Calvinism is Catholicism if I'm wrong prove it

I am not sure who appointed you to decide what would cause the foundations of the Godhead to crumble ... Alas but that was just a rest stop on my way to a bigger issue.

Notice again how subtly you changed the text from "are" to "can be." Ray, you must treat the text as it stands. Romans 5 teaches that we become righteous the same way we become sinners. It does not teach that all men "can be" justified. That is not even in the thought. It teaches that just as all in Adam are sinner because of his disobedience, so all in Christ are righteous because of his obedience.

Your changing of the text is a horrible way to make your case.

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 [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

The only reason I changed the word was to embellish the thought that 'His free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.' Adam drug every one down; Christ offers a bonified opportunityto be justified before God. This does not mean that at the end of human history that everyone will finally be saved. His message to us through the Apostoloate is that anyone who believes in Christ will have everlasting life. [Acts16:31; John 1:12; John 5:24]

Without the free will and agency of man in receiving life from Jesus, Romans 5:18 would have pointed the the idea that every living soul one day would be saved, and we know this is not true. The plan was made for all sinners, but He qualifies people only as they trust in His promised atonement on their behalf.

In John 3:18 indicates that some will believe in Him and will not be condemned. The other remaining sinners throughout all of their lives remain under His judgment, only because they did not believe in the Son of God our Savior. But, even the ramaining rebellious sinners can turn toward God in faith and trust in His work accomplished at the Cross.

 

I believe John is writing to believers, this constitutes who is 'our' and 'ours' then I believe as I stated before he is teaching that the creation also will be delivered.

The atonement was not general, and neither is the reconciliation completed at the Cross. The atonement, in the Hebrew is 'kaphar' and is a "covering" depending on usage it denotes something to cover ; something to cover with ; and someone to cover ; Christ is each of these, He alone is the only man ever with the Free-Will enough to be this. For this reason Abram told Isaac God would provide HIMSELF a Sacrifice. For this reason God taught man (Adam) there must be a substitute brought; ultimately Christ step into this substitute position (Heb 1.3) He purged 'our' sins by himself and became the Himself of whom Abraham was speaking.

God did this because no man was able to 'come' to God alone of his own choice.

When Christ became this substitute, His work was added to our account; by teaching men they have the choice to believe in Christ and then have an interest in this account, we are wrong; man must be shown that he has an interest in it.


God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

I'm trying to wrap my mind around this one. Thanks to Adam, we have no choice but to be condemned. Adam didn't ask our permission, we just ended up condemned because of what he did. I'm guessing you have no problem with that.

Yet you're fine with the fact that the best Jesus can do is offer us a way out? It would offend you more if he saved us without checking in to see if we can get past our sinful nature long enough to accept the offer, first?

 

By the way, I'm honestly not trying to make fun of you for the mistake (I make plenty of my own), but "bonified" sounds too much like something is fossilized. The expression is "bona fide", meaning "in good faith".

 

But the text does not need your embellishment. The text says what it intends to. And it does not say what you wish it did. Why not confine your remarks to what the text actually says?? Rom 5 is about the way sin and righteousness work.

 

AUGUSTINE

In the book, "Father's of the Church" in the Preface VII there is a reference to Augustine working on a treatise called, 'On the Predestination of the Saints.' (Catholic Union Press)

Boettner informs us, 'This cardinal truth of Christianity {Irresistible Grace} was first clearly seen by Augustine.' [Loraine Boettner, "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. 1932, p. 365.] My point is to indicate that John Calvin studied such theological works of Augustine and then patterned his 'Institutes' after his writings.

JOHN CALVIN

In the book, "CALVIN"--Origins and Development of His Religious Thought (Labyrinth Press, p.20 comes this statement. 'He tells us himself that he was 'obstinately addicted to the superstitions of the Papacy,' which implies that he had resisted efforts to turn away from them.' A quote from "Preface to Commentary on the Psalms" p. 22, 31.

In the book, "The Starting Point of Calvin's Theology" George H. Tavard says on page 171, 'Our first chapter indicated that the beginning of the "Institutio" of 1536 is indebted to the insights that Augustine had put in the form of a wish and a prayer in the "Soliloquies: Noverim me, noverimte.'

