The sufficiency of Christ

[2nd_Adam]

Guess I am simple minded old lady. I don’t even know or have ever heard of all these people. I was raiesed a half way Catholic thanks to my Mexican grandmother who I am sure never heard of all the do’s don’ts about the Catholic Church. She lived a Christian life and I know without a shadow of a doubt where she is. My parents were divorced. She taught me to pray and go to Mass.

I was a Protestant for at least 30 years of my life and learned more than I ever had I accepted Jesus when I was 35 and let me tell you it was wonderful! I learned more about the CC in Protestant Bible study than I ever heard anywhere and it is what made me come back to the Church of my childhood.
Do I agree with everything the Church teaches, no. And let me say that in all my years as a Protestant I never heard any negative about the Catholic Church.

So here I am and I am happy un the Lord and I feel that most of the time He is happy with me. I am not going to critize Adam because he is my brother in Christ and I agree with him on many things, even tho I am a Catholic!!!

Thanks for your continual Christian testimony and your great love for Jesus Christ. In regards to Catholics and Protestants, you have the right attitude and perspective that I believe pleases God. For in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, nor male or female, nor Protestant or Catholic. For the true Church is universal in which Christ is the head.

 

[zerinus]

Still waiting for you to answer my post…

You will be waiting a long time!

The best way to respond to him is not to wait for him to give you an answer, because you might be waiting for the days that never comes! The best response to him is to point out the flaws in his arguments wherever they occur. If he doesn’t want to answer back, that is no skin off your nose. It will only make him look bad, and you will be helping others not to be deceived by him.

 

[izoid]

Thanks for your continual Christian testimony and your great love for Jesus Christ. In regards to Catholics and Protestants, you have the right attitude and perspective that I believe pleases God. For in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, nor male or female, nor Protestant or Catholic. For the true Church is universal in which Christ is the head.

I understand your desire for unity but I must say that adding to a Bible verse is not the way to go about creating it. I can not help but think that God is deeply saddened by the protestant - Catholic divide. His ONE church was broken apart by a group of protesters and has yet to heal from that divorce. It cannot and does not pease God. Only true unity will do that.

 

[zerinus]

you would get alot further with honey instead of vinager. so if you could please, let z out of the dog house

I am in no dog house! That is a figment of his imagination. Let him dream on!

 

[2nd_Adam]

I understand your desire for unity but I must say that adding to a Bible verse is not the way to go about creating it. I can not help but think that God is deeply saddened by the protestant - Catholic divide. His ONE church was broken apart by a group of protesters and has yet to heal from that divorce. It cannot and does not pease God. Only true unity will do that.

I think we see things differently brother. I used to be deeply disturbed by false teaching in the church. However, God allows it for His purposes and our good. I believe the Protestant Reformation was caused by God or at least permitted by God for His purpose and the good of His chosen ones. So in the spirit of ECT 1 and ECT II, and the Joint Declaration on justification, how do you propose that we move forward with Christian unity in the 21st Century? The Internet is a wonderful tool for unity. In reality, God has already created an eternal unity with those who He has graciously united to His Son through faith from every tongue, tribe and nation. The church is truly universal.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Originally Posted by benidict
you would get alot further with honey instead of vinager. so if you could please, let z out of the dog house

Hey Brother Benidict in Hawaii… I really believe it’s safer to contain Zee in the doghouse where we can control him from deceiving innocent Catholic and Protestant Christians with another gospel. I think I will send him a bouquet of TULIP flowers.

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

Hey my friend Zee, here’s some flowers for you. :flowers: They are TULIPS!

I am in no dog house! That is a figment of his imagination. Let him dream on!

 

[zerinus]

… to the extent that Reformers early on–over 500 years ago–as well as Mormons 150+ years ago, either thought that the CC was the antichrist or at least so corrupt in doctrine that totally new churches were in order to rectify the situation-and that’s just history which continues on with every new denomination that adds to the disunity already present in the Christian world.

I take issue with that. 150 years ago the whole of America was anti-Catholic, and unfortunately some Latter-day Saints came under that influence, and made statements which were not correct, and in keeping with spirit and letter of the Restored gospel. But I believe I am right in saying that that has never been the official teaching position of the Church. Joseph Smith himself who started the whole process was not anti-Catholic. And in recent years the LDS Church has gone a long way to rectify those errors of the past.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

You do understand that Adam and his Calvinist friends look very unfavorably on the Catholic Church don’t you? Have you read any of the articles at the site he points you too, monergism? They are very anti-Catholic.

Oh I posted them in the Calvinism thread…and then he said he was a ECT Christian and pointed to another Calvinist that signed it. Basically making “some is not all” argument…

Did he answer post 371 yet?

 

[2nd_Adam]

Originally Posted by izoid
You do understand that Adam and his Calvinist friends look very unfavorably on the Catholic Church don’t you? Have you read any of the articles at the site he points you too, monergism? They are very anti-Catholic.

Oh I posted them in the Calvinism thread…and then he said he was a ECT Christian and pointed to another Calvinist that signed it. Basically making “some is not all” argument…

Did he answer post 371 yet?

