CALVINISM IS SIMPLY THE GOSPEL BELIEVED

[GodsGrace]

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

This is funny EG.
I just told you a few posts ago that most Catholics don't even know their faith....
so how could you talk to them to find out what the CC teaches?

You're knowledgeable so I could discuss OSAS with you...
you think I could discuss this with a normal, every day Catholic?
No way.

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

They did?
What verses?
I don't see any grace in the Mosaic Covenant...

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.

OK. But it's taken from John's gospel...20:23
You must admit that it sure sounds like Jesus is giving authority to forgive sins.

 

[Johann]

This is funny EG.
I just told you a few posts ago that most Catholics don't even know their faith....
so how could you talk to them to find out what the CC teaches?

You're knowledgeable so I could discuss OSAS with you...
you think I could discuss this with a normal, every day Catholic?
No way.

They did?
What verses?
I don't see any grace in the Mosaic Covenant...

OK. But it's taken from John's gospel...20:23
You must admit that it sure sounds like Jesus is giving authority to forgive sins.

Election/Predestination and the Need for a Theological Balance

Election & Predestination -- Special Topic by Dr. Bob Utley, professor of hermeneutics (retired).

www.freebiblecommentary.org

Please take a moment to read this article: Election and Predestination. Don't let the word "commentary" discourage you; it's worth your time.

J.

 

[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.

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

Don't respond @GodsGrace.

J.

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.

You know Johann,
If we're only going to accept what is written in the NT,
then we need to dismiss
the Trinity,
the Hypostatic Union,
the idea that God has a personal plan for each of us,
hell is not specifically mentioned in the way we understand it
the rapture is not specifically mentioned
and who knows how many other ideas....

Just this:
Through ONE MAN sin entered into the world...
Romans 5:12

 

[Ronald Nolette]

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!

Because it is the perpetual sacrifice of the mass as the Romanists call it!

. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that the Eucharist is the same sacrifice as that of Jesus on the cross, but it is offered in an unbloody manner3.

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.

Well the Catholic church has undergone quite an evolution concerning soteriology!

Pope Francis has declared that Jews, Muslims, buddhists, Hindus are all brother in Christ!

 

[Logikos]

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.

Ask ten people the same question and you'll get ten different answers.

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

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?

Well, I can't say with certainty because it depends on what he meant by "the depth of human sinfulness" and "the necessity of grace". If he meant anything similar to total depravity or irresistible grace then, no, I don't.

Staupitz had a deep belief in God's grace and sovereignty. All Christians believe in God's grace and His sovereignty.

Define the terms "God's grace" and "His sovereignty".

We do NEED God's grace (prevenient?) to come to know Him initially. (But it's resistible).

Says who?

Even if this is so, which I very much doubt that you could establish, then the bible itself, not to mention the testimony of God's creation would fulfill that need.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God [past tense], they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.​

​

​

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

Again, define the term "God's grace". If you and I agree then I'd strongly suspect that Staupitz would not.

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

This is correct but the VAST majority of Christianity DOES NOT mean this when they say that God is sovereign. They mean much more than that.

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?

God's character is immutable. He is immutably righteous, just, loving, kind, wise, etc. That much is entirely and undeniably biblical and true.

The bible does NOT teach, however, that God is ontologically immutable. It teaches quite the reverse! It teaches that God changes His mind, that He responds to prayer, that He BECAME a human being, the He suffered under Pontius Pilot, that He (God the Son) was forsaken by the Father and died, that He spent three days in the grave, which He never done before, and then rose from the dead with a brand new glorified body that He hadn't ever had before and that He retains to this day of forever more.

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.

Well, people learn new things every day.

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?

I cannot cite a specific source at this time but, just out of curiosity, I asked Chat GPT why a Calvinist would reject the notion of God delegating authority to others. This is, in part, how it responded...

