#fuckcalvin

Can we just fucking talk about how unChristian Calvinism is? It literally takes God's whole character and says "right, fuck off."

Other urls found in this thread:

books.google.ie/books?id=4MmligHndssC&pg=PT165
youtu.be/CBThrN4QH14
youtu.be/grN_9XhQ7qU
youtu.be/tirB0ODem24
is.muni.cz/el/1423/podzim2013/SOC571E/um/_Routledge_Classics___Max_Weber-The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism__Routledge_Classics_-Routledge__2001_.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

How is this related to history?

god's character is pretty tyrannical desu so it makes sense that weather you go to hell or heaven is based purely on his whims

Remember the oft-cited quotation from Calvin that the masses of workers and assmen must be kept poor and fukt so that they will be obedient to their master, and will work only when they are driven to it by necessity. This is a central theme of the capitalist economy, resulting in the theory of the “productivity” of lower wages. The misuse of the concept of sex, love, freedom, happiness runs like a red thread through English history.

According to Century Magazine of July 1910: “American lawlessness begins in children’s rooms and schools and ends in courthouses and lawmaking bodies.” The legal uncertainly is called a “national burden,” which is made even worse by the fact that cooperation is also lacking in the police system. It is not surprising that crime rates are higher in the USA than anywhere else in the world. The following figures from 1939 demonstrate the fact.


developed in the course of the 18th and 19th centuries either through land speculation, railroad enterprises, or big industry. The Vanderbilts, Morgans, Carnegies, and so on were typical of those who amassed their wealth with bribery, plundering, swindles, extortion....

The first great fortune was Vanderbilt’s, which grew out of the railways. Vanderbilt, born in 1794, at age twelve could hardly write his own name, but he was greedy, ruthless, and power-hungry. He began with passengers and freight. He was never particularly creative, though he was presented as such in books. He was certainly the leading merchant pirate and scoundrel of his day. His first millions were primarily the result of extortion, cheating, and theft. The mail his steam ships carried won not only foreign postage payments, but also substantial government subsidies. The postal subsidies were the real foundation of his wealth. The War put an end to his shipping career. He began a railroad enterprise at the age of 69, though he knew nothing at all about the technology and administration of this branch of transportation. Vanderbilt knew how to present himself as a leading patriot during the Civil War. When the Union government decided to send a fleet to Orleans in 1862, it bought the very ships from Vanderbilt that government subsidies had built. He even lent one of his unused ships to the government. By means of manipulation Vanderbilt succeeded in driving down the stocks of the NY Harlem railroad at the end of 1863, and bought the majority of the shares, which rose from $9 a share in the middle of 1863 to $50. It was also the usual practice to bribe the city council to secure certain railroad lines.

They are all the same, Dillinger,Capone, Rockefeller,, Bush, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Morgan, and so on: gangsters, pirates, stock traders, businessmen. They have a single ideal: money-making, and still more money-making. American lawlessness and the double morality of Calvinism and Puritanism conceals it all.

what does this have anything to do with anything

See no you're thinking about God like a Calvinist

How is it not?

That would be the correct way to think of him.

>not reading the posts

After a few hundred years of mulling and resentment over their neighbors' relative happiness, medieval Germans reveal their autism by missing the inherent joke of the tripartate Christian theology, get so serious that they out-idiot die hard Catholics, and form Calvinism, Lutheranism, and other ultra-fundamentalist theologies, which eventually fractures Europe and causes centuries of internecine war and misery for all parties involved.

i'm describing their position of course it sounds "like a calvinist" you dummy
i'm saying he was on to something if you think about it

germans also created lutheranism a degeneracy of religion.

what the fuck does american industrialist have to do with calvinism you nutjob

Literally every other Abrahamic religion disagrees

Calvinism has nothing to do with Germans.

>Every great crime against culture for the last four centuries lies on their conscience. And always for the same reason, always owing to their bottomless cowardice in the face of reality which is also >cowardice in the face of truth; always owing to the love of falsehood which has became almost instinctive in them—in short "idealism”. It was the Germans who caused Europe to lose the fruits, >the whole meaning of the last great age—the age of the Renaissance. At a moment when a higher order of values, noble and life affirming values which guarantee the future, had succeeded in >triumphing over the opposite values, the values of degeneration in the very seat of Christianity itself—and even in the hearts of those sitting there—Luther that cursed monk not only restored the >Church but what was a thousand times worse; restored Christianity and at a time too when it lay defeated. Christianity, the Denial of the Will to Life— elevated to a religion! Luther was a failed >monk who thanks to his own "inadequacies” attacked the Church and in so doing restored it! Catholics would be perfectly justified in celebrating feasts in honour of Luther and in producing festival >plays in his honour. Luther and the "rebirth of morality”!

>not comprehending what you failed to read

Now now guys a lot of Germans were v not happy about Luther being an absolute fucking retard.

And...?

