Can ayone find OSAS before the Reformation?

[ckempston]

Grown ups? A clear sign the type of person I am dealing with.Refuted? I do not think so! You have not provided a single shred of evidence! Yes God used the Jews and then God used His Son a Jew who founded His Church,which includes EVERYONE,it is not a JEW only church! Go learn some history!

You made the claim that because God used the Roman Catholic church to solely preserve the scriptures, it must be the only true church. This is false, even if I give you, for the sake of argument, that the RCC did solely preserve the scriptures.

Yes the RCC is THE church,which canonized the OT/NT. If the RCC is NOT the church,then provide the name of the other church? Ambiguity? The term Roman is a RITE and within the CC there exists EASTERN RITES also known as eastern churches in communion with the pope. Go do some homework and leave this topic for people who know basic church history.

Easy: Jesus Christ’s Church - the members being all baptized believers on earth.

The “Roman” Catholic Church is commonly used to refer to those in communion with the Bishop of Rome. I’m afraid I also used the term “Eastern Churches” correctly, even if I could have been less vague by saying “Eastern Orthodox”.

newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm

It appears I’m not the one who needs to learn his history.

 

[ckempston]

And here I thought that the first invokation of “no true Scotsman” on my OSAS thread would be from this side of the Tiber (specifically from me, it’s one of my favorite counterarguments)! I love it! I am a bit intrigued regarding how you will do so in response to one asserting that the existence of people dissenting from long-established Catholic belief from within Catholicism does not somehow create an internal faction any more than another flavor of sin. Perhaps you will be so kind as to enlighten me. An argument regarding logic may prove entertaining.

I might as well give up on anyone presenting affirmative evidence for the historical existence of OSAS, anyway, given the turnout. My prior assumption stands! No cars for you!

So, because nobody has disproved your assumption, that is proof of its validity? Interesting logic you continue to follow here.

Your question and the assumptions that go with it rest upon fallacies. Another of them is special pleading. You are requiring that reformed theologies have explicit support in the ancient church, when there are Catholic doctrines don’t even enjoy this status. You think you’ve won some big argument here and proven the evil Protestants wrong once again! All you’ve done, and some of the Catholics that have responded in support, is provide a fine demonstration of illogic.

The “factions” within the Catholic church are usually sanctioned and they commonly come in the guise of rites or the relative autonomy of a local Bishop that runs his diocese like a personal piggy bank for political activism, and are usually shielded by political double-speak - such as when Notre Dame didn’t technically “honor” Barack Obama. The distinction between a “real” Catholic and Nancy Pelosi is no different than the distinction between a Catholic and a Protestant. Your unity is a joke.

If the Catholic church were “the” church, it would have cleaned house long ago. Paul commands us to not even associate with those who call themselves believers and disobey his teachings. He also tells us to expel the immoral from among us and hand those over to Satan who refuse to repent. The Catholic church seems satisfied to just leave them in the pews. Perhaps if the RCC actually cleaned house, it would have some credibility. As it stands, claiming succession from Peter as your distinguishing hallmark is rather meaningless.

 

[Nicea325]

You made the claim that because God used the Roman Catholic church to solely preserve the scriptures, it must be the only true church. This is false, even if I give you, for the sake of argument, that the RCC did solely preserve the scriptures.

Easy: Jesus Christ’s Church - the members being all baptized believers on earth.

The “Roman” Catholic Church is commonly used to refer to those in communion with the Bishop of Rome. I’m afraid I also used the term “Eastern Churches” correctly, even if I could have been less vague by saying “Eastern Orthodox”.

newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm

It appears I’m not the one who needs to learn his history.

It is false that God used the RCC? It is false,yet you have not provided a single shred of evidence of another church taking on the complex process?

Easy: Jesus Christ’s Church - the members being all baptized believers on earth.

How is this related to the canon of scripture or their preservations?

And I also used the term Eastern Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome correct as well. And?

 

[ckempston]

It is false that God used the RCC? It is false,yet you have not provided a single shred of evidence of another church taking on the complex process?

Clearly, you misread what I wrote. Please try again.

How is this related to the canon of scripture or their preservations?

It was in answer to a question. Maybe you should ask the questioner what his point was.

And I also used the term Eastern Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome correct as well. And?

No, you originally said the RCC. I responded that there were others that helped to preserve the Scriptures, and specifically mentioned the Eastern Churches. Any reasonable person, based on the context, would realize I was speaking of those churches not in communion with Rome. You’re clearly not being reasonable.

