How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Clare73]

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

No, I gave the basis.

Indeed. . .and circular. . .it's not about simply basis or not, it's about a valid basis; i.e., personal opinion or Scripture.

 

[John Caldwell]

Well if they, or their pastors, read the scriptues they would know that God desires all to be saved. And thus, Calvinism with its puppetry is bunk.

1 Timothy 2:1 Therefore 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. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,​

I agree. Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world. He gave Himself for as a ransom for all. This itself indicates God's will that all men come to a knowledge of the truth.

 

[atpollard]

Deleted.

 

[zoidar]

Maybe … can you define what it means for something to be “the will” of an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent CREATOR?

Maybe it means what God wills He chooses. But God is not choosing people to be enemies, He is choosing to allow it.

 

[atpollard]

Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world. He gave Himself for as a ransom for all. This itself indicates God's will that all men come to a knowledge of the truth.

Can you break down how this does not yield “Universalism” as a conclusion? Does ALL mean ALL?

• ALL sins?
• ALL men?
• ALL propitiated?
• ALL ransomed?

 

[John Caldwell]

Can you break down how this does not yield “Universalism” as a conclusion? Does ALL mean ALL?

• ALL sins?
• ALL men?
• ALL propitiated?
• ALL ransomed?

Yes. I do not believe Penal Substitution Theory is correct. I hold Christus Victor (which is a ransom theory....or vise versa depending on how you look at it). Christ ransomed mankind by gaining victory on man's behalf (as the "Last Adam") over the powers of sin and death.


To reference the teachings of the Early Church, Christ died to save "the human family" or mankind. Man, being reconciled to God, is the reason we urge men to be reconciled to God.

Apart from Penal Substitution Theory, how would Christ ransoming all men result in Universalism?

 

[atpollard]

Apart from Penal Substitution Theory, how would Christ ransoming all men result in Universalism?

By Adam’s fall, all men are fallen … by Christs ransom, all men are restored.

Isn’t that the essence of Christus Victor applied to “ALL MEN WITOUT EXCEPTION” rather than “ALL MEN WITHOUT DISTINCTION*”.

* (some from every nation, tribe and tongue)

 

[John Caldwell]

By Adam’s fall, all men are fallen … by Christs ransom, all men are restored.

Isn’t that the essence of Christus Victor applied to “ALL MEN WITOUT EXCEPTION” rather than “ALL MEN WITHOUT DISTINCTION*”.

* (some from every nation, tribe and tongue)

Yes. Christ is a ransom for all men without exception. Man is reconciled to God, however individual reconciliation was not achieved by the Cross (hence urging men to be reconciled).

Part of the difference is Christus Victor focuses on Christ as the Ransom while Penal Substitution Theory focuses on men as the ransomed.

This means something for both the saved and those who remain lost. The saved are saved in Christ. The lost remain in their sins and are condemned for their rejection of Christ (John 3).

 

[fhansen]

Yes. Christ is a ransom for all men without exception. Man is reconciled to God, however individual reconciliation was not achieved by the Cross (hence urging men to be reconciled).

Part of the difference is Christus Victor focuses on Christ as the Ransom while Penal Substitution Theory focuses on men as the ransomed.

This means something for both the saved and those who remain lost. The saved are saved in Christ. The lost remain in their sins and are condemned for their rejection of Christ (John 3).

And I think this is true. Grace is available to all men. Whether or not we take advantage of that is another factor.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Scriptures stating "man's free will"?

Sorry Clare, I knew what you meant but I was on a cell and couldn't reply.

Since free will is not discussed in the bible in the actual words, some feel that this is an indication that free will is non-existent throughout scripture.

The reason it's not stated clearly as you would like is because it is taken for granted that man has free will.

If you're familiar with the Covenants you would know that we certainly have free will.
A covenant could be unilateral or bilateral.

A bilateral covenant states that God is to do His part,
and man is to do his part.

