Luther & Calvin's Catholic Connection

[jimmydiggs]

I don't really understand the problem. What does it matter that someone was once a Catholic?

The institution isn't Christian, that much is an accurate concern. That being said, if someone is on longer Catholic, but rather is Christian, what does that matter? (Note: I am not saying Luther and Calvin were saved/born-again, as I do not know)

 

[rauleetoe]

I don't really understand the problem. What does it matter that someone was once a Catholic?

The institution isn't Christian, that much is an accurate concern. That being said, if someone is on longer Catholic, but rather is Christian , what does that matter? (Note: I am not saying Luther and Calvin were saved/born-again, as I do not know)

As far as Luther, its a possibility that he was surely 'enlightened' or something seeing as God used him as a catalyst to bring about reform. That said, whether the Catholic institution is christian or Not, that is up to God to decide, not man. Having said that I have met some very on fire for God Catholics whom would put many protestants to shame. As far as being once a catholic, that is not the issue at hand, the issue at hand that Crossfire was trying to get across is this.
Much of what Calvin held onto was Catholic traditions,and his bias was formed out of it.
Regarding Augustine, I ask you this Jimmydiggs, since clearly you are of the reform theology persuation..how can one praise him in one sentence and then condemn all other catholics in the next breath?
Answer this please.
I feel an inconsitency going on here, or a double standard to say the least.

 

[zone]

Gee thanks. I am very aware of Michael Horton. I was at his Reformation II conference in 1987 at Biola as well as attended for a number of weeks a Church he co pastored with Kim Riddlebarger, and of course listened weekly to their White Horse Inn broadcast with Rod Rosenbladt. Olson, I am not that familiar with but I trust it will be a profitable view.

o-o-o-oh.......crossnote gets to hang out with ALL the cool theologians!
this....is....not...FAIR!

 

[crossnote]

Horton says at about 58:30

Justification is something that happens when "I believe" "when i trust in Christ"
Oh no Horton is adding to justification. Whats up with that?

nothing wrong with that...
Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

do you have any critique of Olson?

 

[Abiding]

nothing wrong with that...
Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

do you have any critique of Olson?

crossnote there isnt, Horton was correct. But the majority of reformed and calvinists hate
people to say that. I hear taught your regenerated then you believe and trust in Christ.

In fact thats my biggest issue with them.....because out of that most of the spin comes in.

I liked them both very much. Id have to listen more times to give a critique on Olson.
I didnt object to anything hearing the first time.

 

[zone]

I, too, was greatly disappointed by Dave Hunt in his video "What Love Is This?" which I actually own on dvd. I say that I was disappointed not just because I personally adhere to Reform Theology myself, but mainly because of Hunt's unprofessionalism and his blatant obsurdities (such as when he said that Calvinists today desire to persecute and imprison Christians who disagree with Calvinism, and the only reason they don't do that today is because "they don't have the power to do it" - that comment is at the 16:30 mark of the video). Such a statement is reprehensible, and doesn't even deserve a response from any thoughtful Christians engaged in this debate.

A poor video like Hunt's I would normally say should be avoided by all Christians (both Calvinists and Arminians). however it is so bad, that I think everyone should indeed watch it in order to learn how "NOT" to discuss and engage this important subject. There are basically only two things I respected about Hunt in his video (which ironically are only at the beginning of the video and the end). At the beginning he says "Some of my best friends are Calvinists", so I appreciate that although he despises Calvinism, he apparently still holds Calvinists as part of the Body of Christ. And near the end of his video, he confesses he is actually a 1-Point Calvinist (he apparently accepts the fifth point of Calvinism, which is "Perseverance of the Saints").

Crossnote, I noticed you said you wish you could hear a debate between two champions on both sides; I uploaded to YouTube a debate (actually more a discussion) between two men (Michael Horton and Roger Olson) considered to indeed be top professionals on both sides of the debate, so I will attach that video hear so you could enjoy a discussion on the subject the way it should be discussed by Christians (although I disagree with Olson's arguments against Calvinism in this debate, I still highly respect both his behavior and his professionalism). I hope you (and others who watch it) may enjoy it.

