Catholicism is a rejection of the "Historical Gospel" of Jesus Christ and justification by faith alone. Christians are justified by faith alone because they are justified by Christ alone. Jesus Christ is the justifier, Romans 3:26. We are justified by the doing and the dying of Jesus Christ, plus nothing.
Mr. Religion and His Calvinistic Nonsense
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
- Status
Catholicism is a rejection of the "Historical Gospel" of Jesus Christ and justification by faith alone. Christians are justified by faith alone because they are justified by Christ alone. Jesus Christ is the justifier, Romans 3:26. We are justified by the doing and the dying of Jesus Christ, plus nothing.
God's Truth
New member
Faith alone is dead and cannot save anyone.
Do you think God is divided?
Why don't you stop going against what the scriptures say.
God's Truth
New member
Catholics do not obey God, they do what God hates.
Calvinistic Catholics are doubly confused.
Faith only teachers are as the blind leading the blind.
Calvinistic Catholics are doubly confused.
Faith only teachers are as the blind leading the blind.
Eagles Wings
New member
I appreciate this post because it clarifies your position, and I appreciate the considerate way you have answered questions in this thread.
God's Truth
New member
Faith alone without right action is dead.
Jesus is the truth.
You have to believe and obey the truth to have the truth.
Eagles Wings
New member
AMR - if you are following this thread, here's thinking of you:
:AMR:
Blessings from Christ, and know we are praying for you.
:the_wave:
:AMR:
Blessings from Christ, and know we are praying for you.
:the_wave:
Eagles Wings
New member
@nikolai:
You answered Jerry's question meant for AMR with the usual clarity of biblical truth.
Thank you.
:BRAVO:
You answered Jerry's question meant for AMR with the usual clarity of biblical truth.
Thank you.
:BRAVO:
God's Truth
New member
God does not save us before we believe and obey.
To teach that God makes us believe and obey before our wanting and knowing is just not a teaching from God.
God does not save unbelievers.
It is a hindrance to those who want to be saved.
Last edited:
God causes certian elements to orbit around the center of a molecule. Men don't have any control over that any more than they can control the orbits of the earth. You're made of molecules. Lots of them. You respond to that. Orbits follows God's rules. It's so perfect that God knows what position each element will be on a certian day in the future. He predistines cause he designed it. Like we know when winter will come or when the full moon will shine and where in the galaxy we are and where the galaxy is among other big objects.
Why make it any more complicated by boasting about free will?
Free will is a stupid subject for unbright people.
The Bible is too big for you to understand.
God's Truth
New member
God says plainly we are like Him.
God says plainly that WE choose what we do.
God wants us to love Him of our own freewill.
There would have been no need for salvation if there were no freewill!
God made the plan for salvation before He created us and before He created the world.
You need to think about it some more and believe what is written and be careful not to add what is not there.
beloved57
Well-known member
All lies !
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Some Misunderstand the term "biblicism"
Some Misunderstand the term "biblicism"
Biblicism = the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and life so that all true knowledge is biblical.
Historicism = the interpretation of Scripture is historically conditioned and cannot neglect theological tradition.
Biblicism ens a se (being from itself) is a view that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and life so that all true knowledge is only contained therein. Historicism ens a se is the view that the interpretation of Scripture is historically conditioned and cannot neglect theological tradition.
The polarization of these two concepts will lead to a distortion in method if one were to gain the ascendancy over the other.
Your extremist view, biblicism ens a se, leads to the attitude you are demonstrating, that no true knowledge can be found by examining those that have come before us to discover (not invent) true knowledge that is in perfect harmony with our only infallible rule of faith and life, the Scripture.
Your biblicism is nothing but the attempt to understand Scripture by one’s self and by itself in isolation from the history of the church and in isolation from the communion of the saints. In this brand of biblicism the interpreter, not Scripture, becomes sovereign. Historically the one claiming to be a biblicist, although he or she may boast about their devotion to Scripture, is actually devoted to the supremacy of reason. As has been often said, “All heretics quote Scripture.” It is one thing to quote Scripture but it is another to read it well and to interpret it properly. We Reformed interpret Scripture in community, a community of the saints, not as Lone Ranger's with their "Just Me and My Bible!" self-righteous chants.
