re: Pope, we must avoid rigid ideologies

quote:

---

You’re being a real shithead.

---

And all this time I thought you loved me!

quote:

---

Revelator and Foo engaging in some good ole catholic bashing. Color me shocked.

---

Like I said previously, I only joined the discussion to correct a blatant error in Acts 15 regarding Peter.

Believe it or not, but I don't jump into these discussions as soon as I see them.

quote:

---

No, it's not. Semi-pelagianism is the belief that we can bring ourselves to a genuine faith all on our own, but then grace is required to increase from genuine basic faith to salvific faith

---

Again, the closeness to the error is why it's referred to that way. It focuses on man's ability to create faith by his own free will. Total Depravity argues against that.

quote:

---

I agree that Calvinism teaches this, but the Bible does not. Calvinist doctrines were unknown to the early church, and no, Augustine did not affirm Calvinist teachings. He was a free-will adherent through and through.

---

Of course the Bible does. It's all throughout the Bible. I gave one verse but if you'd like a full-throated defense, I could do that.

Calvin's soteriology was heavily influenced by Augustine. It's why Calvinism is often times called Augustinism. Augustine believed in free will earlier in his life but then had a change in belief on the subject in the last two decades of his life.

And again, the doctrine is derived from the Bible, so whether or not the early church fathers had any developed view or agreement with it is irrelevant to whether or not it is true according to God's word (this, again, shows the gulf between Catholics and Protestants).

quote:

---

This is not at all was Semi-pelagianism teaches.

---

It's what those who believe in the ability of man to must faith on his own believe, which is why it's been called semi-pelagianism for centuries. If you have a problem with the terminology, so be it, but you should then argue for your position rather than getting hung up on the word rather than the meaning behind it. I've been seeking to do that very thing by fleshing out what "justification" means.

quote:

---

The Lutherans were first.

---

Of course they were. I'm writing generally for modern audiences, most of whom are Protestants but not Calvinists. "Calvinist" wasn't even a term until after Calvin anyway. There were the French Huguenots, the Scottish Covenantors, and German Lutherans, and others that had similar views on soteriology that would fall under the net of "Calvinism" according to modern understandings.

(I hope you're not going to nitpick every word I say rather than address the meaning of what I'm saying, otherwise I'll have to be more careful with my specific word choices and less focused on theology)

quote:

---

False. Abraham left his homeland and followed God by faith, which you say justifies. That's one time.

Abraham was justified when he believed God's promise to him on a national lineage. That's a second time.

Abraham was justified when he offered his son Isaac upon the alter (by works, according to James 2:21). That's a third time.

So, Abraham was justified multiple times, according to scripture.

---

No, Abraham was only justified for salvation a singular time.

The justification of Abraham was in regards to man, not God. Salvific justification is how God sees us. Our works are what man sees. James was focusing on this point in chapter 2 when he was talking about proving your faith by your works. Paul was saying the same thing in Romans 4 when he says, "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God." His works of obedience proved his faithfulness. Paul is contrasting righteousness of man by works to righteousness by faith, and that no one is righteous in and of themselves. Paul was speaking strange things if he actually believed the opposite of what he was teaching, because he puts such a fine point on the fact that the righteous are justified by faith apart from works, as Abraham was. If we could be justified (unto salvation) by works, then Paul should have said as much.

quote:

---

Agreed. It's the starting point, because that's the only way to make sense of the other four points. The statement assumes that total depravity is true though. It's not.

---

It's a framework or system of soteriology based on the foundational point of total depravity. It's very clear when reading the Scriptures that man is sinful from conception, that no one does "good", and that all are dead in our sins, and that we must be "born again". When we realize that, the obvious question is "how can one be saved if we cannot please God on our own, or believe in Christ's work for us if we are spiritually dead?" It's akin to what Nicodemus asked about being born again. If we are truly dead in our sins, then we have to have God work in us to make us alive first. Lazarus isn't walking out of that tomb unless Christ calls His name, and He won't be able to respond to the call unless Christ first brings him back to life. That's a picture of us in our spiritual deadness.

The rest of the points do naturally follow: if we don't have free will but are totally depraved and must be born again by God, then we must first be chosen (elected) by God to be saved, otherwise He won't ever choose us by our free will choice that we will never make; then Christ must die for us, but He won't have died to save people generally, but would have only died with His people (the elect) in mind; and if God chose a people to save, send His son to save them specifically, then He would have to make them alive by His grace to receive that salvation by faith; and if God is the one who chooses, saves, and regenerates, then He is the one who keeps us in His grace and preserves His people until the end. TULIP all naturally follow.

BTW, TULIP was not thought up in a vacuum, but was developed specifically as a response to the 5 points of Arminianism (from the Remonstrants) that proposed points of salvation starting with freedom of the will.

quote:

---

This step doesn't follow unless one assumes that sufficient/prevenient grace and salvific grace are (1) identical, and (2) irresistible as well.

---

Prevenient grace is a copout, because it means it has to be given to everyone in order for God to be fair, because it's all predicated on the notion that we must have free will or else God isn't fair. That's why I said it's a middle ground between Calvinism/Augustinianism and Pelagianism, because without the unbliblical notion of prevenient grace, you have to go one of the two other ways.

quote:

---

If the Calvinist position is true, everything is pointless. Jesus' teaching was pointless, Paul's warnings were pointless, the sacraments are pointless, evangelism is pointless. God will do what God will do. The Calvinist God wrote an interesting screenplay, but he is too weak to actually make actors to act in it.

