Good points, here.
jd
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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 th e 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
& gt; 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
& gt; > 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 chu rch 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 ough t 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.
