Savior versus Sacrament

[Yeshua1]

Ah...So you are a robot person! God chose before he created the world those whom he would save. And he also chose those whom he would damn to Hell. And You really don't have free will because since God arbitrarily chose you from the begining of time his irresistable grace organized your situation so that with the programing he gave you at birth and the effects of regeneration before you knew God even existed you naturally believed in Jesus Because God made you part of the elite crowd of the very few he selected from the begining of the universe. At least I'm clear with your position on salvation where free will doesn't exist and you didn't exercise it to chose for Jesus. Let me put it suscinctly for you you believe in salvation in this order 1)God elected some reprobated the rest. 2) God created the universe to include man (already pre-programmed both universe and particular human nature - irresistable grace) 3) God permited the fall (did he cause it?) 4) God provided salvation only for the elect ( never mind that God desires that all men might be saved) 5) regenerate the elect (programing taking effect. So accordingly if you are correct whether someone is saved or not has nothing to do with the person but how God programed them from the begining.

Your God that you described is NOT the ONE of the cal, as we hold to the Biblical view of him!
We hold that ALL have been condemned in adam, all sin by both their natures and choices, and that God does intervene to save out of fallen humanity his own peoples, but he does NOT damn the lost, rather, he allows them to exercise their free wills and reject him and thus go to where they want to be naturally, apart and away from presense of God!

NONE will get to Christ and be saved unless its the work of the Lord, so we see it as his grace, NOT "programming robots!"

All apart of the programing he's chose for each of the elect and non elect.

Again, WE chose to remain in our sins and to reject jesus in order to get saved, as that is the "natural" things for sinners to do!

I don't know why you are hard on them according to your theology. They didn't chose this for themselves they were made this way. They are as you would say in your theology "vesels made for destruction." You should pitty them and let them in peace. Why bother witnessing to them?

because the Lord USES the gospel to wake up and save his elect, and any church claiming to be the true and only church of God here on earth needs to preach/teach the real Gospel!

you err as so many do regarding how calvinists view salvation, as you seem to make god the puppet master, and we his mindless slaves!

Could the REAL reason RCC goes against it is that it makes God the sole source of salvation, apart fom the church or works that we do?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

you err as so many do regarding how calvinists view salvation, as you seem to make god the puppet master, and we his mindless slaves!

Could the REAL reason RCC goes against it is that it makes God the sole source of salvation, apart fom the church or works that we do?

I've read Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. I know what He believed. Did you know Calvin made a support for infant baptism?

“incontrovertible that baptism has taken the place of circumcision to fulfill the same office
among us [New Covenant believers]”- Calvin’s Commentaries (22 vols.; Repr., Grand Rapids, Baker, 1998)

Do you know Calvin held to sacramentalism in his view proven from his book? Calvin defines sacraments this way

“a testimony of divine
grace toward us, confirmed by an outward sign, with mutual attestation of our piety toward him”
(4.14.1). - Institutes of the Christian Religion (vols. 20
and 21 of Library of Christian Classics; ed. John T. McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; Philadephia: Westminster,
1960).

Even Calvin believed that the Sacraments minister to people. However, I quoted to you where many modern Calvinist have taken his teaching. Though Calvin himself would never have gone so far.

So if you do not agree with my post then you fall into this catagory of calvinist. 1) God decreed to make the world and men 2) God decreed the fall (God must therefore be responsible for it.) 3) God decreed to save only those he arbitrarily elected to be saved and the others left in their condition (which is to say by doing nothing he made a decision not to save them which means scripture lied about him willing that all men be saved. God only wills that his elect is saved.) 4) God decreed the cross to save men. 4) God redeems the elect (still no choice). 5) God only applies grace to the elect. Which denies his love for the non elect.

 

[Yeshua1]

I've read Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. I know what He believed. Did you know Calvin made a support for infant baptism?

Yes, as he came to that view as he believed in Covenant theology, as regards to there being a single people of God throughout the ages...
just shows that he was NOT inspire, as he was wrong in this regard!

But NOT however in how he view salvation as by grace alone, received by faith alone!

Do you know Calvin held to sacramentalism in his view proven from his book? Calvin defines sacraments this way Even Calvin believed that the Sacraments minister to people. However, I quoted to you where many modern Calvinist have taken his teaching. Though Calvin himself would never have gone so far.

he would be refomed in his views, and they do see God at work in and among the ordinances of water baptism and communion, but he would NOT see them as being "elements" of grace as the RCC defines it!

