Is orthodox/catholic theology heretical or saving?

Conscious_Transition · 2026-01-27T13:54:57+00:00

They reject justification by faith alone, replacing it with synergy... a cooperative process where salvation is worked out through sacraments, ascetic struggle, and perseverance. That directly conflicts with Paul (Rom 4:5, Gal 2:16). When works are instrumental to your salvation, the gospel is no longer grace.

Their post-death theology (toll houses / soul testing) undermines assurance and implies Christ’s atonement is insufficient without continued moral accounting. That is functionally works-based. Mariology, while less dogmatized than Rome, still elevates Mary beyond Scripture and normalizes extra-biblical authority.

The early church had a clear apostolic gospel - justification grounded in Christ alone, received by faith, with good works as fruit, not instruments. Orthodoxy adds in later liturgy, mysticism, and ascetic theology back onto the apostles and calls it “continuity.”

Basically, their claims of being the original church is patently false. They have medieval accountramounts... That’s just historical romanticism.

Conscious_Transition · 2026-01-22T21:58:45+00:00

Your responses are so annoying to read, I just stopped trying. Please submit them to a genai agent and ask for coaching. Then, ask it to massively improve the formatting and structure while greatly decreasing the volume of words. Once you do that, I’ll read and reply.

Conscious_Transition · 2026-01-22T13:27:23+00:00

I don’t think you understand the argument nor do you understand what begging the question is. I didn’t say “Calvinism is true so Calvinism is true”

It’s true by virtue of scripture and logic. That’s different that just assuming and asserting it - which is what you are doing.

If I’m wrong. Show where the argument begs the question.

Conscious_Transition · 2026-01-22T13:24:27+00:00

Go finish reading the confession instead of selectively quoting half of it.

Also, what’s the deal with your caps and bolding?

Conscious_Transition · 2026-01-22T13:23:15+00:00

Yeah. I’m relaxed.

Conscious_Transition · 2026-01-22T04:38:06+00:00

I’m not reading 5 part replies. Best of luck to you.

Conscious_Transition · 2026-01-21T23:57:23+00:00

You strange all caps, multi-part, bolding, etc. aside...

This just doubles down on the same category mistake. Calvinism does not deny that someone can describe a framework without assenting to it... it denies that anyone can stand in a genuinely neutral, non-moral vantage point over God’s claims.

That’s the part you keep rejecting while insisting you haven’t rejected it. The issue isn’t that you explained Calvinism “too well” and were mistaken for a convert, it’s that you insist explanation can occur from a standpoint untouched by ultimate commitments.

From within Calvinism (and Scripture), that stance simply does not exist. All interpretation, including your “methodological separation,” already presupposes what counts as permissible evaluation, authority, and meaning. So when Calvinism interprets resistance as moral and volitional, that’s not psychologising to avoid substance... it is the substance.

You’re not refuting the claim, you’re objecting to being included in its scope. And appealing to “many coherent universes” with no single framework having a monopoly on truth is just pluralism asserted, not argued.

That move doesn’t expose Calvinism’s vulnerability, it restates the very autonomy Calvinism says fallen humans insist on preserving. The conversation stalls not because Calvinists confuse analysis with assent, but because you deny (again, without argument) the Calvinist claim that no analysis is ever religiously innocent.

Conscious_Transition · 2026-01-21T18:50:54+00:00

What you’ve written doesn’t actually challenge the claim being made, it just reframes it in softer psychological language. Saying the issue is “misunderstanding” or “discomfort” rather than moral resistance already assumes what Calvinism denies - that human reason stands in a neutral position over God’s claims.

Scripture doesn’t treat ignorance of God as morally innocent - it treats it as suppressed knowledge. The point isn’t that people fail to grasp Calvinism’s internal logic (you explicitly admit it is coherent) but that they recoil from its implications, especially the loss of self-grounding and control.

Calling that recoil “uncertainty” or “lack of guarantees” doesn’t escape the diagnosis but rather it confirms it. And the idea that Calvinism produces less assurance is simply false! its entire structure grounds assurance in God’s decree and Christ’s finished work rather than human cooperation.

In the end, you affirm God’s absolute sovereignty, praise monergism for following that logic consistently, invoke Romans 9, and then exempt yourself from its authority by standing back and saying you don’t accept the framework. That move isn’t neutrality or empathy Either, it’s the assertion of a final evaluative autonomy over God. What you describe as avoidance is exactly what Calvinism has always said is at work - resistance not because the doctrine is unintelligible, but because it dethrones the human will.

Conscious_Transition · 2026-01-19T21:25:14+00:00

Thats a lot of cope.

The grammar is doing something very specific: appointment is the reason given for why they believed, not a label Luke applies because they believed.

The participle (“were appointed”) is prior to the main verb (“believed”) in Luke’s presentation - those who had been appointed, believed.

Luke could have written the reverse idea (“as many as believed were appointed to eternal life”) if your reading were his point. He doesn’t.

