Predestination, John Calvin

[Rhyfelwyr]

You are not answering my question.
It makes no sense that God, who wants everyone to be saved, would not elect everyone to be saved. If there is no free will involved, that God could overrule but chooses not to overrule then what you are saying hints that something else is hindering God from electing/saving everyone and that's nonsense.

What separates us from God and hinders us from being saved is our sin. Now as you said God would really like us all to come to him freely and renounce our sins. But since we didn't he had to go and die on the cross and very specifically bore the sins for all those that he chose to actively save.

People don't like that fact that Calvinists say God only saved some. But you should consider that with your own view of things and indeed the Arminian and Catholics views, God saved nobody. Some food for thought...

[Centurion1]

What separates us from God and hinders us from being saved is our sin. Now as you said God would really like us all to come to him freely and renounce our sins. But since we didn't he had to go and die on the cross and very specifically bore the sins for all those that he chose to actively save.

People don't like that fact that Calvinists say God only saved some. But you should consider that with your own view of things and indeed the Arminian and Catholics views, God saved nobody. Some food for thought...

Calvinism is completely silly which is why such a tiny percentage of people follow it. And yes I will call it dumb since you think my religion is the Whore of Babylon.

God could have simply forgiven us, but amends still have to be made for our sins; that's why we're still held responsible for our sins even though christ died. We don't just "get forgiven". We need to make up for all of our sins. Christs crucifixion simply opened the doorway for us to be able to have that opportunity to make amends for our sins.

Not to mention you have no idea what exactly gods reasoning for was since yah know its a mystery of the faith.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Calvinism is completely silly which is why such a tiny percentage of people follow it. And yes I will call it dumb since you think my religion is the Whore of Babylon.

Wow the handbags are coming out early today...

God could have simply forgiven us, but amends still have to be made for our sins; that's why we're still held responsible for our sins even though christ died. We don't just "get forgiven". We need to make up for all of our sins. Christs crucifixion simply opened the doorway for us to be able to have that opportunity to make amends for our sins.

If God simply let our sins go unpunished then he wouldn't be a just God. That's the point in the whole coming to earth as Jesus thing - so he could forgive us by taking the punishment for our sins upon himself. That's the whole glory of what he did on the cross! Heck that's Catholic theology!

Or else what do you think the crucifixion was for?

As for making amends for sins you can never in the slightest bit making the tiniest amendment for the least of your sins. The wages of sin is death and that is so for every little sin so unless you plan on dying you are not amending your sins. That's why I'm so happy Jesus died for me!

[Centurion1]

amendment is improper word usage.

You belong to a religion where absolution from one's sins is impossible. I however, do not. I can repent of my sins and be forgiven by God. My soul is wiped clean of all sins i repent of truly. Your belief that what you said is Catholic theology is incorrect. It is said that Jesus died on the cross to open up heaven for those who came after and before him. Jesus also cured us of our innate original sin more than anything else. Sins which we as individuals commit wit hour free will are not forgiven because Jesus died on a cross. Our original sin however is healed.

[Samurai Waki]

The only thing I'm taking away from this is that 'my Jesus is bigger than your Jesus'.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It is said that Jesus died on the cross to open up heaven for those who came after and before him. Jesus also cured us of our innate original sin more than anything else. Sins which we as individuals commit wit hour free will are not forgiven because Jesus died on a cross. Our original sin however is healed.

God only knows what such flowery language is supposed to actually mean.

btw don't try praying through Aquinas because he is very upset with you...

The only thing I'm taking away from this is that 'my Jesus is bigger than your Jesus'.

That's what I love about Calvinism, it's all about Jesus. Jesus died for my sins, Jesus led me to saving faith, and Jesus keeps me going every day!

Cent says himself that Jesus didn't die for him, he chooses to have faith himself and he keeps himself safe from sin every day.

And they say the God of Calvinism is heartless!

Anyway, at least it seems that Cent will be able to hold his head high when he comes before God on the day of judgment!

[Centurion1]

God only knows what such flowery language is supposed to actually mean.

btw don't try praying through Aquinas because he is very upset with you...



That's what I love about Calvinism, it's all about Jesus. Jesus died for my sins, Jesus led me to saving faith, and Jesus keeps me going every day!

