoned the Council of Blood in the Netherlands. Antwerp in 1576 was destroyed by Catholic troops and the people slaughtered. For every Walsh their is a Louis-Pierre Anquetil who wrote the Esprit de la Ligue in 1767 giving a fair accounting of this Catholic attrocity.

Perhaps you can provide some documentation for this?

Meantime, I invite you and anyone else who may be interested in some real history to read William Thomas Walsh’s Philip II. Here is an excellent review of Walsh’s book. It begins:

Enormous accumulations of evil encircled the sixteenth century, making it one of the most disturbed in history. The enemies of the Holy Catholic Church had been tearing at her in bits and pieces, but it was not until the 1500’s that the throes of Satan seemed to combine in an all out effort aimed at her destruction. From within and without, the blows were unrelenting, and of such an intensity that only a Divine Institution could have survived it. A hatred of Christ and His Mystical Body was the focal point for the beginning of a vast conspiratorial network of sinister intrigue that would plague the defenders of God and His Church from that century to the present. Thus it was that “one of the heaviest burdens that any mortal had ever been called upon to bear,” fell upon the shoulders of one man – Philip II, King of Spain.

Philip II: a Book Review by Sister Jeanne Marie, MI.C.M., Tert., October 14th, 2008.

Both are wrong and have to violate the commands of God and the teachings of the Church to enact such cruelity.

Again, the Calvinist were the unjust aggressors! Catholics, the innocent victims!

We must remember that these self-appointed thugs, like Luther himself, had declared all out war against the Catholic Church, which they slanderously termed the “Whore of Babylon.”

The Calvinists were as puffed up with pride and rage as Luther, who blasted Henry VIII with these and many other like words:

My teachings will stand, and the Pope will fall, although he should be supported by all the gates of hell and the powers of the air and the earth and the sea. They have provoked me to war; and war they shall have!

Martin Luther against Henry King of England, 1522.

Now what would you have the Catholics do, just sit back and allow themselves to be slaughtered?? Should the nuns just sat back and allowed themselves to be violated? The priests to be dragged from their churches to be tortured and murdered? And so on?

So they fought back. And yes, there were abuses and excesses, and even atrocities committed. That’s what happens in war!

Again, it was the Calvinists who were in the wrong, it was they who were not simply, unjust aggressors, but ruthless aggressors!

There is no defense of what some Catholics and Protestants did during the Reformation in the name of God. It is sickening. Both sides need to repent and then look to the future, not the 400 year past.

Both sides did during the Reformation which John Paul II in Paris (1997) said “Christians doing things which the Gospels condemn.”

Yes, the gospel condemns the Reformers! Or will you insist, as so many others have, that the so-called Reformation, with its reign of terror, with its immoral leaders, with its deceitful defenders, was inspired by the Holy Spirit??

Surely Fr. Mark, surely you can’t possibly believe such a blasphemous thing?

God bless.

 

[who0Oshhh]

Calvinism is false at its root. If you study Judaism which is the basis for Christianity you discover the absolute understanding of Free will.

I didn’t know Catholics ever cared about what Jews had to say. If anyone’s lacking “the fullness of truth,” it’s got to be them, right? (Joking a little).

In a more serious vein, though, it seems (to me) that Catholics on this forum typically have a pretty low view of the Jews. When one person out of 100 tells you to study Judaism in order to know what you’re talking about and the other 99 refer to them as “whitewashed sepulchres,” make much of their eventual rejection of Christ, and consistently put them down when other topics arise on which their perspective might be considered valuable (ie., the OT canon)…

Well, I guess I’m glad you don’t have such a low view of Judaism- in this particular case, anyway. But based on past experience with other Catholics, I’ve come to expect that this kind of thing is highly situational and very likely to look much different when the topic changes to something else.

Calvinism is opposed to free will.

Calvinists place a great amount of emphasis on God’s sovreignty, but they are not opposed to free will. A good Calvinist is a compatibilist and is able to describe how God is absolutely sovereign but man is also free- and this happens without God being any less sovereign or man being any less free.

I can see why it might look that way sometimes, though. Most of the dialogue you’ll see between Calvinists and other types of people has to do with compatibilism vs. libertarian free will. According to the incompatibilist perspective of libertarian free will, compatibilism is neither real nor possible. So if a Calvinist argues for it, they don’t really believe in free will and they’re just emphasizing a certain kind of wishful determinism.

