/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>842505

I have my reasons why I doubt, but I do find their argument of total depravity from Romans 1 & 2 and Corinthians compelling.

Predestination? Teaching from hell!

Paul introduced it. Luther enabled Paul. Calvin perfected it.

Paul says we're puppets without freewill and God designates people to hell as he wishes. Blasphemy! God is a righteous God. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not allah! Paul's god is allah!

God gave us freewill. We choose to be evil or to be righteous as God is.

Paul says: Rom 9:19-21 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?" But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God?

Stupid. If that was true, then God would be at fault. Why blame me for if it was bestowed upon me?

Paul contradicts Jesus. Paul is the son of perdition, the man of sin. Paul seeded islam by abrogating the 10 commandments and the spiritual Temple of God.

Read Chapter 2:

https://gofile.io/d/nmqbp2

>>842685

Does anyone take you seriously?

Also, Calvinism is wrong. The closest we'll be able to understand it as is molonism.

>>842686

Ad hominem is the response of failure.

Do you have any worthwhile response that would contribute to establish consensus on truth?

All i see is, every Christian is following man made doctrines, rather than Jesus. Read the document, it's only 14 pages long.

>>842685

Muslims hate Paul wtf are you talking about?

I've never fully understood what the doctrine of predestination actually means. Does God make some people sinners? Does it exclude anything that could be thought of as human free will? I'm thinking of becoming a Calvinist because I'm in agreement with most of the TULIP, but Limited Atonement is hard for me to get my head around. Can a Calvinist explain their position on this?

>>842758

From what I understand of calvinism. Calvinists think once humanity entered the fall, there was no way that individuals to return to God's presence unless He selectively chooses them. In othewords, everyone is condemned until God elects them which he planned to do since eternity.

Ofc, if God knew He was going to elect from the fall from eternity's pass, that means the fall was inevitable which was never expressed throughout His word, yet that the Calvinist's claim.

>>842761

I don't get it. The Father chose to send his Son and Holy Spirit to save us, every denomination says this.

So often confused during this discussion (which I hope to clear up) are predestination, TULIP, and sovereignty. These are related, but they are vitally distinct.

Firstly, the doctrine of predestination is almost ubiquitously confused with the doctrine of sovereignty. The former is concerned with salvation and damnation alone, while the latter concerns God's control over all things that occur in time. The first thing that must be said is that all denominations which can be considered at all orthodox believe both of these doctrines. They may have different forms of these doctrines, but everyone believes that God predestines the elect to salvation and that He is sovereign over all that occurs in time. The question is merely of whether the divine decree is reactive to or determinative of the actions of creatures. The Reformed tradition maintains that God has a specific plan for all things which has never and will never fail. The purpose of the world is the glorification of God, and all things which come to pass from the fall of man to the death of Christ serve that purpose. And part of this plan is the salvation of the elect and the damnation of the reprobate.

The Reformed tradition maintains a doctrine called double predestination which is that God not only decrees in eternity past the salvation of the elect but also the damnation of the reprobate. In eternity past the identity of the elect and the reprobate is determined arbitrarily by the will of God. Now this doctrine is oftentimes confused with a heresy of hyper-Calvinism called equal ultimacy, which holds that damnation and salvation are equal not only in eternity past, but also in their fulfillment in time, so that God causes sin. Reformed orthodoxy maintains that while election and reprobation are equal, salvation and damnation are very different. Whereas God's decree of reprobation is fulfilled passively, that is, by allowing creatures to fall and sin, His decree of election is fulfilled actively, by sending His Son to make atonement for the sins of His people, and sending His Spirit to raise their souls from death to life. Therefore God cannot be accused of being the author of sin or of being unjust, since even though He created them to be destroyed, it was them alone who freely and wholeheartedly chose to be wicked and to rebel against Him, and there is no remorse in the lost.

