Either the reformers had it right reagrding justification of Rome did, as the 2 are oppossed to each other! One is a saving Gospel, the other is a false one that saves no one, apart from the Grace of God saving despite heresy!Paul was not against the Roman Catholic Church...they did not even exist.
But if you want to bring Paul into it, he was also against groups, who we know were churches/fellowships recognized by him, who were in error concerning Doctrine and Practice. Let's see, yep, that was pretty much every group he wrote to. Each group he wrote to had to be taught specific doctrine. That is why he wrote them.
As far as Luther being against the heresy of the RCC, as far as I am concerned, I don't see too much to be impressed about Luther about. As far as Calvin goes, I view his position on regeneration to be anti-biblical and it leads people away from understanding regeneration for the same reason Catholics embrace certain doctrines we object to...indoctrination.
If people read the Books of the Bible instead of books about the Bible they could be led of God away from false teachings, whether they are from an institutional organization, or from teachers like Luther, Calvin, and quite a few other people worshiped by people. So you're throwing out name of people who I find equally erroneous on a number of issues, so let's get a bigger box, okay? We need one that holds more than just Catholics.
God bless.
-
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!
Indulgences
- Thread starter Darrell C
- Start date
- Status
Thats a piece of cake you sure you don't want to research yourself? John Calvin says its by elect + ELECTION can run By HEREDITY, based on promises are on you AND YOUR CHILDREN.
"4. There is now no difficulty in seeing wherein the two signs agree, and wherein they differ. The promise, in which we have shown that the power of the signs consists, is one in both—viz. the promise of the paternal favour of God, of forgiveness of sins, and eternal life. And the thing figured is one and the same—viz. regeneration. The foundation on which the completion of these things depends is one in both. Wherefore, there is no difference in the internal meaning, from which the whole power and peculiar nature of the sacrament is to be estimated. The only difference which remains is in the external ceremony, which is the least part of it, the chief part consisting in the promise and the thing signified. Hence we may conclude, that everything applicable to circumcision applies also to baptism, excepting always the difference in the visible ceremony. To this analogy and comparison we are led by that rule of the apostle, in which he enjoins us to bring every interpretation of Scripture to the analogy of faith629 (Rom. 12:3, 6). And certainly in this matter the truth may almost be felt. For just as circumcision, which was a kind of badge to the Jews, assuring them that they were adopted as the people and family of God, was their first entrance into the Church, while they, in their turn, professed their allegiance to God, so now we are initiated by baptism, so as to be enrolled among his people, and at the same time swear unto his name. Hence it is incontrovertible, that baptism has been substituted for circumcision, and performs the same office." -- John Calvin
See John Calvin has a heredity system if you are elect then so are your children. And regeneration happens IN baptism. So lets say he has a child baptized, that child is going through regeneration at that point.
The ones who believed in believer's baptism The Anabaptist are also unlike you because they had a step up of salvation by works. The very concept of believers baptism is saved by works on the conscience choice of being baptized. They would kick folks out for not acting christian like.
A infant baptism is a better example of being chosen elect not by one's own choice.
Luther is Faith Alone , Calvinist is Election Alone. Luther would say righteousness imputed on you, but never infused with you. He was stuck on since a person always ends up sinning there had to be a way through the despair of always failing would be the success of Christ.
These problems arise from having an attitude of EITHER/OR vs BOTH/AND on the approach to scripture.
So one spot says stop sinning, Another says Jesus covers our sins, you assume you can only do one or the other.
You would probably say, Either you stop sinning or Christ's victory covers your sinful nature in eternity. You can't stop sinning so it has to be Jesus covering our sinful nature. So everything the scripture says about stop sinning we throw in the trash, Jesus has us covered.
We would say, Both you would stop sinning AND Christ's victory. Just because you can't stop sinning now doesn't mean Jesus can't heal you later.
If they had it right all they would have to do is bring it up to the church. Where we all get together discuss and together make a ruling as scripture instructs. Remember these guys are REFORMERS and PROTESTANTS. NONE is just plain original church. The Catholic church is.
Buddhist have existed 500 years prior to Jesus. I wouldn't start a PROTESTANT/REFORMATION of THAT faith, If what I had is the original faith and had nothing to do with them.
Everyone recognized the Catholic church was the real deal and had their own personal spin on how it is corrupt.
In other words your entire faith's foundation is based on CATHOLICS BEING WRONG, rather then having anything independently RIGHT on your own.
We never had to say "faith alone" all we had to say is the Gospel was right, without having to add anything.
Even when Luther argued, why wasn't faith alone just assumed the norm and then what the Catholics have was a "brand new heresy".
That what sincerity would have sounded like, Luther was bringing in something NEW.
And if he practiced what he preached, he would just have FAITH ALONE God will fix and reform the church, Nope he had to take extremist action, and abandon the family to start his own thing.
He also saw that Justification was by grace alone faith alone! Unlike the Rcc...
Well from a Calvinist perspective it would be election of God. Faith nor Hope could not even be real under a Calvinist model since the election makes it Certain.
I don't need faith to walk outside I just know I can. Same would have to apply if God elected you.
In a sense every Calvinist has to be a self-proclaimed prophet.
God told you personally you are elect am I right? Its not something you decide yourself.
Know that I am elect due to God enabling me to receive Jesus as my Lord and Saviour
God did not tell you that you are elect? how shocking.....
I know that he saved me, so that makes me one of the Elect!
- Status