Heresy and Heretics

"Why claim to be independent from a "corrupted" apostolic succession of bishops, yet accept at face value a set of books that was compiled (and divided into chapters and verses for liturgical use) by that very same institution? The existing scriptures are a product of Orthodox tradition. (And on the issue of corruption, no one who has been involved in evangelical ministry can seriously argue that independent church structures have solved the problem of corruption). If they are independent from Orthodox apostolic succession, then they have every right to redefine the canon of scripture to fit theology and re-organize the chapters and verses to fit their worship needs. Why did the "driven-into-the-wilderness" church accept the authority of the Orthodox Church's decision on what is and what isn't scripture?"

What say you?

 

BobRyan said: "As far as I know the RCC denomination and the Eastern Orthodox are the only ones that do not make that claim."

Anglicans hold to Holy Tradition as well.

The first 300 years the Church operated without your 'Sola Scriptura' and affirmed the truth of Holy Tradition.

The SDA has long railed and ranted about about Catholics. It's old and tired. Continue to cut and paste this nonsense if you want but I will simply skip past your posts. Nothing of value.

 

I did take it personally. Our discussion was not about the reach of God's grace which is infinite. I was giving my honest opinion of Calvin verses what the scriptures say about God's children. This does not limit God's grace in any way, Calvin could be forgiven and could be saved. My post was only pointing out that his actions and words did not line up with what the scriptures teaches about those God has regenerated. Surely Calvin would have read these same scriptures many times, but obviously was blind to them. Was he spiritually discerned? It appears to me that he was.

As far as Moses and Paul, Paul was murdering (hating) before he was saved and afterwards he ceased. Moses killed a man in retalliation, sin yes, premeditated murder, I say no. Also I am not sure Moses was what we call "saved" at the time.

God Bless! I am not angry with you brother. I think that maybe you just shot off from the hip without really considering the target. :tongue3:

Let me ask you, how do you see Calvin fitting into Romans 8, let alone many other passages of scripture? We are not speaking of a moment of rage, we are speaking of a man who was obsessed with hatred for a man, and a man that he should have seen as a brother in Christ no less.

:jesus:

 

You have absolutely no clue. How do you know that Calvin had obsessive hatred for Servetus -- Do you just enjoy urban myths?

Servetus was an arch-heretic. Are arch-heretics your brothers in the Lord?

 

Wow. You must seriously dislike Jesus, Paul, and most of the apostles.

 

I think the question is better asked: How do I see Calvin (like Paul giving us a fitting example) fitting into Romans 7?

 

Lori4dogs...

Regarding the Catholic false church, you said....

Nonsense.

The scriptures were penned, known, and identified as such 400 years prior to when the Catholic false church came into being.

And by the way...when is the Catholic cult going to remove those FALSE books from their Bibles?

 

Just when do you say the Catholic Church began? When was the NT canon determined and by whom??

 

Enlighten me.

Why would Calvin care about a non-believer spreading lies? Didn't he know that this is what satan does? Was Calvin planning on rounding up all the non-believers and killing the all?

And maybe you could tell me why Calvin, a man supposedly very wise concerning the scriptures, did not understand the very gospel he claimed to defend? A child could read the gospel and most of the Apostle's letters and understand that disciples of Jesus Christ DO NOT seek out people to have them killed. I have taught many of fifth and sixth graders who got this the very first time they read it.

In fact, Jesus was pretty clear about these things.

Jhn 8:44Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

It would require to many pages for me to list the scriptures concerning how we know what a true Christian is. I don't understand how Calvin, if a true Christian, could have come to the conclusion that murdering a man for any reason let alone his speach was doing the works of Christ.

:jesus:

 

Very good question.

Paul explained in Romans 7 the man he was before he was saved.

Calvin, from what I have read so far, would well fit into the Romans 7 unregenerated man. Is there any words from Calvin, as we have from Paul, that would suggest he had a change of heart after murdering percieved boogie men?

:jesus:

 

I don't believe that is the case at all. Romans 7 is the battle of the old nature vs. the new nature in the believer. It is the struggle that every believer faces. Near the end of the chapter cries out:

O wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
--Paul was speaking of the hear and now (his own Christian life), and the struggles that he was having with his flesh.
He then goes on to answer his own question:

Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
--The victorious words of a believer who has just won the war over the flesh described in the previous verses.

 

He didn't murder anyone, and your infantile conduct is unbecoming.

 

Well, it's very apparent that you don't care.

No, my immature one.

He understood the Gospel quite well. You really have no idea because you just like to spout-off.

Calvin didn't murder anyone. As long as you keep lying, you are continuing to sin.

You can hold up your little Jesus signs all you want -- but your behavior negates any supposed piety you profess.

 

Still waiting for you to give us that history lesson.

