How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[BNR32FAN]

Aha! You've (correctly I believe) arrived at what I think is the nucleogenesis of theodicy: did Eve freely eat the fruit? John Piper's answer was something like "As a Christian, and given a plain, honest reading of scripture, you need to have a category in your mind that allows for everything to be under God's Plan AND SIMULTANEOUSLY creaturely freedom being granted to and held responsible against mankind".

Zoom out to where you can see the entire meta-narrative of God's Plan - Creation, The Fall, a chosen people and their struggles against redemption, a New Plan of Christ's unfailing redemption, final judgement and unification with God in the New Earth. Each part of this story was essential. The Lamb's incarnation and sacrifice was essential. We were meant all along to go through all of this, to be brothers and sisters to Jesus in the New Earth having suffered, struggled, loved, lost, all to the increased glory of our coming union.

You asked about Judas. I'll let Peter and John answer, from Acts 4:23-28:

23 When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, 25 who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit,

“ ‘Why did the Gentiles rage,
and the peoples plot in vain?
26 The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers were gathered together,
against the Lord and against his Anointed’—

27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

I don't know how to make sense of this without Piper's two-categories. Do you?

Yes I have an answer for this from Romans 9. Your point is very compelling no doubt brother. And reading Romans 9:14-21 seems to support this interpretation as well. Until you get to verse 22.

“What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭9‬:‭14‬-‭24‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Why did God endure with much patience the vessels of wrath? Here is my answer.

“Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭2‬:‭4‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭3‬:‭7‬-‭9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

God uses the wicked to set examples and to show His might & glory to those of us who humble ourselves to Him and repent. But His kindness and patience towards the wicked and unrepentant is to give them time to repent so that when they stand before Him on Judgement Day they will have no excuse and be rightly deserving of His wrath and justice upon them. Just like in Acts 4:28 all those people whom God chose to use this way were set against Christ. We know that Pontiff Pilate and Herod were unrepentant and most of the Gentiles and a lot of the Israelites. I suspect that every person He chose to use in this plan were unrepentant and wicked. I don’t recall God using His humble servants in this way. I would say that this was another example just like what He did with Pharaoh to show His glory to His followers, perhaps even to the unrepentant in order to bring them to repentance.

 

[BNR32FAN]

How do you understand Exodus 7:3 then? i.e. God hardening Pharaoh’s heart.

My own vote’s on divine intervention always, in everything, subatomic. It doesn’t at all impede your “creaturely freedom” to grieve it if you so “choose”.

God didn’t harden Pharaoh’s heart every time. I believe He did harden Pharaoh’s heart the first time but then Pharaoh hardened his own heart afterwards. Several times if I’m not mistaken. I apologize it’s 9:30pm so I just saw your post right as I was getting ready for bed so I don’t have time to look it up. Feel free to correct me if I’m mistaken but I believe it was Pharaoh that hardened his heart more times than God did. I also discussed this in the previous post to brother Mike. Post 141. That gives some explanation.

 

[fhansen]

The problem with that is divine "foreknowledge" in the Bible is never used of God knowing in advance what man will do, it is always of God knowing what he will do because before the foundations of the world, he decreed that he shall do it.

Acts 15:18 - "Known to the Lord for ages (foreknowledge) is his work."

Isaiah 48:3 - "I foretold (forekowledge) the former things of long ago,
my mouth announced (decreed) them, and I made them known;
then suddenly I acted, (foreknowledge executed), and they came to pass.

God executed in their present the purpose and choice he made before the foundations of the world; i.e.,
God executed/accomplished (acted according to)
his foreknowledge (his previous purpose and choice). . .as in Jacob (Romans 9:11-12).

It appears in Exodus 4:21 for the first time, before Moses had even left Midian to go to Pharaoh.

And God doesn't have to harden our unregenerate hearts, they are already hardened, we were born with hardened hearts, by nature (with which we were born) objects of wrath (Ephesians 2:3).
All he has to do is not soften them, just leave us to ourselves, which is what he did with Pharaoh, and Pharaoh's own self-will resisted God's will, hardening his heart further himself. God didn't have to do a thing, but to not soften it, which is why the text repeatedly states that Pharaoh hardened his own heart.

Well, according to the bible God hardens men’s hearts-and men harden their own hearts-as if they could do otherwise-as if choice was involved.

