Buddhism works because it offers two ways to end suffering in rebirth

Titus 3:5 - Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.

2 Timothy 1:9 - Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began

John 3:5 - Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Luke 18:17 - Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

Mark 10:15 - Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

So basically by the Grace of God, not by one's works.

It rejects pure asceticism.

Its answer to monastic life is a bowl of cornflakes.

So what? Catholicism is superior to the Bible, being the work of many cultivated generations and not just isolated sages who probably lived in lofts in the slums of Roman Anatolia.

You're attempting to compare apples and oranges, frankly. The Protestant rejection of monasticism is a rejection of the notion that the only holy vocation is to separate oneself from the church, hide away, to have private administrations of the sacraments apart from the rest of the church. It was a rejection of the notion that there are particularly divine vocations which are NOT the administration of Word and Sacrament to the people, and a rejection of what they saw as a corrupt manmade economy of merit. Their answer to monastic life was to make shoes, bake bread, brew and drink beer, raise your children in the faith, and attend regularly to the ministrations of Jesus himself in the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments.

So in other words, they abolished the ascetic life and advocated cornflakes.

If by "cornflakes," you mean "get your knees off those raw beans and go live your life because kneeling on beans doesn't impress God," then yes.

No, I specifically mean half-hearted asceticism spoiling ordinary life.

People live and perform economic activities. This is inherent. There are no prizes for doing what's automatic.

Instead of exploring an extreme of spirituality, protestants advocate a slightly more numb version of material life. They won't even allow others in their community to do it.

This is what happens when peasants get airs - instead of really being noble, they corrupt their simple lives with shallow pretension, and attempt to ruin the achievements of better men.

>There are no prizes for doing what's automatic.
This is the difference between Catholic and Protestant spirituality. Catholicism says "work hard and get the prize." Protestantism says, "You really think you can earn a prize? Go ahead and impress a God who created man perfect. Show him what you've got and see what you earn."

The problem with asceticism in Catholicism is inherent in your attitude toward those who do not live an ascetic lifestyle: "it's cornflakes." This is a fundamental rejection of the vocations of those not called to monastic life. You can couch it in any terms you want, but that is your attitude. It's also why you seem to be comparing ascetics to the nobility, which seems rather to undermine the entire point of the thing, don't you think? Pride goeth...

This proves my point completely. Protestantism rejects both good works and asceticism.

It then corrupts ordinary life with injunctions to both give things, but not too much, and as numbly as possible if you do it at all;
and to not accumulate things, but not to avoid it too much, and to avoid it as numbly as possible if at all.
Self-serving and self-crippling, it's no culture at all, it's vulgar cant.

Also:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante
Illustration of the rustic vulgarity of this attitude in a non-religious context.

>Protestantism rejects both good works
Again, they explicitly do the opposite. Look at any confession from a historically Protestant church. Every single one affirms good works.

>and asceticism.
Yes, and for the reasons outlined above. Did you not understand the first time?

>It then corrupts ordinary life with injunctions to both give things, but not too much, and as numbly as possible if you do it at all;
Citation or go masturbate privately if that's all you want to do.

But hell is the greatest imaginable injustice?
>girl born into a family living in poverty
>she works day and night to make her families life liveable, but since she lives in 100AD china she hasn't heard the words of christ yet
>she marries, has children and raises them to become very kind and caring adults
>on her death bed she reflects on her life and is happy that she got to spend that little time she had helping others
>she closes her eyes, realising that she is slowly descending into a lake of fire, where she can only feel maximal pain and hear the endless screams and wails of souls around her
How the fuck is this justice? Before any of you try to weasel your way out remember John 14:6 and Matthew 25:46.

Sola fide contradicts that. They obey, but they do not comply.

It rejects devoting your life to good works, meaning it rejects good works that a busy shopkeeper doesn't have time to do twice a year if he feels like seeming generous. This is called pettiness.

Limbo is dull but not hellish. Never mind what the Bible says, it was elaborated and improved on by Christ's legitimate heirs.

>They obey, but they do not comply.
You just used two synonyms. The onus is on you to elaborate the distinction between "obedience" and "compliance," in your view.

>meaning it rejects good works that a busy shopkeeper doesn't have time to do
In other words, you are establishing a class of works that one is not capable of unless one is a monk. This is evil. It calls works which man does in accordance with the will of God and under the grace of God "not good" and suggests that, if you can take the time out and work really REALLY hard, you can generate real merit before God. Moreover the notion is that unless you abandon other vocations in life, you cannot but be petty. God damn you, you miserable shopkeep. Better hope the monk can work hard enough to keep you afloat.

You speak of true generosity, but deny the possibility of such from anyone other than the elite few.

The Protestant notion of good works is twofold:
1. Works that are truly good are anything done in obedience to God's law/will.
2. When Jesus commands us to love our neighbor, he isn't lying. You are calling Jesus a liar if you suggest that the shopkeeper living a life which benefits his nature is a denial of good works.

Calling God a liar is pretty close to the definition of the unforgiveable sin in the Scripture.

>which benefits his nature
meant "benefits his neighbor"

>Never mind what the Bible says

>Life is suffering
Kek

Whatever God decrees is justice. For he is the creator all knowing, the merciful.

Why did he provide us with mental logic to detect bullshit then?

When Catholicism gets rid of God as They are perceived now.

According to Sola Fide, you can't even do good works, so God mind controls those he chooses via justification. This of course opposes Paul

>You just used two synonyms. The onus is on you to elaborate the distinction between "obedience" and "compliance," in your view.
It's a saying referring to lip-service.

>In other words, you are establishing a class of works that one is not capable of unless one is a monk. This is evil.
This is division of labour. There are those who rule with justice and generosity, those who pray and contemplate, and those who assist them.

Then there are the people are incapable of anything but serving themselves, but who want to be praised for it. Their communion wine is beer, their rosary is counting their pennies, and their ritual is eating three square meals a day. Hallelujah.

>You speak of true generosity, but deny the possibility of such from anyone other than the elite few.

Where is the "but" coming from? I deny the possibility of true art in anyone other than a few artists. There is no "but" in not classing a sunday daub with V shaped birds with the works of Michelangelo. Doing so would degrade culture. Considering a few coins in a collection plate to be true generosity has degraded generosity in the protestantism-affected areas.