Cent says himself that Jesus didn't die for him, he chooses to have faith himself and he keeps himself safe from sin every day.

And they say the God of Calvinism is heartless!

Anyway, at least it seems that Cent will be able to hold his head high when he comes before God on the day of judgment!

The twisting of my words does naught to make your own correct.

Jesus saves me from original sin placed upon the souls of man by the acts of Adam and Eve. I hold in my own hands my fate regarding all my other sins. Jesus' death on the cross will not result in me being forgiven for murdering a man tommorow. Jesus' death saves me from original sin and gives me the chance to repent of all sins i commit later but it does not mean i will be healed of those later sins.

And Tomas of Aquino is not the be all end all of Catholic Theology.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The twisting of my words does naught to make your own correct.

Jesus saves me from original sin placed upon the souls of man by the acts of Adam and Eve. I hold in my own hands my fate regarding all my other sins. Jesus' death on the cross will not result in me being forgiven for murdering a man tommorow. Jesus' death saves me from original sin and gives me the chance to repent of all sins i commit later but it does not mean i will be healed of those later sins.

And Tomas of Aquino is not the be all end all of Catholic Theology.

Well the beliefs you are displaying here don't seem to come from any (major at least) strain of Catholic thought. Got any sources (preferably Biblical)?

Jesus' death on the cross will not result in me being forgiven for murdering a man tommorow.

So do you not believe that you commit murder every day?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The twisting of my words does naught to make your own correct.

Jesus saves me from original sin placed upon the souls of man by the acts of Adam and Eve. I hold in my own hands my fate regarding all my other sins. Jesus' death on the cross will not result in me being forgiven for murdering a man tommorow. Jesus' death saves me from original sin and gives me the chance to repent of all sins i commit later but it does not mean i will be healed of those later sins.

And Tomas of Aquino is not the be all end all of Catholic Theology.

This is not Catholic, or catholic. All major Christian denominations hold that salvation comes exclusively through Faith, even the Roman Church. In so far as your actions have an effect it is non the ammount of penitence required and therefore spent in purgatory.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This is not Catholic, or catholic. All major Christian denominations hold that salvation comes exclusively through Faith, even the Roman Church. In so far as your actions have an effect it is non the ammount of penitence required and therefore spent in purgatory.

I always knew you would jump to my defence in this thread!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I always knew you would jump to my defence in this thread!

Well, he's some sort of Papist, isn't he?

[Centurion1]

This is not Catholic, or catholic. All major Christian denominations hold that salvation comes exclusively through Faith, even the Roman Church. In so far as your actions have an effect it is non the ammount of penitence required and therefore spent in purgatory.

Faith alone will not send you to heaven the catholic churches doctrine says this. Non catholics and even atheists can go to heaven so long as they live a good and moral life. Maybe whatever medieval theology you ascribe too doesn't allow non believers into paradise but the modern Roman Catholic church believes in a little something called inclusivism. Your just wrong in believing that faith alone in Christ can save your soul.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, he's some sort of Papist, isn't he?

lulz

The thing is its no longer just about the Catholic Church. Gone are my days of being the typical hardline Reformed Calvinist. I have now disavowed my association with mainstream Protestantism (even traditional Calvinism) since I think too much of it is remants of Romanism.

I've got a new narrative where there is no theonomy and everything is based on natural law and in that sense the scripture just states what is written on our hearts by nature (it even says that). And as such all organised religion is Babylonian and idolatrous and a hearkback to the bondage of the law.

I actually think its a really good narrative and fits in really well with Revelation since it coincides with the return of the Jews to their homeland and the establishment of the one world religion. Although I am going against the letter of the Protestant reformers I think that I have the spirit of Reformation - rooting out idolatry and getting back to the scripture.

Reading that back it sounds pretty damn crazy. At least its a nice counterbalance to your annoying moderation!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Faith alone will not send you to heaven the catholic churches doctrine says this. Non catholics and even atheists can go to heaven so long as they live a good and moral life. Maybe whatever medieval theology you ascribe too doesn't allow non believers into paradise but the modern Roman Catholic church believes in a little something called inclusivism. Your just wrong in believing that faith alone in Christ can save your soul.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong - the Roman Catholic Church has signed agreements with protestant Churchs to the effect that you are wrong.

