CALVINISM IS SIMPLY THE GOSPEL BELIEVED

[Eternally Grateful]

Of course....just to distinguish from Catholic.
I do know a bit of Nazarene and AofG theology.
I now a lot about reformed theology - although I'm told many times that I just don't understand it. Whatever.

I would rather talk to induviduals to see what they believe. what is their truth. I have learned that even people who follow these so called theologies do not always believe everything. and if we just discuss or argue a theology, we tent to misrepresent what they believe

Like what?
They believe in the sacraments as grace-giving instruments.

The jews believed the works of the law were grace-giving instruments

I know kids that have never been confirmed...no priest I know will state that they're going to hell - that would be preposterous.

They DO believe in confession - I mean to a priest.
They really do believe this.

I know they do. I have done it myself.

But that is not going to help you be saved, or cause God to forgive one sin. You would still be lost.

Can't really think of anything else.

I think there are misconceptions.

I think so too..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

@Eternally Grateful has also replied.
You don't have to get back....the posts were sufficient.

As to what comes first:
Right after justification, sanctification begins.
For some it goes slower,,,for some it goes faster.
But it absolutely begins even before baptism.
Jesus said to do it so it should be done...that's for sure.

If I understand baptismal regeneration...
we'd have to believe that a person cannot change UNTIL they're baptized..
and I don't see this in scripture.

@Eternally Grateful
@mailmandan
@marks

Baptismal regeneration teaches a persons sins are not forgiven until one is washed in the waters of baptism.

It is no different than circumcision, in that the Jews taught one had to be circumcised to be cleansed..

the warning paul gave against the jews in Galatians would be well to be heeded by those who teach baptismal regeneration in water

 

[Johann]

I guess I am in a bit of a mood this morning!

Great post, by the way.

No problem, I also have my moments of "intense fellowship"

Shalom.

J.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Looks like @marks and @mailmandan haven't responded, so there's that-seems like you can’t trust anyone these days. Everyone’s just out for themselves, and the hits just keep coming.

You're on your own.

I'll leave you with this since I'm really tired.

Expanded Biblical Support for Baptismal Regeneration:
Mark 16:16
"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

This passage from the Great Commission ties faith and baptism together. Though belief is singled out as the criterion for condemnation, the connection between belief and baptism in salvation is often interpreted as support for baptismal regeneration.
Romans 6:3-4
"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

Paul describes baptism as a means by which believers participate in Christ's death and resurrection, leading some to conclude that it has a role in the transformation of believers and their entrance into new life.
Galatians 3:27
"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

In this verse, baptism is directly connected with being "clothed" with Christ, suggesting it plays an important role in salvation.
Colossians 2:12
"Buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

Similar to Romans 6:3-4, Paul emphasizes baptism as part of being buried and raised with Christ, which some see as essential to salvation.
Acts 22:16
"And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

Ananias' command to Paul links baptism with the washing away of sins, a significant point for those who affirm baptismal regeneration.
Counterpoints and Protestant Views:
Faith Alone (Sola Fide):

Many Protestant traditions emphasize sola fide (faith alone) as the key to salvation, drawing heavily from texts like Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 10:9-10, which focus on faith as the sole means of receiving grace. These traditions argue that baptism is a sign of obedience and identification with Christ but not essential for salvation.
The Thief on the Cross:

Luke 23:42-43 recounts how the thief on the cross was promised paradise by Jesus without being baptized. This story is often cited as evidence that baptism, while important, is not absolutely necessary for salvation.
Acts 10:44-48 (Cornelius):

In this account, Cornelius and his household receive the Holy Spirit before they are baptized. Some argue that this shows baptism is not essential for salvation but a subsequent step of obedience after receiving the Spirit.
Theological and Historical Context:
Early Church Fathers: Many Early Church Fathers affirmed baptismal regeneration. Here are a few notable quotes:

Justin Martyr (First Apology, 61):
"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'"

Irenaeus (Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 17, 1):
"And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God."

Tertullian (On Baptism, Chapter 1):
"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life!"

The consensus among many of the earliest Christians was that baptism was a part of the regenerative process of salvation.

Council of Carthage (AD 418): This council condemned the view of Pelagianism and affirmed that baptism is essential for the remission of sins, especially in the case of infants who cannot yet believe on their own.

Summary of Positions:
Pro-Baptismal Regeneration (Catholic, Orthodox, Some Protestants): These traditions affirm that baptism is a sacrament through which God bestows grace, washes away sin, and regenerates the believer. They see a close connection between faith, baptism, and salvation, often interpreting verses like John 3:5, Acts 2:38, and Titus 3:5 as evidence that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Against Baptismal Regeneration (Many Evangelical and Reformed Protestants): These groups emphasize salvation by grace through faith alone and view baptism as a public declaration or symbolic act rather than a means of regeneration. They argue that faith, not baptism, is the central requirement for salvation, using verses like Ephesians 2:8-9 and the example of the thief on the cross as key support.

So--
The debate over baptismal regeneration hinges on differing interpretations of scripture, with various traditions holding strong views on both sides. Those who affirm it see baptism as integral to the process of salvation, while those who reject it emphasize faith alone as the means by which one is saved, viewing baptism as an outward sign of inward grace. Both perspectives find support in Scripture, but the interpretation largely depends on theological presuppositions.

