Where did Martin Luther and John Calvin disagree?

[Jimmy_B]

Where did Martin Luther and John Calvin disagree, when it came to “Protestant” Christianity, and Protestant, non-Catholic Christian beliefs, doctrine and interpretations of the Bible?

Who was right?Martin Luther, John Calvin, neither or both and please explain your comments.

Martin Luther -

truereligiondebate.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/martin-luther.jpg

John Calvin -

nycphantom.com/store/JohnCalvin.jpg

 

[Jimmy_B]

Where did Martin Luther and John Calvin disagree, when it came to “Protestant” Christianity, and Protestant, non-Catholic Christian beliefs, doctrine and interpretations of the Bible?

Who was right?Martin Luther, John Calvin, neither or both and please explain your comments.
There are plenty of non-Catholics here, who are eager to post all of the reasons why the Catholic Church is “wrong”, however, when asked this question (above), no response….gee, I wonder why?

Is it because, there are non-Catholic Christians here who don’t really, fully know or understand why they believe, what they believe?

I believe so….

Maybe, it is because they don’t want to admit where their beliefs originated….

Or, is it because most Protestant, non-Catholic Christians here, are obsessed with the Catholic Church and are in a constant state of “protesting”…protesting the Catholic Church, after all, that is the nature of Protestantism; to protest Catholicism.

Some protest, because they weren’t able to have God on their terms, when they were Catholic.

If only, I had a nickel for every post here, where a non-Catholic reminded me that this was the non-Catholic section here at CAF and yet, when I ask a relevant, non-Catholic question…no response.

Many, Protestant non-Catholic Christians pretend as if all non-Catholic Christianity is the same and it is not!

Many non-Catholic Christians here, pretend as if, they are the ones who found the “Protestant” verses in the Bible…and they are not. There are no “Protestant verses” in the Bible.

Most here are simply repeating what someone else told them. Most here, do not really know what they believe and they do not really know what all of the beliefs are, of their own Christian denomination, they just know the “parts”, told them by another Protestant that… make them “feel good”.

This question (above) should be easy for any Protestant, non-Catholic Christian…or at least knowing whom their own denomination descended from; Martin Luther or John Calvin….that is, if they really knew why they believe what they believe and most don’t.

Because of the emphasis placed on the errant Protestant belief in, “personal interpretation of the bible” and the Protestant emphasis on “protesting” the Catholic Church, many Protestants are distracted from the truth.

I believe another reason why there is no response to the first post here, is because this subject shines a light on the problems found in Protestantism and with the errant, non-Catholic Christian belief, which allows, personal interpretation of the Bible.

Some here, base their entire faith on a handful of Bible verses…Bible verses, pointed-out to them by the person or persons, from the denomination that they currently belong to, or, in some cases, the person or persons from the first denomination they joined… after abandoning their Catholic Faith.

One cannot fully understand Christianity or fully appreciate Christianity, when they reject Christian Truths, Holy Sacraments, and the Churches teachings, Holy Christian History, Holy Christian Traditions and the Bible verses, which go beyond their basic doctrine.

Your thoughts?

 

[churchcamefirst]

Great post here. Just want to add that Luther and Calvin preached “the bible only”, then went on to write creeds in spite of what they said…

 

[Jimmy_B]

Great post here. Just want to add that Luther and Calvin preached “the bible only”, then went on to write creeds in spite of what they said…

Hello churchcamefirst,

You are right, sola scriptura (scripture alone) and sola fide, (faith alone*), “Once Saved always Saved”* (OSAS), are more errant non-Catholic, Protestant beliefs, which are anti-biblical and anti-Christian.

These errant Protestant beliefs and countless others, originated from Protestant men who were mistaken, when they interpreted the Bible.

There are “Christians” today who do not believe in the Holy Trinity, “because it is not in the Bible”. ,

There are “Christians” today who don’t believe that Baptism is necessary.

There are “Christians” today, who believe that is ok to married and divorce as many times as you’d like.

Some non-Catholic, “Christian” denominations allow Gay Marriage;

Some allow multiple marriages; some believe in the Real Presense of the Eucharist and some do not;

Some believe in confessing to a priest and some do not;

Some believe in all of the Creed and some in parts only;

Some believe in “predestination”, and some do not…and so on and so on….

Yet, many Christians wrongly believe that they all belong to the same “religion”….”Because they believe in Jesus”.

To believe in Jesus, means to do as He said. How is it possible to, “Do has His (Jesus) said”, if every different, Christian denomination preaches something different?

Protestant errors have been a disaster for Christianity and non-Catholic Christianity today is in a state of confusion.

Thank you for your post.

 

[NDfan]

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

 

[dprewett]

Is not the whole argument in this section concerning the Catholic faith verses those man made faiths that came later. Most of the protestant responses i see on this forum are based in Luther or Calvinist theology. I see nothing wrong with asking these questions over again as most of the time they are answered but nobody wants to admit where the answer came from. My protestant friends are always trying to convert me but they all run with the same theme and then try and change the subject when asked if they are calvinist. Most do not even realize they are. On another not all my Lutheren friends Know they are lutherins and have much better apologetics for their faith. Just my two cents worth. Plus I have read some of Jimmys threads and like them. Also are not all threads on here generally loaded in some way. Even when iI try not to my threads in retrospect usually end up coming from a catholic point of view. I also believe that that point is neither were right from a catholic point of view so lets discusses this with protestants that believe diferently. By the way, if you want to see loaded threads go to a pro-test-ant forum.

