/lit/ - Literature

>>16536921
nice essay nerd

>>16536921
Great question Anon, look more into Augustine's writings on Original Sin

>>16536921
Makes no sense to me to, but i think it's a reference to the 144,000 chosen, the prophets take away in a chariot of fire or it's simply means that who God wants to go to heaven goes to heaven, such as child that was killed before maturing into a responsible adult, while other normal people will have to account for their sins.

>>16536921
OP was predestined to be a faggot

>>16536921
>while rejecting the classical Calvinist view
>classical Calvinist
subtle

christian metaphysics are worthless, this predestination problem in particular being among the most worthless. it is not even a problem, because it implies that souls are generated at conception and then at death it is “final”, while you await judgement. it’s dumb. lol, imagine all of the aborted babies by birth control and other natural causes being summoned for judgement

>>16537118
>aborted babies by birth control
based retard

>>16537086
Now that you mention it, I made that same face.

>>16537138

completely unsurprising that a /lit/ poster hasn’t had to buy any whores a plan b

>>16537118
>because it implies that souls are generated at conception and then at death it is “final”
source: my own retard ass,

Read Romans 9

>>16537162

why do you clowns need a source for everything? because you don’t read. all Christian apologists are in agreement that souls are currently awaiting judgement, with the exception of a very small cast of biblical characters who were granted entrance to heaven after Jesus’s death. there is no reincarnation in Christianity, so a child that has died at an unusually young age for any reason is currently awaiting judgement, just like anyone else

>>16537202
>currently awaiting judgement,

I mean, not really. Catholicism maintains that immediately after death the soul descends into hell if it was in mortal sin.

>>16537236

yeah I was wrong to say “all” agreed. either way, the clock is ticking down

>>16537202
>awaiting judgement
the just are not judged.

>>16537276
I guess you’re still right. I’m not as solid in my theology as I should be as a Catholic, but there will be a last judgment, I just can’t recall if it’s “double” damnation for the people already in hell, as it were

>>16537202
>all Christian apologists are in agreement that souls are currently awaiting judgement,
All of 4chan are in agreement that you are a retard then, literally OP posts refute what you say, there is no need to judge children or those with mental or physical disabilities so they go to heaven, in Judaism you have the bar mitzvah where a 13 year old boy enters adulthood, you only start accounting for you sins when you reach the age of 13.

>>16536921
Yes

>>16536921
massive cope

Take say 100 people. God snaps his and 20 of those people become predestined to go to Heaven. They are the elect. Of the remaining 80 people, a portion, let's say 30, use their Free Will (registered trademark) as granted by the Holy Spirit to act righteously and earn their way into Heaven. The remaining 50 are degenerates who use their free will to sin and earn their way into hell.

So there are elect people destined for heaven, but there are no elect people destined for hell.

>>16537731
>use their Free Will (registered trademark) as granted by the Holy Spirit to act righteously and earn their way into Heaven
But those are part of the elected since God has foreseen that they will use their free will to accept Christ or whatever. Furthermore, since the debate between Augustine & Pelagius it's been established that salvation is gift bestowed by God and cannot be 'earned'.

>>16536921
>Doesn't He, by electing specific indivuals for eternal life, automatically exclude the rest of humanity on account of their not having been elected, and, in consequence, condemn them to 'hell'?
No, they go to purgatory, and for the record I can not believe a theological question this stupid got to 22 posts before someone provided an actual answer.

>>16537901
>No, they go to purgatory
gonna need a source on that from the gospel please

>>16537731

if you use reductive logic, then you can't use the 30 "free will users" as proof, since that would be a contradiction of predestination. if they use their free will to enter heaven they are still bound by god's predestination knowledge, if god is unaware of their fate, then predestination does not exist as a whole

>>16537907
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P2N.HTM
Follow the cited sources.

>>16537901

>implying that you read the thread

>>16537901
purgatory is for those who are saved, retard

>>16537928
I did read the thread and it's all Protties doing mental gymnastics because their neutered Bible removed the parts which address the matter at hand.
>>16537929
OP's question is in reference to those who are elected to go immediately to Heaven (and consequentially skip purgatory though OP isn't learned enough to know that).

