Actually a really good book, full of quotations and allusions to countless classical philosophers, poete and historians in his arguments. His understanding of sola scriptura also makes more sense, since he says an individual reading the Bible cannot draw rules from it until he has read it and studied it thoroughly, otherwise he will not understand context. Also to read exegesis by those who have since no man is infallible. He gives an example of people interpreting God being proof the Trinity, which he says is working backwards, presuming the point and then looking to validate it in scripture. He is still obviously a staunch Trinitarian of course I'd say his weakest point historically is dealing with the canon of scripture. He clearly loves Augustine but how he tries to address Catholic interpretation of Augustine on Scriptural canon (that without a centralized Church, there is no way to determine which books are canon), is less than satisfactory. Nevertheless I otherwise find him the most eloquent theologian I have read and I find him more convincing than Catholic theologians since he is an extremely clear thinker and obviously tried to approach the Bible "scientifically" and learned Hebrew and read the entire old testament in depth in Hebrew to convert Jews--no luck of course and like Luther he became incensed at that, if not so bloodthirsty Biggest problem with his argument today is evolution. Calvin asserts fideism but at the same time argues at length that scripture can be proven rationally as true, because that is what convicts those reject it. But these days it's not really possible to reconcile fideism with rational proofs, and most proponents of fideism basically use it as a way to bludgeon rational arguments, whereas Calvin says Christians should be educated enough to easily handle a rational debate with someone who denies God or the Bible.I doubt Calvin would be a Christian if he were alive today
>>24959734>big brained>fundamentalismLmao. Even if a fundie is overall intelligent, fundamentalism requires you to turn off your brain
>>24959760Religion in general does. Fundamentalism at least existentially grapples with and confronts the implications of religion instead of just identifying with it for mostly cultural reasons
>>24959762I'm sure that's what the practitioners believe they are doing, but on a subconscious level, all interpretations of scripture are socially and culturally driven. Fundamentalism prioritizes literal interpretations of the Bible without any regard for historical and social context, literary genres, and rhetorical goals. At least the liberals understand the composition of and limitations of biblical scripture.
>>24959778That's not true it all, educated fundamentalists don't do that, id anything they come much closer to secular academic scholarship on interpretation, it's just they believe it
>>24959783>id anything they come much closer to secular academic scholarship on interpretationSo ask a fundamentalist what their interpretation of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 would be. Scholars will tell you that this passage refers to the high deity (the Most High) giving YHWH the nation of Israel as an inheritance; this makes sense because you can't "inherit" something that you can obtain yourself. A fundie will tell you that the Most High and YHWH are the same. I understand why they do that because latter biblical authors conflated the two for reconciliation purposes, but it goes to show how the fundies will ignore scholarship for the sake of their traditions.
>>24959791I doubt that's a unanimous interpretation by secular academics and desu it seems pretty forced with YHWH being a jealous God who doesn't tolerate any gods before him
>>24959796It's a moot point either way though since I doubt even liberal Christians preach that interpretation. The point is that fundamentalists come closer, not that they match it exactly since obviously academics reject the prophecies in the old testament which the new testament says are about Jesus, actually being about Jesus. Not academic sees even the old testament as a holistic work, let alone it along with the new
>>24959734Westminster Standards are also a pretty good read.
>>24959760Stop projecting 21st American Christianity onto John Calvin.
>>24959734>sheeet this wasn't no joke, God said "so are my ways higher than your ways · and my thoughts than your thoughts" .............but then i thought to myself, "what if I was smarter than a transcendental multidimensional entity outside of time and could make him intelligible to human reason"calvintranny nonsense on /lit/Sad!
>>24960334>transcendental implying he needed to transcend from something>multidimensional implying there are infinite universes>entity outside of timeimplying he’s not subject to time when it literally took him time to make the universe and gives prophecies with dates>and could make him intelligible to human reasonimplying that’s not the gospeljust like riley and huey you’re an illiterate brown kid playing at versed in any of this
>>24960337Calvin tries to change the meaning of the Bible through interpretation even more than the Catholics do, and personally instead of via quorum over 1500 years.Luther and his fellows at least try to follow along the lines of what Jesus was doing in spirit in the Gospel, get back to the basics and sweep away all the legalistic nonsense. Whereas, you can't have two Calvinists together in a room without them syllogizing up unrelated passages into some new 3rd derivative interpretation.
>>24960352Lutheranism existed purely as state churches, so of course it was unified. Calvinism was more or less unified until the 20th Century when gay marriage and female ordination became an issue. Baptists and such are not Calvinists, their pedigree comes from Anabaptists. Calvinism unanimously accepts infants baptism and holds communion to be actually be part of practice and involving the real, albeit spiritual only, presence of Christ in the bread and wine
>>24960370>has predestination of any sortI simply sleep.Maybe when its completely dropped, I will consider watching the 68 hour intro to Calvinism course I need to "correctly" interpret the Bible.But until you drop the scholastic tier derived nonsense, I will not listen to a word.
>>24960080This is such a great book
>>24960352>Biblehe folks these books are canon but those are literally heresy
