Comparison of the Catholic notion of Christ’s sacrifice and its effects, with Calvinism’s penal substitution and its effects.

The following is a Comparison of the Catholic notion of Christ’s sacrifice and its effects, with Calvinism’s penal substitution and its effects.

Catholic- Christ was God
Reformed - Christ was God

Catholic- Christ was sent to save sinners
Reformed - Christ was sent to save sinners

Catholic- Christ instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice in the upper room as a fulfillment of the todah sacrifice, Passover remembrance sacrifice and the unbloody mosaic sacrifices. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0124.html
Reformed - An unbloody sacrifice is not instituted and no fulfillment of the Mosaic unbloody sacrifices is made, nor the todah sacrifices

Catholic- Christ is offered at the time of the Jewish Passover to institute a new Passover sacrifice whereby men are to eat his flesh as the new lamb.
Reformed - Christ’s offering at the time of the Jewish Passover and no new Passover sacrifice is instituted whereby men are to eat his flesh as the new lamb.

Catholic- Christ is without sin.
Reformed - Christ is without sin.

Catholic- Christ does not have the sins of men imputed to him by the Father
Reformed - Christ does have the sins of men imputed to him by the Father

Catholic- Christ does not suffer under the wrath of the Father who does not make Christ suffer in the place of men.
Reformed - Christ suffers under the wrath of the Father who makes Christ suffer in the place of men.

Catholic- Christ suffers under the Romans and Jews for the accusation of blasphemy
Reformed - Christ suffers under the Romans and Jews for the accusation of blasphemy

Catholic- Christ dies and enters into the realm of the dead to preach to the dead
Reformed - Christ enters into hell to suffer the punishment of the damned

Catholic- Christ rises from the dead
Reformed - Christ rises from the dead

Catholic- Christ ascends into heaven to sit at the right hand of the father to act as priest, prophet and king.
Reformed - Christ ascends into heaven to sit at the right hand of the father to be glorified due to his completed work.

Catholic- Christ stands as a lamb slain to have his once for all sacrifice constantly presented to the Father. This action is a representation of the cross made present.
Reformed - Not necessary and not explained

Catholic- Christ rises from the dead and merits for himself a priesthood due to his new immortal life. He uses this priesthood in the order of Melchizedeck to continually offer the unbloody todah sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary as an act of propitiation to take away men’s sins
Reformed - Christ rises from the dead and is a High priest, but there is no need to him to be offering a sacrifice.

Catholic- Christ continually presents his once for all sacrifice to appease the Father.
Reformed - The Father sees Christ’s act as a substitute for all men as a one time act.

Catholic- Christ has his divine life infused into men and then the Father declares them to be righteous because they are his adopted children
Reformed - Christ has his righteousness imputed to the sinner and the Father declares the sinner to be righteous, whilst remaining a sinner.

Catholic- Grace is a participation in the divine life infused into the soul, the intellect and will, whereby men freely make acts of faith, hope and love
Reformed - Grace is a favor, which is vaguely defined.

Catholic- Grace is formally a supernatural thing acting inside a man to make the man act supernaturally towards a supernatural good.
Reformed - Grace is not formally supernatural and man is not elevated to the supernatural life

Catholic- Faith is a theological virtue
Reformed - Faith is vaguely defined as a gift and instrumental cause of justification

Catholic- Men can easily keep the commandments with grace
Reformed - Men cannot keep the commandments with grace

Catholic- Once raised into the supernatural family of God Men are to work out their salvation with the grace given and can lose salvation through mortal sin.
Reformed - Once justified by a favor, men cannot lose salvation, because the imputation is a divine work, which men cannot stop by sin.

Catholic- Justification is a familial act within a covenant, new Israel, new Exodus, new Davidic Kingdom, new law of Christ, new priesthood and new tabernacle, new ark of the covenant and new temple.
Reformed – Justification is a legal imputation within a court room setting.

Catholic- Sanctification is another word for justifying grace making the man intrinsically holy before God.
Reformed – Sanctification is not separate, but a distinct act after justification, whereby the justified man attempts to keep the commandments and gain more rewards in heaven.

The Catholic Alternative to the Reformed Doctrines of the Atonement and Justification.

The following post presents the Catholic Alternative to the Reformed Doctrines of the Atonement and Justification.

The Old Testament has several important covenants as follows –

Adam – covenant of marriage.
Noah – covenant within a family
Abraham – covenant within a tribe and promised nation.
Moses - covenant within a nation
David - covenant within a kingdom

The new covenant for all men as a truly catholic covenant which is made when Christ institutes seven oaths whereby Gods name is evoked to have him act within his people to place them into the household of God and infuse grace into souls to have them become children of God. These seven oaths are sacraments.

The OT contains at least three major events critical to the life of the church. These events are fulfilled in the life of Christ.

The creation event is a liturgically chronological action of God to build a temple for Himself. The creation narrative of day and night and speaking, making the sun and moon to measure feast says is architectonic language, similar to the language used when Noah is instructed to build the ark, Moses is instructed to build the tabernacle and Solomon is instructed to build the temple.

OT- Adam is the high priest, Eve is the church existing in the garden as the holy of holies.
Adam is commanded to keep the garden and therefore offer himself as a sacrifice for his bride. Adam and Eve fail a covenant test, are cursed and sent into exile.

Christ is the new Adam, Mary is the earth and Eve from which Adam comes. Christ is offered as a sacrifice for sin, and his church eats from him as the tree of life.

The second major event in the OT church is the Exodus. The OT exodus event is fulfilled in the NT –

OT- Moses lives in Egypt and then exits into the wilderness as a man to be tried.
NT- Jesus lives in Egypt and then exits into the wilderness as a man to be tried.

