Vatican politically supports construction of additional mosques in Italy (first link) (second link). One would not see Calvin's Geneva supporting mosque construction. Frankly, I don't think one would even see Leo X (author of Exsurge Domine, against Luther) supporting mosque construction. Who would like to claim that this view expressed by the Vatican is fully consistent with 2000 years of New Testament tradition?
-TurretinFan
Friday, December 05, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
I wouldn't!
One would not see Calvin's Geneva supporting letting a non-Calvinist who claim to be a Protestant live, so this is kind of a duh.
B2k8:
a) The "Calvinist" label came about because of the later Arminian controversy; and
b) The fact that a few people were executed in Geneva does not lead to the conclusion you've proposed.
-TurretinFan
People were put in jail merely for saying Calvin was a hypocrite. The guy was a nut. The fact is, Italy ought to be considering banning Calvinists from building churches. You guys want to take over all the world's governments and impose Calvinism on everyone and stone people for "blasphemy" (which you will define as denying arbitrary election of course). The only difference between you and the Muslims is you haven't started putting your ideas into practice yet. But as for the RCC basically just telling Italy to follows the basic premise of its own laws and not restrict religious freedom, I see no problem with that. The reason you do is because you wish you were King of the world so you could have everyone but Calvinists burned at the stake. And then you'd laugh at how they cried for mercy while burning, as your god Calvin did.
To even bring the issue up as a means of showing an 'inconsistency' between the Church's teachings, the degree of those teachings, and their application by the folks in charge would somehow 'prove' that the Church isn't who she says she is is rather presumptuous and naive. Subjects such as this one takes a certain amount of intellectual erudition which it is apparent that White&co quite simply do not have. Self-aggrandizing armchair intellectuals such as yourself and White would do well not to make these horrendous leaps in logic.
B2k8,
Thankfully for all of us, your ignorance (or lack of regard for the truth) of history is only surpassed your ignorance (or lack of regard for the truth) with respect to my own views.
In this case, I've published this comment to your shame. Read it over and reflect on the state of your heart that would incline you both to misrepresent Geneva and to misrepresent me.
-TurretinFan
Dear Mr. Greco,
You're smart enough to know that insulting me is not a valid defense of your church's behavior. Given that you are smart enough to recognize that, I have to ask myself why you would bother writing what you did? Are you just upset at my pointing out the obvious truth that your church today does not share the same views as the church of Leo X?
-TurretinFan
Turretinfan, I'm disappointed in you because I think that you know better than this. This is typical White/Swan/Carrie practices. Remember James White's comments about Luther and the Vatican's supposed future exoneration of Luther? That was a total flop, Matthew Bellisario pointed his blunder out, and did White ever issue an apology? No. Somehow you people always struggle to make a case against the Church’s Divine mission and her charism of infallibility over irrelevant issues such as these (irrelevant as to the discussion of infallibility). So yes, your intellectual dishonesty bothers me. And if you are wondering, yes I can also be bothered at the news and the fact that there are Church leaders who continually sell Christ for thirty pieces of silver on a daily basis. I am fully capable at being angry at more than one thing at a time. You are an intelligent person, so why don’t you display it? Is it too much to be intellectually honest?
Turretinfan, Beowulf2k8 is a harmless nutcase (I'm sure you think the same of me). He is like a cross between Sean Penn (intelligence, or lack thereof) and Dr. Sippo (invective).
He does make me laugh though.
No, Mr. Greco, I don't put you in the same category with B2k8 and Sippo. I think you understand that insult is not argument.
-TurretinFan
"One would not see Calvin's Geneva supporting mosque construction".
What happened to Calvin's Geneva? Where is Calvin's Geneva today? Have you wondered?
Dozie,
That would be a valid point if, like papists, I looked to a human city for my rule of faith. But Rome and Geneva have both been changed over the centuries. We should be looking to neither of those cities for our aid, but to the LORD and to the Word of God found in Scripture as his pure revelation of himself. When we do so, we can then have a measuring stick by which to determine what was good and bad both in Geneva and Rome, both then and now.
The Scriptures are, as they say, a lamp to our feet and a light to our path. I hope, Dozie, that you will consider using them as such.
-TurretinFan
Dozie,
I like TF's answers.
