/lit/ - Literature

>>15874296
what does reformed mean? reformation?

>>15874370
It means Calvinist

>>15874296
Got to respect Calvin for biting the bullet and admitting that theism is incompatible with free will.

>>15875109
Augustine has already done this 1100 year's prior. And his opponent insisting on free will was called a heretic. Then over the next millennium, pelagian heresy crept back into the Church despite then pretending to like Augustine.

That was the point of Calvin and the Reformed movement. Returning to Augustine and true church tradition.

>>15874998
Presbyterian churches in the US, the evangelical and conservative ones, are growing really rapidly.

>>15876482
For that matter, Paul had done so before Augustine. In every sense, predestination and Calvinism was simply the true teaching of the church.

>>15876482
Augustine is the most controversial and heretical of the Church Fathers. We're talking Origen-tier levels of iffiness here.

>>15876503
> Trading Christ for Calvin
Good Lord!

>>15874296
>no Belcea
FUCK.OFF

>>15874998
Netherlands should go back to traditional Catholicism.

There's an interesting lack of church history. If I was trying to reform a movement and return to some original purity I think I would be most interested in exactly when and where it went wrong and why, and importantly what that 'original purity' was. Then again if I was a committed protestant I would be terrified at finding out just how Catholic the earliest Christians were.

>>15876638
>Then again if I was a committed protestant I would be terrified at finding out just how Orthodox the earliest Christians were.
Fixed that for you, since early Christians didn't believe any of the novel doctrines that Catholics created after the Schism.

>>15876555
Got a recommendation? I also wanted to put more puritans and beeke on here

>>15876638
No credible historian in the world considers the Catholic church and the early church to be the same institution. Not one. That is pure Catholic propaganda. And that should terrify you since you base your ability to be saved on a historical assertion that isn't believed by anyone who has studied the period. Even Catholic historians, gun to their head, will admit that the two institutions aren't really the same thing. How shitty is that for you lol

>>15876527
>Then enter the 21th century.
There's a huge "movement" in Orthodoxy to redeem Origen.

>>15876638
If you read even one of those books you'd know it extensively covers early church history and thought you tard

>>15876673
I will never take online Orthodoxy seriously because it's generally not an intellectual position. The people that become Orthodox originally recognize the truth of Catholicism, but they're turned off by some picture of the pope washing a niggers foot. I doubt any of them ever step foot into a Church.

>>15876599
all the cool stuff they did was under protestant hegemony. so no. unless you want to be as irrelevant as fucking belgium.

>>15876711
>Orthodox: we disagree with the way Catholic theology has developed and believe it is contrary to the original beliefs of the Church.
>Catholic: nope u actually know we're right, but nigger nigger something -- I bet you don't even go to church LOL
You're really showing Catholicism to be the intellectual position here...

>>15876697
Rodney Stark, there's one historian. This is why you should refrain from making such wild assertions because they're easily shown to be false. Even without that though, if we assume that it's actually true that not a single historian believes that the Catholic Church is the true Church, this is still beside the point. What I'm referring to as Catholic in the earliest Christians are things like the Eucharist and apostolic succession which is all over the early writings and these are things that Calvinists reject.

In the end though, what I think you're doing is playing a verbal trick. In a technical sense the Church today is not the same institution as the Church from a week ago because it is something that constantly evolves and develops through time, just as God revealed himself progressively throughout history and not all at once. James White is big on this sort of sophistry to distract from how radically different his understand of Christianity is from the historical understanding.

>>15876533
Christ teaches it to, lest ye forget that only good trees can bring forth good fruit.
The wicked shall always be, and so the righteous in kind.
They each may deviate slightly from their roots, but their ultimate ends, the fruits of their labors, have already been known by the Lord.

>>15876738
>He said nigger so I'm going to ignore the rest of the post he made
Yeah, you really are showing the strength of Orthodoxy's rejection of God's gift of reason.

>>15876761
You made no actual point and didn't address what I originally said at all. You did nothing other than insult me. There's nothing to address other than your ridiculousness, which has manifested yet again.

