"Pure and undefiled..."

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I have heard a lot of fanciful histories and theories perpetrated by evangelicals in their attempt to denegrate the Catholic Church. Many taken from Boettner’s “Roman Catholicism” and Woodrow’s “Babylon Mystery Religion”.

These theories concentrate on Constantine’s legalization of the Catholic Christian Church after his takeover of the Roman empire.

John Calvin in his work “The Divine Institutes” admitted that the Church for the first 600 years of her existence remained “pure and undefiled.”

To me that makes any claim by Fundamentalists that the Church somehow sold out to Paganism after the Edict of Milan spurious and ignorant of the facts.

Given this admission by the “father” of modern evangelical fundamentalism, how do the Fundamentalists on this forum explain their theories?

 

[MelanieAnne]

I reject your premise.

It doesn’t matter after that. You should not start out by finding fault. Shame on you.

 

[Nine_Two]

Calvin isn’t considered an infallible authority, as well many evangelicals reject Calvinism in favour of Arminianism.

 

[1sicht]

Calvin isn’t considered an infallible authority, as well many evangelicals reject Calvinism in favour of Arminianism.

Right, Nine_Two, not to mention that some of us aren’t categorizable by any theological label whatsoever (we just try to stick to the Word).

GreyPilgrim, could you please cite the complete passage where Calvin said this? It always helps to know the context of something before one goes about interpreting (not just in the case of the Bible).

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I reject your premise.

It doesn’t matter after that. You should not start out by finding fault. Shame on you.

What presmise do you reject? That the Catholic Church is THE Church of history, or that Calvin upheld that the Church remained “pure and undefiled” for the first 600 years of her existence?

BTW, finding faults in propositions and discerning false premises from true ones is how one comes to the truth. It would be shameful to allow falsehoods to continue to be perpetrated against God’s Church in the name of “ecuminism.”

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Calvin isn’t considered an infallible authority, as well many evangelicals reject Calvinism in favour of Arminianism.

I never claimed Calvin as an “infallible authority”. He made a clear statement on history which they deny or ignore. If a historian makes a statement about the Civil War, the Revolutionary war, or even the Roman empire no one rejects their claim on the basis of their “fallability”.

But when it involves the historicity of the Catholic Church one all of a sudden needs to be “infallible”?

Its a non-sequiter.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Right, Nine_Two, not to mention that some of us aren’t categorizable by any theological label whatsoever (we just try to stick to the Word).

GreyPilgrim, could you please cite the complete passage where Calvin said this? It always helps to know the context of something before one goes about interpreting (not just in the case of the Bible).

Not right. My question still stands.

As far as the passage, I do not have the concrete book, chapter, and paragraph. The citation came second-hand from a couple of different books that I have. Most notably from former evangelical-turned- Catholic Rod Bennet’s “The Four Witnesses”; it is in the first paragraph of his Introduction.

Once I get it I will get back to you.

 

[Jon_Hus]

…As far as the passage (from calvin’s institutes), I do not have the concrete book, chapter, and paragraph. The citation came second-hand from a couple of different books that I have. Most notably from former evangelical-turned- Catholic Rod Bennet’s “The Four Witnesses”; it is in the first paragraph of his Introduction.

Once I get it I will get back to you.

I would propose that we put this thread on hold until you get back to us with the requested data. While you are at it, can you give concrete chapter, paragraph and page from Boettner’s “Roman Catholicism” where he lay’s out fanciful histories and theories?

Baring that, some might question the concept of Constantine’s legalization of the Catholic Christian Church, some would say that Constantine made Christianity as practiced in Rome at the time the official state religion. I think there is a difference.

By the way, in modern times it called The Institutes of the Christian Religion, not The Divine Institutes.

 

[GKC]

I would propose that we put this thread on hold until you get back to us with the requested data. While you are at it, can you give concrete chapter, paragraph and page from Boettner’s “Roman Catholicism” where he lay’s out fanciful histories and theories?

Baring that, some might question the concept of Constantine’s legalization of the Catholic Christian Church, some would say that Constantine made Christianity as practiced in Rome at the time the official state religion. I think there is a difference.

By the way, in modern times it called The Institutes of the Christian Religion, not The Divine Institutes.

I’ve always thought the first 2 sentences of the first para on p. 3 to be a little fanciful. And so forth.

GKC

 

[Jon_Hus]

I’ve always thought the first 2 sentences of the first para on p. 3 to be a little fanciful. And so forth.

GKC

What does it say?

 

[GKC]

What does it say?

I assumed you would have access to it.

How about sec. 3, pp. 7-9?

GKC

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I would propose that we put this thread on hold until you get back to us with the requested data. While you are at it, can you give concrete chapter, paragraph and page from Boettner’s “Roman Catholicism” where he lay’s out fanciful histories and theories?

Baring that, some might question the concept of Constantine’s legalization of the Catholic Christian Church, some would say that Constantine made Christianity as practiced in Rome at the time the official state religion. I think there is a difference.

By the way, in modern times it called The Institutes of the Christian Religion, not The Divine Institutes.

Your remark on “Christianity as practiced in Rome at the time” begs the question, as if the Christian Church in Rome taught one thing and the Christian Churches elsewhere taught other things.

 

[Jon_Hus]

I assumed you would have access to it.

