How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Mark Quayle]

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.

And you still insist you know what it is for God to want. None of us do.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

No I don’t deny that God has two different types of wills, I just disagree on which definition is used in certain verses. If your going to say that John 6:39 is an example of something that God has decreed to be true (like Calvin insists) then I say your wrong BECAUSE that contradicts other verses. John 15:6, Hebrews 6:4-6, and 2 Timothy 2:12 would all be impossible by that interpretation of John 6:39. So if that definition of the word “will” contradicts other scriptures then it cannot be the correct definition that was intended. This has nothing to do with my personal choice or preference this is solely based on what the scriptures ACTUALLY STATE. So far Calvinists cannot offer any explanation of these verses that does not contradict scripture. So far the only answer I keep getting is that these are examples of tares with the exception of 2 Timothy 2:12 which typically ends up in a discussion of how verse 13 teaches that we are saved without having faith, obviously another contradiction. But as I’ve pointed out numerous times tares are planted by the enemy and the enemy absolutely cannot draw anyone to Christ nor can he bestow the Holy Spirit upon anyone. This is the flaw in Calvinism, it simply does not stand up to the rest of scripture. It always results in contradiction.

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).

I actually address this in the next post brother and explain exactly how free will exonerates God of being the cause of sin.

 

[Clare73]

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

Okay. . .let me explain, so that we all will be on the same page:

she was pointing out the threeness in the oneness, the three separate persons
(as distinct from just three separate functions) in the one God--the Trinity in the Unity:

the Son being subject to the Father, for the Son is sent by the Father in the Father's name (John 5:23, 36:43),
the Spirit being subject to the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Father in the Son's name (John 14:26),
and the Spirit being subject to the Son as well as the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, 16:7, 14:26).

One doesn't send oneself, one sends someone else who is a separate person.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And you still insist you know what it is for God to want. None of us do.

This doesn’t make any sense at all to me. I never said that I know what it is for God to want but I don’t see anything indicating that it would be any different from meaning the same exact thing that it means for humans to want. This seems like an attempt to deflect by redefining the meaning of verses that are plainly stated in an attempt to make them appear to be mystical and incomprehensible to us so that we can just dismiss them as being unfathomable when they’re actually so simple even a child can understand them.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

I didn’t say that God was at fault.

When sin is the result of free will both the cause and the fault lies in the individual not his ancestors.

Obviously this statement is only pertaining to humans since God has no ancestors.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No I don’t deny that God has two different types of wills, I just disagree on which definition is used in certain verses. If your going to say that John 6:39 is an example of something that God has decreed to be true (like Calvin insists) then I say your wrong BECAUSE that contradicts other verses. John 15:6, Hebrews 6:4-6, and 2 Timothy 2:12 would all be impossible by that interpretation of John 6:39. So if that definition of the word “will” contradicts other scriptures then it cannot be the correct definition that was intended.

But it does not contradict them. But at least we finally have some semblence of argument going without antagonism.

This has nothing to do with my personal choice or preference this is solely based on what the scriptures ACTUALLY STATE. So far Calvinists cannot offer any explanation of these verses that does not contradict scripture. So far the only answer I keep getting is that these are examples of tares with the exception of 2 Timothy 2:12 which typically ends up in a discussion of how verse 13 teaches that we are saved without having faith, obviously another contradiction. But as I’ve pointed out numerous times tares are planted by the enemy and the enemy absolutely cannot draw anyone to Christ nor can he bestow the Holy Spirit upon anyone. This is the flaw in Calvinism, it simply does not stand up to the rest of scripture. It always results in contradiction.

"So far Calvinists cannot offer any explanation"? So far as you have seen, doesn't mean they can't, nor even that they don't. But I'm guessing you have been shown how, and just deny that the explanation is valid, appealing to the idea that they are re-interpreting verses.

As for what you say about 2 Timothy 2:12, I would be curious how any Calvinist claims a person is saved without faith. Frankly, I tend to think it is your view of logical implications of what they say, and not what they actually say.

I actually address this in the next post brother and explain exactly how free will exonerates God of being the cause of sin.

No doubt free will exonerates God (in your mind) of being the cause of sin (as if "exoneration" was necessary. You say "God...being the cause of sin" as if that was a bad thing.) But still, you 'addressing' it by showing how "free will exonerates God of being the cause of sin" does nothing to show how your kind of "free will" does not depend on the self-contradictory notion of Causation by Chance.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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?

