How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[John Caldwell]

And in accounting it means payment/cancellation of a debt.

Ever take accounting?

Unfortunately, yes.

It does not mean payment.

In accounting forgiveness is the cancelation of a debt with no payment is received.

But this is applying the word(which has a meaning of its own) to accounting.

Calvinism does not believe in forgiveness (Calvinism holds a payment must be recieved, even if not by the guilty party).

 

[John Caldwell]

Understanding the import of words in the context of all Scripture is exegesis in good hermeneutics.

I agree. That is my point.

An example of what you are doing is reading "car" but saying it means "airplane" because you want it to fly.

This is shown with your interpretation of περί to mean μᾶλλον. It simply doesn't (they ate different words). But you play with the English to try to justify altering the passage. That is wrong.

Where does forgiveness mean payment? It doesn't.
Where does περί (for) mean μᾶλλον (instead of)? It doesn't.

This is what I mean about our differences in dealing with Scripture. I believe Scripture means what is written. You do not. I believe Scripture makes sence as written. You disagree.

 

[John Caldwell]

"For" is also "on the behalf of," as "to pray for" you is "to pray on behalf of" you,
as Christ died "for (on behalf of) me"; i.e., "instead of me."

Enough already with the demonstratedly (post #351) artificial construct. . .

I'm done here.

Yes, "on behalf of" or "because of".

You say that you study Paul. Why would Paul use περί if he really meant μᾶλλον?

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Amen Peter gave the same message in 2 Peter 3:9

“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 ‭3‬:‭9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

You misunderstand yet another verse.every person Peter speaks of is going to be saved.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I didn’t twist what you said. You said His foreknowledge is causative. That would mean that His foreknowledge was the cause and the predestination is the effect. Now your changing that. Now your saying the predestination was the cause and His foreknowledge was the cause which doesn’t line up with what the scriptures say. He predestined us according to (as a result of) His foreknowledge. Predestination was an effect of His foreknowledge.

To put it awkwardly, his foreknowledge is of a causative definition. His predestination and his foreknowledge are two aspects of the same thing. He does NOT look into the future to find out what to predestine. He CAUSES the future to come to pass just as he predestined (with respect to time) to happen.

Both logically and Biblically, the future does not happen by accident.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, "on behalf of" or "because of".

You say that you study Paul. Why would Paul use περί if he really meant μᾶλλον?

Perhaps because one is a preposition and the other is an adverb. And, no doubt, because Paul knew Greek better than you do —why do you suppose he should use μᾶλλον to say "on behalf of", as the context bears out concerning the use of the preposition περί, which means all sorts of things, including "concerning", or "as to", etc etc.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It’s your logic not mine. You specifically stated that God causes all things to happen and whatever happened happened by His causation. So when I apply that same logic to things that happen all the sudden you backpedal.

Ha! Like I said in another post, nice twist. No, my logic, even as you state it, does not work out to what you claim me to have said nor to have even implied: BNR32FAN said: ↑
The only thing that keeps God’s hands free of causing sin is free will

To which I responded: 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.

You want to make it sound like I am saying that God sins, or at least that I am saying that he is to blame for the existence of sin. —Not even close. God does indeed cause that sin be, and we by our own choice quite willingly play right into it, according to our inclinations.

Let me try this again, for the ease of human conception of ideas. His distance from sin is kind of like as if God wrote a play, and we are the players. That is, of course, not a consistent allegory, but I hope you get the idea as to his distance from sin. He has decreed what we do, and we do it, by obedience and by disobedience. He has decreed that sin be, and we rebel.

I don't think you understand what sin is, nor what/who God is with respect to hamartiology, which understanding necessarily includes a proper Doctrine of God.

 

[John Caldwell]

Perhaps because one is a preposition and the other is an adverb. And, no doubt, because Paul knew Greek better than you do —why do you suppose he should use μᾶλλον to say "on behalf of", as the context bears out concerning the use of the preposition περί, which means all sorts of things, including "concerning", or "as to", etc etc.

What makes you ask that???

I didn't say Paul should have used μᾶλλον to say "in behalf of". That was my point!!

I am saying that Christ died for us, i.e., on our behalf or because of us.

My post was that if Paul meant to say that Christ died "instead of us" then he would not have made the error of using περί.

More than that, if God meant the verse to read "in stead of" then God would not have made the error.

