CALVINISM IS SIMPLY THE GOSPEL BELIEVED

[GodsGrace]

And we are to rebuke, and judge when brothers are in error to save them. And as James wrote, sometimes snatching them out of the fire! Even Paul gave us an example with the Galatians that at times the best learning tool is a good 2X4 up side the head!

I'm not here to teach you how to be a Christian person....if you want to rebuke, judge and always know when your brother is in error so YOU COULD SAVE HIM..well, only the Holy Spirit can teach you.

However, let me assure you that it's not YOU who are saving them because I doubt they'd come back into the fold after having been scolded by you.

You also did what you criticized the other member of doing....
you didn't provide any scripture.

Here's one for you:
Matthew 7:5

 

[Taken]

"as it is written: 'There is no one who is righteous, not even one; there is no one who has understanding, there is no one who seeks God.'" (Rom 3:10-11)

"You were dead through the trespasses and sins...But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—" (Eph 2:1, 4-5)

"Indeed, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes." (John 5:21)

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, just as he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love." (Eph 1:3-4)

"God, who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace. This grace was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages began" (2Tim 1:9)

"We are always bound to thank God for you, my friends beloved by the Lord. From the beginning of time God chose you to find salvation in the Spirit who consecrates you and in the truth you believe." (2Thess 2:13)

"and all who dwell on earth will worship it, every one whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain." (Rev 13:8)

"Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son." (Acts 20:28)

"And now they sing a new song. "It is fitting," they say, "that Thou shouldst be the One to take the book And break its seals; Because Thou hast been offered in sacrifice, And hast purchased for God with Thine own blood Some out of every tribe and language and people and nation," (Rev 5:9)

"Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father" (Gal 1:4)

"...for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure." (Phil 2:13)

"A certain woman named Lydia, a worshiper of God, was listening to us; she was from the city of Thyatira and a dealer in purple cloth. The Lord opened her heart to listen eagerly to what was said by Paul." (Acts 16:14)

"...and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?" (Rom 9:23-24)

"My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand." (John 10:27-28)

"Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God." (Rom 5:9)

"For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom 8:38-39)

"But the Lord is faithful; he will strengthen you and guard you from the evil one." (2Thess 3:3)

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy he has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who are being protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." (1Pet 1:3-5)

If you sincerely and honestly believe those Scriptures, you ARE a Calvinist! If you deny those clear statements of Scripture, what are you?
When you hear/read people use "all", "every" & "world" etc. to say it means all individuals: ask them to show why those words mean that in the context. Look the words up in a dictionary and see if that is automatically the meaning of those words.

Yes…I believe those scriptures are TRUE.
No….That does not MAKE me a Calvinist.

Yes…I believe ALL scriptures are TRUE.
No….That does not MAKE me a Calvinist, Catholic, Protestant, or member of ANY denomination.
An individual JOINING the membership of a particular domination, MAKES that individual a member of that Domination.

Yes….I believe SOME scriptures APPLY to SOME men and NOT other men.

Yes…I believe Some men ARE Saved, Some men SHALL be Saved, Some men SHALL NOT be Saved.


Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Logikos]

Are you familiar with the Principle of the Integral Good? This principle says that good comes from an integral cause and evil is from any defect from any defect whatsoever.

Define defect.

So, if a religion (Calvinism, for example) contains one false doctrine, then it is a false religion.

Hasty Generalization Fallacy.

Therefore, false premise.

The Catholic Church, which is the original Christian religion,

Unprovable claim. Indefensible claim for that matter and therefore a false premise #2.

In short, saying it doesn't make it so.

is the only religion that doesn’t contain any false doctrines whatsoever.

Demonstrably false claim. Laughably false to the point of not even requiring refutation. It's stunning that you could even put that forward with a straight face.

It has the original deposit of faith given mankind by Christ.

Just a restatement of the nonsense above.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

So, what does that mean?

It means that you are willing to allow the worst examples of irrational "thought" to persuade your mind. That's what it means.

It means that all other religions cannot be a means to God, Who is truth itself. Why? Because false religions cannot be a means to truth or salvation.

If your premises were true, your conclusion would follow, but they aren't true at all. Even a religious system as rationally flawed as Calvinism could crush this "logic" to powder.

The example I like to use when teaching is as follows: Suppose you are an expert at wine, and you love wine, and I offer you a glass of the world's finest wine. Would you drink it? Of course! But, what if, before I handed it to you, I put in one small teapsoon of sewerage and mixed it up. Would you drink it then? No! Why? Because now it's just an expensive glass of sewerage.

An analogy that applies to Catholicism better than most! Catholicism is one giant collection of irrational doctrines that not only have nothing to do with scripture whatsoever, but are predicated on nothing at all other than the self-assigned authority of the church that teaches it. In other words, the only reason that you believe such literally insane doctrines such as purgatory, transubstantiation, the immaculate conception of Mary and many others is because the church teaches it. You say that the church has the authority to teach it but you believe that they have that authority for the same reason, because the churches teaches that they have the authority. It's the most flagrantly circular thing I've ever seen. It's a wonder that anyone buys it for two seconds.

 

[Logikos]

I haven't read through either, plus I don't know where you're headed with the above, but I'd like to make a statement too.

