Are there any Calvinists on this forum?

[dts]

**. . . **

Q. 30. Doth God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
A. God doth not leave all men to perish in the estate of sin and misery, into which they fell by the breach of the first covenant, commonly called the covenant of works; but of his mere love and mercy delivereth his elect out of it, and bringeth them into an estate of salvation by the second covenant, commonly called the covenant of grace.

Q. 31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.

Q. 32. How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?
A. The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a mediator, and life and salvation by him; and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.

Q. 33. Was the covenant of grace always administered after one and the same manner?
A. The covenant of grace was not always administered after the same manner, but the administrations of it under the Old Testament were different from those under the New.

**. . . **

Q. 64. What is the invisible church?
A. The invisible church is the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ the head.

Q. 65. What special benefits do the members of the invisible church enjoy by Christ?
A. The members of the invisible church by Christ enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory.

Q. 66. What is that union which the elect have with Christ?
A. The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God’s grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband; which is done in their effectual calling.

Q. 67. What is effectual calling?
A. Effectual calling is the work of God’s almighty power and grace, whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto) he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his word and Spirit; savingly enlightening their minds, renewing and powerfully determining their wills, so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein.

Q. 68. Are the elect only effectually called?
A. All the elect, and they only, are effectually called; although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the word, and have some common operations of the Spirit; who, for their willful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.

 

[dennisknapp]

sandusky:

Hypotheticals like those above, point out a lack of faith in the one who saves. The Catholic faces the same dilemmas. The difference between the Catholic, and the Calvinist, is that the Catholic, though he will deny it, relies upon himself and external rituals for his salvation, while the Calvinist knows that it is God who saves to the uttermost.

This last statement is false.

As a Catholic I rely totally on God’s grace for my salvation. It is God who has chosen to make me His son, and given me the responsibilities of a son, but this can never take away anything from God’ grace.

What this comes down to how grace is given or communicated. As a Catholic, I say grace is given through sacraments. God has chose to communicate to His creation through physical means, ie His Son and His Son present to us in different ways through the sacraments. Sacraments are all about God’s grace. It is through them that we become more like Christ and so move toward our final salvation and santification.

Peace

 

[AquinasXVI]

Sandusky:

I have to agree with Dennis. That last statement of yours is simply not true. Please, for your intellectual integrity, refrain from telling us what you think we believe. Rather study what we truly believe and argue from there.

I do have a question for you. How does the “invisible church” coincide with the Acts and Paul’s letters in which the church is completely visible?

in XT.

 

[Michael_Paul]

Thank you norwester for your explanation. I have learned some things about Calvinism that I didn’t know.

norwester: Hi! Well, I’m a Calvinist. This is my first post, so be gentle with me! I trust that I am elect because I desire Christ (which the “natural man” does not), I seek to live a holy life and I want to have communion with Christ. I do not live a completely sinless life, but when I do sin I have remorse and I pray for forgiveness and desire to be reconciled.

Mike: The same can be said of me. However, I’m Catholic and plan to remain so until I die with the help of God’s grace. (You see we do not rely on ourselves for any good thing. We rely on God’s grace to do the good that we desire to do). More than one Calvinist has told me that they believe that if the above is true that that means that I am not of the elect.

norwester: I believe that there are elect who are Catholic, and Catholic who are not elect. I believe the same of any Protestant church too.

Mike:  If I understand you correctly. You don’t seem to believe in objective truth. John 4:24 says “God is a spirit: and they that adore him must adore him in spirit and in *truth*”.

norwester: Only God knows for sure who are His. I don’t know anything about the authors you mention, but as you Catholics say, we Protestants are a mixed bag!

Mike: Well that’s for sure. The only Calvinists I “know” I have met on the Internet. I put that word in quotes because I can’t say that I know any of them. I thought that all Calvinists believed that they are of the elect. I guess not.

norwester: I think there is a misconception here. Calvinists hold that man has “total depravity” but that is not “utter depravity”.

Mike: I don’t know the difference between “utter” and “total”. I looked up “total” in an online dictionary thesaurus. One of the synonyms for total is utter. thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=total

norwester: We do hold that man has some free will, but not total free will. Natural man can chose a lot of things, but with out God's drawing grace, he cannot chose Christ. That is different from saying that he can never chose to do anything "good".

