please explain TULIP and then Catholic disagreements

[bookgirl32]

Be careful on speaking for the Catholic Church on her official position of the doctrine of election.

Might be a good idea to follow your own advice.

Edit:

Maybe guanaphore has a point. Do you understand that there is an official teaching, and that a dissenting view from someone claiming to be Catholic, only makes that person not Catholic, and does not change the official teaching?

 

[guanophore]

Are you starting to see my view that in Christ, there is neither male nor female, no Jew or Gentile, and no Catholic nor Protestant, for we are one in Christ?

Yes, I understand this. However, we are not all “one in Christ” to the extent that some of us have departed from His Truth. The departure from Truth disrupts unity.

All Christians were saved to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

Yes, but the Apsotles taught that Christ died for all, and Calvin taught that He only died for the elect. Also, the Apostles taught that He desires all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and Calvin taught that He created some people for damnation.

It’s pretty tough because there are many many Cafeteria Catholics on this site. Many Catholics have no idea what is allowable in regards to the doctrine of predestination. I will wait until an informed Catholic posts all of the allowable views within the Catholic Faith in regards to predestination.

Well, I guess I will wait around with you, since I am not particularly interested in discussing that topic.

in regards to predestination since this doctrine is the most offensive to the flesh that remains in all of us.

Perhaps you can elaborate on this.
James White:

 "The [Roman Catholic] Council of Trent anathematizes anyone who says you can be saved without the grace of God.

Actually, this was anathemetized in response to Pelagius, in the early centuries. This occured before the Bible was formed, as a result of Apsotolic teaching. To come along milennia and a half later, and say that it is “biblical doctrine” is rather ironic.
James White:

The Reformers, however, never claimed Rome believed you can be saved apart from grace. That wasn't the debate. The debate of the Reformation was never, ever about the necessity of grace, it was always about the sufficiency of grace. That remains the issue today in so many contexts." -

I am not sure this is a true statement for several reasons. I think the Reformers did think the Catholic Church taught you can be saved apart from grace. I can’t see anything graceful about what Tetzel was doing.
John Frame:

Grace is not like a box of candy that you can send back if you don’t want it. Grace is divine favor, an attitude of God’s own heart.

I fail to see why it is not. Any gift can be refused. One can be offered a box of candy, and it most certainly can be refused. Grace can be refused. People can reject God’s purpose for themselves (salvation). I agree that it does not make the grace go “back”. God is there holding out His invitation all day long, until the last day. He offered Life to the Rich young Ruler, who walked away. He loved the man, even as he let him walk away.
John Frame:

We cannot stop him from loving us, if he chooses to do so. Nor can we stop him from giving us blessings

No one has suggested that we can, or that He does. However, he created us in love, which means we exist in His own likeness and image. Therefore we have the same perogative as the angels, to choose to be with Him in heaven, or not.
John Frame:

of salvation: regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification. His purpose in us will certainly be fulfilled, Phil. 1:6, Eph. 1:11. -
:knight1::knight2::compcoff:

If an individual chooses to place their faith in Him, then the possibility exists that his will be fulfilled in us. However, He allows us to refuse these things.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Remain on topic or this thread will be closed.

The topic is explain TULIP and then Catholic disagreements and nothing else.

Catholics do not believe TULIP and so if their expressions of their understandings are faulty then they should be cut a little slack, the same way, Catholics should do for those who express a faulty understanding of Catholic teachings by non-Catholics.

Off topic posts are subject to deletion and penalty infractions, as they derail the thread discussion.

Carry on please.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Go easy, EENS. I think he is just a bundle of nerves and missed it. He has post traumatic stress disorder from Catholic Apologists.

LOL, I know I know, I don’t have a lot of e-tact. I am a 28 year old jiu jitsu punk, husband and father of a 6 month old, a convert to the Catholic Faith as of 2001 and a member of these fora since long before the crash. I think the BEST argument for just about ANY apologetical debate is the authority of the Catholic Church (as I mentioned earlier in this thread), and I let my impatient side get the best of me more often than not, so for that (being sharp) I apologize to 2nd Adam.

There is a very small tidbit of myself to help put a picture with a screen-name.

Let’s proceed. =)

 

[Cr8ton]

I think Christians who consider themselves to be Reformed would approve of these two links for a proper understanding of Calvinism. These are not simplistic issues, and require much reflection and thinking. Therefore, these two sites are quite extensive.

monergism.com/

reformed.org/

:knight1::hey_bud:

I am leaning towards the reformed view and see the validity backed up in scripture. [as you stated] It requires much reflection and thinking and I am continuing to do just that. Please feel free to explain in detail what needs to be explained so no false representations of either the view for TULIP or the view against it are misinformed.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I am not so sure this is off topic. I think one of the main errors of TULIP lies in an improper view of mankind.