Now, the doctrine of total depravity is held in common between Lutheranism and the Reformed tradition. Regardless of any Lutheran's opinion on it, it is a fact of history that Martin Luther himself quite explicitly taught and believed it. Indeed, he said it was not an "irrelevant point" or a "bauble" like "popery, purgatory, [and] indulgences", upon which "all have hitherto tried to hunt me down", but that this doctrine is "the thing itself", "the grand turning point of the cause", "the vital part" and "the grand hinge upon which [the Reformation] turned". Indeed, this is such a foundational doctrine of Protestantism itself, that until the end of that century nobody even imagined there could be such a thing as a synergistic Protestant, so that when Arminianism appeared it was derided as "popeless Romanism". Now, the matter between Erasmus and Luther is the question of whether there is some goodness left in man, or is man in his natural state so utterly broken and sinful that he will never of his own consent bend his knee to his creator and Lord. The position of the Reformed tradition is the latter.

Unconditional election is the doctrine that the basis upon which God determines the identity of the elect is arbitrary; that is, it is not based on anything other than His own will. Now this is not to say that circumstances of that creature's life do not factor in to the decision, as scripture says for example God has lifted up the things that are not to shame the things that are. But it means that God is not swayed by the fulfillment of some condition, whether it be the free will decision to believe in Him, or by partaking in the sacraments, or otherwise co-operating with grace in any way. What separates the elect from the reprobate is not some pious act which the elect in their superior nature chose to commit, indeed apart from God there is no difference between them, but nothing other than the grace of God which is given in pursuance of His particular purpose.

Limited atonement might be the most controversial doctrine of the Reformed tradition, but it is very often misunderstood. Arguments against it are quite often not really an objection to it, but to unconditional election. For example when synergists argue that "God wants to save everyone", this is actually an objection to the level of definition of the specific identity of the elect necessitated by unconditional election. What limited atonement is is the doctrine that when Jesus Christ was crucified, He took upon Himself the sins of elect alone, not of the reprobate. If this is not so, then there is injustice and no salvation, because the same atonement was given to the elect and the reprobate and yet some of them are damned, so all of them are damned and the sacrifice of Christ is no more efficacious than the sacrifices of the old law. When the sinner believes in Jesus, his sins are completely blotted out and his justification is final. There can be no sin great enough to overpower this sacrifice. So it must be that everyone for whom the sacrifice is made will be saved, otherwise, it is a failure and our hope is in vain; we have no basis to believe that we will be saved if Jesus died equally for the damned, in that case it is clearly not enough to keep one out of hell.

The doctrine of irresistible grace is what separates the monergist from the synergist. The question is: is man able to from the goodness that remains in his nature able to choose of his own free will to co-operate with God's grace and work together with Him for his own salvation, or is man, being dead in sin, raised up to spiritual life by an efficacious act of God in a true miracle, to a position where he is now free from the domination of sin and his heart set on God, becoming here and now by the grace of God alone truly a saved man, a saint?

Finally the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is the teaching that God will keep that which He made a down payment for in the act of regeneration. He has put in all of this effort for the salvation of the believer, He does not intend now to throw him away. This doctrine is the ultimate source of peace for us since we can have confidence that if we have believed at all, that He shall preserve that faith in us lest we should fall back into temptation. Though the faith of the believe may wax and wane, it can never be destroyed utterly, lest the promises of God be lies.

>>842813

>>842814

Based. I would like to add that synergistic protestantism being the norm in America is a rather recent thing and isnt something any of the reformers would recognize.

>>842827

No. It's called Methodism. It's been here since the beginning of the USA. Even Superman is a Methodist! (that's a joke, but it is true). Practically synonymous with classic America, from many early Patriots to Abolitionists to now. If Apple Pie was a Christian, it'd be a Methodist too.

>>842813

>>842814

Thank you for these posts this has been extremely helpful for me.

I have a further question,

>Therefore God cannot be accused of being the author of sin or of being unjust, since even though He created them to be destroyed, it was them alone who freely and wholeheartedly chose to be wicked and to rebel against Him, and there is no remorse in the lost.

