/lit/ - Literature

Calvinism is compelling to anyone familiar with Calvin but unfamiliar with the historical context of Paul's writings in relation to 1st century Judaism.

>>19478298
Paul didn't write the Gospel of John

>>19478298
That's not true at all. I have the Jewish Annotated NT, read it cover to cover, and think 5 point calvinism is accurate. Any gotcha you think you can derive from historia criticism is going to be as one dimensional as the caricature you're trying to incite here. Go ahead. Also be sure to explain how 1st century Judaism makes your favorite theology more likely. Please say you're a catholic or something lol

>>19478328
I'm not a catholic
>Jewish Annotated NT
Try reading something that wasn't written by revanchist kikes next time.

>>19478298
Not really. If anything that's true of lutheranism, but you didn't provide an argument anyway you low content threadshitter. I provided the proof texts. Engage with them using your epic sources.

>>19478387
I just dropped by tell you that you are wrong, not interested in arguing with you. Now go do your homework, prottieboy.

>>19478265
see
>>19478447

>>19478429
So you read this on a blog and parrotted it then. Kinda guessed that. You've never read any 1 century Jewish sources and you don't even know what they teach.

What is your religion so I know to mock it

>>19478265
>Calvinism
>Monothelite heretics
Calvinism is satanism. Read St. Maximus.

>implying you can just take verses and make up an arbitrary system to interpret them however you wish based on subjective meaning assigned to the words
You're doing pagan philosophy, not theology.

>>19478328
>likely
>>19478265
>supported

Cringe. You don't even know what you worship. It's literally speculation.

>>19478265
Romans does not prove unconditional election. In fact, if God decides to harden the heart of a man when he is alive, this disproves unconditional election entirely.

God predestining grace and mercy does not mean that there is no "effort" on our end, otherwise you are calling Christ a liar when he teaches that we ought to pray for forgiveness. The simple fact of the gospel is that people come to Jesus and ask him requests and He answers them.

>>19478601
Not even close to an argument

>>19478672
This isn't really a good point. You just asserted the texts can't mean what they plainly mean because you don't think so.

Statements of dogmas in the Bible outweighs your nebulous interpretation of descriptive events.

>>19478672
You don't understand what predestination is. Or the 5 points

>>19478672
>God predestining grace and mercy does not mean that there is no "effort" on our end
Predestination means Predestination though. Stop trying to talk your way our of the words of God. Whatever Christ taught is in accord with the words Paul wrote here. So harmonize the two. Oh wait that's Calvinism, which includes compatibilism and creaturely will.

>>19478672
>>19478624
>>19478601
>>19478429
Notice that there are no arguments which refute the plain words of Scripture here. There is emotionalism and insinuation. This is all the anti Calvinist has, because the Bible is abundantly clear that Calvinism is true.

There is no response to the passages I listed in OP which form the basis of Calvinism. The 5 points are not a theological construct of men like Orthodoxy or Catholicism. It is simply taking Scripture at its word and forming a coherent theology based on it directly.

>>19478265
Hmm what actually is the response to these passages?

Limited atonement is just common sense. If Jesus died for a people, but all people aren't saved, in what sense did he die for them? Was his blood not good enough? Obviously he only died for people who are saved.

>Romans 9:18, ESV: "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills."
Ok I'm convinced. Unconditional election is real.

Are Catholics and Baptists basically the same thing? They kinda have the same ideas and arguments about stuff.

>>19479562
It's the Arminian theology of the baptists. I suggest not looking into it too much, it's enough to just know it's wrong.

>>19479591
They both use those stupid arguments where they insist their theology is correct because "why would God let the church do it wrong for so long?"

That sums up the approach to catholicism and kjv

>>19479689
It's a very inconsistent special pleading. Catholics appeal to ancient practice but also give themselves permission to change things, so they are hypocrites on things like the baptism of infants, the charism, etc. They also neglect that things like the Protestant OT and faith alone were active debates up to the time of the Reformation. The notion that Protestants are ahistorical then is equivalent to saying the entire church before Trent was ahistorical

Has anyone ever read BB Warfields Counterfeit Miracles?

>>19479810
Yeah it's for free online and very good

>>19478265

>>19480954
Why did you post an image of someone saying he doesn't understand calvinism before demonstrating exactly that? You can't seriously think this is an epic dunk, can you?

>>19480954
>God can't just damn people from all eternity!
Wtf it's right in the op, Rom 9:18.

The

Bible

Says

God

Does

Good thing hell doesn’t exist

>>19478265
How typical of Calvinists, taking three or four isolated versicles to justify their claim.