2nd Adam;5963563 Post 484 -:

There you go again, trying to put words in my mouth. There are Protestants who disagree with John MacArthur in regards to the Catholic Faith. Heck, the Protestant Bible Answer Man Hank Hanigraft considers Catholics to be in the same family of God in Christ. JI Packer is a staunch gifted Reformed theologian who signed ECT 1 and ECT II. Chuck Colson is one of the main Protestant behind ECT 1 and ECT II, and he credits RC Sproul for his conversion. I believe Colson is probably Reformed. I have laid my cards on the tables several times.

I believe in remnant theology, that there are converted Christians in Protestant, Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox churches. There are unconverted goats in all branches of Christianity. I am a Christian first, Evangelical second and a Calvinist third. I adhere to the 5 solas of the protestant reformation, forensic justification, imputation, and penal substitution. I believe all Christians know in part and God saves sinners through Christ regardless of our doctrinal errors, I do believe in the invisible church and the visible church. I am here to enjoy fellowship with other Christians, and to encourage each other to grow our love and affection for our Triune God. I’m sorry you had a bad experience through Protestantism, and I’m glad you are a happy Catholic Christian. Oh BTW, I enjoy listening to Catholic radio when I’m working near Portland. If you are more like minded with Zee the Mormon than myself, then that’s your free will choice.

You’re waiting for an answer on post 371 and we are on post 506?

 

[Dancelittleewok]

You’re waiting for an answer on post 371 and we are on post 506?

You could’ve responded to it on 372 or 373 but it’s not my fault you refuse to answer the logical holes in your theology…

 

[2nd_Adam]

You could’ve responded to it on 372 or 373 but it’s not my fault you refuse to answer the logical holes in your theology…

I forgot what we are debating on 371, 372, and 373? Are you saying Christ is not sufficient for me and you in our adoption and propitiation? Please refresh my memory because I’m juggling a difficult work project and Catholic Answers at the same time.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

I posted the following in 371 and re-posted it again another time with a Coton le Tulear puppy…

You’ve referenced in other threads that Adam and Eve had a free will but post-Fall, humanity became utterly depraved. If our Original sin–note it was not a mere declaration of sin but so bad it deformed us ontologically–then why would a mere declaration of righteousness been sufficient for something that is inwardly wrong?

Furthermore, if God declares a man whom is not inwardly righteous but declares him as such, doesn’t that make Him just?

Also, since we’ve established that humanity is ontologically totally depraved, what does that say about Jesus Christ who was both God and man? As a man, was God under the devil, having no choice but to sin continually and put the wrath upon Himself? No, Scripture tells us that He was alike in all ways but did not sin but using TULIP, God must sin as human.

As for forensic justification, whether God choose to look at Christ instead of us, there is still the real matter of sin. If it’s a declaration but not an inward change, then God’s plan for salvation failed. Man still reigns supreme.

Hence, Calvinism is not a higher view of God but only of man. He worships a God who cannot fix the problem of sin.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I posted the following in 371 and re-posted it again another time with a Coton le Tulear puppy…

You’ve referenced in other threads that Adam and Eve had a free will but post-Fall, humanity became utterly depraved. If our Original sin–note it was not a mere declaration of sin but so bad it deformed us ontologically–then why would a mere declaration of righteousness been sufficient for something that is inwardly wrong?

Furthermore, if God declares a man whom is not inwardly righteous but declares him as such, doesn’t that make Him just?

Also, since we’ve established that humanity is ontologically totally depraved, what does that say about Jesus Christ who was both God and man? As a man, was God under the devil, having no choice but to sin continually and put the wrath upon Himself? No, Scripture tells us that He was alike in all ways but did not sin but using TULIP, God must sin as human.

As for forensic justification, whether God choose to look at Christ instead of us, there is still the real matter of sin. If it’s a declaration but not an inward change, then God’s plan for salvation failed. Man still reigns supreme.

Hence, Calvinism is not a higher view of God but only of man. He worships a God who cannot fix the problem of sin.

Before I try to answer this post, help me with this difficult word.

ontologically

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Before I try to answer this post, help me with this difficult word.

ontologically

on⋅tol⋅o⋅gy
  /ɒnˈtɒlədʒi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [on-tol-uh-jee] Show IPA
Use ontology in a Sentence
See web results for ontology
See images of ontology
–noun

1. the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such.
2. (loosely) metaphysics.

Basically total depravity must be a reality–a state of being–not a declaration.

 

[2nd_Adam]

on⋅tol⋅o⋅gy
  /ɒnˈtɒlədʒi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [on-tol-uh-jee] Show IPA
Use ontology in a Sentence
See web results for ontology
See images of ontology
–noun

1. the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such.
2. (loosely) metaphysics.

Basically total depravity must be a reality–a state of being–not a declaration.

Originally Posted by Dancelittleewok
I posted the following in 371 and re-posted it again another time with a Coton le Tulear puppy…

You’ve referenced in other threads that Adam and Eve had a free will but post-Fall, humanity became utterly depraved. If our Original sin–note it was not a mere declaration of sin but so bad it deformed us ontologically–then why would a mere declaration of righteousness been sufficient for something that is inwardly wrong?

