Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why I am a Calvinist
http://www.apuritansmind.com/TULIP/WhyIAmACalvinist.htm ^ | 7/27/02 | C. Matthew McMahon

Posted on 07/27/2002 8:46:57 PM PDT by RnMomof7

Why I am a Calvinist

by C. Matthew McMahon

    There are a variety of theological persuasions in the world. One might say there are too many of them. We may go through denomination after denomination and find a great variety of beliefs and doctrines concerning things about God, things about Christ, things about man and so on. Yet these ideologies are but ripples from the great stone of the Gospel which was plunged into the lake of humanity.

    All theological persuasions are not perfect. It is impossible that any theological system of doctrine be perfect for if it was perfect it would be the Scriptures themselves; for only the Word of God is inerrant, or without error. Man has undertaken the task, as commanded by God (2 Tim. 2:15), to understand God’s Word in spite of his lack of ability to understand it perfectly. He strives to apprehend what he can because a good theologian knows he cannot comprehend (or understand totally) everything about the Scriptures. But that gives us no excuse not to try.

    In the endeavor to ascertain right doctrine, various systems have come up throughout church history. There have been the Arians, the Socinians, the Gnostics, the Roman Catholics, the Epicureans, the Docetics, the Pelagians, the Mormons, the Arminians, the Manicheans and so on. These though, should not be considered to be a true systems of right doctrine since each of them denies a major tenant of the Christian religion. One denies the deity of Christ, where another denies the humanity. One says heaven is attained by knowledge alone, another denies that people are sinners. One says God is not sovereign, and another says man is the measure of all things. One says man is God, and another says God is not all powerful. These systems of doctrines are clearly false. They remove or exalt a particular essential attribute, or many essential attributes of Christianity, not to mention adding many things which the Scriptures never teach. So it would rightly be said that they are systems, but it would also be equally fair to say that they are wrong systems.   

  So what is the right system of doctrine? From study, contemplation, and meditation and upon the Word of God, from assessing church history and the movements contained therein, from hearing hundred of speakers on varying subjects, and listening to a plethora of viewpoints on every aspect of the Bible, I rest upon the system of doctrine called "Calvinism."     It is unfortunate for Calvinism that it is called Calvinism. Charles Spurgeon rightly stated that "Calvinism is nothing more than a nickname for Biblical Christianity." He was right. The name is often a warrant for despisement though. People say because we follow a man named Calvin, we are not following God. Does not Paul say in 1 Cor. 1:12, "Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or I am of Christ." is Christ divided?" Paul is right. We are not to follow after men. We are to follow after God for sectarianism is a sin rebuked by the 1st chapter of 1 Corinthians. But do Calvinists really follow Calvin? No. It is actually wrong to call Calvinists "Calvinist" because they are doing nothing other than using the same body of doctrine that Calvin used, who in turn copied Augustine, who in turn copied the church fathers and they, who in turn, followed Christ and the Apostles. The early church fathers, who lived between 95 AD and 200 AD are just as much Calvinists, for understanding grace, as Augustine was a Calvinist, and as John Calvin was a Calvinist. Calvinism is nothing more than a label to show what view one holds upon the Scriptures, not upon a certain man. Someone may say, "That is not true. If you are a Calvinist, then you follow the teachings of Calvin and his interpretation of the Bible." Let us see if this is a worthy set of propositions. Because at the outset, they prove of necessity, nothing of the kind.

    When I was 21, I had finished 2 years of Bible college. I went to an Arminian School, learned Arminian doctrine, and read Arminian books. I had no previous learning in religion until I attended that school, so I was indoctrinated in that theology without ever knowing whether it was true or false. In my naïveté I believed what I was taught (Surely not to question doctrine was my own mistake, but being indoctrinated in that way helped me to understand more about what I believe now. So it was the providence of God which kept me in my sin of false doctrine for a time.) Not too long after my second year, a friend of mine, who believed the doctrines of grace Calvinist began to challenge me on many of my "biblical" doctrines. I had a well rounded handle on the doctrine I possessed and propagated it thoroughly among my friends at school. But when this young man challenged me as he did, I was not able to refute him. The reason I was not able to refute his arguments had nothing to do with not understanding my own doctrine, for I did. But he came at me with something I did not expect; the Bible. He proposed a whole new system of doctrine which ran completely contrary to my own beliefs. My understanding of sin was so unbiblical that when he told me to read Romans 3:10-18, I was taken back by Paul’s poignant words. I was challenged by the very book I thought I understood. My views of man, Christ, God, salvation, sin, sovereignty, the will, and others were so warped and twisted that my young friend didn’t even need to rebuke me, for the Scriptures were doing it quite well. I had understood doctrine, it was just not the doctrine of the Bible.

