The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Some meat for the dogs . . .

What's wrong with this picture?

"Depart from Me, ye cursed, into the everlasting inner fire of hatred," saith the Lord, "because I was thirsty for your love and you did not give it to Me, I was hungry for your blessedness and you did not offer it to Me, I was imprisoned in My human nature and you did not come to visit Me in My church; you are free to go where your wicked desire wishes, away from Me, in the torturing hatred of your hearts which is foreign to My loving heart which knows no hatred for anyone. Depart freely from love to the everlasting torture of hate, unknown and foreign to Me and to those who are with Me, but prepared by freedom for the devil, from the days I created My free, rational creatures. But wherever you go in the darkness of your hating hearts, My love will follow you like a river of fire, because no matter what your heart has chosen, you are and you will eternally continue to be, My children."

Sorry, but to answer your question would require far more time and space that has been alloted to me in this life. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />

However, I just HAVE TO ask.... is this an actual quote from a current "bible" translation available to the public? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> . . . Oh yeh..... if so, which one?

OK, I'm curious. Where did you get that quote?

(PS: I don't know if you can get any dogs to go after this meat. Most dogs know when to leave rotten meat well enough alone.)

Haha, well, I was debating the issue with a friend. I may post the results of my debate here.


Thankfully, it is not!

From a friend, who got it from here.


Hehe.

Why not post the entire statement instead of just a paragraph which makes the writer look bad?

The premise of the writing is indeed very sound and in line with the revealed nature of God ("God is love").

Post up the whole thing and let's discuss it. It is actually a very interesting post. Oh, and by the way, there was an Eastern Orthodox writer who gave a very similar presentation.

You can read it here:

River of Fire by Dr. Alexandre Kalomiros

Perhaps you might consider reading more than just the first message posted in this thread? If you do, you will find that CovenantInBlood's reply to Gotribe included a link to the entire article, which he said can be found here: The entire article

Since I have read the entire article, I can confidently say that the author is woefully off base and is lacking in a true understanding of Scripture, not to mention the author's total disregard for the context of the passage quoted; i.e., Matt 7:22, 23 and even the language which the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostle to write it.

BTW, I can agree that ONE of God's attributes is "love", it is by no means that attribute which predominates God's self-revelation in Scripture. And although it is not correct to bifurcate the Living God into His various "parts", if there is one attribute which stands out above all others it is undeniably his "holiness". God's love is a holy love. But it cannot be said that His holiness is a "loving holiness". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

One of the things which I am working with is to understand which of Jesus' statements are directed specifically at the Jews of His day and which are directed to mankind in general. The passsage in Matthew 7 seems to have implications which point to the Great Tribulation of AD 70 in which those Jews who hated Christ were finally and conclusively sent out of the kingdom.

As regards the article mentioned, where can any soul go that God is not there? Is there a place in all of the universe which is without God's presence? I would have to say no. I lean to the idea that Christ redeemed all mankind unto God, just as Adam separated all mankind from God. But for those who are brought to God who hate Him, that warm fire of His love will be sheer torment to them.

It is only those who have loved Him, who have cut covenant with Him through Jesus Christ, and who have grown in that love which is holiness and righteousness, who will enjoy the love of God forever.

I wonder why such a view wouldn't be more in line with the essential character of God as expressed in the scriptures, i.e., that God is love.

I am not denying that there will be eternal torment for God haters in the afterlife. But I do question the manner in which that torment is administered. The Calvinist paradigm makes God appear a monster Who arbitrarily torments men without any reason at all. I never could accept that God sends "non elect" infants to hell based on nothing but His will to do so.

Brother Ed

First, my friend pointed to this specific paragraph. I didn't look at the rest until later. Second, the piece is VERY long. Third, the entire piece makes the writer look even worse, IMO. And fourth, the comment you've just replied to included a link to the whole piece! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />


It is not sound at all. In fact, it overemphasizes God's love to the detriment of God's justice, holiness, wrath, etc.


Yes, I believe that's who the piece was attributed to. A lovely attack on the Western church he presents at this link of yours, by the way.

"How can one love such a God? How can we have faith in someone we detest? Faith in its deeper essence is a product of love, therefore, it would be our desire that one who threatens us not even exist, especially when this threat is eternal."

Indeed, that is precisely the desire of the reprobate, and even the reasoning behind it. A shame that Dr. Kalomiros then tries to change God as He has revealed Himself in order to make Him more appealing to the masses!

A common charge levelled against Calvinism, and a charge without any basis. Men are tormented in hell because they are sinners, by consequence of the Fall. In fact, all of us deserve to be tormented in hell. But God has chosen, in love and mercy, to preserve a remnant from destruction.

The subtle error perpetuated by the kind of theology promoted in the piece by Dr. Kalomiros is that we men ultimately hold the keys to heaven and to hell, and that if we so desire, we will may rightly or wrongly perceive God's love. We choose whether we are saved or damned.

However, salvation is of the Lord, not of men.

Here's is some of what I wrote in response to my friend as we debated the accuracy of this picture of the judgement:

A common charge levelled against Calvinism, and a charge without any basis. Men are tormented in hell because they are sinners, by consequence of the Fall.

Babies are not sinners. Sin is an act of VOLITION. To state that God would send "non elect babies" to hell makes Him a monster and injust. Babies cannot sin because babies have no volition.

In fact, all of us deserve to be tormented in hell.

No. Only those who CHOOSE TO SIN deserve to be in hell. Choosing sin (i.e. "covenant breaking") separates us from the love of God and casts us out of His presence eternally.

But God has chosen, in love and mercy, to preserve a remnant from destruction.

Scripture says that God is not willing that ANY should perish. It also says that Jesus the Christ died FOR THE WORLD.

Yet, I cannot disagree with you, for the Catholic Faith does teach predestination -- just not the kind that John Calvin created. Are you familial with the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas on predestination?

The subtle error perpetuated by the kind of theology promoted in the piece by Dr. Kalomiros is that we men ultimately hold the keys to heaven and to hell, and that if we so desire, we will may rightly or wrongly perceive God's love. We choose whether we are saved or damned.

Your terminology is imprecise. No man can choose salvation. That is all of grace. But eternal life, which is the inheritance of salvation, is entirely left to us and to whether or not we will A) enter into the covenant of God B) keep that covenant relationship faithfully. Covenant keepers recieve the inheritance of salvation, which the Bible says is "eternal life". Covenant breakers are disinherited. This is why Jesus states that at the Last Judgment, He will judge all mankind according to WHAT THEY HAVE DONE (John 5: 29 - 29)

St. Paul says the same thing in Romans 2: 5 - 10.

However, salvation is of the Lord, not of men.

Absolutely!!! No man could restore the broken covenant relationship between God and mankind. Only thge Cross does this. Only Jesus could do this. But salvation and eternal life are NOT THE SAME THING.