If man does NOT do his part, then a curse will come upon man.
The fact that God tells man what his part is and that he is to keep it shows that we have the free will to either obey God and get a blessing, or disobey God and get a curse. (in covenants).

Joshua told the Israelites to CHOOSE this day whom they will serve.
Joshua 24:15
15But if you refuse to serve the LORD, then choose today whom you will serve. Would you prefer the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates? Or will it be the gods of the Amorites in whose land you now live? But as for me and my family, we will serve the LORD.”

Choice requires that there be two options.
If we're told to choose between the two options, it means we have free will.

 

[GodsGrace101]

… and here we are over a thousand posts later still arguing over that fact.

How is it that GOD DESIRES ALL MEN TO BE SAVED (implying that it is the WILL OF GOD THAT ALL MEN SHALL BE SAVED) and yet … “We know all men cannot be saved.”

• Has God lost his omnipotence?
• Is there another reason?
• Have we misunderstood something God said?

(Hence the 1000 posts … and the 100,000 posts before these … and the 600 years that men have been arguing over this before we came along.)

So every time someone “throws down” 1 Timothy 2:4 and Boldly Proclaims that “God desires all men saved” as the last word against monergism and the Sovereignty of God, THE QUESTION that must be addressed is “Are all men saved?”

God wishes for all men to be saved.
God would like it if all men were saved.
But they aren't.

Because they don't follow the plan that God has for man to be saved...a plan that was from beginning of time, to include both Jews and Gentiles alike.

In order to spend eternity with God, we must want to be with Him and we must obey Him.
Mark 16:16
16Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe will be condemned.

God set the plan.
Man must follow it or be lost.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Yes. Christ is a ransom for all men without exception. Man is reconciled to God, however individual reconciliation was not achieved by the Cross (hence urging men to be reconciled).

Part of the difference is Christus Victor focuses on Christ as the Ransom while Penal Substitution Theory focuses on men as the ransomed.

This means something for both the saved and those who remain lost. The saved are saved in Christ. The lost remain in their sins and are condemned for their rejection of Christ (John 3).

I'd say that penal substitution is like Jesus being punished instead of us due to God's wrath.
This theory is a result of the reformation of 1,500AD
Jesus must die to satisfy God's wrath against humanity, or human sin.
Jesus Christ is punished instead of the sinner.

I don't really care for this theory of atonement.
Christus Victor is much more preferable.

 

[Clare73]

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 (Gr: dikaiosune), because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness (Gr: dikaiosune) at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

dikaiosune - quality or character of being right or just, and which root word is
dike - justice (execution of a sentence, 2 Thessalonians 1:9; punishment, vengeance, Acts 28:4;
Jude 7).

How does God demonstrate his justice (dikaiosune - sentence, punishment, vengeance)
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?

What did he do that he would be (both) just (in punishing sin) and the justifier (in declaring us "not guilty," forensically righteous)?

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 AtonementPenal: “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

Through faith in what? . . .full moons?

Through faith in his blood (Romans 3:25); i.e., his atoning sacrifice, which paid the debt of their sin.

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).

So, back to post #962 where I asked you to exegete Romans 3:24-26, answering the questions I presented.

We will save a lot of time by you exegeting Romans 3:24-26 and answering the questions I presented, and then we can go from there.

 

[John Caldwell]

I'd say that penal substitution is like Jesus being punished instead of us due to God's wrath.
This theory is a result of the reformation of 1,500AD
Jesus must die to satisfy God's wrath against humanity, or human sin.
Jesus Christ is punished instead of the sinner.

I don't really care for this theory of atonement.
Christus Victor is much more preferable.

I agree. Penal Substitution Theory is a reworking of Aquinas' theory (focused on merit) which was a reworking of Anselm's theory (focused on honor). Simply put, Calvin reformed the previous theory by replacing merit with justice.

Since this occurred during the Reformation it took hold. Had it occurred at a different time in history it'd probably have been criticized for its newness (at no time prior to the 16th century would such a theory have been considered viable). But the 16th Century was a time of...well...reform. In a relatively brief time many theologies were developed that still exist today.