>>15876776
I told you already that I don't take the Orthodox seriously so why would I argue with you? I respect Calvinists more.

>>15876781
Lol, well there you go. Nice talking to you.

>>15876697
>No credible historian in the world considers the Catholic church and the early church to be the same institution.
Most "credible" historians are also atheists who deny the virgin birth of Jesus and wasn't resurrected after he died on the Cross. That Doesn't magically make them right. Plus, we have writings from the saints Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome , Irenaeus of Lyons and Ignatius of Antioch (all second or third generation Christians) who write of their liturgical and theological positions, all of which are clearly Catholic rather than Protestant in nature. But okay, let's believe atheistic historians because we trust non-believers who make it clear they are only looking at the historical and not the theological side of things more than we do people who were taught by the Apostles. Protestants put to much trust in the works of St. Augustine (with no historical context as per usual, so there's no reference to Stoicism's influence upon Augustine) when it comes to how he came up and defended against the Pelagian view of free will.

>>15876828
This is an example of the inane shit some biblical scholars do when trying to reconstruct the historical Jesus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

>>15876482
Lol, the Pelagian heresy is wrong because it insists that man's nature is not fallen. We are all fallen and cannot will ourselves into salvation, however we have the free will to choose whether or not we accept God's grace.

>>15876745
Quote where he says this from a peer reviewed source.

>>15876527
Ok so Catholics are really larping online then. Augustine is a saint. He cannot be an abject heretic by definition

Take your dying cult to some other site. I hear you all come from Catholic Answers anyway.

>>15876838
>we have the free will to choose whether or not we accept God's grace
Not according to Augustine and that controversy. You're just saying you're Augustinian while taking Pelagius' side. Which is the same thing Pelagius did.

>>15876842
Saints can be heretical at one point in their lives and later accept that they were wrong.

>>15876842
>Quote where he says this from a peer reviewed source.
What are you talking about?

>>15876745
>In a technical sense the Church today is not the same institution
Look at this cope. Even the dumb Catholic larper admits it. The Catholic church is not the early church. It is an indefensible position absent childish sophistry like what followed in that post. Pathetic.

>>15876847
>Pelagianism, also called Pelagian heresy, a 5th-century Christian heresy taught by Pelagius and his followers that stressed the essential goodness of human nature and the freedom of the human will.
I'm literally not taking Pelagius' side in this.

>>15876848
No shit. The point is that he was made a saint for his refutation of Pelagius based on efficacious grace and predestination.

Don't reply to me again larper. You're too dumb to debate.

>>15876842
> Augustine is a saint. He cannot be an abject heretic by definition
He can be wrong, even if he is a saint. He said something to the effect that all sexual intercourse is a sin, even within the confines of marriage. Granted, he's right in the Pelagian debate, but he literally wrote a book earlier on how free will exists called De libero arbitro and how determinism (like the system Calvin set up) is a heresy that leads to dualism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_libero_arbitrio_(Augustine_book)

So literally it's not Augustine that's wrong, but Calvin's dumb interpretation of him that's heretical.

>>15876856
>>15876745
Reject the false dichotomy of Roman Catholic and Roman Catholic-breakoff, Eastern Orthodoxy is the early Church.

>>15876856
It has the Eucharist and apostolic succession so at the very least it has something in common with the early Church. What does the Calvinist church have?

>>15876858
>freedom of the human will.
There it is. You're just being a Talmudist saying that free will and efficacious grace can coexist. Augustine said nothing of the sort when he refuted Pelagius. In fact, that was the whole point. Catholics just decided to gloss over this later.

>>15876872
>It has the Eucharist and apostolic succession so at the very least it has something in common with the early Church
Where does the bible say these are requirements for salvation or the "true church"

>>15876873
See >>15876863

>>15876880
It's somewhere in the Gospels, the last supper where Jesus said his followers must eat his flesh but we aren't talking about the bible, but the writings of the earliest fathers and how radically different their understanding of the Church is from modernist Calvinists. Don't change the subject.

