>That baby that died at birth from a horrible infectuous disease?
>Yeah, it was a born a disgusting little sinner full of evil pre-destined to burn in Hell forever
>In fact, it's probably burning and used as a living fleshlight for barbed demonic cock as we speak
>The Lord works in mysterious ways n' sheeiit
Why was he like this?

TIL Calvin invented the theological concept of original sin

He was the first cultural christian atheist.

>>17788419
Retard alert

>>17788397 (OP)
Calvin tried to apply logic to Christianity. Christianity is not a religion that hinges on logic. One of the most essential doctrines (the Trinity) revolves around the idea that
>Your puny human brain simply cannot fully comprehend it
Which is why whenever a tradtard larper here tries to explain it, they accidentally start espousing Medieval heresies.

Calvin tried to account for the fact that the majority of humanity has no chance of accepting the Gospel message
>Dude’s with Downs Syndrome
>Toddlers that fall out windows
>The 80% of the human race that died prior to 33 AD
>The 30%+ of the population that never saw a Bible until 1492 or later
>The remote parts of the world that never saw a Bible until the internet age
>The parts of the world that have no internet even today and have never seen a Bible
Most denominations just handwave it away. Calvin recognized that he, being born in a majority Christian community with a fully-functioning adult brain, had a distinct advantage towards receiving the Gospel compared to most of humanity. Therefore, he must be elected and pre-destined to be saved, unlike the rest of humanity who mostly have no chance.

>>17788835
So babies get baptised because...it's good for them to have a splash around?

>>17788874
Unbaptised babies go to Heaven.

>>17788855
Yeah Calvinists just bite the bullet and accept the logical implication of Christianity that God arbitrarily predestined most of humanity for endless torture.

>>17788397 (OP)
Because Protestantism was intended to introduce another Christian retardation outside Catholic retardation. Both equally retarded and faulty. Both equally Satanic. Think of it as Republicans vs Democrats.

>>17788879
Not even the Catholic Church believes this

>>17789018
Yes it does. Try and keep up with the recent lore retcons sweetie
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

>Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit (Luke 18:15-16 and John 3:3, 5 and Acts 2:38-39 and Rom 8:9 and 1 John 5:12 compared together), who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth (John 3:8). So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word (Acts 4:12; 1 John 5:12).

>>17789122
>Yes, it does.
No, it doesn’t
>As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God… the great mercy of God… allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism
“We hope they go to heaven.” AKA: We have no fucking idea.

The current Catholic doctrine on the matter is “I dunno, maybe.”

>>17788855
Because salvation does not hinge on you hearing the gospel, it hinges on you being innocent and blameless. You must fear God and not do evil in his sight. All who did good will be saved. All who did evil will be condemed. God has no respect of persons. He does not give anyone a pass for their evil. He forgives true repented hearts and saved them in the condition that they died in rigtheousness and didn't turn back to their sinful ways before death.

>>17788978
>bit the bullet
its what Paul teaches in romans 9
>God arbitrarily predestined most of humanity for endless torture.
>You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy..."

>>17789123
So you can go to heaven without accepting Jesus Christ?

I don't see how non-calvinists can escape from this problem. When God created the world, he knew there would be pain and suffering. That same baby was already destined to die. So how is this any different

>>17789018
Who cares what the Catholic church believes.

>>17788855
>Most denominations just handwave it away.
Most people just aren't aware of what the Bible says about this subject, so they don't know what to say. Obviously this is the kind of thing you can never possibly know through empirical means, it is entirely based on what insight the Bible gives us. The only sad part of this picture is that anyone could learn the answers by studying the Bible, but for some strange reason most people simply choose not to.

It's strange, because the people who ask such questions or wonder about this stuff easily could pick up the Bible any day and read to know what the Biblical doctrine is. They must not really want to know the answers or they would read it. It is what it is, I guess. Cont'd below.

>>17788855
>Calvin tried to account for the fact that the majority of humanity has no chance of accepting the Gospel message
>>The 80% of the human race that died prior to 33 AD
>The 30%+ of the population that never saw a Bible until 1492 or later
>The remote parts of the world that never saw a Bible until the internet age
>The parts of the world that have no internet even today and have never seen a Bible
>the majority of humanity has no chance of accepting the Gospel message
I don't believe this is true for a second. It says in Romans chapter 1 the following:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
- Romans 1:18-20

It says that from the creation of the world, these things are seen. This is to the effect that people who deny or reject it, no matter who or where they are, are completely "without excuse" for doing so. That is, as far as the Bible is concerned. Jesus also said, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." (Luke 11:9).

The problem isn't that people in history and today aren't getting chances – it's that they never even bother to seek God. If they did, the Gospel would get to them. If there are millions of people who never see the Gospel, it's because not one of them ever even tried to find out about God or the truth. And that is their condemnation.

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard."
- Psalm 19:1-3

>>17789225
Calvinists take a ridiculously twisted view on that and then decide to stop reading.

