How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Mark Quayle]

Mark, your replies seem random here. They are not linked to anything I have actually posted.

Why even bother to quote me if you're just going to completely ignore what I have posted ???

Have you become so unable to defend your position that you must strike at windmills?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
What is about me?

I'm saying that my reply to you is about my current belief (not linked to my explanation of the 5 points.

I thought more of you than to speak in nonsense riddles. I didn't mention Icono'clast. I just said that my post was my current view (not what I previously held as true).

I see several posts have been deleted, so I won't say you mentioned @ICONO'CLAST , but I think recall you responding to him.

I haven't ignored what you posted, but showed your equivocation. You say you believe in predestination; well, so do the Arminians. But not predestination of all things.

You say you don't believe in freewill, yet you are left (if no freewill) with no explanation for what God did not predestine. I too, say I believe in freewill, which I have repetitively qualified as one thing: God has bound all men over to disobedience. They have choice, real choice, with real, even eternal consequences. Everything they do, even when they think they are being obedient, they do in enmity to God, not submission, not even love, unless God has regenerated them. Do you believe that? At this point, I don't think you do, even though you say that what you disagree with is Penal Substitution, (which you still haven't explained —at least as far as I have seen— how 'our sins laid on Christ' doesn't necessarily imply 'taken from us').

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.).

Those are not basic tenets.

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

Why? Why not answer my queries as whatever you are now?

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.

I asked you to give me the BASIC TENETS of Calvinism, i.e. along the lines of Sovereignty and Omnipotence of God. Predestination. Etc.

The five points are not the basic tenets, but corrections of claims by Arminians (and others) concerning the work of God and the inability of man.

I could be wrong, but I think I even mentioned that I did not mean the five points.

If, perhaps, you meant, above, that this: "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)." is THE basic tenet, you are still wrong.

Whatever, you seem to find it necessary to equivocate on the meaning of free will. You try to use it one way, as though disagreeing with it, but end up admitting, in effect, that God does not predestine all things. Personally, I think THAT is your problem with it, though of course you may have other problems with it. Even I have other problems with it. Big deal.

And now, you even want to equivocate on Limited Atonement, though it is not a basic tenet.

I am not asking you for your answer according to what you, perhaps, believed as a former Calvinist. And I don't doubt that some who call themselves Calvinists believe the 5 points are the Calvinists' guiding light. But I don't think they really are Calvinists.

FWIW, I don't call myself Calvinist, but Reformed, and that is only to identify some of what I believe, for the sake of those who also believe those things. It eliminates a lot of ink on terminology. To me, Calvinism and Reformed theology agree with what I have come to understand. I did not learn it from Calvinism nor Reformed theology.

Now that I think of it, I'd say that there are only two steps to becoming a Calvivinist.

1. Adopt the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

2. Follow that Theory to its logical conclusion.

If forgiveness means that the Father punished Christ instead of punishing us, then at least limited Atonement has to be right (.....well.....or Universalism).

Is this your answer then, to: "What are the basic tenets of Calvinism?"?

Let me give you a helpful hint: The basic tenets of Calvinism are the basic tenets of most Christian Denominations. The difference seems to be that Calvinists don't see the need to equivocate on them. If all things were made by him, and no thing has not been made by him that has been made, then all things were made by him.

 

[Clare73]

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?

That's up to you. . .does this grumpy lobster-boat captain schtick usually work for you?
A little less "attitude" wouldn't hurt.

• 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:
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?

Not according to Hebrews 10:4, where "it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin." (See Hebrews 10:4-7)

Check Romans 3:25 again. . .the animal sacrifices only covered the sin "that God in his divine forbearance had passed over."

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?

The death of the divine Son of God atoned for eternal death due to sin (Romans 5:18), to which the unregenerate remain condemned, and bought back/redeemed their lives from physical death in their resurrection.

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.

Who rubbed you with a hot brick?

Wouldn't hurt if you were less reactionary. . .less falsely accusatory. . .and more focused on the Biblical texts, starting with Romans 3:24-26:

". . .the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.
This was to show God's righteousness (justice), because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins;
it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous (just)
and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus,"
(i.e., God is both just (requiring atonement) and the justifier (providing atonement, v.25).

So how did God demonstrate his justice (righteousness) in Jesus' sacrifice of atonement (Romans 3:25)?

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)?