OT- Moses is instructed to liberate his people with a staff and his brother Aron, who speaks for him.
NT- Jesus liberates his people as a shepherd, with Peter speaking for him in acts and the gospels.

OT- Moses performs miracles to have Israel believe in him and Pharaoh harden his heart.
NT- Jesus performs miracles to have Israel believe in him and the Pharisees harden his heart.

OT- Moses commands Israel kill and eat the Passover lamb to have the angel of death Passover Israel.
NT- Jesus is the new Passover lamb killed and according to Paul is to be eaten as a feast, to have the new Israel exit the Mosaic covenant.

OT- Israel enters into the desert and has a covenant composed of a high priest, priest, Levites and the priesthood of all believers.
NT-The church is a pilgrim people entering into the new desert with Jesus as the new high priest with the bishops as high priests, new NT priests to replace the OT priest, deacons to replace the Levites and new Israel of believers to replace the old Israel believers.

OT- Israel enters into the desert and receives the miraculous manna and water from the rock
NT-New Israel enters into the desert and receives the new miraculous manna in the Eucharist and water from the rock in baptism.

OT- Israel wanders in the desert for a generation before entering the promised land.
NT-The church is a new Israel in the desert before entering into the promised land of heaven.

The third major event in the OT church is when David has a promise made to him in 2 Sam 7. David’s kingdom continues after his death through the power of the keys granted to the chief minister of the kingdom.
Jesus is the new David, who institutes a new kingdom and new keys are given to Peter for him to be the new chief prime minister.

Salvation comes through Christ being sacrificed as a new Adam, new Passover lamb and first born son. Christ institutes the church as a new Israel of God, with bishops, priests, deacons and the lay priesthood of believers. The church is given seven sacraments through which the Gospel, as the power of God, is enacted.

The sacrament is given and grace is infused into the souls of men, for men to become children of God and thereby justified.

Arguments that Invalidate Calvinism.

The following arguments invalidate one of John Calvin's central doctrines of penal substitution.

1 – If Christ is our substitute and we are imputed a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, this means Jesus has deceived the father and therefore the Father and Jesus are not God because God cannot be deceived, or sin.

2 – If Christ is our substitute and we are imputed a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, this means the Father sent the son to do a sinful act to deceive the father into believing we are righteous even though we are not.

3 – If Christ is our substitute and we are imputed a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, this means there is no need for faith, because a substitute is a substitute for all our sins. Yet the scriptures say we need faith to be justified.

4 – If Christ is our substitute and we are imputed a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, this means nobody can go to hell, because Jesus has already taken the punishment for sin as a substitute.

5 – If Christ is our substitute and we are imputed a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, this means the scriptures are wrong because nowhere does the scriptures say Jesus was a substitute for our sins.

6 – If Christ is our substitute and we are imputed a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, this means the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, after the Son has deceived the Father into thinking we are righteous, even though we are sinners. Therefore the Holy Spirit has been sent on a mission by a deceiver and the deceived, to guide the church into the truth of forensic imputation of righteousness, which is itself a deception. Evidently the Holy Spirit is also a deceiver and has been deceived.

7 – If Christ is our substitute and we are imputed a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, this means there is no precedent in the OT for a substitute atoning for a sinner and the sinner having the substitutes righteousness imputed to the sinner, therefore if penal substitution is correct, it is not base upon the OT, so Jesus cannot be the Messiah, because he didn’t fulfill the OT.

8 – If Christ is our substitute and we are imputed a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, this means there is no need for repentance because the substitute has been made and the Father sees all men as righteous.

9 – According to Calvinism, the substitute only has limited value because it’s not applied to all men, even though it’s a perfect substitute. Somehow the father is deceived into thinking the substitute is only satisfactory for some men and not others, even though the Son was a perfect substitute. So the Father has been deceived in sending the Son as a substitute because the substitute didn’t work for some men even though Jesus was the perfect substitute. What’s a God got to do to be a substitute and perfect savior when not even an imputed exchange that is external to the sinner cannot cover all men’s sins?

10 – The scriptures have deceived us into thinking we need to do something to be justified and pleasing to God, even though according to Calvinism, man is depraved and cannot do a good act in the eyes of God. Therefore we are told on one had to have faith and this is enough to be justified by a legal process, yet we are also told men cannot do an act pleasing to God, so God justifies man, even though He is not pleased with men’s acts. What’s a man to do to be justified after all? Does he have to do an act pleasing to God and if so, is this is a meritorious act? (Yep!) If not, then why does man have to do any act at all to receive justification, when the perfect sacrificial substitute has already been made?

11 – If God sends anyone to hell then He is being unjust, because Jesus has already taken the punishment for sin.

12 – There is nothing intrinsic to the substitute of Jesus sacrificial act that makes the value limited to only some men, simply because according to Calvinism no man can do any act that pleases God. As no man can do an act that pleases God, then all men must be saved, yet according to scripture, not all men will be saved.

13 – Nowhere do the scriptures teach that the non legal act of faith in an act of another man in the OT or of the God man Jesus Christ in the NT causes a legal imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinners account.

14 - If the non legal act of faith can have Christ’s righteousness imputed to the sinners account then there must be something legal about the act of faith. Therefore according to the substitute theory, a non legal act that does not have legal righteousness, has a legal righteousness through imputation. But this infers a contradiction regarding the value of a non legal act that is then said to have a legal value.

15 - The nature of God is truth itself and when God says something about a thing, it comes into being what God says it to be. When God declares a man to be righteous, his declaration makes the man intrinsically righteous by His grace. However the substitute theory of imputed righteousness says man does not become righteous, but remains a sinner, even though God declares the man righteous. Therefore the theory of penal substitution and imputed righteousness by faith alone is unscriptural according to Gods infinite power to bring about what he truthfully declares to be real.