>1. Works that are truly good are anything done in obedience to God's law/will.
Petty. I breathe. Is this praiseworthy in itself? Only a paralytic or a protestant could claim that.

>2. When Jesus commands us to love our neighbor, he isn't lying. You are calling Jesus a liar if you suggest that the shopkeeper living a life which benefits his nature is a denial of good works.
If what benefits someone is good in itself, did Jesus sin against God by fasting forty days in the desert?
Maybe he should have sold used donkeys and spent the profits on steaks, and spared a dollar for a "Free Jerusalem" bracelet. Wouldn't want him acting like an elitist.

>According to Sola Fide, you can't even do good works
This is not the case. Every confessional Protestant church affirms good works. They deny that sinful man is capable of merit in himself, and they deny that any good works other than Christ's can be an instrument or ground of justification. This and no more.

>so God mind controls those he chooses via justification
"On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me."
So your contention is that St. Paul is speaking of mind control? Or can you not conceive of grace working, not contrary to but in concursus with will?

>It's a saying referring to lip-service.
So only the monastic is capable of true service, and not lip service?

>This is division of labour. There are those who rule with justice and generosity, those who pray and contemplate, and those who assist them.
But those who assist them are "incapable of anything but serving themselves, but who want to be praisef for it." Either God approves and applies the merit earned for them by the REAL Christians, or they are damned. But there is nothing in any Christian church which teaches such division of labor. Even the Catholic church would condemn your view that only monks are capable of good. You stand outside of every single remotely orthodox Christian communion. And you expect to be saved?

No non-Gnostic faith teaches that there is an elite which is alone capable of the Christian life. You are claiming Catholicism but preaching heresy.

>I breathe. Is this praiseworthy in itself?
The providence of God which gives you breath and the capacity to exist on it is praiseworthy. Your expectation that a sinner can present his filthy rags to God for praise on the basis of his own efforts rather than the finished work of Christ and the mercy of the Godhead is downright damnable.

>If what benefits someone is good in itself
False premise. The referent is God's law, not the act.

I didn't say they don't. I only describe typical Protestant soteriology. Human beings are Totally Depraved. So they cannot do anything pleasing to God who is a massive dickhead based on such a view. So, Jesus is the answer to this. But since sinful man cannot turn to God, God makes man turn to God, essentially mind controlling him in justification and altering him so that he does good works. Paul urges one to walk in the Spirit, to avoid envy and arrogance. He did not say that let God do his magic in you and control you. Too bad

Protestants explain where is the Penal Substitutionary Atonement?

The precise way in which an expiatory sacrifice was thought to ―work‖ is never clarified. It has been maintained by some that an element of substitution was always understood and that the sacrificial victim was thought of as enduring the (divine) punishment for the sin committed, thus enabling the sinner to go free. Such a model has of course exerted considerable influence on popular Christian piety as an interpretation of Jesus‘ atoning death. This probably reads too much into the rationale of the sacrificial system. It is in fact very unlikely that the sacrificial victim was ever thought of as a substitute in this way. Such a rationale might lie behind the ceremony of the Day of Atonement, when the priest laid hands on one of the goats, thereby transferring the sins to the goat (Lev 16:21). However, this goat was not sacrificed: the goat on whom the sins were ―laid‖ was the scapegoat which was driven away into the desert, and it was the other goat which was offered in sacrifice. In fact it was considered vitally important that the sacrificial victim should be pure (see Young 1979: 52). Thus it is unlikely that the sacrificial system was ever conceived of in such a substitutionary sense.-Atonement in the NT, Anchor Bible Dictionary pg 815

>Protestants explain where is the Penal Substitutionary Atonement?
No? I'm neither Protestant nor have I proposed a PSA. I'm clarifying one particular Protestant distinctive against a dumbass who hasn't even got Catholic doctrine correct but wants to talk about the superiority of Catholic over Protestant formulations. I'm an atheist with an interest in religion who hates intentional ignorance and misrepresentation.

Oh...did I misrepresent anything?

>So only the monastic is capable of true service, and not lip service?
I don't know if English is your native language or not, but anyone is capable of being a hypocrite. It's just enshrined as doctrine in Protestantism, namely, it says that good works are approved of by God, but also have no effect on his approval whatsoever. This is called "hypocrisy," or "having your cake and eating it too."

>But those who assist them are "incapable of anything but serving themselves
Those who serve are by definition capable of serving others. To love is to serve.

>only monks are capable of good
Monks are capable of extreme heights of contemplation and come the closest to the imitation of Christ. Since not everyone can live this way, good works are an acceptable substitute. St Anthony did not need to benefit anyone to be holy.

>You are claiming Catholicism but preaching heresy.
Shopkeepers never cease to amaze me by the depths of their self-absorption. A protestant is actually calling me a heretic.

>The providence of God which gives you breath and the capacity to exist on it is praiseworthy.
God's actions are praiseworthy. This means that God is praiseworthy. I know that protestants sometimes confuse themselves with God, but this is as petty and onanistic as their religious texts, such as "How To Win Friends and Influence People," "The Hobbit," and "I'm OK, You're OK."

>Your expectation that a sinner can present his filthy rags to God for praise on the basis of his own efforts
God approves. He doesn't praise; praise is directed at superiors.

>False premise. The referent is God's law, not the act.
So Jesus broke God's law?
The one in "The Book of Mashed Potatoes" which goes "Thou shalt fatten thine belly as thou fattenest thine wallet"?

>This is called "hypocrisy," or "having your cake and eating it too."
I would add that in practice, religious protestants eat their cake and then puke it back up for future delectation. Both the cake and the eating gradually dwindle to nothing, with in this analogy is atheism.

This is what happens when roles are confused, when categories are muddied, when excellences are mashed together into mediocrity, and also explains the epidemic of pegging in protestant populations.

>Protestantism says, "You really think you can earn a prize? Go ahead and impress a God who created man perfect. Show him what you've got and see what you earn."
I just wanted to quote this amazingly bitter, sulky, and tight-fisted motto. It says everything I wanted to say against protestantism.

>anyone is capable of being a hypocrite
The question was whether anyone was capable of true service? You didn't answer.

