Saint Thomas Aquinas

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Calvinists Fold On Gay Clergy

Way to go John Calvin, what great fruits you have brought forth! Who would have thought? Another large group of Protestants have officially given in to the abomination of homosexuality. A mainline denomination sprung forth by the arch-heretic John Calvin, the Presbyterian Church (USA), has now given its approval of openly gay clergy. As we have said before, when you move off and start your own religion and reject Christ and His Church, the sky is the limit. Well in fact no, hell is the limit in this case. Just another fruit of the Protesters who decided that they knew more than God and His Church. For those who call themselves Calvinists, as they say, you get what you deserve.

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) passed a historic measure Tuesday evening allowing openly gay men and women in same-sex relationships to be ordained as clergy. The move reflects a monumental shift in the 2.8 million-member church, which, along with other mainline Protestant denominations, has had increasingly contentious debates and struggles over issues pertaining to gay and lesbian members and clergy. A majority of the church's regional bodies, or presbyteries, defeated a similar measure to allow gay clergy two years ago. “This is quite a day of celebration,”...

44 comments:

c.t. said...

No chain-yanking from my end meant here, but your church has something called the Pink Mafia, for crying out loud.

Every gathering of Christians divides into liberal and conservative. Liberals like things like gay clergy. Conservatives don't. There are liberal factions in your church as well. It goes without saying.

The question is: what is the standard? If the standard is the word of God, as it is with Bible-believing, Bible-valuing Christians, then the appropriateness of gay clergy answers itself.

Bible-believing, God-fearing Christians have always been a minority in every era. A remnant, if you will. Defending as best they can the standard of the word of God.

Matthew Bellisario said...

As far as I know the Catholic Church has never formally declared open homosexuality to be OK, let alone clergy. The Standard is Jesus and His Divine Revelation revealed from Him to His apostles, and those they faithfully handed it onto, which includes the one Church which He founded. As far as I know, the Presbyterian Church USA still follows the same Bible the rest of the Protesters claim they do. This is an official endorsement from a major Protestant group.

c.t. said...

>As far as I know the Catholic Church has never formally declared open homosexuality to be OK, let alone clergy.

Yet it still exists, in spades, without a formal declaration, and without a wholesale purging of the ranks. Many Catholic seminaries taken over by gays like liberals have taken over Calvinist-founded universities. It's the way of this world. Christians are called on to exercise Spirit-guided, Bible-guided discernment and act on it, not pretend nothing is there because nobody has formally declared it to be good.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Again, you are comparing apples to oranges. The Catholic Church opposes open homosexuality, it always has and always will. The doctrines of the Church never change. On the other hand, your Protestant friends have indeed officially changed their doctrine.

scotju said...

Rom 1;18-32 says once you turn your back on God, sodomy is your destination. Nearly all the reformers had sexual issues or hang-ups. Calvin was no exception. According to St Alfonsus Ligouri, Calvin was a sodomite. This charge can be found in Ligouri's "The History Of The Heresies". c.t., we may have problems with a Pink Mafia, but your Protestant faith was founded by sexally twisted people like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli et al. No "Rock" here, jst sand.u

c.t. said...

Again, Christians are called on to exercise Spirit-guided, Bible-guided discernment. *And act on it.* How does gay clergy stand before the tribunal of Scripture? It doesn't stand before the tribunal of Scripture. Therefore separate from those who practice it, and proclaim the word of God to them.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Again it seems that the Catholic Church is the one following the Bible, not your Calvinist buddies. There will always be wheat and tares, unfortunately the entire Presbyterian USA Church has officially declared itself to side with the tares.

c.t. said...

Calvin was called everything in the book. It will happen when you are exposing error in people who are puffed up as the source of truth.

c.t. said...

>Again it seems that the Catholic Church is the one following the Bible, not your Calvinist buddies. There will always be wheat and tares, unfortunately the entire Presbyterian USA Church has officially declared itself to side with the tares.

Except for the *and act on it* part, which was emphasized in my previous comment, as you can see.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Puffed up? Ha, could anyone be as arrogant as Calvin? That is a debate for another post. I have already written on it a bit here. If he is the model you want to follow, again you can have it.

http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2009/09/calvin-and-his-papacy-which-authority.html

Alexander Greco said...

