Posted on 01/21/2005 6:34:28 AM PST by P-Marlowe
I do not think the debate back then was wheather one was a Calvinist, but wheather one was adhering the principles of the Reformation.
The only way Paul could have been more clear was to go around to everyone with a sign called "works" in one hand and a sign labeled "faith" in the other.
He'd smack them on the head with the works sign and say, "Did I smack you with 'works,' or did I smack you with 'faith.'"
"to him who doesn't work but believes..." On the one side you've got works, and on the other side you've got faith. Abraham was NOT declared righteous based on his works. Abraham WAS declared righteous based on his faith...."faith was credited to him as righteousness."
It boggles my mind that it's so simple there and so hard for some to see.
Still have a standing in that church'?
Now what does that mean?
Maybe they cannot claim name Calvinist, but they are still Reformed.
And that in the first three centuries it was not even an issue?
Harley D has already rejected that history.
You make this sound like a bad thing!
LOL!
I disagree.
Arminius always claimed the name calvinist.
Well, I did not doubt that some Calvinists were saved, I questioned one on what Gospel he was believing for salvation.
That came (in context) on a discussion on the posting of Scofield's view of 4 Gospels (based on Dispensational distinctions)
Just to correct the record on what I did say.
No, Arminius was Reformed but cannot be considered a Calvinist since the essential point of Calvinism is Unconditional election.
He could not even considered a moderate Calvinist based on a 'Infra or Sublapsarian view since he held to conditional election (foreseen faith)
Wow!
I think it would be easier to become a Roman Catholic!
LOL!
LOL!
Not hard, it just won't fit their theology.
When they can't get Jn.3:16 straight what can you expect!
He did?
Any references on that?
I disagree.
In his era he was a calvinist. He never left.
You are applying what the terms BECAME rather than what they were at that time.
There was a belief later in the early church that once you accepted the Lord Jesus as your savior you must live a perfect life. This brought confusion to some of the early church people because they quickly found out, even after accepting the Christ, it was impossible to live a perfect life. Up until this time nobody thought about this. Their focus had been on evangelism.
Augustine was the first to develop a comprehensive theology of the church including what it meant to be “righteous” and the meaning of the sacraments. For example, Augustine writes that many of them were afraid to be baptized because they felt it meant total commitment to a perfect life. Hence believers often waited until their death bed to be baptized (leading to the idea one could be sprinkled.) Of course this brought its own problems because some of them died before they could be baptized and, what was worst, some of them recovered which meant they had to live a perfect life-an impossible task.
There was also some confusion on the meaning of righteousness with the early church which is forgivable given the environment and culture; and given the fact many of these theological issues were still being worked out by the church. If you review the sacraments of the early church fathers you’ll find that, like righteousness, much of it was steeped in mysticism. The Catholics often point me back to the early church fathers writings on the sacraments but one has to understand what was going on in the church and their understanding. This is one (among many) of the reasons I don’t accept the Catholics interpretation of the sacraments and I’m a little more forgiving of Augustine on his understanding of righteousness.
Augustine’s writings are not inspired writing but provides us with the fundamental understanding of the western church monergystic theology. I don't have a problem with Luther's rejection for Augustine's interpretation of righteousness because it was a little weird. Augustine even admits having problems with his interpretation.
Saved from what or who?
Yes. His article, "on predestination."
Tsk, tsk. Putting words in my mouth.
I do not reject the first three centuries of church history. If you will review your history, the church during the first three centuries were centered on evangelism and compiling the scriptures. Augustine in the 4th century laid out the monergistic theology of the church which, 100 years later at the Council of Orange, agreed with Augustine's writings. The synergistic view was the view of the eastern church and condemned by the western church. I accept the western church interpretation.
I don't want to get in any religious arguements this morning but I don't understand peoples obsession with telling Christians that smoking will send them to hell. They always use that scripture about the body being a temple but they fail to read the whole passage and put things into perspective. What that passage plainly speaks about is fornication and things like that. I would think homosexuality, maschocism, sadism, promiscuity and things like that is what God is talking about. The passage says what you put in your mouth will not condemn you, its sins you commit against your own body that will condemn you. There was a man whom our pastor talked to who was saved but he had been told as long as he smoked, he couldn't go to heaven. The pastor asked him who had told him that. He said smoking will not send you to hell. It might make you smell like hell but it won't send you to hell. I think people do a terrible disservice to other people like the Pharisees did, when they tell people that some human thing they do like overeating or smoking or taking a drink or dancing is going to send them to hell. Its just not true. God looks at the heart. He knows the human fleshly part of man does things that He would not do but we are not as good as God. Man has weaknesses. Overeating is just as much of a sin as smoking. And if that is the case, you want to see a bunch of sinners, pastors included, just visit a Southern Baptist church durring homecoming. There is a whole lot of eating going on. In the bible, they drank wine, too. And no it wasn't grape juice. It was the real stuff. There are too many references to wine and its effects to not come to the conclusion it was the alcoholic kind. The bible warns of excessive wine, not having a drink; big difference. And there is absolutely no reference in the bible of smoking. None whatsoever. God warns in the bible about man making his own rules and then trying to make people believe they are Gods rules. What makes certain things a sin is if they mean more to you than God. Like not going to worship because you can't smoke for an hour. Then that smoking becomes a sin. But for people to convince other people you can't be saved as long as you smoke is keeping a soul from God and will be held against you at judgement. Smoking, eating for pleasure instead of just nourishment, having a glass of wine, dancing: those are things humans do for enjoyment and God said He wants man to enjoy life. God only looks at the heart. Thats a fact.
Whatever you say.
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.