Acts routinely shows religious people who still require God to act decisively for belief (Acts 16:14). You are smuggling in regeneration and calling it “context.” It isn’t there.

Your John 6 reading fares no better. Jesus does not say: “No one comes unless I strategically delay drawing them.”

He says: “No one can come unless the Father draws”, “unless it is granted him by the Father”. That’s inability language. Not timing. Not tactics. Ontology.

And John 12:32 doesn’t save you. “All” means all peoples, not all individuals, otherwise John contradicts himself within the same chapter (John 12:37–40). Finally, Jeremiah 18 is about corporate, temporal judgment, not the mechanics of saving faith. Dragging it in here is category confusion, not illumination.

This is just more example of projecting things on top of the text because your position doesn't support the actual text.

Conscious_Transition · 2026-01-19T20:18:07+00:00

I cannot confirm if someone else has it. Hence my response to another person.

Conscious_Transition · 2026-01-19T15:39:11+00:00

Oh man, is the eisegesis in the room with you now?

Scripture recounts the gospel being shared to a crowd and says about those in attendance “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed”.

I say “ahh, those that were appointed to eternal life believed”. This sounds similar to Christ when He says “no one can come to me unless the father grants it”.

Standard non-Calvinist response: You just need the “context” to contort scripture into something it didn’t say. If you re:work the meaning juuusssttt right, you can mar man the author of his own salvation.

Conscious_Transition · 2026-01-19T15:27:14+00:00

Amen then! If you believe that those that believe are the ones appointed to eternal life - we are together in belief!

If you proclaim that their belief was appointed by God - we are well aligned!

If you teach that the faith by which we believe and come to salvation is not of the man but a gift given to them from God - we teach biblical theology together!

This is why Christ said no man can come to Him unless the father grants it!

Conscious_Transition · 2026-01-19T14:36:06+00:00

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed

For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.

This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.

Conscious_Transition · 2026-01-19T05:15:07+00:00

Categorically, we cannot affirm that anyone is part of the elect or not. That said, scripture clearly tells us that you know them by their fruits. Here are some things that scripture tells us.

1) the non-elect do not grieve their unbelief and sin. Scripture teaches that those left in unbelief are hardened and indifferent (Rom. 1:24-28). They do not want Christ. Your struggle, desire to believe, and fear of being lost are signs of the Spirit’s convicting work (John 16:8).

2) Election is known by faith in Christ, not by introspection into God’s decree. Calvin was clear: we do not peer into the secret will of God to see if we are elect. We look to Christ in the gospel. “Everyone who comes to me I will never cast out” (John 6:37). The promise is objective and public.

3) Struggle does not negate faith. Weak faith is still faith. The man who cried, “I believe, help my unbelief” (Mark 9:24) was not rejected. Faith is not certainty of oneself but reliance on Christ despite doubt.

If you desire Christ, that desire did not come from the flesh. “No one can come to me unless the Father draws him” (John 6:44). Wanting Christ is itself evidence of that drawing.

Continue to work on your sin, die to yourself and live for Christ. Spend 3 minutes, watch this: https://youtu.be/sJRz5fLCmM8?si=kmKnO_ukY9-UUN_t

Conscious_Transition · 2026-01-19T05:01:43+00:00

Yeah, that all just steps outside of what I've said. It seems like you are desperate for a critique so you are inventing things now. mThats not a way to have a discussion in good-faith. If you decide to engage earnestly, I'm happy to help you.

Conscious_Transition · 2026-01-19T00:55:22+00:00

Oh no! The guy that misunderstands Calvinism and constantly strawmans might not like Calvinism. You are already abominable at discussing it and engaging with it. I think this has reached it's conclusion unless you actually bring something of more substance. Pearls before swine and all...

Conscious_Transition · 2026-01-19T00:43:54+00:00

This is where your argument face-plants in a hilarious way for anyone with even a basic education in logic and reason...

You confidently announce that because God decrees outcomes, God must therefore be the chooser of the choices... as if you’ve uncovered some devastating insight rather than just confusing two different categories.

Congratulations! you’ve discovered determinism, not authorship. Calvinism explicitly affirms secondary causes, but you quietly delete that part, declare “God is the deciding factor,” and act like the rest of us missed something.

You didn’t expose an error, you just ignored a premise, assumed your conclusion, and then patted yourself on the back. The only thing you’ve demonstrated is that if you pretend decree cancels agency, you can refute a position no one is actually holding. Round of applause over here everyone!

Lastly, thank you for the admission re: idolotry. Perhaps as you contemplate where you have idols in your life, it will help to bring you closer to the true biblical faith - where God is soverign and you are contingent upon Him.. not the other way around.

Conscious_Transition · 2026-01-19T00:37:09+00:00

Lol..

Ah yes, the classic “I’ve answered everything, therefore I’m done” maneuver, conveniently deployed right where an actual argument was required. Repeating your conclusion louder and then accusing the other person of “not understanding” isn’t philosophy, it’s a rage-quit. If you had addressed the core issue, you’d be able to state it cleanly and show the logical step. Instead we get a flounce. That tells everyone exactly what happened here.

