'Invincible ignorance' inquires

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truth_Seeker17
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This entire post is almost all entirely a strawman and does not even come close to addressing my points. Is this “boilerplate” that you got off a calvinist web site? I did not mention a single thing about God using a random criteria for electing some to salvation. That’s your fabrication - sorry wrong rebuttal. Try cutting and pasting the right apologist canned response that addresses my points - God does NOT predestine anyone to hell.
Well, admitedly, it is a pasted post. 😃 Nevertheless, you did mention free will didn’t you? So I guess it is still relevant to the discussion.
As for freewill Calvinist might claim they don’t deny free will but they render it inoperative by claiming that God does not grant those destined to hell any grace. What good is freewill if one can not choose the greatest thing in all of Creation - God?
This is what we call a mystery (Deut. 29:29).
You are correct in asserting that Calvinists beleive in total depravity. But you can’t come up with a rational explanation how totally depraved men could invent a new theology that was perfectly correct? How do any of know that Calvinists are not doomed to suffer their own defective theology that comes out of the defective minds of those destined for hell? 😃
Being depraved does not mean that we are unable to think. Our reason is still operative, however, we are not infallible or perfect.
BTW next time you quote St. Paul ( Romans 3:10) as an example of how all men are defective take note of the fact that St. Paul does not exempt himself from that condition. How do you even know St. Paul was telling the truth when he called all men liars but didn’t exempt himself from being a liar? 😉 [answer: because the Catholic Church told Calvin that the scripture he used was inspired and inerrant]
God gave the biblical authors the grace that they needed to infallibly write down Scripture. The canon is closed. No person can add to what has already been written.
A simply childish and incomplete reading of scripture that is propagated as truth but becomes a lie in the repetition. Again, how is it that totally depraved men can interpret the scripture in one way in the first century then in an entirely different way in the 16th century? Is it because truth changed or because the reformers (i.e. Calvin) were as defective as they admitted they were? 😉
That is why nobody is forcing you to believe Calvinism. We have pastors who are Arminians and we see no problem in that. The problem arises when one person declares himself to be infallible.
The unbeliever is a slave to sin. But God is not held hostage to sinners and is free to give His grace to all men since He desires that all men be saved (ref. 1 Tim 2:4). Actual grace makes it possible for unbelievers to hear the truth and respond to it. After that they can accept it or reject it. All men are given an opportunity to choose God or to reject God by the fact that God gives them life.
Agreed! 😃
But I never said that God is responsible for men’s choosing to sin. I said the exact opposite. Its sad that we have to argue and debate over things we agree on. What gives? 🤷
This is a usual argument against Reformed Theology, that it makes God responsible for men’s sin, which is not true. We do agree on this.
Oops! You went too far in saying that fallen man can not freely choose to follow God. This is a demonic teaching and a lie. If this were true then EVERYONE would be saved by the grace won on the cross since Jesus died for all men:
* 2 Cor 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.*

This is a question of Common Grace vs. Effectual Grace. The grace that Christ provided on the cross is definitely sufficient for all; but it is not effective for all.
​
​
 
On Reprobation

When we understand election as God’s sovereign choice of some persons to be saved, then there is necessarily another aspect of that choice, namely, God’s sovereign decision to pass over others and not to save them. This decision of God in eternity past is called reprobation. Reprobation is the sovereign decision of God before creation to pass over some persons, in sorrow deciding not to save them, and to punish them for their sins, and thereby to manifest his justice.

In many ways the doctrine of reprobation is the most difficult of all the teachings of Scripture for us to think about and to accept, because it deals with such horrible and eternal consequences for human beings made in the image of God. The love that God gives us for our fellow human beings and the love that he commands us to have toward our neighbor cause us to recoil against this doctrine, and it is right that we feel such dread in contemplating it. It is something that we would not want to believe, and would not believe, unless Scripture clearly taught it.

But are there Scripture passages that speak of such a decision by God? Certainly there are some. Jude speaks of some persons “who long ago were designated for this condemnation ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 4). Moreover, Paul, in the passage referred to above, speaks in the same way of Pharaoh and others: For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills…What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction? (Rom. 9:17–22)

Regarding the results of the fact that God failed to choose all for salvation, Paul says, “The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened” (Rom. 11:7). And Peter says of those who reject the gospel, “they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do” (1 Peter 2:8).

In spite of the fact that we recoil against this doctrine, we must be careful of our attitude toward God and toward these passages of Scripture. We must never begin to wish that the Bible was written in another way, or that it did not contain these verses. Moreover, if we are convinced that these verses teach reprobation, then we are obligated both to believe it and accept it as fair and just of God, even though it still causes us to tremble in horror as we think of it. In this context it may surprise us to see that Jesus can thank God both for hiding the knowledge of salvation from some and for revealing it to others: “Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was your gracious will”’ (Matt. 11:25– 26).

Moreover, we must recognize that somehow, in God’s wisdom, the fact of reprobation and the eternal condemnation of some will show God’s justice and also result in his glory. Paul says, “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction” (Rom. 9:22). Paul also notes that the fact of such punishment on the “vessels of wrath” serves to show the greatness of God’s mercy toward us: God does this “in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy” (Rom. 9:23).

We also must remember that there are important differences between election and reprobation as they are presented in the Bible. Election to salvation is viewed as a cause for rejoicing and praise to God, who is worthy of praise and receives all the credit for our salvation (see Eph. 1:3–6; 1 Peter 1:1–3). God is viewed as actively choosing us for salvation, and doing so in love and with delight. But reprobation is viewed as something that brings God sorrow, not delight (see Ezek. 33:11), and the blame for the condemnation of sinners is always put on the people or angels who rebel, never on God himself (see John 3:18–19; 5:40). So in the presentation of Scripture the cause of election lies in God, and the cause of reprobation lies in the sinner. Another important difference is that the ground of election is God’s grace, whereas the ground of reprobation is God’s justice. Therefore “double predestination” is not a helpful or accurate phrase, because it neglects these differences between election and reprobation. The sorrow of God at the death of the wicked (“I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live,” Ezek. 33:11) helps us understand how appropriate it was that Paul himself felt great sorrow when he thought about the unbelieving Jews who had rejected Christ. Paul says: I am speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race. They are Israelites…(Rom. 9:1–4) We ought also to feel this great sorrow as well when we think about the fate of unbelievers.