“If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
Romans 10:9

>>17789195
>Because salvation does not hinge on you hearing the gospel
Then what’s the point of the Gospel Message?
>it hinges on you being innocent and blameless.
Yeah, well all humans have sinned, so what’s even the point of you even saying this stupid shit. “It hinges on this 100% impossible criteria.” Cool, retard.
>You must fear God and not do evil in his sight. All who did good will be saved. All who did evil will be condemed. God has no respect of persons. He does not give anyone a pass for their evil.
You’re just saying the same thing over with different words.
>He forgives true repented hearts and saved them
Repentance to who? If the Gospel Message doesn’t matter. Do you just have to feel sad after you do bad things? Do you even need to know who Jesus is?
>in the condition that they died in rigtheousness and didn't turn back to their sinful ways before death.
Okay, so it’s a pure fucking luck thing then? If you have a heart attack while watching hentai, it’s game over you. But if you can sneak out some post-nut clarity after you jerk off and apologize before you have a heart attack, then you’re good to go. Wow, what an awesome system. That’s not stupid at all.

Your argument seems to hinge on the idea that Christians go long stretches of time without sinning and they just need to time their death during one of their sinless phases. Which is funny considering most modern Christian interpretations seem to imply that even Christians sin every day and need constant grace. So according to your ideology, everyone is constantly waffling between heaven and hell, and a poorly timed car crash could even send Mother Teresa to eternal fire.

Also, this is just all your interpretation, and I can’t think of a single, mainstream denomination that fully agrees with the bullshit you just wrote.

>>17789533
>“If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
>Romans 10:9
Very cool. 90 billion people over the course of history don’t know who Jesus is or the New Testament story or the crucifixion or any of that.

>>17789225
>Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”
If I made a sentient homunculus or robot or whatever that is one of the first questions I would expect it to ask.

>>17789465
>Most people just aren't aware of what the Bible says about this subject, so they don't know what to say.
Because the Bible says shockingly little on the subject. This is partly because, to the people that wrote the Bible, Europe and Arabia were the whole world. The Ancient Jews thought (what is now) Spain was the edge of the Earth. They had no idea that there were Abbos sitting in Australia that wouldn’t learn of the Abrahamic religions until centuries in the future.
>Obviously this is the kind of thing you can never possibly know through empirical means, it is entirely based on what insight the Bible gives us.
All the Bible says on the subject is that god’s existence is evident in creation (“So that no man has excuse”) and that the Law of Moses is written on the hearts of goys. But this is meaningless because it also says (numerous times) that Jesus is the only path to heaven, and knowledge of the life of Jesus is not “evident in creation.” You have to confess with your tongue that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that he was resurrected. Things you can’t believe unless you know who Jesus is or what happened to him. Is that Abbo sitting in Australia not doing the best he can given the knowledge he has?>The only sad part of this picture is that anyone could learn the answers by studying the Bible, but for some strange reason most people simply choose not to.
I really doubt you’ve even read the whole Bible. Different denominations have been arguing over this subject for thousands of years. How can the answer be so “self-evident” if people have spent their lives studying it and still can’t agree.

You retards come here and say shit like “the answer is so obvious, it’s in the Bible” as if there’s not 2,000 different denominations all arguing over the same stuff using the same Bible. The answer clearly isn’t obvious. The answer probably isn’t even in there because the writers didn’t think that deeply about it.

>>17789580
>Because the Bible says shockingly little on the subject. This is partly because, to the people that wrote the Bible, Europe and Arabia were the whole world.
Except from the Biblical perspective this doesn't matter even if true, since God inspired them to write those words.

One can point to scientifically accurate statements in the Bible such as Job 37:18 which refers to the sky as a fluid (molten) mirror. This is factually accurate description of what the sky actually is, despite being written long before the writers could have known it empirically. The blue color caused by Rayleigh scattering is refracted sunlight.

>The Ancient Jews thought (what is now) Spain was the edge of the Earth. They had no idea that there were Abbos sitting in Australia that wouldn’t learn of the Abrahamic religions until centuries in the future.
This whole point is entirely irrelevant if the Bible is true and God, the Creator, inspired everything in the Scripture – as mentioned by Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Even if we assume the people who were told what to write had zero idea about the rest of the planet, God did. God, the Creator, would know all of that.

>But this is meaningless because it also says (numerous times) that Jesus is the only path to heaven, and knowledge of the life of Jesus is not “evident in creation.”
Like I said, if they truly wanted to find out the truth and seek God, then the Gospel would reach them. This would happen through divine Providence. Thus, if it never reaches a particular group of people, that implies none of them ever tried to find the truth. Cont'd.

>>17789580
>How can the answer be so “self-evident” if people have spent their lives studying it and still can’t agree.
Most people claim to study it, or to have read it, but they actually don't get around to ever doing this (they all assume others have). A much smaller cross-section of people actually have made efforts to study it intensively, but are lost, so they are unable to understand it (2 Cor. 2:14) without divine help. According to John 16:13 and other passages, we need the help of God to guide us into the truth, without which we are lost.

>The answer clearly isn’t obvious.
It actually is. It's right in front of everyone's faces.

The quandary is that the amount of people who truly want to know the answers, and are motivated to find the truth, is astonishingly small, compared to the number who simply claim to want to know but don't really. As strange as it may seem, most peoples' real interests lie elsewhere. This is so despite appearances, because it is fashionable for many people to at least claim superficially to want to know the truth. But the amount that actually do is a far smaller number.

>>17789611
>2 Cor. 2:14
Sorry, that should be 1 Cor. 2:14. My mistake. 1 Corinthians 2:14 is part of an important passage on this subject, especially when paired with the previous verses 9-13 which talks about those who are saved. I might as well quote it here.

