Catholics are Arminians

[whetstone]

Originally posted by Born Again Catholic:
I don't think Catholics fit in either category but the title of this post is ironic as Calvinists typically have an easier time embracing Catholic teaching on this matter the arminians.

We are all predestined to Grace(some more than others) with the free will to fall from that grace,

Here is a link giving a Catholic prospective on TULIP
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm

Thank you born again, but reading that article I found these conclusions:

T- Catholicism acknowledges it
U- It is left up to the Catholic to accept it or reject it
L- Catholicism rejects it
I- It is left up to the Catholic to accept it or reject it
P- Catholicism rejects it

Catholics are more Arminian than they are Calvinists, and this article is further proof of that.

 

[OCC]

"Catholics are more Arminian than they are Calvinists, and this article is further proof of that.

Paul would just love and approve of our sectarianism wouldn't he?

 

[whetstone]

Originally posted by King James:
"Catholics are more Arminian than they are Calvinists, and this article is further proof of that.

Paul would just love and approve of our sectarianism wouldn't he?

Are you saying ur a 'Paulician?'

oooooooooonly kiddin.

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by King James:
"Catholics are more Arminian than they are Calvinists, and this article is further proof of that.

Paul would just love and approve of our sectarianism wouldn't he?

That's a lopsided view of Paul. The same letter that chides the Corinthians for divisions commends it as well.

There is nothing wrong with division per se. The Bible speaks about division in the church in positive and negative light.

1 Cor. 11:18-19, "For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you."

1 Cor. 1:10, "Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree, and there be no divisions among you, but you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment."

1 Cor. 11:19 uses the Greek word "haireses" for "factions". We get the English word heresy from this Greek word. A heresy is a false teaching, something that deviates from orthodoxy. If we see that the Scriptures declare something clearly (orthodoxy), and if someone teaches contrary to that clear teaching, then he or she is teaching heresy in the broadest sense of the term.

The Scriptures teach that there is a place for division and that is when opposing teachings that are contrary to sound doctrine. If Voltaire didn't exist, we'd have to invent him. But division can only occur when the truth is known and those who abide with the truth should correct those who do not. Words like "Calvinist" and "Arminian" are descriptive terms denoting certain theological affirmations. They just happen to be attached to person's names. I don't see you complaining about Lutheranism or being called a Christian. Such terms are helpful shorthand we use, nothing more, nothing less.

Your other alternative is "non-Reformed" and "Reformed," but, if believe that language we use should be precise and you understand the issues re: what Reformed Theology stands for in toto, you, as a Protestant, would not like where that would put the Arminians. It would simply misrepresent them grossly. They would, debatably, not fit the definition of non-Reformed. Those Arminians who are not Open Theists or theological liberals do actually affirm the 5 Solas of the Reformation. The 5 Solas, not the 5 Points of Calvinism, define Reformed Theology. The Five Points of Calvinism and the Five Articles of the Arminians are simply the articulation of their soteriology, not their comprehensive theology.

Evangelical Arminians do hold to the Five Solas, although there's that pesky commitment to libertarian free will that their scholars generally agree comes from outside of Scripture and not Scripture alone, but that to the side...For this reason Calvinists find the Arminian application of Sola Scriptura on this matter inconsistent on this point, but, on most others, Calvinists have no major quarrel with their profession and application of the Five Solas.

"Arminian" and "Calvinist" are much more appropriate terms with restricted meanings that do not alienate the Arminians from the Reformation. These two words restrict the scope to the soteriological doctrines and not such things as Scripture Alone (the Protestant Rule of Faith) or Christ Alone (an Arminian's faith is undivided, see my above post), etc.

 

[OCC]

Whetstone...no need for you to say oooonly kidding. anyways, yeah I guess. When I WAS a Calvinist a buddy of mine said I really couldn't even call myself one. He said if anything I should call myself a Paulinist.

GeneMBridges...no need for sectarianism here though. We are Christians...Calvinism and Arminianism is really irrelevant if we are all Christians.