    So over the next summer, because of that day and that particular challenge of my friend, I devoted my time to reading through the entire Bible and endeavor to take it as it stood rather than what I wanted to read into it. My prayer was that the Lord would teach me His word by the power of the Holy Spirit so that I would know what it said rather than what I wanted it to say. After three months my views on man, Christ, God, sin, salvation and the like were radically transformed. (you would be amazed at what the Spirit of God will do with such a prayer and a simple reading of the Bible.) The point is this, my theology came out Calvinist without ever knowing what Calvinism was. I had not known what Calvin taught or that he was even a person. But my theology reflected nonetheless. The study of the Word of God transformed me. The Scriptures taught me, instead of me trying to teach it. So we see that being a Calvinist is not following after one man, but submitting under the authority of the Bible.

    Why would someone want to be a Calvinist? Calvinism is not adherence to a person, but to a set of beliefs which are rightly in accord with the Bible. People who want to be right in their understanding of the doctrines of the Bible, adhere to Calvinism. Calvinism is not perfect. It is a system of doctrine worked over and over by countless men since the time of Christ. It will never be perfect because it is not inspired by God. So why should we believe Calvinism over and above other systems of doctrines? Because if we were to determine what system of doctrine hits closest to the bulls-eye of the Scriptures, Calvinism would be the first outer ring. Any system of doctrine which does serious damage to the doctrines of man, Christ, God, sin and salvation, cannot be considered worthy of our attention as Christians. And there is no system of doctrine which covers all these so Biblically as Calvinism.

    What does Calvinism teach? Calvinism can be divided up into hundreds of points. There are a variety of propositions and ideas which are woven into the fabric of Calvinism. But if we were to concisely describe the simplistic form of Calvinism, we would look at the acronym T.U.L.I.P.: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints.

    The first doctrine of grace is Total Depravity.  Total depravity keeps us humble. It states that man is totally and completely a sinner; heart, soul, mind and body, who can do no righteous deed. The image of God is so marred and twisted by the fall of Adam that every person who is conceived is at that point at enmity with God. They are enemies of God, they hate God, and they would even kill God if he showed up in their living room. As a matter of fact, when the Lord Jesus Christ came down to earth, they killed him.

Total Depravity is proven by both the Old and New Testaments: Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:10-18. After one understands that he is a sinner who cannot by his own power come to faith, and that he has lost everything which would enable him to come to Christ because of the Fall and of his sin, then he comes to see Unconditional Election (Second doctrine). Man, being sinful cannot choose to follow God because he hates God. So God must remove the heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh. God chooses man. He unconditionally, not based upon anything a man can do which is good or evil, elects people to everlasting life. Its God’s job to save, and our job to praise Him for saving us. The Scriptures shows this doctrine emphatically: Malachi 1:2; Romans 8:29; Romans 9:1ff; Ephesians 1:3ff.

    How does God save us? Yes, He elects us, but what is the basis for our election? It is not our work, but Christ’s work. God sends His Son to die for everyone whom He elects. The Son pays the price, and the debt is removed. When Jesus dies on the cross He secures salvation for everyone He dies for. And the work of Christ’s death and resurrection is transferred at that time to the account of all those who will be saved through Him. Jesus comes to die for God’s chosen people, His treasured possession. In this way the atonement is limited in scope but not in power (Third Doctrine).   The Scriptures teach us this doctrine as well; Isaiah 53:1ff; Matthew 1:21; John 10:1ff; Acts 20:28; Ephesians 5:25.

    The fourth doctrine of grace, or Calvinistic doctrine, is Irresistible Grace. If Jesus dies for the elect, and God unconditionally elects all those depraved people whom He calls His own, the regenerating power of the Spirit of God will not fail. Regeneration is where the Spirit changes the old heart of stone to a beating heart of flesh. And He does this prior to our faith. We believe on Christ after our sinful depraved souls are given the new capability to believe through the renewing power of God’s Spirit. His grace is then called irresistible, not because we believe against our will kicking and screaming, but our hearts are inclined to believe, so we love to believe and we go to Christ willingly. The Scriptures show us this in Psalms 51:10; 110:3; Jer. 31:33ff; John 3:2ff; Romans 2:29; Ephesians 2:8-10; Philippians 1:29; and 2:13.

