REFORMED THEOLOGY CRITICS - BE CONSISTENT AND DON'T LISTEN TO REFORMED TEACHERS

[trofimus]

simply not true with the exceptions of about 4 of them they are all recognized all valid by not only the Catholic Church but also the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches in fact most liturgical protestant churches(Anglicans and Lutherans) commemorate the names I listed as well as every single one I listed lived before the 16th century

You probaly tried to respond to another post of mine.

Well, I am quite sure that if you go to streets and ask people if they heard of Calvin or Luther and then if they heard of Gregory of Nazianzus, the result will not be good for you.

Its possible that some official churches documents recognize some more names from the list, but we are probably talking about another kind of "being known" or "being important".

 

[RexCA]

You need a new list. Try adding some christian theologians, not catholics?

I'll give a pass to Augustine, Chrysostom for influence, and Athanasius. Try some that don't have the catholic "St." designation. Do you know of any?

and yes there are a great many non reformed theologians that are not recognized as saints such as
Duns Scotus
William of Ockham
C.S Lewis (not a Catholic)
Rene Descartes
Cardinal John Henry Newman
Roger Bacon
William Lane Craig (he is protestant but not sure if he is Calvinist)
St. Gregory Palamas (neither Catholic nor is he officially canonized by the Catholic Church)

 

[preacher4truth]

simply not true with the exceptions of about 4 of them they are all recognized all valid by not only the Catholic Church but also the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches in fact most liturgical protestant churches(Anglicans and Lutherans) commemorate the names I listed as well as every single one I listed lived before the 16th century

Two of the three churches you've mentioned are apostate. I'm not familiar with Oriental Orthodox but would take a stab in the dark that it is as well.

 

[RexCA]

You probaly tried to respond to another post of mine.

Well, I am quite sure that if you go to streets and ask people if they heard of Calvin or Luther and then if they heard of Gregory of Nazianzus, the result will not be good for you.

Its possible that some official churches documents recognize some more names from the list, but we are probably talking about another kind of "being known" or "being important".

by being known or important I am not thinking of individual fame or how well known they may be but how important they have been in the development of Christianity in general

 

[DustyRhodes]

I can listen to and learn from just about anyone

I agree, it is not who says something, it is what is said that matters.

 

[trofimus]

by being known or important I am not thinking of individual fame or how well known they may be but how important they have been in the development of Christianity in general

That some person is recognized by the oficial documents says practically nothing about his impact on our life.

Most of RCC members not even read the Bible, not to even say they read all your listed authors. The same with orthodox.

So the simple fact that some name is "recognized" by the orthodox church does not mean he has influenced orthodox christians on some recognizable level.

 

[preacher4truth]

and yes there are a great many non reformed theologians that are not recognized as saints such as
Duns Scotus
William of Ockham
C.S Lewis (not a Catholic)
Rene Descartes
Cardinal John Henry Newman
Roger Bacon
William Lane Craig (he is protestant but not sure if he is Calvinist)
St. Gregory Palamas (neither Catholic nor is he officially canonized by the Catholic Church)

All true Christians are saints.

Your list, saving a couple, are not huge well known theologians who have influenced the church.

Descartes considered himself to be catholic, and was a philosopher, not a theologian. Lewis was not formerly a catholic though he held to their false beliefs.

Your lists are failing to make the grade.

 

[trofimus]

by being known or important I am not thinking of individual fame or how well known they may be but how important they have been in the development of Christianity in general

Also, what you mean by "the development" of Christianity? Christ and apostles forgot something?

 

[RexCA]

All true Christians are saints.

Your list, saving a couple, are not huge well known theologians who have influenced the church.

Descartes considered himself to be catholic, and was a philosopher, not a theologian. Lewis was not formerly a catholic though he held to their false beliefs.

Your lists are failing to make the grade.

