/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

"All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."

Calvinism ain't wrong, anon

Whosoever will.

The Confession of Dositheus isn't Catholic, but I'm sure you might find it interesting. Be sure to read the Confession of Cyril Lucaris first, as Dositheus refutes 'him' point by point. I used quotations there, as it is thought that Cyril's confession is actually a forgery by Calvinists who were trying to influence the Orthodox Church. None of Cyril's other writings expound these or similar beliefs, so even if he did actually write it, he repented of such ideas.

http://www.crivoice.org/creedcyril.html

http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

Any denomination that would teach that only some are saved can roundly be dismissed as false.

Matthew 12:31-32, KJV:

31. Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

32. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

I really, really doubt 99.9% of people even know how to begin to blaspheme against the Holy Ghost.

>>628792

For starers http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/search?q=calvinism

>>628837

You're misusing this passage.

"Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people"

Here, the people is in reference to those who are going to be saved. It is not possible that everyone is going to be saved.

How would verses like Matthew 25:41,46 and Mark 9:44 come into effect if no one is going to hell (eternally).

>>628984

Because the only people going to hell eternally are the ones who blaspheme the holy spirit, according to Christ's own statement. I don't see any vagueness in the "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men" portion.

>>629006

>Show verses that don't make sense with your interpretation

>He just goes on and repeats what he said

Just because you can believe whatever you want doesn't mean you should

>>629007

I read them, they say those on the left hand go to hell, those on the right hand are saved, and those in hell won't have their worms quenched. I see no confusion or contradiction between Christ's statements in all these verses. Do you?

>>629006

Why are you pretending that "men" means everyone when it's obviously being used in an indeterminate way?

>>629016

…

Because the verse literally says "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men."

Take it up with Christ, He said it.

>>629017

Matthew 2:3, Matthew 3:5-6, Matthew 4:8,24 , matthew 26:52, 2 chronicles 9:23, psalms 145:9, luke 2:1, 1 corinthians 15:22

Examples taken from http://yuriystasyuk.com/relearn-the-bible-10-verses-where-all-does-not-mean-all/ where all doesn't mean all.

>>629011

Okay fine, lets grab ones with more clear contradictions.

Matthew 7:13 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

What does God mean by this?

Matthew 22:14's one is better when read with context since its a tale instead of a easy quote.

>>628812

>Every individual who wills

ftfy

>Any denomination that would teach that only some are saved can roundly be dismissed as false.

Universalist heretic detected

>>629079

>Implying everyone and their dog believes on Christ

>>629017

>I have no argument and I must shitpost

https://nakedpastor.com/2017/06/the-gay-calvinist/

>>628792

St. Francis de Sales' the Catholic controversy, you can find the pdf on archive.org

>>629120

>God allowed me to sin, never in ANY way forcing me to, therefore God made me sin.

mmmmmm sure anon

What are good Protestant debunkings of Calvinism?

>>629191

steven anderson(though he isn't a protestant)

>>629213

>>629210

I already listen to Steven Anderson and use the KJV, but I would like a thorough written refutation of Calvinism from a Protestant or Baptist pov, that debunks all the Calvinist proof texts.

>>629202

I already know that Calvinism can't be true and is a damnable heresy based on the fact that limited atonement explicitly contradicts the Bible, and the concept of being elected unconditionally especially contradicts John 3:16. I just need a thorough analysis of how Calvinists twist and quote scripture out of context to justify their Augustine-derived heresies.

>>629226

You ignore the other side, senpai

>>629232

Not heresy.

How does limited atonement contradict the bible? I'll need sources for this one.

Unconditional election in no way contradicts John 3:16.

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

The belief comes from God.

>>629270

>Unconditional election in no way contradicts John 3:16.

He believes John 3:16 contradicts the freedom of grace because he reads the words "whosoever believes in Him", and thinks that is putting forth the work which one must perform to merit eternal life.

>>629232

>Blaming Augustine

no

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/04/st-augustine-was-catholic-not-proto-protestant.html

>>629232

>Can't think of a proper argument

HERESY!!!

>>628792

Is this the thread where we REEE because we don't like the Calvinists being right about determinism and capitalism?

>>629803

Help, this man is assaulting my feelings!

