Calvin was no better than the pope,he craved power ,money,and was a virulent anti semite,he condemned 100,000's to death to further his own pursuit of power.
@JoshD667 Sorry Josh but I don't indulge in charity work(time constraints) you will have to do your own research, I see you have to stoop to insults to put your point across,perhaps you would be better advised to visit the library or do the research online yourself.Religous extremism and excesses (catholic and protestant) are well documented online and some sites do provide sources if you require them.If I find the time(busy annoying zealots/bigots;) I will post sources.Best Regards.
@saoirse2011 don't indulge in charity work, yet you'd rather annoy people? And with that in mind you want to reestablish the ancient christian church? Haha... good luck, perhaps you need to look at yourself before you go on to others.
@JoshD667 Josh, its working,like flies to shite, I have every extremist/zealot reacting to my BS posts on YT,its good clean sport, and it might show some of them the absurdity of their positions and/or beliefs.Next week I shall call for the reestablishment of the ancient Druid culture in the British Isles and for the election of a Grand Mufti for Bradford but he has to wear the garb of a cockney pearly king.Cheers and toodle pip old chum.
Calvin is another sad ex catholic, his doctrine is really just another failed medieval religous doctrine that espoused capitalism which led directly to the genocide of millions of people.He was contradictory too,he advocated usury but condemned the jews and I quote "they stupidly devour all the riches of the earth with their unrestrained cupidity" he preached a bigoted doctrine that now has no place in the modern world but it is still cherished by some insular communities throughout the world
So, if Calvinists are supposed to take the Bible literally, why are they always taking scriptures out of context and bending them to fit their ideologies?
all religions are different and if one says that calvinism is bad te that means protestant catholic are bad since they are all branches from the same root. many people have killed in the name of religions for example the crusades and the spanish inquisition was a huge mass murder ever heard of the children crusades it will break your heart and make you disgusted at the catholic church? no!
and even though a prominent person in that religion does something horrible. and if you still dont beleive that read about nero and what he did to christians of the salem witch trials.
The wonderful thing is is that you dont have to take any notice of John Calvin-he is dead man and possibly in Hell as he was a murderer (Servetus). The reason why so many want to follow/believe his teachings and say they are Calvinists (of one sort or another)(and its not just calvin) is that its easier to label yourself after a fallen fellow man.There is some intellectual snobberry. BUt to live up to the calling of your Shepherd Christ Jesus requires sacrifice, dying to self, a humbling.
"When it says Jonah... got swallowed... by a great fish, that's God's word, and it's trrrrruuuee!" This is ridiculous, brainwashing, soul-destroying, mind eating crap. This video is creepy. The people who made it are creepy. I can't believe all the nonsense that is being "debated" in this comments section. I'm sad for humanity, but cautiously optimistic for a day when people actually use their minds to seek out truths, instead of blindly fumbling through indoctrination via faux intellectualism.
Calvin was a lying son of Belial! Live like the Devil, never search out God, and see where you wind up. In The Lake Of Fire! Don't believe me, or should I say The Word of God, then try living that way and find out for yourself. By the way , the Pope is an antichrist also! Revelation is the Way to Life.
@1Timoteo41 the true church is the one that you yourself can follow or be a part of without doubt but remeber that religion is seen by historians as a way to answer the questions of the unknown. that unknown is uncovered daily so some people beleive more in science and even if you cannot choose a religion make one up thats what ive done and ive been content with it
@monchichi226 The reality is that there is no perfect or true religion. Jesus did not choose one, God the father did no do it either. The true religion is follow Gods word, pray,believe in Christ, in the bible, learn and practice the true (bible) which is God's word. God bless you!
John Calvin fought to make his religion as exclusive, intolerant, mercilessly unforgiving and cruel as he could. And he fought just as hard to establish that this mercilessly cruel, unforgiving theology was just. Thankfully not all see it his way.
John Calvin hated the Apocrypha books and so the Calvinists (Oliver Cromwell)removed them from the King James Bible after the death of King James. The Septuagint had the Apocrypha books in it and it was the Holy Bible of the Apostles of Jesus Christ. Read James 2:24 "You see then how that by works a person is justified and not by faith only". James 2:20 "Faith without works is dead."
Do you believe god is omniscient and omnipresent?
If he is omniscient, is he a total omniscient or an inherent omniscient?
One of the verses that says god knows all is, Jeremiah 1:5
if god is only inherently omniscient... can you really call him all powerful? if not... why call him god?
If you believe that god knows all... then yes... he is the creator of sin... although I think Larry Flynt might give god a fun for his money on the porn thing. You say homosexuality likes its bad.
"For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty" (Rev 16:14).
its not the semi-gnostic idea that calvinism makes it into,,, that God spays sin on mankind and then chooses one small group before they are born to keep sinning and be called His people... the others are damned before they are born,, with gnostic sin! some unknowable mystic notion
You have never debated a non-Calvinist Primitive Baptist because you are afraid of the truth of "No-Means". SEE: YouTube at: hugiaino - "My Two Cents Worth". See a position you have never considered before - one that is consistent with historical baptist doctrine.
You are aware that particular baptists never existed till late 17th century england right? And that the early baptists were divided over the issues of reformed theology.
Are you aware that the term "baptist" was coined by their detractors - and that not all of us use the term as a cast-in-bronze denominational term? Were there people in the second century that disagreed with pedo-baptism? Were there people amongst very early believers who felt that baptism should be administered to professing believers ONLY? Calvinists and Reformed Baptists are infatuated with the idea that they started Chrisianity - or at least rescued it! True baptists predate the Catholics!
Let me share some hypocrisy. It is ok for man to use his freewill to accept or reject God, but God can't use His freewill to accept or reject man. God has to be an equal opportunity Savior so that everyone has a chance for Salvation. Lord forbid that God chose His people and sent His Son to SECURE their destiny. Why does man try to play god? Why is it that mans freewill supersedes Gods freewill? Does God owe anyone salvation?
John Calvin was a murderer. Seven years before Calvin actually saw to it that Servetus was put to death, he said: If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight.
My experience with Calvanists and anti-Calvanists seems to be that the anti-Calvanists are willing to die for their beliefs, while the Calvanists are willing to kill for theirs. You will know then by their fruit. Calvin's false Gospel and false Christ will lead many to the fire.
calvinis, you are right. Calvinism is a total cult. John Calvin was a tyrant who killed Michael Servetus and burned him at the stake. Why did he? Simple. Servetus believed the saving grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. That anyone could be saved. He also believed in the trinity, and Calvin had him killed when he came to church. They burned him at the stake. Calvin was Unitarian. Servetus was about the Trinity.
what?.....Calvin was Trinitarian, Servetus was Unitarian. Do any of you anti-calvinists even read real church history books? you guys are totally ridiculous and cannot see that your whole interpretation of the bible and of Christ's mission is in complete contradiction with itself. you don't know what you're talking about. any of you.
shaver215: "what?.....Calvin was Trinitarian, Servetus was Unitarian. Do any of you anti-calvinists even read real church history books? you guys are totally ridiculous and cannot see that your whole interpretation of the bible and of Christ's mission is in complete contradiction with itself. you don't know what you're talking about. any of you."
Well, why did Calvin put Servetus to death then? If he believed in Christ's teachings, why did he act like a dictator instead of a humble servant?
Servetus was a Roman Catholic, and WAS ALREADY SENTENCED TO DEATH BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH under the Inquisition, b/c he was a heretic. He denied the Trinity, Predestination, and Infant baptism, all punishable by death back then. It was the civil authorities who condemned Servetus, and Calvin stayed up all night with him begging him to recant so he would not be killed. He also lobbied for a more merciful form of death instead of burning. In the end Calvin could do nothing to stop it.
