How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[ICONO'CLAST]

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

Those 17 texts are not addressing mans will.
They are speaking of of offerings not commanded by the law.

 

[atpollard]

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 as beomg satanic. If Calvin was humane, that should have been a clue to him that he was in error. But per scripture arrogance trumps reason.

No. I have not read Calvin’s writings, so I would not refer to it. It is common for people to complain that “it is not fair for God to save some without giving everyone an equal chance”.

Frankly, that amuses me because even with 100% free will, those living in America in AD 1000 (who had no chance to ever hear of Jesus or the Gospel) clearly did not have the same chance to believe as the crowd that heard Peter in Acts 2.

 

[atpollard]

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)?

Who cares? I still don’t know what the theory of “Penal Substitutionary Atonement” is, so I have no idea if the Bible supports it or not … or how any of these questions or verses relate to it.

You steadfastly refuse to tell me what you believe.
G’Night.

 

[John Mullally]

No. I have not read Calvin’s writings, so I would not refer to it. It is common for people to complain that “it is not fair for God to save some without giving everyone an equal chance”.

Frankly, that amuses me because even with 100% free will, those living in America in AD 1000 (who had no chance to ever hear of Jesus or the Gospel) clearly did not have the same chance to believe as the crowd that heard Peter in Acts 2.

You are accountable to what you are saying. It may not be something you want to address, but you already addressed it - How abuut being more transparent?

 

[Clare73]

Who cares? I still don’t know what the theory of “Penal Substitutionary Atonement” is,

Perhaps it is presented in Romans 3:24-26.

so I have no idea if the Bible supports it or not … or how any of these questions or verses relate to it.

You steadfastly refuse to tell me what you believe.
G’Night.

I assumed you would be more interested in what Scripture presents than in what I believe, so I presented Scripture.

Guess I got that wrong. . .

 

[fhansen]

Irrelevant to the point, which is about a valid basis for determining what is God's truth.

No, I gave the basis.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

You are accountable to what you are spewing. The fatalistic God predestines most to hell and a few to salvation is from Calvin. You subscrbe to and yet plead ignoramous - sorry you are trapped by what you said - its too late.

Calvin did not teach most anything you say. You did not understand the one quote you did offer.
You are just making things up.

 

[John Mullally]

No, I gave the basis.

You are doing well. blessings.

 

[atpollard]

You are accountable to what you are spewing. The fatalistic God predestines most to hell and a few to salvation is from Calvin - I find that as satanic. You subscrbe to it and yet plead ignoramous - own up you have prevously agreed with that.

I am many things, but I never claimed ignoramus. I claimed to have never read The Institutes (or any of Calvin’s other works). I have read the Westminster Confession (very long and just a little boring), the London Confession (shorter and slightly less boring), the Heidelberg Catechism (actually, pretty interesting). I have read the report of the Synod of Dort (refuting the Articles of Remonstrances) and a lot of sermons by C.H. Spurgeon. I have read some of R.C. Sproul’s writings, but I prefer the videos of him speaking (he is a charismatic speaker).

Where I have far too much experience is listening to anti-Calvinists talk nonsensical ‘smack’ about what “Calvinists” believe (almost always getting it grossly wrong) and feeling an obligation to correct their pathetic strawman errors with the facts … typically from SCRIPTURE … but from the above listed sources when necessary.

John Calvin is not the founder of the First Church of Calvinism or of Calvin’s Theological Seminary … no matter how much you think it is true or want it to be true. He was just one of many reformers that lived during the Reformation. The actual theological movement is called REFORMED (and there are “reformed” Churches and Seminaries). The term “Calvinist” was coined by the Lutheran State Church as an insult to those that followed the second wave of the Reformation and moved beyond Lutheranism and the Book of Concord to embrace the 5 Solas. It was meant to be used as you use it … an insult to imply that these “Bible Only” crowd were following the teaching of a man (Calvin) rather than the Lutheran State Church (and God).