 

[John Caldwell]

You say you believe in predestination; well, so do the Arminians. But not predestination of all things.

You say you don't believe in freewill, yet you are left (if no freewill) with no explanation for what God did not predestine.

I am going to stop you here.

I told you that I had no interest in interacting. Above is why.

I told you that I believe everything is predestined. Everything means everything. I told you that I believe men are predestined to be saved while others are predestined for condemnation. So how does this translate to Arminianism (the position you claimed I hold)?

Why would I be left without an explanation for the things God did NOT predestine since I believe everything IS predestined?

I did not say that I don't believe in free will. I said I believe in biblical free will but not libertarian free will. I defined my belief as a man’s heart plans his way, but God directs his steps.

Perhaps if you would take the time to read what I posted rather than being so quick to assign to me a belief for disagreeing with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement then we could have a meaningful conversation.

But until that time I do not see that either of us can possibly benefit from interacting. And until I am reasonably confident that we can discuss one another's views in a fair manner I have no interest. I give people the benefit of the doubt to start, but once that's been compromised I need time to get to know that person's character before opening up with my own beliefs.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I am going to stop you here.

I told you that I had no interest in interacting. Above is why.

I told you that I believe everything is predestined. Everything means everything. I told you that I believe men are predestined to be saved while others are predestined for condemnation. So how does this translate to Arminianism (the position you claimed I hold)?

Why would I be left without an explanation for the things God did NOT predestine since I believe everything IS predestined?

I did not say that I don't believe in free will. I said I believe in biblical free will but not libertarian free will. I defined my belief as a man’s heart plans his way, but God directs his steps.

Perhaps if you would take the time to read what I posted rather than being so quick to assign to me a belief for disagreeing with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement then we could have a meaningful conversation.

But until that time I do not see that either of us can possibly benefit from interacting. And until I am reasonably confident that we can discuss one another's views in a fair manner I have no interest. I give people the benefit of the doubt to start, but once that's been compromised I need time to get to know that person's character before opening up with my own beliefs.

Ok

 

[fhansen]

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

No, unless Scripture is doing the disguising for some reason then the plain reading is, for example:

"If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” Matt 19:17

“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned." John 15:5-6

"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me." Rev 3:20

"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." Rom 2:7

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live." Rom 8:12-13

"You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” That is correct: They were broken off because of unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He will certainly not spare you either." Rom 11:19-21

Unless we read between the lines, practicing eisegesis IOW, these all pretty darn well speak of contingency, based on our free response/cooperation. We both believe that man cannot move himself to God; that requires grace. The difference is in whether or not grace is resistible. And I'd submit that, going all the way back to Adam, God would never have given him a command, requiring choice of action, and then, after making the wrong choice, patiently staying and working with man, unless He wants us to finally make the right choice, for Him, back to Him, first of all. Jesus opened up that avenue, that way, to reconciliation with the God who was spurned in Eden, and by that reunion we're found, healed, raised from the dead to newness of life.

 

[fhansen]

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.

I still have no idea if or where the conversation changed, not being able to find the post but, yes, God, alone justifies man as we turn to Him in faith, and then man must walk in that foreign justice/righteousness in order to realize eternal life. The following, as an example, has not changed one bit under the new covenant:

"He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God." Micah 6:8

I've never HINTED AT it; I've said that what we do-after justification because of who we now are- counts, and that justice or righteousness or holiness can, and are meant to, increase.

 

[GodsGrace101]

People have different ideas what they mean by free will, so before discussing if we have free will I think it's in order to explain what we mean by free will. The thing is, many Calvinists don't just settle with that it is impossible to live a life completely without sin, but say God controls and have predetermined the action of every atom in the universe and they put that as an opposition to free will. I didn't know such ideas were held by any Christian denomination until I heard it from Calvinists. I think what I hold to is called libertarian free will.

Hi Z,
If you're not a calvinist, then you don't agree with libertarian free will.
Libertarian free will means that God makes you want to do what it is that He wants you to do.
As I believe you know, this is not free will.

What the bible means by free will is the ability to make a choice as to what action to take...be it a good moral action, or an immoral evil action. IOW, we can sin if we want to. We can choose God if we want to or we could not choose God if we do not want to.

If you're going to discuss philosophical free will, I won't be too interested.
I know we don't have the free will to fly.

I didn't mean just choosing between two options but a range of options, but the options available are limited by possibilities.