If you’re not reading the Scriptures with the church and in the communion of the saints you’re not following sola scriptura and the confessional Protestants.
AMR
Some Misunderstand the term "biblicism"
All Reformed agree with biblicism, but not anti-historicist biblicism. Likewise, all Reformed agree with historicism, but not anti-biblicist historicism. The reformed tradition is historically biblicist and biblically historicist.
Biblicism = the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and life so that all true knowledge is biblical.
Historicism = the interpretation of Scripture is historically conditioned and cannot neglect theological tradition.
Biblicism ens a se (being from itself) is a view that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and life so that all true knowledge is only contained therein. Historicism ens a se is the view that the interpretation of Scripture is historically conditioned and cannot neglect theological tradition.
The polarization of these two concepts will lead to a distortion in method if one were to gain the ascendancy over the other.
Your extremist view, biblicism ens a se, leads to the attitude you are demonstrating, that no true knowledge can be found by examining those that have come before us to discover (not invent) true knowledge that is in perfect harmony with our only infallible rule of faith and life, the Scripture.
Your biblicism is nothing but the attempt to understand Scripture by one’s self and by itself in isolation from the history of the church and in isolation from the communion of the saints. In this brand of biblicism the interpreter, not Scripture, becomes sovereign. Historically the one claiming to be a biblicist, although he or she may boast about their devotion to Scripture, is actually devoted to the supremacy of reason. As has been often said, “All heretics quote Scripture.” It is one thing to quote Scripture but it is another to read it well and to interpret it properly. We Reformed interpret Scripture in community, a community of the saints, not as Lone Ranger's with their "Just Me and My Bible!" self-righteous chants.
If you’re not reading the Scriptures with the church and in the communion of the saints you’re not following sola scriptura and the confessional Protestants.
AMR
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
New Guy Discovers AMR
New Guy Discovers AMR
New guys. They just blunder in, never taking the time to check in on their imagined opponents. Apparently I just arrived on the scene at TOL a few days ago. :AMR:
And they compound their hubris by demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the historical meaning of sola scriptura.
Sigh.
AMR
New Guy Discovers AMR
New guys. They just blunder in, never taking the time to check in on their imagined opponents. Apparently I just arrived on the scene at TOL a few days ago. :AMR:
And they compound their hubris by demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the historical meaning of sola scriptura.
Sigh.
AMR
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Why didn't you respond to Acts 16:30-31 and Romans 1:16?
Maybe those two little passages are too big for you to understand?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Paul and those with him certainly saw a "cause and effect" relationship between "faith" and "salvation," as witnessed by how they answered this question:
"And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:30-31).
Do you not see that "believing" results in "salvation," that it is "faith" which brings about "salvation"? Here Paul again speaks of a "cause and effect" relationship between "believing" and "salvation":
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Ro.1:16).
Do you really not see a "cause and effect" relationship between "faith" and "salvation"?
God's Truth
New member
That is right; we have to believe AND do something to be saved---we have to repent.
Zeke
Well-known member
Alvin Boyd Kuhn exposed the historic version for the fraud that it is, The inner Christ was and is the message that always pricked the hearts of men, and never was a slave to time past or future, it has always dealt with NOW! which is the allegorical way of preserving these stories through the ages, the literal white wash of intellectual theology is lipstick on the Elitist exclusive pig (people in government) that run this world and create its religions and create the paper birthed strawman portrayed on that PIG ID the 99% carry so they can buy and sell.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Jerry Shugart's Revisit of Things Asked and Answered
Jerry Shugart's Revisit of Things Asked and Answered
Jerry,
Apparently you are frustrated, yet when I have spent much time responding to you, only to be met with your mere repetitions, you claim I am failing to pay any attention to you, all evidence to the contrary:
AMR responds to Jerry, in chronological order...
