E
E.E.N.S
Guest
Who did you debate, and what was the topic?
- Status
C
Carlan
Guest
Why? because he has been trying to teach you the truth about what Jesus has taught his his Church through the Apostles.You have done nothing but stubbornly resist with all kinds of evasions throughout the different threads you have started.
Give it up already, we were first off the mark and you and Calvin, Luther or any other man can’t change that truth. We have not been judging you Adam but simply pointing to the whole truth as Jesus Christ taught us down through these 2000years past and will continue to teach us thru His one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church until the end of this world comes. Man either accepts it or rejects it and in your end and my end here on earth then and only then will we be judged by the Almighty.Carlan
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
Here’s the detail to the best of my memory. I used to attend Calvary Chapel Murrieta in Murrieta CA. I was involved with the door to door ministry at that particular Calvary Chapel. The Pastor at the Church is an ex-Catholic. His name is Brian Bell. He and his wife still have many relatives in the area who are still Catholics. Therefore, the Catholic relatives of this Calvary Chapel pastor complained about the door to door ministry team for witnessing to Catholics. In addition, our neighbor next door wanted to know what we believed. They were Catholics who later became Calvary Chapel Protestants. So, I got to spend a lot of time with Catholics at Saint Martha’s… armed with mostly Catholic Answers material and books that many who have posted on this site. I had boxes full of Catholic apologetics given to me. I was invited to RCIA classes, Catholic Men’s Fellowship, etc. Finally, they brought someone down from Catholic Answers to debate the door to door ministry team in front of the Catholic Parish in Murrieta. Unfortunately, the Catholic apologist never allowed us to speak, but mocked us in front of the entire Catholic parish. A real debate is two sided, allowing your opponents to present their case. I don’t remember the name of the apologist from Catholic Answers. Oh yah… I fogot that a peson name Joe Ranali left Calvary Chapel Murrieta and returned to his Catholic roots during this time. He became to lay Catholic apologist in the area who was connected to Catholic Answers… He even started a Catholic door to door ministry team. On Saturdays, you would be able to see Protestants, Catholic, Mormons, and JWs going door to door. So, much exciting was going on over several years. Those were the good old days. BTW… the regulars from the Calvary Chapel door to door team all became Calvinists with the exception of one person. From all that excitment, even the Calvinists started going door to door too.
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
If you don’t want to discuss our differences, you don’t have to respond to my postings.
G
guanophore
Guest
Actually, I just don’t want to do for you what you should do for yourself! You have made it very clear that you have specific reasons for not posting on Apologetics, and I think I should respect that (even though I don’t agree with you).
This is a false statement, based upon a false premise. It is also the main reason I did not do what you asked.
If we were on a Protestant forum, it would be true.
No matter what you post, you will end up with lay apologists. The professionals here rarely do so.
Such a time has existed from the time the Word came into the world!
However, if you think that your interpretation of scripture will change anything, you are dreaming.
I am aware that the Armenians are closer to what the Apostles believed and taugth than the Calvanists.Like alll Calvinists, we have discussed and debated TULIP with our dear Arminian Protestant brothers in the Scriptures for years.So, if we stay within the Scriptures, you will be humbled.
I agree, it does always end up as an issue of authority, because that is the whole basis of Calvanism. It was created because the adherants observed the authorities that claimed to espouse the Apostolic Teaching were corrupt, and were not representing the Truth properly.
However you are in error in your perception that one must appeal to the Magesterium “over” scripture. This is a fallacy. On the contrary, we look through Sacred Tradition to properly understand the Scriptures. the Magesterium is charged with the responsibility of preserving them, and making the TEachings relevant to our day and age. There is no conflict between the two. The two exist in perfect harmony. It seems like a contradiction or competition to you because you do not have Sacred Tradition, and your perceptions of it are warped because you are in a tradition that is opposed to it.
The purview of the Magesterium is the Teaching of Jesus, not science.
Yes, it seems to me that Charles, and all those who embrace Calvanism firmly believe this. Just like the shape of the earth, people saying that does not make it true.The strenght of Calvinism and TULIP is the Scriptures. Charles Spurgeon writes that Calvinism is but a nickname for Biblical Christianity.