God knows that this will ultimately result in greater glory for himself. It will show his power and wrath and justice and mercy in a way that could not otherwise be demonstrated. Certainly in our own human experience it is possible to do something that causes us great sorrow but which we know will result in long-term greater good. And so, after this faint human analogy, we may somewhat understand that God can decree something that causes him sorrow yet ultimately will further his glory.
 
I never said Calvin was perfect. What I’m saying is his doctrines are plausible, considering Scripture. As for the Popes, I do not disagree with them just because they are Popes. I disagree because what some of them taught are not supported by Scripture. The Bible itself tells us to test all things, and this is done through the Word of God.
And Calvin never claimed to be perfect.

As for plausability Paul told us:
*2 Tim 3:13-14 But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, *

I know the men who taught me my faith - they are men who are successors of the apostles. But who is Calvin that anyone should listen to him? Christ told us many deceivers would come after Him. I believe Calvin was a deceiver and self deluded. He exhibited no exterior signs of sanctification - he murdered and persecuted. That is not the fruit of a true Christian. Besides his teaching don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Please give an example of a Catholic teaching that does not agree with scripture. I reject this as a false charge. While you are at it please show me in scripture where it teaches that one should search out all things in scripture. I know of know biblical advise ever calling for any Christian to challenge a disciple of Christ. This is not consistent with the scripture verse that says we should come to the Church for teachings since “the church is the pillar and foundation of truth” ( 1 Tim 3;15). Calvin is not The Church. The Church is the same church that has existed from day 1 - the Catholic Church.
I
Yes, what I am teaching may be opinion, but it may nevertheless be true. No Protestant in his right mind would claim to be infallible as the RCC claims for its popes and magisterium. That is our difference.
We don’t need to take chances on wild speculations and opinions. So why should anyone gamble their immortal soul on a personal teaching when the person admits they are not sure that what they say is true? Why should such a person trust themselves?
Catholics are certain that what they say is true because it was handed down to us from the apostles themselves. Do you think St. Paul or St. Peter were not sure they were right? Do you think that their disciples were sure that they were correct? Of course! So why would you not trust the descendants in the succession of apostles who all teach the same thing that was passed down to them? What would be the motivation for anyone daring to change the original handed down teaching and lieing if a person believed in God and His justice? Such a person would know they would go to hell for changing God’s word. It would be suicidal for Catholic popes and bishops to change teaching. If these were evil men it would be simpler and more fun to not be religious at all and just go have fun fornicating, getting drunk and acquiring wealth.
As for the abuses of the RCC, I just used that as an illustration of the danger it was in due to the doctrine of infallibility. Calvin was guilty of the same but at least he never taught that he was infallible. Lastly, I do not subscribe to Calvin as a person but to his teachings. Catholics generally obey Catholic dogma because they subscribe to the papacy and the magisterium, not because they themselves agree with what is being taught. I know a lot of Catholics who are like this. It’s good that you are not one of them, that is why it is not useless to argue and discuss with you.
So let me understand your “reason”. You would prefer to listen to a man who says “i am fallable and totally depraved and can do not good” over a man who says “I have the original truth passed down from bishop to bishop and now to me from the original apostles”? To choose to believe the first person one would have to be like the disordered person who reads the warning label on the cigarette pack then lights up anyway since they like the addiction…

I don’t agree with your assessment of Catholics. No Catholic practices their faith unless they believe in what they are being taught. Why should they participate in a thing they don’t believe in? I believe in and trust my life and my immortal soul to the teachings of the Catholic Church and her authority just like the millions of early martyers did.

James
 
This is what we call a mystery (Deut. 29:29).
Deuteronomy 29:29 (New International Version)
29 The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.


No, this is what we call a gaping black-hole in Calvin’s theology that does not add up to the other revealed scripture. This proves that Calvin’s rather sloppy theology is shot full of decidedly human intellectual holes and not illumined by supernatural faith. The mystery to me is how anyone can pick Calvin’s teachings over the apostolic teachings when he has no obvious pedigree and comes into history out of nowhere. There is nothing special about Calvin and nothing profound to warrant anyone giving him the slightest consideration. I never understood how he even got a following at all unless he was an eloquent speaker that just happened to be convenient to use as an apologist when it came time for the Protestants to try to challenge the Catholics and make war with them.
Being depraved does not mean that we are unable to think. Our reason is still operative, however, we are not infallible or perfect.
This idea can be illustrated by a glass of wine with a few drops of deadly poison in it: Although not all the liquid is poison, all the liquid is poisoned. In the same way, while not all of human nature is depraved, all human nature is totally affected by depravity. This entire concept was stolen and improvised from St. Augustine’s Catholic writings on original sin. The problem with total depravity is it makes God insincere in his offer of free salvation for all men if they choose to follow Christ. It makes all men slaves to their divine fate that had no provisions for man’s free will knit into Divine Providence.

The huge problem for Calvinists is in making the case for how they are unable to choose God but are my some alchemy able to recognize Calvin as one who escapes His depravity (presumably by grace) and as the light bearer for those followers of his that then go on to choose to follow Christ because of his teachings. It is grace viz the black ink of the theology of one single man who substitutes himself between the apostlic succession and Christ.

Please explain how you are able to know a-priori with certitude that Calvin is one of the elect and not a deceiver and is also one who was meant to bring you new teachings that correct presumably erroneous teachings that The Catholic Church taught for 1500 years prior? If it turned out Calvin was not of the elect and was in fact fated for damnation under his own theology (perhaps as just punishment for making it all up) would the fact that Calvin was in hell invalidate his teachings if it all depends on providential grace that man has no choice over? 😉
God gave the biblical authors the grace that they needed to infallibly write down Scripture. The canon is closed. No person can add to what has already been written.
How do you know with certitude? How do we know that the under Calvin’s theology that the apostles were all not just prepared as vessels of wrath and God used them to deliver scripture in spite of the fact that they admitted to being evil men and were predestined to hell? Would you believe them if you knew some of them were in hell? What of Judas?

