Calvinism, explained.

[tulipbee]

I haven't heard any boasting. Why would you want to accuse Thursday of that?

You boast on every post

 

[supersoldier71]

Perhaps you personally don't hold to a truly Calvinistic view.

Here's what the Westminster Confession says, and it makes my point for me:

The Westminster Confession of Faith states, "God has predestined and foreordained some men and angels to everlasting life out of His free grace and love without any foresight of faith or works in man or perseverance in either of them, and others are foreordained to everlasting death and the number of either is so certain and definite that it cannot be increased or diminished." (Chap. III, art. 3,4 &5; Chap. X, art. 2)


If this is your dogma, then clearly it is God's fault that a man goes to Hell.

Fault indicates error.

I'm familiar with the Westminster Confession and agree with it, but when someone arrives in hell, it is on God's authority and by His sovereign will, but there is no error.

 

[supersoldier71]

You were chosen to be holy and blameless in His sight. Have you reached that pinnacle? Whose fault is it that you haven't reached it yet? Is God's hand so short that He can't do that? Have you done anything to reach that pinnacle? How will you reach that pinnacle if you do nothing? If you do nothing, you will stay in your sins and be a servant to sin. A servant to sin will never be holy and blameless. So, you were chosen to do something.

We read in Ephesians 4, what we need to do to obtain holiness and blamelessness. Let's not stop at chapter one, thinking this is the total picture.

17 This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind,
18 having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart;
19 who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
20 But you have not so learned Christ,
21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus:
22 that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts,
23 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind,
24 and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.

First, we should no longer walk in the futility of our mind. For this darkens our understanding, and alienates us from the life of God. This also causes blindness of our hearts, and we give ourselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness and greed. Until a man does no longer walks in the futility of his mind, he is alienated from the life of God.

Second, we have not learned Christ to live this way, that is, if you have heard Him and taught by Him.

Third, the truth in Jesus is that we put off the old man, which is our former way of life. The old man grows corrupt by its deceitful lusts.

Fourth, we need to be renewed in the spirit of our minds.

Fifth, we should put on the new man, which was created by God in true righteousness and holiness. These are the things we are predestined to do.

From this we see how a man obtains holiness and blamelessness. Just believing will not bring these things to pass. Man must put off the old man and put on the new man, or he walks in darkness and is ALIENATED FROM THE LIFE OF GOD. I ask, how many people who are alienated from the life of God possess eternal life?

In conclusion, if you do nothing for your salvation (that is, put off the old man), you will stay alienated from the life of God. If you do nothing (that is, put on the new man), you will not reach righteousness and holiness, for which you were predestined. Putting off the old man, and putting on the new man is the God's plan for all of us.



You put off the old man and put on the new man.



I love God by keeping His commandments.

From last to first:
You love God BY keeping His commandments, sure...
You love God BECAUSE He loved you first.

Your middle three points all address sanctification. Correct. It's hard work. And only available after rebirth and salvation, which are the work of the Lord.

The Holy Spirit of God only indwells believers, or how else could we ever hope to please God? By your own efforts? Right. No future in that according to scripture. (Romans 8:8)

Your first point requires the utmost clarity and the most precise language that I can muster:
I am only blameless before the Father because of the work of the Son on my behalf. Because of His perfect and complete work on the cross of Calvary, I have faith, my faith is counted as righteousness (Romans 4:22).

Here is where I must be especially clear: Jesus Christ, Son of God, Second Person of the Trinity took MY place on the cross, and bore the full weight of the Father's wrath for MY sins. He is my personal savior. And because of His work, I am a new creature.

Do I still struggle with the world and the flesh? Yep. Every day!

But each day I work to be more like Him, empowered by the power of the Holy Spirit that only the redeemed children of God--all of US--have been given.

"Reached the pinnacle..." Brother, if I were an unbeliever or even someone that you knew personally who was visibly struggling with some theological question, would your words be as laced with sarcasm and ill-will?

I have attempted as best I can to explain with scriptural evidence every aspect of Reformed theology, and in return, you twist concepts to create straw-men, belittle and accuse, and justify it by saying that you seek the truth.

You don't, friend.

You seek to be "right".

 

[EmSw]

From last to first:
You love God BY keeping His commandments, sure...
You love God BECAUSE He loved you first.

How do you love God? Just by lip service?