16 – If Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the sinners account, then the sinner is not righteous, but only his account is righteous, therefore only the account gets to heaven and never the sinner.

17 - The scriptures teach that those in heaven are without sin, but this is not the same as a sinner having a righteousness imputed to his account, therefore the penal substitution theory is not scriptural.

18 – The scriptures teach God is a supernatural being with an intimate life of the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As God is supernatural the just in heaven can only see God by having there minds supernaturalised by the light of glory as an effect of grace. As the human mind must be supernaturally elevated, and divinized to see God face to face in heaven, then justification cannot be an imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner, but an infusion of the divine life of the supernatural God into the soul of the just man. Therefore penal substitution and faith alone theology is a false doctrine of man.

19- Saints in heave are justified, yet there is no faith in heaven. Therefore the saints in heave are not justified by faith alone. Therefore penal substitution and faith alone theology is a false doctrine of man.

20 – St Paul tells us that love is the greatest virtue. If we are justified by faith, then we are also justified by love, for love is greater than faith. Therefore penal substitution and faith alone theology is a false doctrine of man.

21 – Hebrews 5:9 says Christ is a source of eternal life for all who obey him. As obedience is to follow a law, which is the law of Christ, then obedience is distinct and no the same as faith. Therefore those who are justified are justified by obedience and not by faith alone. Therefore penal substitution and faith alone theology is a false doctrine of man.

22 – James 2 says man is justified by works and not by faith alone. However the penal substitution theory of imputed righteousness by faith alone says man is not justified by works. Therefore the penal substitution theory is not scriptural.

23 – Christ is the perfect substitute for our sins, so logically all man can continue in their sins without repentance. But the scriptures say man must repent, therefore Christ was not the perfect substitute.

24 – Imputed righteousness means Christ’s righteousness is credited to the sinners account. In this way the Father sees the sinner as righteous even though he is a sinner. If this is so, then there is no need to repent, because the Father always sees the sinner as righteous. Yet the scriptures teach men must repent, believe and keep the commandments and as Jesus says the woman caught committing adultery, go and sin no more. Evidently the logical conclusions of penal substitution and imputed righteousness contradict the scriptures.

25 - Imputed righteousness means Christ’s righteousness is credited to the sinners account. In this way the Father sees the sinner as righteous even though he is a sinner. Therefore according to this theory the Father either has a limited power so he cannot really make a sinner righteous, which is not scriptural, or he has chosen not to make the sinner really righteous, even though he could by his power. If the later, then the Father has chosen an imperfect means by which men are justified, when he could have chosen a perfect means. As an imperfect means is not compatible with the perfection of God, the theory of imputed righteousness is against the perfection of God and is therefore unbiblical.

26 - Imputed righteousness means Christ’s righteousness is credited to the sinners account. In this way the Father sees the sinner as righteous even though he is a sinner. According to this theory there is no way the sinner can suffer the loss of his salvation, because salvation is only a work of God by his grace of Imputed righteousness, which is external to the sinner. As the imputed righteousness, is external to the sinner (probably in the heavenly court), then the sinner cannot change Gods decree in the sinners account. But scripture says men can and do lose their salvation (see Galatians warning of a false gospel and Hebrew warnings of falling away), therefore men can change their imputed righteousness status by their sins. However according to the imputed righteousness theory, the imputed righteousness was originally given precisely because men are sinners and Christ is there substitute. So sinners are justified by an imputed righteousness, whilst remaining sinners, yet scripture says men are not righteous if they remain or return to their sins. Therefore the theory of Imputed righteousness is both unbiblical and illogical.

27 – Scriptures refers to justification as a process by numerous references to a man having been saved, is being saved and will be saved. These verses indicate a past action that continues and will continue into the future based upon human actions through gods grace. However, the theory of penal substitution and imputed righteousness requires a once for all time event that occurred in the past for the sinner, who was saved and can never lose his salvation in the future. Therefore the theory of imputed righteousness is unscriptural.

28 – The greatest commandment is to love God above all things and your neighbor as yourself. However according to the imputed righteousness theory, love of God and neighbor does not cause one to have Christ’s righteousness imputed to the sinner, because the action of imputing Christ’s righteousness is completed by faith alone. Therefore the greatest commandment has nothing to do with justification, which means God commands men to do acts, when he knows those commandments have nothing to do with making men right with God. Therefore, according to the imputation theory, God commands men to do futile acts. However, according to the scriptures, God cannot command men to do futile acts, because God is perfect, and to command a futile act is to be imperfect. Therefore the theory of Imputed righteousness is both unbiblical and against the nature of God.

29 – According to Acts 2 that says “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift”, forgiveness of sins is obtained by repentance and baptism and not by faith alone. As the scripture require repentance and baptism for forgiveness and forgiveness is required to be justified, then a man cannot be justified by faith alone. Therefore the theory of Imputed righteousness is unbiblical.

30 – Jesus was killed as a sacrifice to appease the wrath of the Father (Eph 2:5). But a sacrifice is not a substitute, for a substitute is to stand in the place of another, whereas a sacrifice is to destroy something of value to obtain favor from the person to whom the act is offered. As scripture says Jesus’ offering on the cross was a sacrifice and it never states Jesus was a substitute, the theory of penal substitution and imputed righteousness is unbiblical.

31 – According to Calvin, the theory of Imputed righteousness required that Jesus entered into Hell during his time in the tomb and only then did he satisfy divine justice. Yet scripture never states Jesus entered into hell to satisfy divine justice as a substitute for sinners. Therefore the theory of Imputed righteousness is unbiblical.

