Skip to comments.TULIP and the Church Fathers
Posted on 10/17/2013 8:32:30 PM PDT by matthewrobertolson
Calvinists occasionally claim that their beliefs -- commonly expressed with the acronym "T.U.L.I.P" -- are totally in line with historical Christianity, but below are some quotes from the Church Fathers that disprove the claim. This list is certainly not comprehensive, but I think it best summarizes the Church's points.
Total Depravity - "..as a consequence of the Fall of man, every person born into the world is morally corrupt, enslaved to sin and is, apart from the grace of God, utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to turn to Christ in faith for salvation."
(NOTE: Catholics believe in this, to an extent -- after all, our faith and our works only have meaning because of God's grace -- but the concept of Total Depravity is often taken to an extreme.)
"If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice." - St. Ignatius of Antioch Unconditional Election - "God chose some individuals from the mass of fallen humanity unto salvation without regard to any merit or foreseen faith in them, but solely based on His sovereign intentions."
"'But unto them that are contentious,' he [St. Paul] says [in Romans 2:8]. Again, he deprives of excuse those that live in wickedness, and shows that it is from a kind of disputatiousness and carelessness that they fall into unrighteousness. 'And do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness.' See, here is another accusation again. For what defense can he set up, who flees from the light and chooses the dark? And he does not say, who are 'compelled by,' 'lorded over by,' but who 'obey unrighteousness,' that one may learn that the fall is one of free choice, the crime not of necessity." - St. John Chrysostom 
"There is not a class of souls sinning by nature and a class of souls [practicing] righteousness by nature; but both act from choice, the substance of their souls being of one kind only and alike in all." - St. Cyril of Jerusalem Limited Atonement - "..God's design and intent in sending Christ to die on the cross was to pay for the sins and secure the redemption of those whom God has predetermined to save, namely the elect. Therefore, the primary benefits of his death were designed for and accrue only to believers."
"For God made man free, and with power over himself. That, then, which man brought upon himself through carelessness and disobedience, this God now vouchsafes to him as a gift through His own philanthropy and pity, when men obey Him. For as man, disobeying, drew death upon himself; so, obeying the will of God, he who desires is able to procure for himself life everlasting." - St. Theophilus of Antioch 
"Now if all have sinned, how come some to be saved, and some to perish? It is because all were not minded to come to Him, since for His part all were saved, for all were called. ... Whence then are some vessels of wrath, and some of mercy? Of their own free choice. God, however, being very good, shows the same kindness to both. For it was not those in a state of salvation only to whom He showed mercy, but also Pharaoh, as far as His part went. For of the same long-suffering, both they and he had the advantage. And if he was not saved, it was quite owing to his own will: since, as for what concerns God, he had as much done for him as they who were saved." - St. John Chrysostom Irresistible Grace - "..the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save, whereby in God's timing, he overcomes their resistance to the call of the gospel and irresistibly brings them to a saving faith in Christ."
"This expression [of our Lord], 'How often would I have gathered your children together, and you would not,' [Matthew 23:37] set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually." - St. Irenaeus Perseverance of the saints - "..those who are truly saved [those who truly believe] will persevere to the end and cannot lose their salvation."
"And I hold, further, that such as have confessed and known this man to be Christ, yet who have gone back from some cause to the legal dispensation, and have denied that this man is Christ, and have repented not before death, shall by no means be saved." - St. Justin Martyr 
"Watch for your life's sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord will come. But come together often, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you are not made perfect in the last time." - The Didache 
1. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians [link 1] [link 2]
2. Homily 5 on Romans
3. Catechetical Lecture 4
4. Theophilus to Autolycus (Book 2, Chapter 27) [link 1] [link 2] [link 3]
5. Homily 16 on Romans
6. Against Heresies (Book 4, Chapter 37)
7. Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 47)
8. The Didache (Chapter 16)
I’m a Crazy Evangelical who once drove himself even crazier with Calvin. I’ve mellowed out because we have plenteous hints from Scripture that not all causation is tied to the familiar time line of our mortal coil.
The Calvinists won't even give this a second thought since its not from an approved version of the Bible.
After all, what the Church Father's said might be good, but it isn't the Word of God.
