How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Clare73]

It's very not reasonable considering verses 4-5.

The Holy Spirit sometimes works in those he does not save (Mt 7:21-23).

That doesn't work here. Who is the "our sins" in which Christ died?

I made a typo there, it should have been Jn 1:29.

And I don't know what text you are referring to there.
But off the top of my head, with no text to review, could it refer to the sins of the elect?

 

[All Becomes New]

The Holy Spirit sometimes works in those he does not save (Mt 7:21-23).

That few verses aren't as clear as you think. It could be talking about Judas or other disciples who fell away. Besides, when the author of Hebrews says basically the same thing three times, that's an indicator of significance. I don't think they say that just to say the HS wasn't actually in the person (and as such didn't fall away: fail to follow through on a commitment).

I made a typo there, it should have been Jn 1:29.

And I don't know what text you are referring to there.
But off the top of my head, with no text to review, could it refer to the sins of the elect?

1 John 2:2. The "our" is in direct relationship to "we" in 1 John 1:1. Same goes for "us" and "we" in Ephesians 1:3-12 (compared to "prophets and apostles" in Ephesians 2:20 contrasted to "In Him, you also" in Ephesians 1:13, 2:22).

1 John 2:2 CSB17
“He himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world.”

1 John 1:1 CSB17
“What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have observed and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life”

Ephesians 1:5 CSB17
“He predestined us to be adopted as sons through Jesus Christ for himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,”

Ephesians 2:20 CSB17
“built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.”

Ephesians 1:13 CSB17
“In him you also were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and when you believed.”

Ephesians 2:22 CSB17
“n him you are also being built together for God’s dwelling in the Spirit.”

 

[John Mullally]

The misunderstanding is unsurprising. Jesse's citations were long, somewhat vague, and not clearly situated into this discussion. And then Clare's post, by contrast, was too terse to be perfectly clear. This is often her preferred style, unfortunately. To each their own, I suppose.

I agree. It is nice to know exactly what the other person is talking about - but sometimes the other person likes to remain mysterious.

Hmmmm. . .methinks the pot is. . .

Be respectful - I acknowledged my error. But you have some shoring up to do as well. Try to use more words to express your thoughts to avoid misunderstanding. We are not very good mind readers!

 

[All Becomes New]

It seems I completely missed the misunderstanding.

Glad things are not escalating.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Hmmmm. . .methinks the pot is. . .

Well, he was at least willing to admit his mistake.

 

[Clare73]

I agree. It is nice to know exactly what the other person is talking about - but sometimes the other person likes to remain mysterious.

Be respectful - I acknowledged my error. But you have some shoring up to do as well. Try to use more words to express your thoughts to avoid misunderstanding. We are not very good mind readers!

Okay, just ask me questions when I haven't been clear.
Because it is clear to me, I must not be realizing that it is not that clear to others.

 

[Clare73]

That few verses aren't as clear as you think. It could be talking about Judas or other disciples who fell away.

It's clear to me that Jesus rejects them.

Besides, when the author of Hebrews says basically the same thing three times, that's an indicator of significance. I don't think they say that just to say the HS wasn't actually in the person (and as such didn't fall away: fail to follow through on a commitment).

Not following what you are saying here in light of my response.
The Holy Spirit worked in Saul, was he saved?

1 John 2:2. The "our" is in direct relationship to "we" in 1 John 1:1. Same goes for "us" and "we" in Ephesians 1:3-12 (compared to "prophets and apostles" in Ephesians 2:20 contrasted to "In Him, you also" in Ephesians 1:13, 2:22).

1 John 2:2 CSB17
“He himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world.”

You said "Who is the "our sins" in which Christ died?"

"Our sins" would be the sins of the recipients of the letter.

1 John 1:1 CSB17
“What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have observed and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life”

Ephesians 1:5 CSB17
“He predestined us to be adopted as sons through Jesus Christ for himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,”

Ephesians 2:20 CSB17
“built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.”

Ephesians 1:13 CSB17
“In him you also were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and when you believed.”

Ephesians 2:22 CSB17
“n him you are also being built together for God’s dwelling in the Spirit.”