You asked:
"Where is Calvin's Geneva today? Have you wondered?"
Well, having contemporarily been to Geneva and most of Swziterland and most of Italy, it is interesting your inquiry, to me.
When I attended "Church" in Geneva, I went with my friends to the very place John Calvin was Pastor so many years ago. As an aside, it wasn't very "Reformed" during those visits. Instead it was similar to what is sweeping the world of "evangelical proclamation"! grrrrr
I wasn't very aware of the RCC there?
When I go to Church in Italy, though, I go to my own groups as my Church sent teams of evangelicals to "establish" churches in Italy. Our conflict is very easy there, Protestants and Catholics at odds subliminally as well as overtly.
In Geneva, the conflict, interestingly enough is overtly the ever present threat of Islam!
Go figure?
Now that is quite telling to me, is it not, you?
When we talk about compatibility, it is very very different in pious views for Reformed thinkers. Is it so with you and your world view?
I'm confused:
Do you think those Islamic should not be allowed to build mosques?
That it should be illegal?
That's hardly the point of the post, but of course I don't think a Christian government should support, in any way, the building of mosques (or groves to Baal, either, for that matter).
-TurretinFan
Mike,
I've rejected your comment, since I couldn't find the alleged quotation from Calvin in any major translation of his works. That, coupled with the absence of citation, makes me suspicious of the accuracy of the quotation.
If you would like to repost the quotation from Calvin with a verifiable citation, I'll happily reconsider publishing it.
-TurretinFan
Greco wrote: "Turretinfan, I'm disappointed in you because I think that you know better than this."
Know better than what? I've reported truthfully and accurately, as far as I can see. No one has presented anything to me to make me think otherwise, save this insinuation of yours.
Greco wrote: "This is typical White/Swan/Carrie practices."
They are also truthful people. I don't mind being lumped together with them in terms of reporting the facts accurately.
Greco wrote: "Remember James White's comments about Luther and the Vatican's supposed future exoneration of Luther? That was a total flop, Matthew Bellisario pointed his blunder out, and did White ever issue an apology? No."
a) The very next Dividing Line show after the Vatican denied the report, Dr. White acknowledged it, and noted that his original comments were qualified.
b) Mr. Bellisario is not all that accurate a reporter of the facts, as I've illustrated several times on this blog. I'd be happy to provide links if there is any doubt in your mind.
c) "Apology"? I'm not sure why an apology would be in order. He commented on the news report that was available - he didn't make one up.
Greco wrote: "Somehow you people always struggle to make a case against the Church’s Divine mission and her charism of infallibility over irrelevant issues such as these (irrelevant as to the discussion of infallibility)."
a) I have no idea what you would consider relevant to the discussion of infallibility.
b) But, no, this was addressed specifically to the fact that modern Catholicism does not look, walk, and quack like medieval Catholicism - it has become an entirely different animal.
Greco wrote: "So yes, your intellectual dishonesty bothers me."
Reporting the truth is not "intellectual dishonesty," but calling such a report "intellectual dishonesty" is at least a mischaracterization of the facts.
Greco wrote: "And if you are wondering, yes I can also be bothered at the news and the fact that there are Church leaders who continually sell Christ for thirty pieces of silver on a daily basis."
Ok - then be bothered, but don't accuse me of dishonesty (intellectual or otherwise) for bringing it up.
Greco wrote:"I am fully capable at being angry at more than one thing at a time."
Ok
Greco wrote: "You are an intelligent person, so why don’t you display it? Is it too much to be intellectually honest?"
Thanks for the compliment, but see above.
-TurretinFan
TF,
The citation is:
Calvin, John: Sermons on Deuteronomy, (given 1555-1556, published in translation 1583, reprinted by Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1987). Available now on CDROM from Still Waters Revival Books "Calvinism CD Bookshelf, volume 22" at http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/calvinism-bookshelf-cds.htm
For independent citation, see two papers by the Rev. Professor Dr. Francis Nigel Lee, the Caldwell-Morrow Lecturer in Church History at the Queensland Presbyterian Theological College, Brisbane, Qld., Australia:
http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs/cotp/cotp.pdf
and
http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs6/calvislam/calvislam.pdf
Post a Comment