I noticed that Reformers are pretty much all fire and brimstone, he became famous because of fire and brimstone preaching. Also he has some preaching denying evolution, sometimes i wonder how he would react if someone presents strong evidence for it. People in that camp tend to have a very literal reading of the bible.
I think they are more fundamentalist than even old puritans. Guy became famous for fire and brimstone.
Is Paul Washer a Calvinist?
What do you think anon. His type is either reformed or pure calvinist.
He's right about that at least, his God is the God of Scripture, the whole "oh Hell is just the absence of God :*~~" shit is the most pathetic cope.
But he ignores things like the nature of Sheol. That's the issue with guys like him, they have such a literal reading they miss anything else.
I mean that is correct in what the Bible teaches. But ultimately it is not true because a israeli supremacist god is most certainly not the creator of the universe.
"I, Sister Faustina Kowalska, by the order of God, have visited the Abysses of Hell so that I might tell souls about it and testify to its existence...the devils were full of hatred for me, but they had to obey me at the command of God, What I have written is but a pale shadow of the things I saw. But I noticed one thing: That most of the souls there are those who disbelieved that there is a hell." (Diary 741)
"Today, I was led by an angel to the Chasms of Hell. It is a place of great torture; how awesomely large and extensive it is! The kinds of tortures I saw:
- The First Torture that constitutes hell is: The loss of God.
- The Second is: Perpetual remorse of conscience.
- The Third is: That one's condition will never change.
- The Fourth is: The fire that will penetrate the soul without destroying it. A terrible suffering since it is a purely spiritual fire, lit by God's anger.
- The Fifth Torture is: Continual darkness and a terrible suffocating smell, and despite the darkness, the devils and the souls of the damned see each other and all the evil, both of others and their own.
- The Sixth Torture is:The constant company of Satan.
- The Seventh Torture is: Horrible despair, hatred of God, vile words, curses and blasphemies.
These are the Tortures suffered by all the damned together, but that is not the end of the sufferings.
There are special Tortures destined for particular souls. These are the torments of the senses. Each soul undergoes terrible and indescribable sufferings related to the manner in which it has sinned.
>No One Can Say There is No Hell
Let the sinner know that he will be tortured throughout all eternity, in those senses which he made use of to sin. I am writing this at the command of God, so that no soul may find an excuse by saying there is no hell, or that nobody has ever been there, and so no one can say what it is like... I incessantly plead God's mercy upon them. (Diary 741) (circa 1934)
>1. The loss of God. >4. A terrible suffering since it is a purely spiritual fire, lit by God's anger.
This is how we know that Faustina lied.
God cares about the souls outside His grace, or He doesn't.
Well, the loss of God means the loss of the vision of God, the beatific vision, which the saved participate in heaven.
>God cares about the souls outside His grace, or He doesn't.
He does, to be sure. During this life is the season of mercy, but after death the judgment.
With that said, Sr. Faustina's diary is not the equivalent of the inspired and inerrant scriptures.
>"Only the soul that wants it will be damned, for God condemns no one" (Diary, 1452). This fits very well with the Catechism's definition of hell as "a state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God" (Catechism, 1033).
>What burns the soul in a "spiritual" way...is to be unavoidably confronted with the full truth about one's evil deeds and irreversible rejection of God's love, and to hear Jesus Christ Himself: "Depart from Me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Mt 25:41). >Then why does St. Faustina tell us about hell. ... Like any loving parents who warn their children about the dangers of playing with matches or running across streets without looking out for the traffic, God wants to preserve us from harm. His warnings are warnings of the very real dangers that we face, and they are given out of love for us.
> In addition, we should remember that many of the saints teach us that even hell itself is tempered by God's mercy. God is always as merciful to us as we will allow Him to be, so His mercy reaches right into the depths of hell. First, by allowing souls to reject Him and His love forever, God thereby respects human freedom - the dignity of human free will that He gave to us - right to the end... Second, God knows that for souls who truly despise Him, to see Him face to face forever, would make them even more miserable... That is why Cardinal Newman wrote: "heaven would be hell to the irreligious."
https://www.thedivinemercy.org/articles/if-god-so-merciful-why-there-hell
>This is the God of scripture!