What you're doing is akin to using scientific evidence to argue Young Earth Creationism with a Creationist. He'll just claim it's all wrongheaded and of the devil.
“Calvin wa trained as a lawyer and jurist so his mind naturally embraced a rigid logicality in which a chain of precedents led back to an original truth. He must have gone round intellectually like the dog chasing its tail for much of his life. “
Obviously you’re quite wrong, and Calvin did not invent the Reformation doctrines, though he best expressed them. You can find his same sentiments in Luther’s “On the Bondage of the Will,” Augustine’s works against the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, and finally the Holy Scripture itself.
LOL! You must not hang out with any serious Creationists. Sigh. Popular caricatures die hard.
Augustine on irresistible grace, final perseverance, limited atonement, and whatever else I missed which he touches on here:
But of such as these [the Elect] none perishes, because of all that the Father has given Him, He will lose none. John 6:39 Whoever, therefore, is of these does not perish at all; nor was any who perishes ever of these. For which reason it is said, They went out from among us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would certainly have continued with us. John 2:19. (Augustine, Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints)
I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling. (Augustine, On the Perseverance of the Saints)
And, moreover, who will be so foolish and blasphemous as to say that God cannot change the evil wills of men, whichever, whenever, and wheresoever He chooses, and direct them to what is good? But when He does this He does it of mercy; when He does it not, it is of justice that He does it not for He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens. And when the apostle said this, he was illustrating the grace of God, in connection with which he had just spoken of the twins in the womb of Rebecca, who being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calls, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. And in reference to this matter he quotes another prophetic testimony: Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. But perceiving how what he had said might affect those who could not penetrate by their understanding the depth of this grace: What shall we say then? he says: Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For it seems unjust that, in the absence of any merit or demerit, from good or evil works, God should love the one and hate the other. Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that there were future good works of the one, and evil works of the other, which of course God foreknew, he would never have said, not of works, but, of future works, and in that way would have solved the difficulty, or rather there would then have been no difficulty to solve. As it is, however, after answering, God forbid; that is, God forbid that there should be unrighteousness with God; he goes on to prove that there is no unrighteousness in Gods doing this, and says: For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (Augustine, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Chapter 98. Predestination to Eternal Life is Wholly of Gods Free Grace.)
“But that world which God is in Christ reconciling unto Himself, which is saved by Christ, and has all its sins freely pardoned by Christ, has been chosen out of the world that is hostile, condemned, and defiled. For out of that mass, which has all perished in Adam, are formed the vessels of mercy, whereof that world of reconciliation is composed, that is hated by the world which belongeth to the vessels of wrath that are formed out of the same mass and fitted to destruction. Finally, after saying, If ye were of the world, the world would love its own, He immediately added, But because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. And so these men were themselves also of that world, and, that they might no longer be of it, were chosen out of it, through no merit of their own, for no good works of theirs had preceded; and not by nature, which through free-will had become totally corrupted at its source: but gratuitously, that is, of actual grace. For He who chose the world out of the world, effected for Himself, instead of finding, what He should choose: for there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace. And if by grace, he adds, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. (Tractates on the Gospel of John, 15:17-19)
By the way, even the people you quote are still with us, just on different topics, and not with you.
For example, Cyril of Jerusalem on Sola Scriptura:
Have thou ever in your mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. (Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lecture 4, Ch. 17)
John Chrysostom on Sola Fide
By what law? Of works? Nay, but by the law of faith. See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the law of faith? It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows Gods power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only. (Homily 7 on Romans III)
For this is [the righteousness] of God when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away. And this at the same time that it suffers us not to be lifted up, (seeing the whole is the free gift of God,) teaches us also the greatness of that which is given. For that which was before was a righteousness of the Law and of works, but this is the righteousness of God. (John Chrysostom, Homily 11 on Second Corinthians, 2 Cor 5:21)
Theodoret, Bishop of Syria, on the same:
The salvation of man depends upon the divine philanthropy alone. For we do not gather it as the wages of our righteousness, but it is the gift of the divine goodness. (On the 3rd chap, of Zephaniah.)
