'Invincible ignorance' inquires

[CentralFLJames]

CentralFLJames;6385866:

The more you speak the more you convince me that you imagine that you have somehow escaped your own humanity and must also think you have greater insight that anyone else. How do you know that this is not just hubris raising its ugly head and that you are not just deluding yourself? Isn’t this the same thing that Protestants (non-catholics) rejected about the Catholic pope - that the pope is human and therefor unable to rightly divide scripture and teach it infallabily? By what line of reasoning can you convince us that you are more qualified than the pope to teach scripture? Don’t you think that scripture was written for human beings?

This is a fallacious argument, appeal to authority.

A request Bengoshi - please be careful to edit your replies and tbe BBCode quote blocks then preview them before you post them to insure that they are readable. I fixed your prior posts to make it presentable.

This is not a fallacious argument nor just an appeal to authority. You constantly try to appeal to authority of appealing to scripture and your own personal interpretation of scripture. That is double error since the bible is absolutely useless to a number of people:

1. Those that can not read or write
2. Those who have defective reading comprehension
3. Those who have absolutely no apostolic teaching context and lack understandings of period mores, idioms and cultural standards
4. Those who are brain washed by preconceived teachings given by non-authoritative other men who suffer from one or more of all the above defects or who were themselves taught by demonically inspired and rebellious individuals.

You are reading the bible with a protestant lens and it is clear from the massive number of defects present within the corpus of Protestantism that it is a fragmented truth that suffers from ignorance and teachers of new doctrines of men that Jesus & the apostles warned us about.

Further, my line of reasoning is dead on accurate. It is impossible for a person who admits he has defective reasoning and is fallable to then turn right around and try to teach scripture. We beleive such a person to be speaking the truth when they claim they have defective human reasoning because we are not so wounded in our fallen human nature to not see the clear truth in that. But we do not believe a person who then after admitting he is defective then tries to present his opinions on other matters with infallable certitude. That is an impossible contradiction.

Catholics can admit that they have wounded human nature but also know they can have the truth since our teaching comes by the very inspired men who wrote and taught us well in advance of scripture being recorded to parchment. God himself taught these men through the Holy Spirit and wrote His word on their hearts and made them infallable with respect to His Word. This we have received directly from them. This was how the Catholic Church was able to infallibly assemble the bible and infallibly know which of the books among hundreds of fake gospels and writings of the period were tainted and false. By what defective line of reasoning to Protestants accept the Catholic Church’s authority in discerning and assembling the Bible as the word of God but reject its authority to teach it? Protestantism is a hopeless contradiction with itself and is irrational. It Protests its own dysfunction and its own defects - calling its mother defective while thinking it escaped its own deformity to surpass its mother. Bizarre.

CentralFLJames;6385866:

Bravo - we agree. But she was more than just the Arc of the New Covenant (as you say “Christ Bearer”). We title her “Mother of God” in recognition that Jesus was God in the flesh .

Mary was called “theotokos” which correctly translated, means “God-bearer” and not “Mother of God”.

Pardon me? Did I mention the word theotokos anywhere? Are you a prior Orthodox
Catholic? This title is a Catholic title from the western Latin tradition.

The literal English translations of Theotokos include “God-bearer” and the “one who gives birth to God.”

The term Theotokos is a Catholic theological word that is borrowed from the Greek. It is not found in the bible. So by referencing it you are giving creedance to the Catholic theology and belief and are going extra-biblical. Did you know that?

The Catholic Council of Ephesus decreed in 431 AD that Mary is Theotokos to codfy more of its teachings on the nature of Jesus and the role of Mary. Because Mary’s son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human the term was formed to empathize Jesus dual nature. The Eastern lung of the Catholic Church (now in schism as “Orthodox”) refer to her simply as “Theotokos” with their own traditional semantic. But here in West (Latin Church) we Catholics follow the tradition of calling her in the English vernacular as “Mother of God” to empathize the profound role she played (and to agitate Protestants and get them talking about their irrational fear of Mary ). There can be no denying that Christ is God therefor the expression “Mother of God” is true in the context of the 2nd person of God. But Catholics also know that this title only refers to God in His second person come in the flesh as Jesus and not holistically as mother of the trinity.

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

CentralFLJames;6385866:

Notice there - God loved** the world**

• that means EVERYONE - sinners all.

