How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Mark Quayle]

When Jesus says IF, it means that it's left up to us to decide if we want to obey or not.
IF you go to the store means maybe you'll go and maybe you won't.

You can't change grammar to suit your needs.

Actually no. Besides the structural statements @Clare73 referred to, where 'if' is used in place of 'since', there is the simple fact that the ability to choose does not imply the ability to obey. Thus also, the command does not imply the ability to obey.

 

[John Mullally]

Thus also, the command does not imply the ability to obey.

We see that happening where their is no ability to meet requirements in the 5 foolish virgins in the "parable of the virgins". The lesson in the parable was not the inability of the foolish virgins, it was in the severe cost of not preparing. I don't believe that God is a trickster who gives commands that cannot be complied with - frequently inability stems from failing to make earlier preparation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

We see that happening where their is no ability to meet requirements in the 5 foolish virgins in the "parable of the virgins". The lesson in the parable was not the inability of the foolish virgins, it was in the severe cost of not preparing. I don't believe that God is a trickster who gives commands that cannot be complied with - frequently inability stems from failing to make earlier preparation.

At which point they are unable, no? Just as the unregenerate are unable. Nobody is saying God is a trickster. We are to blame for our own sin.

 

[John Mullally]

At which point they are unable, no? Just as the unregenerate are unable. Nobody is saying God is a trickster. We are to blame for our own sin.

Men are not judged because they inherited a sin nature. They are judged because they have seen and hated Jesus and the Father.

John 9:41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains.

John 15:24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
​

The Reformed believe some men by nature are only capable of hating Jesus and the Father. But I exclude that God would create men that way based upon the fact that (a) God desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), (b) but has given us a free will (John 1:17, Joshua 24:15, Mark 8:34, Revelation 3:20, Romans 13:2, Isaiah 55:6-7, Deuteronomy 30:19-20, Ezekiel 18:30-32).

 

[Mark Quayle]

Men are not judged because they inherited a sin nature. They are judged because they have seen and hated Jesus and the Father.

I don't think I said their sin nature makes them guilty, but they are guilty of their thoughts and deeds by that nature. They are also guilty because God has imputed Adam's sin to them.

The Reformed believe some men by nature are only capable of hating Jesus and the Father. But I exclude that God would create men that way based upon the fact that (a) God desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), (b) but has given us a free will (John 1:17, Joshua 24:15, Mark 8:34, Revelation 3:20, Romans 13:2, Isaiah 55:6-7, Deuteronomy 30:19-20, Ezekiel 18:30-32).

I didn't say "man was created that way." Man was created without sin, but sinned. It is his descendants that "inherit" his resulting corruption, and therefore by nature are at enmity with God, per Romans 8.

All men, not 'some men', by nature are only capable of hating Jesus and the Father, unless and until God changes their will.

But your inference upon YOUR use of 1 Timothy 2:4 and YOUR conclusion of "free will", (drawn upon verses that only demonstrate "will" and "choice") is useless to defeat the straight reading from Ephesians 2 or Romans 8, concerning the inability of the flesh to submit to God or do anything to please God, and Romans 9 concerning the ability and right of God to do whatever he wishes, and concerning the ludicrous notion that man figures in on the judgement of such things.

 

[zoidar]

Men are not judged because they inherited a sin nature. They are judged because they have seen and hated Jesus and the Father.

John 9:41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains.

John 15:24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
​

The Reformed believe some men by nature are only capable of hating Jesus and the Father. But I exclude that God would create men that way based upon the fact that (a) God desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), (b) but has given us a free will (John 1:17, Joshua 24:15, Mark 8:34, Revelation 3:20, Romans 13:2, Isaiah 55:6-7, Deuteronomy 30:19-20, Ezekiel 18:30-32).

John 1:17 ?

 

[zoidar]

I don't think I said their sin nature makes them guilty, but they are guilty of their thoughts and deeds by that nature. They are also guilty because God has imputed Adam's sin to them.



I didn't say "man was created that way." Man was created without sin, but sinned. It is his descendants that "inherit" his resulting corruption, and therefore by nature are at enmity with God, per Romans 8.

All men, not 'some men', by nature are only capable of hating Jesus and the Father, unless and until God changes their will.

But your inference upon YOUR use of 1 Timothy 2:4 and YOUR conclusion of "free will", (drawn upon verses that only demonstrate "will" and "choice") is useless to defeat the straight reading from Ephesians 2 or Romans 8, concerning the inability of the flesh to submit to God or do anything to please God, and Romans 9 concerning the ability and right of God to do whatever he wishes, and concerning the ludicrous notion that man figures in on the judgement of such things.

There we have Ephesians 2 again and the common misreading.

