Along similar lines, Lutheran CPA commented on Lutheran John H's blog:
----------
Listening to the BHT conversation, it confirms what I’ve already thought: large swaths of Protestant Christianity adhere to two beliefs:
1) Jovinianism, which I would define as the idea that virgins are less than fully human and that those with weak or absent sexual desires are defective human beings. [Jovinians of course argue their position by caricaturing tall non-Jovinians, i.e. those who think that virgins are fully human, as thinking sex as “dirty.”]
2) Nestorianism, which means that there is no communication of attributes, such that nothing can be predicated of Jesus except that which is predicable of both God and a sinless holy man.
(5-24-07)
http://
www.confessingevangelical...p=1062#comments
Caricaturing tall non-Jovinians? What do Jovinians have against tall non-Jovinians? Are short non-Jovinians preferable to tall ones?
Caricaturing tall non-Jovinians?
LOL. Knew I should have edited CPA's comment to spare confusion/embarrassment.
And Dave: is the argument of your post really that the famous unity and amity between Lutherans and the Reformed has been suddenly and inexplicably shattered? ROFL.
Mr. McCain has a history of being obnoxious towards Calvinists.
http://
paulmccain.worldmagblog.c...20786.html#more
Note that worldmagblog.com is a site run by Calvinists. It seems he has a penchant for lobbing grenades at his hosts. :-( Whether or not he's correct in his opinions about them, it is lacking in courtesy for a guest to rip his hosts.
The attention Mr. Armstrong gives me is a bit odd. Fred, thanks for highlighting that article again...That was a good one. I think I'll post it up at my newer blog site.
http://cyberbrethren.typepad.com.../cyberbrethren/
Confessional Lutherans have never seen the Reformed as some sort of sister church. Read Martin Chemnitz if you don't believe me. The Reformed teach false doctrine on several matters such as their sacramentology and much of the TULIP. This, by the way, means they often twist the Gospel too.
The Reformed like to see the Lutherans in similar manner as the RCs see the EO, namely as a close sister church. They are puzzled as to why the Lutherans don't abandon a few of their "divisive" doctrines like the real presence and closed communion and united with the Reformed. Lutherans, like many EOs with the RC, don't think there are that many similarities with the Reformed and certainly don't want unity with them. Any Reformed talk about "unity on the essentials" (which are always described in a Reformed fashion) is a whole lot of wishful thinking.
rr
the famous unity and amity between Lutherans and the Reformed has been suddenly and inexplicably shattered? ROFL.
Hardly. What unity? That was the point, actually. That's precisely why I made the analogy to the Sacramentarian controversies in the 16th century. Nothing new under the sun. It was just so funny to see all this sunny optimism at RefCath about two Lutherans coming on. The Big Happy Tent of Protestantism routine . . . And then it is over in eight days. All the "catholics" with a little c gettin' together to further the Kingdom . . . I knew there would be friction eventually, but EIGHT DAYS?
The humor and irony of it was too much for me to resist. I like to tweak these guys at RefCath a bit, too, admittedly, because they have banned me and think I am such a terrible, triumphalist, "fundamentalist" apologist, etc. Yet I have perfectly cordial discussions with many Lutherans (including yourself) and they cannot.
Do you think I could resist pointing that out? 
And how long will Josh last? I'll give it a month, maximum, but I hardly doubt he'll last that long, with what, e.g., Tim Enloe wrote about him already, comparing him to James White (and Rev. McCain has compared me to White also).
Josh just has to be himself and his days will be numbered over there. This is all the more certain in light of Rev. McCain's icy reception.
quote: "It was just so funny to see all this sunny optimism at RefCath about two Lutherans coming on."