 

[Nicea325]

Clearly, you misread what I wrote. Please try again.

It was in answer to a question. Maybe you should ask the questioner what his point was.

No, you originally said the RCC. I responded that there were others that helped to preserve the Scriptures, and specifically mentioned the Eastern Churches. Any reasonable person, based on the context, would realize I was speaking of those churches not in communion with Rome. You’re clearly not being reasonable.

Exactly! It was the Church at Rome which took on the task.Either way,you still have not provided a single shred of evidence another church who took on the difficult task of formulating the canon.

 

[Pat_De]

The only precedents one can find for this are in Catharism and other heretical groups. The orthodox Augustinian tradition held that one could receive regenerating grace without receiving the gift of perseverance. Luther believed the same thing. The first references to the perseverance of all the regenerate that I’ve been able to find are in the writings of Zwingli and Oecolampadius in the early 1520s. Since they state the idea as if it were well established and not something they had just thought up, the case remains rather puzzling. But I think it simply followed logically from Zwingli’s prioritizing of election over faith. (Zwingli believed that the elect would be saved even if they never heard the Gospel, and hence never had faith. The elect would inevitably both do good works *and *believe the Gospel when they heard it, but election was the spring that drove the whole process.)

Bucer (in his writings of the 1530s–earlier he was closer to Zwingli) and Calvin moved Reformed theology closer to Wittenberg (I know less about Bullinger). Calvin in particular managed to synthesize the Reformed theology of election and perseverance with the Lutheran theology of sola fide, creating what we now think of as Reformed/Calvinist theology. But originally it seems to me that perseverance was distinct from sola fide and almost in conflict with it.

Another interesting figure is Martin Borrhaus, or Cellarius–one of those wandering theologians common in the early 16th century who had trouble fitting in with anyone (though he eventually settled down as a respectable OT scholar at Basel). He was kicked out of his native Silesia by the Catholics; he went to Wittenberg and quarreled with Luther and Melancthon; he went to Zurich and quarreled with Zwingli; he went to Strasbourg and got along with Capito for a while, but eventually Bucer got fed up with him and he was kicked out of there too. While in Strasbourg he wrote a book called De operibus Dei (On the Works of God), published in 1527. Shortly after his point, Bucer turned on Cellarius. But Bucer’s 1527 commentary on the Gospels has a number of interesting points of agreement with Cellarius. Cellarius believes that the elect have “sparks” of grace within them from birth, which causes them to live relatively righteous lives even before they are regenerated. Bucer uses that language in 1527 as well, but it’s not at all in keeping with the Augustinian tradition or with Luther’s teaching. You find a weaker version of it in Calvin’s Institutes.

I mention Cellarius because his teaching does sound almost Gnostic or Manichean/Cathar. This is a part of the background of the doctrine of perseverance which the Reformed either deny or play down. Jurgen Moltmann’s history of the doctrine of perseverance, for instance, basically starts with Calvin, mentioning briefly and dismissively that Bucer’s doctrine of perseverance was “spiritualist” and had ties to Cellarius.

If you are interested, I can send you the rough draft of a paper I wrote on Cellarius and the origins of the doctrine of perseverance. It needs a lot of work–I prepared it for oral presentation and have never revised it for written publication.

Edwin

So the answer is “yes”, but by others definitions they have been labeled heretics, which would also include Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, Mark, King David, Isaiah et al.

He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, - by Paul the heretic

having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, - by Paul and God the heretics

'The surviving remnant of the house of Judah will again take root downward and bear fruit upward. - God the heretic

Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "THOUGH THE NUMBER OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL BE LIKE THE SAND OF THE SEA, IT IS THE REMNANT THAT WILL BE SAVED; - Paul, Isaiah and God as heretics

We can go on and on with a list of the heretics who taught sovereign election or perseverance of the saints as an providence of God. Likewise we can show human culpability as well since both are taught in Scripture. So one either accepts the whole counsel of God or like, yourself, you pick and chose what fits your own agendas.

If you want the truth of what Scripture actually teaches, then do a Google search with the title “Sovereignty and Freedom sermon” and chose the second result and watch, listen or read the transcript for free and you will see the Bible exposition concerning the subject from God own word in 54 minutes unless you have your Bible out and use the pause button to see if theses things are correct. Don’t if you are stubborn and don’t really care to know the truth as taught in His word.

 

[Contarini]

So the answer is “yes”, but by others definitions they have been labeled heretics, which would also include Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, Mark, King David, Isaiah et al.

