How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[BNR32FAN]

Been through this many time in many ways with you and others. It is a WARNING. We are more than capable of fooling ourselves; it behooves us to remember that our effort in obedience is necessary. "Apart from me you can do nothing". If we try to live on our own, apart from Christ, we are not accomplishing anything. Therefore, the warning is to us, that we need to continue in him. This reminds me of the old argument, where the Arminian claims the Calvinist implies that salvation is automatic and so therefore there is no need for effort on the part of the regenerated. Balderdash. How do you think God accomplishes his sure, predetermined ends? The way we would? No, his power is shown in weakness. WE have to work, and even then we find ourselves unable to do even the silliest of propositions, apart from him.

So it’s a warning of something they are capable of doing or a warning of something they aren’t capable of doing?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I’m sorry I just don’t see how when a person makes a choice that it is considered to be mere chance. If someone asks me a question and I tell them a lie there’s a reason for telling that lie, it wasn’t just the result of a random occurrence. It’s not like we don’t know or can’t control whether or not we’re going to tell a lie. When I roll dice I don’t have any control over what they’re going to land on, that is mere chance. When I sin I do have control over whether or not I’m going to sin, that’s not mere chance.

Exactly so! It is CAUSED!

You make your choices according to your inclinations, do you not?

You say you have control over your choices, and you do, but you still make your choices according to your inclinations. Those inclinations are CAUSED. And they are caused, either by God (first cause), or by mere Chance —those are the only two 'possible' ultimate causes. And it is self-contradictory to say that Chance can cause anything. Therefore, God is the cause. And yes, you freely choose according to your inclinations, exactly as God has caused them. You cause them, and God causes them.

BTW, when you roll the dice, the fact you do not control the outcome does not relegate it to chance. Again, it is self-contradictory to say that Chance can determine anything. But,
Proverbs 16:33
The lot is cast into the lap,
but its every decision is from the Lord.

 

[Mark Quayle]

God is the Creator of all things He is not the cause of all things. I strongly disagree with your entire understanding of causality because everything is not the result of a domino effect, not when your dealing with sentient beings capable of making choices. The choice one person may make can be completely different than the choice another person might make in the same situation and even the same person can make different choices in the same situation. A premeditated choice can often be completely different than a spurt of the moment choice in the same situation. How many times have you made a choice only to think later that you should’ve done it differently? God does not cause all of this decision making process, if He did we wouldn’t have so many problems in this world and in this life.

If God did not cause it, what did? Your claim that sentient beings capable of choices
are somehow outside the chain of causation is a claim of self-determination. Well, I'm sorry, but it is mere assertion, and, frankly, absurd, to claim that your control of your own choices is uncaused. And if you specifically reject that God (first cause) causes your choices, then you have appealed to the self-contradictory notion of causation by chance.

Or are you going to claim absolute spontaneity for yourself?

Yes I did when you said that everything that happened, happened because God caused it to happen. So when the shooting in Uvalde Tx where a boy shot & killed 19 elementary students happened God did not cause that guy to shoot anyone. If God caused him to shoot those kids then the shooter wouldn’t be responsible for their deaths, God would. Your reasoning on this subject is illogical.

Wrong again. If God caused it, as he causes all things, he is the one to determine fault. We are at fault if we choose to sin according to our inclinations. You can't make the blanket statement that if God causes it, he is to blame.

Take that notion to its logical extreme: Is God to blame for the deaths of the millions in the flood? Is God to blame for the default state of sin into which we are born? NO! Not blame. Did God do those things? Most certainly he did. But God does not sin, nor act contrary to his own perfect and pure nature. You cannot judge God, and certainly you cannot judge him according to your conception of love and justice. You are under the command, not above it.

Yes really and let me show you an example. My decisions are not completely random. If some asks me a million times can I shoot you in the foot my answer will always be no. It’s never a random answer like mere chance would be. Now roll dice a million times and see if you roll the same number every time. It’s never going to happen because that is mere chance, it’s a random unpredictable result.

