How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Mark Quayle]

Can you please provide a reference from a Koine Greek scholar defining περί as "instead of"?

I'm not saying you are wrong, just wanting to see how that is linguistically feasible.


IMHO περί cannot mean "instead of". That said, one could argue that the way Christ died "for" or "because of" our sins is that He died instead of us.

Untul then, I must chalk this up to Clare's insistence that forgiveness is an accounting term meaning payment/ cancelation. It fits Calvinism but is not accurate.

That said, using the normal meaning of περί does not dispute Calvinism. It just does not make Calvinism the only possible interpretation (which, as the past few decades have shown, is the agenda behind redefining these words).

I had thought from the beginning that she is not saying that "instead of" is the correct translation, as, of course it doesn't fit to say, "instead of sin". I thought she is showing the correct use of the Greek contextually. In other words, contextually, I see it rather obviously as meaning, or referring to the fact that he is our substitute. I don't see how that is particularly Calvinistic, but just basic orthodoxy. It is not redefining anything, as far as I can tell.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok to be fair I shouldn’t have even mentioned that. I used that as an example of how some Calvinists will ignore scripture in order to protect their doctrine. Someone in this thread said that the people mentioned in Hebrews 6:4-6 and John 15:6 are tares and even after I pointed out that no one can come to Christ unless The Father draws him and the Holy Spirit precedes from The Father and that the tares were planted by the enemy not by The Father that person still refused to comment any further and recognize her mistake and still insisted they are tares. So that wasn’t directed towards you it was just an example of what lengths some Calvinists will go to, to protect their precious doctrines. So I apologize that was not directed at you it was just used as an example of how far some people will go to ignore scriptures in order to hold on to their precious doctrines.

Guessing by how you have taken things I say to necessarily logically imply things they don't, I'm guessing this is another example of your way of putting things. If I was to do the same, I would say that you are claiming that God is subservient to mere self-contradictory chance, and that God is not after all the only first cause.

 

[John Caldwell]

I had thought from the beginning that she is not saying that "instead of" is the correct translation, as, of course it doesn't fit to say, "instead of sin". I thought she is showing the correct use of the Greek contextually. In other words, contextually, I see it rather obviously as meaning, or referring to the fact that he is our substitute. I don't see how that is particularly Calvinistic, but just basic orthodoxy. It is not redefining anything, as far as I can tell.

I understand. I took it she was taking the actual Greek word to mean "instead of".

My principle when it comes to interpretation is to let the words and context form the meaning. In this case, the context does not demand (or even hint at) substitution. It says Christ died for our sins.

Now, if the passage did not make sense as written (e.g., if the only way somebody could die for our sins is to die instead of us) then I could see the point.

If one did not already hold a substitutionary theory of the Atonement (whether Penal Substitution, Satisfaction/ Substitution....or even perhaps Ontological Substitution) then it is doubtful you'd see that as the context of the passage.

Either way, though, it would be considered adding to the meaning of the passage from the standpoint of somebody (like me) who holds literal view of Scripture.

 

[Clare73]

I had thought from the beginning that she is not saying that "instead of" is the correct translation, as, of course it doesn't fit to say, "instead of sin". I thought she is showing the correct use of the Greek contextually. In other words, contextually, I see it rather obviously as meaning, or referring to the fact that he is our substitute. I don't see how that is particularly Calvinistic, but just basic orthodoxy. It is not redefining anything, as far as I can tell.

I guess someone who holds a "literal view" of Scripture must deny the Trinity and the sovereignty of God since neither "God is Trinity" nor "God is sovereign" is stated in the Scriptures.

 

[John Caldwell]

I guess someone who holds a "literal view" of Scripture must deny the Trinity and the sovereignty of God since neither "God is Trinity" nor "God is sovereign" is stated in the Scriptures.

No. That is a weak argument.

Scripture says that God is One, the Father and Son is One, and that the Holy Spirit is God's own Spirit.

Scripture also says that God directs all things freely by His Own council.