*Matt 16:23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan!

Luke 5:8 Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!"*

Who closed canon and why can it not be reopened? Who decides?
Do you know where canon came from originally and who decided it and who told you that it was closed?
Answer: The Catholic Church.
That is why nobody is forcing you to believe Calvinism. We have pastors who are Arminians and we see no problem in that. The problem arises when one person declares himself to be infallible.
No one is forcing me? God’s grace will not force me to believe in Calvinism if I am one of the lucky “elect”?

So then do you think that it doesn’t matter what one believes at all (e.g. Arminian, Calvinism etc.) since if a person is one of the elect then they are saved irrespective of what they believe and how they worship etc.? If so, then why even talk or worry about religion or spiritual matters if God is going to do it all with grace and we are just robots to His grace with no say or need to cooperate in the matter?

It sounds to me like you are a member of some sort of pluralistic federated religion all operating as independents under a common big-tent of Christianity and each is hoping that you are one of the elect and it does not matter what beliefs you all hold.

James
 
Are all “believers” saved? What constitutes a believer in your theology?
40.png
JVD:
The unbeliever is a slave to sin. But God is not held hostage to sinners and is free to give His grace to all men since He desires that all men be saved (ref. 1 Tim 2:4). Actual grace makes it possible for unbelievers to hear the truth and respond to it. After that they can accept it or reject it. All men are given an opportunity to choose God or to reject God by the fact that God gives them life
Agreed! 😃
How can you be a Calvinist and say you agree. In Calvin theology it is impossible for an unbeliever who is fated for damnation to gain any grace and to choose God by freewill inspired by grace? There is no free choice - it is ALL God’s election in Calvin theology - the unbeliever who is fated to the elect suddenly wakes up one day and finds himself on the path to salvation since God wills it so and he has no choice. :rolleyes:
This is a usual argument against Reformed Theology, that it makes God responsible for men’s sin, which is not true. We do agree on this.
We don’t agree on this now that you have re-expressed the context of the prior dialog.
Calvinist theology in fact does make the unelected responsible for their sin since they were created as vessels of wrath to be perfected in sin to manifest God’s Justice. God wills that these sin and creates them for that purpose - even though he is somone "sorrowful’ that He choose to create them for destruction. Am I missing something or is this another one of those Calvinistic mysteries where you all need to make some placating statement to make God appear less of a tyrant?
This is a question of Common Grace vs. Effectual Grace. The grace that Christ provided on the cross is definitely sufficient for all; but it is not effective for all.
I think I can accept this as consistent with Catholic theology as long as you understand that man has the freewill to choose to accept to the first kind of grace - which we call “actual grace”. Man inwardly knows his depravity and desires to be healed and to find repose to his restlessness. The natural desire is for God since He is greater than man’s evil nature and has a memory of his fallen nature and desires restoration & repatriation.

In Catholic theology there are only two top level categories of grace - “actual grace” and “sanctifying grace” (the latter we call “grace” normally since its all that matters in final salvation and is what gives supernatural life for all eternity). The kind of grace available to all men is actual grace - it is the universal “stuff” (God’s love) that even permits man to cooperate with his fellow man and do some good social things and live in peace to any degree and so by advance Divine Providence toward its objective end. This actual grace is what naturally operates to draw all men towards God. It is felt in all souls - but men are often calloused and deaf to its gentle call due to their focus on earthly matters and of course due to wickedness that man elects in progressive degradation caused by his escalating sins. It is the person who hears God’s call who will become a believer and gain sanctifying grace (normatively at baptism) and be on the pathway to glory (and gain it if her perseveres to the very end).

James
 
On Reprobation

When we understand election as God’s sovereign choice of some persons to be saved, then there is necessarily another aspect of that choice, namely, God’s sovereign decision to pass over others and not to save them. This decision of God in eternity past is called reprobation. Reprobation is the sovereign decision of God before creation to pass over some persons, in sorrow deciding not to save them, and to punish them for their sins, and thereby to manifest his justice.
Reprobation can only be “negative reprobation” where God forces no one to sin and only punishes as a condition of a soul’s own personal election to sin.
In many ways the doctrine of reprobation is the most difficult of all the teachings of Scripture for us to think about and to accept, because it deals with such horrible and eternal consequences for human beings made in the image of God. The love that God gives us for our fellow human beings and the love that he commands us to have toward our neighbor cause us to recoil against this doctrine, and it is right that we feel such dread in contemplating it. It is something that we would not want to believe, and would not believe, unless Scripture clearly taught it.
Indeed, it is a gloomy belief that adds nothing to the desire and hope of salvation that all men should desire but rather solicits a spirit of despair among both elect and unelect who find themselves still sinning from time to time as did the apostles. One must ask can this doctrine that is so dark and so disturbing come from the light and goodness of God or from the depravity of sinful man? The natural instinct is to conclude the latter.
But are there Scripture passages that speak of such a decision by God? Certainly there are some. Jude speaks of some persons “who long ago were designated for this condemnation ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 4). Moreover, Paul, in the passage referred to above, speaks in the same way of Pharaoh and others: For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills…What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction? (Rom. 9:17–22)
Paul is being rhetorical in Roman 9:17-22 as I have stated before. There is no place where Paul instructs that God in fact does create vessels to be destroyed for that sole purpose without that vessel having the desire & ability to petition the potter to remake him into a new vessel. Square it all with Paul’s unconditional statement in Romans 10:13.

*Isaiah 64:8 Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.

Acts 2:21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’

Romans 10:13 Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

2 Tim 2:20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. 21If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.
*
Note that all the above verses show a personal election of free will to change/repent and become a new vessel suitable for a noble purpose.
Regarding the results of the fact that God failed to choose all for salvation, Paul says, “The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened” (Rom. 11:7). And Peter says of those who reject the gospel, “they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do” (1 Peter 2:8).
But it was not a destiny that was forced on them independent of their own choice. It was a destiny that was constructed by God which already took into account their choices in advance of them being made. God does not destine anyone to hell.

