Calvinism is Catholicism if I'm wrong prove it

Timothy W,

You have read of the hard line dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. We are not saying that Catholics and Calvinists are one in the same. We are saying that their views of predestination, election, total depravity, limited atonement . . . surfaced because of the corrupted Vulgate version and because of the fact that Calvin read too much Augustinian theology. Hence, the list of error in the visible Church.

Augustine and Calvin both persecuted and killed heretics. Calvin killed Michael Servetus a Spaniard. Should this be our ethical bar, as Christians, in making theolgians worthy of being heard?

 

What makes me angry, and yes, I am angry, is that you all do not adequately address the Scriptures and appeal to history to prove whatever it is that you are trying to prove. I could care less about John Calvin, the Roman Catholic Church, the Puritans, and other heretics. I don't care about them! The Scriptures is the final authority--in all things! The Papacy is the Antichrist, but remember, he believes and teaches the same Arminianism that you all do. Read the Sciptures.

"...as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." [Acts 13:48]

By His Sovereign and Amazing Grace,
Brother Chris

 

I believe the pope could be the Antichrist spoken of in Revelations

We are suppose to trust someone on Church History who doesn't know what the name of the last book of the bible is?

 

My fingers keep typing but you don't seem to be reading anything I post. Yes, the Vulgate has many errors, and Jerome had some bizarre ideas about theology. Do you realize yet that we agree on this point? More important, do you realize that Luther agreed on this point, and criticized the Vulgate and Jerome in his works?

Luther was perhaps the strongest proponent of election and biggest enemy of free will who ever lived. So even if you could resurrect Calvin and get him to sign a notorized document that he got some of his ideas from errors in the Vulgate, you would still have to deal with the fact that Luther and others have drawn the same exact conclusions as Calvin WITHOUT THE INFLUENCE OF THOSE ERRORS.

What you cannot say is that Luther was "fooled" by the errors because he agreed with Augustine, because Luther repeatedly addressed them and refuted both Vulgate translation details and Jerome's opinions.

So I simply do not see the point of going down this Vulgate/Jerome road against Calvinism.

 

Brethren,

This discussion belongs on the Baptist History Forum.

I have addressed what I believe on another post in this forum, to add to the confusion here I will say I believe the RC is the whore of Babylon that world govt. will turn against.

The ability of the Anti-Christ to deceive Israel, (that he is the Messiah) seems to me that he will be Jewish), whether he is able to come from the vatican, I don't know.

What I want to say is that Baptists are not Protestants; we never belonged to the 'universal' church in order that we should protest against it.
Calvin, nor Luther had intentions of leaving the RC, but only to reform it.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

This is the number of man, (made on the sixth day) it is signifying man of the earth, it is representative of satan's Anti-Trinity; and is produced from the will of man, seeking world peace, end to hunger, disease, ethnic and economic inequalities, by and through world govt. and apart from the Soveriegn Will of God.

God Bless.

Bro. Dallas

 

Romanbear, we are to trust you on scripture and history when you don't even know what the word catholic means (universal in case you still don't get it) And beyond this whether there were some calvinist so dogmatic about it, does not make the doctrine untrue. If calvinism leads to pusecution, why aren't guys like Piper, J Packer, Sproul, and MacArthur running torture chambers? It is ridiculous I tell you, and it almost makes me laugh.

Thanks, I needed a good chuckle,
sturgman

 

me think romanbear doesn't know anything.

try regurgitating a few more second or third hand arguments.

ad hominem attacks (like this one, and the other thread on this subject) are weak and the final grasp of desperate people who have no other real arguments to use.

are we to take this as a concession that arminianism cannot be defended purely on the Scripture?

learn some definition and some history. ray, you are doing some serious history bending to come up with your conclusions. romanbear, you are way off.

 

If you think Romanbear doesn't know anything and you think Arminians don't use their scripture why don't you answer my arguments in the post titled CALVINISM'S TEACHING OF TOTAL INABILITY IS UNFOUNDED IN SCRIPTURE

Goodness now you wouldn't want to debate someone who does use scripture now would you?

 

I have a feeling if we do discuss this it will go nowhere...and I will not get my greek work done (passages don't exegete themselves). BTW, exegesis is where you draw the meaning FROM the text, rather than reading things into it....I think that will be our main point of contention. We will disagree on the interpretation of verses and even words. It's a no-win for both of us at this juncture.

But, baseless claims denying Calvin's ability to read the Bible and not just echo what was taught 1000 years earlier are just plain dumb. Going to the texts is the only way to clear this all up, not 'ad hominem' attacks.

 

I know a lot of Arminians use Scripture.....I just think they mis-use it.

I know you feel the same way about Calvinists.

 

A man's belief in the Doctrines of Grace often can be correct, while his belief on the church are in error.

Bro. Dallas

 

The only Biblical 'Doctrine of Grace' is Christ's offer to every human being. [John 3:16; Mark 16:16; John 5:24; Acts 10:34; Acts 16:31; Romans 2:11; Romans 5:18; I Timothy 2:4. . . . . ' . . . who wishes {check Greek} all men to be saved. . . .' Hebrews 2:9; I Peter 3:18; I John 2:2; Revelation 22:17] and multiple other verses. In limiting the possiblity of the sinner's atonement, as in "Limited Atonement" is considered by you as a 'doctrine of grace;' to us it is more fittingly said, a doctrine of 'disgrace.' Anyone who believes in Jesus and His plan of salvation can and will be saved. [Acts 16:31]

 

I agree with you Ray, except that I believe only those who God makes the call effective to will believe.

Bro. Dallas

 

Checking in this morning, I find a thread that is absolutely wrongly focused and poorly started.

The issues at hand in this forum are the doctrines of soteriology and their relation to Scripture. If you would like to discuss church history, do it elsewhere. It has been the consistent position of this forum to not discuss church history here since this is a doctrinal issue.

Second, the whole attempt to attach calvinism to the RCC is manifestly and demonstrably unfounded. Simply put, it is a stupid attempt to associate something you dislike with something else you dislike.

The doctrines and support for them are found in the Bible that predates the Catholic church by many years. Therefore, this discussion should focus on Scripture since there are no Catholics here.

Second, the Catholic church today despises calvinism. To try to attach it to the Catholic church is simply foolish.

Third, even if the Catholic church did believe it, that does not affect the truth. As I stated before, the RCC believes in the Trinity and the Resurrection but Romanbear, Ray, and others are not rushing to disavow those doctrines. It shows the inherent inconsistency in this attempt.

The test of doctrine is not "What church believes it or teaches it?" The test of doctrine is, "Does Scripture teach it?" Romanbear and Ray, you would do well to remember this to avoid the kind of argumentation that you are attempting here.

Let's get back to Scripture and put church history in the forum where it belongs.

 

This has been done many time by many of us. No matter how many times we show the verses and demonstrate what they mean, you reject them because you disagree with the position it leads you too. When the Bible says that "God chose you for salvation from the beginning," we believe that is what it means. To deny that is to be on dangerous ground.

 

Ray, do me a favor. Tell me in scripture where grace is offered? I see that it is poured out, lavished, given, but never offered as if it were something from the Home Shopping Network.