"The sufficiency of Grace" a continuation of "The sufficiency of Christ" family debate.

[2nd_Adam]

I never said anything about being un-adopted. I am talking about an adopted child being cut off or taken back. That is very different from undoing an adoption.

The prodigal son left his fathers house. He was as good as dead. After he repented he came back and he was alive again. He was always the fathers son.

Okay, if a child is adopted into the family of God, He never loses His sonship when he drifts away. In another words, an adopted child of God based on the behavior of our Elder brother never goes from the kingdom of light to the kingdom of darkness because our citizenship in the kingdom of God is based on the person and work of Jesus Christ alone. Do you agree?

 

[2nd_Adam]

The question was: when was Cornelius saved?

We are discussing Cornelius, not 2 centurions.

I thought Cornelius was a centurion, maybe I’m wrong?

 

[elvisman]

Calvin never believed in the immaculate conception so it is wrong to refer to the “reformers” as believing in it. As he is considered on of the reformers.

My point was that Calvin, Luther, Zwingli and other Reformers believed in MANY things that are now rejected by their Protestant descendents – like you,** 2ndAdam**** and others.**
Ummm . . . WHY is that??

Anyhow, I also would like to know where you make the distinction of a “protestant twisting the scriptures to their destruction”. It sure seems as if you’ve passed that judgment as me since I brought that particular scripture up. Would you say my end is destruction (it sure feels that you’ve made that judgment) since I supposedly twisted this scripture to mean something that doesn’t fit your Catholic lenses?

I would hope you would not make such a judgment of someone else’s salvation, but it seems as if you have already done so with other protestants.
**Not at all. You don’t see it for what it says and you try to glean some phantom meaning that just isn’t there. You simply don’t understand (like MANY Protestants) what Paul is saying here – or what he is referring to. I ****already **pointed this out to you.

 

[elvisman]

I understand the word of God better than you know. Like I said I consider anything that proceeds out of you mouth to be an insult to Jesus, so God Bless and keep up the good work. Cause I am happy in the Lord no matter what you say.:extrahappy:

You certainly don’t exhibit any real knowledge of the Scriptures – nor do you have a grasp on the Catholic faith.

---

You can remain happy in your ignorance - or you can seek God’s truth.
It appears that you have chosen the former . . . **

 

[Cr8ton]

My point was that Calvin, Luther, Zwingli and other Reformers believed in MANY things that are now rejected by their Protestant descendents – like you,** 2ndAdam**** and others.**
Ummm . . . WHY is that??

**Not at all. You don’t see it for what it says and you try to glean some phantom meaning that just isn’t there. You simply don’t understand (like MANY Protestants) what Paul is saying here – or what he is referring to. I ****already **pointed this out to you.

I’m willing to wrestle with scriptures and keep an open mind with others interpretations (as long as it doesn’t contradict other scripture) to find the true meaning and intent that God had for us. I can’t see how you are so assured that the interpretations of the scriptures dealing with the authorization of the Catholic church being the true church are valid.

Your interpretation of the Word of God relies upon men, that meaning that it is based on your believing and accepting the Catholics interpretations of the scriptures.

If you realized one of those scriptures which I’m referring to were mis-interpreted and not pointing to the Catholic Church as the “only visible church” then your whole understanding of the Bible would be shaken into confusion.

After all, if the CC has the absolute fullness of truth then you don’t need to wrestle with scriptures that have already been interpreted by the magisterium.

 

[guanophore]

I thought Cornelius was a centurion, maybe I’m wrong?

I can see why you would want to avoid this topic, 2nd. It seems to me to present quite a quandary, especially with regard to your rejection of “decisional regeneration”.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I can see why you would want to avoid this topic, 2nd. It seems to me to present quite a quandary, especially with regard to your rejection of “decisional regeneration”.

No avoidance my brother. Should we discuss the two centurions now? Please post the accounts for me. I’m not sure what you mean about decisional regeneration too?

 

[zerinus]

izoid;6004556:

Can you please tell me which part of the statement is untrue? Why is it that Calvinists evangelize?

Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. - Apostle Paul

izoid;6004585:

Again, no answer from Adam.

Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. - Apostle Paul

He is asking you why Calvinists evangelize, not why Paul evangelized. Paul’s idea of “elect” is not the same as the Calvinist one. Paul’s idea of “elect” is the same as Peter’s, which is as follows:

2 Peter 1:

10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

So what is your answer to that?

 

[izoid]

No avoidance my brother. Should we discuss the two centurions now? Please post the accounts for me. I’m not sure what you mean about decisional regeneration too?

Why are you struggling so hard to answer this question? Your constant attempt to avoid it only weakens your position. Wait…maybe answering it would weaken your position even more?

 

[izoid]

I’m very familiar with Pastor MacArthur’s transition to Calvinism. I used to attend his Dad’s church in which his dad Jack MacArthur preached. It’s definitely not a Reformed Church. One of the most influential books for Pastor MacArthur is a book written by the Puritan pastor Theologian Thomas Watson called “A Body of Divinity” based on the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Granted, Pastor MacArthur fits better in the Reformed Camp than the Arminian Protestant Camp. However, I would not consider him to be fully Reformed. He is quite the dispensational - Calvinist hybrid. One of my best friends attended the Masters Seminary. I know many pastors who go to the Masters Pastors conference every year. Before I moved, I attended a PCA Church near Westminster West Seminary in which the main pastor was also a Hebrew Professor at Westminster Seminary. There’s a big difference between a Reformed Church and Grace Community Church.