32 - According to Calvin, the theory of Imputed righteousness required that Jesus entered into Hell during his time in the tomb and only then did he satisfy divine justice. This means that nobody can go to hell because Jesus has already done it for us and for another man to enter into hell would be an act of injustice. As we are told by St Paul that men do go to hell, then the theory of penal substitution and imputed righteousness is unbiblical.

33 – According to Calvin, the theory of Imputed righteousness required that Jesus entered into Hell during his time in the tomb and only then did he satisfy divine justice for the elect. However there is nothing intrinsically different from the elect and non elect as regards the act of Jesus entering into hell, because the act of Jesus and the acceptance of the act by the Father is extrinsic to the sinner. As this act by Jesus and the Father is perfect, then it must be good enough to justify all men. Yet the acts of the Father and Jesus are said by Calvinists to be only for the elect and not all men, so Jesus’ substitutary action is imperfect and the Fathers acceptance of Jesus act is also imperfect. Therefore the work of Jesus is imperfect as a savior. But Jesus work as a savior must be perfect, because He is God. Therefore the theory of penal substitution and imputed righteousness is both unbiblical and against the nature of God.

34- According to scripture keeping the commandments is easy (1 John 5:3) and we are not to sin (Matthew 18:8, Mark 10:19) to enter into eternal life –

1 John 5:3 - This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome

Matthew 18:8

If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

Mark 10:17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.”

But Calvinism says all man need do to enter into eternal life is to believe and Christ’s righteousness imputed to his account. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with scripture.

35- God never asks man to do something he cannot do without Gods help. But God commands that men keep the commandments to enter into eternal life. Yet Calvinism teaches man cannot keep the commandments to enter into eternal life, therefore according to Calvinism, God is unjust and doesn’t give enough help for men to keep the commandments. But according to scripture keeping the commandments is easy (1 John 5:3), therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with scripture.

36- Calvinism says men are sinners until they enter into eternal life in heaven. And according to Calvinism and scripture, heaven has no sin, but according to Calvinism there must be something done to the sinner between death and heaven to be transformed from a sinner into a saint who keeps the commandments perfectly. But Calvinism denies and intermediate state between this life and heaven. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with itself and scripture.

37- Calvinism teaches the merit of Christ’s atonement is imputed to the sinner when the sinner has faith. Therefore according to Calvinism, Christ’s atonement only has a value whereby Gods righteousness is imputed. But to impute is to merely state or declare something to be, without the righteousness actually existing in the justified sinner. Therefore, as the imputation of Christ’s righteousness has the same value as Christ’s intrinsic righteousness, as he is God, then Jesus must only be declared to be righteous by the Father, because the equivalent value is the same for both Christ and the justified sinner. Therefore Christ is not intrinsically righteous, therefore he did not keep the commandments and therefore he was not God.

38- Calvinism teaches the merit of Christ’s atonement is imputed to the sinner when the sinner has faith. Therefore according to Calvinism, Christ’s atonement only has a value whereby Gods righteousness is imputed. But to impute is to merely state or declare something to be, without the righteousness actually existing in the justified sinner. Therefore, as the imputation of Christ’s righteousness has the same value as Christ’s intrinsic righteousness, as he is God, then the sinner cannot only be declared to be God, but is God, just as Jesus is God. But sinners are not God, but are creatures. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with itself concerning the nature of justification and Christ’s righteousness.

39- The righteousness of God is the divine essence itself, for the divine nature is the eternal law and therefore the divine nature always acts perfectly in accordance with the law, as it is the eternal law. But Calvinism teaches the merit of Christ’s atonement is imputed to the sinner when the sinner has faith. Therefore according to Calvinism, Christ’s atonement only has a value whereby Gods righteousness is imputed. But to impute Gods righteousness to another, is against the nature of God, for God does not impute His own righteousness to himself, but is righteousness itself as the eternal law. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with the nature of righteousness of God and its application to a sinner as an imputed righteousness.

40- The righteousness of God is the nature of God as He is supernatural. The saints see Gods righteousness and participate in His righteousness in heaven. Therefore the saints in heaven must participate in the nature of God as He is supernatural for them to see him face to face as children of God. As this vision of God is the final stage of justification, as glorification, then justification must of itself be an infusion of Gods righteousness into the soul of the saint on earth for the saint to see God in heaven. But Calvinism teaches justification is not the infusion of the divine life into the soul of the saint, but only an imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with the scriptural truth of saints in heaven seeing God face to face as a supernatural vision of the Trinity.

41- Calvinism teaches faith is an instrument of mans justification whereby the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinners account. However faith is a git of God as an effect of the atonement along with other virtues such as hope, love, patient, humility, chastity and so on. Therefore there is nothing unique about the origin of faith as a gift from God. But Calvinism teaches faith is unique as it alone is required to be justified with God. However as there are many other virtues that are given by God, there is no intrinsic reason why the other virtues cannot please god and justify the sinner. Therefore Calvinism is arbitrary in its appointing faith alone as an instrument for mans justification and is therefore invalidated.

42- Calvinism does not define grace as a thing, but only a favour. Yet Calvinism teaches it is by grace that the will of the sinner is brought from loving a creature to loving the Father above all things. But for grace to act in the will, grace must be more than mere favour, but a physical reality acting inside the powers of the human soul to transform the sinner into a saint. Therefore Calvinism is invalidate according to its internal inconsistency by referring to grace as a mere favour and then as more than a mere favour, as a thing acting in the will.

43- Calvinism makes an arbitrary distinction between justification and sanctification. Justification is the imputation Christ’s righteousness to his account and sanctification is the life lived after justification to merit a greater reward in heaven. Yet the life lived after justification is not the life of a man who can keep the commandments, so sanctification is a mere fiction, following upon an imputed justification. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent in its understanding of the value of moral acts after justification.

44- Calvinism makes an arbitrary distinction between justification and sanctification not found in scripture, therefore Calvinism is unscriptural.

