/lit/ - Literature

>salvation is totally dependent on the will of god, free will doesn't factor since all won't accept jesus without divine coercion
>god doesn't do this for everyone because UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HE JUST DOESN'T OK!

>>21447603
Yeah it's real, there's a calvinist church just down the street from me made of brick, mortar, attended by weird yet very real country folks, I imagine this same very proof of its existence can be found in a like manner the world over

>>21447616
Where do you get this UHH? Calvinism positively teaches that God only chooses to save certain people. It's a core part of their soteriology.

>>21447630
so god is evil (fitting for germanic devil worship)

>>21447635
Catholicism teaches the same thing, they just understand it as conditional rather than unconditional. If God knows the future then the number of people who will be saved has been set from before creation.

>>21447640
>they just understand it as conditional rather than unconditional.
Of course this is actually a substantial difference, so I don't mean to downplay it. I only mean to say that the idea of God having an "elect" people isn't confined to Calvinism. Also Catholicism has no concept of the atonement being limited to the elect.

It isn't

>>21447603
yes, i was always damned

>>21447603
Free will is a bitter pill to swallow.

>>21447698
Its also not possible.

>>21447699
God doesn't need to "know the future." He only needs to be one step ahead of every other being with free will. For example, let's say God gives you a choice of choosing A or B. God doesn't need to know if you will choose A or B. He simply needs to have a plan for what He will do to/for you if you choose A and also a plan for what He will do to/for you if you choose B. In this way, it appears as if God knows the future, but in reality, he simply has a plan for whatever you could possibly choose. Similarly, a good business man might appear as if he can see the future, but in reality he is simply prepared for a variety of different scenarios.

>>21447717
>God doesn't need to "know the future."
He does, though. God knows everything.

>>21447723
Time doesn't exist, therefore there is no future. God simply knows all information.

>>21447635
>B-but why didn't god save all the homos?
There is a reason He is selective in who will be saved. The current environment within religion of preaching love and excusing sin is why we are where we are.
Being a "hearer" of scripture is not enough, you have to be a "doer" of scripture.
Now more than ever it means more to be a true believer and follower of Christ and not someone who follows heretical beliefs with Christ's name attached.

>>21447603
Does anyone have a good contemporary source outlining the tenants and justifications of Calvinism? I find it confusing and very hard to reconcile with the typical all-loving God.

Furthermore, if free will doesn't exist, then there would be no purpose for the "illusion of free will."

>>21447730
God hates fags.

>>21447730
Read Calvin's Institutes.
Better to hear from the horse's mouth rather than some horses ass.

>>21447603
Calvinism is pure unfiltered autism. It's theology makes God outright evil just because they're not able to cope with the fact that the balance between free will and Gods omniscience is a mystery.

>>21447729
well calvinism claims god created the homos just to go to hell which makes him evil

>>21447729
See the problem here is that Calvinism asserts that you have no power over whether you accept the gospel or not. It has a massive emphasis on teaching that mans will in no way can impact salvation, you're either called by God and you respond or you're not called and you can't respond. Calvinists say that any theology that only allows the possibility of salvation by leaving the door open and allowing people to accept it or not means that it privileges mans will above Gods power and that it ultimately means that salvation depends on mans will and not God. Now that's clearly silly for a number of reasons but that's the Calvinist view.

So whether or not you're a "doer" of scripture isn't the issue. In Calvinist eyes you're saved and will do it regardless or you're not and you won't. You don't get a choice in the matter, everything is in Gods hands. So yeah a whole bunch of people never had a chance to be saved and were created for the express purpose of burning in hell for eternity. Calvins God is worse than the demons in most religions. At least in Buddhism you aren't being tortured for eternity just because God is a capricious prick who didn't pick you.

>>21447755
>What is free will?

>>21447779
Something that doesn't exist according to Calvin and Luther

>>21447760
So what you are saying is if you are meant to know god it will happen and you will be saved.
If not then bad luck.
Seems fair. No excuse for ignorance of Christ in todays world.