Fruits indeed! Funny, CT, is pointing out that there are Catholics who refuse to follow promulgated teachings equivalent to Protestants who have changed promulgated teachings in your view? Or are you just grasping for any argument to deflect attention away from the *fruits* of sola scriptura and the tragedy of pompous individualism?

c.t. said...

Calvin had to be berated and hog-tied to go, let alone stay, in Geneva. And from somebody who penned possibly more words than anybody in history (certainly he's up there in that category) there exists next to *nothing* from him of an autobiographical nature. Not a big me, myself, and I person. Sinner, though. Not innocent, obviously. Only Jesus is.

Having said that, Calvinism is a nick name for apostolic biblical doctrine. That needs defending, and has been. Rather well. There is a reason Reformed
systematic theologies are the gold standard of systematic theologies, studied by Christians of all persuasions who get interested in biblical doctrine. It's because they unapologetically say what the Bible says, no concessions to the demands of man's fallen nature.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Looks like the "gold standard" failed here. Calvinism is a joke. The sooner you realize that the better. All of the arguments brought forth by your "theologians" have been shut down. You have nothing to offer. You have no authority to quote Scripture, and you change your interpretations on a whim. You even go against your own forefather's interpretations. In fact, I would venture to say that 95% of professed Calvinists go against what Calvin taught on contraception. Almost every "Reformed" pastor I have run into has defended using contraception. Too bad Calvin and all of the other founding Protesters thought different. Again, Protestantism is like Obamaism, its change we can all believe in.

c.t. said...

>Fruits indeed! Funny, CT, is pointing out that there are Catholics who refuse to follow promulgated teachings equivalent to Protestants who have changed promulgated teachings in your view?

You don't hold the Bible as final authority, I do. Nobody can change what the Bible states, though some translations are giving it a real go.

That aside, pronouncing a belief means not much if you don't then act on that pronouncement.

I'm not going to throw the child molestation scandal on the table in the usual way, but just to point out that I believe that those priests were/are homosexuals, for the most part, using the Catholic church the way the devil's children use all churches, yet it grew into institutional levels of activity because of the lack of action on the part of your church to stamp it out. Why? Hm, God knows what is in all of our hearts, and He will judge us. Fortunately Catholics, as this Protestant, recognize Jesus as Mediator (I hope?).

c.t. said...

>Looks like the "gold standard" failed here.

You can sit at the feet of Jesus and reject His teaching. It happened.

Matthew Bellisario said...

"You don't hold the Bible as final authority, I do."

No you don't, you hold yourself as the final authority. Don't try and kid us. The Bible means what you want it to mean, nothing more. Again, its change we can all believe in.

c.t. said...

>In fact, I would venture to say that 95% of professed Calvinists go against what Calvin taught on contraception.

You're unconsciously importing your Pope thing here into Protestantism/Calvinism. I wouldn't care what Calvin said about contraception if he didn't derive it from the word of God.

Matthew Bellisario said...

The problem is, Calvin, and most Christians until 1930 taught that contraception was immoral according to Scripture. Again, change we can believe in.

c.t. said...

>The problem is, Calvin, and most Christians until 1930 taught that contraception was immoral according to Scripture.

I don't know what kind of contraception was around in Calvin's day. Probably things that amount to what we know as abortion. Like jumping up and down on a prostitute's swollen belly. Ironically (and tragically) about as sophisticated as modern day abortion techniques. Onan, on the other hand, is a bit lean material for basing a doctrine of contraception on. Contraception, because the Bible doesn't make it central, is not a central doctrine to Reformed/Calvinist theologians. Though it's a subject I've not looked into much, or come across much.

Some churches like to grow by physical birth rather than proclamation of the word of God, from which follows potential regeneration by the word and the Spirit. Protestants can be as guilty of this as anybody.

c.t. said...

>No you don't, you hold yourself as the final authority. Don't try and kid us. The Bible means what you want it to mean, nothing more.

This is like when atheists reduce everything to biology or materialism making opponents 'prove' that Beethoven is more 'inspired', in some metaphysical way, than Lady Gaga.

