'Sola Caritas' Trumps 'Sola fide'

[De_Maria]

Was he a Huss follower? Maybe he was a follower of Pope Leo IX who could be said to have left the Church.
The fact is Calvin was never in communion with Luther, never a follower of Luther

He followed Luther out of the Church.

Do, how long was he in communion with Luther? That would be what a follower is.

That would be your definition of a follower. But a follower merely has to come behind the leader. Calvin followed Luther’s example, thus, he followed Luther.

He developed a different theology. In other words he was not a follower of Luther.

Did he address Luther as his “highly respected father?” Yes or no.
If he did not think that he was following Luther, why would he do so?

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

faith is made perfect.

If you read the Greek you would understand that this verb translated as “made perfect” is difficult to translate into English. The best way to translate it is more along the lines of bring to fulfillment or completion. In other words, in the context of the passage where the concept is show me your faith, the faith already exists, and for the person observing your works brings your faith to visible completion. This is why Protestants hold the view they do, especially in light of the Pauline corpus, and this is how Paul and James are reconciled one to another.

It’s difficult for those who want to rationalize the heresy of faith alone and deny that we are justified by works and not by faith alone.

 

[De_Maria]

Here we go again with “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. We’ve hit the inevitable “at least we both hate the Calvinists.” Ok fine. As the token Calvinist on this forum, I made my bed, I’ll lie in it. Fire away

I know a lot of people think that Lutheranism is close to Catholicism. But, I see the two, Calvinism and Lutheranism, as very much alike. Especially because the Lutheran monergism leads to the Calvinist double predestination, logically. At least, in my opinion.

 

[JonNC]

He followed Luther out of the Church.

If he had followed Luther, he would have followed Luther. He didn’t and he didn’t.

That would be your definition of a follower. But a follower merely has to come behind the leader. Calvin followed Luther’s example, thus, he followed Luther.

Yeah. My definition is that of a religious follower. We’re not talking about a car following another down the highway.

Did he address Luther as his “highly respected father?” Yes or no.
If he did not think that he was following Luther, why would he do so?

I address Pope Benedict as a “highly respected father”. Does that make me a Catholic?

 

[De_Maria]

If he had followed Luther, he would have followed Luther. He didn’t and he didn’t.

That is your opinion. I think the facts prove your opinion, wrong.

Yeah. My definition is that of a religious follower. We’re not talking about a car following another down the highway.

We’re talking about a Catholic leaving the Catholic Church following the example of a man who previously did so.

I address Pope Benedict as a “highly respected father”. Does that make me a Catholic?

We’re not talking about what you would do. We’re talking about what Calvin did. Why did Calvin address Luther as, “highly respected father”?

The obvious reason is because he was seeking to follow Luther’s example. Therefore, he thought of himself as Luther’s son.

 

[JonNC]

We’re talking about a Catholic leaving the Catholic Church following the example of a man who previously did so.

So follower in your view is more like cars on the highway.

We’re not talking about what you would do. We’re talking about what Calvin did. Why did Calvin address Luther as, “highly respected father”?

Such a diversion. Maybe for the same reason I would address Pope Benedict that way, out of respect.
I respect Billy Graham, but I am not a follower of his. I am not a Baptist.
I have even more respect, even admiration, for Pope Benedict, but I am not a follower of his. I’m not Catholic.

Your polemic doesn’t fly.

The obvious reason is because he was seeking to follow Luther’s example. Therefore, he thought of himself as Luther’s son.

If he wanted to follow Luther’s example, he would have. In significant doctrinal ways, he actually opposes Luther.
To say he followed Luther is intellectually and factually nonsense.

 

[JonNC]

I know a lot of people think that Lutheranism is close to Catholicism. But, I see the two, Calvinism and Lutheranism, as very much alike. Especially because the Lutheran monergism leads to the Calvinist double predestination, logically. At least, in my opinion.

It is a biased and unsustainable opinion. If Lutheran monergism leads to double predestination, then Lutheranism would teach double predestination.

 

[De_Maria]

So follower in your view is more like cars on the highway.

A car is a machine. The driver is the one who might be following the car in front of him, intentionally. Calvin, in the historical record, admired Luther and followed Luther out of the Church, intentionally.

Such a diversion. Maybe for the same reason I would address Pope Benedict that way, out of respect. I respect Billy Graham, but I am not a follower of his. I am not a Baptist. I have even more respect, even admiration, for Pope Benedict, but I am not a follower of his. I’m not Catholic.

This is not about you Jon. You’re the one trying to divert the discussion.

Your polemic doesn’t fly.

Yeah, it does. You’ve been proven wrong.

If he wanted to follow Luther’s example, he would have. In significant doctrinal ways, he actually opposes Luther.

Leaving the Church is significant enough. Adopting some of Luther’s doctrines, like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, is significant enough.

To say he followed Luther is intellectually and factually nonsense.

To deny that he did so is a denial of proven history.

 

[JonNC]

A car is a machine. The driver is the one who might be following the car in front of him, intentionally. Calvin, in the historical record, admired Luther and followed Luther out of the Church, intentionally.

So, you don’t understand an analogy. Okay. Calvin was too young to follow Luther out of the Church. I don’t even know if they ever went to the same church to follow Luther out of it.

This is not about you Jon. You’re the one trying to divert the discussion.

And it isn’t about your polemical nonsense about Luther and Calvin.

 

[De_Maria]

It is a biased and unsustainable opinion. If Lutheran monergism leads to double predestination, then Lutheranism would teach double predestination.