>>21447734
But if there is free will, God created gay people and they have no ability to change their nature. Seems cruel.

>>21447782
It depends on how you interpret “free will” but ultimately the faggot is in total bondage to sin, sinning willfully yet under necessity (not coercion), making him utterly dependent upon God’s irresistible grace to liberate him.
Since the active faggot will never repent there can be no salvation.
If you don’t stop sinning you won’t start winning.

>>21447790
>>21447792
What if the gay person really wants to stop sinning, tearfully prays every night to God to cure him of this sickness, and puts in a lot of effort and struggles to stop having homo sex, but still stumbles every now and then?

>>21447838
If you know the action is sinful but still give in it is twice as bad as being oblivious (still bad) to it.

>>21447838
>>21447947
You're both missing the point here I think. Since the person's nature is predetermined, it doesn't matter how much effort they put in to stop sinning. It's inevitable. That is what makes it seem fucked up. Why would a just, loving God create people who he knows he will be throwing into hell?

Please explain how Calvinists can be Anglicans if the Anglican Church venerates icons and relics, there is monasticism, etc.

Isn't the division into High Church and Low Church purely aesthetic?

>>21447952
Omnipotent monsters need a lot of management. Calvin does as good a job as any.

>>21447952
The good Christians need cautionary tales.
Sucks if you are one of those wretches living in iniquity.

>>21447640
the Catholic Church teaches that the prison gates are open, but we have to choose to exit the prison
Calvinism teaches that everyone is locked in their cell except the Warden's favourite inmates for some arbitrary and incomprehensible reason

>>21447603
Calvinism is entirely hijacked by jews. If you can't realize it, then may God help you find the right path.

>>21447989
Kek protestants don't have monasticism? Only Orthobros, Catholifags, and Anglochads?

>>21448028
Why do they need cautionary tales I'd it's in their nature to be good though? They don't have the free will necessary to deviate. So you're still needlessly creating and then throwing people into hell.

>>21448071
>people
Maybe they aren't real people.

>>21448055
Calvinists especially are suspicious of monasticism, although Calvin didn't totally reject rule-based religious orders. There are a handful of Anglican and Lutheran religious orders that you can call monastic but they're not as popular or as institutionalised as Catholic or Orthodox orders, from what I understand.

>>21448055
>Kek protestants don't have monasticism?
Protestants believe that there is no biblical license for a total, permanent withdrawal from the world.

>>21448264
Kek the most superficial and aspiritual "religion"

>>21448272
I've left Protestantism but I think is kind of a silly argument. You're not a monastic critiquing this is some meaningful way, you're just some internet poster who gets impressed by mystical woo woo stuff.

>>21447603
It's somehow the least retarded version of Christianity, which is quite concerning as it's still extremely retarded.

>>21448279
>I've left Protestantism
Why?

>>21448279
I don't blame you for leaving that kek

>>21448281
>it's still extremely retarded
Explain what do you mean

>>21448279
>woo woo
post disregarded

>>21448281
>God is all-loving and all-merciful
>Btw, God has a group of elect that areare predetermined for no reason to go to heaven and everyone else goes to hell. Also, you have no free will to determine this before hand and you can't change this at all. Also, God is the author of all evil as well as good despite God being infinitely good.

It's an autistic mess that's led to the fucked up, godless, hypermaterialistic clown world we live in now. Calvanism is what happens when you try to use human reason to explain everything, only to create blatant contradictions in your own theology that only get worse overtime. It's easily the worst of all Christian theologies.

>>21448283
A very unpleasant process of gradually accepting certain doctrines (e.g. about Mary) and realizing I didn't have much of a place there anymore. My views didn't really line up with Catholicism or Orthodoxy completely either, but they weren't particularly far off, so taking another step wasn't a hard sell. I'm Catholic but I'm not a "trad." I also don't have any hard feelings towards Protestants and a lot of the bad-mouthing of them that goes on irritates me.