 

[Mark Quayle]

There we have Ephesians 2 again and the common misreading.

Explain, please...

 

[AVB 2]

Psalm 139:4-5, 15-16 “Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O Lord, you know it altogether. You hem me in, behind and before...when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in Your book were written, every one of the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.”

Jeremiah 10:23 “I know, O Lord, that a man’s way is not in himself, nor is it in a man who walks to

direct his steps.”

Prov 21:1 “The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes."

Prov. 16:1 “The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord.”

Prov. 16:9 “The mind of man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps”

Prov. 16:33. “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord."

Prov. 19:21 “Many plans are in a man’s heart, but the counsel of the Lord will stand.”

Jeremiah 10:23 “I know, O Lord, that a man’s way is not in himself, nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps.”

So we are robots according to some people. To me being a "robot" means that we are so loved by God that He predestined everything in order for us to join Him in eternity.

Jesus NEVER exercised His free will; He ALWAYS did what God told Him to do. So was He a robot also?

 

[zoidar]

Explain, please...

From post #737

even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
— Ephesians 2:5

This does not state that a person can't respond to the gospel without God first regenerating him/her. Even if one holds to total depravity this verse is not the one to go to. It simple states one is dead/under condemnation until one is saved.

Eph 2:5 is in no way against free will.

Or was it something else you were alluding to?

 

[Mark Quayle]

From post #737



Eph 2:5 is in no way against free will.

Or was it something else you were alluding to?

If by "free will" all you mean is "ability to choose" (I'm not sure what any one person means by use of "libertarian free will") then of course, none of Ephesians nor any other passage denies that man, even unregenerate man, has the ability to choose. I didn't mention verse 5, if I recall, but simply Ephesians 2. And I mentioned it in the context of inability to choose God. But let me start with Romans 8, which says the heart of flesh (which is unregenerate) is at enmity with God, unwilling and unable to submit to God's law, and unable to please God. Now Ephesians 2, (including verse 5, but not 5 alone). Notice the state of the unregenerate, and the fact that he continually mentions God's love and grace to us who were DEAD. Notice particularly, in verse 12, that we were HOPELESS and in verse 4 at his mercy.

Then notice the fact that all activity there in the transformation from death to life, is the work of God —and in fact, the closest thing to a mention of man's will or choice in the whole chapter is in verse 9 which specifically denies that the transformation is by the work of man.

Ephesians 2 does not Edit: sent this by accident, after a couple hours away. Not sure what I was going to say there, haha.

 

[John Mullally]

Jesus NEVER exercised His free will; He ALWAYS did what God told Him to do. So was He a robot also?

Jesus had a free will. He makes a distinction between His will and the will of the Father. On earth, their wills were sometimes in conflict (Luke 22:42) because he was flesh and blood and was temptable. He freely subjected His will to do the wiill of the Father. If He had to seek to do the Father's will, He could have not saught or ignore the Father's will and do as He desired - remember He had His own will.

John 3:30 I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.
​

Jesus says we (i.e. anyone) can will to do His (the Father's) will. That is a meaningless statement if our will is controlled by the Father.

John 7:17 If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.
​

If we don't have our own free will, then someone is controlling our will, and per Calvinism that is the Father. Why would the Father control our will in defiance of his own will? Sounds like a kingdom divided against itself.

Matthew 3:22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He has Beelzebub,” and, “By the ruler of the demons He casts out demons.” 23 So He called them to Himself and said to them in parables: “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.​

 

[John Mullally]

John 1:17 ?

Good catch. That was a typo. It should have been John 7:17.

 

[AVB 2]

The words "free will" are found 16 times in the scriptures. All 16 are in the Old Testament and all 16 have the word "offering" after it. Unsaved mankind does not have free will, only the saved do. Unsaved mankind lives "according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience." (Eph 2:2.) A natural man's will is subject to his nature. Our nature is wicked and evil. I Cor 2:14 "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Some believe before we were saved we were like a drowning man. He has already gone down twice, and as he struggles to the surface for the last time, Jesus shows up in a boat and as He throws a life ring to him He shouts "GRAB THE RING." If by his will he grabs it, he saved himself. If not he dies and goes to hell. Mark 10:27 "Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it [salvation] is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.” The Calvinist says Jesus shows up in a boat but doesn't throw a ring, instead He reaches down, pulls the dead man out of the water and by His will He causes him to be born again.

