How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Clare73]

What church do you fellowship in? You know where your church stands? Do you agree with your church? That may give you a good pointer to where you stand.

PCA Presbyterian.

 

[Clare73]

Does God play by any (internal) rulebook? Does He see Himself as bound to a set of ethical rules? Or does He make up any rules He wants, as He goes along?

Addressed in post #1808. . .which you have not completely addressed.
His infinite wisdom has chosen the best means to the best end, and that is the rule book. . .with which you are not in agreement.

OR, maybe I'm judging whether your version of God matches the biblical version.

OR, maybe his rule book for the best means to arrive at the best end is not to your liking.

Your issue is with the rule book of inifinite wisdom.

Maybe you could address the rest of my post (#1808).

@Clare73,

Here's a similar verse:

It's your turn. . .address the rest of my post #1808.

"However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8).

He seems to be expressing concern that men will have less faith than ideally what He wants them to have. But if the Lord foreordains every detail of our lives, whose fault is that, really? Shouldn't He have said, "When the Son of man returns, He will find precisely the right amount of faith on earth" ????

Your mistake is in thinking it happens by his direct power, and not understanding that he does all through human means (second causes).

Keeping in mind that infinite wisdom has chosen the best means to the best end, whether it appears that way to you or not.

 

[Clare73]

The complaints are for dramatic effect

One of the means (second causes) of getting the job done.

 

[John Mullally]

Would you rather they speak Paganese. . .or anti-Christianese?

When did Christianese become a bad thing?

Thy unorthodox theology doth betray thee.

You are in no position to decry unorthodox theology as you parrot Calvinist theology and deny you do such. When someone answers you by pointing out problems with Calvinism - its deny, deny, deny - you tell the other their problem is with Calvin, not you. No, you consistently parrot Calvinost positions - and play hide the ball when someone calls you out - come out! Your laughable call yourself a Paulist while denying the clear text in 1 Timothy 2:4 as many rabid Calvinist do. About 6 months ago fellow Calvinist RvReverend, who only posted a few times here, called you on your hypocrisy twice - its very obvious - you are not fooling anyone!

 

[JAL]

Maybe you could address the rest of my post (#1808).

Let's see.

And therein you have betrayed your Biblical fallacy. . .judging the infinite divine by the finite human.

This deflection is your "response" to the questions of my geneticist-analogy? An infinite God isn't bound to human values, you say? Then the Bible affords no hope. As humans, what do we call someone deviant from human definitions of love, kindness, justice, and integrity? Such a person (by human definitions) is unloving, unkind, unjust, and dishonest. And since the Bible is written in human language, you should be fighting for updated Bible translations describing Him so.

These English bibles should call Him a LIAR because, for example, that's how we humans would describe someone (like a geneticist) who predetermines people to evil and then points an accusing finger at his victims. The Bibles should call him ruthless and cruel.

Let's cut to the bottom line. . .without all the phony baloney of human rationale.

You LOVE human rationale in the verses favorable to your personal salvation. Conveniently you eschew it, as needed, to defend your despicable stance on the reprobate verses.

I don't question God, he questions me.
I don't judge God, he judges me.
I'm not the potter, I'm the clay.
I don't call God to the bar of my reason to give an account of his ways (Isa 55:8-9).

- You DO judge God on the verses favorable to you. Just not on the reprobate ones.
- Citing a million verses in support of a contradiction isn't helpful.
- Those verses lend precious little support to your beliefs. There are alternative interpretations free of contradiction, as you well know.

That being said, I am convinced (convicted) that the infinite divine wisdom has chosen the best means to the best end.
My wisdom may not agree with God's wisdom...

So the result is an "anything goes" Doctrine of God? You don't have to justify your untenable Doctrine of God because He is infinite? How does such theological chaos count as solid exegesis?

...but I have no trouble believing and understanding whose is the real wisdom,
and I have absolutely no trouble accepting it, being fully convinced of the superiority of the divine wisdom over my own.

Correct. Many people have no trouble embracing self-contradictory religious beliefs. Just look at all the cults out there.