Clemens Romanus, on the same:
Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. Romans 9:5 From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, Your seed shall be as the stars of heaven. All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Letter to the Corinthians)
Though Ignatius appears to be with us in predestination and final perseverence:
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fullness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God: Abundant happiness through Jesus Christ, and His undefiled grace. (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians, Ch. 0)
Seeing, then, all things have an end, these two things are simultaneously set before us death and life; and every one shall go unto his own place. For as there are two kinds of coins, the one of God, the other of the world, and each of these has its special character stamped upon it, [so is it also here.] The unbelieving are of this world; but the believing have, in love, the character of God the Father by Jesus Christ, by whom, if we are not in readiness to die into His passion, His life is not in us. (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians, Ch. 5)
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans. Ch. 0)
I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that you also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with; only you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power of [effecting] this. (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Ch. 4)
Flee, therefore, those evil offshoots [of Satan], which produce death-bearing fruit, whereof if any one tastes, he instantly dies. For these men are not the planting of the Father. For if they were, they would appear as branches of the cross, and their fruit would be incorruptible. (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians, Ch. 11)
Yes, right. Here is Christ, in His explanation to the unbelievers on why they did not believe:
“But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.”
“Well Calvin was a lawyer and I have been around enough of them to get this precedent worshiping obsession many have. BTW you sound like the kind of smug and sanctimonious holier-than-thous that make the job of the secularists much easier. It must be great to sit in the pew of sanctimony looking down at all the damned sinners. You might have a surprise coming to you after lights out.”
I can’t help but to notice that you’re projecting on me your own behavior, and you didn’t even respond to the substance of anything I said.
I have a suspicion that the one who will have the surprise, is the one who pointed his finger first.
Who loves Jesus? Let’s be nice and seek the Truth with humility and awe.
Ping for (dum dum dum) later.
But what does Christ say? 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'"
Nothing stands like Christ's words, the Holy Scripture, all else if not founded upon the Holy Scriptures is sinking sand. Therefore all else, is false worship; the worship of men's words and not Christ's.
You do realize that, in the context of the quotes, the Church Fathers are simply giving their (the historical) interpretations of key Scripture passages, right?
Sacred Tradition is not apart from Scripture, but goes hand-in-hand with it.
Christ, in the very next verse: "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."
Men love to hold up other men over God and His word.
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” - 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (NASB)
Obviously, there has always been a Tradition separate from Scripture, as evidenced by Scripture itself.
Ignore the Catholics. They’re a puff of smoke, dissipating quickly into the wind. You’ll just get strung along for nothing.
Ah the weasel words expected. Let's short circuit this real quick.
I will ask you what men can be trusted for "Tradition" and you will say the church fathers and the popes and I will ask how many are these men are these and you will say many and that I should trust all these men.
Then I look at Christ's words not to trust in men, but to Trust and put my faith in Him alone.
For with men, there are thousands of views, all attempting to bend things their own way. But Christ alone stands above them, clear pure and bright. He alone is pure, and the Apostle Peter was right "You alone have the words that give eternal life".
Men do not have this. Instead they provide a snare. Like an Octopus of opinions, once you let an arm grab you, they have you.
Trust in Christ Alone and not upon the Traditions of Men, nor the weasel words "Sacred Tradition", for "Sacred Tradition" is still being written according to your tradition as you well know.
And one written years ago is that Mary has "All Salvation". Therefore I must not put my trust in Men, but follow Christ and His Word alone.
I urge you to do the same, and turn from the Traditions of Men and follow upon Christ Alone as a Disciple of His.
The arguments against the Five points and the arguments seen in your posts all argue for the "Traditions" of men IMHO and avoid the scriptures as much as possible. Therefore I urge folks not to trust such arguments because they lead folks away from Christ to put their trust in men.
“Obviously, there has always been a Tradition separate from Scripture, as evidenced by Scripture itself.”
This kind of argument would be what Cyril would call “mere plausibility and artifices of speech.” The obvious reply is, what proof do you have that the completed scripture does not contain the fullness of truth? Why wouldn’t the Apostles, writing under the inspiration of the Spirit, record all the things necessary to know for salvation, but leave stuff out, like Mary being required for salvation, thus allowing for schism when this human authority is questioned? After all, “It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man” (Psa 118:8).
