M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Perhaps it was not clear by itself, but if you read posts 6 - 9, we were discussing how a Calvinist would frame his teaching. Not mine.
- Status
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
What do you call the place you go to on Sundays to worship? Is it visible? Is that place an institution in the way it has other places with the same doctrines and beliefs in other locations?
Do you not think that even though we speak of the Catholic Church as a visible Church, we participate in the “invisible” Church which is the body of Christ, through our faith, love and devotion in and to Christ?
I’ll agree that the Magisterium, like the lay Catholics do not suppose everyone will make it to heaven as is our hope. I have never claimed to know who will make it one way or the other. I can only trust in the Lord who is the judge.
How are all of us on these forums to know what you say is really from God? What makes your theological knowledge right over ours? I’ve tried to explain and discuss what we have in common, yet you reject it and keep bringing up more differences rather than acknowledge any points as common. I have to say, I find unity more in line with the teachings of Christ than division.
There have been theologians in the past who clearly seem to have misled people through their own personal convictions of the heart. Look at what happened to those who followed Jim Jones for an example.
Catholics have a growing affection for our Triune God. We love God more than what you call idols of the heart. I was just in a discussion last night where I spoke on the many distractions of today’s time. Those distractions are what you are referring too as idols of the heart, I assume. Television/television programs, boats, cars, property, computers/computer programs/forums, politics, even some theologians, I think you get my drift, worldly things, more than we need to live our Christianity.
I know you’ve called the Catholic Church an idol of our hearts, but I’ve tried to impress upon you that it appears you use the Bible as an idol of your heart. I used my example in an effort to show you how your argument is on this point is flawed, in my opinion. Things from God, like the Church and Bible should aid us in our spiritual journeys. This does not exclude writings from Christians throughout history.
I find the early Church fathers much more trustworthy as some were taught directly by the Apostles themselves. Call it a “succession” of teachings and traditions. What they wrote about, tells us the teachings/traditions of the earliest Church. It would seem to me that their interpretations and traditions are more correct than theologians hundreds of years later who teach things not in line with what the earliest church Fathers taught.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I know God allows trials and struggle. But when a Calvinist says that the elect will “always choose” Christ, what is meant by this?
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Couple other questions:
According to Calvinism…
According to Calvinism…
- Do the elect know they are among the elect while they are still on earth?
- Does Calvinism still teach double-predestination? i.e. those who are not given the Spirit of regeneration by God are on to hell.
S
sandusky
Guest
Forgive me, my statement was not clear either.
I’ll re-phrase it: you conclude from the statements of Calvinism that God’s work in election is done apart from human consent; however, that’s not what the Calvinist believes.
S
sandusky
Guest
With respect to the Gospel, it means that each member of the elect will believe and submit to the Gospel of Christ to salvation at his appointed time.
Some do, some don’t (my post #33).
What you say in the blue does not define double-predestination.
Be that as it may, the teaching of Scripture states that salvation is in the name of Christ only, as no other name has been given by which men must be saved, and that the ability to confess that name to salvation comes from the ***Spirit only:*****Acts 4:12
12 “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”
1 Corinthians 12:3
3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.**
R
Reformed
Guest
Well put, and I do agree with much of what you said. I can make Calvinism an idol when I’m not careful. Anything can turn into an idol. Of course I believe that there are regenerate Christians who are Roman Catholics. Your local churches (parish?) probably vary in teaching and emphasis, just like Protestant churches. To say otherwise is not truthful. About 10 years ago, I was invited to a Catholic men’s fellowship, catechism classes, and catholic apologetics meeting which I actually atttended. When I was in college many years ago (Point Loma Nazarene College) my roommate was Roman Catholic. His twin brother became a priest. Actually, I attended quite a few masses with him, and even partook in the Eucharist several times. Some of my best friends from High School and College are Roman Catholic Christians. I actually have more issues with liberal Protestants (Christian humanism) than orthodox Roman Catholics. I wish historic Protestantism could unite with orthodox Roman Catholicism. However, I believe there are two irreconcilable issues: being authority and the doctrine of justification. Does these two truths matter, and fall under Jude 3? I saw a group of Reformed Christians breakaway from the Reformed distinctive of justification by faith alone and actually attended that movement (without knowing what they believe). I couldn’t fathom a Christianity which rejects the sufficiency of Jesus Christ for Christians through full atonement of past, present, and future sins. Actually, Reformed Theology is the farthest thing from easy believism which is a product of Charles Finney and Arminianism (read the Puritans). Let’s keep talking and see what God has for us.
