Calvinism is Catholicism if I'm wrong prove it

Sturgman,

How do you approach a sinner? Do you hope that after hearing the Gospel they sense that God has chosen them? Different Scriptures tell us that salvation is a free gift. [Acts 2:38] In order to be saved one has to receive or acknowledge the payment for his or her sins. This we call believing or faith. As you read you will notice that {repentance precedes remission of sins and Holy Spirit regeneration.} 'Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.'

 

It doesn't say that the Holy Spirit is the gift. It says, "the gift of the Holy Ghost" (emph mine). The word is "tou", possessive, so what it is saying is that you shall receive the Holy Spirit's gift. It's the same here:

Note it doesn't say God will pour out His Spirit, but that He will pour out of His Spirit, and the result will be that sons and daughters will prophesy, etc.

Here's another example:

God's wonderful works.

I'm still not certain, myself, when one is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but this particular verse doesn't tell you the answer.

 

If "Total Inability" and or "Total Depravity" were true God would never have to 'harden' human hearts/lives. Total Depravity would have solved the situation of God toward human beings.

 

Didn't you say this before? Or was it someone else?

Anyway, my response is the same: Your conclusion rests on the assumption that God hardens in order to prevent someone from hearing and being saved. No wonder you think it doesn't make sense - it doesn't. But that singular purpose you have attached to it isn't at all supported by scripture.

God didn't harden Pharoah to prevent him from being saved. He hardened Pharoah to bring about the results He wanted. For example, the Jews were not only set free, but they plundered the Egyptians.

 

That is fine by me. If you have noticed, all my "signatures" whehter in the forum or in PMs all are signed "Larry." That is what most of my church members call me. The only reason I have "pastor" on the front of my name here is because when I signed up, "larry" was already taken so I had to do something else.

If you want to discuss and debate issues of Calvinism or arminianism, you are more than welcome. However, this thread had degenerated into a discussion on church history which has its own forum.

Being the authority on my state of my mind, I can say without compunction that your opinion is misguided and wrong. I am not upset at the truth. I love the truth and defend it. However, when this thread was started accusing calvinism of being catholic, it was not a pursuit of the truth and in fact had nothing to do with the truth. The truth is that Calvinism, whether you like it or hate it, is rooted in Scripture. As I have shown, your rejecting this doctrine because of its "Catholicity" is a bogus and inconsistent position. You do not reject the Trinity (for which there is far less Scriptural evidence than there is for "calvinism") simply because the Catholics hold it. You do not reject the resurrection because they teach it. My point is that you are involving yourself in bad argumentation. I am encouraging not to do that. Debate real issues; not stuff you have made up or read somewhere that someone else made up. The issue at hand is to be discussed on the merits of the case and the Scriptures involved.

 

Arminius was more Calvinistic than those today called Arminians, nevertheless he was a heretic. Calvin was a pedobaptist. Calvin is no standard of "orthodoxy". The standard above all is called the Holy Scriptures.

"To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no dawn for them", Isa. 8:20, cp. 1Tim. 6:3-5 in the NT. It does not say "according to Calvin".

Calvin in his Romans commentary taught unbiblically (heretically) on justification, just like Luther did before him. Additionally, Calvin's words in the same commentary strongly implies he believed the heresy of gospel regeneration. A person who calls himself "Calvinist" on a continual basis is very unwise and carnal. TULIP Calvinism is not the same as "the doctrine of the Christ" (2John 9). Tulip Calvinism is just 5 points. The doctrine of Christ has more than 5 points, much more in fact. Clinging to Tulip Calvinism does not evidence a person is a true believer in Christ the Lord. Abiding in Christ's very teaching evidences a person has both the Father and the Son. The Dortian Calvinists who penned those canons were almost all infralapsarians reportedly. That was not to their credit. Most people calling themselves Calvinist believe the heresy of gospel regeneration just like their father Calvin did. And just like their father Calvin and Luther they believe their subjective faith played some part in their claimed justification before God. They have not had their boasting of the flesh excluded by a law of faith (Rom. 3:27), and have not been submitted by God to God's righteousness (Rom. 10:3). These do not differ much from the free willers they bash down upon and/or try to convert to Calvinism. Someone has well said, "scratch a Calvinist and you'll find an Arminian", loosely quoted from memory. Augustine was a pedobaptist, and if my memory does not fail me he had some part in persecuting Novatians, who maintained separation from the apostate Romish church. Many fools and knaves have been exalted to the skies, but few be they who justify Wisdom.

Harald

 

Wisdom is justified of her children.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

The closest you've come to identifying anything relevant in this thread are the claims that Calvinism is built on errors in the Vulgate.

I've exposed this allegation as false, yet you do not address those rebuttals and the allegation keeps resurfacing. So if this thread is devoid of anything relevent, it is because you are avoiding those relevant issues. You seem content to stop at accusing Calvinism of guilt by association, and then ignore anything that shows this is inaccurate, unfounded, and that the whole concept of guilt by association is flawed.

 

Romanbear,

1. I have shown the fallacy of your position that calvinism came from the RCC.
2. I have shown the inconsistency in your argument.
3. I have demonstrated that Calvinism, whether you like it or not, is argued from teh scripture.

It is a waste of your time only becuase you are not listening. You have a prime opportunity to learn here. But you are close minded and parroting something that someone else said.

To say that Scripture does not need interpretation is to ignore the very nature of language. All langauge, whether from God to man or from man to man requires interpretation. Communication is impossible without it.