"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
- 1 Corinthians 2:9-14

>>17789606
>Like I said, if they truly wanted to find out the truth and seek God, then the Gospel would reach them. This would happen through divine Providence. Thus, if it never reaches a particular group of people, that implies none of them ever tried to find the truth. Cont'd.
So then why did the Disciples have to spread the message to the “ends of the Earth” if literally anyone can just ask and have the New Testament downloaded into their brain.

You’re constantly contorting your logic to somehow hold people accountable for something that could not possibly know by any physical means, and the idea of this “divine brain download” really undermines the whole discipleship idea that is uber important in the New Testament.

>>17789611
>Most people claim to study it, or to have read it, but they actually don't get around to ever doing this (they all assume others have). A much smaller cross-section of people actually have made efforts to study it intensively, but are lost, so they are unable to understand it (2 Cor. 2:14) without divine help. According to John 16:13 and other passages, we need the help of God to guide us into the truth, without which we are lost.
There’s literally billions of people that devote their entire life to just studying the Bible. You ever hear of seminary? These are the people that found all the different denominations that constantly fight one another. You’d literally handwaving millions upon millions of Biblical scholars over two millennia by saying “Well, they don’t really know it like I do.”

>The answer clearly isn’t obvious.
>It actually is. It's right in front of everyone's faces.
And yet they’ve been arguing about it for literal millennia. Millions of people. Billions even. But this random 4chan retard figured it out.

>The quandary is that the amount of people who truly want to know the answers, and are motivated to find the truth, is astonishingly small, compared to the number who simply claim to want to know but don't really. As strange as it may seem, most peoples' real interests lie elsewhere. This is so despite appearances, because it is fashionable for many people to at least claim superficially to want to know the truth. But the amount that actually do is a far smaller number.
Yeah, all the millions of people who literally fucking died for the church just didn’t really care, but you, random 4Chan retard that claims to be Christian but won’t give up his beloved anime porn imageboard website, are super special and you do care.

Like are you guys just elaborate trolls or you actually this fucking retarded?

>>17788397 (OP)
>systematic theology so biblically comprehensive it breaks a millennia+ long stranglehold on Western Christianity
>present day is afflicted by the most brain-dead critics of any Christian denomination

Why the fuck are you people like this? Go read some actual Calvin then come back to me.

>>17789668
>the idea of this “divine brain download” really undermines the whole discipleship idea that is uber important in the New Testament.
That has nothing to do with what I said, anon. You're having a literal schizo episode if you think I said that.

>So then why did the Disciples have to spread the message to the “ends of the Earth” if literally anyone can just ask
The Lord used the apostles to get the word to us, that's why. This is far from being something difficult to understand, anon.

>>17789678
>There’s literally billions of people that devote their entire life to just studying the Bible.
The majority of people who say they do this actually have other interests. Tragic, but true.
>And yet they’ve been arguing about it for literal millennia. Millions of people. Billions even.
Yes, and those who are saved are correct among those people. There have been people who have been saying this all along for those who would listen. That's what the church is here for.

>Like are you guys just elaborate trolls
If anything I think you are trolling, because I think you know better than what you let on. You are not actually as dense as you pretend to be about this, and being willfully ignorant and playing stupid by pretending not to understand is a form of trolling in itself.
>or you actually this fucking retarded?
Whatever schizo ideas you came up with in your head and projected on me are actually retarded and they originate from you, but not anything I have been saying.

>>17789719
>I wasted my time trying to educate someone this retarded.
Why do I even come to this shithole?

>>17789533
how do you gain the ability to believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead?

>>17789551
>Then what’s the point of the Gospel Message?
Jesus commands believers to preach the gospel. does there need to be any other reason?
read romans 5 and understand the "golden chain". God foreknows people of His choosing; those foreknown are predestined; those predestined are called; those called are justified; those justified are glorified. at no point is there a step where hearing the gospel is strictly required. most, maybe almost all, will hear the gospel as their call but who are we to limit God for those who could not have possibly heard the gospel for whatever reason? if they were foreknown and predestined, they WILL be called, somehow

>>17789708
americans are completely enslaved to the idea that they are the masters of their own destiny, that nothing is out of their hands
they then project this cultural view onto theology

>>17789828
Your smoothbrain take about theological development reveals you are not worth having this conversation with.

>>17789708
>systematic theology so biblically comprehensive it breaks a millennia+ long stranglehold on Western Christianity
You're being overly generous. He overextends what is written in Romans 9 in order to rationalise the rest of his hermeneutic. Like all other denominations, Calvinism is also forced to resort to interpretation since the Bible cannot be read plainly in every instance without contradiction. The obvious question then emerges: "If interpretation is inevitable, why should I trust in the intellect of one 16th century lawyer rather than the historic and visible Church to whom so many great and faithful Saints have deferred?"

>>17789551
>Yeah, well all humans have sinned, so what’s even the point of you even saying this stupid shit. “It hinges on this 100% impossible criteria.” Cool, retard

God will forgive the innocent. those who forgive the transgressions of others, God will forgive theirs.

>Repentance to who?
Repentance to EL Almighty. The God of Israel.