[continued]

James
 
On Reprobation contnued
In spite of the fact that we recoil against this doctrine, we must be careful of our attitude toward God and toward these passages of Scripture. We must never begin to wish that the Bible was written in another way, or that it did not contain these verses. Moreover, if we are convinced that these verses teach reprobation, then we are obligated both to believe it and accept it as fair and just of God, even though it still causes us to tremble in horror as we think of it. In this context it may surprise us to see that Jesus can thank God both for hiding the knowledge of salvation from some and for revealing it to others: “Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was your gracious will”’ (Matt. 11:25– 26).
No one is obliged to to accept a false gospel-- which this narrative certainly is. This entire perspective is made to play on fears and to impart a sense of helplessness so that the disheartened person will come to accept the advocates of this doctrine as their human savior who will give them the remedy to the gloom they incite. It should be no surprise that those who accept this teaching may then be told “congratulations you are one of us - one of the elect”. It’s snake oil.
Moreover, we must recognize that somehow, in God’s wisdom, the fact of reprobation and the eternal condemnation of some will show God’s justice and also result in his glory. Paul says, “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction” (Rom. 9:22). Paul also notes that the fact of such punishment on the “vessels of wrath” serves to show the greatness of God’s mercy toward us: God does this “in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy” (Rom. 9:23).
This interpretation is refuted by Paul himself in Romans 1:20-32 and by James in James 1:13.

The rest is just rehash of the same old theory with editorialization wrapped around it.

James
 
And Calvin never claimed to be perfect.

As for plausability Paul told us:
*2 Tim 3:13-14 But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, *

I know the men who taught me my faith - they are men who are successors of the apostles. But who is Calvin that anyone should listen to him? Christ told us many deceivers would come after Him. I believe Calvin was a deceiver and self deluded. He exhibited no exterior signs of sanctification - he murdered and persecuted. That is not the fruit of a true Christian. Besides his teaching don’t stand up to scrutiny.
I don’t think you would want to go there. The RCC did a lot of atrocities especially during the middle ages. History will attest to that. In fact, there wouldn’t even be a Protestant Reformation if it weren’t for the abuses of the RCC.
Please give an example of a Catholic teaching that does not agree with scripture. I reject this as a false charge. While you are at it please show me in scripture where it teaches that one should search out all things in scripture. I know of know biblical advise ever calling for any Christian to challenge a disciple of Christ. This is not consistent with the scripture verse that says we should come to the Church for teachings since “the church is the pillar and foundation of truth” ( 1 Tim 3;15). Calvin is not The Church. The Church is the same church that has existed from day 1 - the Catholic Church.
Just read TRUTH ENCOUNTER by Athony Pezzotta for an overview. I don’t want to discuss that here because it’s out of topic.
We don’t need to take chances on wild speculations and opinions. So why should anyone gamble their immortal soul on a personal teaching when the person admits they are not sure that what they say is true? Why should such a person trust themselves?
Catholics are certain that what they say is true because it was handed down to us from the apostles themselves. Do you think St. Paul or St. Peter were not sure they were right? Do you think that their disciples were sure that they were correct? Of course! So why would you not trust the descendants in the succession of apostles who all teach the same thing that was passed down to them? What would be the motivation for anyone daring to change the original handed down teaching and lieing if a person believed in God and His justice? Such a person would know they would go to hell for changing God’s word. It would be suicidal for Catholic popes and bishops to change teaching. If these were evil men it would be simpler and more fun to not be religious at all and just go have fun fornicating, getting drunk and acquiring wealth.

So let me understand your “reason”. You would prefer to listen to a man who says “i am fallable and totally depraved and can do not good” over a man who says “I have the original truth passed down from bishop to bishop and now to me from the original apostles”? To choose to believe the first person one would have to be like the disordered person who reads the warning label on the cigarette pack then lights up anyway since they like the addiction…
Protestants do not believe in papal infallibility. Just because a person says he is infallible doesn’t make him one. This is one similarity the RCC has with all the cults. Their leaders all claim to have a special auhtority from God and thus cannot be questioned for fear of eternal damnation. Even the apostle Paul, who became one of the biblical authors, was subjected by the Bereans to the test of Scripture. What makes the pope exempt from such a testing? Surely no pope is greater than St. Paul!
I don’t agree with your assessment of Catholics. No Catholic practices their faith unless they believe in what they are being taught. Why should they participate in a thing they don’t believe in? I believe in and trust my life and my immortal soul to the teachings of the Catholic Church and her authority just like the millions of early martyers did.

James
I am speaking from personal experience and knowledge. I’m not saying all Catholics are like that, but a lot are. They believe it because the priests told them to believe it.
 
Deuteronomy 29:29 (New International Version)
29 The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.


No, this is what we call a gaping black-hole in Calvin’s theology that does not add up to the other revealed scripture. This proves that Calvin’s rather sloppy theology is shot full of decidedly human intellectual holes and not illumined by supernatural faith. The mystery to me is how anyone can pick Calvin’s teachings over the apostolic teachings when he has no obvious pedigree and comes into history out of nowhere. There is nothing special about Calvin and nothing profound to warrant anyone giving him the slightest consideration. I never understood how he even got a following at all unless he was an eloquent speaker that just happened to be convenient to use as an apologist when it came time for the Protestants to try to challenge the Catholics and make war with them.
Calvin was a lawyer.
This idea can be illustrated by a glass of wine with a few drops of deadly poison in it: Although not all the liquid is poison, all the liquid is poisoned. In the same way, while not all of human nature is depraved, all human nature is totally affected by depravity. This entire concept was stolen and improvised from St. Augustine’s Catholic writings on original sin. The problem with total depravity is it makes God insincere in his offer of free salvation for all men if they choose to follow Christ. It makes all men slaves to their divine fate that had no provisions for man’s free will knit into Divine Providence.
Yes, he got most of his ideas from Augustine, who also teaches predestination. However, Calvin pushed it farther.
The huge problem for Calvinists is in making the case for how they are unable to choose God but are my some alchemy able to recognize Calvin as one who escapes His depravity (presumably by grace) and as the light bearer for those followers of his that then go on to choose to follow Christ because of his teachings. It is grace viz the black ink of the theology of one single man who substitutes himself between the apostlic succession and Christ.