>that good works are approved of by God, but also have no effect on his approval whatsoever.
Yes, God approves good works. And who does good works? What are good works? By what standard can one judge what is a good work? These are the questions you need to ask in order to understand the issue. Your answer is, "a select few who aren't shopkeepers or any other hoi polloi, because fuck those guys amirite?"

>To love is to serve.
Yet the command of Jesus is to love. So either he commands everyone to holy orders, or people of other vocations than the monastic orders are expected to do so.

>Monks ... come the closest to the imitation of Christ.
And yet they come so far from the actual standard of Christ that if you were to compare by the divine standard, there is little enough difference between the monk and the shopkeep. You haven't got there, so don't pat yourself on the back for your supposition that you're further along than the other guy. God said, "you shall do" and the people said "all this we shall do." The agreement was not, "get as close as you can and you're good if you got further than the other guy."

>I know that protestants sometimes confuse themselves with God
How do you get from "the providence of God is praiseworthy" to "man thinks he's God?" Are you drunk?

>So Jesus broke God's law?
Again, how do you get from point A to point B? Are you just vomiting words out now?

>PUKING CAKE ALSO I'M THINKING OF PEGGING FOR SOME REASON
Seriously, stop drinking.

Here's another one: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." If you think that anyone described in this way can pretend this isn't true of them, you might want to reconsider your statement about hypocrisy.

if this is your criteria, why believe?

Heaven is actually "open" to everyone in Buddhism. The condition for it can be pretty much summed up as being a good and non-destructive person in thought and deed, whether the person is Christian or whatever is a non-issue. Also every being has more than enough karmic fruits to cause rebirth in such a realm if the conditions are provided in the current life (also applies to hellish realms).
Acquiring wisdom actually goes against rebirth in a Heavenly realm, because the person with sufficient accumulation and retention of wisdom would be reborn as a human to progress further towards liberation rather than living a still life of ease and pleasure for a very long time as a deva.

In fact even Nirvana can be attained by those who don't know the Buddha's teachings but manage to discover the dharma by themselves, ie. the extremely extremely rare Pratekyabuddhas. As far as systems go though Buddhism does indeed present itself as the only one that can lead to liberation.

>Buddhism works because it offers two ways to end suffering in rebirth.
>One, lead an ascetic life.
>Two, accumulate karma by good works.
That's Hinduism, Buddhism is about moderation and knowledge.

You do know that nobody actually does good works in Protestant theology right? If every good work comes from faith which is given by God, it follows that you aren't the one doing anything in the first place. But this opposes Paul's mindset. He demands that one works his salvation in fear and trembling. He demands one to walk in the spirit. Protestantism can easily agree with Paul by dropping all the Penal Substitutionary shit and accept that the person does works, though not for merit as Catholicism teaches. That way, sola Fide would be consistent with that of the Church Fathers and Paul. The only ones doing this are the NT Wright crowd which pisses a lot of Prots off

Early protestantism rejected good works because it became the "indulgences" amongst the Catholic Church, meaning a litteral bribe to get to paradise.

At first, Protestantism was actually about reducing religion influence so faith could be individual and not so much societal.

But of course it became societal again and without the good works this time.

>If every good work comes from faith which is given by God, it follows that you aren't the one doing anything in the first place
just how are you not a polytheist right now

You can ask Paul the Apostle that question

>the person does works, though not for merit as Catholicism teaches.
This is the Protestant position. The person does work, but does not merit before God by these works. This is not the distinction between N.T. Wright and traditional Protestants. Where Wright pissed people off is the denial, not of PSA, but of imputation and of the nature of justification. Indeed, "penal" substitution has almost nothing to say as to the question of good works and merit. What pissed people off about Wright was not what he had to say about atonement, but what he had to say about imputation and justification. To be fair, Wright would have as much problem with the Roman Catholic view of merit as any Protestant would. The New Perspective on Paul's argument was toward the revision of attitudes about 1st century Judaism, NOT about Roman Catholicism.

>The question was whether anyone was capable of true service? You didn't answer.
If anyone is capable of being wrong, then anyone is capable of being right.
Are you a native English speaker? You didn't answer my question.

>What are good works?
Those who have betrayed the tradition have to figure that out for themselves. Usually they come to the most comfortable conclusions for their private lives, and their public works fall into decay.

>Yet the command of Jesus is to love.
Is "yet" your motto? Or does "but" hold that honour?
Love varies in form.

>How do you get from "the providence of God is praiseworthy" to "man thinks he's God?" Are you drunk?
I'm not a 16th century German peasant. I prefer water to beer.

Gods creates man. In your view, man then worships himself for being created.
Continuing this logic, I give to a beggar. The beggar then thanks himself.

Does this make sense or is logic so alien to you that it seems psychedelic? Woah, wut r u on?!! XD

>Again, how do you get from point A to point B? Are you just vomiting words out now?
By thought, rather than reflex hypocrisy.
You think eating bread and drinking beer are sacraments, with the implication that neglecting material satisfaction is against God's will.
When Jesus neglected the sacred potatoes and the godlike fried eggs in the desert, was he violating God's law? Can you remember your own statements or am I talking to a goldfish?

>Here's another one
That sentence is in the indicative. It is a description of the facts of our nature, which we have to struggle against actively.

Or just sort of worship and wallow in, if we feel like being comfy. You can also be as smug as a pig about the efforts of others. Sounds like a winning plan. It's certainly the easiest, most common, most vulgar, and most automatic plan.

False. The Protestant position is that God does the work for you as shown through monergism. But this renders Paul's language as pointless since they presuppose independent agents acting of their own volition. Why do I need to tell a robot to be "steadfast" when I already know it would be depending on how I program it? The reason why the New Perspective pisses Protestants off is that it shows that the classical Prot position and exegesis of Paul is wrong. Take Paul's critique of "works" for example. Protestants will say that such refers to works in Salvation. But the New Perspective shows that the works Paul talks about is in fact...stuff like circumsision, the law of the Torah, not the act of good works or devotion to God at all. NT Wright and the other NP scholars deny Penal Substitutionary Atonement and will add in the theme of Christus Victor in there. This pisses PSA's off as it means Jesus' work isn't because Adam and Eve pissed off humanity, but primarily to save human beings from death, which obstructs the core motif of PSA to begin with. Any revision of 1st century Judaism has implications on what Paul is saying and the implication is that the Reformers got it wrong.