Christ paid for the sins of everyone so He will be the judge of everyone judging them according to their deeds imputing His righteousness on whoever He so chooses.

 

[BNR32FAN]

But it does not contradict them. But at least we finally have some semblence of argument going without antagonism.

Ok this doesn’t address the problem. If your going to state that these verses do not contradict the definition of “will” as something that God has decreed your going to have to explain how God can decree that Jesus will lose none and how that doesn’t contradict John 15:6, Hebrews 6:4-6, and 2 Timothy 2:12. Otherwise your just making a claim with no evidence to support that claim.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Okay. . .let me explain, so that we all will be on the same page:

she was pointing out the threeness in the oneness, the three separate persons (as distinct from just three separate functions) in the one God, the Trinity in the Unity.

We probably better abandon this, haha. I was getting at the fact you said what you did about people being literal was in response to his comments to me about the use of ὑπὲρ, and in answer to what he said about taking scripture literally. That's all I was talking about. I didn't mean to propel this into a discussion of who believes what about the Trinity etc.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So far Calvinists cannot offer any explanation"? So far as you have seen, doesn't mean they can't, nor even that they don't. But I'm guessing you have been shown how, and just deny that the explanation is valid, appealing to the idea that they are re-interpreting verses.

Well I did give examples of their explanations. Like for example John 15:6 and Hebrews 6:4-6, would you agree that these are examples of tares? I’ve mentioned this explanation in this thread several times and not once has anyone on the Calvinist side refuted that argument.

As for what you say about 2 Timothy 2:12, I would be curious how any Calvinist claims a person is saved without faith. Frankly, I tend to think it is your view of logical implications of what they say, and not what they actually say.

Well typically the verse is dismissed by quoting verse 13

“It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him; If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us; If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.”
‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭2‬:‭11‬-‭13‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

In this argument they claim that if we are faithless Jesus is still faithful to save us anyway because He cannot deny Himself. Now if we repent and return to faith the absolute we will be saved but not as long as we remain faithless, that would be contradictory to the scriptures. But these people, not only Calvinists but those who believe in eternal security, insist that a person can still be saved if they had a true faith at one time then fell away.

What I believe Paul is saying here is that if we are faithless He is faithful to do exactly what He said He would do in that situation because He cannot deny what He has decreed. He cannot deny Himself means that He cannot deny what He has said. “he who denies Me, I will deny before The Father.” I believe that’s a much better interpretation because it doesn’t conflict with what the scriptures teach.

 

[Mark Quayle]

This doesn’t make any sense at all to me. I never said that I know what it is for God to want but I don’t see anything indicating that it would be any different from meaning the same exact thing that it means for humans to want. This seems like an attempt to deflect by redefining the meaning of verses that are plainly stated in an attempt to make them appear to be mystical and incomprehensible to us so that we can just dismiss them as being unfathomable when they’re actually so simple even a child can understand them.

Well, if you don't see how God's "wanting" would be any different from our "wanting", I'd say you need a good course in the Doctrine of God. I know a girl about 8 or 10 years old who was wise enough to say, "Of course you can't see him! If you could see him, he wouldn't be God!" What makes you think children are so simple that they can't know that everything about God is different from us? If by no other way, a child would instinctively know that Almighty God wanting something has to mean something different. The ones who don't have been indoctrinated into "God really didn't mean for Adam to sin" etc etc etc. Sounds almost like, "God didn't really mean that you will die."

 

[BNR32FAN]

But still, you 'addressing' it by showing how "free will exonerates God of being the cause of sin" does nothing to show how your kind of "free will" does not depend on the self-contradictory notion of Causation by Chance.

If free will is the cause of sin then the cause is not by chance. Will and chance are two different acting agents. Sin is transgression against God if someone accidentally breaks a commandment of God it is not a sin. So sin cannot be the result of chance it’s the result of a deliberate action or mindset.

 

[Clare73]

We probably better abandon this, haha. I was getting at the fact you said what you did about people being literal was in response to his comments to me about the use of ὑπὲρ, and
in answer to what he said about taking scripture literally. That's all I was talking about. I didn't mean to propel this into a discussion of who believes what about the Trinity etc.

And you got it right. . .

End of discussion on this subject.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well, if you don't see how God's "wanting" would be any different from our "wanting", I'd say you need a good course in the Doctrine of God. I know a girl about 8 or 10 years old who was wise enough to say, "Of course you can't see him! If you could see him, he wouldn't be God!" What makes you think children are so simple that they can't know that everything about God is different from us? If by no other way, a child would instinctively know that Almighty God wanting something has to mean something different. The ones who don't have been indoctrinated into "God really didn't mean for Adam to sin" etc etc etc. Sounds almost like, "God didn't really mean that you will die."