What I should have said, however, is that salvation comes exclusively through Christ, not Faith. Faith, fidas is the holding but it is what you hold which is important. Now, where others, even atheists might be included is in the space between Christ and Christ's teachings. I think the general line is that so long as you ask for forgiveness you may be allowed into heaven.

Of course, this disallows the self-justifying New Atheists who demand everything on their own terms.

[Centurion1]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong - the Roman Catholic Church has signed agreements with protestant Churchs to the effect that you are wrong.

What I should have said, however, is that salvation comes exclusively through Christ, not Faith. Faith, fidas is the holding but it is what you hold which is important. Now, where others, even atheists might be included is in the space between Christ and Christ's teachings. I think the general line is that so long as you ask for forgiveness you may be allowed into heaven.

Of course, this disallows the self-justifying New Atheists who demand everything on their own terms.

Inclusivism has been the position of the Roman Catholic church since Vatican two in the 1960's. Inclusivism as proposed by Karl Rahner states that while Catholicism is right and whatever salvation you receive is from Jesus Christ other religious paths can reach the same paradise as a Catholic. The most important thing for an individual to do is to lead a moral lifestyle which mirrors the teachings of Jesus. Jesus' moral teachings being pretty basic to any decent person on earth.

So no you are incorrect. The church does not believe that you have to convert to reach heaven, though it may help you.

I believe the latin you are looking for is fides not fidas.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Karl Rahner states that while Catholicism is right and whatever salvation you receive is from Jesus Christ other religious paths can reach the same paradise as a Catholic.

But what does Jesus state?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Inclusivism has been the position of the Roman Catholic church since Vatican two in the 1960's. Inclusivism as proposed by Karl Rahner states that while Catholicism is right and whatever salvation you receive is from Jesus Christ other religious paths can reach the same paradise as a Catholic. The most important thing for an individual to do is to lead a moral lifestyle which mirrors the teachings of Jesus. Jesus' moral teachings being pretty basic to any decent person on earth.

So no you are incorrect. The church does not believe that you have to convert to reach heaven, though it may help you.

And yet.... John Paul II authorised a Catechism that says Faith in Christ is necessary, and Vatican II is pretty much in tatters now anyway.

I believe the latin you are looking for is fides not fidas.

How drol. I must confess I did not check for the correct case before posting.

[Centurion1]

And yet the current Pope Benedict known for his conservative values is moving the church even further to fully embracing inclusivism.

Not to mention you. are. once. again. wrong.

Here are two John Paul II quotes for you to munch on.

That all who live a just life will be saved, even if they do not believe in Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church."

and even more damning

"The gospel teaches us that those who live in accordance with the Beatitudes, poor in spirit, the pure in heart, those who bear lovingly the sufferings of life, will enter God's Kingdom

This is addressing criticisms regarding the Dominus Iesus which I believe is the document you are using as evidence. You need to read it again because Pope John Paul ended up addressing that pint with a statement,

"This confession does not deny salvation to non-Christians, but points to its ultimate source in Christ, in whom man and God are united."

How drol. I must confess I did not check for the correct case before posting.

Some of the sting of a sarcastic riposte is lost when words are misspelled.

[TheLastDays]

What separates us from God and hinders us from being saved is our sin. Now as you said God would really like us all to come to him freely and renounce our sins. But since we didn't he had to go and die on the cross and very specifically bore the sins for all those that he chose to actively save.

People don't like that fact that Calvinists say God only saved some. But you should consider that with your own view of things and indeed the Arminian and Catholics views, God saved nobody. Some food for thought...

You are still not answering my question. Let me rephrase/restate it:

We know God wants all to be saved. He chooses who gets salvation. Why does he not choose everyone? Go.

What speaks against the possibility that Christ atoned for all sins of all mankind and lifted the burden of total depravity from us, making it possible for us to choose and then he left us the choice?

If God simply let our sins go unpunished then he wouldn't be a just God. That's the point in the whole coming to earth as Jesus thing - so he could forgive us by taking the punishment for our sins upon himself. That's the whole glory of what he did on the cross! Heck that's Catholic theology!

Or else what do you think the crucifixion was for?

As for making amends for sins you can never in the slightest bit making the tiniest amendment for the least of your sins. The wages of sin is death and that is so for every little sin so unless you plan on dying you are not amending your sins. That's why I'm so happy Jesus died for me!