Scripture speaks of inheriting eternal life:

Mt 5:5; 19:29; 25:34; Mr 10:17; Lu 10:25; 18:18; 1Co 6:9-10; 15:50; Ga 5:21; Heb 6:12; 1Pe 3:9; Re 21:7

Eternal life is called "the inheritance"

Mt 21:38; Mr 12:7; Lu 12:13; 20:14; Ac 7:5; 20:32; 26:18; Ga 3:18; Eph 1:11,14,18; 5:5; Col 1:12; 3:24; Heb 1:4; 9:15; 11:8; 1Pe 1:4

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Hello again! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Unfortunately, as was the case with what you wrote in a previous thread re: covenant headship, I am likewise confused as to what you hold in regard to the nature and efficacy of the atonement. When you say that "Christ redeemed all mankind unto God", what exactly is your understanding of "redeemed"? For if Christ actually paid the ransom (Grk: lutron; cf. Matt 20:28; Mk 10:45; 1Tim 2:6), thus being the Redeemer (Grk: lutroo; cf. Gal 3:13; 1Pet 1:18; cp. Heb: goel in the book of Ruth), then must not the one who held those redeemed captive must legally set them free? This is simply a matter of justice and ethics. Since it was to God that the ransom was paid and He being perfectly just (Gen 18:25), then He would be obligated to no longer hold captive those who were in bondage. The inescapable conclusion is that for whoever the ransom was paid, they are free. And if the ransom was paid for all mankind without discrimination, then ALL are thus free and are not liable to judgment for non-payment of th ransom they owed. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" />

I'm afraid that your conception of the Calvinist doctrine of eternal punishment is inaccurate, at least that which is held by the Infralapsarians within the camp. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> For, what we hold is that all men are condemned upon the basis that they are sinners; having received the "curse" of Adam's transgression, their covenant head, i.e., the guilt judgment incurred by Adam; a corruption of nature which is inherited by them and guilt which is imputed to them. Thus God is perfectly just in condemning all men to eternal torment, they being doubly guilty.

As to the condemnation of "non-elect infants", they being members of the human race whose head is the same Adam of that of adults, inherit a corruption of nature from which sin is its fruit and likewise guilt is imputed to their account, they are not exempt from God's wrath nor His perfect justice. (cf. Rom 3:10-18; 9:11ff; Eph 2:1-3; et al) That some infants are elect it cannot be doubted. But I think you would be hard-pressed to show from Scripture that ALL infants are "elect". To hold to such a view would prove too much, for most infants mature into adulthood and thus this would terminate in Universalism, which you have also said you reject, i.e., you do hold that there will be a Judgment by which some will be found guilty and cast into eternal damnation.

In His Grace,

Hello again! Unfortunately, as was the case with what you wrote in a previous thread re: covenant headship, I am likewise confused as to what you hold in regard to the nature and efficacy of the atonement. When you say that "Christ redeemed all mankind unto God", what exactly is your understanding of "redeemed"? For if Christ actually paid the ransom (Grk: lutron; cf. Matt 20:28; Mk 10:45; 1Tim 2:6), thus being the Redeemer (Grk: lutroo; cf. Gal 3:13; 1Pet 1:18; cp. Heb: goel in the book of Ruth), then must not the one who held those redeemed captive must legally set them free?

Indeed. When Adam sinned, he took the whole of humanity into a state of separation from God as the covenant head. Therefore, when the Last Adam (1 Corin. 15:45) KEEPS COVENANT with God, and then dies in a substitutionary fashion, I think it is both just and reasonable that God reverse the effects of the Fall in a completely similar manner to the Fall.

I think I have scriptural warrant for this idea also:


This is simply a matter of justice and ethics. Since it was to God that the ransom was paid and He being perfectly just (Gen 18:25), then He would be obligated to no longer hold captive those who were in bondage.

EXACTLY!! When Adam's transgression was paid for, the ransom for all mankind was paid and we could no longer be held in bondage as were the OT saints. Salvation is then also our response to God's calling and our entering into covenant with God through Jesus Christ.

The inescapable conclusion is that for whoever the ransom was paid, they are free.

Let's see. Did Jesus pay the ransom for all? Or for just a select few. We say all. This is the historical position of the Christian Faith since the time of the Early Fathers. The Cross is not lessened nor dishonored if men spurn the gift and turn to their own way.(One of many responses I heard as a Calvinist)

And if the ransom was paid for all mankind without discrimination, then ALL are thus free and are not liable to judgment for non-payment of the ransom they owed.

The sin of Adam was done for all mankind without discrimination. The redemption of God should fit the nature of the Fall -- done for all mankind that all may obtain eternal life if they so desire.

I guess what I am trying to separate here is the corporate aspect of the sacrifice from the personal aspect. but these are just my thoughts.

I'm afraid that your conception of the Calvinist doctrine of eternal punishment is inaccurate, at least that which is held by the Infralapsarians within the camp. For, what we hold is that all men are condemned upon the basis that they are sinners;

babies are not sinners. They have no ability to make an act of volition. This is why I find the idea of babies being sent to hell because they are "not elect" reprehensible.

having received the "curse" of Adam's transgression,their covenant head, i.e., the guilt judgment incurred by Adam;

No man can be guilty for another man's sin. If that were so, I could be found guilty for your sin. I can suffer if you are my covenantal head and you sin, but that does not mean that I am a sinner like you. Example: when the prophets who were righteous men were taken into captivity along with the idol worshipping kings of Israel

a corruption of nature which is inherited by them

Indeed. All men are born with this corruption. The Early Fathers described it as sickness and the Eucharist they called "the medicine of immortality."

and guilt which is imputed to them.

No, what mankind received from Adam was the state of separation from God which the Bible calls "death". I am not guilty of Adam's sin. I am guilty of my own.

Thus God is perfectly just in condemning all men to eternal torment, they being doubly guilty.

Not what the Bible teaches. Jesus said that He would be the Judge on the Last Day and the basis upon which He would send men into perdition would be what they had done in their lives, not the sin of another (John 5: 28 - 29).

As to the condemnation of "non-elect infants", they being members of the human race whose head is the same Adam of that of adults, inherit a corruption of nature from which sin is its fruit and likewise guilt is imputed to their account, they are not exempt from God's wrath nor His perfect justice. (cf. Rom 3:10-18; 9:11ff; Eph 2:1-3; et al) That some infants are elect it cannot be doubted. But I think you would be hard-pressed to show from Scripture that ALL infants are "elect". To hold to such a view would prove too much, for most infants mature into adulthood and thus this would terminate in Universalism, which you have also said you reject, i.e., you do hold that there will be a Judgment by which some will be found guilty and cast into eternal damnation.

As I said before, a man is only held guilty for that which he has done. Infants have done nothing...therefore they are guiltless

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

OrthodoxCatholic,

Indeed our views of the atonement are miles apart. For in the first place, I hold consistently to a vicarious substitutionary (Grk: huper) atonement, i.e., that the punishment which Christ suffered was that which belonged to those whom the Father gave Him, aka: "His people, His sheep, the elect of God, those predestinated before the foundation of the world, etc., etc...!! Again, the ransom being paid, the law requires that the captives be set free, i.e., they are not liable to judgment. So again, either Christ IS the Redeemer of all men without exception and thus Universalism is true, OR, He is the Redeemer of a remnant saved by grace, which is the biblical teaching.

Now.... I would submit to you that your understanding of Rom. 5:12ff is fatally flawed.

(1) Paul is setting for the truth of "corporate solidarity". We see two Federal Heads; Adam and Christ. Whatever is true of the head is also true of those whom that head represents. (a) Adam, being the Federal Head of the human race represented all mankind, i.e., of the flesh. The punishment put on him for his disobedience fell also upon all his progeny, i.e., of the flesh. (b) Christ being the Federal Head of all those who were elected to be made sons of the Living God, according to the spirit/Spirit share likewise in that which He merited in His death, i.e., eternal life. (Isa 53:9; 2Cor 5:21; Heb 2:10; 7:18ff; 1Pet 2:22-24). In Adam came death but in Christ comes eternal life.

