How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?

[MarysLurker]

[continued from above]

So you see that I’m serious about the horrible fate of Protestant children in today’s world. I’m posting because I can’t bear to see that happen to anyone else. Protestantism could survive just fine when the culture was Judeo-Christian, and no one had a reason to ask hard questions about the existence or goodness of God, or free will, or the big gap between Biblical times and (insert Protestant church here). Today, however, you can see that Protestantism won’t exist within a few generations, because it can’t protect the next generation from evil. This has been proven by secular journalists and academics: the Episcopalians have about 20 years to extinction and everyone else isn’t far behind. The kids are leaving and they aren’t coming back; they’re trading Christianity and marriage for contraception and cohabitation, or their own kids are. Demographics is destiny. Where will the children come from? The Catholic Church stands alone for Holy Matrimony.

In the 1980s, there was an (approved) apparition of Jesus Christ to Gladys Quiroga in Argentina. The Lord told her that Mary was Noah’s Ark for today, the sure refuge against the modern flood of evil and lies. If you can’t consider the Roman Catholic Church, please look at the Anglican Ordinariate (made just for English-heritage Protestants) or the Eastern Catholic Churches who have direct historical ties to the Holy Land. If you just can’t be Catholic, then at least consider the Orthodox Churches. But please, get on the Ark before it’s too late.

Thanks for reading/listening. Whether you agree with the above or not, pray. Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you. And search the Scriptures as we did—without bias or prejudice, just an open heart. God bless.

Ave Maria

 

[JonNC]

Explain the gap by resorting to Calvinist double predestination (which says there is no free will so God created everyone during the gap for the express purpose of going straight to hell), which raises an intractable problem of evil by making God the author of sin and thus the direct cause of the world’s evil.

Why would anyone who isn’t a Calvinist resort to Calvinism?

 

[MarysLurker]

Because (1) it’s the only systematic “theology” that Protestantism has, or (2) selfishness (we are the elect, you are the reprobate, we are better than you, etc.). I hope it’s mostly (1), but as I’ve shown, it’s a poison pill leading straight to atheism.

 

[JonNC]

Because (1) it’s the only systematic “theology” that Protestantism has, or (2) selfishness (we are the elect, you are the reprobate, we are better than you, etc.). I hope it’s mostly (1), but as I’ve shown, it’s a poison pill leading straight to atheism.

Except I categorically reject all but the T in the TULIP.
This is another reason why using the term Protestant to describe doctrine and practice is folly.
Calvinism isn’t Protestantism. It’s Calvinism.

 

[TULIPed]

When in doubt, pick on the Calvinists.

Bullies. All of you.

You know it’s bad when only Steve will take pity on you

 

[MarysLurker]

But the T (total depravity) denies free will, leading invariably to the rest of TULIP = Calvinism. Total depravity isn’t the same as saying that prevenient grace is the cause of salvation; it says we are totally unable to choose Christ by our own will. Total depravity was rejected by Canon V of the Council of Trent. See also Tim Staples’ refutation of it here on Catholic Answers (I can’t link so just search for it on the homepage)

 

[MarysLurker]

Not picking on you at all. Remember I WAS you. I know it’s super tempting to go with monergism because it SEEMS to give God the glory. But it does the opposite.

 

[TULIPed]

I was kidding. All good. I’m glad you’re in a good place with your faith and your relationship with our King.

I’m one of the few cradle reformed Christians who managed to escape atheism

I’m like a Protestant unicorn I guess.

 

[MarysLurker]

I was kidding. All good. I’m glad you’re in a good place with your faith and your relationship with our King.

I’m one of the few cradle reformed Christians who managed to escape atheism

I’m like a Protestant unicorn I guess.

Same to you! God bless.

 

[JonNC]

But the T (total depravity) denies free will, leading invariably to the rest of TULIP = Calvinism.

No. It doesn’t. It denies Pelagianism. It stayed we are completely incapable of seeking out God without grace.
Saying we are able to choose grace of our own will is Pelagianism.

 

[JonNC]

When in doubt, pick on the Calvinists.

Bullies. All of you.

You know it’s bad when only Steve will take pity on you

We all love you.

