How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Clare73]

A Calvinistic interpretation of predestination is one possible reading.

Nothing seems to be ever settled for you in Scripture.

The Greek word defines itself.
I take it at its definition.

But it's not the only one. Biblical realities seem to involve pieces.

That sounds like the kind of stuff the fallen mind of man comes up with, nowhere found in the Scriptures.

....(1) I must be a piece of Adam since I suffer his consequences.
....(2) The only coherent Incarnation seems to be Christ as a physical piece of the divine Word.
....(3) Justification/regeneration/sanctification MUST be in pieces, because we still sin. You denied this, claiming we have two conflicting natures (holy and depraved), which is a logical contradiction.

You're confused. . .no one denies we still sin.
And in the order of their natures, it's regeneration, justification, imputed righteousness (Ro 4:1-11) and the process of sanctification through obedience in the Holy Spirit which leads to righteousness leading to holiness (Ro 6:16, Ro 6:19), for "Without holiness no one will see the Lord." (Heb 12:14).

If pieces of Adam were predestined, anyone might be saved, because anyone might have at least one elect piece.
Well what else would it be? It sure as heck won't gratify people foreordained to damnation.
Two wrongs don't make a right. The Holy One is supposed to be above reproach in ALL His deeds. He is not supposed to do something evil now (like foreordain billions to hell) and then make up for it later via a good deed (such as the cross).

Totally agreed. . .however, evil is not what you say it, it is only what God says it is (Isa 55:8-9), whether that suits your fancy or not.
And according to your thinking here, it does not suit your fancy.

Of course I can't convince you. Calvinists don't demonstrate rational thinking in these areas.

I haven't seen their alleged irrationality so far.

Your mistake is in thinking human rationale governs divine truth.
See Isa 55:8-9.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Didn't we just recently talk about that?

this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
— Acts 2:23

What was foreknown? That man would deliver over Christ, no?

It might help to do a word study on the Biblical use of God's "know" and "foreknow", rather than to continue to spar. This is a much more intimate involvement on God's part than what we would normally like to attribute to the terms. It is not mere apprehension of fact.

 

[Mark Quayle]

@Mark Quayle,

Here's a third temporal definition:

Merit is a status attained by freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause over an extended period of time.

The cross is a great example. Here's a fourth:

Free will is a moment of deliberation - a moment of indecision - during which the various options are weighed in transition to a resolute decision.


Life simply DOESN'T MAKE SENSE without time.

Not to you anyhow, since you depend on man's words and concepts for fact, instead of realizing your limits, and accepting that there is always more to be known toward a conclusion. In other words, you draw your conclusions too early.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I have little use for such unclear citations. The citations themselves sound like empty babbling. Please oblige me with clear definitions. If you're not sure how to do that, please see my last couple of posts for examples of what a clear definition looks like.

You are more like my wife than I realized! Haha, yes she was a concrete thinker. She always had to have a resolution, a finished concept, NOW. Your definitions are good enough for you, no doubt. But since you're finite, I think I'll go with what God thinks, no matter how long it takes for me to know it.

 

[zoidar]

It might help to do a word study on the Biblical use of God's "know" and "foreknow", rather than to continue to spar. This is a much more intimate involvement on God's part than what we would normally like to attribute to the terms. It is not mere apprehension of fact.

Do you know how it was used by the Early Church Fathers? That is something I think might be even more useful to know.

Btw, how do you suggest I do this word study?

 

[Mark Quayle]

@Clare73,
@Brother-Mike,
@Mark Quayle,

Scholars seem to find three types of love in the NT:

3 Kinds of Love (Session 8 – 1 Corinthians 13:1-13) - Explore the Bible

Whereas in English we have one word to express all kinds of love, in Greek there are four different words for love. Let’s take a quick look at those words. We’ll combine two of them with related meanings into one category, differentiating three distinct kinds of love. Then we’ll affirm three...

explorethebible.lifeway.com

1. Eros refers to physical or sexual love.
2. Philos means warm affection or friendship.
3. Agapē is the sacrificial, unconditional love of God.

I was taught that Agape love is unselfish love. If so, how well does it gel with double predestination? Meaning, if God places His own self-gratification above the welfare of the damned, isn't He being selfish in that respect?