Shalom.

J.

water baptism does not save

Spirit baptism does.

as for your verses.

-Romans 6 is the baptism of God. God places us into christ. no water is involved.
-Mark 16 is questionable. and contradicts other passages like John and matthew
-Gal 3 again is not water baptism, it is spirit baptism, God literally baptizes or places us into christ. No water is involved.
-Col 2 speaks of the circumcision performed to us by the hands of God not the hands of men, This is the baptism of God.. if it is water baptism. it is by the hands of men (the one who immerses you in water) and would be contradictory.


baptismal regeneration doctrine replaces the baptism performed by god with some wate rbaptism performed by some pastor. or priest.

Why God commands we be water baptized. He does not make it a requirment for salvation. it would make salvation by from works, not from Grace.

Paul said it is not by works of righteousness (good deeds, such as being water baptized0 that we have done (or will do) but by Gods mercy he saved us (a completed action)

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Do you not understand what is meant when someone uses the phrase "protestant theology"?

If you did, that means it's a perfectly valid phrase to use. That's how language works. Various words are used to convey a particular meaning. If the meaning is conveyed, the words did their job.

If you didn't then let me explain it. "Protestant theology" is general term that covers nearly any Christian theology that is not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, especially those formulated in "protest" of the Catholic Church in particular by the likes of Martin Luther, John Calvin and other 16th century theologians.

And, incidentally, while Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox share a lot of their core doctrines, there's a lot more different about Eastern Orthodoxy than just their rejection of Papal authority. I asked Chat GPT the following question, "What are the main differences between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox?", this is what it produced....

Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy share much in common as branches of Christianity, but they also have key differences rooted in theology, liturgical practices, and ecclesial authority. Below are the main distinctions:

1. Authority of the Pope​

• Catholicism: The Pope is regarded as the supreme authority in the Catholic Church, seen as the successor to St. Peter and having universal jurisdiction over the Church. His decisions are considered infallible when pronounced ex cathedra (on matters of faith and morals).
• Eastern Orthodoxy: The Orthodox Church rejects papal supremacy, seeing the Pope as the bishop of Rome with an honorary primacy, but not authority over all other bishops. Authority is decentralized, residing in a group of autocephalous (self-governing) national churches, with decisions typically made through councils.

2. The Filioque Controversy​

• Catholicism: The Nicene Creed used in the Catholic Church includes the phrase filioque (meaning "and the Son"), indicating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.
• Eastern Orthodoxy: The Orthodox Church rejects the filioque, affirming that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, as stated in the original version of the Nicene Creed.

3. Original Sin​

• Catholicism: Believes in the concept of original sin, which is inherited by all humans from Adam and Eve’s disobedience, and holds that baptism removes the stain of this sin.
• Eastern Orthodoxy: While acknowledging the fall of humanity, Orthodox theology typically does not view original sin as a "stain" passed down through generations but as a consequence that affects human nature. Baptism is seen as restoring a person to spiritual life rather than removing a sin "guilt."

4. Immaculate Conception​

• Catholicism: Teaches the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which holds that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was conceived without original sin.
• Eastern Orthodoxy: Does not accept the Immaculate Conception doctrine, though it views Mary as highly honored and without personal sin. The Orthodox Church focuses more on her being purified by God’s grace.

5. Purgatory​

• Catholicism: Teaches the existence of purgatory, a temporary state where souls are purified before entering heaven.
• Eastern Orthodoxy: While Orthodox Christians pray for the dead, they do not have a developed doctrine of purgatory like in Catholicism. The fate of the dead is left more to divine mystery.

6. Liturgical Practices​

• Catholicism: The Mass (or Divine Liturgy) is the central form of worship, with a focus on the Eucharist. The Roman Rite is the most common, but there are other rites as well (e.g., Byzantine, Maronite). Latin was historically the primary liturgical language (though vernacular languages are used today).
• Eastern Orthodoxy: The Divine Liturgy is also centered on the Eucharist, with a rich emphasis on icons, incense, and chant. The Byzantine Rite dominates, and the liturgical language varies (e.g., Greek, Russian, or Old Church Slavonic), but there is less use of vernacular languages than in Catholicism.

7. Clerical Celibacy​

• Catholicism: Requires priests in the Latin Rite to remain celibate. In some Eastern Catholic Churches, married men may be ordained as priests, though bishops must remain celibate.
• Eastern Orthodoxy: Allows married men to become priests, though they cannot marry after ordination. Bishops, however, must be chosen from the celibate monastic clergy.

8. Sacraments​

• Catholicism: Recognizes seven sacraments—Baptism, Eucharist, Confirmation, Reconciliation (Confession), Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. The Eucharist is celebrated with unleavened bread.
• Eastern Orthodoxy: Also recognizes seven sacraments, referred to as "mysteries," with similar functions but slight differences in theology and practice. For example, the Eucharist is always celebrated with leavened bread.

9. Theology and Spirituality​

• Catholicism: Emphasizes reason and systematic theology, with a tradition of scholasticism (e.g., Thomas Aquinas). Catholic spirituality includes practices like the Rosary, devotions to saints, and structured forms of prayer.
• Eastern Orthodoxy: Focuses on mysticism and experiential theology, emphasizing theosis (deification) as the goal of Christian life. Orthodox spirituality stresses ascetic practices, the use of icons, and contemplative prayer (e.g., the Jesus Prayer).