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
Please start a TULIP thread on the Apologetics section. I would not be right for a Protestant do that on a Catholic Apologetics thread. You can name it something like “TULIP is not true”. Somehow, it seems you are impying that Catholic Truth comes out clearer on the Apologetics section.Actually, I just don’t want to do for you what you should do for yourself! You have made it very clear that you have specific reasons for not posting on Apologetics, and I think I should respect that (even though I don’t agree with you).
C
Carlan
Guest
You have been told what our differences are over and over again ,and you reject what is taught to you over and over again. So why do you aimlessly go on and on in your wordy posts. You are not convincing any of us. Are you still holding out for another mis guided Tweety to come along hoping to pull the wool over them also. I for one am exceedingly tired of you. and your prattle. You may call this post unchristian if you wish, however I think more and more of us here are beginning to feel about you as Jesus did the money changers in the Temple.If you don’t want to discuss our differences, you don’t have to respond to my postings.
Carlan
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
We are drifting far from the thread topic of Justification - Catholics and Protestants. Iron sharpening iron causes sparks!You have been told what our differences are over and over again ,and you reject what is taught to you over and over again. So why do you aimlessly go on and on in your wordy posts. You are not convincing any of us. Are you still holding out for another mis guided Tweety to come along hoping to pull the wool over them also. I for one am exceedingly tired of you. and your prattle. You may call this post unchristian if you wish, however I think more and more of us here are beginning to feel about you as Jesus did the money changers in the Temple.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think what you have written here is a common misunderstanding about Catholicism. Many in the Reformed tradition have been misled to believe that the Catholic Church teaches that our salvation is “probationary” which is not true. Being adopted is a permanent condition (part of the legal definition of being justified in Christ). We are sealed by the promised HS. Although a son can fail to gain his inheritance, he cannot be unmade as a son. It is not the 'adoption papers" that are on “hold”, but the inheritance. It is held for us in heaven, until we are united to it.Do you believe that God is your Heavenly Father? Have you been adopted into the family of God based on the person and work of Christ alone? Or, do you see your adoption papers on hold, pending on how you perform in this life? Sounds like a works righteousness potential adoption to me.uch::doh2: How sufficent is the work of Christ for you in your adoption?
The question is, if the prodical son had not chosen to return to his fathers house, would he have died in the pigstye with nothing?
this passage makes it clear that it is possible, after becoming a 'son" to squander one’s inheritance. One can fall back into slavery, and live accroding to the flesh. In such cases, the last state becomes WORSE than the first, since on has been adopted, and this cannot be undone.
The language common in the NT which Calvanists seem to disregard that is contained in this passage is called “conditional”. that means it is based upon meeting the conditions. I really am not sure how Calvanists are able to disregard these passages. I confess it has been an ongoing mystery to me, and one of the reasons I had to abandon the )OSAS theology.
One of the most grievous perceptions in modern evangelical thought is that God’s everlassting love for us is equated to salvation. He will love us as we walk all the way through the gates of hell.
Indeed, His love remains for us always, just as any father’s unconditional love will remain for a child who goes astray. It does not mean that child can live under his father’s roof. The nature of sin has not changed. Sin still separates us from, God whether we have been adopted, or not.
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
You are predestined to start that thread of “TULIP is not true” on the Catholic Apolgetics section. Please PM when you do what you are predetermined to do.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think 2nd has made it clear that he espouses the TULIP. If you follow the link to the monergism.org he posted, his answer is there. He has repeated stated that this website contains his views.
In the Calvanist view, Election and grace are irresistable. All that are elected will benefit from the “golden chain of salvation” that I just read posted above. All that the Father gives to the Son are guaranteed a spot in heaven.
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
You’ve already started discussing TULIP. You might as well continue on the Apologetics section. Augustine was a TULIP.
G
guanophore
Guest
I appreciate your progress!
I think it is the responsibility of each of us to make sure that we make our defense in gentleness and humility. Can you make sure you do this? You are only responsible for your own behavior.