>>15876895
You brought it up but nice to know it's indefensible

>>15876998
What is indefensible? I just pointed out where these things generally can be found but I didn't go into detail because it's beside the point, which is that the earliest Christians had a very different understanding of Christianity than modernist Calvinists. The Catholic understanding of apostolic succession and the Eucharist can be false but this doesn't change the fact that the earliest Christians had a Catholic understanding of these things and repeatedly asserted them throughout their writings.

>>15876492
There is definitely not a single church that is growing rapidly in the west. Don't delude yourself.

>>15876873
Let me make it as simple as possible:
Humans cannot by their own strength of will exist without sinning.
Humans can however by their own will choose to accept God's grace.
By willing participation in God's grace, we have the strength to reject sin which we would not have had we rejected God's grace.

Dude, just read the part of Exodus in which Israel builds the tabernacle, it emphasises free will.

>>15877060
They are growing via people leaving other denominations. So while Christianity is in overall decline, those churches are growing.

>>15877061
Repeat Romans 8 where this attitude is explicitly refuted. Further, the partitioning of will and intellect was a novelty of Aquinas not known to the early church. Introducing it is just a roundabout way to sneak Pelagianism in.

Non-Christian here. Calvinism definitely have the best Christian aesthetics. If I wanted to become a christcuck then a Calvinist I would be.

>>15877094
There is no evidence for this. They are growing in part due to switching, and from conversions, and from these people having huge families with tons of children. My Presbyterian church has an average number of children per family of 5, with the 5 or 7 being quite common.

>>15877155
>There is no evidence for this.
https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/
Also, personal anecdotes isn't actual evidence and most of those kids won't go to church in the future.

>>15877139
>Repeat Romans 8 where this attitude is explicitly refuted. Further, the partitioning of will and intellect was a novelty of Aquinas not known to the early church.
See >>15876863

See

>>15877181
You're quoting Augustine to refute the bible? Cute.

>>15877197
Because I just read Romans 8 right now, and it doesn't even contradict free will. It's talking about dying to the world and living in Christ while being part of God's elect here on Earth. How is that denying free will? You'd really have to interpret the passage super-literally to get something approaching that.

>>15874296
>Literally worshipping Yaldaboath, creator of a flawed material world.

Why do "orthodox" Christians, Jews, and Muslims do this!?

>>15877216
Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 27 And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because[g] the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. 28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good,[h] for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

>>15877139
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EawLZTrI8FI

>>15877270
Not watching some fag video explain why the words don't mean what they plainly mean lol

>>15877242
That supports what >>15877061 was saying about us cooperating with God's graces. The key phrase here is "intercedes".
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intercede#Etymology

>>15877305
Again. This is refuted by the literal, literal literal word of God, which simply presents a chain of salvation that starts with predestination

>>15877305
Not biblical. Jesus never said this. Paul never said it. Ever.

>>15877305
The key phrase is predestines. No definition of intercede presented contradicts predestination. In fact, it makes it even clearer that the Spirit provides efficacious grace.

>>15874296
the absolute state

I love how Catholics will go out of their way to avoid explaining the clear meanings of the Bible. It's hilarious. Why are they like this though?

>>15877452
They don't even have an interpretation. Their church is infallible supposedly, but it can't create an an infallible document that explains what any given passage of scripture actually means. They have their dogmas and you have to wrench scripture around to try and fit them somehow.

>>15877394
>>15877424
>>15877436

>This is refuted by the literal, literal literal word of God, which simply presents a chain of salvation that starts with predestination

Except God predestining the elect is not contradictory to them exercising the will to express their desire to love God and receive his graces. Even fucking Stoicism (a pagan philosophy) managed to realize that in some sense, free will doesn't contradict the existence of Providence.

>>15877452
I love how Protestants go out of their way to not explain the Bible properly and use it like how Muslims do. Both do it because they have very little knowledge of the Church and are trying to fish for passages that are at best vague without context that justify their heretical beliefs

>>15877491
>in some sense
In the sense that "we can't explain but it has to make sense somehow because otherwise it's determinism which is bad because ???, so there."