10. Church and State​

• Catholicism: Historically, the Catholic Church maintained a more distinct separation between church and state, especially after the rise of secular governments in the modern era.
• Eastern Orthodoxy: Traditionally, the Orthodox Church has had a closer relationship with the state (e.g., the Byzantine Empire, Russian Orthodoxy). Some Orthodox churches remain closely tied to national identities.

Despite these differences, both traditions share core beliefs in the Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, the resurrection, and the sacraments, making them both part of the larger Christian tradition.

while it is a word. it is too general. Thats why i do nto like it. If I say I am a protestant. no one can tell me what I believe just by this word.

Also. I do nto protest the catholic church. i do not think it is a real church, so there is nothing to protest. Now they can call me a protestant And that is fine, But I will call myself a child of God. belonging to the body of Christ. baptised into it by God himself.

 

[Johann]

water baptism does not save

Spirit baptism does.

as for your verses.

-Romans 6 is the baptism of God. God places us into christ. no water is involved.
-Mark 16 is questionable. and contradicts other passages like John and matthew
-Gal 3 again is not water baptism, it is spirit baptism, God literally baptizes or places us into christ. No water is involved.
-Col 2 speaks of the circumcision performed to us by the hands of God not the hands of men, This is the baptism of God.. if it is water baptism. it is by the hands of men (the one who immerses you in water) and would be contradictory.


baptismal regeneration doctrine replaces the baptism performed by god with some wate rbaptism performed by some pastor. or priest.

Why God commands we be water baptized. He does not make it a requirment for salvation. it would make salvation by from works, not from Grace.

Paul said it is not by works of righteousness (good deeds, such as being water baptized0 that we have done (or will do) but by Gods mercy he saved us (a completed action)

I fully concur @Eternally Grateful-don't panic, we are on the same page brother.

J.

 

[Logikos]

while it is a word. it is too general. Thats why i do nto like it. If I say I am a protestant. no one can tell me what I believe just by this word.

Yes they can.

At the very least they can tell that your reject Papal authority. That you don't confess your sins to a priest, that you don't rely on the traditions of men when formulating your doctrine but rely on scripture alone for this purpose, etc, etc, etc. In short, people can tell that you are not a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

This is what the term is intended to communicate. It isn't trying to tell everyone precisely what all of your doctrinal positions are.

Also. I do nto protest the catholic church. i do not think it is a real church, so there is nothing to protest. Now they can call me a protestant And that is fine, But I will call myself a child of God. belonging to the body of Christ. baptised into it by God himself.

In fact, it is precisely they (the Catholics) who came up with the term!

In response to the decision made at the the second Diet of Speyer, which reversed certain freedoms that had been granted by the first Diet of Speyer, a group of six Lutheran princes and 14 imperial cities drafted a formal protest, declaring their opposition to the reversal and their commitment to religious freedom and the teachings of Luther. This protest gave rise to the term "Protestant." Initially, the term was used to describe those who protested against this particular imperial decree, but over time, it broadened to encompass all the various Christian movements that broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation.

In other words, you don't get to decide what the meaning of common words and phrases are, nor do you get to declare them invalid. The use of the term does not create the confusion you suggest nor does it imply anything about you other than that you aren't Catholic, which is entirely accurate. In short, objecting to such terms is a waste of your time and energy. No one is going to stop using the term based on your dislike of it and so all you accomplish is making yourself sound like some sort of lawyer who'd rather parse words than to say anything meaningful. Don't hand your opponents such an easy excuse to dismiss the other, more substantive, things you're trying to say.

 

[GodsGrace]

So nobody in the Church of the East was saved, for the past 1,500 years?

??
I would never say who is saved or who isn't.
That's God's job.

I think you should reconsider your questions here.

Why should I reconsider these questions?
What's wrong with them?

We were discussing whether or not Nestorius was correct.
You seem to believe that he was. My questions were meant to clarify since your position was not clear.

Here is what I posted:
You believe Jesus was a god-like man instead of Jesus being God?
And you deny the Holy Trinity?

What else do you disagree with regarding the Christian faith?

Fact is, the early church had all the correct doctrines before Nestorius, Augustine, or any other person that distorted what the early Fathers believed.

I happen to believe that Christianity holds specific doctrines that must be accepted in order to define a person as Christian.
My questions reflect this.

Was Jesus a god-man or was Jesus God?
Christianity believes Jesus is God.

Do you deny the Holy Trinity?
Christianity believes in the Holy Trinity.

Then I asked what other Christian beliefs you disagree with.

No reason to reconsider my questions.
They are proper and to the point.

And please also consider the fact that I do not appreciate unsolicited attacks against my faith. Why do you think I brought up the Council of Ephesus?

Please post my attack on you.
I don't attack persons but try to have a decent conversation.
And I can't know why you brought up Ephesis. Was it in my post?
You could explain instead of feeling attacked.

