How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Clare73]

Calvinism and Arminianism Are one in the same. Just worded a little different.

Cal: If you don't have the right works.......You really were not saved.

Arm: If you don't work you will lose salvation.

Both are works centered religion.

Yes, both require the obedience of genuine faith, or one's faith is counterfeit and did not/does not save.

 

[fhansen]

—Which brings up an interesting question: You agree with me that on this earth we don't even nearly achieve perfection, right? So when he transforms us into what we will be in heaven, "perfected in love", does he give us the right of informed consent concerning what is going to happen? No, don't tell me you know what is going to happen. None of us have more than a clue, if that.

I guess I don't understand the question. But... He tells us we'll be transformed into His image, beginning now. We know that He is love, and that He wants us to love as He does as the greatest commandments make clear, and that we love Him because He first loved us (1 John 4:19), and He clearly demonstrated that love, especially on the cross. And that we must not fail to love, i.e. we must not sin in ways that would keep us from heaven (Gal 5:19-21, Rev 22:14-15, Rom 8:12-13), and we know that He can and does begin to sanctify us already here on earth which must happen in order to gain eternal life (Rom 6:22, Heb 12:14) so we certainly should have some idea what it means!

 

[Gr8Grace]

Yes, both require the obedience of genuine faith, or one's faith is counterfeit and did not/does not save.

I agree with you, both are religion.

 

[atpollard]

1 Timothy 2:6 and 1 John 2:2 torpedos limited atonement as those scriptures list the atonemenent as being provided for all men. Additionally 2 Peter 2:1 says the atonement was made for Apostates on there way to destruction. 2 Peter 2 torpedos perseverence of the saints because Peter identifies false teachers who were once saved and are on their way to destruction (Apostates) - in addition, there are numerous warnings throughout the NT of falling away - warnings are not given for impossibilites. I reject Total Depravity because all the unsaved are reachable by the Holy Spirit tecause He convicts the world (not just the ones who respond positively, termed the elect) of sin, righteousness, and judgement.

Are you deliberately plunking me?
Non sequitur. I was not trying to prove Limited Atonement, so what verses “torpedo” it is irrelevant.

You claimed TULIP required a long, complicated EXPLANATION to explain it so I offered a short, simple explanation to explain it.

I never attempted to PROVE the truth of TULIP to you and have no wish to waste time arguing over things that you refuse to accept. I just wanted to prove that a SHORT, SIMPLE EXPLANATION of TULIP was possible.

Why do you keep responding with “taint so” verses that have NOTHING to do with EXPLAINING TULIP.

I get it, you reject Biblical truth.
I have already stated several times that you have my BLESSINGS to continue to do so.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The Calvinist Theological Framework (a maze supporting fatalistic philosophy best understood by its five-points in the TULIP acronymn - with each point in turn requiring long argumentation). We are talking about a seriously long chain of reasoning. That framework should have been a non-starter based upon 1 Timothy 2:1-6 where Paul explains to Timothy why believers are to pray for all men: two of the reasons of note that contradict the Calvinist framework are (a) because God desires all men to be saved and (b) that Christ gave himself a ransom for all.

1 Timothy 2:1Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,​

Clare73's method of dismissing the clear meaning of 1 Timothy 2:1-6 is to say Paul is talking about "all types of men" rather then "all men" in that passage. Given that interprettation, the passage is rendered nearly meaningless. Clare73 supports that claim by saying that Paul was aluding to something never stated in his letters to Timothy - which is the introduction of Gentiles into the church. Basically Clare73 is saying God desires a mixture of some Jews and some Gentiles to be saved - likewise Christ's ransommed only some.

And...around we go again. The fact you disagree with @Clare73 doesn't mean that asserting that, in this case, the meaning of "all" is absolutely everyone, doesn't make it so. By the way, no, rendering it "all types of men" rather than "absolutely everyone who ever existed" does not render it meaningless. That's absurd. It fits right in with the context, instead of introducing a new and irrelevant side issue.

 

[atpollard]

I just asked a couple of questions. Jesus Christ said He will draw all men to himself.

Is Jesus Christ God? Are Jesus and the Father one?

And I declined to be drawn into your silly argument … “No. I don’t beat my wife any more.”