(2) The "death" spoken of in 5:12 is that same death which was promised of God to Adam in consequence of his disobedience; (a) Physical death, the seed of which sprang to life the moment he ate of the fruit, (b) Spiritual death, a corruption of nature; a radical change in his disposition wherein the love for God was lost and only fear and hatred of subservience to God emerged in its place, (c) Eternal death, the terminus of the immensity of his act of transgression is meted out on that last day. And it is this "spiritual death" which all men inherit and thus exhibit is theirs in that they die in the flesh at the end of their appointed days. And it is this death to which Paul alludes and which is a judicial sentence on all who are sinners by nature:

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned . . .

The universality of death cannot be denied, especially when you admit that Adam, as the Federal Head of the entire human race, effected all without exception. The text is perspicuous in its teaching, that death is the result of sin; ALL die because ALL are sinners. The penalty of transgression is death. Those found guilty of transgression die. Thus since all die, all are guilty by virtue of their Federal Head and in addition to any personal sins which they may commit in thought, word and/or deed. As Paul also makes clear in so many other places, ALL are without a personal righteousness (Rom 3:10). ALL are born under the just wrath of God (Eph 2:1-3). That which differentiates between men is solely the discriminating mercy of God (Rom 9:10ff).

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.

(3) Now, looking at the LORD Christ, as He is the Federal Head of "all, the many". As death came upon all men that are united to Adam in his transgression, so does justification come upon "all, the many" that are united to Christ in His death. But to this you balk and wrote: "The redemption of God should fit the nature of the Fall -- done for all mankind that all may obtain eternal life if they so desire.". The text simply does not say, "that all may obtain . . .", but rather:

Romans 5:16-17 (ASV) "And not as through one that sinned, [so] is the gift: for the judgment [came] of one unto condemnation, but the free gift [came] of many trespasses unto justification. For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; much more shall they that receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, [even] Jesus Christ."

The analogy is fixed in that the consequences of one infallibly effects all and cannot be bifurcated. Thus "all die" and "all are justified and reign in life". As I pointed out to you before, if you are wanting to make "all" to mean "all mankind without exception", then of necessity you must also bow to Universalism, which I believe you do not wish to do. Or, you have to somehow understand the "all" to mean "all who come under the headship of another", the means of which is not synonymous between Adam and Christ. With Adam, all are joined with him by virtue of the flesh. With Christ, all are joined to Him by faith. The former is a "natural" relationship, the latter is a spiritual relationship. To this truth I made mention in another reply to you, i.e., the "Fatherhood of God" is not one of the flesh, but of the Spirit/spirit and it is not one of nature but of grace. Sinners BECOME sons of God when they are reconciled to God by grace through faith in Christ alone. Otherwise, all are born "children of wrath".

Ephesians 1:4-5, 11(ASV) ". . .even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, . . . in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will;

In His Grace,

Babies have no volition, eh? Hm. That's an interesting one. So, pray tell, at what point do we humans obtain a will? Because it seems pretty clear to me that babies are quite capable of acting willfully. Now, granted, they don't fully comprehend the actions they take, and they may be too weak to follow through, but they do act willfully. And since every one of them is born post-Fall, every one of them is born with an evil will. Augustine in his Confessions actually has quite an interesting description of the sinfulness even of babies, who are singularly selfish and jealous creatures.


Who does not choose to sin?


Care to show the biblical verses in context, with a thorough and careful exegesis?


So, I can be saved and still perish in hell. O what a salvation thy god hath provided! A salvation worth nothing.

God bless,

Brother Ed

Read my signature.


God bless,

william

Your statement is not an answer and certainly is not in line with what our Lord promised to the Church. By implication, what I see you saying is that it was the predestined will of God that less than 100 years after Jesus left the earth, having PROMISED that the Church would never be overcome by the gates of hell, the second generation of apostles all went into apostasy and the world was cast into darkness and damnation until Luther and Calvin came along.

Remember, the Early Church was distinctly and ONLY Catholic, both Eastern and Western in variation, but nonetheless, Catholic. None of the doctrines of the Reformation were ever known prior to 1517. Therefore, if you, as a good Calvinist, believe that all those who reject Calvinism are damned and non elect out of hand, then the whole world prior to 1517 and for 1500 years went directly to hell.

And Jesus and the Holy Spirit failed to keep the promise of Matthew 16.

Is that what you are really saying?

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

William,

I am wondering how you apply the meaning of your signature to the question that Ed asked, too.

Care to expand your comments?

Let me take just this statement alone. I agree that in order to enter the kingdom, one must become a child of the Father, and that is through the adoption of grace. Our natural state is indeed separation from God, which is called "death" in the scriptures.

But is this limited to just the "elect", or do all get a chance to apply for sonship? I would favor the latter because of the express nature of God as shown in the scriptures -- i.e., that He is love, that He has abundant mercy for sinners, that He desires none to be lost, etc. The Calvinist paradigm seems to hold out that God is just the opposite of this, that rather than having mercy upon the whole world, that He has mercy upon a select few and damns, without reason, all the rest. That does not strike me as particularly just nor loving.

In closing, let me ask you this: is it possible that someone in China, 500 years before Christ was even born, could be saved by God's grace without even knowing of Who Jesus is or how the plan of salvation works? (I have a spedific person in mind and a specific verse of scripture to discuss regarding this question).

Thank you for your answer to my question.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

I've never seen it described as an application process. Sinners, by their very nature, choose other than God, and that willfully.


Because God has abundant mercy for sinners does not necessitate His mercy must be the same for all. What is wondrous and awe inspiring is that He chose anybody at all. If He had chosen but one, He would have been infinitely merciful.


I am going to answer this assertion again and ask you to remember it, as you are repeatedly misrepresenting calvinism. God damns people because they are sinners.


A God that damns those that willfully oppose Him isn't just? This is exactly the attribute of Gods nature you toss out with your one-sided view of Gods nature. Yes, God is loving, but He is also just.


God bless,

william

Your assertion has two problems. First, it is non-sequitor. Because the Church did not deal with soteriology in depth prior to any date does not mean all that was wrote prior to then was correct.

Second, it was spoke of prior to your asserted date, and that is in my signature. I'll post a couple more as well to show you how wrong your base assertion is.


A good reading of Augustine might help as well.


God bless,

william

OC claimed nobody prior to Calvin believed in the same soteriology. I offered my signature as evidence otherwise. I also offered some other quotes in my answer to him.


God bless,

william

Thanks. Now I get it! I guess it would've helped had I known the date of the quote. . .

I would agree with you on this much, that God doesn't damn the non-elect "without reason". For indeed He has a very legitimate reason for damning mankind to eternal punishment, i.e., the fact that they are sinners. It is the sinners deepest desire that God be gone and that even hell is more desirable than the prospect of spending eternity with Him Who is thrice holy. If this were not the case, then they would all repent of their sins and embrace Christ.

The answer is an unreserved, "No!" It is impossible than any can be saved without "knowing" the Lord Christ and embracing Him with a living faith, created within them by the Holy Spirit. (Jh 14:6; Rom 1:16; 10:14-17; Eph 2:8, 9; et al)

In His Grace,

I always find it interesting when Reformed people selectively choose the quotes from Catholics which seem to support their position and then ignore the larger body of their works. I just went over to read about St. Isadore. Quite a man ... and quite a saint.