[video=youtube;1D2SWKbZSIU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D2SWKbZSIU[/video]

wow.......really had no idea how seriously divided these groups are......i thought it was just here!.

there was nothing said re: the theological positions i hadn't heard before.....but the underlying animosity was made breathtakingly clear.....they both agreed they'd never attend a church the other pastored. i've never talked to a calvinist in person who said the thing Olson says they say. i guess they do. i wish i'da been there: i wanted Pastor Olson to answer - what's the DIFF? he STILL has God not saving some, even though He says He could!

arg......that was sad.....*sigh*.....eh. don't need it.

 

[crossnote]

crossnote there isnt, Horton was correct. But the majority of reformed and calvinists hate
people to say that. I hear taught your regenerated then you believe and trust in Christ.

In fact thats my biggest issue with them.....because out of that most of the spin comes in.

I liked them both very much. Id have to listen more times to give a critique on Olson.
I didnt object to anything hearing the first time.

I concur,I believe one is regenerated at the time of faith...not b4 or after

 

[zone]

it seems like it must come from the respective pulpits?
do calvinists and arminians actually preach against the other as part of their deal?
that might be a dumb question...but...?? is one position upheld simply by contrasting it to the other??? seemed like it.
like it is part of the SoFs or the catechism or something ?

i wondered why this obsession [particularly from one camp]...now i kinda get the idea - it's built in!

kept hearing the echos of myths and misrepresentations and misunderstandings.

hmmm.....too bad they didn't stay on that bit about universalism - that would have been helpful. oh well

 

[Descyple]

the underlying animosity was made breathtakingly clear.....they both agreed they'd never attend a church the other pastored.

Greetings Zone.

I was surprised you felt there was animosity in the debate between Michael Horton and Roger Olson. I actually had the exact opposite reaction; I felt it was one of the most respectful debates between a Calvinist and an Arminian I've personally ever heard (which is why I recommended it over and against a video like Dave Hunt's). I agree that at the end of the debate they both declared they would not "attend" each others church, but I don't think they meant that to say they would never "visit" each others church, but rather I think they meant it on a more practical level that they could not "regularly attend" each others church (which usually includes becoming actual members) because of their deep theological differences that would prevent each other from being full-fledged representatives of each others church. That to me is not "animosity" but rather it is simply a practical reality that exists among all denominational membership classes. Every church requires adherence to its own particular denominational doctrines in order to obtain membership, and if a person rejects those particulars, then full membership is not possible.

I think that was all both Michael and Roger meant (which I think was proven when they admitted they've been personal friends with each other for twenty years, and that they wish they could spend even more time together). I don't think they were attempting to convey animosity towards one another or hatred of each others church.

 

[zone]

Greetings Zone.

I was surprised you felt there was animosity in the debate between Michael Horton and Roger Olson. I actually had the exact opposite reaction; I felt it was one of the most respectful debates between a Calvinist and an Arminian I've personally ever heard (which is why I recommended it over and against a video like Dave Hunt's). I agree that at the end of the debate they both declared they would not "attend" each others church, but I don't think they meant that to say they would never "visit" each others church, but rather I think they meant it on a more practical level that they could not "regularly attend" each others church (which usually includes becoming actual members) because of their deep theological differences that would prevent each other from being full-fledged representatives of each others church. That to me is not "animosity" but rather it is simply a practical reality that exists among all denominational membership classes. Every church requires adherence to its own particular denominational doctrines in order to obtain membership, and if a person rejects those particulars, then full membership is not possible.