45- Calvinism ignores the testimony of the church fathers, who did not teach a man is justified by faith alone, but by faith and works. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with the voice of the Holy Spirit teaching within the church and is therefore inconsistent with church tradition.

46 – Calvinism bases its doctrine on the premise that scripture is the Word of God. However the texts said to be written by God, never define the meaning of the term inspiration, other than in 2 Timothy 3:16 - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. . .

But as “God breathed” is only a metaphor, then all Calvin’s doctrines are based upon a text having the quality of a metaphor. But a metaphor does not inform us directly of the nature of the thing being spoken about. Therefore Calvin’s doctrines are based upon a text, which we don’t know the intrinsic value of regarding Gods authorship, and as we don’t know, then we don’t know if Calvin’s doctrines are from God or not. Therefore as Calvinism is based upon a negative premise (we don’t know the value of the text), and as nothing positive comes from a negative, then any positive conclusion in Calvinism is illogical, which invalidates Calvinism.

47- Calvinism says there is nothing a man can do to be justified. "In thy sight shall no flesh be justified."

But Calvinism also teaches faith is required to be justified.

But faith is an act done by man.

Therefore there is an act man can do to be justified, contrary to Calvinism.

Therefore Calvinism teaches man cannot do an act to be justified, but must do an act to be justified.

Therefore Calvinism is self contradictory and accordingly invalidated.

48- Scripture says God calls the elect by His grace to enter into eternal life. But Calvinism says the elect are so because Gods grace is irresistible and once received, cannot be lost. Yet scripture says the elect can and do resist grace and turn to another gospel in Gal 1:6 "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel".

Notice the reference to calling, the explicit reference to the grace of Christ and the turning to a different Gospel in Gal 1:6, meaning a loss of grace for those who were called. Therefore according to the scriptures, the grace of God for the elect is not irresistible, which contradicts what is taught by Calvinism. Therefore Calvinism is a false doctrine not based upon scripture.

A summary Resource for Geocentrism

A unique planetary orbital flower pattern around the stationary earth – http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Flower%20Pattern.htm

The problem of the Venus dichotomy has been resolved within a geocentric model and has not been resolved within a heliocentric model – http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Schroter.htm

The problem of the weather patterns on earth are clearly in favor of a stationary earth – http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Restoring%20forces.htm

The problem of negative parallax is in favor of a stellartum that moves around a stationary earth – http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Negative%20parallax.htm

Cosmic phenomena is in favor of geocentrism, such as – 

1. Quantized galaxy light periodicity showing the galaxies are located in concentric shells around the earth

2. Gamma ray burst focused on the earth

3. Quasars located in spherical shells around the earth

4. BLac and X-Ray bursts having earth centered periodicity

5. Specroscopic Binaries and Globular clusters – axis of binary stars are pointed towards the earth (Barr effect). Globular clusters are also focused on the earth.

6. Quantized planetary orbits – a law of planetary distances matches the preferred redshift of quasars with a ratio of 1:1.23.

7. Sloan digital survey showing the cosmic bodies are organized around the earth in broad shells

8 . Michelson Morley experiment showing a small fringe shift as an ether drift

9. Michelson Gale experiment showing a small fringe shift as an ether drift

10. Sagnac effect showing light moves at c+-v relative to the ether and absolute earth.

11. Many other experimental outcomes as discussed in GWW

There have even been symposiums such as the Copernicus Symposium II in 1973, in which a paper was submitted, entitled – Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data, in which evidence was presented for a non Copernican universe.

I also note that the apparently elegant heliocentric model is based upon a problematic Newtonian mechanics as shown here – http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/116413-johnmartin2009-s-discussion-of-modern-physics?p=1904170#post1904170

I have also invalidated relativity theory here –
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/116413-johnmartin2009-s-discussion-of-modern-physics?p=1907731#post1907731

The posts (including the 58 invalidations) were made in a physics forum where most were avowed relativists and nobody bothered to provide any compelling answers to any of the arguments made after about 1500 viewings of the arguments.

An invalidation of Special Relativity and the Hafele Keating Experiment

Special Relativity theory doesn’t permit the existence of any physical clock because Einstein knew physical clocks act differently in motion/acceleration and therefore any physical experiment is dependent upon the interaction of motion/acceleration on the physical clock and not merely his thought equations. For example, the Hafele Keating experiment used atomic clocks to test time dilation, yet if they were consistent with relativity theory, they could have used –

A thought clock, which is nothing more than a rate in the mind
Any clock that has the same properties as a thought clock
Any clock other than an atomic clock
An atomic clock
Any clock with any tick rate at all, just as long as it corresponds to some other local clock rate.
The clock on the plane could have been an atomic clock and the clock on the earth could have been any other clock at all.

In fact SR is such a badly formed theory that we are not to know if the clock rate is changing, or only apparently changing, or what clock is changing, or if any change really occurs at all and time dilation is merely a maths fudge to transform from one reference to another and thereby save light at c in all frames. Also there is no relationship given in SR between the clock rate of the moving clock and the clock rate of the stationary clock, for the formula of simultaneity has nothing to do with clock rates at all, but only motion between two clocks and the speed of light at c between clocks A and B.

