How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Mark Quayle]

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.

FWIW, her statement was offered rather tongue-in-cheek.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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?

No. She put them in quotes, not implying the doctrines at all to be false. Her point is that the idea of 'literalist' can be taken to ridiculous ends, and, (as I understood her to be pointing at), that you had taken her words, "instead of", as meaning to be a literal translation for ὑπὲρ, (when she had not meant that); then you declared your literalistic tendencies.

But maybe I shouldn't speak for her. But FWIW, you might find her to be rather a literalist in common conversation. She doesn't try to hide meaning with clever words. (And no, I'm not saying that you do.)

 

[John Caldwell]

No. She put them in quotes, not implying the doctrines at all to be false. Her point is that the idea of 'literalist' can be taken to ridiculous ends, and, (as I understood her to be pointing at), that you had taken her words, "instead of", as meaning to be a literal translation for ὑπὲρ, (when she had not meant that); then you declared your literalistic tendencies.

But maybe I shouldn't speak for her. But FWIW, you might find her to be rather a literalist in common conversation. She doesn't try to hide meaning with clever words. (And no, I'm not saying that you do.)

I do not understand what you mean. How does the Trinity and divine sovereignty fit in with her post?

We were talking about the actual word translated as "for".

That was my point. I believe Christ died for our sins. I do not believe Christ died instead of us. The first is in the text of Scripture whike the latter is not.

I'm pointing out why I interpret Scripture as I do.

If the doctrine of the Trinity was not in the text of Scripture then I would not consider it proper doctrine. If divine sovereignty was not in the text then I would not hold it as proper doctrine.

Granted, I know interpretations differ BUT this should be interpretation of the actual text

 

[John Mullally]

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.

How does one argue thousands of times on this forum in favor of Calvinist doctrine and yet does not identify as a Calvinist, states he/she never studied Calvinism, and does not support TULIP? Fellow Calvinist ReverendRV who has only posted a few times on this forum called him/her out on that twice.

I noticed you have posted multiple times on just this thread to support him/her - even addressing a fellow Calvinist who was actually supportive. What gives? How does one post thousands of times on Theology threads as a Calvinist while denying to be such, pose as a Paulist (did not know that was a thing), and give thoughtless and dismissive "Au Contraire" responses - all while acting so fragile?

There are no safe spaces on Theology threads.

 

[John Mullally]

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:

1 Peter 3:18-20 reflects on a special operation that Jesus or the Holy Spirit conducted which is hard at least for me to fathom as Peter is terse and as a result the passage raises innumerable questions. Perhaps other special operations have been conducted by Jesus or the Holy Spirit - perhaps on the behalf of those who did not hear the Gospel. Remember, Paul states that Christ gave himself a ransom for all and God desires all men be saved (1 Timothy 2) - even John MacArthur and John Piper publicly acknowledge that God desires all men be saved (2 Corinthians 10:5). I am not a Universalist.

 

[John Mullally]

I didn’t know Calvinists had their own book. I stay as far away from commentaries as possible with the exception of the first 3 century writings.

Calvin was quite prolific. I sometimes read Bible commentaries even though most are written by Calvinists - as they sometimes identify something I missed from the text or demonstrate how scripture can be interpretted to support their ends. Eat the hay and spit out the sticks.

 

[John Mullally]

This thread is not about Calvin, but that being said I think more people have read his writings, than your posts

Ha, ha.

Most "Calvinists" have not read much of Calvin.

If Calvinists preachers were more forthcoming on their doctrine, there would be fewer Calvinists. Who is interested in a God that predestines most to hell before they are born? I view that as satanic.

 

[JLB777]

Good Day, All

How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps: - The Cripplegate

Here is what the scripture says —


He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1 John 2:4

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

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

John is the black posts.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Ha, ha.
If Calvinists preachers were more forthcoming on their doctrine, there would be fewer Calvinists. Who is interested in a God that predestines most to hell before they are born? I view that as satanic.

That is a caricature of the teaching.
Go on www. sermonaudio.com.
There are over 2 million sermoms for free.
Listen to any sermon, by Al Martin, W.R. Downing, Geoff Thomas, Steve Lawson, James White, Sinclair Ferguson,John Macarthur,Greg Nichols,Voddie Bauchum...find one that says anything like you suggest.
You will not find any, so why post such a thing

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

FWIW, her statement was offered rather tongue-in-cheek.

