Right Divider
Body part
You don't think these massive false doctrines could have been helped along by the forces of darkness?
Calvin-ism Leads to Heaven!
- Thread starter BoyStan
- Start date
I think that it's certainly possible, but I don't think it's likely.
I think it's mostly, if not completely, a result of not reading and understanding what is plainly written, along with trying to force pagan ideas into scripture, all combined with the fallible nature of man.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Is one of those 'basic points' Christ's Resurrection?
Which one of those is Christ's Resurrection?
Where is Christ's Resurrection?
Agreed.
Where is Christ's Resurrection in TULIP?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
A nice tactic that overlooks the plain fact that once you start summarizing what you think Scripture teaches, you are doing man-made work. You even went so far as to provide another man's efforts to support your "man-made" vs. "Just Me and My Bible" cavil. The statement to the effect "I do not follow the works of man, but only the Bible" is actually a man-made statement, a self-refuting statement of what has just been claimed. If you were actually honest about such a claim you would never post anything in a discussion site except direct quotations from Scripture. Of course, the discerning see the nonsense of this. Irony abounds and your desire to be your own pope is made clear.
TULIP is an acrostic created by a nineteenth century pastor as a memory aid to describe summaries of the doctrines of grace from Scripture. These doctrines of grace were summarized at Dordt in response to the actual points made by the Remonstrants. Calvin did not invent TULIP. In fact, he had been dead for around 50 years by the time of the convening of Dordt to respond to the Remonstrants.
The Scripture support for the doctrines of grace summaries contained with TULIP are manifold. To claim something is man-made and somehow irrelevant to discussions concerning doctrine is an amateur's mistake.
Spoiler
AMR
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Where is it in TULIP?
Correct, though Paul goes even further than that, in essentially saying that the Christian faith itself is a FRAUD/SHAM, "if Christ be not risen" (1Co15:14KJV).
This is like saying that Paul was a Clavinist. You're begging the question. In the sense that you're presuming your position is correct, and then fitting everything to that presupposed conclusion.
The reality is that Catholicism is correct, because it, unlike Evangelicals/Protestants/Clavinists, receives the whole Apostolic witness, their whole body of work and of knowledge, not just the knowledge written down (and then subsequently recognized as Scripture itself). The Apostles didn't only teach what is contained in the New Testament, the New Testament constitutes Apostolic teachings, certainly, but not all of it. They also had tongues, along with pens, and they spread the Gospel, along with their authentic teachings, by word-of-mouth, along with by epistles and other literature.
Luke's Gospel even begins by confirming that what is contained therein was previously only known by word-of-mouth, but that he Luke was committing what was prior to his Gospel oral tradition, to writing. Each New Testament book is a physical recording of Apostolic teaching, that before the authors wrote them, were oral tradition.
beloved57
Well-known member
I agree !
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
And the activity 'summarizing what the Scripture teaches' is not found in Scripture. What is found, is that there are authentic pastors, the bishops, and their job is to teach, to feed Christ's 'flock,' both in teaching, and in the Eucharist. And this they have done unceasingly from the beginning, and as the centuries have passed, we have seen more and more of that authentic teaching being made abundantly clear for all of us.
Where in prior centuries, we had these bishops who heard what this Apostle said, and these other bishops who heard what this other Apostle said, etc., today we have all these Apostolic teachings integrated together, including the Apostolic teachings committed to writing as found in the New Testament, all found in one place, the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church.'
It's man-made to disregard the episcopal office of the one Church that Christ Himself founded, and that His Apostles administrated/pastored.
And it's man-made to put any 'summary' of Scripture on the same level of authority as Scripture. The bishops don't teach 'summary,' they teach what the Apostles themselves taught.
In your opinion, is it right and just to state "I only follow what the bishops authoritatively teach?"
Who is the authentic pope?
Not by an authentic pastor though, it should be noted. He wasn't the product of Apostolic succession, through the sacrament of Holy Orders, the imposition of hands upon newly consecrated bishops, by already consecrated bishops, this consecration beginning when the Apostles themselves created their own successors, and with their own hands.
This is made up man-made work, never mentioned in Scripture. The notion that we are to plumb the depths of Scripture, and only of Scripture, to determine the correct and authentic doctrines of our faith, is nowhere found within Scripture, but what is found there, is the episcopal office, men who are given the assignment of teaching the authentic/Apostolic doctrines, of the one (Eph4:5KJV) Christian faith.
It's worth noting that nobody at this time was disagreeing about the centrality of Christ's Resurrection to the one Christian faith, but only about the teachings explaining Christ's Resurrection, in relation to the total expression of the one faith. That is to say, the Protestant Reformers weren't accusing Catholics and Catholic clergy of denying the historicity of Christ's Resurrection, nor of not teaching this central and crowning truth of the faith.
How do Clavinists explain the fact that Christians commit serious sins, such as the ones listed in various New Testament epistles, warning that such behavior warrants exclusion from the kingdom of God? Do they just conclude that no such serious sinner actually, really believes the Gospel? In effect, making our salvation dependent upon us avoiding serious sins, and forever?
Agreed. When Paul identifies just one thing, Christ's Resurrection (Mt28:6KJV Mk16:6KJV Lk24:6KJV), as the sine qua non of the Christian faith (1Co15:14KJV), and also identifies just one tenet, Christ's Resurrection (Mt28:6KJV Mk16:6KJV Lk24:6KJV), that is needful for belief in order to be saved (Ro10:9KJV), we know that believing in Christ's Resurrection (Mt28:6KJV Mk16:6KJV Lk24:6KJV) is what is meant by "Whosoever believeth on him" (Ro10:11KJV), "whosoever believeth in him" (Jn3:16KJV), and, "we have believed in Jesus Christ" (Ga2:16KJV).
Christ is our great High Priest=wrong.Pitiful....
A "trans dispensational" principle:
1 John 2:1 KJV
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
A parent first teaches his child to "sin not."
These are not lost people, sinners, for...
...we have an advocate with the Father,...
It does not say "High Priest"-it says "advocate."
Sinners need a Saviour, a High Priest, not an advocate. The Lord Jesus Christ is only an advocate for God the Father's children, whether it be the believing remnant, the little flock, of the nation Israel, or the boc.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Right Divider
Body part
Exactamundo, RD-Calvinism is just another works-based justification system, a perversion of the gospel of Christ, just "warmed over" Catholicism, as both examine their works, their lifestyle, their "perseverance," to determine if they are justified/saved.
Different cages....same dirty birds.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Do you believe Christ's Resurrection really happened (Ro10:9KJV)? Then you're justified/saved (Ro4:25KJV). Catholicism believes that "the Catholic faithful" and "others who believe in Christ," are both in "a certain . . . communion with the Catholic Church," and we know what believing in Christ, means believing that He is risen (2Ti2:8KJV).
The resurrection of Christ means I am justified (Rom 4:24-25).
Made up. Those, like yourself, who include works, as a basis of the LORD God's acceptance, justification, pervert the gospel of Christ, making the resurrection of no affect, and the Lord Jesus Christ died in vain.
Get saved, wolf.
beloved57
Well-known member
I agree, the resurrection of Christ is an testification that those for whom sins He was delivered have been acquitted/justified from their sins. 1 Cor 15:17
17 [FONT="]And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.[/FONT]