    The last main point of God’s grace seen so vividly in the doctrines of Calvinism is Perseverance of the Saints. All who are redeemed from their depraved states, all whom Christ came to ransom from death and pay the price to redeem from God’s wrath, all whom the Spirit irresistible touches with His grace, and all those who are unconditionally elected to eternal life will persevere to the end. They will sin, yes. But they will never fall away from grace. This does not give us a license to sin, for those who are truly changed are changed and have a new desire and new nature which releases them from the that the old depraved nature had on them. These saints persevere because God continually upholds them through the grace of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. They are God’s temples, His residing place. God dwells in the spirit of a man’s renewed heart. This, in and of itself, is an amazing thing!! And does the Scripture show us this doctrine? More than we could imagine: Phil. 1:6; Romans 8:30; John 10:28-29; John 17:2, 6, 9, 24; 1 Thess. 5:23.

    What doctrines am I rejecting as a Calvinist? I am rejecting everything that "changes the truth of God for a lie, and denies Jesus Christ as our only Sovereign and Lord (Jude 4)." I am rejecting anything which would rise up and call itself a Gospel which is no gospel at all. I reject anything which exalts man to a place and position where he ought not to be, and decreases the grace of Christ. I reject anything which makes God a cosmic bell-hop tending to the commands and demands of sinful men as another gospel.

I reject anything which removes God’s sovereignty to place man as the Sovereign as another gospel. I reject anything which denies the sovereign decrees of God and His electing grace to put salvation into the hands of sinful men as another gospel. I reject anything which denies man’s total depravity and exalts his fictitious free will as another gospel. I reject anything which places the perseverance of man to glory in the incapable hands of a sinful man as another gospel.

I reject anything which endeavors to treat God as the great Grandfather in the sky beckoning and pleading with man to be saved as changing the true God into a pitiable wimp. This is another Gospel. I reject anything which denies the atonement of Christ for what it is; a substitutionary atonement on behalf of the elect. If we deny this, we deny the Gospel. I reject anything which makes the cross less than definite salvation for the elect, as another Gospel. I reject anything which is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it is preached by Christ in His Word. It is to these Calvinistic doctrines and teachings which all Biblical Christians hold. It is these Calvinistic doctrines of grace which wild horses could in no way drag from me. Especially the wonderful doctrine of Christ’s atonement for His people. And what does Paul say about those who preach, teach, and believe another Gospel? Galatians 1:8 is emphatic, "If we, or an angel from heaven, preach to you any other Gospel than what we have preached, let him be anathema, (or accursed.)" They are not slapped on the wrist and sent to their heavenly rooms. They are cast into the deepest, darkest, hottest section of hell for perverting the truth of God’s Word. We see that the Gospel is something to contend about, and is something we need to be right about.

    When I was 21, I had a form of godliness but I denied its power. I had a system of doctrine which denied Jesus as the only Sovereign and Lord. Yet, God in His mercy forgave that heinous sin of wrong belief. He allowed the scales to fall from my eyes. He allowed me, if you will, to be "born again, again." My mind has been renewed and my life transformed by these doctrines of grace. It is absolutely true what Spurgeon said, that Calvinism is nothing other than a nickname for Biblical Christianity. And until a person understands these doctrines, his walk with God will be a superficial walk. The doctrines of God’s grace, which are the doctrines of Calvinism, plunge us deep within the fountain of God’s mercy and power. Without understanding God’s election of depraved people, how can anyone understand what grace is really about?—they can’t.

Why am I a Calvinist? Because God will not allow me to be anything else. He has opened my eyes to depth beyond my wildest aspirations. He continues to humble me, the rebellious sinner, before His awesome majesty and power. May it be that all of God’s people would be humbled by His grace.

 


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: calvin; godsglory; grace; sounddoctrine
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-244 next last
To: RnMomof7; fortheDeclaration
Wesley never intended to start a church..he developed a "method (methodists) to live out the Christian walk..He evangelized and preached as an Episcopalian priest.

I need to check my history, but I don't think any but American Anglicans call themselves Episcopalian. In that case, Wesley was never an Episcopalian.