Failing to actually engage at the same level as I have with you, you now resort to what is forbidden:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4082297#post4082297
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-His-Thread)&p=4829801&viewfull=1#post4829801
:AMR:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...for-Open-Theists/page45&p=4891309#post4891309
Go back to your actual response, Jerry, wherein you quipped:
Your literalism lies at the root of your issues, along with your notion that you were actually able to save yourself by your own hearing of the Good News, that is, you believe you possessed the moral ability to choose wisely when you so did.
If you take the time to refresh your reading of my posts linked above, you will see this is the root of our disagreements.
As I substantively detailed in my responses, I and all Calvinists or Reformed do not believe the lost possess any moral ability to choose wisely until they are quickened by the power of God the Holy Spirit, and His efficacious grace is applied, thus creating in the lost the then ability to not not believe (Eze. 36:26).
It is only at this instantaneous moment that the person will be able to hear (spiritual hearing) the Good News. Before that instantaneous regenerative event the Good News is but clanging symbols to their ears. Noise, Jerry. Yes they physically hear the words, but they are nothing more than noise to their minds and hearts. Why? Because of the morally destitute state of all the lost (Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Eph. 2:2; Eph. 2:4-5; Titus 3:5; John 3:19; Rom. 3:10-12; 5:6; 6:16-20; Eph. 2:1,3;1 Cor. 2:14).
Faith is not the cause of anything, soteriologically speaking. Faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner, by the Spirit and Word of God. Indeed, God is the author if our faith. So faith is but the evidence that one has been born anew (as a result of the one-time regenerative event, the quickening, Eze. 36:26). Faith and repentance, two side of a coin, are the firstfruits of one's regeneration.
This entire experience, regeneration, faith, repentance, is what the common man refers to as being born again. But as you can see, the common term encompasses a series of events more than just believe and be saved. This can be seen from the whole counsel of Scripture, not by cherry-picking a verse here and there and declaring that we need only believe and be saved. Scripture indeed says this in plain words, but not in the sense you presuppose, else our Lord's statement of fact (not a command) to Nicodemus, was not truthful.
Each time I have provided responses to you, you move on to more verses from Scripture. You ignore my responses to your poor interpretations of other verses, not even taking the time to offer substantive rejoinders in the spirit of iron sharpening iron.
As I have observed, you have some mental script you are locked into and refuse to deviate from it. The result is a conversation that resembles the game of Whack-A-Mole. Unfortunately, it is the usual tactic of not a few anti-Calvinists. They proffer proof texts, then when their pretexts are disassembled, they ignore the facts, and offer up yet more proof-texts, all with nicely formatted boldface or colorings, thinking that these visual emphases have somehow met the burden of sound interpretative practices.
Jerry, you wail loudly "he hasn't responded". Again, review the links above. Compare my actual responses to what you offer as rejoinders. Even the most casual observers that are honest with themselves will see that the one who is not actually responding is you, Jerry.
In spite of your infelicitous earlier comments—i.e., woodenly literal hearing—which led me to not spend any further time with you, I will respond to yet another set of passages you have offered in hopes of prevailing. This will be the end of the matter for me if and until you can move beyond your scripted tactics. If you have more to say, avoid these odious call-out threads, for they actually serve my purposes for being a member herein much more than they do your own. Think about it and it will come to you.
Acts 16:30-31
Romans 1:16
Jerry Shugart's Revisit of Things Asked and Answered
Jerry,
Apparently you are frustrated, yet when I have spent much time responding to you, only to be met with your mere repetitions, you claim I am failing to pay any attention to you, all evidence to the contrary:
AMR responds to Jerry, in chronological order...
Spoiler
Failing to actually engage at the same level as I have with you, you now resort to what is forbidden:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4082297#post4082297
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-His-Thread)&p=4829801&viewfull=1#post4829801
:AMR:
Rather than snippets, read it in its full context:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...for-Open-Theists/page45&p=4891309#post4891309
Go back to your actual response, Jerry, wherein you quipped:
I have little time for a man that is so locked into some woodenly literal mindset that leads him to claim that all of the detailed responses I have been providing implies that I am actually speaking about the ear's physical ability to hear vibrations of sound. Surely you are not this obtuse, brother? :idunno:
Your literalism lies at the root of your issues, along with your notion that you were actually able to save yourself by your own hearing of the Good News, that is, you believe you possessed the moral ability to choose wisely when you so did.
