[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 4chon / asmr / fur / htg / maka / newbrit / strek / sw ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Christchan is back up after maintenance! The flood errors should now be resolved. Thank you to everyone who submitted a bug report!

File: 09da7de821cbbbf⋯.png (2.79 MB, 936x1198, 468:599, John_Calvin_by_Holbein.png)

cc860e No.537363

Someone give me a quick rundown on this lad and its differences to Catholicism

652418 No.537367

His theology or the man himself?


7d8fd2 No.537369

>>537363

>its

Did you make sure that is xir preferred pronoun?


cc860e No.537370

>>537367

Theologies , pls.

>>537369

An honest mistake


fe97c3 No.537373

John Calvin was pretty impressive in his day.

I believe he put his non-trinitarian friend to death by burning at the stake in his later years because his friend would not repent of non-trinitarian theology?


fe97c3 No.537375

Most of the Welsh love John Calvin, which is pretty interesting.


bc941f No.537376

Based Frenchman who BTFO'ed the idolatry of the Roman Church. I would recommend watching Ryan Reeves' videos if you want to learn about his history. Reeves makes good videos about reformation history.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRgREWf4NFWYZZoAYL9yomx7mvuwh7G6B


cd9314 No.537378

>>537363

I'm neither Catholic nor Calvinist, but from what I understand, Catholics believe that some people are predestined for salvation while others can be saved(but they don't always choose salvation), while Calvinists believe everyone's either predestined for Heaven or for Hell. Also, Calvin's commentaries on the Bible are pretty good.


fe97c3 No.537379

>>537375

Might be wrong, but I think that's the case.

John Calvin wandered around France and Italy in his younger years as an itinerant Christian.


652418 No.537383

>>537370

T U L I P

From https://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm

T - Total Depravity

"Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful. We are not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin."

U - Unconditional Election

"God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21)."

L - Limited Atonement

"Jesus died only for the elect. Though Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not efficacious for all. Jesus only bore the sins of the elect. Support for this position is drawn from such scriptures as Matt. 26:28 where Jesus died for ‘many'; John 10:11, 15 which say that Jesus died for the sheep (not the goats, per Matt. 25:32-33)"

I - Irresistible Grace

"When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted. This call is by the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts and minds of the elect to bring them to repentance and regeneration whereby they willingly and freely come to God. Some of the verses used in support of this teaching are Romans 9:16 where it says that 'it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy'"

P - Perseverance of the Saints

"You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ. Some of the verses for this position are John 10:27-28 where Jesus said His sheep will never perish; John 6:47 where salvation is described as everlasting life; Romans 8:1 where it is said we have passed out of judgment; 1 Corinthians 10:13 where God promises to never let us be tempted beyond what we can handle; and Phil. 1:6 where God is the one being faithful to perfect us until the day of Jesus’ return."


df88b2 No.537384

>when lawyer wants to LEARN as a theologian

his political theories are interesting, though


cc860e No.537387

>>537383

I dont get Total Depravity compared to Catholicisms original sin. In Calvinism, it is said to save oneself without God's grace?

>which say that Jesus died for the sheep (not the goats, per Matt. 25:32-33)"

I dont get this bit. What is comparable to a goat?

>When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted.

But what of free will?

>You cannot lose your salvation

What if I am to go on a murder spree before death?


cc860e No.537388

>>537378

I think you got that the other way around kek

>>537383

Is Calvanism also Sole fide? Like most Protestantism?


fe97c3 No.537395

File: eb779d10f599b3e⋯.png (358.58 KB, 540x405, 4:3, 636286332685953925-soul-ri….PNG)

>>537387

>What if I am to go on a murder spree before death?

The Bible says two different things at two different parts, depending on which page you're reading…


fe97c3 No.537396

File: b264d8d30a8680e⋯.jpg (44.74 KB, 600x818, 300:409, may_your_soul_rise_to_heav….jpg)

>>537387

Allow me to explain, for example ….

>5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.

>6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down)

>7 “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

>8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);

>9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

>10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

>11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

>12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.

>13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Also…

>24So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.”

>25Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me,

>26but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep.

>27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

>28I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

>29My Father, who has given them to me,a is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

>30I and the Father are one.”


fe97c3 No.537397

>>537387

So, the above scripture seems to implie (and many Christians have developed such beliefs) that you cannot lose your salvation. Even if you are the most evil sinner, as long as you believe in Jesus, and confess with your mouth that He is the Son of God and died for our sins…then you will be saved.

Here is scripture from the gospels which seems to imply otherwise (found on different pages of the Bible):

>12“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

>13“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easya that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.

>14For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

>15“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

>16You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?

>17So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.

>18A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.

>19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

>20Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

>21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

>22On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’

>23And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Also…

>31“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.

>32Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

>33And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.

>34Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

>35For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,

>36I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’

>37Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?

>38And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?

>39And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’

>40And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,f you did it to me.’

>41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

>42For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,

>43I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’

>44Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’

>45Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’

>46And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”


fe97c3 No.537398

File: 114ebc7b6933941⋯.jpg (36.29 KB, 359x351, 359:351, ascension.jpg)

>>537397

meant to include this .jpg with this post but no specific relevance…it is just a picture of a person ascending to Heaven.

Some Christians like Baptists will tell you "once saved, always saved, cannot lose your salvation".

Some Christians like Catholics or Orthodox Christians will tell you "you can lose your salvation and evil believers can go to Hell."


4dd8c5 No.537401

>>537363

An Augustinianophile. Like Gottschalk of orbais, nothing Calvin said was ground braking or new and with one doctrine that caused medieval-Europe to become schizophrenic. Church doctors hate him!


cc860e No.537402

>>537398

>once saved, always saved, cannot lose your salvation".

This sounds so flawed, I can think up so many ways where you can do evil for the sake of evil and bring this thinking into question


fe97c3 No.537406

>>537397

I have read much folk-literature and other sorts of literature outside of the Bible claiming that the truth of Christian salvation rests with scripture such as this…

>>537397

…. rather than the "once saved, always saved" scripture… Of course the Bible is the best selling book of all human history. I think there is a considerable weight of worth attached to "once saved, always saved" theology. I try not to assume evil of God, as I think assuming God to be evil is a bit much reveling in religion and reveling in dogmatic writing.

