Atonement Question

Your the Catholic ILL.

And you still haven't admitting to lying to all of us...

Your ignorance of the past shows your ignorant statements of the present.

It was the pope and his jesuits that demanded free will of man... don't you know this? Read the Council of Trent !

You are perfectly word for word with the pope and his council.

 

I can tell you this rc, if you do not have faith in God, his son and even on his Son's name, you are in the same condition as Eli's house! You will not be saved!

 

I have faith in God that was GRANTED and ORDAINED to me BY His grace for HIS glory.

 

rc;
Still making your false claims?

Why should I admit what You are unwilling or should I say unable to prove.
Your accusation is false. Making you you to be the one with the lying problem...
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

"My soul glorifies the Lord

LK 1:47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

LK 1:48 for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,

LK 1:49 for the Mighty One has done great things for me--
holy is his name.

LK 1:50 His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation.

LK 1:51 He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.

LK 1:52 He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.

LK 1:53 He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty.

LK 1:54 He has helped his servant Israel,
remembering to be merciful

LK 1:55 to Abraham and his descendants forever,
even as he said to our fathers."

johnp.

 

ILL,

YOUR THE ONE WHO MADE THE ACCUSATION ! I want you to back it up. If you can't say you where wrong to everybody. I don't care for people who lie about things... You said Calvinism was condemned as heresy... prove it!! Don't you know this is embarrassing for you? I can say the Church started on the moon also, but if you asked me to prove it and I couldn't, my statements and everything I say afterwords is in vein. You can only keep your dignity by saying you where wrong or you lied and repent or GIVE some proof. By continuing this charade you only embarrass yourself.

 

johnp,
Why did you leave verse 46 and 56 from the scriptures in luke 1 that you posted? Are you afraid the context will not support you point? Oh yes, you should also include verses 39 through 45 because they set the stage for verses 46 through 56.

You are deliberately attempting to defraud and deceive! You make it clear how much you disdain the truth!

 

Wes.

I thought it was time for a quick "Praise the Lord" so I gave a quick "Praise the Lord".
I often use Mary's words because they say what I feel and they are a reality for me.
To complain about scripture when presented straight without comment is a bit odd isn't it?
Why you complain that I missed verses 46 + 56 out is also strange. If you will notice I left the rest of the bible out as well.
When I have a quick "Praise the Lord" I praise the Lord with what I feel and Mary knew what I felt so I use her words. That makes it in context with me.

"My soul glorifies the Lord
LK 1:47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
LK 1:48 for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
LK 1:49 for the Mighty One has done great things for me--
holy is his name.
LK 1:50 His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation.
LK 1:51 He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
LK 1:52 He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
LK 1:53 He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty.
LK 1:54 He has helped his servant Israel,
remembering to be merciful
LK 1:55 to Abraham and his descendants forever,
even as he said to our fathers."

How so? In what way am I trying to defraud and deceive? In what way have I disdained the truth? All the things the little peasent girl said is true of all Christians. What is the problem you have with this?

johnp.

 

I'm able to prove it... easy ! You stated it in the earlier threads !

You stated that "Calvinism has been condemned by the church" in a thread last week. And everybody has seen it! Not to hard to prove that... Now... show me where?

 

Not only condemned by the Roman Catholic Church as heritical but labled Protestant of the Catholic faith. Calvin was declared anathema by the Pope and his council.
Calvinism was Catholicism until the various Popes, changed there beliefs and gave out indulgences. Calvin when this happened followed Luther's teaching of Augustinanism. Calvinism is Augustinianism and it was Catholicism, Period.
Ask most any Calvinist and they will say the same...
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

Augustianism WAS the CHURCH's (NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC) belief hundred's of years BEFORE Roman Catholicism. You claim YOUR view of Armenianism is NOT catholic and Calvinism is what the Catholic church BELIEVES. I told you Armenianism is what the Catholic church believes and you DENIED that....

NOW you just stated that the Present Catholic church believes in .. ARMENIANISM and condemns Calvinism !! You just proved my point !!... Catholic !!

