"My Journey To Reformed Theology"

[Gadgeteer]

This is understandable, especially when all he has is the Protestant framework and is unaware of the rich Catholic tradition on these passages. One thing most Protestants don’t realize is that most of the Early Church Fathers spoke Greek, and so they could read the Biblical Greek the NT was written in.

None of the ECF’s espoused Reformed ideas. I’ve read excellent things from people like Chrysostom; they were opposed to it. Calvin supposedly got his ideas from Augustine; but though Augustine invented “Predestination”, he didn’t really view salvation as unfallible; or rather, said that no one could really know if he was elect or not.

Most Protestants think that the only people who know Biblical Greek are modern day Protestant scholars. In reality, when the Early Church read texts like John 6, they didn’t see anything Calvinist about it, because the Greek doesn’t actually say what English translations often give off.

Look at John6:44 — and compare how RT’s read it, with what Jesus really meant.

RT: Jews (paraphrased) — “He’s elevating Himself up with GOD, saying He came down out of Heaven! Who does He think He IS?!”

Jesus: "Don’t grumble; those who come to Me are predestined by God…"

Huh?! That answers the Jews’ complaint? No it doesn’t! Here is what really was happening:

Jews (paraphrased) — “He’s elevating Himself up with GOD, saying He came down out of Heaven! Who does He think He IS?!”

Jesus: “Don’t grumble; those who come to Me are authorized by God, I am authorized by God THAT’S who I am!”

When someone asks “who-does-He-think-He-is”, it is no answer that “men-are-predestined”; no, clearly Jesus was saying "their coming is authorized, because I am authorized…"

For example, the verbs for ‘drawing’ and ‘believing’ and such are verbs in the Present-Tense, meaning the action is going on right now and not a one-time-completed action.

Not just “present” – but present ACTIVE PARTICIPLE. Please see the tense on “believe” in John3:16, and Rom1:16 — “all who ARE BELIEVING” — you are more right than you thought.

Now go back to John6 – verse 40:
"“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” That’s actually not the right translation; once again it is present-active-participle, those who ARE BELIEVING in Him!

As such, John is never saying “the moment you believe you’re forever saved,” but rather “as you continue to believe you continue to be saved”.

100% right.

With the right knowledge, these texts are some of the most powerful texts refuting Reformed Theology and instead supporting Catholicism. You can regularly win debates with Reformed folks if you know how to use these verses…while they only know the surface level. Like you will often see Protestants quote Ephesians 2:8 but they ignore Ephesians 2:5!

They separate verse 5 from verse 8; WHEN we were dead in our sins, WE BELIEVED. Reformed Theology founds on the premise that (spiritually) dead men cannot believe; oh yes they can, Paul just said so!

And then give them verse 3, if God created the “elect” to be saved, then they were NOT “children of wrath/Hell the same as the rest”!

(BTW, ask a Calvinist why God does not save His elect from early childhood? If God really hates sin, why does He want His children wallowing in it much of their lives?)

That is actually a good way to approach the issue…and it’s one of the main questions a person must ask themselves about becoming Catholic. They must pray and ask God that if the Catholic Church is true, then they will join even if it sounds scary.

I don’t think we should be afraid of things. I know plenty of Catholics who are true Christians, and they embody “there is no fear in love, perfect love casts out fear…” (1Jn4)

It strikes me foremost, that “he hated the position” — and he’s reluctantly (kicking-and-screaming!) dragged towards a doctrine he hates!

This is not uncommon. People often start off being afraid of Catholicism, only to later realize they were mistaken. Other times a doctrine is wrong and so you should resist it, even if it might at first seem plausible.

He was apprehensive about “Sovereign Predestined Salvation”. He should have asked himself WHY he at first hated it? Clearly, because it makes God causal in men’s sin, makes Him solely responsible for their condemnation, and impugns His character by violating His righteousness and accusing Him of being a false judge. RT’s know this, and many of them then turn to a sub-doctrine called “Compatibilism”, which seeks to insulate God from causality in men’s wickedness.

 

[Gadgeteer]

The simple answer is: Reformed Theology paints a gruesome picture, but washes it down with appealing pill: Assurance. The problem is, this is a presumption that you’re one of the elect…in reality under the Reformed system, you cannot actually know if God loves you…so you must start off assuming God loves you, which is really False Assurance. In fact, Calvin taught that God often sends people a false sense of election, causing them to think they are elect when they actually aren’t. Most Calvinists will never face the fact that they are presuming their election, because it’s too scary for them to face the truth!

Exactly that. As I said in another post, please refer to the story told in Luke8 — in no way can Calvinists prove they are TRULY ELECTED like those in verse 15, and not just CRUELLY REJECTED (even believing in Jesus joyfully) like those in verse 13! Only perseverance until DEATH, proves which is which. It’s really a frightening position!

Probably the error that nobody aside from Reformed Theologians know Biblical Greek. Once you fall into that trap, and most Calvinists do, then you start to think that only Reformed Theologians can read the plain text of Scripture. Yet you will not find any Protestant Reformed Scholars telling their readers to look at how the Bible defines key terms like “Imputation” (Logizomai in Greek), because Reformed scholars pretend the Greek work Logizomai means “to impute” when in reality the Bible NEVER uses it to mean this! It’s so sad that Reformed Scholarship hides the truth so often. Similarly, no Protestant will touch the Greek of 2 Timothy 3:16 on Sola Scriptura where it says “Pasa Graphe”.