Me personally, if I am anything, I am a baptist or 'anabaptist'….we tend to personally believe in something along the lines of "once saved, always saved".


652418 No.537410

>>537384

L O L

O

L

>>537387

>Catholicisms original sin

I haven't studied that part of Catholicism. Mind giving me a link?

>In Calvinism, it is said to save oneself without God's grace?

Wut?

>What is comparable to a goat?

Anyone who does not believe in God or His Gospel.

>Free Will

>Grace

Before you are saved, you are deaf, you are dumb, you are blind, and you are dead. A deaf, dumb, blind, dead spirit can't save himself nor can respond to those who want to save him. "The dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any who go down into silence" (Ps 115:17). He must be revived and made to hear. Nobody wants hell if they understood what that truly means, but the dead cannot understand (Ecclesiastes 9:5). The Holy Spirit revives the elected sinner so that he can heard the gospel. hearing the gospel, the elected man repents of his sins and runs to God, because now living again, the elected man does not want to die (John 10:25-28, Romans 10:17-21). Free will exists in a sense in that God does not compel your own will to do something, but your will cannot subvert God's nor is absolute nor is absolutely free in all circumstances in every way. Only God and His will is truly and absolutely free. This is called compatiblism. See John 3.

>What if I am to go on a murder spree before death?

You: a. never were a Christian and were deluding yourself and others, b. are extremely unstable at the time of the spree, like Samson, or c. are gonna be one step away from Hell for all eternity ("like one who escaped a fire"); that is, you won't be suffering, but you will have virtually no joy either.

Most likely a, since this is where James 2:14 truly applies (contra what many Catholics and Orthodox say). Works don't justify you before God, but you're not gonna prove you are justified to others by killing a bunch of people who don't deserve it.

>>537388

Yup


fe97c3 No.537412

File: 2a149149e1f9807⋯.jpg (60.96 KB, 330x431, 330:431, Anne_Hutchinson_on_Trial.jpg)

>>537402

Can God's creation, who did not ask to be created, burning in a lake of fire forever and ever sound any more reasonable than "once saved, always saved"???

Here is a plain old Biblical defense of "once saved, always saved" theology in the words of Paul the Apostle himself:

>11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

God save Anne Hutchinson. God save Steven Anderson. God save the Quakers.

Rome, stand down, soldiers. May popery stand down, in the name of JESUS CHRIST.


cc860e No.537413

File: 693c0aa88d41ca2⋯.png (124.8 KB, 1001x725, 1001:725, Leave.png)

>>537410

Sole Fide is so silly


cc860e No.537415

>>537412

>>537413

So let's say I'm saved… but then stab some random person in the street to death. Am I still saved?


fe97c3 No.537416

File: bdaec043da854c3⋯.jpg (255.57 KB, 580x837, 580:837, Pur_24_dore.jpg)

I think the doctrine of Purgatory makes a great deal of sense, even if not in the Roman Catholic extrapolation.


fe97c3 No.537418

>>537415

Yes, but you get to go to n*gger Heaven where only n*ggers are, if God possibly has taken a liking to good old American segregation.

(j/k)


cc860e No.537419

>>537418

>Yes, but you get to go to n*gger Heaven

So i'm still saved? I go nigger heaven even though I killed someone ?


652418 No.537421

File: 838a33da847d0f4⋯.png (538.39 KB, 1508x1000, 377:250, amen.png)

>>537397

>he doesn't give the specific book or chapter

T-t-thanks Christanon!

>>537413

>>537415

>Sola Fide is so silly

If you wanted to just bait us, then why didn't you say so the first time?

>>537416

>>537418

(You)


cc860e No.537423

>>537421

>If you wanted to just bait us, then why didn't you say so the first time?

But why should I be saved if I one day become a mad man?


fe97c3 No.537424

File: 8e8c7695cc482ad⋯.png (243.71 KB, 480x320, 3:2, EzKH6hF.png)

Just joking…."n*gger Heaven" is only a likely false ideal from my own fantasies in my head.

God has actually done great things with black people in the world, imo…

The truth is anon, only God knows the answers to these questions. Only God answer them for you.

If you pray to God, and seek these things out from God He may give you the truth.

"Seek and you shall find."

The bible says God is faithful and true.

If we believe what the Bible says, then we can make the argument of "Yes, I will go to Heaven no matter what if I only believe in Jesus Christ and confess that He is the Son of God and died for my sins."

The Baptists were great soldiers, if you read about the English Civil war. Most of the victorious soldiers, I've read in that war, were Baptists.

A lot of them probably believed "once saved, always saved"…


cc860e No.537425

File: b224b28b9421473⋯.jpg (6.89 MB, 2848x4288, 89:134, STOP DISOBEYING.jpg)

>Sole fide


4f340f No.537428

>>537363

>Brief rundown: Calvin was a French theologian who split with the Catholic Church over doctrinal and practitional issues. He was much more radical than the Anglican or Lutheran reformers, though he wasn't as radical as the "Radical Reformers" like the Anabaptists or Mennonites.

Differences between Calvinism and Catholicism

>Catholicism: Original Sin has tainted man's nature. Original Sin is understood as the punishment for Adam's sin which all men inherit. You remove Original Sin through means of Baptism.

>Calvinism: Total Depravity has tainted man's nature. Total Depravity is the tendency toward sin, which all men have inherited from Adam. It's part of your ethereal nature, and there is no way to remove it.

>Catholicism: People have free will to sin or not sin. People have free will in general, though many people feel a strong vocation to follow a certain path picked by God, such as a vocation to the priesthood.

>Calvinism: Unconditional election. God chooses and elects every person to be saved or unsaved, to sin or not sin. There is no free will.