>Okay, so it’s a pure fucking luck thing then? If you have a heart attack while watching hentai, it’s game over you. But if you can sneak out some post-nut clarity after you jerk off and apologize before you have a heart attack, then you’re good to go. Wow, what an awesome system. That’s not stupid at all.

God is in charge of people's times, he knows what is and isn't fair and will judge people accordingly.

>So according to your ideology, everyone is constantly waffling between heaven and hell,

No, you need to stop sinning. Stopping sin is possible. If you're truly repent from the heart and are sincere in your search for God and truly start doing what is rigtheous and obeying God then he will give you a holy spirit that will help you remain rigtheous.

>can’t think of a single, mainstream denomination that fully agrees with the bullshit you just wrote.

I don't believe based on what is popular.

>>17789991
>EL Almighty
>The God of Israel
Idk, sounds Mexican to me

>>17789991
>Repentance to EL Almighty. The God of Israel.
*beeeeeep* Wrong answer. 90% of humans to ever live have no idea who El is. Once again, you’re implying salvation is based on “secret knowledge” that most people don’t have.

>God is in charge of people's times, he knows what is and isn't fair and will judge people accordingly.
Cop out answer. You’re just taking everything you don’t have an answer for and saying “god will handle it.” Salvation is a matter of personal responsibility. This is very apparent from the New Testament. You have to do something to accept it, but it’s just not very clear what that is. It’s not like god’s just gonna be a homie and wait for you to start crying after you masturbate before he strikes you with lightning so you go to heaven. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that implies that’s the case.
>No, you need to stop sinning. Stopping sin is possible. If you're truly repent from the heart and are sincere in your search for God and truly start doing what is rigtheous and obeying God then he will give you a holy spirit that will help you remain rigtheous.
The whole point of Christianity is that it is impossible for a mortal man (even for a Christian) to be completely sinless, and only one sin is all it takes to fully condemn you. There’s no argument to be made that Christians can be completely without sin post-conversion. Not even the Pope claims that he no longer sins at all during papacy.

>>17788855
From the gospel of Mark, Chapter 10, verse 24 to 27 :
>24And the disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how hard it is to enterg the kingdom of God!
>25It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
>26They were even more astonished and said to one another, “Who then can be saved?”
>27Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.”
Now, let us open Matthew, Chapter 17, Verse 14 to 20 :
>14When they came to the crowd, a man came up to Jesus and knelt before Him.
>15“Lord, have mercy on my son,” he said. “He has seizures and is suffering terribly. He often falls into the fire or into the water.
>16I brought him to Your disciples, but they could not heal him.”
>17“O unbelieving and perverse generation!” Jesus replied. “How long must I remain with you? How long must I put up with you? Bring the boy here to Me.”
>18Then Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment.
>19Afterward the disciples came to Jesus privately and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?”
>20“Because you have so little faith,” He answered. “For truly I tell you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”
And finally, John 14, verse 6 to 11 :
>6Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
>7If you had known Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.”
>8Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.”
(1/2)

>>17788855
>9Jesus replied, “Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
>10Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you, I do not speak on My own. Instead, it is the Father dwelling in Me, performing His works.
>11Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me—or at least believe on account of the works themselves.
Is Jesus the Way, the Truth and the Life, anon? If yes, then you have to concede that anyone who believe in those attributes, even in the slightest believe also in Christ Jesus, and so believe also in the Father even if they are ignorant of the gospels.
We all agree, however, that those that proclaim to be believers of the Truth, the Way and the Life who reject Jesus reject their own salvation. But otherwise, those who believe and search for those three, as slightly as it is, are to be saved through Christ Jesus.
(2/2)

>>17789470
Did God make them that way?

>>17788855
>Christianity is not a religion that hinges on logic
It desperately tries to though, see scholasticism

>>17789128
>We can only hope yhwh the desert demon does't torture millions of infants because we couldn't splash water on them
This doesn't sound healthy

>>17789195
>You must fear God and not do evil in his sight. All who did good will be saved.

False

>No one comes to the Father except through me.

>>17790806
“Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.

>>17790806
see >>17790758
>>6Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
>7If you had known Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.”
If you know and/or search either Truth, Life, or the Way, then you know Christ and the Father, You've already been deboonked on that front.

>>17789828
>americans are completely enslaved to the idea that they are the masters of their own destiny, that nothing is out of their hands
That idea is by definition the opposite of enslavement.

>>17790785
>Did God make them that way?
Well Scripture indicates that He made creatures with wills of their own. One consequence of that is that no one will be forced to worship God. Not even if such is in their own best interest. They truly have the choice to refuse that.

According to the Biblical account of things, the encroachment of sin, combined with people deciding with their own will (see John 5:40, Romans 1:18-20) to reject the word of God is what made them like that. On the other hand, God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to the knowledge of the truth (see 1 Timothy 2:3-4). In fact He commends His love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. See the following:

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." - Romans 5:8

>>17789828
Which I will continue to find endlessly hilarious because assuming they are Old Stock, they are descended from a bunch of hardline Calvinists.

>>17789977
So Rome and the OrthoBros somehow have the answer to this? Tell me how well that's gone for the last century - I can tell you, completely horribly. If things can go this wrong and people will still simp for the institutional infallibility, what makes you think the exact same thing didn't happen with say icon veneration or the marian cult?