Mike: Actually, every Calvinist with whom I have had contact denies that man has “freewill”. Each one has said that man has “free choice” and for some reason they have decided that there is a difference. I believe that the reason they say this is that their favorite Early Church Father, Augustine, used the words free choice rather than freewill.

Also we too believe that without God’s drawing grace (we call that actual grace) we cannot choose Christ. Where we differ is that we believe that God draws everyone. The bible says that he will draw everyone. And we are a very Bible believing bunch of folks.
MP

 

[StCsDavid]

My apologies in advance as there’s probably no way to say this without insulting our Calvinist brethren; however, I find Calvinism to be terribly arrogant and lacking humility. To believe that Christ died to save the elect seems a bit out of sorts. If they are elect, why do they even need a savior other than to have a focal point to base their feelings that they are indeed one of the elect. It also seems to afix a limit on God’s grace by saying He only bestows saving grace on a few, but the rest He casts away. Saving grace in Calvinism is akin to winning the lottery. It’s all luck of the draw. Through no fault of my own, I could be denied this grace. I asked a Presbyterian friend of mine who is a dyed in the wool Calvinist how parents deal with children who leave the faith after leaving home. He said “we support each other in the reality that not all are part of the elect.” What a defeatist and at the same time elitist point of view. IMHO, Calvinism is what happens when you turn Christianity into an intellecutual exercise. You’re immediately limited by the finite ability for man to reason, and miss the whole message of Christ coming to save all.

 

[dts]

sandusky:

Hypotheticals like those above, point out a lack of faith in the one who saves. The Catholic faces the same dilemmas. The difference between the Catholic, and the Calvinist, is that the Catholic, though he will deny it, relies upon himself and external rituals for his salvation, while the Calvinist knows that it is God who saves to the uttermost.

Catholics and Calvinists agree with sola gratia. Both agree that the gift of salvation is only possible through the work of Christ on the cross. It is necessary to look very closely at how the terminology is being used in these discussions. There is far more agreement than many on each side care to admit.

Calvinists hold to sola fide. Catholics disagree with sola fide. However, in the end, even here there is more agreement than is readily apparent.

The Calvinist claims sola fide and he defines justification more narrowly than the Catholic. The Calvinist then says that the saving faith which gives justification necessarily leads to sanctification (ie.
holiness of life). Unfortunately, this analytically separates faith and charity, but the theoretical end result is that charity is necessary for salvation.

The Catholic refuses to separate things out in this way. He defines justification much more broadly. He says there are 3 theological virtues that govern our relationship to God, all of which are integrally related: faith, hope, and charity. All of these virtues are gifts from God. The Apostle Paul says that charity is the greatest of the virtues and to the Catholic this too is at the core of the nature of saving faith (ie. of the essence of saving faith). See article 7 of the Catholic Catechism beginning with §§ 1803, 1812 et. seq, 1987 et seq. . .

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art7.htm

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt3art2.htm

The faith versus works formulation is a silly anachronism. Faith itself is a work in that it requires us to do something (ie. believe). This faith is a gift from God, but nevertheless God works through our action or belief.

A similiar kind of analysis holds true with charity. Remember, charity is the summary of the law (ie. the Golden Rule fufills the law). Thus charity expresses itself through good works which are further summarized in the Ten Commandments.

 

[norwester]

I would like to reply to Mike if I could. I haven’t read every post. I think you are making some assumptions about what I believe Catholics believe. I didn’t come to this board with the intention of flaring up Catholics, first of all. I don’t know the Calvinists that you talk to (or “write to”) on the internet, I can only reply for myself.