So if you do not agree with my post then you fall into this catagory of calvinist. 1) God decreed to make the world and men 2) God decreed the fall (God must therefore be responsible for it.) 3) God decreed to save only those he arbitrarily elected to be saved and the others left in their condition (which is to say by doing nothing he made a decision not to save them which means scripture lied about him willing that all men be saved. God only wills that his elect is saved.) 4) God decreed the cross to save men. 4) God redeems the elect (still no choice). 5) God only applies grace to the elect. Which denies his love for the non elect.

Again, you er in that you choose to base this upon human statnrds of what would be 'fair/right/just!"
ALL are sinners, who freely have chosen to rebel and keep sinning... god owes NONE the right to be saved, its solely his grace and mercy that ANY are saved!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes, as he came to that view as he believed in Covenant theology, as regards to there being a single people of God throughout the ages...
just shows that he was NOT inspire, as he was wrong in this regard!

I agree with covenant theology and it is how God deals with people. There is biblical support for that throughout the scriptures. And it just shows that you even disagree with the man whom you got your theology through. Because the bottom line of all protestant theology is that each individual is the arbiture of truth there is really no authority over what each person thinks. And every person is authoritative in understanding scripture.

he would be refomed in his views,

Which means you prove again my point. In reality there is no truth higher than yours and no authority greater than yours. Calvin was wrong. Luther was wrong, Mantz is wrong, John Smyth is wrong, Oliver Cromwell is wrong, Billy Graham is wrong, Billy Sunday is wrong, John and Charles Wesley are wrong, the Pastor down at the free will baptist church is wrong, Bubba from Alabama is wrong (not that there is anything wrong with Alabama!), You, however, believe you are correct and therefore must conclude you have greater interpative ability than anyone else. And what if every one holds that view? Well, you get 35,000 different denominations each with a twist to their point of view.

Again, you er in that you choose to base this upon human statnrds of what would be 'fair/right/just!"

Not at all. I'm just classifying your theological perspective. However, the scriptures say

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made.

So by looking at things as they are when looking at your theological perspective you hold that Man is Totally Depraved which means that

people are by nature not inclined or even able to love God wholly with heart, mind, and strength, but rather all are inclined by nature to serve their own will and desires and to reject the rule of God. Even religion and philanthropy are wicked to God to the extent that these originate from a human imagination, passion, and will, and are not done to the glory of God.

which means that every intention of man is evil that man cannot of his own accord do something for selfless reasons or be unselfish at any point. Considering this then we must hold that when scriptures tell us that

So God created man in his own image,

we must assume that the image in which we were made is gone and nothing remains. Which means that evil overcame the all the image of God. However, does this play out in reality? No. According to CS Lewis and Kant we can see vestiges of the image of God to prove that he exist by noticing the nature of man. The fact that man universally has a view of Just, or right. That every culture ocnsiders murder to be wrong. That all cultures praise hero's that are self sacrificing going against their own wishes and never does the coward considered a hero. That Mothers lay down their lives for their children. That people do act selflessly. Ad infinitum shows us very much that the image of God still resides in us. However original sin doesn't Totally make one depraved. What original sin does is

Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam.

. or our nature was changed that

The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul's spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay".284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will "return to the ground",285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286...Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".

But that is different from being totally depraved.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree with covenant theology and it is how God deals with people. There is biblical support for that throughout the scriptures. And it just shows that you even disagree with the man whom you got your theology through. Because the bottom line of all protestant theology is that each individual is the arbiture of truth there is really no authority over what each person thinks. And every person is authoritative in understanding scripture.

We get the thrology directly from the Bible texts, NOT calvin or anyone else! might see them as having good understanding of doctrines, but its still the Bible first and foremast base theology upon!

Which means you prove again my point. In reality there is no truth higher than yours and no authority greater than yours. Calvin was wrong. Luther was wrong, Mantz is wrong, John Smyth is wrong, Oliver Cromwell is wrong, Billy Graham is wrong, Billy Sunday is wrong, John and Charles Wesley are wrong, the Pastor down at the free will baptist church is wrong, Bubba from Alabama is wrong (not that there is anything wrong with Alabama!), You, however, believe you are correct and therefore must conclude you have greater interpative ability than anyone else. And what if every one holds that view? Well, you get 35,000 different denominations each with a twist to their point of view.

the point is that there is a core/essential doctrines that ALL true Christians adhere too, regardless of what church belong in...
We are united in the person of Christ, but in order to have that, church belonging to MSUT uphold biblical essentials, and alas the RCC fails in the part of having correct gospel!

