>you're not worshiping the god of israel correctly
oh fantastic. Maybe it'll spark another pointless 30 years war where White goyim die en masse as jews laugh

>>17973004
Good video, but all the proof needed is clearly right in the New Testament. Anybody denying the core reformed teachings is either dishonest or hasn’t read scripture.

>>17973076
I don't think he would dispute that, but I understand your point though it is not without value to demonstrate from history the antiquity of the Reformed tradition especially in this age when the topic is shrouded in ignorance which Rome's propagandists are all too happy to exploit. I think one of the most competent brief defenses of the Reformation ever produced was Calvin's preface to the king of France in the Institutes of the Christian Religion. He spends the largest part refuting what was then as well as now Rome's favorite defense, accusing the reformers of innovation while appealing to the antiquity of their traditions. To this Calvin begins his response, saying "First, in calling it new, they are exceedingly injurious to God, whose sacred word deserved not to be charged with novelty. To them, indeed, I very little doubt it is new, as Christ is new, and the Gospel new; but those who are acquainted with the old saying of Paul, that Christ Jesus 'died for our sins, and rose again for our justification' (Rom. 4:25), will not detect any novelty in us."

But later he continues "It is a calumny to represent us as opposed to the Fathers (I mean the ancient writers of a purer age), as if the Fathers were supporters of their impiety. Were the contest to be decided by such authority (to speak in the most moderate terms), the better part of the victory would be ours. While there is much that is admirable and wise in the writings of those Fathers, and while in some things it has fared with them as with ordinary men; these pious sons, forsooth, with the peculiar acuteness of intellect, and judgment, and soul, which belongs to them, adore only their slips and errors, while those things which are well said they either overlook, or disguise, or corrupt; so that it may be truly said their only care has been to gather dross among gold."
https://www.biblestudytools.com/history/calvin-institutes-christianity/book1/prefixed-to-the-fourth-edition-1581.html

>>17973004
>protestant trash
No thanks

>>17973004
Does he mention double predestination? That's a doctrine that's curiously lacking in most, if not all, of the writings of the early Church Fathers.
>>17973142
Jean Calvin did not in fact have access to most of the writings of the early Fathers. It's difficult not to see him as presumptuous here.

>>17973532
>That's a doctrine that's curiously lacking in most, if not all, of the writings of the early Church Fathers.
This sort of anachronistic statement is typically made by those who, ignorant of church history, assume the golden age of the fathers was filled with as much theological knowledge and clarity as later times. In reality there are several theological subjects which were barely commented on in the patristic age, meaning no opinion was clearly or widely stated one way or another. This is broadly the case with double predestination, which is a very specific doctrine about whether the decree of reprobation logically precedes the decree of the first sin. If by "double predestination" you mean unconditional election, then this certainly has antecedent in the early church. Another misstep frequently made by armchair church historians is to overvalue the patristic age by completely ignoring the early middle ages, where there is clear precedent for Reformed doctrine in the pre-scholastic Augustinians like Fulgentius of Ruspe all the way to Gottschalk and Ratramnus.
>Jean Calvin did not in fact have access to most of the writings of the early Fathers
Source: you made it up. In reality John Calvin, who it would be accurate to call a patristics scholar, had greater access than you because of his knowledge of the Latin and Greek languages. What follows those words in the preface is a lengthy quotation of various fathers. We have not generally gained new patristic writings since the Reformation, we continue to be dependent on medieval copies for our knowledge of them. The body of patristics has decreased rather than increased, the difficulty of such study in Calvin's time proceeded from plentiful forgeries rather than the absence of authentic patristic texts. Consequently there was hardly a treatise written by a Protestant reformer which did not cite the ancient fathers.

>>17974271
>meaning no opinion was clearly or widely stated one way or another
Or that the answer was considered so self evident that none expected that it would ever be questioned.