 

[GodsGrace]

I doubt that the term "mainline Christianity" could be very well defined

I define mainline Christianity to be in line with both the creeds and what has always been taught....IOW, what is orthodox.
I was going to say what the majority believe, but I mean denominations and not individual persons.
IOW, what we all agree with that would define a Christian - which is basically every denomination except for the reformed.

but I have yet to find a single Calvinist who will deny the things the Calvin himself wrote in "Institutes" nor have I found hardly any Christians at all that deny the system's foundational premise from which the system does quite logically and inexorably flow. In other words, those "mainline Christians" whoever they happen to be, if they accept that God is ontologically immutable then the extent to which they depart from Calvin is exactly the extent to which their theology ignores sound reason. Which is not surprise, by the way. Most Christians today simply believe whatever they're taught to believe. They rarely put any actual thought into it. After all, they're taught to believe, not to think.


Originated them. These ideas were never a part of the Christian faith prior to Augustine and his contemporaries (e.g. Ambrose of Millan).

Agreed. Originated is a better word than expoused. It stands to reason that he did that.

Staupitz was as wrong as the others and for similar reasons. Such things are not matters of opinion. If God is just then these men were wrong - period.

I don't know Staupitz, but here's what you posted:

4. Johannes von Staupitz (1460–1524)​

• Luther’s Mentor: Staupitz, Luther’s spiritual mentor, did not fully develop a doctrine of predestination, but he had a deep belief in God's grace and sovereignty. His emphasis on the depth of human sinfulness and the necessity of grace likely influenced Luther's views.
• Similarities: While Staupitz may not have directly mirrored Luther’s detailed views on predestination, his overall approach to theology, particularly his emphasis on trusting in God’s grace rather than human effort, provided a foundation that Luther built upon in his own doctrine of predestination.

You don't agree with the above?
Staupitz had a deep belief in God's grace and sovereignty. All Christians believe in God's grace and His sovereignty.
We do NEED God's grace (prevenient?) to come to know Him initially. (But it's resistible).

Staupitz trused in God's grace rather than human effort....don't we need God's grace to move toward sancitification?

Well, it depends on what you mean by "God's sovereignty".

Do you mean what Calvin (and all Augustinians) meant; that God is in meticulous control of every event that occurs?

or...

Do you mean what the word "sovereignty" itself means; that God is the highest authority in existence?

The former is false, the later is undeniably true, even by those who believe the former.

The latter of course in understanding sovereignty.
God is the highest authority.

Well, that's just the point. Ther Calvinists (Augustinians) do not believe that God is able to delegate authority. They believe that, if He were to do so, He would no longer be God.

Why do they believe that? Because they believe that for God to be God, He has to be immutable. And by immutable, I mean absolutely and utterly incapable of undergoing any sort of change WHATSOEVER. No change in being, no change in thought, no change in state of mind and most certainly no change in authority. If God were to delegate authority to someone other than Himself, that would be a change and He would, therefore no longer be perfect and therefore would no longer be God.

Interesting. I've learned all along that God is immutable.
Doesn't the bible teach that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow?
In being I don't see how it could be possible for God to change.
By His being...do you mean His attributes?

I also can't remember aligning His immutibility with calvinism as being the reason why God couldn't delegate authority to someone else because it would be a change.

I even checked the Institutes and can't find anything on this.
Is this general knowledge you've acquired or could you post/link something?

The modern term for this sort of absolute immutability is "Ontological Immutability" but regardless of what you call it, the point is that this is the sort of immutability that Augustine learned from Aristotle and Plato and imported into the church and it is THE singular premise upon which the entire system is logically derived, including every syllable of what they believe about free will, predestination, total depravity, limited atonement, all the omni-doctrines (as classically taught), etc. If that single premise goes, every doctrine that distinguishes Calvinism from every other sect of Christianity crumbles to dust.

Would I, by any chance, find the above idea in Ken Wilson's Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism?

You definitely mistaken on this.

God certain does have some foreknowledge. There are a great many things that God has, in fact, predestined.

I'm wrong that foreknowledge is different than predestination?
IOW, you believe foreknowledge IS the same as predestination?

I also believe God has made many plans which can be called predestinated.
But it will always be HOW and PURPOSE and never WHO.

Actually, He might have chosen some WHOSE too....like Moses or Mary or Judas...
but I'd say a very limited number.

Not the least of which is the glorification of the Body of Christ and Christ's reign over the nations of the Earth among other things. God is also able to predict human behavior with a high degree of certainly and I suspect that He can predict natural processes like the weather with exact precision and to the extent such things are not predictable, they are manipulable such that God can know with certainty that He can and will accomplish certain things and can rightly proclaim the end of sequence of events from its beginning.

Agreed.
But you say PREDICT human behavior as opposed to KNOWING what the person would do.
I see a difference here.
Could you be more clear?
Are you discussing the different worlds scenario or middle knowledge?
I remember the different worlds scenario somewhat and have forgotten about middle knowledge...

What is not biblical, however, is the idea that God knows every detail of the future. There isn't anything in the bible that even suggest such a thing nor is it necessary to believe it. In fact, using the same line of thought that you used in regards to God given mankind the ability to exercise a real will, which is the wiser, stronger and more impressive God, the one who can beat you at chess because He has peaked into the future to see what your next move with be (i.e. cheated), or the one that has to react to what you do and still beats you every time anyway.

I don't think God peeks into the future.
I think He sees all of time all at once.

Not until Augustine.

Augustine taught doctrines surrounding predestination that are identical to modern Calvinism in at least the following four points...

