Calvinism is Catholicism if I'm wrong prove it

Ray, you put a lot of verses out there yet none of them answered my question. I never denied that belief must be a part of salvation. I completely believe that it must. My question is still the same. When is grace showed as an option? Yelsew is selling it as Amway.

I believe if we add those "two cents" then it is works. I believe that God poured out and lavished His grace upon us.

 

The above is what sturgman wrote, I for one calvinist, find no fault with this statement, he is equating the '2 cents' to the Arminian 'free-will' view, which would lead to believe that the said '2 cents' is what purchased repentance, justification, redemption, salvation and adoption.

Christ purchased these on Calvary by His blood.

Heb. 1.3 After he purged us of our sins by himself he sat down on the right hand of the Father.

Repentance is granted and directed by the Holy Spirit through the Will of the Father and because of the fulfillment of the Covenant of Works by the Son.

Paraphrased: The Goodness of God leadeth you to repentance.

Repentance is not to be felt from the worldly sorrow which is that I am 'caught' in my sins, true Godly repentance is that which is from the heart, broken (in the Hebrew 'buy') and destitute of any hope, thus humiliated of his own efforts, will and desires, comes by the knowledge taught of the Holiness of God, the Righteousness of God (and that in Christ) and the sanctification of the Holy Spirit (thus having been set apart to the believing of these things), the individual crys out for mercy.

Which is better? Sacrifice or mercy? We must be done with thoughts of self-sacrifice, else we shall miss the mercy of God in His works. This will { not } mean the elect will fail in being redeemed, they are redeemed at Calvary, as our sins are put upon Christ, he is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world, there is no other means by which this sin is removed, neither belief, nor repentance grants justification, but we are justified freely by His Grace, why? Because of our position in Christ which is testified to our spirits in due season.

If it is because of our belief that it is granted, then there is none who will beleive. Who can believe man is able to crucify God? Except one who is effectually taught this by God?

Edited to correct the overrunning of my thoughts, spilling out onto the keyboard, but not being shed upon the keys to which they were directed. (Much like the idea of man's ability to choose the Savior, whereby it is believed His blood is spilled, as if accidental and can only be applied to those who will choose to wallow in it. Rather to be desired is the teaching of Scripture which proclaims He shed His blood, carried it into the Holy of Holies and poured it out directly upon the ark of the covenant, whereby this place of judgement becomes the place of mercy for those who, by divine Will, are brought before this judgement to drink of it's wrath, but find instead, the blessings of the peace of God, because their brother, Christ Jesus, the Only Begotten Son of God has drank of the cup of HIS Wrath and for His people there is no wrath which remains unto condemnation.) Was Christ's Blood shed or was it spilled? Good Question.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Larry;
A quote from you;
---------------------------------------------------
Once again, Ray, all of this is utterly irrelevant. There is a place for the discussion of church history. This is not it
---------------------------------------------------
I disagree Larry.This is not Church history but rather history of Calvinism and it's links to a Church. In my view it is not Church history. Calvin has no church named after him that is being discuss here.This thread is one I started and yet you claim it is Church history. You can't refute the facts presented here.Again I say this is not Church history.But rather the History of Calvin and where it comes from.It is about doctrine,how it originated, who it's author is and what type of person he was.It is also about why is was created by Augustine and people like Constantine's involvment in it's creation.
Romanbear

 

romanbear,

Your argument IS irrelevant. Not only can it be turned against you (though you and those who agree with you deny it using base double-standards) but it is nothing more, at bottom, than an ad hominem, attempting to discredit an idea by appealing to the actions and character, and affiliations of the people expounding them.

The history and legacy of arminianism is, as I have pointed out in other places, no better. And considering the fruit of some of its representatives here (cough!) it may be said to be worse.

As poeple who belive in sola scriptura the only test that really matters is whether an idea is scriptural. That is why Reformed doctrine is so strong; it majors on exegesis of the bible. That can't be said for armnianism.

