What does /his/ think of Calvinism?

The only Christian denomination worse than Baptism.

>>1696444
Trips don't lie.

>>1696444
elaborate

Don't care for it. I knew a few 'new-age'-y Calvinists and it seemed to me like the amount of glossing over that they did didn't really make sense when they could just become some other non-shitty denomination.

They have some really fucking weird battleground topics but i suppose that's true of most denominations

>>1696444
>muh free will
free will is logically inconsistent with a god who is omnipotent and omniscient

>>1696467
Famous Apologist and Calvanist William Lane Craig literally said we should feel sorry for the Israelites who "had" to slaughtered Amalekite children.

>>1696064
Unfairly demonized, especially Calvin himself. But I think Arminians generally have stronger arguments.

>>1696501
+1

t. Arminian

>>1696488
kek, you could you give me a link to it?

>>1696501
how so?

>>1696488
WLC is a Molinist

A meme that went too far

>>1696742
Could have sworn he was one. Thank you anon.

>>1696508
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughter-of-the-canaanites

>>1696804
You can check it out on Reasonable Faith

Kissy kissy

Destructive as hell. Especially the Puritans.

>>1696847
how?

>>1696064
ISIS

>>1696700
Calvin's prose is acerbic which causes plebs to accuse him of being a sadist/psychopath.

>>1696864
The English Civil War, nigga

>>1696471

Omniscience: Knowing the truth value of every proposition with a truth vale.

Future Contingents don't have a truth value. So God does'nt know them, because there is nothing to know. So we can avoid the whole issue of the future being set because of God knowing future contingents.

Ockham has a pretty good solution as well by parsing out determinate truths from necessary ones and allowing our actions to remain contingent even if determinate, but the schema above is much simpler.

Omnipotence shouldn't pose a problem for free will either. I have no idea why it would.

>>1697121
>Future Contingents don't have a truth value.

Even if I grant your ridiculous definition of omniscience, why don't they exactly?

>>1696064
Autistic shit-stirrer, Henri II should have executed him before 1541.
He gave the pretext French feudals were waiting to devaste the kingdom for 50 years.

>>1696488
So, Canaanites were little bitches

>>1696488
>William Lane Craig
>Famous Apologist and Calvanist

He is an evangelical not a reformed.

>>1696469
>'new-age'-y Calvinists and it seemed to me like the amount of glossing over that they did didn't really make sense

I've encountered this, too. I've known a few Presbyterians (including some very devout ones) that didn't really seem to know some of the things that Calvinism entails. Mainly, their idea of salvation didn't agree with Calvin's at all, and none of them seemed to belief in the sort of strict predestination that Calvin talked about (and their idea of what grace is was different).

It makes me think that modern churches just don't teach that stuff because they know how shitty it is.

>>1697129


How is it ridiculous ?

Because, no future contingent has happened yet. For "P is Q" to be true, P has to actually be Q. But if Q is a predicate like: "Will be haunted by ghosts on December 25th" that state of affairs can't come about until December 25th, so it can't be true or false until December 25th when it actually happens.

Aristotle covered this in De Interpretatione.

0.( Since this is usually an enthymeme) Assume the principle of non-contradiction. That X cannot both be P and not P in one and the same way at one and the same time.

1. Assume that all propositions have a truth value: either true or false.

2. (A)There will either be a sea battle tomorrow or (B) there will not be a sea battle tomorrow.

3. One of the conjuncts in 2 is true according to 1.

4. Say it is (A): There will be a sea battle tomorrow

5.There cannot not be a sea battle tomorrow so it is determined now that there will be a sea battle tomorrow necessarily.

6. Say it is (B): There will not be a sea battle tomorrow

7.There cannot be a sea battle tomorrow so it is determined now that there will not be a sea battle tomorrow necessarily.

8. Either 5 or 7 is true necessarily according to 0.

9. If 1 holds then whether or not there will be a sea battle tomorrow is determined now.

If you hold that Future Contingent's have a truth value then you seem to be committed to determinism from the outset, regardless of your theological beliefs. We already know that certain utterances have no truth value like imperatives and terms anyways. There is no reason to hold that all propositions must have a T/F truth value.

Alternatively to what I mentioned earlier, we could operate on a three valued system that gives a third alternative like " undetermined", and we can say that God knows of Future Contingents that they are contingent and undermined at the time they are undetermined and their T/F Truth Value once a state of affairs comes about that can give them one.

Not an expert by any means, but doesn't Calvinism basically say that God is the source of the evil people perform?

>>1696488
It's a tough job, but someone had to do it.

>>1696064
It's dead.

>>1696444
>I hate all Christians.

>>1697121

Rubbish. God knows the end from the beginning, which is why the bible tells the story of the earth from the beginning to the end.

>>1697164
They were given 400 years to repent of their wickedness, while the Hebrews were cooling their heels in slavery in Egypt, and never repented.

They are monsters, not people.

>>1698987
You say nothing in the future has happened yet.

That's absolutely false.