How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[atpollard]

But not holding to Penal Substitution Theory my reasons are not Calvinistic. I believe, for example, that God can forgive sins. I believe that God forgives based on repentance, but that this repentance is accomplished by God in the hearts of believers based on the work of Christ.

I had been taught Penal Substitution ... and had no PERSONAL theories or knowledge of the Historic alternatives ... then one day someone challenged me to show them in scripture where the WRATH of God fell on JESUS (and they asked if that violated God's OT: The soul that sins shall die [Ezekiel 18:20].)

Searching for that "wrath" for myself, I discovered that WRATH is typically FROM God and AGAINST Sin or Sinners and stored up and delivered on "the day of Wrath". That does not speak of God having a burning need to punish SOMEBODY for the sins that God will FORGIVE, that speaks of God punishing those that will forever REJECT THE SON and His FORGIVENESS. Wrath belongs to ENEMIES, not God's Children.

Christ needed to RECLAIM us for God, not suffer our punishment from God. I agree, God is all about FORGIVENESS (Love and Mercy and Grace are Godly attributes). WRATH is the Godly Attribute reserved for those that "neglect so great a salvation".

 

[atpollard]

For example - I believe in total depravity and that men come to God by God drawing them. I believe in unconditional election in the sense that God saves men based on His will (He meets the conditions, not men). I believe that Christ died to save those who believe. I believe that God accomplishes His purposes in salvation. And I believe in eternal security. I also believe in predestination and "double predestination).

1. That's what makes US Particular Baptists rather than General Baptists.
2. "Double Predestination" is one of those phrases that means different things to different people ... so I [personally] tend to avoid it. I would agree with the confessions that God draws some and "passes over" the rest ... sometimes called "Active-Passive schema Double Predestination". I would disagree with what some "HyperCalvinists" believe ... sometimes called "Active-Active schema Double Predestination ... where God creates some people to be saved and God irresistibly draws them to salvation, and God creates some people to be damned and irresistible pushed them away from salvation (making God's actions equal in saving and damning).

 

[John Caldwell]

I had been taught Penal Substitution ... and had no PERSONAL theories or knowledge of the Historic alternatives ... then one day someone challenged me to show them in scripture where the WRATH of God fell on JESUS (and they asked if that violated God's OT: The soul that sins shall die [Ezekiel 18:20].)

Searching for that "wrath" for myself, I discovered that WRATH is typically FROM God and AGAINST Sin or Sinners and stored up and delivered on "the day of Wrath". That does not speak of God having a burning need to punish SOMEBODY for the sins that God will FORGIVE, that speaks of God punishing those that will forever REJECT THE SON and His FORGIVENESS. Wrath belongs to ENEMIES, not God's Children.

Christ needed to RECLAIM us for God, not suffer our punishment from God. I agree, God is all about FORGIVENESS (Love and Mercy and Grace are Godly attributes). WRATH is the Godly Attribute reserved for those that "neglect so great a salvation".

What got me was the idea that God had to punish sins even if this did not mean punishing the actual sinner. It was like getting a ticket and the court not caring who paid it as long as it was paid. When applied to actual sins this type of thinking just didn't add up.

I completely agree with your post. I love how you worded that Christ needed to reclaim us for God.

 

[fhansen]

Good Day, fhansen

If the Son sets you free you are free indeed.... If he does not set you free you are for sure not free.

Col 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

In Him,

Bill

Of course, because we’re now dead to sin.
“When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.” Rom 6:20-22

*Note: In my post #936 I was actually responding to your signature, Luther’s statement, thinking it was part of the OP:

“He [Christ] died for me. He made His righteousness mine and made my sin His own; and if He made my sin His own, then I do not have it, and I am free.” ― Martin Luther

 

[atpollard]

*Note: In my post #936 I was actually responding to your signature, Luther’s statement, thinking it was part of the OP:

“He [Christ] died for me. He made His righteousness mine and made my sin His own; and if He made my sin His own, then I do not have it, and I am free.” ― Martin Luther

That WAS a great signature quote.

 

[fhansen]

That WAS a great signature quote.

And my point was that we're free to the extent that we're freed from sin, and now slaves to righteousness instead.