>>21448296
oh no, you don't care about my opinion? how will I ever measure my self worth? any pointers?

>>21448296
>t.

>>21448306
Even if you're a midwit, at least you didn't go full pagan.

>>21448306
>A very unpleasant process of gradually accepting certain doctrines (e.g. about Mary)
Can you elaborate?

>>21448318
God forbid I not achieve intellectual respectability.

>>21448324
You're not just unintelligent, you're also prideful and arrogant, which is what makes you a midwit

>>21448309
>any pointers?
First step is turning 18.

>>21448323
Take perpetual virginity for example. This isn't directly taught in Scripture, and the evidence regarding Jesus's brothers can, at least linguistically, be understood either way. There are prophetic elements that can come to bear, e.g. Eze. 44:2, but they are not directly applied to Mary in the text. Also there is the intertexual implication of Mary as the antitype of the Ark of the Covenant, e.g. in Luke, which would render Mary as having at least some sort of inviolability, I would think. But is applying those concepts to Mary legitimate? I think it is, because if you don't the situation becomes problematic. Mary's perpetual virginity is understood to be threefold, which is that she was a virgin before, during, and after giving birth to Christ. So the miracle of the Virgin Birth has a great fullness than simply referring to the act of conception. Her virginity before birth is not disputed. Her virginity during birth means that Christ was not just conceived by a miraculous means, but also born by one, as his birth did not injure his mother but left her virginity physically intact. If this was not the case, then it means Christ's birth destroyed Mary's physical virginity, which is too impious to seriously consider. Most don't consider this, though, I think, when they reject perpetual virginity -- so I'm not making an accusation of impiety to anyone. But this is a legitimate concern that gives license to read the texts differently, in a manner that is piously concerned with not imputing such a thing to God and his mother. And if you do that, it justifies the third point, of her virginity after birth, as well.

>>21448334
If you say so. My concern was to defend Protestants from slander. They are not my enemies. If I am acting in pride be careful you do not fall into the opposite error of thinking you have free reign to insult and mock those with whom you disagree, as even if they are your enemies it is your duty to love and pray for them.

For once, I would like a theist to just admit that their god is evil but they worship him anyway because they’re afraid of punishment. It would be more honest and they wouldn’t be insulting everyone else’s intelligence by claiming their god is le good actually.

>>21447630
prescience doesn't mean predestination.

>>21448385
Scripture uses the term predestination so you need to square it in some way.

>>21448361
here's the thing, it's exactly why God doesn't just show Himself openly.
God wants us to love Him, not fear. so we have to choose (and be able to freely do so).
worshipping out of fear doesn't change the worshipper; God wants us to understand good (and He is the perfect good) and practice, enjoy, follow it.
someone doing it out of fear would continue to have a hard heart, and just going through the motions.
God wants to change us into good people.
take a look at Lewis' Mere Christianity. i just wrote a big ball of spaghetti, and he does a much better job explaining it porperly.

>>21448390
care to say where?
>>21447603
predestination implies some are arbitrarily damned. that would make God not omnibenevolent, which makes Calvinism untrue.

>>21448347
Well, now that you're Catholic, you not only accept perpetual virginity but also immaculate conception. So Mary was more than human and didn't even need to be baptized, making Christ more than human too.
>If you say so. My concern was to defend Protestants from slander.
By calling monasticism "mystical woo woo"? Your defense is untenable. Monks pray for the world all the time, they don't disconnect from the world. If you don't believe in this, then I don't know how you call yourself Catholic.

>>21448423
through what logic could you reason Mary "more than human"?
she was a blessed and very pure woman, but "all have sinned" if i remember the Word correctly.

>>21448428
What do you mean? The immaculate conception dogma says Mary was born free of sin unlike every other human (again, according to Catholicism)

>>21448423
>So Mary was more than human and didn't even need to be baptized, making Christ more than human too.
Sin is not an essential element of humanity. Adam and Eve were free from original sin at their creation and they were certainly human. Also if sin were necessary for humanity then Christ could not be fully human.
>By calling monasticism "mystical woo woo"?
If you reread what I said, I did not actually call monasticism that, I was talking about how people can get impressed by the trappings of it, like take this meme: >>21448312

>>21448435
yes, through what reasoning could that dogma be proposed, beside some absurd leap of logic?
the only one free from sin is God; Christ.
else, couldn't Mary just have upheld all the covenants, and done everything Christ did?

