Laundry list for Protestants

CCWoody said:

Give me a "T" ~ Total Depravity
Give me a "U" ~ Unconditional Election
Give me a "L" ~ Limited Atonement
Give me a "I" ~ Irresistible Grace
Give me a "P" ~ Preservation & Perserverance of the saints.

Click to expand...

Catholics, to some degree, are a modified 3.5 points.

What does that mean?????

Tonks said:

Catholics, to some degree, are a modified 3.5 points.

What does that mean?????

Click to expand...

What does it mean to give a TULIP (source):
Tulip ~ Perfect lover; Fame; Love; Passion
Tulip (Red) ~ Believe me; Declaration of love
Tulip (Yellow) ~ There is sunshine in your smile; Hopeless love
Tulip (Variegated) ~ Beautiful eyes

What does it mean that the Catholic TULIP is only a "modified" 3.5:

You've lost some petals???
The garden has always had TULIPs, but what is this TUI???
Your flower is only 70% the size of Calvinist's???
Your yellow flower is partly cloudy???
The Calvinist 5.0 is less "buggy" than the 3.5???

?????


Recognize that all true Christians will be upgraded to full 5.0's in glory....

CCWoody said:

What does it mean to give a TULIP (source):
Tulip ~ Perfect lover; Fame; Love; Passion
Tulip (Red) ~ Believe me; Declaration of love
Tulip (Yellow) ~ There is sunshine in your smile; Hopeless love
Tulip (Variegated) ~ Beautiful eyes

What does it mean that the Catholic TULIP is only a "modified" 3.5:

You've lost some petals???
Everyone has heard of a TULIP, but what is this TUI???
Your flower is only 70% the size of Calvinist's???
Your yellow flower is partly cloudy???
The Calvinist 5.0 is less "buggy" than the 3.5???

Click to expand...

Nah...you're reading too much into it. I was merely referring to the Akin link earlier. When I say "modified" there are many terms that Reformed churches use that we may not agree with specifically, yet broadly we agree with the idea presented.


Total Depravity
While we don't use the term we agree with this point. The accepted Catholic teaching is that, because of the fall of Adam, man cannot do anything out of supernatural love unless God gives him special grace to do so.

Unconditional Election
Catholics are free to agree or disagree with this point. Although a Catholic may agree with unconditional election, he may not affirm "double-predestination," a doctrine Calvinists often infer from it. This teaching claims that in addition to electing some people to salvation God also sends others to damnation. Aquinas did teach passive reprobation, however.

Limited Atonement
Catholics differentiate the atonement's sufficiency and its efficiency. Christ intended to make salvation possible for all men, but he did not intend to make salvation actual for all men--otherwise we would have to say that Christ went to the cross intending that all men would end up in heaven. This is clearly not the case. A Catholic therefore may say that the atonement is limited in efficacy, if not in sufficiency, and that God intended it to be this way. While a Catholic could not say that the atonement was limited in that it was made only for the elect, he could say that the atonement was limited in that God only intended it to be efficacious for the elect (although he intended it to be sufficient for all).

Irresistible Grace
This is the principal issue between Thomists and Molinists. Thomists claim this enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious; by its very nature, because of the kind of grace it is, it always produces the effect of salvation. Molinists claim God's enabling grace is only sufficient and is made efficacious by man's free choice rather than by the nature of the grace itself. For this reason Molinists say that enabling grace is extrinsically efficacious rather than intrinsically efficacious.

A Catholic can agree with the idea that enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious and, consequently, that all who receive this grace will repent and come to God. Aquinas taught, "God's intention cannot fail... Hence if God intends, while moving it, that the one whose heart he moves should attain to grace, he will infallibly attain to it, according to John 6:45, 'Everyone that has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.'" Catholics must say that, while God may give efficacious grace only to some, he gives sufficient grace to all. This is presupposed by the fact that he intended the atonement to be sufficient for all. Vatican II stated, "since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate calling of man is in fact one and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery."

Perseverance of the Saints
A Catholic must affirm that there are people who experience initial salvation and who do not go on to final salvation, but he is free to hold to a form of perseverance of the saints. The question is how one defines the term "saints"--in the Calvinist way, as all those who ever enter a state of sanctifying grace, or in a more Catholic way, as those who will go on to have their sanctification (their "saintification") completed. If one defines "saint" in the latter sense, a Catholic may believe in perseverance of the saints, since a person predestined to final salvation must by definition persevere to the end. Catholics even have a special name for the grace God gives these people: "the gift of final perseverance." The Church formally teaches that there is a gift of final perseverance.