R
raumzeitmc2
Guest
Just thought I’d interject here Thomas Jefferson’s little known (and not particularly flattering) opinions regarding Calvin and his system.
books.google.com/books?id=f1g8AAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA403&dq=%22blasphemy+and+absurdity+of+the+five+points+of+Calvin%22&lr=&client=firefox-a#PRA1-PA403,M1
“I’m talking to my fellow students in the school of the Lord. You, see, we all have one master, in whom we are all one; and he gave us bishops a warning, in case we should perhaps have the nerve to grow proud about our magisterium, our position as masters, when he said, Do not let yourselves be called Rabbi by men; for you have only one master, the Christ” (Mt 23:8).
St. Augustine, Sermon 270:1:1
Saint Augustine, Sermons 230-272B (On the Liturgical Seasons), John E. Rotelle, Edmund Hill (Translator), ISBN 1565480597, p. 288.
- To Doctor Thomas Cooper, Monticello, November 2, 1822. Works, vol. 15, pp. 403-404.
- To William Short, Monticello, April 13, 1820, Works, vol. 15, p. 246.
books.google.com/books?id=f1g8AAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA403&dq=%22blasphemy+and+absurdity+of+the+five+points+of+Calvin%22&lr=&client=firefox-a#PRA1-PA403,M1
“I’m talking to my fellow students in the school of the Lord. You, see, we all have one master, in whom we are all one; and he gave us bishops a warning, in case we should perhaps have the nerve to grow proud about our magisterium, our position as masters, when he said, Do not let yourselves be called Rabbi by men; for you have only one master, the Christ” (Mt 23:8).
St. Augustine, Sermon 270:1:1
Saint Augustine, Sermons 230-272B (On the Liturgical Seasons), John E. Rotelle, Edmund Hill (Translator), ISBN 1565480597, p. 288.
R
Reformed
Guest
Thanks for sharing. I think you will find that the United States of America is rooted in Calvinism. From the Pilgrims and the Puritans to the church at Capital Hill, to the first Great Awakening in America, you will find us steeped in Calvinism. Actually, a departure from Calvinism has lead to liberalism in American Christianity. The 2nd Great Awakening with Charles Finney (Arminianism) is the development of Christian humanism which is not good stuff. On the other hand, the United States is not rooted in Roman Catholicism. Who tends to be the White House chaplain, but a Calvinist Presbyterian? BTW… wasn’t Thomas Jefferson a deist?
Aah ha…see what happens when you leave the Doctrines of Grace: Here is what Thomas Jefferson believed:
Religious views
Though his religious views diverged widely from the orthodox Christianity of his day, throughout his life Jefferson was intensely interested in theology, spirituality, and biblical study.[49] His religious commitment is probably best summarized in his own words as he proclaimed that he belonged to a sect with just one member.
Jefferson’s conclusions about the Bible are noteworthy. He considered much of the New Testament of the Bible to be false. He described these as “so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture”.[50] He described the “roguery of others of His disciples”, [51] and called them a “band of dupes and impostors” describing Paul as the “first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus”, and wrote of “palpable interpolations and falsifications”.[51] He also described the Book of Revelation to be “merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams”.[52] While living in the White House, Jefferson began to piece together his own condensed version of the Gospels, omitting the virgin birth of Jesus, miracles attributed to Jesus, divinity and the resurrection of Jesus. Thus, primarily leaving only Jesus’ moral philosophy, of which he approved. This compilation titled The LIFE AND MORALS OF JESUS OF NAZARETH Extracted Textually from the Gospels Greek, Latin, French, and English was published after his death and became known as the Jefferson Bible.[53]
Jefferson was raised in the Church of England at a time when it was the established church in Virginia and only denomination funded by Virginia tax money. Avery Dulles, a leading Catholic theologian reports, “In his college years at William and Mary [Jefferson] came to admire Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and John Locke as three great paragons of wisdom. Under the influence of several professors he converted to the deist philosophy.”[54] Dulles concludes:
“ In summary, then, Jefferson was a deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death; but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the incarnate Son of God. Jefferson’s religion is fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day. ”
Before the Revolution, Jefferson was a vestryman in his local church, a lay position that was informally tied to political office at the time. He also had friends who were clergy, and he supported some churches financially.
In a 1825 letter to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse Jefferson wrote:
“I am anxious to see the doctrine of one god commenced in our state. But the population of my neighborhood is too slender, and is too much divided into other sects to maintain any one preacher well. I must therefore be contented to be an Unitarian by myself, although I know there are many around me who would become so, if once they could hear the questions fairly stated.”[1]
His last words were, “I resign myself to my God, and my child to my country.”[55]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Perhaps you and Reformed could offer a definition of double-predestination. And I still would like to know if God does not impute the Spirit on a person, does that effectively render that person to hell because he is not elect?
S
sandusky
Guest
rraumzeitmc2:
Thus, primarily leaving only Jesus’ moral philosophy, of which he approved. This compilation titled The LIFE AND MORALS OF JESUS OF NAZARETH Extracted Textually from the Gospels Greek, Latin, French, and English was published after his death and became known as the Jefferson Bible.