>>21447616
>I'm gonna create humans and decide half of them are eternally damned because I'm infinitely good like that
Only a depraved mind could have thought up this take on religion. Calvinism is easily refuted if you spend five minutes outside this site reading about it.
The idea that Christ only died for certain "elect" goes against the very core of Christianity.

>For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth

Timothy 2:3-4

>>21447730
>tenants
It's "tenets" and I'm so sick of midwits constantly getting it wrong

>>21448407
>care to say where?
Rom. 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined [προορίζω] to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren.
Rom. 8:30 And those whom he predestined [προορίζω] he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.

This is translated as "predestined" in the Douay-Rheims, KJV, RSV & NRSV (incl. Catholic editions), NABRE, NKJV, ESV, NASB, etc.

>>21447760
>Calvinists say that any theology that only allows the possibility of salvation by leaving the door open and allowing people to accept it or not means that it privileges mans will above Gods power and that it ultimately means that salvation depends on mans will and not God
I understand their point here but it's wrong.
It's not "you choosing whether you're saved or not via your actions priveliges your will over God's power- the real author of salvation."
In reality we are only able to make these actions BECAUSE God endowed us with free will, via His infinite power. God is still #1, he just gave us some rules to maneuver within.

>>21448436
>Adam and Eve were free from original sin at their creation and they were certainly human
? That's because they caused the "original sin" for every other human that followed.
>Also if sin were necessary for humanity then Christ could not be fully human.
We're talking about the "original sin." If Christ was fully human, why did he not suffer from it like all other humans?
>If you reread what I said, I did not actually call monasticism that, I was talking about how people can get impressed by the trappings of it,
So you were attacking a strawman?

>>21447783
No because you STILL don't know if you're saved even if you do accept Christ. You just have to be pious and hope for the best.
If that's not a breeding ground for severe neurosis I don't know what is

>>21448442
>yes, through what reasoning could that dogma be proposed
Ask a Catholic? Their entire view of "original sin" is untenable as far as I'm concerned.

>>21447790
>they have no ability to change their nature
They do, we just live in a society that frowns on gay conversion and celebrates devious pride. 99% of gays are molestation victims refusing to seek help

>>21448442
>>21448462
Mary isn't free from sin by her nature, that is, there is not something about her humanity which is superior to that others, but through a special application of Christ's saving work to her at her conception, in order that God could create a holy vessel, in cooperation with her free will to obey God, for the birthing of his son. So Mary is sinless, but she is saved from sin by Christ. And sin does not pass to Christ because his mother was preserved from it. You could object that Christ could simply himself be preserved since he is God, but you still run into an issue in which God is dwelling bodily inside the womb of a sinner. Try to contemplate the meaning of this, of God literally being inside the womb of a woman, and the implication this would have upon the woman, who will afterwards raise up God himself as a child, who is loved by God with the love that a child bears toward his mother.

>>21448306
>A very unpleasant process of gradually accepting certain doctrines (e.g. about Mary)

+ She saves everyone +

>>21448454
it is better rendered "preordained" exactly because of that. it is not irresistible as you want it to mean.
to paraphrase, He prepared those who follow Christ to be able to be like Christ.
but here's the kicker, those people chose to follow God and try to be like Christ. God is helping along those who by their own free will chose to follow Him.
again with a simple question, why would God arbitrarily have people be lost?

>>21448487
I think you're making a false equivalence, because predestination does not have to only function upon the Calvinist scheme in which it is unconditional and has no basis in foreknowledge or cooperation with God. Don't let Calvinists control the term.