Thoroughly Catholic, of course, which means that despite your appeal to predestinatino on his part, he would live a Faith which you in toto reject.

Of course, you realize that unless what he said was approved by the eclessiastical hierarchy, then it was mainly just his outlook on the matter. When I state that Calvinism was not taught prior to 1517, I stand there. There has always been reference to predestination in the Church, but as OFFICIAL TEACHING, it simply was not a part of the canons of the Faith.

Of course, I welcome you to prove me wrong. I am always seeking to learn. Please quote the source and the OFFICIAL CONCICULAR DECREE which made the teaching of a Calvinist view of soteriology the official teaching of the Church.

Thanks. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Brother Ed

Did you mean to direct that to me? --or to William?

It would be utter silliness for anyone to fall into this trite challenge, for your "concicular decrees" are no more binding upon us as the Westminster Confession of Faith is binding upon you. What matters is what the inspired, infallible, inerrant written Word of God teaches, to which many will distort, deny and depart. I don't find it surprising that the majority of alleged Christian men would hold to Pelagianism/semi-Pelagianism, for it is the "natural theology" of a sinful mind and heart whose primary lust is to free themselves from their Creator as He has revealed Himself in His Word and make themselves "co-regents".

"The Sovereignty of God is the stumbling block on which thousands fall and perish; and if we go contending with God about His sovereignty it will be our eternal ruin. It is absolutely necessary that we should submit to God as an absolute sovereign, and the sovereign of our souls; as one who may have mercy on whom He will have mercy and harden whom He will!" - Jonathan Edwards

In His Grace,

I am catholic. I am not Roman Catholic.


Of course. Now could you tell me which hierarchy and give scriptural reference for this procedure? I believe that as long as his beliefs lined up with Gods Word it was truth despite any hierarchy. Gods Word is final and it speaks clearly on the matter.


Because it had never been dealt with in depth does not necessitate Calvin being incorrect. Illogical conclusions. Because Rome disagrees has no bearing on calvinisms truthfulness, either. You will have better luck interacting with what we believe.


God bless,

william

Au contraire, mon fraire. Those who met in council were the successors of the apostolic offices, to whom was given "all authority"

[color:"0000FF"]Mark 13:34 For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.[/color]

He also promised unto one of them, and by extension, all who would hold that office, the blessing of infallibility in doctrinal and moral matters:

[color:"FF0000"]Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.[/color]

So we see that Jesus has indeed established a hierarchy to rule His earthly kingdom until His return. No covenantal structure is without authority.


Indeed. The multitudes of Protestant denominations, sects, cults, isms, and schisms -- all disagreeing with each other and yet all claiming to be led of the Holy Spirit into the "true Gospel" -- is a profound testimony and witness to this fact. At the same time, there remains but ONE Catholic Faith -- the same as was given to the apostles by Jesus Himself.


ROTFLMHO!!!!

I'm sorry. I just remember when I believed in Calvinism. The word Pelagianism was a "dirty word" to us theologically. Therefore, I am sort of superimposing upon you this picture in my mind of your icon with his pipe twirling in his mouth as you say the words!

My friend, obeying God is not Pelagianism. It is faith. God calls us to faith not as robots who can do no other than to obey because we are programmed to, but as the beloved Bride of Christ who freely gives her consent to the Beloved. That is the essence of what it means to "cut covenant" -- i.e., that we do so from a decision of our will, not from some inner prompting which we can not resist. We are human beings, not Borg (WARNING! You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile!).

If a man is not free to say "yes" to God, then it is not marriage, it is rape. God comes to us as our Beloved Bridegroom and waits that we either accept or reject His proposal to enter into the Wedding Feast of the Lamb.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

I sort of expected as much, but I didn't wish to put words in your mouth.

This is, of course, not what the Bible teaches at all.

The man I have in mind is the Chinese philosopher Lau Tzu, who wrote the Tau Te Ching 500 years before Christ was born. In the Tau, Lau Tzu describes not only the existence of the Blessed Trinity, but refers to the Incarnation of the One he calls the Way (Tau). The only thing that Lau Tzu didn't know was that the Way has a name: The Lord Jesus Christ.

How is this possible? Scripture tells us:

[color:"0000FF"]Romans 2:13-16 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.[/color]

Note: The doers of the Law shall be justified. Sounds like our justification comes from what we "DO" and not just faith alone. And in Romans 2: 5 - 10 and John 5: 28 - 29, both St. Paul and Jesus validate this -- both of them stating quite clearly that the Great Judgment will be about what we have DONE -- those who have DONE GOOD (law keepers) receiving eternal life and those who have done evil (law breakers) receiving eternal torment.

Note also that it says that the Gentiles, who have not the Law (in other words, they are ignorant and untaught, as was Lau Tzu) have the Law written in their hearts, so that this becomes the Law unto them. And if they obey that Law, then they are covenant keepers *by desire* in obeying the promptings of the Holy Spirit, Who alone causes that law to be placed in their hearts and calls them to obey what is in their hearts.

You see, God is nowhere near as callous and cold as Calvinism makes Him out to be. When He says that He desires all men to be saved -- He means it!! He does not base salvation upon mere head knowledge, but upon the Law of God either written in our hearts or heard with our ears --- and our obedience to that which we know. That is called "covenant keeping" and it is the basis upon which God can have mercy upon all mankind through the work of Christ Jesus.

I have no doubt that Lau Tzu is in Heaven right now. Why? Because what he wrote in the Tau Te Ching is the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Christ taught it -- it is THE WAY -- the life we are to live if we expect to recieve the blessing of eternal life. And Lau Tzu, by his writing, showed that the Holy Spirit was at work in his heart and in his life, he lived what he wrote, thus being obedient to the Law of his heart placed there by the Spirit.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

William --

You have proven your point most eloquently.

Therefore, since it was in a concicular decree, I must agree with you that God does divide and does predestinate.

Wonder if I can be the first Catholic Calvinist <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Actually, I still am rather in favor of St. Thomas Aquinas' explanation of it.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

I am catholic. I am not Roman Catholic.

In other words, you accept paedobaptism, the seven Sacraments, the veneration of our Blessed Lady, the communion of the saints, the hierarchial structure of the Church, etc.?

No?

Well, then you aren't Catholic, regardless of your protestations. You see, to be catholic, you must accept that which is "katholicos" (Greek--"universal"). As St. Vincent of Lerins so eloquently put it:

"The Catholic Faith is that which has been believed by all persons, in every place, at all times"

Sorry, the only two faiths which can claim this are the Eastern Orthodox and the 26 rites of the Catholic Church.

Of course. Now could you tell me which hierarchy and give scriptural reference for this procedure? I believe that as long as his beliefs lined up with Gods Word it was truth despite any hierarchy. Gods Word is final and it speaks clearly on the matter.

The scriptural precedent is the promise of Christ to St. Peter that the Church would not be overrun by the gates of hell. The only way this would be possible is to have an infallible leader -- a covenantal head if you please -- over the Church to guide Her into all truth. Then there was also the promise made to the apostles in the Upper Room where Jesus promised them that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth.

How vastly far that is from the multitudes of Protestant beliefs -- all claiming to be led of the Holy Spirit in properly understanding the Scriptures and yet all disagreeing with each other. That does not seem like the Spirit to me. God's word is final -- but it far from speaks clearly on any number of matters. That is why there is such confusion and disagreement within Protestantism today.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

O' contrare.... see here: Argument for an Infallible Body.

