How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Clare73]

You are welcome. And thank you for the discussion.

I engage not to persuaded you away from a position but to explain (and reexamine) my own in the hopes others will also reexamine the issues.

If you change your mind about the "ransom" then please feel free to let me know what part of my explanation you find problematic.

Previously addressed. . .

 

[John Mullally]

Lol....you've "done philosophy" on this thread when you discussed man's "sin debt" to God.

I agree that a literal method of interpretation does not necessarily lead to orthodox. My point was that it does not lead to Calvinism.

I do not understand what part is causing you difficulty.

Christ gave Himself as a ransom for all. We were ransomed from the bondage of sin and death. We were bought with a price.

It seems self explanatory to me. The cost of our redemption was the blood of Christ.

That is not Calvinism. Calvivinism shifts focus from Christ, from His death and His blood, to wonder if the passage implies some entity receiving payment. Of course, it doesn't (but Calvinism adds its philosophy to the text because to Calvinists the text does not make sence as it is written)

Do you have any internet links to better explain? I thought the penal atonement was interchangable with redemption by the blood of Christ. 2 Peter 2:1 speaks of payment and 1 Timothy 2:6 speaks of ransom. Thank you!

 

[John Caldwell]

Previously addressed. . .

Not to my understanding. If I do not understand what you are asking about "ransom" then I can't address your question of me.

You demand I address something you find problematic yet when I ask for clarification you refuse.

Why are you being so evasive?

 

[John Caldwell]

Do you have any internet links to better explain? I thought the penal atonement was interchangable with redemption by the blood of Christ. 2 Peter 2:1 speaks of payment and 1 Timothy 2:6 speaks of ransom. Thank you!

The early church (and even the text of Scripture) speaks of ransom without the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Penal Substitution does not look to the price paid (the ransom, i.e., the blood shed to free us from the bondage of sin and death) but instead looks to an entity to recieve a payment.

Here is a link to Atonement theories (if that is what you are asking):

7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D. Morrison

From the link:

Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a development of the Reformation. The Reformers, Specifically Calvin and Luther, took Anselm’s Satisfaction theory and modified it slightly. They added a more legal (or forensic) framework into this notion of the cross as satisfaction. The result is that within Penal Substitution, Jesus Christ dies to satisfy God’s wrath against human sin. Jesus is punished (penal) in the place of sinners (substitution) in order to satisfy the justice of God and the legal demand of God to punish sin. In the light of Jesus’ death, God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of the sinner, in this way meeting the retributive requirements of God’s justice. This legal balancing of the ledgers is at the heart of this theory, which claims that Jesus died for legal satisfaction.

 

[Clare73]

Not to my understanding. If I do not understand what you are asking about "ransom" then
I can't address your question of me.

See my response at post #739.

 

[John Caldwell]

See my response at post #739.

I did. And I thank you for engaging the discussion.

Often we do not recognize errors in our beliefs until we stumble upon a question we are unable to answer. It appears you have reached that point. I hope that does not dissuade your studies. You have not failed but your doctrine has failed you. That is how we learn.

 

[Clare73]

I did. And I thank you for engaging the discussion.

I refer you to my response at post #739.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I am not a Calvinist because I do not believe Calvin's theory of the Atonement (the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement) is correct.

Hi John,
Just came across this thread by accident.
I also do not agree with reformed theology...
basically because it changes the nature of God.

But I'm writing regarding the Penal Substitution theory of the atonement.

As you've correctly stated, this was new with the onset of calvinism.
The earlier theories were:

The Moral Influence Theory
The Ransom Theory
Christus Victor Theory

Then in the 12th Century

The Satisfaction Theory
The Penal Substitution Theory

There are 2 other theories but I'm not very familiar with them.

I just wanted to second you.

 

[John Caldwell]

Hi John,
Just came across this thread by accident.
I also do not agree with reformed theology...
basically because it changes the nature of God.

But I'm writing regarding the Penal Substitution theory of the atonement.

As you've correctly stated, this was new with the onset of calvinism.
The earlier theories were:

The Moral Influence Theory
The Ransom Theory
Christus Victor Theory

Then in the 12th Century

The Satisfaction Theory
The Penal Substitution Theory

There are 2 other theories but I'm not very familiar with them.

I just wanted to second you.

Thank you.

One other is Recapitulation (Irenaeus).

I enjoy studying these theories. It is interesting to see how they developed.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Thank you.

One other is Recapitulation (Irenaeus).

I enjoy studying these theories. It is interesting to see how they developed.

I do believe that there is a little bit of truth in each one.
Penal Substitution and also the Scapegoat theory seem to be the worst, IMO.
The ransom theory is a bit more gentle than Penal Sub.

But not to change the topic at hand...