Furthermore, if God declares a man whom is not inwardly righteous but declares him as such, doesn’t that make Him just?

Also, since we’ve established that humanity is ontologically totally depraved, what does that say about Jesus Christ who was both God and man? As a man, was God under the devil, having no choice but to sin continually and put the wrath upon Himself? No, Scripture tells us that He was alike in all ways but did not sin but using TULIP, God must sin as human.

As for forensic justification, whether God choose to look at Christ instead of us, there is still the real matter of sin. If it’s a declaration but not an inward change, then God’s plan for salvation failed. Man still reigns supreme.

Hence, Calvinism is not a higher view of God but only of man. He worships a God who cannot fix the problem of sin.

Since your definiton of ontologically seems to be a cut and paste, please let me know if your question is simply a cut and paste from another source too.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Since your definiton of ontologically seems to be a cut and paste, please let me know if your question is simply a cut and paste from another source too.

The definition was cute and paste for clarity but the content of the actual post was me. If it had not been me, I’d would’ve posted a link.

 

[2nd_Adam]

The definition was cute and paste for clarity but the content of the actual post was me. If it had not been me, I’d would’ve posted a link.

Okay, since we are not professional theologians, please reword your question in your own words and I will try my best to answer you.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Okay, since we are not professional theologians, please reword your question in your own words and I will try my best to answer you.

My post was in my own words…

 

[izoid]

Since 2ndAdam will likely not answer let me give you my understanding of the Protestant position. THis way Adan either agree or disagree and hopefully let us know why.

I posted the following in 371 and re-posted it again another time with a Coton le Tulear puppy…

You’ve referenced in other threads that Adam and Eve had a free will but post-Fall, humanity became utterly depraved. If our Original sin–note it was not a mere declaration of sin but so bad it deformed us ontologically–then why would a mere declaration of righteousness been sufficient for something that is inwardly wrong? Adam and Eve were created in the image of God, that included free will. When they fell God removed free will and Adam and Eve were now sinful. Just as in the OT sacrifice the Israelites were declared righteous, so we who believe in Christ are declared righteous. When God sees us He sees Jesus and not really us, tha is how we can still be wretched internally.

Furthermore, if God declares a man whom is not inwardly righteous but declares him as such, doesn’t that make Him just?

Also, since we’ve established that humanity is ontologically totally depraved, what does that say about Jesus Christ who was both God and man? As a man, was God under the devil, having no choice but to sin continually and put the wrath upon Himself? No, Scripture tells us that He was alike in all ways but did not sin but using TULIP, God must sin as human. Jesus did not have a biological father. According to Jewish tradition, the seed was passed by the father and not the mother. THis is why we blame mans depravity on Adam and not eve.

As for forensic justification, whether God choose to look at Christ instead of us, there is still the real matter of sin. If it’s a declaration but not an inward change, then God’s plan for salvation failed. Man still reigns supreme. God can do whatever He wants. It is a mystery that we will never fully understand.

Hence, Calvinism is not a higher view of God but only of man. He worships a God who cannot fix the problem of sin.

I do not agree with these answers but they are the answers that I was taught. Maybe Adam will be able to shed some light. They are very brief answers to very complex questions.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Originally Posted by Dancelittleewok
I posted the following in 371 and re-posted it again another time with a Coton le Tulear puppy…

You’ve referenced in other threads that Adam and Eve had a free will but post-Fall, humanity became utterly depraved. If our Original sin–note it was not a mere declaration of sin but so bad it deformed us ontologically–then why would a mere declaration of righteousness been sufficient for something that is inwardly wrong? I’m not sure what you are trying to say since original sin and Augustinian views are consistent with the Catholic Faith

Furthermore, if God declares a man whom is not inwardly righteous but declares him as such, doesn’t that make Him just? No, since He is declaring us righteous of the basis of Christ’s righteousness alone.

Also, since we’ve established that humanity is ontologically totally depraved, what does that say about Jesus Christ who was both God and man? As a man, was God under the devil, having no choice but to sin continually and put the wrath upon Himself? No, Scripture tells us that He was alike in all ways but did not sin but using TULIP, God must sin as human. Jesus was born of a virgin and not united to Adam. Therefore, he was not part of fallen humanity. He is the 2nd Adam (see Rom 5). If Jesus was united to the fallen Adam in any way, then Jesus would have been a sinner who would need a savior.COLOR]

As for forensic justification, whether God choose to look at Christ instead of us, there is still the real matter of sin. If it’s a declaration but not an inward change, then God’s plan for salvation failed. Man still reigns supreme. That’s why Protestants seperate justificaiton from sanctification. How can you have a relationshiip with God as your Heavenly Father as a sinner/saint? If I undersand your point, it seems Catholic theology has more problems with your question

Hence, Calvinism is not a higher view of God but only of man. He worships a God who cannot fix the problem of sin. I have no idea how you came up with that conclusion. Nobody believes that those who are positonally declared righteous beased on the righteous of Christ alone, are not being made righteous by God the Holy Spirit.