>>17974289
And conveniently that secret systematic theology just happens to be what you believe

>>17974294
Perfect example is the founding fathers not feeling the need to specify that when they said all men are created equal, that they meant whites. They presumed that only whites would ever be considered people, and so didn't feel the need to further clarify.

File: image_2025-09-04_095316444.png (132 KB, 850x400)

132 KB PNG

>>17974289
Calvinism is anti-biblical and John Calvin is burning in hell.

>Galatians 6:7-8 - Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

>Acts 8 30-31 - Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. 31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

>Matthew 19:14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

>>17974417
Explain what you think these have to do with Calvinism

>>17974618
Galatians 6:7-8 proves free will.
Acts 8:30-31 disproves biblical self evidence.
Matthew 19:14 disproves innocent children being damned to hell like Calvin wanted so bad.

>>17974627
>Galatians 6:7-8 proves free will.
One wonders where in the text any reference to man's free will. I do not suppose I will be fortunate enough to hear something like exegesis, considering you first merely cited the text, then merely declared your interpretation of them. But only by hunting for prooftexts for the unbiblical idol of man's free will could one both turn this scripture into meaning its opposite and contradicting the entire epistle in which it is found. Where does Paul suppose that whether one is a worker of the spirit or the flesh is determined not by the free grace of God but the free will of man? Are we to suppose his meaning is that ungodly sinners may of their own free will without the grace of God merit for themselves eternal life by choosing to become good and do good, in Galatians of all places? No, but he says those who sow to the flesh shall reap destruction, so it is clear those who sow to the flesh shall not make themselves spiritual and pleasing to God, but reap destruction.
>Acts 8:30-31 disproves biblical self evidence
That would make one wonder why Philip asked him if he understood the text at all, as if he thought it held the authoritative words of God, instead of rebuking him, telling him that it had no authority apart from his decree, and ordering him to unthinkingly submit to his human authority instead of explaining to him the meaning of scripture.
>Matthew 19:14 disproves innocent children being damned to hell like Calvin wanted so bad.
This is irrationality writ plain. I have nothing but contempt for your womanly appeal to emotion. It is first of all absurd to accuse Calvin of wanting children to be damned in light of his vigorous defense of infant baptism. Secondly, is infant damnation a Reformed distinctive now? Did Rome repudiate the doctrine of original sin when I wasn't looking?

>>17974660
>long drivel of "I'm too retarded to understand what 'you reap what you sew' means" followed by mental gymnastics to deny an apostle was filled with the holy spirit
Your brain on Calvinism.

>>17974663
I accept your concession.

>>17974271
>>17974289
>they didn't say anything about it because it was just like so obvious
>trust me bro
This is extremely tenuous.
>>17974382
Double predestination is refuted by other doctrines like unlimited atonement, which the vast majority of early Fathers held to. You have no argument, which is why you have to assume an imagined, hidden consensus to even function in this debate.
>it's womanly to be concerned by the idea of infants burning forever
Seek help.

>>17974271
>where there is clear precedent for Reformed doctrine in the pre-scholastic Augustinians like Fulgentius of Ruspe all the way to Gottschalk and Ratramnus
Except that this debate was all but solved at the Council of Orange in the sixth century. A Council that explicitly denied double predestination.
>"This also do we believe, in accordance with the Catholic faith, that after grace received through baptism, all the baptized are able and ought, with the aid and co-operation of Christ, to fulfil all duties needful for salvation, provided they are willing to labour faithfully. But that some men have been predestinated to evil by divine power, we not only do not believe, but if there be those who are willing to believe so evil a thing, we say to them with all abhorrence anathema. This also do we profess and believe to our soul's health, that in every good work, it is not we who begin, and are afterwards assisted by Divine mercy, but that God Himself, with no preceding merits on our part, first inspires within us faith and love."

>>17974271
>the patristic roots of the reformed faith
>well okay... it's actually absent in the roots... but if you look at some of the leaves during the medieval era...
come on now

>>17974382
Except for the fact that other writings make their position on slavery clear. What you're basically saying is that, in a world where the founding fathers said nothing about slavery, didn't keep slaves, and wrote in favour of concepts and ideas that prevented it, we should still somehow accept your view that they all secretly believed in its validity. That's essentially what you're doing by claiming that the Church Fathers accepted double predestination.

