-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
This is why you fo make me laugh Scotty. You search the Net, and think you =find something that fits your belief and therefore it is 'infallible' truth.. Learn to speak for yourself.
This post does show that you realy are ignorant..for calvinists don't follow Calvin..this is something you can't seem to get into your head. but never mind.
Another point, it wasn't just Calvin who thought this to be true, within Christian history.
The question is did 'Jesus descend into hell during his three days after the cross'.
some say yes and some say no.. and that doesnt matter if your RC or Protestant. Im not sure what the EO hold to. But I am sure you can tell us in your own words.. you do have a mind don't you? you are starting to embaress yourself now Scott.
1Peter 3:18,19 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison
The bible says we wrestle not with flesh and blood but with powers and principalities. So is it much of a stretch given these verses to say that the Lord Jesus Christ suffered for our sins by crucifixion and defeated the powers of hell? I say no it is not a stretch. I say that is a correct interpretation of scripture. How can we defeat the power of hell if Jesus hasn't done it for us already? I tell you we cannot. Its not only in the NT but the OT as well. Ps 107:16 and Zech 9:11
If what the bible says is considered heresy by the church maybe the church should re-think its position.
By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison
The bible says we wrestle not with flesh and blood but with powers and principalities. So is it much of a stretch given these verses to say that the Lord Jesus Christ suffered for our sins by crucifixion and defeated the powers of hell? I say no it is not a stretch. I say that is a correct interpretation of scripture. How can we defeat the power of hell if Jesus hasn't done it for us already? I tell you we cannot. Its not only in the NT but the OT as well. Ps 107:16 and Zech 9:11
If what the bible says is considered heresy by the church maybe the church should re-think its position.
S
Phil, If you are telling me to learn to speak for myself by not quoting other people, then what are you doing quoting C.H. Spurgeon in every thread you send out about the alleged necessity of believing in Calvinism if Spurgeon does not speak for you for your belief? ISTM you would be advised not to tell me to not quote others when you yourself are quoting others repeatedly in your ever email. You're being a little inconsistent here, ISTM. God bless you! In Erie PA USA Scott R. Harrington July 3, 2011 AD
Hi Scott,
I think you are confused, once evrywhile when I post some of spurgeon from his own daily devotional, that is different than scouring websites for info to back up a claim. When debating reformed theology, I have not used spurgeon, only when someone has tried to say Spurgeon was not reformed. So I am not being inconsistant. A daily devotioanl post now and again is slightly different from what you are doing!!!
So, Back to your point, that you actually got off an anti Calvinism Roman Catholic site, which seems strange to me since all you can do is proclaim 'anti - popery' material. This shows that you are being inconsistant!
The point is, and I don't think you actually realise that Calvin, although he and luther both expoused the idea of Christ going into hell during the three days, actually where not the ones who originally thought about it... I think you need to do more church history Scot!
Last edited:
You need to read the NT and you will see why reformed theology is the gospel Santo, that is if youa re allowed to interprit the bible for yourself?
Any other way is man working his own salvation.. which of course is of the back of Pelagianism (remember Augustine!), anyhow, although Rome never went to full Pelagianism they moved to a semi postion, and that is where jacobus arminious took those who believed his view.
interesting that you sy that, phil, because Jacobus never taught a works-based gospel. Ever.
go read Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities by Roger C. Olson instead of relying on the closed minded Calvinists who insult Arminianism without researching what Arminianism really is
and may I remind you, phil: faith without works is dead.
go read Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities by Roger C. Olson instead of relying on the closed minded Calvinists who insult Arminianism without researching what Arminianism really is
and may I remind you, phil: faith without works is dead.
Hi Zilla,
Thank you for the resources. I am very aware of Arminian theology.
And Yes I totally agree with you, and so would any reformed. That Faith without works is dead, that is Faith that does not result in Spiritual fruit.
However, Works + Faith do not save.., saving Faith will produce works!
Arminious certainly did Zilla.. Just think if it was upto to us to agree to save ourselves no one would be saved.. its a good job that we, that is us sovereign humans can save ourselve by agreeing!
Poor God, he sends his son in the hope that sovereign man might.. that is might agree.
Thats mans Prideful boast in his own good work. It is God who implants a new heart in man that gives him new desires for Faith... it is a synergistic work after that.
S
Dear Zilla64007, I don't know about Arminius, either. I'm not a Calvinist. But I wouldn't say my view is Arminian, either. Anyway, what are the doctrinal and practical differences between Russian (Greek/Eastern) Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism
1. The Filioque doctrine of Roman Catholicism is different from the Monopatrist doctrine of the Orthodox Church.
2. The alleged universal jurisdiction, supremacy, and infallibility of the pope of Rome is rejected by Russian Orthodoxy.
3. The Romanists reject communion in both kinds, have an unleavened wafer for laymen only, and reserve the wine for clergy only. This is heresy. The Orthodox Church has communion in both kinds for all penitent Orthodox Christians, bread and wine in leavened bread together.
4. The Romanists have the immaculate conception of Mary; the Orthodox Church rejects this doctrine.
5. The Romanists have mandatory celibacy for priests; the Orthodox Church has some married clergy, as well as some unmarried clergy.
6. The Romanists baptize by sprinkling; the Orthodox Church baptizes by trine immersion in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
7. The Romanists affirm original sin; the Orthodox Church does not have a doctrine of original sin, but only of personal sins only; the ancestral sin didn't lead to inherited sin or guilt, but only inherited mortality.