Your changing the discussion here, we’re talking about what God wants, now your changing that to what God meant or intended to happen. And on top of that your throwing in insinuations that I haven’t said anything about or even close to in your quote of what the serpent said to Eve. I have not in any way, shape, or form given any indication that sin is acceptable behavior or that it will not result in punishment. Nor have I at any time said or implied that God did not mean anything He said.

 

[John Mullally]

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

There is no need to scour 2 million sermons when Calvin states it plainly. See also post 369 in this tread.

“Now, since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, since to him belongs the disposal of life and death, he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that 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)​

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well, if you don't see how God's "wanting" would be any different from our "wanting", I'd say you need a good course in the Doctrine of God. I know a girl about 8 or 10 years old who was wise enough to say, "Of course you can't see him! If you could see him, he wouldn't be God!" What makes you think children are so simple that they can't know that everything about God is different from us? If by no other way, a child would instinctively know that Almighty God wanting something has to mean something different. The ones who don't have been indoctrinated into "God really didn't mean for Adam to sin" etc etc etc. Sounds almost like, "God didn't really mean that you will die."

Again this is a deflect to avoid addressing what the scriptures actually state by implying that they are unfathomable to us. The scriptures repeatedly tell us things that God wants or wanted that did not or will not happen and your saying that we can’t understand these verses because they destroy your doctrine of God’s sovereignty.

 

[BNR32FAN]

There is no need to scour 2 million sermons when Calvin states it plainly. See also post 369 in this tread.

“Now, since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, since to him belongs the disposal of life and death, he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that 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)​

Man I wish I could’ve been there to discuss these things with him. We know he’s basing this on Romans 9 but I wonder if he ever considered the implications of Exodus 3.

“They will pay heed to what you say; and you with the elders of Israel will come to the king of Egypt and you will say to him, ‘The Lord, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us. So now, please, let us go a three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God.’ But I know that the king of Egypt will not permit you to go, except under compulsion. So I will stretch out My hand and strike Egypt with all My miracles which I shall do in the midst of it; and after that he will let you go.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭3‬:‭18‬-‭20‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

This is why God used Pharaoh as an example and hardened his heart, because He already knew that Pharaoh would not let them go except under compulsion. So God knew that He would have to force Pharaoh to let them go and chose to use him as an example to show His might & glory.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

Yes, I had supposed this conversation would become pointless at some point when I jumped into it, if the point is to convince one or the other. I say what I do, not to convince you, but to hopefully start you, (and whoever might be reading), thinking about the frailty of your notion of freewill.

For me too, it is difficult not to jump into a conversation that needs the 'freewill' notion corrected, that the will of man trumps God's will.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

By the way, it might be worth mentioning that this could be taken to mean I said something I didn't. In this case, I don't think you meant to do that, but that say that, as I agreed that man has disappointed God since creation, therefore I should see that God didn't want that. But the way it was written, I don't want anyone to think I agree, simply with the idea that "God didn't want that", period. After all, God fully intended that Christ should suffer and die, yet Christ agonizingly pleaded not to have to go through with it. (As an aside, yet relevant, he mentioned "if there is any other way", well knowing there wasn't; he obviously "didn't want" it to happen, in that sense, but it had to happen, to obtain the end God had predestined from the beginning, which is also what Christ "wanted" and what the Father "wanted" also.

Would it suit you better that the question "does God want all to be saved" was answered, "well, yes and no."? Or better, that the question, "does God want many to perish", was answered, "well, no, and yes".

God obviously wants obedience from willed creatures, but he himself created them, and put into play the emerging of the very thing that causes disobedience, just as he willed to happen.

What's interesting to me is that a purely etymological use of "want", concerning God, is mutually exclusive with "will". That may show up in a valid study of the Doctrine of God and his attributes.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I didn’t say that God was at fault.

No. You were trying to say that what I believe puts God at fault. It does not. He is not "at fault" for causing absolutely all things to come to pass, including what leads up to, and causes, us to choose sin; but he absolutely does cause all things to come to pass, including what leads up to, and causes, us to choose sin. To claim otherwise is to claim that mere chance trumps God's will.

Obviously this statement is only pertaining to humans since God has no ancestors.

Sidestepping again? Is God, or is he not, the one and only Omnipotent First Cause?