Now you are making my point. Yes! your decisions are not random. But you are wrong about the dice. "...it's every decision is from the Lord" Prov 16:33. There is no such thing as chance: it is only a stand-in for, "I don't know."

Thus, when you claim that God does not cause your decisions, your objection is really due to the fact that you think it has to be one or the other —that your decision and his decision are mutually exclusive— but they are not. Your only recourse then, is to appeal to chance, but "that dog don't hunt". Only first cause can be self-determining.

I have shown that by showing that I didn’t cause my son to disobey me by choosing to have a son knowing that he would disobey me before he was conceived. Just like God knew that we would sin before He created us, His creating us didn’t cause our sin, it was an inevitable side effect of free will which we absolutely must have in order to choose to love God.

That doesn't work, because God is First Cause, above all things and from whom all things come. You are not. Nevertheless, if you knew your son would disobey you and you chose to have him anyway, you are one of many causes of your son to disobey you.
Further, if freewill is given you by God, he caused that, and its assumed side effect, sin.

You say, "free will which we absolutely must have in order to choose to love God". That is mere assertion. Unsupported. Also, it is a vague use of 'free will'. Do you mean mere robotic choice? Yes you must have choice in order to choose to love God. Do you mean choice according to your inclinations? Yes, you must be inclined to love God, to choose to love God. Do you mean uncaused choice? No, you cannot, uncaused, do anything.

It gets even more complicated, when you make such a statement: You have not even shown that you can choose to love God, apart from God's causation. Romans 5, and Romans 8, and Ephesians 2, among many other passages, would seem to disagree with that.

What is causation by chance? Can you give me an example of this?

No! I cannot! That is my point. There is no such thing as Chance! I agree the notion is absurd that your choices are caused by chance, but what else can you appeal to, if you reject that your choices are caused, not only by you, but by God —are you going to claim personal sovereignty? Are you another First Cause? Even you will admit that your will and ability to choose is given to you by God, and not by chance.

Again, "chance" is a construction in our minds. "'Chance' is a placeholder for, 'I don't know'". It does not exist.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Fist of all, Hebrews 6:4-6 is a warning, which must be seen in the context of the warning in Hebrews 3:7-4:11, regarding the rebellion of the Israelites in the desert, where
they tasted the fruit of Canaan when they spied it out,
but rebelled and refused to go into their promised rest (Joshua 1:13) there (Numbers 14),
invoking God's judgment, wherein he denied Canaan to all of them (Hebrews 3:11)
and let them die in the wilderness (Hebrews 3:16-19).

These newly professing Hebrew Christians--who in their discipling had been enlightened, had tasted the heavenly gift, had shared in the influence of the Holy Spirit (not his regeneration), had tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age (as the spies had tasted the fruit of their coming future)--were considering a return to Judaism. And they are being warned that, if they rebel; i.e., refuse to go into full salvation rest in Jesus Christ, they will be cut off as were the Israelites in the desert who refused to go into their Canaan rest (Deuteronomy 25:19). There will be no renewing of them.

For once an apostate has tasted the heavenly gifts, found them not to his liking and has rejected them, you will not be able get him to try them again. He's been there, done that, and rejects it.
All apostates were never born again.

What, in all this you say, do you take me to disagree with? If they are not born again, what is the problem with saying they can not return to Christ?

 

[Mark Quayle]

If God punished Adam & Eve for doing something that He caused them to do then His judgement upon them was unjust.

Says who?

Your saying that this was God’s will right? That He decreed that they would sin and that His will cannot be thwarted?

True enough.

So then Adam & Eve had no choice but to sin, is that correct?

False. They had choice.

If they had no other choice but to sin then they can’t be punished for failing to meet an impossible expectation.

But they had choice.

That would be like if God commanded that we must eat our own entire body or we will be thrown into the lake of fire for all eternity. Obviously it’s impossible for someone to eat their own entire body so that expectation is impossible to meet therefore the punishment is unjust.

That is, frankly, an absurd comparison. But to go with the absurd, if God commanded that, and one chose to obey, but was unable to complete the terms, God can still do as he sees just —not as you see just.