Yes, mankind was created to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever. However, Calvanism does not emphasize the Love and relationship as primary. God intends to be glorified through us, as we were created to live, move, and have our being in Him. the doctrine of total depravity denounces the basic nature of man made in the image and likeness of God as “good”.

It was a different question. He asked you the second time if you agreed with the Westminster.

While your points are valid, this is 2nd’s first visit to Apologetics, and he has had some very bad experiences, so let’s try not to drag the failures of other threads into this one. I am sure this one will contain sufficient for the task.

Thanks for the support and kind words brother. I think we are in agreement as both Protestant and Catholic Christians that we were created to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. I might have missed it, but I did not read something like this in the Catholic Catechism, or it is not as central a theme as in Calvinism.

If we focus on the glory of God which He is worthy of all our affection, praise, worship, and loyalty… we will begin to see the love of God in a relational way in what He has done for us… causing to fall to our knees in awe and love for Him. Remember, man’s primary purpose is to glorify God AND to enjoy Him forever. If you start to focus on Christ and Him crucified, and the glorious gospel of God, you will see both the glory of God and His realtional aspect that you speak about. Heck, God made His enemies, the ungodly, and the wicked by the death of His to be His adopted children and co-heirs with Christ based soley on what He has done through Christ. Now, that’s Amazing Grace in which only a Calvinist is able to see with greater depth than non-Calvinist. No wonder Paul breaks out in doxology when writing deep doctrine about God’s gospel. Why are we wretched sinners in enmity of God enabled to begin to see Jesus Christ as being desirable? My answer is God. Here are significant Scirptures to begin with to see the heart of Calvinism:

The Light of the Gospel

Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. - Rom 5

God’s Everlasting Love

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written,

“For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. - rom 8

 

[E.E.N.S]

I might have missed it, but I did not read something like this in the Catholic Catechism, or it is not as central a theme as in Calvinism.

When I answered you before, (as someone else pointed out), I took the answer straight from the beginning of the Baltimore Catechism:

**Q. Why did God make you?
**A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven.

 

[2nd_Adam]

When I answered you before, (as someone else pointed out), I took the answer straight from the beginning of the Baltimore Catechism:

**Q. Why did God make you?
**A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven.

That’s great, but hasn’t the Baltimore Catechism been replaced by the Catechism of the Catholic Church? If so, is there anything in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which teaches Catholics that man’s chief aim is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever?

 

[2nd_Adam]

No, 2nd, this will not work. Love is Patient is accurately describing the unregenerate state of man according to Calvin. You are responding with a document that references the regenerate man. This is apples and oranges - no, worse! Oranges and turnips!

This is a problem that we need to avoid. We can’t have Catholics teach us what Calvinism is about in the same way that you don’t want to have Calvinists teach you what the Catholic Faith is about. Remember, Calvinists have been discussing Calvinism with our dear Arminian brothers for years, so we know what happens. You stated yourself that Arminian Protestantism is similar to the Catholic Faith in regards to these issues. So, Catholics who think similar to Arminian Christians are hostile to the Doctrines of Grace (TULIP) to start with. If poeple become restless, they should simply read think two Reformed links that I posted to go ahead from the rest of us. I want to go slowly on this very deep topic. Here are the two links again for those who want to jump ahead.

I think Christians who consider themselves to be Reformed would approve of these two links for a proper understanding of Calvinism. These are not simplistic issues, and require much reflection and thinking. Therefore, these two sites are quite extensive.

monergism.com/

reformed.org/

:knight1::hey_bud:

 

[2nd_Adam]

I personally believe TULIP should be moved to the non-Catholic religion section. Let’s see if the moderators agree.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Go easy, EENS. I think he is just a bundle of nerves and missed it. He has post traumatic stress disorder from Catholic Apologists.

That’s quite the untrue low blow my brother. My experience with a Catholic apologist from Catholic Answers probably occured about 12 to 14 years ago. And believe me, none of the Protestants sitting at Saint Martha’s pew that night believed anything that he stated. He was the most uncharitable man that I knew who represented the Catholic Faith, which reflected his personal insecurities. Many of those on the Calvary Chapel door to door ministry team who attended that Catholic apologetics debate were actually ex-Catholics. Of course, since us Protestants were not allowed to speak, we were deceived to think that we were there to debate the issues.