By the 20th Century, Calvinist just became synonymous with TULIP Sotierology and ceased to be an insult for those that accept TULIP.

Personally, I am a Particular Baptist … so my historic pedigree is a little different and has less “Reformed Church” than groups like the Presbyterians.

Were it not so late, I would correct your excretory presentation on predestination and Reformed Theology … perhaps another day. Suffice it to say you have no clue what “Calvinists” believe.

 

[John Mullally]

Calvin did not teach most anything you say. You did not understand the one quote you did offer.
You are just making things up.

Calvin did indeed say this: I find it satanic, but maybe you would find it acceptable to being predestined to hell before you are born. Maybe if you find yourself predestined to hell, you can take comfort that God received glory from blasting you in eternal flame

"The Lord has made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil," (Prov. 16:4). Now, since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, since to him belongs the disposal of life and death, he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.
(John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)​

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Calvin did indeed say this: I find it satanic, but maybe you would find it acceptable to being predestined to hell before you are born. Maybe if you find yourself predestined to hell, you can take comfort that God received glory from blasting you in eternal flame

"The Lord has made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil," (Prov. 16:4). Now, since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, since to him belongs the disposal of life and death, he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.
(John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)​

This is another blame God for mans sin post. The quote is accurate, it does not mention predestination to hell as you falsely claim.
It speaks of sinners being doomed by sin. Death is certain for sinners who remain outside of Christ.
Do you deny this?

 

[John Mullally]

I am many things, but I never claimed ignoramus. I claimed to have never read The Institutes (or any of Calvin’s other works). I have read the Westminster Confession (very long and just a little boring), the London Confession (shorter and slightly less boring), the Heidelberg Catechism (actually, pretty interesting). I have read the report of the Synod of Dort (refuting the Articles of Remonstrances) and a lot of sermons by C.H. Spurgeon. I have read some of R.C. Sproul’s writings, but I prefer the videos of him speaking (he is a charismatic speaker).

Where I have far too much experience is listening to anti-Calvinists talk nonsensical ‘smack’ about what “Calvinists” believe (almost always getting it grossly wrong) and feeling an obligation to correct their pathetic strawman errors with the facts … typically from SCRIPTURE … but from the above listed sources when necessary.

John Calvin is not the founder of the First Church of Calvinism or of Calvin’s Theological Seminary … no matter how much you think it is true or want it to be true. He was just one of many reformers that lived during the Reformation. The actual theological movement is called REFORMED (and there are “reformed” Churches and Seminaries). The term “Calvinist” was coined by the Lutheran State Church as an insult to those that followed the second wave of the Reformation and moved beyond Lutheranism and the Book of Concord to embrace the 5 Solas. It was meant to be used as you use it … an insult to imply that these “Bible Only” crowd were following the teaching of a man (Calvin) rather than the Lutheran State Church (and God).

By the 20th Century, Calvinist just became synonymous with TULIP Sotierology and ceased to be an insult for those that accept TULIP.

Personally, I am a Particular Baptist … so my historic pedigree is a little different and has less “Reformed Church” than groups like the Presbyterians.

Were it not so late, I would correct your excretory presentation on predestination and Reformed Theology … perhaps another day. Suffice it to say you have no clue what “Calvinists” believe.

Man up! If you are participating on these forums in defence of Calvinism, you should educate yourself to the father of your faith Posting on a theoelogy forum while claimiin ignorance is infuriating!

 

[atpollard]

Perhaps it is presented in Romans 3:24-26.

I assumed you would be more interested in what Scripture presents than in what I believe, so I presented Scripture.

Guess I got that wrong. . .