Please explain how you are able to know a-priori with certitude that Calvin is one of the elect and not a deceiver and is also one who was meant to bring you new teachings that correct presumably erroneous teachings that The Catholic Church taught for 1500 years prior? If it turned out Calvin was not of the elect and was in fact fated for damnation under his own theology (perhaps as just punishment for making it all up) would the fact that Calvin was in hell invalidate his teachings if it all depends on providential grace that man has no choice over? 😉
We do not dare to presume with certainty who are saved and who are not. It is between the person and God. Only God can see through a person’s heart. To see whether or not his faith is genuine.
How do you know with certitude? How do we know that the under Calvin’s theology that the apostles were all not just prepared as vessels of wrath and God used them to deliver scripture in spite of the fact that they admitted to being evil men and were predestined to hell? Would you believe them if you knew some of them were in hell? What of Judas?
The fact that Christ assured them. They stayed with Christ until the very end. They persevered even through extreme persecution and death. This is the doctrine of “Perseverance of the Saints”.
Who closed canon and why can it not be reopened? Who decides?
Do you know where canon came from originally and who decided it and who told you that it was closed?
Answer: The Catholic Church.
Agreed, but it’s not necessarily the same Roman Catholic Church that we have today. Protestants recognize that there was only one entity before the Reformation. In spite of its evil, it was the existing Church of Christ at that time. As time went by, a lot of new teachings were being introduced by the popes. Several being unbiblical. That’s why it needed to be reformed. Luther never intended to separate and put up another church, he was just forced by the circumstances because the RCC refused to reform and even killed off the reformers, a lot of whom were clerics.
So then do you think that it doesn’t matter what one believes at all (e.g. Arminian, Calvinism etc.) since if a person is one of the elect then they are saved irrespective of what they believe and how they worship etc.? If so, then why even talk or worry about religion or spiritual matters if God is going to do it all with grace and we are just robots to His grace with no say or need to cooperate in the matter?

It sounds to me like you are a member of some sort of pluralistic federated religion all operating as independents under a common big-tent of Christianity and each is hoping that you are one of the elect and it does not matter what beliefs you all hold.
In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.
 
Are all “believers” saved? What constitutes a believer in your theology?

How can you be a Calvinist and say you agree. In Calvin theology it is impossible for an unbeliever who is fated for damnation to gain any grace and to choose God by freewill inspired by grace? There is no free choice - it is ALL God’s election in Calvin theology - the unbeliever who is fated to the elect suddenly wakes up one day and finds himself on the path to salvation since God wills it so and he has no choice. :rolleyes:

We don’t agree on this now that you have re-expressed the context of the prior dialog.
Calvinist theology in fact does make the unelected responsible for their sin since they were created as vessels of wrath to be perfected in sin to manifest God’s Justice. God wills that these sin and creates them for that purpose - even though he is somone "sorrowful’ that He choose to create them for destruction. Am I missing something or is this another one of those Calvinistic mysteries where you all need to make some placating statement to make God appear less of a tyrant?
If God exercises providential control over all events are we in any sense free? The answer depends on what is meant by the word free. In some senses of the word free everyone agrees that we are free in our will and in our choices. Even prominent theologians in the Reformed or Calvinistic tradition concur. Both Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology (pp. 103, 173) and John Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion are willing to speak in some sense of the “free” acts and choices of man. However, Calvin explains that the term is so subject to misunderstanding that he himself tries to avoid using it. This is because “free will is not sufficient to enable man to do good works, unless he be helped by grace.” Therefore, Calvin concludes: “Man will then be spoken of as having this sort of free decision, not because he has free choice equally of good and evil, but because he acts wickedly by will, not by compulsion.” Well put, indeed, but what purpose is served by labeling with a proud name such a slight thing? Calvin continues by explaining how this term is easily misunderstood: “But how few men are there, I ask, who when they hear free will attributed to man do not immediately conceive him to be master of both his own mind and will, able of his own power to turn himself toward either good or evil…If anyone, then, can use this word without understanding it in a bad sense, I shall not trouble him on this account…I’d prefer not to use it myself, and I should like others, if they seek my advice, to avoid it.”

Thus, when we ask whether we have “free will,” it is important to be clear as to what is meant by the phrase. Scripture nowhere says that we are “free” in the sense of being outside of God’s control or of being able to make decisions that are not caused by anything. (This is the sense in which many people seem to assume we must be free; see discussion below.) Nor does it say we are “free” in the sense of being able to do right on our own apart from God’s power. But we are nonetheless free in the greatest sense that any creature of God could be free—we make willing choices, choices that have real effects. We are aware of no restraints on our will from God when we make decisions. We must insist that we have the power of willing choice; otherwise we will fall into the error of fatalism or determinism and thus conclude that our choices do not matter, or that we cannot really make willing choices. On the other hand, the kind of freedom that is demanded by those who deny God’s providential control of all things, a freedom to be outside of God’s sustaining and controlling activity, would be impossible if Jesus Christ is indeed “continually carrying along things by his word of power” (Heb. 1:3, author’s translation). If this is true, then to be outside of that providential control would simply be not to exist! An absolute “freedom,” totally free of God’s control, is simply not possible in a world providentially sustained and directed by God himself.
I think I can accept this as consistent with Catholic theology as long as you understand that man has the freewill to choose to accept to the first kind of grace - which we call “actual grace”. Man inwardly knows his depravity and desires to be healed and to find repose to his restlessness. The natural desire is for God since He is greater than man’s evil nature and has a memory of his fallen nature and desires restoration & repatriation.

