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

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