We can argue simply by logic. If some people were already elected to be save, why would Christ do his sacrifice in order to clean the sins?
The Calvinist absurdity is that God did this in order to favor few and not all humanity. But if the elected and the damned are already chosen, I don't see why Christ would do His sacrifice;

Refute this:
1 Timothy 2:4

>>19478783
>not constructed
>doesn't have precedents before Calvin
>therefore all Christians, east to west, were reading the bible wrong, we needed Calvin to figure it out.

okay bruv, whatever you say

>>19478265
>>19478690
>>19478783
>>19479266
>>19480972
Sola Scriptura is supported neither by scripture nor history.

>>19481050
Rom.9 18, once again

>>19481042
Why are you taking a single verse and isolating it to make your argument???

>>19481042
>1 Timothy 2:4
Irony aside, harmonizing this passage with the passages on predestination is fairly easy. In verses 1-2, Paul clarifies how he is using the word “all.” He writes, “I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions.” Here, “all people” does not refer to every individual person, but rather to particular classes, or groups, of people, for example, “kings and all who are in high positions.”

>>19479562
Catholics seem to land in Molinism, which is a very complex Jesuit concept where God has the knowledge of all the infinite possible outcomes of human free will.
It implies God's Knowledge is so vast that he knows what would happen even if the possibility is never acted upon.

They named five points for it too and call it ROSES

>R is for Radical Depravity
Man's nature is radically depraved from the fall.
>O is for Overcoming Grace
God's grace overcomes man's radical depravity. As opposed to irresistible grace, man can respond.
>S is for Sovereign Election
God's sovereign election of individuals, predetermined by His exercise of middle knowledge to know who would respond to Him in faith. This is instead of unconditional election, where God elects individuals independent of their libertarian free will.
>E is for Eternal Life
Regenerate believers will not fall away from a state of justification.
>S is for Singular Redemption
A modified view of limited atonement. Christ's redemption is sufficient for all, but applicable only to the elect

One might criticize these points (it was rejected by Thomists), I personally don't take it, but it does add a lot to the Soterological debate. It is superior to Arminianism imo

>>19481056
>Rom.9 18, once again
I don't think God doesn't arbitrarily chooses whoever will go to hell, although He could that, it is visible throughout the Bible that He is doing the opposite of that by giving His Son in sacrifice.

This passage must be understood in context. God did hardened the heart of some men, for example, the Pharaoh in Exodus for it was part of His plan. I don't think He is hardening the heart of your neighbor that rathers mowing the lawn on sunday rather than going to church.
He Loves everyone, Anon.

>>19478265
I agree OP. However, Calvinism makes God a cartoonish villain, and is basically self-refuting. Good day.

God is everywhere and everything, so God obviously causes the hardening of hearts. He is light and darkness. If God didnt want suffering he wouldn’t have created it. However, God is not a detached, individual being and there is no eternal afterlife of fire nor pearly gates. He’ll certainly didn’t exist in the OT, so it’s not as if Jesus subtlety invented it. No, he references Gehenna and Sheol. It’s all a metaphor, a parable. The kingdom of heaven was inside of you all along. Jesus was killed because he showed people that you could have enlightenment without following religion and serving the priests, that was his sacrifice to us. Sin doesn’t exist because everything is God’s plan, you should not feel remorse. For it is the Father that does the works in me. I am in him and he is in me. But if you deny your self, you will realize the truth and you will have no need to follow the ego, and you will experience heaven.

>>19481121
>God did hardened the heart of some men, for example, the Pharaoh in Exodus for it was part of His plan. I don't think He is hardening the heart of your neighbor that rathers mowing the lawn on sunday rather than going to church.
Actually the point of the passage is exactly that. Its taking the example of Pharaoh and extending it to all people. In context it is saying that precisely.

God loving people or not isn't really a relevant concept to this theology. In a sense God does love the reprobate, and he makes the rain fall on the righteous and the wicked. Hagar falls outside the covenant but God still promises temporal protection to her. Is this love? I dunno.

>>19481144
Hilariously, because the Bible teaches Calvinism, you lying about the Bible and God and calling him evil is literally the unforgivable sin. I suggest you tread carefully and seriously repent because you may cross that line if you haven't already and instantly damn yourself without possibility of forgiveness.

>>19481209
>Ctrl+f "sola scriptura"
>zero results
uh oh, calvinbros...

>>19481217
>changes the topic because he lacks an argument
Just go back to your hugbox containment thread

This is really something. Not even one rebuttal to these proof texts. Not even close to one. Wtf bros is Calvinism really what the Bible explicitly and plainly teaches??

