Something small and round

[rvg]

Conversely, one should not presume that only those outwardly in communion with Rome are members of the Body of the Church. To presume that the Roman Rite definitively conveys Grace and none other can is eqally arrogant....

Oh, I do not, not at all. Orthodoxes and Anglicans (prior to their Church's implosion) were definitely on the right track.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh, I do not, not at all. Orthodoxes and Anglicans (prior to their Church's implosion) were definitely on the right track.

We haven't imploded yet, we just need to sort out the Americans. Excomunication doesn't really work with us. Things will probably calm down once the current American "primate" is replaced.

Also, most Lutherans and Methodists are OK, the latter are broadly theologically compatable with Anglicans, and the former maintain the Universal Love of God; Luthor was notable for not spelling out exactly who that was reconciled with Sola Gracia.

that just leaves Calvin and his children, who are much more extreme than he was. I looked up the doctrine of "Absolute Depravity" in the Library here once. The principle is merely that no part of human experience is free from the consequences of the Fall, i.e. man is in no part wholly pure. He is not, however, according to Calvin without redeeming features. The problem comes from the doctrinally irrelevant invective and rhetorical flourishes he used to make his points.

Apparently, his defence was that plain language would not convince the masses, so he dressed up his points in persuasive language. That alone demonstrates the intellectual bankuptcy of the man, who protested against fancy formulaic rituals and then used the same principles in his own sermons.

[rvg]

Well, yeah, the doctrine of "Absolute Depravity" is absolutely depraved.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, yeah, the doctrine of "Absolute Depravity" is absolutely depraved.

No, have another look at what I wrote. In its original form it was purely an acknowledgement of human fallability and our entirely subjective and individual viewpoints. That is a doctrine entirely compatable and agreeable to traditional catholic belief. HOWEVER, the way it was propogated led to its perversion.

[rvg]

Well, I'm of course referring to its calvinist incarnation.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The same logic could be used for "the fairies told me I'm right". The only difference is the fact that you have more believers on your side than I have on my side.

I don't mean to present that as an argument, it was just a response to those asking how I could be so confident in what I believe.

Did Christ wrote the things you believe in or was it written by humans?

I think it's the latter.

Considering the many "types" of Christians, what was written down, is not clear enough, as it leaves room for interpretation.

Each "type" of Christian follows the interpretation of the group he belongs to. Each one of those groups are interpreting what was written down by imperfect human beings, who might have given their own interpretation while writing it down.

I respect your belief and no humble Christian should challenge it.

In fact, I think that what you believe is what you should believe; I won't argue about that. I'm tolerant.

Each of these groups of Christians believes that their own beliefs are right. I believe that what I believe is rooted firmly in the scripture. Catholics believe the Pope is infallible. The Orthodox believe they are the only true continuation of the early church.

Just because we have doctrinal differences doesn't mean we don't believe each other to be Christians, although it does become an issue with the more major differences. But yeah, obviously we each have our own understanding of things which we belive to be correct. Just like Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists do. The only difference is that some systems are more exclusive than others, however I dont' think this is a fair justification for dismissing them.

What I do dislike, is the fact that a lot of Christians say that their version is the only correct one, which, to me, contradicts with the "humble before God" part.

We, as humans, can only interprete and try to understand, but we cannot say that our version is true and all others are wrong, because that would be putting words in Gods' mouth.

Thinking that you know what Gods' message was and all those who disagree are mistaken, is typical human. Just like vanity and pride, which are sins.

Maybe you are right, but it's possible the other believers are right as well. Or maybe you're all wrong. Only God knows and, humble as you are, that is something you should recognise and accept

Most Christians are not humble enough when it comes to Gods' message.

To argue that God does not reveal any sort of truth to anyone is intolerant. To argue that there is no absolute truth which any person can claim to know is intolerant.

Everyone is intolerant, if intolerant means not accepting other people's beliefs as right. I would say I'm tolerant since I let people go about their business with their other beliefs, but that doesn't mean I should have to accept them as being right. There's a difference between tolerance and acceptance.

that just leaves Calvin and his children, who are much more extreme than he was. I looked up the doctrine of "Absolute Depravity" in the Library here once. The principle is merely that no part of human experience is free from the consequences of the Fall, i.e. man is in no part wholly pure. He is not, however, according to Calvin without redeeming features. The problem comes from the doctrinally irrelevant invective and rhetorical flourishes he used to make his points.

Apparently, his defence was that plain language would not convince the masses, so he dressed up his points in persuasive language. That alone demonstrates the intellectual bankuptcy of the man, who protested against fancy formulaic rituals and then used the same principles in his own sermons.

I don't think that this is true given the pretty black-and-white view Calvin had on the nature of man. While most people today generally think of good and evil as being sort of opposite forces, with a neutral bit in the middle; Calvin argues that sin is anything short of perfect righteousness, as the scripture appears to do so as well. And so to fall short of the glory of God, is to be sin.

As for our redeeming features which he mentions, I remember one passage where he argues how even "the Turks" have certain good attributes amongst their people, noting that some of their rulers were generous, others were great conquerors etc. However, he goes on to argue that these are in no way an integral part of their nature, but instead gifts given to them from God. He then goes on to say how God will hold his blessings against them in the day of judgement. In this respect, he seems to be echoing Jesus sentiments of how those towns which are blessed with hearing the gospel and do not repent will have it held against them at judgement day, and he says it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gamorrah than it will for them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think that this is true given the pretty black-and-white view Calvin had on the nature of man. While most people today generally think of good and evil as being sort of opposite forces, with a neutral bit in the middle; Calvin argues that sin is anything short of perfect righteousness, as the scripture appears to do so as well. And so to fall short of the glory of God, is to be sin.

There is a fundamental difference between being less than perfect, and being utterly wretched. Calvin argued more for the former than the latter. His invective is what clouds the issue, and it was irrelevant to his point.

Also, to Sin, and "to be Sin" are completely different. One is to offend against God by turning away from him; the other is to be the turning away oneself, to be inherently evil. Since all proceeds by the consent of the Father man could only be inherently evil if that was the Will of God.

That would mean that God had actively willed something to be evil; which would make him evil. This, I expect, Iis the crux of rvg's comment. If God is evil he is not God, he is the Devil.

As for our redeeming features which he mentions, I remember one passage where he argues how even "the Turks" have certain good attributes amongst their people, noting that some of their rulers were generous, others were great conquerors etc. However, he goes on to argue that these are in no way an integral part of their nature, but instead gifts given to them from God. He then goes on to say how God will hold his blessings against them in the day of judgement. In this respect, he seems to be echoing Jesus sentiments of how those towns which are blessed with hearing the gospel and do not repent will have it held against them at judgement day, and he says it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gamorrah than it will for them.

This assumes that "their true nature" is not a gift from God. I refer you to the Creed:

I Believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

If man's inherent nature were evil then he would not be a child of God, unless God's children are inherently evil.