No argument from me here

amendment is improper word usage.

You belong to a religion where absolution from one's sins is impossible. I however, do not. I can repent of my sins and be forgiven by God. My soul is wiped clean of all sins i repent of truly. Your belief that what you said is Catholic theology is incorrect. It is said that Jesus died on the cross to open up heaven for those who came after and before him. Jesus also cured us of our innate original sin more than anything else. Sins which we as individuals commit wit hour free will are not forgiven because Jesus died on a cross. Our original sin however is healed.

The twisting of my words does naught to make your own correct.

Jesus saves me from original sin placed upon the souls of man by the acts of Adam and Eve. I hold in my own hands my fate regarding all my other sins. Jesus' death on the cross will not result in me being forgiven for murdering a man tommorow. Jesus' death saves me from original sin and gives me the chance to repent of all sins i commit later but it does not mean i will be healed of those later sins.

And Tomas of Aquino is not the be all end all of Catholic Theology.

I thought he pretty much was...

Faith alone will not send you to heaven the catholic churches doctrine says this. Non catholics and even atheists can go to heaven so long as they live a good and moral life. Maybe whatever medieval theology you ascribe too doesn't allow non believers into paradise but the modern Roman Catholic church believes in a little something called inclusivism. Your just wrong in believing that faith alone in Christ can save your soul.

Now here I look away for a moment and out of a thread that argued about predestination, which can be argued well inside of christian doctrine you made a case that desintegrates the very fabrics of the christian faith.

There is no salvation apart from Christ. Now, it's your right to believe otherwise but then you are not a christian. It's that simple.
Your good deeds will get you nowhere. Deeds/Works are a part of the faith, a very important part tbh, but they do not save you.

Inclusivism has been the position of the Roman Catholic church since Vatican two in the 1960's. Inclusivism as proposed by Karl Rahner states that while Catholicism is right and whatever salvation you receive is from Jesus Christ other religious paths can reach the same paradise as a Catholic. The most important thing for an individual to do is to lead a moral lifestyle which mirrors the teachings of Jesus. Jesus' moral teachings being pretty basic to any decent person on earth.

So no you are incorrect. The church does not believe that you have to convert to reach heaven, though it may help you.

I believe the latin you are looking for is fides not fidas.

I couldn't care less what Karl Rahner states or "the church" believes. What does the bible state? What did Jesus say?

The thing is its no longer just about the Catholic Church. Gone are my days of being the typical hardline Reformed Calvinist. I have now disavowed my association with mainstream Protestantism (even traditional Calvinism) since I think too much of it is remants of Romanism.

I've got a new narrative where there is no theonomy and everything is based on natural law and in that sense the scripture just states what is written on our hearts by nature (it even says that). And as such all organised religion is Babylonian and idolatrous and a hearkback to the bondage of the law.

Well, you do realize that you have just called a good part of the New Testament protagonists heretics, don't you? There was "organised religion" from the earliest days of christianity. If you want to disagree please specify what you call organised religion.

[Centurion1]

You are still not answering my question. Let me rephrase/restate it:

We know God wants all to be saved. He chooses who gets salvation. Why does he not choose everyone? Go.

What speaks against the possibility that Christ atoned for all sins of all mankind and lifted the burden of total depravity from us, making it possible for us to choose and then he left us the choice?




No argument from me here





I thought he pretty much was...



Now here I look away for a moment and out of a thread that argued about predestination, which can be argued well inside of christian doctrine you made a case that desintegrates the very fabrics of the christian faith.

There is no salvation apart from Christ. Now, it's your right to believe otherwise but then you are not a christian. It's that simple.
Your good deeds will get you nowhere. Deeds/Works are a part of the faith, a very important part tbh, but they do not save you.



I couldn't care less what Karl Rahner states or "the church" believes. What does the bible state? What did Jesus say?



Well, you do realize that you have just called a good part of the New Testament protagonists heretics, don't you? There was "organised religion" from the earliest days of christianity. If you want to disagree please specify what you call organised religion.

I think that bible literalists are fools. I think you do not really know what you are talking to in regards to the bible since I could go through it and find plenty of quotes to agree with me as could people who wanted to do half a dozen wicked things. I think your understanding of the most loving gentlest man the earth has ever known and a God himself are warped. Telling me you couldn't care less what what my Church and solves nothing besides demonstrating your intolerance.