HULDRYCH ZWINGLI

Huldrych Zwingli was a Reformer in the land of Switzerland. He was born in 1484 and became a Roman Catholic priest in the early 1500's. His first parish was in the town of Glarus. His first mass was ministered at Wildhaus on September 29. His first sermon was preached at Rapperswil. It was part of his ministry to hear 'confessions' and he had reserved sacrament for the sick as the pious knelt and crossed themselves in his presence. He ministered 'extreme unction' to the dying.

JOHN KNOX

In the book, "On Rebellion" (Cambridge University Press-the Introduction is states that John Knox was born {they think} in 1514. He took 'Holy Orders' In the Roman Catholic Church in the late 1530's. His mentor, George Wishart was burned at the stake by the Catholics. The Protestant lairds avenged Wishart's death by killing a Roman Catholic cardinal.

The early Christian Fathers were men like Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and so on. There were some popes early on, after the 'early Christian fathers in various countries but never claimed the authority as the Roman pontiff. The Roman Catholic Church tries to link these popes back to the 100's just after the apostles deaths, claiming Apostolic Succession. In fact, the Roman Pontifical authority came probably in the very early 300's just before the Council of Nicaea. One of the early Roman Popes was Pope Leo, one of the two popes that were called, "The Great."

Saint Augustine in his (Letter 191.1) mentions an "acolyte Leo"carrying a message about Pelagian heresy from Pope Zosimus to the Bishop of Carthage in 418 A.D.

While we appreciate the giant step from men like John Knox, Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin out of and away from Roman Catholicism, they nevertheless, have very deep roots and theological linkage back to Augustine, claimed by the present pope, John Paul II in his 1986 celebration of the 1600th anniversary of Augustine's conversion. 'I express once again my fervent desire . . . . that the authoritative teaching of such a great doctor and pastor may flourish ever more happily in the Church. {John Paul II, "Sovereign Pontiff, Augustineum Hyponensem (Apostolic Letter, August 28, 1986. Available at: www.cin.org/jp2.ency/augustin.html.}

 

Once again, Ray, all of this is utterly irrelevant. There is a place for the discussion of church history. This is not it. This is a place for the discussion of doctrine. Would you like to comment on the doctrines and biblical support? Then please do. But refrain from posting church history here becuase it is irrelevant.

Let me once again set out the main idea here: We are discussing what Scripture has to say about the doctrine of soteriology. What other men have to say is relevant only when they comment on Scripture. Otherwise, it is beyond the purview of this thread.

Talk about Scripture.

 

npetreley,

I have no problem, in fact, I agree with your first paragraph dated, February 24--1:47 a.m.

You said in effect, 'The best Jesus can do is offer us a way out.' Christ best is always His superlative. Yes, it was His Divine plan, as you say, to 'make a way out' for every person born of a woman. Salvation is made possible for everyone. [I Timothy 2:4]

Your incorrect thinking, as is true of other Calvinists, is that you think He has a problem with a sinner's sinful nature, so much so, that the lost cannot even understand and believe the Gospel. Even after we are saved He knows we have the Adamic nature. [I John 1:8] If the old nature ultimately does not put the saved in Hell, it sure is not a problem to a sinner if they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and are saved.

 

Each to his own, I guess, Ray. Personally, I'm glad He made me an offer I couldn't refuse. Because I would have.

 

Why then do Calvinists reject clear teaching about soteriology?

John 3:16, For God so loved the world that he Gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.

And

John's letter was not written to the elect only, but to anyone who will read his letter. He did not preface his letter to any specific group or category of persons. Perhaps that is the reason Calvinists shy away from it, it refutes their narrow interpretation of who the believers are.

 

I John 2.1 addresses the family of God...note:

"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."

Now if you believe what you said in the last post, do you also apply 'if' any man sin, to your if any man will believe.

You are failing to understand there has to be a group of humans who need to be redeemed.