HERP DERP HERP DERP

Look, man. When you want to continue the conversation, I'll be waiting for you to try again. You're really going off the rails now though.

I'll respond to the things which you've said which actually resemble human speech:

>Gods creates man. In your view, man then worships himself for being created.
Not in my view. You have clearly, horribly misunderstood. Where did you get the idea that the praiseworthiness of GOD'S providence implied the worship of man for himself for being worthy to be provided to? Sounds like you skipped a word or three or are just making shit up here.

>You think eating bread and drinking beer are sacraments
Nope, and never said so. Next question?

>When Jesus neglected the sacred potatoes and the godlike fried eggs in the desert, was he violating God's law?
No. When Jesus was nailed to a tree, was the implication that you can't do good unless you get yourself nailed to a tree?

The standard is God's law, not what an individual feels might be "Extreme." God Himself gets to say what is. We don't get to say we're raising ourselves up by our own imitation of Christ when the holiest man other than Christ who ever lived is just as far from that standard as the shopkeeper who catechizes his kids and doesn't cheat his customers but doesn't get a chance to spend months of his life separated from the ekklesia in a monastery. The shopkeep who fasts for a week so he can focus on praying for the sick members of his parish is no less holy than the French Trappist writing books about Zen philosophy. Probably more so.

>Or just sort of worship and wallow in
That's the thing about worship. It's kind of antithetical to wallowing. A monk can wallow. A worshipper has to deny himself and his righteousness and take up the Cross.

God bless, OP

Also, it is key to note that according to the NP, works are a condition of being "in" the New Covenant. So you need to do works to maintain your status. To the Protestant, this is unacceptable as it already demands that works are needed to maintain salvation, it plays a role in it and isn't a consequence of it

To be fair, the statement that "works are needed to maintain salvation, it plays a role in it and isn't a consequence of it" is sort of unclear and almost more modern Baptist/evangelical than properly Protestant. It conflates justification with salvation as a whole. The Reformers and their heirs were pretty comfortable with the notion that works were a necessary part of salvation because they viewed salvation as a lifelong work rather than an instantaneous thing. Their concern was with justification, which they did conceive as a one-time act of God on the basis of grace alone, received by the instrument of faith alone. In that they still have a problem with Wright, but the statement that works are necessary for salvation is pretty uncontroversial, if understood correctly. The reason Wright sounds so different from traditional Protestants is his veering away from the forensic (and this is where penal substitution can make a re-entrance, as it is a very forensic doctrine).

Why the outburst?

>You have clearly, horribly misunderstood. Where did you get the idea that the praiseworthiness of GOD'S providence implied the worship of man for himself for being worthy to be provided to?
My understanding is as horrible as a mirror, to some.

When I asked if I should be praised for breathing, this was your answer:
>The providence of God which gives you breath and the capacity to exist on it is praiseworthy. Your expectation that a sinner can present his filthy rags to God for praise on the basis of his own efforts rather than the finished work of Christ and the mercy of the Godhead is downright damnable.

So in other words, my breathing is the work of god, and when I breath, I should consider myself a miracle.
My breathing is not "holy" in itself. That would be a gross undervaluation of the word. In fact, it would render it completely meaningless, because then nothing would be unholy. Meaning exists only in opposition to other meanings, otherwise the only word would be "all," and even that would vanish if there was no contrast between speaker and spoken.
I am amazed that you deny God his separate existence from his creations, seeing them only as puppets. It's unthinkable.

And in your case, why would God be an ineloquent peasant?

>Nope, and never said so. Next question?
I'll jog your memory.
>Their answer to monastic life was to make shoes, bake bread, brew and drink beer,

>No. When Jesus was nailed to a tree, was the implication that you can't do good unless you get yourself nailed to a tree?
Martyrs are indeed saintly, and saintliness is varied in form.
Shopkeepers are common. If everyone is holy, nobody is. This is nihilism and leads directly to atheism.

>That's the thing about worship. It's kind of antithetical to wallowing. A monk can wallow. A worshipper has to deny himself and his righteousness and take up the Cross.
Deny himself by making lots of money and swapping wives. Sure. Very comf- I mean very righteous

When will white people stop raving on about Buddhism.

To Protestants, only Justification is that which truly saves thanks to Jesus the scapegoat. When this is understood, the entire notion of Sanctification isn't works to maintain salvation but merely a consequence of Justification or, God acting upon men who cannot do anything pleasing to God. The work done after isn't significant to Salvation but merely a sign that says, "God reprogrammed me". That's it. Also, Luther never believed that Justification is a one time act given his belief that it happens whenever penance does. But, Luther's system is only like that because of Catholic baggage, not because it is uniquely Protestant. But from Luther we get the springboard to a uniquely Protestant doctrine, Calvinism which will be the basis of most Protestant soteriology. The baggage of Predestination and all the fatalism stuff is merely taken out and instead you having the free will to choose. But everything else is still just God doing the work, not you and the Justification, being a one time event, is that which Saves, not Sanctification. Anyone who falls away is deemed never saved to begin with. But NP doesn't have this view. It also demands work as part of being saved by God since you need it to maintain the Saved status. Protestantism denies this as work is merely a consequence of being Saved.

Another thing of note is that classical Protestantism actually deny free will in Salvation. So the whole works being a "consequence" of Salvation is in fact not some novelty made up by Baptists and Evangelical, it's Protestantism as it started. Even Luther believes this despite the Catholic lite aspects of his soteriology

When non-whites stop raving on about Christianity :^)

>So in other words, my breathing is the work of god, and when I breath, I should consider myself a miracle.
No. Your breathing is possible because of the providence of God which upholds the universe, and if you should happen to find yourself considering the fact that you're breathing, you owe gratitude to God. To pat yourself on the back for breathing or to deny that there's anything special about creation are both rather ungrateful, and contrary to the Christian spirit, wouldn't you agree?