Well, it is a strange site in many respects. First, the vast majority of the Reformed these days don't give a whit for catholicity, and many Reformed are closer to the Baptists (who REALLY don't care about catholicity) than to anyone else. Heck, most Reformed nowadays are Zwinglians or at the least don't bat an eye to the presence of Zwinglians in their own communions. As one Lutheran blogger has said, Lutheran bodies like the LCMS have their share of problems, but at least a church body that teaches and confesses Lutheranism exist in real life, which is more than the Reformed Catholic folks can say about their theology. Finally, the Reformed Catholic types seem to admire the RC in many ways, but get all hot and bothered about the LCMS' policy of closed communion. Strange since the LCMS and RC agree about closed communion.
rr
Lest anyone think that the Roman Catholic Church is one big happy family, one would need only spend a very few minutes looking about the Internet for every manner of weird and wacky theology under the sun in the RC church to dispel this mythology--quickly. You've got New Age, Feminist, Social Gospel, Liberation Theology, you name it...everything has a place in the RC Church, so before Dave sprains his arm patting himself on the back again, a reality check is in order.
Further, I had no expectations they would let me stay long on "Reformed Catholicism" for I knew the minute that a Lutheran got too Lutheran they would have a meltdown, which they did, of course.
Calvinists love to pretend that they and Lutherans are simply "kissing cousins" but anyone who knows even a little about Lutheranism and Calvinism knows this is not true.
So, Dave, nice try, but... as usual, you are pretty much all wet on this one.
I'm not really sure what the trouble is with the charge of Nestorianism anyway. There are Calvinists willing to admit that Calvin appears to be an actual Nestorian and argue that Nestorianism is Biblically permissible. There are Calvinists who believe (with Calvin) that Nicaea was subordinationist unless conditioned by autotheos. I just don't understand this obsession with historical continuity among some Reformed folks. I'm not saying things like that as an insult; their own co-religionists take the same view.
I do always get a laugh at Peter Escalante though. Evidently, he apostasized from Catholicism because he completely misunderstood St. Thomas and the Catholic position on the Reformers more generally, so when he read the Reformers, he didn't recognize what he thought the Catholics were saying. So he's carried a completely skewed version of Catholic doctrine in his head, routinely accusing us of holding absolutely ridiculous beliefs (e.g., he called our conception of the Church a "quasi-hypostatic union," which I tried to give some sort of reasonable meaning before he made clear that he actually meant it as Christ being Incarnate IN the earthly Church!). It's hilarious how he is always chastising people about not knowing about the Reformers, when in fact, he is the one who doesn't seem to understand Catholic or Lutheran doctrine at all. He's constantly trying to drive artificial wedges between Catholics (like between Zubirians and other Catholics), even though we all share the same dogmas that he is trying to criticize. He's really the paradigm case for the pseudo-intellectual; he knows very little but speaks as if he actually understands the subject.
It's an unfortunate commentary on that website that if you say something outrageous but attribute it to differences in "hermeneutical method" or "worldview" or whatever pomo gobbledygook is current, it's OK. But if you dare to suggest that there might be actual evidence of someone being wrong on the facts, oh, boy! People disagree, so it can't possibly be the case that what anyone believes is factually ridiculous. My opinion: if they want to have these late-night-in-the-dorm quality discussions where they blow hot air, then I'm happy to let them. I'm just sorry that good comments by Paul Owen and even Tim Enloe (who I think is slowly coming around to the idea that maybe this stuff is getting out of hand) get buried among them.
Hi Pastor McCain,
Further, I had no expectations they would let me stay long on "Reformed Catholicism" for I knew the minute that a Lutheran got too Lutheran they would have a meltdown, which they did, of course.
I figured you may have been thinking that way. You went in without very high expectations, and you were not surprised at what happened.
You are more than welcome to come here and be a Lutheran all you want. We're not threatened by that at all. You can preach whole sermons in guest posts if you like. Of course we will want to respond too. That's where some folks start to squirm a bit. Pastors aren't used to being contradicted. Preaching is not dialogue, etc. It's superior-subordinate monologue.
In fact, recently I was looking for Lutherans who wanted to engage in Catholic-Lutheran discussion. As your site was mentioned to me by a prominent online Lutheran (whom I respect a great deal), I wandered over there to see what you had going.