1. Sovereignty of God’s Grace: Augustine argued that human beings, due to original sin, are incapable of choosing good or God on their own. It is only by God’s sovereign grace that people can be saved.
2. Election by God: God predestines certain individuals for salvation, not based on any merit or foreseen virtue in them, but solely according to His divine will and purpose.
3. Irresistible Grace: Those who are predestined by God will inevitably respond to His grace. Augustine argued that this grace is irresistible—if God chooses someone for salvation, they will ultimately respond in faith.
4. Reprobation: Conversely, Augustine also acknowledged that those not chosen by God are passed over or reprobated. They are left in their sin and will face eternal punishment.

Agreed 100%.

 

[Logikos]

??
I would never say who is saved or who isn't.
That's God's job.

You should think that through more thoroughly.

Are you not saying that a person is unsaved when you tell them they they need to put their trust in Christ's death and resurrection?

Are we not able to discern that those who pray to Vishnu are unsaved?
Are we not able to discern that those who murder people in the name of Ala are unsaved?
Is it really that difficult to conclude that Freddie Mercury went to Hell when he died?
If Hillary Clinton had a demon, which of the two would be the "processed" one? Now that's a hard question to answer!

People who reject the gospel are not saved. It does no one any favors to pretend like you don't know that. Indeed, it is wiser to give people the benefit of the doubt and PRESUME that they are NOT saved when any doubt does exist.

 

[GodsGrace]

Of course He can change! It isn't as if you have to go to some obscure passage of scripture in the book of Nahum to find out that God changes in enormously dramatic and permanent ways. On the contrary, the fact that God changes is the very gospel itself!

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.​

​

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

​

Revelation 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”​

​

Revelation 1:17 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. 18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore.​

That sounds like changes to me!

The above do NOT sound like changes.
Jesus is the Son...He's not the Father.
God Father is spirit and is a perfect spirit.
God is a perfect being.
How could He change?
If He changed would it be in a downward trend? Of course...what else could it be if He's already perfect.

What verses support God being able to change?
Because He was sorry he created mankind?
That's just an anthropomorphism....
God does not have human hands, or a human mind, or anything else human.

And that's just the most obvious changes. There are lots of times when God changes His mind right in the very first book of the bible. Which, incidentally, is THE primary reason why Augustine refused to become a Christian. He refuse to take Christianity seriously because the bible portrayed a God who can change His mind.

"For Thou art the same, and all things of time, and not only of time, but of all things that Thou hast created, in Thee abide, and yet have nothing in Thee that alters; and even in the beginning of my religious youth I longed to understand the character of evil, but I was hindered by no small question in my mind: 'Whence is evil?' And again, 'Is God limited by a bodily form, and has He hair and nails?' and 'Are those who are called righteous not altered when they pray to You? For when I held this notion, I did not think of You, O God, as immutable, but as mutable.'"​

​

"It seemed to me better to believe that You were mutable than to believe that You created evil. In my ignorance, I could not see that immutability is a higher perfection than mutability, and that a being which is immutable cannot create evil. So my soul wandered far from You, and I thought of You as changeable,..." - Augustine: Confessions (Book VII, Chapter 1)​

Augustine believed that God could not change.
He said that God has nothing in Him that could change.
He states that God does not have a bodily form nor has hair and nails.
Doesn't the above show that God is immutable?
Augustine is saying that immutability is a higher perfection than mutability.
Also, the early church believed in God's immutability and Augustine, being Catholic, would not go against what the CC taught.

Sorry, but that simply isn't correct. It could be that we aren't understanding what each other means by "based on" here because neither of those doctrine could possibly serve as a foundational premise for the system because neither of them are foundation premises for anything but are rather conclusions based on more foundational idea. Total depravity, for example, is logically based, at least in part, on the doctrine of Original Sin and the rejection of free will is likewise a logical consequence of predestination, which in turn is a consequence of their version of God's sovereignty, which in turn is based on immutability.

Trust me, it all comes back to immutability.

I've just never heard of this.
Dave Hunt in his book, What Love Is This states that Sovereignty and Predestination inspired Augustine's writings.
And why did predestination be a necessity? Because man was so depraved and had no free will and so God had to predestinate everything single thing that happened to mankind, including who got saved.

I do not deny that such arguments can and are often made. As such these doctrines are logically consistent with each other but what you've presented here is not the line of thought that produced either total depravity or predestination.

It's not me presenting anything L....I go by what experts state.
Augustine taught total depravity....this is why he changed the meaning or original sin and the purpose for infants being baptized.
He taught that man has no free will and God has to thus predestinate everything.

If you believe this goes back to God's mutability, I'd like to see something regarding this.
It would be interesting to read.

I've run into the same sort of folks. It's rather silly to quack, waddle, swim and fly like a duck and insist that you're not even a water foul but that's what some of them do. It goes to show you the level to which many people simply do not think through the things they've been taught to believe or bother to understand the history of their chosen religion. They're just blindly following their leader and parroting whatever it is they've heard other's say, which is what most humans do.

Agreed 100%.

 

[GodsGrace]

I won't take the time to respond point for point here because we're mostly in agreement.

I would just offer the following idea that might help you accept that God did indeed fertilize one of Mary's eggs without any need to worry about her fallen sinful condition....

Our sinful state, what Paul referred to as the "flesh", is passed to human offspring through the father, not the mother. We died IN ADAM, not Eve. Thus, there's no need for any "immaculate conception" of Mary, which would only succeed in backing the problem up one generation anyway.

