What is your reprobated reason for refusing to understand and accept double predestination?

God is not the author of sin. The Reformed confessions are explicit about this,
Oh good, it's you again. Did you get banned from /pol/? Didn't you get permabanned from here?

Or accept that God made adam sinned and then blamed it on him.

Funny isn't it?

Again read my statement again

Like it or not if you believe that predestination is not from foreknowledge or ANY MERIT from the person, you have to logically conclude that even sin is part of God's plan and intentionally placed there to fulfill it

So predestination, like I said.

>sin is part of God's plan and intentionally placed there to fulfill it
It is, but God is not the author of it.

Well, Christianity is a horrible, unstructured mess made by bending the Old Testament into a pretzel. So I reject all of it, not just one particular sub-sect's views on how things work.

Author, composer, painter, photoshopper, who cares what you call it? It's his work.

I don't believe in it because I have a Christian understanding of God's omnipotence, not a Muslim one.

Why has nobody done this yet

>check em

He is not culpable, no.

He still is. Because it is placed intentionally to fulfill that plan

We are fortunate that at least Calvinism was never existent in the early period of christianity

you were predestined to fail watch this

PRAISE KEK

haha! BTFO

You have a strange definition of the word culpable.

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?
Romans 9:19-21

>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?
The potter is responsible, and therefore culpable, for the dishonorable use.

So Paul was wrong? The bible is wrong? The Holy Spirit was wrong?

that is just you reading that with your Reformed lens

>So Paul was wrong? The bible is wrong? The Holy Spirit was wrong?
And also self-serving.

>be gunsmith
>make gun
>sell gun
>customer uses that gun to murder someone
>retard thinks I'm responsible for the murder

Did you invent murder? Because, if so, yes, you are responsible for murder.

God did not invent murder, no. Nor did He create sin. Sin did not exist at creation.

Did God create Adam? All of Adam, down to the numbers of hair on his head?

Except that analogy does not compute if you are a Calvinist. Your statement here essentially depends on the free will defense which itself suppose libertarian free will. Contra this to Calvinism where God before creating the world already have in mind who to save and who to damn without any basis on foreknowledge

Thus God made it such that person x will do y at temporal point z

Adam was no sinner when he was created.
>Your statement here essentially depends on the free will defense
No it doesn't.

Did God create Adam, yes or no?

Yes

It does because it says what someone does with something you made isn't on you but on the person who used it. This is essentially saying that God did not make the person do it but Calvinism's own doctrine makes it such that the person doing that thing was planned and made so by God intentionally before Adam.

Before He made Adam, God planned for him to sin in the garden. Like how a game developer plans every step of the way the movements and acts of every character

Was God constrained by anything other than his own will when creating Adam? For example, could he have chosen to create Adam with one hair more or less, or would he be unable to do so?

>Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists had their origin in the preaching and ultra-Calvinistic doctrines of Daniel Parker, a Baptist elder and preacher of Tennessee. Parker, who was ordained in 1806 in Tennessee became one of the strongest opponents of the organized work of the Church. In 1817 he moved to Illinois, where he continued his opposition to the work and organization of the regular Church for 19 years. Later he went to Texas. In various pamphlets (1826-29) Parker made public some very peculiar theories he held concerning the introduction and perpetuation of evil in the human race. According to these beliefs, God, when He created Adam and Eve, infused into them particles of Himself, thus making them altogether good; the devil corrupted them by infusing into them particles of himelf. Eve, by predestination, brought forth a certain number of good and a certain number of bad offsprings; and all her daughters after her were predestined to do likewise. The atonement, according to Parker, applies only to those born of the good seed, those born of the bad being absolutely lost.

This is why you never go full Calvinist.

I'm starting with Augustine's major work then moving on the Aquinas' Summa, then I'll probably read Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. Does this seem like a decent progression for fully understanding my Christian beliefs?

Do you need a spiritual leader like me, fellow Calvinist?

What do you mean? And I haven't really committed myself to reformed doctrine yet. I'd like to read Calvin first.

No. Because you are going to find major differences between all three of them. Augustine may be predestinarian but he is more on the Luther camp than Calvin because both agree that justification isn't a one time thing. But Augustine himself can't even conceive of justification and sanctification as separate stages as modern Protestants do.

Augustine also wouldn't intend for a Calvinistic system in the first place which is why he is inconsistent. He wants to give all credit to God but he also doesn't want to reduce men to puppets. So we will but wait, that was God's gift

Oh Bishop, how nice to see you! It surely is a great day for Christ.

I'll see you at the next pro-gay marriage/pro-abortion rally next week! And then the orgy part afterwards!

...

Lesbian clergy Christian orgy?

God Bless John Calvin for showing us the path to heaven!

So you believe Calvin had a more complete grasp on Christianity and its doctrines? Should I just skip right ahead to Institutes? Does it cover a lot of the material and questions that Augustine and Aquinas did?

Haha why do these fat fuck protestants have a snake??

>Was God constrained by anything other than his own will when creating Adam?
No.
>create Adam with one hair more or less
What absurdity

Luckily John Calvin freed the fat people to play with snakes in Church lol

>Being gay is a gift from God - John Calvin

KEK!

Assuming you mean your answer to the second answer is "yes," then we can move on. Was God's choice in how to make Adam limited to physical appearance, or could he also decide differently in terms of say, personality? For example, could God have hypothetically made Adam with a sense of humor that was pun based, or hypothetically made Adam with a sense of humor that was more observational? Or would this be beyond God's ability?

All three cover a lot of ground. But Aquinas and Calvin don't go into detail about their personal selves as Augustine does like in his Confessions.

I think Calvin got a lot of things wrong compared to Luther, Aquinas and Augustine

So you think I should start with Augustine, Aquinas, and Luther? Then save Calvin for later or not at all? What is your personal opinion?

Read them in any order and then compare

Thanks.

>I didn't chose the thug life. The thug life chose me

>I did not choose to love Nico
>God made me do it
>God made me lesbian
>nico-nico nii