How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[GodsGrace101]

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.

Compatibilists don't believe man has a free will.

 

[Clare73]

The $64 thousand question.

Jesus is pretty clear that all men are not saved (John 3:18).

 

[John Caldwell]

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.

I like the football game comparison.

Lets pretend two teams are playing. Let's call them the Bulldogs and the Volunteers.

1000 years ago, what aspect of that game did God not know?

My answer is God knew everything (even the numbers of hair on each players head).

So God knew 1000 years ago which team (hopefully the Bulldogs) would win. Whatever team God knew would win will win. Nothing can change that (if God is omniscient).

But that is not quite predestined. What makes it predestined is that God created, knowing every detail and action of the created beforehand.

The only way everything is not predestined by God is if God is not omniscient or if God is not the One who created the world.


At the same time, what determind the players actions are the players themselves.

 

[John Caldwell]

Compatibilists don't believe man has a free will.

Where did you hear that? It certainly is not true.

I am in no way saying that God causes men to act against their will.

The Compatibilists doctrine is very simple - In their hearts humans plan their course, but God establishes their steps.

If you believe that statement then you are Compatibilist.

If you reject the first part then you are an advocate for fatalism. If you reject the second part then you hold a strict free-will theology.

It can be summed up in that one sentence, no need for books getting into philosophical discussions over the will.

 

[Clare73]

Can it be that God allows things to happen that isn't His will to happen?

Or. . .that it is his will that they happen. . .and we misunderstand his will?

I'm more inclined to think that it is us, not God, who is off the mark on this.

 

[Clare73]

Websters definition of fatalism: the belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable.
Although God desires all men to be saved, many are not. God is not omni-controlling and pulling strings. Just because God can be a forcer, does not mean He is. Hopefully this helps: Jesus is the Good Shephard who leads His flock - He is
not the Good Cowboy who drives the herd!

Don't diss the good cowboy. . .he gets them there! . .which is the goal. . .not whether they chose it or not.

 

[Clare73]

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).

Actually, it shows no such thing.

The fact that righteousness can be by perfect law keeping (which it cannot, because the law was not given for righteousness) does not mean we can keep the law perfectly, even though we are commanded to do so.

Joshua told the Israelites to CHOOSE this day whom they will serve.

The true (in heart) Israelites being God's people, would be enabled by God to serve God (Philippians 2:13), they could not do it otherwise.

The issue is true Israelite or not, it is not free will or not.

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.

Not necessarily. . .a command to choose does not imply the power to choose.

A command to obey God's law in all things does not imply the power to do so.

You have substituted man's notion of "free will" (for the Biblical notion of God's enablement of the regenerate, Philippians 2:13) as the remedy for the unregenerate man's spiritual impotence
(Romans 3:9-12, Romans 8:7-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14).

 

[Clare73]

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.

It's not either/or, it's both/and.

Both are true, they are not mutually exclusive.

 

[AVB 2]

It sounds to me like someone is not happy that God has stepped outside the box they created for Him to stay in and He is doing what He has predestined that He is going to do. It's a good thing He loves us, otherwise one might wind up like Baal's prophets in 1 Kings 18.

 

[AVB 2]

It doesn't seem that would amount to them sending themselves to hell though, if God predestined them to go there no matter what.

The Calvinist / Reformed interpretation of Romans 9 didn't exist until 1500 years after it was written.

And according to what I looked up, currently only about 80 million out of 800 million (10%) Protestants are Calvinist / Reformed.

Augustine would not agree with your "Reformed interpretation of Romans 9" statement. Arminianism didn't exist until about 1590 or thereabouts. I've read polls that show that only 10% of those who identify as being "a Christian" are biblically and in reality a genuine born again Christian.

 

[zoidar]

Augustine would not agree with your "Reformed interpretation of Romans 9" statement. Arminianism didn't exist until about 1590 or thereabouts. I've read polls that show that only 10% of those who identify as being "a Christian" are biblically and in reality a genuine born again Christian.