If you feel that libertarian free will meshes well with what’s taught in the Bible, that’s cool. I’ve heard that before, but I haven’t gotten in-depth on it. The point, though, is that if you ask a Calvinist whether or not they are opposed to free will, you can expect an answer of “No” accompanied by a defense of compatibilism.

In general, the people who actually say Calvinists are opposed to free will are…people who are opposed to Calvinism. Ie., you.

I wouldn’t base my eternal salvation on the theology of a couple of fallen away catholics. (Calvin and Luther, yes they were catholic).

As much as possible, I try to base my eternal salvation on theology that accurately reflects what God has revealed to us in His Word (the Bible). There is no sense in which I base it on the authority of Calvin, Luther, Piper, Zwingli, Bonhoeffer, any other guy, or any group of men like that. That’s what you do; not me. (Just insert some different names and that’s pretty much what you have).

Oh, and I’m pretty sure everyone knows Luther and Calvin were Catholic at one time. That doesn’t bother me. About half the families in my church were Catholic at one time, too.

 

[swisscakerolls]

who0Oshhh,

could you go into that compatabilist approach more? I’ve never heard of it. How does that compare with liberation free will?

As an aside, I have no idea where such strong critique of Judaism comes from either. I only seem to find it on these forums.

 

[crazzeto]

@who0Oshhh,

To the contrary Catholics are very aware of our Jewish roots. In fact the seemless integration of OT and NT covenants is something with testifies to the truth of Christ as messiah.

 

[manualman]

I wasn’t aware it had ever gone away either. More like it interbred with other strains of protestantism for a long time. Now that many of those others strains are dying off, Calvinism looks stronger by virtue of surviving longer.

I’m familiar with the problems implied in Calvin’s assertions about predestination (as he defined it), the “elect” and free will.

Is Calvin also the guy who started the idea of Christ’s sacrifice being a legal manuever by which His righteousness is legally imputed on the believer? Thus, the Christian at judgement is viewed as perfect and stainless via a legal transfer of righteousness rather than freely forgiven, redeemed and (eventually) SANCTIFIED to the point where the righteousness is genuine? Or is that more Lutheran in origin? Hard to keep all these guys straight!

 

[MarkBrown]

raumzeitmc2,

I read you post a few times before responding. I tried to read it with a charitable mind, but your post made me sick to my stomach each time I read it. The same feeling I get reading disgusting anti-catholic rantings.

You base your opinions on out dated and narrow history. Walsh wrote his book in 1937. Too much upto date scholarship has come about since then. When some one refers to “real history” and give only one book or a narrow slice of history from one viewpoint, I realize one of two things are going on. First the person is not knowledgeable on the topic and has found a view that makes them feel comfortable with their views. A view that does not require thinking or much thought. I saw it many times with Calvinist and their view of the Church. Sadly too many Catholics act like the Calvinist they condemn.

The second is more troublesome, the person is unable to look objectively at a topic. Hence no amount of information will enable the person to take off the blinders.

I am moving into the Church from a Calvinist viewpoint. Calvinist have many, many false views on the church (a church that existed 400 years ago) and continue to create scholarship to support that view. To justify their views. Too many Catholic, sadly, do the same.

No one was innocent in the reformation. Both sides commit sins in violation of Scripture. I know God does not give a whit over who started it, but how we acted and kept his commandments. Pointing fingers at the Calvinist and saying “but he started it” is just childish and does not absolve us from our sins. I have 5 kids. I do not tolerate this with them and God surely will not tolerate it with us.

Have you ever read about Pope Adrian VI, a pope during the Reformation. He is reputed to have said, the reformation is God’s judgement on the Church for her wrongdoings. I do not have the actual quote before me and the 16th century language maybe more harsh than we would like. and no, I did not get if from the Calvinist but from a Catholic organization called the Coming Home Network. Who have balanced accounts of the Reformation.

John Paul II in France was not talking about the Calvinist, but the Catholics. John Paul II recognized the Church had done some things wrong in the past and repented. We should all look to his example. His Christ like example.

