/christian/ - Christianity

Religious discussions and spirituality

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.1 (updated 2021-12-13)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 20000

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


Open file (252.94 KB 1200x1200 John Calvin.jpg)
Romans 9 teaches double predestination Anonymous 05/08/2022 (Sun) 18:15:05 No.10667
There is doctrine which is poison to fallen man's ears (and even some regenerate men's ears) because it utterly banishes them from having any control whatsoever over God's will, which is a notion that is patently offensive to a sinner, who covets God's throne. So it was that many false brothers over the millennia invented their own doctrines which would exalt themselves rather than God, claiming to be saved by their own good works and chosen for their own righteousness. But scripture knows nothing of such nonsense, God always seeking to humble man and put him in his place so that His name may be glorified above all and by all. So it is we find in Romans 9 a scripture which absolutely cuts down all men and reminds them of their place as creatures, whom their creator is free to do with as He pleases. The start of the passage must not be neglected as it defines everything that follows; we see Paul, who loves his nation, lamenting the apostasy of his nation going so far as to say "For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers". But as to them should have belonged the adoption, the glory, the covenants and the promises, it raises the question of why it is that they have been cut off? How is it that they are not all Israel who are of Israel? Paul does not leave the question hanging but without a break in the conversation flows straight in to the simple answer: "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated". But, Paul says, it was not as though He was suddenly turning His back on the Jews for no reason, but this had always been His way as He said to Moses "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" and to pharaoh "For this reason I raised you up, so that in you my power might be revealed and my name glorified in all the earth". So then the Jews were set up for destruction not because of any failure on their part and the gentiles set for righteousness not because of any success but because of the purposes of God. But Paul anticipates an objection as he knows how such divine teaching stings in the minds of weak and fallen men, which we hear often from atheists and other heathens: "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" that is, "If my will is not supremely free I cannot be blamed for my sins". But who is a man to answer back to God, a rebel sinner to accuse the holy one against whom he rages of evil? May a pot say to the one who formed it "why have you made me like this?" So Paul answers and brings us to our conclusion: "God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory". So the elect were created to be saved, and the reprobates were created to be damned, all to the praise of His glorious grace. Not that the content of God's decree shall be held against the reprobate on the last day, but only their sins, which they truly chose and enjoyed to commit by their very real mind and will. So no blame for their evil may be placed on God's head, since it was truly their evil and they truly deserved to be destroyed as did we all, even those whom He has saved for He has done so solely because of His good pleasure.
This is a false Gospel. God wishes for all to be saved, and saying that He explicitly wills some to be damned is blasphemous.
real gnosticism hours
>>10687 Tell it to Paul if you object to his teaching so much
>>10667 i have no clue what this is one about but ive asked similar questions before about why God created sinners if He knew they would sin. the answer was simply that He loved them too much to not create them.
>>10698 Paul himself writes that God wishes for all to be saved. As I said, false Gospel teaching.
>>10718 All nations, not all individuals.
Calvinists are not Christian. And their whole worldview can be debunked with one image. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDRdjUZB8cc
Open file (1010.92 KB 3840x2160 (You).jpg)
>>10914 The canon is not known trough tradition, if it was I would have a catholic or orthodox bible.
>>12508 >The canon is not known trough tradition >Follow the modernist Protestant tradition of 66 books Top Kek
>>12510 >here's why you shouldn't believe the bible
>>12518 >believe the Bible >proceeds to trim the Bible ngmi
>>12520 You are in error in thinking your pope had authority over God to tell Him what He will say.
>>12521 You are in error in thinking you have authority over God to tell Him what He will say.
>>12521 >>12524 You are in error in arguing on a image board over who has authority over God to tell Him what He will say when we have a 1,000+ page book literally called "God's Word"
>>10914 based
Sin is nothing more than disobedience to god. God cannot be a sinner because god is not accountable to anyone or anything. God's decisions cannot be evil, because good and evil are defined not by man but by god.
>>14445 Who are you talking to?
bump
