How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Clare73]

I agree with the first.

But how do you get from Jesus dying for our sins, redeeming us with a price, ransoming us, ect. to the idea of Penal Substitution Theory without philosophy?

For one, the wages of sin is death and we die.

The death from which Jesus saves us is the wrath of God (Romans 5:9) in eternal death in hell.

The idea that we escape these wages is philosophical.
What we escape is the wrath to come (the Judgment).
It is appointed to man once to die and then the Judgment.

That refers to physical death, not eternal death.

 

[John Caldwell]

The death from which Jesus saves us is the wrath of God (Romans 5:9) in eternal death in hell.

What we escape is the wrath to come (the Judgment). It is appointed to man once to die and then the Judgment.
That refers to physical death, not eternal death.

I agree that it is in Christ we escape the wrath to come (the Judgment).

Men being appointed once to die is a physical death, i.e., the "wages of sin" in Genesis. And afterwards is the Judgment (which has been given to Christ).

 

[Clare73]

I agree that it is in Christ we escape the wrath to come (the Judgment).

The Judgment is the wrath to come in their sentence to eternal death.

Men being appointed once to die is a physical death, i.e., the "wages of sin" in Genesis. And afterwards is the Judgment (which has been given to Christ).

The event of the Final Judgment (i.e., Court) is not the sentence of that judgment (i.e., eternal death).

In trying to convince those Hebrew newly professing Christians not to return to Judaism (which it seems they were considering), the writer is showing in his letter the superiority of the NT over the OT, and in
chp. 9 is comparing Christ's sacrifice to the OT sacrificial system, showing that his was a better sacrifice.

In Hebrews 9:25-28, he employs the natural order in a parallel to explain that
as man dies once naturally (as a consequence of sin, Romans 5:12), so Christ died once as the perfect sacrifice for sin (v.28).
And as, after death, man faces judgment, so Christ after his death, will appear again in the second coming, bringing both salvation from sin (eternal life) and his judgment of/on sin (eternal death).

So the event of the Final Judgment (i.e., Court at the second coming)
is not the sentence of judgment (i.e., eternal death).
And the standard of judgment is simply saving faith in Christ.
Those with it are saved, those without it are condemned.

And I do not wish to continue this discussion, as I am not here to engage misrepresentation
(in which you traffic in your "affirmative" and deliberately false insinuations/representations/assertions; e.g., posts #710, #740, #746, #751).

 

[Mark Quayle]

We have limited free will, we are free agents. . .we can freely choose, without external force or constraint, what we prefer.

Yet, what we choose cannot be, whether we see it as plainly logical or biblical or both, contrary to God's causation and predestination.

To say it differently, "without external force or constraint", does not mean "uncaused".

 

[zoidar]

I disagree with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

What theory do you hold of atonement? I'm undecided.

Edit: Haven't read the whole thread. Feel free to direct me to a post.

 

[John Mullally]

Exactly, and that is free will.

Some reject the idea of free will because we will according to our desires. Others acknowledge that men have free will but reject libertarian free will.

When I mentioned philosophy...well....now do you see what I mean?

You are there now.

In Romans, Paul takes a lawyerly and rhetorical approach to introducing doctrine as he was using the only tools he had at hand which is long chains of reasoning and OT passages to support his newly introduced doctrine.

But now that Christians have accepted the NT books as being from God, we can use the entire Bible to derive doctrine with preference given to the NT as revelation has been progressive (refer to Ephesians 3 to the mystery of the Gospel now being revealed) and the NT being written to NT believers. Use a Occums Razor approach to doctrine as there is enough in the Bible (especially the NT) in almost all cases to derive doctrine directly through passages without needing to resort to long chains of logic that includes inductive reasoning, questionable assumptions, and philosophy.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Rom6:20
For when you were the Servants of sin you were free from righteousness

What does Romans 6:20 mean to you?

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Making

Agreed. . .I explain the free will presented in Scripture in terms of philosophy.
Which I do not do in regard to the atonement.

Jesus paying the price (ransom) for my sin is direct Biblical revelation (Matthew 20:28, Hebrews 9:15) of substitutionary atonement, paying it in my place instead of me paying it.

A choice does not make the Will free.
The teaching of Calvinism comes from scripture, not gnostic, not carnal
philosophy ,not rc church,.or any other diversion.
The enemies of the teaching try and shift.it away from scripture.
You.jump in to the worldly notion of free will which is not Biblical, and you move away from.revealed truth.

 

[Clare73]

Why would/should it be un-meaningfully involved? There'd be no need or reason for the bible to begin with unless to instruct on us what we should do, because of the fact that we many not do it! Unless the human will is meaningfully, really involved, rather than determined, then the bible is just the reporting of a giant puppet show, where evil and good are both gratuitous and effectively meaningless concepts since the Puppeteer creates and orchestrates both for some unknown reason, with all the misery that results both on earth and in hell.