Your other claim:

"The Catholic Faith is that which has been believed by all persons, in every place, at all times"

Sorry, the only two faiths which can claim this are the Eastern Orthodox and the 26 rites of the Catholic Church.

is so ridiculously contrary to all known history that it isn't worth the time to reply. There are so many differences in doctrine and/or practice that have existed in the "Catholic" church, both Roman and Orthodox, that it staggers the imagination how anyone can make such a claim, although many have and still do. All it would take to disprove such a boastful remark is to show but one single dissenter. The fact that there have been thousands is but icing on the cake.

In His Grace,

BAnner of Truth, eh?

Now there's an unbiased body if I ever saw one! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Actually, used to be my favorite shopping place. They have a "book depot" about 10 miles from me. Used to go there all the time looking for books by A.W. Pink.

Ah well, let's see....you mind if I burn some bandwidth?


I notice that in all that this man said, there was NARY A WORD NOR APPEAL TO SCRIPTURE. It was line after line of human reasoning, appeals to liberty of conscience, etc. hatever you were trying to appeal to regarding the Church and Her government....well, there was basically NOTHING SAID in that article.

On the other hand, I will use scripture to PROVE that there can only be one head upon the earth.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Great. Let's see some. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


God bless,

william

Okay. Shall we start another thread?

Look for the thread "One Head on Earth"

I wish to go to Mass now....will get it started sometime later.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Once again we are exposed to the truism, "A text out of context is nothing more than pretext!". 1) The Analogy of Faith, i.e., comparing Scripture with Scripture shows us that IF what you are suggesting this passage teaches, that men are saved by works of the law, then Paul is contradicting himself. For in so many other places, he makes clear that men are not saved by works of the law but by faith (cf. Rom 3:20, 28; 4:2; Gal 2:16; 3:11, 12; et al). 2) The verse immediately preceding, vs. 12 reveals what Paul's intent is in vss. 13-16, as does the entire book of Romans:

Romans 2:12 (ASV) "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law;"

As one can plainly see, both the Jews, who had the advantage of having the Law of God written on the tablets of stone and the Gentiles, who although were totally ignorant of the Decalogue and/or the Pentateuch have the law written upon their hearts, are going to be condemned because they all are guilty of transgression that law. The fact that the Gentiles, by reason of conscience, conform outwardly in some measure, due to the restraining power of the Spirit, to this law written on their hearts, they nonetheless will be judged as transgressors.

The contrast which Paul is setting forth here is not between justification by faith vs. justification by works, but rather one between two groups of people; those who hear and do and those who merely hear. (cf. Matt 7:24-29; 13:3ff; Lk 6:46) Those who possess true saving faith will infallibly exhibit the fruit of that faith in the doing of good works. (Lk 1:74, 75; Rom 6; 8:28, 30; Eph 2:10; 1:4; Phil 1:12, 13; Jam 2:26; et al)

I'm going to assume that you are referring to 1Tim 2:4, re: "all men to be saved"? Going on that assumption, and for the sake of time and space, I would refer you to this exegesis of that text: An Exegetical Study of 1 Timothy 2:4.

In His Grace,

Once again we are exposed to the truism, "A text out of context is nothing more than pretext!". 1) The Analogy of Faith, i.e., comparing Scripture with Scripture shows us that IF what you are suggesting this passage teaches, that men are saved by works of the law, then Paul is contradicting himself.

Sorry. What I have not made clear is that salvation is by grace alone through the work of Christ Jesus. In order to be entered into that salvation, one must "cut covenant" with the Father through the Son.

However, since it is not possible that all men everywhere could have heard the Gospel message, especially those in foreign countries and prior to the coming of Christ, we see that God deals with them in a different manner. This is what the Catholic Church has termed "the baptism of desire", which simply means that God regards the heart of each man, and seeing those who truly desire to find and serve Him, regards that as being the same as if they had been baptized into the covenantal kingdom. This is what I was suggesting with Lau Tzu. It is evident that the Holy Spirit was working upon Lau Tzu's heart and his response in both writing about the the Blessed Trinity and also in living out the Way, shows that he was one who was both seeking truth and willing to live out the truth which he had in his heart from the Spirit of God. As such, I believe he received the baptism of desire from God in His mercy.

Eternal life is a distinct and separate issue from salvation. That is what St. Paul is referring to in Romans 2: 5 - 10 when he speaks about the Last Judgment and Christ judging all men by what they have done. Our works are the way by which we "keep covenant" with God and thus receive the inheritance of eternal life as faithful adopted children of His. I did not mean to suggest that one might work one's way into salvation. But one does maintain his state of covenantal union with God by the works of Faith which we are commanded to do (i.e., "Law keeping"). Thus it is that the "doers of the law are justified" as St. Paul said...that is, we continue in the state of justification by being faithful covenant keepers.

For in so many other places, he makes clear that men are not saved by works of the law but by faith (cf. Rom 3:20, 28; 4:2; Gal 2:16; 3:11, 12; et al).

Yes. I agree. We place our faith in Jesus Christ as our Redeemer/Kinsman

2) The verse immediately preceding, vs. 12 reveals what Paul's intent is in vss. 13-16, as does the entire book of Romans:

The entire thrust of what St. Paul is dealing with is that the Jews thought that they had a free pass into Heaven by virtue of being Jews. Romans 2: 5 - 10 makes it clear to them that ALL MEN will stand before Christ on the Day of Judgment and will be judged by what they have done (aka "covenant keeping") There is no respect of persons with God as to national origin, religious practice, proper theology, intellectual depth, etc. The Judgment is about WHO we have become in Christ, which is reflected by our works. Are we showing mercy? Do we love. Remember that St. Paul also stated in 1 Corin. 13 that love is the highest good, without which we are nothing, despite all that we might know.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

His signature is adequate because OC said "I think what you should be asking yourself is this: if the Calvinist soteriological paradigm is true, how come no one 'discovered' it for 1500 years?" and Isidore is from like 600AD which clearly reveals that "calvinism" is not some new paradigm. That would be my guess.

Yes, thanks. I figured that out. Didn't know who Isidore was or when he lived.

As is so typical, the Roman State Church has fabricated a doctrine which doesn't have a shred of biblical support. God has always dealt with all men everywhere in exactly the same way in regard to salvation; i.e., the requirement of faith, either in the promise of the coming Messiah or in the Messiah that has already come. (Jh 1:12, 13; Jh 10:16; Heb 11:4ff). Those who have believed upon Christ after His departure are said to be like unto Abraham with whom God "cut covenant" and who is the father of all those who believe. (cf. Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6; Jam 2:23) Thus there is no difference between the O.T. economy and the N.T. economy; all are redeemed by grace through faith in Christ, alone.

Secondly, this "baptism of desire" is totally contrary to scriptural teaching. (cf. Gen 6:5; 8:21; Isa 9:13; 53:1; 64:6; Jh 3:19; Rom 3:11; 8:7, 8; 1Cor 2:14; Eph 2:2, 3; 4:17-19; et al) NO MAN seeks after God. The only desire that natural men have is for sin and to serve the lusts of their flesh. The heart of the natural man is deceitful beyond all measure and wholly corrupt. There is absolutely nothing which the natural/unregenerate man can do which is in conformity to the law of God and thus he cannot do anything which is pleasing to God.