Now most of those who rage against Reformed theology do so on the basis of their misunderstanding of it, especially of the doctrine called "Limited Atonement" which often triggers a reaction of anger leading to its rejection upon the sole basis of emotional modernism. However I ask that you not be misled by the name because this is not a doctrine about what God did not do for the reprobate, but what He did accomplish for the elect. To my Arminian brothers, I ask you to consider how you simply hold a weaker version of this doctrine, which was the reformers' response to the Romish mass, since our doctrine is that all those who receive the sacrifice of Christ are perfectly sanctified by it, so that none of them will be damned. To help establish this point I make the following argument 1. It is uniformly agreed by all Christians that there is but one will within the Godhead, for if there were a difference between the will of the Father and the will of the Son we would be polytheists in all but name worshipping a triad of gods who could easily be distinguished from each other according to substance. But the point itself is also revealed in scripture explicitly, "The Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise." 2. The intent of the Son in offering His sacrifice before the Father is surely not different from that which He intended to accomplish before His birth, for He is Himself the infinite immutable God (John 1:1) 3. Now the will of Father in the death of the Son is in name, even if it is often assailed in substance, admitted by all to be the purchase of a particular people, even if this decree is subjugated to their satisfaction of some particular condition (which error is not the issue at hand here). 4. The will of the Holy Spirit in the death of the Son is likewise the salvation of His covenant people, as "If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you". Therefore, the intent of the Son in offering His sacrifice to God must not be the salvation of every man but only those who are actually saved by it. This is not simply a logical extrapolation of systematic theology; the harmony of the Godhead is taught in scripture not only generally, but most relevantly also in this specific context, as our Lord said "I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of Him who sent me. And this is the will of Him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
/christian/ has the most earnest and high-minded shitposters of any board I've ever read.
>>10914 Protestants don't reject tradition, but traditions of man as the Bible itself says, the canon is the rule of faith.
>>10689 Makes sense if the church was steeped in darkness for millennia until the reformation.
>>10914 But the Canon isnt known through tradition, its known through the Holy Ghost? this image is b8
>>16217 I'm glad there is a good Reformed man on this board that can truly shepherd it towards salvation.
>>16336 >I'm glad there is a good Reformed man on this board that can truly shepherd it towards salvation. This is heresy. Only god can shepherd his sheep to salvation.
Easy to see how Romans 9 could be misunderstood and be twisted into false beliefs. I wonder what the Church teaching was on this before the Church became corrupted.
>>20599 God owns the flock, the shepherd is the Church Christ created. Ezekiel 34:23 23 AND I WILL SET UP ONE SHEPHERD OVER THEM, and he shall feed them, even my servant David: he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.
I don't really like Jeff Winger, but his Romans 9 sermon is great. Part 1: https://youtu.be/7y4yjSwEkfY Part 2: https://youtu.be/mMuiT_R0zFQ
>>20598 That's not an argument
>>21211 >call calvinist arrogant >proceds to call heresy everything he isnt ok with
>>21220 Calvinism is heresy.
>>21222 Calvinism is right.
Substantiate your claims, friends. One-liner retorts will be deleted. Only shitposters delight in frivolous slapfights, and they are definitely not welcome on this board. Thanks.
>>21220 He ended the quote where Calvin in humility said that he was just a beginner yet somehow flips that to mean arrogance.
>>21223 >this man made doctrine is right I only believe in the word of God not some man.
>>21238 Calvinism is the doctrine that you get if you read the Bible straight and formally order what God has revealed to us, it doesn't take John Calvin's hand to see it.
>>21239 Then why do you call it Calvinism?
>>21240 We don't, we call it reformed Christianity. Opponents of it call it Calvinism to imply that he invented it, and I was using your terminology for the sake of convenience.
>>21244 Why Calvin? What if Luther is right?
>>21320 Luther was wrong.
>>21320 Luther is right: Calvin doesn't disagree with him. Calvin's work in the mid-1500s was inspired by Luther's work in the early 1500s. Luther didn't disagree with Calvin either; he disagreed with Zwingli, but when he read a copy of Calvin's book Institutes of the Christian Religion near the end of his life he directed his friend Philip Melanchthon to come to an agreement with Calvin, which he proceeded to follow through on. Other Lutherans disputed the compromise though, and their stance on rejecting Calvin's work became dominant in Protestant Germany after succeeding in political maneuvering engaged in by both sides to win princes over to their position. For the reformed churches Calvin finished what Luther began.
>>21323 Luther was much more right than he was wrong.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

no cookies?