If you want to say the early Roman C. church believed in Paulinian theology you are correct. But they went against the CHURCH and strayed into the heresy of semi-pelagianism (later called Arminianism). They changed their view NOT BASED on scripture but in light of their losing power over the people because of the reformation in the Council of Trent.

My challenge was "What council or synod of THE church has condemned Calvinism"... The whole reason for my question is to show you that YOU are in line with the Roman Catholic church not I.
You just shown YOURSELF that you do ! The Augustinian theology was BEFORE the Roman Catholic church and AFTER the Roman Catholic church in the reformation. What I am showing is ALL the church fathers, that held to the scriptures only, believed in what is now known as Calvinism. Just because the Roman Catholic church adhered to that view for a short while in their infancy and then declined into humanism (Semi-Pelagianism) does not mean that it was a Roman Catholic view! While ON THE OTHER HAND, the ONLY church that has embraced Arminianism IS the Roman Catholic church. That's why I told you that you can not find a church council outside the ROMAN CATHOLIC church condemning it to heresy.

So my point is made. Your faith was derived from humanistic Roman Catholicism and condemned to heresy NOT mine. Mine (proven by church councils in history) was around BEFORE the Catholic Church. And found again (which was the WHOLE reason behind the reformation!) Therefore councils from the Roman Catholic church does not hold water.

 

You defraud and decieve by taking scripture out of its context and forcing it mean something in a different setting!

 

"Augustinianism" (if there really is such a thing) was never the official teaching of the universal teaching of the Church, although he was certainly influential in the West. Even the West correctly moderated (evident in Councils and writings of other fathers) some of Augustine's more extreme positions on election, positions that the Reformers rediscovered and carried to an even more extreme level in the 16th century. The East has always taught the coexistence of God's providence and man's free will and the synergy between God's grace and man's response. Labelling such as "semi-Pelagian" is both anachronistic and misinformed. One can say the Church was Augustinian in its view of election only if one is very selective of the evidence. That one can claim that "ALL" the fathers agree with Calvinism is very laughable and demonstrates that the one who makes such claim hasn't paid attention to what the fathers actually taught.

 

rc;

Excuse me Constantine is the one who created the RCC and the Catholic Church has always been Roman. That is where it came from. Augustine was the author of the RCC faith to begin with. Catholicism had not been thought of until 325 ad Constantine died just a few years afterward.
"Augustine is the first ecclesiastical author the whole course of whose development can be clearly traced, as well as the first in whose case we are able to determine the exact period covered by his career, to the very day. He informs us himself that he was born at Thagaste (Tagaste; now Suk Arras), in proconsular Numidia, Nov. 13, 354; he died at Hippo Regius (just south of the modern Bona) Aug. 28, 430."

Hundreds of years hardly the above quote taken from an account of his birth and death.

"Flavius Valerius Constantinus (February 27, 272–May 22, 337), commonly known as Constantine I or Constantine the Great, was proclaimed Augustus by his troops on July 25, 306 and ruled an ever-growing portion of the Roman Empire to his death. Constantine is famed for his refounding of Byzantium as "New Rome," which was always called "Constantine's City"— Constantinople. With the "Edict of Milan" in 313, Constantine and his co-Emperor removed all onus from Christianity. By taking the personal step of convoking the Council of Nicaea (325) Constantine began the Roman Empire's unofficial sponsoring of Christianity, which was a major factor in that religion's spread. His reputation as the "first Christian Emperor" was promulgated by Lactantius and Eusebius and gained ground in the succeeding generations."
I'd like to see your proof that the Catholic church existed before the RCC. I showed you mine now show me yours
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

The East has always taught the coexistence of God's providence and man's free will and the synergy between God's grace and man's response. Labelling such as "semi-Pelagian" is both anachronistic and misinformed.

What is the difference between "synergism" and "semi-pelagianism" then DT?