Luther began the reformation and he's the one who started the doctrines that would become known as Calvinism, since Calvin had a big effect on this belief system due to his importance in the town of Geneva. He was astute in his writings and sermons and, I'd say (IMO) that he was the person that most proliferated this belief system.

In the modern era, yes. My point though really is that Luther was an Augustinian monk would believed most of what he believed in regard to his theology proper (i.e. doctrines related to the nature of God) from Augustine and was not the one "started the doctrines" as you put it.

You can say that his beliefs were based on Augustine....100% true; he mentioned Augustine in many of his sermons and took his ideas from him.

He more than based them on Augustine. They are explicitly Augustinian doctrines that Luther retained after having rejected much of RCC doctrine.

But it's important to note that Augustine was the only ECF that spoke of predestination in the same sense that Calvin (and the others) did and that changed his belief on free will, which is one of the pivotal beliefs that CAUSE calvinisms doctrines.

I don't know what ECF means but several other figures discussed predestination in ways that resemble Luther's views, focusing on God's sovereignty and the necessity of grace for salvation.

1. Augustine of Hippo (354–430)​

• Influence on Luther: Luther drew heavily from Augustine’s teachings on grace and predestination. Augustine believed that God predestines individuals to salvation, and that salvation is entirely due to God's grace, not human effort. His views on the bondage of the will and the necessity of divine grace align closely with Luther’s own theology.
• Similarities: Like Luther, Augustine taught that humans are incapable of coming to God on their own due to their fallen nature. Predestination, for Augustine, was part of God's sovereign will, and only those predestined by God would be saved, through no merit of their own.

2. Gottschalk of Orbais (9th Century)​

• Predestination Views: Gottschalk was a medieval monk who revived Augustine's doctrine of double predestination. He argued that God predestines some to salvation and others to damnation, a view that closely echoes Luther's emphasis on the absolute will of God in predestination.
• Similarities: Gottschalk, like Luther, believed that God's election was unconditional and based entirely on His will. While not widely accepted in his time, his views influenced later theologians who embraced predestination doctrines.

3. Thomas Bradwardine (1290–1349)​

• Views on Predestination: Bradwardine, an English theologian and Archbishop of Canterbury, was a strong proponent of divine grace and predestination. He opposed the growing Pelagian tendencies of his time, which placed more emphasis on human free will. In his work, De Causa Dei ("On the Cause of God"), Bradwardine argued for the absolute sovereignty of God in predestination, asserting that salvation is entirely a work of God’s grace.
• Similarities: Like Luther, Bradwardine taught that God’s grace is the decisive factor in salvation, not human will or effort. Both emphasized that God's foreknowledge and election are crucial to understanding predestination.

4. Johannes von Staupitz (1460–1524)​

• Luther’s Mentor: Staupitz, Luther’s spiritual mentor, did not fully develop a doctrine of predestination, but he had a deep belief in God's grace and sovereignty. His emphasis on the depth of human sinfulness and the necessity of grace likely influenced Luther's views.
• Similarities: While Staupitz may not have directly mirrored Luther’s detailed views on predestination, his overall approach to theology, particularly his emphasis on trusting in God’s grace rather than human effort, provided a foundation that Luther built upon in his own doctrine of predestination.

5. Johann von Eck (1486–1543)​

• Early Opposition to Luther: Interestingly, Johann von Eck, a Catholic theologian and Luther’s opponent in the Leipzig Disputation, also held Augustinian views on predestination, though he rejected Luther’s broader reformist agenda. He believed in God's foreknowledge of the elect, though he did not take the same reformist stances as Luther.
• Similarities: Eck's views on God’s foreknowledge and predestination, while within a Catholic framework, touched on similar themes of God's sovereignty, though with more room for the human role in cooperating with grace.

(The above information is taken from several sources and can be cited upon request.)

These figures, Augustine in particular, provide key parallels to Luther's views on predestination, with their shared focus on God’s sovereignty, the necessity of grace, and the limits of human free will. Put simply, Luther was not the fountainhead of these doctrines. He was taught them, believed them and taught them to others.

Lastly, the doctrine of predestination is not the cause of Calvinism's doctrines. It is merely one of a great many doctrines that exist to preserve their version of the doctrine of immutability. God's character is indeed immutable but He is not ontologically immutable as Augustine taught and as Luther believed and as Calvin canonized into what is known today as Calvinism. The idea that God cannot change in ANY WAY whatsoever is the bedrock foundational premise upon which their entire system is logically built.

 

[Logikos]

Augustine also taught that Adam's sin is IMPUTED to mankind, and thus he also changed the reason for infant baptism.
The early church did not believe Adam's sin was imputed to man, but that man was born with its effects.

Original sin is an excellent example of the utterly indefensible doctrine of the RCC.

I'd also like to point out that Augustine had spent 10 years in the gnostic system of Manechaesm and he brought some of those beliefs with him.

I've forgotten a lot, but of the above I'm absolutely certain.

Quite so! However, in the context of the doctrines that distinguish Calvinism from other "flavors" of Christianity, if you'll allow the expression, has to do with Augustine and his having imported Greek ideas about God into the church.

This is incorrect.
Luther believed in transubstantiation.

You're mistaken.

Martin Luther did not believe in transubstantiation, the Roman Catholic doctrine that, during the Eucharist, the bread and wine are transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ while retaining the appearance of bread and wine.