I think that was all both Michael and Roger meant (which I think was proven when they admitted they've been personal friends with each other for twenty years, and that they wish they could spend even more time together). I don't think they were attempting to convey animosity towards one another or hatred of each others church.

no no Descyple....
thank you for posting it.
i didn't mean between the two men.
i meant the denoms.

i get the part about not being members of the respective denominations. i would have to make a choice also [i did] - if i had to give up my denomination i'd go reformed which is what i pretty much had settled on anyways.

arminianism has way too many unanswered questions for me, and the very foundation seemed to oddly echo something else i've heard a lot lately - the universalist's objections. not to mention it seems to be nearly entirely reactionary against calvinism.

[don't anyone bother reading the riot act over this post unless you have a pressing need to don't really care much at this point anyways]

though i may look into it more.

no Descyple, i found it a wonderful conversation. very helpful for sure. both nice men.
just meant it actually clarified the broader animosity...and i did hear the "shop" talk coming from them: buzzwords from Pastor Olson i found interesting.

ty
z

 

[Descyple]

no no Descyple....
thank you for posting it.
i didn't mean between the two men.
i meant the denoms.

i get the part about not being members of the respective denominations. i would have to make a choice also [i did] - if i had to give up my denomination i'd go reformed which is what i pretty much had settled on anyways.

arminianism has way too many unanswered questions for me, and the very foundation seemed to oddly echo something else i've heard a lot lately - the universalist's objections. not to mention it seems to be nearly entirely reactionary against calvinism.

[don't anyone bother reading the riot act over this post unless you have a pressing need to don't really care much at this point anyways]

though i may look into it more.

no Descyple, i found it a wonderful conversation. very helpful for sure. both nice men.
just meant it actually clarified the broader animosity...and i did hear the "shop" talk coming from them: buzzwords from Pastor Olson i found interesting.

ty
z

Ohhhh, my mistake Zone. Sorry for misunderstanding your conclusion about the discussion. I'm glad you enjoyed the debate and also found it both respectful and helpful.

 

[Ritter]

I don't really understand the problem. What does it matter that someone was once a Catholic?

The institution isn't Christian, that much is an accurate concern. That being said, if someone is on longer Catholic, but rather is Christian, what does that matter? (Note: I am not saying Luther and Calvin were saved/born-again, as I do not know)

Okay, I know you are being a good comrade by showing epistemological humility, but let us approach the subject giving an eye to context: Luther and Calvin were both Christians. Were they different from modern Evangelicals, yes, but any reading of Calvin's institutes would confirm the man believe Christ to be his Lord and Savior and lived his life out to be one.

I know you know this, Jimmy. You're probably better read in the realm of Reformed theology than I am.

As far as Luther, its a possibility that he was surely 'enlightened' or something seeing as God used him as a catalyst to bring about reform. That said, whether the Catholic institution is christian or Not, that is up to God to decide, not man. Having said that I have met some very on fire for God Catholics whom would put many protestants to shame. As far as being once a catholic, that is not the issue at hand, the issue at hand that Crossfire was trying to get across is this.
Much of what Calvin held onto was Catholic traditions,and his bias was formed out of it.
Regarding Augustine, I ask you this Jimmydiggs, since clearly you are of the reform theology persuation..how can one praise him in one sentence and then condemn all other catholics in the next breath?
Answer this please.
I feel an inconsitency going on here, or a double standard to say the least.

I'll give a wack at it! Their recognition of Augustinian doctrine as truth bears no contradiction to who they were and what they stood for. Who you are and what you stand for? Perhaps. Even then, you take their conclusions and theological "innovations," if you will for granted (judging by your general reaction toward the thought of the Reformation).

1. Let's look at historical context, shall we? The Catholic Church as Luther and Calvin knew it took centuries to develop. Augustine more or less existed in its foundational period, but even then he stood against elements of what the church would later become, particularly in the realm of the Bible's place in theology.

