How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Clare73]

Non-responsive. You're just dancing around a valid point. Nobody's denying that Calvinists CAN evangelize. The question is whether they might be tempted to feel less urgency about it.

I myself was indoctrinated into Calvinism shortly after I was saved.

Not dancing, it's just not a question for me. . .I don't see less need, why would they?

that time, in fact, I DID feel less urgency.

Perhaps you misapprehended it as God's necessary second cause.

 

[JAL]

Not dancing, it's just not a question for me. . .I don't see less need, why would they?

For the very reason I saw less need. If God is sovereign, and intends to realize His elections, why should I be terribly concerned about it?

Perhaps you misapprehended it as God's necessary second cause.

See above.

 

[Clare73]

For the very reason I saw less need. If God is sovereign, and intends to realize His elections, why should I be terribly concerned about it?

Failure to understand his use of second causes instead of magic. . .

The doctrine you were presented is somewhat flawed in terms of Scripture.

 

[JAL]

Failure to understand his use of second causes instead of magic. . .

The doctrine you were presented is somewhat flawed in terms of Scripture.

I'm finished dancing with you on this point. You're Clare-ly in denial.

 

[Clare73]

Not dancing, it's just not a question for me. . .I don't see less need, why would they?

Perhaps you misapprehended it as God's necessary second cause.

I'm finished dancing with you on this point. You're Clare-ly in denial.

I'm thinkin' your contra-Biblical understanding of the sovereignty of God is showing

 

[JAL]

I'm thinkin' your contra-Biblical understanding of the sovereignty of God is showing

Ok, Clare.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That is a reasonable question.

Why so? @JAL, operating off of his condensations of Calvinism, neglecting not just the finer points, but the means, the mindset, behind it, introduces his own mindset into his already biased point of view. He wants the big picture, the end of reasoning on it, and so he jumps to conclusions, as judged by his mindset, or by his basic assumptions. He see God doing part, and God's free moral agents doing the other part. Cooperation, as if we have something to contribute to improve what God does. Synergism says the same thing about Salvation. But the same principle applies in every subsequent virtue and obedience. He doesn't seem to understand what "in Christ" means.

If Salvation is entirely of Grace, in the way that Calvinism claims, where even the choice for Christ is done subsequent to regeneration, EVERYTHING the believer does obediently is compelled upon him by the Spirit of God. There is nothing there done automatically. The criticism is so predictable that it is nearly possible that everywhere the anti-Calvinist scoffs, "Why? —After all, isn't it automatically going to happen with or without you?", the word, "automatic" could instead be replaced with "surely". It is surely going to happen, precisely in every detail as God planned, and if I'm disobedient, God will use that to further his plan, but woe to the one God uses that way! If, instead, I obey, and God uses my obedience to further his plan, I have joy and satisfaction in him. I certainly have choice in the matter. And God certainly will accomplish all he set out to do. And if I obey, I continue in him. But if I disobey, what reason do I have to even claim to be "in him"?

This argument I keep hearing, that there is no motivation for the Calvinist to do anything, is spoken by those who despise Calvinism, and don't understand it. It is one thing to say that one doesn't understand how the Calvinist has any motivation; it is another to say the Calvinist has no motivation. The scoffer has no sense of propriety. He doesn't understand how big a difference there is between God and creature, and how close the relationship is where God does not "give orders" that he doesn't also work in us to carry out, and where "the orders" are joy, and life is Christ.

I am not nearly far enough down this path to be able to describe it adequately. I'm sorry if I don't know how to get the intellectual explanation done. But the Bible says several very remarkable things, if walking in the light depends on libertarian freewill, "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." & "Apart from me you can do nothing.", are two of my favorites.

 

[Mark Quayle]

For the very reason I saw less need. If God is sovereign, and intends to realize His elections, why should I be terribly concerned about it?


See above.

Do you remember the verse, "Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come."?

 

[JAL]

The anti-Calvinist scoffs, "Why? —After all, isn't it automatically going to happen with or without you?", the word, "automatic" could instead be replaced with "surely". It is surely going to happen, precisely in every detail as God planned, and if I'm disobedient, God will use that to further his plan, but woe to the one God uses that way!

Largely misses the thrust of the argument. That "woe" is a moot point because it is also a concern felt by the non-Calvinist. Sometimes we Christians, whether Calvinist or non-Calvinist, ignore the woe and thus sin regardless.

The point is that the non-Calvinist has an extra incentive - he fears that certain people might never get saved if he doesn't do his part.

For the same reason, the Calvinist is more likely to be tempted with excuses such as, "Maybe I wasn't called to be an evangelist, that's perhaps not my ministry." Whereas the non-Calvinist would worry, "I can't take that chance - there are too many souls at stake here."

