What is wrong with Calvinism?

By removing parts from God, it leaves no way it can interact with us.
The calvinistic God is distant and machinistic.
It's basically worshipping a set of rules. It breeds atheists because it's an autistic God who lacks Will.
No wonder the roundheads were calvinists. Calvinism is roman theological bureaucracy taking to the extreme.

this meme is self-contradictory

The same thing with any reformed Church
t. former baptist reformed church now ROman Cahtolic

Attached: infallibleDoctorines.PNG (582x551, 24.61K)

What do you means by this

Also, kinda unrelated, is there an ex-cathedra list of ex-cathedra statements, or something to that effect? The picture reminded me of that question

Sola Scriputra relies on interpretations of the Bible, and reformed looked at history. Can't neccesarly hold both.
Was wondering why we had fellowship with Baby-Baptizing Presbyterians and my Pastor said it was open up to interpretation which is more correct.
Made me really think about what doctrines are fundamental
Catechism holds the churches teachings. Or read Vatican I and II
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council
I'm a babe in Roman Catholicsm; hopefully other posters can help more with this.

Attached: visibleChurch.PNG (612x257 32.21 KB, 14.05K)

Have you ever talked to someone whose knowledge of Chriatian theology is completely based on disinterested speculation and memes? Such a person might say something like "Dude if God knows what we do before we do it then we don't really have free will lmao!" Calvinism is a form of Christianity wholly committed to this patently unreasonable heresy that backs it up with tenuous examples from Scripture.

All of TULIP is wrong and you have shoddy legalism and that whole predestination no free-will nonsense, also it's a form of protestantism so that's a problem and Calvin wanting to kill a guy for trolling him.

Which one is it? Is Calvinism just mere speculation or we're all just meme-ing each other?

None of you have any idea what you all are talking about, except this based Orthobro , who at least uses sources that try to exegete Scripture.

Attached: smug magic gals.jpg (537x1076, 107.55K)

That's one of the most awful interpretation of genesis I have ever seen.

It's a pretty big problem. I'm a big fan of Kabane and am pretty solid in my own Orthodoxy, but the only time I was really thrown into questioning was when one of my closest friends temporarily left the Church for reformed churches and when tollhousers were going a little crazy on here and elsewhere. People don't seem to understand the damage they are doing when they strawman reformed theology and copy and paste Catholic Answers level apologetics with no thought of their own. They also don't get that our beliefs need to be Biblical supported by the sound exegesis of the Fathers of the Church, who loved the Holy Scriptures enough that they would be called Protodox Larpers if they posted on here

I have never read anything that is less true.
Calvinism is literally all about God's will being sovereign above man's will. It is very explicit about no rules ever being able to save you, but that you need a personal relationship with Christ.

What you wrote applies to every other Christian denomination more than it does to Calvinism. Arminians/ Catholics/ Orthodox/ etc. believe you only have to follow a specific set of rules and God has to save you, but if you decide not to obey, well there is nothing God can do about that. They set man's will to obey God over God's will to save a man, and they set sacramentalism over seeking Christ.

That's just a silly statement to make. You know that Catholics themselves are divided on doctrines as much as Protestant are. You have high ranking church officials in Europe advocate for the female priesthood, communion for Protestants, re-marriage, etc. Oh, and you have a pope that may or may not believe that hell exists.
To claim that the Catholic church somehow provides a united set of believes that everybody can hold to is just not true.

First of all, you could just as well find very well-known Christians that held non-Catholic believes at that time. Don't forget that the last Marian dogma was defined in the 1950s.
Secondly, there were people defending a fairly reformed view of scripture much longer than Augustine, see for example a man named Gottschalk in the 9th century who defended double predestination & God's sovereignty, and of course latter the Waldensians, John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, etc. were all opposed to Rome.
Thirdly, it's kind of difficult to defend your viewpoint if you know from previous examples that you most likely will go to jail, be tortured and die. The only way we even know anything the Waldensians believed comes from the records of the inquisition.
Lastly, one could just as well ask how you can believe that God would let his church full in such disrepair as the medieval Catholic church. Look at John XII, Benedict IX or Alexander VI. Do you really believe God would allow the "successor of Peter" to commit murder or have sex with a married woman? What about church offices being sold to the highest bidder, people that don't read Latin holding the mass, selling indulgences, etc.?Have at that point the gate's of hell not prevailed against it?