He was always an Anglican. And it means absolutely nothing since the Anglican church was one of the first to break with the Roman Catholic Church. That for political reasons, but if they were ONLY catholic in theology then where did the reformed theology in anglican theology of the day come from?

You're just grinding an ax because people dare to disagree wtih you.

41 posted on 07/28/2002 1:54:20 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief; xzins
So did Abraham believe or did God believe for him?
42 posted on 07/28/2002 2:00:29 PM PDT by JesseShurun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: JesseShurun
Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.

Abraham believed.

43 posted on 07/28/2002 2:05:38 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: xzins
You are correct. You go to the head of the class. These little chess matches are fun aren't they?
44 posted on 07/28/2002 2:07:26 PM PDT by JesseShurun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: xzins
And it means absolutely nothing since the Anglican church was one of the first to break with the Roman Catholic Church. That for political reasons, but if they were ONLY catholic in theology then where did the reformed theology in anglican theology of the day come from?

testy huh?:>)

Angelicans were "Catholics "with a King instead of a Pope ...built on the heads of Henrys wives. ( a pun here). It was not "neatly "political"..

And Wesley was loyal to the head of his church ..he was against the revolution

Excuse me didn't the puritans flee from the king and religious persecution?

Wesley was Catholic in much of his theology..like his parents he rejected reform doctrine (they had left the purtians)..NO xzing you have NO reformation roots.

BTW I was just trying to explain to rest..that was not aimed at you..but if you want to defend Wesleys church doctrine feel free

45 posted on 07/28/2002 2:13:09 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Excuse me didn't the puritans flee from the king and religious persecution?

History records that puritans fled when catholics were in power and that catholics fled when puritans were in power. Apparently, they hated each other.

The catholics were little in power after Henry broke with Rome.

Since Methodism is not Anglicanism, and since Wesley was Never A MEMBER of a methodist church, and since he opposed the creation of a separate church, I can speak little to what he believed about Anglicanism....EXCEPT THAT HE WAS FOR IT.

Rev posted a piece the other day that showed Wesley believed the Pope to be the antichrist. That is abysmal bible interpretation but it fits the temper of the times in all reformation groups, so I tend to overlook it.

46 posted on 07/28/2002 2:25:06 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; xzins
When did the Calvinist and Wesleyan started using the word preist? For I never hear of it in my 20 as a prostestian.

My only interest is in time line, a chronological record of events

******

One of you were so kind to give me the chronological record.

***

Is this what you are looking for?

LUTHERAN: If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND: If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in 1534, because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

PRESBYTERIAN: If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in 1560.
(Now when I was Presbyterian we had predestination but it was John Knox we talked about.)

CONGREGATIONALIST: If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

BAPTIST: If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.

DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH: If you are of the Dutch Reformed Church, you recognize Charles Jones as the founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

PROTESTANT EPISCOPALIAN: If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samual Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

METHODIST: If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

UNITARIAN: If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.

SALVATION ARMY: If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST: If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was founded by Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy.

Now I have a question
Thank you a lot but where is Calvin? and how did his doctrine get into the Prebyterian Church?

47 posted on 07/28/2002 2:25:09 PM PDT by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: JesseShurun
"He chose Abraham because he believed."

So, Abraham's salvation was based on his meritorious act of believing? That's salvation by works.

48 posted on 07/28/2002 2:35:24 PM PDT by Don'tMessWithTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Don'tMessWithTexas
So, Abraham's salvation was based on his meritorious act of believing? That's salvation by works.

What about the thief on the cross?

49 posted on 07/28/2002 2:49:59 PM PDT by Codie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: xzins; RnMomof7; Wrigley; drstevej
Luther's anti-semitic doctrine is heresy.

That's why I'm a Calvinist.

Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Pope Leo X, Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II are all men, fallible and fallen.

Christ is the only infallibility; God's grace our only salvation.

50 posted on 07/28/2002 3:04:59 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Codie
So, Abraham's salvation was based on his meritorious act of believing? That's salvation by works.

What about the thief on the cross?

******

He was releast from Spirit prison after the atonement,and was able to reside in the Spirit world, Paradise was a misnoumer and for that is where those who have been obedient in life reside. They are all await for Judgement Day to come.

51 posted on 07/28/2002 3:05:32 PM PDT by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Don'tMessWithTexas
You'll have to search the scriptures of which there are many pertaining to the faith of Abraham. As for me I must go out the revolving door Shalom.