Calvinists think that Romans 9 teaches “unconditional election,” but in reality that was precisely the heresy that Paul was refuting in Romans 9! They got it exactly backwards!

I would love for you to expound upon this! I’ve dealt with Rom9 by pointing out it’s really all about “ALSO GENTILES”. And making connections like Jacob and Esau being two peoples, Gen25:23, “God has mercy on all men” Rom11:32, etcetera…

For the Reformed, you must go all-in and play to win. The best way a Catholic can do this is to learn how to use the Book of Romans to thoroughly refute Calvinism, and the Calvinist will just whither before you once you point out their glaring presuppositions.

Not just Romans. It’s useful to know every verse they use, and what the verse really says. You have to address all their verses, only then they might realize their arms are empty, their doctrine is gone.

For instance, over and over I’ve cited 1Cor2:14, which is really the only verse Calvinists have “to prove unregenerated men cannot believe to salvation”. (Therefore God must give that understanding/things FIRST, only THEN can they believe and receive the Spirit and be saved.) The refutation is only two verses earlier — before and in order TO GET the things/understanding, they must be saved and receive the Spirit.

They have absolutely no defense to this. It’s the same with the rest of the verses they use…

Calvinism has zero Scriptural support, so nothing they say will have any actual Biblical proof once you ask them.

Not true (in their eyes) — they have PLENTY of “Scriptural support”. But when you start scrutinizing the very verses they use for support, there is no such support. We just proved that with 1Cor2:14 — in “The Sovereignty of God” (A.W.Pink, page 98), the wrong interpretation is stated; so too in “Chosen by God” (Sproul) — didn’t these guys READ verse 12!!!

Lastly, the biggest problem of all is that Protestantism has completely misunderstood The Cross - they misunderstand the Atonement because they don’t go to Scripture and instead follow traditions of men. You will never see them define Atonement according to Scripture. Once you get this, it’s like a domino effect of everything else falling.

I looked at your link; he states “propitiation, a turning-away-of-wrath, rather than punishment”. That is what Scripture teaches…

You see, not all Protestants are the same.

 

[Gadgeteer]

Consider division (all links are operational)

John Henry Newman, while still a Protestant, said the following

“to be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant”. #199

Jesus prayer for His Church that He established on Peter

In Context

As in there is to be ZERO division.

Division from His Church is cataclysmic on ones soul.

For some history of the 1st 4 centuries (internal links are operational) see in particular the consequences mentioned for division, note the quotes both from scripture and from disciples of the apostles in their writing against division and the consequences
#27

Hi, Steve. Conformity to any church is not convincing to RT’s. The only way to correct their direction, is to start showing them their violations of Scripture.

Above I pointed out how easy it is to overturn RT’s take on 1Cor2:14; it’s equally easy to overturn most of their other verses. When they cite Jeremiah17:9 (“men are too wicked to believe, God does NOT respond to men but rather changes them first”) — just read verse 10, God DOES RESPOND to men and their choices. (Give them also Isaiah65:12!)

When they cite Jeremiah13:23 (“a man can no more turn from sin towards God than can a leopard change his spots!”) — give them verse 27! In what universe could “how-long-will-you-remain-unclean”, how could that exist if a man cannot cleanse himself, even as 2Tim2:21 says, and Rev22:14 says?

One by one we can take their verses, and completely overturn “Sovereign Predestined Salvation”. And then we turn the page — and begin to confront them with all of the “DON’T FALL FROM SALVATION” warnings. There are many!

All this works only with someone who is open to Scripture, and to God. I was dialoging with a Calvinist Baptist preacher by email; when confronted with 1Cor2:12, overturning what he parroted from Sproul and Pink and the others, he completely dismissed me!

"You can have the last word, I need to spend time with people MORE INTERESTED in SCRIPTURE…

Huh?!?!

I was trying to hold YOU to THAT VERY SCRIPTURE, it is YOU who WILL NOT accept Paul’s words, Mr. C.!

(“Lord, please give me more patience!”)

 

[Chesster]

I’m not conversant with “penal substitution”. But Reformed Theology teaches that God ordained absolutely everything (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini too!). Before time God wrote out a list of all people ever to be born, and decided which ones He would ordain to be wicked and to perish, and which ones He would zap with regeneration and cause them to love Him back! It makes the Cross mere pageantry, because Jesus’ death doesn’t affect anything, only God’s sovereign predestination determines destiny. It renders the Great Commandment “go unto all the world preaching the Gospel” as useless, because God will save whom He will and those He condemns can never be reached. It violates verses like Jude23 “save others, snatching them from the fire” – because God’s unwanted can NOT be snatched from the fire, and His favorites (teacher’ pets) were never truly in danger of fire in the first place. Which also violates Eph2:3, “we were children of wrath (Hell) the same as the rest!”

So this man spent 28 years of soul-searching to conclude that God is a tyrant!

I doubt I could penetrate the thought process of such an individual but the Devil plays to our weaknesses. You asked this question in an earlier post: “Honestly, how does a mindset become so fixed, that verses like these are just dismissed and not embraced?” I think the CCC 2088 touched upon the answer. It states: “. . . Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.” What appears to have happened here is that this man deliberately cultivated his doubt by reading those reformed authors and became spiritually blind.

 

[steve_b]

Hi, Steve. Conformity to any church is not convincing to RT’s. The only way to correct their direction, is to start showing them their violations of Scripture.