Your middle three points all address sanctification. Correct. It's hard work. And only available after rebirth and salvation, which are the work of the Lord.

The Holy Spirit of God only indwells believers, or how else could we ever hope to please God? By your own efforts? Right. No future in that according to scripture. (Romans 8:8)

How do you say after salvation, when no one will see the Lord without holiness? (Hebrews 12:14)

Whose effort do you use? Is someone else casting away your transgressions? Of course it is by your own effort.

Why is sanctification frowned upon as salvation? Paul said you should no longer walk as the Gentiles do. If you walk that way, your understanding is darkened, and you are alienated from the life of God. Your heart is also blind.

Is there salvation if one is alienated from the life of God?

Your first point requires the utmost clarity and the most precise language that I can muster:
I am only blameless before the Father because of the work of the Son on my behalf. Because of His perfect and complete work on the cross of Calvary, I have faith, my faith is counted as righteousness (Romans 4:22).

Here is where I must be especially clear: Jesus Christ, Son of God, Second Person of the Trinity took MY place on the cross, and bore the full weight of the Father's wrath for MY sins. He is my personal savior. And because of His work, I am a new creature.

What do you mean He took your place on the cross? Jesus said to take up your own cross and follow Him. Because of His work, you are now able to be a new creature. The choice is ours. You can either walk as the old man (unsaved), or you can put off the old man, and put on the new man (created in true righteousness and holiness).

Do I still struggle with the world and the flesh? Yep. Every day!

But each day I work to be more like Him, empowered by the power of the Holy Spirit that only the redeemed children of God--all of US--have been given.

"Reached the pinnacle..." Brother, if I were an unbeliever or even someone that you knew personally who was visibly struggling with some theological question, would your words be as laced with sarcasm and ill-will?

Better to present the truth, than a half-truth. If Paul's words are sarcasm and ill-will, then why would not present them? People only want the good things he mentions, but have no use for the harsh, bitter words concerning the old man.

I have attempted as best I can to explain with scriptural evidence every aspect of Reformed theology, and in return, you twist concepts to create straw-men, belittle and accuse, and justify it by saying that you seek the truth.

Sounds like Paul twisted them your theology's words. If you haven't put off the old man, your understanding is darkened, your heart is blinded, and you are separated from the life of God. If you have put off the old man, and also put on the new man, then you are in Christ, and a new creation.

 

[supersoldier71]

How do you love God? Just by lip service?

Answered that and gave the reason WHY we love God.

How do you say after salvation, when no one will see the Lord without holiness? (Hebrews 12:14)

Whose effort do you use? Is someone else casting away your transgressions? Of course it is by your own effort.

Why is sanctification frowned upon as salvation? Paul said you should no longer walk as the Gentiles do. If you walk that way, your understanding is darkened, and you are alienated from the life of God. Your heart is also blind.

Is there salvation if one is alienated from the life of God?

Your example is yet another sermon to believers. He's preaching sanctification.

I use my effort made possible ONLY by the Holy Spirit.

Is there alienation after God has made you a new creature?

What do you mean He took your place on the cross? Jesus said to take up your own cross and follow Him. Because of His work, you are now able to be a new creature. The choice is ours. You can either walk as the old man (unsaved), or you can put off the old man, and put on the new man (created in true righteousness and holiness).

Substitutionary atonement. Or do you not believe that Christ died to pay the penalty for sin?

Better to present the truth, than a half-truth. If Paul's words are sarcasm and ill-will, then why would not present them? People only want the good things he mentions, but have no use for the harsh, bitter words concerning the old man.

Sounds like Paul twisted them your theology's words. If you haven't put off the old man, your understanding is darkened, your heart is blinded, and you are separated from the life of God. If you have put off the old man, and also put on the new man, then you are in Christ, and a new creation.

You clearly cannot be reading anything that I post.

I said YOU are sarcastic and bear ill-will.

Your examples fail. Your logic is NOT logical. Your theology is unsound and boastful.

I do not only accept the "good" things that Paul mentions, speak of the hard work of sanctification while you boast of your works based righteousness, which Paul (and everyone else in both Testaments) condemns!

Every word uttered by every saint, all the prophets and Lord Jesus Himself declare your theology to be a lie.

God bless.

 

[EmSw]

Answered that and gave the reason WHY we love God.