I think you are creating false dichotomies by using your own semantics - the word “purposed” is not normally used in Catholic theology so I have to guess at what you mean. God’s will is that all men be saved without partiality. I think you are showing your Calvinist double-predestiny errors in theology by suggesting that God not only wills but damns some souls a priori to hell. This is a very grave error in theology and not a thing that any apostle or Jesus ever taught.You can find some scripture support for it but there are plenty of other scripture verses which reject this bad theology. God forces no one to love Him. He wills that all do - but **does not **flood any soul with irresistible grace to force it.

Calvinist theology is valid. It is indeed supported by Scripture. It is hard to accept but nevertheless a very plausible position. Read Romans 9 and Ephesians 1:4-8 again.

You are asserting mere opinion and I bet you can’t even tell me what you mean by “Calvinist theology”, Calvin had Arminian tendencies and his personal neo-Christian teachings were hijacked and abbreviated to 5 core teachings that he would not even recognize today. So there are quite a number of variants of Calvinist theology (esp, in the area of predestinty) since his disciples could not resolve Calvin’s internal contradictions and had to invent variants to patch up defects that did not stand up to reason and lacked credibility. None of the variant Calvinistic theories stand up holistically with themselves since they creates perpetual tautologies.

“It is hard to accept” Calvinist theology since it does not come from God but from man; and because it is irrational; and because it makes God the creator of evil and because it makes God a tyrant who arbitrarily creates some souls for hell and some for heaven. “It is hard to accept” because it violates every good thing we know about God being fair, just and loving. “It is hard to accept” because the apostles told us “those teaching a gospel different than was handed down to you are deserving of a curse.”

Calvin demonstrated who and what he was when he killed his critics (Servetus & Castellio). I would not put my faith in an unrepentant murderer who worked not a single miracle and who outlawed moral conscious as subordinate to his own teaching and who was directly responsible for: thousands of people’s deaths, burning “witches”, destroying sacred and precious Catholic art/stained-glass/statues, whipping and stripping nuns naked in public and ordering them to marry, fostering contempt and hatred of women and being a tyrant.

Enough said about Calvin - his shameful and tyrannical legacy speaks for itself.

James

 

[jmcrae]

How sad this is… I mean, a Catholic could live all his life in anxiety worrying if he has done enough good works to earn him his salvation. I wouldn’t call that living life to the full…

Not at all. Actually, I find it very exciting and liberating to know that I am a partner with God in the on-going creation of His world, to perfect it and bring it to the fullness of God’s design.

The good works that God sends me to do are not merely “tests” to see whether I am a “good person” or not - rather, they are my part in God’s grand design. My failure to accomplish these tasks doesn’t merely earn me an “F” in God’s “classroom” - it actually has a negative effect on the world itself - which is why, when I fail to do them, I need to ask for God’s forgiveness, and apply the remedy (the Sacrament of Reconciliation) to repair the damage that was done by my failure.

Christ is my Master - which makes me to be, not merely HIs slave, nor even His student - but His apprentice.

 

[JVD]

Not at all. Actually, I find it very exciting and liberating to know that I am a partner with God in the on-going creation of His world, to perfect it and bring it to the fullness of God’s design.

The good works that God sends me to do are not merely “tests” to see whether I am a “good person” or not - rather, they are my part in God’s grand design. My failure to accomplish these tasks doesn’t merely earn me an “F” in God’s “classroom” - it actually has a negative effect on the world itself - which is why, when I fail to do them, I need to ask for God’s forgiveness, and apply the remedy (the Sacrament of Reconciliation) to repair the damage that was done by my failure.

Christ is my Master - which makes me to be, not merely HIs slave, nor even His student - but His apprentice.

We all forget that God intends to manifest a new 2nd Creation and that Christ its perfecting its new citizens in the here and now as we speak.

James.

 

[Bengoshi]

A request Bengoshi - please be careful to edit your replies and tbe BBCode quote blocks then preview them before you post them to insure that they are readable. I fixed your prior posts to make it presentable.

Thank you! Sometimes I just really have trouble utilizing the quote feature. I don’t know what I’m doing wrong. If you look at my post, it appears that I did the right thing…

I’ll get to answering your comments afer I read them all.

 

[Bengoshi]

Pardon me? Did I mention the word theotokos anywhere? Are you a prior Orthodox
Catholic? This title is a Catholic title from the western Latin tradition.

The literal English translations of Theotokos include “God-bearer” and the “one who gives birth to God.”

The term Theotokos is a Catholic theological word that is borrowed from the Greek. It is not found in the bible. So by referencing it you are giving creedance to the Catholic theology and belief and are going extra-biblical. Did you know that?