2. Calvin didn't just quote Augustine. He quoted the classics as well! The question is, how did they apply Augustine, and how did they apply the doctrine? Am I a romantic transcendentalist for sharing a good quote by Henry David Thoreau? No. Are you a supporter of the Hollywood conglomerate if you quote Samuel L. Jackson in the affirmative?

All men bear the image of God, and as such have the spark of truth in them. You can question their motives; the context of their quotes (all very important things), but to toss them out as worthless? That is willful ignorance at best.

3. Calvin and Luther stood against the ultimate authority of the Catholic Church in a way few before them had. Particularly in the realm of the reading of scripture. They read the Bible in a way that was radically different from the Catholic allegorical approach. They believed that salvation is between God and the individual, not a corporate affair with a faux "priest" acting as intercessor. This is why reading of the Bible was important, nay central to the early Reformers.

Were they always right? Should all of what they said be taken as the final authority of scripture? No! How do we know this? Well, they helped give us the Bible in a language we could read and the tools to better understand it. Even the most ardent of non-Calvinists owe them a great debt in this way.

The main point is this: What Calvin, Luther, Tyndale, Beza, Wycliffe, Huss, etc did was strike at the heart of what made the Catholic Church an institution that did not adequately convey the truth. That they kept a few vestiges of tradition and belief is almost immaterial by comparison. Indeed, petty.

Consider this observation: given how thoroughly they read the sacred texts, we should be giving these things a second look with the same critical eye they did.

 

[Ritter]

arminianism has way too many unanswered questions for me, and the very foundation seemed to oddly echo something else i've heard a lot lately - the universalist's objections. not to mention it seems to be nearly entirely reactionary against calvinism.

That is what much of the modern arminianism v. calvinism debate consists of: a hyper-focus on a reaction to a reaction, not the truth involved with proper exegesis.

If people took time to read both about the reformers and their actual works (with a critical eye similar to theirs, of course), such sneering contempt would fall moot in the appreciation of their place in the history of God's unfolding grace.

To borrow and butcher a quote from a prominent Calvinist, they bequeathed unto us a new birth of freedom; repairing and restoring a foundation that years of autocratic political dominance had obscured. Something altogether beautiful when one looks at the big picture.

 

[psychomom]

Ah, Ritter, you're like a breath of fresh air.

And the new avatar is, er, epic, if that's still what the kidz are sayin'.
-ellie

 

[jimmydiggs]

As far as Luther, its a possibility that he was surely 'enlightened' or something seeing as God used him as a catalyst to bring about reform.

I think he was probably saved, but I am not in the position to be saying yay or nay. I don't have enough information.

That said, whether the Catholic institution is christian or Not, that is up to God to decide, not man.

Indeed, it isn't up to man. Scripture is quite clear, that if you do not preach the Gospel, you are to be accursed.

Galatians 1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

Having said that I have met some very on fire for God Catholics whom would put many protestants to shame.

Sure thing, anyone can be more religious than an evangelical.

As far as being once a catholic, that is not the issue at hand, the issue at hand that Crossfire was trying to get across is this.
Much of what Calvin held onto was Catholic traditions,and his bias was formed out of it.

Ephesians 4:24
and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
Doesn't generally happen perfectly.

Calvin was a human just as you and I are. Additionally, I don't really buy into this whole, "Catholics believe/have believed it, therefor it's not Christian!" or the underlying argument many use against the trinity of, "Catholics believe it, therefor it's a Catholic doctrine." If scripture teaches it, scripture teaches it. I don't really care who did or didn't say it before. I don't discount Weslyanism on the account that Pelagius was the great grandpappy of the theology.

Regarding Augustine, I ask you this Jimmydiggs, since clearly you are of the reform theology persuation..how can one praise him in one sentence and then condemn all other catholics in the next breath?

I don't really bother with Augustine, or Calvin, or Luther, or anyone else for that matter. I have read at most maybe two paragraphs worth of text from Calvin on a whole, which one would be an assortment of quotes. That being said, I am uncomfortable with the way many who are Reformed do revere Augustine. On the other side of it, a broken clock can be right twice a day. I will give Augustine, or Mohammad that benefit of the doubt. Common Grace is still in effect. The heathen aren't droolers.

