How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[ozso]

This is a good point. We are talking about a doctrine that could not exist apart from philosophical and theological developments over the course of over a thousand years.

I do not have an issue with predestination and "double predestination" as all things being predestined is necessary if God is omniscient (if God is all knowing, to include a foreknowledge of future contingencies). Everything must be ordained if God, being omniscient, is the Creator (God created knowing what would unfold).

That seems logical to me. But that is not quite Calvinism (a position I abandoned years ago).

I'm going to have to look up what "double predestination" means, and I've been a Christian my whole life.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Her use and meaning, her reasoning, is not carnal. I don't think you realize @Clare73 agrees with you. Her only objection was to the nature of, or maybe the validity of, your parallel or allegory. She has no objection to anything you say here, other than the assumption behind it, that she opposes you. She does not oppose you.

But for the casual reader here, and for those quick to find fault with Calvinism/Reformed, let this be a lesson to you that Calvinists and Reformed do not support Calvinism nor Reformed merely because they are Calvinists or Reformed! I have yet to hear Clare claim to even be one of them, yet she is more staunch in her defense of the doctrines they espouse than many who do claim it. Her reasoning is both Biblical and logical, not "Reformed" or "Calvinist". The fact that the things she posts are so often taken as defense of Calvinism or Reformed theology should open one's eyes to the validity of Calvinism/Reformed theology.

Her argument goes to the simple-enough logic of the fact, that if God predestined anything, or part of it, logically he predestined it all. I myself have a problem supporting the TERM of "double predestination" because too many people take it to imply that God's purpose was simply to condemn most. Romans 9 puts the lie to both (1 the notion that God's primary purpose for their creation/existence was condemnation, and to (2 the notion that God did not predestine them to perdition. It also rejects completely the lie that God decides such things capriciously. As you, ICONO'CLAST, well know, Calvinism teaches no such thing as capriciousness in God's decree. In many of her posts, Clare will present one side of an argument, such as the fact that those whom God rejects, rejected God, without at all denying, as shown in other posts, or even later in the same post, that God predestined them to perdition, and that, not because he based it on their future decision. She is no Arminian.

I know what Clare has posted.
I Know where she stands.
I agree often,not here however.
Was the door on the ark open until the day God closed it?
Does the free offer of the gospel take place?
Is the goodness of God meant to lead men to repentance?
In Acts 18 God declares He has "much people" in that city. Not all.
Those foreknown are being conformed to the image of the Son.
The others are left.
Preterition,look that up.

It does not say anything about them in the text

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Sorry but this is such a silly way of reasoning. First you bring it down to such a low natural way of how could most families even adopt 200....how would they take care of them. I think that's the feeling you're seek to create. You're talking about God who created billions of galaxies with trillions of stars and each and you're talking about 200 kids like a problem.

It is a simple illustration, not meant to be an all inclusive explanation.We have scripture for that, which it looks as if you reject it.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

The longer it takes a theology to come into existence and the less accepted it is, the more likely it is that it's man-made.

The doctrines existed as they were taught by Jesus and the apostles.
That men suppress the truth as Romans one teaches does not change it.

 

[ozso]

The doctrines existed as they were taught by Jesus and the apostles.
That men suppress the truth as Romans one teachk, does not change it.

I've heard words to that effect regarding several different doctrines. They're all said to be "the Word of God", "what God said", "what Jesus taught", "what the apostles taught", usually specifically "what Paul taught" and "what James taught". It's a one size fits all apologetic.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

I've heard words to that effect regarding several different doctrines. They're all said to be "the Word of God", "what God said", "what Jesus taught", "what the apostles taught", usually specifically "what Paul taught" and "what James taught". It's a one size fits all apologetic.

It is not given to everyone to welcome truth.mt13:11-17.
The truth does not change at all.
Not everyone can see it.

 

[ozso]

It is not given to everyone to welcome truth.mt13:11-17.
The truth does not change at all.
Not everyone can see it.

Jesus isn't talking about Calvinism, or Pentecostalism, or Catholicism, or Mormonism in Matthew 13:11-17. But any one of them can claim that passage pertains to them.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Jesus isn't talking about Calvinism, or Pentecostalism, or Catholicism, or Mormonism in Matthew 13:11-17. But any one of them can claim that passage pertains to them.

He was speaking of Divine truth.
It does not matter which variety of truth suppressor a person adheres to.
Truth is God given, by the Spirit.
An inability to welcome Divine truth is an indication of an unsaved person.
Such people will claim and substitute philosophy for the truth of scripture.
I have seen a couple of such people on messageboards who willbear false witness against someone by fabricating posts saying someone posted a belief that they would never hold to.This is a lie. A 9th commandment violation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The longer it takes a theology to come into existence and the less accepted it is, the more likely it is that it's man-made.

doctrines, even patently false ones, are based on scripture and have lots of proof-texts. What's relevant is how much indoctrination is needed to get someone to accept that doctrine. And how many Christians reject it outright.