>Their answer to monastic life was to make shoes, bake bread, brew and drink beer
You haven't pointed out where I said those were sacramental. You see, you might have forgotten that Protestants have FEWER sacraments than Catholics, not more. The sacraments are those institutions of Christ where He gave specific promise to work and dispense his grace by visible means to his Church, not to a select few. This is why Holy Baptism and the reception of the true and natural body and blood of Christ in the Supper are sacraments, and weddings and beer-drinking and shutting yourself into a convent are not.

>Shopkeepers are common.
So are mystics.

>Shopkeepers are common. If everyone is holy, nobody is.
Not all shopkeepers are holy, but all Christians are by nature of the intercession and priesthood of Christ, and the application of his benefits by Word and Sacrament. I won't vouch for all monks though.

>Deny himself by making lots of money and swapping wives.
I don't know what kind of shops you're visiting, but if I ever feel like I'm in the need for action, you won't mind if I drop you a line?

Seriously, where do you live that being a shopkeeper entails being a swinger?

They don't, though. Monergism has never required determinism. That was a much later development than the Reformation.

It isn't. Luther and Calvin were determinists. Only the Arminians and later Methodists are non determinist. But either way, Luther and Calvin, the central figures of Protestantism, are. Their theologies are both monergistic though Luther's one is contradictory to his determinism given a sort of weak synergism being present, another product of Catholic baggage. Monergism means God alone who saves, not you. You play no role or part in it which is the core aspect of Sola Fide. The only exception is that your choice plays a part. But that's it...

If all creation is special, nothing is special.

> Protestants have FEWER sacraments than Catholics, not more
Precisely because they are closer to atheism than the Church. Atheism begins with the denial of separation between the holy and unholy. Even if it seems to take one side, its only side is neutered nothingness.

>So are mystics.
Mystics are rare. People who know what mysticism is are almost as rare.

>Every christian is holy
>Everyone is a country converted a thousand years ago is automatically holy
>In fact, all people are holy as god's creations, and christians are not superior because their conversion was not their choice, but god's providence
>in fact, we should all live in a collective farm and not presume to utter the name of God, but act out his biological imperative; if he's forgotten, then he will surely revive himself in our minds if he deems it necessary

>Seriously, where do you live that being a shopkeeper entails being a swinger?
It's merely one example of the rot that protestantism brings. You already knew that. After all, isn't everything holy and thus permitted?

The early Christians see their clergy as a sort of priesthood as evidenced by Clement of Rome

Luther and Calvin were not determinists. In fact, philosophical determinism never really took hold in Christianity until the 19th century.

There is a great difference between determinism and monergism. What you see as "weak" determinism in Luther is exactly the same "weakness" that applied to early Calvinism and to more-or-less Augustinian and Thomist Catholic formulations. Monergism refers to the origin of regerneration, but it exists with a very strong Thomistic notion of concurrence in play. The relative "weakness" perceived in Lutheran soteriology vs. the Calvinist is in its rejection of so-called "double predestination." For Lutherans, the predestination of the "elect" is as strong as it is for Calvinists. It's the predestination of others that is left uncertain in Lutheranism generally. Again, predestination is not identical with philosophical determinism. Calvin and Luther were not Jonathan Edwards or Gottfried Leibniz.

>If all creation is special, nothing is special.
All creation can be special, and yet there can still be something holy (set aside). Believers are set apart from the mass of fallen humanity precisely because they are recipients of God's redemptive mercy. The Divine Liturgy is holy because it is the place and time where God has promised to meed his people in Word and Sacrament. The simple, ordinary water applied to your child's forehead is holy because it has been set aside for the purpose of applying the name of the Trinity to the children of believers. The Christian shopkeeper is holy because God has chosen to have mercy on him and has placed His name on him in Baptism and feeds him with the substance of His Son in the Supper.

>Atheism begins with the denial of separation between the holy and unholy.
Atheism begins with the denial that there is anythign holy. And if we're talking about separation of the holy and unholy, Prods are way better that Cats. We don't think the normal relation of male and female for the purpose of procreation is a holy sacrament.

Heck, if you want to compare, in the church tradition I grew up in, there used to be a thing called communion tokens. In order to be admitted to the Eucharist, you had to have been Baptized, catechized into the faith, and have demonstrated a life of good works and faithfulness.

The Catholic Church still communes Nancy Pelosi. But WE'RE the ones who are atheists and don't believe in good works. Uh huh.

Luther and Calvin both denied free will. It can be logically concluded they are determinists or better yet, theological fatalists given their belief in Monergism. This is also why the view of God hardening the Pharoah's heart in Luther's and Calvin's exegesis is God actually controlling the Pharoah himself. Also, Augustine is no determinist like Luther and Calvin as Reformed scholar Mcgarth notes in Iustifica Dei(I hope I spelled that right). Augustine's whole soteriology is in fact the very teaching of the Catholic Church today and not the same sort of Calvin and Luther. Either way, Calvinism is deterministic alongside Luther. Luther is less of this because in practice, he sometimes give a so what additude to predestination. Monergism of course refers to the origin of regeneration but such is only
For the Predestined. NOBODY chooses or consents to it to begin with. Hence it's just Divine mind control, like changing where a wind up toy goes! After all, if Luther and Calvin were really not determinists, we wouldn't see Luther's huge rant against Erasmus who believed in it, or Calvin's predestination.

>All creation can be special, and yet there can still be something holy (set aside).
You are on the right track, but need some precision:
>Atheism begins with the denial that there is anythign holy.
A thing can only be perceived if it is distinct from other things. A shade of black on black is almost invisible; the exact shade in the same lighting vanishes completely. All erasure of distinctions in holiness is atheistic in its tendency.

>We don't think the normal relation of male and female for the purpose of procreation is a holy sacrament.
It is holy and ritually separated from a man and a woman fucking.
Holiness is rare; marriage is a rare event in a man's life, and should be in a normal state of affairs.
Sex within marriage is ritually separate from other sex, which is why adultery and infidelity are sins; unless my swinger remark was much more on point than I had realised.

>But WE'RE the ones who are atheists and don't believe in good works. Uh huh.
Good works has a specific theological meaning. Protestants, as people, are just as capable of good works as any. They just refuse to value them religiously, except in a half-hearted and self-contradictory way.