Agreed!
Thus the Immaculate Conception !

 

[GodsGrace]

You should think that through more thoroughly.

Are you not saying that a person is unsaved when you tell them they they need to put their trust in Christ's death and resurrection?

Are we not able to discern that those who pray to Vishnu are unsaved?
Are we not able to discern that those who murder people in the name of Ala are unsaved?
Is it really that difficult to conclude that Freddie Mercury went to Hell when he died?
If Hillary Clinton had a demon, which of the two would be the "processed" one? Now that's a hard question to answer!

People who reject the gospel are not saved. It does no one any favors to pretend like you don't know that. Indeed, it is wiser to give people the benefit of the doubt and PRESUME that they are NOT saved when any doubt does exist.

But I was not responding to those you mention above.

It's not my place to tell someone they're not saved because they don't agree with a particular doctrine.

If y ou want to think that it's doctrine that saves us....so be it.
I DO NOT.

 

[Johann]

Agreed!
Thus the Immaculate Conception !

Wrong.

The Immaculate Conception is a doctrine held by the Roman Catholic Church, which teaches that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was conceived without original sin. According to Catholic theology, this preserved her from the stain of original sin from the moment of her conception. However, this doctrine is not explicitly found in the Bible.

Here are key points related to this:

Biblical References to Mary’s Holiness
While Mary is described as highly favored and blessed by God in Scripture, the Bible does not state that she was conceived without sin. The key verse often cited by Catholics is Luke 1:28, where the angel Gabriel greets Mary:

"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!" (Luke 1:28, Douay-Rheims).
The term "full of grace" is understood by Catholics to imply her sinlessness. However, this interpretation is not universally accepted, as other translations render it as "highly favored" (e.g., in the Lexham English Bible, "Greetings, favored one!"). This phrase does not explicitly confirm Mary's immaculate conception.

Sin and Humanity in Scripture
The Bible teaches that all humanity has sinned:

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).
"There is none righteous, no, not one" (Romans 3:10).
These passages suggest that everyone, including Mary, would be subject to sin. The Catholic doctrine holds that Mary is an exception due to the special grace of God, but this idea is a theological conclusion, not directly stated in Scripture.

Jesus’ Sinlessness
The Bible does affirm the sinlessness of Jesus Christ:

"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin" (Hebrews 4:15).
The New Testament emphasizes the sinlessness of Jesus, not Mary.


The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not explicitly taught in Scripture. It is a theological development within the Roman Catholic tradition based on interpretations of Mary’s special role in salvation history, but it lacks clear biblical support. Other Christian traditions, including Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy, do not accept this doctrine as biblical.

Also--

The idea that God fertilized one of Mary's eggs without regard to her fallen sinful condition is not supported by Scripture.

The Bible teaches that the conception of Jesus was a miraculous act of the Holy Spirit, but it does not describe this event in terms of human biology, such as fertilization of Mary's egg in the way that a normal human conception occurs.

Scriptural Account of the Virgin Birth
The key passages that speak of the conception of Jesus are found in Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:34-35:

Matthew 1:18:
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."

Luke 1:34-35:
"Then Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be, since I do not know a man?' And the angel answered and said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.'"
These verses describe the conception of Jesus as a divine miracle—the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary. The language used here emphasizes the supernatural nature of Christ's conception, rather than an ordinary biological process.

Mary’s Sinful Condition and Jesus’ Sinlessness
While Scripture acknowledges that all human beings are born with a fallen, sinful nature (Romans 3:23), it also teaches that Jesus was without sin:

2 Corinthians 5:21: "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

Hebrews 7:26: "For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens."

The Bible does not indicate that Mary's sinful nature (if she had one) posed any problem for the conception of Christ. The miracle of the virgin birth ensured that Jesus would be born sinless and not inherit a sinful nature. This was accomplished through the power of the Holy Spirit, not through any natural human process of fertilization.

I'm having a hard time with all these erroneous doctrines.

Don't respond @GodsGrace.

J.

 

[GodsGrace]

this is sad to me, It would be loke going to a baptist church just to go to church. or you think you need to for whatever reason. But have no desire to learn what they actually teach.

Agreed.

It should not be necessary for either group I agree with you. The word should be our guide. it is the on;ly thing that is inspired.. Now while I love a good doctrinal book. or a letter or something written by men. I handle them the same as I do any teacher. i read them, and study them, then test what they say.. I have learned much by doing this..

Agreed.

Yet he attacks others for not following his church, and uses the same (we have truth, no one else does) argument far to many catholics use. i do not agree with you here. It is not nice to attack a group of people only because they do nto agree with you. Then to use the silly excuse God created his church,. His church put the word together. and without his church, we would not have Gods word.

Attacking is not good. There are a couple of members on this forum that are horrendous catholics.
BUT, I must say that I agree that it was the CC that saved the early church from many heresies, put together the NT, and gave us the opportunity to be here today.

Thats pride talking, which is fine, if your proud of your church, be proud. but don;t use that pride to bash people.

Agreed.

Disagree. They are no different than the jews who paul spent most of his writings trying to appose.

They teach a different gospel than Paul taught. and paul made it clear. if anyone, even an engel teach a different gospel. they are to be anathema

It teaches a gospel. not the gospel.