I. JUSTIFICATION OF ABRAHAM AS AN EXAMPLE (1-8) A. HOW ABRAHAM WAS JUSTIFIED (1-5) 1. If by works, then he could boast (1-2) 2. The Scriptures reveal it was by his faith in God (3) a. One who trusts in works, seeks God's debt, not His grace (4) b. But when one trusts in God to justify him, such faith is counted for righteousness (5)

52 posted on 07/28/2002 3:09:02 PM PDT by JesseShurun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
It is actually wrong to call Calvinists "Calvinist" because they are doing nothing other than using the same body of doctrine that Calvin used, who in turn copied Augustine, who in turn copied the church fathers and they, who in turn, followed Christ and the Apostles.


As a former Calvinist who has now come home to the one true Church, I find it reprehensible that you should denigrate one of our greatest Doctors by accusing Saint Augustine of providing the bases for Calvin's heresies.

Along with all the Church Fathers Augustine was Catholic:

"A man cannot have salvation, except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church he can have everything except salvation. He can have honor, he can have Sacraments, he can sing alleluia, he can answer amen, he can possess the gospel, he can have and preach faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; but never except in the Catholic Church will he be able to find salvation."
Sermo ad Caesariensis ecclesia plebem Emerito praesente habitus. September 18th A.D. 418

Its a shame that Calvin did not follow the teachings of Augustine - it might have spared millions of souls.

53 posted on 07/28/2002 3:09:38 PM PDT by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
So where do your turn,if you have a question reguarding a difficult passage of scripture?
54 posted on 07/28/2002 3:10:37 PM PDT by Codie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
You are preaching worshipping the creation not the Creator.
55 posted on 07/28/2002 3:15:07 PM PDT by JesseShurun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: JesseShurun
Do you mean Augustine was preaching worshipping the creation rather than the creator?

But surely according to the above article, Calvin took his doctrine from Augustine, therefore did Calvin also worship the creation???

Perhaps you can expand on why you think this is worshipping the creation!!
56 posted on 07/28/2002 3:22:28 PM PDT by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: JesseShurun
No, he/she is teaching the same truth the Church Father's taught.

Ignatius of Antioch

"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).



Justin Martyr

"We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid" (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]).



Irenaeus

"In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church, but who defraud themselves of life by an evil mind and even worse way of acting. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace" (Against Heresies 3:24:1 [A.D. 189]).

"[The spiritual man] shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, destroy it—men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For they can bring about no ‘reformation’ of enough importance to compensate for the evil arising from their schism. . . . True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place [i.e., the Catholic Church]" (ibid., 4:33:7–8).



Clement of Alexandria

"Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety . . . for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the law did the Hebrews" (Miscellanies 1:5 [A.D. 208]).



Origen

"[T]here was never a time when God did not want men to be just; he was always concerned about that. Indeed, he always provided beings endowed with reason with occasions for practicing virtue and doing what is right. In every generation the wisdom of God descended into those souls which he found holy and made them to be prophets and friends of God" (Against Celsus 4:7 [A.D. 248]).

"If someone from this people wants to be saved, let him come into this house so that he may be able to attain his salvation. . . . Let no one, then, be persuaded otherwise, nor let anyone deceive himself: Outside of this house, that is, outside of the Church, no one is saved; for, if anyone should go out of it, he is guilty of his own death" (Homilies on Joshua 3:5 [A.D. 250]).



Cyprian of Carthage

"Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress [a schismatic church] is separated from the promises of the Church, nor will he that forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is an alien, a worldling, and an enemy. He cannot have God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 6, 1st ed. [A.D. 251]).

"Let them not think that the way of life or salvation exists for them, if they have refused to obey the bishops and priests, since the Lord says in the book of Deuteronomy: ‘And any man who has the insolence to refuse to listen to the priest or judge, whoever he may be in those days, that man shall die’ [Deut. 17:12]. And then, indeed, they were killed with the sword . . . but now the proud and insolent are killed with the sword of the Spirit, when they are cast out from the Church. For they cannot live outside, since there is only one house of God, and there can be no salvation for anyone except in the Church" (Letters 61[4]:4 [A.D. 253]).

"When we say, ‘Do you believe in eternal life and the remission of sins through the holy Church?’ we mean that remission of sins is not granted except in the Church" (ibid., 69[70]:2 [A.D. 253]).