>Such a straw man
The Buddhist equivalent of Paradise(Christian) is Nirvana, the buddhist Paradise(Buddhist) last merely until you spend all of your good karma, this isn't an eternal beatitude like Nirvana or theParadise(Christian)

Skepticism works because it offers two ways to get to reliable knowledge.
One, assume that you don't know everything.
Two, assume that what you do know may very well be wrong.

The determinists of the 18th and 19th century derided the earlier Calvinist and Lutheran theologies for maintaining, inconsistently (they believed) the freedom of the will. The one element in which it is appropriate to note a denial of an (absolute) freedom of the will in these doctrines is when it comes to the particular act of regeneration which, in the traditional protestant soteriology, precedes faith. When it comes to the ability of a sinner to will one's own salvation before God, both Luther and Calvin were certainly guilty of denial. What they denied was the inability of man in himself to will or exhibit true righteousness before God.

Both regarded man as being completely free to act according to his nature. The determinist philosophers rejected the predestinarian traditions of Calvinism and Lutheranism specifically because of these latter two's adherence to a doctrine of indifference with regard to particular action, thereby demonstrating a failure to understand the proper mechanism of the human mind. Some determinists also abhorred the doctrine of predestination itself, but the point is that they saw a clear difference between these religious systems and the determinism of (then) modern philosophy.

Man is not conceived of as a wind up toy, or mechanistic in any regard, in either of these religious systems.

>It is holy and ritually separated from a man and a woman fucking.
Precisely the opposite. It is the sacramentaliztion of a man and a woman fucking. The reason Protestants cannot regard matrimony as sacramental is precisely because it is a creational ordinance. The institution of marriage is found, not in the New Testament or ministry of Christ, but in the creation account of Genesis 2. If, as you argue, it is atheistic to make all creation holy, then the accusation of atheism more properly applies to the Catholic schema.

>Good works has a specific theological meaning.
Then I suppose you ought to define what you mean by "good works."

This is sort of correct but still misses the mark.

You're still equating salvation and justification, which is something that neither Lutherans nor Calvinists do (maybe some less well-trained or fringe thinkers in both camps, probably especially on the Lutheran side, do). Justification is what makes one right before God, and yes, is the basis on which the redeemed sinner will ultimately be allowed into heaven. But there's a huge road between the moment of or application of justification and the final glorification. That is sanctification, and it is pretty much defined by good works. Both Luther and Calvin taught that God rewards good works and that sanctification is the process by which we live and become more holy in our lives. They both taught that God rewards good works, at the same time denying any merit. They do not deny that sanctification is salvific, only that it is the basis on which the sinner is accepted or rejected. Yes, it is necessarily consequential from justification in the Protestant scheme. But it is properly the defining element of the Christian life.

The weirdness in Lutheranism isn't that justification happens whenever penance is done. Rather, justification IS a one-time declaration outside of you. But then how is that justification delivered to you? Lutherans say it is in Baptism and (sometimes) Penance. That is very different from a justification that happens again and again. It's a little odd, but they lacked the Catholic scheme of grace and merit, and the Calvinist language of covenant theology. So they had to come up with something.

You are correct that the NPP challenges this. It's just that your distinctions are a little off.

False. Only Lutheran theology(and that's only the later version of it and not Luther) believed in the freedom of the will Augustine style. The only Reformed that accepted this were called, Arminians which were considered in opposition to Calvinist teaching, especially in light of predestination. The Westminster Confession of Faith and Synod of Dort later confirms this. Luther and Calvin deny any activity of man in Salvation. Freedom to act in accordance to nature is simply a buzzword, kinda like a wind up toy set up in direction X is free to act in accordance to its programming and orientation towards that direction, or better yet, a
Falling ball which by classical Prot logic, is free. So yes, man is a wind up toy according to Calvinism but less so in Lutheranism, but only because the latter rebelled against the theology of its founder

According to Protestants, Justification is that which saves, works and whatnot are simply signs or consequence of God acting upon you. This point is also repeatedly made by Mcgarth when he discusses Prot soteriology. The whole good works in sanctification is simply akin to a machine reprogrammed. That's it. Only later Lutherans go further in accepting good works as somehow man's own free volition. The whole theology of Lutheranism denies the one timeness of justification but this is Catholic baggage. Philip Cary points this out when comparing Luther and Calvin on Sola Fide in his essay, "Why is Luther not Quite Protestant". So again, you are all wrong as fuck. Good works is simply a reward that says, "I am chosen" according to PROTESTAnt soteriology especially in its early stages. The whole NPP challenges this by making works essential to maintaining Salvation. By removing the penal context vital to it. And this is a bigger blow to those more infleunced by Calvin and Reformed rather than the later Lutherans who denied Luther himself, but the later Lutherans still end up guilty as the Calvinists as shown by the Ausburg Confession which opposes the synergism of Luther's friend, Philip

>Protestantism
>Have faith in your savior

>Pure Land Buddhism
>Have faith in your savior

>Catholicism
>Do a bunch of arbitrary shit for no reason

>Theravada Buddhism
>Do a bunch of arbitrary shit for no reason

Pure Land Buddhism isn't really the Original Buddhism, just like Protestanrism

>tenure > logic
all right, my man

I am right. You know I am

>Luther and Calvin deny any activity of man in Salvation.
They do not. They deny any activity or will in man in presenting righteousness before God by which he can be accepted, or in generating saving faith in himself by their own will or faculties. In these things, both Luther and Calvin deny the freedom of the will. They never at any point, however, propose that regeneration or faith occur in opposition to the will, that you are somehow resisting faith and are made to believe anyway. There is in both Lutheranism and Calvinism a divine concurrence, by which God wills the elect to have faith, and they also will it. This is perhaps the most unique and intrusive example of the "unfreedom" of the will in either Luthran or Calvinist systems. In every other respect, there is an indifference with respect to particular action. The "freedom to act in accordance to nature" is not a buzzword masking a determinist reality. If this were so, why were the determinists, such as Priestly, able to declare that the creed of the Calvinist is the VERY REVERSE of that of the determinist?

Neither Lutherans or Calvinists ever made man a wind-up toy. This was a philosophy developed later by a class of scholars who rejected the scholastic notions of the Reformers and Post-Reformation codifiers of Protestant belief, and who rejected the scholastic and Thomistic (and Latin-based) distinctions regarding action, will, actuality, and causality, upon which the early Protestants constructed their system. Your own unfamiliarity with these disctinctions does not excuse your ignorance.