The Bible can be understood on its own terms. Not everybody seeks to bring it down to the level of the demands of fallen nature. Many do, not all do. Not all are goats.

Matthew Bellisario said...

There have always been various methods of contraception around. Do you think barrier methods sprung up in the 20th century? The Bible does make it central, and it has always been a core moral teaching of the Bible both for Jews and Christians alike, that is until people like you decided it wasn't important. I find it terribly troubling that your Calvinist forefathers thought it was a core Biblical teaching and now most of you don't. What I find even more troubling is that most of you don't realize it, or don't care.

Matthew Bellisario said...

"The Bible can be understood on its own terms"

If so then why do you disagree with your forefather's interpretations? They all thought that contraception was evil, and that the Scriptures plainly taught them so. You however just got through telling me it isn't important. You are not faring well here, you might want to quit now, or retreat and come back with something a bit more convincing.

c.t. said...

Other than Onan, and be fruitful and multiply (with going on 7 billion population now no one can be accused of not following that) where in the Bible do you derive contraception as a central doctrine of the faith?

As I stated, I suspect it is more to do with church growth by biological means, rather than proclamation of the word of God leading to potential regeneration means. And that cuts both ways, Catholic and Protestant.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Scripture plainly tells us in Genesis 38 that contraception is immoral. All of your forefathers taught this, yet you deny it. It does not cut both ways, sine the Catholic Church still teaches the very same teaching that Scripture does. How many verses do you need for something to be a core moral teaching? one, two, three? This is really starting show how crippled the man made doctrine of Sola Scriptura really is. You can just dismiss a complete moral teaching from Sacred Scripture, one in which God killed Onan for, based on a complete whim. Please, keep going. In fact, I will give you the final word for tonight since I want to get some reading done before bed. So far you have used every excuse in the book to try and take away the fact that a major Protestant group of Calvinists have just officially changed their doctrine. Unfortunately your smokescreen hasn't worked too well and has in fact proven the point of this post. Change, change and more change. Have a good evening.

c.t. said...

Do you believe your brother should impregnate your wife if you were to die with no children?

c.t. said...

I guess I'm seeing a judicial law of the early stages of the nation of Israel rather than a moral law which is for all generations. Though I repeat I havn't looked into this subject much if at all.

Nick said...

Protestantism as a whole has folded on the subject of homosexuality, though most don't realize it. The reason is because they almost universally allow contraception, which in it's essence is deliberately sterile sex - thus it's no difference in essence to all other sterile sex, including homosexuality.

I have a Catholic friend who was talking to a homosexual, and the homosexual said the only reason why the state says marriage is between a man and a woman is because "that is the only situation where a couple could *accidentally* get pregnant and thus have to care for kids." Without realizing it, this homosexual made an amazing insight: sex has been so severed from procreation that it is now nothing but 'recreational'. In *principle* when contraception, there is no difference from gay sex and other such sins.

Matthew Bellisario said...

True Nick, and we can see this to be a fact from the way we were created by God. But the Protestants don't get that either. They just look for loopholes in another part of Scripture where they can twist it to mean what they want it to mean. We can see this here as CT struggles to come up with every excuse in the book as to why the Protestants as whole now interpret Scripture and its moral principles different that their forefathers.

Neil Parille said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Neil Parille said...

I think this is a little unfair. Calvin was against homosexuality and so were his followers. If some people who call themselves Calvinists three hundred and some years later think being gay is peachy keen it doesn't have much to do with Calvin or his movement. Ted Kennedy and William Brennan called themselves Catholics and got good Catholic burials.


In fact the mainline "Calvinist" churches have been dwindling in size. There are a couple decent sized Calvinist churches that are against homosexuality.

Neil Parille said...

That should have been four hundred and some years later.

Also, in what sense are the leaders of the PCUSA even "calvinists"? Do they believe in the five points and all of that?

beowulf2k8 said...

Finally blogger is fixed! I've so wanted to comment on this:

Calvinists and homosexuals have a lot in common: they both think they were "born that way."

I refer to the moronic doctrine of original sin or (in the Calvinist version) "total inability." They say they are born unable to do anything but sin. So also the homosexuals say they are born unable to do anything but defile their bodies with the same sex.

