ITT: Protestant Intellectuals

...

...

...

...

THERE ARE MEN IN ULSTER WHO'LL NEVER SURRENDER

I love Rev. Paisley but he was more of a prophet than an intellectual. Same goes for pic related.

...

...

...

>Is an idiot
>Has an unhealthy obsession with Bananas
I see Yoshiko was a prod the whole time.

...

...

Truman told the KKK to fuck off when they tried to recruit him back in the 20s.

can someone explain this?

Still didn't stop him from talking like one, in office too

Those are all from his youth, right? People change when they get older.

Brigham Young was not a protestant.

The Prosperity Gospel is the strangest fucking thing for me. I know televangelists like Olsteen just preach it it because they're con artists looking for money. I honestly wonder if many of their followers even read the Bible, when it clearly says:

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

His sermons were more sober than people think, he had one of the largest libraries in Ireland.

Its a corruption of Calvinist theory, God will give his blessings to those who obey him, those blessings could be material, though if they are you cant get attached to them.

Although I doubt Calvin would approve of the kind of nonsense called prosperity gospel today

Read some criticisms of Peter Popoff. Apparently, his 'miracle spring water' is just bottled water that his daughter buys from Costco.

The Second Great Awakening was a mistake.

...

>mfw

Platinga, WLC and other contemporary philosophers have completely unorthodox theologies.

If you could understand god through reason it wouldn't be impressive, god is so unlogical and impressive that if it were true it would be beyond any realm of logic, he believes that this is why god could exist and he believes, it essentially a leap of faith

youtube.com/watch?v=JlbmIMbKZa4

I know for certain that WLC beliefs are within mainstream evangelicalism and I assume the same is true for Plantinga but I'm not as familiar with his personal theology.

>I know for certain that WLC beliefs are within mainstream evangelicalism
He's a Monothelite, he doesn't believe in the full humanity of Christ. If that's in line with mainstream Evangelicalism, then the problem is with mainstream Evangelicalism.
>I assume the same is true for Plantinga
He denies the doctrine of divine simplicity

Joel Osteen is a literal kike masquerading as a Christian, even the name Osteen is jewish.

>He's a Monothelite,
>He denies the doctrine of divine simplicity
Sources please?

>tfw no neo-Calvinism

reasonablefaith.org/monotheletism
goodreads.com/book/show/2171572.Does_God_Have_a_Nature_

>no neo-Calvinism
Thank God.

>reasonablefaith.org/monotheletism
Reading this it doesn't say that he denies Christ's full humanity only that he believes Christ had a single will.

>goodreads.com/book/show/2171572.Does_God_Have_a_Nature_
Just based off the comments this seems to be just a critique of Thomist theology.

What a disgusting man. Disgusting abuse of our Father in Heaven's vicar on Earth.
Imagine being of a low enough sort that you'd heckle the leader of a Religion solely for daring to visit with you and share his views.

Had the leader of Protestantism, the first of the damned, Lucifer, come to speak at my gala, I would not have treated him so basely.

>Reading this it doesn't say that he denies Christ's full humanity only that he believes Christ had a single will.
Which necessarily means that he denies the full humanity of Christ unless we re-define "human" to be an impersonal thing like a rock.
>Just based off the comments this seems to be just a critique of Thomist theology.
Divine simplicity IS Thomist theology. Because of his denial of this he realizes what a mess he makes of the doctrine of God and abandons divine aseity along with it, instead taking a Platonist perspective that God is dependent on the forms He participates in, rather than the orthodox Christian perspective that God is His form and as such is completely non-dependent.

The only person the pope is vicar of is the Antichrist. The true vicar of Christ is the Holy Spirit.
(Btw Christ is not our Father, you Sabellian heretic)

>Which necessarily means that he denies the full humanity of Christ unless we re-define "human" to be an impersonal thing like a rock.
I don't think it necessarily means that at all. Christ was in an individual man with an individual will; He wasn't a schizophrenic with two wills in His head that would naturally be in conflict if one was human and the other divine.
>Divine simplicity IS Thomist theology.
And Aquinas does not have a monopoly on theology despite what Rome will tell you.

Christ is God, and thusly our father, while not being The aspect of the Father.