One reason it is an absurd comparison, is because in reality, the parallel (God commanding repentance and faith and obedience from those whose inclinations are continually against God, and are unable to submit to nor to please God (per Romans 8)), is that when the dead 'makes a choice for God', he only thinks he is making that choice, but is instead choosing a mockery of God, not knowing what he is doing.

Reminds me of when, on this site, an atheist (or agnostic or other) quoted the verse, "...no one can say, "Jesus is Lord", except by the Holy Spirit." Then he mockingly said, "Jesus is Lord —see? I said it". To me, at least, it was pretty obvious he was not saying that Jesus is Lord.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I agree they are not presently regenerate they are apostates. Forgive me for saying this but it doesn’t seem like your completely thinking this thru. I even highlighted in all capital bold letters so that it would stand out and specifically mentioned that the passage says that “it is impossible to renew them AGAIN to repentance”. So evidently they were already repentant before they fell away. Since no one can repent unless they are regenerate that means that they were regenerate before they fell away.

There is false repentance, as I think you know. Sometimes, I wonder if I am false, judging by my [lack of] obedience. Hebrews 6 is a somber warning for me.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Perhaps I misunderstood you but I thought you were referring to verse 6 where it says “it is impossible to renew them again to repentance”.

You've lost me here. I don't follow at all. If you want me to understand, I think you are going to have to start giving me the completed thought. I'm not good at guessing, as my wife found out soon after we married.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I use a Greek interlinear Bible almost on a daily basis but I do admit that I am not well versed in Greek word variations, usages, and sentence structure. But what your suggesting doesn’t line up with the illustration that follows in verses 7 & 8. Not to mention I can’t find any translations that translate it the way your suggesting. Perhaps the scholars see something in the sentence structure that we don’t. Here’s the wording from the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible, surely they understand the Greek language.

Regarding those who were once enlightened, who tasted of the heavenly gift, became partakers of the Holy Spirit, *tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, but then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance! They crucify the Son of God for themselves all over again and expose him to shame!

Yes, the translators did the best they can. And they did very well. I'm not even suggesting they missed something. I'm just suggesting a possibility. But I see many possibilities, and none of them include the notion that one whom God has elected to be a member of the Bride of Christ can be lost.

But I'm also thinking you are missing my point about the construction, (again —IF this is correct). To me, it may be that the author is saying that the whole scenario is impossible. Thus: "It (the following) is impossible: Those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance, etc." Thus the reasoning, "they cannot fall away, since they have been enlightened, etc..." But this is not my favorite use of the passage.

From my own experience, I can say with full assurance, that I have experienced some of what Hebrews 6 describes. I cannot say with full assurance, that those things are sure evidence of my regeneration. They may well be false, or they may be true, but not be from the Spirit of God indwelling me. My track record constantly accuses me. Thus, the usefulness of the warning. It need not be a statement that such a thing is possible, (that one having had those experiences can fall away) but that if such a thing was to happen, it is sure that such a person is reprobate.

Another use of it brings to mind another passage: 1 Corinthians 3:15 "If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet only so as through fire." Notice that the passage in Hebrews 6 does not mention the end condemnation of one who has lost the salvation he once had, but only that he cannot return to repentance. We may be inferring from it what it may not be implying. See vs 8, and, of course, vs 9.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ultimately in the end it all comes down to what the scriptures actually state. That takes precedence over what may seem to make good sense because what makes good sense is subjective.

Of course, yet you too hold to the idea that what makes good sense is most likely the more accurate interpretation of scripture.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, a trustworthy saying. Are you suggesting that he wasn’t saying it in context to themselves? That would make it an irrelevant saying if it didn’t pertain to either of them.

Ha! No. Of course it was in context to themselves, and to Timothy in particular. How does that make it possible for Timothy to lost his salvation? Paul used it as a warning.

I only mentioned that it was a quote, not originally directed at Timothy alone, as you suggested.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So it’s a warning of something they are capable of doing or a warning of something they aren’t capable of doing?