The Mormons would be the more relevant parallel. I do not know of any group that taught any such doctrine before the Reformation in the absence of a dualistic doctrine that denied that God created the world and inspired the Old Testament.

You are welcome to point to such a text if you know of one. Claiming that the Inquisitors lied about the Cathars is not good enough unless you have positive evidence for a different interpretation of their theology.

We can go on and on with a list of the heretics who taught sovereign election or perseverance of the saints as an providence of God.

None of the Biblical texts you cite talk about the “perseverance of the saints.”

You are confusing election with perseverance. They go together in Calvinism, but that’s the novelty. The view of election held before the Reformation did not imply that all the regenerate were elect and would persevere.

Edwin

 

[Pat_De]

The Mormons would be the more relevant parallel. I do not know of any group that taught any such doctrine before the Reformation in the absence of a dualistic doctrine that denied that God created the world and inspired the Old Testament.

You are welcome to point to such a text if you know of one. Claiming that the Inquisitors lied about the Cathars is not good enough unless you have positive evidence for a different interpretation of their theology.

None of the Biblical texts you cite talk about the “perseverance of the saints.”

You are confusing election with perseverance.

They go together in Calvinism, but that’s the novelty. The view of election held before the Reformation did not imply that all the regenerate were elect and would persevere.

Edwin

That statement bolded above is flat-out wrong and close to “not being honest”. The statement itself is self defeating.

The two go together like hand and glove; perseverance is a subset of election. If election is established, then so is perseverance…duhhh

But to help you grasp Scripture again I say to you to do the Google search “Sovereignty and freedom sermon” and select the second result, get out you Bible and watch and learn something eye-awakening. Don’t you have a spare hour to learn the word of God?

 

[Contarini]

That statement bolded above is flat-out wrong and close to “not being honest”.

Funny, then, that Western Christians didn’t figure this out for a thousand years, or that the two greatest minds the Western Church ever produced (Augustine and Aquinas) had no idea of this obvious truth.

But much more to the point: don’t just say it, prove it.

The two go together like hand and glove; perseverance is a subset of election. If election is established, then so is perseverance…duhhh

No. You have been taught the two together so you think one implies the other.

How about you provide an actual argument showing that this is so?

But to help you grasp Scripture again I say to you to do the Google search “Sovereignty and freedom sermon” and select the second result, get out you Bible and watch and learn something eye-awakening. Don’t you have a spare hour to learn the word of God?

I have spent many hours of my life listening to Calvinists. Indeed, my professional field of specialization is early Reformed theology. (Also, I attended a Reformed Baptist church quite frequently for a while.) That doesn’t make me right, of course. But I have put a lot of time into this issue, and the result is that I’ve concluded that Calvinism is wrong. It’s a crude caricature of the Augustinian tradition, which is itself probably a distortion of orthodox Christianity to some extent.

Edwin

 

[Pat_De]

Funny, then, that Western Christians didn’t figure this out for a thousand years, or that the two greatest minds the Western Church ever produced (Augustine and Aquinas) had no idea of this obvious truth.

But much more to the point: don’t just say it, prove it.

Think of it this way; who are the regenerate? Will Christians be in hell? That is why you statement is self-defeating.

No. You have been taught the two together so you think one implies the other.

How about you provide an actual argument showing that this is so?

I gave you an easy suggestion and you are not willing to put an hour or so with your Bible to see the truth; you are not interested in the truth.

I have spent many hours of my life listening to Calvinists. Indeed, my professional field of specialization is early Reformed theology. (Also, I attended a Reformed Baptist church quite frequently for a while.) That doesn’t make me right, of course. But I have put a lot of time into this issue, and the result is that I’ve concluded that Calvinism is wrong. It’s a crude caricature of the Augustinian tradition, which is itself probably a distortion of orthodox Christianity to some extent.

Edwin

That explains everything; you have known or been a partaker of the truth. Enjoy life!!

 

[Contarini]

Think of it this way; who are the regenerate?

Those who have been baptized by the work of the Holy Spirit (of which water is ordinarily the effectual sign), and who did not place obstacles in the way of the grace of the sacrament or reject that grace by subsequently choosing to fall away.

Will Christians be in hell?

There is every reason to fear that people who have at one time received regenerating grace will be in hell, yes.

That is why you statement is self-defeating.

No, it just contradicts your theological beliefs.

I gave you an easy suggestion and you are not willing to put an hour or so with your Bible to see the truth; you are not interested in the truth.

I’m not interested in listening to one more Calvinist preacher. That does not mean that I’m not interested in the truth!