Of course. But this is philosophy and not theology.
I cannot decide that I want to work at Twitter, if the new owner has determined he doesn't need me.
etc.

Calvinists believe everything you choose to do is dependent of a prior event. If you hit you neighbour on the head, you can trace that decision back in time to God's decree. You did it because your neighbour insulted you and that stirred up anger in you and the desire to hit him, which you "choose" to do. That response of anger and your choice is depending on your upbringing, by your childhood, you family, friends, events in the past, genetics, were you were born, you personality given you etc. And since God has pretermined all these things there is no free will according to Calvinists.

I agree with you, but I wouldn't add that calvinists believe that what we chose is dependent on a prior event...although it does turn out to be like that.

What they believe is your second statement.
They believe everything was predestinated by God from the beginning of time.
Even that you hit your neighbor on the head, even that you would get angry, etc.
Anger can be a sin, BTW, so calvinists do believe that God causes everyone to sin...
even born again persons. (which they call regenerated persons).

We make choices, it seems to us we have free will, but in reality what I do depend on a chain of prior events, like I explained. Everything goes back to God's decree for Calvinists. So there is no free will to Calvinists, as most people mean when they say free will, so ultimately God is responsible for everything, even sin, but of course Calvinists don't agree with that last part.

Concering heaven. Do you think Jesus had free will and could choose to sin? I believe so. But it's a philosophical question and the Bible isn't answering that. Will anyone choose to sin in heaven? I don't think so. So many things about heaven is a mystery, I'm fine with that.

Jesus had the free will to sin.
We're told in the NT that He was like us in every way.
If He didn't have the possibility of sin, then His sacrifice would not have counted.
He was the perfect atonement for our sins because He was able to keep the Law perfectly.

No one will be sinning in heaven.
Nothing unclean can enter into heaven.

If there was no libertarian free will I don't think sin could exist. That's one problem I see with the Calvinist notion of "free will". I think it's confusing when Calvinists say they hold to free will. What they mean is "decreed will" not free will.

Calvinists don't believe in free will.
If they say they do, they're just trying to confuse the listener.
Of course they mean decreed will !
But, I'm not sure you really understand what libertarian free will is...
It's the type of "free will" that calvinists will tell you they believe.
But, of course, the NT does not teach this.
The NT and OT both teach true free will...[/QUOTE]

 

[John Caldwell]

Hi Z,
If you're not a calvinist, then you don't agree with libertarian free will.
Libertarian free will means that God makes you want to do what it is that He wants you to do.
As I believe you know, this is not free will.

What the bible means by free will is the ability to make a choice as to what action to take...be it a good moral action, or an immoral evil action. IOW, we can sin if we want to. We can choose God if we want to or we could not choose God if we do not want to.

If you're going to discuss philosophical free will, I won't be too interested.
I know we don't have the free will to fly.


Of course. But this is philosophy and not theology.
I cannot decide that I want to work at Twitter, if the new owner has determined he doesn't need me.
etc.



I agree with you, but I wouldn't add that calvinists believe that what we chose is dependent on a prior event...although it does turn out to be like that.

What they believe is your second statement.
They believe everything was predestinated by God from the beginning of time.
Even that you hit your neighbor on the head, even that you would get angry, etc.
Anger can be a sin, BTW, so calvinists do believe that God causes everyone to sin...
even born again persons. (which they call regenerated persons).



Jesus had the free will to sin.
We're told in the NT that He was like us in every way.
If He didn't have the possibility of sin, then His sacrifice would not have counted.
He was the perfect atonement for our sins because He was able to keep the Law perfectly.

No one will be sinning in heaven.
Nothing unclean can enter into heaven.




Calvinists don't believe in free will.
If they say they do, they're just trying to confuse the listener.
Of course they mean decreed will !
But, I'm not sure you really understand what libertarian free will is...
It's the type of "free will" that calvinists will tell you they believe.
But, of course, the NT does not teach this.
The NT and OT both teach true free will...

You may want to double check the meaning of libertarian free will.

Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God.

https://www.theopedia.com/libertarian-free-will

 

[Clare73]

Hi Z,
If you're not a calvinist, then you don't agree with libertarian free will.
Libertarian free will means that God makes you want to do what it is that He wants you to do.
As I believe you know, this is not free will.

What the bible means by free will is the ability to make a choice as to what action to take...be it a good moral action, or an immoral evil action.