As a side note, I'm not sure you can really throw in Augustine as Catholic by what Catholicism is today.

Answer this please.
I feel an inconsitency going on here, or a double standard to say the least.

In many cases you're absolutely right.

 

[Abiding]

[TABLE="width: 80%"]
[TR="bgcolor: #CEDFF9"]
[TD]Topic[/TD]
[TD]Calvinism[/TD]
[TD]Lutheranism[/TD]
[TD]Arminianism[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #EDEDED"]
[TD]Human will[/TD]
[TD]Total Depravity without free will permanently due to divine sovereignty[/TD]
[TD]Total Depravity without free will until spiritual regeneration[/TD]
[TD]Depravity does not prevent free will[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #F7F7F7"]
[TD]Election[/TD]
[TD]Unconditional election to salvation with those outside the elect foreordained to damnation (double-predestination)[SUP][39][/SUP][/TD]
[TD]Unconditional predestination to salvation for the elect[/TD]
[TD]Conditional election in view of foreseen faith or unbelief[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #EDEDED"]
[TD]Justification[/TD]
[TD]Justification is limited to those predestined to salvation, completed at Christ's death[/TD]
[TD]Justification by faith alone, completed at Christ's death.[/TD]
[TD]Justification made possible for all through Christ's death, but only completed upon choosing faith in Jesus[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #F7F7F7"]
[TD]Conversion[/TD]
[TD]Monergistic, through the inner calling of the Holy Spirit,irresistible[/TD]
[TD]Monergistic, through themeans of grace, resistible[/TD]
[TD]Synergistic, resistible due to the common grace of free will[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #EDEDED"]
[TD]Preservation and apostasy[/TD]
[TD]Perseverance of the saints: the eternally elect in Christ will necessarily persevere in faith[/TD]
[TD]Falling away is possible, but God gives assurance of preservation.[/TD]
[TD]Preservation is conditional upon continued faith in Christ; with the possibility of a final apostasy.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Wikipedia


Notice type in blue for further definitions.

 

[rauleetoe]

I think he was probably saved, but I am not in the position to be saying yay or nay. I don't have enough information.

Indeed, it isn't up to man. Scripture is quite clear, that if you do not preach the Gospel, you are to be accursed.

Galatians 1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!


Sure thing, anyone can be more religious than an evangelical.


Ephesians 4:24
and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
Doesn't generally happen perfectly.

Calvin was a human just as you and I are. Additionally, I don't really buy into this whole, "Catholics believe/have believed it, therefor it's not Christian!" or the underlying argument many use against the trinity of, "Catholics believe it, therefor it's a Catholic doctrine." If scripture teaches it, scripture teaches it. I don't really care who did or didn't say it before. I don't discount Weslyanism on the account that Pelagius was the great grandpappy of the theology.




I don't really bother with Augustine, or Calvin, or Luther, or anyone else for that matter. I have read at most maybe two paragraphs worth of text from Calvin on a whole, which one would be an assortment of quotes. That being said, I am uncomfortable with the way many who are Reformed do revere Augustine. On the other side of it, a broken clock can be right twice a day. I will give Augustine, or Mohammad that benefit of the doubt. Common Grace is still in effect. The heathen aren't droolers.

As a side note, I'm not sure you can really throw in Augustine as Catholic by what Catholicism is today.


In many cases you're absolutely right.

I think he was probably saved, but I am not in the position to be saying yay or nay. I don't have enough information.

Indeed, it isn't up to man. Scripture is quite clear, that if you do not preach the Gospel, you are to be accursed.

Galatians 1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!


