Why Calvinist, Catholics, Muslims, Others are Lost

[Cruciform]

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own "facts".

Likewise.

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.

An anti-pope is a false claimant to the papacy, and as such, in no way negates the unbroken succession of 266 men who have held the papal office throughout Christian history. Try again.

The Church after the Apostles was not the Roman Catholic Church. Rather the Church was Catholic.

No one here claims otherwise. The Roman (Latin) Rite is simply the largest liturgical rite among those that comprise the Catholic Church herself.

Augustine was active in the 4th and 5th Centuries and the Reformed certainly claim him.

Interesting, given that Augustine was a Catholic bishop who wholeheartedly taught and defended such thoroughly Catholic doctrines as, for example:

• that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation
• that Peter founded the papal seat at Rome
• the infallibility of the Catholic Church, i.e., of the Magisterium (bishops in council)
• that Tradition is divine revelation (contra sola scriptura)
• baptismal regeneration
• the sacraments as means of divine grace
• the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist
• the intermediate state of purgatory
• apostolic succession
• etc.

...you're assuming that the Roman Catholic Church is in fact catholic...

Rather, that the Roman (Latin) Rite developed in the Catholic Church as its largest liturgical rite (see above). Try again.

...we have just as much a claim to Augustine as they do.

Do you, then, embrace the thoroughly Augustinian doctrines listed above? :think:

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.

Yes, while rejecting sixteen centuries of Christian teaching, the "reformers" cherry-picked and often re-worked various of Augustine's teachings, forcing them into service of the Protestants' man-made theological agenda. And yet, Luther possessed no more doctrinal authority to alter the Church's formal doctrines than had, for example, Arius, Pelagius, or Sabellius before him.

Lastly, the Roman Catholic Church isn't catholic, because they anathematized the gospel of Our Lord...

Rather, Christ's one historic Catholic Church condemned the truncated and false "gospel" of the Protestant "reformers." Nice try, though.

The Roman Catholic Church was clearly more right than wrong when Augustine was writing.

Then it's clear that you must affirm and follow the list of very Catholic Augustinian teachings listed above, correct?

By the high medieval period things had degraded severely.

Post your proof.

By the thirteenth century the true church was in the wilderness existing in part among some within the RCC and the Waldenses.

Try again.

Justification by faith alone, the divine way of forgiveness and salvation had yet to be officially denounced and condemned.

Not only that, but it had yet to even exist, which would not occur until Martin Luther and company fabricated it in the early 16th century.

Lastly, the Church had yet to declare that its interpretation of inspired Holy Writ was infallible and solely legitimate.

Oops! Try again.

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.

Again, the "reformers" possessed no more doctrinal authority to formulate binding Christian doctrine and impose it on the Church than did, for example, Arius, Pelagius, Nestorius, Sabellius, Apollinarius, etc.


So much for AMR's anti-Catholic party line. The assumptions and opinions of his preferred entirely non-authoritative recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, however, are noted. :yawn:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The church after the Apostles was not the Roman Catholic Church. Rather the church was catholic.

No one here claims otherwise.

I am glad you agree with my actual quote. Next time avoid the dishonesty of not quoting me exactly. Then again, expecting honesty from a Romanist apologist is optimistic. :AMR:

Interesting, given that Augustine was a Catholic bishop who wholeheartedly taught and defended such thoroughly Catholic doctrines as, for example:

Romanists never cease to try to unjustly set the church fathers against us (I mean the ancient writers of a better age of the church) as if in them they had supporters of their own impiety. If the contest were to be determined by patristic authority, the tide of victory—to put it very modestly—would turn to our side.

Romanists fail to recognize that the apostolical fathers generally use the language of the Scriptures upon these subjects, while they scarcely make any statements which afford us materials for deciding in what precise sense they understood them. They leave the matter very much where Scripture leaves it, and where, but for the rise of Romanist errors needing to be contradicted and opposed, it might still have been left.

Better you inform yourself about the ECF here rather that adopting the usual anachronistic methodology of Rome when trying to claim its connection to each and every thing written by the ECF.

