She believes that B57 is the lead elect one on TOL. The other
two minions are, herself and one other.
Why Calvinist, Catholics, Muslims, Others are Lost
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
She believes that B57 is the lead elect one on TOL. The other
two minions are, herself and one other.
Yeah, you definitely see the fruit of such theology- emotional, sometimes fanatical, irrational, and a contradiction for every solution.
They hate Reformed belief because it is sober and rigid.
Amen.
So you think that John Calvin was grounded and sober when he had all of those people executed.
Crucible;455220 They hate Reformed belief because it is sober and rigid. [/QUOTE said:
Good point.
More sober than all you folk who thank God for your extra vanities while people are starving and persecuted across seas.
It's what comes with the doctrines of free will and merit. Calvinists simply pity the fool.
Well now, what you just said, makes no sense? How come?
Because you don't have a brain
So you believe that it is God's fault that people are starving and being persecuted.
Very childish of you. I'm not surprised.
Why Calvinist, Catholics, Muslims, Others are Lost
The OP fails to account for the historical fact that for the first 1500 years, it was the Catholic and the Orthodox Church that were the custodians of the Christian faith.
Protestantism appeared in the 1500's in an effort to address the abuses that had crept into the faith, but it was also building on a foundation that had already been established.
The OP fails to account for the historical fact that for the first 1500 years, it was the Catholic and the Orthodox Church that were the custodians of the Christian faith.
Protestantism appeared in the 1500's in an effort to address the abuses that had crept into the faith, but it was also building on a foundation that had already been established.
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own "facts".
Don't take the Romanist bait that claims the popular myth that there has been an unbroken succession of popes (and while they ignore some forty-six or so antipopes) in Rome since Peter. The church after the Apostles was not the Roman Catholic Church. Rather the church was catholic.
Augustine was active in the 4th and 5th Centuries and the Reformed certainly claim him. The Protestant Reformation was a millenia after that. The East/West split wouldn't even happen until the 11th Century.
The problem you have with your statement is that there is a hidden premise about the continuity of the church: you're assuming that the Roman Catholic Church is in fact catholic, and you're assuming a discontinuity of the Reformed church with the church pre-reformation. This just isn't true; we have just as much a claim to Augustine as they do. Sure, there are ways in which Augustine's theology resembles the RCC, but there are also ways in which the Reformers' theology reassemble Augustine's.
Lastly, the Roman Catholic Church isn't catholic, because they anathematized the gospel of Our Lord; because of which thing Paul's anathema falls upon them.
The Roman Catholic church was clearly more right than wrong when Augustine was writing. By the high medieval period things had degraded severely.
The rise of what would become the RCC began around the fifth century as Rome was collapsing under Barbarian invasions (Alaric the Visigoth, the Huns under Atilla). So we have a group that tyrannized the bodies of men (Rome) soon to be replaced by a group that would tyrannize the souls of men (RCC).
The actual establishment of the political and ecclesiastical Rome owes its genesis to three popes: Hildebrand, Innocent III, and Boniface VIII.
With Innocent III the papacy was cemented as a controller of church and state. His Fourth Lateran Council defined RCC's seven sacraments, required confession, and made the penitential treadmill necessary as the only way to salvation. Finally Boniface's Unam Sanctum made submission to the Pope necessary for salvation.
By the thirteenth century the true church was in the wilderness existing in part among some within the RCC and the Waldenses. Justification by faith alone, the divine way of forgiveness and salvation had yet to be officially denounced and condemned. Lastly, the church had yet to declare that its interpretation of inspired Holy Writ was infallible and solely legitimate. So the true catholic (not Catholic) church was there, but, as noted, scattered in the wilderness wherein the elect did hear our Lord's voice above that of the false shepherds, much like the blind man heard Jesus as the Christ in John 9.
The Reformation was soon to come on the heels of men like Wyclif, Hus, Lyra, Valla, Erasmus, and Ockham. Those last four Renaissance minds of natural men were used by God to show the likes of Luther the true path. Yes, God ordains righteously what men do wickedly. At the time of the Reformation it was clear that the RCC had long since departed from the true church and it was necessary that they be called to return from their apostasy by the Reformers. That call to return continues even to this day.
Dig deeper:
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/rise-papacy/
http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2015/08/02/longing-for-nicaea/
If I may repeat, do not buy into the Romanists “the RCC has been the one true church for two thousand years” rhetoric.
The RCC today is four or five generations removed from its beginnings. The ancient form held to Nicene orthodoxy and was in fellowship with other churches. The medieval version insisted on Roman supremacy, embraced transubstantiation, and thusly separated itself from other Christian churches. At that time justification and the place of tradition were still open to discussion. At Trent, the Tridentine form (1545–1563) of the church moved it beyond its medieval form by condemning views that had remained open to discussion and adding many more. Next came Vatican I (1868–1870) and Vatican II (1962–1965). These post-Tridentine versions of Rome theoretically are to be upholding the decisions of Trent, but when one examines the practices of Rome, they have moved outside the bounds and against Trent. For example, rather than supplementing Scripture with tradition, post-Tridentine Rome uses tradition to usurp Scripture.
In other words, Rome's claims are their own mythologies, not the reality of history. Sadly, many Protestants and Romanists swallow Rome's public relations machine outputs without careful scrutiny. Again, don't take the bait.
AMR
These threads are childish.
Some need to do something about their obsession with attacking Calvinism. It's the fruit of the Reformation for crying out loud, spare me your double downed dissidence- it's the most outrageously false sense of righteousness that exists in Christianity.
The Roman Catholic church never was and never will be a part of Christ's church.
'Reformed'. As in undoing 1500 years of building upon heresy.
The foundation was re-founded.
Those like Mr. Pate here didn't do this. They founded things like 'Pateism', you see. :thumb:
Did some popes and members of the clergy abuse their position - yes
Were these Churches unduly influenced by material wealth and power - certainly
Were there individuals like Luther who protested against the course that these Churches were following - of course
The fact remains, however, that for the first 1500 years the Catholic and Protestant Churches were the major custodians of Christianity in Europe.
The Catholic church never was a custodian of the Christian faith.
The Church of Jesus Christ is founded upon the historical Gospel of Jesus Christ, not a religion.
The Gospel that was delivered to the apostles on the day of Pentecost is the heart of the Christian faith, not a religion.
The Catholic church does not embrace the historical Gospel of Jesus Christ as a means of salvation.
beloved57
Well-known member
pateism is a derivative of the catholic church, salvation by works, by what a man does !
You are in serious trouble.
You reject the "Historical Gospel" in which Christ died for your sins.