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: [email protected] 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.