>>17975036
>Double predestination is refuted by other doctrines like unlimited atonement, which the vast majority of early Fathers held to
This is another assumption you've made that I imagine as so often is the case is driven in part by ignorance of what Limited Atonement is and what the issue is. The difference between the two is not in the adjective but in the meaning of the word atonement: did the Son of God die to save sinners, or to enable them to be saved if they so choose, so that He could die for all and yet none be saved? Now the atonement was one of those things which was not the focus of the fathers, but as far as it goes let us here two of the most prominent voices, Augustine "Just as everyone redeemed by Christ's blood is a human being, but human beings are not all redeemed by Christ's blood, so too everything that is unlawful is not good, but things that are not good are not all unlawful" and John Chrysostom "Why 'of many,' and not 'of all'? Because not all believed. For He died indeed for all, that is His part: for that death was a counterbalance against the destruction of all men. But He did not bear the sins of all men, because they were not willing."
>You have no argument, which is why you have to assume an imagined, hidden consensus to even function in this debate.
I didn't say that, I said they didn't talk about it.
>Seek help.
Do you believe in original sin, sir?
>>17975048
Your quote is talking about equal ultimacy. The Reformed doctrine of double predestination does not suppose that reprobates are predestined to evil, as if God needed to act to make sinners sin, but that they are predestined to hell.
>>17975069
That's what you hallucinated me saying.

>>17975202
>This is another assumption you've made
You've done nothing but make and insist upon assumptions this entire thread, including insisting that we must all believe early luminaries of the Church affirmed a doctrine without actually providing a shred of evidence that they did so.

You keep referring to Augustine because he's one of the few Christian writers, out of many, who might be seen to support your position. He's also not an early Church Father either. Chrysostom is hardly saying that Christ's death was not meant for all. He's saying that some die without forgiveness, without their sins being borne, because they do not freely accept Christ's salvation. Chrysostom affirmed universal intent, so to use him in defence of limited atonement is misleading. He also constantly affirmed man's free will, even in relation to Romans 9. Your attempt to use him to bolster the reformed position is strange in light of this.
>Your quote is talking about equal ultimacy
You can try to divide the issue up as much as you like. It's a fact that the Council of Orange denied double predestination. This is something accepted by both the reformed and Catholic alike.
>That's what you hallucinated me saying.
I am not saying you literally said that. I am saying what you said was equivalent. Try to be less of a pedant. I know it's difficult for you.

You blunder onto this board and demand we all watch a video I am going to guess you're the author of, given the similar language style. You can't defend a foundational point of your position yet insist, sneering, that we must all believe you anyway. And you keep responding with walls of pompous text that amount to little more than hair-splitting and sophistry. Tell me - are you incapable of humility?

>>17975263
>including insisting that we must all believe early luminaries of the Church affirmed a doctrine without actually providing a shred of evidence that they did so.
What doctrine would that be? Where did I say that? It is not a valid argument to misrepresent me and put words in my mouth.
>You keep referring to Augustine because he's one of the few Christian writers, out of many, who might be seen to support your position
I will take that as a concession of the point that Reformed theology has a strong foundation in the patristic period. I will also point out this attempt to mitigate Augustine, as if he is just one of many and not the single most influential theologian in the history of Christianity after the apostles, speaks volumes. However, the reason I keep referring to Augustine is because he is a very well known and important antecedent of the Reformation.
>He's also not an early Church Father either.
Ok, how do you want to define that term? Different people do it in different ways. I define it as any basically orthodox Christian theologian who wrote before the fall of Rome (even this definition is difficult to maintain, since any definition of ECF must include Origen). Where do you want to go, the antenicene period only? We'll be talking much more about Clement of Rome.
>Chrysostom is hardly saying that Christ's death was not meant for all
This is where accuracy in defining Limited Atonement becomes most important. He states explicitly that 1. Christ did not die for those who live in unbelief, and 2. Christ did not bear the sins of all men. What distinction this has from Limited Atonement, I do not know.
>Chrysostom affirmed universal intent, so to use him in defence of limited atonement is misleading. He also constantly affirmed man's free will, even in relation to Romans 9
Very broad assertions with no citation.