With that in mind, why do you think that I should be concerned with Jefferson’s thoughts on Calvin and Calvinism?
Your link goes on:For Jefferson, separation of church and state was a necessary reform of the religious “tyranny” whereby a religion received state endorsement, and those not of that religion were denied rights, and even punished.
Following the Revolution, Jefferson played a leading role in the disestablishment of religion in Virginia. Previously the Anglican Church had tax support. As he wrote in his Notes on Virginia, a law was in effect in Virginia that “if a person brought up a Christian denies the being of a God, or the Trinity …he is punishable on the first offense by incapacity to hold any office …; on the second by a disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy …, and by three year’ imprisonment.” Prospective officer-holders were required to swear that they did not believe in the central Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Perhaps you, too, should heed Jefferson and the Viriginia legislature at that time, and abandon your belief in transubstantiation.
Also stated in the link you provided:Jefferson’s conclusions about the Bible are noteworthy. He considered much of the New Testament of the Bible to be false. He described these as “so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture”. He described the “roguery of others of His disciples”, and called them a “band of dupes and impostors” describing Paul as the “first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus”, and wrote of “palpable interpolations and falsifications”. He also described the Book of Revelation to be “merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams”. While living in the White House, Jefferson began to piece together his own condensed version of the Gospels, omitting the virgin birth of Jesus, miracles attributed to Jesus, divinity and the resurrection of Jesus.
Thus, primarily leaving only Jesus’ moral philosophy, of which he approved. This compilation titled The LIFE AND MORALS OF JESUS OF NAZARETH Extracted Textually from the Gospels Greek, Latin, French, and English was published after his death and became known as the Jefferson Bible.
With that in mind, why do you think that I should be concerned with Jefferson’s thoughts on Calvin and Calvinism?Your link goes on:For Jefferson, separation of church and state was a necessary reform of the religious “tyranny” whereby a religion received state endorsement, and those not of that religion were denied rights, and even punished.
Following the Revolution, Jefferson played a leading role in the disestablishment of religion in Virginia. Previously the Anglican Church had tax support. As he wrote in his Notes on Virginia, a law was in effect in Virginia that “if a person brought up a Christian denies the being of a God, or the Trinity …he is punishable on the first offense by incapacity to hold any office …; on the second by a disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy …, and by three year’ imprisonment.” Prospective officer-holders were required to swear that they did not believe in the central Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
Perhaps you, too, should heed Jefferson and the Viriginia legislature at that time, and abandon your belief in transubstantiation.
M
mikeledes
Guest
While there are similarities between Calvinism and Augustinianism, the two are not identical. For one, Augustine did not teach that saving grace was limited only to the elect and he is also had a different understanding of regeneration from that taught by Calvinism. In chapter 21 of the Gift of Perseverance, St. Augustine wrote:
** Of two pious men, why to the one should be given perseverance unto the end, and to the other it should not be given, God’s judgments are even more unsearchable. . . . had not both been called and followed him that called them? And had not both become, from wicked men, justified men and both been renewed by the laver of regeneration?**
God Bless,
Michael
R
Reformed
Guest
Do you know a Roman Catholic posted that you can believe in double predestination as a Roman Catholic? Please see the predestination thread and Hitler.
R
Reformed
Guest
We both agree that Saint Augstine was a great servant of God who knew in part. We shouldn’t go to Augustine to determine truth. However, I just wanted to make sure that Roman Catholics Christians would open their minds somewhat on the subject. Heck, someone posted that the Magestrium allows you to embrace single predestination and double predestination. I think the post is 33. Please look at post 15 and 33.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=264382
M
mikeledes
Guest
I understand.
The Catholic Church teaches predestination. One of the major differences between the Catholic view and the Calvinist view is that we uphold the Augustinian view that saving grace is not limited to those who have been predestined to glory. This is the view held by the early Church Fathers (particularly Augustine) and upheld by Martin Luther as well. The Calvinist idea of perseverance of the saints made its first appearance in Christian history with John Calvin. I find it very difficult to believe that if perseverance of the saints was so essential to the Christian understanding of salvation, that this teaching is not only absent from the writings of the early Church Fathers, but contradicted, particularly by Augustine.God bless,
Michael
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I would not deny it and have witnessed some teachings that were incorrect myself. Those erroneous teaching came from “men” and I prayed for them. This does not mean I would abandon the Church (body of Christ) itself. There are other members of the Church that may need one who questions such teachings so they can remain on the narrow path.
I don’t see either as irreconcilable.