 

[Gr8Grace]

And I declined to be drawn into your silly argument … “No. I don’t beat my wife any more.”

That was Freegrace my friend. Not me. But it is sad that we only have a few on this site that know HIS true Gospel.

 

[John Caldwell]

Quite a few things are apparent in your expression of your theology. But, DO YOU, OR DO YOU NOT BELIEVE IN FREE WILL?

Also, I notice you still have not told me what the basic Calvinist tenets are.

But to the subject at hand. If our sins are laid on Christ, does that not tell us how our sins are forgiven? They are paid. You apparently ignored the texts I presented you in answer to your claims.

Free will is a philosophical term. It depends on how you define free will.

If you mean free-will in terms of people making choices based on their desires (based on where they have "set their hearts") then yes. That is why we need to have "new hearts".

If you mean libertarian free will (a debatable possibility in philosophy) then no. Our wills are based on many things (experience, for example). But more than that natural man has a heart "set on the flesh", and it is impossible for him to please God.

This is why I have posted that nobody comes to Christ unless the Father draws him.

If you mean free-will in terms of controlling tge future (or even our future) then no. Man makes his plans, but God determines his steps (Proverbs 16:9).

So to answer your question I must ask by what definition?

 

[zoidar]

And...around we go again. The fact you disagree with @Clare73 doesn't mean that asserting that, in this case, the meaning of "all" is absolutely everyone, doesn't make it so. By the way, no, rendering it "all types of men" rather than "absolutely everyone who ever existed" does not render it meaningless. That's absurd. It fits right in with the context, instead of introducing a new and irrelevant side issue.

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
— 1 Timothy 2:1-4

How do you understand this? That we are to pray for all kinds of men and all kings? Or are there some kings in authority we are not to pray for? If we are to pray for all kings in authority, then why are we not to pray for all men (everyone)?

Are we to pray for some among all kinds of men or all among of all kinds of men?

 

[Mark Quayle]

The Calvinist Theological Framework (a maze supporting fatalistic philosophy best understood by its five-points in the TULIP acronymn - with each point in turn requiring long argumentation). We are talking about a seriously long chain of reasoning. That framework should have been a non-starter based upon 1 Timothy 2:1-6 where Paul explains to Timothy why believers are to pray for all men: two of the reasons of note that contradict the Calvinist framework are (a) because God desires all men to be saved and (b) that Christ gave himself a ransom for all.

1 Timothy 2:1Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,​

Clare73's method of dismissing the clear meaning of 1 Timothy 2:1-6 is to say Paul is talking about "all types of men" rather then "all men" in that passage. Given that interprettation, the passage is rendered nearly meaningless. Clare73 supports that claim by saying that Paul was aluding to something never stated in his letters to Timothy - which is the introduction of Gentiles into the church. Basically Clare73 is saying God desires a mixture of some Jews and some Gentiles to be saved - likewise Christ's ransommed only some.

Been there. Done that enough times by now.

Your dismissal of good exegesis doesn't prove your point right.

 

[John Mullally]

And...around we go again. The fact you disagree with @Clare73 doesn't mean that asserting that, in this case, the meaning of "all" is absolutely everyone, doesn't make it so. By the way, no, rendering it "all types of men" rather than "absolutely everyone who ever existed" does not render it meaningless. That's absurd. It fits right in with the context, instead of introducing a new and irrelevant side issue.

Yes the wheel of truth. Are you playing games to favor your favorite theology or are you prepared to stand before the Lord and tell him you thought the "all men" in 1 Timothy 2:1-6 meant "all kinds of men"?

 

[John Mullally]

Been there. Done that enough times by now.

Your dismissal of good exegesis doesn't prove your point right.

I don't know what you are talking about. Do you?

 

[John Caldwell]

Also, I notice you still have not told me what the basic Calvinist tenets are.

Mark,

I Just broke up this post in responding (thought it'd be easier).

Here it depends on what you mean by "Calvinism". If you mean historic Calvinism then there is much to discuss (Communion, infant baptism, ecclesiastical issues, the government as an arm of the Church, etc.).

I'm a Baptist, so I'll answer according to my previously held views as a Calvinist.

In this context I would define Calvinism along the lines of the Synod of Dort (the Five Points in answer to the Five Articles). But first we have to look at Calvinistic Atonement (the Five Points depend on Penal Substitution Theory being correct).