 

[clmowry]

The “only way” I think you will make any effective progress on discussing this subject, is for 2nd to put forth his particular definition for each aspect of T.U.L.I.P. (one at a time) and then look at what aspects of that particular definition Catholics can (or cannot) officially accept.

I think you will find there to be way too many definitions and opinions if you look for a definition and belief from each participant.

I think what we will find is that much of this exists in the area of theological speculation and that there is therefore a pretty broad array of acceptable Catholic positions.

Chuck

 

[2nd_Adam]

The “only way” I think you will make any effective progress on discussing this subject, is for 2nd to put forth his particular definition for each aspect of T.U.L.I.P. (one at a time) and then look at what aspects of that particular definition Catholics can (or cannot) officially accept.

I think you will find there to be way too many definitions and opinions if you look for a definition and belief from each participant.

I think what we will find is that much of this exists in the area of theological speculation and that there is therefore a pretty broad array of acceptable Catholic positions.

Chuck

I did not start this thread. I am participating on it just like everyone else. This is what I suggest as the official defintion of TULIP. I’ll take a long break and see if other Calvinists want to post anything today.

Originally Posted by 2nd Adam
I think Christians who consider themselves to be Reformed would approve of these two links for a proper understanding of Calvinism. These are not simplistic issues, and require much reflection and thinking. Therefore, these two sites are quite extensive.

monergism.com/

reformed.org/

 

[E.E.N.S]

You’ve already started discussing TULIP. You might as well continue on the Apologetics section. Augustine was a TULIP.

I would like to invite Catholics to post some Augustinian quotes that refute this statement.

Augustine on the Primacy of Peter:

Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 A.D. 411]).

Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 A.D. 416]).

Augustine on Justification:

“He was handed over for our offenses, and he rose again for our justification.” What does this mean, “for our justification?” So that he might justify us, so that he might make us just. You will be a work of God, not only because you are a man, but also because you are just. For it is better that you be just than that you are a man. If God made you a man, and you made your-self just, something you were doing would be better than what God did. But God made you without any cooperation on your part. You did not lend your consent so that God could make you. How could you have consented, when you did not exist? But he who made you without your consent does not justify you without your consent. He made you without your knowledge, **but he does not justify you without your willing it **(Sermons 169:13 [inter ** A.D. 391-430]).

But we know that God does not hear sinners: but if any man is a worshiper of God and does his will, that man God will hear. He still speaks as one only anointed. For God does listen to sinners too. If God did not listen to sinners, it would have been all in vain for the publican to cast down his eyes to the ground and strike his breast saying: “Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner.” And that confession merited justification, just as the blind man merited enlightenment (Homilies on the Gospel of John 44:13 A.D. 416]).

In Chapter 7 St. Augustine is retracting an error from an earlier statement of his: I carried out my reasoning to the point of saying: `God did not therefore choose the works of any one in foreknowledge of what He Himself would give them, but he chose the faith, in the foreknowledge that He would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe on Him,-to whom He would give the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he might obtain eternal life also.’ His error was saying “God did NOT therefore choose the works of any one in foreknowledge…” hence, it IS based on foreknowledge that we are predestined! This is the Catholic understanding of predestination! St. Augustine encourages prayers not only for “believers” but also for those who do not believe: Or if God does not make men willing who were not willing, on what principle does the Church pray, according to the Lord’s commandment, for her persecutors? For thus also the blessed Cyprian would have it to be understood that we say, “Thy will be done, as in heaven so in earth,”-that is, as in those who have already believed, and who are, as it were, heaven, so also in those who do not believe, and on this account are still the earth. What, then, do we pray for on behalf of those who are unwilling to believe, except that God would work in them to will also? Certainly the apostle says, “Brethren, my heart’s good will, indeed, and my prayer to God for them, is for their salvation.” He prays for those who do not believe,- for what, except that they may believe? For in no other way do they obtain salvation.
(Chapter 15). Then, Chapter 19 shows us an even more clear representation of the Catholic understanding of foreknowledge/predestination: For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works," it is grace; **but what follows-"which God hath prepared that we should walk in them "-is predestination, which cannot exist without foreknowledge, although foreknowledge may exist without predestination; because God foreknew by predestination those things which He was about to do, whence it was said, “He made those things that shall be.”

**americancatholictruthsociety.com/cathapol/zorro_aug.htm

 

[clmowry]

I did not start this thread. I am participating on it just like everyone else.

Oh…my bad.

Then if we don’t have a “particular” TULIP advocate, then I think we are pretty much doomed to flounder forever in the definitional pool.

i.e. There are likely to be as many individual “TULIPS” as there are individual opinions about what is and is not acceptable to Catholics, making the discussion, in my opinion, exponentially more difficult.