>>17788397 (OP)
>Why was he like this?
trying to honestly interpret the bible.

>>17792045
>Tell me how well that's gone for the last century - I can tell you, completely horribly.
If you think modernity hasn't severely undermined the Calvinist churches, then I have a bridge to sell you.

What dogmatic change has either the Catholic or the Orthodox Church made in the last century that scares you so much? You claim the last one hundred years have gone "completely horribly," but I can't see that as anything but alarmist, especially in the case of the Orthodox Church.

>>17789810
You don't

>>17788855
Calvinists still assume God is good so they clearly haven't been paying enough attention to realize that God as written in a literal sense is more or less a demiurge and should be shunned like the demon it is

>>17790094
kek

>>17788397 (OP)
You can't birth European individualism or industry without killing a lot of people, it turned out.

>>17789470
How does "the firmament" tell you you need to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Spirit? How does a Eskimo seal-hunter in 1500 AD learn that he needs to accept Jesus of Nazareth as his Lord and Savior?

>>17792778
You can't doanything in yurop without genocide, can't make roads, change religion, channel a river, build a bridge, sell a donkey, have rats, open a bar or visit as a brown tourist

>>17788855
The trinity is simply 3 hypostasis but 1 being.
There is a great 1 hour analogy about it:
https://youtu.be/bAva0WR28Ss?si=E6d8UMfsOuLi8xUu

>>17790929
its demonstrably false, so believing it despite that is proof that its a mental shackle the average american gladly wears
go ahead and tell me how a normal american can make themselves a multi billionaire
>inb4 just work hard bro, anyone can work hard
and that's not even getting into the religion, where the bible explicitly teaches that you cannot save yourself or contribute to your own salvation

>>17792430
correct, which means salvation is purely a decision of God's. He makes vessels of wrath prepared for destruction and vessels of mercy prepared for glory
no human can ever believe in the resurrection apart of God sovereignly decreeing that they will believe such

>>17792795
you don't need to be baptized to be saved
>How does a Eskimo seal-hunter in 1500 AD learn that he needs to accept Jesus of Nazareth as his Lord and Savior?
if God predestined such a person to come to faith, they will find that out. it might be a very unusual way because no believer could have preached the gospel to them, but that's for God to decide not us

>>17792410
The difference is Reformed Christianity doesn't put the same importance on institutional infallibility you do. Please see Westminster Confession Ch. 25. Highly recommend you see the Manton edition that has the Scriptural citations. It's literally a binding belief of the Orthodox and Catholics that their magisterial offices are infallible and must be obeyed under pain of mortal sin. There is no leeway, not in anything that would've been considered, "Trad," prior to Vatican 2.

>>What dogmatic change has
Come on dude. If you're in either of these traditions you know what's going on or you're performing mental gymnastics to protect yourself from reality because you're addicted to the Smells and Bells.

God have mercy on you.

>>17788397 (OP)
Like it or hate it, Calvinism is the logical conclusion of Christianity if you don't hold back and sugarcoat it with bullshit. It's honest and stone cold.

>>17793348
>Bro, it’s so simple
>Just watch this YouTube slop video that’s 2 hours long
>Btw, people have literally fought wars over slight discrepancies in their understanding of the Trinity
Why are you faggots such Dunning-Krueger retards? How could something that people have literally killed each other for centuries possibly be “super simple bro.”

A love how every TradCath downie Mexican on here thinks there some High-IQ Savant when most of them could barely pass highschool.

>>17793348
>1 hour analogy
Yeah I'm pretty sure analogies don't work like that

>>17793548
Yes. Free will is a meme.

>>17794674
>the logical conclusion
again, why do people act like reformed theology some secret fact you have to suss out of the bible; its the bedrock of authentic christian belief
paul is very open about election/predestination/etc across his epistles. its not some extra bit or anything, its the starting point of his entire theology. if a person has any input on their salvation, according to paul, the whole system collapses because the system relies on salvation being a freely given gift of God to utterly unworthy sinners.
its only anglos that are obsessed with trying to square the circle of paul's plain teaching coexisting with a cultural view of absolute human freedom

>>17789195
This is bullshit lol. Everyone is evil in God's eyes. A child who lies is just as evil and wicked as a serial killer since God is the only blameless sinless entity (his Son being him and in the same boat). Its like everyone is made out of actual shit. Smelly, fly attracting shit. That's how he views humanity. Which is why we need Christ.

>>17792466
>God as written in a literal sense is more or less a demiurge and should be shunned like the demon it is
Hello Satan. Shouldn't you be boiling right now?

>>17789470
How does a North Korean find a Bible?

>>17788397 (OP)
Predestination is conceptually really flawed when Sin is part of a doctrine. How can you sin, defying God, if God mandates you the unelect, and chose for you to sin? You can't obediently defy God, that's a paradox.
>But uhhh impossible things can be done by God
Flawed reasoning, two reasons.
-God is declared as the truth. Contradictions are untruth. You can't have a premise of being THE truth if one of the most important parts of the agenda, Sin, is untrue.
-Paradoxes and contradictions are used to discredit and invalidate non-christian religions, in the search for truth. You don't get to play favorites in this game. If a core contradiction is allowed, then the floodgates open to let everything from Greek paganism, to jungle people banging a drum in honor of a carving of a penis. If Christianity is true, it MUST not have an untruth.
TL;DR Calvin's a fag and I think Paul was a sleeper agent to distort Jesus' message of obeying the law and becoming an ascetic for God, I don't trust Paul's view on predestination either.

