How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Clare73]

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

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

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

I do not see our issues as resolvable, as explained in post #1836.

 

[Brother-Mike]

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

When I replied to your geneticist scenario I did state that he was "guilty of building 7 harmful robots". The problem again is that your scenario and the nature of God are not equal - what analogy of God truly can be? I'm not denying the existence of evil. If anything [and I only bring up your "Rule of Conscience" to make this point] aren't you denying the geneticists' evil actions via the ROC? e.g. he acted according to his conscience and to him creating killer robots wasn't evil and thus it wasn't.

In my opinion there is a far more direct and primal question if we want to wade into theodicy: why didn't God just fast-forward to the endgame of New Earth, bypassing all of the evil and imbuing his creations with all of the same wisdom and understanding of his Glory that we would otherwise have gained in the unfolding of Creation?

Neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian (and not even an Armenian Arminian, not even an African-American-Armenian Arminian) gets to dodge this question, no matter how much they struggle against their prideful wish to get God off the hook or to preserve the idolatry of their own free will insistence.

Only an Open Theist such as yourself is prepared to go the extra-mile, defenestrating God's power and omniscience to the point that God can't even know the actions of men ahead of time, so evil surprises God just as much as it does its victims. If you hold that that's Biblical, then more power to you. Literally

I don't know the answer to the question myself, and I can only go on the glimpses occasionally revealed in scripture. On this side of Judgement, maybe it's just going to have to be one of the secret things that we're not meant to understand.

But I can look to some verses that may shed a clue and support the argument that our God's a storytelling God, and Creation is one big Theatre of God's Glory. Take Isaiah 27:2-5 for example:

"When that time comes,
sing about a delightful vineyard!
I, the Lord, protect it;
I water it regularly.
I guard it night and day,
so no one can harm it.
I am not angry.
I wish I could confront some thorns and briers!
Then I would march against them for battle;
I would set them all on fire,
unless they became my subjects
and made peace with me;
let them make peace with me.”

Anyone holding to God's omnipotence must ask where the thorns and briers are coming from. Is there some power outside of him creating them? Is he "wishing" for them because it's out of his control, or wishing in the way I might say "I wish to have some toast today for breakfast"? When he says "unless they became my subjects" does this mean he can't make them? But then does "let them make peace with me" echo the same uncertainty?

How about Genesis 50:19-20:

"But Joseph said to them, “Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today."

Like Isaiah 10 we seem to have a God that's operating on a level that is able to author evil without committing it, able to steer the flow of the story without turning us into robots.

If you are affronted by this and you sleep better believing that God cannot author what we at our level call evil, then God gave you the freedom to construct whatever model works best for you. I think at least on that we agree.

 

[JAL]

When I replied to your geneticist scenario I did state that he was "guilty of building 7 harmful robots". The problem again is that your scenario and the nature of God are not equal - what analogy of God truly can be?

Again, if God doesn't hold to human definitions of value such as love, the bible affords no hope. Let's be consistent here. Would you like biblical proof that He does?

I'm not denying the existence of evil. If anything [and I only bring up your "Rule of Conscience" to make this point] aren't you denying the geneticists' evil actions via the ROC? e.g. he acted according to his conscience and to him creating killer robots wasn't evil and thus it wasn't.

No, the geneticist analogy didn't mention the ROC. It was arguing from a more traditional outlook on ethics. If you want to fit the ROC into that analogy, you'll need to go back and read my posts a little more carefully - or just let me explain here. I said that only a psychopath could wantonly harm or kill people with a clear conscience - or a normal person if a Direct Revelation gave him 100% certainty in his conscience. Neither of these scenarios were posited in the geneticist analogy. If you want to paint God as a cold-hearted psychopath, then I suppose you pass the test of the geneticist-analogy with flying colors. Kudos to you, in that case. In fact, that's essentially what Calvinism does - it elevates divine Narcissism above any concern for His creatures.

In my opinion there is a far more direct and primal question if we want to wade into theodicy: why didn't God just fast-forward to the endgame of New Earth, bypassing all of the evil and imbuing his creations with all of the same wisdom and understanding of his Glory that we would otherwise have gained in the unfolding of Creation?

Neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian (and not even an Armenian Arminian, not even an African-American-Armenian Arminian) gets to dodge this question, no matter how much they struggle against their prideful wish to get God off the hook or to preserve the idolatry of their own free will insistence.

Excellent point - and in fact it's not the only one. The other one is Calvinism's problematic treatment of the Fall. I didn't even get started on THAT one. But as for your point, please be aware that I don't have to dodge it: I'm the only person in church history, as far as I know, who has solved it. You can read my definition of Yahweh at post 15 on another thread. it doesn't take any brains to solve it - you just have to abandon traditional definitions of Yahweh.