The Catholic Council of Ephesus decreed in 431 AD that Mary is Theotokos to codfy more of its teachings on the nature of Jesus and the role of Mary. Because Mary’s son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human the term was formed to empathize Jesus dual nature. The Eastern lung of the Catholic Church (now in schism as “Orthodox”) refer to her simply as “Theotokos” with their own traditional semantic. But here in West (Latin Church) we Catholics follow the tradition of calling her in the English vernacular as “Mother of God” to empathize the profound role she played (and to agitate Protestants and get them talking about their irrational fear of Mary ). There can be no denying that Christ is God therefor the expression “Mother of God” is true in the context of the 2nd person of God. But Catholics also know that this title only refers to God in His second person come in the flesh as Jesus and not holistically as mother of the trinity.

[continued]

James

Thank you for explaining it! If this is the case, then I agree and have no qualms of calling Mary the “Mother of God.” By the way, no, I was never of the Eastern Orthodox. I used to be Roman Catholic. I do have a friend who is an Eastern Catholic priest. I was not familiar with that intil I met him and their bishop. He said they are from the successinal line of St. Thomas the apostle who went to India.

 

[JVD]

Thank you for explaining it! If this is the case, then I agree and have no qualms of calling Mary the “Mother of God.” By the way, no, I was never of the Eastern Orthodox. I used to be Roman Catholic. I do have a friend who is an Eastern Catholic priest. I was not familiar with that intil I met him and their bishop. He said they are from the successinal line of St. Thomas the apostle who went to India.

Sure no problem.

May I ask why you left the Catholic Church?

James

 

[Bengoshi]

You are asserting mere opinion and I bet you can’t even tell me what you mean by “Calvinist theology”, Calvin had Arminian tendencies and his personal neo-Christian teachings were hijacked and abbreviated to 5 core teachings that he would not even recognize today. So there are quite a number of variants of Calvinist theology (esp, in the area of predestinty) since his disciples could not resolve Calvin’s internal contradictions and had to invent variants to patch up defects that did not stand up to reason and lacked credibility. None of the variant Calvinistic theories stand up holistically with themselves since they creates perpetual tautologies.

“It is hard to accept” Calvinist theology since it does not come from God but from man; and because it is irrational; and because it makes God the creator of evil and because it makes God a tyrant who arbitrarily creates some souls for hell and some for heaven. “It is hard to accept” because it violates every good thing we know about God being fair, just and loving. “It is hard to accept” because the apostles told us “those teaching a gospel different than was handed down to you are deserving of a curse.”

Calvin demonstrated who and what he was when he killed his critics (Servetus & Castellio). I would not put my faith in an unrepentant murderer who worked not a single miracle and who outlawed moral conscious as subordinate to his own teaching and who was directly responsible for: thousands of people’s deaths, burning “witches”, destroying sacred and precious Catholic art/stained-glass/statues, whipping and stripping nuns naked in public and ordering them to marry, fostering contempt and hatred of women and being a tyrant.

Enough said about Calvin - his shameful and tyrannical legacy speaks for itself.

James

Please address the passages I referenced rather than going *argumentum ad hominem *on me. I think I do have adequate understanding of Calvinist/Reformed theology, although I do not claim to be an expert on it. I am aware of its variances but the general idea remains the same. I listen to lectures from Reformed Theological Seminary and have read books on the subject.

 

[Bengoshi]

Not at all. Actually, I find it very exciting and liberating to know that I am a partner with God in the on-going creation of His world, to perfect it and bring it to the fullness of God’s design.

The good works that God sends me to do are not merely “tests” to see whether I am a “good person” or not - rather, they are my part in God’s grand design. My failure to accomplish these tasks doesn’t merely earn me an “F” in God’s “classroom” - it actually has a negative effect on the world itself - which is why, when I fail to do them, I need to ask for God’s forgiveness, and apply the remedy (the Sacrament of Reconciliation) to repair the damage that was done by my failure.

Christ is my Master - which makes me to be, not merely HIs slave, nor even His student - but His apprentice.

So I’m just curious, how much good works do you think you need to get to heaven? If it is at all possible to get to heaven by “cooperating” with God through doing good works, then why did Christ even have to suffer and die on the cross?

 

[Bengoshi]

Sure no problem.

May I ask why you left the Catholic Church?

James

This is kinda confusing. Do you have two CAF accounts?

I left the RCC because I disagree with several of their doctrines and practices.