 

[zoidar]

If by "free will" all you mean is "ability to choose" (I'm not sure what any one person means by use of "libertarian free will") then of course, none of Ephesians nor any other passage denies that man, even unregenerate man, has the ability to choose. I didn't mention verse 5, if I recall, but simply Ephesians 2. And I mentioned it in the context of inability to choose God. But let me start with Romans 8, which says the heart of flesh (which is unregenerate) is at enmity with God, unwilling and unable to submit to God's law, and unable to please God. Now Ephesians 2, (including verse 5, but not 5 alone). Notice the state of the unregenerate, and the fact that he continually mentions God's love and grace to us who were DEAD. Notice particularly, in verse 12, that we were HOPELESS and in verse 4 at his mercy.

Then notice the fact that all activity there in the transformation from death to life, is the work of God —and in fact, the closest thing to a mention of man's will or choice is in verse 9 which specifically denies that the transformation is by the work of man.
Ephesians 2 does not

By free will I obviously don't mean just "choice" and you know that or should know that by now. Even a robot makes choices, but without free will. Or do you from your view believe a robot has free will since it makes choices?

"Libertarians believe that free will is incompatible with causal determinism, and agents have free will. They therefore deny that causal determinism is true."

Libertarianism about Free Will - Bibliography - PhilPapers

Does that make it clearer? That is what I mean by free will. Your choices are not predetermined by God or anything prior to the choice. You may ask who makes the choice. I say "you" as soul does. I can not tell you how it works, only point to evidence of its existence, like us being responsible, the existence of sin and us experiencing free libertarian will.

Eph 2:9, yeah, but faith is not a work, repentance is not a work.

I think you make a classic error. Since Romans 8 means this then Ephesians 2 must mean this. It's like using two different contexts and running them over each other. I think Ephesians should be understood by itself and Romans by itself.

I think you read in a lot of things that is not there in Ephesians 2, like from how you use v. 4 and v. 12. V. 12 doesn't say we were hopeless, but that we had no hope. Those are very different things.

 

[AVB 2]

[QUOTE="AVB 2, post: 76995005, member: 333978"Jesus NEVER exercised His free will; He ALWAYS did what God told Him to do. So was He a robot also?

Jesus had a free will. He makes a distinction between His will and the will of the Father. On earth, their wills were sometimes in conflict (Luke 22:42) because he was flesh and blood and was temptable. He freely subjected His will to do the wiill of the Father. If He had to seek to do the Father's will, He could have ignored the Father's will - remember He had His own will.

John 3:30 I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.
​

Jesus says we (i.e. anyone) can will to do His (the Father's) will. That is a meaningless statement if our will is controlled by the Father.

John 7:17 If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.
​

If we don't have our own free will, then someone is controlling our will, and per Calvinism that is the Father. Why would the Father control our will in defiance of his own will? Sounds like a kingdom divided against itself.

Matthew 3:22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He has Beelzebub,” and, “By the ruler of the demons He casts out demons.” 23 So He called them to Himself and said to them in parables: “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.​

[/QUOTE]

God has free will but He cannot choose to do evil since it is contrary to His nature. The Scripture says in Hebrews 6:18 that it is impossible for God to lie. God cannot even want to do evil. In 1 John 1:5 we read that "God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all."

Fallen man has some very limited "free" will, but he cannot choose God on God's terms. Men by nature are certainly free to choose God on man's terms, but in order for an individual to choose God on God's terms, as revealed in the holy scriptures, that individual must first receive a new nature, a new heart. In other words he must be born from above. John 3:3 “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Otherwise he will not, even cannot, want God on God's terms. 1 Cor 2:14 "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." How can a dead (natural) man "spiritually discern" anything? The natural man is under the power of the prince of the power of the air. His "free" will is completely subject to the whims of his wicked sinful heart and the devil. Wicked sinful hearts long for more wickedness and more depraved sin, not righteousness.

 

[John Caldwell]

God has free will but He cannot choose to do evil since it is contrary to His nature.

I agree.

This is a good example of people disagreeing because of definitions.

If God has free will even though His will is defined by His nature then man has free will. If man does not have free will because man doesn't will contrary to his nature then neither does God.

 

[John Mullally]

God has free will but He cannot choose to do evil since it is contrary to His nature. The Scripture says in Hebrews 6:18 that it is impossible for God to lie. God cannot even want to do evil. In 1 John 1:5 we read that "God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all."

Calvin says that God governs all events, which means he decrees every man's action. So somehow God decrees all evil behaviour by others. So Calvin has God choosing for others to do evil.

“All events whatsoever are governed by the secret counsel of God.”
​

Sounds bad. Forturnately, Calvin is wrong again. This assessment by Calvin contradicts Jeremiah 19:5 as much of man's evil never even enters God's mind. Side note: Calvin cannot assingn this error to God's predestination or as Mark Twain puts it - preforeordination.

