Arguing that something is apostolic and therefore true is not in accordance with scripture. We know this because not all the apostles were ordained among the elect.
The most prime example of this is Judas Iscariot As the Lord says: "It had been good for that man if he had not been born." Jesus explicitly affirms double predestination here in the case of Judas Iscariot. He was predestinated for salvation from the very start.
Indeed the author of Acts tells us that God divinely ordained all the events of the crucifixion to happen (Acts 2:23, Acts 4:28)
Predestination and election were part of the divine decree from the beginning, yes that even includes the fall of man which God divinely decreed (Ephesians 3:9-10). This is why Adam and Eve are in hell, they were reprobated (the Harrowing of Hell doctrine taught by Rome is false as Calvin showed)
We see instances of the apostles doubting (Matthew 28:17), we know that James and Peter were apostates to the Judaizer sect (Galatians 2:12) and as Paul tells us, anyone of the circumcision is "fallen away from grace" (Galatians 5:4) meaning they were apart from grace the whole time. It's clear from some of these examples not all of the apostles were regenerate Christians.
Paul specifically talks about how just because someone is an apostle does not make them superior (2 Corinthians 11:5, Galatians 2:6).
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Jesus speaks to John about the heretical sect of the Nicolatians (Revelation 2:6, Revelation 2:14-16) who were led by Nicolas the Deacon, though he was not himself one of the twelve he was selected by them as one of the first deacons of the Church! (Acts 6:5)
This just goes to show that even if something is "apostolic" in origin (even though nothing Rome teaches goes back to the apostles anyway as they have no evidence) it doesn't matter. What matters are the words of scripture which are divinely revealed. Hence Sola Scriptura, not Apostoli Soli since the apostles may have themselves spread some false teachings and may not have been true regenerate Christians.
Apostleship could never save! We are saved by grace alone through faith alone by Christ alone! Not by works! (Ephesians 2:8) And our only source of infallible revelation is scripture alone!
You mean the canon of scriptures that were decided by men who derived authority from these same Apostles? Hmm.
The canon of scripture was decided by the Holy Spirit not by men. The Holy Spirit illuminates the mind of the regenerate to allow us to know what is part of the canon and what is not. We need neither apostles, nor tradition, nor creeds or ecumenical councils of popes. We have the word of God and the word of God alone.
>We need neither apostles, nor tradition, nor creeds or ecumenical councils of popes.
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. 27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues
One thing as an outsider I notice with Protestants vs Catholics is that Protestants are more likely to cite several disjointed verses while Catholics are more likely to cite an entire passage. Why is that?
You could give a 1000 different protestant denominations that claim they have the Holy Spirit a bible and they would all come up with their own unique interpretations. They would also begin to replicate the same institutions and structures as the Roman Church, the only difference is that they reject the apostolic succession instituted by Christ himself. Every instance of schism was out of self interest, not for Christ. There is only one Truth.
>apostolic succession
And what did the Christ have to say about what should happen when they abandoned their duty to wield the sword of God to reap the fruit and became willfully negligent towards their obligation to protect the Kingdom of Heaven against evil and darkness? Hypothetically speaking.
*predestined for damnation from the very start
Typo
Adam is in heaven now. People have had visions of Adam in heaven.
Adam died. You must be alive to be in heaven. That is why the only two people in the old testament who have been said to ascend to heaven were taken alive before they died. Even for christians who believe in Jesush will know that he had to first be resurrected in his flesh to then get taken to heaven. No dead people go to heaven. Dead people are dead, unconscious in sheol until judgement day. Adam died and was mourned by the whole world.
Hallowing of Hell, Jesus’s victory over death.
Harrowing of Hell is a false doctrine invented by Rome. Jesus's "descent into hell" is a metaphor for the suffering he experienced on the cross.
New Testament is the modern day mythology. Civilizatons centered around worshipping a mangod rise and fall, their mangod gets renamed and repainted by the next civilization that comes to power, yet The Almighty lives forever, his name never changes and his prophets are always serving him.
St. Paul and St. Peter discuss the Harrowing directly. St. Peter even mentions the Gospel being preached to "those who are dead," (I Peter 3&4) while St. Paul discusses Jesus descent in Ephesians:
>Ephesians 4:9: "In saying, 'he ascended', what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth?"
We could also consider multiple references Matthew and acts, e.g.
>Matthew 12:40: "For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth."
Further, St. John's gospel and letters refer to judgement based on works. St. James also explicitly referenced judgment based on works, as does St. Peter and Revelation. No wonder Luther and other reformers wanted to remove James and Revelation from the Bible and retranslate parts of the Gospels.