Also, can you tell me more about Calvin and capitalism? I've never heard of Calvin's political beliefs.

>>629311

I am not claiming Augustine is a proto-Protestant, I am claiming Calvinism is only possible through his erroneous and unbiblical doctrine of Original Sin, which informs the Calvinist view of Total Depravity. Calvin himself cited Augustine constantly throughout his Institutes.

>>629270

'And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.'

1 John 2:2

'But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. '

Hebrews 2:9

'For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one *died for all*, then were all dead: and that *he died for all*, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. '

2 Corinthians 5:14-15

>>629803

Calvin was wrong about determinism

'For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. '

1 Timothy 2:3-4

>>629848

Capitalism was a result of Calvinist determinism because they believed in a truly free market God would guide us towards heaven on Earth because that was God’s deterministic plan. So if left unhindered we would reach paradise. Seeing how much (((government))) ruins everything they were clearly right. I’m Catholic, but I’m not sure how to reconcile free will. I just can’t convince myself my will is that of a personal random number generator unique to me and not the result of some previous conditions decided by God.

>>629872

Predestination is a false heresy. God "will have all men to be saved", which means he desires salvation for everyone, not for a select few he randomly picked. You have free will whether you like it or not. What do you think of Genesis 3 is about? It demonstrates man has free will.

>>629874

Define free will. I’m not kidding. I want to know what people mean when they say it. “Eve did it” only explains how it was used, not what it is.

>>629875

>define free will

The capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. For example, Eve had the choice of obeying God, or eating the fruit. She had the capacity to ignore Satan and obey God's commandment, but she chose not to out of her own free will. Ditto for Adam.

You had the choice to accept faith in Christ for your salvation, or to remain in unbelief. You had the capacity to choose either alternative, and you freely chose, nobody compelled you to believe.

>>629880

A markov chain is a rational agent. Do I have more free will than a markov chain, and if so then why?

>>629882

How is a markov chain a rational agent? Does it have self awareness?

>>629883

So the only requirement for a rational agent is self awareness? Determinism is still true then. Self awareness does not imply multiple outcomes.

>>629890

Explain how a markov chain is a rational agent first? A markov chain is like a game played with dice, right? That is based on probabilities, not on a rational capacity to choose alternate courses of action. You have to be completely deluded by Calvinism to think free will is like playing dice.

>>629896

Semantics. That’s what I assumed every normie meant by free will since they always mention their every possibility exists bs when talking about it.

>>629889

>Are these terms, "world", "every man", etc. truly unlimited as you take them to be? Furthermore, the understanding you have is heretical, because christian universalism is against orthodox belief (as far as I'm aware).

I'm not arguing in favour of Christian universalism, that's not the same thing as denying limited atonement. The atonement is unlimited, in the sense that it is sufficient to cover the sins of every human who has ever lived. That does not imply everyone will receive atonement, because in order to receive atonement for salvation you need faith, and most people will refuse the free gift.

>>>629869 (You)

>Here's the NASB translation which I prefer:

>3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,

>4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

>God has different levels of "will". Desire, will, possibly more. With the understanding you are taking, God *desires* for all men to be saved, but still does not sovereignly will it. Another understanding of this verse I have heard is, like I said to the last anon, the "all men" is in reference to the elect.

"All men" does not mean the elect because the elect are not all men, all men means all men. Nice try with distinguishing will and desire as separate levels of "will" though. If God desires something, he will make it happening. So if he "desires" all men to be saved, why did he "will" for only a select few to be saved. God can accomplish whatever he desires.

I find it interesting that you brought up "sovereign will". Where in the Bible does the concept of sovereignty as you understand it, appear? And if he "desires" all men to be saved,

>>>629880 (You)

>Adam and Eve had 'untainted' free will. Due to original sin, we are no longer in possession of this. Therefore, Eve's will does not apply to us.

I'm glad you accept that Adam and Eve had free will. Now where in the Bible does it say that they had untainted free will prior to the Fall, and our free will was "tainted" by the Fall? Or did you get that from Calvin and Augustine? What does it mean to have your will "tainted"?

>>629899

I already defined free will for you, so why are you pretending as if I haven't, and assuming that I my understanding of free will is not what I explicitly defined it as, but superimposing another definition into it? Is it because you can't summon any objection to free will as I defined, so you out of your own free will decided to ignore my definition because you think a "normie" definition is easier to debunk?