Yes, I trust a man with the Holy Spirit reading the scriptures to discern the truth over the pope determining it with almost no recourse. Sola Scriptura > Sola Ecclesia
If the church can infallibly interpret scripture and infallibly say what is & is not tradition and what those traditions say, really the only thing determining any doctrine is the Catholic church.
So now you get to decide, do you trust an earthly authority that has held different believes in the past from what it does now, or do you believe the inerrant word of God? Keep in mind that Christ all throughout the gospel held people accountable for what was written in scripture and admonished them for adding the traditions of men to it.
Next, it is important to understand that no Protestant (except for Hyper-Calvinists which basically don't exist) believes that correct doctrine will save you. What saves you is God, not knowing the right creeds & confessions. On top of that, most prefer a local church government over a centralized authority hundreds of miles away. If the church I attend now were to allow female priests I could leave and go to a different church, if the Catholic church starts to allow female priests or changes other doctrines important to you, you either go sedevacantist or change your believes.

Seems weird to hear a Catholic say that God's grace is sufficient. So, I don't need all the sacraments? This thing about "how you come about grace" makes little sense, because if you have to do something to receive grace, it is no longer grace.

To equate ἐκκλησία with your modern notion of what the English word "church" describes, seems like a pretty silly thing to do.

The last paragraph once again goes into the same nonsense about tradition (selected by the church, defined by the church) but I always laugh when Catholics try to lever apostolic succession. Apparently that successor to the apostles can be an unrepentant criminal (and therefore somebody not in a state of grace), can be anathematized by later Councils (see Honorius) and at one point there can be as many as 3 different successors to Peter one of which gets retroactively called the true Pope & the other Anti-pope were of course never popes to begin with (kind of like the Chinese concept of the Mandate of Heaven).

Meant to say, Is Calvinism just mere speculation or is it backed-up, even if tenuously, by Scripture?

I really do appreciate that you take the time to research and study the Bible, even if I think the conclusion are just a smidge erroneous. The more examples we have on this board like you, the more mature the younger anons here will become. Maybe we'll be the first board in the history of chan forums, besides 8/pol/, to actually improve.

Nice!

What's right with it?

Underrated post.

Its theology was predestined to be shit.

This^

kek^

/thread
should've ended here.

Muhammad v2.0 Electric Boogaloo

Attached: 31165907_1722349711179671_5668208609868120064_n.jpg (490x466, 35.66K)

What's so hard to understand?

I kekl'd a little.

Attached: Election.jpg (862x2428, 507.63K)

To become something you have to not be it in the first place.

What's the sixth point in Six-Point Calvinism?

Absolutely nothing

There is God's desire, and God's sovereign will. This verse shows his desire. And even then, you are assuming that 'all men' speaks literally of this, and not of 'all of the church'.

wtf?

xDDD good one.

You aren't even arguing against calvinism, just the idea of it.

Wow, you supported your argument very well, lots of biblical quotes.

If you really want to study it, read a systematic theology, like Charles Berkhof's Reformed Dogmatics. And to answer your question, it is most assuredly backed up. The main chapters used to support it are Isaiah 53, John 6, Romans 9 and Ephesians 1-2, and this is only part of the evidence.

Citation needed on this.
All means all.

Do you mean Louis Berkhof?

bump

It's dumb and not biblical

Literally talmudic-tier exegesis

I appreciate the tip, but you're responding to your own side. I was correcting myself here responding to who made two contradictory statements about Calvinism. Glad we both agree it's backed-up well with Scripture.

Fake and gay

It's a 500 year old joke. An impotent and empty innovation.

give it up

This.

limited atonement is a ridiculous doctrine. at least you can be a diatrophes like steven anderson who believes in it instead of being an embarassment.

Is it really the logical extension of Augustine's ideas?

Neither of you mentioned a single thing from Scripture.

John 5:40
And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

1 Timothy 2:4
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
—

There, that wasn't hard.