I know why; how do you show you love God?

Your example is yet another sermon to believers. He's preaching sanctification.

I use my effort made possible ONLY by the Holy Spirit.

Is there alienation after God has made you a new creature?

Is anyone alienated if he walks in the old man?

Substitutionary atonement. Or do you not believe that Christ died to pay the penalty for sin?

What is the penalty of sin, and show me where Jesus paid that penalty.

You clearly cannot be reading anything that I post.

I said YOU are sarcastic and bear ill-will.

Your examples fail. Your logic is NOT logical. Your theology is unsound and boastful.

Personal attacks do not substantiate your beliefs. But I understand why you have to attack me personally; you cannot for a second attack the truth of the word. The word is a sword, and as such, will cut to the heart of the matter. Those who suffer cuts are those who are in a corner, and will attack anything close to them. Cut me all you want; it doesn't change the truth which will be the victor in the fight.

I do not only accept the "good" things that Paul mentions, speak of the hard work of sanctification while you boast of your works based righteousness, which Paul (and everyone else in both Testaments) condemns!

Every word uttered by every saint, all the prophets and Lord Jesus Himself declare your theology to be a lie.

God bless.

Where have I boasted?

Ephesians 4
17 This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind,
18 having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart;
19 who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
20 But you have not so learned Christ,
21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus:
22 that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts,
23 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind,
24 and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.


It's a lie to say you can walk in your old man, and still have the life of God. If you have heard Jesus, and have been taught by Him, THAT YOU PUT OFF THE OLD MAN, that is, your former conduct. This is what Jesus teaches. To walk in the old man is to walk in the futility of your mind, having your understanding darkened, having your heart blinded, to give yourself to lewdness, to grow corrupt according to your lusts, and most importantly, separated from the life of God. Is this the salvation of which you speak?

If this is a lie, then it's because your understanding is darkened, having not put off the old man.

 

[supersoldier71]

I know why; how do you show you love God?



Is anyone alienated if he walks in the old man?



What is the penalty of sin, and show me where Jesus paid that penalty.



Personal attacks do not substantiate your beliefs. But I understand why you have to attack me personally; you cannot for a second attack the truth of the word. The word is a sword, and as such, will cut to the heart of the matter. Those who suffer cuts are those who are in a corner, and will attack anything close to them. Cut me all you want; it doesn't change the truth which will be the victor in the fight.



Where have I boasted?

Ephesians 4
17 This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind,
18 having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart;
19 who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
20 But you have not so learned Christ,
21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus:
22 that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts,
23 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind,
24 and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.


It's a lie to say you can walk in your old man, and still have the life of God. If you have heard Jesus, and have been taught by Him, THAT YOU PUT OFF THE OLD MAN, that is, your former conduct. This is what Jesus teaches. To walk in the old man is to walk in the futility of your mind, having your understanding darkened, having your heart blinded, to give yourself to lewdness, to grow corrupt according to your lusts, and most importantly, separated from the life of God. Is this the salvation of which you speak?

If this is a lie, then it's because your understanding is darkened, having not put off the old man.

Not a lie, friend, another straw-man.

No one here has said that we are not changed. How many times have we referenced being born again? Sanctified? Remade in the image of Christ?

You argue against a position that no one here holds.

Which tells me that you are literally out of cogent arguments.

But hold up...you DON'T believe that Christ died for our sins?

See, if you'd led with that, you could've saved us both a lot of time!

Later.

 

[civilwarbuff]

If Messiah did not die for our sins that we may be free then why was he here?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

We could look at it that way, but we do generally think of the afterlife when we speak of "life eternal" I think. to be sure, eternity does not start there (or else it wouldn't be eternal), but I think that's the usual way of thinking of the term.

I'm not so sure. Imperishable seed comes to mind. . .

 

[EmSw]

If Messiah did not die for our sins that we may be free then why was he here?

What is the penalty for sin, where did Jesus pay for that?

 

[EmSw]

Not a lie, friend, another straw-man.

No one here has said that we are not changed. How many times have we referenced being born again? Sanctified? Remade in the image of Christ?

You argue against a position that no one here holds.

Which tells me that you are literally out of cogent arguments.

But hold up...you DON'T believe that Christ died for our sins?

See, if you'd led with that, you could've saved us both a lot of time!

Later.

