quantumfaith
Active Member
Thank you Robert. I understand well your sentiment. Way too much of that goes on here in BB land. Much like playing in the sand box.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Catholic doctrine vs Calvinist.
- Thread starter Jarthur001
- Start date
Thank you Robert. I understand well your sentiment. Way too much of that goes on here in BB land. Much like playing in the sand box.
Jarthur001
Active Member
Before we move on, I would like to post the Reformers view to canon 9.
Man cannot add anything to the work of Christ was what they held to. This is seem throughout the NT. Its called faith alone. The key word here is not "faith" but "alone". Rome teaches faith, but man must does his part. Synergism
The Reformers taught that justification was God's act of declaring the sinner righteous upon the imputation of Christ's righteousness. This is not God looking on man, because man cannot add to what God knows. Justification was to the Reformers, all of God. It changed of one's legal status before God, based on what Christ did, not what we do.. They used the phrase alien righteousness to stress that the righteousness that justifies an individual originated totally outside of the person. This is monergism. Verses...
1. "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin," (Rom. 3:20).
2. "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," (Rom. 3:24).
3. "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," (Rom. 3:28).
4. "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness," (Rom. 4:3).
5. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1).
6. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God," (Eph. 2:8).
7. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost," (Titus 3:5).
Again that is monergistic. The Reformers had the verses to back their views.
One may wonder how Roman replied to these verses. Below you will a list of verses they use.
END OF LIST
The point is that Trent NEVER answered the question of Justification. To Rome, justification was defined as a process in which a person co-operated with the righteousness of Christ. Rome made justification dependent upon what people did or it was rather upon man co-operationing with God, not on faith alone.
Man HAD to do something, or God would not save him. God would NEVER force salvation on man. Man must ALLOW God to work. He must OPEN the door, before God could come in.
Its clear that the Reformers stood on the other side of this view. They held to what was seen in the early church.
Clemens Romanus. A.D. 69.
“All therefore are glorified and magnified, not by themselves or their own works of righteous actions, which they have wrought out, but by his will;”
“‘not by ourselves, nor by our wisdom, or understanding, or piety, or the works which we have done in holiness of heart,’ but by faith by which God Almighty hath justified all from the beginning, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
Barnabas. A.D. 70
How shall the temple be built in the name of the Lord? Learn; before we believed in God, the habitation of our heart was phtharton kai asthenes, ‘corrupt and weak,’ as a temple truly built with hands; for it was a house full of idolatry, and idolatry was the house of devils, by doing what was contrary to God. It shall be built in the name of the Lord. Attend, that the temple of the Lord may be built glorious.
Ignatius. A.D. 110
To the blessed in the greatness of God the Father and fullness; to the predestinated before ages, that is, before the world began; always to be a glory, abiding, immoveable, united and chosen in the true passion by the will of God the Father, and Jesus Christ our God; to the church, worthily blessed, which is in Ephesus of Asia, much joy in Christ Jesus, and in the unblemished grace.
Justin. A.D. 150
I am able to show, that all the things appointed by Moses were types, symbols, and declarations of what should be done to Christ; kai ton eis auton pisteuein proegnosmenon, and of them that were foreknown to believe in him: and likewise of those things that were to be done by Christ.
Man cannot add anything to the work of Christ was what they held to. This is seem throughout the NT. Its called faith alone. The key word here is not "faith" but "alone". Rome teaches faith, but man must does his part. Synergism
The Reformers taught that justification was God's act of declaring the sinner righteous upon the imputation of Christ's righteousness. This is not God looking on man, because man cannot add to what God knows. Justification was to the Reformers, all of God. It changed of one's legal status before God, based on what Christ did, not what we do.. They used the phrase alien righteousness to stress that the righteousness that justifies an individual originated totally outside of the person. This is monergism. Verses...
1. "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin," (Rom. 3:20).
2. "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," (Rom. 3:24).
3. "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," (Rom. 3:28).
4. "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness," (Rom. 4:3).
5. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1).
6. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God," (Eph. 2:8).
7. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost," (Titus 3:5).
Again that is monergistic. The Reformers had the verses to back their views.
