Calvinism is Catholicism if I'm wrong prove it

Brother Dallas,

With all due respect, you think the alleged "Doctrines of Grace" go back to the Ancient of Days, but they really start with Augustine. Dr. Vance reminds us that Augustine was 'one of Catholicism's original four "Doctors of the Church" (with) a feast day dedicated to him in the Catholic Church on August 28, the day of his death.' (Laurence M. Vance, "The Other Side of Calvinism" p. 49.) Dr. Grady in his book "Final Authority" a Ph.D. all from Baptist institutions, says, that the 'emerging Catholicism of third century Alexandria, is an intriguing scenario that presents itself.'

How can anyone even begin to think that "Limited Atonement," is a Doctrine of Grace? This means that man is now saying, as in the past, that Christ's precious atonement is diminished and is only effective to the tiny minority, 'the elect.'

How do you interpret I John 2:2?

 

Check your emotions and think. To say that no one with any brains could arrive at that conclusion is a ridiculous statement that stems from your unwillingness to check your emotions. You may disagree with me (and the vast majority of Christianity) but that does not mean that we are not thinking and that we have no brains.

Rom 8:29-30 talk of a call that results in justification and glorification. Therefore it is a call that is effectual. Everyone who receives that call is justified and glorified. That is what is meant by effectual call, which you would know if you would study.

2 Thess 2:13 and 1 Peter 1:2 both talking about being chosen through the setting apart work of the Spirit. That is the effectual call.

God is the one who said it. This kind of statement is out of line. To argue for your point from Scripture is one thing. I wish you would start. As it is, you refuse and jsut claim God is one your side without showing us that.

Once again, notice the total lack of Scripture. I told you the verses and told you why unconditional is a part of them. If it was before the foundation of the world, then it cannot be conditioned on anything outside of God. Your response is to deny it. I can accept the truth. That is why I believe what I do.

I am and I believe what virtually every calvinist believes. You limit the atonement unless you are a universalist.

Do you believe the atonement applies to people who do not believe?? If you do not, then you limit the atonement.

I have not limited God in one bit. Again, you apparently have no idea of what the issues are. You keep saying stuff that is so ludicrous as to be unbelievable that you say it with a straight face. The issue of the atonement is accomplshment vs. possibility. I believe the atonement accomplished propitiation like 1 John 2:2 says. You believe it simply made it possible and now something else is necessary. I disagree.

You are treading dangerously close to personal attacks and the resultant banning. You need to clean up your attitude and your approach. The fact of the matter has that I am simply talking about Scripture. Your posts have very little in it and I have very little time for that. You need to start dealing with Scripture.

It is you who are driven by logic. I am perfectly willing to let the logical inconsistencies stand in favor of what Scripture says God has done. It is you who are unwilling to do that.

Out of everythign I am worried about, it is not the threat of this thread. This thread merely shows how out of touch you are with the issues of the discussion. I encourage you again to get involved and get engaged in the debate. Quit saying this kind of thing and start dealing with the arguments.

Romanbear, I am pleading with you to change your approach. Please take this seriously. Discuss the issues. Tell me what these verses say if you do not agree. But do not post this kind of post.

 

I am posting in the Baptist History Forum to show that Calvinism is not Catholicism, if anyone would care to meander over yon to take a look.

The thread is listed under: "Paulicians, Donatists, and Waldensians but not..."

It is interesting reading and useful to myself as would be others.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

[ February 22, 2003, 01:35 AM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

 

This post is in connection with Feb. 21 at 12:22 p.m. 'Dr. Vance reminds us that Augustine was one of the four original doctors of the Catholic church.'

The Roman Catholic Church honors the doctors of their church on the day of their deaths.

January 24…….Saint Francis deSales
January 28…….Saint Thomas Aquainas
May 2……..Saint Athanasius
June 9……..Saint Ephrem
June 13……..Saint Anthony of Padua
July 15……..Saint Bonaventure
July 21……..Saint Lawrence of Brindisi
July 30……..Saint Peter Chrysologus
August 1……..Saint Alphonsus Liguori
August 20…….Saint Bernard
August 28……Saint Augustine of Hippo
September 3…….Saint Gregory the Great, pope
September 13……Saint John Chrysostom
September 17…..Saint Bellarmine
September 30……Saint Jerome
October 1…….Saint Therese of the Child Jesus
October 15…….Saint Teresa of Jesus
November 15………Saint Albert the Great
December 4………Saint John of Damascus

Four of the original doctors of the Roman Catholic Church probably came from this list. St. Augustine probably was the most distant doctor representing and involved with this branch of the church.

 

Neither Augustine, nor Calvin are the Ancient of Days.

I interpret I John 2.2 not to say that all of mankind is saved; if I did I would join an Universalist camp. But I find the fire in that circle has gone out and there is no warmth. (IMHO).

If all men are saved by the work of Christ, then the universalist position is the only plausible position, neither Sovereign Grace, nor man's 'free-will' would amount to a hill of beans.

I believe the scripture in your question means Christ has propiatiated the depravity the creation has fallen into, not by its own will, but because of subjection, which I believe lines up with Romans 8.

Look at my response in the Baptist History Forum for refutation of your position that Catholicism is Calvinism.
God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Brother Dallas,

I John 2:2 points to the Biblical reality that Christ died not only for the sins of His people, but for every human being. Here the Lord Himself is showing us that His atonement covers every living human being.

