/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

and then you actually read the Reformers and it turns out they just heap baseless calumny and teach lies about the Catholic Church

>>686267

>So according to the author, anyone who believes in justification by faith alone lacks a “metaphysical” spirit???

Have you even read Luther? Or understand what he did? He was a monk who rebelled and ran off with and married a nun. Only the "high church" protestants have kept most of the catholic understandings, but the entire spirit of the Reformation is colored by ditching implicitly catholic spiritual understandings.

>He is also playing on the old meme of Calvinists/Puritans having no fun, or thinking that fun is a sin

there's about 4 centuries worth of puritanism in America to look back on and see that it's all true though.

>The rest of his bullshit against Calvinism warrants no serious response

Calvinism warrants no serious response, just read St. Augustine and go no further, no reason to buy into the Calvinist doctrine when you have Augustine.

>>686267

>He is also playing on the old meme of Calvinists/Puritans having no fun, or thinking that fun is a sin.

Not so long ago (let's say to about the 1960s) a kid cycling around a church was scolded for having fun and playing cards was frowned upon.

Don't know how the reformed live nowadays but then again they're pretty sparse even in their former bastion of Friesland.

>>686267

Your entire religion is based on a man that due to his own inability to fight his own vices declared penance, confession and prayer useless.

Have you ever read what Luther said and did? When he speaks how he's unable to pray without cursing? Or how he says he knows he's not going to heaven? When he calls Christ names when talking to his relationship to Mary Magdalene? How he ultimately died by hanging himself? Any insight into what he actually said and wrote will make it clear to you that he was most certainly not inspired by God.

As for Calvin, the very proposition that God, who is infinitely good, deliberately creates humans to go to hell and suffer for all eternity, which is a terribly evil act, is blasphemy of terrible proportions.

>Christ died for those who are already saved, but His sacrifice was useless for those predestined to go to hell - hence Christ came and died for what reason exactly?

It doesn't stand up to common sense and logic, and God is not illogical. Everything else you said about 'no fun' or whatever is just irrelevant. If your fate is already predetermined, whatever you do in this life is utterly meaningless since you're nothing but a computer program running whatever was programmed into you to run. The very proposition that God created such a system is just crazy, only a lunatic can believe that a God ordered the world to be absurd.

>>686284

>Have you even read Luther? Or understand what he did?

I don’t give a shit about Luther’s personal life. Stop making theological arguments into a personal issue. I’m talking about people who believe in justification by faith alone IN GENERAL.

>>686345

>Not so long ago (let's say to about the 1960s) a kid cycling around a church was scolded for having fun

[citation needed]

Also, what was the context of the scolding? Was he supposed to be in church at that time??? You’re leaving a lot of details out.

I’ll post an ebook on this very subject. Puritan attitudes about recreation were somewhat complicated, but it is simple minded to say that they opposed recreation across the board. Come back to me when you finish it

Excerpt:

>Sports and games played a surprisingly small role in recreational thought and practice. Puritans had no theological quarrel with them if they did not involve gambling; but, many of the English sports and games with which they were familiar, such as billiards, shuffleboard, horse racing, bowling, and cards usually did. At the very least, sports and games were felt to provide a ready opportunity for gambling. By 1650 all of the above mentioned activities were outlawed in New England because of their collateral propensities.

So many activities were banned because of the perceived way people would exploit and pervert the activities, not because the activities were intrinsically sinful. Context is key

>>686357

Hear here

DO NOT DELETE HIS POST MODS HE ISNT WRONG

>>686358

>Stop making theological arguments into a personal issue.

It did stem from a personal issue, his issue with scrupulosity and not being able to control his lust, hence he concluded that nothing we do can actually stop us from sinning, so he declared works irrelevant when it comes to salvation. So he started speaking against chastity and how a man who doesn't have a woman isn't a real man, hating on monks, saying that prostitutes will sooner go to Heaven than monks, etc. It's really important to know where theological arguments come from. It's important to know the argument came from anger and personal frustration, not some interpretation of the Scripture inspired by the Holy Ghost.

>>686363

>I need to purchase no indulgences.

Pathetic jab, I bet you actually had no idea how indulgences work, I started writing an explanation but then I realized I don't care what you think. Good luck with thinking that saying 'I'm sorry Jesus i'm a gud boy' will take you to Heaven.

>>686358

>[citation needed]

>Also, what was the context of the scolding? Was he supposed to be in church at that time??? You’re leaving a lot of details out.

The citation is of my history teacher, and she can be backed up by history books.