>>15877491
>Even fucking Stoicism (a pagan philosophy) managed to realize that in some sense, free will doesn't contradict the existence of Providence.
And there you have the Catholic admitting that the reason his church teaches what it does is because it was infiltrated by pagan philosophy instead of clinging to scripture. Classic stuff. And he's arrogant about this fact!

>>15877491
>I love how Protestants go out of their way to not explain the Bible properly
There have been forests worth of trees slaughtered to produce thorough, Reformed biblical commentaries and exegetical works that you can refer to if you would ever like to be honest.

>>15877485
>infallible document
Only Christ is infallible.

(Unless, of course, you're a Muslim and you believe in an "uncreated" and "co-eternal" Koran, lol.)

>>15877491
>I love how Protestants go out of their way to not explain the Bible properly and use it like how Muslims do.
Yeah and Jesus, who proof texted all the time. Anyway, the Catholic church infallibly declared scripture to be inerrant and infallible, so there's no getting around the literal words. Nice showing your ignorance of your own faith by deriding close reading of God's word as a bad thing though. That's a good look for your religion.

>>15877527
Stop playing word games. You create a new dogma that states that the ex cathedra teaching authority of the pope specifically is infallible, and then if someone mentions it you just say "Oh it's through Christ and only Christ is infallible tee hee." Catholic apologetics is nothing but lying and deception, as evidenced here.

>>15877548
It's this kind of shit Catholics do out if desperation, because the reality is that their religion has made contradictory infallible declarations, proving them false.

Then they berate us for not playing their postmodern textual games... but here's the thing... It's not our fault their religion is literally prima facie contradictory.

>>15877548
>the ex cathedra teaching authority of the pope specifically is infallible
I'm not Catholic.

>>15877568
Then stop confusing the discussion. The post you were responding to was clearly by a protestant talking about how Catholic "infallibility" is ridiculous.

>>15877514
Determinism is literally a Gnostic heresy. So yeah it's bad if you are a Christian. Plus, it's extremely prideful to say you are part of the elect and you are assured to go to heaven when you don't know everything or whether you will persevere, which is essentially saying that you are as knowledgeable as God on matters like this, hence a mortal sin.

>>15877522
>And there you have the Catholic admitting that the reason his church teaches what it does is because it was infiltrated by pagan philosophy instead of clinging to scripture.
You realize Augustine was influenced by pagan philosophers when attacking Pelagius right? You can't have your cake and eat it. A broken clock can still be right by the grace of God. Even St. Paul knew a bit of Stoicism, since he was able to cite Cleanthenes (in Him we live move and have our being) in his exhortation to the Stoics and Epicureans in Acts 17. Unless St. Paul is a heretic that likes paganism too much, the message is that there is some use in teaching philosophy for evangelization so long as it's in line with the Truth of Christ. You would think someone that reads the Bible would know this.

>>15877536
Are you that retard that spergs about Catholic Answers and replies 15 times instead of once like a normal person? I've answered you 5 times about this. I'm not wasting my time doing it again.

>>15877572
> stop confusing the discussion with facts and truth!!1
Uh, okay?

>>15877582
I'm saying that the person you were responding to already clearly agrees with you so responding the way you did makes it look like you're a Catholic.

>>15877576
*Cleanthes

>>15877576
I don't see an argument in here. I see burgeoning mental illness and paranoia. I never claimed Augustine was infallible. I claimed the bibles teaching on predestination is true because the bible says it is. None of your autism about paganism matters. And the Catholic church does teach the bible is inerrant and infallible. You can't insert meaning that isn't there with extratextual satanic pagans and claim you've figured out the true meaning.

And as for your feels about predestination being anti christian... Take it up with Jesus and Paul. The words still stand. Now stop equivocating and engage with the bibles words or stop posting.