That explains everything; you have known or been a partaker of the truth. Enjoy life!!

I see. Now you have an excuse to avoid answering me. Well, you are welcome to use that excuse. It is very convenient to have a theology that says, “If someone understands our theology and doesn’t agree with it, that person’s heart is hardened and they are not worth arguing with.” That way you can concentrate your efforts on the people who haven’t studied your traditions thoroughly enough to see their flaws!

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[elvisman]

Um, no. I did not say “forget about all” (your implication is apparently that I’m saying forget about context or history). Nor did I say “just stick with Scriptures.” I said, just stick to what Scripture says. You see the difference? You immediately smack the label of “sola scripturist” on my comment, whereas my statement actually leaves room for including the socio-linguistic-historical context of the Scriptures. Sola Scriptura as most believe in it is untenable.

I always find this response from Catholics duplicitous, however, because they are always quick to say that all their doctrines are supported by Scriptures. Once again, odd.

This is a self-refuting challenge - for you, that is. Sola Scriptura is unteneble, period.

You say “just stick to what Scripture says” - which is exactly what the Catholic Church has dome over the centuries. Can you point me to the verse that says the Church must be "Bible-based" and not the other way around? Can you point me to the verse that says that they have Authority over the Church?

MY Bible says that Scripture and Tradition are on par with each other (2 Thess. 2:15).
It doesn’t say that Scripture usurps Church authority.

MY Bible says that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).
It doesn’t say that about Scripture.

MY Bible says that there were MANY things that Jesus did that were but if these were NOT written down. It goes on to say that if they WERE written down, “the whole world would contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25).
It doesn’t say that it contains all of God’s truth.

So - what is your problem with the Church with regards to the Scriptures?

 

[Nicea325]

This is a self-refuting challenge - for you, that is. Sola Scriptura is unteneble, period.

You say “just stick to what Scripture says” - which is exactly what the Catholic Church has dome over the centuries. Can you point me to the verse that says the Church must be "Bible-based" and not the other way around? Can you point me to the verse that says that they have Authority over the Church?

MY Bible says that Scripture and Tradition are on par with each other (2 Thess. 2:15).
It doesn’t say that Scripture usurps Church authority.

MY Bible says that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).
It doesn’t say that about Scripture.

MY Bible says that there were MANY things that Jesus did that were but if these were NOT written down. It goes on to say that if they WERE written down, “the whole world would contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25).
It doesn’t say that it contains all of God’s truth.

So - what is your problem with the Church with regards to the Scriptures?

Problem with many elvisman is that they suffer from what I call the Burger King syndrome:

You can have it your way.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I gave you an easy suggestion and you are not willing to put an hour or so with your Bible to see the truth; you are not interested in the truth.

That explains everything; you have known or been a partaker of the truth. Enjoy life!!

Curious…

John Wesley amongst others disagrees with you.

Do you believe that John Wesley was not willing to put an hour or so with his Bible? Yes or no.

Do you believe that John Wesley was not interested in the truth? Yes or no.

By these statements you are dismissing the possibility (yeah I know to you it is remote) that there just might be people who love the Lord Jesus Christ just as much (if not more) than you do; who have studied the Scripture just as much (if not more) than you do, and who have studied this issue just as much (if not more) than you do…and…guess what…disagree with you.

Oh…I do not agree with you either. I agree more with John Wesley. That must mean that I too am not interested in the truth.

Oh are you aware that forum rules prohibit these types of insults? Just saying…

Anyway, I am not sure the topic of this thread is whether OSAS is Scriptural. I think it is whether there is any evidence of OSAS, 5 point calvinism, or whatever you want to call it, an any other writings of the early church up to the reformation. Good question…I am curious on this point too.

 

[SpectatorX]

So, because nobody has disproved your assumption, that is proof of its validity? Interesting logic you continue to follow here.

It merely means it has yet to be disproven, so I’ll keep saying it. Be sure to disprove it when you get the chance, and I’ll be happy to retract it.

Your question and the assumptions that go with it rest upon fallacies. Another of them is special pleading. You are requiring that reformed theologies have explicit support in the ancient church, when there are Catholic doctrines don’t even enjoy this status. You think you’ve won some big argument here and proven the evil Protestants wrong once again! All you’ve done, and some of the Catholics that have responded in support, is provide a fine demonstration of illogic.