The Calvinist understanding of absolute divine immutability is a foundational premise that influences their belief that God does not delegate authority in a way that could imply change or diminish His sovereignty. Here’s how this concept plays a critical role in their theology:

1. Implications of Change​

• Concern with Delegation: If God were to delegate authority to others, it could imply a change in His relationship with creation or a modification of His control over the universe. This would challenge the notion of immutability, as delegation might suggest that God is transferring some of His authority, thereby altering His nature or attributes.
• Theological Stability: Calvinists believe that any form of change in God’s nature or His governance of creation could lead to instability in the cosmos. If God’s sovereignty is not absolute and unchanging, then the foundation of all reality becomes questionable.

2. God’s Sovereign Will​

• Premise: In Calvinist thought, God's will is not only eternal but also perfectly executed. His sovereignty means that He ordains all that comes to pass without needing to change or adapt.
• Delegation vs. Sovereignty: The notion of delegating authority might suggest that God must respond to the actions of others, which could imply He is subject to change based on their decisions. This would conflict with the belief that God’s plans and purposes are perfect, comprehensive, and unchanging.

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

I wouldn't know. Probably not specifically.

 

[Logikos]

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

No, it isn't the same thing but it does have a similar, nearly identical effect on free will. If the future is known, you do not have free will.

T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am

1. Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
2. If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
3. It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
4. Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
5. If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
6. So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
7. If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
8. Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
9. If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
10. Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

Source

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

I'd agree. The extent to which is it "WHO" it is never specific individuals that were predestined before they existed. Groups of people have been predestined in certain ways but who it is that will decided to join that group (or not to join it), is not predestined.

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

Not before they existed.

God is able to know enough about a person while they are still in the womb to select them for a particular purpose but even when He does that, it doesn't always work out so well and God has to choose someone else. King Saul and then King David come to mind.

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?

I'm not sure how to me more clear. You see a difference because there is a difference. God cannot and therefore does not know the unknowable, GG.

Are you discussing the different worlds scenario or middle knowledge?
I remember the different worlds scenario somewhat and have forgotten about middle knowledge...

I'm not familiar with either term. I'm simply saying that God knows what is knowable - that He wants to know and nothing more.

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

Which you believe because of Aristotle and Plato, not the scripture. Augustine is the one who introduced the idea of a timeless God into the church. It is utterly irrational nonsense. God does not exist outside of time because time is not a place or a thing, it is an idea. It's an abstraction. It is a convention of language used to communicate information about the duration and sequence of events relative to other events. It does not exists "ontologically" but only metaphysically. That is, it exists inside a thinking mind and nowhere else. It's nothing at all other than talking about events in terms of other events.

And guess what Augustine based the idea of a timeless God on?!

Absolute, ontological, divine immutability! A doctrine he learned from Aristotle, not scripture and he taught to others who believed it and who then taught it to others, and so on, until it was eventually taught to you.

Agreed 100%.

 

[GodsGrace]

Election/Predestination and the Need for a Theological Balance

Election & Predestination -- Special Topic by Dr. Bob Utley, professor of hermeneutics (retired).

www.freebiblecommentary.org

Please take a moment to read this article: Election and Predestination. Don't let the word "commentary" discourage you; it's worth your time.

J.

I read the article J.
Why do you think I should have read it?
Are you not sure of where I stand in all this?
Do you think that a person should waffle between two differing, totally opposite belief systems?

The article is explaining words and what they mean.
I have no problem with the article.
It agrees with ME.

The word ELECT is in the bible,
but it does NOT mean that God CHOOSES persons.

The word PREDESTINATION is in the bible.
but it does not mean that God predestinates even the dust molecules in the air.

I know what I believe.
I know the Institutes and a couple of the Confessions -althougth they're basically the same.

I know I don't agree with calvinism...
NOT IN ANY WAY.

I make it very clear as to what I believe and leave no doubt.
There are members on this forum that don't even know they're calvinists even
though the believe calvinist ideology.
I'm not one of them.

Calvinism is unbiblical.
No need to read additional literature.
I've been reading this stuff for about 15 years if not more.

 

[GodsGrace]

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

Really?
I thought it meant that bapism regenerates us....makes us new.
Well, if that's what it teaches, then I can't agree.
John baptized for the forgiveness of sins.
Jesus baptized with fire and the Holy Spirit.
And I think John 3:5 is referring to physical birth.

