Where did Martin Luther and John Calvin disagree?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jimmy:

You get a well-reasoned, intelligent answer to the question you asked, and you ridicule him. You sir, are rude and demeaning.

O+
 
No infractions of the Forum Rules and/or Banned Topics have occurred thus far in this thread.

I will say that some of you have already posted borderline comments and so I suggest that everyone focus on the thread topic and everyone maintain the highest level of charity.
MF
 
This thread is nothing but an embarrassing array of inter-Christian mud slinging. It should be closed. The justification is that it’s absolutely useless – this is not representative of Catholicism or any other Christian denomination; it’s more like a bar brawl.

:eek:
 
sola_scriptura said:
This thread is nothing but an embarrassing array of inter-Christian mud slinging. It should be closed. The justification is that it’s absolutely useless – this is not representative of Catholicism or any other Christian denomination; it’s more like a bar brawl.

:eek:
Click to expand...
This thread is …an …array of inter-Christian …justification … that …is…representative of Catholicism …
Click to expand...
Now that’s more like it. 😃

So, if a Catholic asks, "Where did Martin Luther and John Calvin disagree" that’s a problem?

Why wouldn’t a Protestant want to answer any questions regarding the Fathers of Protestantism? This seems a little odd to me.

The posts here thus far, from some of my Protestant friends, do not make any sense, with the exception of NDfan’s excellent post.

Name calling, isn’t answering the question here. No one here has called you or O.S. Luke any names.

Why don’t you simply answer the question?

"Where did Martin Luther and John Calvin disagree"

Thank you.

Peace 🙂 🙂
 
You were ridiculing a Calvinist teaching. I am not a Calvinist, but I would not ridicule a Catholic teaching.

We aren’t Forum Supporters and Book Club members like you, Jimmy. You’ve bought your clout.

No matter what the mods say, I think you were out of line with your tulip picture. I would never dream to demean an elemental teaching of Catholicism like you did of Calvinism.

If you can live with it, fine. I suspect you can.

O+
 
Jimmy_B said:
Where did Martin Luther and John Calvin disagree"
Click to expand...
It’s easily looked up, Jimmy. You’re still building the Strawman. If you really wanted to upset the Protestant applecart, you’d bring Zwingli into the picture.

If you’re going to be an underhanded apologist, at least be a smart one.
 
i had a friend that goes to a local non denominational church. she was always trying to get me to join her church. i grew up in the episcopal church and feel very uncomfortable in a protestant setting. i attended several times and i could tell that her pastor loved Jesus and wanted everyone to learn about scripture, but they all seemed so afraid of damnation. his sermons were so strict.

she told me that her pastor was doing a series of sermons on this T.U.L.I.P.
so i agreed to listen.

it was kind of creepy the whole total depravity thing. how could you feel good about your self after listening to that.

i listened to all of them and i got very depressed. i didn’t find anything enlightening about them. maybe it is just me.

it wasn’t long after that, i decided i never wanted to be protestant and i began my journey into the catholic church.

also, my new neighbor is a lutheran. and she was always saying bad things about catholics. her husband was a catholic. she is really mean spirited.

i gave protestantism a try, i think luther and calvin were both wrong.

i was scared all the time and felt really bad about myself when i went to the protestant churches. i don’t feel that way being catholic.
 
I think they were both wrong too. But I am Methodist, from the Anglican line. So I wouldn’t agree with either to begin with.
 
O.S.Luke said:
It’s easily looked up, Jimmy. You’re still building the Strawman. If you really wanted to upset the Protestant applecart, you’d bring Zwingli into the picture.

If you’re going to be an underhanded apologist, at least be a smart one.
Click to expand...
Good point, thank you! 👍

Where did Martin Luther, Ullrich Zwingli and John Calvin disagree, when it came to “Protestant” Christianity, and Protestant, non-Catholic Christian beliefs, doctrine and interpretations of the Bible?
 
Jimmy_B said:
Now that’s more like it. 😃

So, if a Catholic asks, "Where did Martin Luther and John Calvin disagree" that’s a problem?

Why wouldn’t a Protestant want to answer any questions regarding the Fathers of Protestantism? This seems a little odd to me.

The posts here thus far, from some of my Protestant friends, do not make any sense, with the exception of NDfan’s excellent post.

Name calling, isn’t answering the question here. No one here has called you or O.S. Luke any names.

Why don’t you simply answer the question?

"Where did Martin Luther and John Calvin disagree"

Thank you.

Peace 🙂 🙂
Click to expand...
Ahhh … the OP topic. Okay, I’m glad to tell you what I know (I’m not Lutheran I’m a Calvinist, so I concede I’m not the foremost expert on Luther, but I know a decent amount).