In fact the Hafele Keating experiment was flawed right from the beginning because any clock rate on the earth and plane is not known to change within the experiment at all, simply because any change in times between the two clocks could be accounted for in the following ways –

1. Plane clock sped up and the earth clock sped up at a different rate
2. Plane clock sped up and the earth clock stayed the same rate
3. Plane clock sped up and the earth clock slowed down
4. Plane clock stayed the same rate and the earth clock sped up
5. Plane clock stayed the same rate and the earth clock stayed the same rate
6. Plane clock stayed the same rate and the earth clock slowed down
7. Plane clock slowed down and the earth clock sped up
8. Plane clock slowed down and the earth clock stayed the same rate
9. Plane clock slowed down and the earth clock slowed down at a different rate
10. Plane clock was random over the time of the flight and sped up and slowed down, and the earth clock sped up
11. Plane clock was random over the time of the flight and sped up and slowed down, and the earth clock remained the same
12. Plane clock was random over the time of the flight and sped up and slowed down, and the earth clock slowed down
13. Plane clock was random over the time of the flight and sped up and slowed down, and the earth clock sped up
14. Plane clock was random over the time of the flight and sped up and slowed down, and the earth clock was random over the time of the flight and sped up and slowed down
15. Plane clock was under forces as yet not understood and not included in relativity theory and the earth clock was under forces as yet not understood and not included in relativity theory
16. Plane clock was under forces as yet not understood and not included in relativity theory and the earth clock was not under forces as yet not understood and not included in relativity theory
17. Plane clock was under forces as yet not understood and not included in relativity theory and the earth clock was only under forces included in relativity theory

In fact its well known that pendulum do undulate with a period due to a cosmic force acting all over the earth. As this force is not accounted for in modern physics (other than the geocentric ether model), then the search for experimental evidence of time dilation was definitely flawed from the beginning because we don't know what effect this force has on atomic clocks.

See the following links for evidence and discussions on the periodic effect of a cosmic cause on pendulums.

http://www.allais.info/panarep/panawork.htm
http://www.allais.info/panarep/colowork.htm
http://www.allais.info/panarep/ozwork.htm


JM

In response to comments made on Dave Armstrongs blog - "Wednesday, June 15, 2011 On Credibility, Conspiracies, and Caution (Guest Post by David Palm Re: Robert Sungenis) "

 Dave has copied David Palms article, "On Credibility, Conspiracies, and Caution (Guest Post by David Palm Re: Robert Sungenis)" and he has now blocked off any further comments in the combox , so I have decided to propose questions to HG, here against the anti geocentric position.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WG - The Holy Father has no divinely protected authority when speaking on a matter of natural science, as it is considered in itself. He may speak infallibly with regard to the ethical use of the physical sciences, but the sciences themselves are outside his sphere of competency.

JM - This is simply not true and shows the gapping hole in your approach. Pope Leo XIII has taught that the unanimous consent of the fathers is binding on the faithful. The fathers have taught the sun and moon move and the earth is stationary. As such the stationary earth is a matter of faith and this was reiterated by the Popes in response to Galileo and is stated no less than four times that the stars move and the earth is stationary.

Now how do we handle the problem of Leo’s statements about science and the doctrine of geocentrism. Well, as good Catholics we harmonize the statements of all the Popes and we do not perform some poor eisegesis of one or two statements of Popes in isolation.

When Leo XIII made statements about the non binding nature of the church fathers opinions of the science of the day, he did so in the context of having bound the faithful to the unanimous consent of the fathers. As such, any science opinion of the fathers that the faithful are permitted to reject cannot be unanimous consent of the fathers, otherwise Leo has made a very big contradiction right in the same document – Providentisimus Deus.

Further, if we take WG’s comment to its logical conclusion, we can ask the following questions.

Q1- Why do anti geocentrists only selectively quote from Papal statements and ignore the statements concerning the unanimous consent of the fathers as binding on the faithful?

Q2- Why do anti geocentrists believe the removal of books from the index mean the church now teaches the doctrine of geocentrism is no longer part of the faith when the catechism of the council of Trent and other Papal statements against the moving earth have not been overturned?

Q3- Why do anti geocentrists not see that modern science is largely pantheistic and therefore hostile to the faith, whereas geocentrism is thoroughly supernaturalist and therefore, fully compatible with the faith?

Q4- Why do anti geocentrists not see that when geocentrists note that geocentrism is fully compatible with the faith and anti geocentrists fight against the model, then they actually undermine the faith and promote pantheism?

Q5- Why do anti geocentrists not see that geocentrism supports a literal understanding of the creation event in Genesis and as such, why do they attack such a key doctrine of the faith.

Q6- Why do anti geocentrists not see that by attacking geocentrism, they are also attacking the church that taught for 1900 years, that geocentrism was revealed by God?

Q7- Why do anti geocentrists systematically avoid discussing the problems with relativity, Newtonian mechanics and modern cosmological models, yet expect geocentrists to take them seriously on their criticisms of the geocentric model?

Q8- Why do anti geocentrists not see that their often superficial and silly arguments against geocentrism only confirms the geocentric model further and shows geocentrists that the anti geocentrists are so, because of fundamental misunderstandings in physics and cosmology?

Q9- When the fathers taught with a unanimous consent that the earth was stationary, why is this considered a matter for science, when the question of the motion of the earth could not have been studied under science at the time of the fathers?

Q10- When the fathers taught with a unanimous consent that the earth was stationary, why is this considered a matter for science, when the fathers obtained their knowledge of the stationary earth from the sources of revelation and not from any science experiment?

Q11- The NT portrays the cosmos as being Christo-centric, whereby the universe was created by Christ, redeemed by Christ and will be restored by Christ at the end of time. Why then wouldn’t the greatest acts of God, whereby He became man, instituted the Eucharist and the church, died, rose from the dead, ascended into haven and will return again be made at the most significant point within the universe?

Q12- Following this - As modern science says there is no unique point in the universe, but geocentrism teaches the stationary earth is the unique point in the universe, how then does geocentrism conflict with the NT understanding of the universe being Christo-centric?

Q13- Also, as modern science says there is no unique point in the universe, but geocentrism teaches the stationary earth is the unique point in the universe, how then is heliocentrism in conformity with the universe and especially the earth being Christo-centric?