WISE UP. Jesus Told peter he would build his church on peter, because in the greek peter stand for rock bed. Jesus was saying he was going to build the church on what peter had just said not on peter himself. Peter said you are Jesus Christ The Son of the Living God. Jesus builds his church on that very truth, that he his The Christ the sun of the living God. It's foolish to build some cult around a man named peter who is cleary dead. Jesus died for your sins Not peter all he did was deny Jesus.
Satan worshipers steal a host from a catholic mass and use it in an perverted black mass. In ritual hey dont mock, Mormons,JW's, Baptists, King Jimmy thumpers or for that matter any of the 35.000 Protestant faiths.They all spawned from Martin Luther not Jesus. Jesus said.."On you Peter I will build my church" Not Churches? If the Catholic faith is the whore of Babylon and Lucifer followers mock us then I must quote "How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided how is it able to stand?
Actually the literalist inerpreation of the Bible was not part of Calvins theolgy, quite the opposite, hge recognized that the Biblical text stood in contrats to science on a literal level and taught that (Genesis 1-11 in paticular) ought not to be regarded as historical or scientofic and pointed out that even St. Augustine understood that, the whole litereist thing as we understand it wasn't even around then, it's a 20th century doctrine.
i started embracing the notion that the bread should be transformed into christ's flesh, and i started embracing that idea before i re-called the fact that the catholic church holds the same idea that i embraced. my attitude toward the transforming the bread played a role in causing me to switch from baptist to catholic.
the title "queen of heaven" is fine. some pagans had a similar title for one of their queens or deities, yet that doesn't mean that the title is bad. here's something to remember: none comes to the father except through christ, yet this raises a question: "how does one get to christ?" christ ordained the 11 apostles to be the christian clergy, and they ordained more clergy, who ordained more clergy, and so on down to today. the proper clergy are mediators between christ and regular humans.
"The children gather wood,and the fathers kindle the fire,and the women knead their dough,to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods,that they may provoke me to anger."
dear amanda--there are bible verses saying something like "you are saved by faith in christ". nonetheless, i see no verse saying that faith in christ is the only requirement. some verses show baptism as necessary. the books of the new testament were written to persons whose faith in christ caused them to join the church with clergy whose ordinations stretched back to the apostles whom christ sent on the great commission. if you'd like to write to me, it might be better to use my website.
Jesus clearly said if you believe on him you will NEVER perish,hes eather lieing or twisting the truth if what you say is true.
The man next to Jesus on the cross, he was not baptised, nor did he do good works, he just believed on Jesus.
Moving on....
Now about all these preists who are ment to be closer to God.You do understand the bible says God is no respector of persons?To God all a monk,nun or preist is,is another sinner.A question,in catholic tradition,how is one "born again"?
to amanda366-i'll try to answer the questions by using personal messages, where there's more space. my profile discusses why i decided that baptism is part of the process of being born again. catholic doctrine doesn't say that its clergy are less sinful than other persons, nor does it say that its clergy are intelligenter than other persons. the clergy are needed for sacraments. bible shows the use for ordained clergy. also, christ said that the man next to him would be in paradise, not heaven.
about 5 years ago, i switched from baptist to Catholic. i left the baptists when i saw that the Christian Church had to exist ever since the Apostolic era. no protestant or baptist or restorationist sect has been around that long. also, many protestants and baptists and restorationists claim that the Bible is the only source for Christian teaching. yet the Bible cannot be the only source for Christian teaching. one should focus on the fact that Christianity existed before the Bible did.
ironically I went from catholic to protestant because I saw that nowhere in the scriptures God instituted a institution and that the idea of the visible local church and invisible universal church make a lot more sense.I don't think Jesus meant to set up one institution to be the one true church rather several local church all are apart of one body.
can you identify any true christiand during the centuries leading up to the 1500s? i assume that you would not include any catholics as part of the invisible universal church.
no, they were members of the roman catholic Church. But I would also point to those saved in the Eastern Orthodox Church and small local Coptic and alexandarian churches may have contained members which were saved even though the essential doctrine of Justification by faith alone has been lost soon after Augustine. I do believe in the hearts of some, despite the bad theology of the papacy, God saved some. And Thomas Aquinas, John Huss, and John Wycliffe just off the top of my head
Remember just because they were members that doesn't mean they blindly followed the chuch. Most local people of local congregations did not have access to the bible yet to reject error so I do believe that God saved some DESPITE maryology, belief in pergatory, ect... God preserved his Word and in due time made it known the best way possible b/c of the invention of the printing press and raising up the Reformers.
huss and wycliffe had big problems with the pope, yet huss and wycliffe tried to continue on as catholic priests in the sacramental system. thus, huss and wycliffe cannot be regarded as protestants, even though some of their theologies resemble what the protestant reformers would later promote. also, wycliffe promoted as english version of the bible. the wycliffe bible had some bad translations in it. also the wycliffe bible included the so-called apocrypha as part of the old testament.
I should clarify: pre-reformers. Whle apart of the roman church yet saved. It's like Ron Paul being a Republican. Yes Ron Paul is a Republican but he represents true conservatism. Wycliffe moved in the right direction but clearly was not perfect (who is?). Also I recall the Catholic Church (via their local authorities) killing him for translating it (Do you have an English Bible? =Thank Wycliffe). And I can call them protestants just not separtists. Remmber Luther wanted 2 reform@the start
John Calvin is in Hell and Jack Chick is going to Hell for spreading blasphemies against God. The idiots rely on the Masoretic Texts instead of the Septuagint which was the Old Testament Bible of Jesus and His Apostles. "FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD" - James 2:14-26. "You see then how that by works a person is justified, and not by faith only" - James 2:24
-FAITH ALONE WILL NOT SAVE YOUR SOUL. READ IT AND WEEP.-
he never said that you need faith alone. because without faith you can't go to heaven. heven't you ever read the teachings of Christ? you have greatly mis read what calvin wrote. what denomination are you anyway?
a few years ago, i switched from baptist to Catholic. i think a lot of evangelicals are rejecting the doctrine of transsubstantiation because they have thoughts that go like this: "if i can't do it, noone else can do it." because they rightly realize that they can't transform the bread, their self-centered attitude causes them to wrongly assume that noone else can transform the bread.
well, a few years ago the catholic church denounced pergatory. Besides how could pergatory possibly exist? there is no mention of it in the Bible. there is no 'middle ground', you either go to Heaven or hell. i do believe that wea are one catholic church alltogeher (catholic literally means universal from the greek word: katholikos) But mary is not 'holy' in the same sense that she should be exalted as high as Christ. for she merely gave birth to our Lord. I do believe that the catholic chur...
it took a while for church leaders to come up with their terminology. neither the word "trinity" nor the word "transsubstantiation" are found among the earliest christians, yet i assume that they believed in the concepts that are found in the words "trinity" and "transsubstantiation". i assume that you agree that a person can believe in the trinity without using or hearing the word "trinity".
of course, however if I say something like "i'd give my right hand for eggs benedict" I clearly don't mean what I said in an exact literal sense rather I would like that dish very much."This is my Body...take and eat" when Jesus was holding the cedar meal clearly to the apostles at the time would not have thought of the the meal being transformed.Plus it was instituted before the crucifixation.Sometimes Jesus used offensive metaphorical language to drive a point in.
