please explain TULIP and then Catholic disagreements

[guanophore]

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

You have now given an excellent demonstration of why I did not want to start this thread for you. You kept insisting I do so, and then informed me that God had “predestined” me to do it, etc. I could tell that, if you were unwilling to open the thread, you were not ready to take responsibility to back up the claims you have been making. One of those claims was that Augustine was a Calvanist. I see one of my brethren has posted evidence that indicates the contrary. I am going to work my way through the posts, and see if you have responded to that. To date, you have not responded to the previous scriptures I posted on the Justification thread, so it is not really looking like you are ready, willing, or able to defend the TULIP doctrine.

 

[guanophore]

I am the OP and I was more concerned about the explanation of TULIP in reformed view such as 2nd seems to hold. I do not have much to say as I am still in the learning process but I’m very interested in going deeper into it slowly so we all get a clarified understanding of it. After the clarity has set in I would be curious as to where Catholics would disagree with certain elements but I don’t think it’s as simple as posting definitions then refuting instantly based on a held scripture in mind. The more we focus on the heart of the matter and where it leads us in our spiritual journey is most important [of course Sacred Scripture being our basis for what we believe], so may we discuss this in the grace of God so that we may come to understand our Lord’s will and how our beliefs relate to that. :extrahappy:

OK, Cr8ton, then I suggest that you read the 7 links in 2nd’s last 12 posts, and if you have any questions or dialogue for Catholics, let us know!

 

[guanophore]

This is very explosive stuff…

No, it is not, 2nd. People are explosive. Doctrine is not. there is no need for you to get explosive, or to be afraid of others doing so. It is important for you to realize when you are coming across as arrogant and condescending.

and very deep and profound truths which require much prayer, meditation, and guidance by God the Holy Spirit.

The implication seems to be that Catholics do not have “very deep and profound truths” because we reject the TULIP, and that we don’t do much prayer, meditation, or seek the guidance of the HS. Your posts have indicated that, if we did those things, we would progressively move away from Catholicism and into Calvanism. Have you considered that you may be wrong about that assumption?

I am not here to cause anyone to stumble and sin intentionally.

I have to say, I am not understanding the reluctance here. It seems like you believe that, when you bring up your point, someone is going to get very upset, and sin against you?

I believe that in Christ, there is not such things as being Catholic or Protestant.

That thinking error belongs on another thread.

If it were true, you would not mind becoming Catholic!

For those whom the Spirit united to Christ, are eternal brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of our personal religious communities and denominations. There is a remnant chosen by grace according to Scripture.

Yes, yes, so you have said. However, what has it got to do with Total Depravity?

If you truly want to do your own self-study on Calvinism, please start with the first link.  Thereafter, go to the 2nd link.  There is enough on monergism.com to study for the rest of your earthly life.  I wish all of you well,

It sounds like what you are saying is that you don’t really want to discuss your beliefs with us (which is what I suspected, and why I did not start the thread). It sounds like you just want us to study ourselves into Calvanism. I think you will find that a number of us here studied ourselves OUT of Calvanism.

for God is an awesome God. It is because of Him that we are in Christ. I will be hanging out on the non-Catholic section of Catholic Answers. You guys have been great in general as my dear Catholic siblings in Christ.

Perhaps, when you are ready to face that unresolved trauma from your past, you will come here and have the debate you never had a chance to get 10-12 years ago?

 

[guanophore]

So you don’t want to have this discussion?

No, and he said he didn’t. Actually, he said he wanted to have it on the ND forum, I think because the Apologetics section makes him It nervous.

It sounds like he had a very bad experience with Catholic Apologists and whenever the idea is mentioned, it gives him pause.

 

[FCEGM]

I believe you meant “R.C. Sproul…”

You betcha.

 

[Love_is_Patient]

You are not even close sister…

Then kindly inform me, please, where I am wrong. I read the link, but I’m afraid I don’t see where I went wrong in my explanation.

Seriously. I want to understand Calvinism. I want to understand TULIP.

Please help me. (Feel free to start a new thread or PM me if you like.)

Love is Patient

 

[guanophore]

Then kindly inform me, please, where I am wrong. I’ll try to read the giant link, but I don’t have loads of free time to do so.

Love is Patient

You did get the gist of it, but from the perspective of those of us that stand on the outside of it. Since we are outside, it sounds preposterous to us, but from the inside, they perceive all these points from a different perspective. They are able to come out with a “loving God”.

 

[Love_is_Patient]

You did get the gist of it, but from the perspective of those of us that stand on the outside of it. Since we are outside, it sounds preposterous to us, but from the inside, they perceive all these points from a different perspective. They are able to come out with a “loving God”.

That makes sense. I mean, I guess if you’re Calvinist, it sounds better?

I’d actually really like to understand Calvinism better. I’m curious about what 2nd saw as incorrect in my explanation.

Love is Patient

 

[2nd_Adam]

That makes sense. I mean, I guess if you’re Calvinist, it sounds better?

I’d actually really like to understand Calvinism better. I’m curious about what 2nd saw as incorrect in my explanation.

Love is Patient

If you really want to understand Calvinism, you should visit a Reformed Forum site, or study Calvinism on the Reformed.org or monergism.com sites. Otherwise, you guy can continue with your unintentional or intentional misrepresentation of your separated Reformed siblings. If I want to understand the Catholic Faith, I won’t go to Protestant Forum site to understand it.