>>15876842
>religious bandwagon

>>15877641
Cool. An ad hominem right off the bat, dodging the question by stating something I never said then flat out not justifying anything you say. I don't harbor hatred towards Protestants and often get into debates with them in a school club I'm in, but this is just flat out debating in bad faith. I don't really care to debate or argue with someone that's a blatant liar and feels the need to misconstrue my points (in addition, to responding multiple times to my post for no reason other than to create a false sense of consensus). When you want an actual debate and not a circlejerk call me. Until then God bless. People like you unironically make Protestants look worse in terms of their intellectual capacities (when i know that's not the case, even as a Catholic). Learn how to debate properly instead of being brainless zealot.

>>15877676
>no argument
Do you see the mean poster you keep arguing with right Now? Is he in the room with you?

>>15877650
Yeah Reddit loves evangelicals great point reddit.

>>15877143
If Calvinism is true you wanting to become something would have nothing to do with it.

>best Christian aesthetics
t. the brainlet who thinks religion is like ice cream

>>15877676
If protestants are so bad at arguing why are they gaining converts while Catholics are rapidly losing them, as illustrated in the chart above?


Weird.. .

>>15877704
Why should I waste my time talking to a retard wanting to start shit? I have better things to do than argue with the void.

>>15877718
The same reason why people are generally becoming more irreligious and abandoning Christianity: people aren't really swayed by arguments, but their emotions.

>>15877717
Don't care. Best aesthetics and a coherent philosophy.

>>15877752
The op has a whole list of intelligent and persuasive books on Calvinism. Half of them written by Princeton theologians

>>15877773
>coherent philosophy
New poster, but agree. I was just posting on /lit/ about how refreshing the Westminster Standards are. So crisp and clear and unequivocal. Compare that to anything written in the Catholic church in the last 60 years.

>>15877869
That may be true but you do realize that most people are abandoning religion altogether, Protestant and Catholic. Again, this is an example of your non sequitur style of argumentation. Not a huge portion of the lay population reads theology. Fundamentally that has always been the case. Face reality, church attendance is dwindling going down and Christianity is becoming more of a cultural thing to most people, not an actual religion.

https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/

>>15877935
*reads theology books barring the Bible

>>15877935
Ok dude I am not whatever person you are arguing with in your head. Also that link shows protestants as a whole, combining mainline and evangelical. That has no bearing in evangelicals. It's just a tactic to imply decline where it doesn't exist.

>>15877676
>

>>15877984
Nice ad hom, faggot. Also nice job ignoring actual data on the subject matter supporting my point. The supposed growth in evangelicals isn't outpacing the decline in religion overall. I'd rather trust Pew than some random anonymous individual on the internet on the subject matter.

>>15877992
Attacking Catholicism isn't going to get people in the pews, faggot.

Calvinism is a degenerate moderni$t here$y and even Muslims are better morally and have a more plausible theology than Calvinists.

>>15878016
Evangelicals aren't declining you dense retard

>>15878246
>Catholic stumping for Muslims
This thread is really showing your true colors huh

>>15878255
>The supposed growth in evangelicals isn't outpacing the decline in religion overall
>Even the fucking link acknowledges there's a very slight growth in the amount of evangelicals (although not enough to outpace the decline in Christianity).

Being this fucking stupid ought to be a crime

>>15878264
We fought the Muslim invasion into Europe in the 1500s meanwhile you were siding with the fucking Ottoman Sultan in the dispute. You are worse than Musilims. Traitors are worse than the enemy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liever_Turks_dan_Paaps

>>15878294
>siding with the fucking Ottoman Sultan in the dispute

Like Catholic France did?

>>15878294
Why would I care if people beside evangelicals are declining? Catholics are Satan worshipers and mainliners are homosexuals. I don't want that type of religion around.

Also why pope kiss book if no like Muslims? Why catechism say Muslims go to heaven?