Is there a particular “TULIP” source we can agree to use?

Chuck

 

[2nd_Adam]

Augustine on the Primacy of Peter:

Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 A.D. 411]).

Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 A.D. 416]).

Augustine on Justification:

“He was handed over for our offenses, and he rose again for our justification.” What does this mean, “for our justification?” So that he might justify us, so that he might make us just. You will be a work of God, not only because you are a man, but also because you are just. For it is better that you be just than that you are a man. If God made you a man, and you made your-self just, something you were doing would be better than what God did. But God made you without any cooperation on your part. You did not lend your consent so that God could make you. How could you have consented, when you did not exist? But he who made you without your consent does not justify you without your consent. He made you without your knowledge, **but he does not justify you without your willing it **(Sermons 169:13 [inter ** A.D. 391-430]).

But we know that God does not hear sinners: but if any man is a worshiper of God and does his will, that man God will hear. He still speaks as one only anointed. For God does listen to sinners too. If God did not listen to sinners, it would have been all in vain for the publican to cast down his eyes to the ground and strike his breast saying: “Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner.” And that confession merited justification, just as the blind man merited enlightenment (Homilies on the Gospel of John 44:13 A.D. 416]).

In Chapter 7 St. Augustine is retracting an error from an earlier statement of his: I carried out my reasoning to the point of saying: `God did not therefore choose the works of any one in foreknowledge of what He Himself would give them, but he chose the faith, in the foreknowledge that He would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe on Him,-to whom He would give the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he might obtain eternal life also.’ His error was saying “God did NOT therefore choose the works of any one in foreknowledge…” hence, it IS based on foreknowledge that we are predestined! This is the Catholic understanding of predestination! St. Augustine encourages prayers not only for “believers” but also for those who do not believe: Or if God does not make men willing who were not willing, on what principle does the Church pray, according to the Lord’s commandment, for her persecutors? For thus also the blessed Cyprian would have it to be understood that we say, “Thy will be done, as in heaven so in earth,”-that is, as in those who have already believed, and who are, as it were, heaven, so also in those who do not believe, and on this account are still the earth. What, then, do we pray for on behalf of those who are unwilling to believe, except that God would work in them to will also? Certainly the apostle says, “Brethren, my heart’s good will, indeed, and my prayer to God for them, is for their salvation.” He prays for those who do not believe,- for what, except that they may believe? For in no other way do they obtain salvation.
(Chapter 15). Then, Chapter 19 shows us an even more clear representation of the Catholic understanding of foreknowledge/predestination: For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works," it is grace; **but what follows-"which God hath prepared that we should walk in them "-is predestination, which cannot exist without foreknowledge, although foreknowledge may exist without predestination; because God foreknew by predestination those things which He was about to do, whence it was said, “He made those things that shall be.”

**americancatholictruthsociety.com/cathapol/zorro_aug.htm

A
Treatise
On The
Predestination of the Saints
BY AURELIUS AUGUSTIN,
PASTOR OF HIPPO, NORTH AFRICA.

covenanter.org/Predestination/augustin_predestination.html

 

[E.E.N.S]

I did not start this thread. * I am participating on it just like everyone else*…

Technically, no, you did not “start” this thread, but without a doubt the original poster started this thread because you kept asking a Catholic to start it, (even though the OP is not Catholic).

 

[2nd_Adam]

Oh…my bad.

Then if we don’t have a “particular” TULIP advocate, then I think we are pretty much doomed to flounder forever in the definitional pool.

i.e. There are likely to be as many individual “TULIPS” as there are individual opinions about what is and is not acceptable to Catholics, making the discussion, in my opinion, exponentially more difficult.

Is there a particular “TULIP” source we can agree to use?

Chuck

Here you go. I think you guys need to do some self-study before we continue. After you study for awhile, we can graciously discuss these issues to the glory of God alone down the road. I don’t think everyone has the right Christian motive to discuss such deep glorious issues about Christ and Him crucified. It doesn’t seem that this thread will glorify God at all, nor will it help Christian unity. Discussing doctrine for doctrine sake is meaningless. Doctrine when applied to the heart and mind will grow our love and affection for God. Without that proper motive, we will stumble each other to sin.

Originally Posted by 2nd Adam
I think Christians who consider themselves to be Reformed would approve of these two links for a proper understanding of Calvinism. These are not simplistic issues, and require much reflection and thinking. Therefore, these two sites are quite extensive.

monergism.com/

reformed.org/

For those who understand my thoughts about doctrine which grows our love and affection for God, please start here:

desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1985/1487_What_We_Believe_About_the_Five_Points_of_Calvinism/

 

[E.E.N.S]

First you say:

I’m not sure this should be a battle of the Internet links.