Point one: I don’t know if you are of the elect or not. I think a lot of people make assumptions about what Catholics believe, or they are told things too, and through those assumptions may think you are not of the elect. Actually, I find in discussions with Protestants that I do end up defending Catholics because Protestants in general are so misinformed about the Catholic church. So, I guess if they think that you are actually looking to Mary to save you, or that you worship St. Francis because you have a statue or something, maybe they would wonder about your salvation. But I don’t know how much error in theology God may tolerate,(In anyone, Catholic or Protestant) I do not know where a person has begun and where they will end up. And frankly, I have enough trouble with myself, let alone trying to figure someone else out. Actually, that is my answer to point 2 as well. I am not saying there isn’t objective truth. I believe there is. But I also don’t think one is condemned to hell because of a wrong point in their theology. And last I heard, Catholics don’t either.

Every Calvinist I know does believe he is among the elect. Or at least most of the time. The Calvinists I know struggle and pray and desire God and get frustrated with their sinfulness just as any devout Catholic would.

The difference between total depravity and utter depravity-maybe that is a wrong choice of words. Let me try to make myself clearer. If you refer to the original quote I was discussing, it is about that all men who are not saved are not as absolutely bad as they could be. I see a confusion here. The idea is that human beings have NO free will. Calvinists do not hold that man has NO free will-that they are compelled to act as sinfully as they can in any given situation. We hold that man does not have TOTAL free will. That man can not respond to God apart from God’s drawing him. Actually, it would seem to me that we agree on this point. The point we would disagree is whether God’s drawing is always effectual.

And also, I would say, Catholics are often frustrated at people who haven’t taken the time to learn about what they believe trying to discuss their religion with them. I can understand that. But I see a lot of misconception about Calvinists too. Hey, if I’m wrong about something, it does me no good to hold to error. But I do excpect those who discuss things to give me the benefit of the doubt that I am open to truth and not to be sarcastic. Peace

 

[sandusky]

StCsDavid:

You’re immediately limited by the finite ability for man to reason, and miss the whole message of Christ coming to save all.

Where is it said that Christ came to save all men?

StCsDavid:

IMHO, Calvinism is what happens when you turn Christianity into an intellecutual exercise

Romans 12:2: And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. That is an imperative. Use your mind.

StCsDavid:

To believe that Christ died to save the elect seems a bit out of sorts. If they are elect, why do they even need a savior other than to have a focal point to base their feelings that they are indeed one of the elect. It also seems to afix a limit on God’s grace by saying He only bestows saving grace on a few, but the rest He casts away.

Romans 8:29-30 (NASB95)
29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. A statement regarding election. Notice the verb tenses.

Ephesians 1:4-6 (NASB95)
4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

That is a statement as to election/predestination. Do you deny election/predestination?

Matthew 1:21 (NASB95)
*21 “She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” *

Which people did Jesus come to save? He came to save His people. Who are His people? Those chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, those the Father foreknew, predestined, called, justified, glorified. Again, notice the verb tenses.

John 6:37-39 (NASB95)
37 “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
39 “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

That passage is further support for election. The Father gives to the Son, His people, chosen in the Son before the foundation of the world, and the Son will not cast out those given Him by the Father. In fact, Jesus here says that He is accountable for the salvation of all those the Father has given Him. Is Jesus able to do that? Is He able to save those the Father has given Him and lose nothing?

StCsDavid:

Saving grace in Calvinism is akin to winning the lottery. It’s all luck of the draw.

That is an unbiblical statement. There is no such thing as luck in God’s economy. One is saved by God’s mercy, and not luck.

StCsDavid:

Through no fault of my own, I could be denied this grace.

The fault is all your own. One is saved on God’s terms only.

StCsDavid:

I asked a Presbyterian friend of mine who is a dyed in the wool Calvinist how parents deal with children who leave the faith after leaving home. He said “we support each other in the reality that not all are part of the elect.” What a defeatist and at the same time elitist point of view.

It is indeed a sad thing to see a family member reject Christ. But God is no less good for saving one, and not saving another.

StCsDavid:

My apologies in advance as there’s probably no way to say this without insulting our Calvinist brethren; however, I find Calvinism to be terribly arrogant and lacking humility.

I do not see where understanding and proclaiming God’s truth is arrogant, and lacking in humility.

Every person who has ever been born will receive from God either mercy, or justice, based upon the Counsel of His will.

 

[sandusky]

Dennisknapp:

This last statement is false.