You continually insist on doing waht neither the medievals, Reformationals, or scholastic orthodox do, which is to erase distinctions and bulldoze any terms signifying similar but distinct concepts.

I understand Philip Cary's argument in the aforementioned article, but it is very different from the argument you are making at it is controversial even in confessional Lutheran circles.

Your misunderstanding of Protestant, and especially Lutheran soteriology seems to be based both on your ignorance of the categories they worked out of and the ignorance of what it is either Lutherans or Calvinists actually have to say about volition, will, justification, and soteriology in general.

The idea that it is Lutheranism which admits man's free volition in good works, in contradistinction to Calvinism, will strike any confessional Lutheran as absolutely absurd. One of the perennial debates between the traditions is whether Sanctification can be considered synergistic. Lutherans say no. You say they say yes. You clearly have no idea what the fuck anyone is saying, but you're damned sure that "Mcgarth," who is neither Lutheran, nor Reformed, nor writing to anyone familiar with the theological distinctions between the two, is your guide to make a definitive declaration that neither camp would find comprehensible or reflective of reality. Good job.

They do. This is why both see the Pharoah's heart in Exodus as being hardened by God rather than having the Pharoah as having free choice. The option of resisting God's grace comes in later Lutheranism and the Arminians who oppose Calvinism. This is very clear. Also, Reformed theology is very clear human beings are passive all the way and God elects them. The Lutherans or later Lutherans deny this and add in free will into the equation using the whole Arminian and Augustinian style of God regenerating the will so that it can truly choose. With this your whole point simply shows ignorance and misunderstanding over the Protestant soteriologies. You even claimed the whole predestination shit as "later developments" when you are clearly wrong just as you are on Luther and Calvin. The whole free will stuff is the later development! Both are very explicitly clear on predestination. Luther goes far as to consider God the author of evil. And the Reformed will go on to follow Luther and stress the passivity of human beings. Such entails theistic determinism and a lack of free will, or libertarian free will. Any notion of freedom hence becomes nothing more than a buzzword. You cite ZERO sources and provide ZERO quotes from any of the Reformation figures. I gave sources from Mcgarth and Cary to solidify my points on the issue. But here you being a pathetic Autist only repeat the same bullshit over and over again. How deceitful and ignorant are you
Gonna get?

Lutheran orthodoxy contra Reformed affirms free will in Salvation after it is regenerated by God. The Arminians also follow in this direction. The Ausburg confession denies synergism opposing the Lutheran synergists and Philip. But, later Lutherans will change this to oppose the Reformed. This is very clear and obvious. Even the whole scheme of Sola Fide differs from Lutheran to Calvinist as Philip Cary shows. The difference is clearly caused by Lutheran Catholic baggage which is noted by Cary as well mentioning Luther's use of Medieval Catholic sacramental theology. Calvinists who reject this ends up with a whole different form of Sola Fide. History shows this. It is amazing how much retcon you are doing here. You don't even understand who Mcgarth is and assume he isn't Reformed. He is a Reformed Anglican dumbass. And he is pretty much writing out the whole history of justification in CATHOLICISM and Protestantism as it progressed throughout the ages. Also Reformed deny any form of synergism. Lutherans affirm a weak form of it.

Here, Calvin on God hardening the Pharoah's heart. In his own words.

You are still equating terms. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

>The option of resisting God's grace comes in later Lutheranism and the Arminians who oppose Calvinism.
No, it's present in both Reformed and Lutheran theology from the beginning. Both the Reformed and the Lutherans opposed the Arminians. Even the term "resistible/irrestistible grace" is more a 20th century concept which ignores what both the post-Reformation Calvinist, Lutheran, AND Arminian camps were saying.

>Reformed theology is very clear human beings are passive all the way and God elects them.
Except every single Reformed confession and catechism commands human beings not to be passive in any other way than the reception of righteousness by faith (a faith which, every Reformed tradition will say, works).

>The Lutherans or later Lutherans deny this and add in free will into the equation using the whole Arminian and Augustinian style of God regenerating the will so that it can truly choose.
Maybe some Lutherans might, but no Lutheran church which actually holds to the Book of Concord confesses Arminian synergism. Lutherans aren't Arminians. They reject Arminianism as much as they reject Calvinism.

>You even claimed the whole predestination shit as "later developments"
No, I didn't I claimed that determinism was a leter development. You show that you have no idea what "determinism," "predestination," or "monergism" mean when you treat them as synonymous. That's fine, English is perhaps not the best language to have this discussion in, but the Latin terms have been translated and expounded by all parties involved, so your ignorance isn't really excused.

Again: determinism and predestination are not the same. The determinists by and large rejected Calvinism, some even going so far as to claim predestination to be morally evil.

You don't know what you're talking about. That's fine. Very few people do because we don't read the sources anymore and because we lack the scholastic language that the Reformers and their opponents were using. But to declare your ignorance as knowledge is obstinacy and knownothingism.

>Buddhism works because it offers two ways to end suffering in rebirth.

>One, lead an ascetic life.
Buddha rejected asceticism explicitly

>Two, accumulate karma by good works.
Nor did he say good works will end suffering. Just get you to a pleasure heaven.

Stupid people like you should have been born blind, deaf, and dumb.

Reformed theology rejects any notion of resisting God's grace. The only ones that deny this are what we now call Arminians. How retarded are you? Sources and even Confessions had been pointed out to you to see for yourself but you decide to be obstinate. I even revised my position and accept that the Lutherans later adopted the position of free will. But we see here that you
Shown nothing at all, pulling shit out of your arse and pretending to be smart. Every Reformed confession of faith accepts that human beings are passive. Dort denies free will and the Westminster Confession of Faith is very clear that God predestines prior to creation. Mcgarth, a Reformed himself also notes this. Footnotes are given so he did not pull this out of his arse like you are doing. Also, I point out the Lutheran position on free will to be that of the Arminians or later Lutherans. What they say is basically what the Arminians will say. Differing soteriology is simply the result of Lutheranism's Catholic baggage. A point that Cary makes as well. Nowhere did I even make any claim that Lutherans are Arminians. Only the comparison of their position on free will and this is a later development