Ok, let’s have at it …

Romans 3:24-26 (with context)

21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.
​

Penal Substitutionary Atonement:

• Penal: “relating to, used for, or prescribing the punishment of offenders under the legal system”
  • Where is the reference to PUNISHMENT OF OFFENSES in the quote?
• Substitution: “the action of replacing someone or something with another person or thing”
  • Where is the reference to JESUS REPLACING US in the quote?
• Atonement: “reparation for a wrong or injury” or “the reconciliation of God and humankind through Jesus Christ”
  • Is there any reference to REPARATION to GOD for the WRONG done by MAN?
  • I will grant the RECONCILIATION OF GOD AND MAN THROUGH CHRIST … but that does not require any “penal substitution” in these verses.
• In Romans 3:27-30, Paul goes on to clearly state that GOD JUSTIFIES MAN THROUGH FAITH …
  • FAITH is not killing an innocent man in our place.
  • JUSTIFICATION is not based on substitution of one death for another.
  • JUSTIFICATION is not based on payment of some debt.
• Propitiation: “the act of gaining or regaining the favor or goodwill of someone or something”
  • Yes, Jesus accomplished this.
    
  • “whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith” … God displayed publicly … where is the “penal” or the “substitution”.

These verses DO NOT SAY WHAT YOU THINK THAY SAY.
Read them and point out where I am wrong.
Show me the PENAL SUBSTITUTION (since you will not define it).

 

[zoidar]

This is another blame God for mans sin post. The quote is accurate, it does not mention predestination to hell as you falsely claim.
It speaks of sinners being doomed by sin. Death is certain for sinners who remain outside of Christ.
Do you deny this?

It does say they are doomed from the womb. And that God arranges it this way from His sovereign counsel.

 

[atpollard]

Man up! If you are participating on these forums in defence of Calvinism, you should educate yourself to the father of your faith who stated monstrous things before you post here!

Non sequitur.
Reread the post.

 

[atpollard]

It does say they are doomed from the womb. And that God arranges it this way from His counsel.

Proving Calvin isn’t a synergistic Arminian.

 

[John Caldwell]

I am many things, but I never claimed ignoramus. I claimed to have never read The Institutes (or any of Calvin’s other works). I have read the Westminster Confession (very long and just a little boring), the London Confession (shorter and slightly less boring), the Heidelberg Catechism (actually, pretty interesting). I have read the report of the Synod of Dort (refuting the Articles of Remonstrances) and a lot of sermons by C.H. Spurgeon. I have read some of R.C. Sproul’s writings, but I prefer the videos of him speaking (he is a charismatic speaker).

I also have never claimed the status of ignoramus, however it has been bestowed upon me at times...probably deservingly more often than not.

The Instututes are interesting, but what most overlook reading Calvin the theologian is Calvin the pastor. He wrote a lot of outstanding sermons on prayer. (James Arminius shouldn't be discounted either in this regard).

 

[John Mullally]

Non sequitur.
Reread the post.

The topic is "How to be a Calvinist in 5 days" and you support Calvinism and yet you state you have never studied Calvin's writings. I think that shows how to being a Calvinist: hear some half-truths from friendly godly folk and bury your head in the sand.

 

[atpollard]

The topic is "How to be a Calvinist in 5 days" and you support Calvinism and yet you state you have never studied Calvin's writings. I think that shows how to being a Calvinist: hear some half-truths from friendly godly folk and bury your head in the sand.

Non sequitur.

John Calvin is not the founder of the First Church of Calvinism or of Calvin’s Theological Seminary … no matter how much you think it is true or want it to be true. He was just one of many reformers that lived during the Reformation. The actual theological movement is called REFORMED (and there are “reformed” Churches and Seminaries). The term “Calvinist” was coined by the Lutheran State Church as an insult to those that followed the second wave of the Reformation and moved beyond Lutheranism and the Book of Concord to embrace the 5 Solas. It was meant to be used as you use it … an insult to imply that these “Bible Only” crowd were following the teaching of a man (Calvin) rather than the Lutheran State Church (and God).

By the 20th Century, Calvinist just became synonymous with TULIP Sotierology and ceased to be an insult for those that accept TULIP.

Personally, I am a Particular Baptist … so my historic pedigree is a little different and has less “Reformed Church” than groups like the Presbyterians.

 

[Paul4JC]

Chauvinism