When do you say that the Catholic Church was started and by whom?
When and how, and by whom was the New Testament determined?

You said the Bible was determined 400 years before the Catholic Church came into being. I'm really curious where you will find your evidence for this.
More Fundamental Baptist fiction?

 

Lori I've given you those sources before. But you are biased. If I give you a Baptist author you will arrogantly disregard it now matter how much documentation he may give. But you will blindly accept a Roman Catholic reference. Your mind is made up. You want evidence. But if I give you evidence will you accept it?

 

Ther are two views on Romans 7 each coming from well studied bible commentarians. The view I stated and the view you stated. We will have to disagree on this one. :wavey:

 

Just so I understand your pov, it is "MY" comments that are infantile? raying:

I do not have anything more I can say unless you actually post something of substance to address. Did you come here to debate or just to cast disparaging comments?

I have already forgiven you and have prayed that Christ be formed in you.

It appears I have hit a nerve with you concerning Calvin, you must love the man very much. I was hoping someone could post some writings of his that would show he was not the evil man that his hate words shows he was during the time he wanted his religious enemies murdered.

I asked you to enlighten me and all I received was a heart full of contempt. It would be more productive if you could defend Calvin by posting something of his repentance and contrition for what he had done.

:jesus: teaches us to love one another. We must learn to do this by submitting ourselves to His word and by putting off the old man that wants to belittle our adversaries. And we are not adversaries if we both have been born again by the Spirit of God. Let's display the fruit of the Spirit in our dialogues so we do not blasphemy the name of Jesus before those who look in to see how we Christians treat each other.

 

Again, you forget that there was a time that I thought just as you do now. History just doesn't support you.

Show me historical evidence contrary to the following:

St. Athanasius (Catholic) authorized the 27 books in 367 AD (we have in our bible today) to be read in his diocese at mass. Churches in other dioceses didn't necessarily read from the same books. For example many read from the Shepard of Hermes. Athanasius decided to have uniformity within the churches in the diocese of Alexandria. Many books were excluded like Didache, Shepard of Hermes, etc.

382 AD Pope Damasus I (also Catholic) summoned a synod to assist in developing the canon of scripture. The synod agrees with Athanasius with the books he included to be read which is now our New Testament and decide to include the LXX which includes the seven books you, of course, reject. This is the Damasus Canon. The pope then put this canon out there for adoption. It was accepted although the African Church disputed the inclusion of the book of Hebrews because it had a heading of 'St. Paul's epistle to the Hebrews. The African Church said they would accept Hebrews if the authorship was left undetermined and not attributed to St. Paul. This is only 350 years after Jesus resurrection and the Church is very Catholic.

So when people post here that the Bible was canonized 400 years before the Catholic Church came into being it really doesn't make any historical sense to me.

 

Same old same old.
Evidence can be gleaned from Josephus (36-100 A.D.) about the canon of our present Bible or at least the 39 books of the OT that we presently use without the apocrypha.
Evidence can be gleaned from other versions concerning the NT: Itala, Peshitta, Syriac, all of which existed long before 300 A.D.
Evidence can be internally from the Bible itself that the Apostles were not ignorant and foolish men as the Pharisees accused them, but were very learned, filled with the Holy Spirit and were able to teach the early believers which books were inspired and which were not. They became canonized "hot off the press." Don't you believe Paul knew when he was writing Scripture and when he was not. The OT prophets certainly did.

Amos 7:14-16 Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah, I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet's son; but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycomore fruit:
15 And the LORD took me as I followed the flock, and the LORD said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel.
16 Now therefore hear thou the word of the LORD: Thou sayest, Prophesy not against Israel, and drop not thy word against the house of Isaac.
Amos 7:17 Therefore thus saith the LORD; Thy wife shall be an harlot in the city, and thy sons and thy daughters shall fall by the sword, and thy land shall be divided by line; and thou shalt die in a polluted land: and Israel shall surely go into captivity forth of his land.

Amos was nothing more than a farmer and a shepherd, but he knew what he was speaking was inspired--of God.
Paul was probably the most educated man on the face of the known world at that time. I think he knew when God was speaking to him; what books were inspired and which were not. Yet you take him as an ignorant fool!!

 

So why were not those 27 books and only those 27 books recognized and read from the very beginning.

Again, where is your evidence that the New Testament (as we have it now) was being used (and not other books) to be read in the Churches from the beginning of the Church?

BTW, DHK: For you to say that I take St. Paul as an ignorant fool is slanderous and uncalled for. ALL of St. Paul's epistles were included in the canon. None were excluded. But many books were. My point is that the Church did not use only the 27 books of the NT for 300 years. They were reading from other books (like the Shepard of Hermes) and some did not read from Hebrews, Revelation, etc.