 

[John Caldwell]

I'm very close to a compatiblist (actually...right there at it). Here's why:

If God is an all knowing Creator then everything has to be predestined. God would have known His Creation - who would be saved and who would not be saved - and He Created. But at the same time this does not restrict the free will of men.

Example - Suppose God knew Judas would betray Jesus before Judas was even born. Then suppose God "knit" Judas in his mother's womb. Judas would be predestined, and even predestined by God (because God made Judas) to betray Christ. But Judas would still be acting freely when he betrayed Jesus.

There may be an issue if we decide to separate and prioritize God's attributes (some may complain that omnipotence must trump omniscience). But that would be a human mistake. God is more than a sum of attributes and we cannot pick one over another. God simply Is.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Fatalism is the false teaching that things happen because they are the result of an impersonal force.
What will be will be in a random uncontrolled way.
God's ordained eternal plan is unfolded and made know to the Church eph3:9-11.
He is in complete control of whatsoever comes to pass.
Biblical Calvinism cannot be made to be caricatures in this ungodly fashion.

 

[zoidar]

I'm very close to a compatiblist (actually...right there at it). Here's why:

If God is an all knowing Creator then everything has to be predestined. God would have known His Creation - who would be saved and who would not be saved - and He Created. But at the same time this does not restrict the free will of men.

Example - Suppose God knew Judas would betray Jesus before Judas was even born. Then suppose God "knit" Judas in his mother's womb. Judas would be predestined, and even predestined by God (because God made Judas) to betray Christ. But Judas would still be acting freely when he betrayed Jesus.

There may be an issue if we decide to separate and prioritize God's attributes (some may complain that omnipotence must trump omniscience). But that would be a human mistake. God is more than a sum of attributes and we cannot pick one over another. God simply Is.

Close to? In what way close to and not compatibilist?

 

[John Caldwell]

Close to? In what way close to and not compatibilist?

I was being a bit sarcastic.

Most of the time people tend to mistake the compatibilist position to be an attempt to reconcile two competing things (man's will and God's will), a misconception that does not take into account that God is not man.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I agree. Penal Substitution Theory is a reworking of Aquinas' theory (focused on merit) which was a reworking of Anselm's theory (focused on honor). Simply put, Calvin reformed the previous theory by replacing merit with justice.

Since this occurred during the Reformation it took hold. Had it occurred at a different time in history it'd probably have been criticized for its newness (at no time prior to the 16th century would such a theory have been considered viable). But the 16th Century was a time of...well...reform. In a relatively brief time many theologies were developed that still exist today.

Agreed.
Can't remember if I said that there's a bit of truth (biblical) in every theory...of which there are a few as you surely know.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I'm very close to a compatiblist (actually...right there at it). Here's why:

If God is an all knowing Creator then everything has to be predestined. God would have known His Creation - who would be saved and who would not be saved - and He Created. But at the same time this does not restrict the free will of men.

Example - Suppose God knew Judas would betray Jesus before Judas was even born. Then suppose God "knit" Judas in his mother's womb. Judas would be predestined, and even predestined by God (because God made Judas) to betray Christ. But Judas would still be acting freely when he betrayed Jesus.

There may be an issue if we decide to separate and prioritize God's attributes (some may complain that omnipotence must trump omniscience). But that would be a human mistake. God is more than a sum of attributes and we cannot pick one over another. God simply Is.

I agree and disagree.

Because God knows all does not mean He has predestined it.
This is such a common belief that it rather surprises me.
If you offer your little daughter ice-cream, you just know she's going to choose vanilla.
But did YOU make her choose vanilla?
No. It was her choice - you just knew what she'd choose.

I like to think of it as the football game. You might know this idea.

As to Judas,,,I'd have to agree that some persons were predestined.
Judas would be one, Abraham, Mary - very few others.