>>16537941
>logos
>neutered
imagine believing this

>>16537952
>missing the 7 books in which the topic at hand is discussed
>have to resort to mental gymnastics to talk about the subject
>not neutered
You're not intelligent, protestant scum.

>>16537941
No, OP's question concerns those who aren't saved as opposed to those that are, regardless of whether they go to heaven immeditaly or have to go through purgatory first

>>16537972
OP doesn't have any understanding of what actually happens at death nor does he comprehend the Catholic doctrine of predestination so his question is moot from the get-go. The Catholic doctrine of predestination speaks only of those who are predestined to go immediately to Heaven and skip purgatory, that is the only predestined afterlife. Whether a human makes it to purgatory or Hell, then, is up to his freewill and not predestination.

>>16537991
>Whether a human makes it to purgatory or Hell, then, is up to his freewill
pelagian heresy

>>16538005
I'm not rejecting the importance of divine grace so no, it's not pelagianism.

>>16537991
OP here I am interested in the Christian doctrine not the catlick musings

>>16538025
>Christian doctrine not the catlick musings
Your thread is explicitly about Catholic doctrine and the answer provided comes from the Catholic Catechism. You must be some other level of retarded.

>>16538037
I really don’t know how to be any clearer with you, please post fanfiction in some other thread tripfag

>reduced to anger and tears
Yeah, I'm thinking you're a retard. You're wrong pal, just accept it.

>>16537847
>>16537911
Right right. I was just thinking of some example that would, ostensibly, reconcile the Heavenly elect with the existence of Free Will. It's a fallacious argument but I bet it'd work on a lot of people.

>>16537991
>The Catholic doctrine of predestination speaks only of those who are predestined to go immediately to Heaven and skip purgatory
That's not true, and everyone in purgatory is saved anyway. People who go immediately to heaven are not attached to sin at all, and that is available to everyone.
>Whether a human makes it to purgatory or Hell, then, is up to his freewill and not predestination.
That's saying that salvation is dependent on our choices, which isn't true. Predestination is God's foreknowledge of who will make the free choice to respond to God's grace and who will not. Aquinas is your best bet w/r/t predestination, just avoid Molinism.

Sorry to ask a dumb question, but why would God make people only to be sent to Hell.

t. s0iboy Anglican.

>>16538571
Because good and evil could not exist without free will. If you literally cannot chose to be 'good' or 'evil', the very signifier loses all its meaning. If absolute predestination exists, nothing is good or bad, it just is. This thread is about wether God created good (and consequently evil) or wether the good and evil as understood by Christianity is merely an illusion.

>>16538625
>good and evil could not exist without free will
Lolwat
> And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good
Catholics cannot into genesis even, lmfao

>>16538682
wtf are you talking about when did I say I was catholic? I literally just got to the thread. Also, can animals do "good things" or "bad things"? Obviously not because they have no free will.

>>16538696
>Obviously not because they have no free will.
Source on that please

There really is no greater retardation in all of the history of Christianity than Martin Luther going on and on about "Sola Scriptura" and then just flat-out taking books out of the Bible, because they didn't fit his ideology. If the Bible's so fucking important, why would you take books out of it when they disagree with you?

He was such a fat stupid fuck. It's amazing he led a major movement in the history of Christianity. I have largely concluded that Luther himself was barely responsible for the Protestant Reformation, and the actual schism resulted from a bunch of other, underlying factors, as well as just God chastising the Church for the excesses and sins of the Renaissance.

>>16538718
The sin of the reformation was merely men making the conscious decision to reject truth and embrace falsehoods, God was in no way punishing the Church. Remember, the Church is Christ's bride. He wouldn't beat His bride.

>>16538718
He just happened to be relevant when the printing press was invented and therefore mass distribution of the Bible was possible. Catholics were against this translation, so everyone reading it went against Catholicism.

>>16538552
This post is full of lies and it's straw-manning my position. You're acting as if I said that salvation is dependent totally on our choices alone which I never said. A man cannot be saved by his own choices alone but it must be his choice to seek divine grace in order to be saved and it must be God who gives it. A man must choose to stretch out his hand, God must respond, but it must be the man who decides on his own to stretch out his hand in the first place.