 

[JAL]

The complaints are for dramatic effect

This reduces the bible to a charade, facade, travesty. God is the liar who feigns grief over a fallen world - the world He desired and ordained of His own fiat. "Do not grieve the Holy Spirit," He says but secretly glories in precisely that status quo. In a word, it creates a mockery of the divine economy as a whole.

 

[JAL]

Your mistake is in thinking it happens by his direct power, and not understanding that he does all through human means (second causes).

This patronizing is a strawman response. Anyone opposed to determinism is aware of secondary causes. Suppose I line up a chain of dominoes. I push over the first one. Obviously the remaining dominoes are secondary causes toward my intended outcome. Notice I don't feel inclined to wrath and anger toward any of them. I don't regard their behavior as reprehensible conduct deserving of suffering and punishment.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

I see how much pride you have in the Pauline Scriptures. But even Peter said they are at times hard to understand.

2Peter 3:15-16 Don't forget that the Lord is patient because he wants people to be saved. This is also what our dear friend Paul said when he wrote you with the wisdom that God had given him. Paul talks about these same things in all his letters, but part of what he says is hard to understand. Some ignorant and unsteady people even destroy themselves by twisting what he said. They do the same thing with other Scriptures too.

I ask you with regard to salvation and receiving the Holy Spirit who should we look to Jesus, or Paul. What does Jesus say about receiving the Holy Spirit.

Joh 14:20-26 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. "These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

Jesus doctrine on the Holy Spirit, which is definitely what He is talking about is vastly different to Reformed Theology. See the order of the scripture:

• God gives His command and the command of faith
• If we love God we obey
• THEN THEN THEN God reveals himself, makes His home with us.
• If we do not obey we remain blind.

But it was not only Jesus. The early church went to great lengths to show, man has genuine free will.

Justin Martyr - First Apology - Ch 56-50​

Chap. XLIII — Responsibility Asserted.

But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end;52 nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made.

@Clare73 In the advent of differences in theology who should we look to Jesus? Or Paul, who was said to be hard to understand?

 

[JAL]

@Clare73 Paul...was said to be hard to understand?

Thanks for reminding us all of that. Quite possibly, too many Christians lose sight of this fact. They presume to simply take Paul's words at face value.

Since Scripture is NOT perfectly lucid and straightforward, the law of non-contradiction is the exegete's best friend. For example the loving God of the Bible simply cannot be the draconian tyrant of Calvinisim.

 

[Brother-Mike]

This reduces the bible to a charade, facade, travesty. God is the liar who feigns grief over a fallen world - the world He desired and ordained of His own fiat. "Do not grieve the Holy Spirit," He says but secretly glories in precisely that status quo. In a word, it creates a mockery of the divine economy as a whole.

Sorry brother, I just don’t see it that way. I only see a glorious and beautiful story, spun by our Father, enacted by and through us towards redemption and finally union.

 

[John Mullally]

Thanks for reminding us all of that. Quite possibly, too many Christians lose sight of this fact. They presume to simply take Paul's words at face value.

Since Scripture is NOT perfectly lucid and straightforward, the law of non-contradiction is the exegete's best friend. For example the loving God of the Bible simply cannot be the draconian tyrant of Calvinisim.

It helps to understand the different writing style in Paul's letters. In Romans, Paul commonly takes up both sides of an argument, in order to reason to conclusions - and even then sometimes he seemingly raises more questions than he answers. He uses satire in both Romans and Galatians. But he is obviously straightforward in his letters to Timothy and Titus as they are instructional to a limited friendly crowd - i.e. the men he is raising up to replace him.

When Paul writes to the Romans, he spends much effort trying to convince - something he does not do in letters to Timothy and Titus, who he sees as spiritual sons. Paul's writing style is influenced by who he is writing to - dur!

 

[FutureAndAHope]

I see how much pride you have in the Pauline Scriptures. But even Peter said they are at times hard to understand.