>>17788855
great post

>>17794820
Why are you such a retarded homo? The reason you won’t watch the video is because you don’t want to understand Christianity and want to remain a degenerate yet dishonest tranny.
>>17794836
The analogy is the first 10 minutes or so. The rest is about filioque and such.

>>17795987
There’s a 60% chance that your theological opinions would have got you burned at the stake in Medieval Europe. Why should I waste my time on your bullshit opinion when your own people would have executed you for heresy?

>>17788855
logic and emotion don't reconcile all the time. the further you go into one without the other it fails.

>>17795987
trinitarianism isn't even biblical lmao

>>17794092
Wow, a non sequitur about obedience followed up with a "come on dude." I'm convinced.
>>17794886
>Jean Calvin's interpretation is obviously the right one because... because it just is OK!?
uh huh

>>17794886
You say he's very open, but Peter himself says Paul's letters are hard to understand. This is another real issue with Reformed theology - it states these matters are plainly evident and easy to see, but that's not what Peter tells us. If you think Paul's letters are an easy read, you probably haven't read them properly.

>>17788879
So what's the point of baptism?

>>17789977
>why should I trust in the intellect of one 16th century lawyer rather than the historic and visible Church
Have you tried trusting yourself? Why pretend that church (16th century) and church (10th century) have any meaningful difference? Just read the damn thing yourself and interpret it.

>>17796726
What are you trying to say? Your grammar is poor, which makes it hard to understand.

>>17796740
How can you not understand that?

>>17795191
Sin isn't the defiance of God, it's the brand of the unelected.

>>17795191
>How can you sin, defying God, if God mandates you the unelect, and chose for you to sin?
who are you, o man, to answer back to God? will what is molded say to its molder "Why have you made me like this?"

paul answered your exact question 2000 years ago, and he almost word for word predicted the objection you raise

>>17796704
outward sign of inward change
or if you insist on infant baptism, an induction into the community of faith with confirmation taking the role of the outward sign of inward change

>>17796684
>If you think Paul's letters are an easy read
not saying everything paul ever wrote is easy to understand. I'm saying his explanation of soteriology is easy to understand because its the foundation of everything else he talks about. he lays out his premises as clearly as possible and then builds more complex ideas on top of them

>>17796920
>unfitting analogy that fails to address the point
I accept your concession.
>>17796900
How do you be elect then? If it's just pre chosen for you wouldn't all ministry be pointless, since it's only the elect lottery drawing winners that get into heaven?

>>17797240
>wouldn't all ministry be pointless
if God had told us to minister in order to produce salvation. God simply said preach the gospel and make disciples.
ministry is an act of loyalty and faith, not some goal oriented labor

you really are going down the "anti calvinist arguments 101" cheat sheet aren't you

>>17797253
Actually no, this is from my own deduction.

>>17788397 (OP)
I think your interpretation of the law and gospel is dependent on your psychology. Calvin had a dry, rational consciousness structure. And when this way of viewing/interacting with the world is put with scripture, Calvinism is the end result.

I think that pre-printing press Christians would have had a very different relationship with material reality, let alone the divine. This would change with the printing press, and I'm not talking about being able actually to read the bible. Im talking about the fundamental relationship with truth and reality. The literate Gutenberg man is different in state of mind from the illiterate tactile man.

Call this what you want, a shift from belief in heart to belief in head. Spengler's plant vs animal forces distinction. It's the same thing. I think that's why we have such a hard time with the gospel in the 21st century, our heads are in a different state of mind

>>17788397 (OP)
People who hate calvin are really just mad because he exposes how retarded it is to believe in the bible
How nonsensical the religion is

>>17796926
>I'm not saying Paul is easy to understand
>I'm saying 90% of what he writes about it is easy to understand
lol

>>17788855
Go and look up the parable of the talents.

>>17796340
Not at all, I refer to papal encyclicals as well. It is also a very fallacious arguument not to listen to one because “his own people would execute him”.
>>17796464
The OT teaches a multipersonal God. Unitarianism is no where to be found in the Bible.
Zechariah 2
>8 For the Lord of armies says this: “After glory He has sent me against the nations that plunder you, for the one who touches you, touches the [d]apple of His eye. 9 For behold, I am going to wave My hand over them so that they will be plunder for their slaves. Then you will know that the Lord of armies has sent Me.
The Lord of armies YHWH, claims to be sent by YHWH
And he does it again in verse 11
>11 “And many nations will join themselves to the Lord on that day and will become My people. Then I will dwell in your midst, and you will know that the Lord of armies has sent Me to you.
Genesis 19
>24 Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah from the Lord out of heaven,
Lord raining fire from the Lord out of heaven, Lord on earth and Lord in heaven, a multipersonal God
Isaiah 48
>16 Come near to Me, listen to this:
From the beginning I have not spoken in secret,
>From the time it took place, I was there.
>And now the Lord [b]God has sent Me, and His Spirit.”
Here YHWH claims to be sent by YHWH and his spirit
Hosea 1:7
>7 But I will take pity on the house of Judah and save them by the Lord their God, and will not save them by bow, sword, battle, horses, or horsemen.”
YHWH claims he will save Judah by YHWH, divine plurality again