 

[Mark Quayle]

Be respectful - I acknowledged my error. But you have some shoring up to do as well. Try to use more words to express your thoughts to avoid misunderstanding. We are not very good mind readers!

A terse reply is often in keeping with, or even kinder than, what was thrown at it.

But some of us express ourselves more woodenly than others. All of us think we expressed ourselves well enough that we should have been understood. Some of us (me) overexpress ourselves, and in many words there is no lack of sin. But all of us, when our opposition claims us to be unbiblical or worse, get a bit defensive, whether we express it as offense or not. And, all of us presently engaged, I think, including (I hope) one who thinks he has the unique advantage of having his own correct view of God, are in fact after the truth. Give @Clare73 credit for engaging you, at least, when I had pretty much given up.

 

[John Mullally]

A terse reply is often in keeping with, or even kinder than, what was thrown at it.

But some of us express ourselves more woodenly than others. All of us think we expressed ourselves well enough that we should have been understood. Some of us (me) overexpress ourselves, and in many words there is no lack of sin. But all of us, when our opposition claims us to be unbiblical or worse, get a bit defensive, whether we express it as offense or not. And, all of us presently engaged, I think, including (I hope) one who thinks he has the unique advantage of having his own correct view of God, are in fact after the truth. Give @Clare73 credit for engaging you, at least, when I had pretty much given up.

Yes I am harsh in that I do pursue. There is a truly ugly side to Calvinism that I continually poke at and you will not defend other than basically saying "how dare you". You need to ditch that and accept the plain text in 1 Timothy 2:4 - as Calvin's teaching that God predestines many to hell for His glory is slandering God! And the world is hearing that ugly message! Its not in the Great Commission and its not the Gospel (which means good news)! That message came about roughly 1500 years after Jesus. 90% of Christendom rejects predestination to hell!

Nearing Christmas, I remind you that Christs coming was good news to all men! Merry Christmas!

The angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for see, I bring you good news of great joy which will be to all the people. For there is born to you, this day, in the city of David, a Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord.​

 

[JAL]

I made a slight edit to your words.

one who thinks he has the unique advantage of having his own [the] correct view of God....

Presumably me. Did my view of God strongly impact this thread? I don't remember that. Far more relevant, as I recall, was my understanding of the human soul as a physical piece of Adam's soul. This provides a clear explanation of:
...why we suffer some consequences of Adam's sin.
...how Adam's sinful taint became universal.
...election/predestination.

 

[JAL]

Probably worth mentioning that Traducianists have always regarded men as a piece of Adam's soul. A few church fathers supported Traducianism, along with a few other noted scholars, including present-day Millard J. Erickson.

Why wasn't Traducianism more popular? For an obvious reason. Immateriality is defined as the opposite of materiality. Therefore an immaterial soul would not be divisible into pieces. As Brakel complained, “The soul would be divisible, and having parts it would not be a spirit but a [material] body” (Wilhelmus Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, ch 10).

Similarly Dabney observed, "Traducianism is therefore vehemently accused of materialist tendencies” (Robert Dabney, Systematic Theology, ch 29).

Tertullian was probably the only consistent Traducianist. He was a full-blown materialist like me.

 

[JAL]

Millard J. Erickson tries to stand on both sides of the fence. He claims the soul is by nature immaterial but somehow sustains a material subsistence when merged with the human body. To me this seems like a copout both incoherent and inconsistent.

 

[Clare73]

Yes I am harsh in that I do pursue.

And likewise inconsistent, in that you zoom right past Scripture which states otherwise, failing to reconcile them in the light of the whole counsel of God.

There is a truly ugly side to Calvinism that I continually poke at and you will not defend other than basically saying "how dare you". You need to ditch that and accept the plain text in 1 Timothy 2:4 - as Calvin's teaching that God predestines many to hell for His glory is slandering God!

Yawn. . .

1) You need to address 1Pe 1:2.

2) Likewise, according to your own rule, your inconsistency needs to ditch 1Ti 2:4 and accept the plain fact that God chooses only some (not all) people to be saved (1 Pe 1:2).