8. The Romanists affirm our Lady of Fatima and our Lady of Lourdes and other Romanist visions of Mary; the Orthodox Church rejects these visions as demonic and heretical in their doctrines and form.
9. The Romanists affirm the existence of purgatory and the efficacy of papal indulgences; the Orthodox Church rejects the doctrine of the existence of purgatory, and rejects the alleged efficacy of papal indulgences; salvation is a free gift that can be given only by God, and only God can forgive sins. Christians however must forgive the sins of all in order to be forgiven.
10. The Romanists affirm Augustinianism and Thomism; the Orthodox Church rejects the views of Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, and also the views of Anselm of Canterbury.
God bless you always in Christ Jesus our Saviour and LORD. Amen. In Erie PA July 3, 2011 AD Scott R. Harrington
S
[quote=Hearer;482968]servet was a terrible gnostic, making prophecies based on astrology and calling the trinity a product of the devil. He also believd everythin including evil/the devil emanated from God. Servet was God's enemy as well as both protestants and the catholics.[/quote]
Did Saint Peter and Saint Paul and Saint John and Saint Andrew burn heretics at the stake? Did they?
No. Was Servetus a heretic. Yes. Was John Calvin who burned Servetus to death also a heretic? Yes! That's the irony of the situations: Heretics burning heretics to death. The Catholics and the Protestants, who are both heretical in that they both say "Filioque, Filioque", and other heresies, killed each other in Christ's name in the 16th century. Because of the 16th century, we have the United States of America, and separation of Church and State, so that Christian sects do not go to war against each other anymore here in America in civil authorities who do not enforce sabbath keeping and orthodoxy according to some sects version of orthodoxy. Take care. If the Seventh-day Adventists got in power in government, they could persecute people who keep Sunday and who do not believe it's necessary to keep the Saturday Sabbath.
Did Saint Peter and Saint Paul and Saint John and Saint Andrew burn heretics at the stake? Did they?
No. Was Servetus a heretic. Yes. Was John Calvin who burned Servetus to death also a heretic? Yes! That's the irony of the situations: Heretics burning heretics to death. The Catholics and the Protestants, who are both heretical in that they both say "Filioque, Filioque", and other heresies, killed each other in Christ's name in the 16th century. Because of the 16th century, we have the United States of America, and separation of Church and State, so that Christian sects do not go to war against each other anymore here in America in civil authorities who do not enforce sabbath keeping and orthodoxy according to some sects version of orthodoxy. Take care. If the Seventh-day Adventists got in power in government, they could persecute people who keep Sunday and who do not believe it's necessary to keep the Saturday Sabbath.
S
No. Truth is truth, regardless of who says it. Even Calvinism gets some doctrines right. It believes, rightly, in the sovereignty of God in salvation. Where it errs is that it confuses sovereignty of God over all with God as causality of all. God can not cause or endorse sin. He is not the author of confusion or of error or of anything wrong. He is totally holy and good. He causes only good things. Maybe Calvin was not the first one to teach the heresy; so what? He taught the heresy, didn't he? I believed in heresy for a while, because I was ignorant that Filioque was (is) heresy. Then Christ saved me when I read his words in John 15:26. Anyway, are you saying it is wrong to look for websites to back up a claim?
Roman Catholicism is not 100 percent wrong, nor is it 100 percent right. Calvinism is not 100 percent wrong, either. So I have no animosity against Calvinists; only I am biblically against their distortion of the truth and their doctrine of fatalism. God is not an Evil-causer. Take care.
Roman Catholicism is not 100 percent wrong, nor is it 100 percent right. Calvinism is not 100 percent wrong, either. So I have no animosity against Calvinists; only I am biblically against their distortion of the truth and their doctrine of fatalism. God is not an Evil-causer. Take care.
I believe it is God who opens the eyes first he initiates so that the sinner can see to have Faith, thats 'monergistic', the rest is synergistic, I have to believe, but once God renews your heart, for no man on earth can give himself a new heart, this also brings new desires..those of Faith, believing and repentance are synergistic. I though I would point this out for there is a mistaking view that reformed theology is all monergistic and thats not true.
just to clarify my position and the reformed position..JI Packer says it excellently in a few short words were it would take me 3 pages.
Regeneration is birth; sanctification is growth.
In regeneration, God implants desires that were not there before: desire for God, for holiness, and for the hallowing and glorifying of God’s name in this world; desire to pray, worship, love, serve, honor, and please God; desire to show love and bring benefit to others.
In sanctification, the Holy Spirit “works in you to will and to act” according to God’s purpose; what he does is prompt you to “work out your salvation” (i.e., express it in action) by fulfilling these new desires (Phil. 2:12-13). Christians become increasingly Christlike as the moral profile of Jesus (the “fruit of the Spirit”) is progressively formed in them (2 Cor. 3:18; Gal. 4:19; 5:22-25). . . .
Regeneration was a momentary monergistic act of quickening the spiritually dead. As such, it was God’s work alone.
Sanctification, however, is in one sense synergistic—it is an ongoing cooperative process in which regenerate persons, alive to God and freed from sin’s dominion (Rom. 6:11, 14-18), are required to exert themselves in sustained obedience. (J I Packer)
Ive only posted the above to give not mainly you but everyone what really the reformed position actually is.
S
Paul never says justification is by faith alone. That is MARTIN LUTHER ADDING "ALONE" to the text of Romans 3:28. Paul always says good works are to be maintained not to earn salvation but as part of believing in Christ. Saving faith will always produce good works as a fruit of repentance and faith.