WHICH gospel do you think the CC teaches?
They teach that Jesus died to save us from our sins and use a couple of the atonement theories ... don't have much time now, but I could get into this if you want.
They teach that we have to believe in Jesus and have a transformed life.
They DO teach some doctrine I don't agree with...but every church teaches some ideas we don't like...this doesn't mean that they don't teach the gospel.

I am not reformed. You could say I do not follow any of the old churches. i think Satan had a hayday in creating these churches. and while many left the roman catholic church, sadly they brought many of their heresies with them. or went the total other way. and skipped the truth which was in the middle.

I know you're not reformed. My point was that they don't change God's character.

They NEVER taught we are to do good works in order to earn salvation.

NOT to earn salvation EG....
AFTER salvation.
The CC believes exactly as we do....
(except for those that believe good deeds are NEVER necessary).

If someone claims salvation can be lost. that is just another way of saying you have to earn salvation.

We've discussed this many times. Not getting into this. Paul did mention about falling away.
Falling away from what??

This is not about doing good works. Thats part of sanctification. it is what happens AFTER we are saved.

Right. But we ARE to do them.

this is about the gospel. the good news of Jesus. the message of salvation.

Right.

They claimed they were saved, right with God. because God chose them..

They did nto need saved, they were saved by their birthright.

Oh. OK. I agree. Israel is not Israel by a birth right.
(but by faith).

Many claim they have faith also. but we know from James they had zero faith. or a dead faith. just because someone claims something does not make it truth.

And listen tot hem,. They are right in all they teach. they were given the truth from God. That is more than saying they have just the full truth.

But they are.

You say BUT THEY ARE....
you're responding to my statement that at least the CC does not teach heresy, for instance arianism.
Does this mean you believe the CC teaches arianism?
One of the heresies it fought against and for which a Council was called? (Nicea 325AD)

They teach a legalistic, pharisaic gospel of works.

I just don't see that.
I wish someone would show me this somehow.

I agree, I learned this the hard way when I came out of the baptist church. they all think they are right and no one else is.. or that they have the complete truth. others just have partial or half truths.

Well, this goes without saying...


Let me just end by saying that it's difficult to have this conversation (not with you- with anyone)...
because we're just not willing to listen or to understand - and I include myself of course.

 

[GodsGrace]

Wrong.

The Immaculate Conception is a doctrine held by the Roman Catholic Church, which teaches that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was conceived without original sin. According to Catholic theology, this preserved her from the stain of original sin from the moment of her conception. However, this doctrine is not explicitly found in the Bible.

Here are key points related to this:

Biblical References to Mary’s Holiness
While Mary is described as highly favored and blessed by God in Scripture, the Bible does not state that she was conceived without sin. The key verse often cited by Catholics is Luke 1:28, where the angel Gabriel greets Mary:

"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!" (Luke 1:28, Douay-Rheims).
The term "full of grace" is understood by Catholics to imply her sinlessness. However, this interpretation is not universally accepted, as other translations render it as "highly favored" (e.g., in the Lexham English Bible, "Greetings, favored one!"). This phrase does not explicitly confirm Mary's immaculate conception.

Sin and Humanity in Scripture
The Bible teaches that all humanity has sinned:

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).
"There is none righteous, no, not one" (Romans 3:10).
These passages suggest that everyone, including Mary, would be subject to sin. The Catholic doctrine holds that Mary is an exception due to the special grace of God, but this idea is a theological conclusion, not directly stated in Scripture.

Jesus’ Sinlessness
The Bible does affirm the sinlessness of Jesus Christ:

"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin" (Hebrews 4:15).
The New Testament emphasizes the sinlessness of Jesus, not Mary.


The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not explicitly taught in Scripture. It is a theological development within the Roman Catholic tradition based on interpretations of Mary’s special role in salvation history, but it lacks clear biblical support. Other Christian traditions, including Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy, do not accept this doctrine as biblical.

Also--

The idea that God fertilized one of Mary's eggs without regard to her fallen sinful condition is not supported by Scripture.

The Bible teaches that the conception of Jesus was a miraculous act of the Holy Spirit, but it does not describe this event in terms of human biology, such as fertilization of Mary's egg in the way that a normal human conception occurs.

Scriptural Account of the Virgin Birth
The key passages that speak of the conception of Jesus are found in Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:34-35:

Matthew 1:18:
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."

Luke 1:34-35:
"Then Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be, since I do not know a man?' And the angel answered and said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.'"
These verses describe the conception of Jesus as a divine miracle—the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary. The language used here emphasizes the supernatural nature of Christ's conception, rather than an ordinary biological process.

Mary’s Sinful Condition and Jesus’ Sinlessness
While Scripture acknowledges that all human beings are born with a fallen, sinful nature (Romans 3:23), it also teaches that Jesus was without sin:

2 Corinthians 5:21: "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

Hebrews 7:26: "For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens."

The Bible does not indicate that Mary's sinful nature (if she had one) posed any problem for the conception of Christ. The miracle of the virgin birth ensured that Jesus would be born sinless and not inherit a sinful nature. This was accomplished through the power of the Holy Spirit, not through any natural human process of fertilization.

I'm having a hard time with all these erroneous doctrines.

Don't respond @GodsGrace.

J.

OK
I wont' respond!


But it was the other member that explained WHY Mary had no sin.
He said because original sin, or the sin nature, is passed on by the father.
Jesus father was God....so Mary could not have had the sin nature.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Don't worry about what Behold did wrong. if he is in error. god will take care of him. Worry about when YOU make a mistake. Take the log out of your eye before you try to remove the spec from someone elses.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I do not know what it is about reformed people. but probably next to some roman Catholics. they have got to be the most hateful and arrogant people I have ever met.. They attack anyone who disagrees with them, and if someone comes in and tries to get them to calm down. They turn that wrath on those people like you have done here.

Well not being reformed I don't fall into your broad brush condemnation of them.

 

[GodsGrace]

the same way the jews did.

By denying the power of the cross to save people. and persecuting those who believe in salvation by grace through faith. Not of works. lest anyone should be puffed up in pride.

But we ARE saved by grace....every denomination believes this.
Ephesians 2:8-9 is valid also for the CC. This verse will be presented if you ask a knowledgable Catholic HOW a person is saved.

How is the power of the cross denied when the Eucharist is given at every Mass?
It symbolizes the death and resurrection of Jesus.
His death IS THE CROSS.
The bread is His body and the wine is His blood.
This is so plain to see at Mass and you say you've been to some.
Jesus said THIS IS MY BODY WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU....
The next day He went to the cross.
This is repeated at every Mass!

The jews said if you believe Christ, thats great, But you have to get circumcised. You have to obey the law. You have to do all these things.. then maybe even then, You may not make it

The CC says this?
It states that you MUST be baptized....
everything else is a sacrament...you could do it or not....
I will say that if you want to get married in a CC, you DO have to have made communion and confirmation but that's because you must belong to the Catholic Community - not because they think you won't be saved. I just don't know any priest that believes this.

The catholic church teaches no different, all they do is changed the "rules" or the "works" that they say one must add to grace to ensure their salvation.

If you consider a sacrament to be a work....then you're right.
They consider a sacrament to be a privilege. The love of God visible to the human person.
I personally don't have a problem with the sacraments....

 

[Johann]

Agreed!
Thus the Immaculate Conception !

Wrong.

The Immaculate Conception is a doctrine held by the Roman Catholic Church, which teaches that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was conceived without original sin. According to Catholic theology, this preserved her from the stain of original sin from the moment of her conception. However, this doctrine is not explicitly found in the Bible.

Here are key points related to this:

Biblical References to Mary’s Holiness
While Mary is described as highly favored and blessed by God in Scripture, the Bible does not state that she was conceived without sin. The key verse often cited by Catholics is Luke 1:28, where the angel Gabriel greets Mary:

"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!" (Luke 1:28, Douay-Rheims).
The term "full of grace" is understood by Catholics to imply her sinlessness. However, this interpretation is not universally accepted, as other translations render it as "highly favored" (e.g., in the Lexham English Bible, "Greetings, favored one!"). This phrase does not explicitly confirm Mary's immaculate conception.

Sin and Humanity in Scripture
The Bible teaches that all humanity has sinned:

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).
"There is none righteous, no, not one" (Romans 3:10).
These passages suggest that everyone, including Mary, would be subject to sin. The Catholic doctrine holds that Mary is an exception due to the special grace of God, but this idea is a theological conclusion, not directly stated in Scripture.

Jesus’ Sinlessness
The Bible does affirm the sinlessness of Jesus Christ:

"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin" (Hebrews 4:15).
The New Testament emphasizes the sinlessness of Jesus, not Mary.


The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not explicitly taught in Scripture. It is a theological development within the Roman Catholic tradition based on interpretations of Mary’s special role in salvation history, but it lacks clear biblical support. Other Christian traditions, including Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy, do not accept this doctrine as biblical.

I'm having a hard time with all these erroneous doctrines.

Don't respond @GodsGrace.

J.

OK
I wont' respond!


But it was the other member that explained WHY Mary had no sin.
He said because original sin, or the sin nature, is passed on by the father.
Jesus father was God....so Mary could not have had the sin nature.

Wrong again-pure speculation with no Scripture to back it up.

The statement that original sin or the sin nature is passed on by the father is not explicitly taught in Scripture, though it reflects an interpretation that some theologians and traditions have held.

Key Points to Consider:
Biblical Teaching on Original Sin: The doctrine of original sin teaches that all humanity inherits a fallen nature due to the sin of Adam, the first human. This idea is rooted in passages like:

Romans 5:12:
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned."
This verse emphasizes that sin entered the world through Adam, and as a result, all humans are born with a sinful nature. However, it does not specify that original sin is passed specifically through the father.

Conception of Jesus: The belief that the sin nature is passed through the father is sometimes used to explain why Jesus, who was born of a virgin, did not inherit a sinful nature. Since Joseph was not Jesus' biological father and Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18-20, Luke 1:35), this view suggests that Jesus did not inherit original sin.

Luke 1:35:
"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God."
This verse emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus' conception, ensuring His sinlessness.

No Direct Biblical Teaching on Sin Passing Through the Father:

The idea that original sin is specifically passed through the father is more of a theological inference rather than a direct teaching from Scripture. The Bible teaches that all humans inherit a sinful nature but does not specify whether it is passed through the father, mother, or both.

2 strikes-

J.