Pope CalvinLuther institutes the dogma of Total Depravity

non veni pacem ^ | October 25, 2016

[Arthur McGowan]

That I agree with that heretical notion is your assumption.

[Arthur McGowan]

BTW: As the article makes clear, the Calvinist and Lutheran doctrine of Total Depravity holds that the moral law is impossible to obey.

The whole article is about the fact that Total Depravity is a heresy, which Bergoglio appears to hold.

[.45 Long Colt]

Really? I don’t want to debate you on the, but I hope you will consider these. For decades I would have agreed with you. In fact, I used to argue the exact same thing. Understanding God’s sovereignty in salvation changed my life.

https://youtu.be/LKJgC1_6NN0

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/10/eleven-reasons-why-romans-9-is-about-individual-election-not-cooperate-election/

https://souldesaenz.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/romans-9-nations-or-individuals-pt1/

http://www.mslick.com/romans9c.htm

https://youtu.be/DoPRzJYLjzg

[.45 Long Colt]

I should have said that those aren’t necessarily the best resources on Romans 9, they just happen to be three I know of. I recommend John Piper’s detailed look at part of chapter. That book really helped my understanding. I also recommend James White’s The Potter’s Freedom, a response to Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free.

The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23
https://www.amazon.com/Justification-God-Exegetical-Theological-Romans/dp/0801070791

[Mr Rogers]

I’m familiar with the Calvinist argument. It contrasts pretty strongly with Scripture. It takes a handful of scriptures out of context and then ignores the hundreds discussing faith and believing.

When Calvin starts discussing God’s secret will, it is obvious he’s gone off track.

[Elsie]

That I agree with that heretical notion is your assumption.

Thanks for illustrating #17

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply.

These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the conspiracy or  coverup. 

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.  Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor,  etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen,  and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant.  Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus  on side issues which can be used show the topic  as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the  'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers.  Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's  argument which you can easily knock down to make  yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges.  Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.  This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger'  ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs',  'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics',  'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others  shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet  and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal  agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent  is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions.  Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution.  Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.  This requires creative thinking unless the crime  was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses.  If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys  listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can  'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule.  Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant  and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other  empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable  events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid  the issues, vacate the kitchen. .

How to spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:

 

 

[Elsie]

The whole article is about the fact that Total Depravity is a heresy, which Bergoglio appears to hold.

Has this been proven?

[Elsie]

You are as bitter as ever, and as boring.

#18

[Elsie]

#5

[.45 Long Colt]

“I’m familiar with the Calvinist argument. It contrasts pretty strongly with Scripture. It takes a handful of scriptures out of context and then ignores the hundreds discussing faith and believing.”

I am very familiar with the dispensational argument. I used to make it myself. It contrasts pretty strongly with Scripture. It takes a handful of scriptures out of context and then ignores the hundreds of others.

I don’t know you, so I won’t assume to know what you do and don’t know. However, I will say this: I have never met a single non-Calvinist who truly understood the Calvinist arguments. Even though I argued against Calvinism for many years, I know I sure didn’t. I honestly thought I understood it, but my strongly held presuppositions blinded me. I had several proof texts in my back pocket and in my ignorance believed those texts defeated Calvinism. I’m embarrassed at myself now.

One day I was confronted about the Doctrines of Grace by an older Christian I respected. He had a Southern Baptist background and education quite like my own. Because I respected him I listened to what he had to say. I didn’t believe any of it, but I listened. We debated back and forth for a few weeks. One day I realized I had never actually studied the topic. I thought I had, but I hadn’t given it an honest in-depth look. Every argument I had against Calvinism had come from an anti-Calvinist. Somewhere along the line I read Proverbs 18:13 and that shut me up. I got honest with myself and stopped debating. I decided I had better give it a real hard honest look.
I had read books against Calvinism, but I had never read a single book against Dispensationalism. I had argued for the popular notion of free will without ever reading Edwards or Luther on the impact of the fall on the human will. I resolved to study the whole question afresh and believe what I found in the Scriptures. I decided to let Calvinists speak for themselves. I decided to critically examine my own belief system. When I started I honestly thought I would quickly and easily strengthen my long-held beliefs, but that isn’t what happened at all. It wasn’t easy at first. I resisted in part because of intellectual pride, but also because I knew I would be going against my parents, pastor, and professors.

Short of actual salvation, leaving free will theology behind was the best thing that ever happened to me. It radically changed my life for the better. I was saved as a boy but struggled with assurance of my salvation. It wasn’t until I understood God’s sovereignty and election that I had real assurance and that peace that passeth all understanding. Now I know that I know that I know I am one of His.