The Calvinists is forced into his position by a conception of God that is less than fully transcendent. His theistic position sees God as just a very powerful entity sitting outside the world. This, if man has any freedom it impinges on God's sovereignty. And so they misunderstand Paul in thinking in this way, unable to see that our freedom is in God.
St. Paul and the Church Fathers, as well as the medievals are panentheistic because they worship a God who is truly without limits, not one who is limited because he is defined by what he is not. As Saint Augustine says, God is "within everything, yet contained in nothing," and "more present to my inward self than myself." Or as Saint Bonaventure and Saint Aquinas put it, God is present to everything as an effect is a sign of its cause. It is in God that we "live and move and have our being," the lines from Acts recited at every Mass.
Calvinists are confused when Saint Paul describes men CHOOSING to do things and then God making that choice manifest. E.g. in Romans 1, people choose to ignore God, then God gives them over to degeneracy...
This is not a two step process where Providence must react to finite man. They are two sides of the same coin, as men only are and can choose by virtue of God who creates and sustains all being, who IS being itself.
Paul frequently does this. He will describe an act as men choosing something and then as God doing it. There is no contradiction or violation of sovereignty here if God is truly transcendent in the panentheistic mode, as is the God of not only the Patristics but the wise Pagans like Plato, Aristotle, Proclus, etc.
Did God make a mistake in placing Israel too close to this Greek tradition? Did his Church get corrupted by alien ideas? Far from it. God is the Logos, at work in all rationality, as much in Philo of Alexandria as in Origen or Proclus. God works through history, most of the Bible is history. God intended that his revelation be bolstered by natural theology, for it is in man's rationality that man is made in the image of God (Augustine). We are not like God in having two arms and two legs, or walking upright, but in being rational and through unification under the desire for what is truly good, self-determining. But man after the Fall is deficient, which is why only grace and the working of the Holy Spirit allows us to transcend the slavery to sin seen in Romans 7 for illumination and theosis.
And of course the Calvinists is further forced into the error of thinking that Mary, the Theotokos, was disgusting before God, drowning in sin, not "full of grace."
>And the angel said “Hail Mary! Disgusting pile of excrement!”
>St. Paul and St. Peter discuss the Harrowing directly. St. Peter even mentions the Gospel being preached to "those who are dead," (I Peter 3&4) while St. Paul discusses Jesus descent in Ephesians:
They discuss no such thing. Rather what is being spoken about here is the manifestation of Christ's grace to those elect that had gone before the coming of Christ. Reading the context makes this clear: "He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit" (1 Peter 3:18). The descent of Christ's soul into hell is not what is being spoken of here, far be it for that is a blasphemous doctrine! Rather Christ was made present to the righteous elect in in the Spirit.
>In saying, 'he ascended', what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth?"
This passage has nothing to do with the Romanist dogma of the Harrowing of Hell but is in reference to the incarnation (Philippians 2:7) where Paul uses the metaphorical languages of Christ "descending" and "emptying himself" respectively, yes even to some degree the "ascent" is metaphorical. Jesus isn't reigning from outer space or something rather he has gone to the presence of God! Going by your logic you should believe that hell is a literal place underground. We know how absurd that is.
>We could also consider multiple references Matthew and acts
>Matthew 12:40
Nothing but the burial of Jesus is being referenced here, where he indeed "made his grave with the wicked" and "counted among the rebels".
Harrowing of Hell dogma is blasphemous and an affront to the gospel. Christ completed his suffering here on earth on the cross, he bore the full punishment of God's wrath in this life.
>Further, St. John's gospel and letters refer to judgement based on works. St. James also explicitly referenced judgment based on works, as does St. Peter and Revelation.
Until you give me something to work with here we can't go much further. Reformed do not deny the role of works in sanctification, sanctification is the fruit of justification, it confirms our status as sons of God and elect members of his new covenant, a covenant not of law like the one that was from Moses, but a covenant of grace! (John 1:17).
>The Calvinists is forced into his position by a conception of God that is less than fully transcendent.
What a load of Papist Romanist nonsense.
>His theistic position sees God as just a very powerful entity sitting outside the world.
That's deism, not Calvinism. Stop lying Papist dog.
>Paul was a panentheist
Not demonstrable from scripture. Next.
>and the Church Fathers and medievals and blah blah blah
Right and the medieval Roman Church introduced many false doctrines like transubstantiation, the immaculate conception, semi-Pelagianism, image worship. That was the whole point of the reformation. Your Mass is a pagan abomination before the eyes of God, Christ said on the cross "It is FINISHED" there is no more propitiation needed.