John certainly wasn't writing to those who have not been saved, whether your system believes in election to salvation or by man's free-will, else you are equating this scripture to say that Christ is the advocate for all men, even non-believers, I don't think you meant it this way, just pointing out where the logical end of your thinking is.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

They don't. It your unwillingness to believe that we believe what we say we believe. You can only blame on your own stubborn mind. Once again I say, and I will bold it ot make sure you don't miss it: I believe that whosoever believes will be saved. I believe that whosoever will may come. I am not sure how to make it any clearer. Your stubborn mind needs to open up and accept that we know what we believe. John 3:16 is no contradiction to what we believe; it is a vital part of it.

You keep wanting to focus on the "whosoever" while I would rather focus on the "will." Anyone who is not saved is not saved becuase they "will not" come. It is that simple. Start learning here Yelsew. Quit going done this long answered road of argumentation.

 

They don't. It your unwillingness to believe that we believe what we say we believe. You can only blame on your own stubborn mind. Once again I say, and I will bold it ot make sure you don't miss it: I believe that whosoever believes will be saved. I believe that whosoever will may come. I am not sure how to make it any clearer. Your stubborn mind needs to open up and accept that we know what we believe. John 3:16 is no contradiction to what we believe; it is a vital part of it.

You keep wanting to focus on the "whosoever" while I would rather focus on the "will." Anyone who is not saved is not saved becuase they "will not" come. It is that simple. Start learning here Yelsew. Quit going done this long answered road of argumentation. </font>[/QUOTE]Then contrary to Calvinism, everyone "who will" and everyone "who will not" are exercising their God given free will to decide for themselves respectively. Is that True?

Another tenet of Calvinism bites the dust!

 

No, everyone is exercising their will. It says nothing about whether their will is free or not.

 

Excuse me, if one can choose either of two options, then one has free will with which to do that!

 

Just a question for Yelsew the bible scholar.

When in scripture is grace an "option"?

I see that it is lavished. Poured out. given. But I can't find where it says that it is an option.

Maybe this is where you get confused. You see grace like a gumball machine, where I see it as a gift.

You can put your two cents in and recieve it, while I had no hope to recieve it unless he had given it to me.

 

Yelsew said:

"Excuse me, if one can choose either of two options, then one has free will with which to do that!"

I would if i could lad, but the fact is you are maing a basic mistake again! The will is not free is iuts able to choose between two things. Being able to choose merely affirms a will, not a free will. A will is only free if it is equally able to choose either way.

Keep the basics straight and we'll get somewhere.

Sturgman said:

I am sorry, you must have dialed the wrong number. There is no such person here.

 

Is what true?? That it is contrary to Calvinism?? No ... that man is exercising his free will?? Yes ... he is doing what he wants to do. Man's will is free to do anything in accordance with his nature. Therefore, unsaved man freely rejects Christ.

This is what Calvinism teaches, which goes back to my point above about your stubborn mind being unwilling to accept what we say. We have said so many times and you continually go on about it anyway. Why?? Why don't you listen??

 

The Gospel offered as a gift is not forced grace. A sinner has to receive His gift; it is not slid under the lost person's front door. Sturgman, you said, 'Where in scripture is grace an option?

In Acts 2:38 it is only after a sinner decides to repent and have the church baptize said person, is there then given ' . . . the gift of the Holy Ghost.' If a sinner does not repent the gift is not given by the Holy Spirit of God.

In Acts 10:45 indicates that only after the sinner believed was His gift 'poured out . . . '

Acts 11:17 says only after 'belief' was the identical gift given by God.

Romans 4:13 says that those who have faith received the 'promise.' {as a gift}
Romans 5:15, 16, 17, 18. Romans 6:23 say, ' . . . the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.' {an alternative is offered-death or life}

II Cor. 1:11, 8:4, 9:15. Ephesians 2:8, 3:7, *4:7.

II Tim. 1:6 If Timothy did not want the gift of God he would not have allowed the elders to lay hands on him, empowering him with the Holy Spirit.

Hebrews 6:4 indicates that the heavenly gift of the Holy Spirit had to 'taste' {believe or trust} in order to receive the gift of the third Person of the Trinity.

James 1:17 and I Peter 4:10.

You also said something to the effect that of 'putting in your two cents and receiving it.' Watch out some Calvinist will accuse you of salvation by 'work' or 'works' Your introducing the words, 'two cents' is what God calls believing and trusting in His work at the Cross. [John 3:16]