John Calvin is discredited by the Scriptures

[Drawmack]

I actually just listened to the whole clip. I understand your hesitation and would probably balk if I protestant gave me something to listen to as well. But, after hearing Dr. Anders describe his experiences during his time in seminary with a focus on Church history and pursuing a PhD in religious thought I would highly recommend this. If anything, to hear protestant reaction to his discoveries. I can’t speak for protestants, but it would seem that it would be rather eye opening.

More eye opening that reading much of Scott Hahn’s work – which I’ve done? More eye opening than listening to no less than 4 lectures given by former Protestant ministers who are now priests – which I’ve done? More eye opening that reading many of the Church Fathers – which I’ve done?

Text without context is a pretext and a claim without a cited primary source is text without context.

 

[Drawmack]

I am no scholar, I have read sections from Calvin’s “Institutes” particularly on his views concerning pre-destination. To me he is a man who genuinely believes that he has a unique special prophetic calling or election status with an ability to infallibly interpret scripture. On this point, I believe there can be no middle ground in regards to him. You can’t cherry pick or refine his theology and hold him to being an elected instrument of God. It’s a lot to put on one person, but to hold to his theology you have to take him at his word. If you can match him comfortably 100% to scripture then his theology is the way to go, if you can’t I believe in my opinion you have to jettison his system in it’s entirety.

God Bless

Calvin never claimed infallibility and lacking a quote in which he states he is infallible your entire thesis can be dismissed.

 

[Drawmack]

Yes. This is beyond dispute.

Additionally add Luke 24:45-53

Then he opened their minds to UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES, and he said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to ALL NATIONS, BEGINNING IN JERUSALEM. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are CLOTHED WITH POWER FROM ON HIGH.” Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and WERE CONTINUALLY IN THE TEMPLE BLESSING GOD.

The Church has superceded the Jewish Temple, as of Pentecost 33 AD. Christ blesses us via the sacraments of the Church, gives us understanding of the scriptures, and keeps his Church ‘clothed’ with power from on high.

According to your proof text we are “clothed with power from on high” according to your explanation this is a reference to Jesus blessing us with the Sacraments. However, the Sacraments are said to make God’s presence efficacious (CCC didn’t look up the paragraph). Can you please explain to me how one can be “clothed” or wrapped, surrounded, shrouded in the power from on high is a reference to an object, ritual, or rite which makes God’s presence efficaciously real and in some cases must be repeated on a regular basis because it does not create a permanent change within the believer?

 

[JRKH]

Ephel,

Thanks for your response.

What in your view is the strongest scriptural proof against sola scriptura? Would it be 2Thess 2:15 or 1 Tim 3:15?

Not to interupt your discussion but to me the strongest proof agians SS is this. Chist Himself never taught it.
Jesus never taught a total reliance on the “written word” to settle all questions. In fact, Jesus admonished the teachers of the time for their “wrongheaded” interpretations and applications of the “written word”.
Then Jesus founded, not a book (such as what Mohammed did) but rather a living community, a Church with a leadership and with authority to bind and loose, built upon a “Rock”.
This authoritative Church, clearly demonstrates that it is not dependent on “Scripture Alone” at it’s first council held in Jerusalem and recorded in Acts. If SS were the norm, then the question of circumsision and the dietary laws would have been upheld. They were not, in clear contradiction of the “Written Word” of that time.

Some 400 years later the leadership of this Church community, acting on it’s authority to bind and loose, assembled the Bible texts both OT and NT into a single canon. This “written word”, while providing and solid foundation, still remains a part of the teaching Church, a part of the Church Tradition, and depends, for it’s authoriative acceptance, the authority of the Catholic Church.

Jesus affirms this authority in Mt 18:15-18 where he tells us to take disputes to “The Church”. Paul affirms this when he takes the dispute at Antioch to Jerusalem for disposition. Paul further affirms it when he tells Timothy that “The Church” is the “pillar and foundation of Truth”.

Peace
James

 

[brb3]

According to your proof text we are “clothed with power from on high” according to your explanation this is a reference to Jesus blessing us with the Sacraments. However, the Sacraments are said to make God’s presence efficacious (CCC didn’t look up the paragraph). Can you please explain to me how one can be “clothed” or wrapped, surrounded, shrouded in the power from on high is a reference to an object, ritual, or rite which makes God’s presence efficaciously real and in some cases must be repeated on a regular basis because it does not create a permanent change within the believer?

If you have seriously read the ECF’s … your question above would of been explained/answered many times over.