>>15878328
Actually France used the treaty between the Ottoman Empire and itself to at least ensure the safety of Christians within the Empire and actually asked that a mosque be re-purposed as a church along with building a church in Istanbul and allowing French Catholics the right oto practice their faith in Ottoman territory until 1923. Plus, the alliance was more centered on France's desire to get a political partner in Central Europe and the biggest power there was the Ottoman Empire. They didn't even get involved in the Battle of Lepanto in any sense, for the Papal States or for the Ottomans. The Dutch Protestants flat out just wanted to see Catholics get steamrolled because they hated the Church that much. Also the Ottomans supported the Calvinists in France you know?

>>15878344
Stay mad retard

>>15878401
And before you say source:
https://books.google.com/books?id=3uJzjatjTL4C&pg=PA111#v=onepage&q&f=false

>>15878401
Popes have literally venerated the Quran. Literally.

Why are Catholics so endlessly angry?

>>15878534
No they haven't. how about you read the Catechism before making baseless claims, retard?
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus#Second_Vatican_Council
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the phrase, "Outside the Church there is no salvation", means, if put in positive terms, that "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body", and it "is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church".[

At the same time, it adds: "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

>>15878543
I'm don't pretend to be representative of all Catholics. Unless you want me to believe that all Calvinists are mentally unwell shitposters, I suggest you do the same.

>>15878586
You've been accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being some person stalking you on 4chan. You further suggested this person posts 15 times in a row, repeatedly.

What this means is you are getting multiple people within a thread and across the site conflated into one man you believe is chasing you. That is sick. Why don't you take some pills and go to Catholic Answers where it's safe?

>>15878586
>The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the phrase, "Outside the Church there is no salvation", means, if put in positive terms, that "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body", and it "is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church".[
The church must include Islam

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

>>15878659
There it is.

>>15878679
Literally the next few paragraphs:
842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:

All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333

845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. the Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. the Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.334

(cont.)

>>15878718
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the
Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

How does it feel being a disingenuous piece of shit?

>>15878725
So where does it say Muslims don't go to heaven. Point out the specific line that says this.

>>15878725
Looks like it says other religions go to heaven through the Catholic church even when they don't belong. So Muslims do go to heaven. Inshallah

>>15878735
>Protestants are illiterate
No fucking surprise.
>it means that ALL salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body

>Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is NECESSARY FOR SALVATION: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church.

>Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. (i.e. If you know the Truth of the Catholic faith but still reject it, you go to hell).

Stop being fucking dense.

>>15878773
See >>15878785

I'm reminded of this recent post where some anon lays out the intellectual dishonestly of Protestants (specifically American ones, but Europeans are largely irreligious or marginally Catholic/Orthodox). This thread is basically proof positive of this to me.

>>15878785
But anyone not a Catholic doesn't know catholcism is true. So everyone not a Catholic gets a free pass. That's what it's saying.

>>15878811
>he is double posting
>he is posting screenshots of his own rage
>he will pretend like this isn't true
Mental illness. EVERYONE IS A SHILL AGAINST ME

>>15878819
It doesn't matter if you think it's true. If you someone evangelizes to you and you don't accept it, it makes you liable to go to hell. You have to have absolutely no access to it and live in accordance with at least natural law in order to go to Purgatory after death and then go to heaven instead of going straight to hell.

>>15878826
>I-if I say he's mentally ill one more time, n-no one will listen to him.
The Westministerians aren't sending their best. Sad!

>>15878856
>If you someone evangelizes to you and you don't accept it, it makes you liable to go to hell.
It doesn't say that. It says if someone doesn't know that the Catholic church is true. You didn't provide a quote for what you just claimed. The words of the text are that they are only condemned if they don't know that it is necessary.

Muslims don't know this. Provide another document or else you're bullshitting

>>15874296
OFFICIAL GOOD BOOK LIST
READ GOOD BOOKS
BE A GOOD BOY

DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT LIFE?
FORGET THEM ALL
JUST ASK
"HOW DO I BE A GOOD BOY??"
I TELL YOU
READ GOOOOOOOD BOOOK
THIS PROGRAM WILL WASH YOUR BRAIN AND YOU WILL BE CLEAN
YOU WILL BE GOOD

READ GOOD BOOOK
READ GOOD BOOOK
READ GOOD BOOOK
READ GOOD BOOOK

lit in a nutshell
literally schizophrenic retard authoritarian abominations

>>15878896
It literally does clearly state that:
>Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

>847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

>Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

Why the fuck do you think you can blatantly lie when I posted 20 paragraphs proving you are wrong?