The way I see the lords supper is like this. I have a photo. I'm going to show you that photo and say "look... this is me!" dus that litterally mean I am a photo or that photo is litterally me? No it means the photo represents me. Same when Jesus said the bread was his flesh.
here's the difference: photographs were invented for the purpose of looking like something, so that people can use phtographs to show something. by contrast, bread wasn't invented to represent something. bread doesn't look like someone's flesh or blood.
When you take the lords supper dus the wine look or taste like litteral blood?Or dus the bread look litterally like flesh?If it don't on what grounds dose the bread become flesh? God is capable of litterally making it flesh.Jesus said he was the narrow path,Jesus called us sheep,Jesus said he was the door, Jesus said the gospel was a seed,the bible calls the church the bride of christ. Most importantly on this issue, on the cross,Jesus said,"it is finished"the sacrifice is finished,done with.
where jesus said, "i am the door", he did not motion to a physical door, and thus there was no door that could have been transformed into christ. when christ said, "i am the vine", he did not motion to a physical vine, and thus there was no physical vine that could have been transformed into christ. by contrast, in regard to the lord's supper, christ went beyond his previous statement, "i am the bread of life". instead, christ motioned to a physical piece of bread, and identified it as his body.
Jesus took a physical human and called him a sheep. Jesus is called a lion and a lamb. Jesus said a dead girl was just asleep. God is abile to make bread REAL flesh and wine REAL blood but this dun't happen.
The mass is ment to mean a unbloody sacrifice right? Jesus died on the cross once and for all the bible tells us this. The bible also says there is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood. The mass is unbiblical.
Jesus died ONCE,the world was redeemed by that ONE sacrifice!
John Calvin is in Hell for his heresies and he is an idiot. Calvin should have read James 2:24 - Do you see that by works a person is justified and not by faith only! Follow the Apostles of Jesus Christ who quoted out of the Septuagint instead of the heretic John Calvin who never personally knew Jesus of Nazareth.
Works are fruit of the spirt but are not what saves you. If somone dus not repent and say they are saved they lie, not because good works save you, but if you where truely saved you would repent. The bible tells us those who love God hate evil.
actually, repentance might be characterized as a good work. if someone repents, he will perform actions that are normally regarded as good works, unless he dies or is physically unable to do those actions. also, good works that flow from faith are different from good works that flow from other motives.
You lack in bible reading or the catholic church has lied to you. Which sadderns me I'm not trying to insult you. Because what you have just said is not whats in the bible.
A man can only truely repent and come to God with the Holy Spirt. Because the bible tells us that no one goes after God, the spirtual birth is what triggers repentance.
John 3:3
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
If you want to see more videos on Calvinism, then please visit my channel page.
For the record, a doctrine is not a system of beliefs, but it is simply everything the Bible teaches on a particular subject presented in logical form. All of the doctrines are logically connected and do form a complete system, that is, a comprehensive world-view.
If you were a faithful Christian, you would know your Bible after reading it daily which says,
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." -Ephesians 2:8,9
Salvation is through Christ alone. You do not earn it. Once recieving salvation by faith, you "walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called." That's the point of being good. Not to get something. But because it IS GOOD.
You just heard the gospel for the first time. Now do you want to become a Christian?
I'm not saying the Reformation is solely responsible for enlightening what we now know as Western civilization, but its compassion (instructed by Jesus) shifted the power from the "church's" agenda to the common man in all facets of society, but most importantly, man's ability to interpret Scripture for himself.
If it wasn't for Reformers like Luther and Calvin who stood against the tyranny of the Catholic Church, literacy would probably still be a luxury reserved for the rich. B4 Luther the Church would literally chain the bible and condemn any man not part of the "cloth" to read it.
John Calvin's doctrine is false because the Bible speaks of salvation as also being a future tense event (Romans 13:11). Also, while we are saved through God's grace, it isn't always guaranteed until we die (John 15:6,Romans 11:22,1 Corinthians 9:27,1 John 5:16--17) as it is possible to be lost.
You need to read your Bible. Your idea of God losing one of His elect contradicts the immutability, omniscience, and omnipotence of God. Malachi 3:6, Philippians 1:6, and James 1:17 clearly teach that those justified can never lose the gift of eternal life.
DARE WE TELL "THE REST OF THE STORY"??? Lets examine some of the man and the myth theology...On October 27, 1553 John Calvin, the founder of Calvinism, had Michael Servetus, a Spanish physician, burned at the stake just outside of Geneva for his doctrinal heresies...HE MURDERED MANY OTHER AND NEVER REPENTED OF THEM! QUITE A DIFFERENT GRACE THAN GODS WOULD YOU SAY?
Please do your research before throwing up that old argument. John Calvin did not 'have...Servetus...burned at the stake'. John Calvin was a witness at his trial. He did not make the decision to burn him.
Honor, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard. - John Calvin
Please do YOUR research.
Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. - John Calvin
For obeying the preaching of the Apostles? LOL. Your snide comment is hilarious. Popes did not kill people as Pope, but executed people as head of the Papal States.
Galatians 1:8? Yet the writer asserted his own authority over the Galatians, thus proving that the early Christian teachings were that certain people did have authority to teach and you were not to question them.
Paul thought highly of the Bereans for making sure he was in the truth,would the pope feel the same way or would he be offended or as in earlier times maybe even had them put to death!
Not crazy about the phrase "God give [heaven] to you or not... for his own reasons". Sounds arbitrary. Better to say, "you are depraved and guilty before God. He is not obligated to pardon you."
We protestants take the lords supper.We do not worship the bread and the wine as JESUS.We have consumed JESUS when we were born again.Now he lives in us forever!
Jesus said: "this is my body." It's funny how Protestants avoid the literal meaning of that statement. Paul also said "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). How can a person be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if it is only a symbol?
Heb 10:29 uses the exact same language, but deals with contumacious sinning. You can't take that phrase and use it to try to force transubstantiation back into that verse. Through our sin we are all guilty of Christ's death (no matter what sin is being referred to in a particular verse).
It's a big step from 'this is my body' to 'I will appoint a chain of successors who will infuse a weekly dose of merit/salvation into the wafer'. Recall, he also said, this do in *remembrance* of me.
'You are desperate'. Well, I guess that proves it. When you say I 'missed' the statement, do you mean I misquoted it? I think we're just using different versions- I was quoting Lk 22:19 KJV. (I'm a James White fan but kjv is still my favorite). In any case you didn't address the point.
Heb 10:29 uses the exact same language, but deals with contumacious sinning. You can't take that phrase and use it to try to force transubstantiation back into that verse. Through our sin we are all guilty of Christ's death (no matter what sin is being referred to in a particular verse).
Nice dodge on the fact that you are asserting the authority of a cardinal.
You are proving my point, thank you for the example of parallelism in the writings of Paul. Yes both passages have the same lanuage, showing that trampling on the eucharist is trampling on the body and blood of Christ. Thanks for the concession.
No, I'm just saying you can't get a detailed doctrine of Transubstantiation, accidents/substance, monstrance, etc. out of that 1 phrase, which evolved centuries after the Bible was written.
Kind of like the teachings about new Christians' practices by the Apostles of Presbyters in Acts 15? The bishops have the power to bind and loosen (Matt 18:18) and Christian's are supposed to obey them (Hebrew 13:7a). So when they clarify or define a doctrine, you are not supposed to disobey them.
(PART II) He also said: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ" (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6:2--7:1 [A.D. 110]). Sounds very "Roman Catholic" to me.