Only an Open Theist such as yourself is prepared to go the extra-mile, defenestrating God's power and omniscience to the point that God can't even know the actions of men ahead of time, so evil surprises God just as much as it does its victims. If you hold that that's Biblical, then more power to you. Literally

Yes - but a bit overstated, as I'm sure you realize, since evil was not entirely a "surprise" to God. He didn't foreknow it but was certainly prepared to confront that eventuality. It didn't catch Him entirely off-guard. In fact He deliberately setup a free choice between good and evil.

I don't know the answer to the question myself, and I can only go on the glimpses occasionally revealed in scripture. On this side of Judgement, maybe it's just going to have to be one of the secret things that we're not meant to understand.

Again, the answer is a cinch if you start with simplistic assumptions. All things are simple - even the Incarnation is a joke to explain - in my simple monistic materialism.

But I can look to some verses that may shed a clue and support the argument that our God's a storytelling God, and Creation is one big Theatre of God's Glory. Take Isaiah 27:2-5 for example:

"When that time comes,
sing about a delightful vineyard!
I, the Lord, protect it;
I water it regularly.
I guard it night and day,
so no one can harm it.
I am not angry.
I wish I could confront some thorns and briers!
Then I would march against them for battle;
I would set them all on fire,
unless they became my subjects
and made peace with me;
let them make peace with me.”

Anyone holding to God's omnipotence must ask where the thorns and briers are coming from. Is there some power outside of him creating them? Is he "wishing" for them because it's out of his control, or wishing in the way I might say "I wish to have some toast today for breakfast"? When he says "unless they became my subjects" does this mean he can't make them? But then does "let them make peace with me" echo the same uncertainty?

I'm having trouble understanding the problem here. You mention God's omnipotence - by that I think you include Calvinistic absolute sovereignty? That would be Calvinistic determinism, in which case you (i.e. Calvin) have fabricated a dilemma that doesn't exist. (Am I misunderstanding your point?).

How about Genesis 50:19-20:

"But Joseph said to them, “Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today."

You argument here seems to be that God was a moral agent of evil, but your words don't seem terribly convincing. And such would contradict the holy, pure, just, loving God of the Bible

Like Isaiah 10 we seem to have a God that's operating on a level that is able to author evil without committing it, able to steer the flow of the story without turning us into robots.

Ditto here.

If you are affronted by this and you sleep better believing that God cannot author what we at our level call evil, then God gave you the freedom to construct whatever model works best for you. I think at least on that we agree.

Maybe you DO need biblical proof that God doesn't behave in ways that most humans would classify as evil.

 

[JAL]

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.
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.

Many Calvinists are not 100% so. No one here is trying to unfairly pigeonhole you into a category improperly associated with your beliefs. Please be aware that your posts seem as Calvinistic as any I've seen on this forum. It's only for the sake of clarifying the intercommunication that we want you to accept the Calvinist label.

Take me for example. I don't mind being classified as an Open Theist even though I don't 100% adhere to mainline Open Theism.

 

[John Mullally]

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.

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.

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.

Calvinist theology positions God dangerously close to satan as 2 Corithians 4:4 states that satan is responsible for blinding the reprobate. Calvin says that God does so per his "Doomed from the womb" text - which I have quoted earlier and anyone can google. Where is your allegience - is it to God per 1 Timothy 2:4, or is it to Calvin? You claim you are a Paulist (eye roll please). Paul clearly states that God desires all to be saved in 1 Timothy 2:4 - but you per hardcore but undeclared Calvinism disagree - thus you declare yourself wiser than Paul. FYI: Leading Calvinists John Piper and John MacArthur have made statements that God desires all to be saved - you should google the Dunning-Kruger effect!

I agree that not all are saved per 1 Peter 1:2 - that does not mean that God does not desire all to be saved. That is not what Peter is stating per 2 Peter 3:9. Given the thousands of directives in the Bible, it is clear that men have a role in their destiny - it is who will you serve (Joshua 24:14-15)!

 

[Clare73]

Many Calvinists are not 100% so. No one here is trying to unfairly pigeonhole you into a category improperly associated with your beliefs. Please be aware that your posts seem as Calvinistic as any I've seen on this forum. It's only for the sake of clarifying the intercommunication that we want you to accept the Calvinist label.

But my theology is from Paul. . .why not that label?. . .I don't do "ism's". . .Calvin didn't write Scripture. . .I have no need to defend him. . .if he agrees with Paul, then great. . .not my problem.

Take me for example. I don't mind being classified as an Open Theist even though I don't 100% adhere to mainline Open Theism.