 

[jmcrae]

So I’m just curious, how much good works do you think you need to get to heaven?

All of them.

If it is at all possible to get to heaven by “cooperating” with God through doing good works, then why did Christ even have to suffer and die on the cross?

To make it possible for human beings to get to Heaven.

Do you think that the Jews were getting to Heaven by means of works of the Law of Moses? Not at all - nobody was going to Heaven for any reason, prior to Christ’s death on the Cross. It is Christ who gives us the good works that we are to do in this world. Some, more than others.

 

[Bengoshi]

All of them.

To make it possible for human beings to get to Heaven.

Do you think that the Jews were getting to Heaven by means of works of the Law of Moses? Not at all - nobody was going to Heaven for any reason, prior to Christ’s death on the Cross. It is Christ who gives us the good works that we are to do in this world. Some, more than others.

Well, God bless you in your endeavor!

The reason Christ died for us was exactly because there is no way in heaven and on earth that we will be able to do all good works sufficient to earn us our salvation. When Christ was about to die on the cross, one of his last words was that “It is finished”, which in Greek is tetelestai–meaning, the debt has been paid in full. No further debt remained to be discharged in this world or the next. Again, if it is at all possible for us to do all the good works required of us to get to heaven, then Jesus did not need to suffer and die on the cross.

 

[JVD]

Please address the passages I referenced rather than going *argumentum ad hominem *on me. I think I do have adequate understanding of Calvinist/Reformed theology, although I do not claim to be an expert on it. I am aware of its variances but the general idea remains the same. I listen to lectures from Reformed Theological Seminary and have read books on the subject.

The arguments were directed to you because it was YOUR personal interpretation of scripture and NOT the scripture interpretation handed down to us. I have the right to critique your personal positions when you put your own personal lens in front of scripture. How else do you suggest we interact - just put up competing scripture verses and say nothing?

I re-read the passages you site and do not see any contradiction of those passages with Catholic theology. I did however learn something in re-reading the Catholic position on negative re-probation that compels us to make us all tremble with hope and beg on God’s Mercy and NEVER assume we are saved - it is only by God’s grace and will. But the good news is that (1 Timothy 2;4) *[God our Savior] **wants all men to be saved *and to come to a knowledge of the truth. Thank God! In truth God predestines no one to hell but He has a definate number of “elect” that He pre-ordains in His Divine Wisdom to the grace of final perseverance and to His Mercy. Those who do not choose to heed God’s call will not attain this grace and will elect of their own free will to fall away and sin gravely - and be eternally damned by their own fault.

I also desire to re-emphasize that Catholic Theology and teaching can not disagree with scripture since we have the promise that the “gates of hell shall not prevail against the church” and because the bible came from the Catholic Church viz the Holy Spirit inerrant and we have the true apostolic teaching handed down to us.

The error Calvin made was taking the human idea of “unconditional election” (itself not wrong) – way too far. He pushed it into the dark and dubious realm of double-predestiny where man would have God for His own hidden pleasure create some souls for hell and others for heaven. But this is absurd and a blatant false theology that any Christian should be able to feel in their heart CAN NOT spring from a loving and just God. It is only because of God’s Mercy that any of us can be saved. And God has foreseen all possibilites in advance of Creation and has chosen His Plan to yield the greatest number of saved souls possible. It is a pure plan of divine love.

Therefor the concept of predestiny should be seen ALWAYS in the light of Mercy and human hope and absolute trust in God’s goodness rather than be taken in dark light of fear that Calvin’s gloomy ideas incite. Calvin’s double-predestination theory is entirely contrary to God’s nature since it means that God ordains that some creatures sin by divine will before one is even created. NO! God only predestines some to heaven but knows those that won’t respond to his RESISTIBLE grace (love can not be compelled through force and still be love). God knows in advance those which will choose to fall away by choice and sin. God only permits it and ordains it for all eternity but He does but does not force sin - ever.

The scripture that moderates the verses you cite (Paul’s letter to the Romans vs 9:15-18) are Paul’s prior words to the Romans in vs 1:20-32. As well, the apostle James has a bit to say here too in his James 1:13v.

In my review it seems clear that Calvin completely ignored the clear text that ‘men knew of God and His ways but became wicked through their own choice’ (e.g. not loving God: ‘they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him’). As a consequence God in time “turned them over” to the consequences of their wicked inclinations (the supernatural consequence and nature of sin). Thus God let the corruption that comes from sin ‘harden their hearts, darken their faith, dull their facilities of reason. and let them become perverse and disgraced in their bodies and receive the perversions of unholy appetites for unnatural vices (homosexuality and lesbianism and perverse sexual practices); they contract diseases from their illicit unions and go down ever deeper into depravity and disorder.’