It's a warning that they must be careful not to do it. You still insist on claiming it implies the ability to lose God's salvation?

Again, Scripture is replete with assurances that God will complete what he has begun. If God has chosen anyone, that person WILL be saved. Whether I, or anyone else, is one of those he has chosen, remains to be seen. But it seems to me that the Spirit witnesses to my spirit, that I am a child of God.

 

[Clare73]

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.

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

According to your hermeneutics, that is inference on your part for the sake of your theology, for it does not state "God is three in one."

So much for being literal. . .I'm as "literal" as you are.

 

[Clare73]

What, in all this you say, do you take me to disagree with? If they are not born again, what is the problem with saying they can not return to Christ?

Nothing. . .just filling out your response to include the added dimension of apostasy, with which it is dealing (Hebrews 3:12) in Hebrews 6:4-6--even though they had tasted the heavenly gifts,
and which it parallels (Hebrews 3:15, 19, 4:6, 11) to the rebellion/apostasy of Numbers 12:14, all to further demonstrate that apostates were never regenerated, in spite of having tasted the heavenly gifts.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You say you have control over your choices, and you do, but you still make your choices according to your inclinations. Those inclinations are CAUSED. And they are caused, either by God (first cause), or by mere Chance —those are the only two 'possible' ultimate causes.

No they are not the only two causes because not all decisions are premeditated, not all decisions are systematic, and not all decisions are deliberate, some are completely random. Pick a door, door 1, door 2, or door 3. They all look the same but one has a prize behind it the others don’t. So there’s no systematic thought process or inclination. Whatever door you choose is completely random. The reason I might choose any door is the same no matter what door I choose. I could choose door 1 because I think maybe it’s behind that door while at the same time thinking it might be behind door 2 or 3. No matter which door I choose whatever I think is behind door number 1 I also think could be behind the other two doors because I don’t know what’s behind any of them. Sometimes we make decisions based on nothing more than let’s try this and see what happens. I could be trying to fix a circuit board that has a wire that came loose and I don’t know where it came loose from. So I might try touching it around in different places to see what happens. I might have an electrical problem with my car and I don’t know what the cause is. I might look under the hood first, or I might look under the dash, either choice is random because if I look under the hood I might think the problem could be there but at the same time I could be thinking it’s not under there and it’s under the dash or somewhere else. These are examples of random choices because we have no information to base an inclination on. Twice I’ve started my coffee pot with no cup under it because I forgot to put it there while I was getting ready for work and when I came back coffee was all over the counter. I didn’t intend to start the coffee pot without a cup under it I just forgot to put it there. There’s no cause other than I simply forgot. These are examples of decisions based on no information, no systematic thought process, are not premeditated, and are not deliberate. They are not the result of a cause.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

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)​

https://www.sg-audiotreasures.org/grace/03wd_limited.mp3
John, start here.
https://www.sg-audiotreasures.org/grace/02wd_election.mp3
https://www.sg-audiotreasures.org/grace/04wd_effic.mp3

 

[BNR32FAN]

Wrong again. If God caused it, as he causes all things, he is the one to determine fault. We are at fault if we choose to sin according to our inclinations. You can't make the blanket statement that if God causes it, he is to blame.

Take that notion to its logical extreme: Is God to blame for the deaths of the millions in the flood? Is God to blame for the default state of sin into which we are born? NO! Not blame. Did God do those things? Most certainly he did. But God does not sin, nor act contrary to his own perfect and pure nature. You cannot judge God, and certainly you cannot judge him according to your conception of love and justice. You are under the command, not above it.

Your playing both sides of the fence here. You say that God caused people to sin and that His will cannot be thwarted so everything that happened happened because God caused it then you say that the people sinned and are guilty of that sin when in all actuality they cannot choose to do otherwise. Your saying that God corralled them onto a path that they could not possibly deviate from no matter what they did then punished them for being on that path and you call it just and ignore the definition of the word. So what YOU are really saying is that in reality God is unjust and is not confined to act within any set moral standards.