If you would like to argue the merits of these positions, then do so. Do not argue from a false basis that involves things that are not true. It simply doesn't matter because as I have said, the truth of doctrine does not depend on who holds it but on whether or not Scripture teaches it.

Go in the other religions forum and start a discussion about calvinism and ask the catholics what they believe. You will find that they agree with you, not me on this.

I would love for you to discuss its origins. But you insist on discussing the catholic church. The origins of calvinism are in the writings of the apostles and prophets. If you want to discuss its origins then discuss Scripture.

Let me encourage you as well to tone down the rhetoric. It is gettingly increasingly unacceptable in this thread and everyone needs to be careful to maintain proper decorum.

 

Romanbear - do you actually study theology?

You can't negate a theology that is based on Scripture due to your misinterpretation of history.

You make no sense.
Calvinism IS NOT catholicism.
Catholicism is a form of Arminianism, actually. (This statement is based on what they believe, so I may have lost you Romanbear, you need to know what each believes).
Consodering Calvin was a REFORMER,I doubt he would align himself with the RC.
Basing his thought on Augustine (who died before the catholic church became the "Roman Catholic Church") has NO bearing on the discussion of whether he is right or wrong.

You have proven nothing.

 

romanbear, IMO it is obvious to everyone but you that you're the one who needs to do some serious chillin'

 

Romanbear,

One of the funniest and naive statements that I have read is this one. 'Considering Calvin was a Reformer, I doubt he would align himself with the Roman Catholic Church.' Shall we ask a question of the person who authored this sentence? What was Calvin trying to 'reform' or 'correct'? Answer is at the bottom of the page spelled backward.

Only an unwise person could believe that Luther, Calvin and Zwingli did not have a high percentage of Catholicism left in their mind and heart, even though they were Reformers, those who were trying only to reform and cleanse the errors and sins of their Roman Catholic faith.

And our brother, J Greyhound asks whether ' . . . you actually study theology?' Very interesting.

Answer: ehT namoR cilohtaC hcruhC

 

Obviously Ray has no REAL arguments so he tries to pick apart semantics , knowing full well what the poster meant.

If he was trying to reform the RCC, did he agree with it????

Stick with the issues...this is a ridiculous argument against Calvin/Calvinism...it has been proven repeatedly. I must really get under your skin for you to keep attacking me. I guess your lack of theological understanding has finally shown through, and now you have to resort to personal attacks. How pathetic are you?

Stick with the issues I raised. Don't play word games.

 

Obviously, they disagreed with the vast majority of RCC doctrine or else they wouldn't have broken from the RC church to try and reform it.

If he agreed with their theology why would he reform it?
If he agreed with their theology why would he BREAK from the church (an unheard of practice)?

Every time I read your post I realize more and more how ridiculous your argument was.

Do you realize that we don't disagree with EVERY SINGLE BELIEF that the RCC has? If you look a church history, I think you'll see that some of your beliefs have their basis in bishops/monks/etc. who were aligned closely with the "catholic church". Like I have said, no one is untouched by the theology of Augustine (in some degree). That is why he is claimed by people on both sides. But, to claim Luther or Calvin are irrelevant because they were at one time aligned with the Catholic church is to miss their point completely. You change the issue from what they raised from Scripture over to a personal attack on their personhood. of course they are fallible, no one claims otherwise.

 

Sola Scriptura
Sola Gratia
Sola Fide
Solus Christus
Soli Deo Gloria

 

The tenets of Calvinism started long before Augustine when Jesus, Paul, and the other apostles preached them. Augustine is credited with being the first one to begin to systematize them in response to Pelagius. This is documented history, as you say. That does not mean that the truth was not around before. It means that it had not been thought through and systematized because there had been no reason to. church history shows that doctrines are systematized through church history as different conflicts arise. This one is no different. For Augustine, the issue was the nature of man (Pelagianism). Then it progressed to where Calvin systematized it further and then others have done more.

Lest you object to "systematizing" it, the only thing is means is that people began to correlate Scriptures and plug them into each other to put together a coherent whole. Obviously, everything the Bible says about soteriology is not in one place. It comes from all over. Systematic theology is the pulling together and correlating of that truth.

No, I am not. I was saying that this theory has been debunked and shown to be inconsistent.

Not really. Frustrated is a better word. I just wish you would think through some of this stuff further than you have. There is a load of truth being dumped out here and it is worthy of interaction.

John Calvin is not the issue though. That is what I have repeatedly said. If you want to talk about what John Calvin did, go to the church history forum or to the all other discussion forum. This is not about John Calvin, It is about soteriology and whether the tenets called by his name line up with Scripture. Chasing the character or practice of John Calvin has no bearing on that.

If I was pushing you around, I would be editing your posts. I leave them stand and I comment on them just like every one else does. When someone says something publicly, they invite public response. A response is not an attack. But if you are unwilling to have your posts discussed, then do not post. That is the only answer I have. You know that I edit very little. I left people live or die by what they say.

[qutoe][qb]Do you hate me are you out to see that I'm driven off the board.I do my best not to break any rules and you invent something that is totally unfounded.[/quote][/b]I don't hate you and I have not invented anything. It has been the standard position of this forum since i Have been the moderator that church history discussions are not here. They belong elsewhere.

I do and I do better than that. I respond to error with truth and defend it from Scripture.

There is nothing personal against you here. But do not take out your personal frustration with the moderators in a public forum.