περί does have various English meanings. It's basic meaning (and all of the other nuanced meanings) has to do with "concerning".

BUT περί does not mean "instead of".

Words have meaning. It is wrong to take a Greek word meaning "for", "because of" or "in behalf of" and say the English could be extended to mean "instead of" therefore that must be what the Greek word means. It simply does not mean "instead of".

 

[John Mullally]

Hello John,
To clarify, are you saying God would like to save everyone who ever lived but cannot do it?
What verse says....predestined to he'll?
God has elected a multitude that no man can number to be saved, not a few as you suggest.

Hi Iconoclast,

It is not a matter of God's ability. Think of your kids - did you make all of their decisions or did you bail them out of all their bad decisions? Like us, God has left many things up to man. God has elected all who willingly comply with Mark 16:16 to be saved - see also Acts 2:38-39 and Romans 10:9-10. This is further evidenced by the enormous number of directives throughout the Bible. God will not do for man (i.e. pull the puppet strings just because He can) what he has directed man to do.

Concerning Calvin's doctine of predestination to hell:

“…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)
​

 

[John Mullally]

And in accounting it's about debt removed.

Ever take accounting?

.

Ever write or receive a check that was not cashed? What happens then - is a change made to your checking account?

 

[John Caldwell]

Ever write or receive a check that was not cashed? What happens then - is a change made to your checking account?

The problem is Clare defines forgiveness as an a counting term meaning payment/cancelation of debt. That is a false and contradicting definition.

In accounting forgiving a debt means the owner of the debt cancels it without any type of payment.

Calvinism does not believe divine forgiveness is possible because it holds that divine justice demands payment for "sin debts". So they redefine "forgiveness" to mean payment recieved in full so that the debtor can be "forgiven".

 

[BNR32FAN]

Nope . .it is derived from direct statements and events.

Really? What verse specifically states that the Holy Spirit is God?

Nope. . .the commandment states the necessity to do so, it does not imply personal ability of fallen man to do so.

Punishing people for failure to meet an impossible expectation is unjust.

Yes, man freely chooses to obey . .God having worked in his disposition giving him to prefer God's will over his own, which he then freely and willingly chooses.

And freely choosing to disobey God both before and after being connected to Christ and receiving the Holy Spirit even to the point of falling away and failing to remain in Christ. Hebrews 6:4-6 John 15:6.

And then there is Matthew 7:21-23. . .tares or wheat?

They’re tares, Christ specifically stated that He never knew them.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You misunderstand yet another verse.every person Peter speaks of is going to be saved.

There are several passages that mention God’s kindness and patience towards the unrepentant, not all of them are saved. Like Pharaoh for example or the other “vessels of wrath” mentioned in Romans 9:22. I would expect Calvinists should be very familiar with this verse but then again it is the one verse from that passage they often omit.

 

[BNR32FAN]

To put it awkwardly, his foreknowledge is of a causative definition. His predestination and his foreknowledge are two aspects of the same thing. He does NOT look into the future to find out what to predestine. He CAUSES the future to come to pass just as he predestined (with respect to time) to happen.

Both logically and Biblically, the future does not happen by accident.

The term “according to” means “based upon” which means that He predestined people based on His foreknowledge. The foreknowledge is the cause and the predestination is the effect. God predestined us according to (based on) His foreknowledge. Everyone understands what the words “according to” means, the problem is Calvinists have to reinvent the definition because it refutes their theology. Just like tares being drawn to Christ and receiving the Holy Spirit by the enemy even tho Calvinists are so fond of pointing out that no one can come to Christ unless The Father draws them, a passage they so frequently use to support their doctrine of total depravity, but then suddenly completely forget about when it refutes their doctrine of eternal security. This is why Calvinism is not biblical because when you actually compare it to the scriptures it falls apart at the seams.

 

[Clare73]

Ever write or receive a check that was not cashed? What happens then - is a change made to your checking account?

Irrelevant. . .all God's checks are cashed.

God writes no checks that are not cashed.
(Remember, he already knows who will cash them, right?)

 

[Mark Quayle]

What makes you ask that???

I didn't say Paul should have used μᾶλλον to say "in behalf of". That was my point!!

I am saying that Christ died for us, i.e., on our behalf or because of us.

My post was that if Paul meant to say that Christ died "instead of us" then he would not have made the error of using περί.

More than that, if God meant the verse to read "in stead of" then God would not have made the error.