 

[John Caldwell]

I refer you to my response at post #739.

??

Yes, I read the post.

I asked for clarification about what you didn't understand about my view of a ransom.

You replied that you were not interested in answering.

I understand that you cannot engage the topic by explaining your question to me. That is fine. There is no shame in backing out. Go back and study. We can discuss the ransom when you are better equipped.

You do not need to keep repeating yourself.

 

[John Mullally]

Calvinism is the biblical teaching.
It is taught in all 66 books.
Calvin was one of the first who saw it, and wrote about it so they pinned that label on it.
Before the printing press not many had copies of scripture like we do now. We have several copies and study books that were not around then.

How do you come up with Calvinism being taught in the 66 books of the Bible? The fact that per the 66 books, God is supreme, does not mean what Calvinists famously imply - which is that our supreme God ordains ever action of His creation. I only need one case in point from scripture to refute that and it is given per Jeremiah 32:35, where scripture says that men acted in a way that the Lord never imagined - so therefore He did not fore-ordain all of men's action.

 

[Clare73]

??
Yes, I read the post.
I asked for clarification about what you didn't understand about my view of a ransom.
You replied that you were not interested in answering.
I understand that you cannot engage the topic by explaining your question to me. That is fine. There is no shame in backing out. Go back and study. We can discuss the ransom when you are better equipped.
You do not need to keep repeating yourself.

I refer you to my response at post #739.

 

[John Mullally]

I refer you to my response at post #739.

Ha, Ha! Always have to have the last word! Over 10,000 posts supporting Calvinism on this forum, but when asked have not studied Calvinism, won't discuss TULIP, admittedly have not studied Calvin's writings in depth. Poses as a Paulist - who won't accept 1 Timothy 2:1-6. Frequently references scripture without argumentation on how that exactly it supports your point - the rest of us are not mind-readers.

 

[John Caldwell]

Lol

I have grown accustomed to such responses in this topic

Question - Why didn't you address ransom?

Counter question - What part of my view of ransom did you not understand?

Answer - I'm no longer responding.

This is typical of people when they venture farther than their theology will allow.

I will restate my view for the post. Christ ransomed us from the bondage of sin and death. We were purchased with a price, the precious blood of Christ.

I'm not sure I can offer anything more to explain that truth. It seems self explanatory to me.

In the US people say "freedom isn't free", but was paid for by the blood of our soldiers.

To me, that is self explanatory. It speaks of a cost, or payment, endured for someone else.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

How do you come up with Calvinism being taught in the 66 books of the Bible? The fact that per the 66 books, God is supreme, does not mean what Calvinists famously imply - which is that our supreme God ordains ever action of His creation. I only need one case in point from scripture to refute that and it is given per Jeremiah 32:35, where scripture says that men acted in a way that the Lord never imagined - so therefore He did not fore-ordain all of men's action.

You do not believe in the Biblical God.
The Biblical God is omniscient.
Listen to the sermons you were offered.

 

[Clare73]

This is typical of people when they venture farther than their theology will allow.
I will restate my view for the post. Christ ransomed us from the bondage of sin and death. We were purchased with a price, the precious blood of Christ.
I'm not sure I can offer anything more to explain that truth. It seems self explanatory to me.
In the US people say "freedom isn't free", but was paid for by the blood of our soldiers.
To me, that is self explanatory. It speaks of a cost, or payment, endured for someone else.

Agreed. . .that is substitution.
Because they paid for our freedom with their blood, the rest of us didn't have to lose it.

I refer you to my response of post #739.

 

[John Caldwell]

I refer you to my response of post #739.

Why? I wasn't dealing with you. I know you cannot explain your question. You made that very clear.

Decades ago I changed my undergrad major to religion for this reason. I found that many in our churches hold views that they cannot defend.

CS Lewis referred to this as holding other people's beliefs (beliefs one holds without having that right).

We need to be able to provide an answer for our faith. This includes being able to articulate reasonable responses to questions, something that at this time seems to elude you.

I refer you to my previous suggestion. Go back and study the ransom paid to free us from bondage. When you are able to identify exactly what you were trying to ask of me then (and only then) please feel free to ask.

Until then, I refer you to your response of post #739.

 

[John Mullally]

You do not believe in the Biblical God.
The Biblical God is omniscient.
Listen to the sermons you were offered.

Omniscient or omnipotent does not mean omni-controlling.

The fact that God is omiscient or omnipotent does not mean he has not left somethings up to man (Read Mark 11:23-24).

I have been around the block. Nevertheless, I have listened to John MacArthur in recent times and long-ago considered being a Calvinist as a teenager - but it contradicted scripture. I find other denominations are more in line with scripture,

 

[Clare73]

Why? I wasn't dealing with you.

Your post failed to indicate that.