Wait, you are the one with no ideas on what those tetms even mean. When I refer to a reknowned scholar on this issue, you shoot it down without any reference to anyone making a counterpoint against Mcgarth. You
Refused to show a source or even a document that says otherwise. I in contrast directed you to Lutheran and Reformed confessions and two academic sources relevant to this issue. But you deny and deny and pull out the same horseshit over again. If your bullshit is right, I expect academic sources to be cited or directed to by you, not mere affirmation with zero backing. From this, it's very clear that you a Protologist is very ignorant and mumbles "muh Latin" or pull the same shit over and over again despite what academic
Discussions on the issue would have to say on the subject matter. I forgot, Luther's hissy fit against Erasmus over free will was pointed out. But, ironically this was ignored! Even the SEP's article on Erasmus details this!

bible never says you will suffer in hell for eternity

>Reformed theology rejects any notion of resisting God's grace
"a ready and sincere obedience of the Spirit now begins to prevail where before the rebellion and resistance of the flesh were completely dominant."

You DO know that TULIP isn't Dutch, right?

Also you still have failed to grasp the difference between determinism, predestination, and monergism.

>The only ones that deny this are what we now call Arminians.
This is ahistorical. The only people who call everyone who holds this position "Arminian" are people who identify as "Calvinist." No one else identifies with this, and why should they? Arminianism is a particularly Reformed phenomenon.

>Every Reformed confession of faith accepts that human beings are passive.
Except when they tell you to be active. Again. specificity is the key. In WHAT are human being passive?

>Mcgarth, a Reformed himself
There is no "Mcgarth." But there is an Anglican who goes by the name "McGrath." Also I'm quite sure you have no idea what he's said. You don't even know who the fuck he is.

So you have been factually incorrect on nearly everything that can be fact-checked, and you still insist on continuing. Seriously, stop. I'm starting to feel bad for you. I don't expect anyone to be an expert on Reformation or post-Reformation theology and philosophy, but insisting that you are when you don't know the basic facts is depressing to watch.

Whjat about judaism?

Look at you being a pathetic sack of shit again. Such "obediece" is not the result of human volition but God regenerating the human being in justification. Also, Arminians are simply Reformed who reject the whole Calvinist bullshit of Predestination. Such a view isn't in agreement with Dort, Calvin, Luther or
The Westminster Confession of faith. Also do you even know what "telling to be active" actually is in the Reformed context? It's just part of the causal chain of events that instrumentally cause the elect to do as they are told. Also, good job on having to desperately show your false intelligence by pointing out Mcgrath's affiliation as an Anglican. HE'S A FUCKING REFORMED ANGLICAN DUMBASS!!! Thanks for showing that it is you who is in fact autistic here. Don't say you win when you provide nothing that shows me lacking any understanding on these matters. It's you. All you do is spout the same damn bullshit whenever your misconceptions are pointed out. You can't even show me how I can't understand what McGrath is saying. You can't even show me anything from the Reformers or any confessions of faith that says otherwise. And don't you dare talk about Luther's buddy Philip because I had mentioned his synergism before and so does McGrath.

It's so pitiful to see you claiming to be an expert in these issues when you clearly show nothing pertaining to that. You only say the same shit over and over when you are proven wrong at every turn. You simply whine about me being ignorant when you can't even give me a source on anything at all. What are you? A pathetic PROTESTANT sopist? Or an Egotistic maniac who is so scared of being wrong? I had been wrong on the Lutherans and I revised that. You been wrong about Protestant theology proven with sources and you can't even argue against it or provide any sources at all. No one even mentions TULIP or talks about how it's Dutch. It's like you are either a retard or an egoistic sack of shit.

Let's see what an author denying that Luther's a determinist have to say on this issue....wait! There is free will but it's useless in Salvation!

Again, learn the difference between predestination, determinism, and monergism.

>Arminians are simply Reformed who reject the whole Calvinist bullshit of Predestination
Arminians don't deny predestination. They deny monergism.

> Also do you even know what "telling to be active" actually is in the Reformed context?
Yes. Every Reformed standard requires a lively and active faith of the believer.

>It's just part of the causal chain of events that instrumentally cause the elect to do as they are told.
This is only held by a certain segment of later Calvinists. As I mentioned before, neither the Reformers nor their orthodox systametizers held to a deterministic view of causality. They consistently held to contingency, the freedom of contradition, and the freedom of contrariety.

>Mcgrath's affiliation as an Anglican. HE'S A FUCKING REFORMED ANGLICAN DUMBASS!!!
Aleister McGrath is a priest in the Church of England and minsters in CoE parishes. He is by creed and church membership an Anglican. Some Anglicans may be more or less Reformed, but McGrath has yet to subscribe any Reformed confession. He does not consider himself Reformed. He has shown affinity for Davenant and Amyraut, and possibly the NPP. He would not claim for himself the title of Reformed.

Name anything you think I have misrepresented about the Reformed confessions and I will be happy to clear up the misunderstanding.

The imaged excerpt actually demonstrates what I have been saying about Luther. Luther did not deny free choice with regard to particular actions. The only freedom he denied was the freedom to choose salvation. He is entirely uninterested in the question of the determination of man's actions. Determinists viewed this system as nonsense, as being still beholden to what they viewed as the ridiculous notion of contingency and freedom with regard to human action.

Holy shit...use your brain and think for a second what this entails. It means that God will choose who he would save as the author of that section notes which is the very Essence of what Grace is. This means Salvation is simply divine mind control which was the point I had consistently made while you deny this! Wow!

>This means Salvation is simply divine mind control
Neither the author (I presume) nor Luther would agree with this. This is your conclusion but you have consistently stated it, both in contradistinction to the statements by Luther AND by the sources you've cited in this very thread. Either demonstrate that they were mistaken in their own interpretations or admit that you have misunderstood.

You keep throwing out the term "divine mind control" Since this term isn't in any of the sources you use, it's time you start defending it.

False. Every source I cited agrees with me. Even the one that denies Luther as a determinist. You never even showed how McGrath was wrong in his assessment of Luther. The whole divine mind control is the logical consequence of Early Lutheran and Reformed doctrine. I never even said it is explicitly mentioned in their documents. Such deceit is pathetic. It's time to grow a brain imbecile