:tiphat:howdy Gadgeteer

I agree

That’s why Re: division, and RT’s

I gave this link #27**, **giving the first 400 years of Church history, albeit highly condensed using scripture, and the writings of the Early Church Fathers (ECF’s) who were direct disciples of the apostles

RT’s as you point out, come from Calvin, a 16th century lawyer, claiming his own theology and causing his own brand of havoc

The internal links of #27**, **give the following scripture passages condemning those who divide or cause dissent from Our Lord’s Church. That’s an important distinction, Our Lord’s Church. No one but Jesus can start His Church. Not Calvin, nor Luther, nor Henry VIII, nor Smyth, nor Wesley, etc etc down to our day. That stuff is all division from Our Lord’s Church, and scripture condemns it and those who do it and keep it going.

Specifically

The Greek word I’m focusing on from scripture, for dissension/division is** διχοστασίαι** , the same word used in the book to the Church of Rome, (Rom 16:19) and the Church of Galatia, (Gal 5:20)

Paul warns of the consequence for that sin of division, from the one Church Jesus established.

Paul writes,

"I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. " [Gal 5:21]

IOW they who διχοστασίαι ]

go to hell when they die, if they are divided from, or cause division from, the one true Church Jesus established, and remain so.

How do soooooo many people miss that? Is it any wonder Jesus says few go to heaven.

And which Church is Paul talking about? This is why knowing scripture ***and ***history is so important.

From the Greek study bible translation
Acts 9:31 the church throughout all ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς ,Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria…" = the Kataholos Church.

catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

i.e. kataholos ekklesia, = The Church according to the whole, the universal Church, the Catholic Church. It has been that name “Catholic”, in writing, from the first century.

See the link I gave from Bp Ignatius of Antioch. He was ordained bishop ~69 a.d. by the apostles, and was a direct disciple of St John, as was Bp Polycarp of Smyrna. Both Bishops refer to the Church as the “Catholic Church”. Where would they learn this? From the apostles. No one objected to the name Catholic Church. No one said, Catholic? What are you talking about? Everybody knew. Ignatius wrote 6 letters to the Catholic Church in 6 locations. And he says to the Church of Rome, “the Church that holds the presidency”. Ignatius has been bishop of Antioch from ~69 a.d.

BTW, ever wonder where the phrase “outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation” comes from?

It’s right there in scripture, and extended through the writings of the ECF’s .

Jesus prayed for perfect unity.** In Context**
That tells us why division from His Church is condemned

Gadgeteer:

Above I pointed out how easy it is to overturn RT’s take on 1Cor2:14; it’s equally easy to overturn most of their other verses. When they cite Jeremiah17:9 (“men are too wicked to believe, God does NOT respond to men but rather changes them first”) — just read verse 10, God DOES RESPOND to men and their choices. (Give them also Isaiah65:12!)

When they cite Jeremiah13:23 (“a man can no more turn from sin towards God than can a leopard change his spots!”) — give them verse 27! In what universe could “how-long-will-you-remain-unclean”, how could that exist *if a man cannot cleanse himself, even as 2Tim2:21 says, and Rev22:14 says?
One by one we can take their verses, and completely overturn “Sovereign Predestined Salvation”. And then we turn the page — and begin to confront them with all of the “DON’T FALL FROM SALVATION” warnings. There are many!

All this works only with someone who is open to Scripture, and to God. I was dialoging with a Calvinist Baptist preacher by email; when confronted with 1Cor2:12, overturning what he parroted from Sproul and Pink and the others, he completely dismissed me!

I understand.

BTW, Re: Sproul,

I don’t know who invented this phrase,

“we have a fallible collection of infallible books”.

but Sproul used it himself.

 

[Luke6_37]

I’ve contended all along that "no one puts himself into a Sovereign-Predestined-Salvation outlook by reading the Bible; it is a position that must be taught.

I’m not so sure about that. In his debate with Trent Horn, James White explained that in order to arrive at Reformed Theology, one must ascribe not only to Sola Scriptura, but also Tota Scriptura or the doctrine that everything in the Old and New Testament must be made to harmonize.

The problem with those doctrines is that there are a lot of contradictions in the Bible about God, especially between the Old and New Testament. This is what let Marcion in the first century to conclude that the “Father of Christ” was not the same as the “God of Israel”. The solution of the early Church Fathers was to focus on Jesus as the perfect and complete revelation of God and leave it there.

When these two “sola” doctrines emerged during the Reformation, the systematic theology that was required to satisfy them is what produced Reformed Theology. As long as a person is locked into those two doctrines (sola scriptura & tota scriptura), they are forced to accept conclusions about God that are repugnant and conflict with what we perceive was revealed by Christ.

 

[Gadgeteer]

You’ll be astonished how easy it is to refute Calvinism once you know what to say.

That’s right — first write down all the verses they use, then read the context and look at the connections throughout the whole. Read 2Cor4:3-4, and then find 2Cor3:16. Read Acts13:48, and then find verse 46. Read John6:44, and then find Acts17:26-31, John12:32, and Jn6:70 and more.

It’s as easy as taking the very verses they use against you, reading them properly, and turning the SAME VERSE around on them!