Over the years I have helped a number of mature older Christians come to understand Calvinism. To a man they will now tell you their understanding of Calvinism was a caricature, just as my understanding was. I had read mostly lightweight anti-Calvinists for years, not the writings and lives of Augustine, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Anselm, Justin Martyr, Wyclife, Jan Hus, Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, Knox, John Owen, John Bunyan, Edwards, Whitefield, Toplady, Gill, Issac Watts, Spurgeon, A.W. Pink, John Piper, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, Steven J. Lawson, James R. White, J.I. Packer, Sinclair Ferguson, D.A. Carson, D. James Kennedy, Francis Schaeffer, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Alistair Begg, Al Mohler, etc. I list those men because they are famous Christians who knew/know God is sovereign in salvation and studying them over the years has helped me immensely. However, it was a relative unknown who helped me understand the Doctrines of Grace at the heart level, an old Baptist from the mountains of Kentucky named Henry Mahan. I listened to lots of sermons on the Doctrines of Grace and I read many books, but in the end it was the Scriptures themselves that convicted me, particularly the Gospel of John.

Over the last fifteen years I have discovered an entirely new rich world that opened the Scriptures in a new way. Only it wasn’t new at all. It was very old, but new to me. I don’t want to debate the points of Calvinism here because it’s an in-house debate and most FReepers don’t even know the Lord, so this isn’t the place. We are saved by Christ, not our doctrine, so this isn’t a salvation issue. However, my local church is full of former dispensational free will men who can attest that understanding God’s sovereignty mightily enhanced their relationship with the Lord. God bless, FRiend!

[Syncro]

Non Veni Pacem

The Splendor of Truth

Do you know what the Latin translates to in English?

I believe that in the RF foreign language words/phrases have to be translated.

From what I copied and pasted it looks like it means "the splendor of peace"-is that the translation?

[Syncro]

Also, in the test, when ever the word HERE appears their is supposed to be a hotlink associated with the word.

There is no “HERE” there.

[Mr Rogers]

"I don’t want to debate the points of Calvinism here because it’s an in-house debate and most FReepers don’t even know the Lord, so this isn’t the place. We are saved by Christ, not our doctrine, so this isn’t a salvation issue."

I agree. A close friend is a strong Calvinist. I don't doubt his salvation, and I don't think he doubts mine. It is God who saves us, not an intellectual appreciation for how He does it. And I'm am sure you and I agree that GOD saves us. We merit nothing.

[Gil4]

Romans 9 is discussing the Jewish nation, not an individual man. Although individual Jews did believe, Paul discusses why the NATION did not.

Except verses 22-24 make it clear the whole analogy is about individuals (vessels of mercy) and is not just about Israel. The whole point of the passage is salvation was NEVER about the nation, and God always chose individuals - Isaac rather than Ishmael, Jacob rather than Esau, Moses rather than Pharaoh. Some who are "of Israel" are Israel and some are not. In the same way, he chooses individuals (both Jews and Gentiles) for salvation now.

Romans 9:22-24 ²² What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, ²³ and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, ²⁴ even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

[Elsie]

Aren’t rabbit trails fun!!

[ebb tide]

It’s no rabbit trail.

Click on the link to the article. It’s that simple.

[Mr Rogers]

Incorrect. As Paul goes on in Romans 9:

“...25 As indeed he says in Hosea,

“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
26
“And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, 28 for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.” 29 And as Isaiah predicted,

“If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring,
we would have been like Sodom
and become like Gomorrah.”
Israel’s Unbelief

30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.”

He clearly was not discussing individuals, because individual Jews were being saved regularly. But as a people, they were on the back burner. But not forever:

“25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved...” - Romans 11

Also see

https://predestinationstation.wordpress.com/2015/06/03/romans-9-11-key-terms-and-categories/

http://evangelicalarminians.org/a-concise-summary-of-the-corporate-view-of-election-and-predestination/

for a short review of Paul’s argument in chapters 9-11, and here for a longer discussion:

http://evangelicalarminians.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Abasciano-On-the-Corporate-Perepsective-of-Paul-and-His-Culture-the-Tarnslation-of-Rom.-9_6b-and-Corporate-Election-in-Romans-9.pdf

[.45 Long Colt]

Amen! You are so right about Romans 9. The context makes it clear that Paul was talking about individual, not national election. However, getting hardcore freewillers, particularly if they are older, to take the time to think it through is nearly impossible. Most are unwilling to consider any challenge to their traditions and presuppositions. There just aren’t many Bereans out there. Keep up the good work!

Soli Deo Gloria!