How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[BNR32FAN]

Are you saying that John 6:39, John 10:28; Ephesians 1:14; 2 Corinthians 1:22, 2 Corinthians 5:5 were added in the 16th century?

Surely not. . .they have been in the Scriptures from the beginning.

The only criteria is what is in the Scriptures, which this is.

John 10:28 is contingent upon verse 27. His sheep hear His voice and follow present tense. Are we saved because we believed in Christ at one time? Are we saved because we followed Him at one time? Or do we have to abide in Him in order to be saved?

 

[BNR32FAN]

"So that you may be saved" sounds conditional.

Is that a yes or a no?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Are you saying that John 6:39, John 10:28; Ephesians 1:14; 2 Corinthians 1:22, 2 Corinthians 5:5 were added in the 16th century?

Surely not. . .they have been in the Scriptures from the beginning.

The only criteria is what is in the Scriptures, which this is.

Ephesians 1:14 Amen the Holy Spirit is given as a pledge of our inheritance. Does that mean that we don’t have to continue to meet the requirements of the covenant? Does that mean our inheritance is guaranteed?

“But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. (Why) For/because this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭5‬:‭3‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Who is “you” in this verse? Answer, the saints in Ephesus who are faithful to Christ who have been sealed with the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption.

So immorality must not be named among the saints in Ephesus who are faithful to Christ and who have been sealed with the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption BECAUSE no immoral or impure person has an inheritance in the kingdom of God.

So it would seem that the pledge has conditions that must be met as expected while engaged in a covenant. So that pretty much wraps up 2 Corinthians 1:22 and 5:5 as well.

 

[Clare73]

No I’m saying you don’t understand them correctly.

Are you sure about that?

John 6:39 doesn’t say that a person can’t lose their salvation.
It is the will/desire
of The Father that Jesus should lose none. It doesn’t say that Jesus will lose none.

It says it is the will (thelema), not desire (thelo), of the Father.

We disagree about whether what God wills is done. . .his arm is not too short.

It is the will/desire that all men be saved and come to the full knowledge of truth. 1 Timothy 2:3-4. Is that passage saying that all men will be saved and come to the full knowledge of truth?

That takes us to Deuteronomy 29:29, and its example in the case of Pharaoh.

 

[Clare73]

Is that a yes or a no?

Have you stopped beating animals?

Yes or no?

Jesus was trying to save them as much as he was trying to save anyone to whom he offered salvation by faith in him.

 

[Clare73]

Ephesians 1:14 Amen the Holy Spirit is given as a pledge of our inheritance.

"Pledge" is not in the NT.
"Earnest" (arrabon) is in the NT -- as in "earnest money" deposited by the purchaser as a guarantee of the completion of the purchase (on the cross--1 Corinthians 6:20, 1 Corinthians 7:23; Matthew 20:28; Acts 20:18).

Does that mean that we don’t have to continue to meet the requirements of the covenant?

What does the NT say?

Does that mean our inheritance is guaranteed?

Yep. . .that's what earnest money is--a guarantee.

“But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. (Why) For/because this you know with certainty, that
no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭5‬:‭3‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

And there is the answer to your question above. . .at least half of the answer.

The other half is in Philippians 2:13--"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do,"
for the sake of Ephesians 1:5--where he "predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will."

Who is “you” in this verse? Answer, the saints in Ephesus who are faithful to Christ who have been sealed with the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption.
So immorality must not be named among the saints in Ephesus who are faithful to Christ and who have been sealed with the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption BECAUSE no immoral or impure person has an inheritance in the kingdom of God.
So it would seem that the pledge has conditions that must be met as expected

And. . .with those conditions comes the operation of God working in us both to will and to do those conditions (Philippians 2:13).

So our inheritance is guaranteed by the earnest money (deposit, down payment) of the indwelling Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:14; 1 Corinthians 1:22, 2 Corinthians 5:5) and God's working obedience in us.

engaged in a covenant. So
that pretty much wraps up 2 Corinthians 1:22 and 5:5 as well.

Indeed it does. . .in establishing them.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So you’re basically saying a Christian can fall away and lose salvation?

I guess that would depend on the definition of "Christian".

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes the foreknowledge is causative, what He foresaw caused His predetermined choice. His predetermined choice was the effect of what He foresaw in the future.

Ha! Nice twist of what was said! No, his foreknowledge causes, just as his choice causes. He did not choose by looking into the seeing glass to find out what was going to happen. In the simplest form that I think is humanly understandable, he knew because he caused.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The only thing that keeps God’s hands free of causing sin is free will

Yes, he caused that sin be. The only thing keeping him from being so small that the supposed mere chance decisions of 'free will' outranks his ability to predestine all things is that it is as false as the day is long. 'Free will', as you outline it, is self-contradictory in the end.

If we are all predestined by God to do what He has determined then He is just as guilty for the good as the bad.