Instead, Luther proposed the doctrine of sacramental union or consubstantiation (though he himself did not use this term). According to Luther, the body and blood of Christ are truly present "in, with, and under" the bread and wine, but the substances of the bread and wine do not change. This view holds that Christ's body and blood coexist with the bread and wine in the Eucharist, rather than replacing them.

Luther’s view reflects his belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but he rejected the philosophical explanations (particularly from Aristotelian metaphysics) that supported transubstantiation in Roman Catholic theology.

The doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception was not pronounced until about 1870.
The doctrine of Mary's assumption was not pronounced until 1954.

Almost right.

Actually, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially pronounced in 1854, not 1870, by Pope Pius IX in the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus, and the Assumption of Mary was officially pronounced in 1950, not 1954, by Pope Pius XII in the apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus.

I had no idea that these things weren't official doctrines until even as recently as 1950 until I just now looked it up. So much for the RCC never teaching a new doctrine!

Further, and more importantly, I think it is safe to say that Luther's views about Mary were complicated and nuanced. He did, in fact, object to several Marian doctrines. Including...

• Immaculate Conception: Luther did not believe in the Immaculate Conception, the idea that Mary was conceived without original sin. While he agreed that Mary was a special recipient of God’s grace, he did not accept the idea that she was exempt from original sin from the moment of her conception. He believed that Mary, like all humans, was saved through Christ’s redemptive work.
• Assumption of Mary: Luther did not teach or support the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, which states that she was taken up bodily into heaven at the end of her earthly life. This belief was not formally defined until 1950, but it had been part of Catholic tradition for centuries. Luther saw no biblical basis for this doctrine.
• Marian Intercession and Devotions: One of Luther’s major objections was to the excessive veneration of Mary and the belief that she could intercede on behalf of believers in a way that rivaled or eclipsed Christ’s role as mediator. Luther strongly rejected the idea of praying to Mary or the saints, as he believed it distracted from Christ as the sole mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5).
• Marian Apparitions and Piety: Luther was critical of practices surrounding Marian apparitions and the proliferation of shrines, festivals, and pilgrimages devoted to Mary. He saw these as superstitions that led people away from the core teachings of the gospel.

In short, regardless of when some particular doctrine became on official doctrine of the Catholic faith, Luther's rejection of several (but not all) Marian doctrines had a great deal to do with the Revormation he began.

So since I agree that the reformation became necessary, these were not the reasons for the Reformation.

Not exclusively or even primarily but at least in part.

Are you stating that Augustine made up all the above doctrines?

In so far as they are consistent with the bible, yes. Not that he didn't have plenty of help. His mother's bishop (Ambrose of Millan) introduced the idea of interpreting the bible in light of Aristotilian "truth" which is what caused Augustine to even give Chistianity the time of day. Prior to this, he didn't want anything to do with Chrisianity because he could read and knew that Genesis repeatedly portrays God as having changed His mind, which Aristotle taught him was impossible for God to do.

Are you stating that Luther's doctrines are laughable?

Not all of them. In the context of this discussion, I'd limit such a characterization to those doctrines which distinguish Calvinism from other sects of Christianity.

If so, I have to agree with you.

Nice!

Agreed.
I think we agree.

I agree that we think we agree! :)

I wanted to point out that some of your reasons for protesting against the CC did not include the ones I mentioned above.

The CC?

As to the rest, Calvinism/Reformed faith is so far from what the NT teaches that I had started a thread on why it's not even biblical.

There's no question that it isn't biblical. This is a major part of why they have systematically redefined the meaning of nearly every important word in the entire Christian lexicon to mean something different than the same word means in any other context. Words like justice, righteousness, sovereign, elect, world, loving, etc, etc, etc, all mean something different (when applied to God) within the mind of a Calvinist than they mean in any context outside of their theological construct. This is required or else even they could not defend their doctrine biblically.

If the Calvinist God is the one I should worship...I do believe that would be quite impossible.

You should only worship the god that Calvinism presents if you would likewise laud the arsonist who sets your house on fire, saves you from the flames but lets your wife and youngest child burn, all for no reason at all other than that it pleases him to do so. The god of Calvinism is a murderer and the only reason they will insist that he is not, isn't because what I've described is inaccurate, but because the word "murderer" can't apply to God. Well, that and they don't like the sound of it.

 

[Hepzibah]

This is a major part of why they have systematically redefined the meaning of nearly every important word in the entire Christian lexicon to mean something different than the same word means in any other context. Words like justice, righteousness, sovereign, elect, world, loving, etc, etc, etc, all mean something different (when applied to God) within the mind of a Calvinist than they mean in any context outside of their theological construct. This is required or else even they could not defend their doctrine biblically.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Not when he answers me and that is whatr I care about!

And your answers to me are all opinion without biblical evidence so far.

If you think my responses so rude and arrogant yo ucan report them if you wish. but I have little to no respect for those who sit on their pompous thrones and tell me I am wrong and fail to provide the biblical evidence to support their allegations. I do not read every post on the threads. I answer the ones addressed to me. So if trheir are no bible answers to seek to rebut the scriptures I post- Especially when I have dealt wioth that person over many threads, I consider it nothing more than just pompous pontifical bloviating and one seeking to highlight their own opinion.