So…MacArthur says he is a Calvinist…you say he is not. This is perfectly fine for you to do.

BUT

Tweety claims to be a Catholic…some say her theology is not Catholic. This is hateful and un Christ like.

 

[guanophore]

That’s a completely untrue statement when you study church history. Study missions after the Reformation and you will find the most passionate missionaries and Evangelists were Calvinists! The First Great Awakening in America with Jonathan Edwards was grounded in Calvinism! Study about the great heroes of Protestant missionaries, and you will see it’s stacked on the Calvinist side!

What is the purpose of evangelism, according to Calvanists? Are the elect not saved if they never get to hear the Gospel?

Is God’s grace not sufficient for them, even if a preacher never makes it to that village?

 

[guanophore]

I'm willing to wrestle with scriptures and keep an open mind with others interpretations (as long as it doesn't contradict other scripture) to find the true meaning and intent that God had for us. I can't see how you are so assured that the interpretations of the scriptures dealing with the authorization of the Catholic church being the true church are valid.

Because we have preserved the Sacred Traditions as they are handed down from the Apostles.

Your interpretation of the Word of God relies upon men, that meaning that it is based on your believing and accepting the Catholics interpretations of the scriptures.

Actually, it is the other way around. We trust completely in Jesus’ promise to send the HS, who will lead the Church into “all Truth”.

If you realized one of those scriptures which I’m referring to were mis-interpreted and not pointing to the Catholic Church as the “only visible church” then your whole understanding of the Bible would be shaken into confusion.

I suppose that were true, but since we know that Jesus only founded ONE CHURCH, and it is Catholic, this will not produce any shaking.

After all, if the CC has the absolute fullness of truth then you don't need to wrestle with scriptures that have already been interpreted by the magisterium.

I don’t agree with this at all. this is like saying that Jacob did not need to wrestle with the angel because he already knew God.

Our personal struggle to reconcile our hearts, minds, souls and strength (will) with the Truth is not abrogated by any Teaching.

 

[PRmerger]

The question was: when was Cornelius saved?

We are discussing Cornelius, not 2 centurions.

OhmyGOSH!! Has 2ndAdam STILL not answered? :bigyikes:

Since I have happily put him on my ignore list I wouldn’t know if he’s answered, but I would have assumed, after at least a dozen posts that I’ve read pointedly asking him, that this would have been addressed by NOW…

OhmyGOSH. This is laughable, is it not?

And, it speaks volumes. Volumes.

 

[guanophore]

No avoidance my brother. Should we discuss the two centurions now? Please post the accounts for me. I’m not sure what you mean about decisional regeneration too?

No, 2nd. I am not interested in discussion centurions.

I would like to know from you, at what point was Cornelius (Acts. 10) regenerated?

I am not sure what you meant by 'decisional regeneration" either, you never defined it. You just said you don’t believe in it.

I suspect that it is not a doctrine consistent with Apostolic Teaching either, from the sounds of it.

 

[coracobb]

You seem to be invested in changing the subject, 2nd. Mary rejoiced because she was saved. Let’s not add to scripture, shall we?

How do you account for the parents of John the Baptist?

Luk 1:5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all commandments of the Lord

How can this statement be true, and also your statement that it is impossible to keep the Law?

How is the Image of fallen Adam different from the Image of God?

Adam,

I am not sure if this is the right place to post to you or not so if I have intruded on someones space please let me know.

Where did you get your quote on all have fallen short of the glory of God. This sounds like Roamans 3:23 where it says in vs 21-26

21:But now the erighteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the prophets.

22: the righteoisness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction;

23: all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.

24: They are justified freely by His grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus,

25: whom God set forth as an explanation, through faith, by his blood, to prove his righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins previously commited,

26: through the forebearance of God—to prove His righteousness in the present time, that he might be righteous and justify the one who has faith in Jesus.

This is from NAB Catholic Study Bible

Is your statement based on Roman 3:23 or some other writings.

Bless You

Cora

 

[guanophore]

Why are you struggling so hard to answer this question? Your constant attempt to avoid it only weakens your position. Wait…maybe answering it would weaken your position even more?

Calvinists believe that people come to faith because they are regenerated already. They believe and are baptized in water as a result of already being born again. If I understand it correctly, they believe that before that, a man is “totally depraved”, meaning that they are at emnity with God, and unable to please Him, and unable to come to Him in faith.

Cornelius is an interesting case study in the light of these things.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

I think I have an idea on how he would respond and save his theology.

 

[guanophore]

OhmyGOSH!! Has 2ndAdam STILL not answered? :bigyikes:

Since I have happily put him on my ignore list I wouldn’t know if he’s answered, but I would have assumed, after at least a dozen posts that I’ve read pointedly asking him, that this would have been addressed by NOW…

OhmyGOSH. This is laughable, is it not?

And, it speaks volumes. Volumes.

There are only about 70 posts left till we max out. It is possible that he could continue to avoid this issue until the post limit is reached. If he thinks I am going to forget, though, he has another thing coming!

 

[izoid]

There are only about 70 posts left till we max out. It is possible that he could continue to avoid this issue until the post limit is reached. If he thinks I am going to forget, though, he has another thing coming!

I think that is why this thread was created in the first place. His Sufficiency of Christ maxed out due to his avoidance and he started this one.

 

[guanophore]

I think I have an idea on how he would respond and save his theology.

Please help me out!