The context of the scolding was literally "no fun allowed", no matter how you think you are or your church community this was the actual state of the reformed church in the Lowlands and the source of all the "reformers are anti-fun" memes.

>muh history teacher

Other historians disagree with your teacher. Try reading the short book I posted, and then get back to me.

Also, post a link that talks about the event that you’re referring to. There has to be extra context.

>>686357

It’s funny to read these lies in a thread about how Catholics lie about reformers

>Your entire religion is based on a man that due to his own inability to fight his own vices declared penance, confession and prayer useless.

He never declared penance, confession, or prayer useless

>Have you ever read what Luther said and did?

Have you

>When he speaks how he's unable to pray without cursing?

You mean his response to Catholic traitors that was taken wildly out of context by those people, and now you continue to lie about this quote and Martin Luther, as your forefathers did?

>Or how he says he knows he's not going to heaven?

You’ve contradicted your fellow papists in this lie, didn’t Martin Luther declare getting into Heaven was easy and he destroyed all requirements to do it?

>When he calls Christ names when talking to his relationship to Mary Magdalene?

Liar

>How he ultimately died by hanging himself?

He died of an illness, you liar

>Any insight into what he actually said and wrote will make it clear to you that he was most certainly not inspired by God.

Same with you, you liar. Prepare yourself for hellfire

>>686359

Why would the mods delete it?

They're usually biased to Cathodox posters anyway.

>tfw the only way for the Calvinist god to be all good and all merciful is to be a Universalist

>tfw some hicks in the Appalachian mountains came to this conclusion

>tfw you literally have to be a heretic in order for Calvinism to make sense

Also anyone thinking that Luther was ever just a reformer of Catholicism should read literally anything he said ever about the Pope. Dude hated the Holy Father with a passion.

>>686382

Not him but "have you" is not an argument and Luther's table talks have a fragment where he says Christ became an adulterer with Magdalena.

The major apologetics around this statement is that it's a fraction of probably a whole conversation, so there is no context.

In my opinion the whole fraction is a context on its own unless his students (I thought Melanchthon noted this) decided that the rest of the conversation providing the context was irrelevant.

Heck, maybe he thought it would've been funny to include uncontextual blasphemy?

Who knows.

>You mean his response to Catholic traitors that was taken wildly out of context

But Luther himself was a traitor to Catholicism, so you're saiyan that traitors to catholicism later returned to catholicism, betraying the catholic traitor, amirite?

>>686382

Are you even a lutheran or a baptist on a big larp? I don't know any lutherans who care enough to even banter with catholics, it's about as dead as anglicanism.

>>686704

Thinking about it, is this the end of the Reformation? The snake biting its own tail; the future of Protestantism is IFB's denying they are even protestants…

Meanwhile, the "Reformers" collapse completely to the non-denominational meme and just completely disappear!

Truly an ignominious end.

>>686374

This was meant for this anon and his “history teacher” >>686372

>>686345

>Not so long ago (let's say to about the 1960s) a kid cycling around a church was scolded for having fun

What a pointless anecdote.

Get a grip. The Reformation itself was literally a product of such slander aimed against the Church. Do you think traitors to God and Church deserve a fair representation?

>>686382

>Liar

<“Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom Saint John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: `Whatever has he been doing with her?” Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died” (“Table Talk”, 1472) (W2, 107).

Face it, Luther was an archheretic, who didn't belong in a monastery in the first place.

>>686857

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/12/luther-said-christ-committed-adultery.html

>>686945

That doesn't deny he said it though, only that the context is uncertain. Frankly it's irrelevant.

The reformers were stooges who opened the door to European nations consolidating power by unifying the church and state and making the head of both the monarch. See England, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, etc. The reformation was a bunch of heretics and poor theologians presenting themselves as useful tools for nations who were interested in severing ties with the Catholic church and forcing their populations to mix in worship of the Monarchy with the worship of God

>>686361

>he concluded that nothing we do can actually stop us from sinning

I thought even Catholics consider Pelagianism a heresy.

In Luther's time there were a lot of unhappy monks and nuns who felt trapped by their vows.

>>686385

This

>>686857

>>686945

>>686962

http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/PiepkornDidLutherTeachChristCommittedAdultery.pdf

Here's what Concordia Theological Seminary Fort Worth has to say on the issue:

>Thus the "hair-raising blasphemy" turns out to be an inaccurately translated version of a somewhat uncertain, uncontrolled and unverifiable quotation of an offhand remark of blessed Martin Luther, without a shred of context or any indication of the circumstances that evoked the words it purports to reproduce. Since the item was destined to remain in manuscript form for 356 years after it was set down, it is quite probable that blessed Martin Luther himself never saw what Schlaginhaufen had written down.