>>21448487
No you don't get it, it's exactly like Judaism where there are only a certain number of saved, that's why Christ came- to just reiterate Judaism, all these silly Christians got it wrong and Calvin got it right, Christ didn't really die for everyone just ignore where he says that over and over

>>21448498
yeah, i preferred to lean that way with its meaning to make the point more clear.

Hail Mary, full of grace,
the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

>>21448540
This thread is now purified.
Go in peace, and may the Lord be with you +

>>21448442
>>21448469

Mary is free from sin due Divine Grace, specifically so that God could be made incarnate in a vessel that is cpmpletely free from sin. Original sin passes from parent to child (which is why we have OG sin as descwndants of Adam and Eve), so if Mary was born with sin, then your saying that Christ has original sin, which is nonsensical and kinda defeats the purpose of Christianity. This is one of the many reasons why I decided Protestantism makes very little sense when you really dig into the theological, historical, cultural and religious background of 1st century Judaism and early Christianity. Nome of what they believe past the broader aspects of them being Christian is actuactually represented in any Protestant denomination, but it very closely remebles Catholic and Orthodox theology to a fault. It's one of the main reasons I am certain Protestantism was not the original form of Christianity and was just an invention of 16th century Europeans.

Mary is also the fulfillment of the burning bush. As the bush was alight with the fire of God (Heb. 12:29) but was not burnt, so Mary had God himself physically dwelling within her very body and was not consumed.

>>21448029
>the Catholic Church teaches that the prison gates are open, but we have to choose to exit the prison

>Calvinism teaches that everyone is locked in their cell except the Warden's favourite inmates for some arbitrary and incomprehensible reason

That's well put.

Here's a good, short explanation for how James 2 refutes the Calvinist doctrine of sola fide:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gJIsSiuWA5A

>>21448404
You’ll always have fear given what the potential punishment is.

Hey Catholics, isn't it a violation of the 2nd commandment when Catholics bow down before a statue of Mary? Asking sincerely

>>21447603
3 months ago everyone was bandwagoning on Gnosticism (again)
2 months ago everyone was bandwagoning on Catholicism (again)
Last month /lit/ was bandwagoning on Puritanism
This month /lit/ is bandwagoning on Calvinism

...I wonder how could be behind this. you guys are hopelessly retard contrarian who throw away all your (false) values the moment they come widely accepted or encouraged, even if it's just on an imageboard. not one of you actually believes in any of this stuff, and anyone who stays strong in their belief of anything is called a larper.

>>21449146
No

Gen. 19:1 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed himself with his face to the earth

1 Chron. 29:20 Then David said to all the assembly, “Bless the Lord your God.” And all the assembly blessed the Lord, the God of their fathers, and bowed their heads, and worshiped the Lord, and did obeisance to the king.

2 Kings 17:35-36 The Lord made a covenant with them, and commanded them, “You shall not fear other gods or bow yourselves to them or serve them or sacrifice to them; but you shall fear the Lord, who brought you out of the land of Egypt with great power and with an outstretched arm; you shall bow yourselves to him, and to him you shall sacrifice.

It just dawned on me how Calvinist theology is very similar to paganism. We are at the whims of a god who saves and condemns people for no apparent reason, and even if we do everything right to try to appease him, we are still screwed.

>>21449381
>and even if we do everything right to try to appease him, we are still screwed.
Calvinism doesn't teach this. There aren't people who have faith in Christ and love God who are damned.

>>21448487
Its not "arbitrary". You're conceiving of God completely the wrong way, if you understood that God is the source of everything, including and especially all value, you would know that any decision God makes could never be arbitrary by definition. Rather the way you're conceiving it, you're conceiving it as there's a set of "rules" hanging above God that He must play by, and one of those rules is recognizing the innate value of humans, in this example reflected in something like making the right choice and deserving reward for making it.
Its that set of rules you think is God, not the being you think of when you read the word "God" written. You need a deeper understanding. I'm not even a Calvinist but these "arbitrary" complaints only reveal an extremely poor conception of God. Who are you to judge God? You are absolutely nobody. That should be the attitude of your heart whether you are determinist or not.