Good for you!

 

[JAL]

But my theology is from Paul. . .why not that label?. . .I don't do "ism's". . .Calvin didn't write Scripture. . .I have no need to defend him. . .if he agrees with Paul, then great. . .not my problem.

(Sigh). As you've been reminded, EVERYONE HERE touts his own theology as Pauline. In itself, then, the Pauline label doesn't clarify intercommunication. It doesn't, by itself, clearly distinguish one poster from another.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Calvinists exhibit the double think: I have heard them say that those who oppose them (like the WOF), have a different Jesus. a different Gospel,. amd yet upon quesioning will not show any support for their own assurance of salvation. This displays their own double think and intellectual vacancy. Example: Mark Quayle has been queried of the assurance of his salvation, and he did not answer in the affirmative - this despite his many posts and my reminders that Jesus says that those who believe and are baptized in Mark 16:16 will be saved. This shows that his relatively friendly posts, seemingly honest Calvinsts who accuse others of being self-deluded, secretly acknockledge that may happen to them. Ignore Calvin, ignore thier theological framesworks (like TULIP), believe the Gospel from Jesus in Mark 16:16. amd thank God for your salvation.

Then you have not been reading my posts in their entirety. I insist that my assurance rests in God's choice and ability to see all he has chosen come to pass. My feelings of assurance rest in the witness of the Spirit of God within me. No doubt I would feel more secure if I was more obedient, which is true for all types of believers, as Scripture also shows.

Years ago, as a semi-Arminian, I had no assurance, because I knew I was untrustworthy. You apparently think you can trust your own integrity, intelligence, understanding and knowledge, dedication, steadfastness, sincerity and focus. Have at it. Self-determination has never gotten me anywhere.

The affirmative I gave you was the change of focus for me. My assurance being in God's choice, means that I am precisely where he intended me to be all along. This is not up to me, and I am free to focus on him —no need to focus on how I feel about whether or not I am saved. I have said this many times in many ways, but all you say is that I did not answer in the affirmative.

"...thank God for your salvation", you say. What about, thank God for who he is and what he has done? Christ is my salvation.

Yes, I acknowledge my capability to delude myself. But you call it a secret —it has been no secret; I have said I can delude myself many times. In fact, that is one of my very reasons for confidence and joy inherent in the point of view of Grace —the veracity of my salvation does not depend on the veracity of my choice. If you were honest, I should think you would admit the same for yourself.

 

[Clare73]

(Sigh). As you've been reminded, EVERYONE HERE touts his own theology as Pauline. In itself, then, the Pauline label doesn't clarify intercommunication. It doesn't, by itself, clearly distinguish one poster from another.

Okay, I agree. . .for "intercommunication" purposes.

Don't like the implication that I take my theology from Calvin though, because I do not.

On second thought, I don't agree. . .my theology is the same as Calvin's, but it is not Calvin's, it is Paul's.

I like to keep the record straight.

Therefore, it is my theology (according to others) is "the same" as Calvin's.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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!

Never even occurs to you that @Clare73 and Calvinists parrot scripture...

 

[Clare73]

Okay, I agree. . .for "intercommunication" purposes.

Never even occurs to you that @Clare73 and Calvinists parrot scripture...

Yeah. . .that's what I said!

 

[John Mullally]

But my theology is from Paul. . .why not that label?. . .I don't do "ism's". . .Calvin didn't write Scripture. . .I have no need to defend him. . .if he agrees with Paul, then great. . .not my problem.

Good for you!

Your theology is not from Paul as you do not accept his 1 Timothy 2:4 text. You say you do not do isms, but yet you consistently defend Calvinist positions. Stop lying!

Good for yiou!

 

[Clare73]

Your theology is not from Paul as you do not accept his 1 Timothy 2:4 text. You say you do not do isms, but yet you consistently defend Calvinist positions. Stop lying!

I do not reject 1Ti 2:4, anymore than I reject Ex 4:22 (Let my people go, or I will kill your firstborn son).

 

[John Mullally]

Never even occurs to you that @Clare73 and Calvinists parrot scripture...

What do you know about scripture? Paul states in 1 Timothy 2:4 that God desires all men to be saved - but you disagree - thus you know more than Paul. Is it the Calvinism, that affords you such arrogance?

 

[JAL]

Okay, I agree. . .for "intercommunication" purposes.

Don't like the implication that I take my theology from Calvin though, because I do not.

On second thought, I don't agree. . .my theology is the same as Calvin's, but it is not Calvin's, it is Paul's.

I like to keep the record straight.

Therefore, it is my theology (according to others) is "the same" as Calvin's.