Why do pr*tties act like God is found in scripture and never revealed Himself in the flesh in His Son? Can someone explain this?
Lots of different ways. Primarily the memory of His earthly life which has been passed down through holy tradition. The Bible is just a reference manual
Are you asking why I personally believe it has authority or are you asking why it literally does have authority on an ontological level/according to God etc.?
1 year ago
Anonymous
I am asking what the objective epistemological basis for believing it has authority is
1 year ago
Anonymous
What makes you think you wouldn’t ask the exact same question to Christ if you met Him? It’s a grace, to locate God, and to know that you know. You probably feel similarly about the Jesus you have constructed in your own mind using the Bible as a blueprint.
Easiest way to see that the Bible is not the final Word of God (Christ is) is to recall how the Bible itself describes itself and its role in the church: “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work”. Would it be appropriate to describe the Lord Himself in these terms, yes or no?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>It’s a grace
This doesn't mean anything, this isn't an epistemological anything. Still waiting to hear an answer to the question l, and remember you aren't allowed to use the bible because you already denied that >Would it be appropriate to describe the Lord Himself in these terms, yes or no?
It would be incoherent because the Lord is not information. You still can't know anything about God without His self-revelation in scripture, either
1 year ago
Anonymous
>you aren't allowed to use the bible because you already denied that
Why not, even? The Bible is in the image of the church, it derives from holy tradition and reflects it. You should be able to see the church and holy tradition in the Bible. If you can’t, it’s a major problem. You have some questions to answer yourself >Why you think the Bible has any authority >Why you think the books of the Bible are what they are >If you met Christ in Palestine, how would you know He had authority given that there was no New Testament canon at that time
>It would be incoherent
Not at all, just insert the word “messiah”. “The messiah was profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work”. How is that incoherent?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Why not, even?
This was answered in what you are replying to >The Bible is in the image of the church, it derives from holy tradition and reflects it.
Why does holy tradition have authority? >>Why you think the Bible has any authority
Because the bible is the word of God. >>Why you think the books of the Bible are what they are
This question is indistinct from the previous one, since "the bible" refers to the books which compose it >>If you met Christ in Palestine, how would you know He had authority given that there was no New Testament canon at that time
If I lived in the same time and place as Christ, I would have direct access to His deeds and His words. I do not live in the same time and place as Christ, so I do not have access to these except through scripture. >The messiah was
We don't live in "was", we live in is. I can't go hear Christ preach, if I want to know what Christ said I have to read the bible.
>You still can't know anything about God without His self-revelation in scripture, either
Your own Bible says that’s not true, btw
I meant anything specific. Even in the case of general revelation, that is still self-revelation. It is impossible to know anything at all about God apart from His revelation.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Why does holy tradition have authority?
Because it’s holy and is the continuation of the life of Christ Himself, who is the living Word of God. >Because the bible is the word of God
Why is that a more valid answer than saying “holy orthodoxy is the Church of God”? >Because the bible is the word of God
Also, the Bible specifically says that Christ Jesus in the flesh is God’s final word, not the Bible, and reserves that title for Him. (Heb 1:1-2, John 1:14) >This question is indistinct from the previous one
And it would sure be nice for you to provide an answer for either of them. >If I lived in the same time and place as Christ, I would have direct access to His deeds and His words
Doesn’t answer the question. >We don't live in "was", we live in is
Would it be an appropriate way to describe the messiah or the role of the messiah or not? Stop dodging and answer something. You just keep throwing up excuses. “We live in a different time, we don’t have access, wahh.” It’s copes. >I meant anything specific
So you meant >You still can't know anything specific about God without His self-revelation in scripture
But that’s not correct either. Why should it be? You need to justify why the life of Christ today is limited to being contained in words on a page. Fact is, it’s not true and you don’t even believe that. The Spirit is more than sufficient to know all truth about God’s persons in specificity
1 year ago
Anonymous
>You still can't know anything about God without His self-revelation in scripture, either
Your own Bible says that’s not true, btw
Sounds like a fricking schizo.
Because Paul Washer actually believes in God
Dilate
Yes
Seethe
>Reformed
There's your answer, OP.
Is Paul Washer a Calvinist?