While on the subject of anachronistic tactics, of course Augustine was catholic. He was bishop of Carthage in an era that knew only one church, from Gibraltar to Britain to Syria to Ethiopia--the universal one, and one I might add where there was no universal allegiance to Rome or any other primate, even if Augustine deferred to him. And his deference was far from the powers claimed later by Rome. It is incredible that Augustine would have accepted an appointment to the Carthage bishopric from the Roman bishop, when he was called by the church of Carthage to be its pastor. Now that's pretty Reformed in principle, even though such claiming that he was "Reformed" here would be anachronistic--so I will avoid it.

Sure, there are ways in which Augustine's theology resembles the RCC, but there are also ways in which the reformer's theology resemble Augustine's. Anyone that claims Augustine or any fourth century Christian was a papist is very ignorant of their history.

Augustine once said, “I would not have believed the gospel except for the authority of the church.” Roman Catholicism, particularly during the Middle Ages, loved to point to this as support for the formal institution of the church and its power. Augustine, however, was referring to the preacher that spoke the Word of God, without which he would not have been converted.

Augustine also stated on an occasion, “Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.” Romanists points to this assertion as evidence of Augustine’s belief in the superiority of the bishop of Rome. However, Augustine made this comment after the bishop agreed with him. On another issue, on which the bishop disagreed with Augustine, Augustine stated “Christ has spoken, the matter is settled.” Clearly, Augustine felt bound by Scripture and not Rome.

Augustine (354-430) was a bishop at a time that knew one church only, the universal church, where no allegiance to Rome or anyone else existed. This was the catholic church, not the Catholic church. In fact, he was called by the church of Carthage to be its pastor. Augustine predates the Medieval papacy and the Reformation, so why is anyone surprised both major groups, Catholic and Protestant, of the Western church look to him? :idunno:
At one point in history, the RCC viewed Augustine’s theology as cardinal, only rejecting it, indeed anathematizing it, at Trent for semi-Pelagianism.

The Reformation was all about recovering what was lost in the church at the time. No one should dispute that prior to Trent, the Roman church, while in decline for centuries, was the visible church.

Try as they might, the RCC strives mightily to claim Augustine as a great supporter of the papacy. From what Augustine wrote said support is very hard to come by. When some is put forth by the Romanist it is subject to interpretation; and some of what Augustine wrote is completely incompatible with Rome's views of the church authority. The fact is, Augustine does not belong to the RCC or to the Reformed. He belongs to Jesus Christ and to the history of Jesus' church.

AMR

 

[Crucible]

St. Augustine was a Stoic before his conversion to Christianity. The Church was more than willing to utilize him as a bishop because of his high powered perception and reason.

That is, the 'official reason' why the Church canonized him, and the 'real reason', are really two different things. It wasn't because of him changing his ways, it was because he was so valuable.

The relatively small remaining of the reformists, who fell under Arminius hate Augustine. They have as much disdain for him as they do Calvin.
For this reason, I basically just don't take them very seriously.

 

[beloved57]

nanja

God's Grace is only given to God's Elect 1 Pet. 1:2, Chosen in Christ before the world began Eph. 1:4-5:

Yes Rom 11:5

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

 

[Robert Pate]

nanja



Yes Rom 11:5

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

You have a perverted idea of God's grace.

Here is grace, John 3:16.

 

[beloved57]

You have a perverted idea of God's grace.

Here is grace, John 3:16.

You don't believe that scripture ! You teach salvation by works, by what a person does !

 

[Robert Pate]

You don't believe that scripture ! You teach salvation by works, by what a person does !

You don't, you don't, you don't, you don't. You are like a broken record.

 

[beloved57]

You don't, you don't, you don't, you don't. You are like a broken record.

You continue to teach salvation by works like a broken record !