>>629899

I'm interested in what the Bible says, not in Aquinas' opinion on what the Bible says. The Bible is my authority, not Aquinas.

>>629912

>>629914

>>629918

Here's an article from the same site but quite a bit shorter

https://www.gotquestions.org/Gods-will.html

>>629914

I never agreed with the normie version. Yours is less insulting to the intellect, and I currently have no means to prove it wrong. But my markov chain post was made before you expanded on the requirement of self awareness.

>>629918

>In your opinion, does Jesus still only cover the sins of the elect on the cross?

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Christ's death on the cross is a propitiation to God that is sufficient to cover the sins of ALL men, saved and unsaved, and sufficient to save all men from the wrath of God. But in order for the atonement to be received, it must be accepted by faith in accordance with our free will. If everyone who ever lived believed in Christ, his death, burial and resurrection, then all men would be saved, but only IF they believed.

>I believe I'm misunderstanding you. You say you are not a christian universalist, but then you say God does not have separate wills/desires. If you believe that v4 references all men, would this not mean that all men are saved?

What I mean is, that IF man is not saved by accepting salvation of his own free will, but by unconditional election, then ALL men would be elected, and not a few. Yet, while desires all men to be saved, he permits us the free choice to receive salvation or reject it. He gave us free will because while he desires all to be saved, he wants us to freely choose to be saved, and not be compelled.

>>629926

Rational actor implies self-awareness anyway.

>>629931

You're circling around my questions

>all men would be saved, but only IF they believed.

So Jesus only covers the sins of these people? You have never answered my statement on this. You say Jesus COULD save everyone, but then he doesn't. So does this mean he only actively carried the sins for the elect?

And to your #2, you are arguing that God CANNOT 'force' us to believe, so his sovereign will does not apply to us? You obviously believe in some sort of separation between God's desire and will.

Read Romans 9, John 6, Isaiah 53, Ephesians 1 & 2.

>>630043

Jesus covers the sins of the saved alone, but it is not because he chooses not to cover the sins of certain people whose damnation is predetermined by God, but because the unsaved chose to refuse the free gift of salvation. Those who reject salvation die condemned by their sins, but they must reject it out of their own free will. Atonement is unlimited in that it is freely available to everyone, not only to a select predetermined few. It is up to the individual to choose whether they want to receive salvation or not, but their choice is not predetermined.

>>631741

It's mainly the PCUSA I believe that has the feminist bullshit, not all of presbyterianism.

NASB is one of the most accurate translations (besides transliterals), even more so than the ESV and KJV. The KJV and Geneva Bible had their uses, but newer translations are based on better manuscripts, are easier to read, and are more accurate.

>Comparing ESV to Jehova Witnesses' bible

What's with pic related?

Also, you've gotta get on board with Covenant Theology and Paedobaptism :)

>>628792

First, what is "saved"?

>>631741

>he used the Geneva Bible

No he didn't, he couldn't speak a word of English. If you read Calvin and find him citing from the Geneva, that's the translator, not Calvin.

>>631752

>If you want to baptize babies, sure, but baptize again as a proclamtion of faith

You're acting like baptism is something we do because we feel like it, and not because it is commanded by God. If infant baptism is valid, a necessary consequence of this is that someone once baptized as an infant should not be baptized again later in life.

>>631787

>If Jesus has paid for your sins (he didn't pay for everyones' sins), you are saved

This is incorrect, think about it again, that would mean justification precedes faith.

>>631793

>That's why I and my church disagree with paedombaptism as a valid baptism; it doesn't save.

I don't get your logic. By this logic, shouldn't you baptize nobody at all, because it doesn't save? Should the Jews have not circumcised their children, because it didn't save?

>>628792

If you have time for some movie-length youtube videos:

>Documentary: Protestantism's Big Justification Lie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L14UNjaZJm8

Not specifically about Calvinism but Protestants in general. It attacks a very important distinction in Reformed thinking between Justification and Sanctification, and also uses clips and quotes from several prominent Calvinists (John Piper, John McArthur, RC Sproul,…)

>5 Points of Calvinism Refuted

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-vKLszXeEo

/christian/'s favorite pastor Steven Anderson can be pretty good sometimes. He specifically addresses all 5 points of Calvinism in order with scripture.