>Catholicism: Jesus died for everybody's sins. You must accept Jesus, which is the start of a continued path of doing the sacraments and other acts to possibly go to Heaven. You will then go to Heaven (if you died in a state of grace) or Hell (if you died in a state of mortal sin).

>Calvinism: Limited Atonement. All men are totally depraved, remember? That means nobody is good at all by themselves. Certain people are elected to be saved, and only those people get to Heaven by calling on Christ. They rely on Christ because they can't get in on their own merits. If you believe on Christ alone, you are saved. If you don't believe on Christ at all, or you don't believe on Christ alone, you are unsaved. Limited Atonement refers to the belief that Jesus only died for the elect, those he knew would be saved already.

>Catholicism: People have free will, and if they put that free will to perform the sacraments, they will receive grace from God. God's graces are upon these people who choose it

>Calvinism: Irresistible Grace: God chooses certain people to be in his graces and those people can not avoid or resist that grace if they tried. That grace is theirs no matter what

>Catholicism: mortal sins make you lose your state of grace, and you must be repentant of them or just never do them. You can confess them in order to repent and get your grace back, but if you die in a state of mortal sin you go to Hell.

>Calvinism: the elect will always be faithful and not lose their salvation. This is interpreted in multiple ways. Some people say this means if you lose faith or commit a bad sin, it is a sign you were never saved (Lordship Salvation). Others say this means nothing you do can make you lose your salvation, and people who lose faith are still saved but they are sinners (Once Saved, Always Saved).

>Catholicism: The apostles and church fathers tell us how to pray. They gave them in the masses passed down to us from the Roman Catholic Church.

>Calvinism: The apostles and Old Testament prophets tell us how to pray, through the examples of worship in The Bible. This is known as the "Regulative Principle of Worship," it's not as much of a key doctrine as the above TULIP doctrines.

Those are the basics. I'm not either of these groups, so sorry if I misrepresented anyone. I believe this information is accurate.


fe97c3 No.537430

>>537428

wow, ty anon!


cc860e No.537432

File: 7264bbc418f612d⋯.png (539.86 KB, 559x596, 559:596, Grind.png)

>>537428

Best post, thanks nigga

>Jesus only died for the elect, those he knew would be saved already

Explain this reasoning

>Others say this means nothing you do can make you lose your salvation, and people who lose faith are still saved but they are sinners (Once Saved, Always Saved).

Kek, nearly woke my room mates up,


652418 No.537439

>>537428

>people who lose faith are still saved but they are sinners

That's not what we believe at all.

A person who has a faith that can be "lost" was never saved to begin with.


cc860e No.537443

File: 495b2159dee06c2⋯.jpg (208.29 KB, 761x978, 761:978, St-Gemma.jpg)

>>537439

>"Good boy, you do nothing wrong"

>*Good boy does wrong*

>"Naughty boy, you were never good in the first place."

Wow, great logic


4f340f No.537447

>>537439

That's what I said, reread the full point


879867 No.537455

Read John Goodman Brown by Nathaniel Hawthorne. The problem with Calvinism in any of its forms, is - if we are all evil and can do nothing but sin, how are we not considered children of Satan?


db90db No.537459

>>537387

and everyone else wondering about Cats view on predestination.

Cats believe that there is predestination but not "double predestination" as Calvinists do, which essentially means there is nothing you can do by your own effort to be saved.

Cats believe there are two types of grace, sufficient and effacious. First one is irresistible and is given to everyone. What this does is put you in a state to be willing to have a desire for God. Can come in many ways, baptism is one of those. Or paul getting hit with the ultralight beam of Jesus. Once you get that, it alone isn't always all you need to be saved, provided you are older than the age of reason. as long as you are older than the age of reason you have the potential to mortally sin and lose your salvation. God sends us effacious grace to help us to resist sin and stay on the narrow path, but this grace we are able to reject if we wish, hence not interfering with our free will. This is a continuous thing through our life, God keeps sending us this sort of grace that we need to cooperate with in order to keep our salvation.

This is in contrast to Calvinism which says in short that there is nothing you can do, and some ppl who are elect are given grace, which they can't resist and can never lose their salvation and other people just don't get the shot to be saved cause grace was never given to them. It kills free will by pushing irresistible grace for all people past the age of reason.


652418 No.537470

>>537447

I re-read what you wrote, and now I'm more confused. First, Lordship salvation is not involved in discussing PS or OSAS. It's another topic altogether. Second, you wrote "Some people say this means if you lose faith or commit a bad sin, it is a sign you were never saved " when I'm talking about possessing true faith before God, not how can we tell if someone is saved; and no, you don't lose true faith through "a really bad sin". Only unbelief, i.e. lack of faith and thus salvation, cannot be forgiven. Finally, what does "are still saved but they are sinners " mean? Are you saying God considers them sinners? I never heard anyone who held PS, OSAS, or whatever you call it say that you can "lose faith" if it's true, saving faith. No one!

>>537455

>Nathaniel Hawthorne'

>Wrote Puritan hate-porn just because his parents had certain standards

>Using an apostate fiction writer to determine your theology

>The best you have against Calvinism is "why aren't we consider children of the devil

Uh-huh

But until a person is saved, he is a child of the devil. That's the point. What's hard about understanding this? Why is that non-argument given a smidgen of consideration? Oh, and I just told you what total depravity is, and it's not we "can do nothing but sin" or "we are as evil as we can be." Why is it that when we Calvinist explain clearly what we believe, you guys turn around and misrepresent us and lie about what we believe. Clearly, you don't want to understand the truth.

This, by the way, is how you identify children of the devil. They misrepresent. They lie. They refuse understanding. They slander. You need to repent and turn to Christ and live. >>537443 You too OP.


879867 No.537473

>>537470

>That's the point. What's hard about understanding this?

Then you contradict Christ. Why carry the cross every day?

>Clearly, you don't want to understand the truth.

You are a judiazer. What's the difference between the Elect and the Chosen?


de4e1c No.537474

File: 6c200bb0a69cb11⋯.jpg (23.31 KB, 640x640, 1:1, LrzeWgR_d.jpg)

>>537443

>>537443

nice explanation


7d8fd2 No.537475

>>537473

Elect means chosen, anon.