What holding to a literal interpretation (or being a "biblicist") means is the one holding this position believes Scripture means what is stated in the text of Scripture, acknowledging literary devices.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

John Mullally,
Hi Iconoclast,
Thank you for your response. Lets work through this point by point

. [God has elected all who willingly comply with Mark 16:16 to be saved]

God's election was not based on anything we do. God's election of the elect, was love before time
Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling
1._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3; Song of Solomon 1:4 )
2._____ This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
( 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:5; John 5:25; Ephesians 1:19, 20 )


. [ 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.]

John, if that was true no one would be saved;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.



[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 thank you for listing the quote....What do you see as wrong with this quote.
There are multitudes who have lived and died in their sins, who never heard about Jesus.They go into second death.
Explain how you see this as wrong.
​

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Ok to be fair I shouldn’t have even mentioned that. I used that as an example of how some Calvinists will ignore scripture in order to protect their doctrine. Someone in this thread said that the people mentioned in Hebrews 6:4-6 and John 15:6 are tares and even after I pointed out that no one can come to Christ unless The Father draws him and the Holy Spirit precedes from The Father and that the tares were planted by the enemy not by The Father that person still refused to comment any further and recognize her mistake and still insisted they are tares. So that wasn’t directed towards you it was just an example of what lengths some Calvinists will go to, to protect their precious doctrines. So I apologize that was not directed at you it was just used as an example of how far some people will go to ignore scriptures in order to hold on to their precious doctrines.

Hebrews 6:4 is speaking of apostates, that is reprobates

 

[John Caldwell]

@Clare73 ,

To explain more what those of us who take a literal position mean, it means that we believe Scripture is correct, infallible, and communicates what God intended His Word to communicate as delivered in the actual text of Scripture.

Sure those of us who hold this position may disagree on interpretation. BUT it is disagreements concerning the actual text, not what somebody believes the text is trying to teach.

In other words, we believe Scripture teaches "what is written" in God's Word.

So we do not believe that Christ died instead of us. We do not believe that the Father separated from Jesus on the Cross.

Now, within Calvinistic thought holding a "literal view" means believing what is in the text as long as it reinforces one's position. Typically this is applied to Genesis and a literal 6 day creation. Or perhaps the type of translation one prefers.

But holding a literal view (again, talking about the text of Scripture) excludes Calvinism. In fact, that is why I am not longer a Calvinist. I can't be a biblicist and a Calvinist at the same time. That is impossible.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So before creation He foresaw something that He based His predestination on. Predestined is the action that took place, the effect of what He had foreseen in the future it’s a verb. Foreknowledge is what the action was based on or a result of, it’s a noun.

Your implication is that he did not know, except by looking forward in time, no?

Ok here’s a side question that might shed some light on this topic. Why did Jesus die for the sins of the whole world?

We've been through this how many times? What do you think "whole world" means there? Are you going to go with "simple reading" here, (unlike how you have to read other passages)? Or are you going to try to understand what the original readers would have understood it to be saying? Or better yet, what the writer most likely meant by it?

I keep seeing this argument you and others make, that foreknowledge simply means knowing the future (as a human wishes they could do —a human, temporal, construct). ONE WORD, used as you wish without Scriptural support, done so to smooth the way for the almighty notion, "free will", as though God's will is subject to the vagaries of human inclinations. To add to this argument, you have the self-deterministic construct "freewill", by which you apparently mean the ability to decide, not only apart from causation —that is, altogether spontaneously, as a small first cause— but dependent on the level of one's own goodness, apart from God. Your cornerstone is FREEWILL (which is not as such addressed in the Bible, and therefore, is a human construct) buttressed by one word ('foreknowledge') which you MUST take to mean only that God sees into the future as a human would if he could, and concerning which you ignore the Bible scholars. The rest of your arguments are attempts to defeat Calvinistic and Reformed tenets, and to get into other matters, in all appearance, frankly, as though to divert attention from the fact that the notion of self-deterministic freewill is skinny indeed.