If you take the time to refresh your reading of my posts linked above, you will see this is the root of our disagreements.
As I substantively detailed in my responses, I and all Calvinists or Reformed do not believe the lost possess any moral ability to choose wisely until they are quickened by the power of God the Holy Spirit, and His efficacious grace is applied, thus creating in the lost the then ability to not not believe (Eze. 36:26).
It is only at this instantaneous moment that the person will be able to hear (spiritual hearing) the Good News. Before that instantaneous regenerative event the Good News is but clanging symbols to their ears. Noise, Jerry. Yes they physically hear the words, but they are nothing more than noise to their minds and hearts. Why? Because of the morally destitute state of all the lost (Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Eph. 2:2; Eph. 2:4-5; Titus 3:5; John 3:19; Rom. 3:10-12; 5:6; 6:16-20; Eph. 2:1,3;1 Cor. 2:14).
Faith is not the cause of anything, soteriologically speaking. Faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner, by the Spirit and Word of God. Indeed, God is the author if our faith. So faith is but the evidence that one has been born anew (as a result of the one-time regenerative event, the quickening, Eze. 36:26). Faith and repentance, two side of a coin, are the firstfruits of one's regeneration.
This entire experience, regeneration, faith, repentance, is what the common man refers to as being born again. But as you can see, the common term encompasses a series of events more than just believe and be saved. This can be seen from the whole counsel of Scripture, not by cherry-picking a verse here and there and declaring that we need only believe and be saved. Scripture indeed says this in plain words, but not in the sense you presuppose, else our Lord's statement of fact (not a command) to Nicodemus, was not truthful.
Each time I have provided responses to you, you move on to more verses from Scripture. You ignore my responses to your poor interpretations of other verses, not even taking the time to offer substantive rejoinders in the spirit of iron sharpening iron.
As I have observed, you have some mental script you are locked into and refuse to deviate from it. The result is a conversation that resembles the game of Whack-A-Mole. Unfortunately, it is the usual tactic of not a few anti-Calvinists. They proffer proof texts, then when their pretexts are disassembled, they ignore the facts, and offer up yet more proof-texts, all with nicely formatted boldface or colorings, thinking that these visual emphases have somehow met the burden of sound interpretative practices.
Jerry, you wail loudly "he hasn't responded". Again, review the links above. Compare my actual responses to what you offer as rejoinders. Even the most casual observers that are honest with themselves will see that the one who is not actually responding is you, Jerry.
In spite of your infelicitous earlier comments—i.e., woodenly literal hearing—which led me to not spend any further time with you, I will respond to yet another set of passages you have offered in hopes of prevailing. This will be the end of the matter for me if and until you can move beyond your scripted tactics. If you have more to say, avoid these odious call-out threads, for they actually serve my purposes for being a member herein much more than they do your own. Think about it and it will come to you.
Acts 16:30-31
Spoiler
Romans 1:16
Spoiler
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Let us look at the passage again:
"And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:30-31).
Here the jailer is asking for what might bring forth a result, specifically "salvation."
In other words he is asking what might "cause" an "effect," the effect being salvation.
The word "cause" is defined as "something that brings about an effect or a result" (Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary).
So at Acts 16:30-31 we can see that the jailer was asking Paul what causes (brings about a result) and that result is salvation. And when Paul answers that those who "believe" on the Lord Jesus he was saying that the "cause" is believing.
The word "effect" is defined as "something that inevitably follows an antecedent (as a cause or agent)" (Ibid.).
The "effect" is salvation, because it follows the "cause" which is believing.
Since you are so sure that Acts 16:30-31 does not speak of a "cause and effect" relationship then define "cause" and "effect" and then tell us why there is no such relationship in that passage.
Last edited:
- Status