 

[Robert Pate]

God's Grace is only given to God's Elect 1 Pet. 1:2, Chosen in Christ before the world began Eph. 1:4-5:

Eph. 1:7
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace

2 Tim. 1:8-9
Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner:
but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;
v.9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works,
but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began

~~~~~

Your God is unjust and is not the God of the Bible, John 3:16.

 

[Robert Pate]

You continue to teach salvation by works like a broken record !

Teaching works, teaching works, teaching works.

You are a parrot.

 

[beloved57]

Teaching works, teaching works, teaching works.

You are a parrot.

You teach salvation by works like a parrot !

 

[Robert Pate]

You teach salvation by works like a parrot !

You, you, you, you.

 

[Cruciform]

I am glad you agree with my actual quote. Next time avoid the dishonesty of not quoting me exactly.

Please indicate exactly where I have supposedly quoted you inaccurately.

Then again, expecting honesty from a Romanist apologist is optimistic.

Ad Hominem Fallacy. (It should also be noted that the very same charge could easily be leveled at you.)

Romanists never cease to try to unjustly set the church fathers against us (I mean the ancient writers of a better age of the church) as if in them they had supporters of their own impiety. If the contest were to be determined by patristic authority, the tide of victory—to put it very modestly—would turn to our side.

:darwinsm: ...Thanks, I really needed that!

Romanists fail to recognize that the apostolical fathers generally use the language of the Scriptures upon these subjects, while they scarcely make any statements which afford us materials for deciding in what precise sense they understood them. They leave the matter very much where Scripture leaves it, and where, but for the rise of Romanist errors needing to be contradicted and opposed, it might still have been left.

In fact, the Church Fathers are quite clear regarding their meaning, and the meaning of the biblical witness as well. Sorry for your confusion.

Better you inform yourself about the ECF here...

Webster? Well, at least you're funny.

In any case, why in the world would anyone rely on the myriad conflicting interpretations of the Fathers concocted by sectarian heretics who separated themselves from Christ's one historic Church a millennium after the thoroughly Catholic Patristic authors actually wrote? Try again.

While on the subject of anachronistic tactics, ff course Augustine was catholic. He was bishop of Carthage in an era that knew only one church, from Gibraltar to Britain to Syria to Ethiopia--the universal one...

That's correct: "the Catholic Church."

Anyone that claims Augustine or any fourth century Christian was a papist is very ignorant of their history.

Try again.

Clearly, Augustine felt bound by Scripture and not Rome.

False Dilemma Fallacy. Try again.

Augustine (354-430) was a bishop at a time that knew one church only, the universal church, where no allegiance to Rome or anyone else existed.

Already addressed above.

This was the catholic church, not the Catholic Church.

Incorrect. The Early Fathers were already formally referring to Christ's one historic Church as "the Catholic Church" by the end of the 1st century A.D.

Augustine predates the Medieval papacy and the Reformation, so why is anyone surprised both major groups, Catholic and Protestant, of the Western church look to him?

When Augustine was born, the papacy had already existed for more than three centuries. Try again.

At one point in history, the RCC viewed Augustine’s theology as cardinal, only rejecting it, indeed anathematizing it, at Trent for semi-Pelagianism.

No, not "his theology," but only certain specific expressions or articulations of his theology. In any event, no individual bishop is considered infallible in his teachings, but only the body of bishops as a whole (Magisterium) in the formal context of an ecclesiastical council. Thus, your statement is largely irrelevant.

The Reformation was all about recovering what was lost in the Church at the time.

~ Such as...?

~ What ecclesial authority did the so-called "reformers" possess that, say, Arius or Pelagius did not, and who authoritatively determined this?

Try as they might, the RCC strives mightily to claim Augustine as a great supporter of the papacy. From what Augustine wrote said support is very hard to come by.

Try again.

The fact is, Augustine does not belong to the RCC...he belongs to Jesus Christ and to the history of Jesus' Church.

Already answered above, as well as in my previous post. Augustine was entirely and unambiguously Catholic in his beliefs and teachings. Protestants came along some thousand years after Augustine and tried to pull him out of his thoroughly Catholic context and into their patented man-made sectarianism. History, however, resists all attempts to create Augustine in the image of such late-arriving self-contradictory heresiarchs.


