If it's new it ain't true

The RCC have always claimed that title, but we know it is not.
You are right in inferring that there isn't one. There are and have been true churches throughout history, just like the ones Paul started on his missionary journeys.

You are wrong here. Very rarely is the word used to mean "universal." Most often it is used in its historical sense to refer to the RCC. That is what most people think of when they think of a Catholic.

Words have meanings. That is the common meaning associated with the word.

No, it isn't. Ask any of my unsaved relatives. They are all "catholic," not universal. Your usage of the word has become somewhat outdated.

 

And your brand of Calvinism is fairly new.
If your brand of Calvinism is that of Augustine, then you would be in the Catholic Church. But you aren't.
If your brand of Calvinism was that of Calvin himself then you would be a Presbyterian, but you are not.
So you are a "Reformed Baptist," a mixture of different theologies, perhaps one of those nameless theologies that we can't quite put a handle on yet: not Catholic (Augustinian); not Presbyterian (Calvinistic), but somehow a wannabe Baptist with Presbyterian leanings. This is new Luke. Whether you like it or not, it is newer than the Reformation.

[FONT=&quot]Manfred E. Kober, in his book, "Divine Election or Human Effort," said:

I believe he had it right.

The essence of Calvinism has been around since Augustine, but your brand is far more recent than that. Doesn't that bother you??



[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

I stopped here in the thread.

Everybody says that their beliefs were held by the primitive church.

Take for example JW's - they will tell you that their beliefs were held from the very beginning and can bring forth ancient writings to collaborate their teaching, that it came from the scripture and then point out that scripture.

And it's partially true. Error came forth from the beginning out of the primitive church as witnessed by the writings of the apostles and the four Gospels.

During some periods of time it appears that most of christendom was arian and held that Christ was not God come in the flesh until the doctrine of His deity became the official teaching of the Nicene Creed.

Such is the history of the church.

HankD

 

The problem with this post is that you believe that if we don't embrace someone's theology 100%, we cannot rightly call our belief historic.

The reformers and others admitted that we did embrace Augustine's Soteriology but rejected his ecclesiology. However, to call Augustine a Catholic is also a stretch.

As well, while Augustine was a theological stalwart in explaining the reformed view in soteriology, he was not the first. Famous writings espoused a high view of God's Sovereignty in salvation:

* Tertellian understood divine power and grace as the explanation for transformation of people from unbelievers to believers.

* Clement of Rome explained that we struggle to see the number of the elect saved.

* Clement of Alexandria discussed that God had predestined both Greeks and barbarians to Christ.

* Origen saw man had to place faith in Christ, but that God's grace was the determining factor.

Some used fore sight by God as the impetus to God's choice. Most would hold to a compatibalism view, a view more soteriologically aligns with Calvinism and is what I advocate on this board.

It wasn't until Pelagius did the attack of God's predestination and man's responsibility occurred. This forced people like Augustine to clearly set forth the historic doctrine Soteriology.

Thus, this is more than Augustinianism, but predates him. As well, we acknowledge that there is not a single person perfect in their theology. This, though, is not an attack on historicity, but an attack that any single person is perfect in their theology and further emphasizes the need to study doctrines throughout history instead of using "just me and my Bible" approach.

 

Interesting thought here. I'm thinking you meant "arminianism"; if so, then I would point out that the conference that was meant to decide on the merits of arminianism, was heavily influenced by calvinists; that the supporters of the arminianian way of thinking were primarily brought forth as prisoners; were not given an impartial chance to present their viewpoint for consideration; and that the primary lawyer representing them was later jailed and executed for his unwavering defense on the subject. Not to mention, that arminianism has survived to this day, giving it the same basic lifespan as calvinism. So it may not have been held by the "mainstream" church, but that doesn't lessen its historicity.

The primary problem with your line of reasoning is this: History is written by the victors. Or those who are the loudest.

 

No. I think he meant Arianism.

LINK: Arianism

 

My bad; my apologies. Please disregard previous.

 

Doctrine should be grounded in the Word of God. Regardless of what was taught 500 years ago or last Sunday. If it doesn't conform to what God says, it doesn't matter when it was formulated.

 

just curious, is there a Baptist brand of cal, and another for presby flavored?

 

Yes. One is chocolate and the other is strawberry. :laugh::laugh:

 

And the rest of Christiandom just "plain vanilla!"

 

Luke

Your whole premise of this thread is to bash KJVO, mainly because of your crusade against IFB.

Why would KJVO be an old doctrine? The KJV is only 400 years old, but that is at least 300 years older than the modern versions you are defending. Before all of these "modern versions" were put out there was no reason to be KJVO!

By your standards, you should be KJVO also because it is the oldest accepted English translation available to us, so "it must be true". NIV is "new so it can't be true". Give me a break.

You are nit-picking a silly issue in order to bash IFB. One of the things you keep arguing against IFB is the dogmatic teaching.

Good grief!!! Get a grip, you are more dogmatic than any tyrantical IFB preacher I have ever seen.

Why don't you switch gears and rant about some group that is not christian, and leave us Christian IFB alone?

When you bash IFB and call IFB heretic, in darkness, ect, you are in essence calling me and every other IFB a heretic and in darkness. And don't say it's the "doctrine" you hate, and not the people, you are fooling yourself, because whatever you call the doctrine, you are also calling the people.

For instance, if you say that black people are less intelligent, and a black Harvard professor reads that, he will see that your statement includes him, and he will be offended, even though he has twice the IQ and education as you. Get my point?

John

 

Glad to see you are hanging around John, and your point about the KJB is valid, from 1611 until 1881 the KJB was practically the only "word of God" known to most English speaking persons, so there was no controversy. The issue between the KJB and MVs is over source text (TR vs. CT) not interpretation. But that does not belong here.

 

Luke2427 is just mad that the KJV stood the test of time instead of the the Geneva.