What you are now is a hypocrite. sitting on your throne.

Once again, I have seen him posts verses. You may not. because you are blind to them or do not want to see them. But I have seen them

here he posts or mentions at least three bible passages or verses.

God chose the born again "IN Christ"..

This does not mean that God chooses us to become "in Christ", .. .and we have no choice.

It means that before you were born... God knew who is going to TRUST IN CHRIST.... after Jesus was RISEN from Dead....to then become "IN CHRIST". "by FAITH".

So, this "Fore-knowing".... that is God's Foreknowledge, is to KNOW who is going to be "IN CHRIST", which is why they are called the "chosen".

John the devil Calvin, and the TULIP Heads, have twisted God's Foreknowledge, into God pre-destined, and that is the core ROT of Satanic Calvinism Theology.

Reader, CHRISTianity is built on FAITH.

Faith that God is Real.
Faith that Christ is Risen.

And God does not cause you to BELIEVE in those....>>He requires that you do.. or else you are under the Wrath of God... for your UNBELIEF.......that is YOURS..........not God's.

Hell is filled with people who went there, not because God didnt pre-destine them to believe, but because they had all their LIFE to believe, and wouldn't. = UNBELIEVERS... and that is on THEM.. as they chose it.

"for is we sin WILLFULLY, there remains no more SACRIFICE"..

See that? That means if you chose to DIE in unbelief, then you chose WILLFULLY to reject the only SACRIFICE for your SIN, who is JESUS.

You will die and go to HELL for that FREE WILL choice., = and thousands did today.

Dont be one of them, waiting to go, reader.

John 3:36

Calvin, and the fools who Idolize Him... changed God's Requirement of FAITH in Christ..... into God "pre-destined you", as if you have no FREE WILL to BELIEVE.

Reader,
do not READ John Calvin's Teachings, or the later revisions...... as these "doctrines of devils'... will take over your mind and blind it for life, against the Grace of God, and the correct understanding of The Cross of Christ....and Real FAITH.., So, do not listen to those who have the Galatians 1:8 curse on them, = that is a mental issue, and what the NT refers to as a "STRONGHOLD"...mental issue that Calvin causes in his DISCIPLES.
He'll do it to you, Reader, if you give Calvin or His Disciples your Open Mind.
Do NOT do it. !

Do not be the hypocrite. You may disagree with him, But you can not talk to him that way.. Show some humility. Your angry because he attacks your church with the truth.. If you want to counter him, counter him. But don;t talk to him like you do. You hurt your own argument..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I don't need my own personal interpretation of Scripture.

No you do not. when you are told what to believe by those above you. and blindly follow them.

The jews did this exact same theng and used it to crucify Christ.

I use the interpretation of the Church that wrote the New Testament and compiled the Bible to tell me.

God wrote the NT my friend. and the OT.. Not the roman church.

Scripture itself warns against personal interpretation. See 2 Peter 1:20 - "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation"

This is what your church does also my friend. they have their own interpretation. and use fear and manipulation to get you to blindly follow them.

Come out from her..

And, yet, this is what all Protestantism is based upon. Some individual's personal interpretation of Scripture. If there were any credibilty to this approach, besides Scripture saying there isn't, there would be ONE Protestant denomination with everyone interpreting Scripture exactly the same. Not tens of thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting denominations. Jesus didn't write a book to spread His truths. He founded a (ONE) Church to do so. Historically, there was but one Church for the first 1000 years of Christianity, the Catholic Church. The Orthodox splintered off in 1054 A.D. and Protestantism didn't begin until 1517 A.D., WAY long after the fact. And it has continually splintered ever since.

blah blah blah.

You want to follow your works based Gospel feel free.

I will follow Christ.

 

[Johann]

No you do not. when you are told what to believe by those above you. and blindly follow them.

The jews did this exact same theng and used it to crucify Christ.



God wrote the NT my friend. and the OT.. Not the roman church.


This is what your church does also my friend. they have their own interpretation. and use fear and manipulation to get you to blindly follow them.

Come out from her..

blah blah blah.

You want to follow your works based Gospel feel free.

I will follow Christ.

Stay strong, we are in for a bumpy ride.

J.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Just saw this while replying to another member.
Just want to say that you may or may not agree with @Eternally Grateful , who happens to be a mainline Christian,
knows his bible, and posts scripture all the time.

We as Christians should behave better than those that are not...
I've been insulted myself on this forum and it's rather disconcerting to think
that we're supposed to be brothers in Christ.

That's all I wanted to say.

Gal 5: 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!

 

[Augustin56]

No you do not. when you are told what to believe by those above you. and blindly follow them.

The jews did this exact same theng and used it to crucify Christ.



God wrote the NT my friend. and the OT.. Not the roman church.


This is what your church does also my friend. they have their own interpretation. and use fear and manipulation to get you to blindly follow them.

Come out from her..

blah blah blah.

You want to follow your works based Gospel feel free.

I will follow Christ.

If you follow Christ, then you will follow those to whom He gave His authority in the Church He founded. Anything else is really just following yourself. Jesus identifies as one with His Church. When Saul (St. Paul by his Hebrew name) was going around persecuting the Church, Jesus knocked him off his horse and asked him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" (Acts 9:4) Note that Jesus didn't say, "...why are you persecuting My Church?" which he was doing, but "...why are you persecuting Me?" Christ identifies as one with His Church. Persecute and lie about His Church and you are persecuting and lying about Christ.