"When Genesis 18:19 says "I have chosen him, " the verb is literally "I knew him." The same is true of Amos's description of Israel, "You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth" ( 3:2a ). Compare Paul's statement in Romans 11:2: "God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew." God's sovereign choice of Israel established a unique relationship with a particular people."
Foreknowledge Definition and Meaning - Bible Dictionary (biblestudytools.com)

You even twisted what I said —that the Biblical term 'foreknowledge' is causative— to mean that the foreknowledge causes the predestining, which is not what anyone means by 'foreknowledge being causative'. Frankly it doesn't even make sense for the Omniscient Creator of the Universe to need to see what we are going to do, in order to decide what to cause. The notion is illogical: to cause to happen what one already passively sees is going to happen.

I will attempt to describe, once again, the simple logic of causation. If something is true, or something exists, it is caused, unless it is First Cause. If something is caused, it is the result of at least one thing before it, which was also caused unless it is First Cause. So if God (First Cause) sees something in the future, he caused it. You have not defeated this logic. You will continue to ignore it.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Agree. Calvinists have their own book which contradicts the NT.

Baby Boomers have been to motel rooms that include the Gideon Bible in the nightstand drawer and some also include the book of Mormon But I have not yet seen Calvin's 1500 page "Institutes of the Christian Religion". Ha Ha.

This thread is not about Calvin, but that being said I think more people have read his writings, than your posts.
Most "Calvinists" have not read much of Calvin.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

I guess someone who holds a "literal view" of Scripture must deny the Trinity and the sovereignty of God since neither "God is Trinity" nor "God is sovereign" is stated in the Scriptures.

Such an excuse is usually offered by a person who cannot understand or come to the biblical meaning.
I have seen such a person repeat parts of verses, explain nothing, and say...here it is, I believe it says this....Jesus wept, see I believe it, Jesus wept. Then claim they follow the bible alone.
They never explain anything they cannot.

I know a man who calls Himself Biblicist, and he really is. I can supply some of His teaching and you can see the difference. Let me know if you want to see those posts.

 

[Mark Quayle]

OK, self-proclaimed Paulist, please explain what Paul meant in 1 Timothy 2:1-6 using only what is in the letter itself (i.e. 1 Timothy). It seems self explanatory to the rest of us who have not been swayed from the NT by studying Calvin's 3 volume "Institutes of the Christian Religion" (1500 pages).

Is this not a clear example of goading/flaming? Your sarcasm does not advance your argument. Just saying.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

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.

everyone in 2 pet. 3:9 is going to be saved.God is not willing that any of them perish.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

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.

'Everyone"s sins are not paid for. That is a falsehood.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I only learned of Calvin's writings and TULIP from this forum. I considered being a Calvinist as a young believer - as eternal security was attractive but the doctrine made no sense per the topic of free-will.

TULIP and Calvins writings help explain how we (Calvinist and non-Calvinist) can read the same Bible and understand what is said completely differently. I see Calvinist's viewing the Bible through their Calvinist lenses. In other words they have already been indoctinated into Calvinism before they pick up a NT - so everything they read in the NT is made to conform to their indoctrination. And their indoctination must be right because they blast anyone who teaches differently - especially WOF.

I prefer Calvinsts who defend their faith through TULIP as they are most transparent. Speaking of lack of transparency: Funny how this one Calvinst who only states he is a Paulist (although he disagrees with 1 Timothy 2:1-6), does not declare his sex on the forum even though he goes by a female handle, does not sign up to TULIP, and is hard to pin down as to what he believes.

Your lack of knowledge in any one matter does not indicate the lay of the facts in that matter. She has declared her sex more than once, and is hard to pin down as a Calvinist because she does not always use common Calvinistic terminology. She purposely argues Bible, not Calvinism. She purposely tries to use Biblical terminology and now that you see she is Calvinistic in her theology (in spite of her terminology) you want (to put it nicely) to disparage her. This is not helping your argument.