(cont.)

>>17975263
>You blunder onto this board and demand we all watch a video I am going to guess you're the author of
I didn't demand anything, try to calm your anger. No, I did not make the video and had no hand in its creation.
>Try to be less of a pedant. I know it's difficult for you.
Wow, you're mad. I may have inflamed your passions but I did not say anything equivalent to that, as
>You can't defend a foundational point of your position
You seem to think double predestination *is* Reformed theology, when all it is is the other side of the coin from the doctrine of election, which none can deny was present in the fathers. This sort caricaturing of Calvinism makes me wonder what you think goes on in our churches on the Lord's Day. Do you think we spend the whole time talking about how much God hates cute little babies and loves burning them in hell?

Now, I must continue to refuse you to force the fathers to address every theological subject ever conceived or to put words in their mouths, nor does it follow that if they were silent about a certain subject it must mean they agreed with you about it as though everything you believe is some kind of default. Did you know that people will also argue about whether Calvin or Bullinger believed in things like double predestination? Not because they had no position on it, or that they agreed with you, but because, like the fathers, it was not the issue of their day.

>>17975263
>sneering, that we must all believe you anyway. And you keep responding with walls of pompous text that amount to little more than hair-splitting and sophistry. Tell me - are you incapable of humility?
You don't have to believe anything sir, but you do have to obey the 9th commandment. Jesus said that when men falsely speak evil of you that you should rejoice. In humility, I will not return your cursing for cursing but instead encourage you to calm your emotions, to realize your accusations are a projection of your own mind, and to think critically instead of recoiling in mental pain when you see your deepest beliefs and assumptions undermined.

>>17975398
>Wow, you're mad.
I called you pedantic. Chill out.
>which none can deny was present in the fathers
No Christian denies election. It was your view of it and your claim that it's *obviously* present in the Fathers that was in question.
>nor does it follow that if they were silent about a certain subject it must mean they agreed with you about it as though everything you believe is some kind of default.
You can't provide any evidence for their supposed agreement with your particular doctrine. That's the issue here. Rather than admit to this, you want us all to believe that their silence must equate to agreement with this doctrine because *it's just so obvious* - but that's not a valid argument. You can't claim to be in the right about something by claiming it's obvious. To do so is arbitrary.
>>17975399
Please hop off that high horse.

I, for one, will not continue to argue with you. I think I've covered the flaws in your position well enough. You're not willing to engage in an earnest back-and-forth discussion. From what I can see, you're looking to browbeat people with assertions made without evidence. I pray for your maturity.

>>17975467
>It was your view of it and your claim that it's *obviously* present in the Fathers that was in question.
Not directly, since you simply harped on and on about double predestination this whole time.
>You can't provide any evidence for their supposed agreement with your particular doctrine
Again, what particular doctrine would that be? It is a simple question, which you did not answer because it is a figment of your imagination. If you're yet again going on about double predestination, I think I have given more than sufficient answer to that.
>Rather than admit to this, you want us all to believe that their silence must equate to agreement with this doctrine because *it's just so obvious* - but that's not a valid argument. You can't claim to be in the right about something by claiming it's obvious. To do so is arbitrary.
We are all impressed by your eminent skill in cutting down the strawman, but I can see why you would flee from the conversation given the apparent inability to engage with anything I said without misrepresenting me.
>You're not willing to engage in an earnest back-and-forth discussion. From what I can see, you're looking to browbeat people
God bless you.
>I pray for your maturity.
You should rather pray for your own repentance, and look in a mirror.