---

Not true at all. Humans are still responsible "actors" in the "play". I hand out tracts to people on street corners because I know God is a God of means as well as ends. He gives humans the unique honor of serving Him in special ways, such as through the preaching of the gospel. I preach it indiscriminately because I don't know who God's elect are, but I know that He uses the preached word to convert His people. Likewise for sanctification in that God uses the means of grace in particular to sanctify His elect, and yet we are responsible for attending to those means by going to church and sitting under the preached word and the sacraments.

When talking about total depravity, election, and all that, we're talking about how God works behind the scenes. Calvinists should be the most faithful evangelists precisely because we believe in God's sovereign choice in election: God will accomplish His will through our preaching and we don't have to worry about "screwing it up" as long as we are being faithful in our service. I don't have to try to convince and woo people with gimmicks or bribes because I know that it's by the power of the Spirit through the faithful preaching of the word that God is pleased to save His people, and He will not fail even in my weakness.

Pope Cuck 1st

quote:

---

keep advancing and growing in their understanding of the truth

---

Dude fears man over God

Pope?

quote:

---

avoid “rigid ideological positions”

---

Hmmmm let's see.. monogamous marriage, traditional values, must all be ridig ideological positions. This is a very broad green light from the Pope to do whatever we feel like doing.

quote:

---

It (semi-pelagianism) focuses on man's ability to create faith by his own free will.

---

True, but that's not the Catholic position. We must be given grace in order to come to faith.

You're arguing that (1) grace is irresistible and cannot be rejected, (2) that not everyone will be saved, and therefore (3) not everyone is given grace. This goes against Scripture. God wills for everyone to come to a saving knowledge of the truth, but man's will doesn't always align with what God wants for us.

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Matthew 23:37

The entirety of Calvinism hinges on presuppositions.

quote:

---

Calvin's soteriology was heavily influenced by Augustine. It's why Calvinism is often times called Augustinism. Augustine believed in free will earlier in his life but then had a change in belief on the subject in the last two decades of his life

---

This is false. The younger Augustine did hold to a more deterministic outlook due to his views on man's fallen nature contrasted with divine grace. This is seen in his work "Confessions".

The older Augustine took a more nuanced approach in showing that grace and free will do co-exist, as seen in "On Grace and Free Will". Neither of these works denied human free will though.

quote:

---

No, Abraham was only justified for salvation a singular time.

The justification of Abraham was in regards to man, not God. Salvific justification is how God sees us. Our works are what man sees.

---

This is literally not found in any of the Genesis passages, or any of the NT passages which speak of Abraham and his justification. It literally says he left his home and followed God by faith, which prots would say justifies, was justified again when he believed God's promise of fathering a nation, and according to James, was justified again when he offered his son Isaac.

quote:

---

Paul was saying the same thing in Romans 4 when he says, "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God." His works of obedience proved his faithfulness. Paul is contrasting righteousness of man by works to righteousness by faith, and that no one is righteous in and of themselves. Paul was speaking strange things if he actually believed the opposite of what he was teaching, because he puts such a fine point on the fact that the righteous are justified by faith apart from works, as Abraham was.

---

Again, you're starting with a presupposition that Justification is a one-time event. Paul is simply saying that Abraham was justified prior to circumcision, by faith, not by the works of the law itself (circumcision). He is not saying this was the only time Abraham was justified. You're reading that into the text. He's simply highlighting how justification was applied to Abraham for this one moment in the greater process.

quote:

---

If we could be justified (unto salvation) by works, then Paul should have said as much.

---

Again, Paul was simply pointing out that circumcision didn't justify Abraham to show that works of the Mosaic law don't save us. He is not speaking about any subsequent stages of justification in the life of Abraham, or lack thereof.

As regards the rest of your post, total depravity suggests that humans are completely corrupted by sin, rendering them incapable of choosing God or doing anything good apart from divine intervention. So, man is only capable of mortally sinning.

Humans are not entirely devoid of goodness or the ability to make morally upright choices. The presence of sin in man is a reality that I can't deny, but God gave humans moral conscience, empathy, and altruism. These prove that humans are not utterly corrupt.

I would also argue that being created in the image of God implies an inherent goodness or divine reflection in humanity. While this image may be marred by sin, it is not completely eradicated, so the possibility of choosing good still exists in humans.

Having said all of that, I cannot deny the transformative power of God's grace and redemption. Sin is real, but God's intervention can restore and enable individuals to make choices in alignment with God's will. That is Grace. Grace precedes everything, including our coming to faith.

quote:

---

Prevenient grace is a copout, because it means it has to be given to everyone in order for God to be fair, because it's all predicated on the notion that we must have free will or else God isn't fair

---

Another presupposition. You're assuming God doesn't give some manner of grace to everyone, because not everyone is going to Heaven, which somehow thwarts the creature of God if we're able to reject Him. It doesn't.

God desires that all sinners be saved (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Ezekiel 18:23; Matthew 23:37).

Depravity is real, no doubt about it. Total depravity is not.

quote:

---

It's ironic actually, when it comes to American politics we never trust main stream media, but when it comes to reporting on the church we seem to take it as Gospel.

---

quote:

---

American politics we never trust main stream media

---

Two groups with an agenda, so a narrative must be formed to intentionally muddy the waters.

quote:

---

reporting on the church

---

The Catholic Church should never, ever, send a message that needs deciphering. There should be no hidden agenda. And if this Pope was more like Pope John Paul II, we wouldn't question his motives.

quote:

---

traditional Christian beliefs

Like slavery is okay?

---

Original movement to free the slaves was by groups tied to Christianity.