Jeremiah 19:5 they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind,​

Fallen man has some very limited "free" will, but he cannot choose God on God's terms. Men by nature are certainly free to choose God on man's terms, but in order for an individual to choose God on God's terms, as revealed in the holy scriptures, that individual must first receive a new nature, a new heart. In other words he must be born from above. John 3:3 “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Otherwise he will not, even cannot, want God on God's terms.

You assume that God changes mans nature without any action on man's part. Peter in Acts 2:38-39 promises salvation (remission of sins and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit) to those who repent and are baptized. The born-again experience accompanies receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, and again that occurs after repentance in response to the Gospel.

In Ezekiel 18:31, we see the order of God changing a man's nature and it is in response to repentance. Man repents and in response God gives a new heart and spirit. You have the cart before the horse.

Ezekiel 18:31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel?​

 

[Mark Quayle]

By free will I obviously don't mean just "choice" and you know that or should know that by now. Even a robot makes choices, but without free will. Or do you from your view believe a robot has free will since it makes choices?

I should have been more clear. As I expect you know, I believe we are willed beings. Why the use of "free" there, I'm not so sure about. Seems to differ from person to person.

"Libertarians believe that free will is incompatible with causal determinism, and agents have free will. They therefore deny that causal determinism is true."

Libertarianism about Free Will - Bibliography - PhilPapers

Does that make it clearer? That is what I mean by free will. Your choices are not predetermined by God or anything prior to the choice. You may ask who makes the choice. I say "you" as soul does. I can not tell you how it works, only point to evidence of its existence, like us being responsible, the existence of sin and us experiencing free libertarian will.

Doesn't really make it clearer. Even "causal determinism" goes by many different degrees and uses. I agree that the sinner is to be blamed for his own sin. But to say it was not caused, (haha! is to deny the value of a hundred years of Psychiatry and liberalism!) (Sorry, short recess there) (ahem! ok) To say it was not caused, denies that God is first cause.

Don't remember how closely we discussed this: Why is it necessary that all options be actually possible, in order to, according to one's own will, choose one of them?

Eph 2:9, yeah, but faith is not a work, repentance is not a work.

So I have heard. If it is humanly derived, I would say it is.

I think you make a classic error. Since Romans 8 means this then Ephesians 2 must mean this. It's like using two different contexts and running them over each other. I think Ephesians should be understood by itself and Romans by itself.

I think you read in a lot of things that is not there in Ephesians 2, like from how you use v. 4 and v. 12. V. 12 doesn't say we were hopeless, but that we had no hope. Those are very different things.

Saying that we had no hope does not mean we were hopeless? How?

No scripture is to be taken alone, but to be compared to and interpreted by other scripture. Here we have the same author, same subject. The reason I went to Romans in this case though, is to show that both of them agree concerning the spiritual deadness of the unregenerate and the inability of the flesh, contrasting with the gift of God: regeneration.

 

[zoidar]

Doesn't really make it clearer. Even "causal determinism" goes by many different degrees and uses. I agree that the sinner is to be blamed for his own sin. But to say it was not caused, (haha! is to deny the value of a hundred years of Psychiatry and liberalism!) (Sorry, short recess there) (ahem! ok) To say it was not caused, denies that God is first cause.

I don't understand what it is you don't understand about libertarian free will. Can you be more clear what it is you don't understand?

I might be wrong, but I think you do understand the concept, but you just don't understand how it works. If that is the case you are not alone, because no one knows how it works. All we need to understand is the concept, not how it works.

Don't remember how closely we discussed this: Why is it necessary that all options be actually possible, in order to, according to one's own will, choose one of them?

Or else it's not a libertarian free will choice. If the other options aren't actually possible, we have no responsibility.

So I have heard. If it is humanly derived, I would say it is.

If it is, it's still not a work. Do you find repentance in the commandments?

Saying that we had no hope does not mean we were hopeless? How?

Being hopeless means I have no power to change my situation. If I have no hope I can do things that will change the situation which can give me hope.

No scripture is to be taken alone, but to be compared to and interpreted by other scripture. Here we have the same author, same subject. The reason I went to Romans in this case though, is to show that both of them agree concerning the spiritual deadness of the unregenerate and the inability of the flesh, contrasting with the gift of God: regeneration.

I think the problem with comparing books like that is that you cut out snippets or verses and use them to validate each other, when the snippets or verses may be explaining very different things, or have very different perspective of things. The best way IMO is to read each book of the Bible by itself, fully get to know it. As you do this with many books the picture of the Bible clears, and you get a sense of how it all fits together. If we don't really know the books in dept and start to compare passages with other books, we can get a completely wrong message. Of course even if we take a lot of time with one book, we can still get the wrong picture, but I say it's a much better chance we understand the Bible right this way, than starting off with comparing books with each other.