Was going to mention him.

His concept of "sphere sovereignty" is becoming even more important in a world of increasing universalization of totalitarian liberalism.

>He actually believes that the vicar Christ on Earth is a Polish pedophile who was given a silly hat by a bunch of old Italian druggies

No man of foul nature has ever sat on the Throne of Peter, and no Prod lies will ever make it so. John Paul II is literally a saint

t. anime poster

>I don't think it necessarily means that at all. Christ was in an individual man with an individual will; He wasn't a schizophrenic with two wills in His head that would naturally be in conflict if one was human and the other divine.
Christ was a perfect man. Do you think a perfect human will is contrary to the divine will? Do you think a perfect human will is indistinct from the divine will? Christ had a fully human will, which was under and alongside His parallel divine will.
>And Aquinas does not have a monopoly on theology despite what Rome will tell you.
Aquinas is not the issue here, the issue is the ancient, traditional and biblical theology Aquinas represents here. None of the reformers disagreed with him on this. In fact, they were keen to defend the doctrine against the Socinians.
The biggest problem with Craig, Platinga and those like them is not the heresies they may hold to, it's the cause of such heresies. They view themselves as enlightened wise men standing in judgement over the teachings of those who have gone before them. That just because such traditions are fallible, that therefore they are irrelevant, and can be ignored at will. That we can decide for ourselves what "orthodoxy" is. The reformers never saw it that way, they were never so prideful to presume to stand in judgement over the holy fathers and the holy synods.

>t. John Smith
Christ suffered for you, yet you refuse his message. If he were here today, you'd do to him what the unfaithful did then

John Paul was a pedophile and Satanist like every other Pope

>Do you think a perfect human will is contrary to the divine will? Do you think a perfect human will is indistinct from the divine will? Christ had a fully human will, which was under and alongside His parallel divine will.
Christ is the Word made flesh and the Word predates the human Jesus. The Word's will and Jesus' will are one and the same.
>That we can decide for ourselves what "orthodoxy" is.
No it's that the Bible decides what "orthodoxy" is and it is the pride of the "holy fathers" that causes them to pontificate on subjects that Scripture is ambiguous about.

>Acting as Christ did
>HAHAHA, NIGGERS, RIGHT?
I'd rather God not exist at all, than have him exist as a Prod

You sound like a stupid Baptist - devoid of understanding of scripture, history and reason. Depressing, considering those are the origins of Christian belief.

Pope's were not part of Jesus' message and in fact He explicitly says to call no man father. Rome's hypocrisy is boundless.

By resting the Church in Saint Peter's care, he created the office of the Pope, just as the grand leaders of the East created the offices of the lesser Patriarchs.
I'm sorry, was the Rock of the church supposed to erode in one generation after the death of a mortal man?

The "rock" is the belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God and the Body of Christ is built on this foundation.

>I'd rather God not exist at all
Of course you would, you fucking Satanist. Go join your masters in their gay drug-fuelled orgy at the Vatican.
>Implying Catholics understand scripture
You worship a golden bull, that calls itself papal.

>By resting the Church in Saint Peter's care, he created the office of the Pope
Behold, the forked tongue of the Catholic, dancing to the tune of its dark master.

>Christ is the Word made flesh and the Word predates the human Jesus. The Word's will and Jesus' will are one and the same.
Are the Word's nature and Jesus' nature one and the same?
>No it's that the Bible decides what "orthodoxy" is and it is the pride of the "holy fathers" that causes them to pontificate on subjects that Scripture is ambiguous about.
Oh my, please forgive me Holy Father, I didn't realize I was speaking to a pope. Certainly, you must be pope, since only a pope is so prideful as to think the duty to interpret scripture is theirs alone, and that their perspective is so absolute that it cannot be corrected by their brothers in Christ.

>Of course you would, you fucking Satanist
If the doctrine of Satan includes loyalty, compassion, which is Latin for with suffering, for you above the language of our Church, then I do follow him.
It seems your God is my Satan, and my Heaven your hell. Only a Prod would call a cesspit full of hate and isolation Heaven.

>You worship a golden bull, that calls itself papal.
Nice meme - do you have any arguments that aren't made up completely?