What your saying here is that if God is unjust He is actually just. Your just contradicting the definition of the word just as if it doesn’t apply to God which is incorrect because God is not above the definition of unjust. If He is to be just then He is required to act within a certain moral code otherwise His justice is subjective and there is no justice at all. Then God wouldn’t be just He would simply act however He pleased with no constraints at all. I know that’s what you think God does but if that were the case then He could not be considered to be just if He defies the very definition of the word. The only way God can be just is by acting within the set parameters of the definition of that word, if He doesn’t then He is not just. It’s like saying God is green when He’s actually blue and ignoring what color He actually is. The definition of just is fair and impartial which I know Calvinists struggle with because they absolutely believe that God is not impartial even tho the scriptures specifically state that He is in Romans 2 and Acts 10. The word just has a set definition and ANYONE acting outside of the parameters of that definition by definition cannot be called just. God is absolutely just BECAUSE He does act within those parameters. The same definition of just that applies to humans is the same definition that applies to God. Just because you don’t think so is irrelevant and actually contradictory to the scriptures. And again it comes back to not believing what the scriptures actually state.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No they are not the only two causes because not all decisions are premeditated, not all decisions are systematic, and not all decisions are deliberate, some are completely random. Pick a door, door 1, door 2, or door 3. They all look the same but one has a prize behind it the others don’t. So there’s no systematic thought process or inclination.

Whether a decision is premeditated or not has no relevance to the question of whether they are caused, nor to the question of whether they are according to one's inclinations, nor even as to whether they are always according to one's inclinations. More on this below...

Whatever door you choose is completely random. The reason I might choose any door is the same no matter what door I choose. I could choose door 1 because I think maybe it’s behind that door while at the same time thinking it might be behind door 2 or 3. No matter which door I choose whatever I think is behind door number 1 I also think could be behind the other two doors because I don’t know what’s behind any of them. Sometimes we make decisions based on nothing more than let’s try this and see what happens. I could be trying to fix a circuit board that has a wire that came loose and I don’t know where it came loose from. So I might try touching it around in different places to see what happens. I might have an electrical problem with my car and I don’t know what the cause is. I might look under the hood first, or I might look under the dash, either choice is random because if I look under the hood I might think the problem could be there but at the same time I could be thinking it’s not under there and it’s under the dash or somewhere else. These are examples of random choices because we have no information to base an inclination on. Twice I’ve started my coffee pot with no cup under it because I forgot to put it there while I was getting ready for work and when I came back coffee was all over the counter. I didn’t intend to start the coffee pot without a cup under it I just forgot to put it there. There’s no cause other than I simply forgot. These are examples of decisions based on no information, no systematic thought process, are not premeditated, and are not deliberate. They are not the result of a cause.

Do you really think there is no reason why you forgot; no reason why you 'tried this first'; no reason why look under the hood first; why you chose door number 2 devoid of knowledge as to what is behind it and the other doors? There's always a reason, even if you don't know what it is, even if you decided spur-of-the-moment.

If you think there is anything that is completely random, (which is contrary to reason and contrary to science) you ascribe results to causation outside of God's doing, (which is contrary to Scripture). The fact that we don't know the cause doesn't mean that there isn't one. Where does reason demand "no cause"? When you choose a door, even unpremeditated, you chose the one you preferred, even if only for that instant of decision. You don't need "information to base an inclination on" to have an inclination that influences your decision. You don't even need to be conscious of deciding to have decided, so why should you need information for you to base your inclination on, for it to NOT be random? You always choose according to your inclinations —according to what you prefer.

Do you think chance or randomness is a harmless little principle that doesn't deny God's Omnipotence? It is not a thing at all, or it has power outside of God's causation, which denies God's Omnipotence. You make God subject to it. Good thing it is self-contradictory to claim it can do anything! It doesn't exist.

By the way: What do you do with that verse I've referred to twice now in this conversation? Proverbs 16:33
"The lot is cast into the lap,
but its every decision is from the Lord."