"[T]he baptism of public witness [desire] and of blood cannot profit a heretic unto salvation, because there is no salvation outside the Church." (ibid., 72[73]:21).

"Peter himself, showing and vindicating the unity, has commanded and warned us that we cannot be saved except by the one only baptism of the one Church. He says, ‘In the ark of Noah a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. Similarly, baptism will in like manner save you" [1 Peter 3:20-21]. In how short and spiritual a summary has he set forth the sacrament of unity! In that baptism of the world in which its ancient wickedness was washed away, he who was not in the ark of Noah could not be saved by water. Likewise, neither can he be saved by baptism who has not been baptized in the Church which is established in the unity of the Lord according to the sacrament of the one ark" (ibid., 73[71]:11).

"[O]utside the Church there is no Holy Spirit, sound faith moreover cannot exist, not alone among heretics, but even among those who are established in schism" (Treatise on Rebaptism 10 [A.D. 256]).



Lactantius

"It is, therefore, the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth; this, the domicile of faith; this, the temple of God. Whoever does not enter there or whoever does not go out from there, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. . . . Because, however, all the various groups of heretics are confident that they are the Christians and think that theirs is the Catholic Church, let it be known that this is the true Church, in which there is confession and penance and which takes a health-promoting care of the sins and wounds to which the weak flesh is subject" (Divine Institutes 4:30:11–13 [A.D. 307]).



Jerome

"Heretics bring sentence upon themselves since they by their own choice withdraw from the Church, a withdrawal which, since they are aware of it, constitutes damnation. Between heresy and schism there is this difference: that heresy involves perverse doctrine, while schism separates one from the Church on account of disagreement with the bishop. Nevertheless, there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church" (Commentary on Titus 3:10–11 [A.D. 386]).



Augustine

"We believe also in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church. For heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God; and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor" (Faith and the Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).

"[J]ust as baptism is of no profit to the man who renounces the world in words and not in deeds, so it is of no profit to him who is baptized in heresy or schism; but each of them, when he amends his ways, begins to receive profit from that which before was not profitable, but was yet already in him" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:4[6] [A.D. 400]).

"I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person . . . For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44–48], while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit [Acts 8:13–19]" (ibid., 4:21[28]).

"The apostle Paul said, ‘As for a man that is a heretic, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him’ [Titus 3:10]. But those who maintain their own opinion, however false and perverted, without obstinate ill will, especially those who have not originated the error of bold presumption, but have received it from parents who had been led astray and had lapsed . . . those who seek the truth with careful industry and are ready to be corrected when they have found it, are not to be rated among heretics" (Letters 43:1 [A.D. 412]).

"Whoever is separated from this Catholic Church, by this single sin of being separated from the unity of Christ, no matter how estimable a life he may imagine he is living, shall not have life, but the wrath of God rests upon him" (ibid., 141:5).



Fulgentius of Ruspe

"Anyone who receives the sacrament of baptism, whether in the Catholic Church or in a heretical or schismatic one, receives the whole sacrament; but salvation, which is the strength of the sacrament, he will not have, if he has had the sacrament outside the Catholic Church. He must therefore return to the Church, not so that he might receive again the sacrament of baptism, which no one dare repeat in any baptized person, but so that he may receive eternal life in Catholic society, for the obtaining of which no one is suited who, even with the sacrament of baptism, remains estranged from the Catholic Church" (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).
57 posted on 07/28/2002 3:30:47 PM PDT by Codie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Arminians were not part of the Reformation...they were in fact an effort to return to more traditional RC doctrine.

It's said that the Arminians were even financed by the Church of Rome in order to destroy the Reformation.

58 posted on 07/28/2002 3:34:01 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo; RnMomof7
Its a shame that Calvin did not follow the teachings of Augustine - it might have spared millions of souls.

Very well put, Tantumergo.

That last part bears repeating:

"it might have spared millions of souls"

As in, Calvinism has led to the loss of souls that would have made it to heaven were it not for him taking them from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

I like your screen name!

RnMomof7:

Time is short.

You know too much from your time here to claim ignorance before the Judgement Seat. Repent and believe.

59 posted on 07/28/2002 3:47:25 PM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
***Calvinism has led to the loss of souls that would have made it to heaven were it not for him taking them from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.***

You really mean this? No non-Catholic makes it to heaven?
--drstevej
60 posted on 07/28/2002 3:53:02 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-244 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson