Is Calvinism a heresy?

[Xeno.of.athens]

Two things: (1) You snuck in that last bit. "I baptize you with water for repentance," John said. (2) Jesus nowhere makes John's baptism a requirement for salvation, which makes that interpretation suspect.

I disagree that anything was "snuck in" since it is in the text of Matthew's gospel (Matthew 3:11), which we all can see, furthermore Nicodemus, being a leader of the Jews, was at the receiving end of the information gathered by the delegates sent to question John the Baptist (John 1:19-28). What is suspect is the idea that Water in John 3:5 does not mean water, as per your earlier post (#337). The water means water, it may have additional meaning by way of association as per the passages that you listed previously, additional meaning is not unusual in John's gospel.

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto penance, but he that shall come after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I disagree that anything was "snuck in," since it is in the text of Matthew's gospel, which we all can see.

Here is the text in full, which all can see:

"I baptize you with water, for repentance, but the one coming after me is more powerful than I am—I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire" (Matt 3:11).​

You said that Nicodemus would be familiar with John's baptism, "which was a baptism of repentance and the washing away of sins" (underline added). As all can see, indeed, you snuck in that last bit because it's not found in this text.

Nicodemus, being a leader of the Jews, was at the receiving end of the information gathered by the delegates sent to question John the Baptist (John 1:19-28).

And what are we supposed to make of John 1:19-28? Read it again and observe that not even there does John connect his baptism with "the washing away of sins." It is not in the text, nor on the lips of John. It is being snuck in and by you.

What is suspect is the idea that water in John 3:5 does not mean water, as per your earlier post (#337). The water means water, it may have additional meaning by way of association as per the passages that you listed previously, additional meaning is not unusual in John's gospel.

My argument (that water refers to the new birth through the living word) was built upon a host of supporting texts from Scripture (esp. Titus 3:5).

Your argument (that water refers to John's baptism) was built upon ... well, frankly, the force of your assertion.

But it's my argument that is suspect? Okay then.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You said that Nicodemus would be familiar with John's baptism, "which was a baptism of repentance and the washing away of sins" (underline added). As all can see, indeed, you snuck in that last bit because it's not found in this text.

You are correct, the text does not include "and washing away of sins" it was an error to add it in my comment. And what follows from the error? Just that, "John baptised for repentance". And what I wrote would become this if the erroneous addition were removed.

Thankyou for your reply.​

​

I understand the old testament uses of water in connection with the Spirit and agree that Nicodemus ought to have been familiar with that, and that Jesus says Nicodemus ought to know the things that the Lord spoke about. Yet the water in, "born of water and the Spirit", can be water, it can be water as an analogy of the Holy Spirit as water was in the passages you cited; the water mentioned in Isaiah can be water which refreshes both the people of God and a parched land, and the water can be an analogy of the Spirit who, like water, is "poured out upon us from on high" (Isa 32:15). I believe these things are what Jesus expected Nicodemus to grasp. I see that "born of water and the Spirit" would be a peculiar construction if the meaning were "born of the Spirit and the Spirit" but if it was meant to say, in laboriously spelled out wording, "born of [the] waters [of baptism as an analogy of pouring out the Spirit (Isa 32:15)] and [also by] the Spirit", then Nicodemus ought to have understood it. And in this case the baptism that Nicodemus would know was John's which was a baptism of repentance and the washing away of sins (Mat 3:11), which prefigured the baptism that Christians know.​

​

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptise you in water unto penance, but he that shall come after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptise you in the Holy Ghost and fire.​

There's no change in the meaning of my post. And the verse I cited is quoted in full immediately after the sentence that contained the error. So, what is sneaky about a mistake? Will you explain that, please.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

On the matter of John 3:5, Albert Barnes writes (Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible) - See here for a brief biography

John 3:5​

Be born of water - By “water,” here, is evidently signified “baptism.” Thus the word is used in Eph 5:26; Tit 3:5. Baptism was practiced by the Jews in receiving a Gentile as a proselyte. It was practiced by John among the Jews; and Jesus here says that it is an ordinance of his religion, and the sign and seal of the renewing influences of his Spirit. So he said Mar 16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” It is clear from these places, and from the example of the apostles Act 2:38, Act 2:41; Act 8:12-13, Act 8:36, Act 8:38; Act 9:18; Act 10:47-48; Act 16:15, Act 16:33; Act 18:8; Act 22:16; Gal 3:27, that they considered this ordinance as binding on all who professed to love the Lord Jesus. And though it cannot be said that none who are not baptized can be saved, yet Jesus meant, undoubtedly, to be understood as affirming that this was to be the regular and uniform way of entering into his church; that it was the appropriate mode of making a profession of religion; and that a man who neglected this, when the duty was made known to him, neglected a plain command of God. It is clear, also, that any other command of God might as well be neglected or violated as this, and that it is the duty of everyone not only to love the Saviour, but to make an acknowledgment of that love by being baptized, and by devoting himself thus to his service.​

But, lest Nicodemus should suppose that this was all that was meant, he added that it was necessary that he should “be born of the Spirit” also. This was predicted of the Saviour, that he should “baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire,” Mat 3:11. By this is clearly intended that the heart must be changed by the agency of the Holy Spirit; that the love of sin must be abandoned; that man must repent of crime and turn to God; that he must renounce all his evil propensities, and give himself to a life of prayer and holiness, of meekness, purity, and benevolence. This great change is in the Scripture ascribed uniformly to the Holy Spirit, Tit 3:5; 1Th 1:6; Rom 5:5; 1Pe 1:22.​

Cannot enter into - This is the way, the appropriate way, of entering into the kingdom of the Messiah here and hereafter. He cannot enter into the true church here, or into heaven in the world to come, except in connection with a change of heart, and by the proper expression of that change in the ordinances appointed by the Saviour.​

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

George Haydock - a Catholic commentator who authored a set of notes for a Douay Rheims Bible published in the 19th century writes this on John 3:5

Unless a man be born again of water, and the Holy Ghost. Though the word Holy be now wanting in all Greek copies, it is certainly the sense. The ancient Fathers, and particularly St. Augustine in divers places, from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants: and by Christ’s adding water, is excluded a metaphorical baptism. See also Act 8:36; Act 10:47 and Tit 3:5 (Witham) ---

Except a man be born again. That is, unless you are born again by a spiritual regeneration in God, all the knowledge which you learn from me, will not be spiritual but carnal. But I say to you, that neither you nor any other person, unless you be born again in God, can undestand or conceive the glory which is in me. (St. John Chrysostom)

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

John Calvin writes this, among other things, of John 3:5

Chrysostom, with whom the greater part of expounders agree, makes the word Water refer to baptism. The meaning would then be, that by baptism we enter into the kingdom of God, because in baptism we are regenerated by the Spirit of God. Hence arose the belief of the absolute necessity of baptism, in order to the hope of eternal life. But though we were to admit that Christ here speaks of baptism, yet we ought not to press his words so closely as to imagine that he confines salvation to the outward sign; but, on the contrary, he connects the Water with the Spirit, because under that visible symbol he attests and seals that newness of life which God alone produces in us by his Spirit. It is true that, by neglecting baptism, we are excluded from salvation; and in this sense I acknowledge that it is necessary; but it is absurd to speak of the hope of salvation as confined to the sign. So far as relates to this passage, I cannot bring myself to believe that Christ speaks of baptism; for it would have been inappropriate.​

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

You are correct, the text does not include "wash away sins." It was an error to add it in my comment. And what follows from the error?

There is nothing to be concluded from it other than the fact that it was something you had snuck in there. That's it, that's all.

What is sneaky about a mistake? Will you explain that, please?

To me, the word "sneaky" is an adjective conveying something negative about the actor, whereas the word "snuck" is a verb conveying an action. I had no intention of (or any interest in) attacking your character, so I would not and did not use the former. I was simply pointing out that it was your interpolation—introducing material foreign to the text being cited—even when you protested that it was in the Matthaean text.

There's no change in the meaning of my post.

Maybe not for you. However, for me, removing "the washing away of sins" from baptism represents a substantial change in meaning with regard to what Nicodemus should have known.

Yet the water in "born of water and the Spirit" can be water ...

There is suggesting by force of assertion what it CAN mean, and then there is suggesting by force of textual exegesis what it DOES mean.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

even when you protested that it was in the Matthaean text.

I did not protest that it was in the text of Matthew 3:11, that is a misrepresentation of what was written in my post.

The one place where I mention "washing away of sins" was in the very last sentence of the post's text written by me and it was immediately followed by a citation of Matthew 3:11 and then, after the sentence, a quote of the verse. (see the quote below).

And in this case the baptism that Nicodemus would know was John's which was a baptism of repentance and the washing away of sins (Mat 3:11), which prefigured the baptism that Christians know.

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptise you in water unto penance, but he that shall come after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptise you in the Holy Ghost and fire.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I did not protest that it was in the text of Matthew 3:11, that is a misrepresentation of what was written in my post.

Check before you say stuff like this, Xeno—because you did protest that it was in the text (underline added):

I disagree that anything was "snuck in" since it is in the text of Matthew's gospel (Matthew 3:11), which we all can see ...

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Check before you say stuff like this, Xeno—because you did protest that it was in the text (underline added):

The claim in the post above misrepresents what I wrote. The post which is alleged to protest that "washing away of sins" is in the text is not in fact what it protests. Here is the post, in full.

​

Two things: (1) You snuck in that last bit. "I baptize you with water for repentance," John said. (2) Jesus nowhere makes John's baptism a requirement for salvation, which makes that interpretation suspect.

​

I disagree that anything was "snuck in" since it is in the text of Matthew's gospel (Matthew 3:11), which we all can see, furthermore Nicodemus, being a leader of the Jews, was at the receiving end of the information gathered by the delegates sent to question John the Baptist (John 1:19-28). What is suspect is the idea that Water in John 3:5 does not mean water, as per your earlier post (#337). The water means water, it may have additional meaning by way of association as per the passages that you listed previously, additional meaning is not unusual in John's gospel.​

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto penance, but he that shall come after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire.​

What DialecticSkeptic wrote in his post does not mention, "washing away of sins", what he wrote specifically mentions, "I baptize you with water for repentance,".​

 

[jameslouise]

So I will try again, though I really wish I could see you backing off the notion that God is not particular

That depends how you use 'particular' if by that you mean God chooses a particular life for everyone. all different, that will return them home holy and without blame, then i agree. If by particular you mean God chooses some people to make it back to heaven and some others not then I completely, utterly and totally disagree and this is not in the bible either. that God would not be just.

Not only is the Holy Spirit absolutely needed for regeneration and salvation, but the Holy Spirit is active in more ways than we can know in anyone's life, including the lost. I agree that only the Holy Spirit can lead us to the truth, but that does not mean that he doesn't use many different means to do so, including Scripture, the Gospel, Nature, Logic concerning Existence and reasoning (and failing to reason) concerning many other things

I completely agree, common ground at last. I think we have made good progress

God doesn't force a choice against our will. Not even when he coerces us to choose to do something we would not otherwise want, such as he did with Jonah. But with the subject at hand —regeneration— he doesn't consult our will, but gives us re-birth, no more requiring an act of will on our part than was required for our first birth.

An extraneous influence manufacturing a new will is no longer that individuals's will. So to me this is a contradiction. forcing us to do something against our will and regenerating a new will that automatically makes a yes that our old will would have said no is a long winded way of saying the same thing- bot forcing against our will. We only have one soul-comprising one mind, one will and one home to our emotions. We do not have a new will.. We make the choice then the rebirth comes. Not some rebirth before and some after.
New generated will (is not in the bible anywhere)

Was your will that came by your first birth not yours?

Absolutely it is my will and I only have one will one soul and one mind. but as you know I am not at all sure it 'came by' my as ar esult of my physical birth.

And this, he does, only to those to whom, from the foundation of the world, he chose to show mercy.