 

[MarysLurker]

Saying we are able to choose grace of our own will is Pelagianism.

If we can’t choose grace with our own will then there is no will to speak of. That’s Calvinism, specifically the I (irresistible grace) in TULIP.

Pelagianism denies original sin and says you can earn saving grace with works. Everyone rejects that. For example, Protestant Arminians reject it and they certainly don’t hold to total depravity (T), at least as Calvin defines it. Of course (most) Calvinists say everyone who doesn’t hold to T is a Pelagian (especially Catholics and Arminians) but that’s not true. But they’re so vocal about calling everyone else a Pelagian that people start to believe it, I guess…

The article by Tim Staples explains it better than I can.

 

[JonNC]

If we can’t choose grace with our own will then there is no will to speak of. That’s Calvinism, specifically the I (irresistible grace) in TULIP.

Pelagianism denies original sin and says you can earn saving grace with works. Everyone rejects that.

Pelagianism , also called Pelagian heresy , is the Christian theological position that the original sin did not taint human nature and mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special divine aid or assistance.

Total depravity is a teaching against it. It is not a teaching against the free will to reject grace once received. That’s irresistible grace, which is a Calvinist teaching.

 

[MarysLurker]

Total depravity is a teaching against it. It is not a teaching against the free will to reject grace once received. That’s irresistible grace, which is a Calvinist teaching.

Right, but we can also reject the prevenient grace that is the cause of initial justification. Case in point: When I got to the point that my conscience was demanding that I become Catholic and I enrolled in RCIA, my pastor researched my Assemblies of God baptism and found out that it was nontrinitarian (The AG is a Trinitarian denomination but does not necessarily use the correct formula in their baptisms). So I had never been validly baptized! At that point, I could have thrown a fit and left, just as I could have chickened out at the Easter Vigil Mass when the pastor asked if it was my desire to be baptized. I chose to stand my ground and be baptized.

I think, respectfully, you might have the “I” in TULIP (irresistible grace) mixed up with with “P” (preserverance of the saints). With the “I,” Calvinists say you are a robot who will be saved unless you happen to be one of the reprobate, in which case you are a robot who will not be saved; and in either case, you have no say in the matter of whether you’re going to heaven or hell. The ability to reject grace once received, i.e. lose your salvation, is what Calvinists deny with P. Arminians, Catholics and Orthodox all believe that you can reject grace once received, i.e., mortal sin, which is a serious sin committed deliberately and with full knowledge of its sinfulness (Hebrews 10:26-29).

In my big apologia above I should have said something about scrupulosity, which is the irrational fear that you have offended God or lost your salvation by “accidentally” sinning. This was a challenge for me once I became Catholic because I’ve always been a nervous person. As the Bible and Catechism (and the Methodists who are Arminian) say, you can’t accidentally sin. Sin by definition is a turning of the will against God. You have to freely and deliberately choose to summit a sin, and if you love Christ, why would you ever do that to Him?

 

[Wannano]

JonNC:

Total depravity is a teaching against it. It is not a teaching against the free will to reject grace once received. That’s irresistible grace, which is a Calvinist teaching.

Right, but we can also reject the prevenient grace that is the cause of initial justification. Case in point: When I got to the point that my conscience was demanding that I become Catholic and I enrolled in RCIA, my pastor researched my Assemblies of God baptism and found out that it was nontrinitarian (The AG is a Trinitarian denomination but does not necessarily use the correct formula in their baptisms). So I had never been validly baptized! At that point, I could have thrown a fit and left, just as I could have chickened out at the Easter Vigil Mass when the pastor asked if it was my desire to be baptized. I chose to stand my ground and be baptized.

I think, respectfully, you might have the “I” in TULIP (irresistible grace) mixed up with with “P” (preserverance of the saints). With the “I,” Calvinists say you are a robot who will be saved unless you happen to be one of the reprobate, in which case you are a robot who will not be saved; and in either case, you have no say in the matter of whether you’re going to heaven or hell. The ability to reject grace once received, i.e. lose your salvation, is what Calvinists deny with P. Arminians, Catholics and Orthodox all believe that you can reject grace once received, i.e., mortal sin, which is a serious sin committed deliberately and with full knowledge of its sinfulness (Hebrews 10:26-29).