I don’t know why it doesn’t. Especially, since it is debatable that Luther did not.

If you hesitate to believe, or are too proud to acknowledge, that God foreknows and wills all things, not contingently, but necessarily and immutably, how can you believe, trust and rely on His promises? (p. 11 in the Mattson paper)

The elect, who fear God, will be reformed by the Holy Spirit; the rest will perish unreformed. (p. 12)

Thus God conceals His eternal mercy and loving kindness beneath eternal wrath, His righteousness beneath unrighteousness. Now, the highest degree of faith is to believe that He is merciful, though he saves so few and damns so many; to believe that He is just, though of His own will He makes us perforce proper subjects for damnation, and seems (in Erasmus’ words) ‘to delight in the torments of poor wretches and to be a fitter object for hate than for love.’ If I could by any means understand how this same God, who makes such a show of wrath and unrighteousness, can yet be merciful and just, there would be no need for faith. But as it is, the impossibility of understanding makes room for the exercise of faith when these things are preached and published; just as, when God kills, faith in life is exercised in death. (pp. 12-13; italics added)

That is a set of Luther quotes from Dave Armstrong’s website.

 

[De_Maria]

So, you don’t understand an analogy. Okay. Calvin was too young to follow Luther out of the Church. I don’t even know if they ever went to the same church to follow Luther out of it.

I understand the analogy just fine. I pointed it out where it falls short. Cars don’t have free will. Men do.

And it isn’t about your polemical nonsense about Luther and Calvin.

You can’t assail my argument and you’re getting upset. I am not attacking either Luther or Calvin. I’m making an observation based upon historical fact which disproves your opinion.

 

[HopkinsReb]

You are an admirably patient man.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

It is a biased and unsustainable opinion. If Lutheran monergism leads to double predestination, then Lutheranism would teach double predestination.

I don’t know why it doesn’t. Especially, since it is debatable that Luther did not.

If you hesitate to believe, or are too proud to acknowledge, that God foreknows and wills all things, not contingently, but necessarily and immutably, how can you believe, trust and rely on His promises? (p. 11 in the Mattson paper)

The elect, who fear God, will be reformed by the Holy Spirit; the rest will perish unreformed. (p. 12)

Thus God conceals His eternal mercy and loving kindness beneath eternal wrath, His righteousness beneath unrighteousness. Now, the highest degree of faith is to believe that He is merciful, though he saves so few and damns so many; to believe that He is just, though of His own will He makes us perforce proper subjects for damnation, and seems (in Erasmus’ words) ‘to delight in the torments of poor wretches and to be a fitter object for hate than for love.’ If I could by any means understand how this same God, who makes such a show of wrath and unrighteousness, can yet be merciful and just, there would be no need for faith. But as it is, the impossibility of understanding makes room for the exercise of faith when these things are preached and published; just as, when God kills, faith in life is exercised in death. (pp. 12-13; italics added)

That is a set of Luther quotes from Dave Armstrong’s website.

You said Lutherans. Lutheranism. Double predestination is not a Lutheran teaching.
The confessions oppose double predestination and Luther approved both the AC and the Apology.

But here is Luther:

“I hear that here and there among the nobles and persons of importance vicious statements are being spread abroad concerning predestination or God’s foreknowledge. For this is what they say: ‘If I am predestined, I shall be saved, whether I do good or evil. If I am not predestined, I shall be condemned regardless of my works.’ . . . If the statements are true, as they, of course, think, then the incarnation of the Son of God, His suffering and resurrection, and all that He did for the salvation of the world are done away with completely. What will the prophets and all Holy Scripture help? What will the sacraments help?”

Regardless of interpretations of “Bondage of the Will”, Luther remained solidly opposed to the notion of predestination to damnation.

 

[JonNC]

You can’t assail my argument and you’re getting upset. I am not attacking either Luther or Calvin. I’m making an observation based upon historical fact which disproves your opinion.

If you made an argument, I could debate it. By your own admission, you are stating opinions, which are without historic backing. I’ve seen these kinds of polemics too often to be upset by it. It is the canard of an apologist.

 

[TULIPed]

See Jon - I always knew you (and Luther) were closet Calvinists. Welcome to the club

 

[JonNC]

You are an admirably patient man.

I’ve seen this too often to worry about it. It is why a regularly counter the “Protestants think this / do that” polemic. @TULIPed needles me about my comments about Calvinism vs Catholicism, but the fact is, in terms of doctrine and practice, the term Protestant really has little meaning.

 

[JonNC]

See Jon - I always knew you (and Luther) were closet Calvinists. Welcome to the club

I don’t have to sit here and take this!

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

You can’t assail my argument and you’re getting upset. I am not attacking either Luther or Calvin. I’m making an observation based upon historical fact which disproves your opinion.

If you made an argument, I could debate it. By your own admission, you are stating opinions, which are without historic backing. I’ve seen these kinds of polemics too often to be upset by it. It is the canard of an apologist.

You are stating your opinion and that’s all. I’ve provided the historical data which supports my opinion.

 

[JonNC]

You are stating your opinion and that’s all. I’ve provided the historical data which supports my opinion.

Balderdash. You’ve provided an opinion, and a faulty one at that.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

You are stating your opinion and that’s all. I’ve provided the historical data which supports my opinion.

Balderdash. You’ve provided an opinion, and a faulty one at that.

Lol! That’s proof you’re upset because you can’t support your opinion. Anyone can show outrage to pretend they are correct. But the fact is that I’ve supported my opinion with facts and you have not been able to provide any data to support your contention.