Christ died for our sins. This means that the Father punished Christ instead of punishing us for our sins (essentially God took our penalty Himself). Having punished sins as God's justice demands, God could forgive those sinners (or, God forgives sinners by taking our penalty upon Himself).

From there we have the Five Points.

The total depravity of man. Men are unrighteous. Men may be evil by varying degrees by secular standards (nor all atheists commit murde4, for example), but no man turns to God. Their hearts are set on the flesh.

Unconditional Election. God elects men to salvation based on His own sovereign will rather than any merit in man (see total depravity).

Limited Atonement. Since Christ suffered the punishment to forgive sinners Christ must have only died for the elect. Had Christ died for everybody then everybody would be saved.

Irresistible Grace. Salvation is all of God. God's will in salvation is going to prevail. If man had his way, nobody would be saved. Man cannot conquer God.

Eternal Security. Those the Father draws will be saved. This goes back to the previous point.

That's just a short summary. If you ate asking for more, just ask.

I aim to please.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Calvinism and Arminianism Are one in the same. Just worded a little different.

Cal: If you don't have the right works.......You really were not saved.

Arm: If you don't work you will lose salvation.

Both are works centered religion.

Show how Calvinism is works-centered. Must it be works negligent before you see it is God centered?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Already have. To begin with, we'd have no need for Scripture or the revelation of Christ to begin with if we didn't need to know-so that we can decide. Then, we woudn't need or have in Scripture all the commands, the warnings, the exhortations, the instructiions, the "ifs", in order to have and keep eternal life unless for the possibility of disobeying, turning back away from God, failing at choosing rightly. God is infinitely higher than we are, but He's certainly not irrational.

No. You haven't shown it. You've shown eisegesis, in the disguise of "plain reading".

 

[Mark Quayle]

I guess I don't understand the question. But... He tells us we'll be transformed into His image, beginning now. We know that He is love, and that He wants us to love as He does as the greatest commandments make clear, and that we love Him because He first loved us (1 John 4:19), and He clearly demonstrated that love, especially on the cross. And that we must not fail to love, i.e. we must not sin in ways that would keep us from heaven (Gal 5:19-21, Rev 22:14-15, Rom 8:12-13), and we know that He can and does begin to sanctify us already here on earth which must happen in order to gain eternal life (Rom 6:22, Heb 12:14) so we certainly should have some idea what it means!

Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, what God has in store for us... we have many ideas, but our imagination can't do the job. We might even have valid words for it from Scripture, but no, we have barely a clue, if that, what God has done for us.

 

[John Caldwell]

But to the subject at hand. If our sins are laid on Christ, does that not tell us how our sins are forgiven? They are paid. You apparently ignored the texts I presented you in answer to your claims.

OK, the last part (sorry, I had to break down my responses).

No, it does not tell us our sins are forgiven. It does tell us that all judgment has been given to Christ, and perhaps that He shared in our infirmity.

 

[Mark Quayle]

This is why I have posted that nobody comes to Christ unless the Father draws him.

Then, let's settle this. Both Arminian and Calvinist agree God draws the unregenerate. My question is this, since you seem to find it necessary to ride the top wire of the fence: Is unregenerate man, or is he not, able to "give permission to God for regeneration", "submit", "repent", "please God", "produce salvific faith", "obey", "understand the Gospel", "yield his will to God", or any of the many more catchwords or notions accompanying "faith" and salvation. Does Grace, or does it not, require any decision on the part of man, before grace can do its transforming work?

 

[Mark Quayle]

OK, the last part (sorry, I had to break down my responses).

No, it does not tell us our sins are forgiven. It does tell us that all judgment has been given to Christ, and perhaps that He shared in our infirmity.

Then, I've seen enough. @ICONO'CLAST was right.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Are you playing games or are you prepared to stand before the Lord and tell him you thought the "all men" in 1 Timothy 2:1-6 meant "all kinds of men"?

Why wait til then? I'm willing to ask him what it means, particularly if I have any inkling that it doesn't mean the two or three things that I see it could mean, and only means that God intended to save but was not able.

I would like to watch as you ask God, "why didn't you tell me it was the plain logical meaning?"