You can follow your foolish hateful faith or whatever twisted form of literalism you think is right but I laugh at your ignorance; but to put my faith on the table and say that I am unchristian is uncalled for. Here is your truth. Faith alone will not earn you jack **** in the Fathers paradise.

A literalist understanding of the Bible is incorrect, God inspired the writers he did not but pen to paper himself. The human writers were still fallible and limited by the knowledge of their time. Tell me how old do you think earth is? 4000 years or so? Not to mention calling the New Testament individuals "protagonists" is dumb. They are not characters in a book. And early Christianity was not an organized religion it was simply a disliked sub sect of Judaism.

Predestination doesn't fit inside of the Christian faith. To believe in predestination is to believe against free will. Because we have no impact on where we will go when we die there is a lack of free will. A concept which is anathema to Christianity.

Finally, I will say one further time. YOU GO LOOK UP INCLUSIVISM; YOU GO FIND A DEFINITION AND TELL ME WHAT IT MEANS. UNTIL THEN YOU ARE SIMPLY IGNORANT IN THE MATTER SINCE EVERYTHING YOU SAY YOU OBVIOUSLY DID NOT LOOK INTO AT ALL.

I'll just be over here laughing until you do.

[TheLastDays]

I think that bible literalists are fools. I think you do not really know what you are talking to in regards to the bible since I could go through it and find plenty of quotes to agree with me as could people who wanted to do half a dozen wicked things. I think your understanding of the most loving gentlest man the earth has ever known and a God himself are warped. Telling me you couldn't care less what what my Church and solves nothing besides demonstrating your intolerance.

What I'm saying is: Why should the teachings of the roman catholic church hold more authority than the scriptures they profess to base their faith on?

You can follow your foolish hateful faith or whatever twisted form of literalism you think is right but I laugh at your ignorance; but to put my faith on the table and say that I am unchristian is uncalled for. Here is your truth. Faith alone will not earn you jack **** in the Fathers paradise.

Then, if I don't base it on the bible, how do I identify what is orthodox (in the literal meaning of the word) christianity and what is heresy?
But do me a favour and explain to me your soteriology because it seems to differ from what most catholics I've been talking to believe. Maybe then I can find a better way of debating with you.

A literalist understanding of the Bible is incorrect, God inspired the writers he did not but pen to paper himself. The human writers were still fallible and limited by the knowledge of their time. Tell me how old do you think earth is? 4000 years or so?

I am not sure about the age of the earth. I am not a "literalist" in the sense you seem to understand the word. I do not take every word of scripture literally but if I can just go ahead and create doctrines the way they seem fitting to me, why would I call myself a christian? I would be a Thelastdaysian in that case... I hope you get what I mean, I'm not trying to offend you or anything.

Not to mention calling the New Testament individuals "protagonists" is dumb. They are not characters in a book. And early Christianity was not an organized religion it was simply a disliked sub sect of Judaism.

Putting two arguments that are of entirely different nature and quality together in one paragraph to make them seem equal. Nifty. Went ahead and split it up for you

I used the term "protagonists" for lack of a better term. English is not my main language and I am sometimes, quite literally, at a loss for words.
It was not "organised religion" like the roman catholic church, that much is true, but, i.e. Paul clearly describes organization in his letters, which is why I asked for Rhy's definition of "organised religion".

Predestination doesn't fit inside of the Christian faith. To believe in predestination is to believe against free will. Because we have no impact on where we will go when we die there is a lack of free will. A concept which is anathema to Christianity.

Not true. I believe in both the concept of predestination and the concept of free will. You know what is anathema to Christianity? That you can do anything good out of yourself.

Finally, I will say one further time. YOU GO LOOK UP INCLUSIVISM; YOU GO FIND A DEFINITION AND TELL ME WHAT IT MEANS. UNTIL THEN YOU ARE SIMPLY IGNORANT IN THE MATTER SINCE EVERYTHING YOU SAY YOU OBVIOUSLY DID NOT LOOK INTO AT ALL.

I'll just be over here laughing until you do.

Your arguments don't get better when you capitalize every letter. Please define inclusivism to me, the way you'd define it. Thanks

[Centurion1]

What I'm saying is: Why should the teachings of the roman catholic church hold more authority than the scriptures they profess to base their faith on?