Here's another one:
>44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
Notice that I, as a Calvinist, don't have to posit any disjunctions in the text, and I'm reading the text as it is actually written. My interpretation of 44 comes directly from 45, which is precisely how you read parallelisms in the Psalms and Prophets. I can read through the text in one run without running to John 12 or talking about "free will." I don't have to bring anything to this text that is not in this text and this text alone. Catholics can't do this, as we've seen repeatedly. Only the Calvinist can read this passage and others consistently without stopping to talk about matters extraneous to the text or running elsewhere.

This is the simple strength of Calvinism, and it is why it appeals to rigorous, rational thinkers. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc were the historical class of society drawn to Presbyterianism.

>>19481521
>Notice that I, as a Calvinist, don't have to posit any disjunctions in the text, and I'm reading the text as it is actually written. My interpretation of 44 comes directly from 45, which is precisely how you read parallelisms in the Psalms and Prophets. I can read through the text in one run without running to John 12 or talking about "free will." I don't have to bring anything to this text that is not in this text and this text alone. Catholics can't do this, as we've seen repeatedly. Only the Calvinist can read this passage and others consistently without stopping to talk about matters extraneous to the text or running elsewhere.
this is such a succint, brutal rejoinder to every catholic post on this board ever.

>>19481217
>it's another catholic gets btfo episode
given how many of you incels are on this board 24/7, you could at least dogpile the calvinists, but you always end up with your foot in your mouth every thread.

Calvinists believe in predestination.
Predestination is when all events, (micro and macro sense) are already planned/set in stone.
There is no point in spreading the good news of the sacrifice if people have premptively chosen to follow or not.
Why would I send a message to humans if I already know the answer? It would be a waste of my time, it makes no sense.
>The Lord's prayer says his will
It asks for intervention, ultimately it makes more sense if there is free will.


TL;DR
The message of Christ and choosing to accept him is MEANINGFUL if there is freewill. MEANINGLESS/UNNECCESSARY if all decisions have already been decided.

>>19481685
>Calvinists believe in predestination.
The Bible teaches predestination.

>Predestination is when all events, (micro and macro sense) are already planned/set in stone.
Maybe, maybe not, but this is not a scriptural definition so you're already on the wrong path.

>There is no point in spreading the good news of the sacrifice if people have premptively chosen to follow or not.
Not according to the Bible or any Reformed confession or the practice of Reformed churches or the opinions of any of their theologians current or in history.

>Why would I send a message to humans if I already know the answer? It would be a waste of my time, it makes no sense.
That sounds like a personal problem. Find Christ.

>It asks for intervention, ultimately it makes more sense if there is free will.
The Bible mentions predestination hundreds of times and never once mentions free will. Yet you've made an idol out of it regardless and are raging against Scripture.

>The message of Christ and choosing to accept him is MEANINGFUL if there is freewill.
Only according to you, not Scripture.

>MEANINGLESS/UNNECCESSARY if all decisions have already been decided.
Not according to Scripture, or according to Calvinism.

>>19481701
You put in a lot of effort but none of this convinced me because you were too vague. Prove me wrong by showing me, not by telling me.

>but this is not a scriptural definition so you're already on the wrong path.
Teach me then.

> never once mentions free will.
It doesn't need to, it is obvious when somebody has to convince the other, or when there is an interruption in conversation. Choosing to remain peaceful when hearing preachers which is mentioned in the new testament is a sign of free will.

Christ > Scripture

>>19481760
>Christ > Scripture
oof, heresy

>>19481685
You know the answer b/c you know you will send the message and its effect.

>>19481760
wtf this is the stupidest thing i've ever read, and I'm a Catholic.

How do Calvinists interpret passages where the things people choose to do clearly affect their salvation? For example the parable of the sheep and the goats, or Revelation 20:14 "Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done."

>>19482768
The premise in calvinism is called compatabalism.

It's been debunked by Pastor Steven Anderson.

>>19483549
He's a psychotic who has forsaken his Protestant roots. All the Reformers emphasized predestination and forsook free will.

I believe that your a fuckin faggot

>>19478265
Sorry I don't read fiction

>>19478265
>Limited atonement:
>John 10:11

While Christ indeed "τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ τίθησιν ὑπὲρ τῶν προβάτων" why should this mean that He only died for some? Right before this, at 10:9, he says: "ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ θύρα· δι’ ἐμοῦ ἐάν τις εἰσέλθῃ σωθήσεται", would it not be more reasonable to say tha he died so that anyone (τις), by joining his flock through him, could be saved?