I get what Clare is posting.
My comment was concerning an anti cal, who explains nothing, just posts a verse and says..here it is....then you say what does that verse mean?
He repeats here it is...see, I believe it!
You say...what does the verse mean?
He bore our sin?
He was smitten by God?
He died for our transgression?
He was crushed?
He was made sin for us?
He will not explain becauses it will expose his denial of penal substituion.

 

[Mark Quayle]

How does one argue thousands of times on this forum in favor of Calvinist doctrine and yet does not identify as a Calvinist, states he/she never studied Calvinism, and does not support TULIP? Fellow Calvinist ReverendRV who has only posted a few times on this forum called him/her out on that twice.

I noticed you have posted multiple times on just this thread to support him/her - even addressing a fellow Calvinist who was actually supportive. What gives? How does one post thousands of times on Theology threads as a Calvinist while denying to be such, pose as a Paulist (did not know that was a thing), and give thoughtless and dismissive "Au Contraire" responses - all while acting so fragile?

There are no safe spaces on Theology threads.

Like I said. @Clare73 's arguments are Biblical. Being "Calvinist" is irrelevant, and that is how she wants to keep it. She is not arguing to support Calvinism, but is arguing to prove each issue she believes, whether it has anything to do with Calvinism or not. The fact you notice she argues what Calvinists do might tell you something of the biblicity of Calvinism.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I get what Clare is posting.
My comment was concerning an anti cal, who explains nothing, just posts a verse and says..here it is....then you say what does that verse mean?
He repeats here it is...see, I believe it!
You say...what does the verse mean?
He bore our sin?
He was smitten by God?
He died for our transgression?
He was crushed?
He was made sin for us?
He will not explain becauses it will expose his denial of penal substituion.

To me, while I can sympathize with people that do that (because I too tend to think that way concerning many verses), their usual assumption is, "these verses obviously make my point", or, "these verses easily destroy the opposing viewpoint", or, "these verses speak for themselves". And yes it is frustrating. Specially frustrating is the fact that they interpret the frustration as stubborn denial, or weakness of argument.

There are some (who tend to sit back and lurk) who are like my Dad, listening to a conversation, and occasionally pointing out that "what the Bible actually says, (whether in favor of or in opposition to what came before it), is..." I like these, but they are few and far between.

What's funny to me is that I have been accused of both, the habit of posting lists of verses as argument, and of the opposite, not demonstrating Biblical support with actual quotes from the Bible.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So God has failed to save some he fully intended to save? Somehow, something God intended is subject to mere accident.

Two things that have remained constant throughout the scriptures from the first man to the last with One exception, man has constantly disappointed God, and man has constantly disregarded His will. The scriptures are filled to the brim with examples of God not getting what He wanted from man. Your putting your own personal assertion above what the scriptures actually state instead of allowing the scriptures to mold your assertions. If our assertions are contradictory to what the scriptures specifically state then we are wrong.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Two things that have remained constant throughout the scriptures from the first man to the last with One exception, man has constantly disappointed God, and man has constantly disregarded His will. The scriptures are filled to the brim with examples of God not getting what He wanted from man. Your putting your own personal assertion above what the scriptures actually state instead of allowing the scriptures to mold your assertions. If our assertions are contradictory to what the scriptures specifically state then we are wrong.

WHERE do I disagree at all with these: "Two things that have remained constant throughout the scriptures from the first man to the last with One exception, man has constantly disappointed God, and man has constantly disregarded His will"?

What I oppose in what you wrote here is that you think you know "what God wanted". You don't even know what it is for God to 'want' something. The etymology of "want" involves the notion of lacking. God does not lack for anything. He is not like us. "He possesses within Himself every quality, ability, and supernatural command with never-ending measure. Every attribute or mighty and wonderful power is His endlessly. God wants for nothing and lacks nothing; He is complete." Self-Sufficient God (allaboutgod.com) You, will probably at this point try to go with the idea of God's will, but for some reason, you deny (probably just because Calvinism uses it) the idea of two kinds of will, which should be obvious to you, that what God commands, or might 'wish' to happen, is not at all the same thing as the plan and its details that God decrees will happen.

And, like I said, you have no answer to the simple logic of Causation. You have yet to show how your construct of "freewill" somehow sidesteps both causation by God (which is Biblical) and causation by Chance (which is self-contradictory).

 

[BNR32FAN]

You are really going out of your way to misunderstand me, I think. GOD HAS DECREED THAT WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS DOES INDEED COME TO PASS. IN FACT, HE IS THE FIRST CAUSE BEHIND ALL THAT. BUT HE DOES NOT SIN IN CAUSING THAT SIN BE. He is not subject to our notions of him being to blame for anything.