Seriously, therefore, how could anyone have not seen an alliance between these two sects of blasphemers coming????? They both claim God created them to sin!!!!

beowulf2k8 said...

All the Calvinists will come out of the closet one day.

scotju said...

Matt, where did you get that picture of the dreamy-looking swishes? I didn't know wheather to laugh or puke! LOL!
Neil, Calvin may have been 'against' homosexuality, but he was queer himself. Beza, who succeeded him in Geneva, was living in sin with a married woman when he came to Geneva. His immorality was so well known that the officals in Geneva first refused to accept him as a minister. Calvin however, twisted their arms and made them accept Beza. Ligouri's "The History of the Heresies" covers this in depth.
Beo, you are correct about the Calvinistic doctrine destroying the free will. However, the Catholic doctrine of original sin states that man has free will. He must choose to obey or disobey God. A big part of that obediance is to believe that Jesus Christ died for the sins of mankind, and we must accept or reject the sacrifice he made for our sins. Free will is repected at all times.

Neil Parille said...

Mr. Dalton,

Calvin was not a homosexual.

Ligouri (1696-1787) did not know Calvin of course.

The claim that Calvin was a homosexual was first presented in a biography that one of his enemies published after his death. I couldn't find a single Catholic or Protestant historian who takes these claims seriously.

Neil Parille said...

Mr. Dalton,

For example Bruce Gordon in his 2009 biography of Calvin calls Bolsec's claims "manufactured."

beowulf2k8 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beowulf2k8 said...

It is well known that Calvin was afflicted by MANY strange diseases. I bet he had AIDS.

Romans 1:27 "Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."

After all, Calvin says he was "born that way."

beowulf2k8 said...

"Let it also be mentioned that there is considerable speculation that the reason for Calvin’s excommunication from the Catholic church was something other than the mysterious association he had with the university friend’s speech: the crime of sodomy. Reportedly in 1551 the archives of Noyon, Calvin’s birthplace, recorded that he was condemned on that ground. He begged for clemency from death which the law demanded and received an order for exile. The records weren’t the only ones to show this long-forgotten tidbit: a rival and ‘heretic’, the Catholic Bolsec, wrote about the incident, claiming that Calvin’s alleged walk on the wild side was not a thing of the past. Bolsec claimed that in addition to throwing himself forcefully on any woman who walked by, he also engaged frequently in homosexual liaisons." (http://fascinatingpeople.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/a-tremendous-blasphemy-the-life-of-john-calvin-1509-1564/)

What a sicko!

scotju said...

Neil, as a former supporter of Herebert W Armstrong, I know how venomous a follower of a cult can be in defending his founder/leader. I feel for you, Neil. But, facts are facts. Calvin, Luther, and the rest of the Reforming gang were sexually immoral or they used rationalized sexual misbehavior as a way of promoting the so-called reformation. Luther's "exception clause" interpetation of Matt 19:2-12, and his consent to Phillip of Hesse bigamy are two glaring examples of this rationalization. So it's no wonder these calvinist folded on the gay clergy. Their founder folded on sexual immorality at the very begining of the reformation.

nh said...

Pervbyterians!

Neil Parille said...

Mr. Dalton,

Do you even know what my religious beliefs are?

I have checked your claims about Beza and Luther, but I imagine they are as meritless as your claims about Calvin.

scotju said...

"Do you even know what my relious beliefs are?" Yes, you're a follower of Ayn Rand's athesist Objectivism. It nicely compliments the elitism and materialism of Calvinism, doesn't it Neil?
The charges against Luther and Beza are true Neile. It is very well docmented that Luther encouraged Phillip of Hesse to enter into a bigamos relationship, and aided and abedded in the cover-up of that relationship. Beza's absconding from Paris to Geneva with the wife of another man was likewise well known. Is it any wonder that Geneva, like Wittenburg, became know as a cesspool of immorality and oppression?

beowulf2k8 said...

Luther also said "let your sins be strong" and taught that in order to be able to forgiven you must really sin big time. After all doesn't Jesus say in one parable that he who is forgiven more will love more? So the lunatic Luther sought to fill up the measure of his sins in a moronic attempt to end up loving God more. Instead, he just ended up more antisemitic and drunk.