Hence such heresy as a denial of the sole authority of the word of God gives rise to different claimants of divine authority, from the RCC to its various Popes reinterpreting Catholic teaching from one generation to another, to the Eastern Orthodox, the other guys who claim to be the one true church of God on Earth, who conclude that the Catholic church is apostate. Mind you, I cannot complain. I agree with them, at least on that point.
Should we trust Father Jacob and go into "Tamar" just as he did?
Should we trust Father Moses and do as he did "and hid the Egyptian in the sand"?
Should we do as Father Abraham did "saying Sarah was his sister"?
Ah, NO! But we trust the God of Abraham, Jacob and Moses. Why, because GOD ALONE CAN BE TRUSTED. And the Words of Christ, because He is God can be trusted.
Well did Christ say "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven".
Indeed that is what is being done in "TULIP and the church FATHERS? It is to put someone as Father above God the Father whom Christ said to call no man Pope (Father)?
All Scripture therefore is tested upon Christ Alone so that it cannot be bent upon the Traditions of men.
If you were a disciple of Christ, you would at least acknowledge His authority. But instead go right on with "Traditions" even though I have shown you can't put your Trust in them with four examples which were not acknowledged.
I hope the viewers of this post can see this and instead put their trust in Christ Alone.
“Scripture shares the fullness of truth at least implicitly in all cases, but not always explicitly. For this reason, you must have an authority to help interpret difficult-to-understand passages in an overall context. Of course, this context must be at least hinted at throughout Christian history, so a lot of forms of Protestantism are automatically invalidated on that point alone. “
I can’t help but to notice the following characteristics with your reply:
1) It’s just an assertion.
2) You didn’t answer any of the objections in my post.
3) It is predicated on a denial of the Holy Ghost as guide, comforter, preserver, advocate, and teacher and revealer of the word of God.
4) It ignores the elephant in the room, which is the existence of more than one “Apostolic tradition.”
To expand on the 4th number on the list, you basically want me to trade in my freedom to think for myself, in exchange for a Pope who is supposed to do my thinking for me, who teaches things like this:
Atheist Reporter: Your Holiness, is there is a single vision of the Good? And who decides what it is?
Pope Francis: Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good.
Atheist Reporter: Your Holiness, you wrote that in your letter to me. The conscience is autonomous, you said, and everyone must obey his conscience. I think thats one of the most courageous steps taken by a Pope.
Pope Francis: And I repeat it here. Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place.
John Paul II, Address, May 22, 2002: Praise to you, followers of Islam Praise to you, Jewish people Praise especially to you, Orthodox Church
John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (# 55), Dec. 7, 1990:
God does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression
Can you tell me what is so persuasive in giving up the authority of the Bible, the plain sentence, the meaning of a word, 1 + 1 = 2, in exchange for a bunch of goons who used to burn people at the stake but today can’t get their lips on the butt of an infidel fast enough?
“Where did you hear this? It is false, if you are referring to the practice of requesting her prayers.”
Nope, not false at all:
“The foundation of all our confidence is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will: that we obtain everything through Mary.”
Ven. Pope Pius IX
Every grace which is communicated to this world has a threefold origin: it flows from God to Christ, from Christ to the Virgin, and from the Virgin to us . . . Nothing comes to us except through the mediation of Mary, for such is the will of God. Thus, just as no man goes to the Father but by the Son, so likewise no one goes to Christ except through His Mother. Whosoever will not have recourse to her is trying to fly without wings . . . O Virgin Most Holy, no one abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; no one, O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee!”
Pope Leo XIII
For, since it is the will of Divine Providence that we should have the God-Man through Mary, there is no other way for us to receive Christ except from her hands.
Pope St. Pius X
The Child is not found without Mary, His Mother . . . If, then, it is impossible to separate what God has united, it is also certain that you cannot find Jesus except with Mary and through Mary.
Pope St. Pius X
The name of Mary is the name of salvation . . . Hence, let us always pray to this Divine Mother if we desire to ensure our salvation.
St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori
Sweet heart of Mary, be my salvation!
Bl. Pope Pius IX
The heart of Mary is the source of universal salvation: all salvation springs from Mary’s heart . . . The salvation of man having taken place in the heart of Mary, all Christians must consider her, after God, as the source of their life, and as the cause and center of their happiness . . . They must always be turned towards her heart, gaze upon it unceasingly, and make it the object of their aspirations and desires. Outside the heart of Mary, there is only trouble, fear, anxiety, death, and Hell.