On another thread you started (it disappeared overnight
) there was unity, on a discussion of faith versus faith plus works, once we openly discussed the semantics that actually separated us. I think alot of differences are based on semantics.That leaves us with authority and I feel I’ve somewhat addressed that above and in my previous post. That being we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater (specifically abandon the Church Christ created because of the actions of men). Surely you wouldn’t throw away your Bible because someone misinterpreted something from it and preached it as Gospel (not stating anyone here has done this, using the Bible as an example of God’s gift not to be abandoned just like His Church).
As a part of the body of Christ our obligation is necessary to help those who are not “developed” spiritually. You know where I’m going to go to in scriptures to show authority given to Peter. Peter being the one who appointed St. Ignatius…
BTW, post specifically what part of Jude you were referring too. Jude only has one chapter and from verse 3, I got to stand firm in your Christian faith.
I’m always open to talking, in an effort to unify through Christ. With that said, let’s keep in mind that differences of what some say from the same faith does not represent the faith at large. That is, because two Catholics say different things does not make Catholicism false. If that were true, Christianity itself is in danger.
R
Reformed
Guest
I have to defer to TriuneUnity on Luther’s view. I will order The Bondage of the Will sometime today. I believe the perseverance of the saints is rooted in the writings of Paul, and the sayings of Jesus. Therefore, I have to go beyond Augustine to support this truth. God saves us for His own glory and name sake as the primary reason. We are only secondary beneficiaries of His amazing transforming grace.I understand.
God bless,
Michael
R
Reformed
Guest
How well do you know the moderators? Can you bring that thread back? It doesn’t appear too supportive of Roman Catholicism if the moderators delete a thread which challenges a central issue of the Roman Catholic understanding of the Christian Faith.I would not deny it and have witnessed some teachings that were incorrect myself. Those erroneous teaching came from “men” and I prayed for them. This does not mean I would abandon the Church (body of Christ) itself. There are other members of the Church that may need one who questions such teachings so they can remain on the narrow path.
I don’t see either as irreconcilable.
On another thread you started (it disappeared overnight
That leaves us with authority and I feel I’ve somewhat addressed that above and in my previous post. That being we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater (specifically abandon the Church Christ created because of the actions of men). Surely you wouldn’t throw away your Bible because someone misinterpreted something from it and preached it as Gospel (not stating anyone here has done this, using the Bible as an example of God’s gift not to be abandoned just like His Church).
As a part of the body of Christ our obligation is necessary to help those who are not “developed” spiritually. You know where I’m going to go to in scriptures to show authority given to Peter. Peter being the one who appointed St. Ignatius…
BTW, post specifically what part of Jude you were referring too. Jude only has one chapter and from verse 3, I got to stand firm in your Christian faith.
I’m always open to talking, in an effort to unify through Christ. With that said, let’s keep in mind that differences of what some say from the same faith does not represent the faith at large. That is, because two Catholics say different things does not make Catholicism false. If that were true, Christianity itself is in danger.
M
mikeledes
Guest
Catholics and Lutherans believe that their view of predestination is also rooted in the teachings of Jesus and Paul. I just find it strange that a teaching that is so central to the Christian understanding of salvation would not only be absent for 1500 years, but explicitly contradicted.
God Bless,
Michael
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
I suppose I will chime in here given Luther was addressed. Really, comparing Luther to Calvin on these points is probably misguided because Lutheranism operates under a completely different set of presuppositions going into theology when discussing it. For Lutherans, all of theology begins with Christ crucified. By studying that, we can then work back to election, sovereign grace, etc. For Calvin and Calvinists, theology begins with the supposition that God is sovereign. It then works it’s way to the cross and the meaning of it. This creates a huge gulf between how election and predestination is seen.
The total depravity of man is intrinsic to all of confessional Protestant Christianity. For Lutherans, this is no different. On this, Luther and Calvin are in complete agreement.
Unconditional election is agreed upon in its positive sense. For Luther, the topic of election only applies to believers. We believe because God has chosen us in Christ from the foundation of the world. Man is condemned to perdition based solely on his rejection of God and continued sin and unbelief. In no way has God chosen them for this end, rather, He has done all that is necessary to secure their salvation on the cross, but they will not believe.
Limited atonement is rejected entirely as unbiblical.
Irresistable grace is agreed upon inasmuch as the elect will come to faith at their appointed time. However, for the non-elect, anytime the gospel is preached the Spirit is working to convert them. However, either one of two things happens here. Either the person rejects the gospel when it is given in the preaching of the word…this is also different from Calvinism. Calvinism states that in the preaching of the word, for the non-elect, the Spirit is not doing anything to convert the reprobate. They only receive an outward call. In Lutheranism, both the non-elect and the elect receive an outward and inward call…but only the elect will always come to faith. In the second case, the non-elect will believe for a time and then fall away. Which gets to perseverence…
The elect will always persevere to the end. The non-elect may believe for a short period and then fall away. The non-elect will even be justified if they possess faith for a season, but will lose justification when they lose their faith.
- Status