Anyway, so much for sola scriptura, the doctrine that allows man-and woman-to come up with all kinds of personal, novel opinions, based on an isolated passage or two, many of which were never intended to be a fully worked out and clarified theological treatise on a given matter. That would come later and the church has done so, to the extent possible.

Anyway, predestination is a secondary issue as long as a person understands that the will of man is necessarily involved in his salvation regardless-because otherwise the gospel would be subverted. And the concept impacts no one directly anyway since none can know with 100% certainty that they’re a member of the elect, that they, personally, will persevere, etc.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

I didn't say you were wrong in your statement, (MMXX said): ↑
"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 that very post you had been talking about doctrines based on scripture, and so what I said was that that statement was not one of them.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

There it is, just as I was saying. In its barest meaning, it is logically arrived at very simply. God made all things, knowing the ends thereof. Therefore, what he made for Heaven necessarily excludes all other things.

But no, you have to say, he chose one group "in the same way" he chose the other. You imply that his whole reason for one group was salvation and all it entails, but then also that his whole reason for another group was perdition and all it entails. Truth is, that is not so. He made them for his uses, which includes what Romans 9 says outright, for demonstrating to those he has chosen, his justice, mercy and glory. THIS is his primary reason for making them.

But that is why I shrink back from saying I believe in double-predestination: Because those who oppose the notion that God causes all things will use the term falsely.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well, according to the bible God hardens men’s hearts-and men harden their own hearts-as if they could do otherwise-as if choice was involved.

There it is again: 'Choice' does not imply more than one thing is possible. It only implies a choice is made between two or more things one considers possible. But they will only choose according to their inclinations, EVERY time. Only one thing is ever chosen, and at that, for the unregenerate, is always against God.

 

[ozso]

I didn't say you were wrong in your statement, (MMXX said): ↑
"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 that very post you had been talking about doctrines based on scripture, and so what I said was that that statement was not one of them.

And I pointed out that while there's not a verse in the Bible which says that, it's historically true nonetheless.

Also you said "In fact, in some places Scripture seems to say almost the opposite". So I'd be interested in seeing such scripture.

 

[ozso]

There it is, just as I was saying. In its barest meaning, it is logically arrived at very simply. God made all things, knowing the ends thereof. Therefore, what he made for Heaven necessarily excludes all other things.

But no, you have to say, he chose one group "in the same way" he chose the other. You imply that his whole reason for one group was salvation and all it entails, but then also that his whole reason for another group was perdition and all it entails. Truth is, that is not so. He made them for his uses, which includes what Romans 9 says outright, for demonstrating to those he has chosen, his justice, mercy and glory. THIS is his primary reason for making them.

But that is why I shrink back from saying I believe in double-predestination: Because those who oppose the notion that God causes all things will use the term falsely.

I don't recall saying any of that. I simply lean more towards God created man with free will to choose or reject the Gospel. Rather than he created only a few who would have no choice but to except the gospel, and created the vast majority to have no choice but to reject the gospel.

 

[Mark Quayle]

MMXX said: ↑
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.

What do you mean?

I mean that you, too, do the same thing. Like all of us, you think you draw what you believe from Scripture.

 

[fhansen]

There it is again: 'Choice' does not imply more than one thing is possible. It only implies a choice is made between two or more things one considers possible. But they will only choose according to their inclinations, EVERY time. Only one thing is ever chosen, and at that, for the unregenerate, is always against God.

Sure, and the regenerate always choose for God, and never for sin, right? It’s not that neat and clean. The unregenerate are not so dead as to have nothing to work with, nothing to draw, nothing to appeal to even as there’s nothing in themselves that can move and turn them to God. And even as they respond and enter God’s family they are not so fully changed as to now always choose rightly. It’s a journey, a process.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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).

It isn't really surprising, though. Most of Christendom is Calvinistic in some ways and maybe all of Protestantism is, including Arminianism, though not in all their tenets.

Apparently while you were once a Calvinist, you didn't notice that, while they fellowship gladly with one-another for recognized joy in the beliefs they hold in common, they are, some of them, easily at each other's throats for details they consider heretical.

 

[Brother-Mike]

It isn't really surprising, though. Most of Christendom is Calvinistic in some ways and maybe all of Protestantism is, including Arminianism, though not in all their tenets.

Apparently while you were once a Calvinist, you didn't notice that, while they fellowship gladly with one-another for recognized joy in the beliefs they hold in common, they are, some of them, easily at each other's throats for details they consider heretical.