Akin proposes a "Catholic TULIP"

T = Total inability (to please God without special grace)
U = Unconditional election
L = Limited intent (for the atonement's efficacy)
I = Intrinsically efficacious grace (for salvation)
P = Perseverance of the elect (until the end of life).

I like Christmas Tu_ips (No-L) but I always have been a petal shy.

vrunca said:

Thank you for your answer and with such enthusiasm!!! Could you just clarify what each one means, just so I am not assuming meanings and that way we are on the same page. Thanks for your help!!

Click to expand...

Sure, in a nutshell....



Total Depravity ~ the natural fallen man, acting out of his native Adamic wants will never turn toward God apart from the Regenerative grace of God because he doesn't want to turn toward God and submit himself to Him. Man is not, due to a Prevenient (restraining) Grace from God, as bad as he can be (Utter Depravity), but the effects of the fall have "stained" every part of his being (hence the use of the word Total) so that it is not in man's nature seek after God (Romans 3:10-12), ever please God (Romans 8:5-8), or even truly understand what he ought to do (1 Co. 2:14).Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Tonks,

regarding your TULIP....

Consider Infralapsarian Calvinism (the divine order of Salvation decrees):

Total Depravity - Permission of fall resulting in corruption and Total Depravity.
Unconditional Election - The Father acts first in the economy of the Trinity in salvation to Elect from fallen man those who will be saved.
Limited Atonement - The Son acts second to secure the blood atonement for those whom the Father elects.
Irresistible Grace and
Preservation of the saints - The Holy Spirit acts to communicate the Atonement and preservation to the Elect.

Consider lapsarian Catholicism:

Total Depravity - Permission of fall resulting in corruption and Total Depravity.
Unlimited Atonement - Gift of Christ to render satisfaction for the sins of mankind.
Limited application - Institution of the Church & Sacraments to apply the satisfaction of Christ.
Irresistible Grace - Application of the Sacraments.
Perserverance of the believer - Sanctification growth of the believer through the Sacraments toward eternal life.

(Best I could do off the top of my head)

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

CCWoody said:

[bible]Romans 3:28[/bible]

[bible]Romans 4:1-5[/bible]

Clearly, Paul is among those who count works worthless toward obtaining righteousness with God.

Paul and the Reformers stand as one. ~ CORAM DEO
God JUSTIFIES the UNGODLY.~ Simul Iustus Et Peccator

We are the great Reformation of God.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.​

Click to expand...

So what does this mean to you?

. "Do we then," he says, "make void the Law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the Law."

And for of those Ephesians champions;

"But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, [is] therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid."

---

This is far too openended to be effectual....

Good luck guys.... but I think each article of Faith needs to be delt with in it's own thread....

I don't mind talking about them... but this is too wide......

Each of these is a deep subject and is due more than just glossing over... which will lead us all to petty argument and hurt feelings....

Forgive me....

I'm quite happy to go through these things, but might I suggest a better approach to that list?

[General Protestant Beliefs]
1. Why do Protestants believe in Sola Fide?
2. Why do Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura?
3. How do Protestants maintain that they have any sort of unity, while their beliefs often differ?

Realistically, outside of these 3 things the rest of the things on the list are:
a) asking us to comment on your beliefs, not ours
b) Specific beliefs that aren't common to all and might be better addressed in threads on "what Calvinists believe" or "what (insert other group here) believe"
c) Potshots, unrelated to any beliefs

Nevertheless, if you wanted to keep them they might be better addressed in the following subcategories:

[Catholic beliefs]*
Why don't Protestants accept the RCC understanding of:
4. Veneration of Saints
5. Apostolic Succesion
6. Tradition

[Other beliefs - for those that hold them]
Why do you believe:
7. OSAS
8. TULIP
9. The Lord's Supper is symbolic
10. Baptism is unecessary

*I appreciate that these aren't unique to RCC, but as Protestants are defined by their relationship with RCC, it seems fitting.

As I've stated from the outset, I think you're trying to cover too much here, but a clear and fair presentation of the list might help. As I've also stated I'm more than happy to make a biblical and reasoned defense for those beliefs I hold, but I'm not going to even bother playing the game at all if it's not played respectfully.

nephilimiyr said:

Good, since you seem so eager to contend for your faith. I beg of you, be the first one here to bring forward the evidence that the Apostles did teach all the doctrines that the Catholic Church teaches now.