 

[zoidar]

Why so? @JAL, operating off of his condensations of Calvinism, neglecting not just the finer points, but the means, the mindset, behind it, introduces his own mindset into his already biased point of view. He wants the big picture, the end of reasoning on it, and so he jumps to conclusions, as judged by his mindset, or by his basic assumptions. He see God doing part, and God's free moral agents doing the other part. Cooperation, as if we have something to contribute to improve what God does. Synergism says the same thing about Salvation. But the same principle applies in every subsequent virtue and obedience. He doesn't seem to understand what "in Christ" means.

If Salvation is entirely of Grace, in the way that Calvinism claims, where even the choice for Christ is done subsequent to regeneration, EVERYTHING the believer does obediently is compelled upon him by the Spirit of God. There is nothing there done automatically. The criticism is so predictable that it is nearly possible that everywhere the anti-Calvinist scoffs, "Why? —After all, isn't it automatically going to happen with or without you?", the word, "automatic" could instead be replaced with "surely". It is surely going to happen, precisely in every detail as God planned, and if I'm disobedient, God will use that to further his plan, but woe to the one God uses that way! If, instead, I obey, and God uses my obedience to further his plan, I have joy and satisfaction in him. I certainly have choice in the matter. And God certainly will accomplish all he set out to do. And if I obey, I continue in him. But if I disobey, what reason do I have to even claim to be "in him"?

This argument I keep hearing, that there is no motivation for the Calvinist to do anything, is spoken by those who despise Calvinism, and don't understand it. It is one thing to say that one doesn't understand how the Calvinist has any motivation; it is another to say the Calvinist has no motivation. The scoffer has no sense of propriety. He doesn't understand how big a difference there is between God and creature, and how close the relationship is where God does not "give orders" that he doesn't also work in us to carry out, and where "the orders" are joy, and life is Christ.

I am not nearly far enough down this path to be able to describe it adequately. I'm sorry if I don't know how to get the intellectual explanation done. But the Bible says several very remarkable things, if walking in the light depends on libertarian freewill, "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." & "Apart from me you can do nothing.", are two of my favorites.

I wouldn't say Calvinists aren't motivated to evangelize. History proves othervise. But I think often Calvinists act in a way that is inconsistent (you are free to disagree) with their teachings, which I BTW see as a good thing.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That "woe" is a moot point because it is also a concern felt by the non-Calvinist. Sometimes we Christians, whether Calvinist or non-Calvinist, ignore the woe and thus sin regardless.

It's obvious both can (and do) that. But it isn't a moot point, for either side of that fence.

The point is that the non-Calvinist has an extra incentive - he fears that certain people might never get saved if he doesn't do his part.

See, there you go again! I have a friend in another place I used to live, that I've lost contact with. The notion that God might use my lack of initiative in keeping touch with him broke my heart. God uses means, and one of those means is me, for good or for bad. The fact that God intended the final outcome, in no way relinquishes me from the responsibility of doing what I can and should. And for those who said that the Calvinist has no point in praying, Praying is one of the things I do BECAUSE I want to see someone saved.

For the same reason, the Calvinist is more likely to be tempted with excuses such as, "Maybe I wasn't called to be an evangelist, that's perhaps not my ministry." Whereas the non-Calvinist would worry, "I can't take that chance - there are too many souls at stake here."

Sounds like projection, to me. I've heard that sort of thinking mostly from non-Calvinists. (But to be fair, non-Calvinists are whom I've dealt with pretty much my whole life. So as for numbers, I have no real basis for comparison.) Most of the reasoned projections of this sort I have heard aren't reasons to reject Calvinism anyway. What is apparently most practical is always trumped by Scripture.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I wouldn't say Calvinists aren't motivated to evangelize. History proves othervise. But I think often Calvinists act in a way that is inconsistent (you are free to disagree) with their teachings, which I BTW see as a good thing.

That's pretty good! I like that last phrase. Made me laugh out loud.

 

[JAL]

See, there you go again! I have a friend in another place I used to live, that I've lost contact with. The notion that God might use my lack of initiative in keeping touch with him broke my heart. God uses means, and one of those means is me, for good or for bad. The fact that God intended the final outcome, in no way relinquishes me from the responsibility of doing what I can and should. And for those who said that the Calvinist has no point in praying, Praying is one of the things I do BECAUSE I want to see someone saved.

Again, moot points. I may have a responsibility to do something, but if I know someone else will take care of it, this creates an extra temptation to let them do it.