In His Grace,

Secondly, this "baptism of desire" is totally contrary to scriptural teaching. (cf. Gen 6:5;

Well, let's look at these verses a bit:

[color:"0000FF"][b]Genesis 6:5-10 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.[/color]

We seem to have a contradiction here. On the one hand, you point to the verses which state that mankind had only evil thoughts continually, and that is what they seem to say on the face of it, but then we see that Noah was a just man who walked with God. This seems to be a weak text to insist upon Total Depravity, seeing that Noah did not partake of the evil of that generation.

8:21;

[color:"0000FF"]Genesis 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.[/color]

Again, I must ask if God judges man as being wicked because of the imagination of his heart, or because of what he actually does regarding those temptations. The flesh is certainly opposed to God, and redemption is that work of Chrsit which puts to death our flesh and creates us a new creature. But if we sin, even after salvation, are we not then counted as sinners since we have done evil? Scripture seems to think so:

[color:"0000FF"]Ezekiel 3:20 Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.[/color]

A righteous man TURNS FROM HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS. And how does he do this? By mere thoughts, which are nothing more than the disordered passions of the flesh, or by actually commiting sin?

Isa 9:13;

Not a proof text for total depravity. It is talking about the Lord's judgment against the nation which had turned its back on the Lord.

53:1;

[color:"0000FF"]Isaiah 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?[/color]

This hardly qualfies for a proof text for total depravity.

64:6;

[color:"0000FF"]Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.[/color]

The lament of the prophet over the condition of his nation is not the same as God declaring that all mankind is totally depraved. I do believe that you are reading into the text here.

Jh 3:19;

[color:"0000FF"]John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.[/color]

Again, reading into the text. It does not say that ALL MEN loved darkness rather than light. We have, in fact, a rather sure word from the Lord that this is not the case at all. We see that the Wise Men came seeking the One Who is the Light of the World. We see righteous Zacharias and Elizabeth (Luke 1: 5-6). And, of course, there was the Blessed Virgin Mary. Scripture records for us the actions of both sinners and saints. We cannot simply state that all men are totally depraved because of the sins of the many. I would state that it is indeed lamentably easy to sin, even as a believer. But that can just as easily prove that we are damaged in our wills and, like St. Paul said in Romans 7, unable to always do that which we know we should do.

Rom 3:11;

[color:"0000FF"]Romans 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.[/color]

This is a proof text for the very thing I have been saying here. This verse is taken out of context -- and I mean COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT -- from the Psalm that St. Paul is quoting. Please go to Psalm 14 and read the first three verses. This is what St. Paul is quoting and if you study what is being said here, the SUBJECTS of this verse [color:"FF0000"]are the wicked as contrasted to the righteous[/color] It is the wicked the Psalmist is speaking of when he charges that there is none that seeketh God. That same Psalm goes on to say that God is in the generation of the righteous.

8:7, 8;

[color:"0000FF"]Romans 8:7-10 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.[/color]

This is a much stronger proof text, at least on the surface, to prove your point. My only question would be this: what does St. Paul mean by the carnal mind? Is that the mind of all mankind without God? Or is the carnal mind one of two minds one can have in regards to God -- i.e., the carnal mind and then the spiritual mind? I see St. Paul saying here that those in Christ are not in the carnal mind, right? But then, how is it that we sin? I think this is the struggle of all Christians -- to both appropriate and live out that which is reality in the spiritual realm, i.e, that the flesh no longer has control over us.

1Cor 2:14;

[color:"0000FF"]1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.[/color]

Another very strong verse for your point. You show me that I need to do some further study on these points to see why it is that the Early Fathers did not come up with a Calvinistic framework such as the Reformers did. In other words, what is their understanding of these verses?

Eph 2:2, 3

[color:"0000FF"]Ephesians 2:2-3 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.[/color]

Again, very good point from scripture. I am sure that somewhere there is an answer to this. I just need to find it. Remember, anyone can make the scriptures say just about anything they wish to. That is the foundation of all the numerous denominations which we see.

Thank you for provoking me to both thought and study.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

I quoted some of the early church writers in support of reformed soteriology. When will you drop your erroneous argument? I also pointed out that because the matter of salvation was not dealt with in depth prior to the reformation does not mean calvinism is wrong. It's an illogical conclusion.


God bless,

william

When will you drop your erroneous argument?

When the Catholic Church, meeting in an eccumenical council and ratified by the Holy Father, accepts Calvinism as a proper soteriological interpretation of scripture.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Aaah. Good luck with that. Rome has been apostate for centuries.


God bless,

william

I have a little acquaintance with the Daode Jing and would like very much to see where you think the author (whether any such man as Laozi ever existed is very much questionable, as also whether the Daode Jing is by one sole author) discusses the existence of the Trinity or the Incarnation of the Dao. As far as I'm concerned, that most famous phrase, "The Way [Dao] which can be named is not the constant Way," clearly precludes any conclusion that the author was any sort of true believer. Certainly his followers in the centuries following have been no closer to the truth. Daoism is without question a religion riddled with falsities and superstitions. It is most unfortunate that it, along with many others of the world's religions, particularly Eastern ones, has been so frequently described in terms that make it seem more analogous to Christianity. Buddhist nirvana as salvation, or the Hindu Trimurti as a Trinity, or various rituals described as "baptisms" or "holy communions," etc., convey the same defective analogy.

Would you mind explaining how a lack of knowledge equals a lack of volition? The commission of sin is not dependent upon our knowledge. Much as you may break the law of the land by speeding though unaware of the speed limit, you may break the law of God (commit sin) without realizing it. In any case, every choice you make is by your own volition. Even while being coerced, one still has the choice to disobey the coercer. If he obeys the coercer to commit sin, he still commits sin. The presence of coercion does not negate the action.


I find this ironic in a post where you are telling me that intellectual knowledge of what is sin is required before one can be said to have committed a sin! How useful is mercy, when mercy is not even necessary? But indeed, Catholic theology in the modern age does place "a great premium upon God's overriding and awesome mercy to all mankind," much to the furthering of her idolatry and apostasy, not to mention her own internal incoherence. For aside from the fact that the same Roman Church has taught at various times and according to various teachers that no one outside of her baptismal registers and no one not admitting the authority of the Bishop of Rome may be saved, she has still to deal with the difficulty of how her so-called God may be salvifically merciful to every individual and yet allow so many to perish eternally in the fires of hell.


I find it disheartening that my non-Calvinist friends constantly wrest that phrase from Scripture, if not to their own destruction, to the destruction of so many others. For even a cursory reading of the context indicates that it does not refer to every individual who exists, has existed, or will exist, but indeed refers to a very particular group, which we Calvinists describe as "elect," according the designation of Scripture.


Genesis 6:5, "Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

That, sir, is indeed an EVIL WILL, and it describes the state of man since the Fall. Note, the state of man, not the state of some men.


As do I. But then I think the Eastern Orthodox are as apostate as Rome, and that even the best among Christians hold to erroneous doctrines in some point. We are yet to be perfected.


Who else but the Pharisees, which is abundantly clear from context? Is Jesus incapable of using irony? Certainly you don't believe there is a class of men which has not been called to repentance.


It is possible only by the regeneration of the Spirit. But since you are so keen on prooftexting, do I even need to quote to you from Romans 3:9ff., or do you know that passage by heart?


I have no cause to do so, for I know that God's promises are true. No one can be saved from hell unto eternal life and yet perish in hell unto eternal damnation, for then his salvation is utterly meaningless. God is true, though every man is a liar.


Who falls away but those who are not truly inheritors, those who are not saved? The warnings are true, but those who fall away are false. They go out from the church, but they were never of the church to begin with.