>>19478265 (OP)
>Limited atonement:
>John 10:11

While Christ indeed "τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ τίθησιν ὑπὲρ τῶν προβάτων", why should this mean that He only died for some? Right before this, at 10:9, He says: "ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ θύρα· δι’ ἐμοῦ ἐάν τις εἰσέλθῃ σωθήσεται", would it not be more reasonable to say that He died so that anyone (τις), by joining his flock through Him, could be saved?

>>19483886
>would it not be more reasonable to say that He died so that anyone (τις), by joining his flock through Him, could be saved?
Why didn't he just say that instead then? Because you're a pedantic shit trying to change the words of Scripture? Is that why?

>>19484028
But He did not directly say what you did either; I am simply putting together two nearly adjacent passages. Why, if your interpretation were correct, would Jesus not clarify that He is indeed talking only about the elects instead of using a generic τις? Why, if the elect were predestined for salvation, would He use the metaphor of the door, putting agency in our hands who must cross it, rather than using any other metaphor which emphasised God's role in choosing?

>>19481766

Nope. God is not contained in Scripture.

>>19484099
Then put this one together with it too, genius:

John 6:37

>>19484099
>>19484198
Why do you think your interpretation of a metaphor outweighs the plain words of Scripture? Here are some more for you to explain if your interpretation of a vague metaphor is so infallible.

Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will

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

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

Who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began

The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.

In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

And all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain

In your argument, your nebulous conclusion of a metaphor should outweigh all this Scripture, and much more and yet you accuse the calvinist of prooftexting. You are the one who refuses to accept the testimony of the entire Bible in favor of something the Bible never actually says. As to how predestination can be synthesized with human agency, Romans addresses this this Calvinism teaches it. You are aware of that, right? You need to repent for your sinful eisengesis. The burden of proof is on you, not the calvinist, to harmonize the abundant dogma of predestination with your lazy assertion of free will not found in Scripture.

>>19478265
OP, read this

https://kabane52.tumblr.com/tagged/calvinism

>>19484577
No. It looks like a retarded troll. The first post states that he has an "internet career" trolling calvinists. Fuck off. If you find garbage like this convincing, enjoy

>>19484624
Relax and read this, anon

>>19480972
What's even the point in trying to please God if he's already made his choice and there's nothing you can do to change it?

Just trying to "convince yourself" or speculate that you are indeed saved?

>>19484672
Your issue is with the Bible, not me. The Bible says it, not me or John Calvin. Don't ask hypotheticals as if that will change the text of Scripture.

>this thread
Why should I believe a religion in which its adherents argue over the most basic beliefs?

>>19484740
Because you're not going to be a member of every denomination? Also your question isn't relevant to protestants because of the principle of adiaphora.

>>19484198
Why do you have to be so hostile?
I don't see how the passage you posted contradicts what I said: it mentions a generic ἐρχόμενος, not an elect.
>>19484337
>Ephesians 1:4-5.
"us" could well refer to all of humankind since God wishes that every man be saved (cfr. 1 Timothy 1:4: "(Θεὸς) ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν.").
>Romans 8:29.
Primogeniture does not necessarily correspond to salvation.
>John 15:16.
If "you" just refered to the elect, so would the command at 15:12 (ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς) which fits much better as one for the whole of humankind. Again God wishes that all of mankind enter his covenant and be saved.
>John 6:44.
Note how the verb ἕλκω, to draw, is used instead of the variety of verbs that the evangelists used for predetermination: we are talking about an attraction to God that in no way impeaches the freedom of the attracted's will.
>2 Timothy 1:9.
Again "us" can refer to everyone (the same argument as that for Ephesians above).
>Proverbs 16:4.
Your translation seems to come from the Vulgate, which reads: "Universa propter semetipsum operatus est Dominus; impium quoque ad diem malum.", and is not necessarily the correct one. Propter semetipsum can also be refered to God and mean "for himself", as indeed the KJV interprets it; operor, also, is not just to produce but also to work, administer, operate. Funnily enough, the Septuagint as a very similiar passage at 16:9 ("πάντα τὰ ἔργα τοῦ κυρίου μετὰ δικαιοσύνης, φυλάσσεται δὲ ὁ ἀσεβὴς εἰς ἡμέραν κακήν."), where instead of operor we have φυλάσσω, to watch over, to tend to, and instead of propter semetipsum we have μετὰ δικαιοσύνης, "according to justice". Overral not the best passage to stake an important theological point upon.
>Ephesians 1:11.
"we" could still refer to all of mankind.
>Acts 13:48.
Τάσσω need not necessarily mean appointed, it could also mean disposed; moreover, it is not specified whether this "determination" occured at the beginning of time or right after the speech: we can't therefore with certainty talk of pre-determination.
>Rev 13:8.
It is not the book that was written from the beginning of the world, but the lamb who was slain (ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου)

The very fact that we can argue so much over interpretation is proof that the meaning of the Bible is not clear and patent: the only thing that is wide and broad is the road to damnation.