In the end, the glaring fact that you utterly failed to provide any rational or biblical disproof of the content of Post #381 above---instead choosing to set out various subject-changing red herrings---is evidence enough that you really have no cogent response to the historical Catholic position.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Please indicate exactly where I have supposedly quoted you inaccurately.

I wrote:

The church after the Apostles was not the Roman Catholic Church. Rather the church was catholic.

You edited:

The Church after the Apostles was not the Roman Catholic Church. Rather the Church was Catholic.

No one here claims otherwise.

Hoping that no one would notice your serpentine deception? :AMR:

Such are the tactics of the Romanist.

Anytime a Romanist sees "universal/catholic" and "church" they blindly replace it with "Catholic" and "Church".

Anytime a Romanist reads the ECF, seeing "Catholic" they immediately assume, "ah, yes, Roman Catholic".

The Romanist never stops to consider the actual history behind their views, preferring instead to import anachronistically the words of the ECF into what Romanism is today. No one who is willing to be honest with themselves can claim that Rome today resembles anything like the first several hundred years of the early church, the universal church, that continues all around us. For if they were so willing, they would immediately understand why the Reformation was necessary: to call the faithful back to Scripture in a reforming mindset according to the faithful teachings of the same. Sadly, Rome heard the call, but with itching ears; the response being fourteenth century Trent and the anathematization of these teachings of Scripture.

If you are serious about understanding the forefathers, then you would avail yourself of this versus swallowing the camel of the Catholic Encyclopedia hoping to strain out a gnat.

Take a page from one of your own:

Commenting on the words “justified freely by His grace” in Romans 3:24, Fitzmyer notes: “It should be superfluous to stress . . . that in using dorean and te autou chariti, Paul is not referring to the efficient cause of justification by the former and the formal cause by the latter (as if charis were ‘sanctifying grace’). That is anachronistic exegesis, a distinction born of later medieval and Tridentine [Council of Trent] theology.”

In Fitzmyer’s exposition of Romans 3:27–31. It was in his translation of Romans 3:28 in 1522 that Luther’s appeal to sola fide emerged as seminal for the Reformation understanding of the gospel. Fitzmyer recognizes that this language long predates Luther and can be found in the writings of the early fathers. He frankly states that “in this context” Paul means “by faith alone”.

Much more could be said along these same lines, but my point is made.

The rest of your response is the usual Roman party line that adds nothing to what has been laid out in my original post as the plain facts of history.

AMR

 

[Cruciform]

You edited:...Hoping that no one would notice your serpentine deception?

:darwinsm: Sure, that's what it was---an insidious conspiracy to undermine Protestantism (as though it hadn't already fully undermined itself centuries ago). Sorry to disappoint, but I simply corrected your poor grammar by capitalizing the word "church." You may want to get over yourself.

Such are the tactics of the Romanist.

Yeah, that bunch of sneaky grammar-correctors!

Anytime a Romanist sees "universal/catholic" and "church" they blindly replace it with "Catholic" and "Church".

Not "anytime," but only when proper grammar calls for it. Try again.

Anytime a Romanist reads the ECF, seeing "Catholic" they immediately assume, "ah, yes, Roman Catholic".

Wrong again, though your Straw Man Fallacy is duly noted.

The Romanist never stops to consider the actual history behind their views...

Straw Man Fallacy. Try again.

...preferring instead to import anachronistically the words of the ECF into what Romanism is today.

Pot, meet Kettle.

No one who is willing to be honest with themselves can claim that Rome today resembles anything like the first several hundred years of the early church, the universal church, that continues all around us.

...according to the entirely non-authoritative opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway. :yawn:

For if they were so willing, they would immediately understand why the Reformation was necessary: to call the faithful back to Scripture in a reforming mindset according to the faithful teachings of the same.

Again: What ecclesial and doctrinal authority did the Protestant so-called "reformers"---Luther, for instance---possess that, for example, Arius and Pelagius did not?

If you are serious about understanding the forefathers, then you would avail yourself of this...