Q14- What parts of scripture use science terminology or science experiment to express the realities that came under the senses, as recorded in the text?

Q15- If there were no experiments performed by the prophets who wrote of the moving sun, moon and stars, and the stationary earth, how then are they to know what bodies are moving past what bodies?

Q16- If the prophets only knew what bodies were moving past other bodies according to the phenomena seen at the time, how do we know that the description given of the moving sun, moon and stars, and the stationary earth is only phenomenological and not real?

Q17- Where the scriptures make statements concerning the moving sun, moon and stars, and the stationary earth, what is the literal sense of those texts?

Q18- Where the scriptures make statements concerning the moving sun, moon and stars, and the stationary earth, how do we know from the laws of exegesis that the text means that the moving sun, moon and stars, and the stationary earth is the intended meaning of the authors?

Answer – we examine the context, genre and the grammatical structure as see that texts throughout the OT literally mean what they say concerning the motions of the heavenly bodies and stationary earth. We also see this is the same understanding expressed by the unanimous consent of the fathers, the catechism of the Council of Trent and the Popes at the time of Galileo. We then conclude the method used is solidly Catholic in all its aspects.

Q19- Where the scriptures make statements concerning the moving sun, moon and stars, and the stationary earth, how do we know from the laws of exegesis that the text means that the moving sun, moon and stars, and the stationary earth is the intended meaning of the authors?

Probable answer – the anti geocentrists must arrive at the conclusion that the statements made in scripture concerning the motions of the heavenly bodies are always in error and only ever state what occurs phenomenally. But to arrive at this conclusion that the scriptures always record motions of the heavenly bodies and the stationary earth phenomenally, means the anti-geocentrist exegete must use a literary method which is currently unknown in biblical exegesis.

Q20- So why would anyone want to use an unbiblical and non magisterial method to arrive at a conclusion concerning the meaning of many statements within scripture that are opposed to what the church thought the texts meant for over 1900 years, using a novel and hence non Catholic method?

Q21- The scriptures state the earth is set on a foundation and cannot be moved. What is the phenomenological basis for these statements and how did the prophets know the earth was set on a foundation, even though modern anti-geocentric science says the earth is not set on any foundation?

Q22- If the statements in scripture concerning the motion of the heavenly bodies and the stationary earth are only to be taken as phenomenal interpretations of events, how then do we know that many other events, which are supposedly historical, are merely interpretations of hearsay, or perhaps even misunderstandings of the author, or even embellishments by the author? After all, if several authors got it wrong on the motions of the heavenly bodies and the stationary earth, why not say the same for many other observations?

Q23- How does the anti-geocentrists account for the approved visions of Hildegard von Bingen, who saw a multi-layered universe that rotated around a stationary earth?

Q24- If the anti geocentrists ignore or refuse to give assent to the approved visions of Hildegard von Bingen, what is their theological basis against the church’s magisterial authority to do so?

Q25- When God created the universe; He did so to then act with and not against His creation. Why then did God make the sun dance at Fatima, when at the time the church taught the earth is stationary and the sun is orbiting the stationary earth?

JM

In Response to Dr Bridgmans "Heliocentrism's 'Vested Interests'..."

Dr Bridgman has written an article entitled  "Heliocentrism's 'Vested Interests'..." where he attempts to show some reason for his contempt for geocentrism. We see below that his attempts fail badly.

I guess since the facts are against the Geocentrists, they have nothing better to argue.

James Philips (link): Please allow me to make the following observation. I note that generally those who seek to counter (not necessarily including yourself) John Martin and others who hold to the geocentric model of the universe on various blogsites (and sometimes websites) do so with a certain and peculiar viciousness. Such viciousness (maliciousness?) includes sarcasm to the nth degree and various gratuitous ad hominem attacks such as questioning the sanity or asserting the insanity of those who would even question the heliocentric model. This common type of rottweiler/pit bull seemingly fanatical kind of response to those who simply disagree with or question the heliocentric model certainly leaves one to wonder why the degree of viciousness.

To James Philips:

As for my viciousness (maliciousness), why would anyone in their right mind listen to 'knowledge' which does not come from some actual accomplishment in the field they are claiming?  Would you accept medical advice from an actor or other non-medical professional?  There are plenty of people that do that and worse (see What's the Harm?), and they can pay a high price for ignorance.

If you convince someone that a toxin is not poisonous, and they take a dose of the toxin and die, who is morally responsible for the death?  You?   Or do you just claim that it was their choice and go on your merry way?

Real lives depend on the proper computation of spacecraft trajectories, and not just the lives of astronauts (more below).  The Geocentrists have offered nothing but rhetorical games to back their claims - nothing of the rigor required by science and engineering beyond a word game to relabel the mathematics.

If Geocentrists want to essentially claim 1+1=3 with no evidence other than their say-so, and they are doing it in such a way that OTHERS will pay the price of Geocentrist ignorance, then Geocentrists are in no position to complain about the level of disrespect they are given.

My goal is that no one pays for Geocentrists' ignorance except the Geocentrists who are propagating (and a number of them are profiting) from spreading the ignorance.

James Phillips (link): “One thing is certain: the lives and careers of a good number of individuals in the scientific community are strongly tied to an ironclad maintenance of the heliocentric model.“

Indeed.  And not just in the scientific community... 

There are the lives of astronauts who must be able to trust their navigation.  Where's those geocentric navigation algorithms for them to compute their trajectories?  Haven't seen one yet, and suspect I never will.  So no Geocentists will be traveling beyond the Earth.

There are also the lives of people on Earth depending on earth and space weather forecasting that requires satellites in space.  Global communications depends on satellite technology.  If you don't know where your satellite is, you'll have a heck of a time getting the data back from it. 