 

[Clare73]

Respectfully, I became a 4-point Calvinist (TU*IP) by reading scripture in a Wesleyan Holiness Bible Study as I tried to reconcile their teaching on prevenient grace with my empirical sotieriological experience (atheism to Born Again). The question of ATONEMENT, beyond gratitude that Christ had died for ME, never entered my mind. However both Scripture and Life affirm these 4 TRUTHS

• People are no darn good (T)
• Does does as He pleases nd does not stop to ask our permission. (U)
• God does not TRY, God DOES. (I)
• God finishes what God starts. (P)

I later learned that these truths had been around for 500+ years and went by a popular acronym called "TULIP". So apparently, I found "Calvinism" at the (Wesleyan) Church of God of Anderson, Indiana.o apparently, I found "Calvinism" at the (Wesleyan) Church of God of Anderson, Indiana.am a 5-point CALVINIST and

I do not believe in PENAL SUBSTITUTION. Cristus Victor works just as well

However, the atonement is not limited to just one effect.
The several theories are not in disagreement with one another, they are all true, of multiple aspects of the one atonement.

with Jesus SAVING all that God intends to save, rather than TRYING to save all without exception and FAILING (because of people) ... the alternative to LIMITED.

(it is all about monergism vs synergism ... "God Alone" vs. "God & man together")

 

[Clare73]

I had been taught Penal Substitution ... and had no PERSONAL theories or knowledge of the Historic alternatives ... then one day someone challenged me to show them in scripture where the WRATH of God fell on JESUS (and they asked if that violated God's OT: The soul that sins shall die [Ezekiel 18:20].)
Searching for that "wrath" for myself, I discovered that WRATH is typically FROM God and AGAINST Sin or Sinners and stored up and delivered on "the day of Wrath". That does not speak of God having a need to punish SOMEBODY for the sins that God will FORGIVE, that speaks of God punishing those that will forever REJECT THE SON and His FORGIVENESS.

Wrath belongs to ENEMIES, not God's Children.

Agreed. . .

And the reason wrath on sin does not belong to God's children as it does to God's enemies is because their sin, when they were God's enemies (Romans 5:10) before they were born again, has been paid for--"debt cancelled" (the meaning of "forgiven," an accounting term)--which remission of sin is the meaning of salvation. . .from eternal death and the wrath of God (Romans 5:9) in eternal death.
The penalty for sin, including that of the born again, is not about wrath, it's about physical death and eternal death.
Christ died to pay their penalty, which redeemed/ransomed them from death.

Christ needed to RECLAIM us for God, not suffer our punishment from God.

The punishment is death. . .Christ died for us.
Reclaiming does not exclude punishment. It's not either/or, it's both/and.

Long before Christ was born, his atonement was patterned in the OT sacrifices (death), which animals were the substitutes paying the sinners' penalty of death (Romans 6:23) for their sin.

I agree, God is all about FORGIVENESS (Love and Mercy and Grace are Godly attributes). WRATH is the Godly Attribute reserved for those that "neglect so great a salvation".

Sin is not about wrath, it's about death, both physical and eternal.
It is eternal death that is about wrath at the Judgment and following.

 

[atpollard]

And my point was that we're free to the extent that we're freed from sin, and now slaves to righteousness instead.

I agree ... I just also liked his signature when I saw the quote in the OP (but there is no way to "like" a signature with a button)

I like to think of it as 'fallen man' has the free will to do whatever his darkened understanding and bent nature will allow (like an addict is free to do anything except stop being an addict). Redeemed man is finally unchained and free to do the right thing ... follow the desires of our NEW HEART and reciprocate the love of God.

 

[atpollard]

However, the atonement is not limited to just one effect.
The several theories are not in disagreement with one another, they are all true, of multiple aspects of the one atonement.

There is a famous quote by Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland (I forget the exact name of the book ... it might be "Through the Looking Glass") that goes like this:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.” ​

I sometimes feel like this applies to ATONEMENT:

“When I atone for a sin,’ Jesus said in a rather emphatic tone, ‘it means that I died for those sins I choose to atone for — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Theologians, ‘whether you can make ATONEMENT mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Jesus, ‘who is to be master — that’s all.”
​

I am a man capable of great HUBRIS (self-destructive pride), but even I become more than a little uncomfortable at the 'creature' telling the 'CREATOR' whom He has DIED FOR and which sins HE took as his own. As I said earlier ... I am content to rejoice that Christ died for MY sins and leave speculation on HIGHER matters to those better equipped. I was just challenged to find a verse that says the WRATH of the FATHER was poured out on the SON ... which is something that I have heard taught from pulpits ... so I cannot offer my "amen" to that claim. If we redefine "penal" to remove the transfer of wrath, then I have no particular objection ... but that is not how MOST people define the transaction.