I insinuate no such thing, although you seem keen to put words in my mouth. The fact of the matter is that the "Calvinist soteriological paradigm" is not only true, but biblical, apostolic, catholic, Augustinian, and even asserted as truth by the Council of Orange. The Roman Church has far more explaining to do regarding the basis of her myriad heresies, particularly their departure from the Bible (and therefore from the Apostles!), than have Reformed Protestants.

What a crock! Romanism is as much a mixed bag as modern Protestantism regarding doctrine and theology, and always has been. It used to be much more unified liturgically, but even that has given way in the modern era. What's even more ridiculous about your claim is that you lump in the Eastern Orthodox with this "Catholic Faith," but the Eastern Orthodox in a great number of cases are quite as happy to condemn the Papists to eternal damnation as are the Protestants, and certainly they differ from Rome in a great deal of matters liturgical, theological, and doctrinal. I wish I could remember the link, I think perhaps William has it? But it shows how many denominations are really within Protestantism, and even goes on to show how many are within Roman Catholicism! The numbers are not quite as disparate as Roman apologists would like.


You seem to betray rather a lack of familiarity with Calvinism in painting your caricature of it.


Interesting you should bring up this illustration! Surely you are aware that marriage in the ancient world was hardly the equal decision of the man and his betrothed? Rare indeed was it for a woman to have a free choice in whom she might marry.

http://sxws.com/charis/apol44.htm

Yes, the claim that there are infinite, numerous, 20,000+, etc., denominations is extremely far fetched. It is a false claim used by Roman Catholic apologists in an attempt to show some type of superiority. However, even the great catholic church has splintered a few times and within it are small divisions. The url provided offers an explanation as to the falsehood of this claim.


God bless,

william

That is simply not true. There is but one Catholic Catechism which gives the Catholic Faith to all who wish to know what it is and to obey it.

What you are referring to are the dissidents, rebels, and outright heretics who infest the Church. Their rebellion and teaching is not the official voice of the Church.

There is still only one teaching on baptism, the Sacraments, hell, Christ, God, etc.


Again, this is an administrative issue. The issue of the many numbers of Protestant denominations, however, is an issue of authority, doctrines, and leadership. We have but one authority over us, one Church, and one set of doctrines which are outlined in the Catholic Catechism.


Again, sir, you do not know what you are talking about. There is a very small difference between the praxis of the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches. It mostly has to do with the issue of the papacy and the "filioque" clause of the Nicene Creed.

Orthodox and Catholic are agreed on the number of the Sacraments, of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, on being "born again" in baptism, in liturgical format, and just a host of other things.

As my name should indicate, I am Eastern Orthodox in union with Rome. Therefore, I have been to Roman Masses as well as to our own Liturgy. The differences in them are minor at best.


There are no denominations in the Catholic Faith like there are in Protestantism. The idea of a denomination indicates major disagreement about some point of doctrine or administration of the denomination. For instance, Lutherans are different from Baptists because Baptists do not accept "baptismal regeneration". The difference between the Coptic Church, the Byzantine Church, and the Roman Church, to name a couple, is an ethnic difference. We all adhere to the same Catechism of the Church and have the same head over the Church -- the Holy Father in Rome.


I agree. However, when Jesus prayed that the Church be one, I think He had in mind complete unity. Therefore, I don't think that any more "churches" than one is acceptable or what God had in mind.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

I tend to agree that belief is important. I just don't see any reason to believe Rome was ever designated in scripture as ultimate.


God bless,

william

That the Roman Church does not root out the dissidents, rebels, and heretics which openly and loudly infest her is further witness against her. But all in all, the Roman Church is inclined to seek unity in ritual practice and government to the detriment of unity in faith and doctrine. This is part of why the Roman Church is more eager to pursue ecumenicism than are the Eastern Orthodox.


Of course, neither the issue of papal authority nor the controversy regarding the filioque are matters readily dismissed. The papacy goes straight to the heart of what constitutes the church and how the church is to be governed, and the filioque has profound implications on the understanding of the nature of the Trinity. But what about the differences in the theory of the atonement between the Roman and Eastern Orthodox Churches? This issue is highlighted in the very article that began this thread: whether Christ's death was a ransom to appease God's wrath against man (the Western view, which is attacked as making God hateful and unloving) or whether Christ's death was a ransom to purchase sinners from Satan (which is the common Eastern view). Or how about basic anthropological differences, i.e., that the West believes that the guilt of original sin extends to all the descendants of Adam, whereas the East rejects that view? Are these matters so unimportant?


The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches are not in communion, so your union with Rome means either that you are going against the authority of the Eastern Orthodox church or else that you are not a member of her. While the Roman Church sees the Eastern Orthodox as a kind of sister to Rome, the Eastern Orthodox insists that she is the fullness of the Church. The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in North America (OCA) declaims any unity with Rome.


There is a major administrative difference between the churches of the "Catholic Faith" as you've defined it, and it centers on the Bishop of Rome, which only those churches in communion with him accept his unique authority as vicar of Christ. The entire body of Eastern Orthodoxy rejects the Roman pontiff's supreme authority. And I have already pointed out a few doctrinal and theological differences. That both the Roman and Eastern churches belong in principle to the sacerdotal type (as do the Anglo-Catholics) does not annul their differences. I could rightly mention that the Protestant churches are generally in agreement as to the centrality of the Scripture over and above tradition, the number of the sacraments, the rejection of a single visible head of the church, the penal substitution theory of the atonement, and the importance of faith-based justification, but their differences still remain.


Fair enough, but note the words of Paul: "For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you" (I Cor. 11:19). We await the coming day when the church shall truly be one, and we work to bring it about through the preaching of the gospel and adherence to the faith once delivered and handed down to us through the Scripture; but if we cannot be united in the truth, we must be divided by it. Truth is non-negotiable.

Not at all. Didn't Jesus say that the field which is the kingdom of God would bring forth both wheat and tares until the end of time? The Church is not Heaven nor is it perfect on earth in regards to the behavior of members within it.


Something which those of us who are Traditionalists are considerably upset about. This is why the Byzantine Church gets converts from the Latin Church. We have a number of parishoners who left because of such administrative follies.


As they shouldn't be.


True. But theologians I have read on the filoque admit that the filioque is more of a matter of semantics. Both the East and West hold to the orthodoxy of opinion on the deity of Christ. Both the East and the West were trying to defend the deity of Christ against heresy. But due to the politics and emotions of the time, reconcilliation was not easy in this matter.


Certainly the scriptures speak of the issue of atonement and propitiation. I would be foolish to deny that. But the real issue has to do with whether that propitiation is for a certain class of "the elect" or if it was a more federal atonement in which Christ paid for the sins of Adam to reconcile mankind to God and restore the original plan of God.


Are they? I don't know at this point in time because I have not thoroughly studied them out, my interests lying elsewhere at this time....however, I would suggest that rather than being in opposition to each other, perhaps both views are like the two sides of a coin.


No, you do not realize that there was a group of Eastern Orthodox in the Ukraine who united with Rome back in the 13th century at the Union of Brest and the Union of Ushurod.


Understand.

Look at this:



This is an Orthodox Church. Our Liturgy is the Orthodox Liturgy which was written back in the 5th and 6th century. It is St. Ann's Byzantine Catholic Church, of which I am a member. If you ever visit our Liturgy, you will see nothing even close to a Roman liturgy. You will see an Orthodox liturgy and praxis.