Lmao

You're wrong. And I can prove it mathematically

>Remember the oft-cited quotation from Calvin that the masses of workers and assmen must be kept poor and fukt so that they will be obedient to their master, and will work only when they are driven to it by necessity.
Feel free to cite it. Since it is "oft-cited" it should be easy to find.

>being this lazy

books.google.ie/books?id=4MmligHndssC&pg=PT165

That's not a quotation, it's the author's paraphrase of something Calvin said, and the link to the footnote with the source doesn't work. I want Calvin's actual words and the location of them within his works.

The main idea of Calvinism is that you don't earn your way towards salvation - which is actually affirmed by all the other denominations too ever since Augustine as well as by the Scriptures.
That, and the fact people are born wicked, which once again is in accordance with the Original Sin doctrine and the fact only a select few people will go to heaven, which again is perfectly Christian. Do other Christians not believe in hell?
Most of England and America too for that matter has never been Calvinist.

Most Christians believe, contra Calvin, that the inclusion of a person within the Elect is in someway conditional upon the person's actions, even if they would not define said inclusion as being "earned".

Calvin was French-speaking and French by birth.

No. Please do not try to re-envision history like that. Double predestination is an unbiblical heresy that Augustine never preached. Calvinism is a humantist bastard. It isn't Christian. For Calvinism to be true God will have to will people into bell. That isn't the god the gospels proclaim. And to claim Augustine was a Calvinist when he was one of the pioneers in the theology around Free will, which Calvinists don't believe in is absurd.

Pelagianism and Semipelagianism were both condemned as heretical, repeatedly, so it's you who goes against the Christian tradition (not to mention the Scriptures) in this case.

I'm not against Calvinism, I was just making a statement of fact.

>Calvin
>German
Fuck off brainlet. Read a book.

That doesn't change that Calvinism is also heretical. Both extremes are heresies.

Well in that case, you're stating that most nomial Christians are in fact not Christian, which is well in line with the church visible/church invisible doctrine.

What exactly do you find heretical about irresistible grace?

>For Calvinism to be true God will have to will people into hell.
This would come to the issue of infralapsarianism vs supralapsarian would it not? I think the majority of Calvinists would not state that God "wills people into Hell", but rather that God "passes over" those whom he has not elected and sentences them to their natural punishment. If you consider the order of creation from a logical (not temporal) standpoint, we can ask whether or not God's decree of election is prior or antecedent to his decree of the Fall of man. If it is prior then God is separating the saved and damned from a logical state of non-condemnation. There are some Calvinists which take this position, e.g. Beza, but it is not without controversy and I don't think it could be said to be the majority. The normal position is that God's decree of election is after his decree of the Fall, thus humans are considered from a logical state of condemnation, out of which some are saved and others are thus "passed over". Of course some would refuse to make this type of distinction to begin with.

It is not why I find heretical, but what the Ecclesia Christ entrusted with authority does.

So your problem with it are not the doctrines themselves but who is canonizing and affirming them. Fair enough. Catholic?

You can't polish this up, not matter from what point Calvinists believe God decrees election you can not hide the fact God IS WILLING people into hell versus it being a consequence of choice. This is what I mean. The Calvinist "god" is no God of Abraham

Yes of course I have problems with the doctrine, but its not my place to decide what is and isn't heresy.

>prior or antecedent
I mean subsequent or antecedent here.

How does God "will" that a person goes to Hell if he chooses not to save someone? Is he obligated to save every human being?

Not him, but most Calvinists believe damnation is result of a choice too, choice made during the fall and inherited by all of mankind except the ones God decides to bless with his grace and save.

God by his very unchangeable nature obligates him self to save every man he can. He allows free will, thus allowing man to reject him. God is not some buisness owner that gives raises and wages only to the employees he personally likes.

>free will
>Biblical

Of God is obligated to save man then why does he allow free will to thwart his own obligations? But of course you say "every man he can". Is God incapable of saving everyone that he wishes to save or do you think he is voluntarily limiting himself? If he is choosing to limit himself, knowing that this will result in people going to hell, is he not thus "willing" people to go to Hell, under your own viewpoint?

Is God obligated to punish sin? Do his obligations only pertain to his mercy, but not to his perfect justice? Are we sinners that deserve hell?

No where in scripture does God revoke free will once man falls. The sin of the father is not the sin of the son. Christ washes away original sin with his sacrifice and we accept this at baptism, however, humans make sins of their own, and thus we pay for those the way Christ demands, confession. God is still the one giving the opportunity to be saved, thus saving us.

If God tries to save every man he can and not all men are saved, it would mean he can't save all the people he wants saved, which does away with omnipotence, which is dipping into Gnostic garbage.

>Invokes Augustine
>Denies free will being biblical

There is no such thing as free will in the Bible.

>The sin of the father is not the sin of the son.
>Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them: for I the Lord they God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me
Weird.

No, God wants all men to be saved, and tries via giving the opportunity. But saying God forces men into heaven is dipping into unbiblical Calvinist garbage.

Please answer my question here regarding God's choosing not to save people by giving them free will.

