Let's start at the end here: Of course, but you are trying ot extrac the original purpose out of a text written in a different language 2 millenia ago. Any kind of interpretation you make is coming out of a completely different context and is obviously informed by the type of theology you studied. You didn’t just pick up a bible one day without a past or cultural context and upon reading it just came up with reformed theology yourself. You were first thaught the theology and then read scripture to support those believes, not the other way around. When you see a word like „elect“ or „works“ in the bible, you immediately jump to your Calvinist understanding of those terms, even though Paul most likely meant something completely different. As for „interpreting your post“, well we both are writing in English and live in the same time period for one. If somebody two thousand years in the future, speaking Chinese, would try to understand what you were talking about, things might look a little different. This is why Church history and tradition are important, because if people who lived closer in time to Paul and possibly even spoke Greek natively don’t seem to interpret that text that way and all of a sudden people are extracting doctrines out of it that have never been thaught before, maybe you are just wrong.
If you want, I could type Romans 9 into google and give you a dozen links that give you a different interpretation. For crying out loud, the majority of Protestants don’t even agree on the doctrine of election. The point is that sola scriptura as such is a fruitless endeavour, because you can end up with the hundreds of Protestant denominations you see today. I am sure you would say that yours is the only truly biblical and correct understanding of scripture, just like every other Protestant would. The only real example of somebody talking about Unconditional Election or predestination prior to the Reformation would probably be Augustine (although he affirmed free will), but at the same time he also believed in apostolic succesion, a visible Church of Christ, the perpetual virginity of Mary, sacraments, etc. Of course, you can find individual elements of something resembling Reformed theology here and there, but you could just as much find these same elements of Calvinims in the Catholic catechism today. But you then agree that nobody before the Reformation held what you could call a kind of reformed theology, so either the elect all held mostly incorrect believes or there were no elect at all. We understand that we are justified only through Christ with no merit of our own, but we could in theory lose that justification by falling into mortal sin. I assume that even Calvinists try their best not to sin, it‘s just that you have that Catch-22 of „you don’t have to live that way but if you don’t, you were never saved to begin with“. And I am not sure what exactly „beign among the elect but not have saving faith/ be among the regenerate“ is supposed to say. I know that Calvinists make a distinction between sanctification and justification but my understanding was the two go together on some level. So, somebody could be justified before God without ever being regenerated during his life or vice versa? Interesting, I did not know that was possible according to Reformed theology.
Isaiah Allen
That doesn't mean we can't understand it today. If we can understand Plato and Aristotle, why can't we understand God, who gave us a bible for a purpose that is lasting till the end of days? It doesn't matter what my context is if I am willing to step out of it and into the historical context of scripture. Believe it or not, it is possible to avoid anachronism, if it wasn't, we wouldn't be able to understand anything, even written just a century ago. I certainly hope you never cite the bible as an authority on any issue whatsoever, since if your claim is true, the sodomite argument that the condemnation of sodomy in Leviticus 20:13 is just my interpretation is perfectly valid. I should hope you will not deny this position denies any authority at all to the bible, since in practical effect we have no bible if it is so inarticulate. But why does this alleged problem only affect the bible? Why is this not a problem for the pronouncements and traditions of your church? Perhaps Unam Sanctam actually meant that everybody will be saved, regardless of their submission to the Roman pontiff, who knows, after all, it was written in a different language and in a different time period. Why? Why can't I follow Christ's command to test tradition by what God has revealed? Why can't I set my theology aside when I come to the bible and say "how does it measure up?" You presume too much. The theology I was first taught was Roman Catholic, and I converted because I was convicted by the New Testament. That is not true either. Understanding what one meant by a word is not difficult, we may test it by attempting to use possible synonyms until we find some that makes sense, and examining the surrounding context to see what their point was. I did not derive my understanding of Pauline vocabulary from anyone but Paul himself. I studied his epistles before I read any of the reformers, and found they agreed with the understanding I already had. It is not hard to understand what someone is saying if you simply put in the effort. The question is not what Paul meant by elect or works, we know that he meant elect and works. The question is how Paul used those words. If I truly want to know what Paul means by the word works, I won't go running off to some bishop 2,000 years later, I will go to Paul himself. Let Paul speak for himself. Koine Greek is not an unknown language. Neither of us may be able to speak it, but there are men who can and who also speak English, and can translate. This isn't Islam. In the 1st century, few people in Judea, if any, were native speakers of Hebrew. Does your argument not lend validity to the claims of the Jews that their tradition was similarly important? How arrogant was Jesus to attack their traditions, how dare He claim to understand the torah better than the elders who spoke Hebrew natively and who lived closer to Moses' time. How do we know what they meant? See this is the problem with these arguments against the authority of the bible. They all rely on double standards.