 

[Logikos]

If you follow Christ, then you will follow those to whom He gave His authority in the Church He founded.

Jesus was a Jew who submitted to the Law of Moses and His Apostles and other disciples were also Jews who both did the same and taught others to do so as well. They were all members of the nation of Israel and operated under the covenant of law that God had with Israel through Moses.

Anything else is really just following yourself. Jesus identifies as one with His Church. When Saul (St. Paul by his Hebrew name) was going around persecuting the Church, Jesus knocked him off his horse and asked him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" (Acts 9:4) Note that Jesus didn't say, "...why are you persecuting My Church?" which he was doing, but "...why are you persecuting Me?" Christ identifies as one with His Church. Persecute and lie about His Church and you are persecuting and lying about Christ.

LOL! You read without understanding and in so doing testify against yourself. The church that Saul was persecuting was the bride of Christ, not Christ Himself.

It was the event of Stephen's stoning that precipitated the cutting off of Israel and God turning instead to the Gentiles through Paul. The Body of Christ (i.e. not Israel and therefore not the Bride of Christ) is saved through Paul's gospel, not Jesus'. Well, it's still Jesus' because the risen Jesus is the One who gave it to Paul through revelation but the point is that it isn't the gospel that was preached by Christ or the apostles prior to Acts 9.

In short, it is you who are failing to follow the church that Jesus established through Paul. In essence, you're still trying to be a good Jew and, in so doing, Christ will profit you nothing.

All of this, by the way, I am fully able and happily willing to establish should the discussion warrant my spending the time to do so.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

If you follow Christ, then you will follow those to whom He gave His authority in the Church He founded.

I do

their names are peter. James, Paul, John, Matthew, etc etc

Anything else is really just following yourself.

Which is what you do. Blindly at that

Jesus identifies as one with His Church.

Yes he does. But your church is not that church.

When Saul (St. Paul by his Hebrew name) was going around persecuting the Church, Jesus knocked him off his horse and asked him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" (Acts 9:4) Note that Jesus didn't say, "...why are you persecuting My Church?" which he was doing, but "...why are you persecuting Me?" Christ identifies as one with His Church. Persecute and lie about His Church and you are persecuting and lying about Christ.

So why do you follow a church that persecutes Jesus?

They deny the power of the cross to save. and institute their own gospel of works. which is an anathema

 

[Augustin56]

I do

their names are peter. James, Paul, John, Matthew, etc etc

Which is what you do. Blindly at that

Yes he does. But your church is not that church.

So why do you follow a church that persecutes Jesus?

They deny the power of the cross to save. and institute their own gospel of works. which is an anathema

The Catholic Church is the original Church founded by Christ. St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of Antioch ordained by St. Peter, was captured by the Romans. While they were transporting him to be martyred for the faith, he wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans (in today's Turkey, geographcally) around 107-110 A.D., referring to the "Catholic Church," not in such a manner as if he were coining the term, but in such a manner in which he fully expected the Smyrnaeans to understand what he was talking about.
It says in paragraph 8, "Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
See the entire letter here: https://www.orderofstignatius.org/files/Letters/Ignatius_to_Smyrnaeans.pdf

The Catholic Church was the original Church and it's not even close. The Orthodox splintered off in 1054 A.D. and Protestantism didn't start until the 16th century.

 

[GodsGrace]

⁹

In the modern era, yes. My point though really is that Luther was an Augustinian monk would believed most of what he believed in regard to his theology proper (i.e. doctrines related to the nature of God) from Augustine and was not the one "started the doctrines" as you put it.

Agreed. Just want to point out the what Augustine believed was 1,000 years before the reformation and even the CC has abandoned what he (Augustine) taught as have the other Protestant denominations.
All this to say that calvinism is so extreme that even Protestantism has moved on to what I call mainline Christianity.

He more than based them on Augustine. They are explicitly Augustinian doctrines that Luther retained after having rejected much of RCC doctrine.

I agree that Augustine is the early church theologian that expoused these ideas.

I don't know what ECF means but several other figures discussed predestination in ways that resemble Luther's views, focusing on God's sovereignty and the necessity of grace for salvation.

ECF = Early Church Fathers
I accept ECFs to be prior to 325AD
Some will accept ECFs to run till the 6 and 7 and 8th century.
I believe that by then the original church teachings were so corrupted that it makes me not really care what they taught.

1. Augustine of Hippo (354–430)​

• Influence on Luther: Luther drew heavily from Augustine’s teachings on grace and predestination. Augustine believed that God predestines individuals to salvation, and that salvation is entirely due to God's grace, not human effort. His views on the bondage of the will and the necessity of divine grace align closely with Luther’s own theology.
• Similarities: Like Luther, Augustine taught that humans are incapable of coming to God on their own due to their fallen nature. Predestination, for Augustine, was part of God's sovereign will, and only those predestined by God would be saved, through no merit of their own.

2. Gottschalk of Orbais (9th Century)​

• Predestination Views: Gottschalk was a medieval monk who revived Augustine's doctrine of double predestination. He argued that God predestines some to salvation and others to damnation, a view that closely echoes Luther's emphasis on the absolute will of God in predestination.
• Similarities: Gottschalk, like Luther, believed that God's election was unconditional and based entirely on His will. While not widely accepted in his time, his views influenced later theologians who embraced predestination doctrines.