 

[Johann]

You know Johann,
If we're only going to accept what is written in the NT,
then we need to dismiss
the Trinity,
the Hypostatic Union,
the idea that God has a personal plan for each of us,
hell is not specifically mentioned in the way we understand it
the rapture is not specifically mentioned
and who knows how many other ideas....

Just this:
Through ONE MAN sin entered into the world...
Romans 5:12

Nonostante comprenda il tuo punto di vista, sorella, la dottrina dell'Immacolata Concezione non è vera, poiché Giuseppe NON era il padre biologico del Messia.

Tradizione Ebraica: Discendenza e Identità
Nella tradizione ebraica, la determinazione dell'identità ebraica è storicamente stata tramandata attraverso la madre (un principio noto come discendenza matrilineare). Tuttavia, quando si tratta della linea di sangue o dell'identità tribale, come la linea sacerdotale (Kohen) o la linea reale (linea Davidica), queste vengono tramandate attraverso il padre.

Discendenza Matrilineare (Identità Ebraica)
Secondo la legge rabbinica (Halakha), l'identità ebraica è determinata dalla madre. Se la madre di un bambino è ebrea, il bambino è considerato ebreo, indipendentemente dalla religione o identità del padre. Questo si basa su interpretazioni del Talmud e varie fonti rabbiniche.
Una delle fonti chiave per questa pratica proviene dalla Mishna (Kiddushin 3:12), dove si stabilisce che la prole di una madre ebrea è ebrea. Esiste anche un principio derivato da Deuteronomio 7:3-4, che avverte contro i matrimoni misti con non ebrei, e l'interpretazione rabbinica indica che i figli delle madri ebree fanno ancora parte della comunità del patto.

Discendenza Patrilineare (Identità Tribale e Sacerdotale)
L'appartenenza tribale—se qualcuno è un Kohen (sacerdote), Levita o appartiene a una delle 12 tribù d'Israele—viene tramandata attraverso il padre. Ciò significa che l'identità tribale specifica di una persona, come essere della tribù di Giuda o Levi, dipende dalla linea del padre.
Ad esempio, per essere considerato un Kohen (un membro della classe sacerdotale discendente da Aaron, il fratello di Mosè), è necessario avere un padre che è un Kohen. Allo stesso modo, la linea messianica (discendenti di Re Davide) viene tracciata attraverso la linea del padre. Questa idea è radicata in versetti come Numeri 1:18, che afferma: "Dichiararono le loro genealogie secondo le loro famiglie, per casa dei loro padri."

Riepilogo dei Punti Chiave:
L'identità ebraica viene tramandata attraverso la madre (discendenza matrilineare), il che significa che un bambino è considerato ebreo se la madre è ebrea.
L'appartenenza tribale e sacerdotale (discendenza patrilineare) viene tramandata attraverso il padre, comprese le linee Kohen e Davidica.
Prospettive Rabbiniche Moderne:
Il concetto di discendenza matrilineare è universalmente accettato nell'ebraismo ortodosso e conservatore. Tuttavia, alcuni rami dell'ebraismo riformato riconoscono la discendenza patrilineare, in cui un bambino è considerato ebreo se almeno uno dei genitori è ebreo, a condizione che il bambino venga cresciuto con un'identità ebraica e pratiche.

La tradizione di tracciare la discendenza tribale attraverso il padre rimane coerente tra le varie denominazioni ebraiche.

Mentre tu ti rivolgi ai Padri della Chiesa, io mi affido alle fonti ebraiche.

J.

 

[Johann]

I read the article J.
Why do you think I should have read it?
Are you not sure of where I stand in all this?
Do you think that a person should waffle between two differing, totally different belief systems?

The article is explaining words and what they mean.
I have no problem with the article.
It agrees with ME.

The word ELECT is in the bible,
but it does NOT mean that God CHOOSES persons.