And perhaps you missed my earlier post where I did post some answers? Any further explanation will not be forth coming till I get some answers of my own. You all may want to play a one sided game here but I'm not playing your game.

Click to expand...

Not to bring you the bad news......but this [for once] is a Protestant answer thread.

So do you have the answers, or not?

In my experience debating folks who preach against the Catholic Church.......it is just that, their whole faith IS preaching AGAINST the Catholic Church.

And this thread need not be like all the other GT threads about Catholicism, its time we get answers from our Protestant friends.

WarriorAngel said:

Not to bring you the bad news......but this [for once] is a Protestant answer thread.

So do you have the answers, or not?

In my experience debating folks who preach against the Catholic Church.......it is just that, their whole faith IS preaching AGAINST the Catholic Church.

And this thread need not be like all the other GT threads about Catholicism, its time we get answers from our Protestant friends.

Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with you, I don't mind disscussing theology, in fact that is why I'm here at GT. I also agree with Orthodoxyusa in that if you want to discuss all the Protestant beliefs it shouldn't be done in one thread.

And I might add, maybe I don't have as thick of skin as the most of you do but I have found some of your fellow Catholics to be most ungraceous and unkind. I could use a few other choice adjectives but I wont break the rules.

Now you may say that you have had to deal with the same thing here but by Protestants and I will agree that there are some Protestant posters who fit that discription also but you engage in debate with them by your own choice, I also have a choice and say since I don't have to, I will not.

When I come to a Christian message board I feel everyone should be extending a certain amount of respect, grace, love and kindness towards whomever they are talking to no matter whether they agree with each other or not. When this doesn't take place I reserve the right to leave the discussion and not partake of the rudeness, childishness, and lack of love or kindness. See I don't believe it's the right thing to do to start acting like others do when I know they are conducting themselves in less than a Christian manner. My weakness is that I sometimes do tend to do that and that's why I can't stick around in such threads.

And since the most of you get all upset when your beliefs are distorted then you shouldn't be doing the same thing to others and their beliefs. Warrior Angel, if you ever want me to take you seriously, then you should be with me on this and condemning this thread, not lifting it up and being glad for it.

If you want to know about a doctrine that I believe in and want me to show you useing the Bible, and only the Bible, then please feel free to create a thread and ask your question.

Clarity of understanding on a point by point basis of each Theological difference is the only way I feel even remotely able to discuss these issues....

Face it, I'm just not that smart.

We (I) tire too easily, to be able to discuss things in such broad strokes.

I feel this thread came about as an attempt to handle all things in a "once and for all" approach.

That simply will not work, at least not for me....

I'm with Nephilimiyr on this one.... (How do you pronounce that anyway? I keep stumbling on it...)

Forgive me...

OrthodoxyUSA said:

Clarity of understanding on a point by point basis of each Theological difference is the only way I feel even remotely able to discuss these issues....

Face it, I'm just not that smart.

We (I) tire too easily, to be able to discuss things in such broad strokes.

I feel this thread came about as an attempt to handle all things in a "once and for all" approach.

That simply will not work, at least not for me....

I'm with Nephilimiyr on this one.... (How do you pronounce that anyway? I keep stumbling on it...)

Forgive me...

Click to expand...

You're the first person that has ever asked me that! I'll have to pass over some blessings to you...

Nephilim is Hebrew and is pronounced nef-il-leem. with a long e sound at the end.

The iyr is another Hebrew word but I never did get how to pronouce it correctly myself so just believe it's not there...

Please just call me neph for short, that's all you have to do.


By the way.....Happy Birthday!!!

nephilimiyr said:

You're the first person that has ever asked me that! I'll have to pass over some blessings to you...

Nephilim is Hebrew and is pronounced nef-il-leem. with a long e sound at the end.

The iyr is another Hebrew word but I never did get how to pronouce it correctly myself so just believe it's not there...

Please just call me neph for short, that's all you have to do.

Click to expand...

Hi Neph

What does your name mean?

God Bless

Asinner said:

Hi Neph

What does your name mean?

God Bless

Click to expand...

Hi Asinner

In the Hebrew language of the Bible, the word translated is giants. There have been different ways in which to say what this word means but most say it means a "feller", an old English word that connotes a bully or a tyrant as well as a very large being. Some say it means "fallen ones", of which I disagree.

It's used in the Genesis 6:4 verse where it describes a certain offspring from human women and the sons of God, which I believe were angelic beings.

LOL, nothing like opening up a controversial theology in the midst of this kind of thread.