Doesn't he deserve every bit of that and more?

 

[JAL]

Nothing seems to be ever settled for you in Scripture.

More ad hominem.

The Greek word defines itself.
I take it at its definition.

Ridiculous. There is no Greek word in Scripture that means "Calvinism" or "double predestination." That's one possible interpretation, and not a very good one.

That sounds like the kind of stuff the fallen mind of man comes up with, nowhere found in the Scriptures.

Said the poster who can't refute any of it.

You're confused. . .no one denies we still sin.
And in the order of their natures, it's regeneration, justification, imputed righteousness (Ro 4:1-11) and the process of sanctification through obedience in the Holy Spirit which leads to righteousness leading to holiness (Ro 6:16, Ro 6:19), for "Without holiness no one will see the Lord." (Heb 12:14).

Does regeneration make us holy? Or leave us in our depraved state?. Hint: see 2 Corinthians 5:17. You persist in a contradiction. Logically the only way to solve it is to acknowledge fragments/pieces.

Totally agreed. . .however, evil is not what you say it, it is only what God says it is (Isa 55:8-9), whether that suits your fancy or not.

And there it is. The Calvinist God is pure lawlessness. Doesn't play by any rulebook at all. He makes up His own rules as He goes along. In fact He's the only evildoer since He deterministically puppets both the devil and everyone else.

 

[Mark Quayle]

For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.
— Acts 4:27-28

It doesn't mention foreknowledge, just predestination.

NASV
‘After these things I will return,
And I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen,
And I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will restore it,
So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’
Says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago (aiōn).
— Acts 15:16-18

Makes known from long ago? It doesn't sound like "foreknowledge" but to what was known long ago through the prophet. If I'm right this is from Amos 9:11-15 and there is no "long ago" in there. Ok, I'm aware I can be wrong here, just sharing thoughts.

whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time (aiōn).
— Acts 3:21

I don't think foreknowledge refers to God's actions. God's foreknowledge is about God knowing before time about His plans, what will be fulfilled, which is a different thing. How do we know that these plans of God aren't made in coexistence from God knowing ahead of time what man will do? I don't see that as exclusive. Ok, you say (as I take it) we have no warrent for ascribing it to God's knowing of man's actions before hand. I then have to ask you. Do you have warrent to ascribe God's plans being made exclusive of God knowing and planning in accordance of man's actions ahead of time? I don't think you do. The Bible says God predetermines things, not how God does it. You seem to say you know the how, which isn't known to us.

P.s. Sure my guess was off. But like I say, I don't see God's foreknowledge and making of His plans exclusive of man's future actions.

Are you serious?
Because God before the foundations of the world decreed/predestined Jesus death to occur exactly as it did, he necessarily knew after that decree exactly how Jesus was going to die (foreknowledge of Jesus' death) because he had decreed that he shall die that way.

God's foreknowledge is necessarily implied in Ac 4:27-28.


"Long ago" is the meaning of aiōn.

If God made them known before they occurred, then God had foreknowledge of them (based on his decree of them to occur).

There are no uses of it in Scripture where it does not.
It is man's notion that God's foreknowledge refers to man's actions.

We have the same situation with Paul and the word "spiritual," where Paul never uses the word to mean immaterial, non-physical,
and always uses the word to mean of the realm of the Holy Spirit.
To interpret "spiritual" in the writings of Paul to mean "immaterial" is a misinterpretation of the word as Paul uses it.
It is man's notion that Paul's use of "spiritual" means "immaterial."

Nevertheless, the Almighty and Sovereign God (Da 4:35) does not need foreknowledge in order to "know" what will be fulfilled.
What he has decreed shall be fulfilled without fail. . .you can take it to the bank.

You have bound the Almighty and Sovereign God (Da 4:35) by the will of man. . .that's "a dollar waitin' on a dime."

Yes, it is the meaning of the sovereignty of God, testified to throughout Scripture:
Da 4:35, Ac 2:23, Ac 4:28, Ac 13:48; Lk 22:22, Ro 8:29-30, Ro 9:14-29, Ro 11:25-34, Eph 1:4-12, 2 Th 2:13, 1Pe 1:2.

Your God is too small.

Their occurrence shows us exactly what and how God predetermined it to occur.