If I or someone else fails to do so, use the post reporting tool.
My point is, you are doing your apologetics here on the ND section, where it does not really belong.
Of course you are! That is what you are doing on this thread. Apparently we have a different idea of what apologetics means! Maybe that is part of the problem.
What you are saying is that you are on CAF for an evangelistic purpose. That is referred to in the forum rules as a “private agenda”. I recommend you review them.
I am beginning to realize that he does not see it this way. Like “salvation”, he may have redefined the word, so it does not mean to him what it did to the apostles?For someone who’s not “into Protestant apologetics” you certainly spend a lot of time doing Protestant apologetics.
Love is Patient
G
guanophore
Guest
Is not the purpose of your signatures to demonstate that such a difference does not exist?
I think you are right on with this statement. Catholic understand justification from the point of view of the Apostles, and includes all of what Jesus did,a nd taught. A significant portion of this has to be excluded in order to arrive at the Calvanistic position.
This much is Catholic.
Yes, to the extent that scripture is understood according to what the Apostles’ believed and taught.
I can see why you say this. HOwever, the fact that justification and sanctification are inseaparable does not mean they are “blended”. I think “blended” is a misunderstanding. However, the outcome you describe is the fruit of that misunderstanding,a nd I have personally observed that a number of Catholics do, in fact, suffer this misunderstanding. I think the majority of Catholics would benefit greately by understanding their baptism better (what happens at justification).
While I agree on your conclusion, I have to point out that it is based upon a misunderstanding of the individual Catholic, and is not part of Catholic Theology. You have demonstrtated this to be true yourself, in the links on your signature.
**
It actually grieves me that my Catholic siblings miss this wonderful truth that the work of Christ is completely sufficent for us, and full atonement for our sins is hard to believe, but it is true… to the praise of His glorious grace. Jesus Christ merited our full atonement, and is finished in regards to our permanent adoption into the kingdom of God. Remember, don’t confused our standing before God (justifiction) with the transformation process (sanctification) if you want to understand historic Protestantism based on the Scriptures as being authorative for truth.**
Well, we understand the scriptures differently, don’t we?
I share your grief, though. Persons such as yourself who do come home are helping Catholics to understand this better.
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, I understand it. I think a lot of Catholics misunderstand it as well. The Catholic church teaches that we are to work OUT our salvation, not work ON it. the two are vastly different!
C
Cr8ton
Guest
I created the thread on apologetics section. Please start clarifying/discussing. I’m SO curious and can’t wait to see this. =]You’ve already started discussing TULIP. You might as well continue on the Apologetics section. Augustine was a TULIP.
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
Is not the purpose of your signatures to demonstate that such a difference does not exist?
I think you are right on with this statement. Catholic understand justification from the point of view of the Apostles, and includes all of what Jesus did,a nd taught. A significant portion of this has to be excluded in order to arrive at the Calvanistic position.
This much is Catholic.
Yes, to the extent that scripture is understood according to what the Apostles’ believed and taught.
I can see why you say this. HOwever, the fact that justification and sanctification are inseaparable does not mean they are “blended”. I think “blended” is a misunderstanding. However, the outcome you describe is the fruit of that misunderstanding,a nd I have personally observed that a number of Catholics do, in fact, suffer this misunderstanding. I think the majority of Catholics would benefit greately by understanding their baptism better (what happens at justification).
While I agree on your conclusion, I have to point out that it is based upon a misunderstanding of the individual Catholic, and is not part of Catholic Theology. You have demonstrtated this to be true yourself, in the links on your signature.
**
Well, we understand the scriptures differently, don’t we?
I share your grief, though. Persons such as yourself who do come home are helping Catholics to understand this better.
You see the remnant chosen by grace from both Catholic and Protestant communities are much closer than most think. That is why I have two Catholic links on my signature. Actually many Catholics and Protestants believe in a personal works righteousnsss way to salvation. If you ask many Protestants why they are going to Heaven, many will say that they will be in Heaven because they are good people.
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
Thanks brother, but I can’t find it. Please post a link on this thread to that TULIP thread on Apologetics.
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
- Status