I asked you what the penalty is for sin, and you didn't answer.

If you'll provide that, then we can go on from there.

 

[civilwarbuff]

What is the penalty for sin, where did Jesus pay for that?

Do you always answer a question with a question? You first....

 

[rakovsky]

"Substitutionary atonement. Or do you not believe that Christ died to pay the penalty for sin?"
What is the penalty of sin, and show me where Jesus paid that penalty.

The possible source of confusion could be that there are different compatible "theories" about salvation.
One of them is substitutionary atonement, like in Isaiah 53.
This is an orthodox (correct) theory. The lamb Christ took on the sins of the multitudes in that chapter.

But there are other theories also correct, like Ransom theory. The believers were being held "hostage" by death. This is in Isaiah 51-52, where God's People are "ransomed", as the chapter says. In Ransom theory, Christ died to pay the "ransom" to let the "captives" go from sin and death. Isaiah says that the captives are ransomed, but not for metals (IIRC). This implies that the ransom was not paid with coins, and is a mystical way of putting it.
Another one is where we put off the old man with his sins and faults and put on the new man, Christ, which is a theory that EmSW mentioned and is stated by Paul in the Epistles.
Another one is "covenant theory"- God makes a "covenant" with his people. The old "covenants"' creation literally meant to "cut" a covenant, whereby an animal was killed and used to seal the agreement. People fulfill their side of the bargain with loyalty and observances and God saves them and fulfills His side. God makes a promise of salvation and fulfills it.
There are lots of images and explanations for salvation in the Bible, some of them more mystical than others.

I think there is even a sense in which death is NOT a punishment, but rather a relief from hardships of the world. I have seen a Reformed on CF.com quote an Orthodox user to that affect and make it look like he doesn't get soteriology. But this is not necessarily true. In Reformed circles there is a larger emphasis on penal theology and penal substutition.
However, Paul says at one point as I remember it that when sin entered the world, so did death. And Paul says in Romans 6: "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus".
So in some sense substitutionary atonement is correct and death is a penalty. But in some other sense, I think that it is not necessarily one by its own nature. When God brought Elijah to heaven or took away Enoch, perhaps this has some similarity to death, a removal from the world and/or taking to heaven? Yet in those cases it SOUNDS like God is actually rewarding people who he loved - God walked with Enoch and took him away. Was he punishing his beloved? i think not! It sounds like God is in another place and not strictly in earth and so being like and with God, this gives part of the explanation.

So this is why in the end I think that there are different correct theories.
But substitutionary atonement is also correct.

 

[rakovsky]

I asked you what the penalty is for sin, and you didn't answer.

If you'll provide that, then we can go on from there.

I quoted Romans. See my post above.

 

[EmSw]

If Messiah did not die for our sins that we may be free then why was he here?

What do you mean by dying for our sins? It has been mentioned He paid the penalty for sins. Is this what you mean?

 

[EmSw]

I quoted Romans. See my post above.

Do you mean the wages of sin is temporal or eternal death?

 

[rakovsky]

Hello, GillDouglas!

Calvin had studied the Greek pagan stoic philosophers in depth and it had a major aura of fatalism. So in a sense to study Calvinism is to see Christianity through a fatalistic lens.

God has a plan.

It would be strange to say in one sentence that God, having infinite wisdom and power, would create all things and have no definite and perfect plan for those things. Even a man, who is subject to all kinds of errors, develops a plan or idea before he acts; and a man who starts a housing project without design or purpose we'd consider foolish. If this is true of men, how much more is it true of God? And since we believe that God is infinite, His plan must extend to every single detail for ALL these things. We cannot conceive of God bringing into existence a universe without a plan which would extend to all that would happen and all things in that universe.

Were I to make a critique:
So far none of this is scripture but one's own theological speculation.
Maybe God in his infinite wisdom wanted to play in a sandbox and didn't have a plan with a detail for each tiny thing?
What sounds strange to one person sounds OK to another.
I am not saying that the above must be wrong, but I am reluctant because I know where Calvin goes with this stuff. it's not like the Bible doesn't give any basis for the ideas, but he brought together a stronger theory than what was stated clearly at length. It's Calvin's interpretation of the Bible and especially of Paul, not Paul's take on Paul and on the Bible.

The Scriptures teach that God's providential [potential] control extends to everything, therefore His [hypothetical all-encompassing] plan too must [in Calvin's view] be equally comprehensive.