If you look around on Youtube, you can find many more videos but I haven't seen them.

I also wish, that I could present to you a few books, but sadly the Church hasn't released a whole lot of books attacking various heresies since its early days.

>>629862

Augustine didn't invent the idea of original sin, stop believing Orthoprots acritically

>>631817

I don't want to be uniformed; be not haste to reject something on not having giving it fair shot.

Should I go to the source of Calvin's writings? people have diffrent views on what Calvinism is; two calvinists could hold diffrent views on it.

What do you recommend reading?

>>631905

Nobody claimed he invented it, nerd, but that it was popularized through him.

>>631960

Also:

>suggesting that theologians like Lossky and Romanides are Orthoprots

lmao

>>631990

You don't have to agree with everything that he says. I mean, he is a Sedevacantist so I don't like all he has to say either, but you can still listen to what he has to say on some things. Same as Anderson.

>>629242

>St Irenaeus

>icon of Gregory Palamas

>>631952

Well, firstly, it's important to distinguish between Calvinism and Reformed theology. The former is a basic soteriological position, the latter a fully orbed systematic theology. If you want an introduction to Calvinism, I recommend meme theologian James White's book The Potter's Freedom. With regard to Reformed theology, for a more 'basic' understanding of it, I recommend Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, and for 'advanced' learning, Francis Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology.

>>631994

To be honest, the entire works/faith distinction to me seems very artificial.

Most Calvinists would say that if you are saved by faith, but if you don't live according to God's commandments, that means that you don't really believe. You don't need works to be saved, but you aren't saved without them.

Most Catholics on the other hand would say that if you do good deeds but don't have faith in Christ, that there is no salvation.

So, both believe that you ultimately need both faith in Christ as well as works or else you aren't really Christian. It's just that Calvinists look at works as evidence for salvation (meaning that any person that is actually born again would do these things), whereas Catholics believe that if you continue sinning & don't act like a Christian, you can lose your salvation.

Debunking Calvinism (or any other false beliefs) is like cutting heads off a hydra. You would be better served spending the majority of your time studying Catholic doctrine. That way, when you do see Calvinist beliefs, you will be able to discuss them versus that Catholic position more inteligently.

One recommendation I have is the book "Predestianation" by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. Predestination is a hot topic, and I think many Catholics have a false understanding of the Catholic doctrine (and various Catholic schools of thought), and that the Calvinist position is not so far from the Catholic position as people make it seem. The real big differences are due to the sola fide doctrine and all that entails.

>>628939

These are good. I wouldn't take most of his articles as more than a starting point, but he has a lot of interesting arguments.

>>629123

This is a good read, even if some of the arguments seem kind of outdated now (since he was writing 400 years ago).

>>631962

They're not Orthoprots. They're just modernists. Vladmir Moss's website debunks the modernist denial of original sin.>>631962

>>632074

Christ said "suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them no, for of such is the kingdom of God." I wouldn't take this to mean that all infants are automatically saved, but I think it would have been a rather inapt saying if no infants were saved.

I'm Catholic, so of course, my position is that we can assume the baptized infants are saved, and we can speculate that God might (or might not) intervene in an extraordinary manner for the others.

These blog posts have some info about historical Protestant traditions.

https://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2017/02/infant-salvation-brief-survey-of-early.html

https://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2017/03/infant-salvation-lutheran-tradition.html?m=1

>>632074

>I think that's most protestants, not just calvinists.

In Calvinism, there's more an emphasis on true elect versus false elect that I don't think exists in Lutheranism.

>>632603

I was talking to >>631793 about the infant thing.

I think you were >>631817

>we can speculate that God might (or might not) intervene in an extraordinary manner for the others.

Per the burden of proof, the default position is that God does not intervene.

As I said before though, I'm still learning about paedobaptism. I'm currently going to a southern baptist church with my parents (im 18) so of course everyone is strictly credobaptist.

It definitely does not initiate conversation on this topic, and they won't share the other side of the argument with you, similar to calvinism.

I see in Calvin's Institutes book 4 there is a chapter (maybe more) on paedobaptism, so maybe I'll get learnt by him.