 

Biblebelted;
Where things come from a very relevant. And Calvinism comes from the corrupt Latin Vulgate and Augustine.If you want to say where Arminianism comes from then say it.It comes right out of the Bible and that's why you can't stand it.
Romanbear

 

Brother Dallas,

You said, in effect, that 'the free will concept' would lead sinners to believe that they had purchased repentance, justification, redemption, salvation and adoption.

Please understand that we have correct Biblical exegesis, logic and a real sense of spiritual balance in our theology. One would have to be an ultra-Calvinist in order to come up with the idea that you suggested in paragraph one.

All sinners know they are unworthy of anything from God. If they come to Him they come with open hands and hearts. Even a lost person would not think paragraph number one; why would you suggest that other Christians would even think paragraph one.

The Lord has already redeemed all the lost. [I John 2:2] When we receive Christ we become justified, saved and adopted into the family of God. These are clearly things that only Almighty God can do on behalf of contrite sinners. Do you think you understand our position with this enlightening new information to you? Let me know, as time permits.

 

There is that doubke stabdard again.

Arminius ALSO is absed in Augustine. He was a student of Beza who was a student of Calvin.

So if you say Calvin is bad because of you race him to, so must you trace arminius for he goes through Calvin. Accept it. You end up impaling yourself on the sword you so carelessly wield.

Now again, this is nothing more than cheap adhominem. The issue for those who belive the Bible must always be: does scripture teach it.

It is noteworthy that it is the Calvanistswho wish to address this most important question, and not you.

 

Biblebelted;
God bless you. You told the truth. Your right he did. He also refuted it as heresey and told the truth about the Lie that Calvinism is. He studdied under Beza and also revealed the truth to the rest of the university where they attended College. The college was split on the issues because of Gods truth and Augustines lies
Is this the worst you can do?
Romanbear

 

And there is the double standard again.

Yo want to claim that Arminius doesn't have to be subject to yor "roots" thiking since he denied Calvanism. Well the reformers denied Roman Catholicism.

Before you calim that the Reformers did not renounce all of RC theology, let me stop you, becuase neither did Arminius. Don't indilge in yet another double standard.

And the fact is that arminus also drew directly from Augustne, as wel as origen and ambrosiaster. That, according to your thinkinf, also makeshim Catholic.

See you can't avoid this.

And it is STILL cheap ad hominem.

Why are the arminians unwilling to actually engage scripture and leave the ad hominem behind?

Beause they have no choice but to admit that they cannot hold that field of battle. A consistent study of Scripture reveals that Calvanism is an accurate representation of the biblical gospel.

So the arminians run to another field. Only obviously they vcannot hold it either. They are slowoly dying of their own double-standards.

What new field will they run to, taiil twixt their legs? Will it be even less relevant than the ad hominem they seek to engage in here?

Sadly I suspect yes. Their fruit does not lead me to expect better.

 

Biblebelted;
Please don't have a heart attack because of your rage. The truth is that Calvinism is dying because of it's loveless attitudes. It's been dying ever since Dort a trial of sorts set up by Calvinist to refute Armininus's declarations of faith. Before this they didn't have the tulip of disgrace. The fact that you aren't able to defend Calvinism from God's word is proof that it is a lie.Not one point of Calvinism is true
Romanbear
__________________________

Edited to remove line that had been previously warned about. Come on Romanbear, don't do that kind of stuff.

[ February 26, 2003, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Well now Roamnbear, it seems you have proven me to be a prophet!

You have fled the field of history and have now gone to the field of histrionics.

I accept the implicit surrender.

 

Biblebelted;
What an imagination you have.
Romanbear

 

Need it to follow that twisted maze of yours you call a theology. God is certainly not the author of such confusion.

 

Bibleblted;
Yes and Calvinist should talk about twisted. Believing things that you say are there in the Bible but aren't. :eek:
Why do I feel That I'm arguing with someone who needs the last word.Go ahead knock your self out.
Romanbear

 

That's fine.

You are entitled to your view.

The arguments have been refuted and they are irrelevant anyway. We base our doctrine on Scripture.

