Posted on 01/17/2013 3:11:16 PM PST by Alex Murphy
....I can’t count how many people I have had conversations with in recent months who are dismissive of the Reformers and the Reformation—and I am talking about Anglican leaders, even in the Anglican Church in North America. While some of these same folks make fun of the resolution that was proposed (in 2011) at the Convention of the Episcopal diocese of Atlanta to reinstate Pelagius as “a viable theological voice within our tradition,” many of these Anglican leaders do not realize that their own disdain for Calvin really amounts to a rejection of St. Augustine, and their disregard for important Reformation truths really amounts to an unthinking embrace of the very Arminianism, Semi-Pelagianism, and Pelagianism that they are ridiculing Episcopal liberals for resurrecting.
TULIP
not familiar with that texting acronysm: what does it mean?
So which Christian denominations in your opinion, really "count" as Christian? I'd be willing to bet you reject 95% of Christianity in the world as "Christian"
T — total depravity. This doesn’t mean people are as bad as they can be. It means that sin is in every part of one’s being, including the mind and will, so that a man cannot save himself.
U — unconditional election. God chooses to save people unconditionally; that is, they are not chosen on the basis of their own merit.
L — limited atonement. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross was for the purpose of saving the elect.
I — irresistible grace. When God has chosen to save someone, He will.
P — perseverance of the saints. Those people God chooses cannot lose their salvation; they will continue to believe. If they fall away, it will be only for a time.
just think of Andrew Cuomo. He’s on a one way trip to outer darkness. You can see in this man’s life that he’s already beyond grace ~ that’s pretty much what the acronymn covers, right?
The references to Pelagius interest me. Its obvious he annoyed the churchmen of his day; its hard to find his arguments in his own words, since we mostly know what he thought from his enemies.
Pelagius’ error consisted of ... a failure to recognize that right standing with God can only be imputed to us as the result of an external cause God’s grace)...
I think Pelagius' response was "yes, but you have it".
Great posts. And of course that beloved acronym with decoder. Thanks to all of you.
It used to be hard. Nowadays, you can find his own words for sale on Amazon. But since it isn't that hard, IMO the only people who continue to defend him are those who seek to rehabilitate a historically heretical theology.
Princeton theologian B. B. Warfield considered Pelagianism "the rehabilitation of that heathen view of the world," and concluded with characteristic clarity, "There are fundamentally only two doctrines of salvation: that salvation is from God, and that salvation is from ourselves. The former is the doctrine of common Christianity; the latter is the doctrine of universal heathenism."
-- from the thread Pelagianism: The Religion of Natural Man
Thanks for the link.
ph
not familiar with that texting acronysm: what does it mean?
Someone asked me that privately a month or so ago. This was my response:
>VM Catholic and don’t know what “the five point” plan is, or what “reformed church means, among other protestant denominations. Can you say, without to much trouble? Thanks, R.I’ll try.
The Wikipedia article on “Calvinism” looks to be not too bad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism
For “the five points of Calvinism”, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism#Five_points_of_Calvinism . It’s a mnemonic concocted by an unknown person in the early 20th century to summarize certain Calvinist distinctives in the area of soteriology.
Reformed Churches are those bodies that confess one or another set of reformed confessions, either the “Three Forms of Unity” or the “Westminster Standards”. These would be churches with “presbyterian” or “reformed” in their denominational label. There’s a history behind all that, depending mostly on how things played out in Britain vs. the continent, and then imported into North America with various immigrant groups.
The beliefs these confessions articulate play out in sometimes distinctive ways in reformed worship and polity. Kind of complicated to go into.
Rather than yammer on at length, I think I’d just point you to, first and preferred, the Heidelberg catechism (http://www.ccel.org/creeds/heidelberg-cat.html). That’s about an hour’s reading.
Then, if you’re still up to it, the Belgic confession (http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/belgic-confession-1561/).
Mark for later
The phrase many modern day Roman Catholics like to insist is STILL the standard of their church is:
Quod unam, quod semper, quod ubique.
(It has always and everywhere been one and the same.)
However, we know from history that the Catholic Church, as represented by the Roman Catholic Church, does NOT in truth hold to such a standard. Many of the dogmas developed after the first split (Eastern from Western) in the eleventh century. This split happened because of new doctrines that did NOT have antiquity nor consensus patrem (unanimous consent of the fathers). It was why the Reformers actually WERE appealing to return the church back to the faith once delivered unto the saints. It is why those of us today have assurance that the doctrines we hold to WERE/ARE the same as the early church because they follow those truths established in Holy Scripture. Scripture is our guide and authority - as God intended.
Strip away the fluff, scour off the embellishments and legends turned to dogmas, and you have the same faith holding the same truths as those the Apostles learned from the very mouth of Jesus and as revealed by the Holy Spirit to the writers of Holy Scripture. Jesus created His body of believers based on His truth as documented in the Bible and all those who earnestly seek to know Him WILL be rewarded. It is why we know, even today, that the church of Jesus Christ has NEVER disappeared and has never lost the gospel truth. God has always reserved a remnant that remains true to Him.
Thanks for the article.
I think where Calvin leaves Catholic doctrine is not on salvation by grace through faith, but his salvation by election.
AH HA!! There are some Catholics who are saved!!!! ;O)
(1) I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine, how I can secure a kind of fixed and, as it were, general and guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy. And the answer that I receive is always to this effect; that if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a healthy faith, we ought, with the Lord's help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, firstly, that is, by the authority of God's Law, then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.
(2) Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church Catholic.
(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.
(4) What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb. But what if some novel contagion try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty. What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men. But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.
"God has always reserved a remnant that remains true to Him."
"I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world"...."Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth" (John 17:14,17)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.