YOUR life is better because of the heliocentric model, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

If someone wants to pontificate Geocentrist nonsense, then I suggest they move to a undeveloped country which does not have these advantages, where their ignorance will be welcomed and they can do less harm.  Otherwise they just look like hypocrites, reaping advantages of a technology that they clearly have no clue how it actually works.  Others who do know how it works will reap the benefits of better-paying jobs and other economic advantages.

Choose that route, and you'll have to give up your computer, your GPS-enabled cell-phone, any satellite-TV or similar service.  Since modern weather forecast simulations are initialized and checked using data from orbiting satellites, you'll have to give up using long-range weather forecasts.  If you get energy from any main power grids, the safety of those grids from eruptive solar phenomena is monitored by a fleet of solar-observing satellites, such as ACE, GeoTail, SOHO, STEREO ( YouTube: Sentinels of the Heliosphere).  And these are just the first order benefits.  I could go on about the spin-off benefits of the supporting technologies that were developed to achieve these capabilities.

Give up heliocentrism, and everyone in a modern society loses.  You lose as well, regardless of whether you are willing to believe it, or admit it.

But then, history is full examples of societies that fell from their pinnacle due to their collective dogmatic acceptance of some ignorance.

Some points –

The heliosphere shown in your video is the wrong shape. Apparently the correct shape is more like a sphere around the earth shown here - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091016101807.htm

Claiming our lives are better because of heliocentrism is devoid of content because you believe relativity which teaches whatever can be calculated in the moving earth frame can also be calculated in the stationary earth frame.

Claiming the space missions are calculated on the helio model, thereby making the moving earth model the better model is also fallacious because you have already stated it is possible within relativity to move the reference frame to a stationary earth.

As your claims are easily answered within your own relativist world view, then I see nothing in your post beyond vacuous claims backed up by no content whatsoever. In fact your world view is so mixed up, your link to the sentinels of the Heliosphere - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VH3Y-OfHnI implies you are not a true believer in relativity theory and you think there is something in the universe that points to a preferred reference frame.

If you a real believer in relativity, why not get together with your NASA and Goddard Flight Center friends and construct a You tube video showing us the satellite motions relative to a stationary earth. All you have to do is fix the earth and move the sun a little quicker and move the satellites in the same elliptical motions. It would be very easy to do and it would show the rest of the world how dedicated you are to relativity theory.

So far, it seems to me that you are a very confused man, because your science education has caused you to think in pragmatic compartments that allows you to both affirm the possibility of geocentrism, but deny its has any practical value and therefore deny that it could be what is really occurring in the universe. As such, you affirm relativity in one recent post, and then deny it in practice in the current post by affirming a preferred reference frame.

If you claim relativity is valid and a stationary reference frame would make the satellite calculations more difficult and therefore this means the heliocentric system is the preferred reference frame, then you have only done so, based on claims of mathematical convenience. But does mathematical convenience demonstrate that satellite orbits are really dependent upon the motion of lack of motion of the earth? Not according to relativity theory, with no preferred reference frame.

If you believe otherwise, then how does relativity provide the means to determine the true relative velocity of the earth around the sun? If relativity is correct, then we could assume any number of relative velocities of the sun and the earth, just so long as the total combined relative velocity between the sun and earth reduces to 30km/s. So relativity theory provides us with an infinite number of velocity solutions to choose from and that’s just between two bodies, yet we are supposed to believe the magic of 30km/s around the sun is the correct earth velocity, to the exclusion of a stationary Earth.

All in all, your recent post is really another demonstration of the modern fascination with eclectic theories about the nature of the solar system and the universe. If it “works” then you can boast about the moving earth and intellectually damn those who object, even though there may well be many other reasons to reject such a theory.

In fact geocentrists do have many reasons and those reasons are given in Galileo Was Wrong. I suggest you read it and then abandon your materialist, empiricist, pantheism in favor of a super-naturalist, creationist and geocentric understanding of the universe.

JM
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Some further thoughts on the above article.

We can go a step further than merely pointing out the obvious permission for more than one reference frame in relativity. We can ask Dr Bridgman to explain why relativity is based upon the definition of simultaneity, using a “stationary system” as stated here –

 “Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good.² In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the “stationary system.”” http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Much of relativity is based upon this fundamental need for a stationary system to derive its equations. Einstein used this system in a thought experiment, yet if his theory is to be used in the real, the equations must be based upon a real “stationary system”. So if relativity is true, then a stationary system must exist in the real. Therefore Dr Bridgman should be able to tell us where this stationary system is in the real. Obviously we know where it is, but does he? No.

Alternatively, if this stationary system does not exist in the real, then relativity is only ever a thought system and isn’t possibly applicable in the real. But as it isn’t applicable in the real, how then does Dr Bridgman explain the real success of relativity?

It’s one of the great ironies of modern celestial mechanics that both Newtonian mechanics and relativity have the fundamental basis for their equations in the notion of a “stationary system”, be that either Newton’s absolute space, or Einstein’s non located “stationary system” in his thought experiment.

Even with this fundamental notion of a stationary system, almost universally recognized within both systems, the modern standard cosmological model says there is no place in the universe that is stationary. So we have yet another contradiction between theories. The Newtonian and relativity theories say there must a stationary system in the universe, yet the standard model says there must not be a stationary system within the universe, otherwise all bodies would end up moving towards each other and the total masses of the universe would tend to collapse in on itself.

How do we escape all these fundamental contradictions between modern celestial and cosmological theories? We embrace the true faith and recognize that God has programmed the rotating universe to have forces placed within it to prevent the masses from moving towards each other, through the combined action of the aether flow and the rotating firmament around the stationary earth. Only in this way, does the problem of the collapsing universe resolve itself without the need for the silliness of dark matter and dark energy and the ever expanding universe problem.

JM