One may wonder how Roman replied to these verses. Below you will a list of verses they use.
END OF LIST
The point is that Trent NEVER answered the question of Justification. To Rome, justification was defined as a process in which a person co-operated with the righteousness of Christ. Rome made justification dependent upon what people did or it was rather upon man co-operationing with God, not on faith alone.
Man HAD to do something, or God would not save him. God would NEVER force salvation on man. Man must ALLOW God to work. He must OPEN the door, before God could come in.
Its clear that the Reformers stood on the other side of this view. They held to what was seen in the early church.
Clemens Romanus. A.D. 69.
“All therefore are glorified and magnified, not by themselves or their own works of righteous actions, which they have wrought out, but by his will;”
“‘not by ourselves, nor by our wisdom, or understanding, or piety, or the works which we have done in holiness of heart,’ but by faith by which God Almighty hath justified all from the beginning, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
Barnabas. A.D. 70
How shall the temple be built in the name of the Lord? Learn; before we believed in God, the habitation of our heart was phtharton kai asthenes, ‘corrupt and weak,’ as a temple truly built with hands; for it was a house full of idolatry, and idolatry was the house of devils, by doing what was contrary to God. It shall be built in the name of the Lord. Attend, that the temple of the Lord may be built glorious.
Ignatius. A.D. 110
To the blessed in the greatness of God the Father and fullness; to the predestinated before ages, that is, before the world began; always to be a glory, abiding, immoveable, united and chosen in the true passion by the will of God the Father, and Jesus Christ our God; to the church, worthily blessed, which is in Ephesus of Asia, much joy in Christ Jesus, and in the unblemished grace.
Justin. A.D. 150
I am able to show, that all the things appointed by Moses were types, symbols, and declarations of what should be done to Christ; kai ton eis auton pisteuein proegnosmenon, and of them that were foreknown to believe in him: and likewise of those things that were to be done by Christ.
You can correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this canon defining what the RCC calls Original Sin. That is what I get from it. Original Sin, caused by Adam's fall introduces man into the family of Satan, and thus "anathema."
The RCC also teaches that a man must be born again in order to enter into the RCC which saves him. However they equate born again with baptism. It is baptism into the RCC which saves. Baptism washes away the Original Sin. That is the big difference between us and the definition above. We would never believe that the free will of man is gained and light is attained or the image of God restored through baptism as the RCC does.
Amen. Keep up the good work, I thoroughly enjoy most of your posts, I'm actually learning.
Robert Snow
New Member
I appreciate your postings, but I am starting to think these Calvinists are a lost cause. One who will not accept the plain teachings of scripture are impossible to reach with genuine doctrine.
Jarthur001
Active Member
Hello DHK,
It is indeed addressing Original Sin. But if I understand your post right, you have read the canon wrong. Canon V, as are others, was addressing the Reformers directly. Mainly toward Luther. Here is what happened…
As the Reformers begin to study Scripture on their own apart from the church and recovered Justification by faith that the early church held, they looked to the church fathers. This is where they found their support. It wasn't new doctrine at all. It once was held by the church, but the church had left this teaching.
But while seeking the early fathers they fond other things too. The church had fallen away from the doctrine of Original Sin it once held.
They found proof of this in the early fathers too.
They saw that Original Sin was believed by the early church even before Augustine wrote about it. This was new truth to them, because the Roman church having left these doctrines no longer taught them.
Luther said what the Roman church was teaching in his day, ...and this is key..
((("was brought into the church by the devil". )))
The Reformers found out, what they had clearly seen in Scripture was not a NEW interpretation of the passage as Rome claimed, but rather the old teaching of the early church.
So they removed the wrong teaching of the power of human will that Rome was teaching and replaced it with what the early fathers had held to and what Scripture says.
So now lets read the canon...
Rome is saying..
If anyone teaches that man has lost his free will >>>>as the reformers are teaching.
this is saying...if any THING places an attack against mans freedom...my name....my the church, ...my the government, or culture .......
This is toward Luther....If you hold that free will is a fiction doctrine that came into the church by Satan....as Luther had claimed
let such an one be accursed"!