In Catholic theology there are only two top level categories of grace - “actual grace” and “sanctifying grace” (the latter we call “grace” normally since its all that matters in final salvation and is what gives supernatural life for all eternity). The kind of grace available to all men is actual grace - it is the universal “stuff” (God’s love) that even permits man to cooperate with his fellow man and do some good social things and live in peace to any degree and so by advance Divine Providence toward its objective end. This actual grace is what naturally operates to draw all men towards God. It is felt in all souls - but men are often calloused and deaf to its gentle call due to their focus on earthly matters and of course due to wickedness that man elects in progressive degradation caused by his escalating sins. It is the person who hears God’s call who will become a believer and gain sanctifying grace (normatively at baptism) and be on the pathway to glory (and gain it if her perseveres to the very end).

James
Thank you for the info. There is what we call “saving grace.” This is received at the time of one’s salvation. Sanctifying grace make us conform to the character of Christ, and is the grace needed for us to persevere until the end.
 
I don’t think you would want to go there. The RCC did a lot of atrocities especially during the middle ages. History will attest to that. In fact, there wouldn’t even be a Protestant Reformation if it weren’t for the abuses of the RCC.
This is hyperbola. There were some acknowledged abuses by single clergy acting as individuals seperate from the papal direction. But these were already being addressed by the Catholic Church in the Fifth Laterin Council six months prior to Luther’s infamous nailing of 95 thesis on the church door in Wittenburg. Luther knew that and was just trying for be insubordinate and trying to force his personal views on the Church since he was ego maniac, impatient and was setting himself up to be a political leader first with the peasants then with the lords (after he sold out the peasants and got 100,000 slaughtered). There was relative peace in Christendom (except for the Muslim Moors/Saracens threatening) until Luther set in motion a true atrocity of Christian murdering Christian and massive looting of Church property and destruction of precious Christian artifacts (artwork, stained glass, statues, etc.) by the state and my mobs. I can see why you don’t want to “go here” since there is a difference of night and day between a few enterprising priests selling unauthorized indulgences to pay for a cathedrals compared to wholesale slaughter of Christians that devastated Europe - all a consequence of the Protestant uprising (that still gravely fractures Christendom). The proof that Luther was in for himself is seen in his acceptance of the entire Black Cloister Monastery (where he used to live with his fellow monks) as a marital gift from German officials for his part in the revolution that re-empowered the Germany monarchy.

There’s no precedent in the bible for God every authorizing a rebellion in His House and it is safe to assume that God has cursed the entire Reformation movement and this accounts for why it is disintegrating into 35,000+ seperate and independent Protestants secs all teaching competing partial truths. Personally I do not expect any significant numbers of Protestant denominations to be in existence in the next century at the high rare they are liberalizing and secularizing.
Just read TRUTH ENCOUNTER by Athony Pezzotta for an overview. I don’t want to discuss that here because it’s out of topic.
You made the charges - you give the executive summary. I am not about to pay a smear artists for a copy of his manifesto for justifying a revolution against God’s Church.
Protestants do not believe in papal infallibility. Just because a person says he is infallible doesn’t make him one. This is one similarity the RCC has with all the cults. Their leaders all claim to have a special auhtority from God and thus cannot be questioned for fear of eternal damnation. Even the apostle Paul, who became one of the biblical authors, was subjected by the Bereans to the test of Scripture. What makes the pope exempt from such a testing? Surely no pope is greater than St. Paul!
Truth is independent of belief. What Protestants believe in irrelevant where that belief is false - and it on the whole highly disordered and false. Erroneous belief is not without consequence to themselves and others. Protestants reject papal infallability but everyone of them will make themselves infallable in proclaiming themselves one of the elect and saved. It’s an arrogant, presumptions and irrational/contradictory faith founded on anarchy.

Paul in no way was subject to the Bereans. The Bereans were just a small sects of scholarly Jews who checked what Paul said against prophecy in the OLD testament. It agreed so they converted and were obedient to Paul. Why do Protestants constantly point to the Beareans as a golden example of what good Christians are when the apostles of Christ are our best example and what all Catholics are called to be? Never forget that no apostle ever saw a bible so when you see the word “scripture” in the bible it refers to the Old Testament of the Jews in all but one case.

Surely no pope is greater than Paul? Have you read your bible? The standard is Christ Himself.

John 14:12 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father

Why do you even say this when Catholics are taught not to envy the spiritual gifts of others in the Church since we all serve God? The better question to ask is “surely no so called reformer was greater than any pope?” None of the reformers ever worked a miracle or agreed with his competitors. Protestantism divided in the first moment it was started and produced much bloodshed and suffering - not a sign of the Holy Spirit at work.
I am speaking from personal experience and knowledge. I’m not saying all Catholics are like that, but a lot are. They believe it because the priests told them to believe it.
There is nothing wrong with being obedient to the Church leadership without understanding all teaching all at one time since all are in various stages of sanctification and maturity. We see this condition in the apostles themselves as they constantly ask Jesus for clarification on His teachings. What we don’t need are false teachers giving a new gospel to gullible people. The reformers gave the bible to every plow-boy who could not even read it then told him what it said through the lens of their own revolutionary vision. That is not enlightenment that is shameful deception and rebel rousing.