Not at all. I'm just classifying your theological perspective. However, the scriptures say
So by looking at things as they are when looking at your theological perspective you hold that Man is Totally Depraved which means that which means that every intention of man is evil that man cannot of his own accord do something for selfless reasons or be unselfish at any point. Considering this then we must hold that when scriptures tell us that we must assume that the image in which we were made is gone and nothing remains. Which means that evil overcame the all the image of God. However, does this play out in reality? No. According to CS Lewis and Kant we can see vestiges of the image of God to prove that he exist by noticing the nature of man. The fact that man universally has a view of Just, or right. That every culture ocnsiders murder to be wrong. That all cultures praise hero's that are self sacrificing going against their own wishes and never does the coward considered a hero. That Mothers lay down their lives for their children. That people do act selflessly. Ad infinitum shows us very much that the image of God still resides in us. However original sin doesn't Totally make one depraved. What original sin does is . or our nature was changed that
But that is different from being totally depraved.

again, we affirm that in depravity man can and still will do some good works, will be nice to others, its just that due to having a sin nature at war against god, cannot submit ny himself to God, turn to jesus, in order to get saved! will instead creat/make up own religions, and worship a god that suits them...

 

[Rooselk]

It was not taught "universally" for the first 1500 years as it was rejected by the Waldenses and other ancient Anabaptists. Neither is it taught in the Scriptures. The only "presence" of Christ in the Lord's Supper is SYMBOLIC and nothing more.

I think most church historians - whether Catholic, Protestant, or secular - would disagree with you about that.

Also, I would not call the Waldenses ancient by any means given that they came into existence in the late middle ages.

 

[The Biblicist]

I think most church historians - whether Catholic, Protestant, or secular - would disagree with you about that.

Also, I would not call the Waldenses ancient by any means given that they came into existence in the late middle ages.

In other words, you take Roman Catholic sources over Waldensian historians?

Sorry, but I interpret uninspired Roman Catholic selective source materials by inspired prophetic insights on post-apostolic history.

From that perspective (inspired perspective of future history of the Lord's Churches) I see the so-called Church Fathers as the history of predicted apostasy. It does not take too much common sense to see the seeds of apostasy in the Ante-Nicene Fathers are developing into more expressive apostate doctrine in the Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.

 

[Rooselk]

The Biblicist: Heretical groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons hold similar views of church history, which is reason enough to reject such views. But I guess one must grasp at whatever straw one can to explain why the early church doesn't resemble one's particular church today in either practice or points of doctrine.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist: Heretical groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons hold similar views of church history, which is reason enough to reject such views. But I guess one must grasp st whatever straw one can to explain why the early church doesn't resemble one's church today in either practice or points of doctrine.

The New Testament writers provide a prophetic guide to identifying key characteristics of true churches between the first and second coming, as well as, identifying key characteristics of apostate Christianity which includes JW's and Mormons as well as Catholics.

Again, you simply choose to accept Catholic interpretation of history over the Waldenses interpretation of their own history.

 

[Rooselk]

Actually, the view I take is that of the 16th Century Reformers, not the Roman Catholic church.

 

[DHK]

Actually, the view I take is that of the 16th Century Reformers, not the Roman Catholic church.

The "Reformers' views were basically the same as the RCC. That is why they were called "Reformers." They were Catholics who trying to reform the RCC from within. They had been priests. They were unsuccessful and were, for the most part, excommunicated. But it is doubtful that their view of history changed that much. They had already been brainwashed. It was historians that came afterward, finding documents that were written before the Reformation that we count on.

Concerning the sacraments and ordinances, read this post:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1866981&postcount=41

Concerning the history of ancient sects that believed somewhat like Baptists of today, consider that even Catholics like Cardinal Hosius testify to the ancient origin of the Waldenses. Writing in the 16th century he says that they have existed these past 1200 years down to the Apostles.

 

[Bro. James]

Reference to Cardinal Hosius

There is an interesting article regarding "Trail of Blood" and Cardinal Hosius quotes. See: Tracing the Cardinal Hosius "Baptist" Quote, by Ben Townsend. Ben did an extensive search to clear up the bibliography questions regarding Cardinal Hosius.

Peace,

Bro. James

 

[Yeshua1]

The "Reformers' views were basically the same as the RCC. That is why they were called "Reformers." They were Catholics who trying to reform the RCC from within. They had been priests. They were unsuccessful and were, for the most part, excommunicated. But it is doubtful that their view of history changed that much. They had already been brainwashed. It was historians that came afterward, finding documents that were written before the Reformation that we count on.

Concerning the sacraments and ordinances, read this post:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1866981&postcount=41

Concerning the history of ancient sects that believed somewhat like Baptists of today, consider that even Catholics like Cardinal Hosius testify to the ancient origin of the Waldenses. Writing in the 16th century he says that they have existed these past 1200 years down to the Apostles.

Yes, as the reformers believed that God had allowed them to 'rediscover' the truth of salvation by grace/faith Alone in yeshua, and wanted rome to cleanse itself out on the Sotierology end, but they mainly focused on that small segment of theology!