>>632604

Shouldn't people try to see whether they are truly saved or not?

>>632919

>I think you were >>631817

No, that was my first post.

>Shouldn't people try to see whether they are truly saved or not?

From my view, it would be better to have an objective confidence of salvation. For Catholics, we can look at the sacraments and know that God has attached promises of grace to them. There is room for insencerity on the part Catholics or potentially failings due to delusion or ignorance, but for someone with their head on straight, they can have a reasonable certainty of their salvation. Do I accept the teaching of the Church? Am I participating in the sacraments? Am I conducting my life in accordance with the Church's moral teaching,. If so, then I can have confidence I am in a state of grace.

In Calvinism, two people can have subjectively identical conversion experiences, but one is elect and the other reprobate. They can both outwardly appear to be good Christians and interiorly have basically the same experience. Yet one endures to the end, the other falls away eventually, maybe after a long time. There's nothing wrong with that except that this means for Calvinists that the reprobate person never had any grace at all. Every part of this person's life as a Christian was false. And this also means that there is little objective certainty of salvation. Someone can have all the signs of election only to find out it was all a delusion. The only real objective certainty is of reprobation if someone completely apostatizes. Calvin said that we can come to know our election with time. However, while you could be elect and know your election, you could also be reprobate and only delusionally think you are elect.

I found the passage from Calvin that I was thinking of.

>11. I am aware it seems unaccountable to some how faith is attributed to the reprobate, seeing that it is declared by Paul to be one of the fruits of election; and yet the difficulty is easily solved: for though none are enlightened into faith, and truly feel the efficacy of the Gospel, with the exception of those who are fore-ordained to salvation, yet experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. Should it be objected, that believers have no stronger testimony to assure them of their adoption, I answer, that though there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith, yet the elect alone have that full assurance which is extolled by Paul, and by which they are enabled to cry, Abba, Father. Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only for ever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprobate. Meanwhile, believers are taught to examine themselves carefully and humbly, lest carnal security creep in and take the place of assurance of faith. We may add, that the reprobate never have any other than a confused sense of grace, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only, applying it by special faith to their use. Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy. In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.iii.html

>>632074

>Then when did Jesus pay for our sins?

When He died.

>When we are saved?

When His merits are applied to us by faith.

>>632919

>Shouldn't people try to see whether they are truly saved or not?

No. No, they most certainly should not. It is a shame this idea is so pervasive today. If you seek assurance by your own good deeds, it is a bad sign if you feel anything but abject terror. When you look inwardly, you should only find sin. If you find anything other than a sinner, you are not being honest with yourself. This is why this method of assurance is at best spiritually dangerous. The natural solution to finding this sinner (which ought to cause such a person to question their salvation) would be to try and do good so as to correct the problem in their relationship with God. Because this false doctrine causes men to measure their relationship with God by their own works, it is not hard to see how it can cause men to seek to be justified by law.

>>633124

>If so, then I can have confidence I am in a state of grace.

Not if you are honest and thorough. You should be asking yourself about the times you might have sinned without knowing or realizing it, about if you have done enough for Christ, if you're comfortable with the possibility you might go to hell just because you got hit by a truck a day before confession, or if you remember every mortal sin you committed when you go to confession. One might not like being a pessimist, but if one wishes to be saved they will leave no stone unturned.

>In Calvinism, two people can have subjectively identical conversion experiences, but one is elect and the other reprobate

Only if faith isn't part of the conversion experience.

>And this also means that there is little objective certainty of salvation.

It means there is absolutely no subjective certainty of salvation. What is subjective is when one bases their assurance on what they do. You know what I noticed in your questions for a Roman Catholic concerning their state? "I" "I" "I". What a person ought to derive their confidence from is that upon which they rely. Whenever a Christian feels fear or worry regarding their eternal future, all they should do about it is look to Christ, and be at peace.

>The only real objective certainty is of reprobation if someone completely apostatizes

No. Apostates may be brought back into the faith, but genuinely that time.