 

[Born Again Catholic]

Thank you born again, but reading that article I found these conclusions:

T- Catholicism acknowledges it
U- It is left up to the Catholic to accept it or reject it
L- Catholicism rejects it
I- It is left up to the Catholic to accept it or reject it
P- Catholicism rejects it

I think you need to read it a little more carefully

 

[Born Again Catholic]

Thank you born again, but reading that article I found these conclusions:

T- Catholicism acknowledges it
U- It is left up to the Catholic to accept it or reject it
L- Catholicism rejects it
I- It is left up to the Catholic to accept it or reject it
P- Catholicism rejects it

I think you need to read it a little more carefully

 

[whetstone]

Originally posted by King James:
Whetstone...no need for you to say oooonly kidding. anyways, yeah I guess. When I WAS a Calvinist a buddy of mine said I really couldn't even call myself one. He said if anything I should call myself a Paulinist.

GeneMBridges...no need for sectarianism here though. We are Christians...Calvinism and Arminianism is really irrelevant if we are all Christians.

Paul and Barnabus separated on a disagreement. Whether they were right in doing this is up to conjecture. The point is that sometimes separation needs to happen to keep the peace- even if we are all unified as the body of Christ. I don't see any unification between C/A in the foreseeable future.

 

[whetstone]

Originally posted by Born Again Catholic:
I think you need to read it a little more carefully

I read it carefully and stand by my statement.

 

[Pipedude]

whetstone wrote:
Paul and Barnabus separated on a disagreement. Whether they were right in doing this is up to conjecture.

They couldn't help it. It was foreordained.

 

[johnp.]

 

[BobRyan]

While it is true that the RCC did not totally corrupt the teaching of the trinity nor of free will - I don't see how "admitting that" - is in itself an effective argument AGAINST the Trinity or against free will (in this case) that Whetstone would have us believe.

They corrupt the Trinity by making Mary co-redeemer, co-mediatrix, all powerful like Christ and sinless like Christ - AND of course the MOTHER of GOD.

They corrupt free will by insisting that the priest has "magic powers" such that he can "change the soul" indeed "mark the soul" via his magic performed over infants at their baptism -- thus "saving them" without their actually hearing/understanding/CHOOSING anything at all!

The extent of that very non-Arminian idea was so intrusive into the way the early Christian church operated that it created a ROLE change for the elder or pastor -- changing them from a Bible teacher into a priest with magic powers.

Here is one of the RCC's own historians pointing out this unfortunate fact of history.

Bokenkotter is more than a dry "Catholic historian" he is also a well-known best-selling author.

Thomas Bokenkotter's "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" pg 49

"at first the Christian presbyter or elder avoided any resemblance to the pagan or Jewish priests and in fact even deliberately refused to be called a priest.
He saw his primary function (instead) to be the ministry of the word...but the image of the Christian presbyter gradually took on a sacral character.

This sacralization of the clergy was brought about by various developments...the Old Testament priesthood was seen as a model for the NT priesthood (gradually). The more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantine era, with it's features borrowed from paganism, enhanced the image of the minister as a sacred personage. The ministry of the word diminished in importance when infant baptism became (evolved to become?) the rule, for infants could not be preached to...

Before Constantine the whole church was considered the realm of the sacred as opposed to the profane world outside; after Constantine and the breakdown of the separation between church and the world, the polarity between sacred and profane was transformed into one between sacred clergy and profane laity"

OF course this "power to change infants" idea fits perfectly with Calvinism and hence in the "purely calvinist" denominations -- it is a common practice.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by King James:
I love how Calvinists are so quick to say what Arminians believe or teach...

If I have misrepresented what you believe then refute it in a meaningful way.

ie. "That isn't what I believe about... This is what I believe... and this is why they are genuinely different...."

Most arminians are quick to cry foul then change the subject when backed into a corner.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
I would think perseverance of the saints to be more works based than anything!

Perseverance of the saints is simply a way of restating the promise that He who began a good work in us will finish it. </font>[/QUOTE]The definition sounds more to me like "maintaining" one's salvation more than anything.</font>[/QUOTE] Let's see... God begins a work and promises to finish it yet somehow that sounds like "'maintaining' one's salvation" to you?