Where do we find "free will" in the Bible?

 

[John Caldwell]

Where do we find "free will" in the Bible?

Proverbs 16:9 and 16:33.

But this is biblical free will (not libertarian free will).

Goes back to definitions. Are we talking about volition (the freedom to use one's will) or ate we talking about a lack of determining factors concerning what is desired?

Do we mean freely choosing (the normal definition of free will) or an unconstrained-influenced will (libertarian free will)?

 

[GodsGrace101]

You may want to double check the meaning of libertarian free will.

Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God.

https://www.theopedia.com/libertarian-free-will

Thanks John.
Got mixed up with compatiblist.

 

[Clare73]

Proverbs 16:9 and 16:33.

But this is biblical free will (not libertarian free will).

Goes back to definitions. Are we talking about volition (the freedom to use one's will) or ate we talking about a lack of determining factors concerning what is desired?

Do we mean freely choosing (the normal definition of free will) or an unconstrained-influenced will (libertarian free will)?

I'm talking about the words "free will," which are not in the Scriptures you present.

That's a philosophical notion, and not a reference point in Scripture.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Where do we find "free will" in the Bible?

Everywhere.
Did Adam have free will?
When does the OT state it was taken away?

 

[GodsGrace101]

You may want to double check the meaning of libertarian free will.

Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God.

https://www.theopedia.com/libertarian-free-will

You know John,
I'm not sure.
It's late here.
Tomorrow.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I'm talking about the words "free will," which are not in the Scriptures you present.

That's a philosophical notion, and not a reference point in Scripture.

The words free will are in the bible.
In the Torah we're told to make free will offerings.
More tomorrow.
'Night

 

[Clare73]

Everywhere.
Did Adam have free will?
When does the OT state it was taken away?

Scriptures stating "man's free will"?

 

[Clare73]

The words free will are in the bible.
In the Torah we're told to make free will offerings.

The meaning is "voluntary offerings," not a statement about the will of man, and found nowhere else in the Bible.

 

[zoidar]

Where do we find "free will" in the Bible?

It's seen in the Bible in that we are held responsible of what we do, but it's not explained in a philosophical manner, for obvious reasons.

 

[zoidar]

Hi Z,
If you're not a calvinist, then you don't agree with libertarian free will.
Libertarian free will means that God makes you want to do what it is that He wants you to do.
As I believe you know, this is not free will.

What the bible means by free will is the ability to make a choice as to what action to take...be it a good moral action, or an immoral evil action. IOW, we can sin if we want to. We can choose God if we want to or we could not choose God if we do not want to.

If you're going to discuss philosophical free will, I won't be too interested.
I know we don't have the free will to fly.


Of course. But this is philosophy and not theology.
I cannot decide that I want to work at Twitter, if the new owner has determined he doesn't need me.
etc.



I agree with you, but I wouldn't add that calvinists believe that what we chose is dependent on a prior event...although it does turn out to be like that.

What they believe is your second statement.
They believe everything was predestinated by God from the beginning of time.
Even that you hit your neighbor on the head, even that you would get angry, etc.
Anger can be a sin, BTW, so calvinists do believe that God causes everyone to sin...
even born again persons. (which they call regenerated persons).



Jesus had the free will to sin.
We're told in the NT that He was like us in every way.
If He didn't have the possibility of sin, then His sacrifice would not have counted.
He was the perfect atonement for our sins because He was able to keep the Law perfectly.

No one will be sinning in heaven.
Nothing unclean can enter into heaven.




Calvinists don't believe in free will.
If they say they do, they're just trying to confuse the listener.
Of course they mean decreed will !
But, I'm not sure you really understand what libertarian free will is...
It's the type of "free will" that calvinists will tell you they believe.
But, of course, the NT does not teach this.
The NT and OT both teach true free will...

I see no need to give any further response, unless you want me to explain something? John Caldwell said what I was going to say. I think we are basically in agreement of everything concerning free will.

P.S. In no way do I believe in compatibilism. It's just another name for determinism IMO.

 

[John Mullally]

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!

Concerning God being unfair: Do you mean Calvin's claim that God predestines some to eternal hell before they are born? That tops my list of attributing God's nature to the satanic which is not OK (Matthew 3:22-30)! If Calvin experienced God's love, that should have been a clue to him that he was in error. But per scripture arrogance trumps reason.