Namely, Luther did not agree with the idea of double predestination; and as far as I know he also rejected limited atonement.

He understood that we are saved by grace and not through our own efforts or merits, but didn’t develop his theology far beyond that. He did reject the idea that God’s elective choices were driven by His knowledge of the future (which has become adopted by many Catholics – but the idea itself is most commonly associated with Methodists and others who accept the theological position of Jacob Arminius and the Remonstrants).

As far as I know Luther entertained the idea of hypothetical universalism – but I don’t think he developed this idea to the extent of others like Karl Barth. Calvin’s theology was much more rigorous (and some would say dogmatic).

Calvin firmly believed that Christians should have the utmost confidence in their election; however, he had no association with the contemporary evangelical doctrine of OSAS. His view of double predestination held that some are predestined to salvation, while others are predestined to damnation.
 
sola_scriptura said:
I just offered a brief synopsis of their disagreements. See here
Click to expand...
Hello sola_scriptura,

Thank you, I read it and I thought it was an excellent post.

It was my understanding the “OSAS” belief, was based on Calvin’s “predestination” but the actual “OSAS” term, and how it is viewed today is a fairly recent development…

Do you know if “OSAS" first appeared about the same time as “Born again”?

Thank you for your post.
 
Jimmy_B said:
Hello sola_scriptura,

Thank you, I read it and I thought it was an excellent post.

It was my understanding the “OSAS” belief, was based on Calvin’s “predestination” but the actual “OSAS” term, and how it is viewed today is a fairly recent development…

Do you know if “OSAS" first appeared about the same time as “Born again”?

Thank you for your post.
Click to expand...
Honestly I wished I knew more about it; but I haven’t researched this doctrine in any great detail. It seems logical to assume it is a perversion of the reformed doctrine – perseverance of the saints, however, again it is a perversion of our doctrine (if there is any connection) and does not represent it.

Calvin was a rigorous theologian and had a distaste for poor exegesis – he didn’t even like the Anabaptists. I doubt something like such a loosely organized evangelical movement with little in the way of valuable theology could have flourished in Calvin’s Geneva. Going to an evangelical service (some not all) is more like going to a pep rally or listening to a motivational speaker.

When I go to service I don’t need some guy telling to learn more about my occupation and work harder on Monday? Okay I’ll say it, it’s dime store theology, in fact it’s not even theology. I heard Joel Osteen one day on Larry King outright admit that theology is not his thing? I bowled over laughing. I wondered what is his thing?

Don’t get me wrong when I hear the man speak he is no doubt a great speaker. I feel like I’ll hit lotto if I just go and buy a ticket. So it’s not that I see no value in it – I just see very little religious value in it. When I go to service the only thing discussed is Scripture and theology in a rigorous and organized fashion. Certainly we relate scripture to real life, but in our church not only will my Pastor discuss a passage and talk about its relevance in our lives, but we’ll even learn the historical context, its typological significance, etc. That is a church. I"m sure it’s similar in your church as well.

With regard to “born again” – we do have to be reborn in Christ (as far as I know all denominations preach this, or at least I hope so). I have heard some Catholics friends make comments like I was born once already; but serious Catholics who understand doctrine know we must be born again (I have one Catholic friend who knows her stuff & she considers herself born again). I think what happened is this term became the name of a movement so in turn many Catholics are repelled by it. However, just because a movement adopts a term (even if the movement does violence to Scriptures) should not compel thoughtful Christians to reject sound doctrine. Again, for any evangelicals who might read this – I do not mean to paint the entire movement with a broad brush. I just mean to say this is my impression of a significant part of this movement – though I’m sure there are many good solid evangelical Pastors out there who don’t make it on TV (probably because they preach too much boring theology, which is not as mass marketable as the “prosperity Gospel” or the world is ending in 2012 bunch).
 
NDfan said:
Well I don’t consider myself a typical protestant or actually a protestant at all because I’m not really protesting anything. I purposely gave a non-response because I was trying to better understand what you were looking for. So therefore my response was more of a question so I would know how to respond.

And I’ve seen it both ways. Plenty of Catholics provide 1 liners as well which usually resemble because the church says so, or I’ve seen lots of answers that contain quotes from Scott Hahn or some previous Pope. Giving someone else’s answer is not your own.

Well I think we both know that there are many excellent posters on these boards. But for every good one there are 5 bad ones that do nothing but start trouble. I think most of the good posters have started to view your threads as baiting instead of good information exchange. OS LUKE is one that comes to mind. I have avoided many of your posts because sometimes they seem repetitive. I can usually predict what your response will be which is something along the lines of sorry you are wrong please try again. If you don’t present yourself as being open-minded to non-Catholics opinions then it wouldn’t take long for those said individuals to stop responding to you.