Which does not state where this notion of "meaningful" is found in Scripture, as being necessary to validate Biblical teaching.
That is your addition to Scripture.

 

[Clare73]

A choice does not make the Will free.
The teaching of Calvinism comes from scripture, not gnostic, not carnal
philosophy ,not rc church,.or any other diversion.
The enemies of the teaching try and shift.it away from scripture.
You.jump in to the worldly notion of free will which is not Biblical, and you move away from.revealed truth.

However, I am not describing its cause, what makes it free, I am only describing its operation, which is what its philosophical definition seeks to do.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

What does Romans 6:20 mean to you?

When a person is bound by sin...they cannot do anything that is acceptable to God.
Read the whole section.
When God saves us from the practice of our sins, we are free to serve.
We are never "free to sin".
GaL 5:13....use not your liberty for an occasion to the flesh

 

[GodsGrace101]

When a person is bound by sin...they cannot do anything that is acceptable to God.
Read the whole section.
When God saves us from the practice of our sins, we are free to serve.
We are never "free to sin".
GaL 5:13....use not your liberty for an occasion to the flesh

Thanks.
I agree.
Only service to God makes us totally free.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Thanks.
I agree.
Only service to God makes us totally free.

There is no free will in heaven....no one will sin,or be free to sin

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

However, I am not describing its cause, what makes it free, I am only describing its operation, which is what its philosophical definition seeks to do.

The Spurgeon Library | Free-Will – A Slave

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Man's Will - Free Yet Bound by Walter J. Chantry

 

[GodsGrace101]

There is no free will in heaven....no one will sin,or be free to sin

Agreed again.
Although I think this subject of free will in heaven is not discussed much.
We will also be glorified and have no desire to sin.
Since we will be making only one choice -
or since only one choice is available to us, we can say that we will not have free will.

 

[zoidar]

Agreed again.
Although I think this subject of free will in heaven is not discussed much.
We will also be glorified and have no desire to sin.
Since we will be making only one choice -
or since only one choice is available to us, we can say that we will not have free will.

Free will to me has nothing to do with whether one can choose to sin or not. Free will has to do with having a choice independant of prior events. So yes I believe we will have free will now and also in heaven.

 

[John Caldwell]

The Judgment is the wrath to come in their sentence to eternal death.

The event of the Final Judgment (i.e., Court) is not the sentence of that judgment (i.e., eternal death).

In trying to convince those Hebrew newly professing Christians not to return to Judaism (which it seems they were considering), the writer is showing in his letter the superiority of the NT over the OT, and in
chp. 9 is comparing Christ's sacrifice to the OT sacrificial system, showing that his was a better sacrifice.

In Hebrews 9:25-28, he employs the natural order in a parallel to explain that
as man dies once naturally (as a consequence of sin, Romans 5:12), so Christ died once as the perfect sacrifice for sin (v.28).
And as, after death, man faces judgment, so Christ after his death, will appear again in the second coming, bringing both salvation from sin (eternal life) and his judgment of/on sin (eternal death).

So the event of the Final Judgment (i.e., Court at the second coming)
is not the sentence of judgment (i.e., eternal death).

And I do not wish to continue this discussion, as I am not here to engage misrepresentation
(in which you traffic; e.g., posts #710, #740, #746, #751).

No. Death entered the world through Adam. The Judgment is Christ-centered (John 3).

Christianity knew this for the first millenia. Unfortunately so many have forgotten with the advent of Penal Substitution Theory in the 16th century.

 

[John Caldwell]

What theory do you hold of atonement? I'm undecided.

Edit: Haven't read the whole thread. Feel free to direct me to a post.

I believe the Christis Victor motif is correct as an overall theme.

If I narrow it down to a theory then I'd say the Ransom Theory (the Ransom paid, not paid to Satan). But the Moral Influence view, and Recapitulation, also point out important truths.

Historically there are two main branches of theories - the classic view (Ransom, Moral Influence, Christis Victor) and the Latin view (Satisfaction, Penal Substitution).

I view the Classic as correct and the Latin as a bit too contrived.

 

[John Caldwell]

In Romans, Paul takes a lawyerly and rhetorical approach to introducing doctrine as he was using the only tools he had at hand which is long chains of reasoning and OT passages to support his newly introduced doctrine.

But now that Christians have accepted the NT books as being from God, we can use the entire Bible to derive doctrine with preference given to the NT as revelation has been progressive (refer to Ephesians 3 to the mystery of the Gospel now being revealed) and the NT being written to NT believers. Use a Occums Razor approach to doctrine as there is enough in the Bible (especially the NT) in almost all cases to derive doctrine directly through passages without needing to resort to long chains of logic that includes inductive reasoning, questionable assumptions, and philosophy.

I agree. That is exactly my argument against Calvinism.