If this were true, then there would be a lot of discussion about Scripture and God and his character. As this is not the topic of discussion, then this is not about the doctrine.

My point is not to stifle discussion of church history but rather to get it to the place where it can be talked about. Again I emphasize, this is about doctrine. You have yet to make a convincing case the calvinism came from the RCC. In fact, everything about the RCC refutes you.

Calvinism is not dying, which I am sure is your worst nightmare. It is experiencing a fresh revival among those who are studying the word and I, for one, am glad to see it. I am seeing people becoming God-centered in places I never expected to see it. It is a breathe of fresh air.

And Calvinism has been defended from Scriptures for centuries. You come along in this forum and accuse of not defending it from Scriptures. That is at best ignorance of the discussion, at worst a purposeful misrepresentation of it. Your disagreement does not mean that is has not been defended. It means that you are, at this point, unpersuaded by it, choosing a different interpretation. There are many in depth and well written defenses of biblical soteriology (i.e., now know as Calvinism) that use Scripture in support, that answers the objections put forth, and that points out the numerous problems with the alternative.

You are welcome to disagree. But keep on topic here. Our reasons are biblical, not historical.

[ February 26, 2003, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

When Martin Luther came to the spiritual understanding that a person was saved by faith-and only by faith in Jesus, [Romans 1:17c; 5:1; Galatians 3:11d; Habakkuk 2:4c]
he had to turn from many of the doctrines of Roman Catholicism. Martin came to this understanding while reading the epistle of Paul to the Romans.

One of the assimilated errors was purgatory. The quasi-church had used the concept of purgatory to help build St. Peter's Cathedral in Rome. One of the leaders in the institutional church had taught, 'As soon as coin in coffer rings, the soul from Purgatory springs!' Tetzel was his name.

It would be interesting to review the 95 thesis that were posted on the doors of the Wittenburg Church, that got the Protestant Reformation under way.

 

Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther
on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences
by Dr. Martin Luther (1517)


Published in:

Works of Martin Luther:
Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et Al., Trans. & Eds.
(Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915), Vol.1, pp. 29-38
_______________


Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.

In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.

3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.

4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.

6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.

7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.

8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.

9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.

10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.

11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.

12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.

14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.

15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.

16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.

17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.

18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.

19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.

20. Therefore by "full remission of all penalties" the pope means not actually "of all," but only of those imposed by himself.

21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope's indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;

22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.

23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.

24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty.

25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.

26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.

27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].

28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.

29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.

30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.

31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.

32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.

33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;

34. For these "graces of pardon" concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.

35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.

36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.

37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.

38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.

39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.

40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].

41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;

44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.

45. 45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.

46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.

47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.

48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.

49. Christians are to be taught that the pope's pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.

50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter's church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.

51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope's wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.

52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.

53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.

54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.

55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

56. The "treasures of the Church," out of which the pope. grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ.

57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them.

58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.

59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church's poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.

60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ's merit, are that treasure;

61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.

62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.

63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last.

64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.

66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men.

67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the "greatest graces" are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.

68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.

69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.

70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.

71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!

72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!

73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.

74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.

75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God -- this is madness.

76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.

77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope.

78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.

79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.

80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.

81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.

82. To wit: -- "Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial."

83. Again: -- "Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?"

84. Again: -- "What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul's own need, free it for pure love's sake?"

85. Again: -- "Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?"

86. Again: -- "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?"

87. Again: -- "What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?"

88. Again: -- "What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?"

89. "Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?"

90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.

91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.

92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace!

93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross!

94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;

95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.

 

Where's my hammer and nail? :D

 

Gentlemen, why not start a thread on this somewhere else. It is not germane to the topic here. I think it is an interesting topic and worthy of discussion. Why don't we start its own thread. Even though at present it appears to have nothing to do with calvinism vs. arminianism, I will let it be discussed in its own thread.

Ray, please start a thread with your post and Ken can add his under it.

 

Hi ray and Ken;
This all very intresting seeing as how Calvin was still a catholic at the time I think.
Romanbear