I noticed that Reformers are pretty much all fire and brimstone, he became famous because of fire and brimstone preaching. Also he has some preaching denying evolution, sometimes i wonder how he would react if someone presents strong evidence for it. People in that camp tend to have a very literal reading of the bible.
I think they are more fundamentalist than even old puritans. Guy became famous for fire and brimstone.
What do you think anon. His type is either reformed or pure calvinist.
But he ignores things like the nature of Sheol. That's the issue with guys like him, they have such a literal reading they miss anything else.
He's right about that at least, his God is the God of Scripture, the whole "oh Hell is just the absence of God :*~~" shit is the most pathetic cope.
Christians are fricking nuts.
I mean that is correct in what the Bible teaches. But ultimately it is not true because a israeli supremacist god is most certainly not the creator of the universe.
Why not?
Fly over muttmerica is civilizationally declining to the level of the somali countryside.
I'm starting to think I'd prefer Wahabists to Pastor Anderson Calvinist types. I despite them with every fiber of my being
John 15:18 "If the world hates you, it hated me first"
And there it is! You c*lvinists love to cherry pick bible verses and apply them to literally everything you encounter. Wahabist tier
"I, Sister Faustina Kowalska, by the order of God, have visited the Abysses of Hell so that I might tell souls about it and testify to its existence...the devils were full of hatred for me, but they had to obey me at the command of God, What I have written is but a pale shadow of the things I saw. But I noticed one thing: That most of the souls there are those who disbelieved that there is a hell." (Diary 741)
"Today, I was led by an angel to the Chasms of Hell. It is a place of great torture; how awesomely large and extensive it is! The kinds of tortures I saw:
- The First Torture that constitutes hell is: The loss of God.
- The Second is: Perpetual remorse of conscience.
- The Third is: That one's condition will never change.
- The Fourth is: The fire that will penetrate the soul without destroying it. A terrible suffering since it is a purely spiritual fire, lit by God's anger.
- The Fifth Torture is: Continual darkness and a terrible suffocating smell, and despite the darkness, the devils and the souls of the damned see each other and all the evil, both of others and their own.
- The Sixth Torture is:The constant company of Satan.
- The Seventh Torture is: Horrible despair, hatred of God, vile words, curses and blasphemies.
These are the Tortures suffered by all the damned together, but that is not the end of the sufferings.
There are special Tortures destined for particular souls. These are the torments of the senses. Each soul undergoes terrible and indescribable sufferings related to the manner in which it has sinned.
>No One Can Say There is No Hell
Let the sinner know that he will be tortured throughout all eternity, in those senses which he made use of to sin. I am writing this at the command of God, so that no soul may find an excuse by saying there is no hell, or that nobody has ever been there, and so no one can say what it is like... I incessantly plead God's mercy upon them. (Diary 741) (circa 1934)
>1. The loss of God.
>4. A terrible suffering since it is a purely spiritual fire, lit by God's anger.
This is how we know that Faustina lied.
God cares about the souls outside His grace, or He doesn't.
Well, the loss of God means the loss of the vision of God, the beatific vision, which the saved participate in heaven.
>God cares about the souls outside His grace, or He doesn't.
He does, to be sure. During this life is the season of mercy, but after death the judgment.
With that said, Sr. Faustina's diary is not the equivalent of the inspired and inerrant scriptures.
>"Only the soul that wants it will be damned, for God condemns no one" (Diary, 1452). This fits very well with the Catechism's definition of hell as "a state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God" (Catechism, 1033).
>What burns the soul in a "spiritual" way...is to be unavoidably confronted with the full truth about one's evil deeds and irreversible rejection of God's love, and to hear Jesus Christ Himself: "Depart from Me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Mt 25:41).
>Then why does St. Faustina tell us about hell. ... Like any loving parents who warn their children about the dangers of playing with matches or running across streets without looking out for the traffic, God wants to preserve us from harm. His warnings are warnings of the very real dangers that we face, and they are given out of love for us.