Yes — but — they have a doctrine formed by at least 56 verses, and then supported by four “founding passages”. It does no good to discuss one or two or a dozen — unless you grab ALL of their verses, they’re left with enough in their arms that they’ll still cling to Predestined Salvation. But when you empty their arms and they realize not only does the whole doctrine have no support, but then over there is a whole other armload of verses warning against real “apostasy”, they don’t have any choice but to start thinking, “UH-OH…”

…unless they are soooo stubborn as to just shrug, pick their supposed prooftexts back up and hug them in their arms as if those verses have never been addressed!

That’s how genius God is at stopping heresy.

He is; however, each of us is fallible. We are subject to being mislead and deceived, of misunderstanding the Spirit, including you and me. While we may not believe “Scripture is the final word of God” (subsequent revelations are important), everything in what we call “Scripture” is valid, and many points have their own authority so that it can’t just be dismissed with “That is your wrong interpretation” (as Calvinists often try to do).

So we keep studying to show ourselves approved, we keep speaking the truth in love, we keep earnestly contending for the faith. Always to promote spiritual maturity and not division, always to serve He whom we claim to know.

 

[Gadgeteer]

For me, it all started with one little question when I was 18.

“If you see a little red ball fall down the stairs, did God know it was going to happen? If so, why?”

It took me awhile to fully digest it, but once I “got it”, I became over-zealous about it. It’s a common adage among the reformed I ran with that when it finally “clicks”, it’s probably best to lock the new acolyte in a closet for 6 months so they can simmer-down about it. I would debate Catholics about it at the drop of a hat.

The attraction? It’s a SUPER-tight theology. I mean TIGHT. Systemic answers could be given for practically any issue. One can easily see how it “works”.

Any time someone has a “closed theology”, he will simply hug the doctrine tighter and look for ways to explain Scriptures so that the doctrine survives. 1Tim2:4 becomes “some-of-all-TYPES” rather than truly “all” (in spite of the words “Kings and ALL AUTHORITY”, clearly exceeding the scope of who could be God’s sovereign elect!). Rom5:12-19 with its exact equality “SO THEN all, EVEN SO all” — becomes “even-so-FEW”. John12:32 becomes “not-really-EVERYONE”.

…I don’t remember what they said about 1Jn2:2, where “whole world” can become “only the few whom God WANTS…”

What eventually led me away from it (and ultimately to Catholicism) is the understanding of the depravity of mankind. If we are as totally depraved as reformed theology purports, then we aren’t the least bit culpable for our sin. We were born to hate God and only come to him because he essentially makes us by presenting us with the choice and a new heart that makes only one “option” of the choice possible to accept.

EXACTLY. In Rom1:19-20 “they are without excuse” — there can be no better excuse for sinfulness than “total inability” (a very long distance farther than “total depravity”). In Human jurisprudence, “not guilty by reason of insanity” is clearly recognized; would God judge differently, condemning men for that which they were too insane to resist?

This isn’t my only critique of reformed theology. Just the biggest.

Your complaint is sound and excellent. My biggest complaint about the doctrine is the insult it does to God’s character; what kind of a judge would He be if He long before caused each person to turn ONLY to righteousness or ONLY to sin? What kind of “love” would He be?

It is the same error which infuriated Jesus in Matt12:25-31, “accusing God of complicity in evil”.

How is it not?

 

[Gadgeteer]

Consider division (all links are operational)

John Henry Newman, while still a Protestant, said the following

“to be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant”. #199

No two people on Earth will agree on everything, Steve. Perhaps the greatest lesson any of us can learn is how to be tolerant of others, how to “earnestly contend for the faith” while recognizing that there is only one Savior, and we ain’t Him. We celebrate what we have in common, strive together to be found in Jesus’ presence when He returns, and do not engage in useless “disputes factions and dissensions”.

Jesus prayer for His Church that He established on Peter

In Context

As in there is to be ZERO division.

In 1Cor3:11 Paul said “no other foundation can be laid but Jesus Christ”. I say that not to fight, but to just show that you and I have some differences — things that cause NEITHER of us to rush into our congregations combatively, but rather to grace each other with the privilege of being able to see through another’s eyes. How narrow each of our worlds would be without such extra vision!

For myself, if I spoke words anywhere, including on a Catholic board, which caused any strife or division in any assembly, then I will have failed in my goals. Foremost when Christians converse, we should “encourage one another …lest anyone be deceived by sin to falling away from the living God…” Heb3:12-14…

Division from His Church is cataclysmic on one’s soul.

Can be; worse, would be Paul’s worry that “we could be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ”…

For some history of the 1st 4 centuries (internal links are operational) see in particular the consequences mentioned for division, note the quotes both from scripture and from disciples of the apostles in their writing against division and the consequences
#27

I operate on the perception that there are sufficient absolutes in Scripture to overturn doctrines such as “Sovereign Predestined Salvation”. Behind which, is really the same thing that satan used to deceive Eve, "Don’t worry, you won’t really die." Yes, we can; we who are truly saved, can become “hardened by deceitful sin to turning away from the living God”. It is the most effective tool of the deceiver, to convince Believers that such deception is not possible.

“Ei-Dunatos” in Matt24:24, really means the same thing as when Paul said it in Acts20:16 — "The false will deceive even the elect, IF THEY CAN…"



Therefore let our words unite and not divide, and where we differ let us be open to God and what the Apostles wrote, never using anything we learn to cause harm. For we are ambassadors for God, embodying Christ living in and through us (2Cor5:20, Gal2:20 & Philip2:12), let us be useful in the Master’s hand to “snatching from the flames those who are truly falling into them.” Let our words BETWEEN our words, be more effective at promoting Jesus than what we say. In that, let Him be real to us, in order that we can make Him real to the world.

