Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ignatius was not "pitching" anything. Many questions came up over the centuries, of course, because what happens is a great mystery. Definitions can be helpful, and many theologians gave opinions in regard to the meaning of the Word of God. The word "transubstantiation" was not used until long after Thomas Aquinas.
Some of the early ECF’s spoke of components of this theology but it wasn’t until the 13th century that Aquinas advanced real presence and the fourth Lateran council affirmed it with Trent furthering and cementing the theology for the RCC. I agree with you that opinion grew through time.
And in. Eph 1:4. says Just as CHOSE // ELECTION , us f or Himself. in Him BEFORE // PRO. , the overthrow of the world
It seems to me that you are setting up a straw man here with the assumption that Calvinists adhere to OSAS. This is not true. Curiously, Antinormianism (which is the heresy you describe) is thoroughly repugnant to Calvinists. For the Calvinists I know, assurance of salvation, is simply a matter for God to know and which one cannot know in this life. The fact that God has predestined His people from eternity past is grounded in scripture, as is the fact that nobody can snatch them from the father's hand. Neither of these things provide any indication that a Christian can know that he is among God's elect. Jesus Christ made it quite clear that by our fruits we will be known and that at the final judgement there will be those who claim not only to have believed in Jesus Christ, but to have done actual miracles in His name, but who are among the damned, nevertheless.
Can you give an example of several Calvinists that teach that? I don't mean that they teach what you draw from as implications, but that they teach that implication?
Who is saying that it does? Who even believes that it does. I don't personally know of anyone who does.
Well, no. That is not how anyone becomes part of the elect. The elect are chosen from the foundation of the world. But, no, we don't know who they are. God does.
Well, at least, if they are elect, they are not yet "in Christ"—agreed, otherwise.
Who is this that disagrees with any of that?
Let me edit that for you a little bit, according to what I think you mean: The primary virtue of the [saved] elect is humility, the demonstration of which is obedience. Who do you obey? If it is no one, then you are not [saved], you are a god unto yourself.
Be careful you are not misrepresenting Calvinism, presenting what you take for its implications as though it teaches them.
Revelation 3:20 contextually is talking to believers, not the lost. This 'opening the door' is for fellowship. They are already "church". The verse just before it says, "Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent." That is the context. 'Opening the door' is restoring fellowship.
Of course the reprobate, and, in fact, all the lost, prefer darkness to light! Who says otherwise? Besides, Limited Atonement does not speak so much of the power of the sacrifice, as to the effect of it. Even given (for the sake of argument) free will, you don't deny some will not be saved, and so if Christ actually paid for their sin, YOU are limiting its power. As in, "he died for them, but it was ineffective."
Merely asserting free will does not demonstrate 'Irresistible Grace' is contrary to fact. What do you think Irresistible Grace refers to? Refute that, without bare assertion.
Irresistible Grace is proven in Perseverance of the Saints. I'm glad that you agree with P, because the faith through which we are saved cannot be generated by decision of the person, but is generated by God himself within us—not by the will of man (John 1:13). THAT is why it is valid and why it cannot be lost or undone.
Not a straw man, just a personal observation. How is it that one is of the elect. Do we strive to make our calling and election sure? Or do we eschew good works?
One is of the elect by God's say-so at the beginning. By GOD's plan. Eph 1:4 "For He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless in His presence..."
One is of the elect by God's gracious choice, not by our own choice or activities. We strive, indeed, to make our calling and election sure, but that does not mean that Calvinists have any more personal assurance than Arminians (and plenty of Arminians do have personal assurance of their salvation). Scripture never instructs people to eschew good works for any reason and spells out a great deal of good works. These works are the fruit of election, not the cause of election.
I'm guessing @boughtwithaprice used "eschew" wrong, thinking it means 'choose' or something. I don't know.
@boughtwithaprice do you concur? If you meant "eschew" according to the dictionary, in your use of it there, to mean something like, "avoiding good works", can you restate your post there? I'm not following your reasoning. It feels like you are trying to not-quite-say something.
That is a straw man. What works do Calvinists do, or what are they trained to do? Anything ?
Ok, but what do they do? They have rejected the Lord’s supper as mere symbolism. They have rejected apostolic authority in favor of a Westminster confession, of which I have seen very few Calvinists even read, so what exactly is it that they do?
You have a very simplistic and stereotypical grasp of Calvinism. For your information, John Calvin's view of the sacraments did not align with that of Ulrich Zwingli. I recommend that you attack the Zwinglians instead of Calvinists in regard to maintaining a completely symbolic understanding of communion.