"Even the West correctly moderated (evident in Councils and writings of other fathers) some of Augustine's more extreme positions on election, positions that the Reformers rediscovered and carried to an even more extreme level in the 16th century"

I'm not concerned with what the councils did or what they moderated from Augustine. And to call his views "extreme" is liberal scholarship to say the least. The point is still made that the councils declared that THE COUNCILS view on the doctrine of total depravity was CORRECT ! That's my whole point ! Thanks DT.

And "All" the church fathers that I am concerned with were at those councils.

 

Semi-pelagian beliefs were basically embodied in two concepts: (1) man can seek God apart from His prevenient Grace, and/or (2) once a man receives initial grace at salvation he doesn't need any further grace to perservere.

The truth of syngergism is that nothing pertaining to salvation can be done without God's grace--from the initial drawing to the final perserverance. Without Him we can do nothing. Yet man in response is free to receive or reject God's grace at any point on the salvific journey. God's grace is in fact resistable. Such is the teaching of the fathers and these truths are thundered forth from Scripture.

Also to call the acknowledgement of Augustine's views of election as being extreme, "liberal scholarship", is pretty ridiculous. The fact is that, compared to the other fathers, Augustine's view on the subject was extreme and reflected more the baggage from his past than any patristic consensus.

(The rest of your post regarding "councils" was somewhat incoherent, so I don't have any further comment.)

 

If Christ takes away all the sins of the world - how then can He only take away the sins of the elect?

I do not believe that the non-elect are covered - only that Christ provided covering, but they fail to receive His covering and therefore pay the penalty themselves. quoted by nwells.

1st let me state that we not leave out philosophical reasoning here. I do not believe that we should stray from scriptures but we must not remain simple in our thinking. This is not directed at nwells but to this post forum in general

Nwells you answer your own question. If Christ covered the sins of the world then by His authorittative power and right (sovereignty) they would be covered and everyone would be saved thus universalism. You then acknowledge that not everyone "receives" this covering. If they did not recieve it it was not meant for them. In the nway that you put it if Christ truly did take away the sins of the world then again everyone would be pardoned. That is not the case. Did Christ fail? In Paul's words "May it never be!" By His nature He cnnot fail, thus those who do not recieve the pardon of sin were never meant to have it in the first place. If they were they would recieve it! That means if they do not recieve it it was never meant for them

 

Chandler,

And God Said, "For lack of knowledge my people perish". Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Faith is the product of KNOWLEDGE, Thus Faith in God is the product of having knowledge of God. The Word of God provides the knowledge of God that produces Faith In God. For by God's grace WE ARE SAVED THROUGH FAITH, not of our selves, Salvation is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast.

Your assumption that many are not meant to have salvation is TOTALLY BOGUS. The will of the Father is that NONE should Perish, but that All should be saved. For that reason, God, who so loved the world, Gave us his only Begotten Son, that whosoever believe in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Those who believe are not judged, those who believe NOT are judged by their unbelief.

How can they hear but that I send a preacher? Who will I send?.....Here I am, Send me! Let me be the one who tells my neighbors, my friends, my coworkers and even my family, so that they will have the Knowledge of God upon which to establish their own FAITH in God and thereby be saved BY GOD, while he is in HIS GRACE.

Jesus' atonement for sin was for ALL SIN. The penalty for sin has been paid ONCE, For ALL. Even so, I have never heard of even one person being saved by Atonement. It is always GOD who does the Saving, Not atonement, not grace, and not faith; but clearly and simply Almighty God, our heavenly Father is the one who saves all who have faith in HIM.

 

That is what the sacrifice typed. The sacrifice caused a reconciliation for Israel. The sacrifice is only given to Israel and Israel is a type of the Church which is true Israel.

The Lamb of God was sacrificed for spiritual Israel and it reconciles Israel. It has nothing to do with the people the sacrifice is made for because this sacrifice was given by God for God for His people. We have nothing to do with it but receive it and we receive it by the grace of God.

Wes.

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

1 Sam 3:14 Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' "
It was not for all sin, you dismiss scripture in your depravity.

People going to Hell with their sins washed clean is just a disgraceful idea. It sets at nought the blood of Christ.

johnp.