The word PREDESTINATION is in the bible.
but it does not mean that God predestinates even the dust molecules in the air.

I know what I believe.
I know the Institutes and a couple of the Confessions -althougth they're basically the same.

I know I don't agree with calvinism...
NOT IN ANY WAY.

I make it very clear as to what I believe and leave no doubt.
There are members on this forum that don't even know they're calvinists even
though the believe calvinist ideology.
I'm not one of them.

Calvinism is unbiblical.
No need to read additional literature.
I've been reading this stuff for about 15 years if not more.

Another mistake-Utley is NO Calvinist.
Anyway-enough for today.

J.

 

[GodsGrace]

Nonostante comprenda il tuo punto di vista, sorella, la dottrina dell'Immacolata Concezione non è vera, poiché Giuseppe NON era il padre biologico del Messia.

This is the entire point !!

Tradizione Ebraica: Discendenza e Identità
Nella tradizione ebraica, la determinazione dell'identità ebraica è storicamente stata tramandata attraverso la madre (un principio noto come discendenza matrilineare). Tuttavia, quando si tratta della linea di sangue o dell'identità tribale, come la linea sacerdotale (Kohen) o la linea reale (linea Davidica), queste vengono tramandate attraverso il padre.

Discendenza Matrilineare (Identità Ebraica)
Secondo la legge rabbinica (Halakha), l'identità ebraica è determinata dalla madre. Se la madre di un bambino è ebrea, il bambino è considerato ebreo, indipendentemente dalla religione o identità del padre. Questo si basa su interpretazioni del Talmud e varie fonti rabbiniche.
Una delle fonti chiave per questa pratica proviene dalla Mishna (Kiddushin 3:12), dove si stabilisce che la prole di una madre ebrea è ebrea. Esiste anche un principio derivato da Deuteronomio 7:3-4, che avverte contro i matrimoni misti con non ebrei, e l'interpretazione rabbinica indica che i figli delle madri ebree fanno ancora parte della comunità del patto.

Discendenza Patrilineare (Identità Tribale e Sacerdotale)
L'appartenenza tribale—se qualcuno è un Kohen (sacerdote), Levita o appartiene a una delle 12 tribù d'Israele—viene tramandata attraverso il padre. Ciò significa che l'identità tribale specifica di una persona, come essere della tribù di Giuda o Levi, dipende dalla linea del padre.
Ad esempio, per essere considerato un Kohen (un membro della classe sacerdotale discendente da Aaron, il fratello di Mosè), è necessario avere un padre che è un Kohen. Allo stesso modo, la linea messianica (discendenti di Re Davide) viene tracciata attraverso la linea del padre. Questa idea è radicata in versetti come Numeri 1:18, che afferma: "Dichiararono le loro genealogie secondo le loro famiglie, per casa dei loro padri."

Riepilogo dei Punti Chiave:
L'identità ebraica viene tramandata attraverso la madre (discendenza matrilineare), il che significa che un bambino è considerato ebreo se la madre è ebrea.
L'appartenenza tribale e sacerdotale (discendenza patrilineare) viene tramandata attraverso il padre, comprese le linee Kohen e Davidica.
Prospettive Rabbiniche Moderne:
Il concetto di discendenza matrilineare è universalmente accettato nell'ebraismo ortodosso e conservatore. Tuttavia, alcuni rami dell'ebraismo riformato riconoscono la discendenza patrilineare, in cui un bambino è considerato ebreo se almeno uno dei genitori è ebreo, a condizione che il bambino venga cresciuto con un'identità ebraica e pratiche.

La tradizione di tracciare la discendenza tribale attraverso il padre rimane coerente tra le varie denominazioni ebraiche.

Mentre tu ti rivolgi ai Padri della Chiesa, io mi affido alle fonti ebraiche.

J.

The above is a totally different topic....

 

[GodsGrace]

Another mistake-Utley is NO Calvinist.
Anyway-enough for today.

J.

I know he's not.
So I don't understand why you linked that page....
Cena!

 

[Johann]

I know he's not.
So I don't understand why you linked that page....
Cena!