>There is no contradiction or violation of sovereignty here if God is truly transcendent in the panentheistic mode, as is the God of not only the Patristics but the wise Pagans like Plato, Aristotle, Proclus, etc.
The Romanist consulting his pagan philosophers. Scripture says this: "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." (Colossians 2:8)
>the immaculate conception
But that's in the Bible.
>And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
>And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”
>And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.
Luke 1:30-35
Immaculate Conception is about Mary being conceived without original sin. I always notice non-Catholics or Cradle Catholics tend to get it wrong, but it's not about Jesus at all.
I think Protestants might have just appropriated the term.
He physically died. His soul lived. Death of body =/= death of soul.
That is not what the old testament says. That is a pagan belief. Souls descend to sheol and are unconscious until judgement day where everyone is resurrected and judged by God.
Calvinists believe 99.9999% of all human beings that have ever existed will experience eternal conscious torment because they got noobtrapped by the free will question.
>Calvinists believe 99.9999% of all human beings that have ever existed will experience eternal conscious tormen
Yes.
>because they got noobtrapped by the free will question
Calvin's knowledge is based on revelation. Idolators turn to their fallen reason. They say "it cannot be this way, for if God does this then God seems evil." But of course it only seems evil to them because human reason is deeply flawed from the Fall. If God seems evil for predestinating to Hell most of humanity it is only because our reason is defective (a point Luther makes as well).
Even the elect stand disgusting before God. They are piles of excrement covered in the pure snow of Christ's sacrifice. Even infants share in this sin, as can be demonstrated from Scripture (vipers in diapers).
You idolators base your ideas in non-Biblical fantasies about "theosis," and "divine union." But really there is nothing that can be done to change the human, so disgusting is he in his depravity. Only the elect have any part in the true church, which is just the elect.
This was revealed to Calvin not be reason but by revelation, by the angle of light sent to him. It cannot be gainsayed.
>And no wonder, since Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
II Corinthians
I wonder who was really providing the illumination to Calvin that said that God delights in torturing infants for eternity?
Grace is transforming someone into a different person. If the person is not transformed the grace was not effective. It's transforming someone from sin to virtue. Your God just overlooks things. Mine transforms.
Why do Calvinist sound like they genuinely hate people?
You can speak to the sinful nature of man and the holiness of God without sound like some cringe misanthrope. Those same "piles of shit" are people Jesus died for and tasked believers to preach the gospel to.
>angle of light sent to him
was it in a cave by chance?
>theosis isnt bibilcal.
Anon...what is sanctification.
Never really thought of that anon lol. Image you're an infant and die in childbirth only to be immediately sent to hell and tortured for eternity.
The mind games and cope Calvinist have to believe to think that this isn't insane needs to be clinically studied.
>Anon...what is sanctification.
The Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis has nothing in common with the Biblical doctrine of sanctification. The former is a works based dogma whereas sanctification is a built of grace. There is no such thing in scripture as the so called "three levels" of theosis, this is an entirely man made tradition that comes out of mysticism. Mysticism has its roots not in scripture but in pagan philosophy. "Theosis" is another medieval doctrine that developed within among the Eastern Orthodox.
>Calvin's knowledge is based on revelation
A demon told him what he wanted to hear and than sat back as Christendom exploded.
Taking advantage of pride has always been the most efficient way to target the religious
>heterodox opinions
The apostles didn't exist.
anon, i come from a hardcore traditional lutheran family but your argument (and quite frankly most of protestant denomination arguments about this topic) is moronic and, at best, falling on completely deaf ears. the catholics, well at least the insane hardcore ones that are on here (mostly the converts but then i know at least one of the seminaries used to have their doctoral students come here and argue and find lost souls and all that shit), are utterly incapable of critical thought without someone telling them what to think. it's literally impossible for them to understand anything having to do with spirituality without first making sure it's okay and they'll certainly not have the courage to question anything based on what you're saying. in all my years there's only one thing that's ever gotten through to any single one of them and it's the simplest thing you can possibly imagine rather than all this stupid horseshit you all try to constantly argue about.
This is Protestantism at its finest, people. This is the logical end of Calvinism, of the solas of the reformation. Beware.
No Calvin's thanks John Calvin saw an angel or spoke by divine revelation. Someone is false flagging.
Still, all other points stand even without this one.
No they don't. Just like all other Romanists you misunderstand Calvinism which is the gospel.
Can Calvin be considered a prophet?
No and no Calvinist thinks this.
Why not?
It's not like the Bible comes with a caveat that there will be no more prophets
Agreed, that's why I took the Smithpill
So many Papist and Icon kissers seething in this thread.
Why are Calvinists so angry and unhinged all the time?