I learned it without being indoctrinated into it. And as I said, all Scripture supports it.

But regardless, what Scripture does not say is what you say here: "The longer it takes a theology to come into existence and the less accepted it is, the more likely it is that it's man-made." In fact, in some places Scripture seems to say almost the opposite.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Jesus isn't talking about Calvinism, or Pentecostalism, or Catholicism, or Mormonism in Matthew 13:11-17. But any one of them can claim that passage pertains to them.

Calvinism begins with Genesis 1. Older than Catholicism.

 

[ozso]

Calvinism begins with Genesis 1. Older than Catholicism.

Come on now. Calvinism applies Gen 1 to Calvinism. If it were actually older than Catholicism, it would be named after someone from the early 1st century.

 

[ozso]

I learned it without being indoctrinated into it. And as I said, all Scripture supports it.

But regardless, what Scripture does not say is what you say here: "The longer it takes a theology to come into existence and the less accepted it is, the more likely it is that it's man-made." In fact, in some places Scripture seems to say almost the opposite.

History tells me that most if not all false doctrines followed today started hundreds of years after the first churches were established by the apostles. That does not in itself mean Calvinism is false. But it is in the camp of latter day doctrines nonetheless.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I know what Clare has posted.
I Know where she stands.
I agree often,not here however.
Was the door on the ark open until the day God closed it?
Does the free offer of the gospel take place?
Is the goodness of God meant to lead men to repentance?
In Acts 18 God declares He has "much people" in that city. Not all.
Those foreknown are being conformed to the image of the Son.
The others are left.
Preterition,look that up.

It does not say anything about them in the text

Brother, I think she and you and I all agree on this, unless by this you mean that God has not decreed from the foundation of the world who will, and who will not, be saved.

I know what preterition is. But if you think it is left up to chance who will be ultimately condemned, then your reasoning is of the same sort as that of an Arminian.

Just as the fact (which I think you agree with) that the elect choose God does not mean that God has not chosen them, so the fact that the non-elect choose against God does not mean that God has not chosen them for that end. I do not say that God chooses them for that end alone. But the structure of all things is by decree of God. No fact escapes his causation. With this Clare agrees, whether she says so in all posts or not. I have myself dealt with this with her before, and she does not shrink back from declaring that God causes absolutely all things to take place, unsavory as that is to some believers. But she also does not shrink back from saying that people condemn themselves by unbelief and by sin.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Come on now. Calvinism applies Gen 1 to Calvinism. If it were actually older than Catholicism, it would be named after someone from the early 1st century.

That last sentence is some really lousy logic. The tenets of Calvinism are written as they are in reaction to bad theology, and/or in doxology to God and our Lord Jesus Christ just as the Scriptures proclaim him to be. It is not new.

It continues to astound me that anyone would think that anything can happen apart from God's decree.

 

[Clare73]

You're probably in the minority.

Christianity is in the minority, so?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I've heard words to that effect regarding several different doctrines. They're all said to be "the Word of God", "what God said", "what Jesus taught", "what the apostles taught", usually specifically "what Paul taught" and "what James taught". It's a one size fits all apologetic.

Which even you hold to.

 

[ozso]

Which even you hold to.

What do you mean?

 

[John Caldwell]

Calvinism, and Reformed Theology, are not (contrary to the notions of some attendees) self-supporting, but Doctrine supporting. That is, they are based on Scripture, and not on Calvin nor Luther nor anyone else, but God and his Word. This is not a club-come-lately like Dispensationalism. Every book in the Bible assumes or teaches the same things Calvinism and Reformed Theology teach. And if anyone can show that they teach extraneous things, then the Reformed want Scripture, not Reformed Theology.

I do not believe Calvinism to be self supporting either. It is based on interpreted Scripture. I believe the worldview applied affected the interpretation.

I was a Calvinist for years. It influenced my preaching and teaching. I know it is the context under which many understand Scripture. And it fits very well into our culture. I have many Calvinist friends...some professors, some pastors... and I trust their council. Most of the books I read are from Reformed or Calvinist writers (Tim Keller, John Piper, John MacArthur to name a few).

I say that to simply say I have no problem with Calvinism. I do think it is incorrect, but like everybody here I think a lot of views within Christianity are incorrect.

It is interesting that dispensationalism originated as Calvinistic doctrine. While I'm not a dispensationslist, I never quite understood why the strongest opposition against dispensationalists comes from the Reformed (from the group that came up with the doctrine).

 

[John Caldwell]

I'm going to have to look up what "double predestination" means, and I've been a Christian my whole life.

It's predestination....just two of 'em .

(It's God chose a group to save and in the same way He chose a group to damn).

 

[ozso]

It's predestination....just two of 'em .

(It's God chose a group to save and in the same way He chose a group to damn).

Ah so.