The NLT says, "We may throw the dice, but the LORD determines how they fall."
The CEV says, "We make our own decisions, but the LORD alone determines what happens."

 

[BNR32FAN]

You say, "free will which we absolutely must have in order to choose to love God". That is mere assertion. Unsupported.

It’s a lot better than God is just no matter what He chooses to do even if it contradicts the very definition of the word. Thats a lot worse than an assertion it’s a direct contradiction. At least my assertion is consistent with the scriptures, God’s character, and the definition of the word love.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Wrong again. If God caused it, as he causes all things, he is the one to determine fault. We are at fault if we choose to sin according to our inclinations. You can't make the blanket statement that if God causes it, he is to blame.

Ok so the boy who killed 19 elementary students could’ve chosen not to do that?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Your playing both sides of the fence here. You say that God caused people to sin and that His will cannot be thwarted so everything that happened happened because God caused it then you say that the people sinned and are guilty of that sin when in all actuality they cannot choose to do otherwise. Your saying that God corralled them onto a path that they could not possibly deviate from no matter what they did then punished them for being on that path and you call it just and ignore the definition of the word. So what YOU are really saying is that in reality God is unjust and is not confined to act within any set moral standards.

Your concept of what I'm trying to get across is still too weak to describe what God is doing. God doesn't corral them. He specifically CAUSES EVERYTHING that comes to pass, in every detail, down to the smallest existence and motion of the smallest particle and force in the universe, including within every cell of the bodies of the reprobate. Somehow, you want him deistically to have set things in motion, with only vague intentions, for the most part, but otherwise theistically to, by the seat of his pants, by his great wisdom correct the flow of events from time to time, to accomplish only his greater ends. If you think God isn't particular, read the Old Testament again, or consider whether he really cares what the Bride of Christ and His Dwelling Place are like. I say all that, even apart from the plain logic of the prevalence of causation.

God is not only far enough above us that his condemnation is just regardless if he made us for that end alone because we are his to do with as he pleases, (but he did not make us for that end alone. Not even those who are ultimately condemned are made for that end alone. So don't even go there.), but he is a completely different sort of being from what we are. He is self-existent, and he alone is uncontrolled by outside causes. He commands humans and angels —not himself. So don't make like God even CAN be unjust to bind people to their evil natures.

What your saying here is that if God is unjust He is actually just.

No. I'm not saying that. Once again, that is YOUR use of what I am saying.

Your just contradicting the definition of the word just as if it doesn’t apply to God which is incorrect because God is not above the definition of unjust. If He is to be just then He is required to act within a certain moral code otherwise His justice is subjective and there is no justice at all. Then God wouldn’t be just He would simply act however He pleased with no constraints at all. I know that’s what you think God does but if that were the case then He could not be considered to be just if He defies the very definition of the word. The only way God can be just is by acting within the set parameters of the definition of that word, if He doesn’t then He is not just. It’s like saying God is green when He’s actually blue and ignoring what color He actually is. The definition of just is fair and impartial which I know Calvinists struggle with because they absolutely believe that God is not impartial even tho the scriptures specifically state that He is in Romans 2 and Acts 10. The word just has a set definition and ANYONE acting outside of the parameters of that definition by definition cannot be called just. God is absolutely just BECAUSE He does act within those parameters. The same definition of just that applies to humans is the same definition that applies to God. Just because you don’t think so is irrelevant and actually contradictory to the scriptures. And again it comes back to not believing what the scriptures actually state.

Who wrote that "moral code"? Why is he "required" (your word) to do anything? Who is going to require anything of him? Justice is DEFINED by and comes from him, just as do love, purity and goodness. Our opinions are useless to contain him.

You are dead wrong to say that he must act "within a certain moral code [because] otherwise his justice is subjective." Do you not know that Christ, our Lord and God, IS God's Word? Don't you know that he is called "The Lord Our Righteousness"? This is not fact because he is extremely righteous —these are facts because he IS them. He acts only according to his nature, according to who/what he is. He is under no obligation. ALL things are made by HIM.