περί does have various English meanings. It's basic meaning (and all of the other nuanced meanings) has to do with "concerning".

BUT περί does not mean "instead of".

Words have meaning. It is wrong to take a Greek word meaning "for", "because of" or "in behalf of" and say the English could be extended to mean "instead of" therefore that must be what the Greek word means. It simply does not mean "instead of".

It was not an error, even if contextually @Clare73 takes it to mean "instead of". I'm saying he may well have meant exactly that, or even 'at least that', without getting that specific.

 

[John Mullally]

All God's checks are cashed.

God writes no checks that are not cashed.
(Remember, he already knows who will cash them, right?)

You are unfamiliar with the Gospel as their are terms to receiving salvation (Mark 16:16)

Paul states that God desires all men be saved in 1 Timothy 2:4. He said Jesus paid the ransom (payment for sin) for all men in 1 Timothy 2:6. That payment is received per the terms of Mark 16:16. That is repeated in Acts 2:38-39 and Romans 10:9-10.

FYI: God has not changed places with devil in spite of what Calvin or the devil states (2 Corinthians 4:4).

 

[Mark Quayle]

The term “according to” means “based upon” which means that He predestined people based on His foreknowledge. The foreknowledge is the cause and the predestination is the effect. God predestined us according to (based on) His foreknowledge. Everyone understands what the words “according to” means, the problem is Calvinists have to reinvent the definition because it refutes their theology. Just like tares being drawn to Christ and receiving the Holy Spirit by the enemy even tho Calvinists are so fond of pointing out that no one can come to Christ unless The Father draws them, a passage they so frequently use to support their doctrine of total depravity, but then suddenly completely forget about when it refutes their doctrine of eternal security. This is why Calvinism is not biblical because when you actually compare it to the scriptures it falls apart at the seams.

No doubt Calvinists do that too, but so does everyone else. Ha, even those who don't know that they have a theology! Nevertheless, I am curious how you come up with this notion that anyone can receive the Holy Spirit by the enemy!! I won't scream heresy, just yet, because I'm hoping you didn't mean quite what you wrote there.

"According to" can as easily mean "in keeping with" as it can mean "based on". And that is in English. What is found on both sides of "according to", in English, can be derived from something else they have in common. If you can prove to me otherwise, from the Greek, have at it. You can't, from the English, but I don't' know Greek as well as English.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Ha! Like I said in another post, nice twist. No, my logic, even as you state it, does not work out to what you claim me to have said nor to have even implied: BNR32FAN said: ↑
The only thing that keeps God’s hands free of causing sin is free will

To which I responded: 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.

You want to make it sound like I am saying that God sins, or at least that I am saying that he is to blame for the existence of sin. —Not even close. God does indeed cause that sin be, and we by our own choice quite willingly play right into it, according to our inclinations.

Let me try this again, for the ease of human conception of ideas. His distance from sin is kind of like as if God wrote a play, and we are the players. That is, of course, not a consistent allegory, but I hope you get the idea as to his distance from sin. He has decreed what we do, and we do it, by obedience and by disobedience. He has decreed that sin be, and we rebel.

I don't think you understand what sin is, nor what/who God is with respect to hamartiology, which understanding necessarily includes a proper Doctrine of God.

Again your backpedaling from your own statements. Here’s another example.

He has decreed what we do, and we do it, by obedience and by disobedience. He has decreed that sin be, and we rebel.

In one statement you say that “God has decreed WHAT WE DO”. Then in another statement you carefully avoid the conflict by saying that “God has decreed that sin be.” Your not even consistent in your argument here. When it suits you, you will say that God has decreed what we will do but when it comes to sin your saying that we decree what we do. Before you said that whatever happened, happened by His causation.

Further, since all things come from him, whatever happened, happened by his causation. There is no other creator.

I’m simply exposing the flaw in your theology by quoting your own words. Your claiming that I misquoted you but I directly quoted your statement in my post. The bottom line is you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that God causes everything to happen then turn around and contradict yourself when someone starts mentioning all the sinful things that happen and say that He doesn’t cause those things to happen. If that’s your position that God does not cause sin to happen then your forced to admit that God does not cause everything to happen.

 

[BNR32FAN]

All God's checks are cashed.

God writes no checks that are not cashed.
(Remember, he already knows who will cash them, right?)

Yet Christ paid for the sins of the whole world, most people won’t cash that check. For many are called but few are chosen.