879867 No.537477

>>537475

Ergo, you are a pseudo-Jew.


7d8fd2 No.537503

>>537477

Are you aware that the term elect is used in scripture? Are you also aware that the pseudo- prefix means false in the sense that if I am a pseudojew it means I am falsely a Jew and really something else?


ae55ac No.537532

Stay away from sects that deny free will and implicitly imply that God predestines people to hell for his own glory. And that human babies are born guilty, evil via original sin. And that the sacraments are only symbolic and that all you need is the bible and your own interpretation and that …. Well stay away from all "sects" and just go with the apostolic Church Christ started, either the western part or eastern part. Preferably eastern.


879867 No.537540

>>537503

And? I'm a Catholic, not a sola scriptura prot, nor a KJV-Onlyist.

Semantics do not contradict the doctrine of Christ.

>Are you also aware that the pseudo- prefix means false in the sense that if I am a pseudojew it means I am falsely a Jew and really something else?

Oh yes. After all, the true Jews are part of the New Israel w/ Christ. I worded that intentionally.


7d8fd2 No.537549

>>537540

>I worded that intentionally

Equivocation is false witness and therefore a sin


879867 No.537558

>>537549

It's ok, I am elect xDDD


cc860e No.537631

>>537470

>This, by the way, is how you identify children of the devil. They misrepresent. They lie. They refuse understanding. They slander. You need to repent and turn to Christ and live.

This is why nobody likes you


cc860e No.537633

>>537470

>But until a person is saved, he is a child of the devil.

Nigga, said who?


cc860e No.537635


473f8d No.537666

>>537633

Paul, and John.

<Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 9No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 10This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.

<What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.

<All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.

There is no man that is good, only Christ. Only those who have Christ's righteousness imputed to them escape being the devils children and the consequent wrath.

>>537631

Yet you shitpost incessantly and misrepresent and slander. I like him, but I don't like you.

>>537540

>And? I'm a Catholic

Semi-Pelagianism and various other heresies are still heresies. St. Augustine too confirmed the (double, as you would call it) predestination of the saints (who all the believers are, according to the Holy Scriptures). Faith is a gift of God, it does not depend on the man who runs or wills.


ac3e4e No.537688

>>537376

>this much devotion to some faggot Luther who lead to the rise Baptists and Protestants

lol


879867 No.537747

>>537666

More hair splitting. Then why not go out and kill the un-elect? Why not treat the un-elect as goyim, as the Talmudic Jews do? Well, we know Calvin already did this with his Geneva police-state. Be careful, you may actually end up where he is. Not heaven, likely.


473f8d No.537773

>>537747

>Then why not go out and kill the un-elect?

Murder is a sin, and it is wrong.

>Why not treat the un-elect as goyim, as the Talmudic Jews do?

We are taught to be gracious to all.

<But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

<"Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. 6Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone,

>Well, we know Calvin already did this with his Geneva police-state.

Refusing communion from unrepentant sinners is controlling a police-state? Or what is it you mean? Do elaborate if you will.

>Be careful, you may actually end up where he is. Not heaven, likely.

I merely believe what the bible states:

<“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.

<Then Jesus said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless the Father has granted it to him."

<They know nothing, they understand nothing; their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see, and their minds closed so they cannot understand. Isaiah 44

<"Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed." Isaiah 6

If you have a problem with these texts, you only need to say so. I repent from my sins, and believe the Lord Jesus Christ is my God. What does Acts say to me?

<And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house

And romans?

<If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

But my faith does not spring from me.

<For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

I can boast nowhere, everything is and works for God's glory.


879867 No.537778

>>537773

>Refusing communion from unrepentant sinners is controlling a police-state? Or what is it you mean? Do elaborate if you will.

Are you really a Calvinist without knowing what Calvin's state was really like? Look up Michael Servetus dude.


4f340f No.537780

>>537778

>Michael Servetus

Calvin was just in doing that. Nontrinitarian Christians are fucking repugnant


d81444 No.537781

>>537780

1 Corinthians 13:3

"If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing."

I disagree with non-Trinitarian doctrines of God, but consider this: which one delivered up his body to be burned, Calvin or Servetus? And which one lacked love? Now look at this thread. Who here lacks love?


473f8d No.537786

File: 4ac3f988c94caf3⋯.png (216.44 KB, 825x786, 275:262, ClipboardImage.png)

>>537778

>Are you really a Calvinist without knowing what Calvin's state was really like? Look up Michael Servetus dude.

<The party called the "Libertines", who were generally opposed to anything and everything John Calvin supported, were in this case strongly in favour of the execution of Servetus at the stake (while Calvin urged that he be beheaded instead). In fact, the council that condemned Servetus was presided over by Ami Perrin (a Libertine) who ultimately on 24 October sentenced Servetus to death by burning for denying the Trinity and infant baptism.[35] Calvin and other ministers asked that he be beheaded instead of burnt, knowing that burning at the stake was the only legal recourse.[36]

It's a sad story, but something you would expect in the europe of that time. If I were Servetus, I would have pleaded for the beheading as well instead of burning alive, if I had to make a choice between those two. Yet, I don't have to give a defense for what I think is wrong as well. I am merely stating that the man believed some right things, and in others I believe he was wrong, just like with Luther. The doctrine of predestination predates the reformation.

Remember, I don't subscribe to all of Calvin's thought, just the ones that are seen in the bible and early church writing. Just as sola scriptura necessitates.

I don't have to tell you that the bible speaks of predestination and God's sovereignty in salvation. He doesn't have to save anyone, but the fact that he pleases to do so to even one person is more than humanity as a collective deserves. It seems more though as if you're hitting me with the Servetus card because you can not believe in the Scriptures which say God has His sovereign right and free will to choose who is saved and who is not, instead of the pot being molded.

I say it again, Calvin is not the first to know this doctrine in the faith once given to the saints. He is merely the icon of it in the modern day, and it seems as if you are like the jews who scoff at this teaching.

<Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215): From what has been said, then, it is my opinion that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one, and that in it those who according to God’s purpose are just, are enrolled.186 For from the very reason that God is one, and the Lord one, that which is in the highest degree honourable is lauded in consequence of its singleness, being an imitation of the one first principle. In the nature of the One, then, is associated in a joint heritage the one Church, which they strive to cut asunder into many sects.

<Therefore in substance and idea, in origin, in pre-eminence, we say that the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, collecting as it does into the unity of the one faith—which results from the peculiar Testaments, or rather the one Testament in different times by the will of the one God, through one Lord—those already ordained, whom God predestinated, knowing before the foundation of the world that they would be righteous. ANF: Vol. II, The Stromata, Book VII, Chapter XVII.


cc860e No.537791

File: ebb9cdb259333ca⋯.gif (2.15 MB, 728x408, 91:51, Bye.gif)

>>537666

>Only those who have Christ's righteousness imputed to them escape being the devils children and the consequent wrath

Quote has no reference to birth's being objectively devil-born.

>The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8The one who does what is sinful is of the devil

Those who do good are righteous.Those who do bad are sinners, therefore evil.

>No one who is born of God will continue to sin,

>Dear children

Everyone is a child before Him.

>The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning.

Shouldn't be interpreted as those who're born are inherit evil, read on and you get:

>The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 9No one who is born of God will continue to sin,

And:

>they have been born of God

Implies that those who follow Christ are somewhat, reborn, and become soldiers of Christ.

Tbh this whole quote's making my head hurt trying to interpret it. It can be viewed and acknowledged in so many different ways that the ultimate conclusion may just be up to the individual's experiences and them taking it from there.

>I like him, but I don't like you.

Oh shut up, you write like such a cunt.


cc860e No.537793

File: 315b0671e172045⋯.png (3.55 KB, 444x200, 111:50, BARB.png)

>>537773

>Murder is a sin, and it is wrong.

<Calvin urged that he be beheaded instead


473f8d No.537798

>Quote has no reference to birth's being objectively devil-born.

< What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.

<The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning.

<This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.

<Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

>Those who do good are righteous.Those who do bad are sinners, therefore evil.

<As it is written:“There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands;there is no one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

I would agree with you, but it is as the scriptures state. There was only one good man, Jesus Christ who did not sin.

>Everyone is a child before Him.

Could you elaborate?

<I have loved you,” says the Lord. bBut you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob 3 but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.” 4 If Edom says, “We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins,” the Lord of hosts says, “They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called ‘the wicked country,’ and ‘the people with whom the Lord is angry forever.’” 5 Your own eyes shall see this, and you shall say, “Great is the Lord beyond the border of Israel!”

>Shouldn't be interpreted as those who're born are inherit evil, read on and you get:

>Implies that those who follow Christ are somewhat, reborn, and become soldiers of Christ.

However, their faith does not come from them.

<Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.


473f8d No.537799

>Tbh this whole quote's making my head hurt trying to interpret it. It can be viewed and acknowledged in so many different ways that the ultimate conclusion may just be up to the individual's experiences and them taking it from there.

Then put it this way:

<10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

<14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

<“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,

and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

<16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

<19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

<22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

>Oh shut up, you write like such a cunt.

Yes, I have my flaws, but then again I would say I was just honestly replying to what I saw from you, much dirt and little substance, no small amount of mockery. Am I supposed to lie and tell you "I like you", if this is my first impression of you? Hell, you use so many of the arguments Paul speaks of against. Let's take a quote;

>So let's say I'm saved… but then stab some random person in the street to death. Am I still saved?

<What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! 16Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. 18You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

This to me shows you don't want to understand and instead want to keep on mocking.

>>537793

Your point? My doctrine does not depend on Calvin, and it does not fall on one mans wrongdoing, as these beliefs come from the Bible, not from John Calvin.


652418 No.538202

>>537791

>Quote has no reference to birth's being objectively devil-born.

"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one." (Job 14:4)

"What is man, that he can be pure? Or he who is born of a woman, that he can be righteous?" (Job 15:14)

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,

and in sin did my mother conceive me. " (Ps 51:5)

"'''The wicked are estranged from the womb;

they go astray from birth, speaking lies.'''

They have venom like the venom of a serpent,

like the deaf adder that stops its ear,

so that it does not hear the voice of charmers

or of the cunning enchanter." (Ps 58:3-4)

"For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man…Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men…For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners…" (Romans 5:17-19)

"…among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." (Eph. 2:3)

"By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother." (1 John 3:10)

>Those who do good are righteous

There is no one good, no not one. Anything no done in faith, even those things which God would otherwise call good, is sin. All our works are like filthy rags.

>Everyone is a child before Him.

"Jacob I loves, Esau I hated." (Malachi 1:3)

>>537791

>Oh shut up, you write like such a cunt.

REPENT

TURN TO CHRIST AND LIVE


c14703 No.538204

File: 9890e395092d197⋯.jpg (951.55 KB, 684x766, 342:383, 09da7de821cbbbfb2f5531472c….jpg)

>>537791

>Oh shut up, you write like such a cunt.

Why do people choose to negate their entire arguments by writing dumb stuff like this?


473f8d No.538211

>>538204

In this case I would wager Matthew 13. He doesn't accept God's word and argues like an unbeliever.


fe97c3 No.538240

File: 5e4bdd9c7f5a044⋯.jpg (274.23 KB, 1600x800, 2:1, Reformation05.jpg)

The man who led Protestantism out of stagnation in the 1550's was an exiled French humanist legal scholar who had wandered Italy and Switzerland and ended up by accident in 1536 on the margins of the Swiss Confederation in the city of Geneva: John Calvin. He probably never liked Geneva very much, but he felt that God had sent him there for a purpose, and so he resigned himself to a dour struggle to stay there and lead God's work in the city. After one false start, he was thrown out of Geneva, but that gave him the chances to go to Bucer's Strassburg and see how a Reformation might be put into practice. When the Genevans faced chaos and in desperation called him back, he was ready to build a better Strassburg in Geneva. In a set of Ecclesiastical ordinances which the city authorities ordered Calvin to draft in 1541, he put into practice a scheme to restructure the Church which Bucer had envisaged for Strassburg: a fourfold order, rather than the threefold traditional order of bishop, priest and deacon.