How about sec. 3, pp. 7-9?

GKC

Why would you assume that?

 

[Jon_Hus]

Your remark on “Christianity as practiced in Rome at the time” begs the question, as if the Christian Church in Rome taught one thing and the Christian Churches elsewhere taught other things.

What I was thinking was the doctrines of the CC at the time were in the process of development. I base this on my study of the ANFs which would lead one to conclude that doctrines did develop over time. Of course a debate for a different day. Not trying to put words in your mouth but I think that you would agree though once the churches left private homes and went to public buildings (the result of Constantine’s efforts), the practices did change somewhat.

If you would be so kind as to answer some of my questions and if I’m given some refrences to previously made requests, I will return the favor by providing quotes from JND Kelly and others to back up this claim.

 

[GKC]

Why would you assume that?

Just a guess. Your request for specific citations suggested you were going to check any such.

OTOH, you have access to Kelly?

GKC

 

[Jon_Hus]

Just a guess. Your request for specific citations suggested you were going to check any such.

OTOH, you have access to Kelly?

GKC

It wasn’t all that that difficult, purchased used at amazon. As I’m sure you know, Kelly is a must have for anyone who studies the early church. I personally don’t quote anyone unless I have access to the primary source. If I have to break that rule, I make note of it up front. I really do not care to defend anyone elses beliefs other than my own.

It’s funny GKC, I have the ECFs the 38 vol. set (I referred to the ANFs in this thread) and you ask about a paperback.

See ya,
Jon

 

[GKC]

It wasn’t all that that difficult, purchased used at amazon. As I’m sure you know, Kelly is a must have for anyone who studies the early church. I personally don’t quote anyone unless I have access to the primary source. If I have to break that rule, I make note of it up front. I really do not care to defend anyone elses beliefs other than my own.

It’s funny GKC, I have the ECFs the 38 vol. set (I referred to the ANFs in this thread) and you ask about a paperback.

See ya,
Jon

I tend to do the same, with regard to the folks I quote. Hence the 20,000+ titles stuffed in the house.

I noticed your reference to the ANFs. I’d love to have the 38 vol set; I think my SIL has it on cd. I have to make do with less complete sources.

As to Kelly, mine is the 1960 2nd ed. HB. No reason to disparage the PB, though.

GKC

 

[Jon_Hus]

I tend to do the same, with regard to the folks I quote. Hence the 20,000+ titles stuffed in the house.

I noticed your reference to the ANFs. I’d love to have the 38 vol set; I think my SIL has it on cd. I have to make do with less complete sources.

As to Kelly, mine is the 1960 2nd ed. HB. No reason to disparage the PB, though.

GKC

Actually I err, my copy of Early Christian Doctrine is cloth, the 1968 printing of the 2nd edition. My copy of his creeds book is PB. You made me get out of my chair so now you owe me. (Ha Ha).

Having the ECFs on CD is a good thing because the 38 vol set takes up a lot of room. I love books and all but it’s still an imposing set. I bought my set in 3 installments over a period of 2 years. In my opinion, the ANFs are the most important and can be purchased from CBD at a very reasonable price.

It is nice to know that there are like minded people who love to study out there. I’m a laymen by the way. I’m planning to go after a graduate degree in theology or church history when I retire which is in about 10 years. My reason is just due to the fact I love to study and learn.

Nice chatting with you. What are you reading right now? I’ve got 2 books going right now, The Christian Tradition (vol. 1) -J. Pelikan and Continuity and Discontinuity - J. Feinberg ed.

 

[Contarini]

I never claimed Calvin as an “infallible authority”. He made a clear statement on history which they deny or ignore. If a historian makes a statement about the Civil War, the Revolutionary war, or even the Roman empire no one rejects their claim on the basis of their “fallability”.

But when it involves the historicity of the Catholic Church one all of a sudden needs to be “infallible”?

No, but to accept something just on someone’s say-so generally requires infallibility. Why else would they change their mind based on what a theologian said 500 years ago?

Now the fact that the Reformers didn’t buy the Constantinian Fall" theory may influence some fundamentalists to question it. So it’s worth using, but it doesn’t refute their view all on its own. Furthermore, many fundamentalists prefer the Anabaptists to the “magisterial Reformers,” and the Anabaptists did generally believe that the Church became corrupt in Constantine’s time.

I’m also puzzled by why you cite Calvin as a “historian.” No historian 500 years ago, writing about things that happened a thousand years previously, is going to be taken too seriously as an authority. And Calvin wasn’t really a historian at all, but a theologian.

Finally, when Calvin said that he was giving a ballpark figure. He didn’t think that the Church was free of all error before A.D. 600, and he didn’t think that it suddenly fell after A.D. 600. But he considered Pope St. Gregory the Great to have been essentially orthodox and a good model for what a Pope ought to be like. After his time, in Calvin’s view, things really started to go downhill.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Baring that, some might question the concept of Constantine’s legalization of the Catholic Christian Church, some would say that Constantine made Christianity as practiced in Rome at the time the official state religion. I think there is a difference.

Of course there is, and Constantine did the former, not the latter.

He favored Christianity heavily, but I am unaware of any edict by him making Christianity the official state religion. Perhaps you can point to such an edict.

Edwin