Then by that logic since I knew my son would disobey me before he was conceived, as all children do, I caused his disobedience by choosing to conceive him? Especially when I’ve been teaching him his whole life not to disobey me?

When sin is the result of free will both the cause and the fault lies in the individual not his ancestors. My great great grandfather didn’t cause me to steal a pack of bubblegum from the grocery store when I was a child nor did Noah, or Adam, or even God for that matter especially since God had already told me not to steal. I knew it was wrong and I was told not to do it and I chose to do it anyway. The cause of the sin derived from me, from my choice by my own free will.

God foreseeing what will take place does not mean that He caused it, it simply means He allowed it because it was an inevitable part of His plan to cultivate a family who would choose to love Him. Just like me knowing that my son would disobey, I didn’t cause his disobedience, it was an inevitable part of my plan to have a family to love. So just like my son’s disobedience was an inevitable part of my plan to have a family, sin was an inevitable part of God’s plan to have a family as well.

 

[Clare73]

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

She is saying that there are three separate persons in the one God, when she says "God is Trinity," Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

She is saying that while the NT shows three separate divine agents, it also shows one God (Mark 12:29; 1 Timothy 2:5). That is the gospel Jesus spells out to Nicodemus in John 3:1-21; i.e., the combined action of the Triune God.
She is saying that those who deny the Trinity have to scale down the gospel--and they do.
She is saying they have to make God too small--and they do.

 

[BNR32FAN]

What I oppose in what you wrote here is that you think you know "what God wanted". You don't even know what it is for God to 'want' something. The etymology of "want" involves the notion of lacking. God does not lack for anything. He is not like us.

The scriptures give us numerous examples specifically telling us things that God wanted that didn’t come to be and will NEVER happen. You said you agree that man has disappointed God since creation, God didn’t want that. God didn’t want to kill everyone in the flood, it was an unfortunate part of His plan. The scriptures say that He grieved in His heart because of the wickedness of man. Now if you don’t think that’s not an example of God wanting something and not getting it then this discussion is pointless. Yes He knew it would happen, yes He knew He was going to do it but obviously it was not something He delighted in or wanted to do. According to the scriptures it appears that it was something that He had to do for the greater good.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Then by that logic since I knew my son would disobey me before he was conceived, as all children do, I caused his disobedience by choosing to conceive him? Especially when I’ve been teaching him his whole life not to disobey me?

You are only one of the links in the chain of causation. God is the beginning of all causation.

When sin is the result of free will both the cause and the fault lies in the individual not his ancestors. My great great grandfather didn’t cause me to steal a pack of bubblegum from the grocery store when I was a child nor did Noah, or Adam, or even God for that matter especially since God had already told me not to steal. I knew it was wrong and I was told not to do it and I chose to do it anyway. The cause of the sin derived from me, from my choice by my own free will.

There you go with "fault", again. When God causes, it is not a 'fault' that he did so. He is not operating from within this human temporal existence as a creature, like we do.

Likewise, and as before, you seem to assume that if God causes it, the sinner is not the cause of his own sin. They are not mutually exclusive.

Perhaps you can show where God paying for the sins of absolutely everyone who ever lived is not mutually exclusive with each person relegated to the lake of fire paying for their own sins?

God foreseeing what will take place does not mean that He caused it, it simply means He allowed it because it was an inevitable part of His plan to cultivate a family who would choose to love Him. Just like me knowing that my son would disobey, I didn’t cause his disobedience, it was an inevitable part of my plan to have a family to love. So just like my son’s disobedience was an inevitable part of my plan to have a family, sin was an inevitable part of God’s plan to have a family as well.

Sin is indeed part of God's plan. But how was it inevitable? Only because it was necessary —not because it was unavoidable, impinging on God's sovereignty and power. There would be no Redeemer and no loving grace of the Gospel, and thus no Dwelling Place of God, no Body of Christ, but by God's causation.

Thus, again, you appeal to the self-contradictory, "Causation by Chance".

 

[Mark Quayle]

She is saying that there are three separate persons in the one God, when she says "God is Trinity," Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

She is saying that while the NT shows three separate divine agents, it also shows one God (Mark 12:29; 1 Timothy 2:5). That is the gospel Jesus spells out to Nicodemus in John 3:1-21; i.e., the combined action of the Triune God.
She is saying that those who deny the Trinity have to scale down the gospel--and they do.
She is saying they have to make God too small--and they do.

But WHY did she say that? That is what I was trying to get across to him.