------------------
Who said all catholics are of the same mindset, do you discount that some catholics are saved? Do you believe all non catholics are saved?
I think you are intelligent enough to have understand my question, You may be young, but I do think you have some intelligence and truly get what i mean. ----------
--------------------------------------------

Sure thing, anyone can be more religious than an evangelical.

-------------------------------
If you are implying that all non catholics are evangelical or that all who adhere to reform theology are evangelical or that one must not be catholic in order to be evangelical..well, you are wrong. I have met some of the most non evangelical protestants out there,they are called hyper calvinists,and some of the high calvinists can be thrown into this term as well.
I was not talking about being religious, I have met Catholics who actually walk with God. Once again, you may not have met them. But i have.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calvin was a human just as you and I are. Additionally, I don't really buy into this whole, "Catholics believe/have believed it, therefor it's not Christian!" or the underlying argument many use against the trinity of, "Catholics believe it, therefor it's a Catholic doctrine." If scripture teaches it, scripture teaches it. I don't really care who did or didn't say it before. I don't discount Weslyanism on the account that Pelagius was the great grandpappy of the theology.

--------------------
We are all humans Jimmy..That is obvious. What i am wanting you to question is the teachings of Calvin, and what was his walk. As far as Pelagious is concerned..Wesley was very anti Pelagian and so was Arminius as well as all other true classical Arminians, but don't take my word for it. Read it for yourself, I highly recommend you read about Arminian theology from someone like Roger E Olson who is going to tell you the truth, not from your reform baptist pastor. (i know you love him,but at least in this, he may sway you and be a bit biased..think about it) The grandpappy,as you said it, of all Arminian Theology was Jacobus Arminius,yes i know you know about him(albeit a maligned story about him i am sure you have heard) And Arminius was once like you, a prized Pupil of Theodore Beze, Calvin's son in law, who we all know was a calvinist. He was raised in a calvinist home and upon further study of Romans rejected certain doctrines including Double predestination.
----------------------------------------------------

My last thing i will say Sir Jimmy is this, I appreciate your zeal. I have no doubt that God has transformed you, and done a work, as he has in most of us here in this site. Where I will detract from you is the notion that the catholic is the enemy, surely there are catholics who walk with God, in spite of their doctrinal errors(which I never said did not exist)

 

[rauleetoe]

I don't really bother with Augustine, or Calvin, or Luther, or anyone else for that matter. I have read at most maybe two paragraphs worth of text from Calvin on a whole, which one would be an assortment of quotes. That being said, I am uncomfortable with the way many who are Reformed do revere Augustine. On the other side of it, a broken clock can be right twice a day. I will give Augustine, or Mohammad that benefit of the doubt. Common Grace is still in effect. The heathen aren't droolers.

As a side note, I'm not sure you can really throw in Augustine as Catholic by what Catholicism is today.

--------------
I find it amusing that i have perhaps read more of Calvin than you have.
Going beyond that Augustine was a catholic. He was a proponent of Baby Baptism and the sacraments. The heathen are not droolers? No you imply they are robots. Droolers/robots. Same difference. You say they have no choice,because God forordained them to sin..he makes them sin. Yet somehow he is innocent of that and can still be a Holy God in reformed theology..how so?
I guess you have to make a new reformed definition of what Holy is, just as you did with ALL,and World..right?

 

[rauleetoe]

Okay, I know you are being a good comrade by showing epistemological humility, but let us approach the subject giving an eye to context: Luther and Calvin were both Christians. Were they different from modern Evangelicals, yes, but any reading of Calvin's institutes would confirm the man believe Christ to be his Lord and Savior and lived his life out to be one.

I know you know this, Jimmy. You're probably better read in the realm of Reformed theology than I am.



I'll give a wack at it! Their recognition of Augustinian doctrine as truth bears no contradiction to who they were and what they stood for. Who you are and what you stand for? Perhaps. Even then, you take their conclusions and theological "innovations," if you will for granted (judging by your general reaction toward the thought of the Reformation).