 

[Jimmy_B]

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

Hello No NDfan,

You’re wrong, your response here is a typical Protestant response…or I should say, non-response?

Some here do take the time to provide the “Protestant response” but most do not. Many times the responses I read here, where a Catholic has asked a valid question, is a “one-liner”, usually complaining about the poster and avoiding, answering the question. This is especially true if the subject matter, does not should Protestantism in a good light.

Is this because there is no valid response to Protestant errors?

As a Roman Catholic… I believe so.

Additionally, I have never asked this question before. It is a valid question and I would like a real response. This is not a response. Can you please answer this question?

You have made some valid points in the past and I know that you can put together a good post, because I have read many of your previous posts, on other threads. I enjoy reading your posts.

Thank you for your post here and I look forward to your response.

Peace

 

[NDfan]

Hello No NDfan,

You’re wrong, your response here is a typical Protestant response…or I should say, non-response?

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.

Some here do take the time to provide the “Protestant response” but most do not. Many times the responses I read here, where a Catholic has asked a valid question, is a “one-liner”, usually complaining about the poster and avoiding, answering the question. This is especially true if the subject matter, does not should Protestantism in a good light.

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.

Is this because there is no valid response to Protestant errors?

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.

As a Roman Catholic… I believe so.

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

Additionally, I have never asked this question before. It is a valid question and I would like a real response. This is not a response. Can you please answer this question?

You have made some valid points in the past and I know that you can put together a good post, because I have read many of your previous posts, on other threads. I enjoy reading your posts.

Thank you for your post here and I look forward to your response.

Peace

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

 

[Ruthie]

Jimmy, it strikes me that no Protestants have directly responded to your question because it involves a lot of work.

You’d have to break down what each man wrote, summarize it, then re-organize it so that you can compare each teaching point by point.

That’s enough work for a Master’s thesis, methinks, not for a post on CAF!

You’d get a better response to “who was right” if you presented a point-by-point comparison yourself…

Affectionately,

Ruthie

 

[Jimmy_B]

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

Hello NDfan,

Thank you, excellent post! I have a couple questions for you….when I have a little more time…for now; what are your thoughts regarding, “predestination”?

Peace

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jimmy,
From the LCMS website:

Q. What are the major differences between the Missouri Synod and Reformed churches?

A. Just as there are many significant differences in theology and practice between Lutherans of varying denominations, the same is true when it comes to different churches within the Reformed tradition. Differences exist among Reformed churches even regarding such fundamental issues as the authority of Scripture and the nature and centrality of the doctrine of justification.

Historically, however, most Reformed churches adhere to the five points of Calvinist theology commonly summarized by the acrostic “tulip” as these were set forth at the Synod of Dort (1618-19). On page 41 in his book, Churches in America, Dr. Thomas Manteufel reviews these five points and explains how they compare and/or contrast with what Lutherans believe regarding these matters.

T (Total Depravity) The Calvinists rightly teach that all descendants of Adam are by nature totally corrupt in spiritual matters. People do not have freedom of the will to turn to God in faith or cooperate in their conversions (Eph. 2:1; John 3:5-6; Rom. 8:7).

U (Unconditional predestination) Scripture does teach that it is by grace that God has predestinated the elect to eternal salvation and given them justifying faith. It is not because of any condition fulfilled by them (2 Tim. 1:9; Eph. 1:4-6; Phil. 1:29). However, the Bible does not teach, as do the Calvinists, that some are predestined for damnation. God wants all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4).

L (Limited atonement) It is true that Christ died for the church and purchased it with His blood (Eph. 5:25; Acts 20:28). Furthermore, His atoning death does not mean that all people are saved (1 Cor. 1:18). However, Jesus died for all (2 Cor. 5:15).

I (Irresistible grace) We agree that God makes us alive by His mighty power, without our aid (Eph. 2:5; John 1:13). But Scripture warns that we can resist God’s gracious call (Matt. 23:27; Acts 7:51; 2 Cor. 6:1). And some people do resist God’s grace, or all would be saved (1 Tim 2:4). Furthermore, God warns us not to resist His grace (2 Cor. 6:1; Heb. 4:7).

P (Perseverance in grace) We affirm with Scripture that those who are predestined to salvation cannot be lost but will continue by God’s power to a blessed end (Rom. 8:30; 1 Peter 1:5). Scripture does not teach, however, that those who come to faith cannot lose that faith (Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26-29; Ps. 51:11). God urges His people not to continue in sin but to live in repentance and faith (Rom. 6:1-4).

Churches in America by Dr. Thomas Manteufel; p. 41 (St. Louis: CPH, 1994).

I would add that Calvin did not believe in the true and substantial body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. If for no other reason, Luther was right, Calvin wrong. If for no other resaon, I would be Catholic or Orthodox long before I would be Calvinist.