>>15878912
>t. Reads only Marxist and queer theory books

>>15878938
This quit eproves clearly that non Catholics go to heaven. It says that. A Muslim would meet the criteria presented in that quote

>>15876599
Dat bepaal ik zelf wel, flikker

>>15878938 (Me)
Again, this the typical Protestant word-play bullshit:
>Nowhere does it say knowing the Catholic Church is true in the Catechism, but having access to the Word and not taking advantage of it makes you liable to go to hell
>Literally pulls something out of his ass that I didn't say.
Fucking faggot

>>15878962
There are plenty of Catholics who interpret this to mean Muslims can go to heaven. Cardinal Walter Kasper thinks so, and he has magisterial authority. So what are your credentials? It literally says nonc Catholics can go to heaven. Right there. What you quoted. In plain words.

>>15878946
Yes people "who, through no fault of their own" don't know the Gospel and live a life in accord with natural law can go to heaven. Muslims and anyone else that do this can go to heaven. However, it is very explicit about that criteria being met only when someone doesn't have access to the Gospel and. If you do have access to it and you refuse to believe it, then if you don't change your mind by the time you die, you will go to hell. It's not hard to understand, nor is this passage written that obtusely. You are just being deliberately obtuse in order to even give credence to anything I am saying.

>>15878986
Who cares what one bishop thinks? The Catechism lays out the beliefs of the Chuerch moreso than any bishop, even if they are part of the Magisterium(hell there was a bishop who after his death was revealed to be an atheist. That doesn't mean much other than he's probably in hell). There are some bishops that are pro-abortion probably. It doesn't change the fact that abortion is a sin and an aberration before God.

>>15879035
>If you do have access to it and you refuse to believe it
That's not what it says. It says "know" it.

>>15879035
>Who cares what one bishop thinks?
Who cares what you think? You're twisting the words to mean something that isn't clear from the text and insisting it must be so. But it's not clear, and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. And bishops teach contrary to you. Therefore, you're wrong.

Muslims are a part of the plan of salvation. This is because they are faithful Muslims and don't know the gospel. Even if presented to them, they do not KNOW that Jesus saves.

That is a much clearer reading that synthesizes all the statements.

Catholic bros come on...we can't lose another thread debate....

>>15879317
As in, you presented it and have access to this knowledge it doesn't contradict what I've said.

>>15879343
Who cares what you think?
>You're twisting the words to mean something that isn't clear from the text and insisting it must be so.
Except I'm not. It's literally talks about through people who don't know the Gospel "through no fault of their own" (i.e. they have no access to it and hence can't reject it or accept it) and live a life in accord with God's natural law being able to go to heaven and then explicitly states that those who refuse to accept the Truth when presented with it go to Hell. You ignore that part because it's inconvenient to your narrative and you go into minutuia about knowing addressed by the CCC.

>But it's not clear,
It is very clear. Even St. Iranaeus says something very similar:

>Irenaeus wrote: "One should not seek among others the truth that can be easily gotten from the Church. For in her, as in a rich treasury, the apostles have placed all that pertains to truth, so that everyone can drink this beverage of life. She is the door of life" (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, III.4).


>But he also said, "Christ came not only for those who believed from the time of Tiberius Caesar, nor did the Father provide only for those who are now, but for absolutely all men from the beginning, who, according to their ability, feared and loved God and lived justly ... and desired to see Christ and to hear His voice.[13] Irenaeus recognized that all who feared and loved God, practiced justice and piety toward their neighbors, and desired to see Christ, insofar as they were able to do so, will be saved. Since many were not able to have an explicit desire to see Christ, but only an implicit one, it is clear that for Irenaeus, this is enough.