3. Thomas Bradwardine (1290–1349)​

• Views on Predestination: Bradwardine, an English theologian and Archbishop of Canterbury, was a strong proponent of divine grace and predestination. He opposed the growing Pelagian tendencies of his time, which placed more emphasis on human free will. In his work, De Causa Dei ("On the Cause of God"), Bradwardine argued for the absolute sovereignty of God in predestination, asserting that salvation is entirely a work of God’s grace.
• Similarities: Like Luther, Bradwardine taught that God’s grace is the decisive factor in salvation, not human will or effort. Both emphasized that God's foreknowledge and election are crucial to understanding predestination.

4. Johannes von Staupitz (1460–1524)​

• Luther’s Mentor: Staupitz, Luther’s spiritual mentor, did not fully develop a doctrine of predestination, but he had a deep belief in God's grace and sovereignty. His emphasis on the depth of human sinfulness and the necessity of grace likely influenced Luther's views.
• Similarities: While Staupitz may not have directly mirrored Luther’s detailed views on predestination, his overall approach to theology, particularly his emphasis on trusting in God’s grace rather than human effort, provided a foundation that Luther built upon in his own doctrine of predestination.

I tend to agree with Staupitz - based solely on above,,,,I don't know him otherwise.
We're into Luther's time frame by now...

5. Johann von Eck (1486–1543)​

• Early Opposition to Luther: Interestingly, Johann von Eck, a Catholic theologian and Luther’s opponent in the Leipzig Disputation, also held Augustinian views on predestination, though he rejected Luther’s broader reformist agenda. He believed in God's foreknowledge of the elect, though he did not take the same reformist stances as Luther.
• Similarities: Eck's views on God’s foreknowledge and predestination, while within a Catholic framework, touched on similar themes of God's sovereignty, though with more room for the human role in cooperating with grace.

(The above information is taken from several sources and can be cited upon request.)

I dislike the reformed mentioning God's sovereignty in conjunction with their beliefs.
Don't ALL Christians believe in God's sovereignty?
I do believe so.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that those of us that believe in Free Will probably attribute to God MORE sovereignty that the calvinists.
They state that man cannot have free will as if God was afraid of enduing man with this attribute.
Those that believe in Free Will instead, believe in a powerful and sovereign God that is not fearful of bestowing free will in man.

Also, I think all Christians believe in FOREKNOWLEDGE....
which is different than predestination.

These figures, Augustine in particular, provide key parallels to Luther's views on predestination, with their shared focus on God’s sovereignty, the necessity of grace, and the limits of human free will. Put simply, Luther was not the fountainhead of these doctrines. He was taught them, believed them and taught them to others.

OK
There are some reading along and I just would like them to understand that Predestination was not a common, or othodox, belief in the early church. The early theologians did not believe in predestination of persons to either heaven or hell.

Lastly, the doctrine of predestination is not the cause of Calvinism's doctrines. It is merely one of a great many doctrines that exist to preserve their version of the doctrine of immutability. God's character is indeed immutable but He is not ontologically immutable as Augustine taught and as Luther believed and as Calvin canonized into what is known today as Calvinism. The idea that God cannot change in ANY WAY whatsoever is the bedrock foundational premise upon which their entire system is logically built.

I don't understand this.
Are you saying that God CAN change?

Also, the cause of reformed/calvinist doctrines on based on two premises....(correctly as you stated - NOT predestination)
they are:
1. The total depravity of man.
2. The absence of free will.

It's like this - as I'm sure you know:
Man is so depraved that he is unable to seek or to accept God.
Man has no free will and cannot, of his own accord, choose God.

And...
All the other doctrines follow:
God must rescue man totally in a monergistic fashion since man has no ability and is completely dead.
God's choice is not known, is unconditional, and man has absolutely nothing to do with his salvation.
Since God saves the person,,,,the salvation must be permanent.
Man cannot resist God's grace.

I've also run into members who state they are not calvinists, and then proceed to post calvinist doctrine.
Also, some calvinists will state that I do not understand calvinism---only they do.

It's all very interesting.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I'm not here to teach you how to be a Christian person....if you want to rebuke, judge and always know when your brother is in error so YOU COULD SAVE HIM..well, only the Holy Spirit can teach you.

However, let me assure you that it's not YOU who are saving them because I doubt they'd come back into the fold after having been scolded by you.

You also did what you criticized the other member of doing....
you didn't provide any scripture.

Here's one for you:
Matthew 7:5

1. Don't always know when a brother is in error so that is wrong.
2. I never thought I could save a soul so that is wrong.
3. If only the Holy Spirit teaches us, why does god give the church pastors and teachers?
4. You have not read many of my posts then, for I use many many Scriptures. sometimes only for the first few responses on a topic, but I give the bible regularly, so that is wrong.
5. By you rcriticisms , you are seeking to teach how to be a Christian so that is wrong as well.


I am not mad at you or trying to judge you, just pointing out the realities of the situation.

BTW the bible commands us to rebuke, exhort and yes judge when one is in error. there are six types of judgments listed in the NT and we most definitely need to do 4 of those 6.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

What you are now is a hypocrite. sitting on your throne.