1. Let's look at historical context, shall we? The Catholic Church as Luther and Calvin knew it took centuries to develop. Augustine more or less existed in its foundational period, but even then he stood against elements of what the church would later become, particularly in the realm of the Bible's place in theology.

2. Calvin didn't just quote Augustine. He quoted the classics as well! The question is, how did they apply Augustine, and how did they apply the doctrine? Am I a romantic transcendentalist for sharing a good quote by Henry David Thoreau? No. Are you a supporter of the Hollywood conglomerate if you quote Samuel L. Jackson in the affirmative?

All men bear the image of God, and as such have the spark of truth in them. You can question their motives; the context of their quotes (all very important things), but to toss them out as worthless? That is willful ignorance at best.

3. Calvin and Luther stood against the ultimate authority of the Catholic Church in a way few before them had. Particularly in the realm of the reading of scripture. They read the Bible in a way that was radically different from the Catholic allegorical approach. They believed that salvation is between God and the individual, not a corporate affair with a faux "priest" acting as intercessor. This is why reading of the Bible was important, nay central to the early Reformers.

Were they always right? Should all of what they said be taken as the final authority of scripture? No! How do we know this? Well, they helped give us the Bible in a language we could read and the tools to better understand it. Even the most ardent of non-Calvinists owe them a great debt in this way.

The main point is this: What Calvin, Luther, Tyndale, Beza, Wycliffe, Huss, etc did was strike at the heart of what made the Catholic Church an institution that did not adequately convey the truth. That they kept a few vestiges of tradition and belief is almost immaterial by comparison. Indeed, petty.

Consider this observation: given how thoroughly they read the sacred texts, we should be giving these things a second look with the same critical eye they did.

I may have to reply to your post peicemeal after work, I will say this. Regardless of the fact that God may have used some men to do 'reform' we cannot ignore the errors out of thankfullness or not be critical of what needs to be critical. The Synod of Dort was a state backed one sided initiative by state run calvinist churches where the remonstrants who where there were basically prisoners of the state. It was very much determined from the beginning to be one sided,and the remonstrants were ousted,some jailed,one killed. Is that a christian response? Answer me.

No one said they were worthless regarding any 'contributions' but let's give Praise to God regarding this more than to flawed men. Because God would have used a Donkey to bring about reform if he had to. Don't put so much emphasis and praise on Luther and Calvin, be sincere enough and man enough to admit where their flaws were and where they messed up. As far as who i am? I am just some dude who believes the Bible and wants to live a holy life for God, God has met me in a very real way.

 

[Ritter]

I may have to reply to your post peicemeal after work, I will say this. Regardless of the fact that God may have used some men to do 'reform' we cannot ignore the errors out of thankfullness or not be critical of what needs to be critical. The Synod of Dort was a state backed one sided initiative by state run calvinist churches where the remonstrants who where there were basically prisoners of the state. It was very much determined from the beginning to be one sided,and the remonstrants were ousted,some jailed,one killed. Is that a christian response? Answer me.

No one said they were worthless regarding any 'contributions' but let's give Praise to God regarding this more than to flawed men. Because God would have used a Donkey to bring about reform if he had to. Don't put so much emphasis and praise on Luther and Calvin, be sincere enough and man enough to admit where their flaws were and where they messed up. As far as who i am? I am just some dude who believes the Bible and wants to live a holy life for God, God has met me in a very real way.

1. I look forward to your extended reply.

2. Of course! Look at everything critically. This is their legacy.

3. No, but the proliferation of Reformed Doctrine did a fair bit more politically than the Synod of Dort. Was it a brilliant move to be replicated? No. By no means. Certainly not an exception that proves the rule.

It doesn't make what they did any better, but at least the Calvinists had a textual argument to their claims beyond "the church says x, so it must be so!"

4. I just give credit where credit is due. God used them did he not? The fact you and I are debating this and not how many years we'll spend in purgatory for heated debate says a lot.