Fammi una tazza di caffè con un sacco di spaghetti.

J.

 

[Johann]

This is the entire point !!

 

[Johann]

I know he's not.
So I don't understand why you linked that page....
Cena!

My apologies, I'll think twice before sending links.

J.

 

[Logikos]

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.

That is a near verbatim reiteration of the argument Socrates made!

Did you know that you were mouthing the words of pagan Greek (probably homosexual) philosophers?

It is a false argument. A change in the perfect does NOT imply a change for the worse. This is especially true in any system that is dynamic by its nature. A clock that does not change is the opposite of perfect, it is broken and useless. Any living thing must change, by definition or else it too would not per perfect, it would the opposite of that, it would be dead.

Stone idols don't change, the living God does.

So says God's inspired word, by the way. (In other words, that isn't my opinion.)

What verses support God being able to change?

I've already citing several and so I won't wast time repeating myself verbatim, but...

Virtually the entire book of Genesis.

The entire book of Jonah.

The entire books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and Acts.

The entire book of Revelation.

And seemingly countless other individual passages throughout the bible.

Because He was sorry he created mankind?
That's just an anthropomorphism....

An anthropomorphism is a figure of speech and actually if this were a figure of speech it would not be an anthropomorphism it would be an "anthropopathism" but that's neither here nor there. The point is that figures of speech mean things.

Say, for example, you tell someone, "Let's hit the road.". That's a figure of speech that means, "Let's leave now."
If someone says that they're going to "bite the bullet", it doesn't mean that they are going to crunch down on a lead bullet from their side arm, it means that they're going to do something that is unpleasant or painful.

See what I'm getting at? Figures of speech don't just sit there doing nothing. They are, more or less, complex forms of words that convey an actual meaning.

God's word explicitly states that "And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” (Genesis 6:6-7)

Notice the later portion that puts those words into God's own mouth, by the way.

If that is a figure of speech, what does that, rather lengthy, figure of speech mean?

God does not have human hands, or a human mind, or anything else human.

Well, He didn't, but then He became a human being and He not only has a human body but scares from injuries He suffered while on the cross.

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?

No. How would it show that?

Augustine is saying that immutability is a higher perfection than mutability.

This is true, that is what he was saying. He was wrong.
He was parroting Socrates and refused to become a Christian in his youth precisely because the book of Genesis portrayed God as changing His mind. The very passage you cite about God repenting that He had made man, is one of several passages that Augustine used as an excuse to reject the bible as childish fantasy.

Also, the early church believed in God's immutability and Augustine, being Catholic, would not go against what the CC taught.

That's COMPLETELY false! The Catholic church teaches immutability today BECAUSE of Augustine, not the other way around. The teaching did not exist in Christianity prior to Augustine and his contemporaries.

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.

Those two doctrines may have played such a motivating roll in his decision to write, but where did those two doctrines come from? Immutability!

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.

People can say what they want but Augustine explains it himself. I'm telling you, the ENTIRE theological construct is build, first and foremost, on Aristotelian immutability, on the premise that God cannot change in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. Augustine would never have become a Christian in the first place had he not figured out a way to see the scripture in the light of the Classics, a notion that was introduced to him by his mother's Bishop, Ambrose of Milan.

It's not me presenting anything L....I go by what experts state.

Don't be silly. You user name is at the top of every post you make. Don't worry. I won't mistake you for being the actual genesis of the things you present.

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.

The doctrines can be argued from those directions but it doesn't matter.

Look, your doctrine, everyone's doctrine, begins with (i.e. is based upon) their theology proper. "Theology proper" as I'm sure you're aware, is the area of theology that deals with God Himself, His attributes, His character, etc. What one believes about who God is, what He's like and what He does and doesn't do, etc, colors every other aspect of one's doctrine and serves as the basis for it. That's why they call it "theology proper". It sets the foundation for all other aspects of one's doctrine.

So, no! Augustine's soteriology (e.g. total depravity and predestination) were NOT the basis of Augustine's doctrine. Whoever taught you that is flatly wrong and does not even understand the most basic principles of systematic theology.