You should listen to James White, an expert in early church fathers (search droakley1689 on youtube). He clearly shows many Catholic doctrines are recent innovations (bodily assumption of Mary, Papal infallibility, etc.)
James White was soundly beaten in a debate with Gerry Mattatics. James White is no scholar. He relies upon inflection and a projection of confidence, not fact. I have met James White. His arguments are not very astute.
Dr. White isn't some Jack Chick wacko who should be institutionalized. He is familiar with the most scholarly Catholic writings & has debated top Catholic apologists. Give him a fair hearing.
I am not going to comment of James White comments. I have two masters degrees, and working on a third and have more graduate credits than James White. I do not need to rely upon James White's credentials.
Calvin was noone of consequence. He disobeyed his bishops when the Bible calls them "God's stewards [chancellors]" (see Titus 1:7). Who is Calvin to contradict and disagree with those God put in authority?
[PART I] "Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]" (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]). Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of John the Apostle. I think he knows better about what Catholics are, than any 21st century Christian does.
It's not that simple. Ti 1:7 is about qualifications for appointment, it doesn't say the bishop cannot backslide (remember Cardinal Milingo)? Fact is Ga 1:8 *demands* disobedience if leaders start to preach heresy. You must argue for why the bishops were right and Calvin was wrong. The end-run you're attempting here is not legitimate.
You assume that backsliding excludes a bishop from being in authority. Not so, Jesus has no such standard: "The Pharisess sit up on the sit of Moses, sodo whatever they tell you. But do not imitate them, for they do not practice what they preach" (Matt 23:2-3).
As you also said they are "qualifications for appointment." They are not qualifications for continuing in ministry.
It's not that simple. Ti 1:7 is about qualifications for appointment, it doesn't say the bishop cannot backslide (remember Cardinal Milingo)? Fact is Ga 1:8 *demands* disobedience if leaders start to preach heresy. You must argue for why the bishops were right and Calvin was wrong. The end-run you're attempting here is not legitimate.
The bishops are correct, because they are God's stewards. They have the power to bind and loosen (Matt 18:18). Do you know what a steward was in ancient times? He was the second in command to a king or lord. He was not a guy who picked up cups and dishes. His word was law.
Tell me by the way, according to Catholic teaching, what is the authority of a cardinal. What powers and authority does a cardinal have according to Catholic teaching?
It's not that simple. Ti 1:7 is about qualifications for appointment, it doesn't say the bishop cannot backslide (remember Cardinal Milingo)? Fact is Ga 1:8 *demands* disobedience if leaders start to preach heresy. You must argue for why the bishops were right and Calvin was wrong. The end-run you're attempting here is not legitimate.
ummm... I didnt like this video. Should we really take calvinism and turn it into something so simple. The ideas of Calvin and his followers are from the Word of God. And are complicated. In fact I truly believe that to understand and accept them (truly not just saying or believing you do) it must be brought to you by the Word of God and God himself.
And there you have it. I feel as if this small video will be used to end division and seperation in the Church once and for all. You guys did it. Brilliant!!! (-:
This really ped with my essay about the european reformation
THANK YOU
stuntman18872 3 months ago
Calvin was no better than the pope,he craved power ,money,and was a virulent anti semite,he condemned 100,000's to death to further his own pursuit of power.
saoirse2011 7 months ago
@saoirse2011 Source?
JoshD667 6 months ago
@JoshD667
History.
saoirse2011 6 months ago
@saoirse2011 It would be great if you could forward me to your source, I want to look it up. But then again, one word answers are superb. Moron.
JoshD667 6 months ago
@JoshD667 Sorry Josh but I don't indulge in charity work(time constraints) you will have to do your own research, I see you have to stoop to insults to put your point across,perhaps you would be better advised to visit the library or do the research online yourself.Religous extremism and excesses (catholic and protestant) are well documented online and some sites do provide sources if you require them.If I find the time(busy annoying zealots/bigots;) I will post sources.Best Regards.
saoirse2011 6 months ago
@saoirse2011 don't indulge in charity work, yet you'd rather annoy people? And with that in mind you want to reestablish the ancient christian church? Haha... good luck, perhaps you need to look at yourself before you go on to others.
JoshD667 6 months ago
@JoshD667 Josh, its working,like flies to shite, I have every extremist/zealot reacting to my BS posts on YT,its good clean sport, and it might show some of them the absurdity of their positions and/or beliefs.Next week I shall call for the reestablishment of the ancient Druid culture in the British Isles and for the election of a Grand Mufti for Bradford but he has to wear the garb of a cockney pearly king.Cheers and toodle pip old chum.
saoirse2011 6 months ago
@saoirse2011 you're mental, and absurd.
JoshD667 6 months ago
@JoshD667 Mental, I agree with, but absurd ?look closer to home to see who fits that description.
saoirse2011 6 months ago
Calvin is another sad ex catholic, his doctrine is really just another failed medieval religous doctrine that espoused capitalism which led directly to the genocide of millions of people.He was contradictory too,he advocated usury but condemned the jews and I quote "they stupidly devour all the riches of the earth with their unrestrained cupidity" he preached a bigoted doctrine that now has no place in the modern world but it is still cherished by some insular communities throughout the world
saoirse2011 7 months ago
So, if Calvinists are supposed to take the Bible literally, why are they always taking scriptures out of context and bending them to fit their ideologies?
SamiasCaesar 7 months ago
all religions are different and if one says that calvinism is bad te that means protestant catholic are bad since they are all branches from the same root. many people have killed in the name of religions for example the crusades and the spanish inquisition was a huge mass murder ever heard of the children crusades it will break your heart and make you disgusted at the catholic church? no!
monchichi226 9 months ago
and even though a prominent person in that religion does something horrible. and if you still dont beleive that read about nero and what he did to christians of the salem witch trials.
monchichi226 9 months ago
The wonderful thing is is that you dont have to take any notice of John Calvin-he is dead man and possibly in Hell as he was a murderer (Servetus). The reason why so many want to follow/believe his teachings and say they are Calvinists (of one sort or another)(and its not just calvin) is that its easier to label yourself after a fallen fellow man.There is some intellectual snobberry. BUt to live up to the calling of your Shepherd Christ Jesus requires sacrifice, dying to self, a humbling.
fish5133 1 year ago
It tells me I don't like this video. It's wrong, I despise it. I completely detest all of this, and everything that has been said.
Your dead relatives watch you when you masturbate.
o0DarkMatter0o 1 year ago
"When it says Jonah... got swallowed... by a great fish, that's God's word, and it's trrrrruuuee!" This is ridiculous, brainwashing, soul-destroying, mind eating crap. This video is creepy. The people who made it are creepy. I can't believe all the nonsense that is being "debated" in this comments section. I'm sad for humanity, but cautiously optimistic for a day when people actually use their minds to seek out truths, instead of blindly fumbling through indoctrination via faux intellectualism.
o0DarkMatter0o 1 year ago
Calvin was a lying son of Belial! Live like the Devil, never search out God, and see where you wind up. In The Lake Of Fire! Don't believe me, or should I say The Word of God, then try living that way and find out for yourself. By the way , the Pope is an antichrist also! Revelation is the Way to Life.
TerryDavid57 1 year ago
Doe anyone realize how many were beheaded and burnt at the stake at Calvin's orders?
wheelkick 1 year ago
John Calvin's tears cure cancer.
Too bad he never cries.
orly444 1 year ago
@orly444 lol WTF man?
Hilegrod 1 year ago
I head HE was a NECROPHILIAC!!!
SeanConnery57 2 years ago
33.000 protestant faiths all in contradiction with each other....what a mess Martin luther left behind.