NONE of this is because God willed that they sin and NONE of this is because God predestined these men to not love Him. God calls ALL men - some men choose to reject Him. What kind of person was Calvin to imagine a sovereign God who would create creatures for the purpose of hating Him just so He could toy with them, drive then insane with lusts and perversions then send them to hell?! Good gracious - how can you believe the teachings of a man who imagines God is like this? It goes against the natural reason.

[continued]

James

 

[JVD]

[continued from prior]

Here is additional Catholic teaching:
The Catholic Church, following St. Augustine (e.g., Grace and Free Will, 1,1; Sermon 169, 11,13), accepts predestination of the elect to heaven, but also affirms the freedom of the human will, thus staking out a position distinct from Calvinism.

Predestination to hell, in Catholicism, always involves man’s free will, and foreseen sins, so that man is ultimately responsible for his own damnation, not God (double predestination is rejected).

The Catholic Church affirms predestination as a de fide dogma (the highest level of binding theological certainty), while at the same time affirming free will and the possibility of falling away from the faith.

But, there is no official teaching on how exactly this comes into play. This is God’s domain and is sublime mystery that is not yet meant for us to know. Most Catholic laity simply let God deal with the “hows” and let the theologians speculate on deeper aspects of the specifics.

Any theological position on election one may desire to consider, however, must conform with the Church’s soteriological teachings. Molinism, Thomism, and Arminianism all conform, Calvinism does not.

To conform with infallable Catholic teaching, your theology must accept the following or else be rejected as gravely defective:

1. Free will; that is, God allows (and desires) people to choose Him, and allows them to reject Him. People always have a free choice and are not forced to choose hell. Thus election, if you believe it, must be an act of persuasion and not compulsion.
2. Co-operation; it is necessary for salvation for a man to cooperate with God’s grace. Man must continuously allow God’s grace to work in him. If at any point a man prevents this (grave sin), he falls from grace and will go to hell unless he again repents and is forgiven before he physically dies.
3. Jesus died for all men, and his sacrifice has the potential of saving all, but his act did not automatically save anyone, only those who choose to accept him.
4. Man is born in a state of sin, and must be called by God in order to accept Him and thus receive the merits of Christ’s sacrifice.
5. God predestines no one to Hell. i.e. you can only believe in negative re-probation, not positive.

There are, of course, many other theological ideas on predestiny, but these are the main ones. Thomism, unlike Calvinism, accepts all of these. The main difference between the various schools of thought is “how” “the calling grace” of point 4 get dispensed, and its effects. Thomists maintain that God does not bestow it on everyone, while Molinists maintain that he does. I believe that God floods all of Creation with “his calling grace” without prejudice to His foreknowledge in a divine pang of love and begs us to hear His incessant call, respond, and then persevere in grace when received into His Church (viz Baptism). This is why the one unforgivable sin is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit and die unrepentant. There is no excuse for man to ignore so much Divine passion and incessant calls to be His.

James

 

[Bengoshi]

I also desire to re-emphasize that Catholic Theology and teaching can not disagree with scripture since we have the promise that the “gates of hell shall not prevail against the church” and because the bible came from the Catholic Church viz the Holy Spirit inerrant and we have the true apostolic teaching handed down to us.

I suppose this is where we have a poblem on agreeing. It is a Catholic presupposition that is denied by Protestants, and rightly so, considering the abuses of the RCC. The heirarchy became so drunk with power that it saw itself as the infallible representative of God on earth, i.e. “Vicar of Christ”

Have you even considered what “gates of hell shall not prevail against it” really means? Let me help you and other Catholics:

Do gates move or do they stay stationary?
Who are those called to go and make disciples?
To whom did Christ promise to be with until the end of the age?

Since it is the Church who is called to go and make disciples, we are the ones who move in and attack the gates of hell, which imprison the unbelievers. The gates do not move at all. We are to set them free in Christ. Just as Christ promised to be with us, then the gatges of hell will certainly not prevail against us as we move forward with the Gospel of Christ.

Just consider it. Doesn’t it make sense?