My thinking was that @Mark Quayle was misquoting Eph 1:4, but Mark assures me that he was referencing Rom 9:23

To my mind and especially with the use of that amazingly informative and beautiful phrase 'the foundation of the world' (FOTW) sounded more like Eph 1:4 than Romans 9:25 to me and still does.
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory
However which ever one is being refeenced:

Afore does not mean before the FOTW and neither text mentions the word 'only'.either. You appear to be combining two bits of scripture and a third ( bit of scripture I cannot find?) that says He only shows mercy to a certain number- ie only meaning He never shows it to others.
God only chooses some people for salvation (is not in the Bible anywhere)
I believe you base it mainly on Romans 8:28-30. I suggest you misinterpret these verses completely they are about ' those who love God' and do not mention any thing about those who do not. It is not the 'foreknew and predestinated' that make God go through that chain of events but the 'loving of God' and the choice that leads to. He could from this text predestinate everybody to salvation but those that love God are the only ones that he applies these other steps to. You have been unable to argue with this logic so far- all you have said is you cannot take these verse on their own- which you and Dialecticskeptic do do btw.

Then why not the will that comes by your re-birth?

Was your will that came by your first birth not yours? Then why not the will that comes by your re-birth?

An extraneous influence manufacturing a new will is no longer that individuals's will.There is no new will. A new will is not in the bible, I suggest you are using an unjustified extension of what the bible says It is still my will, and my choice and mine alone to accept Christ. Why do i have to have a new will? I am a new creation in Christ but I am still me in my spirit - my spirit is a rework not i new creation . You may as well say ALL my skills and attributes change e.g. sports are all new after salvation, they are not they are still the same. I still gravitate to my gifts that I had before salvation. My behavior changes after salvation as I am conformed to the image of Christ but it is still my will that decides what I do.

Does your first will have more true status than your second? Vehemently, I say NO! —in fact, only by the reality of the work of the Spirit of God that changed your will does even your 'second will' have any integrity

Again you say 'changed my will'but Ii decided-my will, it ceases to be my will if an extraneous influence is 'bossing' it.

What in the world makes you say, "God cannot 'do' anything until I am saved". God can do whatever he pleases

Yeh, but your wording is loose, and what pleases God? God follows rules and is absolutely good. So God cannot sin, cannot lie and cannot just write off man' sins. He has to have Jesus to take the burden to ' balance the books'. Like wise, I believe he cannot interfere with our will or indwell us until we give our life to him and give him that permission.

You want an equal opportunity God. You're not going to get one.

Nearly sums me up, but I would word it differently: I want an equal chance of the same outcome God and I have got one because my God is just.

 

[Mark Quayle]

We do not have a new will.. We make the choice then the rebirth comes. Not some rebirth before and some after.
New generated will (is not in the bible anywhere)

I'm not say we have a new will. It is the same will, our will, but it has been regenerated. Changed. It now has the ability to obey.

You misquote the verse it does not say those who he 'chose to show mercy' but in fact 'that we should be holy and without blame before him in love' Completely different in meaning. Also you have added 'only' to 'fit in with your Calvinistic view'.

What verse do you think I quoted wrong? The verse I was referencing (and NOT quoting) was Romans 9:23, which in some versions says 'the objects of his mercy'. I think you would be well advised to go back and edit that, in case some reader that hasn't read it wrong doesn't think I misquoted something for the sake of defending Calvinism. I don't much enjoy being misrepresented.

God only chooses some people for salvation (is not in the Bible anywhere)

What do you think 'Elect' means? Do you see any others that he chose for salvation?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What do you think 'Elect' means? Do you see any others that he chose for salvation?

In my opinion, which is not especially erudite, I believe that the best statement of the doctrine of election from a Calvinist perspective is in the Westminster Confession of Faith, and I also think that the scripture 'proofs' accompanying it are possibly the most useful.

