Don’t lump all Catholics together
Ahh, I understand; I thought there was something else that troubled you; that which troubles you is the reason I asked Manny to define what he meant by “OSAS” earlier in the thread—to head-off that misunderstanding.
Maria, You took that post out of context of the conversation I was having with Sandusky (see post #31 for the part where I clarified which Catholics I was reffering to). Besides wouldn’t you be troubled if you DID find Catholics behaving in a way like your example? I would hope you would!Don’t lump all Catholics together
Whenever I refer to OSAS, I will always assume that a person means it in the “persevere to the end or they were never saved to begin with”.
Just as it is a gross characterization that Catholics believe they cansin like hell every Friday night, go to confession Saturday every week, there are few people who profess OSAS mean an Antinominst view. And I have personally have yet to meet even one.
Maybe you could convince to go to a Baptist church? What has she said anything about this yet?** Antinomianism**
Well, I finally have a “name” to stick on my sister.
She believes this and hasn’t set foot in any church in 25 years - at least!
She and her ex were once practicing Baptists. They gave so much money to Jerry Falwell and Jimmy Swaggart I could have cried.
Now she’s a “nothing” but totally believes she’s “saved” forever…even though she lived unmarried with someone for 12 of those 25 years and various other sins that I know of.
She has a mental block against The Catholic Church so we can’t even discuss religion.
Catholics are not arminian. Arminian is a PROTESTANT belief, not a Catholic one. This is from wikipedia.I find that on these boards, the Catholics referring to OSAS are exclusively referring to the antinomian version; for the most part, that is the only version with which they are concerned, and they will generally try to lump all protestants into antinomianism; IMO, **that is because Catholicism is arminian, **and one does not attack his own position; and, as can be seen in the definition given in my last post, the points of the classic calvinist view of “OSAS” are difficult to attack.
This is the form of OSAS that I was taught in church and normally the type that I am referring to when discussing OSAS.Don’t lump all Catholics together
Whenever I refer to OSAS, I will always assume that a person means it in the “persevere to the end or they were never saved to begin with”.
.
Catholics could be molinist, which is similar to arminianism.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism. Catholics could also be Thomist, which is similar to Calvinism. ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/THOMISM.TXT
Ahh!! Now I have to look things up to discuss this with you and maybe learn something new. Thanks a lot, Lake.
Nowadays, most Catholics probably are more of the Molinist school of thought than the Thomist school of thought. Molinists are closer to Arminians, and Thomists are closer to Calvinists. However, lumping in all Protestants with Antinominsim (a heresy anyway) is unfair and does not accurately represent Calvinism (or Arminianism).I find that on these boards, the Catholics referring to OSAS are exclusively referring to the antinomian version; for the most part, that is the only version with which they are concerned, and they will generally try to lump all protestants into antinomianism; IMO, that is because Catholicism is arminian, and one does not attack his own position; and, as can be seen in the definition given in my last post, the points of the classic calvinist view of “OSAS” are difficult to attack.
When she rails against The Catholic Church, I have said, then why don’t you go to a church you do believe?"
A while back, I read a book about St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae** that I borrowed from my parish library. Unfortunately, I do not remember the title or author. St. Thomas Aquinas’ influence on John Calvin was mentioned in the book.Ahh!! Now I have to look things up to discuss this with you and maybe learn something new. Thanks a lot, Lake.
I’d like to hear that name. I don’t think there’s much likelihood of direct influence–Calvin’s direct knowledge of any of the great scholastic theologians (after Peter Lombard) was pretty slim (a Catholic scholar, Alexandre Ganoczy, has shown that at the beginning of his theological career in 1536 Calvin’s knowledge of scholasticism seems to be limited to Gratian and Lombard), and given where he studied, if he did know one, it would be more likely to have been Scotus.
Yes, Bucer was mentioned in the book I read.
Luther would definitely be an influence too, as he was an Augustinian.
I agree with you here.
My apologies Syele. For some reason, I thought I quoted Sandusky (post #29, the one that your post was a response to). I then was unable to view my post. I hope I would have caught the mistake.
oh it all makes sense now. I did think it was an odd response from you.I was raised on this doctrine. I believed it as 100% truth until last April, when I began studying Catholicism. All Baptists I know and have ever met teach this doctrine. My entire families faith is partially based on it.