 

[Bengoshi]

The error Calvin made was taking the human idea of “unconditional election” (itself not wrong) – way too far. He pushed it into the dark and dubious realm of double-predestiny where man would have God for His own hidden pleasure create some souls for hell and others for heaven. But this is absurd and a blatant false theology that any Christian should be able to feel in their heart CAN NOT spring from a loving and just God. It is only because of God’s Mercy that any of us can be saved. And God has foreseen all possibilites in advance of Creation and has chosen His Plan to yield the greatest number of saved souls possible. It is a pure plan of divine love.

Therefor the concept of predestiny should be seen ALWAYS in the light of Mercy and human hope and absolute trust in God’s goodness rather than be taken in dark light of fear that Calvin’s gloomy ideas incite. Calvin’s double-predestination theory is entirely contrary to God’s nature since it means that God ordains that some creatures sin by divine will before one is even created. NO! God only predestines some to heaven but knows those that won’t respond to his RESISTIBLE grace (love can not be compelled through force and still be love). God knows in advance those which will choose to fall away by choice and sin. God only permits it and ordains it for all eternity but He does but does not force sin - ever.

In my review it seems clear that Calvin completely ignored the clear text that ‘men knew of God and His ways but became wicked through their own choice’ (e.g. not loving God: ‘they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him’). As a consequence God in time “turned them over” to the consequences of their wicked inclinations (the supernatural consequence and nature of sin). Thus God let the corruption that comes from sin ‘harden their hearts, darken their faith, dull their facilities of reason. and let them become perverse and disgraced in their bodies and receive the perversions of unholy appetites for unnatural vices (homosexuality and lesbianism and perverse sexual practices); they contract diseases from their illicit unions and go down ever deeper into depravity and disorder.’

NONE of this is because God willed that they sin and NONE of this is because God predestined these men to not love Him. God calls ALL men - some men choose to reject Him. What kind of person was Calvin to imagine a sovereign God who would create creatures for the purpose of hating Him just so He could toy with them, drive then insane with lusts and perversions then send them to hell?! Good gracious - how can you believe the teachings of a man who imagines God is like this? It goes against the natural reason.

Calvinists do not deny free will. We affirm that people are free to choose what they want to choose. We state that the unbelievers nature is so corrupt that he does not have the ability in his own will, to choose to follow God. This is why the Scriptures say…

“There is none righteous, not even one; 11 There is none who understands. There is none who seeks for God; 12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good. There is not even one,” (Romans 3:10-12).

“But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised,” (1 Cor. 2:14).

If the Bible says the unbeliever is not "free" then he is not free.  The Bible says the unbeliever is deceitful and sick (Jer.  17:9), full of evil (Mk 7:21-23), loves  darkness rather than light (John 3:19), does not understand, does not seek for  God (Rom. 3:10-12), is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph.  2:1), is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3), cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14).  How then is the unbeliever able to choose God?  He cannot.

Does this make God responsible for evil?

 God is not responsible for the evil that is accomplished by the free will actionsof fallen people. Remember, free will is the ability to make choices and unbelievers make choices consistent with their fallen natures. They openly choose to accomplish evil deeds in contradiction to God's Word. They are openly and freely rebelling against God. God did not make them sinful. He did not make them rebellious.  therefore, God is not responsible for the evil but they accomplish.
 God made Adam who was good. Adam was not bound by its sinful nature and freely chose to rebel against God. Because of his rebellion, he fell. His body was physically affected by sin. Likewise, his children inherited the sinful nature and depravity of mind, soul, art, body, motions, etc. and are under the proclaimed revelation of God concerning their fallen state. Nevertheless, God made Adam good and Adam chose to rebel. We inherited the sinful nature and the unbeliever, the unregenerate can only act in accordance with his own fall in nature. In other words, he cannot choose to freely follow God because that is a good thing to do. Since he is a slave of sin, does not seek for God and does not understand spiritual things, he is not able to freely choose God.

 

[Bengoshi]

First, to say that something is random means that it has no purpose, no goal, no objective, and no pattern. To apply randomness to God’s sovereign election is inappropriate and it demonstrates that the objection does not reflect a proper understanding of Reformed Theology. The quote above on unconditional election specifically states that God elects out of the kind intention of his will. Since God is not random and he always has a purpose in what he does, his election must also have a purpose – even if it seems random to us. Furthermore, Reformed Theology states that God does nothing randomly and that all things work according to his purpose.
Second, to appeal to different talents in individuals and then to imply that the Reformed position denies that God predestines or elect based upon what is in individuals is contradictory to Scripture, sound thinking, and the Reformed position.
Ephesians 1:4-12 says,

“just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace, 8 which He lavished upon us. In all wisdom and insight 9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things upon the earth. In Him 11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.”