>>19478265
crazy how it took 1,500 and the arrival of a lawyer with no apostolic succession to finally figure out what Scripture actually means

>>19485524
Plenty of fathers talked about predestination

>>19485388
Every one of these is a stretch and frankly special pleading. You wouldn't be attempting these over the top interpretations if they didn't say things you disliked. Your "could mean"s and "not necessarily"s are tendentious and pedantic.

>>19485534
not one single Church Father believed in a predestination as extreme as Calvin's, not even St. Augustine

>>19485561
>as extreme as
So now you've admitted that these issues were discussed and accepted. Before it was totally novel. Also, development of doctrine is a thing, so that's not really really issue is it?

>>19485569
no not one single idea of Calvin's has a basis in the Early Church. rehashing topics formally discussed and giving your own unique and before unheard of take on it is not the same thing as what you're trying to make it.
the point still stands that no one before Calvin had the ideas he did. he was a lawyer without apostolic training who invented a heresy outside of the Church 1,500 years after Christ founded the Church.

>>19485601
Ok so you're equivocating. You admit they were discussed by fathers and then say they weren't. BTW your arbitrary distinction between Augustine’s and Calvin's predestination is pure sophistry.

You've already conceded so changing your story now is pointless.

>>19485548
How is any of what I wrote over the top? My could's all refer to "we" getting used to mean everyone - the more natural interpretation - instead of the elect: an interpretation that only came about because Calvin argued that since God wanted them to be saved then they must needs be those that will be saved; something that is clearly proven to be false in 1 Timothy 1:4. My not necessarily refers to a Greek verb with an incredible variety of meanings, in a passage that could have been written in a hundred different ways, each and every single one more clear than what we have, if it really wanted to indicate what you purport it does. You put forward a passage from the old testament with clear problems in both transmission and translation and another one where the translation postulates a thoroughly improbable hyperbaton. I frankly fail to see why one of the most important tenets of the faith would be expressed in nothing but questionable comments in passing instead of being clearly stated once and for all. Have we really been spending nearly two thousand years debating over the interpretation of passages whose meaning is apparent to everyone? and if so, how have we managed to interpret them wrongly for the majority of those two millennia?

>>19485799
They aren't questionable comments. You've chosen to make them so. I have hundreds of more verses too. The probability that every passage on predestination and election was subject to confusion and mangled transmission just because you don't like it is zero.

https://youtu.be/-UQaOwsPrJw

>>19485808
They have been questioned for hundreds of years by thousands of people: if everything were that patent it would not have taken one and a half millennia to figure it out. But sure, since it really is that blatant and stated time and again hundreds of times, produce fifty passages that cannot be questioned in any way whatsoever.

>>19479715
>They also neglect that things like the Protestant OT and faith alone were active debates up to the time of the Reformation.

Who was actively debating 'faith alone', that theological novum that Luther conceived during his 'tower experience' ?

>>19478265
Based. It's what you get from a plain reading of Scripture. Calvinism is just calling the gospel by another name.

>>19485858
That's hyperbole. Predestination and election were talked about in the bibke, the early fathers, and championed by Augustine. Further, the first time in history where the common man had access to the Bible was the Reformation when these ideas resurfaced fully. The catholic church literally murdered people for disagreeing with them, so this forced consensus under threat of death isn't an argument for their being correct.

>>19485930
>Predestination and election were talked about in the bibke, the early fathers, and championed by Augustine
They were debated (which proves my point that those passages can be interpreted in a variety of ways) and remained minoritarian positions, they were partly held by Saint Augustine, who still mantained human freedom and was certainly not of one mind with Calvin, and resurfaced during the reformation with many differences and without being supported by all protestants.
Within the medieval church there have been disagreements over quite literaly every matter one can concieve, regardless of persecutions, and in the middle ages everyone who knew latin - that is everyone with a crumb of education - could read the Bible. The reformation, moreover, was not lead by common men who could finally read the holy scripture and see those dastardly popish lies, but by educated professionals who could read and write latin much like those who came before them: Luther came from the ranks of the clergy, he did not see what everyone saw but was too afraid to say, but created something very much new and so did Calvin.