Bucer had asserted that the New Testament described four functions of ministry, pastors, doctors, elders and deacons. Pastors carried out the general ministry of care of the laity exercised by medieval parish priests and bishops; doctors were responsible for teaching at all levels, up to the most searching scholarly investigations of the Bible. Together, pastors and senior doctors who were obviously close to them in ministry (notably Calvin himself) formed a Company of Pastors. Elders bore the disciplinary work of the Church, leading it alongside the pastors in a Church court called a consistory. It was government by committee; in other contexts, the committees were called presbyteries, so the system is generally labelled Presbyterian. Calvin was not particularly worried about the forms that this fourfold system might take, as long as all its functions were properly carried out, but the next generation of 'Calvinists' tended to be more doctrinaire about forms than he was, and tried to copy exactly what had been done in Geneva - developing, for instance, a hostility to the office of bishop which Calvin himself never exhibited, and which other Reformed Churches, such as those of Zürich, Hungry/Transylvania and England/Ireland, did not share.

It took Calvin years to secure the stability of his Reformation, but the Genevans never dared lose face by throwing him out a second time, and they were also shrewdly aware that he was good for business. He attracted talented foreign exiles to the city (and did his best to ensure that poor exiles were not a burden on city finances), while his writings and those of his friends sold dynamically through much of Europe and were the making of the city's new printing industry. In the end, one event which we might regard as tragic made Calvin's name on a European-wide scale. In 1553 he was faced with the arrival in Geneva of a prominent radical intellectual, an exile like himself, Michael Servetus from Spain, on his way to join secret sympathizers in Italy, and appearing with baffling rashness in public in Calvin's city. Servetus, with the Islamic and Jewish heritage of his country in mind, denied that the conventional notion of The Trinity could be found in the Bible; he had already been condemned by a Catholic inquisition as a heretic, with Calvin's connivance. Calvin saw his duty as clear: Servetus must die. So the Genevan city authorities burned Servetus at the stake, though Calvin wanted a more merciful death, such as beheading. Thus Calvin established that Protestants were as determined as Catholics to represent the mainstream traditional Christianity which had culminated in the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Diarmaid MacCulloch - Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years


fe97c3 No.538245

File: 4922c1c73b788e6⋯.jpg (1.4 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, 1269630042-Jeffeson-Calvin….jpg)

Consistently with this, from 1536 Calvin published and repeatedly rewrote a textbook of doctrine, the Institution of the Christian Religion - commonly known as the Institutes. This was designed to lay claim to Catholic Christianity for the Reformation: since the Pope obstructed the Reformation, he was Antichrist, and Protestants were the true Catholics. In greatly expanded later editions and the complete rearrangement which Calvin made in 1559 not long before his death, virtually all the original text is still there. The opening sentence was never displaced, though Calvin enlarged its scope from a reference simply to 'sacred (i.e. Christian) doctrine' to all human knowledge; so in the 1559 version it reads, 'Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say ,true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves'. From this premise, Calvin leaps to another assumption fundamental to his book from 1536 onwards: scrutinizing ourselves honestly after contemplating God is bound to shame us. None of our capacities can lift us from this abyss in our fallen state, only an act of free grace from God. This is Augustine restated, the Luther of the Slavery of the Will.

For Calvin this 'double knowledge' (duplex cognitio) lay at the heart of Catholic Christianity, and it became his life's work to recall his beloved France to a real version of the Catholic Church. Over time, he came to explain the failures of the Reformation by reference to a doctrine which Luther had also held, but which many of his fellow Lutherans followed Melanchthon in finding difficult and downplayed: God's plan of predestination. After reading Bucer's commentary on Romance of 1536, Calvin discussed this in increasing intricacy in the Institutes' enlargements. If salvation was entirely in God's hands, as Luther said, and human works were of no avail, then logically God took decisions on individual salvation without reference to an individual's life-story. God decided to save some and logically also to consign others to damnation. Predestination was thus double. Evidently those who did not listen to and act on the Word were among the damned; that lessened the sense of disappointment that not all heeded the Reformation message. The good news was that the elect of God could not lose their salvation. The doctrine of election became ever more important, and ever more comforting and empowering, to Calvin's followers.

But there was much more to Calvin than expounding predestination. He never received ordination from either old or new Church, but his self-image was as teacher (Doctor), and he relentlessly preached and wrote biblical commentary around the ever-growing Institutes. Central to his vision of a renewed Catholic Church based on the achievement of the early centuries was the Council of Chalcedon's careful crafting of the 'Chalcedonian Definition'. Christ was one person in two natures inextricably linked - God the Son and so fully part of the Divine Trinity, while at the same time Jesus the human being, born in Palestine. Chalcedon had a particular significance for magisterial Protestants, who saw it as the last general council of the Church to make reliable decisions about doctrine in accordance with the core doctrines proclaimed in scripture - they were all the more inclined to respect the early councils because radicals rejected that legacy. The careful balance of statements within the Chalcedonian Definition, with its emphasis on the indivisibility of the two natures of Christ, gave Calvin a model for a general principle which became very important to him: distinction but not separation (distinctio sed non separatio).


fe97c3 No.538246

>>538245

Diarmaid MacCulloch - Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years


fe97c3 No.538252

File: 475cf15ba08b600⋯.jpg (475.32 KB, 1265x1600, 253:320, SpurgeonDoGcvr_edited.jpg)

This was the perfect model to be used by this theologian so consciously striving for a newly purified and balanced Catholicism for the Western Church. It can be seen, for instance, in Calvin's discussion of the Church - both visible and invisible - or of election - both general for the Church (as it had been for the Children of Israel) and particular for elect individuals (such as great patriarchs like Abraham). Above all, it structures what Calvin says about the Eucharist. He made a firm distinction between 'reality' and 'sign' which nevertheless would not separate them completely. The old Church betrayed this principle by confusing reality and sign, attributing to the signs of bread and wine worship which was only due to the reality behind them. Luther, Calvin felt, had also wrongly attributed to the signs what was only true of the reality: in particular when Luther asserted that the physical body and blood of Christ were capable of being everywhere (ubique) wherever the Eucharist was being celebrated in the world - a Lutheran doctrine called ubiquity, which calvin devoted a substantial section in the final version of the Institutes to ridiculing. He thought on the other hand that Zwingli had separated sign and reality too much, and emphasized that 'in the sacraments the reality is given to us along with the sign'. In the Eucharist, God does not come down to us to sit on a table; but through the sign of the breaking of bread and taking of wine, he draws us up to join him in Heaven. It is the idea proclaimed in the ancient exhortation of the Latin Mass, 'Lift up your hearts' (Sursum corda).