Once again, I have seen him posts verses. You may not. because you are blind to them or do not want to see them. But I have seen them

here he posts or mentions at least three bible passages or verses.

As I said, I do not read Beholds responses ot others. I only respond to what he writes to me! And he mentions a few verses, but not in his defense calling the five points demonic and satanic. On this he has been painfully silent.

Do not be the hypocrite. You may disagree with him, But you can not talk to him that way.. Show some humility. Your angry because he attacks your church with the truth.. If you want to counter him, counter him. But don;t talk to him like you do. You hurt your own argument..

Are you the authority on these forums on how people should talk?

Let me ask you : Is Behold showing humility when he calls those who believe in the five points deceived, confused and following doctrines of demons?

Is He showing humility when he says I am unsaved and blinded by demons?

Is Behold showing humility when he condescendingly puts down most people he responds to and treats them as a child for they disagree with Him?

I am sorry, but He needs to be knocked down several pegs and maybe a brother needs to humiliate him by showing his spiritual pridse and arrogance.

BTW I am following biblical standards in talkiing to behold the way I do. I spent several different threads patiently showing him why I believe th efive points are true and his perceptions of them are lies. but since then I follow th esecond part of this passage:

1. Proverbs 26:4
   Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
2. Proverbs 26:5
   Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

I spent several threads doing verse 4, now I am convinced i am to do verse 5. Go and check the threads he and I interacted on and see that is true!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Let me clarify a little bit here (provide more detail). First, I agree that all religions have some truth in them. Natural law explains how God designed mankind to operate. One of the features of mankind is that he was created to seek the highest good, which is God. And man has been seeking God even in the days of the cave man, albeit not very effectively until later. The doctrines of the Catholic Church are from Jesus Christ, and have remained intact. Jesus promised in Matt. 16:18 that the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it" when speaking of His Church. So, if Christ's Church ever taught even one false doctrine, the gates of hell would have prevailed against it and Christ's promise would have not been fulfilled.

The doctrine of Purgatory is very much true and in tact. If you would like to discuss what it is and where it comes from, I would be more than happy to do so.

The Catholic Church does not teach that only Christians are saved. CC 1260 says, "Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved." It doesn't say they will be saved, but that they may be saved." There are those in the world who are invincibly ignorant of Christ and His Church, i.e., they don't know through no fault of their own. And my point is that if they are saved, they are saved through the Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ. Only Christ can save.

In the whole paragraph in Romans 1:18-32, Paul’s main point is that the wrath of God does not await the end of the world but goes into action at each present moment in humanity’s history when misdirected piety serves as a facade for self-interest.

And you have just shown how the Roman church has in many areas departed from truth and promotes its own and not Gods doctrine.

If you wish to know how and which ones, I will be happy to show you!

 

[GodsGrace]

Original sin is an excellent example of the utterly indefensible doctrine of the RCC.

Agreed.
Let me say that "original sin" was mentioned by the ECFs but as a stain on humanity....
and not as Augustine later defined it to mean that man is born responsible for this sin of Adam's and is born lost even as a baby.
(no age of accountability).

Quite so! However, in the context of the doctrines that distinguish Calvinism from other "flavors" of Christianity, if you'll allow the expression, has to do with Augustine and his having imported Greek ideas about God into the church.

Agreed. Augustine did bring with him ideas from Greek philosophers.

You're mistaken.

Martin Luther did not believe in transubstantiation, the Roman Catholic doctrine that, during the Eucharist, the bread and wine are transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ while retaining the appearance of bread and wine.

Instead, Luther proposed the doctrine of sacramental union or consubstantiation (though he himself did not use this term). According to Luther, the body and blood of Christ are truly present "in, with, and under" the bread and wine, but the substances of the bread and wine do not change. This view holds that Christ's body and blood coexist with the bread and wine in the Eucharist, rather than replacing them.

Luther’s view reflects his belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but he rejected the philosophical explanations (particularly from Aristotelian metaphysics) that supported transubstantiation in Roman Catholic theology.

You're speaking about the Real Presence.
I'm not going to check this out....
from your posts, I'd say that you're well informed and are most probably correct.

Almost right.

Actually, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially pronounced in 1854, not 1870, by Pope Pius IX in the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus, and the Assumption of Mary was officially pronounced in 1950, not 1954, by Pope Pius XII in the apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus.

I had no idea that these things weren't official doctrines until even as recently as 1950 until I just now looked it up. So much for the RCC never teaching a new doctrine!

Because the CC will state that the IDEA of the immaculate conception was always present, but that it became DOGMA (not even doctrine) in the year 1854 as you stated.
I have no idea where the assumption was ever mentioned in the early church but I know that the doctrine is taught and that it's because God did not want Mary's body to deteriorate. Elijah will always be mentioned.

Further, and more importantly, I think it is safe to say that Luther's views about Mary were complicated and nuanced. He did, in fact, object to several Marian doctrines. Including...

• Immaculate Conception: Luther did not believe in the Immaculate Conception, the idea that Mary was conceived without original sin. While he agreed that Mary was a special recipient of God’s grace, he did not accept the idea that she was exempt from original sin from the moment of her conception. He believed that Mary, like all humans, was saved through Christ’s redemptive work.