>doesn't know the differences between the different types of sin
Its like it's amature hour

The context is idolatry. That is not the sin of the son is it? Why is God punishing them for their father's sin?

This is a humanities board too dumbass

Is God's Mercy not perfect? Not unlimited? Is he not the loving father scripture tells us he is?
A father loves all his children, and punishes them accordingly to THEIR actions. He does not punish the eldest because of the youngest's behavior.
There are two types of Divine Will. God wants to save every man, and he wills man to be allowed the opportunity to be saved, he does not forcibly draft man into heaven.
God is not less powerful because he wills not to use that power. Just more loving.

Because fucking jews have a tendency to fuck up like their dads

>Is God's Mercy not perfect? Not unlimited?
The same can be said of his holiness.
>Is he not the loving father scripture tells us he is?
>A father loves all his children, and punishes them accordingly to THEIR actions.
The reprobate are not God's children. Only those who are adopted as sons through Christ are his children.
>He does not punish the eldest because of the youngest's behavior.
No, but he punishes the younger because of the elder.
>There are two types of Divine Will. God wants to save every man, and he wills man to be allowed the opportunity to be saved, he does not forcibly draft man into heaven.
>God is not less powerful because he wills not to use that power. Just more loving.
How is it more loving to allow men to go into hell if he is perfectly merciful, to the exclusion of justice, and truly desires to save every single one of them?

That is why you must be justified to be saved.
That is just an unbiblical lie, we are all God's children.
Yes, when he repeats his brother's behaviour
Is it more loving to force man into a place he doesn't want to be? God is a breaker of chains, not forger.

From what I've heard most people don't truly know what "Calvinism" is and even self-professed Calvinists buy into the common notion on Calvinists and predestination.
When you really look into its historical development you may see that it's nothing more than the outgrowth of late medieval Catholic thought.
Lutherans could also be said to agree with Calvinist beliefs even if their doctrines recorded and expressed them under different terms.

youtu.be/CBThrN4QH14
youtu.be/grN_9XhQ7qU
youtu.be/tirB0ODem24

Deutschlong

From chapter 2 of the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
is.muni.cz/el/1423/podzim2013/SOC571E/um/_Routledge_Classics___Max_Weber-The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism__Routledge_Classics_-Routledge__2001_.pdf

...

>Veeky Forums - History & Strawmen threads

Unreally shitty book which spawned this entire meme, along with de Tocqueville's obsession with the Puritans.

Wasn't so bad, the description of Catholics and "traditionalists" seemed credible.

If you're going to impugn Calvinism, you're going to have to impugn a whole lot of Catholic theologians as well, including Augustine and Thomas.

Many, if not most of the early Calvinists and the Reformed Orthodox were very Thomistic (and some also Occamist and Scotist) in their thinking. Take a quote or three from Max Weber and one from one sermon of (the very controversial among Calvinists of the time) Jonathan Edwards, and you do NOT have an accurate picture of Calvinist theology, piety, and practice.

Basically, you have a bunch of people who have never actually done the reading of the period and just rely on offhand comments by mostly 20th-century writers who also haven't done the reading.

>Free will, which Calvinists don't believe in is absurd.
They do, actually. The only free will they don't believe in is the freedom to procure salvation apart from God's grace.

>including Augustine and Thomas.
double predestination is not a Catholic teaching tho.

"Double predestination" is a huge misnomer, and if it's found anywhere, it's found in late Augustine AND Thomas, and it isn't what you think it is in either of them OR Calvinism.

Like Byzantine iconoclasm five centuries before, Calvinism was a reaction to a string of victories for Islam. It is an Islamification of Christianity

Can someone please explain double predestination. I've heard of it but have not been able to fully understand it.

T. heavily reformed Presbyterian.

bump

>how is religion related to history?

Calvin emphasizes the sovereignty of God.

R.C Sproul.

true

>if some people are predestined to salvation, then the others must be predestined to damnation
That's pretty much the gist of it.

"But whos rightiousness does not surpass that of the law scholars and Phariseans will not go the kingdom of god."
t. Jesus

/thread

Christians believe that we don't earn our way to salvation, but we do have to co operate with the grace freely given. We didn't summon the sum and don't deserve it, but we still have to bask in its light to receive its benefits

Christians believe people are wicked but that they have a moral grounding in them. Not total depravity

>what the fuck do crusaders have to do with Catholicism you nutjob?

>when your bitterness is ordained by God

But for real Calvinism is the best of Protestantism. Stay mad papists

saying the word 'papist' outs you as a braindead moron

being a proddyshit outs you as being anti-European, anti-Christian, essentially a crypto-jew among other things.

Being a Catholicuck outs you out as being anti-Christian, anti-God, anti-Jesus, anti-Bible and anti-Truth.

No it doesn't

So whats even the purpose of jesus if predetermination exists?
Seems pretty stupid, like some far east cult shit.

>nuh-uh! You're the apostate, not me!
>I'll tell on you to Papa

"11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

t. Jesus

"15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them."

t. Jesus