Snotra 2 years ago
@Snotra Hi, Why a mess? which one is the true church?
1Timoteo41 1 year ago
@1Timoteo41 the true church is the one that you yourself can follow or be a part of without doubt but remeber that religion is seen by historians as a way to answer the questions of the unknown. that unknown is uncovered daily so some people beleive more in science and even if you cannot choose a religion make one up thats what ive done and ive been content with it
monchichi226 9 months ago
@monchichi226 The reality is that there is no perfect or true religion. Jesus did not choose one, God the father did no do it either. The true religion is follow Gods word, pray,believe in Christ, in the bible, learn and practice the true (bible) which is God's word. God bless you!
1Timoteo41 9 months ago
Talk about full of lies
Hbbt82 2 years ago
John Calvin fought to make his religion as exclusive, intolerant, mercilessly unforgiving and cruel as he could. And he fought just as hard to establish that this mercilessly cruel, unforgiving theology was just. Thankfully not all see it his way.
cranyonrye 2 years ago
@cranyonrye,
John Calvin inspired the American Revolution led by Samuel Adams.
Drregaleagle 1 year ago
John Calvin hated the Apocrypha books and so the Calvinists (Oliver Cromwell)removed them from the King James Bible after the death of King James. The Septuagint had the Apocrypha books in it and it was the Holy Bible of the Apostles of Jesus Christ. Read James 2:24 "You see then how that by works a person is justified and not by faith only". James 2:20 "Faith without works is dead."
Minotaurus2 2 years ago
Do you believe god is omniscient and omnipresent?
If he is omniscient, is he a total omniscient or an inherent omniscient?
One of the verses that says god knows all is, Jeremiah 1:5
if god is only inherently omniscient... can you really call him all powerful? if not... why call him god?
If you believe that god knows all... then yes... he is the creator of sin... although I think Larry Flynt might give god a fun for his money on the porn thing. You say homosexuality likes its bad.
chyrd 2 years ago
religion is stupid
lemonheartfly 2 years ago
Thanks this helped . :D
faye2708 2 years ago
"For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty" (Rev 16:14).
Terri3210 2 years ago
sin is a action that God judges,,
its not the semi-gnostic idea that calvinism makes it into,,, that God spays sin on mankind and then chooses one small group before they are born to keep sinning and be called His people... the others are damned before they are born,, with gnostic sin! some unknowable mystic notion
calvinism serves a tyrant they call god!
its really the anti-christ
openairpreacher 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
calvinism and witchcraft are very much alike,,,,
tricking people into believing they have no freewill...
taking them under control and bringing them under bondage to sin
openairpreacher 2 years ago
You have never debated a non-Calvinist Primitive Baptist because you are afraid of the truth of "No-Means". SEE: YouTube at: hugiaino - "My Two Cents Worth". See a position you have never considered before - one that is consistent with historical baptist doctrine.
hugiaino 2 years ago
You are aware that particular baptists never existed till late 17th century england right? And that the early baptists were divided over the issues of reformed theology.
jgrig2 2 years ago
Comment removed
hugiaino 2 years ago
Are you aware that the term "baptist" was coined by their detractors - and that not all of us use the term as a cast-in-bronze denominational term? Were there people in the second century that disagreed with pedo-baptism? Were there people amongst very early believers who felt that baptism should be administered to professing believers ONLY? Calvinists and Reformed Baptists are infatuated with the idea that they started Chrisianity - or at least rescued it! True baptists predate the Catholics!
hugiaino 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let me share some hypocrisy. It is ok for man to use his freewill to accept or reject God, but God can't use His freewill to accept or reject man. God has to be an equal opportunity Savior so that everyone has a chance for Salvation. Lord forbid that God chose His people and sent His Son to SECURE their destiny. Why does man try to play god? Why is it that mans freewill supersedes Gods freewill? Does God owe anyone salvation?
TulipActionHero 3 years ago
John Calvin was a murderer. Seven years before Calvin actually saw to it that Servetus was put to death, he said: If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight.
My experience with Calvanists and anti-Calvanists seems to be that the anti-Calvanists are willing to die for their beliefs, while the Calvanists are willing to kill for theirs. You will know then by their fruit. Calvin's false Gospel and false Christ will lead many to the fire.
777denny 3 years ago
where did he say that? what writing can I look to to see it for my own eyes?
shaver215 2 years ago
Calvinism is a cult
calvinismisacult 3 years ago
..so literal biblicalist are cultist?
hardmod777 3 years ago
calvinis, you are right. Calvinism is a total cult. John Calvin was a tyrant who killed Michael Servetus and burned him at the stake. Why did he? Simple. Servetus believed the saving grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. That anyone could be saved. He also believed in the trinity, and Calvin had him killed when he came to church. They burned him at the stake. Calvin was Unitarian. Servetus was about the Trinity.
blicksflicks 3 years ago
what?.....Calvin was Trinitarian, Servetus was Unitarian. Do any of you anti-calvinists even read real church history books? you guys are totally ridiculous and cannot see that your whole interpretation of the bible and of Christ's mission is in complete contradiction with itself. you don't know what you're talking about. any of you.
shaver215 2 years ago
shaver215: "what?.....Calvin was Trinitarian, Servetus was Unitarian. Do any of you anti-calvinists even read real church history books? you guys are totally ridiculous and cannot see that your whole interpretation of the bible and of Christ's mission is in complete contradiction with itself. you don't know what you're talking about. any of you."
Well, why did Calvin put Servetus to death then? If he believed in Christ's teachings, why did he act like a dictator instead of a humble servant?
blicksflicks 2 years ago
Servetus was a Roman Catholic, and WAS ALREADY SENTENCED TO DEATH BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH under the Inquisition, b/c he was a heretic. He denied the Trinity, Predestination, and Infant baptism, all punishable by death back then. It was the civil authorities who condemned Servetus, and Calvin stayed up all night with him begging him to recant so he would not be killed. He also lobbied for a more merciful form of death instead of burning. In the end Calvin could do nothing to stop it.
shaver215 2 years ago
Can you define cult?
lovebbw1970 2 years ago
i think its funny how he decided to be a priest and decided to do all this stuff but the rest of the world doesnt have a choice.
a2sean2 3 years ago
a2sean2, you are so right. No one else has a choice, but Calvin had a choice, eh? lol
blicksflicks 3 years ago
It the Baptist Church That came up with the Doctrine Of carnell christain which help destroy the church and the lord ship of Jesus
home0421 3 years ago 2
WISE UP. Jesus Told peter he would build his church on peter, because in the greek peter stand for rock bed. Jesus was saying he was going to build the church on what peter had just said not on peter himself. Peter said you are Jesus Christ The Son of the Living God. Jesus builds his church on that very truth, that he his The Christ the sun of the living God. It's foolish to build some cult around a man named peter who is cleary dead. Jesus died for your sins Not peter all he did was deny Jesus.
home0421 3 years ago
" Calvins' teachings were against Scripture. "
Actually they were exactly what the Scripture teaches.
Did you know Calvin believed the statement you said?
"God is rich to all give all those who call upon him salvation"
Calvin would have agreed with your statement. Why do you think otherwise?
skalapunk 3 years ago
Petros!
Snotra 3 years ago
Satan worshipers steal a host from a catholic mass and use it in an perverted black mass. In ritual hey dont mock, Mormons,JW's, Baptists, King Jimmy thumpers or for that matter any of the 35.000 Protestant faiths.They all spawned from Martin Luther not Jesus. Jesus said.."On you Peter I will build my church" Not Churches? If the Catholic faith is the whore of Babylon and Lucifer followers mock us then I must quote "How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided how is it able to stand?