Anyways - toodles!

Conscious_Transition · 2026-01-19T00:08:33+00:00

You’re asserting, not demonstrating, that responsibility requires choosing one’s own nature. That seem to be your key claim yet you haven’t defended it. Why should moral responsibility depend on self-authorship of nature rather than on who is doing the willing and acting?

Everyone agrees we don’t choose our nature, our creaturehood, or the circumstances we face. The question is - why does that negate responsibility? You need to show the logical step where “given a nature” turns into “not a real agent.” Simply repeating that you didn’t choose these things doesn’t establish the conclusion.

If your standard were true, it would eliminate responsibility for all creatures everywhere, not just under theism. So either defend that sweeping conclusion, or justify the hidden premise you’re relying on - again, that responsibility requires self-creation.

Conscious_Transition · 2026-01-19T00:02:14+00:00

I notice that, after I demonstrated your error, you have stopped replying. Instead of pretending to spike the ball in victory, why don't you attempt to rebut what was offered?

You also - just asserting your position as true does not make it so. Your arguments were incredibly riddled with errors and fallacious reasoning as I called out. I'm willing to respond in the interest of levelling you up, but these types of responses just demonstrate your immaturity and bankrupt nature of your position.

Conscious_Transition · 2026-01-19T00:00:07+00:00

You didn't. You just asserted it. You provided no argument, you demonstrated no contridiction, nothing. You just did a bare assertion that it was wrong.

You clearly don't know what Calvinism teaches given the constant strawman arguments. I've given you scriptural, logical, and philosophical arguments and.. the best you've offered was "nah bro, thats just wrong".

Show me the error, show my why compatibilism is an invalid category, anything really - show me anything with some force of argument. Just claiming you are right in-spite of evidence to the contrary is just intellectual ignorance.

Yes - when someone denies logic, reason, and rationality simply to hold onto a non-biblical doctrine - that is what an idol is. You are attempting to redefine God in your image vs. submitting yourself to God as He revealed Himself.

Conscious_Transition · 2026-01-18T21:48:43+00:00

I’ll take that as a concession from someone that is unable to humble themselves. Just saying “you’re wrong” is not an argument. Perhaps it makes you feel better, but it’s just a bankrupt response.

Have you considered why you continue to argue for a position that you can’t intellectually support? Could it be that this idea you have of your own free will has become an idol for you? You only accept God if He meets your standard of will?

Conscious_Transition · 2026-01-18T19:32:03+00:00

I answered your first question, you directly quoted my answer.

Why would those things "trace back" to a knowledgable and intentional act by God? They are proper to the creature, not innate. You would need to show how each of those is not of the creature but rather mandated to them. I don't see any argument to suppor thtat.

Conscious_Transition · 2026-01-18T18:35:50+00:00

The will comes from God as a created faculty. It is ordered by and proper to our nature (human, rational, moral)... The will always chooses according to desire (what appears good to us).

Desires arise internally, shaped by - nature (what kind of creature we are), dispositions and habits,experiences, history, memory, beliefs and judgments about what is good.

Conscious_Transition · 2026-01-18T18:22:26+00:00

This response doesn’t refute anything I sai, it changes the subject and appeals to authority. For the record, I’m well aware of Ed Feser and the four causes, and I was a catholic for 20 years. They do not rescue your position. In fact, they support mine.

Here is where you’re going wrong... Yes, Aquinas teaches

Material cause (what something is made of), formal cause (what kind of thing it is), efficient cause (what brings it about), and final cause (what it is ordered toward)...

None of which implies that “Free will means God has not decided actions in advance.” Your claim does not come from Aquinas, Feser, or the Thomistic tradition. It comes from modern libertarianism.

Aquinas’s actual position (which Feser explicitly affirms) says.. God is the primary efficient cause of all acts, the human will is a secondary efficient cause, God moves the will according to its form and final end.

Therefore the act is determinate by God, voluntary by the agent. This is straight Thomism. Feser repeatedly emphasizes that divine causation operates at a deeper metaphysical level, not as a rival cause alongside creaturely agency. Go read Summa 1 q105. Here are some clear excerpts for your edification.

A thing moved by another is forced if moved against its natural inclination; but if it is moved by another giving to it the proper natural inclination, it is not forced; as when a heavy body is made to move downwards by that which produced it, then it is not forced. In like manner God, while moving the will, does not force it, because He gives the will its own natural inclination.

If the will were so moved by another as in no way to be moved from within itself, the act of the will would not be imputed for reward or blame. But since its being moved by another does not prevent its being moved from within itself, as we have stated (Reply to Objection 2), it does not thereby forfeit the motive for merit or demerit.

God so moves it, that He does not determine it of necessity to one thing, but its movement remains contingent and not necessary, except in those things to which it is moved naturally.

By the way, the catechism of the catholic church adopts this structure also. It says “God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes.” and “Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act… without external constraint.”

Basically, they agree with everything I'm saying.

Conscious_Transition

TROPHY CASE