Aiden Hill
And if they wrote it, that would be relevant. Maybe those who didn't had the same or similar biases to those today who wish to maintain a facade of believing it while finding a way around it. How do we know they've not been taught before, we can't interpret anything in the past remember? There are two men, one is a sedevacantist, the other affirms the authority of 2nd Vatican council. If they were to argue against each others' positions, they would go to the same documents and provide differing interpretations. So, by your logic, does this prove the magisterium can not speak to us? You say that the bible can't have authority so a man has to be in charge instead. But why does this person have to be the bishop of Rome? Why not the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? Why not the governing body of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society? These three organizations are practically the same, since each of them deny biblical authority and affirm themselves as the supreme authority of the Christian religion. But what do they have in common? Absolutely nothing. The only thing they have in common is they are theistic. Now let us compare three groups that affirm the authority of the bible, Baptists, Lutherans and Presbyterians. What do they agree on? The oneness of God, the trinity, the deity of Christ, the incarnation, the atonement, the resurrection, the gospel, etc etc. Unity proceeds from having a common epistemic source, and that is why those in submission to the word of God will always be more united than those who usurp it. The differences which remain between them are due to most Christians only believing the parts of the bible they agree with. I didn't know you were so well read in pre-Reformation theologians. Of course, that would be an example, but not just him. I think it's probably either a majority position of the early church, or a substantial minority. Not in the same way you do. I don't think you know what that means. We've never denied the sacraments. No you really can't.
Jace Wilson
And I clarified that, explaining that saying so would basically be true but be incredibly anachronistic. There certainly was a time when most of the elect held mostly incorrect beliefs. Those who can't tell the difference between the Protestant and Catholic doctrines of justification might do well to take it as a sign that they are misunderstanding one or both that nobody of any kind during the Reformation thought they were saying the same thing. The differences about this are both theoretical and practical even as you formulated it. The theoretical differences should be blatant and undeniable even to one who has not studied either very much. Catholicism proclaims an internal righteousness through baptism, and the necessity of retaining that righteousness to be saved, Protestantism an external righteousness through faith, remaining even with gross sin. The practical differences are numerous and complex. Firstly, the "Catch-22" is incorrectly implied to be practically the same as the Catholic position. That fails to take into account that fact that it takes just one mortal sin to be condemned, whereas one requires a lifestyle of sin to be judged unbelieving, that a mortal sin causes one to actually lose their justification before God, whereas sinfulness simply discredits their profession of faith, that one is to work out their spiritual life in light of the possibility of committing a mortal sin and being condemned, whereas one is not to examine their own standing with God on the basis of their life, and many other differences. In my opinion, having spent years of my life studying Reformed theology, the only practical parity between Protestant and Catholic doctrines of justification is that both motivate one to do good, but even that is for different reasons. You misunderstood, my apologies, allow me to clarify. Election, regeneration and justification are strictly distinct categories. Election is one's predestination to eternal life. The elect are elect even before the world is created. Regeneration is when the elect are raised to spiritual life and cease to suffer the misotheistic nature caused by the fall (thus bringing them to repentance and faith). Justification is the status of rightstanding with God. One cannot possess any of these three without ultimately having all three. I was saying a Roman Catholic who is among the elect is one who has not yet experienced regeneration, a consequence of this being a lack of saving faith, and thus a lack of justified status.
Sebastian Reyes
Also, important to point out now that the discussion has shifted to epistemology is that you totally conceded the field of Romans 9 and refused to even engage on that ground. Instead you attacked it by proxy, arguing that the bible does not have authority over doctrine. I believe that adds weight to my point.
Luis Barnes
The opening to this explainer offers some solid advice about this whole topic, imho
Brayden Collins
Calvinism is the Wahabbi Islam of Christianity. It is cold, brutal, and pseudo-intellectual. It is popular and becoming popular because it attracts the narrcissistic, egotistical, and self-absorbed.
It teaches that all life and all events good or evil was all predestined since the dawn of time. That every little detail in your life was predestined because of misinterpretations in scripture. As a result, it bypasses the love of Christ and God. It bypasses the teachings of submission and humility by Christ. It bypasses the teachings of obedience to the death.
It gives tickles the believers ear that he/she is elect and can never lose that salvation and position in life NO MATTER WHAT! As a result, this gives the Calvinist permission to do any thing he/she wants because he cannot lose that position and if he misbehaves it was God's will to do so.
This makes them egotistical because besides their belief of their special position they can never lose they also believe that all those around them are damned and therefore inferior. This therefore discourages the Calvinist from obeying the command to "make disciples" and "think lesser of oneself".
I've come to realize that "Calvinism" as its popularly called, is actually just the same story, attempted to be told from God's perspective. I don't think it serves humans, living in this time-space continuum, to try to think from God's perspective outside of time, anymore than it serves the driver of a vehicle on the highway to think about quantum physics. Just keep your eyes on the road and follow the traffic rules provided.
Brody Allen
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
Calvin's man-made religion is all well and good but God's desire for the salvation of all men contradicts your predestination to damnation heresy. Your reformed churches will die out soon enough, as all man-made heresies and ideologies do.