>>633125

Why can we not hold this to be objectively true without feeling the need to apply this subjectively? Outwardly, they may have all the signs of election, yes, but they cannot posses true faith, which a person may have certainty of by its definition in scripture. Indeed, apostates frequently reminisce about their past as false brothers, and nearly always a clear problem is found in their descriptions that shows they did not have true faith. It is extraordinarily rare for the vain imitation to be so similar to the reality as to be difficult to distinguish.

>>633124

In the Institutes, Calvin speaks similarily to you. He says we have increased confidence through staying in the church, doing the sacraments, etc.

Do catholics believe in perseverance of the saints (once saved always saved)? I know at least some do.

Regardless of this, the fear is still the same for you. What if you fall away? Is my faith really that strong? Was I ever even saved in the first place?

>>633139

So we were justified before we had faith. (this to your 1st point)

to 2nd: good deeds =/= salvation. Also see what I said above to the other guy. Even for you, you don't know if you are saved 100%, or if you will lose your salvation due to lack of faith (if you don't believe in perseverance). On top of this, this takes away from the sovereignty of God. "I can save myself!" is practicaly what you are saying.

>>633559

Did you reply to the wrong person? Nothing you said makes any sense as a response to anything I said except maybe the first sentence, but it sounds like you're implying that's what I'm saying, which would be absurd.

>>633597

>Jesus paid for our sins when he died

>we're not justified before we had faith

You said this part was proper.

For the second part, I am concurring that good deeds do not equal salvation, then I continue on to say you still have a problem with knowing whether you are saved or not, PLUS whether you will lose your faith.

Saying we can lose our salvations means Jesus died for us, but he didn't really, because he doesn't carry all of our sins. Does he still cover the sins while we were saved? Or are we still punished for them.

>the natural solution to finding this sinner would be to try and do good so as to correct the problem in their relationship with God.

We are not able to get to God due to total depravity and original sin. It is God who comes to us.

>>633600

>You said this part was proper.

You said "So we were justified before we had faith", there's no not in there.

>Saying we can lose our salvation

I don't believe Jesus loses any of His sheep.

>We are not able to get to God due to total depravity and original sin. It is God who comes to us.

Reading comprehension 200%? I was pointing out flaws in a false doctrine of assurance

>>633559

>>633139

Replying about certainty of salvation.

I agree that the basis of one's hope of salvation should be in Christ. That's not the point. In the Catholic view, Christ paid for the sins of the whole world. Forgiveness is offered to all through through the sacraments. In Calvinism, Christ died only for the elect. A Catholic can look back to their baptism and know that even if they will fall away later, they really received the gift of God's grace in baptism. A Calvinist can look back to their conversion and make a prudent judgment, but he cannot know with certainty whether he really receieved any grace at all, or whether he just receieved the kind of counterfeit grace that Calvin says God gives to damn you harder later. Maybe this does not seem like a big deal to you but it is to a lot of people, including many Protestants.

The Catholic view is not self-reliant. Sacraments are not things that we do to earn God's favor. They're objective signs of God's grace established by God. This idea is not unique to Catholics. You are right that a Catholic may be delusional, but you're exaggerating how much so. First of all Catholics, believe on a distinction between mortal and venial sin. It is very possible for a Catholic to avoid all mortal sin. Even if you do die on the way to confession after commiting a mortal sin (which merits famnation anyway, so serves you right), the Catholic teaching is that so-called "perfect contrition" with intention of confessing your sin is sufficient for forgiveness. If you make a confession and you omit some sin by forgetfulness, assuming you repented from it, it is still forgiven in the sacrament. You could have the example of the unrepentant sodomite who tells themself their sin is not a sin and goes to confession, and of course their sin is not forgiven because they are insincere. But for a normal person who heeds the moral teaching of the church and is sincere, they just go to confession and receive the forgiveness of sins, free and easy. People make it out as if Catholicism makes salvation nearly impossible, but the reality is not like that at all.

And practically speaking, there's not much difference in terms of human effort between Calvinism and Catholicism. They differ in explanations of what's going on behind the scenes, but both systems teach that God will guide the predestinate to do those things that are associated with the life of grace and to avoid sin.

>Outwardly, they may have all the signs of election, yes, but they cannot posses true faith, which a person may have certainty of by its definition in scripture. Indeed, apostates frequently reminisce about their past as false brothers, and nearly always a clear problem is found in their descriptions that shows they did not have true faith. It is extraordinarily rare for the vain imitation to be so similar to the reality as to be difficult to distinguish.

