Hi Judy. Calvin is generally NOT considered a church father. I think
over
generalization is a big problem here.
By the way, the writings of Calvin might disagree slightly with you about
the reason for the Virgin birth, but they seem to be saying the same thing
as you in regards to Jesus being exempt from the corruption of flesh that
is
common to men. Calvin believed that Jesus was such as Adam was before the
fall. Consider the following quote from John Calvin:
From Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion
Chapter 13 - CHRIST CLOTHED WITH THE TRUE SUBSTANCE OF HUMAN NATURE.
==========================================
It is childish trifling to maintain, that if Christ is free from all
taint,
and was begotten of the seed of Mary, by the secret operation of the
Spirit,
it is not therefore the seed of the woman that is impure, but only that of
the man. We do not hold Christ to be free from all taint, merely because
he
was born of a woman unconnected with a man, but because he was sanctified
by
the Spirit, so that the generation was pure and spotless, such as it would
have been before Adam's fall. Let us always bear in mind, that wherever
Scripture adverts to the purity of Christ, it refers to his true human
nature, since it were superfluous to say that God is pure. Moreover, the
sanctification of which John speaks in his seventeenth chapter is
inapplicable to the divine nature. This does not suggest the idea of a
twofold seed in Adam, although no contamination extended to Christ, the
generation of man not being in itself vicious or impure, but an accidental
circumstance of the fall. Hence, it is not strange that Christ, by whom
our
integrity was to be restored, was exempted from the common corruption.
==========================================
Should we not consider writings like Calvin in the same way that we would
the writings of you or others on TruthTalk? Are they not expressions of
what other Christians perceive truth to be? Why should the fact that
Calvin
or the church fathers are no longer with us put them at a disadvantage.
Rather, perhaps we should offer them a little more respect because they
have
already finished the race and are waiting for us to finish ours.
David Miller.
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Taylor
To: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:11 PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Judy, Lance, Bill, John, David?
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Judy wrote:
I am amazed that anyone reading Church history
would want to hold the early fathers in such honor
and follow their example. With their politics, heresy
hunting, banishing those who didn't agree with them
etc. Where is the love? and faith for that matter.
Why choose "dead orthodoxy" over a "living God?"
You are either over-generalizing, or confusing the emperors of Rome
starting
with Constantine with the church fathers.
I may be generalizing but I wasn't speaking of the Roman emperors; I was
thinking more about the conflicts between the western and asian churches,
and
the politics that went on when they began having the church councils.
Since
the
record is usually written by the victor it is hard to know exactly what
the
story
was and I'm unimpressed with later history and the fruit of their
teachings
which has culminated in the present day rcc.
Clement of Rome, one of the first church fathers, was nothing like you
describe
here, neither was Polycarp, and many of the later church fathers were the
subjects
of heresy hunting, being banished themselves like the apostle John was.
Wasn't John banished in the Domitian (Sp) persecutions? That was not
church
infighting. I've heard that Polycarp was a godly man but have no idea
what
he
taught. I am not down on their persons so much as dragging their
teachings
out
and putting them on the same level as the Word of God.
This is not meant to say that all the church fathers were great men of
God,
but your
characterization makes them all evil, and that is not even close to being
the case,
as any student of Church history knows. When you talk about church
fathers,
you
are including men who were martyred for their faith in Jesus.
Calvin is the only one I have characterized personally and to me this
issue
is kind
of akin to some of the things he taught. Reformed theology today claims
that God
decrees whatever happens - they claim that he decreed the fall making him
personally responsible for sin which to me is outrageous and claiming that
the Holy
Spirit fathered Jesus with an unholy and fallen Adamic nature is just as
outrageous.
They deserve much more respect and honor than you afford them here.
I can only assume that you are ignorant of their biographies and
teachings.
David Miller.
The above may be so David; I am much more interested in following the Lord
and
being a part of the future Church than I am in trying to figure out what
went on in the
past (other than scripture) ie "forgetting what lies behind ... I press on
"
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