> In addition, we should remember that many of the saints teach us that even hell itself is tempered by God's mercy. God is always as merciful to us as we will allow Him to be, so His mercy reaches right into the depths of hell. First, by allowing souls to reject Him and His love forever, God thereby respects human freedom - the dignity of human free will that He gave to us - right to the end... Second, God knows that for souls who truly despise Him, to see Him face to face forever, would make them even more miserable... That is why Cardinal Newman wrote: "heaven would be hell to the irreligious."
https://www.thedivinemercy.org/articles/if-god-so-merciful-why-there-hell
But do you believe that there is a Hell?
>This is the God of scripture!
Why do pr*tties act like God is found in scripture and never revealed Himself in the flesh in His Son? Can someone explain this?
How do you know anything about His Son?
Lots of different ways. Primarily the memory of His earthly life which has been passed down through holy tradition. The Bible is just a reference manual
Why does holy tradition have any authority?
Are you asking why I personally believe it has authority or are you asking why it literally does have authority on an ontological level/according to God etc.?
I am asking what the objective epistemological basis for believing it has authority is
What makes you think you wouldn’t ask the exact same question to Christ if you met Him? It’s a grace, to locate God, and to know that you know. You probably feel similarly about the Jesus you have constructed in your own mind using the Bible as a blueprint.
Easiest way to see that the Bible is not the final Word of God (Christ is) is to recall how the Bible itself describes itself and its role in the church: “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work”. Would it be appropriate to describe the Lord Himself in these terms, yes or no?
>It’s a grace
This doesn't mean anything, this isn't an epistemological anything. Still waiting to hear an answer to the question l, and remember you aren't allowed to use the bible because you already denied that
>Would it be appropriate to describe the Lord Himself in these terms, yes or no?
It would be incoherent because the Lord is not information. You still can't know anything about God without His self-revelation in scripture, either
>you aren't allowed to use the bible because you already denied that
Why not, even? The Bible is in the image of the church, it derives from holy tradition and reflects it. You should be able to see the church and holy tradition in the Bible. If you can’t, it’s a major problem. You have some questions to answer yourself
>Why you think the Bible has any authority
>Why you think the books of the Bible are what they are
>If you met Christ in Palestine, how would you know He had authority given that there was no New Testament canon at that time
>It would be incoherent
Not at all, just insert the word “messiah”. “The messiah was profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work”. How is that incoherent?
>Why not, even?
This was answered in what you are replying to
>The Bible is in the image of the church, it derives from holy tradition and reflects it.
Why does holy tradition have authority?
>>Why you think the Bible has any authority
Because the bible is the word of God.
>>Why you think the books of the Bible are what they are
This question is indistinct from the previous one, since "the bible" refers to the books which compose it
>>If you met Christ in Palestine, how would you know He had authority given that there was no New Testament canon at that time
If I lived in the same time and place as Christ, I would have direct access to His deeds and His words. I do not live in the same time and place as Christ, so I do not have access to these except through scripture.
>The messiah was
We don't live in "was", we live in is. I can't go hear Christ preach, if I want to know what Christ said I have to read the bible.
I meant anything specific. Even in the case of general revelation, that is still self-revelation. It is impossible to know anything at all about God apart from His revelation.
>Why does holy tradition have authority?
Because it’s holy and is the continuation of the life of Christ Himself, who is the living Word of God.
>Because the bible is the word of God
Why is that a more valid answer than saying “holy orthodoxy is the Church of God”?
>Because the bible is the word of God
Also, the Bible specifically says that Christ Jesus in the flesh is God’s final word, not the Bible, and reserves that title for Him. (Heb 1:1-2, John 1:14)
>This question is indistinct from the previous one
And it would sure be nice for you to provide an answer for either of them.
>If I lived in the same time and place as Christ, I would have direct access to His deeds and His words
Doesn’t answer the question.
>We don't live in "was", we live in is
Would it be an appropriate way to describe the messiah or the role of the messiah or not? Stop dodging and answer something. You just keep throwing up excuses. “We live in a different time, we don’t have access, wahh.” It’s copes.
>I meant anything specific
So you meant
>You still can't know anything specific about God without His self-revelation in scripture
But that’s not correct either. Why should it be? You need to justify why the life of Christ today is limited to being contained in words on a page. Fact is, it’s not true and you don’t even believe that. The Spirit is more than sufficient to know all truth about God’s persons in specificity
>You still can't know anything about God without His self-revelation in scripture, either
Your own Bible says that’s not true, btw