…then…

monergism.com/directory/link_category/Doctrines-of-Grace/

Let’s go through the issues slowly and gracefully. Calvinism is not about TULIP (5 points). TULIP is part of a systematic theology which is about glorifying God and enjoying Him forever, and about His sovereignity. Like all systematic theologies, Calvinism falls short of understanding an Infinite God. However, it is my opnion… Calvinism is the most biblical view in which God’s glory is first and foremost. It is a theology that is God-centered and the strenght of Calvinism is the Scriptures (all of Scripture). The Catholic Church has a systematic theology too which is not based on Sacred Scripture alone. Can we agree that all Christians are saved to glorify God and enjoy Him forever?

You are not even close sister…

Let’s start here:

1. Preface

…]
Yes, the more you know him and love him and trust him, the more you long to know him. That is why we have written this booklet. We long to know God and enjoy God. Another great old catechism says, “What is the chief end of man?” And answers: “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him for ever.” We believe that enjoying God is the way to glorify God, because God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him. But to enjoy him we must know him. Seeing is savoring. If he remains a blurry, vague fog, we may be intrigued for a season. But we will not be stunned with joy, as when the fog clears and you find yourself on the brink of some vast precipice…

desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1985/1487_What_We_Believe_About_the_Five_Points_of_Calvinism/

Click the link above to read the entire work…

http://th07.deviantart.net/fs17/300W/f/2007/178/7/b/5_Points_of_Calvinism___TULIP_by_jlel.jpg

I think Christians who consider themselves to be Reformed would approve of these two links for a proper understanding of Calvinism. These are not simplistic issues, and require much reflection and thinking. Therefore, these two sites are quite extensive.

monergism.com/

reformed.org/

:knight1::hey_bud:

This is a problem that we need to avoid. We can’t have Catholics teach us what Calvinism is about in the same way that you don’t want to have Calvinists teach you what the Catholic Faith is about. Remember, Calvinists have been discussing Calvinism with our dear Arminian brothers for years, so we know what happens. You stated yourself that Arminian Protestantism is similar to the Catholic Faith in regards to these issues. So, Catholics who think similar to Arminian Christians are hostile to the Doctrines of Grace (TULIP) to start with. If poeple become restless, they should simply read think two Reformed links that I posted to go ahead from the rest of us. I want to go slowly on this very deep topic. Here are the two links again for those who want to jump ahead.
These are not simplistic issues, and require much reflection and thinking. Therefore, these two sites are quite extensive.

monergism.com/

reformed.org/

I did not start this thread. I am participating on it just like everyone else. This is what I suggest as the official defintion of TULIP. I’ll take a long break and see if other Calvinists want to post anything today.
These are not simplistic issues, and require much reflection and thinking. Therefore, these two sites are quite extensive.

monergism.com/

reformed.org/

A
Treatise
On The
Predestination of the Saints
BY AURELIUS AUGUSTIN,
PASTOR OF HIPPO, NORTH AFRICA.

covenanter.org/Predestination/augustin_predestination.html

Here you go. I think you guys need to do some self-study before we continue. After you study for awhile, we can graciously discuss these issues to the glory of God alone down the road. I don’t think everyone has the right Christian motive to discuss such deep glorious issues about Christ and Him crucified. It doesn’t seem that this thread will glorify God at all, nor will it help Christian unity. Discussing doctrine for doctrine sake is meaningless. Doctrine when applied to the heart and mind will grow our love and affection for God. Without that proper motive, we will stumble each other to sin.
These are not simplistic issues, and require much reflection and thinking. Therefore, these two sites are quite extensive.

monergism.com/

reformed.org/

Hmmm…11 links in 7 posts. (All in good fun.)

 

[bookgirl32]

Here you go. I think you guys need to do some self-study before we continue. After you study for awhile, we can graciously discuss these issues to the glory of God alone down the road. I don’t think everyone has the right Christian motive to discuss such deep glorious issues about Christ and Him crucified. It doesn’t seem that this thread will glorify God at all, nor will it help Christian unity. Discussing doctrine for doctrine sake is meaningless. Doctrine when applied to the heart and mind will grow our love and affection for God. Without that proper motive, we will stumble each other to sin.

For those who understand my thoughts about doctrine which grows our love and affection for God, please start here:

desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1985/1487_What_We_Believe_About_the_Five_Points_of_Calvinism/

You asked that someone start this thread here 2nd Adam. No one here is having any different sorts of conversations that we were on the Non-Catholic forum.