Catholicism includes all bodies which submit to the authority of the Holy Father in Rome. The Eastern Orthodox do not accept that authority, but at one time they did. They still have valid priestly orders, and thus are considered as "sister churches" while yet not in communion with Rome.


The issue is that they each have a different authority over them eclessiastically. This makes them independant of each other. And they do not agree on some of the things you mentioned, such as the Sacraments. Baptists do not accept sacramentalism at all.


Indeed. Which is why the Catholic Faith will never relinquish it. I'm sorry, but the Reformers changed 1500 years of teaching as if it never existed prior to them. And now they try to tell us that their particular brand of theology was that taught by the apostles, which, of course, is impossible, since they cannot even agree among themselves. Just get a good Presbyterian Calvinist and a Landmark Baptist together and start a discussion about who's doctrine was the doctrine taught by Jesus and the apostles. Would be worth the price of admission. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Rome?

Or the apostolic Faith which is marked by the Sacraments? In other words, is it Rome or what we practice theologically?

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Scripture please?


I offered quoes proving this wrong. How much longer will you put forth this false claim?


God bless,

william

No. A Biblical faith.


God bless,

william

So, in your opinion, when the church is not actively excommunicating flagrant heretics, that's fine and dandy?


So why do the Eastern Orthodox still stubbornly reject the filioque, where the Roman Church affirms it? Or why doesn't the Roman Church, being the more ecumenically inclined, simply drop the filioque, in order to facilitate reconciliation?


That's the issue between Calvinists and others (and you'll please note that the Calvinist view is federalist), not between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox. Both the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox see the atonement as being for all individuals. The difference between them lies in whether original sin inheres in all descendants of Adam or not, and thus whether Christ's death was a ransom paid to Satan or to God. The satifaction theory of the atonement, whereby Christ's death is the propitiation of God's wrath, is rejected in Eastern Orthodoxy, which is why such a ridiculous and unbiblical view of the judgement as Kalomiros presents has come out of her.


I'm sorry, but to say that the guilt of original sin extends to all descendants of Adam is clearly and simply contrary to saying that the guilt of original sin does not extend to all descendants of Adam. These views are utterly contradictory. They are not two sides of the same coin.


And so they are no longer Eastern Orthodox, because they are no longer in communion with the Eastern Orthodox churches.


I will see an Eastern, Greek liturgy and praxis; in short, Eastern Catholicism. But I will not see Eastern Orthodoxy.


And so you are not Eastern Orthodox, either by Rome's or by Eastern Orthodoxy's standards, since you are in communion with Rome.


Do you honestly believe that the two Independent Bible churches in Podunk, which believe and practice in nearly identical fashion, whose members freely intermingle and fellowship with each other outside of Sunday service, and who may even take communion in either church, but do not have any ecclesiastical connection, are actually two separate and distinct denominations? If so, then I'd say you're ridiculous.


I said that they agree on the number, not the nature, of the Sacraments. For that matter the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Churches do not have identical views of the Sacraments, either. Regarding the Eucharist, the Roman Church teaches transubstantiation, for example, where the Eastern Orthodox do not really bother to define precisely what becomes of the elements.


Don't even start on that. William has destroyed your opinion on this one entirely.


Or why not get a Roman Catholic and an Eastern Orthodox to discuss the meaning of Peter's Rock? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/3stooges.gif" alt="" />

Of course not. But you do realize that all leaders are not the same and not all have excellent administrative skills. Go back and read a history of the popes. Some took absolutely no heretical garbage at all. They were strong men and acted like it. Others, while perhaps better at prayer and contemplative issues, were not given to such strength of character when it came to issues of administration.

And, of course, we know that a few were outright scoundrels who never should have been in the Chair of St. Peter at all.


I think one answer to your first question is that the Orthodox have not forgiven the Romans for their ineptness and ofttimes stupidity in administrating the Church. The Sack of Constantinople comes to mind. Some of the Orthodox still drag that out and rehash it every year, despite John Paul II asking forgiveness for this act. Perhaps the Orthodox might want to remember the words of our Lord in this respect:

"For if you forgive not men their sins against you, neither will your Father in Heaven forgive your sins."

Ooooooooooooooooooooooo!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />


Just so we are on the same page, would you kindly define "federalist" for me. I believe you are referring to covenantal headship, but I wish to be sure.


[color:"0000FF"]2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.[/color]

[color:"0000FF"]Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,[/color]

[color:"0000FF"]1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.[/color]

[color:"0000FF"]1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.[/color]

Now where would they git such a dopey idea as that? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


In other words (if I am following this line of thinking correctly) was Satan made the federal head over mankind in place of Adam? Is that right?


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....


They are every bit as Eastern Orthodox as the churches in Byzantium prior to 1054 were Eastern Orthodox. In fact, one might really say that we are the REAL Eastern Orthodoxy, since we practice the same eclessiology which was held from the time of Christ up to the schism of 1054 AD.


Now it is you who are being ridiculous. Baptists consider baptism an ORDINANCE whereas Presbyterians consider baptism a sacrament which confers or promises grace. If you are going to be Reformed, for heaven's sake at least get that right!!

As for the issue of definition of the Eucharist, the Orthodox never had the heresy of Protestantism within their ranks, therefore, there was no need to define what we both MUTUALLY BELIEVE -- that the elements, upon consecration by a validly ordained priest, become the very same Body and Blood which was upon the Cross. Ask any Orthodox some time.


No, he didn't. He mentioned some quotes from a local council and some quotes from idividual Early Fathers. They are not the same as a binding ecummenical council. While he's at it, why doesn't he take the ridiculous statement by (Turtullean, I think) about the Phoenix rising from the ashes every 500 years and make that to be truth also. You guys keep failing to realize that there is a considerable difference between individual opinion and official teaching, and you create strawmen out of individual teaching to avoid the reality of what the Church taught and ordains through councils.


Yup....Paid $29.95 for two tickets last week. Very entertaining.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Let me help you. It's called scholarship. The kind that checks context.


The very context of the sentence is to whom? "us-ward" Here is an article that helps to show what all means in it's context for this passage, 2Peter expounded upon.


I don't see how appeared means saved.


When ALL isn't absolute


Since you have nullified the contextual meaning of every other verse you posted, I had no doubt this would be the same. Here is some exegesis to help clarify, 1Tim 2:4 teaches limited atonement.


God bless,

william

THEN WHY ARE THEY ADMINISTRATING? If nothing else, it is a sign of INEPTITUDE FOR THE OFFICE.


Yes, the federal headship of Adam over fallen mankind and the federal headship of Christ over the church.


You may see William's post on your Scriptural citations.


The Eastern Orthodox do not accept federalism from anything I've studied of their understanding of the atonement. Satan was the owner of men following the fall, but God paid off Satan with Christ's death. Of course, Christ's resurrection cheated Satan of his payment. That's the ransom theory of the atonement.


There was properly no such thing as Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism until that schism, just as there was no Protestantism until the Reformation.


REGARDLESS, the NUMBER is agreed upon: two, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. And, frankly, the Zwinglian view of the Baptists is also historically present within the Reformed camp.


Firstly, the Roman Church defined the doctrine of transubstantiation prior to and apart from Prostestantism. Secondly, as the doctrine itself is defined in the Roman Church, the Eastern Orthodox do not embrace it. They accept that the elements become the body and blood by the ministrations of the Spirit, but they do not define the process as Rome does.