 

[Gadgeteer]

So this man spent 28 years of soul-searching to conclude that God is a tyrant!

It really seems to be “promoting a kind of schizophrenia”! “Tyrant” really is a good word; if God created most mankind only to be wicked and to perish, and there’s not a thing anyone do about it, and then He created a few to be “favorites” and there is no way to resist that, then yes “tyrant” applies.

I doubt I could penetrate the thought process of such an individual but the Devil plays to our weaknesses. You asked this question in an earlier post: “Honestly, how does a mindset become so fixed, that verses like these are just dismissed and not embraced?” I think the CCC 2088 touched upon the answer. It states: “. . . Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.” What appears to have happened here is that this man deliberately cultivated his doubt by reading those reformed authors and became spiritually blind.

You’re right. It is the goal of my heart to sufficiently promote Scripture with enough accuracy so that they can’t say, “You have your interpretation, I have mine; I just don’t agree with how you interpret that” — when one of the Apostles wrote specific things, they wrote with enough authority so that no interpretation is possible.

One example of that is Rom5:17-19 — Paul uses an exact equality — "SO THEN all (came condemnation), EVEN SO all (came justification). Condemnation came to every last man conditionally; to be condemned each has to sin — Paul states in verse 12 that every person meets the condition.

EVEN SO justification also came to the exact same persons as to whom came condemnation, there can be no other meaning; and justification equally came conditionally, Paul says in verse 17 that one has to RECEIVE the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness. And not every person does that, each has to choose.

Calvinists with astonishing stubbornness insist “SO THEN all (condemnation), EVEN SO few (justification)”. And that just doesn’t fit what Paul wrote; it is not an interpretation, it is a violation…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Gadgeteer]

:tiphat:howdy Gadgeteer

I agree

That’s why Re: division, and RT’s

I gave this link #27**, **giving the first 400 years of Church history, albeit highly condensed using scripture, and the writings of the Early Church Fathers (ECF’s) who were direct disciples of the apostles

RT’s as you point out, come from Calvin, a 16th century lawyer, claiming his own theology and causing his own brand of havoc

The internal links of #27**, **give the following scripture passages condemning those who divide or cause dissent from Our Lord’s Church. That’s an important distinction, Our Lord’s Church. No one but Jesus can start His Church. Not Calvin, nor Luther, nor Henry VIII, nor Smyth, nor Wesley, etc etc down to our day. That stuff is all division from Our Lord’s Church, and scripture condemns it and those who do it and keep it going.

Specifically

The Greek word I’m focusing on from scripture, for dissension/division is** διχοστασίαι** , the same word used in the book to the Church of Rome, (Rom 16:19) and the Church of Galatia, (Gal 5:20)

Paul warns of the consequence for that sin of division, from the one Church Jesus established.

Paul writes,

"I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. " [Gal 5:21]

IOW they who διχοστασίαι ]

go to hell when they die, if they are divided from, or cause division from, the one true Church Jesus established, and remain so.

How do soooooo many people miss that? Is it any wonder Jesus says few go to heaven.

And which Church is Paul talking about? This is why knowing scripture ***and ***history is so important.

From the Greek study bible translation
Acts 9:31 the church throughout all ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς ,Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria…" = the Kataholos Church.

catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

i.e. kataholos ekklesia, = The Church according to the whole, the universal Church, the Catholic Church. It has been that name “Catholic”, in writing, from the first century.

See the link I gave from Bp Ignatius of Antioch. He was ordained bishop ~69 a.d. by the apostles, and was a direct disciple of St John, as was Bp Polycarp of Smyrna. Both Bishops refer to the Church as the “Catholic Church”. Where would they learn this? From the apostles. No one objected to the name Catholic Church. No one said, Catholic? What are you talking about? Everybody knew. Ignatius wrote 6 letters to the Catholic Church in 6 locations. And he says to the Church of Rome, “the Church that holds the presidency”. Ignatius has been bishop of Antioch from ~69 a.d.

BTW, ever wonder where the phrase “outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation” comes from?

It’s right there in scripture, and extended through the writings of the ECF’s .

Welllll, you pro’lly know someone who might disagree with that. :egyptian:

Jesus prayed for perfect unity.** In Context**
That tells us why division from His Church is condemned

“Encourage one another, while it is still today, lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin to falling away from the living God. We are partners in Christ if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end.” (Heb3:12-14)

I understand.

BTW, Re: Sproul,

I don’t know who invented this phrase,

“we have a fallible collection of infallible books”.

but Sproul used it himself.

What is fallible about our collection?

There are some verses that are not so conclusive. In the section of my book on “Universalism”, I cite two verses by Peter; no one knows what Peter was saying.
(There’s more than enough in the rest of Scripture to overturn Universalism…)

 

[Gadgeteer]

Gadget:

I’ve contended all along that "no one puts himself into a Sovereign-Predestined-Salvation outlook by reading the Bible; it is a position that must be taught.

I’m not so sure about that. In his debate with Trent Horn, James White explained that in order to arrive at Reformed Theology, one must ascribe not only to Sola Scriptura, but also Tota Scriptura or the doctrine that everything in the Old and New Testament must be made to harmonize.