You don't know how rare it is. No one but God knows. I don't get the impression Calvin thought it was as rare as you suggest.

>Do catholics believe in perseverance of the saints (once saved always saved)? I know at least some do.

No, that is contrary to Catholic dogma. Any Catholic that believes that is either misinformed or not a Catholic at all.

If you read the book I recommended to OP earlier, Predestination by Regonald Garrigou-Lagrange, he talks about this topic. For example, he writes about the distinction between predestination to grace and predestination to heaven (I don't think that's the exact term he uses). The second class is smaller than the first. Catholics believe that not everyone who is predestined to grace is predestined to persevere to their death. Some will fall away. That does not mean that they were never "saved" (never received real grace). An analogy could be people (sinners) drowning in the ocean. A ship comes and saves some by hauling them aboard. Some stay on the ship all the way to dry land. Some, through their own carelesness fall back into the water and drown. Some who fall back in are hauled back on board (even multiple times), but end up making it back on the ship to land.

>>634602

>In the Catholic view, Christ paid for the sins of the whole world

Yes, that is part of the problem. Christ failed to achieve salvation, so we are left to fill in the blanks. We are made the masters of our own salvation, and I think that has serious ramifications for one's assurance. If I thought my ultimate fate was up to me, I'd give up, the only thing I'd have confidence in is my own damnation.

>A Catholic can look back to their baptism and know that even if they will fall away later, they really received the gift of God's grace in baptism

Is that supposed to be a consolation? 'I can be damned to hell forever, but at least I was temporarily imperfectly right with God once'? I think that's something that ought to give greater fear, since it means they sin against greater light and incur a greater judgement.

>A Calvinist can look back to their conversion and make a prudent judgment, but he cannot know with certainty whether he really receieved any grace at all

They shouldn't be looking back to their conversion for assurance. There are multiple sources from which they may derive assurance, but that is not one.

First of all, there is the simple, plain, biblical teaching that assurance is a special grace of God which believers normally receive (Romans 8:15-17). One may derive their assurance from their ongoing faith in Christ, inasmuch as Christ promises to them salvation, and His promise is sure. But I also believe it is consistent with scripture and with the Reformed tradition to say that a believer may derive their confidence of their eternal salvation from the promises of God given in their baptism.

>or whether he just receieved the kind of counterfeit grace that Calvin says God gives to damn you harder later

He can know with certainty that he possesses true faith if he knows his own heart. The delusions of false believers do not change this. Lunatics cannot tell they are insane, this does not mean the sane cannot tell with certainty they are sane.

>Sacraments are not things that we do to earn God's favor. They're objective signs of God's grace established by God

I'm well aware, but you must also be aware their efficacy is dependent on our cooperation.

>You are right that a Catholic may be delusional, but you're exaggerating how much so

I have complete confidence that if a Catholic believes he has a good chance of going to heaven he is suffering a delusion.

>>634602

>>634623

>First of all Catholics, believe on a distinction between mortal and venial sin

I know, they have to, if your church taught the biblical standard of holiness the jig would be up. But the fact this false distinction is introduced to justify the false gospel doesn't change the fact the bible teaches us God is so holy He cannot tolerate even a hint of sin (Revelation 21:27, James 2:10, etc).

>Even if you do die on the way to confession after commiting a mortal sin (which merits famnation anyway, so serves you right), the Catholic teaching is that so-called "perfect contrition" with intention of confessing your sin is sufficient for forgiveness

The loopholes like this and "baptism of desire" are inconsistent not only with the same biblical standard I just spoke of but also with mere common sense. Does God require your confession? Then He requires your confession. It doesn't matter how sincere your attempt to achieve God's standard was, it doesn't matter how close you came, if that is truly God's standard, too bad for you. I find it hard to understand how someone can believe in these loopholes except from a desire to cheat God should they get caught in such circumstances.

>People make it out as if Catholicism makes salvation nearly impossible, but the reality is not like that at all

Catholicism make salvation impossible because it requires us to put in the effort. Our assurance is derived from the very fact it is not us who accomplish our salvation. We don't have to give it our all because we rely on one who already performed all righteousness. I'll repeat this, because it's important: Our assurance is derived from the very fact it is not us who accomplish our salvation. This is why we don't have a problem about our assurance in eternal salvation, but Roman Catholics do.