St. John Eudes
Following Christ and trusting anyone else for Salvation is not Salvation. "No other name under heaven and earth", not even Mary.
Thank you for confirming what I wrote was true.
You’re quiet welcome brother
A. Using mere men to contradict the inspired word of God.
Q. What do Mormons and Roman Catholics have in common?
Ping me back when "answers to Protestants" publishes "TULIP and the Bible."
The thought of how various denominations drag the wonderful ECFs into the fray. I mean, how many times has an evangelical, Reformed etc. set quotes here where all the ECFs state the Scriptures are the authority and that (the ECFs themselves) they provide commentary and exhortation.
Really think about it. I have been on FR regularly for about a week. What I see are folks arguing salvation from confessions, councils and commentary instead of from the inspired and authoritative Scriptures.
“Really think about it. I have been on FR regularly for about a week. What I see are folks arguing salvation from confessions, councils and commentary instead of from the inspired and authoritative Scriptures.”
I often attempt this, but the Papists are hard to get into such a discussion with the scripture. They usually disappear once you corner them rhetorically into it.
Does the Roman Catholic Church not teach:
Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.(John 3:3-DRV)
Now the above would be a great topic for discussion on the religion forum. You are correct, both Luther and Calvin did draw a lot from the Augustine-Pelagius conflict. You won't see many on both sides admit that. The RCs won't because Augustine is a saint and Reformed because they don't want to point to a CF for argumentative points.
I think what would be most telling is if we took the RC doctrines of today and put it to trial against Augustine's arguments against Pelagius, you would have some very uncomfortable folks around here.
“The RCs won’t because Augustine is a saint and Reformed because they don’t want to point to a CF for argumentative points.
I think what would be most telling is if we took the RC doctrines of today and put it to trial against Augustine’s arguments against Pelagius, you would have some very uncomfortable folks around here.”
I always quote Augustine against the Papists, and I’ve been doing it for a long time now on this very forum. But as for Reformed being hesitant, I’ve never met one that has been. Calvin frequently quotes church Fathers in his Institutes or other works, some he disagrees with, and mentions only to show their position, and others he agrees with. There’s no purpose for it when debating fellow Christians of the more Arminian bent, unless I happen to prefer Augustine’s wording for something, but against Catholics it is always fun and useful.
Excellent post. Interesting how Augustine draws so much from the Scriptures!
Well posts #8 and #9 was a nice “beating behind the wood shed” event on FR.
.....And yet you say that with no proof of a contradiction.....
“Well posts #8 and #9 was a nice beating behind the wood shed event on FR.”
For me, it was a Thursday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDRnVPlRzag
This is the tradition you seek:
13 But now I come to You; and these things I speak in the world so that they may have My joy made full in themselves. 14 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
15 I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. 18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.
20 I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
I have only been here about a week now and that is exactly what I see.
“What’s so wrong about being ecumenical, open, and kind, in the hopes that it will lead people to the Truth?”
I like how the Catholics always try to spin this, while simultaneously trying to affirm that there is some hope of salvation within false religions. How silly would you have to be to think that it is possible to be ecumenical with false religions wherein every member therein is going to hell? We do not want to comfort people into sticking with their non-Christian religions, or in kissing Korans, or in standing by as the Dalhi Lama places a statue of Buddha on the altar, as did Pope John Paul II. We want them to convert, not follow their darkened hearts into hell.
Joh_14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Now compare the sentiments of these Popes, and their “ecumenical” actions, their prayer womps with infidels, their praising of their religions etc, with these statements:
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 2), Jan. 6, 1928: For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10): So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of nonCatholics
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I-II, Q. 103, A. 4: All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Thelogica, Pt. II-II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2: ...if anyone were to... worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.
“I’m, honestly, just not in the mood to sift through a bunch of documents to look up the context for passages that you admitted were copied-and-pasted.”
It doesn’t appear you’re in much of a mood to defend your blog-pimping threads most of the time, but the source I used is from a Catholic website. I suppose if you have a disagreement over tradition, you’ll just have to accept it. It’s YOPIOT, after all — Your Own Personal Interpretation of Tradition. LOL
Yes, and more than avoiding the Scriptures (especially the relevant ones), I see attempts to intimidate and bully rather than invite.