But as we know, I was quickly ushered off and you made it clear that I was not welcome, complete with rank insults, intended to quickly marginalize me as an unbalanced raving nut.
That's fine. Believe what you wish about me. Nevertheless, you or anyone else (even an anti-Catholic) is always welcome here (whatever you may personally think of me), because we are confident in our position: that it can take on any alternate theology or Christian worldview, and we engage in dialogue with respect.
It's been going on for three years and running on this blog, and will continue to indefinitely.
I was once quite the "friend" of the Reformed Catholic movement (as far as it goes), and they even had my laudatory comments on their front page. But I was banned because I criticized Tim Enloe one too many times. Ironically, Kevin is now writing much the same sort of comments about Josh that I wrote about Tim.
We ll know, though, how loyalty to friends often gets in the way of ethical principle. I see it all the time. It leads to double standards and willful blindness. The Bible sez "rebuke a friend and he will love you." A very poorly-understood and applied verse indeed!
There are Calvinists willing to admit that Calvin appears to be an actual Nestorian and argue that Nestorianism is Biblically permissible. There are Calvinists who believe (with Calvin) that Nicaea was subordinationist unless conditioned by autotheos.
Who are these people? Are there any online articles by them (I can't afford to buy expensive books)? Please do tell. That would be extremely interesting to me to see a Calvinist proudly admit that he is a Nestorian and that Calvin was, too.
It may be worse than I thought in Calvinist circles. I already thought very little of the eucharistic theology and that may have more adverse spillover into their Christology than I had imagined. But I saw the same tendencies in Lutheranism too (at least if it was represented accurately by the one I critiqued), so I suspect that if Nestorianism really is at the root of some of Protestant error, it is by no means Calvinist-specific. It's probbaly simply more sophisticated (as we have come to expect of Calvin: the epitome of the sophisticated special pleader, starting from false premises).
He's really the paradigm case for the pseudo-intellectual; he knows very little but speaks as if he actually understands the subject.
Oh, you mean like Josh S. when talking about Catholicism? Gotcha. I can relate totally to your reaction to this sort of individual.
Dave, perhaps their are other reasons why you have a knack for being disallowed from commenting on blog sites?
Who are these people? Are there any online articles by them (I can't afford to buy expensive books)?
The one that I read on Nestorianism was Paul Helm. I'll try to get some pertinent excerpts from John Calvin's Ideas up in the near future.
On Calvin's errors on eternal generation, see:
http://jsrhee.hihome.com/thesis1.htm
http://www.upper-register.com/
pa...enes_print.html
Robert Reymond apparently endorses Calvin on this point; Steve Hays cites some others here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2...-
calvinism.html
For me, this just means that the divinity of Christ is up for grabs in their view (since there is no metaphysical commitment to the single personhood of Christ), meaning that it's an absolute non-starter as a coherent Christian worldview from the Catholic perspective.
Dave, perhaps their are other reasons why you have a knack for being disallowed from commenting on blog sites?
And you as well. Man, if you leave yourself that wide open for a zinger, you'll be in big trouble.
And what is the anti-Catholic Mr. Paul McCain doing on this site? This man is one of the most vicious and brainless anti-Catholics you can find anywhere. These words written by him are still on his web site:
"...Shame on Benedict. These comments are anathema, they are anti-catholic, anti-apostolic and truly reveal the spirit of anti-christ at work in the Roman Church".
A man who believes the Catholic Church is anti Christian cannot contain himself to stay out of Catholic business but makes it his duty to disparage the Church whenever he needs to bite at someone. He has a very rude nature which aparently his "justification" has not touched.
Anyone is welcome here, including anti-Catholics. And I am not too keen on character assassination terms such as "brainless" and "very rude nature."
Please keep your criticisms directed towards individual comments or opinions, not at the person.
That said, I am curious to examine what he wrote, that you cited, in context.
Dozie,
I couldn't find these words by Pastor McCain on his site. Could you please direct me to them?
They are right here - About 4 articles down.
http://paulmccain.worldmagblog.c...com/paulmccain/
Commenting by HaloScan