 

[Clare73]

There is a famous quote by Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland (I forget the exact name of the book ... it might be "Through the Looking Glass") that goes like this:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”​

I sometimes feel like this applies to ATONEMENT:

“When I atone for a sin,’ Jesus said in a rather emphatic tone, ‘it means that I died for those sins I choose to atone for — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Theologians, ‘whether ​

you can make ATONEMENT mean so many different things.’

Atonement is reconciliation.

’The question is,’ said Jesus, ‘who is to be master — that’s all.”

As I said earlier ... I am content to rejoice that Christ died for MY sins and leave speculation on HIGHER matters to those better equipped. I was just challenged to find a verse that says the WRATH of the FATHER was poured out on the SON ... which is something that I have heard taught from pulpits ... so I cannot offer my "amen" to that claim. If we redefine "penal" to remove the transfer of wrath, then I have no particular objection ... but that is not how MOST people define the transaction.

But the NT doesn't leave it there.

It presents God as demonstrating his justice in Jesus' atonement (Romans 3:25).

So how did God demonstrate his justice in Jesus' sacrifice of atonement?
How did he punish the previous wickedness (Romans 3:9-11) of the NT redeemed?

How did God "pass over," what did he previously omit doing (Romans 3:25),
that he then did on the cross, regarding the sin of the OT saints, and
which doing was Jesus' payment of the ransom to buy us back, redeem us from our sentence to eternal death (Romans 5:18)?

The correct answers; i.e., in agreement with NT apostolic teaching, to those questions present penal substitutionary atonement.[/quote]

 

[atpollard]

But the NT doesn't leave it there.

It presents God as demonstrating his justice in Jesus' atonement.

So how did God demonstrate his justice in Jesus' sacrifice of atonement?
How did he punish the previous wickedness (Romans 3:9-11) of the NT redeemed?

Romans 3:9-11
9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin; 10 as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one; 11 There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God;

Do you see what happened there ... everything YOU said was YOUR WORDS because when we read the Words of Paul (God) that you listed for support ... they actually say NOTHING about:

• "God demonstrate his justice"
• [God] "punish the previous wickedness"
• "the NT redeemed"

If you REALLY want to discuss this, then I will. However any serious discussion must begin with "what are we discussing" so we don't end up talking past one another.

So I request that you please define "penal substitutionary atonement" so we can begin from a common understanding. Then I welcome being educated. However, beware, I do not swallow camels lightly .

 

[fhansen]

I agree ... I just also liked his signature when I saw the quote in the OP (but there is no way to "like" a signature with a button)

I like to think of it as 'fallen man' has the free will to do whatever his darkened understanding and bent nature will allow (like an addict is free to do anything except stop being an addict). Redeemed man is finally unchained and free to do the right thing ... follow the desires of our NEW HEART and reciprocate the love of God.

I agree. What I'm not sure of is whether or not Luther would agree, or if that's what he meant by that statement, at least. But I guess the subject is off topic here anyway.

 

[atpollard]

I agree. What I'm not sure of is whether or not Luther would agree, or if that's what he meant by that statement, at least. But I guess the subject is off topic here anyway.

I think THIS topic went "off topic" around Post #2 ... by Post #1000-ish the "Topic" will have changed several times. Like talking while playing cards.

 

[Clare73]

Romans 3:9-11
9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin; 10 as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one; 11 There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God;
Do you see what happened there ... everything YOU said was YOUR WORDS because when we read the Words of Paul (God) that you listed for support ... they actually say NOTHING about:

• "God demonstrate his justice"
• [God] "punish the previous wickedness"
• "the NT redeemed"

Because the text is Romans 3:25 (edited to also include it earlier), rather than Romans 3:9-11 which is demonstration of the unrighteousness of all mankind, including the elect before they were reborn.

If you REALLY want to discuss this, then I will. However any serious discussion must begin with "what are we discussing" so we don't end up talking past one another.
So I request that you please define "penal substitutionary atonement" so we can begin from a common understanding. Then I welcome being educated. However, beware, I do not swallow camels lightly .

Penal = penalty for sin, as the animal sacrifices were penalties for sin
(Leviticus 5:6-7, 15, 6:6, 26:41, 43).

Substitutionary = as the death of the animals as penalty for sin was a substitute for the death of the sinner as penalty for sin (Romans 6:23).

So how did God demonstrate his justice in Jesus' sacrifice of atonement (Romans 3:25)?
How did he punish the previous wickedness (Romans 3:9-11) of the NT redeemed?