2Peter 3:15-16 Don't forget that the Lord is patient because he wants people to be saved. This is also what our dear friend Paul said when he wrote you with the wisdom that God had given him. Paul talks about these same things in all his letters, but part of what he says is hard to understand. Some ignorant and unsteady people even destroy themselves by twisting what he said. They do the same thing with other Scriptures too.

I ask you with regard to salvation and receiving the Holy Spirit who should we look to Jesus, or Paul. What does Jesus say about receiving the Holy Spirit.

Joh 14:20-26 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. "These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

Jesus doctrine on the Holy Spirit, which is definitely what He is talking about is vastly different to Reformed Theology. See the order of the scripture:

• God gives His command and the command of faith
• If we love God we obey
• THEN THEN THEN God reveals himself, makes His home with us.
• If we do not obey we remain blind.

But it was not only Jesus. The early church went to great lengths to show, man has genuine free will.

Justin Martyr - First Apology - Ch 56-50​

Chap. XLIII — Responsibility Asserted.

But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end;52 nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made.

@Clare73 In the advent of differences in theology who should we look to Jesus? Or Paul, who was said to be hard to understand?

​

In regard to my comments about the "confusion" in Paul's writings. I would like to make the following observations. You would think Peter would try to clarify the part of the writing that he is referring to. And he does this by stating: "Don't forget that the Lord is patient because he wants people to be saved. This is also what our dear friend Paul said when he wrote you with the wisdom that God had given him." What does Peter clarify? "God is patient, wanting people to be saved". So you would assume the confusing text in Pauls's writing gives the opposite impression.

2Peter 3:15-16 Don't forget that the Lord is patient because he wants people to be saved. This is also what our dear friend Paul said when he wrote you with the wisdom that God had given him. Paul talks about these same things in all his letters, but part of what he says is hard to understand. Some ignorant and unsteady people even destroy themselves by twisting what he said. They do the same thing with other Scriptures too.

If we dig into church history Justin Martyr is forced to clarify the same thing in his writings. Quoting Paul, he mentions, something like "just because Paul's writings say God knew things beforehand does not negate free will, free will is alive and well". If the early church fought to preserve free will, so too should we.

​

​

Justin Martyr - First Apology - Ch 56-50​

Chap. XLIII — Responsibility Asserted.

But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end;52 nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made.

 

[JAL]

Sorry brother, I just don’t see it that way. I only see a glorious and beautiful story, spun by our Father, enacted by and through us towards redemption and finally union.

Deep down, I think you do see it that way, based on your recognition that the geneticist in my analogy was evil.

 

[JAL]

Keeping in mind that infinite wisdom has chosen the best means to the best end, whether it appears that way to you or not.

I have no doubt He chose the best end, but it's not the one you think.

Infinite? Since infinity is not a discrete/specific number, I personally don't accept it as a valid description. Nor is it a valid excuse for unresolved contradictions.

...(1) YOUR hermeneutic is, "Apparent contradictions in my theology are probably resolved somehow in an infinite God." This breeds exegetical chaos.

...(2) MY hermeneutic is, "Since I'm fallible, an apparent contradiction probably indicates an error on my part." This leads to revisions culminating in a seamless rendering of the verses.

 

[zoidar]

The tone in this thread makes me sad.

 

[Clare73]

Let's see.

This deflection is your "response" to the questions of my geneticist-analogy?

Our issue is simple.

You object to what the Bible presents regarding God. . .I do not.
You judge the word of God (Jesus' name for the Scriptures, Jn 10:35*) by human standards. . .I do not.
You object to the sovereignty of God as contrary to human standards in its operation as presented in the Scriptures. . .I do not.
You have presented no demonstration of my error regarding the sovereignty of God as presented in the Scriptures, to which you object.
I have presented my Biblical response to Scripture's presentation of the sovereignty of God (post #1808), you have not presented one.

*Jesus is not referring to words actually spoken by God himself there, he is referring to the "word of God" written; i.e., the Scriptures.
Jesus called the Scriptures the "word of God," contrary to your objection to such title.

So I do not see our differences as resolvable.