Some say Augustine brought in a whole range of new teachings to the Church.

10%? That's not very optimistic numbers.

 

[John Caldwell]

It's not either/or, it's both/and.

Both are true, they are not mutually exclusive.

Penal Substitution Theory is exclusive. If it is correct then every other view is wrong

Christus Victor, the Moral Influence Theory, Recapitulation, the Government Theory, the Ransom Theory.....all of these have a common theme - Christ lay down His life to die by the powers of darkness, as was God's predetermined plan, to liberate man from the bondage of sin and death.

Penal Substitution Theory is the only theory that presents Christ experiencing God's wrath as a punishment for our sins so that we would not.

Other views, maybe with the exception of the Satisfaction Theory, are not mutually exclusive. But Penal Substitution Theory stands alone or it falls.

Either one of the Reformers discovered a truth that was hidden from every Christian until the 16th century or Penal Substitution Theory is a theory based on the 16th thought.

 

[John Caldwell]

Some say Augustine brought in a whole range of new teachings to the Church.

10%? That's not very optimistic numbers.

Augustine did introduce what Christians previously considered to be pagan philosophy in terms of fatalism. So whike new to Christianity, it was not actually new.

 

[Clare73]

Penal Substitution Theory is exclusive. If it is correct then every other view is wrong

Who made that rule?

Christus Victor, the Moral Influence Theory, Recapitulation, the Government Theory, the Ransom Theory.....all of these have a common theme -
Christ lay down His life to die by the powers of darkness, as was God's predetermined plan,
to liberate man from the bondage of sin and death.

Penal Substitution Theory is the only theory that presents Christ experiencing God's wrath as a punishment for our sins so that we would not.

Which does not negate "liberating man from the bondage of sin and death."

The penalty for his sin being paid, he is "forgiven" (i.e., his "debt cancelled"), declared righteous forensically (dikaiosis, justification), "liberated from the bondage of sin and death."

Other views, maybe with the exception of the Satisfaction Theory, are not mutually exclusive. But Penal Substitution Theory stands alone or it falls.

Assertion is not demonstration. . .which Biblical demonstration is necessary for assertion to have merit.
You have not demonstrated that Penal Substitutionary Atonement is mutually exclusive.

We can continue this discussion when you have exegeted Romans 3:24-26 as requested, answering the questions I presented, which demonstrate penal substitutionary atonement, in post #925 (p. 47).

 

[atpollard]

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

Then “SALVATION” is not a gift from God, it is a choice of men. You have chosen to place the power to make a difference (saved vs damned) in the hands of men.

 

[atpollard]

In order to spend eternity with God, we must want to be with Him and we must obey Him.

Ephesians 2:1-3 … nobody wants to be with Him (we were all by nature Children of Wrath).

God makes the change in us (Ephesians 2:5).

 

[zoidar]

Ephesians 2:1-3 … nobody wants to be with Him (we were all by nature Children of Wrath).

God makes the change in us (Ephesians 2:5).

This is not what it means. Being a child of wrath and being dead in sin means being under condemnation.

 

[zoidar]

Then “SALVATION” is not a gift from God, it is a choice of men. You have chosen to place the power to make a difference (saved vs damned) in the hands of men.

If you refuse to receive the present from your dad on your birthday, does that mean it wasn't a gift?

 

[atpollard]

This is not what it means. Being a child of wrath and being dead in sin means being under condemnation.

Romans 3:10-11 [NASB95]

10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; 11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;​

Does THIS (above) mean that none want to seek God?
How about THIS (below)?

John 3:19-20 [NASB95]

19 "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.​

John 15:16 [NASB95]

16 "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.​

 

[Clare73]

If you refuse to receive the present from your dad on your birthday,
does that mean it wasn't a gift?

You have as much power/choice to refuse that "gift" as you do to refuse both your natural birth and your spiritual birth (John 3:3-8).