Can you further elaborate upon this point for me? I do not understand how the creature can freely choose to be wicked if they were created to be destroyed? If all men are incapable of being saved without God's action, and no one can refuse this grace (if I understand Perseverance of the saints accurately) it seems as if God simply allows some people to be damned for no particular reason.

I want to be clear, I am NOT making any accusation or anything I am honestly trying to learn, because a lot of men that I have been learning about Christianity from have been Calvinists, so I really want to understand what it means.

It is also interesting to see that Lutherans and Calvinists do not seem to be as divided as I thought, I think Perseverance of the saints is the real stumbling block, and of course the nature of the sacraments, on that particular issue.

>>842900

So there are two reasons why the reprobate is damned. The first is the eternal and secret will of God to glorify Himself by the demonstration of His eternal attributes, including wrath. However, when they are held accountable in His court, this is not for what they are judged, and it would be unjust if it was. The second reason why they are damned is the wickedness within them and their violations of God's holy law; it is on the basis of this they are judged. While God decreed that they would be the way they were, this does not mean that they were not really that way. There is true evil in the heart of the sinner, every evil deed he commits is truly his intent. It is not as though the providence of God is pressing down upon them compelling acts of wickedness, their sins are self-propelled. They did these sinful things, and it pleased them to do it, so that no man may when he comes before the judgement seat of Christ protest that He made them this way, since he will know that he did it, and he wanted to do it, he cannot pretend to be innocent; he deserves the punishment.

What is the traditional Calvinist perspective on the Eucharist/Lord's Supper? I heard that Calvin actually believed in real presence, is that true?

>>842986

"Spiritual" real presence. Christ is present spiritually, but physically remains in heaven until his return at the end of time.

Melancthon was cool was this, but Luther sure as hell wasn't

>>842899

To talk about Calvin the theologian then go down TULIP is anachronistic

>>842902

Can it be understood that the reprobate are those who choose son under any circumstances and the elect are those that wluld choose God if their fallen nature didn't prevent them from being able to do so.

I'm probably going to have to read Institutes on Christina Religion, I really want to understand how it all fits together.

>>843211

*typo I meant to say the reprobate are those who choose sin.

>>843211

>Can it be understood that the reprobate are those who choose son under any circumstances and the elect are those that wluld choose God if their fallen nature didn't prevent them from being able to do so.

Not in the Reformed tradition. Remember: God chose the elect not because there was some superiority in their nature, but to the fulfillment of His eternal plan and the praise of His glorious grace, and there could be absolutely no difference whatsoever between a saint and a reprobate apart from the free grace of God, lest anyone should boast.

>>843242

What is the Scripture used to justify the idea that God wills some people to be damned? Romans 9:19-21? Is it just understood that God saves some as opposed to others for His own purposes?

>>843268

>What is the Scripture used to justify the idea that God wills some people to be damned? Romans 9:19-21?

Yes, but the relevant portion of the text begins at verse 10 and ends at verse 23.

>Is it just understood that God saves some as opposed to others for His own purposes?

I am not sure what you mean, but if you are asking if the reprobate are merely left out of God's purpose then no, they are appointed to destruction and that destruction is the purpose of their existence.

Calvinism is worthless, malignantly worthless. Literally all it has done is caused division in the body of the church, wasted time with discussions over itself and even broken up churches. The man Calvin was an absolutely vicious, vindictive murderer who sent many to be burned at the stake for disagreeing with his autistic philosophical ideas. John Macarthur says you can take the Mark of the beast and be saved still. Scripture says we will know them by their fruits. Actually watch what happens when a Calvinist answers this, they literally think the entire history of John Calvin is a fabrication, a conspiracy. It doesn't matter because most Calvinists are idolaters anyway, idolizing Calvin or other theologians. If you talked to a Calvinist, you'd think their messiah was John Calvin and their cross a tulip. They will have their part in the lake of fire if they don't repent. I'm not saying Calvinism is a damning heresy but certainly idolizing John Calvin as a great many Calvinists do, is.