Calvin devoted much effort to seeking the middle ground among Protestants, as part of his plan to replace papal Catholicism by something that he saw as being more authentically Catholic. he was saddened by the division between the Swiss and Lutheran loyalists over the Eucharist, which seemed particularly lunatic at the time of Protestant defeats by Charles V in the Schmalkaldic Wars. Working with Heinrich Bullinger, he forged a statement in 1549 which has become known as the Consensus Tigurinus ('Zürich Agreement').

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_Tigurinus

>that the Sacraments are not in and of themselves effective and conferring grace, but that God, through the Holy Spirit, acts through them as means; that the internal effect appears only in the elect; that the good of the Sacraments consists in leading us to Christ, and being instruments of the grace of God, which is sincerely offered to all; that in baptism we receive the remission of sins, although this proceeds primarily not from baptism, but from the blood of Christ; that in the Lord's Supper we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ, not, however, by means of a carnal presence of Christ's human nature, which is in heaven, but by the power of the Holy Spirit and the devout elevation of our soul to heaven.

With is commitment to creating forms of words which could be understood slightly differently by different people, it represented a rare moment of statesmanship in the sixteenth-century religious divides, and as such, it failed to satisfy Lutherans fiercely guarding Luther's theological legacy: they stuck as strongly as the Pope himself to the proposition that body and blood of Christ were present in the eucharistic bread and wine. As a result, the mid-century attempt to unite Protestantism against the Roman menace only resulted in a deeper divide among Protestants.


fe97c3 No.538253

>>538252

Diarmaid MacCulloch - Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years


fe97c3 No.538263

File: 02bba3fc4aa14c5⋯.jpg (1.18 MB, 1000x1945, 200:389, Statue_of_John_Calvin_in_B….jpg)

Self-conscious Lutherans increasingly directed Protestantism in Germany and Scandinavia and most German-speaking communities in eastern Europe. After many internal disputes about who was being most true to Luther's legacy, they sealed the boundaries of Lutheran identity by a Formula of Concord in 1577, confirmed by a Book of Concord in 1580. its version of Luther's own beliefs was selective, and not unconnected to the unspoken thought about certain key points of theology that if Calvin was for them, developed Lutheranism should be against them, regardless of whether Luther might have concurred with Calvin. One carved plaque from a house in Wittenberg, now ruefully exhibited in the museum of Luther's home, bluntly (and indeed ungrammatically) proclaims: GOTTES WORT UND LUTHERS SCHRIFT/IST DAS BABST UND CALVINI GIFT - "The Word of God and Luther's writing are poison for the Pope and Calvin". The hatred was not on the whole symmetrical: as time went on, the Reformed sponsored a number of efforts at reunion, galvanized by the increasing effectiveness of Counter-Reformation Catholicism, but the habitual response among Lutherans was offensive and verbose rejection.

Elsewhere, the powerful prose and driving intellectual energy of Calvin's Institutes inspired a variety of Churches who felt that Luther's Reformation had not gone far enough. Other major theologians lined up with Calvin against dogmatic Lutheranism, often regretting the division, but seeing little other option: such figures as the exiled Polish bishop Jan Laski (Johannes a Lasco to Latin-speakers trying to get their tongue round Polish consonants), the one-time star preacher of Italy Peter Martyr Vermigli, or the charismatic wandering Scot John Knox. More cautiously, the older established Swiss Protestant Churches made common cause with Calvin. In the Palatinate, an important principality of the empire whose Elector-Prince Friedrich III came to sympathize with the Reformed cause, an international team of Reformed scholars drew up a catechism (a statement of doctrine for teaching purposes) like the Consensus Tigurinus, designed to unite as many Protestants as possible. Known as the Heidelberg Catechism, since Heidelberg was the Elector Palatine's capital and home to the university where it was created, it had wide influence from its publication in 1563. Three years later, in 1566, Bullinger drew up a statement, the 'Second Helvetic Confession', with the same agenda of unity, which also won widespread acceptance. Reformed Christianity saved the Reformation from its mid-century phase of hesitation and disappointment. Lutheranism tended to remain frozen in German-speaking and Scandinavian cultures; Reformed Christianity spread through a remarkable variety of language groups and communities, partly because so many of its leading figures had the same experience as Calvin, finding themselves forced to leave their native lands and to proclaim their message in new and alien settings.


fe97c3 No.538265

>>538263

….likewise, same book…

>>538253

>>538246


473f8d No.538279

>>538263

>Reformed Christianity spread through a remarkable variety of language groups and communities, partly because so many of its leading figures had the same experience as Calvin, finding themselves forced to leave their native lands and to proclaim their message in new and alien settings

God sending folks out to evangelise?

<And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15


fe97c3 No.538281

File: 2cf9b0fffb7aaca⋯.jpg (45.02 KB, 400x300, 4:3, reformersfederaltheology.jpg)

Diarmaid MacCulloch's Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years

Reformed Protestants, Confessionalization and Toleration (1560 - 1660)

During the 1560's Reformed Christianity brought militancy and a rebellious spirit to the magisterial Reformation. Like Luther, Calvin was a theologian of romans 13.1 -

>Let euery soule bee subiect vnto the higher powers: For there is no power but of God. The powers that be, are ordeined of God.