 

[John Mullally]

John Mullally,
Hi Iconoclast,
Thank you for your response. Lets work through this point by point

. [God has elected all who willingly comply with Mark 16:16 to be saved]

God's election was not based on anything we do. God's election of the elect, was love before time
Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling
1._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3; Song of Solomon 1:4 )
2._____ This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
( 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:5; John 5:25; Ephesians 1:19, 20 )

Are people saved because (a) they qualify per Mark 16:16? and/or (b) do they qualify because they were predestined to do so? There is no dispute as to (a) as only they quaiify. The question is to (b). If (b) is true, then I would expect it to be explained definitively - the early church would have defended it and Calvin would not have to write 1500 pages, 1500 years later, to defend it.

. [

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.]

John, if that was true no one would be saved;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Do not discount the work of the Holy Spirit who Jesus says will convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgement.

[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 thank you for listing the quote....What do you see as wrong with this quote.
There are multitudes who have lived and died in their sins, who never heard about Jesus.They go into second death.
Explain how you see this as wrong.
​

I quoted Calvin. I don't know whether or not Jesus will interact with the ignorant just before death. How do you take 1 Peter 3:18-20? I try to steer away from that which is not definatively stated in at least two passages of Acts and the Epistles.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Are people saved because (a) they qualify per Mark 16:16? and/or (b) do they qualify because they were predestined to do so? There is no dispute as to (a) as only they quaiify. The question is to (b). If (b) is true, then I would expect it to be explained definitively - the early church would have defended it and Calvin would not have to write 1500 pages, 1500 years later, to defend it.

Do not discount the work of the Holy Spirit who Jesus says will convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgement.


I quoted Calvin. I don't know whether or not Jesus will interact with the ignorant just before death. How do you take 1 Peter 3:18-20? I try to steer away from that which is not definatively stated in at least two passages of Acts and the Epistles.

John the key here is understanding the Holy Spirit is in view
1pet.3:18-20
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh,

but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;



Jesus does not preach to those in prison after the cross, it is the Spirit whopreached to then in the day of Noah, before they perished.

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

 

[Mark Quayle]

No. That is a weak argument.

Scripture says that God is One, the Father and Son is One, and that the Holy Spirit is God's own Spirit.

Scripture also says that God directs all things freely by His Own council.

What holding to a literal interpretation (or being a "biblicist") means is the one holding this position believes Scripture means what is stated in the text of Scripture, acknowledging literary devices.

I think you missed her point. She wasn't saying that you deny the doctrine of the Trinity etc.

 

[Mark Quayle]

John Mullally,
Hi Iconoclast,
Thank you for your response. Lets work through this point by point

. [God has elected all who willingly comply with Mark 16:16 to be saved]

God's election was not based on anything we do. God's election of the elect, was love before time
Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling
1._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3; Song of Solomon 1:4 )
2._____ This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
( 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:5; John 5:25; Ephesians 1:19, 20 )


. [ 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.]

John, if that was true no one would be saved;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.



[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 thank you for listing the quote....What do you see as wrong with this quote.
There are multitudes who have lived and died in their sins, who never heard about Jesus.They go into second death.
Explain how you see this as wrong.
​

I'm having a bit of trouble telling where it is you and where it is John speaking.

 

[John Caldwell]

I think you missed her point. She wasn't saying that you deny the doctrine of the Trinity etc.

I may have misunderstood her point (I didn't think she was talking about what I believed).

I understood her to imply that the doctrine of the Trinity and the sovereignty of God is not actually in the text of Scripture (which is obviously incorrect, as evidenced by the passages I implied).

What do you think she meant?


BTW, I don't mind any view. I find many times differences in understanding is a result of different presuppositions.

I had a choice when I learned my approach to Scripture was inconsistent with Calvinism. One or both had to go. My approach to Scripture (literal, natural meaning of the words, etc.) was more important to me than Calvinism. So I remained a biblicist, but as I had convictions Calvinism was wrong I abandoned it.

But there are many approaches to Scripture. Calvinism looks to what it believes is taught and applies that to the text. Others use another party or Church authority.

My point is that my approach to God's Word will mot be changed, at least not via an online discussion. I'm sure others won't either.

I want people to consider what Calvinism teaches. But I also want people to consider the text of Scripture ("what is written") as being its meaning. That way they can compare the two without thinking one does not make sense. (This applies to all Christian views...understand then evaluate).