>>686267

>anyone who believes in justification by faith alone lacks a “metaphysical” spirit?

Yes, because Christian worship God and not our belief in God.

Our rationality is not metaphysical, not in the western sense, the nous is.

>>686365

How is this an argument? Just insults.

>>686857

>The Reformation itself was literally a product of such slander aimed against the Church.

You seriously think there were no problems with the Vatican during the 1500's that started the Reformation?

>>687420

Do you seriously think the princes of the world didn't leap on the chance to seize all the Church property?

https://academic.oup.com/qje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/qje/qjy011/5033707

click the supplementary pdf on the bottom. reformation was started by the reformers, but only succeeded due to collusion with secular authorities, a theme that continues to today btw

>>687420

additionally, all the data from the research here >>687486 justifies nearly ALL the claims William Cobbett made over 200 years ago!

http://www.exclassics.com/protref/protcont.htm

it's amazing when truth agrees with truth

>>686267

But… all that is actually true.

>>686851

Try to discredit her all you want but your feelings won't change how Calvinism was in the 17th century Lowlands.

>>686374

This is not an anecdote this is what was done by Calvinists when their kids had too much fun, especially on sundays IIRC.

Anyway why do you guys even care?

Would you guys also get ass-hurt if we started calling you spice-sniffers?

>>687507

>This is not an anecdote this is what was done by Calvinists when their kids had too much fun

>[citation ne-

On second thought, don’t bother. You clearly don’t give a shit about intellectual honesty. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be making these sweeping generalizations about an entire theological group. You also would have given us a source for your assertions. I also presume that you didn’t read the ebook I posted, right? Piss off, false accuser.

>ITT: How not to defend the faith

>>686857

>Do you think traitors to God and Church deserve a fair representation?

This is how you get cults, when nobody cares about striking down your opponents arguments where they stand and with facts.

<An honest witness tells the truth, but a false witness tells lies.

<The Lord detests lying lips, but he delights in people who are trustworthy.

Proverbs 12: 17 & 22

>Lord, who may dwell in your sacred tent? Who may live on your holy mountain?

>2 The one whose walk is blameless, who does what is righteous, who speaks the truth from their heart;

>3 whose tongue utters no slander, who does no wrong to a neighbor, and casts no slur on others;

Psalm 15:1-3

Isn't this what OP was speaking of? Deceitful accusations?

But whatever, if they're wrong, then we don't need to follow Christ in truthfulness, right. Because apparently Jesus isn't powerful enough to prevail against His opponents without lies?

That's what behavior like this says to me.

>>686387

Not defending Luther for the man couldn't control his passions and thus had no right to lead anyone but, why wouldn't he hate the way the pope acted? Renaissance popes were extremely corrupt. The fracture could have been stopped before it started if the pope had taken Savonarola's preaching and message to heart.

Also, This >>687486

>>687563

>I also presume that you didn’t read the ebook I posted, right?

>Reading an entire e-book to discuss on an imageboard

Yeah no thanks.

On another note the e-book seems to be about colonial New England.

I'm talking about the OG Dutch reformed church where the no-fun reformed stereotype is still alive and well.

>Piss off, false accuser.

I'm not even false accusing, I'm just stating the facts why Calvinism has the no-fun stereotype whether or not you guys actually are no fun.

>>686387

>tfw the only way for the Calvinist god to be all good and all merciful is to be a Universalist

Not really. You can either be a four point Calvinist, or a Calvinist who believes in annihilation.

>>687956

>yeah no thanks

>LOL I AINT READING ALL DAT SHEEIT COUZ

It’s not that long, you lazy shit.

>the ebook seems to be about colonial England

Seems to be?? It IS about colonial England! I brought them up because that is relevant to the Puritans, who were also Calvinist by large.

Saging because I’m done with this thread.

>Dutch reformed church

I don’t know anything about them. Nor do I care. There are extremists in every denomination.

>>688016

>I don’t know anything about them. Nor do I care.

>I don't know anything about the first Calvinist church but I still like to discuss reformation history though and post a small e-book about some Calvinistic sect from a part of colonial New England while ignoring that Calvinism originated on Europe

Get out.

>There are extremists in every denomination.

They weren't extremists, they were the original Calvinists, they were the people who defined the reformed church society together with the Swiss and are the source of all the no-fun stereotypes.

If anything you guys might be a watered-down version of those spice-sniffers.