And as a Roman Catholic I used to feel the same way.

Well I appreciate the compliment and please know that I have enjoyed some of your posts as well.

So to directly answer your question about who is right and who is wrong I answered neither.

I believe Luther had some valid points when he presented his initial theses to the church which mainly revolved around indulgences. What Luther didn’t know was that the Pope nor the church didn’t teach what Tetzel was preaching. Tetzel abused what he was doing because he received a commission on the donations he received.

I think Luther made an attempt to interpret scripture for the lay person but based on the commentary he wrote it was obvious that he may not have been properly catechized to true Catholic teachings. Luther also contradicted himself later in life and seemed to waiver on his own teachings along with John Hus.

As far as Calvin I think he was a student of scripture and the reformed theology he developed really isn’t that far from the Catholic teachings once you truly understand both sides. Probably the most disappointing thing is that any reform that may have been needed by the church should have been conducted within and under the care of the church universal. The same can be said for the break-off by the EOs in 1075.

Not sure if this gives what you are looking for but it’s a start and can certainly be expanded.

PEACE
Click to expand...
To get a grasp on the theological arguments of the Reformation period, bear in mind there were many other approacjes put forward on the anti-Catholic side, and also several on the Catholic side. Thomas More is famous as a violent foe of Lutheranism precisely because HE was also a reformer.
 
sola_scriptura said:
Wow, the level of hate and bigotry on this board is quite disturbing.

Pick any so called “errant” belief of reformed Christians (Calvinists) and I’ll be glad to debate it with you or anyone else on this board.

Why not start with TULIP (if you even know what that is), which is the core distinction between Calvinist denominations and others. Let’s see if you can back up your hate speech with theological knowledge?

I haven’t seen anyone actually discussing in an intelligent manner the theological positions of either Luther of Calvin. I guess this a hate protestants thread? Why not just call it that and dispense with the pretensions – at least you wouldn’t heap insincerity onto your list of wrongs.
Click to expand...
Why not start with tulip? there are 5 major points of Calvinism. These 5 points are known by the acronym T.U.L.I.P.
NONE OF THESE ARE TAUGHT** IN THE BIBLE.**
All 5 points must be accepted or rejected as a unit. Refute any one element and the whole system fails. (Domino effect).
The Sinner’s Prayer is NOT in the bible and won’t save you. It is false doctrine that developed from Calvinism and was first practiced less than 50 years ago.
Did you know that before Calvin became a Calvinist, he was Lutheran. Luther and Calvin contradicted themselves because they claimed to use the ‘bible only’, then went on to write creeds in addition to the bible.
Calvinism is a system of false doctrine that is taught in most Evangelical denominations.
 
JimmyB, I thought you might like this passage from Titus 3:10-11.

"After a first and second warning, break off contact with a heretic. Realizing that such a person is perverted and sinful and stands self-condemned."----St. Paul

Need I say more? 😉
 
NDfan said:
Jimmy I honestly think that people purposely avoid your posts because they always have a common theme to them. Calvin is wrong, Luther is wrong etc. etc. You’ve asked the same questions here time and time again and plenty of responses have been posted. This one is no different.

Are you really looking for an education? It doesn’t seem so as you appear to very set in your ways. If that’s the case and you are that secure with Roman Catholicism then why ask these questions. Not trying to be flip just trying to honestly understand where you are coming from.

PEACE
Click to expand...
I tell you what I think!

I get the needle at those who carry on expounding Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide despite all the books and explanations that have been writen and given. Then I remind myself that the question will never go away because as the penny drops for some, others who have never read the books on apologetics or conversed with an Apologist or an informed Catholic will ask the same question!

So the question will arise again and again. I think the poster of this question is absolutely correct with his comments. There are lots of Protestants who do not know the difference between Calvin and Luther. Just like many Catholics, they too do not know their Faith. they do not know what they know - they do not know what they believe. “I am Christian and I accept Jesus as my Lord and Saviour” - That is the sum total of their faith! So this will stretch them a little. An excellent exercise!😉 :clapping:

And then there are some amazing Protestants, very knowledgeable and potential Catholics. I think our crown jewels are many of the ex Protestants who joined us.

So I think it is good clean fun to poke at them and get them thinking.

:extrahappy: :bounce:
:dancing: :tiphat:
 
sola_scriptura said:
As there are many Catholics who aren’t theologians & don’t have a clue about the stuff the more committed types you will find on these sort of web forums know.
Click to expand...
Hi Sola!

Can you repeat that? I have difficulty understanding your sentence.

Thank you
:whacky:
:hmmm:
:tiphat:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top