As a Catholic I rely totally on God’s grace for my salvation. It is God who has chosen to make me His son, and given me the responsibilities of a son, but this can never take away anything from God’ grace.

What this comes down to how grace is given or communicated. As a Catholic, I say grace is given through sacraments. God has chose to communicate to His creation through physical means, ie His Son and His Son present to us in different ways through the sacraments. Sacraments are all about God’s grace. It is through them that we become more like Christ and so move toward our final salvation and santification.

Show me clearly in the Scripture the delivery of grace through sacraments, and I will reconsider my position.

 

[sandusky]

AquinasXVI:

Sandusky:

I have to agree with Dennis. That last statement of yours is simply not true. Please, for your intellectual integrity, refrain from telling us what you think we believe. Rather study what we truly believe and argue from there.

Show me clearly in the Scripture the delivery of grace through sacraments, and I will reconsider my position.

AquinasXVI:

I do have a question for you. How does the “invisible church” coincide with the Acts and Paul’s letters in which the church is completely visible?

If the church is completely visible, then why is Paul admonishing all of them to straighten up, and not to be complacent, and to endure in the faith? Perhaps I don’t understand your question; maybe you could rephrase it.

 

[El_Catolico]

Sandusky:

Show me clearly in the Scripture the delivery of grace through sacraments

The problem is that Protestants generally understand “grace” in a juridical way. This creates a problem. If all your view of “grace” is that it is just an extrinsic declaration that has little bearing upon the ordinary life of man, then you will have difficulty understanding the sacraments.

Catholics believe that God gives his grace to us in many material means. We are, after all, not immaterial beings- we are creatures of body and soul, and matter plays a role in our salvation. After all, this is what the Incarnation is all about- God assuming human flesh. The sacraments are to be understood in the context of the mystery of the Incarnation.

The Catholic understanding of sacraments is interchangeable with the Biblical one. The evidence lies in abundance… Christ healing a blind man by dirt and spittle, the celebration of the Eucharist, which Ignatius called the “medicine of immortality”, the purifying waters of Baptism, the “laying on of hands” in which the sacerdotal ministry was passed on from the apostles, and the power of the anointing of the sick, which James mentions in his letter.

 

[norwester]

I do believe that the sacraments give grace. I believe they give grace to lead a holy life. I do believe God can and does use material means to impart grace-though He is not bound too, and Catholics believe that too (As in baptism by desire) But I don’t believe that the sacraments give ultimate saving grace, that by partaking you are saved from hell.

 

[El_Catolico]

But I don’t believe that the sacraments give ultimate saving grace, that by partaking you are saved from hell.

To Catholics a statement like this doesnt make sense. The entire meaning of salvation is ultimately ‘divinization’, and, like CS Lewis says, the transformation into a different kind of person. Justification is to be understood in many senses, but above all it is a process… a process by which we grow in the righteousness of Christ. Therefore, every grace given is a grace that may be understood to be “salvific”, inasmuch as it enables our growth in a life of holiness.

 

[AquinasXVI]

Sandusky:

I’m not gonna overload this. Here’s a few.

John 6:53 for the Most Holy Eucharist

John 3:5 Baptism

Acts 6: 3 Holy Orders

In the Acts of the Apostles and Paul’s letters, there were churches being established all over the place. These were not invisible people coming together. So how does the “invisible church” article of Calvinism mesh with this physical reality?

Thanks.

in XT

 

[norwester]

Yes, and there we get back to where we started don’t we? Because Protestants see salvation from hell as a one time event, but Catholics don’t. We see grace there after to be towards sanctification. Because in spite of the idea that Protestants see “eternal security” as a free liscense to sin, (as I think some Catholics think we do), we don’t. We don’t want to sin, and seek God for grace to overcome, to walk in His Spirit and to lead a holy life. I know I need His grace every day to do that. We see Justification and sanctification as two seperate things. (But of course not unrelated.)

 

[StCsDavid]

sandusky:

Where is it said that Christ came to save all men?

.

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be** saved**; but he who does not believe will be condemned…unless you believe in Calvinism in which case you better hope you’re part of the elect, too.

Luke 7:50 And he said to the woman, “Your faith has** saved** you; go in peace.”…unless you’re a Calvanist in which case let me check and see if you’re part of the elect.