I never said that Lewis was a former Catholic I said he not Catholic and how is it fair to count Leibniz but not Descartes beyond that what about Lewis would you say screams false beliefs I would say despite mine and his theological differences I see someone who was sincere in faith whose faith actually seemed to develop into deeper orthodoxy as he got older

 

[RexCA]

Also, what you mean by "the development" of Christianity? Christ and apostles forgot something?

of course Jesus and the apostles would be the most important in the development of the Christian religion but from what I understand we were talking about theology not evangelization

 

[RexCA]

That some person is recognized by the oficial documents says practically nothing about his impact on our life.

Most of RCC members not even read the Bible, not to even say they read all your listed authors. The same with orthodox.

So the simple fact that some name is "recognized" by the orthodox church does not mean he has influenced orthodox christians on some recognizable level.

I find it hilarious and somewhat offensive when people say Catholics do not read the Bible the entire mass is made up of readings most of the prayers are directly from the Bible in some way shape or form the daily prayer commons includes multiple readings and such granted a Catholic does not look at scripture the same way as a protestant but to say they simply ignore scripture is a pretty unfair judgement

 

[trofimus]

of course Jesus and the apostles would be the most important in the development of the Christian religion but from what I understand we were talking about theology not evangelization

Theology is not a way how to invent something new.

Theology is a way of how to formulate what Christ and apostles did and taught.

Thats why any real "development" is a wrong way and the return to the beginnings (reformation) is actually undoing of this development.

 

[trofimus]

I find it hilarious and somewhat offensive when people say Catholics do not read the Bible the entire mass is made up of readings most of the prayers are directly from the Bible in some way shape or form the daily prayer commons includes multiple readings and such granted a Catholic does not look at scripture the same way as a protestant but to say they simply ignore scripture is a pretty unfair judgement

Its a very fair judgement because reading during a mass does not mean that members of the RCC are commonly reading their Bibles personally.

The opposite is true. Only a minority of the RCC members even care about Christianity (RCC is very much connected to culture and so it is frequently seen by its members in this way) or the Bible.

 

[preacher4truth]

I never said that Lewis was a former Catholic I said he not Catholic and how is it fair to count Leibniz but not Descartes beyond that what about Lewis would you say screams false beliefs I would say despite mine and his theological differences I see someone who was sincere in faith whose faith actually seemed to develop into deeper orthodoxy as he got older

Your run-on sentences are taxing. Slow down. Obviously you're misunderstanding what I said.

Lewis believed false catholic doctrines though he never formerly entered that apostate system.

Descartes was a philosopher, not a theologian.

All Christians are saints.

Catholicism isn't orthodoxy.

 

[RamahDesjardin]

I love how the deck is being stacked in this thread. Only those who are famous in pop culture, professional theologians, and belonging to certain not-apostate churches can be counted. In other words, the only people who qualify just happen to be famous Calvinists.

 

[preacher4truth]

Only those who are famous in pop culture, professional theologians, and belonging to certain not-apostate churches can be counted. In other words, the only people who qualify just happen to be famous Calvinists.

Yep, pretty much until one names a non-Reformed theologian who has had a major impact.

Do you have one to name, or are you only interjecting to offer ridicule and sow discord? I'm betting it's the latter.

 

[trofimus]

I love how the deck is being stacked in this thread. Only those who are famous in pop culture, professional theologians, and belonging to certain not-apostate churches can be counted. In other words, the only people who qualify just happen to be famous Calvinists.

What do you propose? To count for example Pelagius, even though he is rejected by all?

Or to count for example somebody who is totally uknown between normal Christians (even though he can be known between librarians or Vatican theologians)?

 

[trofimus]

Yep, pretty much until one names a non-Reformed theologian who has had a major impact.

Do you have one to name, or are you only interjecting to offer ridicule and sow discord? I'm betting it's the latter.

Well, Arminius is a non-reformed theologian known and influential.

But, wait... Arminius was a protestant too, just not a Calvinist. So I am not sure where to count him.

 

[preacher4truth]

I can think of only one at the moment: Jacobus Arminius. But even that is questionable in a sense because not many really adhere to his actual teachings and many who label a theology as Arminian are in error in doing so.

 

[RamahDesjardin]

It was just an observation based on watching so many names get shot down here based on this or that technicality. I certainly have no interest in mentioning any theologian I admire because I don't want to see them dragged through the mud.