---

Chapter 3 – Of God’s Eternal Decree​

...​

​

III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7]​

​

IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.[8]​

​

V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,[9] out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto;[10] and all to the praise of His glorious grace.[11]​

​

VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto.[12] Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,[13] are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,[14] and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation.[15] Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.[16]​

​

VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.[17]​

​

VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,[18] that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.[19] So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God;[20] and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.[21]​

---

[7] ROM 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory. EPH 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. PRO 16:4 The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.​

[8] 2TI 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. JOH 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.​

[9] EPH 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own wilL. ROM 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. 2TI 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. 1TH 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus ChrisT.​

[10] ROM 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth ; ) 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. EPH 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. 9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself.​

[11]EPH. 1:6,12.​

[12] 1PE 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. EPH 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. 2TH 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.​

[13] 1TH 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him. TIT 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.​

[14] ROM 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. EPH 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. 2TH 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.​

[15] 1PE 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.​

[16] JOH 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. ROM 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. JOH 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 8:47 He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. 1JO 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.​

[17] MAT 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. ROM 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. 2TI 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. JUD 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. 1PE 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.​

[18] ROM 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! DEU 29:29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.​

[19] 2PE 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.​

[20] EPH 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. ROM 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!​

[21] ROM 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. 20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 2PE 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall. ROM 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. LUK 10:20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.​

 

[Dan1988]

The Catholic Church does not consider Calvinism, a theology developed by John Calvin in the 16th century, to be heretical. However, it does disagree with certain aspects of Calvinist theology, particularly the belief in double predestination, the doctrine that God predestines some individuals to eternal salvation and others to eternal damnation. The Catholic Church teaches that God desires the salvation of all humanity, and that every person has the free will to accept or reject God's grace.

The Catholic Church also disagree with the beliefs of the "Limited atonement" which is the belief that Jesus died only for the elect. The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus died for all humanity, and that his sacrifice on the cross is sufficient for the salvation of all people.

In summary, while the Catholic Church does not consider Calvinism to be heretical, it disagrees with certain aspects of Calvinist theology, particularly the belief in double predestination and limited atonement.

The term Calvinism came about when John Calvin corrected the Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius. Calvin claimed that Arminius was teaching a false Gospel and he pointed out the 5 main errors of Arminius. These became known as the five points of Calvin or T.U.L.I.P

Calvin cited all the scriptures showing that man is T "Totally depraved" and unable to choose to obey the Gospel.

U "Unconditional Election" again using scripture to demonstrate that election is not dependent on man in any way and it's all of God.

L "Limited atonement" again using Scripture to show that Christ didn't come to save the world but only those the Father gave Him before He laid the foundations of the earth.

I "Irresistible grace" the scriptures do teach that God's grace is irresistible, when God regenerates a person they cannot resist His grace.

P "Perseverance of the Saints", scripture does teach that only those who endure to the end will be saved. if it was left to man to persevere to the end, then no man would be saved as we need God to sustain our faith to the end.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The term Calvinism came about when John Calvin corrected the Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius. Calvin claimed that Arminius was teaching a false Gospel and he pointed out the 5 main errors of Arminius. These became known as the five points of Calvin or T.U.L.I.P

Calvin cited all the scriptures showing that man is T "Totally depraved" and unable to choose to obey the Gospel.

U "Unconditional Election" again using scripture to demonstrate that election is not dependent on man in any way and it's all of God.

L "Limited atonement" again using Scripture to show that Christ didn't come to save the world but only those the Father gave Him before He laid the foundations of the earth.

I "Irresistible grace" the scriptures do teach that God's grace is irresistible, when God regenerates a person they cannot resist His grace.

P "Perseverance of the Saints", scripture does teach that only those who endure to the end will be saved. if it was left to man to persevere to the end, then no man would be saved as we need God to sustain our faith to the end.

TULIP came from the canons of the dutch Synod of Dort.

 

[jameslouise]

I'm not say we have a new will. It is the same will, our will, but it has been regenerated. Changed. It now has the ability to obey.


What verse do you think I quoted wrong? The verse I was referencing (and NOT quoting) was Romans 9:23, which in some versions says 'the objects of his mercy'. I think you would be well advised to go back and edit that, in case some reader that hasn't read it wrong doesn't think I misquoted something for the sake of defending Calvinism. I don't much enjoy being misrepresented.

What do you think 'Elect' means? Do you see any others that he chose for salvation?