Thanks for making the effort to be highly diplomatic about this.

Yes I understand that you exegeted Paul directly.

Thanks for your consideration.

 

[John Mullally]

I do not reject 1Ti 2:4, anymore than I reject Ex 4:22 (Let my people go, or I will kill your firstborn son).

Paul who wrote 1 Timothy 2:4 addressed Exodus 4:22 earlier in Romans 9. You call yourself a Paulest, but you refute 1 Timothy 2:4.

 

[Brother-Mike]

…parrot scripture…

Submitted for your consideration: the Scripture Parrot

Sorry, I could not resist. Parakeet technically I guess.

 

[Clare73]

Paul who wrote 1 Timothy 2:4 addressed Exodus 4:22 in Romans 9. You call yourself a Paulest, but you refute 1 Timothy 2:4.

No more than Moses in Ex 4:22 refutes Ex 4:23.

I don't refute 1Ti 2:4, it is 1Pe 1:2 which refutes 1Ti 2:4 in that God chooses only some, not all. . .and for your edification, I reconcile them.

 

[John Mullally]

No more than Moses in Ex 4:22 refutes Ex 4:23.

I don't refute 1Ti 2:4, it is 1Pe 1:2 which refutes 1Ti 2:4 in that God chooses only some, not all. . .and for your edification, I reconcile them.

It is not God that chooses. Judgement comes to men that refuse the spirit of God. Don't get wrapped around the axle with the 'election term'. For clear thinking non-Calvinists mortals, salvation is commonly based upon co-operation that Paul prescribes in Acts 2:36-41 and Romans 10:9-14.

 

[Brother-Mike]

Thanks again for your thoughtful reply - it's clear that you are passionate about these matters so +1 bonus points for passion. If I was a gambling man I'd wager that God would rather have slightly-wrong-but-passionate over perfectly-correct-but-lifeless! This applies to either of us.

I'll touch on a few points - any points not covered can be chalked up to acceptance of disagreement.

Again, if God doesn't hold to human definitions of value such as love, the bible affords no hope

Brother, do you mean this? That God is to be held to human definitions? Isn't it a clear and key teaching from Job that God is not to be held to human definitions? God rebukes the three knuckleheads and their potshot pontifications (I'm with Piper that Elihu was at least sort of on-target, but I digress) and ultimately Job learns that if you don't want to be lectured about hippos and dinosaurs sometimes it's just best to defer to The Architect.

If you want to paint God as a cold-hearted psychopath

I don't.

I'm the only person in church history, as far as I know, who has solved it. You can read my definition of Yahweh at post 15 on another thread. it doesn't take any brains to solve it - you just have to abandon traditional definitions of Yahweh.

It doesn't strike you as something approaching Gnostic heresy to utter any phrase beginning with "I'm the only person in church history..."? Or for that phrase to end with "... you just have to abandon traditional definitions of Yahweh."? But I like my traditional definitions of Yahweh! Sorry, but pass.

It didn't catch Him entirely off-guard.

The context here is the Open-Theistic claim that man's actions can catch God off-guard. Even if God can just-slightly be caught off guard doesn't that have significant implications to God's omniscience? Beyond the novelty factor of such conjecture I can't believe that any serious student of the Bible can accept this.

Again, the answer is a cinch if you start with simplistic assumptions. All things are simple - even the Incarnation is a joke to explain - in my simple monistic materialism.

If your theories reduce the Incarnation to triviality then I would suggest that two thousand years of debate, analysis and insight into the event begs to differ. You should at least sit up and ponder whether one man might be more likely to be mistaken than thousands of scholars over time on all sides of the aisle. Of course, maybe you are right, but you see how the claim may raise eyebrows yes?

in which case you (i.e. Calvin) have fabricated

I retract all previous claims that endless and time-consuming debate on these topics does not seem to bear fruit:

God bless you Brother!

Maybe you DO need biblical proof that God doesn't behave in ways that most humans would classify as evil.

Wait... isn't it me (i.e. Calvin) that's making the claim that God doesn't behave in ways that most humans would classify as evil? Or maybe it's hinging on the definition of "most" here. Anyway, I'm making no claim that God commits evil.

All of us are sinners, so at 10,000ft it's hard to say that we ever get "evil" - we get justice, unless we believe and then we get mercy. Either way, you get to spend time on the set, enjoy the craft table and play your part. Whatever ups or downs come your way, as a believer you have the assurance that all of it is to for the greatest glory in the New Earth. Until then, as Al Swearengen in the Western series "Deadwood" consoled a friend injured by violence:

"Pain or damage don’t end the world, or despair or beatin’s. The world ends when you’re dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man — and give some back."