Raumzeitmc2, what you are doing may make you feel good and even justify your ill feelings towards your fellow Christians. It only hurts your soul to continue to hate and enrage like this. The things you are ranting about, did not happen yesterday, but over 400 years ago. To put it is context, it would be like my Catholic Social professor and I going at it over the American Revolution because he is British and I am an American.

You have yet to address the theology of the calvinists. You present a redherring of past crimes (which John Paul II admits Catholics also have) to avoid discussing the theology. There is much wrong in Calvinistic theology that can be discussed in a civil manner. If you would but discuss it.

Fr. Mark

 

[TriuneUnity]

I wasn’t aware it had ever gone away either. More like it interbred with other strains of protestantism for a long time. Now that many of those others strains are dying off, Calvinism looks stronger by virtue of surviving longer.

I’m familiar with the problems implied in Calvin’s assertions about predestination (as he defined it), the “elect” and free will.

Is Calvin also the guy who started the idea of Christ’s sacrifice being a legal manuever by which His righteousness is legally imputed on the believer? Thus, the Christian at judgement is viewed as perfect and stainless via a legal transfer of righteousness rather than freely forgiven, redeemed and (eventually) SANCTIFIED to the point where the righteousness is genuine? Or is that more Lutheran in origin? Hard to keep all these guys straight!

Nope, that was St. Paul

 

[peary]

Oh, and I’m pretty sure everyone knows Luther and Calvin were Catholic at one time. That doesn’t bother me. About half the families in my church were Catholic at one time, too.

Yeah, but the problem is…they still go to Mass.
Chalk that up to God’s Grace, if nothing else.

 

[manualman]

Nope, that was St. Paul

I’m all for fun quips, but realize that you are an ambassador right now of the WELS. Is it your understanding that Lutheran theology adheres to the idea of redeemed humanity being ‘covered’ by the righteousness of Christ rather than genuinely scrubbed clean? I once thought it was a quote attributed to Luther to say that the christian is like a dung heap covered by pure white snow. I later learned that this quote is apocryphal (no legit attributions), but I’m curious if it accurately describes the Lutheran view, Calvinist view or nobody’s view?

 

[TriuneUnity]

I’m all for fun quips, but realize that you are an ambassador right now of the WELS.

Sorry, I couldn’t resist LoL.

Is it your understanding that Lutheran theology adheres to the idea of redeemed humanity being ‘covered’ by the righteousness of Christ rather than genuinely scrubbed clean?

I’m not really sure what the difference is between covered and scrubbed clean. Humanity is covered by the righteousness of Christ in the sense that His righteousness becomes our righteousness before the judgment seat of God’s Law (Christ’s active obedience). As such, we are considered to be perfectly holy in the sight of God. On the other side, our sins are considered paid in full by the action of Christ enduring God’s wrath against our transgressions (Christ’s passive obedience). This is the basis of our justification. We are justified by Christ and not by any internal change in the human heart. The internal change (sanctification) takes place gradually over the Christian’s lifetime and begins at baptism. When we die (or Christ returns) we will be completely changed and forever sinless (glorification).

I once thought it was a quote attributed to Luther to say that the christian is like a dung heap covered by pure white snow. I later learned that this quote is apocryphal (no legit attributions), but I’m curious if it accurately describes the Lutheran view, Calvinist view or nobody’s view?

I think it would be inaccurate to use because of the fact that it would refer only to our temporal existence here on earth. As long as we are here in bodies which are subject to sin and death, we will still be sinners. However, to use the term dung would be to say that there is no difference between Christians and unbelievers. Christians are covered by Christ’s righteousness but they are also being sanctified, which unbelievers are not.

The Calvinist view of justification is the same as the Lutheran view. However, the Calvinist view divorces justification from the sacraments, whereas we see justification taking place through those means of grace.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Absolutely that is the Lutheran view. They believe in the imputation of righteousness as opposed to the Catholic infusion outlook. Righteousness is “credited” to us, imputed.

I’m all for fun quips, but realize that you are an ambassador right now of the WELS. Is it your understanding that Lutheran theology adheres to the idea of redeemed humanity being ‘covered’ by the righteousness of Christ rather than genuinely scrubbed clean? I once thought it was a quote attributed to Luther to say that the christian is like a dung heap covered by pure white snow. I later learned that this quote is apocryphal (no legit attributions), but I’m curious if it accurately describes the Lutheran view, Calvinist view or nobody’s view?