It's like saying "You join my church or you go to Hell". Very arrogant and can't think of Obedience to Christ as being anything else than obedience to men.
They can't imagine a Savior who still says "Come and Follow Me" to whomever He wishes upon the planet. And a God says "I will have mercy to whom I will have mercy and will have compassion on whom I will have compassion". Can't have that! No it has to be through Mary and Us!
An understatement to say the least. At every Gospel encounter with the Pharisees and Scribes, Jesus points out their error and the biggest two are 1)Not getting the Scriptures right; and 2) their manmade self-righteous traditions.
On the waning days of His earthly ministry Jesus uses "Woes" to describe their error and what will become of them. Jesus did not use many "woes" in the Gospels but below is striking, especially for someone who holds to traditions vs. Words of God:
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2 saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4 They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on mens shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5 But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments.
6 They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. 8 But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. 11 But the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.
13 But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 [Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.]
15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
16 Woe to you, blind guides, who say, Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated. 17 You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold? 18 And, Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.
19 You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering? 20 Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it. 21 And whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it. 22 And whoever swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it.
23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
25 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.
27 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead mens bones and all uncleanness. 28 So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
29 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.
31 So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell? 34 Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
“I saw the quotes, and I haven’t looked into them yet, but the simple fact is that there is not a single person from the early Church that consistently upheld the entirety of TULIP.”
I don’t understand the point of your reference, since it essentially affirms that Final perseverance is a gift by God offered only to the Elect. “[O]f two pious men, why to the one should be given perseverance unto the end, and to the other it should not be given, God’s judgments are even more unsearchable.” IOW, Final perseverance. I suppose you didn’t even bother to read the quote you referenced. Mind you, it is true that Augustine believed it was possible for, say, a Judas to be regenerated, but his opinion was, as seen in the quote (and actually, I quoted the same book), was that unless they were of those chosen before the foundation of the world to be given the gift of perseverance, they could not be saved. They are merely pretenders, creeping in, who will inevitably be driven out:
“They were not of them because they had not been ‘called according to the purpose.’ They had not been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world; they had not gained a lot in him. They had not been predestined according to his purpose who works all things.”
Thus these men were not true Christians, in Augustine’s thought at all, nor does Augustine claim that it is by man’s cooperation that man earns himself the right to be the elect, since it is wholly by the might and power of God, and not by the willing and running of man.
For example, when God elects a person without regard for His good works or foreseen faith of himself, it is a gift given which is not taken back:
But these brethren of ours, about whom and on whose behalf we are now discoursing, say, perhaps, that the Pelagians are refuted by this testimony in which it is said that we are chosen in Christ and predestinated before the foundation of the world, in order that we should be holy and immaculate in His sight in love. For they think that having received Gods commands we are of ourselves by the choice of our free will made holy and immaculate in His sight in love; and since God foresaw that this would be the case, they say, He therefore chose and predestinated us in Christ before the foundation of the world. Although the apostle says that it was not because He foreknew that we should be such, but in order that we might be such by the same election of His grace, by which He showed us favour in His beloved Son. When, therefore, He predestinated us, He foreknew His own work by which He makes us holy and immaculate. Whence the Pelagian error is rightly refuted by this testimony. But we say, say they, that God did not foreknow anything as ours except that faith by which we begin to believe, and that He chose and predestinated us before the foundation of the world, in order that we might be holy and immaculate by His grace and by His work. But let them also hear in this testimony the words where he says, We have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who works all things. (Ephesians 1:11) He, therefore, works the beginning of our belief who works all things; because faith itself does not precede that calling of which it is said: For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance; (Romans 11:29) and of which it is said: Not of works, but of Him that calls (Romans 9:12) (although He might have said, of Him that believes); and the election which the Lord signified when He said: You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. (John 15:16) For He chose us, not because we believed, but that we might believe, lest we should be said first to have chosen Him, and so His word be false (which be it far from us to think possible), You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through that we should believe. (Augustine, Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, Ch. 38)