James
 
Calvin was a lawyer.
Luke 11:52 Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge
😉
Yes, he got most of his ideas from Augustine, who also teaches predestination. However, Calvin pushed it farther.
He pushed it too far and down the slippery slope to the destruction of many by trying to remove human freewill from God’s plan for salvation
We do not dare to presume with certainty who are saved and who are not. It is between the person and God. Only God can see through a person’s heart. To see whether or not his faith is genuine.
Then why would you dare to presume with certainty that Calvin’s teachings are godly and superior to what was handed down to us by the apostles? There is not a shred of evidence that Calvin was of the elect. So why follow him?
The fact that Christ assured them. They stayed with Christ until the very end. They persevered even through extreme persecution and death. This is the doctrine of “Perseverance of the Saints”.
How ironic that the Protestants did not hold the course and persevere with the saints and stay with the Catholic Church rather than rebelling against God’s Church. If Calvin’s theology was correct I’d say all Protestants are predestined to hell for rebelling against God’s Church. Fortunately Calvin is wrong and some will make it.
Agreed, but it’s not necessarily the same Roman Catholic Church that we have today. Protestants recognize that there was only one entity before the Reformation. In spite of its evil, it was the existing Church of Christ at that time. As time went by, a lot of new teachings were being introduced by the popes. Several being unbiblical. That’s why it needed to be reformed. Luther never intended to separate and put up another church, he was just forced by the circumstances because the RCC refused to reform and even killed off the reformers, a lot of whom were clerics.
Who decides in God’s House that its ok to rebel? Give me a verse from scripture where God ever authorizes insurrection in His House. Korah’s rebellion is the best example of what befalls those who reject God’s appointed authority - not a pretty story (Num 16).

You need to see the Protestant revolution for what it really was - simple power revolution. The reformers invented a whole new religion never before seen in the planet. It was an “easier Christianity” that was appealing to those who did not want to conform to all the teachings of apostles and Christ. There was also resentment that the clergy did not have to labor like the populace did (even though wandering friars were the first teachers of reading/writing & the gospel) nor pay taxes to support the Church. The crown wanted to tax the people directly and bypass the church. Luther was played like a stooge by the monarchy and the lords.
In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.
Who decides essentials? All you all have done is replace an infallable pope with a majority rule board of directors where consent is establised by slim majorities and guaranteed mediocrity of least common denominator decisions.

James
 
This is hyperbola. There were some acknowledged abuses by single clergy acting as individuals seperate from the papal direction. But these were already being addressed by the Catholic Church in the Fifth Laterin Council six months prior to Luther’s infamous nailing of 95 thesis on the church door in Wittenburg. Luther knew that and was just trying for be insubordinate and trying to force his personal views on the Church since he was ego maniac, impatient and was setting himself up to be a political leader first with the peasants then with the lords (after he sold out the peasants and got 100,000 slaughtered). There was relative peace in Christendom (except for the Muslim Moors/Saracens threatening) until Luther set in motion a true atrocity of Christian murdering Christian and massive looting of Church property and destruction of precious Christian artifacts (artwork, stained glass, statues, etc.) by the state and my mobs. I can see why you don’t want to “go here” since there is a difference of night and day between a few enterprising priests selling unauthorized indulgences to pay for a cathedrals compared to wholesale slaughter of Christians that devastated Europe - all a consequence of the Protestant uprising (that still gravely fractures Christendom). The proof that Luther was in for himself is seen in his acceptance of the entire Black Cloister Monastery (where he used to live with his fellow monks) as a marital gift from German officials for his part in the revolution that re-empowered the Germany monarchy.
This is really starting to get so tiring…🤷 Anyway, I was not only refering to certain priests but even to the popes, the antipopes, etc. There was even a time that there were 3 popes remember? A lot of the torture methods were invented by the Catholic middle ages so lets just admit that and move on…
There’s no precedent in the bible for God every authorizing a rebellion in His House and it is safe to assume that God has cursed the entire Reformation movement and this accounts for why it is disintegrating into 35,000+ seperate and independent Protestants secs all teaching competing partial truths. Personally I do not expect any significant numbers of Protestant denominations to be in existence in the next century at the high rare they are liberalizing and secularizing.
It’s that splintering argument again… Having lots of denominations does not mean that we do not consider others brethren in Christ or part of the catholic (universal) church.
You made the charges - you give the executive summary. I am not about to pay a smear artists for a copy of his manifesto for justifying a revolution against God’s Church.
This has already been addressed in other threads so it would be futile to detail them here. This just shows that your mind has indeed been so controlled by the RC heirarchy that it has become so closed. I now realize the futility of our exchange, so this will be my last reply to you.
Truth is independent of belief. What Protestants believe in irrelevant where that belief is false - and it on the whole highly disordered and false. Erroneous belief is not without consequence to themselves and others. Protestants reject papal infallability but everyone of them will make themselves infallable in proclaiming themselves one of the elect and saved. It’s an arrogant, presumptions and irrational/contradictory faith founded on anarchy.
We just know how to think and decide for ourselves. Only Scripture is the ultimate source of Truth.
Paul in no way was subject to the Bereans. The Bereans were just a small sects of scholarly Jews who checked what Paul said against prophecy in the OLD testament. It agreed so they converted and were obedient to Paul. Why do Protestants constantly point to the Beareans as a golden example of what good Christians are when the apostles of Christ are our best example and what all Catholics are called to be? Never forget that no apostle ever saw a bible so when you see the word “scripture” in the bible it refers to the Old Testament of the Jews in all but one case.
Luke commended the Bereans for their attitude in checking the Scriptures. So what if it’s just the OT? It was the Scriptures then. The same principles apply today with the NT.
Surely no pope is greater than Paul? Have you read your bible? The standard is Christ Himself.
I agree! 👍 Yes, I read my Bible every single day. 😉
There is nothing wrong with being obedient to the Church leadership without understanding all teaching all at one time since all are in various stages of sanctification and maturity. We see this condition in the apostles themselves as they constantly ask Jesus for clarification on His teachings. What we don’t need are false teachers giving a new gospel to gullible people. The reformers gave the bible to every plow-boy who could not even read it then told him what it said through the lens of their own revolutionary vision. That is not enlightenment that is shameful deception and rebel rousing.

James
Read CHURCH HISTORY IN PLAIN LANGUAGE by Bruce Shelley and A CONCISE HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH by Thomas Bokenkotter.
 
This is really starting to get so tiring…🤷 Anyway, I was not only refering to certain priests but even to the popes, the antipopes, etc. There was even a time that there were 3 popes remember? A lot of the torture methods were invented by the Catholic middle ages so lets just admit that and move on…
This will be my last reply to you on this thread. It’s clear that you have been brainwashed by the standard fare of Protestant polemics and “reformed history”. Its a waste of my time at this point. I will make some final corrections here to refute the false history that you are repeating here.