Sorry, but I'm just not as impressed with Webster as you seem to be, especially since reading his material and seeing how hopelessly distorted and qualitatively ill-informed it is. His anti-Catholic works are persuasive only to those who are just as selectively ignorant of ecclesiastical history and the Patristic writings as he is. His admiring readers simply don't know any better than to swallow what he feeds them, themselves lacking an adequate reference point in the relevant---and not merely anti-Catholic---literature by which to honestly evaluate his (Webster's) claims.

Take a page from one of your own: ...Fitzmyer notes...

You seem to assume that the conclusions and opinions of professional academic biblical scholars and theologians possess some sort of binding authority in the Catholic Church. They don't. If you want to quote from a binding source of formal Catholic doctrine, you might start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The rest of your response is the usual Roman party line that adds nothing to what has been laid out in my original post as the plain facts of history.

Pot, meet Kettle. :yawn:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Sorry to disappoint, but I simply corrected your poor grammar by capitalizing the word "church." You may want to get over yourself.

Even when excusing your deception, you get it wrong as you also capitalized "catholic", as per my observation that this is what Romanists do every time the run across the words "church" and "catholic".

You do it so habitually that you do not even understand the anachronistic mindset behind the act for you have swallowed Rome's marketing materials blindly.

You've offered nothing substantial in response other than to toady to Rome's party line. Pointing me to a catechism devoid of exegetical weight of the magisterium is useless. It amounts to "Rome said it, I believe it" fanaticism. When you can point to Rome's actual infallible exegesis of any Scripture, then perhaps the conversation will proceed. Given the actual history of Romanism to date, that won't happen.

AMR

 

[The Gospel Matrix]

It is all very simple.

"The Just Shall Live By Faith"

They live by faith in the holy just nature of God and his Son Jesus Christ.

Those that are saved have abandoned their religion and their righteousness and have entered into God's rest.

"For he that is entered into his rest, he also has ceased from his own works (religion) as God did from his" Hebrews 4:10.

To not enter into God's rest that has been provided by the doing and the dying of Jesus is to be under God's wrath, Hebrews 4:3.

The God of Calvinism is an unjust, unmerciful, unrighteous tyrant that delights in sending people to hell.

The God of Catholicism demands that you work, work, work for your salvation. He is a ruthless taskmaster.

The God of Islam is a warrior God that goes forth to conquer, kill and defeat. "kill the infidels".

The God of Calvinism, Catholicism, Islam, cannot be trusted. Therefore, no one can enter into their rest because there is no rest in religion.

Jesus is the only one that offers a rest from religion.

So all of the billions of Calvinists, Catholics, Muslims, and "others" through the centuries are going to be cast into an eternity of unbearable, unspeakably horrific torment and hopelessness because they have interpreted things differently than you, or have not believed how you think they should believe?

I'm not sure whether that says more about the Calvinists, Catholics, Muslims, and "others"...or you.

 

[Robert Pate]

So all of the billions of Calvinists, Catholics, Muslims, and "others" through the centuries are going to be cast into an eternity of unbearable, unspeakably horrific torment and hopelessness because they have interpreted things differently than you, or have not believed how you think they should believe?

I'm not sure whether that says more about the Calvinists, Catholics, Muslims, and "others"...or you.

There are some hints in the Bible as to who is saved and who isn't, Matthew 7:13, 14, also Matthew 7:21-23. The will of the Father is that you believe in his Son Jesus Christ.

It appears to me that anything other than faith in Christ brings condemnation.

I interpret everything in the light of the "Historical Gospel" of Jesus Christ, and not in the light of religion.

 

[Cruciform]

Even when excusing your deception, you get it wrong as you also capitalized "catholic", as per my observation that this is what Romanists do every time the run across the words "church" and "catholic".

Exactly how many "Churches" do you imagine Jesus founded? (Hint: Mt. 16:18; 1 Tim. 3:15) :think:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Exactly how many "Churches" do you imagine Jesus founded? (Hint: Mt. 16:18; 1 Tim. 3:15) :think:

Why not simply own up to your craftiness versus moving the goalposts with every post? Is it that hard to admit your behavior?

AMR