>>17797724
>YHWH talking about himself in the 3rd person means he has multiple personalities
lol

>>17797750
>YHWH sent by YHWH
YHWH is talking about himself in third persons? He said he is sent by YHWH and his spirit. YHWH being sent by YHWH indicates that there are several persons named YHWH.
>Isaiah 45:5
Who argued that YHWH was several gods?
Genesis 32
>[11] And the angel of God said to me in my sleep: Jacob? And I answered: Here I am. [12] And he said: Lift up thy eyes, and see that all the males leaping upon the females, are of divers colours, spotted, and speckled. For I have seen all that Laban hath done to thee. [13] I am the God of Bethel, where thou didst anoint the stone, and make a vow to me.
The Angel of the Lord claims to be the God of Bethel.
Judges 13
>[21] And the angel of the Lord appeared to them no more. And forthwith Manue understood that it was an angel of the Lord, [22] And he said to his wife: We shall certainly die, because we have seen God.
Seeing the Angel = Seeing God
Exodus 23:21
>[21] Take notice of him, and hear his voice, and do not think him one to be contemned: for he will not forgive when thou hast sinned, and my name is in him.
Angel can forgive sins. God’s name is in him, God does not give his glory to any other, yet he gave the angel his name.

You're supposed to say HaShem, retards. He doesn't like it when you say his actual name.

>>17797774
>Seeing the Angel = Seeing God
Yes because they are all his host. He is the Lord of the Hosts of heaven. there's innumerable hosts and he lives through all of them.

>>17797724
>The Lord of armies YHWH, claims to be sent by YHWH
3 Enoch 10:
(God places Metatron on a throne at the door of the seventh Hall and announces through the Herald, that Metatron henceforth is God's representative and ruler over all the princes of kingdoms and all the children of heaven, save the eight high princes called YHWH by the name of their King)

2-3:
And He placed it at the door of the Seventh Hall and seated me on it. And the herald went forth into every heaven, saying:This is Metatron, my servant. I have made
him into a prince and a ruler over all the princes of my kingdoms and over all the children of heaven, except the eight great princes, the honoured and revered ones who are called YHWH, by the name of their King.

>>17789123
no jesus say these children not all children. Because children like that know and love jesus and think jesus is a god can go to heaven.

>>17797805
>>17797724
They are princes not co-kings with God. They are the sons of God called by his name.

>>17797774
>YHWH is talking about himself in third persons? He said he is sent by YHWH and his spirit. YHWH being sent by YHWH indicates that there are several persons named YHWH.
That's Isaiah speaking not YHWH

>>17797802
>he dwells in all of them
Doesn’t the Holy Spirit dwell in the baptized? Can I now say I saw the Holy Spirit if I saw you?
>>17797805
>>17797807
Enoch is not canon.
It also does not explain to why the Angel holds titles exclusive to God. God does not give his praise of glory to another.
>>17797872
Go further up.
>12 Hearken to me, O Jacob, and thou Israel whom I call: I am he, I am the first, and I am the last. 13 My hand also hath founded the earth, and my right hand hath measured the heavens: I shall call them, and they shall stand together. 14 Assemble yourselves together, all you, and hear: who among them hath declared these things? the Lord hath loved him, he will do his pleasure in Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans. 15 I, even I have spoken and called him: I have brought him, and his way is made prosperous. 16 Come ye near unto me, and hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning: from the time before it was done, I was there, and now the Lord God hath sent me, and his spirit.

>>17798233
The book of Jude quotes the book of Enoch. The angle does not hold a title of God. The angle is an avatar dog God. God is living though him. It is God the one speaking when the angel speaks. Though the angel can also speak for himself, God also speaks though him.

>>17798314
>Book of Jude quotes the book of Enoch
If he quoted a verse for specific purposes it does not mean the entire book if infallible.
>God is living through him
So you believe the angel is just a form of God? Not a separate person? Because passages show Yahweh and his angel being separate persons

>>17789265
The difference is that other denominations recognize the reality of heaven and of God’s grace. According to Calvinism God will damn you to hell for not being a Calvinist. Whether a human being truly loves God is something only God can discern. Even human babies that die from miscarriages may go to heaven if they believe in Christ. The problem of Calvinism arrises from misunderstanding God’s nature and using faulty human reasoning to fill the void of lacking awareness of God’s nature. How do Calvinists cope with the fact that Jesus instructed children to come to him and forbid his disciples from turning away children? When John the Baptist, being in the womb of his mother, noticed the presence of Christ, he sprung up in life. Love of God is unrelated to reason nor is it related to capacity.

>>17796922
Where in the bible does it say "an outward sign of inward change?" When I read the NT I get the impression that it has a practical spiritual purpose.

And then it gets more complicated when you ask "why would Jesus need to be baptized?"

>>17798394
>If he quoted a verse for specific purposes it does not mean the entire book if infallible
Yes it does.
>So you believe the angel is just a form of God? Not a separate person?
He is a separate person and also a vessel of God.