Snotra 3 years ago
"On you Peter I will build my church" Not Churches"
Err, actually He said "On this rock I will build my church"
Not "on you Peter"
skalapunk 3 years ago
Actually the literalist inerpreation of the Bible was not part of Calvins theolgy, quite the opposite, hge recognized that the Biblical text stood in contrats to science on a literal level and taught that (Genesis 1-11 in paticular) ought not to be regarded as historical or scientofic and pointed out that even St. Augustine understood that, the whole litereist thing as we understand it wasn't even around then, it's a 20th century doctrine.
Hbbt82 3 years ago
calvin certainly did not interpret the bible literally when it came to christ's words regarding the lord's supper.
coventrygardens 3 years ago
he just interpreted them how Jesus meant it by understaning that Jesus used symbols.
jgrig2 3 years ago
i started embracing the notion that the bread should be transformed into christ's flesh, and i started embracing that idea before i re-called the fact that the catholic church holds the same idea that i embraced. my attitude toward the transforming the bread played a role in causing me to switch from baptist to catholic.
coventrygardens 3 years ago
What else did you embrace? That mary is the queen of heaven? That Jesus is not the middle man for us to God,but mary is?
I am not calvinist by the way, far from it.
Mass won't save you, mary wont save you, the pope wont save you, confessional wont save you.
The bible says and the Lord says (and as a catholic you must believe the words Jesus spoke are 110% true right?).
"I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." -- Jesus Christ (John 14:6)
amanda366 3 years ago 2
the title "queen of heaven" is fine. some pagans had a similar title for one of their queens or deities, yet that doesn't mean that the title is bad. here's something to remember: none comes to the father except through christ, yet this raises a question: "how does one get to christ?" christ ordained the 11 apostles to be the christian clergy, and they ordained more clergy, who ordained more clergy, and so on down to today. the proper clergy are mediators between christ and regular humans.
coventrygardens 3 years ago
No the bible tells us how to get to christ I am so glad you brought this up.
Romans 5:1
"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ"
It really is that simple.
The only time "queen of heaven" is in the bible is here.
Jeremiah 7:18
"The children gather wood,and the fathers kindle the fire,and the women knead their dough,to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods,that they may provoke me to anger."
amanda366 3 years ago
dear amanda--there are bible verses saying something like "you are saved by faith in christ". nonetheless, i see no verse saying that faith in christ is the only requirement. some verses show baptism as necessary. the books of the new testament were written to persons whose faith in christ caused them to join the church with clergy whose ordinations stretched back to the apostles whom christ sent on the great commission. if you'd like to write to me, it might be better to use my website.
coventrygardens 3 years ago
Jesus clearly said if you believe on him you will NEVER perish,hes eather lieing or twisting the truth if what you say is true.
The man next to Jesus on the cross, he was not baptised, nor did he do good works, he just believed on Jesus.
Moving on....
Now about all these preists who are ment to be closer to God.You do understand the bible says God is no respector of persons?To God all a monk,nun or preist is,is another sinner.A question,in catholic tradition,how is one "born again"?
amanda366 3 years ago
to amanda366-i'll try to answer the questions by using personal messages, where there's more space. my profile discusses why i decided that baptism is part of the process of being born again. catholic doctrine doesn't say that its clergy are less sinful than other persons, nor does it say that its clergy are intelligenter than other persons. the clergy are needed for sacraments. bible shows the use for ordained clergy. also, christ said that the man next to him would be in paradise, not heaven.
coventrygardens 3 years ago
I agree with you.
tsopatsopa 3 years ago
about 5 years ago, i switched from baptist to Catholic. i left the baptists when i saw that the Christian Church had to exist ever since the Apostolic era. no protestant or baptist or restorationist sect has been around that long. also, many protestants and baptists and restorationists claim that the Bible is the only source for Christian teaching. yet the Bible cannot be the only source for Christian teaching. one should focus on the fact that Christianity existed before the Bible did.
coventrygardens 3 years ago
ironically I went from catholic to protestant because I saw that nowhere in the scriptures God instituted a institution and that the idea of the visible local church and invisible universal church make a lot more sense.I don't think Jesus meant to set up one institution to be the one true church rather several local church all are apart of one body.
jgrig2 3 years ago
can you identify any true christiand during the centuries leading up to the 1500s? i assume that you would not include any catholics as part of the invisible universal church.
coventrygardens 3 years ago
no, they were members of the roman catholic Church. But I would also point to those saved in the Eastern Orthodox Church and small local Coptic and alexandarian churches may have contained members which were saved even though the essential doctrine of Justification by faith alone has been lost soon after Augustine. I do believe in the hearts of some, despite the bad theology of the papacy, God saved some. And Thomas Aquinas, John Huss, and John Wycliffe just off the top of my head
jgrig2 3 years ago
Remember just because they were members that doesn't mean they blindly followed the chuch. Most local people of local congregations did not have access to the bible yet to reject error so I do believe that God saved some DESPITE maryology, belief in pergatory, ect... God preserved his Word and in due time made it known the best way possible b/c of the invention of the printing press and raising up the Reformers.
jgrig2 3 years ago
huss and wycliffe had big problems with the pope, yet huss and wycliffe tried to continue on as catholic priests in the sacramental system. thus, huss and wycliffe cannot be regarded as protestants, even though some of their theologies resemble what the protestant reformers would later promote. also, wycliffe promoted as english version of the bible. the wycliffe bible had some bad translations in it. also the wycliffe bible included the so-called apocrypha as part of the old testament.
coventrygardens 3 years ago
I should clarify: pre-reformers. Whle apart of the roman church yet saved. It's like Ron Paul being a Republican. Yes Ron Paul is a Republican but he represents true conservatism. Wycliffe moved in the right direction but clearly was not perfect (who is?). Also I recall the Catholic Church (via their local authorities) killing him for translating it (Do you have an English Bible? =Thank Wycliffe). And I can call them protestants just not separtists. Remmber Luther wanted 2 reform@the start
jgrig2 3 years ago
John Calvin is in Hell and Jack Chick is going to Hell for spreading blasphemies against God. The idiots rely on the Masoretic Texts instead of the Septuagint which was the Old Testament Bible of Jesus and His Apostles. "FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD" - James 2:14-26. "You see then how that by works a person is justified, and not by faith only" - James 2:24
-FAITH ALONE WILL NOT SAVE YOUR SOUL. READ IT AND WEEP.-
Minotaurus2 3 years ago
he never said that you need faith alone. because without faith you can't go to heaven. heven't you ever read the teachings of Christ? you have greatly mis read what calvin wrote. what denomination are you anyway?
ChayenBros 3 years ago
a few years ago, i switched from baptist to Catholic. i think a lot of evangelicals are rejecting the doctrine of transsubstantiation because they have thoughts that go like this: "if i can't do it, noone else can do it." because they rightly realize that they can't transform the bread, their self-centered attitude causes them to wrongly assume that noone else can transform the bread.
coventrygardens 3 years ago
asa catholic do you believe that Mary is holy? that pergatory exists?
ChayenBros 3 years ago
sure. i suppose the "hail mary" bothers you.
coventrygardens 3 years ago
well, a few years ago the catholic church denounced pergatory. Besides how could pergatory possibly exist? there is no mention of it in the Bible. there is no 'middle ground', you either go to Heaven or hell. i do believe that wea are one catholic church alltogeher (catholic literally means universal from the greek word: katholikos) But mary is not 'holy' in the same sense that she should be exalted as high as Christ. for she merely gave birth to our Lord. I do believe that the catholic chur...