I actually could agree with this.
How would God place His Son in a body scarred with the sin nature?
In the body of a sinful woman?

• Assumption of Mary: Luther did not teach or support the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, which states that she was taken up bodily into heaven at the end of her earthly life. This belief was not formally defined until 1950, but it had been part of Catholic tradition for centuries. Luther saw no biblical basis for this doctrine.

Neither do I see a biblical reference and I didn't know that it was part of Catholic tradition.

• Marian Intercession and Devotions: One of Luther’s major objections was to the excessive veneration of Mary and the belief that she could intercede on behalf of believers in a way that rivaled or eclipsed Christ’s role as mediator. Luther strongly rejected the idea of praying to Mary or the saints, as he believed it distracted from Christ as the sole mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5).

Praying to saints is an odd idea to me.
Wouldn't this mean that all the saints in heaven are either omnipresent or omniscient?
Wouldn't that mean that they're little gods?
These would be my objections to praying to saints.

• Marian Apparitions and Piety: Luther was critical of practices surrounding Marian apparitions and the proliferation of shrines, festivals, and pilgrimages devoted to Mary. He saw these as superstitions that led people away from the core teachings of the gospel.

The apparitions seem to be so real.
I don't have much else to say since I believe God could do whatever He thinks best.
Too much Mary worship.....I do believe so. However, she's not WORSHIPPED in Catholic doctrine, only venerated.
But we Protestants don't respect her enough IMHO. ù
Maybe we should be venerating her more?
Some Protestants get upset at just the thought of Mary...
She WAS the Mother of Jesus after all.

In short, regardless of when some particular doctrine became on official doctrine of the Catholic faith, Luther's rejection of several (but not all) Marian doctrines had a great deal to do with the Revormation he began.

Of course.

Not exclusively or even primarily but at least in part.

OK

In so far as they are consistent with the bible, yes. Not that he didn't have plenty of help. His mother's bishop (Ambrose of Millan) introduced the idea of interpreting the bible in light of Aristotilian "truth" which is what caused Augustine to even give Chistianity the time of day. Prior to this, he didn't want anything to do with Chrisianity because he could read and knew that Genesis repeatedly portrays God as having changed His mind, which Aristotle taught him was impossible for God to do.

Right.
Augustine didn't like Genesis because it defined a God that could change His mind?
That's funny.
Augustine changed his mind on important matters (like free will)....

Not all of them. In the context of this discussion, I'd limit such a characterization to those doctrines which distinguish Calvinism from other sects of Christianity.


Nice!


I agree that we think we agree! :)

The CC?


There's no question that it isn't biblical. This is a major part of why they have systematically redefined the meaning of nearly every important word in the entire Christian lexicon to mean something different than the same word means in any other context. Words like justice, righteousness, sovereign, elect, world, loving, etc, etc, etc, all mean something different (when applied to God) within the mind of a Calvinist than they mean in any context outside of their theological construct. This is required or else even they could not defend their doctrine biblically.

Oh yeah!
It totally obliterates some verses.
GOD SO LOVE THE WORLD....
Must mean only those saved because God DOES NOT love everyone!
And...they take this (John 3:16) to be descriptive and not prescriptive.
How do you even argue with that?? Every such verse becomes descriptive (end of conversation!).

You should only worship the god that Calvinism presents if you would likewise laud the arsonist who sets your house on fire, saves you from the flames but lets your wife and youngest child burn, all for no reason at all other than that it pleases him to do so. The god of Calvinism is a murderer and the only reason they will insist that he is not, isn't because what I've described is inaccurate, but because the word "murderer" can't apply to God. Well, that and they don't like the sound of it.

Wow! Great example.

 

[GodsGrace]

1. Don't always know when a brother is in error so that is wrong.
2. I never thought I could save a soul so that is wrong.

Ronald, these first 2 items were YOUR WORDS .

3. If only the Holy Spirit teaches us, why does god give the church pastors and teachers?

I said that ONLY THE HOLY SPIRIT could teach you how to behave as a Christian.
And ONLY THE HOLY SPIRIT could save someone.
I said nothing else in regards to the Holy Spirit.

4. You have not read many of my posts then, for I use many many Scriptures. sometimes only for the first few responses on a topic, but I give the bible regularly, so that is wrong.

Actually, unless we're having a general conversation, scripture should always be posted.
And, if you're going to criticize someone else for not using scripture -
then YOU, by all means, absolutely should.
I did post Matthew 7:5

5. By you rcriticisms , you are seeking to teach how to be a Christian so that is wrong as well.

Actually YOU were the one criticizing another member...it was not very nice.
I ACTUALLY SAID I COULD NOT teach you to behave as a Christian but only the Holy Spirit could...
as I also stated above.
You don't seem to grasp my post very well.

I am not mad at you or trying to judge you, just pointing out the realities of the situation.

BTW the bible commands us to rebuke, exhort and yes judge when one is in error. there are six types of judgments listed in the NT and we most definitely need to do 4 of those 6.

If we didn't ever judge, Matthew 18 would make no sense.
HOWEVER, we're not on this forum TO JUDGE ANYONE but to DISCUSS DOCTRINE and the like.
The NT teaches us what to do IF A CHRISTIAN IS SINNING....
I don't think a person could sin by posting on a forum.

And I sure hope you don't make a book out of this because I have no intention of doing so.