Are you reading your bias into my response? I gave ALL of the credit to God. He began the work. He will complete it.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by webdog:
&lt;&lt;Well first let me give you Webster's for "work":
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 : activity in which one exerts strength or faculties to do or perform something: a : sustained physical or mental effort to overcome obstacles and achieve an objective or result b : the labor, task, or duty that is one's accustomed means of livelihood c : a specific task, duty, function, or assignment often being a part or phase of some larger activity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arminianism teaches that a person's choice to be saved is independent and primary to their receiving grace and being born again. They object when calvinists suggest that all such choices are predicated on God's election and regeneration of that person.&gt;&gt;

Your "by definition" falls flat on it's face because we cannot use our "physical or mental effort to overcome" hell, nor do we believe that.

Nice attempt at evasion... but no.

The CEO of a major corporation cannot produce a billion widgets himself either... but the production can be started by a single decision made by him. The primary thing empowering the action is the work of the decision.

I didn't say that our "effort" could overcome hell. But arminians do believe that a decision with a prime motive that originates within the individual is necessary to attain salvation. God can do all of the other work but so long as you contend that a human decision starts the process you have a works based system.

Arminians refuse they idea that God does anything "first" to cause an individual salvation decision. Don't stray off into the general call at this point. I am talking about what causes one to believe while another does not.

If I were to give you a choice between a cookie and a brownie, and you choose the brownie, how did you "work" to get the brownie?

That is a perfect illustration of my point.

There was a process of thought that caused the decision. It may have been long. It may have been short. It may have been predicated on a long history of thoughts and preferences but it still involves a process that has a result- that's work.

You didn't, you chose it...you didn't "earn" it or "work" for it.

A choice is a decision. A decision that produces results is by definition "work".

 

[OCC]

ScotJ...here is what I believe that a Calvinist would disagree with.

I believe God saves me by grace. He convicts the entire world of sin because man cannot go to Him on their own. Of the entire world, many reject Him. The others are saved by grace. God did the work. I did not. My faith is not a work...it is faith. And my salvation is eternal. Eternal security.

Calvinists would say I don't believe this. Is that enough for you or would you like more? Now...when Calvinists are so quick to say what Arminians believe without taking the time to find out for sure...what does that say about them? You just had something to say about Arminians "crying foul".

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by King James:
ScotJ...here is what I believe that a Calvinist would disagree with.

I believe God saves me by grace. He convicts the entire world of sin because man cannot go to Him on their own. Of the entire world, many reject Him. The others are saved by grace. God did the work. I did not.

I think that most calvinists would agree completely up to this point.

My faith is not a work...it is faith.

That depends on its source or prime cause. I believe that the prime cause is that God quickens our dead-in-sin nature resulting in the free will choice to believe, have faith, and love God.

I do not believe that genuine saving faith is the result of a process of human thoughts and decisions.

Calvinists would say I don't believe this.

This calvinist didn't disagree with your answer. I simply believe that it is incomplete. It does not answer all of the questions... though I would say that it answers the practically important ones.

Is that enough for you or would you like more?

That's up to you.

Now...when Calvinists are so quick to say what Arminians believe without taking the time to find out for sure...what does that say about them?

What you stated above isn't arminian or at least not exclusively so.

 

[OCC]

Thanks for your reply Scotj.

"What you stated above isn't arminian or at least not exclusively so."
What I have strived for all along. I don't like to be placed in one camp unless it's the Christian camp.

 

[Scott J]

Although zeal seems to rule this debate... I won't part company with anyone who agrees to the point that you and I have.

This debate is about the next thought after what you wrote... the next "Why?" While it is not unimportant, it is an academic debate.

As far as I know, calvinists like Edwards and Spurgeon made appeals very much like those used by non-calvinists like Torrey and Moody.

 

[Scott J]

BTW, sorry for that anti-Canada tirade.

I am disappointed that Canada hasn't gone along with us more fully but it isn't right to diminish the support that has come.