Then, if I don't base it on the bible, how do I identify what is orthodox (in the literal meaning of the word) christianity and what is heresy?
But do me a favour and explain to me your soteriology because it seems to differ from what most catholics I've been talking to believe. Maybe then I can find a better way of debating with you.



I am not sure about the age of the earth. I am not a "literalist" in the sense you seem to understand the word. I do not take every word of scripture literally but if I can just go ahead and create doctrines the way they seem fitting to me, why would I call myself a christian? I would be a Thelastdaysian in that case... I hope you get what I mean, I'm not trying to offend you or anything.



Putting two arguments that are of entirely different nature and quality together in one paragraph to make them seem equal. Nifty. Went ahead and split it up for you

I used the term "protagonists" for lack of a better term. English is not my main language and I am sometimes, quite literally, at a loss for words.
It was not "organised religion" like the roman catholic church, that much is true, but, i.e. Paul clearly describes organization in his letters, which is why I asked for Rhy's definition of "organised religion".



Not true. I believe in both the concept of predestination and the concept of free will. You know what is anathema to Christianity? That you can do anything good out of yourself.



Your arguments don't get better when you capitalize every letter. Please define inclusivism to me, the way you'd define it. Thanks

The church interprets the Scripture.

No good catholic believes in Exclusivism. They do not understand their faith if they say so.

It still was not an organized religion. It was a sub sect of Judaism in its early days. It was still part of another religion rather than being its own.

Humanity is innately a good being. We are innately good because we are made in the image and likeness of God. How can we be anything else.

2. Inclusivism -- "One religion is best but salvation is possible in other religions."

"Inclusivism" is the position that one religion is uniquely true but salvation is accessible to those outside of that faith. For example, a Christian inclusivist might say, "I am a Christian and I think Christianity is the most correct religion, but I also think there is saving truth in other religions like Islam and Hinduism. People of other faiths can be saved by Jesus even if they do not explicitly believe in Him." Inclusivists do not go as far as pluralists in that inclusivists do not claim that all religions are equal. They do believe, though, that truth and salvation can be found in other religions. Some Christian inclusivists claim that the salvation of Jesus is unknowingly applied to adherents of other religions who live good, moral lives. Catholic and Inclusvist theologian, Karl Rahner, referred to such people as “anonymous Christians.”

The sixteenth century reformer Ulrich Zwingli held to a form of Inclusivism. In more recent years, Karl Rahner helped popularize this perspective. The Roman Catholic Church and several mainline Protestant denominations have also shifted toward Inclusivism in recent decades. The Roman Catholic “Vatican II Council” of the 1960s explicitly declared that people of other religions could be saved. Evangelical theologian, Clark Pinnock, too, has espoused Inclusivism. Traditionally, religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism have been proponents of Inclusivism as well.

Sigh. I am the only person in this entire argument to post a link the only person to post an actual quote. Why doesn't anybody else back up their words why must I always be the one to find support. Stop being so damn lazy.

[TheLastDays]

The church interprets the Scripture.
No good catholic believes in Exclusivism. They do not understand their faith if they say so.

Then please give me the scriptures that support the idea that you can obtain salvation from any other source but Jesus Christ.

It still was not an organized religion. It was a sub sect of Judaism in its early days. It was still part of another religion rather than being its own.

Correct. As I said, that's the reason I asked Rhy if by "organised religion" he meant an organised religion like the roman catholic church or just the level of organisation that's present already in the New Testament or anything in between.

Humanity is innately a good being. We are innately good because we are made in the image and likeness of God. How can we be anything else.

That is before the fall. After that we are of sinful nature and no one is righteous before God. That's out of the bible by the way. How would you interpret Romans 3:10-28?

Sigh. I am the only person in this entire argument to post a link the only person to post an actual quote. Why doesn't anybody else back up their words why must I always be the one to find support. Stop being so damn lazy.

That would be because I googled "inclusivism" and found three, in my eyes, different definitions. I wanted to know which one you're talking about.

[Rhyfelwyr]

No good catholic believes in Exclusivism. They do not understand their faith if they say so.

So all the Popes up until the last few were not Catholics?

Humanity is innately a good being. We are innately good because we are made in the image and likeness of God. How can we be anything else.

