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 [1]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 [2]
"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 [3]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 [4]
"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 [5]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 [6]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 [7]"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 [8]
John Calvin
References:
1. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians [link 1] [link 2]
4. Theophilus to Autolycus (Book 2, Chapter 27) [link 1] [link 2] [link 3]
6. Against Heresies (Book 4, Chapter 37)
7. Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 47)
“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:
Matthew 23:
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 men’s 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 men’s 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 God’s 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 it—then 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:
Romans 8:
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 God’s 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.
“Well, of course, Calvinism teaches this. But, in line with Catholic teaching and also much of Protestantism, I believe that anyone can be saved through their conscience, as long as they actively seek and follow God to the best of their ability/understanding. Just see Romans 2:12-16. And this is not a violation of John 14:6, because it is only possible for anyone — Christian or non-Christian — to be saved because redemption was given to humanity through Christ. “
First of all, this is Christian teaching, not Calvinist, though Calvinism and Christianity are the same thing (coincidentally, LOL) and what you say is plain modernist heresy. By definition, if someone is justified through their conscience, it is not through faith in Christ. The verse you cite only makes men guilty, which explains why you do not actually quote it. It does not make them excusable, as Paul specifically says:
“What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.”
(Rom 3:9-11)
When did Paul prove this? He proved it in Romans 1, wherein he condemned the Gentiles as inexcusable, and in Romans 2, wherein he condemns the Jews. As the scripture says, all men are guilty before God, regardless of how much “light” they have received (Rom 3:19). As all men have received, to a certain extent, the law of God imprinted on their hearts, as well as the light of nature revealing the existence of God, therefore they are summarily rendered “without excuse,” (Rom 1:20, 2:14) and “as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law (Rom 2:12). In other words, the very verse you wrest from the verse, actually condemns them. And again, “for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God”(Rom 3:9-11).If any man is in the world who never heard the Gospel, it was by the infallible power of God, and not by random chance, that he was left so abandoned. And, therefore, it was one of those whom God chose not to have mercy on, in accordance with His almighty sovereignty (Rom 9:18-21). Salvation is through Jesus Christ only, and whoever does not believe in Him is damned already (John 14:16, 3:18).
“I’m sure I know what you’re referring to (likely the infamous picture of John Paul II), but if you look up the context, you’ll learn that it is, in that kind of circumstance, just following a common custom in that region. When you receive a gift in that way, it is considered courteous to kiss it.”
This is false, of course. And, in fact, not only did he kiss it knowing it was a Koran, he bowed to it thereafter, entirely consistent with his praise of that religion.
Keep in mind I am not a Papist, so I have no reason to accept the spin, nor any reason to put myself under subjection of men whom you say are “not infallible,” and therefore, can be ignored at will when they present new teaching into the church.
now that is funny...the foundation of Christianity...the only Christian church for the first one thousand six hundred years, the editors, writers and saviors of YOUR bible, the establishers of Universities, libraries, monastaries, schools etc....are a puff of smoke....unlike the churches of whats happening now, or televangalists, or bible changing denominations.....O.K., I guess....I'll stick with the Catholics.
no they don't
they're usually knowledgeable, compassionate, giving, loyal, family oriented, faithful, educated....and more good things!
Thank you for your comments.
Dominus vobiscum (”The Lord be with you”)! :)
I was an altar boy in the 1940-50's!!!and with your spirit (we've gone back to that except now in english...
“no they don’t”
Yes, yes they do.
“The Eastern Orthodox Church has identified itself as the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church” in, for instance, synods held in 1836 and 1838 and in its correspondence with Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII.[17] Some Orthodox hold that there can be a kind of imperfect participation in the Church by those not visibly in communion with her. This is most famously expressed by Bishop Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia, “We can say where the Church is; we cannot say where she is not.””
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_true_church#Eastern_Orthodox_Church
In other words, it’s the Roman Catholic argument, just given by someone else.
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.