We believe to have this atonment cover a sinner's sins, he or she must believe in Jesus Christ in order to finally be saved. [Acts 16:31] This is Biblical theology.

Erronous theology is expressed best in "Particular Atonemnt" and "Universalism" meaning that eventually every human being will be saved.

God would not go to the trouble of saying, ' . . . He is a propitiation for our sins; and not our only' {if He did not mean what He said} but ALSO for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD.'

I suggest you forget the dogmatics of John Calvin and accept the voice of God speaking though the pen and manuscript of the Apostle John.

 

Except you changed one very important word. Did you notice how subtily you changed the text and expected us not to notice?? You substituted the word "died" for the word "propitiated" and that is how you make the text support you. The word "propitiate" is what John said and that is what we need to stick with. What it means is "satisfy the wrath." So Christ satisfied the wrath of God but he did not do it for the whole world without exception, then God would never send anyone to hell. He did it for the whole world with distinction, and that is a distinction you fail to make (no pun intended).

To propitiate is something very specific and Christ clearly did not propitiate the sins of everyone without exception. That would be universalism.

You cannot just change the text. That may work with those who don't read it but it won't work with those who do.

 

I'm guessing St Bernard is another one of the original doctors, which explains where the RCC got the doctrine of salvation by running around the Himilayas with whiskey tied to your neck.

 

I suggest you forget the dogmatics of John Calvin and accept the voice of God speaking though the pen and manuscript of the Apostle John.

Bro. Ray,

Thanks for the suggestion, however, I am not relying on the dogmatics of Calvin, I am relying on the whole of Scripture to define my beliefs. I believe Romans 8 teaches the whole creation is to be delivered (though it says creature, the word can and is used as creation also) and this deliverance through the reconciliation in which God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. The "creature" is a derivative of 'create' thus I believe scripture to be speaking of the created universe, not "all" men when it speaks of the world.

God provided himself a sacrifice to accomplish this; the reconciliation of the elect, and of the creation.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

IMO, by "whole world", John is not saying "every human being". I also don't get the impression he's talking about Jews and Gentiles, but it reads more to me like he's talking in generalities. In other words, "he is not only the propitiation for you (my audience) and me but for the sins of all peoples everywhere."

To interpret it as "every human being" simply does not work, because if Jesus propitiated (turned aside the wrath of God) for every human being, then all the prophecy about God pouring His wrath upon the world in some future time must be wrong.

 

Romanbear,

Can't you see that the statement "I have not attack anything except your disregard for the truth" is PERSONAL in nature? There is no other way to take that statement but PERSONALLY!

 

Athough Christ died for ever person who will ever be born of a woman, this does not mean that His wrath is turn away for all human beings. Only receiving Christ makes sinners one of His elect. At the judgment, people will be sent to Hell only if they refuse the Son our Savior.

 

I believe this verse. Ray is the one who changed it to make "propitiation" read "died." That was a change of Scripture. "Propitiation" means satisfaction of wrath. If Christ propitiated the sins of the whole world without exception, then no one would go to hell. That is simply not true. Therefore it does not mean "whole world without exception." The verse gives the same truth in all versions. The verse is not the issue. Changing it, as Ray did, is.

 

Romanbear,

The Scriptures and support for unconditional election, effectual call, and limited have been given. You are not responding to them. We have explained the verses from our side.

You may love the truth but you must remember that we do to. When you "attack a disregard for the truth" you are attacking those of us who hold what has been a major, if not majority view, for all of church history. If you think the Scriptures do not say what we believe they do, then the burden is on you to refute. You cannot simply say, "It doesn't mean that; you have twisted it." For instance, you have yet to say how teh call of Rom 8:29 is anything but effectual and different than general. When you read the context, it is clear that the call results in justification and glorification. If you say that all receive the call, then you must explain why all are not justified and glorified because the text says that all that receive it are.

When you deny unconditional election, you must explain what the basis for God's election in eternity past was conditioned on. And you have to tell us why it is not merit. You just tell us we are wrong. You don't offer any explanations.

 

The word, 'propitiation' in I John 2:2 and 4:10 means {Greek -'hilasmos' means atonement or expiation. In the first text God wants the church to know that His redemption is not only to the church, those who John is for the most part writing to as believers, but also that His concern stretches beyond their own hope of Heaven toward those who have not yet come into the faith. ' . . . but for the sins of the whole world.'

After establishing this precision of thought, John says in 4:10 that the Triune God's love was so great that He sent the Son to 'cover' the sins of those truly united to Jesus our Lord.

If God only loved the elect the very foundations of the Godhead would crumble. The justice, mercy and love of the One who is seated at the right hand above demonstrates so great a love and concern for human beings which He has created.

Incidentally, we know that in Adam we all died spiritually speaking; but because of Christ's death He has provided the atonement that avails for all people. [Romans 5:18]

Please, notice and do not deny the vigor of His words. ' . . . all men' is documented twice in this verse. In Adam 'all men' are condemned; because of Christ-- 'all men' can be justified because of His endless life above. How can any sinner receive justification? The plan and answer is found in Acts 16:31.

Because of Adam's Fall every sinner is condemned; does anyone think that the atonement of Jesus could be less potent and less encompassing than what Adam heaped on us as sinners?
We believe and teach that Christ's love reaches around the world and embraces every human being. His Divine justice, mercy and love accomplishes this reality, thanks be to God

 

My post on February 23rd, 8:52 p.m. in the second paragraph should read, 'I John says in 4:10 . . . '