The problem with those doctrines is that there are a lot of contradictions in the Bible about God, especially between the Old and New Testament. This is what let Marcion in the first century to conclude that the “Father of Christ” was not the same as the “God of Israel”. The solution of the early Church Fathers was to focus on Jesus as the perfect and complete revelation of God and leave it there.

When these two “sola” doctrines emerged during the Reformation, the systematic theology that was required to satisfy them is what produced Reformed Theology. As long as a person is locked into those two doctrines (sola scriptura & tota scriptura), they are forced to accept conclusions about God that are repugnant and conflict with what we perceive was revealed by Christ.

What do you find contradictory in there about God? Sometimes there are “devices” at play. For instance, in Ex10:1 “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart”. But two verses earlier, 9:34, Pharaoh hardened his ownheart. Who actually did the hardening? Per 1Sam6:6, Pharaoh did.

So why is Ex10:1 even in there? It’s a literary device, called “Semitic View”, or “Anthropomorphism”. It ascribes to God, or others (the devil in 2Cor4:4), what men do themselves. That’s the answer to Rom12:3, “as God has allotted each a measure of faith” — simply conveying “as much faith as each person HAS”.

A better example of this (and answer to an apparent contradiction), is to look at Isaiah6:10, which is cited in places like John12:40; does God really close certain eyes and ears against salvation, they have no other choice? Apparently!

…but then we look at Matt13:15-16, and again Jesus cites Isaiah6:10 — but this time He plainly says “men close their OWN eyes and ears …but blessed are YOUR eyes BECAUSE they see, and your ears BECAUSE they hear”. In undeniable terms we have to acknowledge “Semitic View”, men close their own eyes and ears; and that’s the only way verses like Lk8:18 work, “take care how you listen”. Only if one opens or closes his OWN eyes and ears, could we “take care how we listen”!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

That’s right — first write down all the verses they use, then read the context and look at the connections throughout the whole.

Surprisingly, it’s not so much about context and more about actual content. The very verses they use don’t actually say what they want them to say. In 2 Corinthians 5:21, for example, nowhere does the verse say or suggest Double Imputation. It’s not there, you just have to know this upfront so that you can stop them the moment they mention it.

Yes — but — they have a doctrine formed by at least 56 verses, and then supported by four “founding passages”. It does no good to discuss one or two or a dozen — unless you grab ALL of their verses, they’re left with enough in their arms that they’ll still cling to Predestined Salvation.

I know what you mean, but to keep the discussions manageable you have to start off going after key passages, and as you show those exact verses don’t actually say what they think, this will cause a crack in their foundation. I’d be curious what you think are their 56 verses and 4 founding passages (I’m guessing Rom 9, Jn 6, maybe Rom 8 and Eph 1?). More importantly though, I avoid the subject of Predestination as much as possible with them, because such discussions go nowhere. Their more important doctrines are Penal Substitution, Imputation, Active Obedience, etc., which fall like a house of cards. They actually use Predestination to HIDE FROM these other things. These other things are the pillars of their Predestination views.

…unless they are soooo stubborn as to just shrug, pick their supposed prooftexts back up and hug them in their arms as if those verses have never been addressed!

Because you have to go DEEPER than Predestination. Once you hit them on PSub and Active Obedience, the very soul of their theology is gone.

 

[Gadgeteer]

Surprisingly, it’s not so much about context and more about actual content. The very verses they use don’t actually say what they want them to say. In 2 Corinthians 5:21, for example, nowhere does the verse say or suggest Double Imputation. It’s not there, you just have to know this upfront so that you can stop them the moment they mention it.

2Cor5:21 “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

1Pet2:24 “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.”

Agreed.

I know what you mean, but to keep the discussions manageable you have to start off going after key passages, and as you show those exact verses don’t actually say what they think, this will cause a crack in their foundation. I’d be curious what you think are their 56 verses and 4 founding passages (I’m guessing Rom 9, Jn 6, maybe Rom 8 and Eph 1?).

Right — the “Four Foundation Passages” are Eph1:4-5, Eph1:11, Rom8:29-35, and Rom9:11-21. The “Secondaries” include John6:37, 39, 44, and 65; Jn10:26 & 28. John12:40 (and Isaiah6:10). 1Cor2:14. 2Cor4:3-4. Acts13:48. Rom12:3. 2Tim2:25. And OT ones like Prov16:9. Jer17:10, and 13:23.

More importantly though, I avoid the subject of Predestination as much as possible with them, because such discussions go nowhere. Their more important doctrines are Penal Substitution, Imputation, Active Obedience, etc., which fall like a house of cards. They actually use Predestination to HIDE FROM these other things. These other things are the pillars of their Predestination views.

Either God decided before Creation who is going to be righteous and turn to Him, and who is going to be wicked — or He puts every person in a place where each CAN believe and allows each to make a choice. The first option indisputably calls God a fraud, hypocrite, false-judge, causal-in-evil — the second option recognizes He is love (and “love cannot demand its own way” 1Cor13:5).

Because you have to go DEEPER than Predestination. Once you hit them on PSub and Active Obedience, the very soul of their theology is gone.

It seems to me to approach from both directions. When shown that Scripture not only never teaches “predestined election”, but it also teaches “fallible salvation”, their complacency evaporates…

 

[steve_b]

Welllll, you pro’lly know someone who might disagree with that. :egyptian:

Given I quote copiously, I fully recognize, people aren’t disagreeing with me, but with my sources. In that particular case the source was Jesus, and we know people disagreed with Jesus then as they do now

Gadgeteer:

“Encourage one another, while it is still today, lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin to falling away from the living God. We are partners in Christ if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end.” (Heb3:12-14)

true

Gadgeteer:

What is fallible about our collection?