Seems we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think you can convince me that Calvinism consistently produces the same degree of urgency.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Again, moot points. I may have a responsibility to do something, but if I know someone else will take care of it, this creates an extra temptation to let them do it.

Seems we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think you can convince me that Calvinism consistently produces the same degree of urgency.

Read John Owen, The Mortification of Sin, and get back with me concerning urgency in the Calvinist/Reformed.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Now I wish to bring up a point here. The Calvinist way of thinking says that man is unable to choose good, that he/she is totally depraved, and God must select them for enlightenment. But that is not how Paul describes it. He shows clearly that man can "will" to do good, although the power not being present.

Rom 7:14-24 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

Here we clearly see, the nature of the unregenerated man, he can "agree with/delight in the law of God", but has no ability to carry it out. It is this will that activates salvation. By desiring God, a man is pulled away from the unregenerated nature, to the empowered nature, one where the Spirit of God overcomes the dark desires.

As I like to show, over and over. Our choices lead to salvation or damnation, our choice to either accept or reject the hand given to us, that pulls us from sin.

John 14:20 At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The Calvinist way of thinking says that man is unable to choose good, that he/she is totally depraved, and God must select them for enlightenment.

The Calvinist way of thinking says that man is unable to choose good, that he/she is totally depraved, and God must select them for regeneration. "Enlightenment"? We are talking about being born of the Spirit, here. Not the flesh. Not the intellect of man.

Here we clearly see, the nature of the unregenerated man, he can "agree with/delight in the law of God", but has no ability to carry it out. It is this will that activates salvation. By desiring God, a man is pulled away from the unregenerated nature, to the empowered nature, one where the Spirit of God overcomes the dark desires.

"It is this will that activates salvation. By desiring God, a man is pulled away from the unregenerated nature"? Your verse does not demonstrate your construction here. How can one at enmity with God truly desire God? He cannot, until God gives him new birth. Salvation doesn't come by wishful thinking. The unregenerate has no concept, unless God reveals it to him. And that is done through regeneration. Not by clueless man who wishes things were different, for his own sake, but by the fully capable and holy Spirit of God within him, faith generated by the Spirit of God.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

The Calvinist way of thinking says that man is unable to choose good, that he/she is totally depraved, and God must select them for regeneration. "Enlightenment"? We are talking about being born of the Spirit, here. Not the flesh. Not the intellect of man.

"It is this will that activates salvation. By desiring God, a man is pulled away from the unregenerated nature"? Your verse does not demonstrate your construction here. How can one at enmity with God truly desire God? He cannot, until God gives him new birth. Salvation doesn't come by wishful thinking. The unregenerate has no concept, unless God reveals it to him. And that is done through regeneration. Not by clueless man who wishes things were different, for his own sake, but by the fully capable and holy Spirit of God within him, faith generated by the Spirit of God.

What the verses from Paul shows here is the theory that "How can one at enmity with God truly desire God? He cannot, until God gives him new birth." is not true. Paul says that he as a man, "can" delight in the will of God, but the flesh overpowers him. It shows that man has the ability to desire good. He goes on to say:

Rom 8:2-3 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,

He talks of two laws, the law of "sin and death", what He was talking about before, the inability to do good, though he willed it, and now the new law "the law of the Spirit of Life", a law that empowers him to live the way he wants to, in a way that pleases God.

When he then states:

Rom 8:6-9 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

He is not stating he is totally depraved, he is referencing back to the struggle with the flesh. That he can not live righteously without God's Spirit enabling him. But looking back even in the warring state, he still maintains the "will to do good".

 

[zoidar]

That's pretty good! I like that last phrase. Made me laugh out loud.

I'm happy I can make you laugh, we all need that.

 

[Clare73]

Largely misses the thrust of the argument. That "woe" is a moot point because it is also a concern felt by the non-Calvinist. Sometimes we Christians, whether Calvinist or non-Calvinist, ignore the woe and thus sin regardless.

The point is that the non-Calvinist has an extra incentive - he fears that certain people might never get saved if he doesn't do his part.

Are you saying that is the only person God can use, and without that particular person, God cannot save that individual?

For the same reason, the Calvinist is more likely to be tempted with excuses such as, "Maybe I wasn't called to be an evangelist, that's perhaps not my ministry." Whereas the non-Calvinist would worry, "I can't take that chance - there are too many souls at stake here."

Unless you are wiser than God, that statement is absolutely Biblical (Eph 4:11).

 

[Clare73]

Again, moot points. I may have a responsibility to do something, but if I know someone else will take care of it, this creates an extra temptation to let them do it.

Seems we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think you can convince me that Calvinism consistently produces the same degree of urgency.

"Urgency" is your notion. . .not Scripture's.