ChayenBros 3 years ago
explain why transsubstantiation is not found in the earliest of the church fathers?
jgrig2 3 years ago
it took a while for church leaders to come up with their terminology. neither the word "trinity" nor the word "transsubstantiation" are found among the earliest christians, yet i assume that they believed in the concepts that are found in the words "trinity" and "transsubstantiation". i assume that you agree that a person can believe in the trinity without using or hearing the word "trinity".
coventrygardens 3 years ago
of course, however if I say something like "i'd give my right hand for eggs benedict" I clearly don't mean what I said in an exact literal sense rather I would like that dish very much."This is my Body...take and eat" when Jesus was holding the cedar meal clearly to the apostles at the time would not have thought of the the meal being transformed.Plus it was instituted before the crucifixation.Sometimes Jesus used offensive metaphorical language to drive a point in.
jgrig2 3 years ago
The way I see the lords supper is like this. I have a photo. I'm going to show you that photo and say "look... this is me!" dus that litterally mean I am a photo or that photo is litterally me? No it means the photo represents me. Same when Jesus said the bread was his flesh.
amanda366 3 years ago
here's the difference: photographs were invented for the purpose of looking like something, so that people can use phtographs to show something. by contrast, bread wasn't invented to represent something. bread doesn't look like someone's flesh or blood.
coventrygardens 3 years ago
When you take the lords supper dus the wine look or taste like litteral blood?Or dus the bread look litterally like flesh?If it don't on what grounds dose the bread become flesh? God is capable of litterally making it flesh.Jesus said he was the narrow path,Jesus called us sheep,Jesus said he was the door, Jesus said the gospel was a seed,the bible calls the church the bride of christ. Most importantly on this issue, on the cross,Jesus said,"it is finished"the sacrifice is finished,done with.
amanda366 3 years ago
where jesus said, "i am the door", he did not motion to a physical door, and thus there was no door that could have been transformed into christ. when christ said, "i am the vine", he did not motion to a physical vine, and thus there was no physical vine that could have been transformed into christ. by contrast, in regard to the lord's supper, christ went beyond his previous statement, "i am the bread of life". instead, christ motioned to a physical piece of bread, and identified it as his body.
coventrygardens 3 years ago
Jesus took a physical human and called him a sheep. Jesus is called a lion and a lamb. Jesus said a dead girl was just asleep. God is abile to make bread REAL flesh and wine REAL blood but this dun't happen.
The mass is ment to mean a unbloody sacrifice right? Jesus died on the cross once and for all the bible tells us this. The bible also says there is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood. The mass is unbiblical.
Jesus died ONCE,the world was redeemed by that ONE sacrifice!
amanda366 3 years ago
The way to Jesus is definitely by faith. You can't just do good works and have no faith in Jesus.
BasserDude531 3 years ago
John Calvin is in Hell for his heresies and he is an idiot. Calvin should have read James 2:24 - Do you see that by works a person is justified and not by faith only! Follow the Apostles of Jesus Christ who quoted out of the Septuagint instead of the heretic John Calvin who never personally knew Jesus of Nazareth.
Minotaurus2 3 years ago
ah so you think u know Jesus personally? Just keep on taking ur medication.
illini21 3 years ago
Works are fruit of the spirt but are not what saves you. If somone dus not repent and say they are saved they lie, not because good works save you, but if you where truely saved you would repent. The bible tells us those who love God hate evil.
amanda366 3 years ago
actually, repentance might be characterized as a good work. if someone repents, he will perform actions that are normally regarded as good works, unless he dies or is physically unable to do those actions. also, good works that flow from faith are different from good works that flow from other motives.
coventrygardens 3 years ago
You lack in bible reading or the catholic church has lied to you. Which sadderns me I'm not trying to insult you. Because what you have just said is not whats in the bible.
A man can only truely repent and come to God with the Holy Spirt. Because the bible tells us that no one goes after God, the spirtual birth is what triggers repentance.
John 3:3
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
amanda366 3 years ago
If you want to see more videos on Calvinism, then please visit my channel page.
For the record, a doctrine is not a system of beliefs, but it is simply everything the Bible teaches on a particular subject presented in logical form. All of the doctrines are logically connected and do form a complete system, that is, a comprehensive world-view.
RedBeetle 4 years ago
can't wait for the kids to see this. It's cute.
smoakc 4 years ago
No mention of Calvin's bloodly totalitarian religious regime in Geneva.
Justjokingjackrabbit 4 years ago
Holy crap in a handcart. Did this video just
tell me I can't earn my way into heaven?
Ahem, So why bother being good? I don't know.
I did so very just lose my faith in the
"ignite learning" videos. Im a faithful Christian but
reading the bible literally is just plain silly.
I mean really, eaten by a whale? blech.
heyyyyyynow 4 years ago
dont be a fool
BrandynBoyles 4 years ago
If you were a faithful Christian, you would know your Bible after reading it daily which says,
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." -Ephesians 2:8,9
pbcinla 4 years ago
Salvation is through Christ alone. You do not earn it. Once recieving salvation by faith, you "walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called." That's the point of being good. Not to get something. But because it IS GOOD.
You just heard the gospel for the first time. Now do you want to become a Christian?
pbcinla 4 years ago
I'm not saying the Reformation is solely responsible for enlightening what we now know as Western civilization, but its compassion (instructed by Jesus) shifted the power from the "church's" agenda to the common man in all facets of society, but most importantly, man's ability to interpret Scripture for himself.
saulsaenz79 4 years ago
If it wasn't for Reformers like Luther and Calvin who stood against the tyranny of the Catholic Church, literacy would probably still be a luxury reserved for the rich. B4 Luther the Church would literally chain the bible and condemn any man not part of the "cloth" to read it.
saulsaenz79 4 years ago
John Calvin's doctrine is false because the Bible speaks of salvation as also being a future tense event (Romans 13:11). Also, while we are saved through God's grace, it isn't always guaranteed until we die (John 15:6,Romans 11:22,1 Corinthians 9:27,1 John 5:16--17) as it is possible to be lost.
ASKconard 4 years ago
You need to read your Bible. Your idea of God losing one of His elect contradicts the immutability, omniscience, and omnipotence of God. Malachi 3:6, Philippians 1:6, and James 1:17 clearly teach that those justified can never lose the gift of eternal life.
RedBeetle 4 years ago
Let's talk about John 5:16-17. How does that say salvation is ONLY future and that the salvation of the elect can be lost?
pbcinla 4 years ago
John Calvin - what a guy!
reformedfruit 4 years ago
DARE WE TELL "THE REST OF THE STORY"??? Lets examine some of the man and the myth theology...On October 27, 1553 John Calvin, the founder of Calvinism, had Michael Servetus, a Spanish physician, burned at the stake just outside of Geneva for his doctrinal heresies...HE MURDERED MANY OTHER AND NEVER REPENTED OF THEM! QUITE A DIFFERENT GRACE THAN GODS WOULD YOU SAY?
blessedjohn 4 years ago
Please do your research before throwing up that old argument. John Calvin did not 'have...Servetus...burned at the stake'. John Calvin was a witness at his trial. He did not make the decision to burn him.
emadd002k 4 years ago
Honor, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard. - John Calvin
Please do YOUR research.
Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. - John Calvin
777denny 2 years ago
neither catholic or pretestant is perfect. Thats why im a lutheran because its in between.