In my big apologia above I should have said something about scrupulosity, which is the irrational fear that you have offended God or lost your salvation by “accidentally” sinning. This was a challenge for me once I became Catholic because I’ve always been a nervous person. As the Bible and Catechism (and the Methodists who are Arminian) say, you can’t accidentally sin. Sin by definition is a turning of the will against God. You have to freely and deliberately choose to summit a sin, and if you love Christ, why would you ever do that to Him?

It would be helpful for me if you could show where the Bible confirms the ideas of your last three sentences.

Edit: is accidently the same as involuntary?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Did the CCC say all is forgiven as a result? Nope
Did it say THEY who left are ok? Nope

Those who left didn’t ask them to. I don’t need to ask anyone to.

That’s true. But those outside the Church are NOT the Church.

And you and I should pray for those outside the Church we are members of

I continuously pray for THOSE outside.

Since I’m in the Catholic Church don’t include me in we.

 

[MarysLurker]

It would be helpful for me if you could show where the Bible confirms the ideas of your last three sentences.

Sure thing…
Hebrews 10:26-29 (NABRE)

If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries. Anyone who rejects the law of Moses is put to death without pity on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Do you not think that a much worse punishment is due the one who has contempt for the Son of God, considers unclean the covenant-blood by which he was consecrated, and insults the spirit of grace?

1 John 5:16-17 (NABRE)
If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray.
All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.

Edit: is accidently the same as involuntary?

Yes, they both mean without will (voluntary = Latin voluntas = will)

 

[hope]

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God… and to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

It would be helpful for me if you could show where the Bible confirms the ideas of your last three sentences.

Sure thing…
Hebrews 10:26-29 (NABRE)

If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries. Anyone who rejects the law of Moses is put to death without pity on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Do you not think that a much worse punishment is due the one who has contempt for the Son of God, considers unclean the covenant-blood by which he was consecrated, and insults the spirit of grace?

1 John 5:16-17 (NABRE)
If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray.
All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.

Edit: is accidently the same as involuntary?

Yes, they both mean without will (voluntary = Latin voluntas = will)

So to be explicit, are you stating that the Bible and the CC state there is no such thing as involuntary sins?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

would refuse to enter, that is NOT speaking of Catholics. Those are NON Catholics
or to remain in it THAT is speaking of Catholics

So at first, for the whole paragraph, it’s to Catholics (because it says - well - “this is to Catholics”). Then, for one part of a sentence (in the same paragraph), it’s focused on non-Catholics, then it’s all about Catholics again for the rest of the paragraph? Which entirely negates the first part of the document which says:

“For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.”

Baptism as you can see is a big subject. It is the sacrament that brings one into the Catholic Church. It was never meant to be redefined by those who don’t follow the original plan.

Re: “WHOSOEVER” in Lumen Gentium

That describes those who are in, AND those who are NOT in, the Catholic Church. As you can also see, paragraph 14 goes on to explain those who are “in” the Church. It is a physical reality AND a supernatural reality. Not either or but both

TULIPed:

And the best part is the whole document is about ecumenism - and yet we tell everyone to shove off if you’re not part of us.

I’d just say

Ecumenism doesn’t mean accept everyone for where they are no matter what. That’s not ecumenism, that’s indifferentism.

TULIPed:

For example:

“For men who believe in Christ, and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church, even though this communion is imperfect,

Ecumenical speak

TULIPed:

and by imperfect we mean non-existent.”

now now,

How about this?

imperfect = contrary to the plan,

as in

God gave us free will. It is what makes us culpable for what we do in life. We are required to make choices…and they end up being good or bad choices. AND choices we make have consequences…God judges us by our actions

Jesus established His Church on Peter and those in complete union with Peter. Jesus wants everyone in His Church. Scrpture not me says people in schism, heresy etc from His Church are not going to heaven. Who am I to argue against that?

those in an imperfect condition, then the Christian thing to do is pray for them, AND when /if the opportunity presents itself, provide the necessary information for that person, to make the right choice. But it’s always a choice freely made.