The ECF’s accepted the Catholic Church as the BODY of Christ to the the Christians. One Flock, One Shepherd … feeding, protecting his members. Yes, we are saved as individuals … but, we are retained COLLECTIVELY, within the mystical body of faith that got off to a rousing start on Pentecost 33 AD when 3000 were added, after which more were added daily.

Acts2:41-47 So those who received his word WERE BAPTIZED, and were added that day about 3000. And they devoted themselves to the APOSTLES TEACHING AND FELLOWSHIP, TO THE BREAKING OF BREAD [EUCHARIST] AND THE PRAYERS [confession]. … And ALL WHO BELIEVED WERE TOGETHER AND HAD ALL THINGS IN COMMON; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them TO ALL, as any had need. And DAY BY DAY, ATTENDING THE TEMPLE TOGETHER AND BREAKING BREAD IN THEIR HOMES, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and HAVING FAVOR WITH ALL THE PEOPLE [evangelizing and being charitable]. And the Lord added to their number DAY BY DAY THOSE WHO WERE BEING SAVED.

Yes, they were "clothed with Holy Spirit power’ from on high. Thru the sacraments, THRU the CHURCH structure/body. And, yes the H.S. was received on a REGULAR BASIS … via the CHURCH structure. Christians are never instructed to go off on tangents, acting as LONE RANGERS. We must work in/thru the Church. Send out on missions, YES. But, always supported by the main Church body.

Never are we encouraged to do what Luther and Calvin, and thousands of others have done. When we see ourselves [or mission] as more important than that of the Church … we become schizmatics, and are doomed – to commit error/apostasy against Christ’s Church.

 

[Tomster]

Calvin never claimed infallibility and lacking a quote in which he states he is infallible your entire thesis can be dismissed.

Thanks for the clarification that Calvin never claimed infallibility. He certainly proved he was fallible with his “doctrine” of predestination. We all know that Christ wills ALL men to be saved.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Thanks for the clarification that Calvin never claimed infallibility. He certainly proved he was fallible with his “doctrine” of predestination. We all know that Christ wills ALL men to be saved.

if Christ wills all men to be saved, then all men will be saved.

The “all” here is God’s elect among all classes of men. They, and only they, are the ones for whom Christ is mediator between them and God…

Think about the varied understanding of the word all…
If i say that i say all, all the time…do i really say it ALL the time?
i wouldn’t have time to say anything else if all i said was all now would i.

 

[Tomster]

if Christ wills all men to be saved, then all men will be saved.

The “all” here is God’s elect among all classes of men. They, and only they, are the ones for whom Christ is mediator between them and God…

Think about the varied understanding of the word all…
If i say that i say all, all the time…do i really say it ALL the time?
i wouldn’t have time to say anything else if all i said was all now would i.

Predestination is a fact: but what exactly are we to understand by the word? Let us first see what it does not mean. In the 16th century Calvin put forward a false view of Predestination which has become famous. He taught that from all eternity God definitely and explicitly chose some men for eternal life, and just as definitely and explicitly other men for eternal damnation, his own glory being the end he sought in either case. Nothing that man is going to do affects in any way that terrible decree by which heaven is chosen for some, hell for others. As a necesary consequence we must say that God does not will the salvation of all men; he wills the salvation only of the elect, and the rest he positively wills to force into hell. Such, stated in a few words, is the Calvinist theory of Predestination.

Can you see the fundamental error here?

I am certainly glad that Calvin was fallible and never attempted to pronounce himself otherwise.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Predestination is a fact: but what exactly are we to understand by the word? Let us first see what it does not mean. In the 16th century Calvin put forward a false view of Predestination which has become famous. He taught that from all eternity God definitely and explicitly chose some men for eternal life, and just as definitely and explicitly other men for eternal damnation, his own glory being the end he sought in either case. Nothing that man is going to do affects in any way that terrible decree by which heaven is chosen for some, hell for others. As a necesary consequence we must say that God does not will the salvation of all men; he wills the salvation only of the elect, and the rest he positively wills to force into hell. Such, stated in a few words, is the Calvinist theory of Predestination.

It seems you don’t know there are 2 trains of thought within calvinism; sublapsarian and supralapsarian, seems like you’re defining supra not sub…Most calvinist myself included fall into the sublapsarian.

 

[JRKH]

** if Christ wills all men to be saved, then all men will be saved. **

The “all” here is God’s elect among all classes of men. They, and only they, are the ones for whom Christ is mediator between them and God…

All men will be saved, - except those who choose not to be by their own obstinate refusal to accept God’s invitation to salvation.