An infinite God isn't bound to human values, you say? Then the Bible affords no hope. As humans, what do we call someone deviant from human definitions of love, kindness, justice, and integrity? Such a person (by human definitions) is unloving, unkind, unjust, and dishonest. And since the Bible is written in human language, you should be fighting for updated Bible translations describing Him so.

You confuse human language with human values.

These English bibles should call Him a LIAR because, for example, that's how we humans would describe someone (like a geneticist) who predetermines people to evil and then points an accusing finger at his victims. The Bibles should call him ruthless and cruel.
You LOVE human rationale in the verses favorable to your personal salvation. Conveniently you eschew it, as needed, to defend your despicable stance on the reprobate verses.

Falls somewhat short of Biblical demonstration.

- You DO judge God on the verses favorable to you. Just not on the reprobate ones.

Your frustration at what Scripture presents does not equate to Biblical demonstration of Biblical error on my part.

Your issue is with the Scriptures, not with me.

 

[JAL]

You confuse human language with human values.

Um...er...Biblical words such as "love" are both. Please address the post.

Your frustration at what Scripture presents does not equate to Biblical demonstration of Biblical error on my part.

Sheer assertion. You haven't resolved the charge of contradiction. See above.

Feel free to address the rest of post #1808 which you did not address.

I am not aware of anything I missed. Feel free to apprise me.

 

[Clare73]

You are in no position to decry unorthodox theology as you parrot Calvinist theology and deny you do such.

I "parrot" Paulist theology, for which I am accused of parroting Calvinist theology. . .your accusation simply declaring that Calvinist theology is the same as Paulist theology.
It's your accusation that Calvinist theology is Paulist theology, not mine.

When someone answers you by pointing out problems with Calvinism - its deny, deny, deny - you tell the other their problem is with Calvin, not you. No, you consistently parrot Calvinost positions - and play hide the ball when someone calls you out - come out! Your laughable call yourself a Paulist while denying the clear text in 1 Timothy 2:4 as many rabid Calvinist do.

I suspect Paul was completely aware of God's election of only some (1Pe 1:2) and not all, as well as of Dt. 29:29.

About 6 months ago fellow Calvinist RvReverend, who only posted a few times here, called you on your hypocrisy twice - its very obvious - you are not fooling anyone!

I note that he didn't get much traction, and didn't hang around long when his charges were Biblically refuted.

Feel free to address the Biblical demonstration in post #1705.

 

[Clare73]

I see how much pride you have in the Pauline Scriptures. But even Peter said they are at times hard to understand.

He didn't say impossible. . .

2Peter 3:15-16 Don't forget that the Lord is patient because he wants people to be saved. This is also what our dear friend Paul said when he wrote you with the wisdom that God had given him. Paul talks about these same things in all his letters, but part of what he says is hard to understand. Some ignorant and unsteady people even destroy themselves by twisting what he said. They do the same thing with other Scriptures too.
I ask you with regard to salvation and receiving the Holy Spirit who should we look to Jesus, or Paul. What does Jesus say about receiving the Holy Spirit.

I don't see Jesus and Paul as in disagreement.

Joh 14:20-26 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. "These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

Jesus doctrine on the Holy Spirit, which is definitely what He is talking about is vastly different to Reformed Theology. See the order of the scripture:
God gives His command and the command of faith
If we love God we obey
THEN THEN THEN God reveals himself, makes His home with us.
If we do not obey we remain blind.

Is not Jesus' doctrine on the Holy Spirit in Jn 3:3-5 that we are spiriutally blind until we receive the Holy Spirit,
whose sovereign operation is governed only by what he pleases (Jn 3:6-8)?

But it was not only Jesus. The early church went to great lengths to show, man has genuine free will.

Justin Martyr - First Apology - Ch 56-50​

Chap. XLIII — Responsibility Asserted.

But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end;52 nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made.

@Clare73 In the advent of differences in theology who should we look to Jesus? Or Paul, who was said to be hard to understand?

I do not see Jesus and Paul to be in disagreement. . .I do not see the word of God contradicting itself.
The contradiction is only in one's understanding.

 

[Clare73]

The tone in this thread makes me sad.

It's as if someone whacked a bee hive. . .