> and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary
See above

>And bishops teach contrary to you. Therefore, you're wrong.
Bishops sometimes can hold teachings that aren't part of Church teaching. St. Augustine held that sex is always a sin, even in marriage, which is and never has been Church Teaching.

>>15879420
Why do you think this autistic concern trolling is working? I know it's you. The poster count didn't increase

>>15879420
who cares what these heretics say? they can argue and debate all they want while they fry in the lake of fire

>>15879430
>through no fault of their own
This does not mean they lack access to the gospel. Nowhere is that stated. It could just as easily mean they were raised Muslim and convinced by parents and family to never convert to Christianity. Do you have proof that this is not true? Again it has been taught this way explicitly by church hierarchy, so you cannot say it is an unacceptable reading.

>>15874296
>no spurgeon

larper detected

>>15876842
>x is a saint
based on what? some random pedo pope saying so?

>>15879449
deus vult xd

>>15879659
Op here. Please if you have suggestions, tell me. I'll update. Throw some good ones at me.

>>15879692
all of grace + treasury of david

>>15879705
Any other authors? I'd like to make another full row. Also might throw in some puritans and bible recommendations (esv and kjv)

NOOO CATHOLIC BROS.... we lost another thread :/

>>15879644
>This does not mean they lack access to the gospel.
Yes it does. I'm a fucking broken track right now, but it literally states that those who do not have access to the Gospel and live worthy lives can't be judged by their lack of knowledge. God is perfectly just. It's not just to judge someone based on something they had no way of knowing. So it stands to reason, God won't judge you for not knowing the Word when you don't have access to it. That's why in Dante's Inferno, all the Aristotle, Plato and a bunch of ancient Greek philosophers aren't in Hell but in Limbo.

> It could just as easily mean they were raised Muslim and convinced by parents and family to never convert to Christianity.
Except that as an adult, you and you alone are accountable for your actions, not your parents. It's not your parents that decide whether you follow Christ it's you (Like Christ said, only those willing to rebuke his or her parents for His sake are worthy of the Kingdom). If you are exposed to the actual Word of Christ via someone spreading the Gospel accurately, then you have to choose whether you believe it or not. No one else can and that decides whether you go to hell or not if you were previously unknowledgeable of the Gospel. Otherwise, if you go by your parents corrupted understanding of Christianity, you are right because you can't be judged if someone else corrupts the Word and lies to you (even if unintentionally). They'll go to hell if they received the accurate version of it, but not you.

>>15879804
Oh look. It's another Prautist concern troll.

>Again it has been taught this way explicitly by church hierarchy, so you cannot say it is an unacceptable reading.
Except it's not. The CCC IS the Church's Teaching on the matter.

Fuck. It's so simple, but you can't accept it.

>>15879822
>Except that as an adult, you and you alone are accountable for your actions, not your parents.
Where does it say this in the catechism... that sociological factors do not attenuate responsibility? I see multiple instances of this being the case in the ccc actually. So your assertion is once again a lie unfounded in the Catholic faith

>>15879845
>Where does it say this in the catechism... that sociological factors do not attenuate responsibility?

>1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

>1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

>>15879871
Yup so under this definition, a sincere Muslim introduced to the gospel could easily get to heaven despite not converting. As I thought.

>>15879871 (Me)
This is short enough that you can read it
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PC.HTM

>>15879883
Except they can't and you know it, I've proved it and you're still coping by trying to repeat a lie until it's true.

>>15879900
1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense.

Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

A sincere Muslim is not feigning ignorance

>>15879929
In terms of sin. Rejecting the Word of God is not unintentional. This deals with unintentionally committing sins like unintentionally killing somebody by driving to fast or something. You either accept or don't accept the Word of God. Either way, you do so with an intention, whether that be to accept the Word of God or not. Just like the rich man that met Jesus, even if you don't accept it, your rejection is not a means to say you are ignorant of the Word if you are presented it. If you disobey the law after it has been made clear to you, you still are liable to be punished.

>>15879983
Basically, if the Muslim in your example dies, he'll be judged by his knowledge and rejection of Christ and be sent to hell.