>I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Notice he clarifies in the second verse to include "kings and all those in authority", Paul is speaking in "types" of people as reformed apologetics would say. I would also point out that this is quite revolutionary to a hebrew mind of the time, to pray that gentile rulers be converted. To further that point, Paul mentions his appointment to be the apostle to the gentiles in verse 7. Remember also that Paul wrote Romans 9 where he speaks of God's choice in saving some, but not others. Should we say that Paul is contradicting himself? I think he was consistent with Jesus who said in John 6:

Which Reformed oriented Church do you attend?

All means all actually.

John 12:32
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

The passage blows out this interpretation, as the prayers and intercessions are part of the conversion. That is, it isn't God who Christ died to change, but sinful man.

What are you, a caveman. Go learn quantum physics.

I sadly don't have one, there aren't any I've found. I just agree with the theology through study, that's all.

Apart from the Institutes what other books do you recommend to get a clear picture of what Reformed theology entails?

Attached: Bunyan_2381396b.jpg (620x388, 109.66K)

No, you just clearly are confused about what John 6 says there. It's saying those that come to him will be raised up on the last day, but for that to happen they must first be drawn. It's not saying all drawn will come to him.

You are just confused about what John 6:44 actually says. According to your confused idea, John 12:32 implies universalism, so I guess you just have to ignore it or treat it as not scripture.

All means all, and throwing around the term "reformed apologetics" as if it were authoritative doesn't change that simple fact. Neither does verse 2 or verse 7 change that.
And I've already shown how it is consistent to both John 6:44 and John 12:32. Being drawn is a prerequisite to coming to him, yet at the same time, not all who are being drawn do that. It's just that simple.

This.

Attached: heretic-john-calvin-murders-servetus.jpg (342x457, 37.9K)

Servetus was a greater heretic than Calvin.

Would that be the same Servetus that denied the Trinity and who would have been executed or in the very least persecuted anywhere else for holding such a view?

First response is perfect. I don't see how anyone can remain a Calvinist if they read and reflect on this thread. It's heresy.

Servetus denied the trinity. I am not pleading for what happened to Servetus, but Calvin was far closer to a Christian than ol' Mike Ve.

There is Jonathan Edwards' collected works, with most the sermons he preached and books he wrote, I would say that's good.

That's exactly what it is saying though. The "And I will raise him up on the last day." follows the preceding sentence and refers to it. There is no sense of chance or possibility of either doing or not doing in either sentence. The one drawn will come to God, and will be raised up on the last day.
No, I was simply showing the inevitable result of what should happen if one went with what you were saying. One can not clip off the rest of the verse in 6:44 in regards to the drawing, because it is an inherent conclusion to the drawing.
The scriptures state that God predestines some to salvation. It is not me who says so, but the scriptures. The drawing is effective.
It's not that "reformed apologetics" as a term holds weight, it is what it's based on that holds the weight, the scriptures.The Scriptures state the desire of God to save all, yet we also see that he has predestined some, but not others to salvation.

I never see the point in this tired Calvin vs. Servetus debacle. What Calvin repeated was merely the age old truth of the Bible, that men are wholly, utterly reliant on a sovereign God for mercy and salvation and can not come to Him unless God lifts them up. Is it just that people wish to ignore the words of Paul and Christ when they see them in the Bible, and attribute it all to Calvin who once acted in the spirit of all state religions?
Notice that God saves for His glory, and He will not pass it off, He will not fail to save.

Thanks!

The only thing really wrong with Calvinism is its understanding of the nature of effectual calling on these points:
Hebrews 3:7-8
"Wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts…"
Acts 7:51
"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye."
Titus 2:11
"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,"
Acts 17:26-27
"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:"
Acts 17:30
"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:"
Romans 8:29-30
"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."
1 Peter 1:2
"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied."

Take some time to get educated on the topic.

ad hominem

It's saying they must first be drawn or else it can't happen.
Being predestinated is not the same thing as being drawn. We know this because John 12:32 says that all men are currently drawn unto him.
True. But that doesn't mean they haven't resisted his grace. They have, and they are accountable for it.
—
John 5:40
And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Sounds like Arminianism to me.

This professor has some good lectures on his you tube channel