John 3:17 For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be** saved** through him…unless you’e a Calvanist in which case you need to be among the elect as well.

sandusky:

Romans 12:2: And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. That is an imperative. Use your mind.

.
Oh, I see, I can actually train my brain to think my way into salvation…assuming I’m part of the elect of course. Otherwise I can renew my mind all the lived long day and it won’t make a bit of difference.

sandusky:

Romans 8:29-30 (NASB95)
Ephesians 1:4-6 (NASB95)
That is a statement as to election/predestination. Do you deny election/predestination?

IMHO, you take these passages out of context for the time and audience for whom they were written. Who will discern and ultimatly deem you as one of the elect? Do you do this yourself? Your pastor? Or is it just high hopes on your part? It’s certainly not in your sacraments as they are only symbols of grace you believe to be already present. How do you know?

sandusky:

Matthew 1:21 (NASB95)
Which people did Jesus come to save? He came to save His people. Who are His people? Those chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, those the Father foreknew, predestined, called, justified, glorified. Again, notice the verb tenses.

Who were Christ’s people at the time, indeed? If you take that literal a translation, then only the Essenes (the sect of Jews that Christ came from) were to be saved. We Catholics and you Calvanists you came along later are just out of luck.

sandusky:

John 6:37-39 (NASB95)
37 “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
39 “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

That passage is further support for election. The Father gives to the Son, His people, chosen in the Son before the foundation of the world, and the Son will not cast out those given Him by the Father. In fact, Jesus here says that He is accountable for the salvation of all those the Father has given Him. Is Jesus able to do that? Is He able to save those the Father has given Him and lose nothing?

Verse 37 clearly implies that people will come to Christ and not be cast out…yet in a Calvanist way of thinking…that’s not enough…you have to be part of the elect.

sandusky:

That is an unbiblical statement. There is no such thing as luck in God’s economy. One is saved by God’s mercy, and not luck.

Did I quote scripture here? Clearly that was one my less humble opinions. But in your line of thinking, mercy has very little to do with it. It’s all about being presdestined as one of the elect.

sandusky:

The fault is all your own. One is saved on God’s terms only.

I beg to differ. One is saved by being chosen by God as one of the elect.

sandusky:

It is indeed a sad thing to see a family member reject Christ. But God is no less good for saving one, and not saving another.

Agree with you 100% here. My point was you Calvanists don’t allow for the possibility of redemption. The kid didn’t reject Christ…he was never chosen to be with Christ from the beginning, He wasn’t part of the elect.

sandusky:

I do not see where understanding and proclaiming God’s truth is arrogant, and lacking in humility.

The arrogance lies in presuming God’s judgement. The lack of humility is presuming that you or anyone is part of the elect.

sandusky:

Every person who has ever been born will receive from God either mercy, or justice, based upon the Counsel of His will.

If that is the case…whom did Christ come to save? Those who have predestined as part of the elect, have already been saved.

 

[norwester]

Predestination is not peculiar to Calvinists. All Christian churches have some take on predestination. Frankly, I don’t understand the hostility here. In all the examples you give, predestination would be presupposed to the out working fruit of coming to Christ in the first place. And those who didn’t come didn’t.

How would you explain why some come to faith in Christ and some do not? Either the desicion is entirely in man’s hands-men who have a sinful nature (which Catholics agree) can make a better desicion than God? I am thankful that God chose me. It is not arrogance. It is humility to know that there was nothing in me that would compel him to.

 

[Michael_Paul]

Hi norwester,

norwester: I would like to reply to Mike if I could. I haven’t read every post. I think you are making some assumptions about what I believe Catholics believe. Mike: I re-read my last note to you a couple of times. I can’t find a critique of your assumptions regarding Catholicism.

norwester: I didn’t come to this board with the intention of flaring up Catholics, first of all. I don’t know the Calvinists that you talk to (or “write to”) on the internet, I can only reply for myself.