Rome uphold the free will of man. This was THE major point. This is why Luther wrote "the bondage of the will" because he saw the free will doctrine of the Roman church as the evil plant by satan that made the church to go bad.
The Pope called upon the greatest humanist of that date to debate Luther. Erasmus chose free-will as the debate point. In the beginning of his book Luther told Erasmus...You have hit the nail on the head..(my words)...free will is what divides us.
Jarthur001
Active Member
Hello Winman,
As always, one need only look at the context. I agree with the Reformers on this.
We can look at one verse. You can look at the others on your own. If you need help with them, get back with me.
Romans 3...
Notice: Man cannot say he has done anything. ALL boasting...ever bit of it......GONE. NONE!!
Paul is not saying the same thing twice. Its both not keeping the law..being good....by being holy.
and...all other works. All other things. YOU CAN DO NOTHING
I like the way "the Message puts it...
Thanks for your explanation. I certainly agree with your conclusion (or was it Erasmus') "free will is what divides us."
Jarthur....this is getting interesting, now you have me hooked. Please proceed.
But also James, you need to identify what the RCC held as free-will since it's definition is NOT the same as what it is defined as today but the majority of evangelicals.
Theirs was directly as semi-Pelagian (sp?) view which states (paraphased) that man comes to God apart from ANY divine influence.. and that man at this point realizes that he can not get to God.. so God rewards man with Grace and saves him.
The ENTIRE point here is on two points which do not comport to todays meaning.
1. Man can come to God apart from ANY divine influence
2. That God rewards mans effort with grace and salvation.
Thus the RCC does not hold to free-will in sense evangelicals do but is described by most evangelicals as Libertarian Free-will. (though that is not accurate either but it is usually used to show distinction between the views of Free-will)
Last edited by a moderator:
Jarthur001
Active Member
Hello Allan,
Why do you feel I must give a definition? BTW..I disagree with your definitions you just gave.
Good to chat again. I hope the kids are well.
James
Jarthur001
Active Member
another canon from trent..
Is this something you (the reader) agrees with?
Is this something you (the reader) agrees with?
Hello Allan,
Why do you feel I must give a definition? BTW..I disagree with your definitions you just gave.
Good to chat again. I hope the kids are well.
James
First off.. yes, you need to define the terms as they are NOT one and the same.
Second
From Theopedia on Semi-Pelagianism:
Semi-Pelagianism, a moderated form of Pelagianism, taught that man has retained the ability to seek God in and of himself apart from any movement of God's grace.
From Monergism.com (from source: Differences between Semi-Pelagianism and Arminian Beliefs)
[Semi-Pelagianism]
While not denying the necessity of Grace for salvation, Semi-Pelagianism maintains that the first steps towards the Christian life are ordinarily taken by the human will and that Grace supervened only later
Carm on Semi-Pel
The semi-Pelagian teaches that man can make the first move toward God by seeking God out of his own free will and that man can cooperate with God's grace even to the keeping of his faith through human effort. This would mean that God responds to the initial effort of person and that God's grace is not absolutely necessary to maintain faith.
and others as well I can call up.. not to mention of course Wiki, but do I really need to bring that link up
All of these convey the same definition I have previously given. In short, man can seek after God apart from any divine influence, but man needs grace in order to be saved, which God grants after man has initially come.
Ok.. backtrack..
what part do you NOT agree with
should have asked that first?
Last edited by a moderator:
Jarthur001
Active Member
Allan, you of all people I find it hard to believe you said this. maybe you need to read the full thread. Then it will become clear.
We can talk about your definitions later.
Allan, you of all people I find it hard to believe you said this. maybe you need to read the full thread. Then it will become clear.
We can talk about your definitions later.
Ok.. you said the same thing I did - sorry about that.. so what did you disagree with?
You are using the term free-will (at least with DHK) as though what the Catholics hold to (which IS semi-pelagainism) is the same word and definition evangelicals (for lack of a better word) use.
The definitions of the views are not even close, and that was my point.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jarthur001
Active Member
BUMP
another canon from trent..
Quote:
CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.
Is this something you (the reader) agrees with?
another canon from trent..
Quote:
CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.
Is this something you (the reader) agrees with?
Where he'd probably be treated by a Indian (Hindu) doctor.