Frankly, when non-Calvinists aren’t arguing about Calvinism I tend to agree with them 90% of the time. When they argue that drops to 50%

 

[Mark Quayle]

And I pointed out that while there's not a verse in the Bible which says that, it's historically true nonetheless.

Also you said "In fact, in some places Scripture seems to say almost the opposite". So I'd be interested in seeing such scripture.

Here's one, right off the top of my mind. Ephesians 3: "4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets."

 

[Mark Quayle]

Frankly, when non-Calvinists aren’t arguing about Calvinism I tend to agree with them 90% of the time. When they argue that drops to 50%

Agreed. And that increases when they are praying. Sometimes they sound positively Calvinistic, at recognizing that God causes all things, and that whatsoever comes to pass is up to him.

 

[ozso]

I mean that you, too, do the same thing. Like all of us, you think you draw what you believe from Scripture.

Of course. But then it depends on how what I believe stands up to scrutiny. For instance, lets say someone believes scripture says a certain thing, but the majority of Christianity disagrees with it both currently and historically. In that case we're left with two conclusions. Either that person has special enlightenment and everyone else is and has been blind. Or that person is in error. I feel confident in saying that usually the latter conclusion is correct.

 

[ozso]

Frankly, when non-Calvinists aren’t arguing about Calvinism I tend to agree with them 90% of the time. When they argue that drops to 50%

I think most of the time most of those arguing a particular point of doctrine, agree with each other regarding most everything else.

 

[ozso]

Agreed. And that increases when they are praying. Sometimes they sound positively Calvinistic, at recognizing that God causes all things, and that whatsoever comes to pass is up to him.

When it come to Calvinism there's the particular sticky point regarding free will, which sets it apart and makes it controversial. You and I are probably mostly in agreement overall.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The problem with that is divine "foreknowledge" in the Bible is never used of God knowing in advance what man will do, it is always of God knowing what he will do because before the foundations of the world, he decreed that he shall do it.

Acts 15:18 - "Known to the Lord for ages (foreknowledge) is his work."

Isaiah 48:3 - "I foretold (forekowledge) the former things of long ago,
my mouth announced (decreed) them, and I made them known;
then suddenly I acted, (foreknowledge executed), and they came to pass.

God executed in their present the purpose and choice he made before the foundations of the world; i.e.,
God executed/accomplished (acted according to)
his foreknowledge (his previous purpose and choice). . .as in Jacob (Romans 9:11-12).

It appears in Exodus 4:21 for the first time, before Moses had even left Midian to go to Pharaoh.

And God doesn't have to harden our unregenerate hearts, they are already hardened, we were born with hardened hearts, by nature (with which we were born) objects of wrath (Ephesians 2:3).
All he has to do is not soften them, just leave us to ourselves, which is what he did with Pharaoh, and Pharaoh's own self-will resisted God's will, hardening his heart further himself. God didn't have to do a thing, but to not soften it, which is why the text repeatedly states that Pharaoh hardened his own heart.

I don’t think this is correct because the scriptures say “He chose us according to His foreknowledge” and “for those whom He foreknew He predestined”. Predestined means to choose beforehand so he chose us beforehand according to His choosing us beforehand? That doesn’t make sense. Predestined and foreknowledge are two different things. Your saying they are the same thing but they’re not. The Greek word that is used is prognosis. I’m sure we all know what gnosis means. It means knowledge. Prognosis means forecast or prediction.

 

[Blaise N]

John 10:28 says no can can snatch them from My hand. It doesn’t say they can’t be cast away or they can’t walk away or fall away. John 15:2, John 15:6, 2 Timothy 2:12, and Galatians 5:4 make this very clear. If I’m holding a rabbit in my hand and I say no one can snatch this rabbit from my hand that doesn’t mean that I can’t throw the rabbit away or that the rabbit can’t jump from my hand. The word “snatch” only refers to a third party’s attempt to take the rabbit from my hand it does not refer to me not being able to throw the rabbit or the rabbit not being able to jump from my hand.

No no no.What the Lord means is that People who Claim to be Christian’s and don’t produce the fruits of the spirit indicating true rebirth of the spirit are cast away.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No no no.What the Lord means is that People who Claim to be Christian’s and don’t produce the fruits of the spirit indicating true rebirth of the spirit are cast away.

That would mean that they weren’t actually in Christ. False professors aren’t actually in Christ. Jesus said “every branch in Me”.