Au contraire! I find that the use of Catholic doctrines without early witness in these arguments as being an equal disproof to Protestant (or “reformed” if you prefer) formulations which actively reject said early witness is the true illogic. While such things as the Assumption (an avenue most Catholics dare not tread, but hold your salivation 'til the end) have no explicit early attribution, the dogma itself does not contradict any preexisting tenet. Large swaths of Protestant thought, varied though it may be, are ideas which completely reject the early witness. Find me an assertion of Sola Scriptura or a rejection of unwritten Sacred Tradition by someone other than an Arian, and I’ll find you a pig with wings (or, at least, a quotation divorced from its context - I’ve already played that game on my other thread),

The “factions” within the Catholic church are usually sanctioned and they commonly come in the guise of rites or the relative autonomy of a local Bishop that runs his diocese like a personal piggy bank for political activism, and are usually shielded by political double-speak - such as when Notre Dame didn’t technically “honor” Barack Obama. The distinction between a “real” Catholic and Nancy Pelosi is no different than the distinction between a Catholic and a Protestant. Your unity is a joke.

… And your argument is the punchline…

The difference we see here is one of degree. Pelosi and Fr. Jenkins both reject(ed) the Deposit of Faith in their actions and have been confronted by the hierarchy. Protestants are ideological descendants of the “Reformation” who do not in any way claim allegiance to the Catholic Church. Until such time as Pelosi or Jenkins are ousted for their dissent, they are at least Catholic by creed. If they decided to no longer be Catholic, then they wouldn’t be Catholic. Sometimes the line between dissident and sinner is broad, and I think the tendency to allow some dissidents to claim Catholicism (if not eternal salvation; let’s not forget that even *Catholics *don’t think every professed Catholic will enter heaven - hence this very thread!) in order to avoid casting out the merely deceived is admirable.

If the Catholic church were “the” church, it would have cleaned house long ago. Paul commands us to not even associate with those who call themselves believers and disobey his teachings. He also tells us to expel the immoral from among us and hand those over to Satan who refuse to repent. The Catholic church seems satisfied to just leave them in the pews. Perhaps if the RCC actually cleaned house, it would have some credibility. As it stands, claiming succession from Peter as your distinguishing hallmark is rather meaningless.

Ah, the arbitrary distinction part of the argument. In this case, “too much mercy, not enough justice.” Should every sinner be booted, or just the ones who ignore a single warning? Should they get two warnings? Eighteen? Is it that Catholicism doesn’t suit your tastes, or that your tastes don’t suit Catholicism? Somehow, I think if the Church were more harsh with its excommunication practices, you would be arguing the opposite. I’m not Protestant because I think their chins are too long, for my part.

 

[SpectatorX]

So the answer is “yes”, but by others definitions they have been labeled heretics, which would also include Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, Mark, King David, Isaiah et al.

He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, - by Paul the heretic

having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, - by Paul and God the heretics

'The surviving remnant of the house of Judah will again take root downward and bear fruit upward. - God the heretic

Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "THOUGH THE NUMBER OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL BE LIKE THE SAND OF THE SEA, IT IS THE REMNANT THAT WILL BE SAVED; - Paul, Isaiah and God as heretics

We can go on and on with a list of the heretics who taught sovereign election or perseverance of the saints as an providence of God. Likewise we can show human culpability as well since both are taught in Scripture. So one either accepts the whole counsel of God or like, yourself, you pick and chose what fits your own agendas.

If you want the truth of what Scripture actually teaches, then do a Google search with the title “Sovereignty and Freedom sermon” and chose the second result and watch, listen or read the transcript for free and you will see the Bible exposition concerning the subject from God own word in 54 minutes unless you have your Bible out and use the pause button to see if theses things are correct. Don’t if you are stubborn and don’t really care to know the truth as taught in His word.

Yes!! A Calvinist! I love these guys!

You seem to be asserting that (1.) election precludes the possibility of free will, or at least (2.) that election is indicated by one’s initially considering himself elect.

1.) What you fail to recognize is that Catholicism rejects any soteriological construct which disposes of free will or predestination. That is why both Pelagianism and Calvinism are considered heresy.

2.) Alternatively, there are those who will taste the heavenly gift and fall away. You’ve probably met several. They were “elect” by your reasoning and even theirs, then they weren’t. The reason Calvinism fails so spectacularly in practice is because it claims that the mind of God regarding those He has predestined is something absolutely knowable to us on earth. We, as Catholics, claim that there are those foreknown by God from before there was time to persevere in the grace He has bestowed, but that such is known with absolute certainty by God alone. What we get is called “assurance.”

So, depending on which argument against which caricature of Catholic soteriology you were making, I have prepared a rebuttal. Pick your poison. The Spectator is watching.