How did God "pass over," what did he previously omit doing (Romans 3:25),
that he then did on the cross, regarding the sin of the OT saints, and
which doing was Jesus' payment of the ransom to buy us back, redeem us from our sentence to eternal death (Romans 5:18)?

The correct answers to those questions; i.e., in agreement with NT apostolic teaching, present penal substitutionary atonement.

 

[atpollard]

Penal = penalty for sin, as the animal sacrifices were penalties for sin
(Leviticus 5:6-7, 15, 6:6, 26:41, 43).

Substitutionary = as the death of the animals as the penalty for sin was a substitute for the death of the sinner as the penalty for sin (Romans 6:23).

So how did God demonstrate his justice in Jesus' sacrifice of atonement (Romans 3:25)?
How did he punish the previous wickedness (Romans 3:9-11) of the NT redeemed?

How did God "pass over," what did he previously omit doing (Romans 3:25),
that he then did on the cross, regarding the sin of the OT saints, and
which doing was Jesus' payment of the ransom to buy us back, redeem us from our sentence to eternal death (Romans 5:18)?

The correct answers; i.e., in agreement with NT apostolic teaching, to those questions present penal substitutionary atonement.

You are asking me questions that require me to prove a theory that I do not believe.
Is your argument that if I cannot disprove your random questions then your unproven claim must be true?
What sort of a bizarre game is that?
Do you want to discuss "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" or not?

• Demanding that I answer questions or "you must be right" is not a discussion.

Since you chose this as your definition, then let's start here:

Penal = penalty for sin, as the animal sacrifices were penalties for sin
(Leviticus 5:6-7, 15, 6:6, 26:41, 43).

Substitutionary = as the death of the animals as the penalty for sin was a substitute for the death of the sinner as the penalty for sin (Romans 6:23).

All of your focus is on the death of animals, so "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" is men killing animals at the command of God. Why? ... because:

• "the animal sacrifices were penalties for sin"
• "the death of the animals as the penalty for sin was a substitute for the death of the sinner as the penalty for sin"

It seems to me, from your definition, that Jesus did not need to die ... the animal sacrifices were working just fine to substitute for the death of the sinner?

If this "death" substituted for the death of the sinner, then why did the sinners still eventually die?

• I am sure you will apply this to the animals and come up with something about it foreshadowing Christ's death later ... but that just moves the question down the road: If Jesus died OUR death, then why do WE still die?

I think your definition of "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" is not only uncommon, it also has internal problems. Try less effort to prove me wrong and more effort to actually EXPLAIN what it is that you believe about Jesus' Atonement. You can prove me wrong and you right later. I am patient.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, we should have some idea of His will for us, as He changes us. That was the subject as far as I know.

I'm saying that you (unless it was someone else —it wasn't I) are the one who changed the subject, concerning more than just the here and now. Again, your notion that somehow, though of course we work toward that goal, is that somehow we merit (and/or cause) grace by our actions now, KEEPS BEING HINTED AT, sometimes rather obviously.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm not the one who said, "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!"

Notice, the, "in order to gain eternal life" in what you say here. If regenerated, we have already gained eternal life. NO, I am not saying we need not work. But that work is effectual in straining toward the goal, not in accomplishing the goal. THAT is work only God can do.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If you do not do works.........Calvinism says you were not really saved. Hence a work based religion.

Ha! Notice again, just the little slight-of-hand there: "Work based 'religion'" —not work based 'Salvation'. But your logic fails anyway: Works identify us; they are not our basis for work, nor certainly for salvation.

But you won't find many accusing Calvinism of being a work based religion. The Gospel, as presented in Scripture —even Jesus Christ— is the base of our 'religion'.

Edit: I see I wrote, "Works...are not our basis for work". What I meant to write was "...are not our basis for religion." Humorously though, "pure religion, and undefiled" as described by James, is (at least, certain) works!

 

[atpollard]

Ha! Notice again, just the little slight-of-hand there: "Work based 'religion'" —not work based 'Salvation'. But your logic fails anyway: Works identify us; they are not our basis for work, nor certainly for salvation.

But you won't find many accusing Calvinism of being a work based religion. The Gospel, as presented in Scripture —even Jesus Christ— is the base of our 'religion'.

There are LOTS of things that Calvinism can be accused of (God being 'unfair' is my personal favorite), but I thought that Gr8Grace really missed the mark on Calvinism with: "If you do not do works.........Calvinism says you were not really saved. Hence a work based religion."

If Calvinism errs at all, it is to OVER-STRESS monergism and the Sovereignty of God ... the antithesis of "works based" anything!