What's characteristic about Calvinism/Reformed Christianity?

fpbp

/thread

Calvin tried to assert something which couldn't be clearly affirmed and ran with it from there. Also some of the answers proposed by him are sometimes unthorough.
Lutheranism is more wise in this regard in leaving mysteries be and it doesn't generate a whole line a deviating thoughts.

Whether you agree on Calvinism or not - they did make great systematic theology.

Baptists are literal imbeciles and yes I agree that old school reformed theologians are the best.

If it's about choosing a consistent belief I'd rather go with Gnosticism. At least it isn't as fatalistic.

5 points of calvinism. look it up.

basically humans dont have free will because they're controlled by sin (until they're freed by salvation), you are pre determined to accept God, and there's nothing you can do to change that you've been pre selected to receive salvation, and that you will always be saved once you're saved (like, nothing can undo that).

I think its pretty elitist personally. also obviously this was only in response to asking about calvinism specifically. there's an ongoing debate among reformed christians over essentially "are people pre chosen by God to receive salvation, or does everyone have a fair chance but needs to be given that chance/hear about it."

The Lotus School of the West.

???
also that is a picture of a tulip?

You are damned from birth.
There is literally nothing you can do in your life to save you from hell if you are already predetermined to go there.

Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”

He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man.

The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.

“As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age.

yup. but people are reading between the lines a little to try and figure this out, which is why there's this schism among reformed groups.
it isnt very loving to eternally damn some people and not others (even if they want to be saved) because they werent part of some elect group, and it isnt consistent with God's character to do something like that. there's lots of stuff in the bible to support that God wants everyone to be saved, so why would he say that and then pick and choose certain people? verses like 1 john 2:2 , hebrews 2:9 , and 1 timothy 2:4

This pretty much. I'm attending a Reformed theology type of seminary, they display a kind of elitist attitude mostly, and very little love. Spiritual life took a kind of a dive for me and we read a lot of Calvin, Bavinck, Vos, Turretin, etc here. I'm fairly certain God has called ALL men, especially the unbelievers to be saved. One professor response to the whole election thing to the reason for evangelising was "we have no idea who is elect or not so we have to evangelise to everyone anyways". I personally cannot believe in Limited Atonement and the other points either. I guess I cannot call myself Reformed despite being "Presbyterian".

desu I have always thought of "reformed" as being "christian but not catholic, with minor differences that formed sects."
I hear what your professor is saying though - in fact some of the most influential evangelists of our age were calvinists weirdly enough... it doesnt make much sense to me either, because it discounts the value of evangelizing if you believe "they'll just find salvation no matter what anyway."

to the original point of the thread: calvinism is a type of reformed theology - there are tons of other ones, but it seems like the big ones that divide the factions are "how should we do church governance" and "how should we conduct worship stuff" and "whats your opinion on predestination/the 5 points of calvinism." Did I miss any?

Debating a Catholic:

>So are you saying that for 1500 years, we have all been wrong? There were no true Christians?
>Point him to various groups of Christians who were never part of Rome (Waldensians, Paulicians, Bulgars, Albigenses etc) and believed in scripture alone
>He says those were all Gnostic heretics

How do I respond to this? I dont have sufficient knowledge on those old groups of believers to 100% claim they were proto-protestants and real Christians who trace an uninterrupted line all the way back to Pauls early NT churches.

God looks at the heart, not at what group or organization you belong to.

Of course there have always been true believers, plenty of Catholics genuinely are saved (by believing in Jesus - their works and rituals mean nothing).

The Protestant Reformation was simply the explosion of true believers, outnumbering the larpers and cultural christians. It was already bound to explode, you had people like Wycliffe and Huss setting the stage. Then you had German nobles who didnt like Rome breathing down their necks.

Luther started the Reformation in the same way that Gavrilo started WW1, they were just the last drop. The stage was already set before that.

Remind the Catholicuck that his religion is based on ancient Babylon.

>Waldensians, Paulicians, Bogomils and Cathars
>proto-Protestants
I guess if you count them "protesting" being burned at the stake for being filthy heretics as being Protestant.
Waldensians: extreme poverty as means of salvation
Paulicians: Manichaeans who also liked Jesus a lot but still extremely gnostic in their dualism.
Bogomils: gnostic dualism, hated the cross as a symbol and had no churches because their bodies were "perfected" into being temples by their purification rituals
Cathars: dualistic gnostic revival that scorned all the material world as sin given material form. Also liked the idea of reincarnation for the wicked, cause no hell is worse than the material world.

But those accusations come from Rome. The Catholics considered these people enemies, do you think they wouldnt lie or portray them badly on purpose?

Are there unbiased sources that speak about those supposed heretics?