Fixed it.

Methodists/Arminians and Calvinists have been debating intensely for the last 400 years, but the Catholics and Orthodox have been putting out theories that are less fatalistic in tone than Calvin's for the last 1900+.

When I was confirmed in PCUSA as a teenager I didn't even realize there was such a major difference between Calvinists on one hand and Lutherans and Arminians on the other on this kind of topic. Maybe it was Calvin's own theory, i thought, but I didn't realize how entrenched Calvinism was in Calvinism, so to speak. My attitude was more like Calvin has his own theories and other people have other theories. Maybe I am exaggerating, but that was my attitude.

God has the best possible plan for this world, and Calvinists hold strongly to the understanding of His ruling power and trust in Him. The Calvinist recognizes that God is God, and He is free from all human limitations. Nothing, however small, occurs without His ordering or design for its place in the working out of His purposes; and the end of all shall be the manifestation of His glory. The sinful acts of men are included in this plan, even the fall itself. These acts are foreseen, permitted and have their exact place in the Divine design. Just look at the crucifixion of Christ for the example, being both a horrible sinful crime and the saving event for His people, it had its exact and necessary place in the plan as told by the prophets.

History in all its details and the smallest actions of men is but the unfolding of the eternal purposes of God. His decrees are not successively formed as the emergency arises, but are all parts of one all-comprehending plan, and we should never think of God suddenly evolving a new plan or changing something in order to react to the will of men.

Here is a big mistake. I get the idea that God pre-destined and fore-knew events.
HOWEVER, this does not FORBID us ("never think") from perceiving God as changing something in reaction to men's will, EVEN IF it's also true that God pre-planned his action.

A great example is the Book of Jonah. God tells Jonah to tell Nineveh that God is going to destroy Nineveh. Jonah goes and tells them that. Was God LYING? Is God a Deceiver?
Nineveh repented and then God did not destroy Nineveh.

I OBJECT to the Calvinist fatalistic, mindlocking idea that "we should never think" that God reacted to man's will.
There needs to be an allowance for competing, compatible ideas. God is not a two dimensional object that we see and know everything about.

God is sovereign.

God is the Creator and Ruler of the universe. He exerts not merely a general influence, but actually rules in the world in which He has created. All things without exception are disposed by Him, and His will is the ultimate account of all that occurs. He permits all that He wills, including the actions of men, so that what He has ordained will come to pass. Individual personalities and second causes are fully recognized, not as independent of God, but as having their proper place in His plan.

What God "wills" include the actions of men? How about their bad actions? Are those God's will?
The problem in making this a foundational dogma is the risk that it is implying God as the author of sin.
Yet we do see the Crucifixion as God's Will in some sense in the Bible. Not thy will but thine, Christ says.
So you are talking about a philosophical issue of will v freedom, that has gone on for maybe 400 years (Arminians) or even thousands of years. There may be an INHERENT paradox here - the THEODICY.

Calvin's pronouncements sound absolutist though, as he repeats them over and over, which is what makes them one sided, even though there is probably a grain of truth in his ideas, ie. that God has will that can include things we don't want and he pre-knows things.

The problem is Calvinism's one sided emphasis that created a void that the Arminians filled.

The tendency is to set aside God's sovereignty in order to make room for the autocracy of the human will.

Because there is a sense in which that tendency is correct.
Did Jesus not have a choice as a human to deny or accept Satan's offer? he had a choice, but being God, he WOULD DEFINITELY only choose to reject Satan.
But Jesus' choice still had to be considered a real one for Jesus to be considered human.

Maybe I will come back to this, but it's enough of this for now. it's too bad how locked people get into a locked mentality and philosophy of being locked!

 

[rakovsky]

Do you mean the wages of sin is temporal or eternal death?

Am I allowed to use sacred Tradition, or are we going Bible-only today?

Can I dial a Pope or are we flying SOLO scriptura?

 

[civilwarbuff]

What do you mean by dying for our sins? It has been mentioned He paid the penalty for sins. Is this what you mean?

Did he die? Was it for our sins? These aren't tough questions; please don't respond with a question just an answer.....then I will answer yours.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Do you mean the wages of sin is temporal or eternal death?

Never an answer, only another question....must be how you were taught to respond when your beliefs are challenged......