Jon

 

[Jimmy_B]

Jimmy, it strikes me that no Protestants have directly responded to your question because it involves a lot of work.

You’d have to break down what each man wrote, summarize it, then re-organize it so that you can compare each teaching point by point.

That’s enough work for a Master’s thesis, methinks, not for a post on CAF!

You’d get a better response to “who was right” if you presented a point-by-point comparison yourself…

Affectionately,

Ruthie

Hello Ruthie,

Thank you…some Protestants respond to my threads…

I guess it is kind of like a car crash…lookie loo’s…:whacky:

…they may not want to respond but they do and then they usually realize that I’m not a bad guy….I am just trying to spark a conversation.

I have learned much from all of the poster’s here; Catholics and non-Catholics…

Some of my favorite poster’s here are non-Catholics…but don’t tell anybody….

Sometimes they get little angry with me but they don’t get too carried away because they don’t want me to release my highly trained…attack cat…

forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3818&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1219270843

I little levity never hurt either…

Thank you for your post.

The question here is -

Where did Martin Luther and John Calvin disagree, when it came to “Protestant” Christianity, and Protestant, non-Catholic Christian beliefs, doctrine and interpretations of the Bible?

 

[O.S.Luke]

Another one of Jimmy’s strawman threads, as he already showed himself in one of the above threads. Jimmy doesn’t want to know, just wants to bait and pounce.

People don’t post because you really don’t care to hear - you just want to try to make an azz of folks who answer and disagree with you. Perhaps you need to remember the words of Bishop Fulton Sheen, who always reminded that it is pointless to “win the argument, lose a soul.”

If we aim to win, he went further, we are not sharing our faith out of love - but out of pride. Such is the way of the Pharisees.

 

[Jimmy_B]

O.S. Luke wrote - Another one of Jimmy’s strawman threads, as he already showed himself in one of the above threads. Jimmy doesn’t want to know, just wants to bait and pounce.

People don’t post because you really don’t care to hear - you just want to try to make an azz of folks who answer and disagree with you. Perhaps you need to remember the words of Bishop Fulton Sheen, who always reminded that it is pointless to “win the argument, lose a soul.”

If we aim to win, he went further, we are not sharing our faith out of love - but out of pride. Such is the way of the Pharisees

Hello O.S.Luke,

“Strawman” …hey…that reminds me, didn’t Martin Luther initially reject the book of James because he thought it was the “book of straw”?

I like Bishop Fulton Sheen, nice to see that you are reading…or hearing what he had to say. I recommend that you read “From the Angel’s Blackboard”, if you haven’t already…great book.

ISBN 0-89243-777-4

Thank you for your post…

Do you have an answer to the questions posed here.

Peace

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Do you have an answer to the questions posed here

Well, I think Luther does!

Therefore, I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you – or even an angel from heaven- to judge my teaching or to examine it. For there has been enough foolish humility now for the third time at Worms, and it has not helped. Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world [1 Pet. 3:15]. I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel.

For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [1 Cor. 6:3]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching *may not be saved *- for it is God’s teaching and not mine.

Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s.

Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So Called, July 1522.

Luther’s Works, vol. 39, Church and Ministry I, Eric W. Gritsch, Helmut T. Lehman eds., Fortress Press, ISBN 0800603397, pp. 248-249.
amazon.com/Luthers-Works-39-Church-Ministry/dp/0800603397

How simple everything would be if we all just followed Luther, our “judge.”

http://thumbsnap.com/images/lt5k8MUo.jpg:bowdown:

 

[sola_scriptura]

There are plenty of non-Catholics here, who are eager to post all of the reasons why the Catholic Church is “wrong”, however, when asked this question (above), no response….gee, I wonder why?

Is it because, there are non-Catholic Christians here who don’t really, fully know or understand why they believe, what they believe?

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.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Hello churchcamefirst,

You are right, sola scriptura (scripture alone) and sola fide, (faith alone*), “Once Saved always Saved”* (OSAS), are more errant non-Catholic, Protestant beliefs, which are anti-biblical and anti-Christian.

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.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Jimmy’s immune from the forum rules:

Guidelines
For both Catholic and non-Catholic posters:

• It is acceptable to question the doctrine or dogma of another’s faith
• It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
• Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously*
• It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
• It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
• It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false.

• Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.

*It is our observation that discussion of such past events rarely serves a useful purpose and inevitably opens a thread to posts that violate forum rules and/or the bounds of civil discourse. So, while such threads may be useful, they raise a red flag for the Moderation staff.

 

[Jimmy_B]

…Why not start with TULIP (if you even know what that is…

I know what a Tulip is…it is a flower…now what did I win?



Why would a Catholic need to bother with a Protest acrynim?

Why would a Catholic need to bother with a Protestant acronym?

Total depravity

Unconditional election

Limited atonement

Irresistible grace

Perseverance of the saints

​

Can I stick with my first answer?; Tulip…a flower.

 

[JonNC]

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.

Gee, Sola, I thought my post (#11) was decent. Are you saying the LCMS isn’t intellegent?

Jon