>Waldensians: extreme poverty as means of salvation
Sounds like monks or hermits who live a life of chastity and isolation in some desert.

Pst Kid
Wanna have salvation?

Strawman pic related, but that's the general gist I got from Calvinism. I don't even like the man himself, but he's practically worshiped here, not as God, but someone who really changed the world in positive light and pioneered modern society. It's borderline idolatry really.

Asked a guy about what happened to every people who the Europeans or other Christians did not reach to and he just flat out said they ALL went to hell. Sure, salvation is only through believing in Jesus Christ, but he said it with a straight face and looked like he was on his high horse, puffed up. I don't know what to do here really. And yeah, the professor's reasoning was not bad for a Christian professing in Calvinist ideas. It makes sense.

If you're just going to assume their accusers are lying then why'd you ask at all?
It's not like these groups of people were targeted for no reason at all or at random and then a reason cocked up ex post facto in shadowy council chambers in order to justify repressing them to other people who probably wouldn't have cared much anyway. These were social movements whose beliefs directly challenged the fabric of their host civilizations. Gnostic dualism is a particularly insidious and perfidious kind of heresy and there's damn good reasons it's the most common kind and crops up all over the place too. Easy answer to theodicy whilst also allowing for everyone to experience the "mystical truth."

By "extreme poverty as a means of salvation" for the Waldensians it means that they sought the radical destruction of social order because the kingdom of heaven was nigh, and they were gonna bring it about. Apocalyptic sect even if their basic theology wasn't objectionable on its face.

Because the only sources we have are Catholics, and you know the saying: history is written by the victors. We have to take their heresy accusations with a graint of salt. For all we know maybe they were Bible-believing Christians and simply wanted nothing to do with Rome.

The Papacy`s lust for power and control is an easy reason to wipe out these people and prevent their ideas from spreading. Not to mention that all their works and text were burned so we dont know what they themselves said.

If there are no unbiased 3rd party sources regarding these groups, then we might never know whether they truly were heretics or just so-called as an excuse to kill them because they posed a threat to the RCC.

The reason this is important because if they truly were heretics, then it means there were no true Christians for centuries which does not make any sense.

Dont forget that Christians were called cannibals and all sorts of slurs by the Pagans, but we know that wasnt true. So we really cant trust the RCC when it comes to these groups.

thatsthejoke.png

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints

TULIP = Five Points of Calvinism / Reformed Theology, but some people pick and choose which ones they believe, like some will say 3 point Calvinist, etc, the one people usually leave out is Limited Atonement.

He does bring up a point, apparently a documentary by Chris Pinto was made about this, claiming that it was ironically the Bible that would challenge the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. However he is the only one I heard who claims the Cathars and the Albigenses were not the heretics we think they were, so I am not sure how credible that claim is. It is something that should be looked into more.

youtube.com/watch?v=ndb0z0jGQk0

thanks alot for this link. also the paulicians were so called because they followed the teachings of paul.

So because the Catholics say, "These people were heretics. They held beliefs of gnostic dualism." You instantly are doubtful because of where the accusation came from and impute a sinister motive? Ok, nothing else to really discuss there cause it's the perennial Protestant conspiracy theory t work.

>The reason this is important because if they truly were heretics, then it means there were no true Christians for centuries which does not make any sense.
This makes me think that, to you, every person professing to be a Christian before the Reformation amongst all the branches of Christendom from the abbeys of the west to the monasteries of Athos to the desert sanctums of the Copts to the Nestorians on the steppes were just mistaken about believing in Jesus.

There has been wickedness in the Catholic Church, denying that is denying reality. But to assume that "true Christianity" was lost between the Apostles and Luther is ludicrous. Not because it was a running guerilla conflict between the Catholics and secret groups keeping the truth alive, but because it was always open and there's this unfortunate tendency for bad people to gravitate to power as individuals.

I bet you also think the "dark ages" were a thing and that Columbus thought he'd fall off the edge of the world.

>also the paulicians were so called because they followed the teachings of paul

So they said. But they saw the presence of the cross in Christian iconography as idolatrous and in the surviving fragments of the letters of Sergius, who was their leader in the 800s, there is clear reference to demiurge theology.

This thread is filled with filthy Catholics.

bump

Reformed theology is almost solid and defendable on multiple accusation given by critics but there're flaws in how they see baptism (of infants) and several passages in the bible which shows YHWH allows the freedom of choice.

> to assume that "true Christianity" was lost between the Apostles and Luther is ludicrous

The Bible is like a manual, you need it to guide you.

Even the devil quoted the Bible, so God is going to send an angel, or another apostle to provide gods instructions for the people to understand his words from the source

t. Joseph Smith

Yes, they all go to hell because they are evil sinners. They deserve to go to hell.