You talk about a time where there were 3 false popes from an earlier period of the reformation as if that was a valid condition yet you choose to overlook the fact that there were at least 4-5 leaders of the Protestant revolution who all taught different things. This is a double standard of judgement since at no time has the Catholic Church ever recognized more than 1 pope at a time. There were a few incidents in history where deluded men or outright criminals have declared themselves popes illegitimately just like there were pretenders to the crown in various kingdoms but there can only be one king. These false popes were all renounced as fakes and rejected and at no time had control over the church or her teachings. It would be the same as a mentally deranged person in current times paying for a TV commercial claiming himself president - it meant nothing except to those looking to slander the church and justify their own defection post-reformation.

As for torture methods devised by popes - this is a complete lie. What kind of material are you reading?! You don’t know history at all. It was common in the early times of the Church for kings and nobles to use torture without any standards of law to do anything they desired to force confessions (many false ones) to justify taking their subjects property, wives and children (as slaves or concubines) then murder them. The Catholic Church was the first institution to actually impose a rule of moral based law which LIMITED torture for the first time in history and required evidence and eye witness accounts and proof of guilt before anyone could be subject to imprisonment, punishment or torture. It also prescribed the limited kinds of torture that could be used as a first step in reducing and phasing out torture and to make punishment more humane. You are anachronistically back projecting modern standards (which came from the Catholic Church) on earlier times and are completely ignorant of history. You really need to get educated and stop spreading these sort of lies.
It’s that splintering argument again… Having lots of denominations does not mean that we do not consider others brethren in Christ or part of the catholic (universal) church.
We Catholics call anyone who is baptised under the trinitarian formula “Christian” under the presumption and hope that even though they are disobedient to the mandate of Christ to follow His appointed leaders they operate from a condition of invincible ignorance and do the best they can to conform to Christian morality as best as they understand it and God will show Mercy on them. We believe that it is possible that some of these will gain salvation seperate from The Church by divine mercy but consider them to be in gravely deficient faith communities that preach partial truths mixed with outright heretical lies that they inherited from their founders.
This has already been addressed in other threads so it would be futile to detail them here. This just shows that your mind has indeed been so controlled by the RC heirarchy that it has become so closed. I now realize the futility of our exchange, so this will be my last reply to you.
This is a case of the charcoal in the fire calling the kettle black. Your entire conscience is formed on revised history, lies and polemics forwarded to you by rebellious men who control your mind by selling you their books and anti-Catholic materials from their franchise Christianity network. This is worse than mind control - this is a paid serfdom to plausible liars acting as your overlords. You have rejected Divinely appointed authority and ecclesial structure for the free-form jazz and pluralistic nihilism of Protestantism. Christ built His Church on a foundation of Rock (Peter), set Himself as the cornerstone to align it all on Him then used the apostles as the pillars and us members as the living stones. You labor to rebuild the tower of babel that the Reformers set on the shifting sands of private interpretation of scripture. We Catholic labor to build up God’s Kingdom and Christ’s Church. The Catholic Church has stood the test of time (2,000 years). The House that Luther built has in a mere 500 years delaminated into a big tattered tent of neo-Christianity. Here there are now 35,000 seperate gypsy familes tinkering and selling their wares in makeshift booths which trade members back and forth among each other… 😉
We just know how to think and decide for ourselves. Only Scripture is the ultimate source of Truth.
This is a complete lie. Scripture itself rejects the idea that it is the ultimate source of truth by telling us quite plainly: “The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15) and that the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction (2 Peter 3:16). So by your own admission here that you can decide for yourself without the Church you are here claiming to be among those very ignorant people that Peter warned were setting themselves up for their own destruction. I’ll say a prayer for you that you come to your senses and come back to the Catholic Church and be found as one of the elect and Christ’s true church.

[continued]

James
 
Luke commended the Bereans for their attitude in checking the Scriptures. So what if it’s just the OT? It was the Scriptures then. The same principles apply today with the NT.
That is your error in projecting a fallacy as if it is a principal. There was no bible in apostolic times therefor scripture was not complete. These were not Christian but Jews who had not converted. They FIRST HEARD Paul’s and listened to his teachings - THEN went back and checked what he said against the Old Testament teachings that spoke of a Messiah. This proved to them that Christ was who Paul claimed He was and so they converted. But they got 100% of what Christ taught under the New Covenant from Paul and NOT from scripture. After they convert they receive instruction from Paul - NOT from scripture. Therefor the example of the Bereans can not be forward projected to be the general case of what Christians should do except for the part where they LISTENED to the Chrisian gospel being proclaimed to them and in their accepting Paul as trustworthy.

There has never been a standard of sola scripture in the Christian Church until the reformers invented it in the 16th century so they could re-teach a false gospel to gullible people who 90% could not even read and write. The reformers substituted the Catholic Church and the clergy for Charlatans and false teachers under a ruse that made themselves false popes and false disciples.

The Apostles warned us about this many times, This verse describes exactly what the Reformers were. None of the Reformers were God’s ordained “shepherds” with authority to lead much less rebel:

*Acts 20:28-31
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers[ed: ordained priests/bishops]. Be shepherds of the church of God [ed:ecclesial leaders] which he bought with his own blood. 29I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears. *
I agree! 👍 Yes, I read my Bible every single day. 😉

Read CHURCH HISTORY IN PLAIN LANGUAGE by Bruce Shelley and A CONCISE HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH by Thomas Bokenkotter.
I have read Bokenkotter’s work. There is nothing in the history of the Church that ever shows that the Catholic Church ever taught error or ever advanced torture or ever recognized false popes or took teaching from them. Have you read any history of the atrocities committed by the reformers or about the bloodshed caused by the Protestant Revolution or any of Luther’s own teachings? Here’s one writing of Luther that proves he was a bigoted Jew hater who openly called on his followers to persecute Jews and which became the basis for Nazi propaganda: On The Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther). And you want to follow a man like this??

We part company here - you march to the beat of a different drummer than I do.
👋

James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top