Nor is this gift given by the cooperation of man, who runs and wills of himself, but the whole work belongs to God:
And further, should any one be inclined to boast, not indeed of his works, but of the freedom of his will, as if the first merit belonged to him, this very liberty of good action being given to him as a reward he had earned, let him listen to this same preacher of grace, when he says: For it is God which works in you, both to will and to do of His own good pleasure; and in another place: So, then, it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy. Now as, undoubtedly, if a man is of the age to use his reason, he cannot believe, hope, love, unless he will to do so, nor obtain the prize of the high calling of God unless he voluntarily run for it; in what sense is it not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, except that, as it is written, the preparation of the heart is from the Lord? Otherwise, if it is said, It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, because it is of both, that is, both of the will of man and of the mercy of God, so that we are to understand the saying, It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, as if it meant the will of man alone is not sufficient, if the mercy of God go not with itthen it will follow that the mercy of God alone is not sufficient, if the will of man go not with it; and therefore, if we may rightly say, it is not of man that wills, but of God that shows mercy, because the will of man by itself is not enough, why may we not also rightly put it in the converse way: It is not of God that shows mercy, but of man that wills, because the mercy of God by itself does not suffice? Surely, if no Christian will dare to say this, It is not of God that shows mercy, but of man that wills, lest he should openly contradict the apostle, it follows that the true interpretation of the saying, It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy, is that the whole work belongs to God, who both makes the will of man righteous, and thus prepares it for assistance, and assists it when it is prepared. (Augustine, he Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Chapter 32.)
“Not only is this the position of the vast majority of Christians, both in Church history and today, but it is also the position of all of the so-called “Calvinistic” theologians before Calvin. Calvinists such as my opponent continually appeal in support of their position to such historic thinkers as Augustine, Aquinas, and Luther, who all held a high view, unconditional view of predestination, and who in no way could be called Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, or Arminians. But when they appeal to Augustine, Aquinas, and Luther, Calvinists such as my opponent either ignore or are ignorant of the fact that all of these figures held precisely the position I am defending tonight—that just because one is predestined to grace does not mean one is predestined to glory.”
This Jimmy Akin is stupid:
Luther on God’s Sovereignty, Free-Will, and Double Predestination:
“It is fundamentally necessary and wholesome for Christians to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but that He
foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His own
immutable, eternal and infallible will. This bombshell knocks free-will flat, and utterly shatters it; so that those who want to assert it must either deny my bombshell, or pretend not to notice it, or find some other way of dodging it.” (Luther, On the Bondage of the Will)
“On your view [Erasmus], God will elect nobody, and no place for election will be left; all that is left is freedom of will to heed or defy the long-suffering and wrath of God. But if God is thus robbed of His power and wisdom in election, what will He be but just that idol, Chance, under whose sway all things happen at random? Eventually, we shall come to this: that men may be saved and damned without God’s knowledge! For He will not have marked out by sure election those that should be saved and those that should be damned; He will merely have set before all men His general long-suffering, which forbears and hardens, together with His chastening and punishing mercy, and left it to them to choose whether they would be saved or damned, while He Himself, perchance, goes off, as Homer says, to an Ethiopian banquet” (Ibid)
“Here, God Incarnate says: ‘I would, and thou wouldst not.’ God Incarnate, I repeat, was sent for this purpose, to will, say, do, suffer, and offer to all men, all that is necessary for salvation; albeit He offends many who, being abandoned or hardened by God’s secret will of Majesty, do not receive Him thus willing, speaking, doing and offering. . . . It belongs to the same God Incarnate to weep, lament, and groan over the perdition of the ungodly, though that will of Majesty purposely leaves and reprobates some to perish. Nor is it for us to ask why He does so, but to stand in awe of God, Who can do, and wills to do such things” (Ibid)
“The Diatribe gathers its second absurdity from Mistress Reason - ‘human’ reason, so-called: to wit, that on my view blame must attach, not to the vessel, but to the potter, especially in view of the fact that He is a potter who creates this clay as well as moulds it. ‘Here (says the Diatribe) the vessel is cast into eternal fire, a fate which it in no way deserved, except that it was not under its own control.’ Nowhere does the Diatribe more openly betray itself than here. You hear it saying (in different words, admittedly, but with identical meaning) just what Paul makes the ungodly say: ‘Why doth He find fault? Who shall resist His will?’ This is what Reason cannot receive nor bear. This is what offended so many men of outstanding ability, men who have won acceptance down so many ages.”