>And practically speaking, there's not much difference in terms of human effort between Calvinism and Catholicism

That is incredibly naive. I think practically speaking there is a massive difference between us. Sure, we're both going to have a drive to do good works, but that is not the extent of practicality. Just as one example, a Calvinist is going to feel at peace, and their attitude toward God will be one of gratitude, a Roman Catholic is going to feel panicked, and their attitude toward God will be one of fear (keep in mind I am talking about consistent exemplars, so please don't reply with anecdotes).

>You don't know how rare it is. No one but God knows

Obviously I was giving an anecdote, not making a universal claim as if I thought myself omniscient.

>>634623

>Christ failed to achieve salvation, so we are left to fill in the blanks

No. Man can fail to accept Salvation by not accepting Christ. Avoiding the Mortal Sin and attending to the Eucharist is there to satisfy the "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day."

If you have a problem with this, let me remind you, so did the disciples that left Him.

>Is that supposed to be a consolation?

Yes, Baptism leaves an indelible mark of the Holy Spirit on the soul. Even if you leave the Church, you are still marked as a sheep of Christ, and still have an innate resistance to evil. However, it will be worse for you to know the Way, and to turn back away.

>He can know with certainty that he possesses true faith if he knows his own heart.

He can know with certainty if he keeps the Lord's commandments.

>I have complete confidence that if a Catholic believes he has a good chance of going to heaven he is suffering a delusion.

Then take it up with Jesus, we keep his commandments, and we eat of His Body and His Blood, as He commanded us to do.

>>634625

>I know, they have to, if your church taught the biblical standard of holiness the jig would be up.

Which is? We've kept the battle up against masturbation, pornography, divorce, and birth control, what Protestant sect are you from that has carried the torch here?

> I find it hard to understand how someone can believe in these loopholes except from a desire to cheat God should they get caught in such circumstances.

You find it hard because you will not listen to what He asked of us. We do not confess our sins for our pleasure, we do it out of love and fear of God, Jesus Christ. We believe that someone with a *genuine* internal drive for confession/repentance can receive it because we believe God has made the decision to call them out of this life before they can. The Sacraments are not merely rituals, they are suffused with the Holy Spirit, which is God.

>Catholicism make salvation impossible because it requires us to put in the effort.

Oi, sounds like you're accusing Christ here. He is the narrow way.

>Our assurance is derived from the very fact it is not us who accomplish our salvation. This is why we don't have a problem about our assurance in eternal salvation, but Roman Catholics do.

Your assurance is derived out of reading Scripture without accepting any particular apostolic authority, pure and simple.

>That is incredibly naive. I think practically speaking there is a massive difference between us.

Most definitely.

>>634982

>Man can fail to accept Salvation by not accepting Christ

It does not matter what the cause of the failure is. If Christ set out to save men, and they nullify that effort, that is failure. To set out for something and not accomplish it is the very definition of failure.

>Yes

Lol, ok.

>you are still marked as a sheep of Christ

Christ doesn't lose any of His sheep.

>we keep his commandments

Romans 3 says you don't.

>>634983

>Oi, sounds like you're accusing Christ here

Nope, Christ Himself did the heavy lifting.

I found these replies to be shallow and disengenuous.

>>635112

>I found these replies to be shallow and disengenuous.

I find your theology and concept of reality to be completely alien, and almost completely divorced from the meaning of the Gospels.

No surprise the theological permutations of calvinists go off into un-christian tangents constantly.

>>635120

That's nice, anon

>>635112

btw, i'd still like to hear your comments on:

>Which is? We've kept the battle up against masturbation, pornography, divorce, and birth control, what Protestant sect are you from that has carried the torch here?

I don't believe calvin supported any of these, right?

bum p

>>635120

????????

Calvin was an actual genius, and he did a very good job in supporting his beliefs which are mostly true through the bible.

>>635123

I don't know for sure, but I would imagine he wouldn't support any of this stuff.

I believe non-abortion birth control is okay in the confines of christian marriage.

Sex out side of marriage is sin regardless of whether they use birth control or not, and abortion is murder.