>>21449179
>Last month /lit/ was bandwagoning on Puritanism
>This month /lit/ is bandwagoning on Calvinism
The same thing

>>21449593
Wrong. Puritans are necessarily Calvinists, but Calvinists aren't necessarily Puritans.

>>21448303
This. Calvinism is an unholy matrimony of Christianity and rationalist poison. It is the most evil and blasphemous of Christian heresies, even worse than UCC and globohomo preachers because it gives you license to judge your neighbor and condemn them, which causes sinners to fall into despair and give up on their salvation and live entirely worldly lives and the clown world mess that we are in. I am this anon >>21447838 who actually does struggle with the passion of homosexuality. It is for this reason why I'm converting to Eastern Orthodox, because at least they believe God is merciful.

>>21449605
Which Puritans were not Calvinists?

>>21447745
there is no good without god you retard.

>>21449605
Lol I mistread your post. Puritans are the role models for all modern Calvinists. I don't know any Calvinists who criticize Puritism.

>>21450389
Puritanism

T9

>>21448469
>Ask a Catholic? Their entire view of "original sin" is untenable as far as I'm concerned.

How is it untenable? Do you reject the idea of original sin out of hand, or do you have a different understanding of it?

>>21451746
https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/04/11/the-orthodox-doctrine-of-original-sin-a-comprehensive-treatment/

>>21447728
Damn bro, that's a pretty good cope.

>>21448445
>>21448445
I came across an Orthodox essay the other day where the author essentially said something to the effect of "The distinguishing feature of Western theology is that it views God as the enemy of mankind". I had entertained similar thoughts but this guy stated it so concisely.

>>21451869
I was wondering if you were Orthodox.

When the EO say Catholics are wrong about original sin, what they are usually criticizing are certain specifics of Augustine's theology (in particular, the idea that all men are personally guilty for Adam's sin) that the Church never adopted as dogma or Catholic doctrine.

Here is a thorough and detailed explanation written from an EO perspective:
https://journal.orthodoxwestblogs.com/2019/01/24/original-and-ancestral-sin-a-church-dividing-issue/

>The attempt to make the term “Original Sin” synonymous with St Augustine and then attaching it to the entire Latin Church from his time forward is fallacious because the term has always been used to describe the teachings of the Latin fathers on the Fall before and after St Augustine (not only for a particular person’s articulation). It is also demonstrated by the fact that the Latin Church never endorsed all of Augustine’s minute articulations and continued to articulate through the centuries her own [the Latin Church] detailed expositions in light of our shared tradition. Today, for example, if one reads the articulations presented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) side by side our Councils, our catechisms not written from the perspective of the Neo Patristics movement, and expositions one would not be able to discern any essential differences.

bump

>>21452102
God is the enemy of sin and the majority of mankind are stained by it. It's always funny seeing Orthobros taking pot shots at western theology knowing full well that Orthodox theology is a complete mess of contradictions that allow them to slip through like jelly when you try to point out the flaws.

Do you think Calvin ever considered the opinions of women?

>>21452102
Read an "Existential Soteriology" by Schooping. He goes into how the Church Fathers generally had a view of the atonement in line with penal substitution. He's also an Orthodox Priest. The Orthodox tendency to define themselves solely in contradistinction to western theology and deny that their strain of Christianity ever accepted things like Penal Substitution is highly annoying because they're so full of shit. The "Orthodoxy" that most Orthodox polemicists adhere to didn't even start existing until the fall of the Byzantine Empire and it's a faith of extreme animus toward western Christianity because it doesn't have it's own historical pedigree anymore, just a bunch of Russians who picked up the ruins and started LARPing as the Third Rome.

>>21453368
Actually scratch that, looks like he isn't part of the Orthodox Church anymore and converted to Reformed Protestantism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9w8ZoEP-a4

>>21453388
he's into some radio sect now? not presbyterianism or anglicanism?