Exactly

Yet Sproul, a Protestant as well as all Protestants, have 66 books to their bible, but the Catholic Church that Jesus established, has 73 books.

 

[Gadgeteer]

BTW, ever wonder where the phrase “outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation” comes from?

It’s right there in scripture, and extended through the writings of the ECF’s .
Gadget:

Welllll, you pro’lly know someone who might disagree with that.

Given I quote copiously, I fully recognize, people aren’t disagreeing with me, but with my sources. In that particular case the source was Jesus, and we know people disagreed with Jesus then as they do now

Inasmuch as I consider many Catholics truly saved brothers and sisters, I hope many Catholics also consider me a saved brother. So our agreement might not be “where we go to church”, but that Jesus called “Catholic/Universal” all believers who receive Him and follow His teachings as they understand the Apostles to have taught them.

“Encourage one another…”

true

:grouphug:

What is fallible about our collection?

Exactly

Yet Sproul, a Protestant as well as all Protestants, have 66 books to their bible, but the Catholic Church that Jesus established, has 73 books.

Whether we study 66, or 73, the basic principles of Jesus persist. God sent His only begotten Son to be a propitiation for our sin; for He knew that our flesh was too weak (Rom8:3), and Jesus had to die to do what we could not. He was the strength of our saving, and continues to be our strength – operating through our continued faith. “Salvation” is both when one believes and receives Jesus, and it is walking IN Jesus until the end. (Rom1:16-17) Salvation was a done-deal wrought on the Cross, He fully canceled our “certificate of debt” (tetelestai!) having nailed it to the Cross two thousand years ago; and salvation is a continuing walk as we “build ourselves in holy faith, waiting anxiously for the mercy of Christ to eternal life”, and we “keep ourselves in His love” (Jude20-21). As Peter said the inheritance is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, and is reserved in Heaven for us – who are kept by the power of God THROUGH (our!) FAITH for a salvation to be revealed in the end time. (1Pet1:4-5, 9!)

I think most people here are in agreement with these things.

 

[steve_b]

Inasmuch as I consider many Catholics truly saved brothers and sisters, I hope many Catholics also consider me a saved brother.

Gadgeteer,

just being honest,

I can’t say that you are truly saved. That’s like saying you don’t need Our Lord’s Church and the sacraments, to be saved. I can’t do that.

Gadgeteer:

So our agreement might not be “where we go to church”, but that Jesus called “Catholic/Universal” all believers who receive Him and follow His teachings as they understand the Apostles to have taught them.



:grouphug:

I don’t agree with the redefining of terms either.

Gadgeteer:

Whether we study 66, or 73, the basic principles of Jesus persist.

Your relativizing a serious subject

Gadgeteer:

God sent His only begotten Son to be a propitiation for our sin; for He knew that our flesh was too weak (Rom8:3), and Jesus had to die to do what we could not. He was the strength of our saving, and continues to be our strength – operating through our continued faith. “Salvation” is both when one believes and receives Jesus, and it is walking IN Jesus until the end. (Rom1:16-17) Salvation was a done-deal wrought on the Cross, He fully canceled our “certificate of debt” (tetelestai!) having nailed it to the Cross two thousand years ago; and salvation is a continuing walk as we “build ourselves in holy faith, waiting anxiously for the mercy of Christ to eternal life”, and we “keep ourselves in His love” (Jude20-21). As Peter said the inheritance is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, and is reserved in Heaven for us – who are kept by the power of God THROUGH (our!) FAITH for a salvation to be revealed in the end time. (1Pet1:4-5, 9!)

I think most people here are in agreement with these things.

Jesus established His Church on Peter. Outside that Church one can’t make up their own rules and think they have the protection of those promises Jesus made to His Church.

 

[Gadgeteer]

Gadgeteer,

just being honest,

I can’t say that you are truly saved.

Sure you can.

“He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” 1Jn5:12-13

I chose King James because it lists verb tenses on blueletterbible.org. “Has-the-Son”, and “has-life”, and “you-that-believe”, are all present-active-participle.

He who IS BELIEVING, is having life.
I write this that you MAY KNOW — here it changes to “perfect active subjunctive”.

We may know. Now. Not, “may know one DAY if we CONTINUE”.

I acknowledge that your position is that we may NOT have eternal life if we do NOT continue — that is Scripturally accurate; but if either of us continued saying “we can’t say if anyone is saved now”, that is contrary to what John said. We who ARE BELIEVING, can absolutely know now we have eternal life.

If someone should say, “Well, we might be able to know for ourselves but we can’t know about someone else” — that would be to throw out Jesus’ words in Matt7:14-16, “You will KNOW THEM by their fruits!”

So these verses have to mean what they mean, they are not “open to interpretation” – there is no way to make “YOU MAY KNOW”, into “you can’t really know”. Or to make “you will be known”, into “well not really”.

Can they? I’m meaning to be completely respectful and loving, and also direct and accurate about these verses.

That’s like saying you don’t need Our Lord’s Church and the sacraments, to be saved. I can’t do that.

I understand this is a Catholic board. I don’t know – does Catholicism portend that “sacraments are part of salvation”? If so – is there any way that a sacrament is not a “work”, something we do?