So I guess David was wrong to state "behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalm 51:5)?

Do you also disagree with Jesus when he says "everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin" (John 8:34)?

Or Paul - "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God" (Romans 3:10-11)?

Sigh. I am the only person in this entire argument to post a link the only person to post an actual quote. Why doesn't anybody else back up their words why must I always be the one to find support. Stop being so damn lazy.

You've only quoted the Pope and some Catholics, as if they had some sort of authority on the matter.

We know God wants all to be saved. He chooses who gets salvation. Why does he not choose everyone? Go.

God would like everyone to save themselves. When you talk about God wanting all people to be saved you are talking about a whole different process and clearly God only wanted that for some people.

So in the sense you are talking about it, God didn't want everyone to be saved.

Well, you do realize that you have just called a good part of the New Testament protagonists heretics, don't you? There was "organised religion" from the earliest days of christianity. If you want to disagree please specify what you call organised religion.

What I meant by that is ritualistic religion and the hierarchies in the church, which are both most certainly not in the New Testament.

For example, the ritualistic manner with which many Protestants treat "communion" is unbiblical. As are many of the clerical positions they have, and the whole idea of ministers/pastors wearing special garments etc. All unbiblical. It's not just that these ideas lack biblical support, they are actively condemned by it.

[TheLastDays]

God would like everyone to save themselves. When you talk about God wanting all people to be saved you are talking about a whole different process and clearly God only wanted that for some people.

So in the sense you are talking about it, God didn't want everyone to be saved.

Scripture please.

What I meant by that is ritualistic religion and the hierarchies in the church, which are both most certainly not in the New Testament.

For example, the ritualistic manner with which many Protestants treat "communion" is unbiblical. As are many of the clerical positions they have, and the whole idea of ministers/pastors wearing special garments etc. All unbiblical. It's not just that these ideas lack biblical support, they are actively condemned by it.

Yeah, I kinda agree to some of that. Not completely on the part of communion and there was some hierarchy in the early church as well but you do have points there.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And yet the current Pope Benedict known for his conservative values is moving the church even further to fully embracing inclusivism.

Not to mention you. are. once. again. wrong.

Here are two John Paul II quotes for you to munch on.

and even more damning

This is addressing criticisms regarding the Dominus Iesus which I believe is the document you are using as evidence. You need to read it again because Pope John Paul ended up addressing that pint with a statement,

Some of the sting of a sarcastic riposte is lost when words are misspelled.

Oh well nevermind.

Looks like Roman Catholicism has really gone of the reservation if it's actually positing merit-based salvation.

[Populus Romanus]

Catholic

I would just to stop by and say that the two branches of Christianity that can claim legitimacy are Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Protestantism cannot.

[Skullheadhq]

Catholic

I would just to stop by and say that the two branches of Christianity that can claim legitimacy are Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Protestantism cannot.

It was the Latin Church who seceded (again: earlier it seceded during the iconoclasm and I think during the aftermath of the Arian controversy) from the Apostolic Church in 1054 with Cardinal Humbertus' schism, we seceded from you again. You are not apostolic either, but you can pretend you are if it makes you happy. The Pope is just one of the five patriarchs from the pentarchy, he's only schismatic, that's all. And if you think that schismatics can be apostolic, does that mean the donatists were?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Catholic

I would just to stop by and say that the two branches of Christianity that can claim legitimacy are Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Protestantism cannot.

I can cite Medieval Canon Law which shows the Pope has no right to interfere in a national Church, and as such the Churches with historical and continuous Episcopates can be considered Apostolic. I can also cite Ecumunical Councils which give the House of Bishops, without the College of Cardinals, the right to depose the Pope and elect a successor in extremis.

I can even give you the sessions in Latin, if you like.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Don't bother, he's simply wrong. Pretty much any Church can claim legitimacy, and point to their interpretation of the Bible or other works for their support. As long as people are willing to believe their dogma, that is.

Meanwhile, given that one can construct arguments to make the Bible and other works fit pretty much any narrative you wish to support, isn't it all a bit pointless? I mean even you, a smart well educated person with probably rather better grasp of Latin slips up in a basic mistake of gender -- so what are the odds that the under-educated slaves and monks didn't mess up far worse through years of little slip ups filtered into Canon? And that's before one even considers the more difficult issue of contradictions...