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

Read Institutes!

Read Augustine Confessions!

Do a Google search, for crying out loud.

I promise you that I am not making this stuff up! The history of these doctrines is so clearly documented that they aren't even in dispute. On the contrary, Calvinists are proud of it! They, almost always begin with the very argument that you yourself presented at the beginning of this post, often totally unaware of the fact that the argument comes right off the pages of Plato's Republic.

"Socrates: "In like manner, if we suppose that the gods are good, we can reasonably conclude that they do not change. If they were to change, it would either be for the better or for the worse. If for the better, they would not have been perfect before; and if for the worse, they would not be divine. Thus, it follows that they must be immutable." - from Plato's Republic, Book II, 382a–384b​

 

[Logikos]

Agreed!
Thus the Immaculate Conception !

That's the opposite of the proper conclusion. Was that intended to be a joke?

 

[Logikos]

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.

You're just refusing to budge for no reason at all.


What part of the gospel is not doctrine?

Is it not your doctrine that you're a sinner and stand guilty before God?

Is it not your doctrine that Jesus died for your sin?

Is it not your doctrine that God will forgive you your sin debt if and when you accept Christ's death as payment of that debt on your behalf?

Is it not your doctrine that those who fail to accept Christ's death as that payment and fail to believe that He rose from the dead will be made to pay their own sin debt?


What part of the gospel is not your doctrine, GG?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Agreed.

Agreed.

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.

Again I disagree. the CC did not save the church, it destroyed the church. It paganized the church.

Agreed.

WHICH gospel do you think the CC teaches?

Faith plus works.

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.

feel free.. what besides faith do we need to do. or not do. to ensure we will be in heaven according to the catholic church

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 talking about the gospel once again, What do they say we must do to ensure we will get to heaven.

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

Yeah actually they do.

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

No they do not. not even close.

I am afraid you do not understand catholic theology very well if you think this

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

Grace.

Not everyone who said they have faith is saved.

James spoke against those who had no faith at all ( a dead faith) paul accused those who had faith not in God. but their works.

Right. But we ARE to do them.

Not to be saved, but because we are saved.. If they are required to be saved, then we are back under law.

Right.

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

spiritual israel if you want to call it that yes

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)

That does not mean they are the one true church of God.. it does nto even mean they are a church. it just means they, like many are against what ever this is.

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

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.

I will listen for anyone who gives me a new understanding that I have not heard before. for a catholic or a non catholic.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

But we ARE saved by grace....every denomination believes this.

This is in error

if it is grace it is no longer works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

if it is works, it is no longer grace, otherwise work is no longer work,

It can not be both, it is one or the other. People can claim they believe in grace all day long, if they add works they do not believe in grace at all. they are either deceived. or willingly holding onto a false truth

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.

I would not expect otherwise.

if this was the only verse they use, i would say amen, But they use many verses. which contradict this verse.. and that is where the issue comes.

How is the power of the cross denied when the Eucharist is given at every Mass?

lol.. Right there!! the eucharist is not what gives life. it is the spirit that gives life, the words he speaks are spirit and they are life.

the eucharist does nto even give those who partake what jesus promised.

He said they would never die, They would never hunger or thirst, They would live forever. they will not come to judgment, and they will raised, not delivered. and they will never be lost.

If the eucharist gave what Jesus promised. they would only take it once, because it is a food jesus said endured forever.

The eucharist is powerless. it can not save.

It symbolizes the death and resurrection of Jesus.
His death IS THE CROSS.

They say it is his literal. not symbolic.

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!

and?

The lords supper. jesus said do OFTEN in remembrance of me

The blood and wince they claim the eucharist they claim is in John 6.. Thats a totally different thing, it is not a symbol. and it is not done often. it is done once.

The CC says this?
It states that you MUST be baptized....

What do you say happens at baptism? do they not say it removes origional sin?

how about all our other sins? How are they forgiven?

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.

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....

Many of their so called sacraments they claim must be followed or you will not make it to heaven..