916bigAl 4 years ago
Catholicism has perfect doctrine in it. Protestants (Lutherans) have mostly false doctrine. Namely Scripture Alone and Faith Alone.
redeemerslove 4 years ago
Maybe the pope would have killed the Bereans.
CBALLEN 5 years ago
For obeying the preaching of the Apostles? LOL. Your snide comment is hilarious. Popes did not kill people as Pope, but executed people as head of the Papal States.
redeemerslove 4 years ago
Galatians 1:8? Yet the writer asserted his own authority over the Galatians, thus proving that the early Christian teachings were that certain people did have authority to teach and you were not to question them.
redeemerslove 5 years ago
Paul thought highly of the Bereans for making sure he was in the truth,would the pope feel the same way or would he be offended or as in earlier times maybe even had them put to death!
CBALLEN 5 years ago
Paul commended the Bereans because they believed him. The Thessalonians drove him out.
redeemerslove 4 years ago
Not crazy about the phrase "God give [heaven] to you or not... for his own reasons". Sounds arbitrary. Better to say, "you are depraved and guilty before God. He is not obligated to pardon you."
AQuinault 5 years ago
We protestants take the lords supper.We do not worship the bread and the wine as JESUS.We have consumed JESUS when we were born again.Now he lives in us forever!
CBALLEN 5 years ago
Jesus said: "this is my body." It's funny how Protestants avoid the literal meaning of that statement. Paul also said "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). How can a person be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if it is only a symbol?
redeemerslove 5 years ago
Heb 10:29 uses the exact same language, but deals with contumacious sinning. You can't take that phrase and use it to try to force transubstantiation back into that verse. Through our sin we are all guilty of Christ's death (no matter what sin is being referred to in a particular verse).
AQuinault 5 years ago
It's a big step from 'this is my body' to 'I will appoint a chain of successors who will infuse a weekly dose of merit/salvation into the wafer'. Recall, he also said, this do in *remembrance* of me.
AQuinault 5 years ago
You are desperate. You missed the statement "do this in memory of me." Nice try. You really don't know the Bible that well do you?
redeemerslove 5 years ago
'You are desperate'. Well, I guess that proves it. When you say I 'missed' the statement, do you mean I misquoted it? I think we're just using different versions- I was quoting Lk 22:19 KJV. (I'm a James White fan but kjv is still my favorite). In any case you didn't address the point.
AQuinault 5 years ago
"I'm a James White fan"
Repent of your James White idolatry and call upon the name of Jesus Christ.
EasyStreet02 2 years ago
Heb 10:29 uses the exact same language, but deals with contumacious sinning. You can't take that phrase and use it to try to force transubstantiation back into that verse. Through our sin we are all guilty of Christ's death (no matter what sin is being referred to in a particular verse).
AQuinault 5 years ago
Nice dodge on the fact that you are asserting the authority of a cardinal.
You are proving my point, thank you for the example of parallelism in the writings of Paul. Yes both passages have the same lanuage, showing that trampling on the eucharist is trampling on the body and blood of Christ. Thanks for the concession.
redeemerslove 5 years ago
No, I'm just saying you can't get a detailed doctrine of Transubstantiation, accidents/substance, monstrance, etc. out of that 1 phrase, which evolved centuries after the Bible was written.
AQuinault 5 years ago
Kind of like the teachings about new Christians' practices by the Apostles of Presbyters in Acts 15? The bishops have the power to bind and loosen (Matt 18:18) and Christian's are supposed to obey them (Hebrew 13:7a). So when they clarify or define a doctrine, you are not supposed to disobey them.
redeemerslove 5 years ago
this is better than reading the 15 page article on Calvinism in my religion textbook, thanx!!! (:
LeslieLorraine 5 years ago
(PART II) He also said: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ" (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6:2--7:1 [A.D. 110]). Sounds very "Roman Catholic" to me.
redeemerslove 5 years ago
You should listen to James White, an expert in early church fathers (search droakley1689 on youtube). He clearly shows many Catholic doctrines are recent innovations (bodily assumption of Mary, Papal infallibility, etc.)
AQuinault 5 years ago
James White was soundly beaten in a debate with Gerry Mattatics. James White is no scholar. He relies upon inflection and a projection of confidence, not fact. I have met James White. His arguments are not very astute.
redeemerslove 5 years ago
Dr. White isn't some Jack Chick wacko who should be institutionalized. He is familiar with the most scholarly Catholic writings & has debated top Catholic apologists. Give him a fair hearing.
AQuinault 5 years ago
I am not going to comment of James White comments. I have two masters degrees, and working on a third and have more graduate credits than James White. I do not need to rely upon James White's credentials.
redeemerslove 5 years ago 2
James White also against Robert Sungenis in a debate on justification. Now repent and by the book..."Not By Faith Alone"
EasyStreet02 2 years ago
Calvin was noone of consequence. He disobeyed his bishops when the Bible calls them "God's stewards [chancellors]" (see Titus 1:7). Who is Calvin to contradict and disagree with those God put in authority?
redeemerslove 5 years ago
who says these God put Roman catholics in charge?
CBALLEN 5 years ago
[PART I] "Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]" (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]). Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of John the Apostle. I think he knows better about what Catholics are, than any 21st century Christian does.
redeemerslove 5 years ago
It's not that simple. Ti 1:7 is about qualifications for appointment, it doesn't say the bishop cannot backslide (remember Cardinal Milingo)? Fact is Ga 1:8 *demands* disobedience if leaders start to preach heresy. You must argue for why the bishops were right and Calvin was wrong. The end-run you're attempting here is not legitimate.
AQuinault 5 years ago
You assume that backsliding excludes a bishop from being in authority. Not so, Jesus has no such standard: "The Pharisess sit up on the sit of Moses, sodo whatever they tell you. But do not imitate them, for they do not practice what they preach" (Matt 23:2-3).
As you also said they are "qualifications for appointment." They are not qualifications for continuing in ministry.
redeemerslove 5 years ago
It's not that simple. Ti 1:7 is about qualifications for appointment, it doesn't say the bishop cannot backslide (remember Cardinal Milingo)? Fact is Ga 1:8 *demands* disobedience if leaders start to preach heresy. You must argue for why the bishops were right and Calvin was wrong. The end-run you're attempting here is not legitimate.
AQuinault 5 years ago
The bishops are correct, because they are God's stewards. They have the power to bind and loosen (Matt 18:18). Do you know what a steward was in ancient times? He was the second in command to a king or lord. He was not a guy who picked up cups and dishes. His word was law.
redeemerslove 5 years ago
Now you are asserting the authority of a Cardinal? Interesting backslide.
redeemerslove 5 years ago
Tell me by the way, according to Catholic teaching, what is the authority of a cardinal. What powers and authority does a cardinal have according to Catholic teaching?
redeemerslove 5 years ago
It's not that simple. Ti 1:7 is about qualifications for appointment, it doesn't say the bishop cannot backslide (remember Cardinal Milingo)? Fact is Ga 1:8 *demands* disobedience if leaders start to preach heresy. You must argue for why the bishops were right and Calvin was wrong. The end-run you're attempting here is not legitimate.
AQuinault 5 years ago
ummm... I didnt like this video. Should we really take calvinism and turn it into something so simple. The ideas of Calvin and his followers are from the Word of God. And are complicated. In fact I truly believe that to understand and accept them (truly not just saying or believing you do) it must be brought to you by the Word of God and God himself.
hooverbranch 5 years ago
And there you have it. I feel as if this small video will be used to end division and seperation in the Church once and for all. You guys did it. Brilliant!!! (-:
bboysmooch 5 years ago