Clare, it occurs to me to mention, maybe Zoidar misapprehends your use of the 'two wills'. He seems sometimes to conflate God's Decree, with God's Edict, and therefore, perhaps, God's Command.

Zoidar, there are many different ways the Reformed/Calvinist uses the idea of the two wills, with some amount of overlap. And not many of them claim the notion of the two wills is more than a useful construction to help understand the basically 2 ways the term and concept of the will of God is used in Scripture.

Good philosophical and Biblical thought on the way God deals with his creation shows 'active' far surpasses 'passive'. For God to plan something is to do it, but for God to give man choice, is also to do it. God is not passive in the sense that he must depend on what will happen in order to determine that it must happen.

As I have shown in the past, libertarian free will, sweet and uplifting as it may seem, ultimately reduces both man and God to victims of chance, since there is no such thing as uncaused action of the part of creation.

 

[JAL]

Doesn't he deserve every bit of that and more?

I don't follow you. Imagine a kid gifted from conception - the most gifted person in all the world. He says to himself, "Since I'm so gifted, I deserve to be glorified. If I happen to find it glorious to throw 75% of the world in a pit of everlasting fire, so be it, I deserve it."

This is your understanding of Agape love? Unselfish love?

 

[Clare73]

More ad hominem.

Ridiculous. There is no Greek word in Scripture that means "Calvinism" or "double predestination."

You mistake me for someone who cares about your personal notion of "double predestination."

 

[JAL]

Admittedly freedom can be costly - it can lead to victims.

As I have shown in the past, libertarian free will, sweet and uplifting as it may seem, ultimately reduces both man and God to victims of chance, since there is no such thing as uncaused action of the part of creation.

Reduces God? Whereas portraying God as a control-freak somehow magnifies Him?

Minor edit to your words: A more accurate summary would be "victims of freedom" rather than chance.

 

[JAL]

You mistake me for someone who cares about your personal notion of "double predestination."

Ditto.

 

[Clare73]

Ditto.

Then we are agreed.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Do you know how it was used by the Early Church Fathers? That is something I think might be even more useful to know.

Btw, how do you suggest I do this word study?

Quickest and easiest would be google the two words as relates to God knowing /foreknowing. Maybe look in concordances and lexicons too. See who is just spouting and who is doing exegesis. I don't want to suggest any because I'm obviously (haha) biased.

 

[JAL]

Then we are agreed.

That double predestination is a morally untenable position? I would like to think so.

 

[Clare73]

That double predestination is a morally untenable position? I would like to think so.

Works for me.

 

[Fervent]

Quickest and easiest would be google the two words as relates to God knowing /foreknowing. Maybe look in concordances and lexicons too. See who is just spouting and who is doing exegesis. I don't want to suggest any because I'm obviously (haha) biased.

Neither of those are doing a word study. Lexicons/concordances are decent supplements but ultimately they tend to reflect theological traditions especially on contentious words like "foreknow" and rarely are the result of original research. A word study requires independently searching where the word is used in the Bible, and possible other 1st cenury Greek sources(usually the LXX, Josephus, and Philo) to determine a range of meaning for the word.

 

[JAL]

Neither of those are doing a word study. Lexicons/concordances are decent supplements but ultimately they tend to reflect theological traditions especially on contentious words like "foreknow" and rarely are the result of original research. A word study requires independently searching where the word is used in the Bible, and possible other 1st cenury Greek sources(usually the LXX, Josephus, and Philo) to determine a range of meaning for the word.

The potential pitfalls of Sola Scriptura seem countless. For a long time I've warned people that we cannot 100% fully rely on anything man-made: translations, concordances, lexicons, grammar books, etc.

Thanks for confirming.

 

[Clare73]

The potential pitfalls of Sola Scriptura seem countless. For a long time I've warned people that we cannot 100% fully rely on anything man-made: translations, concordances, lexicons, grammar books, etc.

Thanks for confirming.

God did not leave his people an unreliable word.

There is more than enough there to accomplish the purpose for which it was given.

 

[JAL]

You won't be convincing me that infinite wisdom hasn't chosen the best means to the best end, which includes Ro 8:29-30; Eph 1:4.

What is the best end, in your view? 75% of the world in a pit of fire? This is the best that a predetermining God can do?