 Notice the bolded words through this passage of Scripture.  It is clear that Paul the apostle focuses on God's choice, God's predestining, God's intention, God's will, God's grace, and God's purpose. You find nowhere in the Scripture where God looks upon an individual and bases his choice of election and predestination based upon some quality in the individual. Therefore, to imply in any way that God bases his sovereign choice upon anything in an individual would be to go against scripture and would be to accuse God of partiality by suggesting that God puts one person above another based upon what is or is not in a person. This is contradictory to Scripture.
 The partiality that Scripture mentions and condemns as exemplified in James 2:2-4

“For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, 3 and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” 4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives?”

 James condemns the partiality shown by people based upon the outward appearance of others. Since we cannot look into the hearts of people, we judge I appearance and often do so simply. God is able to look with in a person. It would be wrong to attribute to God any sort of partiality based upon what is in a person because all people are sinners. All people are touched by sin and nobody is worthy in any way to have God look favorably upon them.
 Third, it is illogical for it is God who has made us, formed us, etc. He is the one who formed our inward parts and wove our personalities in place knitting into them our abilities, disabilities, tendencies, likes, dislikes, strengths, and weaknesses. God is perfectly capable, from all eternity, to create us as he sees fit. It is against sound logic to assert that the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent eternal God is not in control of the creative process that governs the formation of each and every individual who has ever lived or will ever live. Furthermore, it is against sound thinking to conclude that God is not aware or in control of all of the conditions in which a person is born including family, culture, environment, etc. which would have an influence upon the individual's choices. Therefore, since God is the one who forms is in the womb and also places us when and where he desires, he knows what the outcome of those conditions will be regarding our salvation.  In this, God predestines.
 Fourth, the reason not all people are equal and talent is because God has not made them equal and talent. He has not made them with equal artistic or intellectual abilities. He is not granted to each individual the same amount of compassion, energy, or laziness. If God were to look into an individual and base his election upon what is in him, then God is only looking upon what he has created according to his purpose, and his will. What would be the purpose of God looking into an individual's traits if it was God who was the one who placed them there to begin with? It makes no sense.
 It does, however, make more sense to believe that God is sovereignly in control and that his will, his choice, it is kind intention, and his grace, will be carried out.
 Finally, it is not true that God is random. His choices always have a purpose. For the critic to accuse the reformed theological perspective of implying randomness in God's nature and choice, demonstrates that the critic does not understand reformed theology regarding God's greatness, sovereignty, and divine purpose.

 

[JVD]

I suppose this is where we have a poblem on agreeing. It is a Catholic presupposition that is denied by Protestants, and rightly so, considering the abuses of the RCC. The heirarchy became so drunk with power that it saw itself as the infallible representative of God on earth, i.e. “Vicar of Christ”

Have you even considered what “gates of hell shall not prevail against it” really means? Let me help you and other Catholics:

Do gates move or do they stay stationary?
Who are those called to go and make disciples?
To whom did Christ promise to be with until the end of the age?

Since it is the Church who is called to go and make disciples, we are the ones who move in and attack the gates of hell, which imprison the unbelievers. The gates do not move at all. We are to set them free in Christ. Just as Christ promised to be with us, then the gates of hell will certainly not prevail against us as we move forward with the Gospel of Christ.

Just consider it. Doesn’t it make sense?

Please don’t take us down a rabbit hole and take a small tangential statement I made as if its at all part of the main argument. My arguments are completely logical and stand up to scrutiny without even knowing or accepting the truth about the infallability of the catholic church.

And please, please try to see the duplicity and your highly biased and judgemental opinions about “the abuses of the RCC”. You no doubt do not have the wherewithal to be able to discern that impeccability of individuals is not the same thing as infallability of our popes.Once you start a campaign of calumny you then expose yourself to the treacherous history of the man you are following. I don’t want to go there since its ugly But do you even know that Calvin murdered his detractors and was directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of so called witches, heathens and those who did not agree with him or who he judged to be unrepentant sinners (not to mention his hard penalties to those in his church who were not devout enough). Take all this out of your argument and please speak to the facts and do not insult the history of the man you are holding up as superior to an actual apostolic successor but who was an accomplished sinner. OK?