Really bad logic. You think him to operate in our economy of existence. Don't you even have some idea how he is not like us? It is not a matter of degree, but of WHO he is as God.

But I see our conversation already descending as it has done so often before. I'm thinking we'd better stop. God bless you, brother.

 

[John Caldwell]

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.

This ^^^

 

[Clare73]

Calvin was educated in law and heavily influenced by the Renaissance humanism movement. He understood the atonement within this context (it is natural, perhaps necessary, for men to understand things within the context they find themselves).

Would that not be irrelevant, the only thing mattering is what he actually teaches and its correspondence to the NT?

 

[Brother-Mike]

This ^^^

Remind me again… what does “This ^^^” mean?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Don't we all pray like Calvinists, looking to God for everything?

Hahaha in my missionary 'family' of many families, there was one 'prayer warrior' lady who was known for, and even jokes were made about, her propensity to advise God about the worth of this person or that, or how something or other needed to happen in order to improve or salvage a person or a situation. "Now, Lord, you know that he is not doing this for your sake...and that if good is to come of it, he needs to change his ways...", or, "Now Lord, you know that he means well, and that he is the right person for the job, so if you will just get that bad influence away from him..." or whatever, was her kind of prayer.

 

[Clare73]

Hahaha in my missionary 'family' of many families, there was one 'prayer warrior' lady who was known for, and even jokes were made about, her propensity to advise God about the worth of this person or that, or how something or other needed to happen in order to improve or salvage a person or a situation. "Now, Lord, you know that he is not doing this for your sake...and that if good is to come of it, he needs to change his ways...", or, "Now Lord, you know that he means well, and that he is the right person for the job, so if you will just get that bad influence away from him..." or whatever, was her kind of prayer.

My "limited exposure" has betrayed me.

 

[Mark Quayle]

"Choosing for a purpose" and "choosing according to his purpose" being the same thing?

Can be, though I tend to think of the choosing to be also, "choosing as purposed", in the sense of choosing according to what he demonstrates in the purpose. Either way, I can't find anything to support the skinny notion that foreknowledge means only seeing into the future, drawn from just the one word, out of context, even out of common use, and applied to God as though he was like us —a victim of circumstances beyond his control, or even worse, like we suppose ourselves to be, subject to mere chance.

 

[John Caldwell]

Would that not be irrelevant, the only thing mattering is what he actually teaches and its correspondence to the NT?

No, it's not irrelevant because while Calvin's view of Atonement is not in Scripture it explains why he understood the Bible in a specific way.

 

[John Caldwell]

Remind me again… what does “This ^^^” mean?

It means I find the quote above it spot on.

Or I'd like a drive in the mountains.

 

[Clare73]

No, it's not irrelevant because while Calvin's view of Atonement is not in Scripture it explains why he understood the Bible in a specific way.

Which is still irrelevant, when the only thing that matters is its agreement with Scripture.
It is either in agreement, or it is not in agreement, no matter the what nor the why.

And actually it is in Scripture, in the OT types, patterns of atonement, which were substitutionary and penal.

Substitutionary--the animal died in the sinner's place.
Penal--the sacrifices were penalties (Leviticus 5:6-7, 14, 6:6, 26:41, 43).

Which is why the OT types, patterns are so important. They aren't just doctrine, they are pictures, like parables, which secure correct understanding of the doctrine they pre-figure.

You won't be separating me from the types, patterns for correcting understanding of the doctrines.

 

[John Caldwell]

Actually it is in Scripture, in the OT types, patterns of atonement.,which were substitutional and penal.

Which is why the OT types, patterns are so important. They aren't just doctrine, they are pictures, like parables, which secure correct understanding of them.

No, it isn't in Scripture. Calvinists serive it from Scripture. They do see patterns and types, and from them they draw conclusions.

Other groups see tge exact same patterns and types but draw entirely different conclusions.

One way of knowing if something is in Scripture is simply picking up a highlighter and trying to highlight what you think may be there. If you can't, then what you see is something you believe Scripture teaches or means.

Those "teachings" may be correct, or they may be wrong. But they are not in Scripture even if correct.

 

[Clare73]

No, it isn't in Scripture. Calvinists serive it from Scripture. They do see patterns and types, and from them they draw conclusions.
Other groups see the exact same (redundant) patterns and types but
draw entirely different conclusions.

Perhaps you could illustrate some of the entirely different conclusions drawn from
the patterns:
the animal died in the sinner's place--as a substitution.
the sacrifices were penalties (Leviticus 5:6-7, 14, 6:6, 26:41, 43)--penal.

One way of knowing if something is in Scripture is simply picking up a highlighter and trying to highlight what you think may be there. If you can't, then what you see is something you believe Scripture teaches or means.

Those "teachings" may be correct, or they may be wrong. But
they are not in Scripture even if correct.

Who made that rule?

.