…of obedience. Yet as he built his Church in Geneva, he was much more careful than Luther of Zwingli to keep Church structures separate from the existing city authorities. He had a clear vision of God's people making decisions for themselves: his Church had a mind of its own over and against temporal power, just as much as the old Church of the Pope. In Geneva this was not a problem, after Calvin had clawed his way to political dominance, because Church and temporal power were in general agreement, but elsewhere people might take up Calvin's blueprint for Church structures and ignore what the magistrate wanted or ordered. To Calvin's alarm, he found that in the Netherlands, Scotland and France, he had sponsored movements of revolution, people inspired by the thought that they were the elect army of God whose duty was to take on Antichrist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC37VXrVNjE


fe97c3 No.538287

File: ff8163843660521⋯.jpg (209.86 KB, 788x863, 788:863, high_throne.jpg)

>>538279

ho ho ho

if i cast a magic spell given unto me by the priests of Pharaoh to make my ship sail unto some yonder land where i might lock all its inhabitants into cages where they are forced to hear words from the Bible, i too may be considered KING OF EVANGELICALS


473f8d No.538291

File: 2ee4301de660672⋯.gif (18.95 KB, 308x264, 7:6, potter_text.gif)

>>538287

A potter, but not "Harry Potter".


fe97c3 No.538302

>>538291

>dogma


fe97c3 No.538303

>>538291

i give the most vile people the benefit of the doubt until they prove themself otherwise because that what's Jesus did…i'm not a practitioner of blind dogma


fe97c3 No.538304

>>538303

benefit of the doubt, so as to not judge them harshly or even critically without evidence

i am a rationalist before i am a dogmatist


fe97c3 No.538306

>>538291

i maintain that Jesus, too, was one of reason…or else He clearly would have not been able to expound law and philosophy and such things to such doctors of reason, doctors of law, and doctors of philosophy


473f8d No.538310

>>538302

>>538303

>>538304

>>538306

If it is from the God-breathed Scriptures, there is nothing wrong with dogma. Are you saying that the Trinity and God himself is wrong, because it is objectively correct and thus dogma? I have rationally arrived to where I am thanks to the grace of God (2 Ephesians), but you reject that God is sovereign because it is a hard teaching (John 6:60), but I have no other place to go to if I must be saved, (John 6:68)

And indeed, Jesus was one of reason, which to you must be curious since He, as God, was the one who said:

“This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”


fe97c3 No.538314

>>538310

I would clearly triumph over your dogmatic reasoning, but I'm not going to because Jesus asks us to have mercy on others.

>Mercy, not sacrifice.


fe97c3 No.538315

>>538310

I bring forth no charge against you.


fe97c3 No.538316


fe97c3 No.538318

>>538310

Jesus was trying to explain to us this concept:

Looking at something with a positive perspective, v.s. looking at something with an evil perspective.

>why reason ye in your hearts

>the LORD 'hardened' his heart


fe97c3 No.538321

>>538318

look how i explain my point so well using different parts of the Bible which run contrary to other parts of the Bible which you read on different pages


186e7c No.538352

>>537432

Romans 8:29-30

God knows his elect before the foundation of the earth. God's foreknowing of who are elect is not a passive taking in of knowledge, but an action of intimacy. The people who God chose are predestined to be saved. They will be called, justified and glorified.

This is what we call the "golden chain of redemption". It is a sequence of events that make it clear that God is in full control of salvation from beginning to end, the only one taking action in these verses is God, man is simply someone to be acted upon.


473f8d No.538371

>>538314

>I would clearly triumph over your dogmatic reasoning

The reason that you don't is because the Lord has seen it fit that you will not, otherwise you would, for we read:

<But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

Then, God would win, but since you have no rebuttal, your case is not from God but yourself.


cc860e No.538381

File: 8c1825227078357⋯.jpg (421.57 KB, 1024x683, 1024:683, Jeremiah Michelangelo.jpg)


fe97c3 No.538389

>>538371

lol, okay


fe97c3 No.538390

>>538371

So to, did Jesus keep silent whilst he was being inquired of.


cc860e No.538393

>>538202

>>537799

>>537798

>Tfw highly respect Calvin's work and intellect but totally disagree with some of his doctrines, Limited Atonement and Sole Fide included.

>Still feel like I need a better understanding of Christianity and my home faith, Catholicism, as a whole in both history and belief's before I can fully make proper judgements of my own on Calvinism

Only thing I'm sure of is that I will always hate Calvin posters on /Christian/ You guys are ruthless


473f8d No.538414

>>538393

>>Tfw highly respect Calvin's work and intellect but totally disagree with some of his doctrines, Limited Atonement and Sole Fide included.

Yes, I get you don't like him but these doctrines don't come from him but the Holy Scriptures.

>Only thing I'm sure of is that I will always hate Calvin posters on /Christian/ You guys are ruthless

It's fine that you hate us, but we must preach what we believe without fee fees getting in the way. Paul too states the unrepentant, ungodly man hates God and all His ways, yet that should not prevent us from evangelizing.


186e7c No.538433

>tfw trying to walk an Arminian through Romans 9

>So when Paul refers to Jacob and Esau he is demonstrating that…

>Jacob and Esau refer to nations!

>Why don't we let the Apostle Paul explain the context?

>No it must be nations and Pharaoh must be Egypt

>That literally makes no sense

>If it was individuals then God would be unfair!

>But the Apostle Paul says…

>UNFAIR!

Protip: If you're reading Romans 9 and your response is the same as the detractor in verse 19-20, then you're on the wrong side of the argument. If your exegesis of Romans 9 is such that the detractor's objection in 19-20 becomes obsolete, your exegesis needs work.


b84acd No.538749

>>537383

Well, 2/5 ain't bad.


6ee15e No.538847

Predestination kind of precludes free will granted by God's love, though right?


59f1ec No.538865

>>537666

Vade retro satana




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 4chon / asmr / fur / htg / maka / newbrit / strek / sw ]