Mark Quayle said What verse do you think I quoted wrong? The verse I was referencing (and NOT quoting) was Romans 9:23, which in some versions says 'the objects of his mercy'. I think you would be well advised to go back and edit that, in case some reader that hasn't read it wrong doesn't think I misquoted something for the sake of defending Calvinism. I don't much enjoy being misrepresented

Your words were 'And this, he does, only to those to whom, from the foundation of the world, he chose to show mercy.'

To my mind and especially with the use of that amazingly informative and beautiful phrase 'the foundation of the world' (FOTW) your reference sounded more like Eph 1:4 than Romans 9:25 to me and still does.
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory

Afore does not mean before the FOTW and neither text mentions the word 'only'.either. You appear to be combining two bits of scripture and a third (bit of scripture that I do not know of?) that says He only shows mercy to a certain number- ie only meaning He never shows it to others. However, I absolutely do not want to misquote somebody as that would be disrespectful, so I have altered the text . I suggest, If you are going to mash up different verses you should put both references in. Check it out to see if you are happy with it, but I will most definitely make every attempt not to misrepresent anyone.

 

[Bobber]

You're correct that the Doctrines of Grace were not fully articulated until the Synod of Dort.

Well then you've just pointed out how unimportant they really are.

What the Bible teaches from the early church IS IMPORTANT about grace, I'D never say otherwise, but if the teachings of the first Apostles left their generation diminished from essential important doctrines and they couldn't have a sound grasp upon them until 1618 then time to reconsider having such an extreme devotion to them. (that is what Calvinists claim grace doctrines are)

 

[jameslouise]

I'm not say we have a new will. It is the same will, our will, but it has been regenerated. Changed. It now has the ability to obey

That is a new will? This is becoming a semantic discussion, you seem to want to stretch all meanings to suit yourself. If the change to my will is not from me, if it is changed by an extraneous agency to something different it is no longer my own will. If it is obeying a different will than my own it is not my will but a combination- a subservient will to someone else's. If on the other hand I am presented with such a case that changes my position, my thinking then as an act of my own free will I may choose to accept this position but it is still my will that dose this. nothing goes straight through to my will and bypasses my mind/my soul. Nor do i know of any scripture that says it does.

 

[jameslouise]

What do you think 'Elect' means? Do you see any others that he chose for salvation?

What do you think 'Elect' means? All those who God chose a path for salvation for and who chose to accept this path to Christ.
Do you see any others that he chose for salvation? Everyone else
There is no scripture that contradicts my stance that I can find or that you have pointed out. I do not recognize this unloving Father of His offspring you portray.
Kat Kerr claims The Holy Spirit in an audible voice said to her 'We choose to be chosen'
Robin D Bullock said '' there is no predestination' which he also says comes directly from God.
Knowledge of the Bible is, I believe, included in Dan 12;4 and that time is, I believe, just starting. @Mark Quayle & @DialecticSkeptic , I plead with you both not to miss the coming Red Sea moment.

 

[Bobber]

The Catholic Church does not officially label Protestantism as a heresy.

First I believe some or many Catholics will be saved and likewise with Protestants. Some or many won't be saved either...God looks upon the heart not church affiliation.

But I don't care what Catholicism as a system officially labels Protestants. If they don't allow non-Catholics to take communion by their actions they're stating the other is not a part of the body of Christ. If they're saying no we don't say that, that Non Catholics are Christians too then why don't they need to take communion like everyone else? I said need to.

Well they can do their thing over there! Nope. No one has authority to cut off or hold back one from taking communion.

It is worth noting that the Catholic Church does not view Protestant denominations, including Calvinism, as heretical in the sense that their members are considered to be outside of the Church and damned. The Catechism states that "the separated churches and communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, are yet true churches and communities of Jesus Christ" (CCC 819).

I hardly think through the middle ages they were thinking that at all, and I don't mean individual Catholic members but their leadership. I'd stress again.....if they're willing to acknowledge others are a part of the body of Christ they cannot and should not be withholding communion. Sure I believe a lot of them are sincere but as the saying goes their actions are speaking louder then their words.

I don't believe any words a leader or leaders of Catholicism says unless I see corresponding actions that bring credibility to what they say.