Also, have you considered that you are trying to present yourself as an infallable pope in teaching what you do here? You are offering mere opinion. How are you being any different than what you scorn and reject in the popes? I mean really? All I am hearing are opinions that don’t defeat the the scriptural references I gave you nor address any of my points.

As for the lesson on the gates hell - that’s all interesting speculation. But I can tell you with at least equal opinion that: You can’t assault the gates of hell leading a rogue band of people who are armed with heretical teachings and prevail. The gate of hell open in one direction - inward, like a crab trap. You come knocking with the false theology you are preaching in these forums and the demons and damned therein will recognize you as being on their side and pull you in with them.

James

 

[JVD]

Calvinists do not deny free will. We affirm that people are free to choose what they want to choose. We state that the unbelievers nature is so corrupt that he does not have the ability in his own will, to choose to follow God. This is why the Scriptures say…

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.

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?

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?

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]

If the Bible says the unbeliever is not “free” then he is not free. The Bible says the unbeliever is deceitful and sick (Jer. 17:9), full of evil (Mk 7:21-23), loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19), does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3), cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). How then is the unbeliever able to choose God? He cannot.

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?

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.

God is not responsible for the evil that is accomplished by the free will actionsof fallen people. Remember, free will is the ability to make choices and unbelievers make choices consistent with their fallen natures. They openly choose to accomplish evil deeds in contradiction to God’s Word. They are openly and freely rebelling against God. God did not make them sinful. He did not make them rebellious. therefore, God is not responsible for the evil but they accomplish.

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?

God made Adam who was good. Adam was not bound by its sinful nature and freely chose to rebel against God. Because of his rebellion, he fell. His body was physically affected by sin. Likewise, his children inherited the sinful nature and depravity of mind, soul, art, body, motions, etc. and are under the proclaimed revelation of God concerning their fallen state. Nevertheless, God made Adam good and Adam chose to rebel.

We agree - why rehash this?

We inherited the sinful nature and the unbeliever, the unregenerate can only act in accordance with his own fall in nature. In other words, he cannot choose to freely follow God because that is a good thing to do. Since he is a slave of sin, does not seek for God and does not understand spiritual things, he is not able to freely choose God.

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.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous,** to bring you to God.** He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,
*

Notice in the above scripture that Christ dies for ALL so that He could bring ALL to God.

This means that because Christ died all of Creation is radically reconfigured. God draws all men to Himself by the merits of Christ. The narrow door is opened. All we have to do is decide to choose to enter therein. God’s grace makes it possible for all to come to Him but some will ignore the invitation and some will initially enter but then leave and some will enter and leave many times and get either left behind when the terrible day of the lord comes (the last day or personal death like a thief in the night) or they stay in to the end and receive their crown. God has ordained it - it is so.

James

 

[Bengoshi]

Please don’t take us down a rabbit hole and take a small tangential statement I made as if its at all part of the main argument. My arguments are completely logical and stand up to scrutiny without even knowing or accepting the truth about the infallability of the catholic church.

And please, please try to see the duplicity and your highly biased and judgemental opinions about “the abuses of the RCC”. You no doubt do not have the wherewithal to be able to discern that impeccability of individuals is not the same thing as infallability of our popes.Once you start a campaign of calumny you then expose yourself to the treacherous history of the man you are following. I don’t want to go there since its ugly But do you even know that Calvin murdered his detractors and was directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of so called witches, heathens and those who did not agree with him or who he judged to be unrepentant sinners (not to mention his hard penalties to those in his church who were not devout enough). Take all this out of your argument and please speak to the facts and do not insult the history of the man you are holding up as superior to an actual apostolic successor but who was an accomplished sinner. OK?

Also, have you considered that you are trying to present yourself as an infallable pope in teaching what you do here? You are offering mere opinion. How are you being any different than what you scorn and reject in the popes? I mean really? All I am hearing are opinions that don’t defeat the the scriptural references I gave you nor address any of my points.

As for the lesson on the gates hell - that’s all interesting speculation. But I can tell you with at least equal opinion that: You can’t assault the gates of hell leading a rogue band of people who are armed with heretical teachings and prevail. The gate of hell open in one direction - inward, like a crab trap. You come knocking with the false theology you are preaching in these forums and the demons and damned therein will recognize you as being on their side and pull you in with them.

James

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.

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.

As I have said, let us refrain from using ad hominem attacks and instead focus on the issues at hand. God gave us reason to use. Christianity is faith with reason. My arguments in my last post were from Scripture, I just didn’t provide the citation anymore. I suppose you would have recognize them.

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.