“In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice.
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.”

No longer on-the-basis-of — ek, out-of, by, from. It is not by anything we do “lest anyone boast” (Eph2:8).

I don’t agree with the redefining of terms either.

What has been redefined? You either accept that someone can be saved by believing and receiving Jesus, or you perceive that someone is saved only by having Jesus and joining the Catholic church as it exists today. Do you believe that “no Protestant is saved, period”?

Whether we study 66, or 73, the basic principles of Jesus persist.

You’re relativizing a serious subject

No, it’s a question of “are we saved by believing and receiving Jesus and the Spirit, becoming begotten children of God?”

Or are we saved by “belief plus works like sacraments and joining a certain church”?

If someone holds to the second, then it’s a valid question “how do you understand verses such as 1Jn5:11-13, Matt7:16-18, Rom11:6, and Eph2:8?”

Above we discussed 1Jn5:11-13; in verse 5:1 it says “he who is believing, is being born/begotten of God” — this is not conveying a progressive salvation, but rather a position. He who is in the position of believing, is in the position of being begotten. Remember, Rm8:15 says we have received (second aorist active indicative) the Spirit adoption, by Whom we cry (present active indicative) we cry “Abba, Father” (Daddy!)."

Jesus established His Church on Peter. Outside that Church one can’t make up their own rules and think they have the protection of those promises Jesus made to His Church.

So you believe that no Protestant will ever go to Heaven?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

If your works impact your salvation, then by definition it cannot be salvation by faith alone. If you sin and need to ask for forgiveness to get those sins forgiven, this means that your works affect your salvation and that you’re not saved until you repent.

One of the more serious issues Protestants find themselves in is believing that Christians don’t need to Worship God as part of salvation. In fact, Protetsants hold that Worshiping God is a non-essential part of Christian living. See my signature for the details.

catholicnick.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-ultimate-and-most-effective.html

 

[steve_b]

Sure you can.“He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” 1Jn5:12-13I chose King James because it lists verb tenses on blueletterbible.org. “Has-the-Son”, and “has-life”, and “you-that-believe”, are all present-active-participle.

He who IS BELIEVING, is having life.
I write this that you MAY KNOW — here it changes to “perfect active subjunctive”.

We may know. Now. Not, “may know one DAY if we CONTINUE”.

I acknowledge that your position is that we may NOT have eternal life if we do NOT continue — that is Scripturally accurate; but if either of us continued saying “we can’t say if anyone is saved now”, that is contrary to what John said. We who ARE BELIEVING, can absolutely know now we have eternal life.

If someone should say, “Well, we might be able to know for ourselves but we can’t know about someone else” — that would be to throw out Jesus’ words in Matt7:14-16, “You will KNOW THEM by their fruits!”

So these verses have to mean what they mean, they are not “open to interpretation” – there is no way to make “YOU MAY KNOW”, into “you can’t really know”. Or to make “you will be known”, into “well not really”.

Can they? I’m meaning to be completely respectful and loving, and also direct and accurate about these verses.

I understand this is a Catholic board. I don’t know – does Catholicism portend that “sacraments are part of salvation”? If so – is there any way that a sacrament is not a “work”, something we do?"In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice.
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."No longer on-the-basis-of — ek, out-of, by, from. It is not by anything we do “lest anyone boast” (Eph2:8).

What has been redefined? You either accept that someone can be saved by believing and receiving Jesus, or you perceive that someone is saved only by having Jesus and joining the Catholic church as it exists today. Do you believe that “no Protestant is saved, period”?

No, it’s a question of “are we saved by believing and receiving Jesus and the Spirit, becoming begotten children of God?”

Or are we saved by “belief plus works like sacraments and joining a certain church”?

If someone holds to the second, then it’s a valid question “how do you understand verses such as 1Jn5:11-13, Matt7:16-18, Rom11:6, and Eph2:8?”

Above we discussed 1Jn5:11-13; in verse 5:1 it says “he who is believing, is being born/begotten of God” — this is not conveying a progressive salvation, but rather a position. He who is in the position of believing, is in the position of being begotten. Remember, Rm8:15 says we have received (second aorist active indicative) the Spirit adoption, by Whom we cry (present active indicative) we cry “Abba, Father” (Daddy!)."

So you believe that no Protestant will ever go to Heaven?

Gadgeteer,

I say this in all charity,

Paul didn’t wear himself out warning people over and over and over and over … that division from the Church has cataclysmic effect on a person’s soul. He warned people once or twice. That’s all.

For example

Here’s what he told Bp Titus

Tit 3:
10 As for a man who is factious, αἱρετικὸν ] after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.

Look at that word in Greek that in the English is “factious”. English doesn’t always give us the best wording. The link is operational.

disposed to form sects, sectarian, heretical, factious, schism ].

That’s Protestantism, no matter the stripe. It’s all those terms. No amount of Scripture quoting, can be used to justify that or anyone in it, since as one can see, αἱρετικὸν ] is condemned activity.

Re: your question Protestants going to heaven?

Let me ask you, do you believe the following conditional statement? ( conditional on one ending their dissent/schism/division from the Church)

Gal 5: dissension, διχοστασίαι, ] party spirit, 21 envy,a] drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

EVERY Protestant group, regardless of name, is in division with respect to the Catholic Church. διχοστασίαι, ]. And for 500 years, I don’t see any fix.

So given that, what’s YOUR answer to your question?