God’s invitation is open to all. Some will accept it, others will not. God knows which is which, but He does NOT remove the invitation just because of third knowledge.

It’s like this.
You are going to have a family reunion to which you are going to invite everyone, including your Aunt Minnie. You know that your Aunt Minnie never comes to family functions (no one really knows why) but do you refuse her an invitation just because you “Know” she won’t come?

Or, It’s like a Calss reunion where classmates are scattered across the country. Every effort is made to locate every member and issue invitations. Everyone is invited. It’s a foregone conclusion that Some will not come. Those who issue the invitations can even guess pretty accurately which will come and which will not.
Should they refues the invitations just because they “know” certain ones will not come??

The same with God. All are invited, no all come.
Not God’s fault - Ours

Peace
James

 

[Tomster]

All men will be saved, - except those who choose not to be by their own obstinate refusal to accept God’s invitation to salvation.

God’s invitation is open to all. Some will accept it, others will not. God knows which is which, but He does NOT remove the invitation just because of third knowledge.

It’s like this.
You are going to have a family reunion to which you are going to invite everyone, including your Aunt Minnie. You know that your Aunt Minnie never comes to family functions (no one really knows why) but do you refuse her an invitation just because you “Know” she won’t come?

Or, It’s like a Calss reunion where classmates are scattered across the country. Every effort is made to locate every member and issue invitations. Everyone is invited. It’s a foregone conclusion that Some will not come. Those who issue the invitations can even guess pretty accurately which will come and which will not.
Should they refues the invitations just because they “know” certain ones will not come??

The same with God. All are invited, no all come.
Not God’s fault - Ours

Peace
James

Thanks James,

Predestination, regarded as the keystone of Calvin’s theology, has been the focus of practically every doctrinal schism since the origin of Presbyterianism. We should therefore expect radical changes in the expression of this doctrine. Actually, a compromise was reached in the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. which retained Calvin’s teaching verbally intact in the body of the Confession, and then added an appendix to soften its harshness.

In 1903 the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. added an interpretation which quite negatives the foregoing rigid predestinarianism. “Concerning those who perish,” it is said, “the doctrine of God’s eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine that God desires not the death of any sinner, but has provided in Christ a salvation sufficient for all . . . men are fully responsible for their treatment of God’s gracious offer . . . no man is condemned except on the ground of his sin.” - "The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America

Presbyterian theologians were embarrassed by the inclusion of a patent contradiction within the same statement of doctrine. Chapter III which quotes Calvin’s predestinarianism, “is left to stand as grim as ever.” One commentator admits he “has never been able to see . . . by what logic it is said to be ‘in harmony with’ the doctrine as given in the Declaratory Statement,” adopted in 1903.

In 1938-1939 the U.S Presbyteries were asked to vote on the excision of the obnoxious predestinarianism in Chapter III; two-thirds wanted the doctrine eliminated, but the number was three short of the constitutional requirement; so the statement remained.

Imagine that - doctrine by vote.

I guess Calvin was fallible but the voting body of the U.S. Presbyteries were infallible.

Not only was Calvin discredited by the Scriptures, it seems he was discredited by his own spiritual children.

 

[brb3]

Thanks James,

I guess Calvin was fallible but the voting body of the U.S. Presbyteries were infallible.

Not only was Calvin discredited by the Scriptures, it seems he was discredited by his own spiritual children.

Claiming to be a prophet with special understandings of scripture, Calvin would not be please with his modern day brethren. We sure don’t see One Flock and One Shepherd within the Calvinist disciples.

 

[Tomster]

Claiming to be a prophet with special understandings of scripture, Calvin would not be please with his modern day brethren. We sure don’t see One Flock and One Shepherd within the Calvinist disciples.

We sure don’t!

Centuries before the Reformation, doctrinal differences among Christians were regarded as a mark of error and inconsistency. Faith, it was argued, speaks with simplicity. The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself, and the truth which He teaches has a language which remains uniform. On this ground the ancient doctors condemned the Arians, who were always making new confessions of faith in a futile effort to reach some kind of agreement. “You are like amateur architects,” St. Hilary told them, “who are never satisfied with their work. You keep building up and pulling down, whereas the Catholic Church raised an immortal edifice the first time it assembled. To condemn Arianism for ever, nothing more is needed than a repitition of the Nicene Creed.”

The same principle can be applied here.