>Protestants understand scripture
Yes, they loved it so much they excised a bunch of it.

>Are the Word's nature and Jesus' nature one and the same?
No and we are debating whether Jesus' had two wills not whether He had two natures. It is possible to have a human nature but no human will and unconscious people are an example of this because they have no will while unconscious but retain their human nature.
>so prideful as to think the duty to interpret scripture is theirs alone
The Holy Spirit that lives in the individual believer is responsible for interpreting scripture and that is one of the reasons He is called the Counselor.

>No
Well, unless Jesus and the Word are two different persons the correct answer was to point out that the question is erroneous in its formulation.
>It is possible to have a human nature but no human will and unconscious people are an example of this because they have no will while unconscious but retain their human nature
Unconscious people retain a human will, it is just made dormant. Like a man frozen in ice, the man still exists, though dormant.
>The Holy Spirit that lives in the individual believer is responsible for interpreting scripture
Perhaps those who claim to have the Holy Spirit should show some humility and consider what the Spirit has shown to other people

>Catholics
>loyalty
>compassion
You throw away your support for your so-called Pope as soon as he is dead, digging him up and parading him around to go on trial.
Your kind spawned genocides in the New World, China and Eastern Europe through your wicked servants. You gladly give up your loyalt,y to the Lord as soon as you catch a glimpse of gold, murdering innocents, enslaving your fellow Christians and practising usury with Jews in order to get enough gold so that you might desecrate the Lord's churches with your sinful displays of opulence. Go crawl back to your master Lucifer, for that is the only path your cannibalistic rituals will take you.

I realize you prods only care about what lies you're able to concoct about the faithful, but the gold and splendor of the Church is Christian as Christian comes. The vulgar and the mean need to be visually stimulated to understand the Christ.
They need to visualize the torment that the sinful enacted upon him, the torment he took upon himself knowingly.

You defame his Churches, and defy the holy Crucifix

Jesus has a divine nature and a human nature that are in hypostatic union. We both know and affirm this. Our disagreement is whether those natures have their own individual wills and I don't think we will resolve this. Regardless, WLC affirming a single will does not put him outside mainstream Protestant thought even if it offends Romans and I do consider what the Holy Spirit has shown others which is why I affirm many historic church doctrines (such as the hypostatic union). However, I do not put church councils on the same level as holy scripture and I acknowledge scripture's ambiguity on some of the more technical theological issues which is why Rome's legalistic dogmatism on even the most minute issues puts them more in line with Pharisees than the Body of Christ. Nonetheless I've enjoyed our exchange and will be praying for you. Goodnight.

>You throw away your support for your so-called Pope as soon as he is dead, digging him up and parading him around to go on trial.
>unironically bringing up the cadaver synod more than a millenium after the fact
How the fuck was that dude supposed to prevent the Cadaver Synod, or have any meaningful effect over it? Why should all catholics be condemned because the political situation in Europe demanded a discrediting of the previous pope?

Plus, Pope Formosus was eventually fished out, and all was made right again.

>Our disagreement is whether those natures have their own individual wills
Yes, the disagreement is over whether both natures exist in full, or if one exists in part.
>Regardless, WLC affirming a single will does not put him outside mainstream Protestant thought
As I said, if that is consistent with mainstream Evangelicalism, then that is just another problem with mainstream Evangelicalism. But what it does put him outside is orthodox Christian thought.
>even if it offends Romans
The papists are irrelevant to this.
>However, I do not put church councils on the same level as holy scripture
Nor do I, I simply recognize their place as authorites in the Church and as good advisors concerning the meaning of scripture.
>Nonetheless I've enjoyed our exchange and will be praying for you.
Likewise.

I'm a Catholic, and the idea that no foul man has ever sat on the Throne of Peter is demonstrably false. God prevents them from speaking error on strictly doctrinal matters, but there have been many bad men who have inhabited that see. Please read more before you give a bad account of the Holy Faith and Church history.

>How the fuck was that dude supposed to prevent the Cadaver Synod
Why the fuck would he believe in the Church that does such things? I might've not been able to stop the lynching of blacks back in the day but if I join the KKK I'm still associating myself with those people.

...