“At this point, ___they demand that God should act according to man’s idea of right___, and do what seems proper to themselves - or else that He should cease to be God! . . . .Flesh does not deign to give God glory to the extent of believing Him to be just and good when He speaks and acts above and beyond the definitions of Justinian’s Code, or the fifth book of Aristotle’s Ethics! No, let the Majesty that created all things give way before a worthless fragment of His own creation! Let the boot be on the other foot, and the Corycian cavern fear those that look into it! So it is ‘absurd’ to condemn one who cannot avoid deserving damnation. And because of this ‘absurdity’ it must be false that God has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and hardens whom He will. He must be brought to order! Rules must be laid down for Him, and ___He is not to damn any but those who have deserved it by our reckoning___! In this way, Paul and his simile are satisfactorily answered; so Paul must presumably recall it, and allow that it has no force, and remodel it; because the Potter in question (this is the Diatribe’s explanation) makes the vessel unto dishonour on the grounds of merit preceding, just as He rejected some of the Jews by reason of unbelief, and received Gentiles by reason of their faith. But if God works in such a way as to regard merit, why do the objectors grumble and complain? Why do they say: ‘Why doth He find fault? Who resists His will?’ Why need Paul restrain them? For who is surprised, let alone shocked or inclined to object, if one is damned who deserved it? Moreover, what becomes of the power of the Potter to make what vessel He will, if He is controlled by merits and rules, and is not allowed to make as He would, but is required to make as He should?”
“....Suppose we imagine that God ought to be a God who regards merit in those that are to be damned. Must we not equally maintain and allow that He should also regard merit in those that are to be saved? If we want to follow Reason, it is as unjust to reward the undeserving as to punish the undeserving. So let us conclude that God ought to justify on the grounds of merit preceding; or else we shall be declaring Him to be unjust. One who delights in evil and wicked men, and who invites and crowns their impiety with rewards!”
“But then woe to us poor wretches with such a God! For who shall be saved? Behold, therefore, the wickedness of the human heart! When God saves the undeserving without merit, yes, and justifies the ungodly, with all their great demerit, man’s heart does not accuse God of iniquity, nor demand to know why He wills to do so, although by its own reckoning such action is most unprincipled; but because what God does is in its own interest, and welcome, it considers it just and good. But when He damns the undeserving, because this is against its interest, it finds the action iniquitous and intolerable; and here man’s heart protests, and grumbles, blasphemes. So you see that the Diatribe and its friends do not judge in this matter according to equity, but according to their passionate regard for their own interest.”
“....[I]f God who crowns the undeserving pleases you, you ought not be displeased when He damns the undeserving! If He is just in the one case, He cannot but be just in the other. In the one case, He pours out grace and mercy upon the unworthy; in the other, He pours our wrath and severity upon the undeserving; in both He transgresses the bounds of equity in man’s sight, yet is just and true in His own sight. How it is just for Him to crown the unworthy is incomprehensible now; but we shall see it when we reach the place where He will be no more an object of faith, but we shall with open face behold Him. So too, it is at present imcomprehensible how it is just for Him to damn the undeserving; yet faith will continue to believe that it is so, till the Son of Man shall be revealed.” (Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will)
Now apparently clear:) I get this impression they think by arguing against Luther and Calvin somehow that puts us all on the "traditions of men" debating platform. Hey why don't we all who proclaim Christ discuss matters using His Words?
Raul Julia, excellent:)
Houston we have a problem if in fact all these "giants of Christian teaching" are saying God is not faithful and true in His Grace!"
Sir, would you consider "Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God..." a "giant of Christian teaching?" Below is what Paul who received personal revelation from Jesus Christ says on the matter of God's Hand in our justification, sanctification and glorification:
26 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; 27 and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?
33 Who will bring a charge against Gods elect? God is the one who justifies; 34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. 35 Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 Just as it is written,
For Your sake we are being put to death all day long; We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.
37 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Paul makes it VERY clear here indeed. He was no slouch, like in all his epistles every "i" is dotted and every "t" is crossed (using English terms). And that is no mistake because what he penned were the inspired Words of The Holy Spirit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.