 

[CathApol]

CathApol made a good response to Akin’s A Tip-Toe through TULIP here: (which shows a more Thomistic approach)
cathapol.blogspot.com/2009/01/akins-tiptoe-through-tulip-response.html

I just want to say, since it is my article being referenced here, that I do not disagree with what Jimmy Akin says, I oppose the concept of “using” Calvinist terminology to “tip-toe” to a Catholic Truth. Here is the last paragraph from my article:

That is well and good, but the criticism of using their terminology
still exists (as with my initial article which did much the same as
Akin’s here does). If one is to convert to the True Church, then
why hang on to errors of the past at all? When one converts, they
need to RENOUNCE their past - and EMBRACE that which they
now KNOW to be the Truth. Let’s not “tiptoe through TULIP,” let’s
just crush the TULIP so they can move on and know the Truth.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<
cathapol.blogspot.com

 

[2nd_Adam]

I just want to say, since it is my article being referenced here, that I do not disagree with what Jimmy Akin says, I oppose the concept of “using” Calvinist terminology to “tip-toe” to a Catholic Truth. Here is the last paragraph from my article:

That is well and good, but the criticism of using their terminology
still exists (as with my initial article which did much the same as
Akin’s here does). If one is to convert to the True Church, then
why hang on to errors of the past at all? When one converts, they
need to RENOUNCE their past - and EMBRACE that which they
now KNOW to be the Truth. Let’s not “tiptoe through TULIP,” let’s
just crush the TULIP so they can move on and know the Truth.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<
cathapol.blogspot.com

LOL!!!

Thanks, I needed a posting like this one. Laughter is good for the soul. You can’t crush the TULIP because we know that the grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever. The strenght of TULIP is the entire Word of God.

:knight2::curtsey::flowers:

http://rvtravel.com/blog/chuck/uploaded_images/tulip1jpg-724725.jpg

The Heart of Tulip!
Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”)

 

[E.E.N.S]

LOL!!!

Thanks, I needed a posting like this one. Laughter is good for the soul. You can’t crush the TULIP because we know that the grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.** The strenght of TULIP is the entire Word of God. **

So says ye.

 

[bookgirl32]

If you really want to understand Calvinism, you should visit a Reformed Forum site, or study Calvinism on the Reformed.org or monergism.com sites. Otherwise, you guy can continue with your unintentional or intentional misrepresentation of your separated Reformed siblings. If I want to understand the Catholic Faith, I won’t go to Protestant Forum site to understand it.

But 2nd Adam, you consistently tell me I don’t understand Catholicism, how is that any different?

 

[2nd_Adam]

But 2nd Adam, you consistently tell me I don’t understand Catholicism, how is that any different?

Well, I challenged your posting on the Catholic positions on predestination. If you know the official allowable positions of Catholic predestination, please post them for me. I believe there is even a form of double predestination that is allowable for Catholics.

 

[bookgirl32]

Well, I challenged your posting on the Catholic positions on predestination. If you know the official allowable positions of Catholic predestination, please post them for me. I believe there is even a form of double predestination that is allowable for Catholics.

I already did. Both Thomism and Molinism are acceptable. Double predestination is not accepted, in fact completely denied:

The Catechism #1037

God predestines no one to go to hell for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance.

If you think I’m misquoting (and since you’re so fond of links), here you go:
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art12.shtml
Go to this page and scroll down to #1037.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Well, I challenged your posting on the Catholic positions on predestination. If you know the official allowable positions of Catholic predestination, please post them for me. I believe there is even a form of double predestination that is allowable for Catholics.

2nd Adam, I know that this has been answered a few times in the thread by a couple people…and no, double predestination is not an acceptable position for a Catholic to hold.

 

[bookgirl32]

Well, I challenged your posting on the Catholic positions on predestination. If you know the official allowable positions of Catholic predestination, please post them for me. I believe there is even a form of double predestination that is allowable for Catholics.

I wish I could challenge your postings on TULIP (and how Augustine supposedly believes it), but all you’ve posted is links, and posts trying to postpone an actual discussion on TULIP. For all I know from what you’ve posted, it’s possible you don’t know that much about it yourself. You’re not even remotely trying to explain your understanding of it.

 

[CathApol]

LOL!!!

Thanks, I needed a posting like this one. Laughter is good for the soul. You can’t crush the TULIP because we know that the grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever. The strenght of TULIP is the entire Word of God.

Sloganeering without substance. (yawn)

 

[2nd_Adam]

I already did. Both Thomism and Molinism are acceptable. Double predestination is not accepted, in fact completely denied:

The Catechism #1037

If you think I’m misquoting (and since you’re so fond of links), here you go:
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art12.shtml
Go to this page and scroll down to #1037.

I don’t think that’s correct. I’ve seen a summary of acceptable Catholic positions of predestination which is more than what you posted. Even a form of double predestination was included. Maybe I can find that list on an old post somewhere?

 

[E.E.N.S]

I don’t think that’s correct. I’ve seen a summary of acceptable Catholic positions of predestination which is more than what you posted. Even a form of double predestination was included. Maybe I can find that list on an old post somewhere?

No, double predestination is not an allowable position to hold as a Catholic…as you have been told several times already.