>>17789575
it doesn't help that God is not the molder as explained in genesis, God let Nature do its course

>>17798233
That's YHWH talking about himself in the 3rd person. The KJV is a shitty translation.
>[9] For my own name’s sake I delay my wrath; for the sake of my praise I hold it back from you, so as not to destroy you completely.
>[11] For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this. How can I let myself be defamed? I will not yield my glory to another.

>>17798805
>When I read the NT
you should probably learn to read then
>For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
baptism has no practical application with respect to salvation. its something believers should do because it edifies both the individual and the wider congregation. but its not necessary in any way
>why would Jesus need to be baptized
to publicly commit himself to his ministry. it was an outward sign of his inward commitment to preach the message he had been sent to preach

>>17797794
wrong, the veil in the temple was torn when Jesus died. the hebrews had a close relationship with God but were still at some distance, represented by the curtain separating the holy of holies from the rest of the temple. believers now are indwelt by the Spirit, there is no separation from God. at least in the way there is no separation between the divine and human natures of Jesus: inseparably united without mixture or confusion

>>17798794
>According to Calvinism God will damn you to hell for not being a Calvinist
God condemns those that do not have faith. and how can you have faith? it is a gift from God freely given to those God foreknew before the foundations of the world were laid.
>Even human babies that die from miscarriages may go to heaven if they believe in Christ.
correct. we don't know which people were foreknown. God has chosen not to tell us. babies that die in the womb, people that were born in places were they could not possibly have heard a missionary preach, people with mental disabilities that prevent them from consciously understand the gospel all could be saved on the basis that God foreknew them and predestined them to be saved. God reserves the right to save people like that in any way he chooses because salvation is solely up to God
>How do Calvinists cope with the fact that Jesus instructed children to come to him and forbid his disciples from turning away children?
complete non sequitur when talking about "calvinism". Jesus was rebuking the disciples for trying to section Jesus off from the world, acting like you needed to be initiated before you could come to him. Jesus was teaching them that his people could come to him at any time, for any reason, with no restrictions, regardless of who those people were

>>17789575
because you aren't God and cannot possibly have the perspective of a creator. you can only think as a creation, a rebellious creation at that.

>>17798815
>yes it does
How? If I quoted my grandfather does it mean he is infallible?
>he is a person and vessel of God
Do you mean God manifested as an angel?

>>17799036
In verse 11 and 12 YHWH is talking and continues to do so in verse 16. Where he finally says he is sent by YHWH. If he was talking in third person what it mean? What is he saying?

>>17799984
Your grandfather is not a book. If the Bible quotes another book and you believe in him he Bible then you must believe the other book. Jude believed in Enoch enough to quote it.

The angel is a host of God. God dwells in them and acts through them whenever he pleases.

>>17800311
Depends on the quoting of Enoch, what context did he quote it from? We sometimes quote Saints but it does not mean everything they wrote was infallible.
>Angel is host of God
Is he a conscious person?

>>17800727
If he quoted from a book then he's endorsing that book. If you believe in Jude you'd believe in the book he quoted.

Yes the angel is conscious. He gives control over himself to God and God works through him God speaks through his lips.

>>17800742
>you’d believe in the book he quoted
I believe the quote is correct in context, but it does not mean I have to accept all of Enoch. I can simply quote a sentence from one of Plato’s works, does not mean I believe his works are infallible.
>the angel is a person
May you worship him?

>>17800988
Not in this context, Jude is quoting a prophecy, he wouldn't quote it in his letter if he didn't think the book it came from was canon. If you are quoting a prophet it is safe to say you believe in his book.

I don't know if you can worship the presence of an angel. Abraham bowed to the angels who visit him. But God was with them.

>>17801090
>Enoch
St. Paul quoted many poets and philosophers, did he also believe their works were infallible?
>if you can worship
Not all angels may be worshipped or even prostrated to.
Numbers 22:31
> 31 Forthwith the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel standing in the way with a drawn sword, and he worshipped him falling flat on the ground.
By worship here is it meant bowing down or prostrating to.
However in Revelations 22.
>[8] And I, John, who have heard and seen these things. And after I had heard and seen, I fell down to adore before the feet of the angel, who shewed me these things. [9] And he said to me: See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them that keep the words of the prophecy of this book. Adore God.
Not all angels can be prostrated to.

>>17801176
>St. Paul quoted many poets and philosophers
Like who?

Jude is quoting a prophecy not just a poet. If he is quoting a specific prophecy from a book then he clearly believes the book to be canon.

>Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

You wouldn't quote that if you didn't believe that to be true. And he wouldn't believe one part of the book to be true while another part of the same book to be lie.

>Not all angels can be prostrated to.

That only happens in the NT.

>>17788855
I once saw a video from a woman who was raised Baptist but had dated a Calvinist during college. He eventually convinced her that predestination was the logical end point of Christianity and she was so morally repulsed by the idea she stopped being a Christian entirely.

>>17801240
>"baptist" (most likely some non-denominational nonsense) puts more weight on personal feelings than the word of God
many such cases

>>17797365

>>17801209
>he clearly believe the book to be cannon
He could be quoting what Enoch truly said from oral tradition. The forgery known as the book of Enoch included this said prophecy to make the book look more authentic.
>only happens in the NT
Don’t you believe in the NT?

>>17788397 (OP)
it was really just a reaction to indulgences
>God doesn't care how much money you gave to corrupt priests or what they told you about it saving your immortal soul, he decided your fate from the outset