Mike: While re-reading my note to you I also looked for any evidence that might seem to the reader that I had flared up. I couldn’t find any. But I have the advantage of being me so I know what frame of mind I was in. If you got that impression, I’m sorry. I’m not in the least flared up. I find you to be a very reasonable person. Sometimes in forums such as this, it is not possible to know the emotional state of the person who posts.

norwester: Point one: I don’t know if you are of the elect or not. I think a lot of people make assumptions about what Catholics believe, or they are told things too, and through those assumptions may think you are not of the elect.

Mike: well one of those people knows Catholic doctrine better than many Catholics.

northwester: Actually, I find in discussions with Protestants that I do end up defending Catholics because Protestants in general are so misinformed about the Catholic church.

 Mike: Much appreciated

 Norwester: But I don't know how much error in theology God may tolerate,(In anyone, Catholic or Protestant)

Mike: Although there may be no Catholic who holds no error regarding the faith. But when a Catholic is confronted with the true teaching of the faith and does not adhere to that truth, in important matters, like for example the Hypostatic Union, then that person is a formal heretic. The dogmas of the Church must be believed if not, that kind of error in theology God will not tolerate.

Norwester: Actually, that is my answer to point 2 as well. I am not saying there isn’t objective truth. I believe there is. But I also don’t think one is condemned to hell because of a wrong point in their theology.

Mike: Well, no error that one holds in invincible (cannot possibly know) ignorance will be the cause of someone going to hell. Rom. 2:14-16 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these, having not the law, are a law to themselves. Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them: and their thoughts between themselves accusing or also defending one another, In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

Norwester: Every Calvinist I know does believe he is among the elect. Or at least most of the time. The Calvinists know struggle and pray and desire God and get frustrated with their sinfulness just as any devout Catholic would.

 Mike: That is why I asked how it is that an individual Calvinist knows that he is elect.

norwester: We hold that man does not have TOTAL free will. That man can not respond to God apart from God’s drawing him. Actually, it would seem to me that we agree on this point. The point we would disagree is whether God’s drawing is always effectual.

Mike: Well, hmmm. You are the first Calvinist that I ever ran across who says this. The Calvinists whom I have discussed things with, to a man say that man has free choice, not free will and the see the two as somehow different. It is my opinion that they are playing a semantics game.

God wants everyone to love Him. Really love him not as a robot, programmed for love. He will not force us to love Him. I have a hypothetical situation to pose for you. Suppose that you have control over a woman (in this hypothetical you live in an era where some people have slaves) suppose you found that you love this woman. So you decide to order her to love you. What kind of love would that be? Would you not rather that woman have the freedom to love you or not? If you set her free and she chose you, would that not be the real love that you would want?

Norwester: But I see a lot of misconception about Calvinists too. Hey, if I’m wrong about something, it does me no good to hold to error. But I do excpect those who discuss things to give me the benefit of the doubt that I am open to truth and not to be sarcastic.

Mike: if you thought that you read sarcasm in my note. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to be sarcastic.

This has turned into a debate a bit beyond the scope of my first question. That isn’t really what I wanted so I think that this will be my last post on the subject unless another Calvinist wants to weigh in and answer my first question.

MP

 

[norwester]

Well, if I mirsread your post I apologize. If I didn’t cover everything I meant too in my post, I do sometimes have trouble collecting my thoughts. The topic is so broad it is hard to get to every nuance.

As to your last example that would be really, really gross, because I am a woman.

But as to the rest, I am content to let it lie.

 

[sandusky]

AquinasXVI:

Sandusky:

I’m not gonna overload this. Here’s a few.

John 6:53 for the Most Holy Eucharist

John 3:5 Baptism

Acts 6: 3 Holy Orders

None of these are called sacraments in the N.T., and grace is not mentioned as being dispensed or received in any of those passages. It is difficult to show them as sacraments, because sacrament is a Latin word. In the O.T., the “rituals” were referred to as ordinances. I believe that ordinances is what the Lord’s Supper, and baptism should be called.

AquinasXVI:

In the Acts of the Apostles and Paul’s letters, there were churches being established all over the place. These were not invisible people coming together. So how does the “invisible church” article of Calvinism mesh with this physical reality?

Forgive my dense mind. You are obviously driving at a point here. Perhaps if you stated your point, I would better understand your question.