Luther and Calvin

[Guest Reformation1517]

Did you know that before Calvin became a Calvinist, he was Lutheran? Calvin fell under the writings of the New Testament translation by Eramus and the writings of Luther.

Luther and Calvin contradicted themselves because they claimed to use the Bible only, then went on to write Creeds in ADDITION to the bible.

None of the 5 points of Tulip, are taught in the Bible. The "sinners prayer" is NOT in the Bible and won't save you. It is a false doctrine that developed from Calvinism and was first practiced less than 50 years ago.

Reformation1517: I would go on to point out..that Trinity, Rapture, Incarnation are also not found in the Bible..yet all are legitimate concepts in theology.

Luther and Calvin never met. And though I am big fan of Martin Luther, Calvin has often gotten a bad rap. His famous TULIP is to be sure a flashpoint for discussion, but I suspect that a Calvinist here can explain it better than I.

[Guest Biblicist]

*These five points as the heart of Calvinism (Reformed Tradition) actually developed from the Synod of Dordtrecht in 1618-19 in response to the Remonstrants' (followers of James Arminius) five points that challenged Reformed orthodoxy, especially the double predestination of Theodore Beza, a follower of John Calvin. Calvin's theological system was more broad ranging than these five points. However, these five points came to encapsulate the Calvinist/Reformed position against Arminius and later John Wesley.

[Guest shiloh357]

The "sinners prayer" is NOT in the Bible and won't save you. It is a false doctrine that developed from Calvinism and was first practiced less than 50 years ago.

The sinner's prayer, though not "scriptural" per say is not a doctrine. It is a tradition. Furthermore, I come from the S. Baptist tradition, and we do not believe that the sinner's prayer saves anyone. I have never heard any attribute salvific value to it. While it is quite recent, it does not violate any precept of either hte Old or New Testaments, and many people who have come to faith in Jesus, have prayed it from their hearts and invited Jesus to come and live in their hearts.

Oh, I thought only Catholics go by Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Now you are telling me you go by Tradition also?

Actually, you are comparing two dissimilar things. Baptists have traditions. We do not have "sacred traditions." Tradition in Baptist Churches, unlike Catholic Churches, do not govern our theology. Our traditions are expendable. We do not believe the sinner's prayer is when salvation takes place. It is for the benefit of the person getting saved, not for God's benefit. We teach that salvation comes the minute a person makes the decision in his heart to be saved. "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness..." Rom. 10:9. We don't need tradition to get saved, and I said, it does not govern us.

[CSLewis]

It is ironic to me that the reformers cried Sola Scriptura when in reality the canonization of the Bible was based upon apostolic tradition passed on- the canon or "rule" of scripture would later be the measure that tradition should be measured with.

Sola Scriptura is a lie because scripture is not so self evident as to be interpretted without the help of tradition, community and historical evidence.

When reading the Holy Scriptures it is important to apply

Textual Criticism

The Hebrew Bible

[forrestkc]

It is ironic to me that the reformers cried Sola Scriptura when in reality the canonization of the Bible was based upon apostolic tradition passed on- the canon or "rule" of scripture would later be the measure that tradition should be measured with.

Sola Scriptura is a lie because scripture is not so self evident as to be interpretted without the help of tradition, community and historical evidence.

When reading the Holy Scriptures it is important to apply

Textual Criticism

The Hebrew Bible

[Guest shiloh357]

It is ironic to me that the reformers cried Sola Scriptura when in reality the canonization of the Bible was based upon apostolic tradition passed on- the canon or "rule" of scripture would later be the measure that tradition should be measured with.

Sola Scriptura is a lie because scripture is not so self evident as to be interpretted without the help of tradition, community and historical evidence.

When reading the Holy Scriptures it is important to apply

Textual Criticism

The Hebrew Bible

[forrestkc]

which only shows that you don't understand Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura simply means that the Bible is sole revelation of God, and that the Bible is final arbiter of Christian faith and practice. The methods and tools employed in understanding the Bible have no bearing on Sola Scriptura. The only way they would have bearing is that that list you produced were declared to as inspried and authoritative as Scripture.

I think what he means is that some people use a form of circular reasoning in interpreting scripture and don't seem to get that one should also look at things in the context of known history at the time, the beliefs and practices of the early church, and that the 2000 years worth of theologians had studied many of the same biblical issues.

[Guest shiloh357]

which only shows that you don't understand Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura simply means that the Bible is sole revelation of God, and that the Bible is final arbiter of Christian faith and practice. The methods and tools employed in understanding the Bible have no bearing on Sola Scriptura. The only way they would have bearing is that that list you produced were declared to as inspried and authoritative as Scripture.

I think what he means is that some people use a form of circular reasoning in interpreting scripture and don't seem to get that one should also look at things in the context of known history at the time, the beliefs and practices of the early church, and that the 2000 years worth of theologians had studied many of the same biblical issues.

I understand that, and that is why I said that he does not understand Sola Scriptura if he feels that using outside sources proves that Sola Scriptura is a lie. He has the issues confused. Sola Scriptura pertains to the Bible being the sole infallable guide for Christian faith and practice. It does not mean that we cannot draw on history, culture, language and extra-biblical writings to help aid our understanding.

[Zceiv]

Did you know that before Calvin became a Calvinist, he was Lutheran? Calvin fell under the writings of the New Testament translation by Eramus and the writings of Luther.

Luther and Calvin contradicted themselves because they claimed to use the Bible only, then went on to write Creeds in ADDITION to the bible.

None of the 5 points of Tulip, are taught in the Bible. The "sinners prayer" is NOT in the Bible and won't save you. It is a false doctrine that developed from Calvinism and was first practiced less than 50 years ago.

"then went on to write Creeds in ADDITION to the bible."

Ok then never listen to a preacher again. afterall you have to be "the Bible only" right? All the creeds do is explain it.

[CSLewis]

The principle of Sola Scriptura cannot be read out of scripture alone. Appeal to scripture alone presupposes that the meaning of scripture is so clear on material points that everyone would be in agreement. We do not see this in the reformation- in fact a large group of fissaparious groups and sects emerged,

The Church's role (especially the historic episcopate) in the canonization of the scriptures is a fact that we as christians cannot ignore. (or rather should not) The apostolic tradition carried down by the apostles and missionaries in the first centuries of the church passed on to the eccleseastical leaders - became the guidelines of the canonization of the New Testament (also included the Deuterocanonical books - which the reformers annulled)

It is interesting also to note the extreme left wing of the reformation (Calvinists) held strongly to the tradition of a Sunday Sabbath.

The best conservative defenses of the Catholic Church did indeed concede abuses of tradition in conflict with the Holy Writ. Superstition had entered the Catholic Church - that is why the scriptures are a canon or rule of which to measure tradition and reformation was indeed necessary.

However one must note that tradition and the scriptures are deeply intertwined. We wouldn't have one without the other.