Not me
Well-Known Member
Yes, without the anointing on bible verses anything, through good...is not life bringing.
Just my thought.
The truth, wisdom, light and life.
Be blessed, as you bless those that read your words.
In Him, Not me
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Yes, without the anointing on bible verses anything, through good...is not life bringing.
Just my thought.
I just about blew my mind trying to read it with understanding. I managed the first 3-4 lines with difficulty and then skipped to the end. What was it he was saying? No, don't try to answer that!It will be interesting to see how many people here admit that they wanted to have someone to translate what he even said.
Huh? What's one got to do with the other?If Scripture is so clear and self attesting as Calvin claims, then he contradicts himself by writing the Institutes in the first place.
If Scripture is so clear and self attesting as Calvin claims, then he contradicts himself by writing the Institutes in the first place.
“It is finished.” These words spoken by Jesus in his final moments on the cross have perplexed scholars for hundreds of years. What was finished and how does “it” relate to the Eucharist, the Passover meal, Christ’s Passion, and our own suffering as Christians?I have not yet tackled the Institutes. However, if you want to start simple with Calvin, I'd recommend this:
A Little Book on the Christian Life, damask cover
It's been modernized, but gives you Calvin in full dose.
This passage likely refers to the perspicuity of Scripture which is an oft-forgotten doctrine of the church. I am not as up on the history of the doctrine in terms of dates and usage, but the concept is not at all that Scripture is easy to understand. (A number of folks make that mistake.)
Rather, the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture is that the interlocked whole of Scripture is self-containing in terms of salvation. Think of this passage in relation to the Catholic church of Calvin's time with its various requirements on salvation which prompted the Reformation. The first sentences refer to the Catholic doctrinal position of the authority of the church where Calvin is working out sola scriptura.
Calvin's mind was incredible in his writing. Yes, some of it is obfuscated by the slow weakening of our own English language, but Calvin's mind is that of a mental giant who reveres and is awestruck by the Word of God.
Calvin here sounds a lot like a Paul with higher diction. He is saying that the Bible does not need the art of rhetoric as some sort of proof of it's status as the truth. He's calling to mind all of the gifted philosophers and writers of history and noting that somehow, some way the Bible is even more powerful and stirring than the strongest and wisest words of man.
For the record, I agree in full with this passage. The Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation. This is not commentary on the Bible being easy to read or understand, but that everything is there by the power of God.
I think the most glaring and striking thing about Calvin's negativism in The Institutes, is his vividly open and totally utter disgust for anyone who is not one of the Chosen Ones like him... the "reprobates", as he impudently and insolently refers to us. I mentioned earlier somewhere here, that he used some form of the word "absurd" 286 times in that work, alone, to describe any and all thoughts or ideas others expressed. And at least 500 times he interjected descriptors far worse.
I acquired and read, and reread two more times... and am in the process of reading The Institutes now for the fourth time, solely because I thought there has to be some great teaching somewhere in there for so many people to idolize this magnificent man. It has been the very reading of his own words that shocked me so to learn just the opposite of him.What tells you, Willie T, Calvin wrote about you--<us>?
And what in his Institutes makes you allege Calvin claimed <<anyone who is not one of the Chosen Ones like him>>? -- with stress in fact on <like him> not your hypocritical bold on the <Chosen Ones>.
And you blame Calvin for his <negativism>?
I think the most glaring and striking thing about Calvin's negativism in The Institutes, is his vividly open and totally utter disgust for anyone who is not one of the Chosen Ones like him... the "reprobates", as he impudently and insolently refers to us. I mentioned earlier somewhere here, that he used some form of the word "absurd" 286 times in that work, alone, to describe any and all thoughts or ideas others expressed. And at least 500 times he interjected descriptors far worse.
Gee, I didn't realize he was so compassionate. LOLHe didn't take disagreement well, Johnny didn't. But he wasn't a monster. When he turned in Servetus to be executed for heresy (basically disagreeing with Calvin) he asked that the man be beheaded rather than suffer a hideous death by being burned alive. And there is some evidence that he later repented for his actions.
I acquired and read, and reread two more times... and am in the process of reading The Institutes now for the fourth time, solely because I thought there has to be some great teaching somewhere in there for so many people to idolize this magnificent man. It has been the very reading of his own words that shocked me so to learn just the opposite of him.
Have you read The Institutes? That man has nothing good to say about anyone except the other "Elect" (the Chosen Ones). He actually calls others "brutes" who were created only to defy God and to die for it.
My point is the Bible doesn't need Institutes on the same grounds. It's OK for Calvin but not for Catholics. That's a double standard. Post #47 exposes Calvin as a trinitarian heretic using scripture alone. My purpose was to discredit Calvin's authority, which is closer to the OP than you bringing up CCC95.This is almost a red herring as far as this discussion goes, so I really hate to take away from the OP by getting into rounds with a Catholic. On top of that, this sort of copy & paste catechism is partly why Protests and Catholics can't talk to one another on a forum. Maybe open a another thread if you'd like to go down this rabbit trail.
Seizing on "It is finished." is not quite relevant to what Calvin was saying in the OP's quote. Rather, it would be more about the church's view of authority.
Taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."
Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Transmission of Divine Revelation
That would be your Catholic bone of contention with Calvin in this particular thread, and, of course, as Protestants, we summarily reject the above statement from your catechism. Calvin's point is that the Bible doesn't need another buttress or two.
the Bible doesn't need Institutes, a buttress, according to the premise of "scripture alone".
You pervert the true meaning of "Tradition" as a tradition of your own making. It's standard anti-Catholic methodology and it's dishonest. Until you agree to the Biblical understanding of good Tradition, (which you are incapable of doing) discussion is pointless. Nowhere does the Bible attack the Church the way you do. That's another one of your man made traditions.Yes, according to the premise of Scripture alone, the Bible doesn't need a buttress. But according to your idea of what the Institutes is or is supposed to be, it is something the Bible must have to stand on. Which precisely is what Roman Catholics make of 'Tradition' for the Church and of the Church for Tradition. Truth - the Bible - does not rely on the Church or Tradition and the Church has to rely on the Bible--only, or its buttress will be Tradition which has as only buttress, ungodly man.
Thus your whole concept of the Institutes that it adds to God's Words is your own misconception of it. Calvin wrote the Institutes to expose and refute Roman Catholics' many heretical substitutes for and additions to the bare necessity of Scripture only.
WHICH IS NOT TO SAY CALVIN CANNOT and does not ERR AS WELL.
That's true, however "the Bible, which was compiled by men relying on scholarship, prayer and tradition", IS THE CHURCH! There harmony with all three, one is not "over" the other. Conflicts arise when different meanings for the same words are used, different definitions. Without an agreement on what certain words mean, (infallibility, authority, Magisterium, Tradition, the biblical relationship between Scripture and Tradition), discussion just goes in circles. We are not speaking the same language.It's somewhat puzzling as to how the Bible, which was compiled by men relying on scholarship, prayer and tradition, might be more reliable than the Church, which was founded by Jesus, with the promise that the forces of Hell would be powerless against it. In both cases, men depended on their inspiration from God.