And the world is hearing that ugly message! Its not in the Great Commission and its not the Gospel (which means good news)! That message came about roughly 1500 years after Jesus. 90% of Christendom rejects predestination to hell!
Nearing Christmas, I remind you that Christs coming was good news to all men! Merry Christmas!

Yawn . .your conundrum again.

And yet he does not choose to save all men (1Pe 1:2).

The angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for see, I bring you good news of great joy which will be to all the people. For there is born to you, this day, in the city of David, a Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord.​

Your theology limps.
The whole counsel of God does not.

 

[Mark Quayle]

2) Likewise, according to your own rule, your inconsistency needs to ditch 1Ti 2:4 and accept the plain fact that God chooses only some (not all) people to be saved (1 Pe 1:2).

@John Mullally

Note by Clare's unofficial official editor: Here I think Clare is not saying that you should ditch 1 Tim 2:4, but in saying that your inconsistency needs to ditch it, she is saying you are using it wrong, since your use of it does not agree with the rest of the counsel of God, (to include 1 Pe 1:2).

 

[JAL]

1) You need to address 1Pe 1:2.

2) Likewise, according to your own rule, your inconsistency needs to ditch 1Ti 2:4 and accept the plain fact that God chooses only some (not all) people to be saved (1 Pe 1:2).

And yet he does not choose to save all men (1Pe 1:2).

Your theology limps.

Limps? That's a pretty harsh assessment. Admittedly a handful of election passages give me pause. With respect to Calvinism, however, virtually every chapter of the Bible gives me pause, because every denunciation of sin calls Calvinistic determinism into question.

And I'm not sure the election passages are as clear as you'd like to think. Consider Rom 11:

"26And so all Israel will be saved...[because] regarding election, they are loved on account of the patriarchs." (Rom 11)

If their patriarchal ancestry is the basis for their inclusion/election, why would any Israelite go to hell?

 

[All Becomes New]

It's clear to me that Jesus rejects them.

Where? It's not clear at all. Interpret the unclear texts with clear ones. This isn't clear.

Not following what you are saying here in light of my response.
The Holy Spirit worked in Saul, was he saved?

Yes, Saul was saved and then fell away.

You said "Who is the "our sins" in which Christ died?"

"Our sins" would be the sins of the recipients of the letter.

Do you have any exegetical reason for thinking that? As far as I can see, John tells us who the "our" is by reference in the first few verses.

 

[Clare73]

Where? It's not clear at all. Interpret the unclear texts with clear ones. This isn't clear.

"I never knew you" (you were never mine) couldn't be any clearer to me, so I have no need to interpret it from any other text anymore than I have a need to interpret from other texts: "Whoever does not believe in the Son stands condemned already." (Jn 3:18)

Do you have any exegetical reason for thinking that?

The next sentence. . .

 

[All Becomes New]

"I never knew you" (you were never mine) couldn't be any clearer to me, so I have no need to interpret it from any other text anymore than I have a need to interpret from other texts: "Whoever does not believe in the Son stands condemned already." (Jn 3:18)

It could very well be symbolic language. Not everything Jesus said was literal.

The next sentence. . .

Yes, which again says, "we," meaning, the "we," already knew what Christ's command was (John 13:34). That's why John explains to them what the new commandment is. Otherwise, the Apostle is being redundant and explaining things they already know.

 

[Clare73]

It could very well be symbolic language. Not everything Jesus said was literal.

It could very well not be.

Yes, which again says, "we,"

Not in my Bible.

 

[John Mullally]

And likewise inconsistent, in that you zoom right past Scripture which states otherwise, failing to reconcile them in the light of the whole counsel of God.

Yawn. . .

1) You need to address 1Pe 1:2.

2) Likewise, according to your own rule, your inconsistency needs to ditch 1Ti 2:4 and accept the plain fact that God chooses only some (not all) people to be saved (1 Pe 1:2).

Yawn . .your conundrum again.

And yet he does not choose to save all men (1Pe 1:2).

Your theology limps.
The whole counsel of God does not.

1 Peter was written to believers in provinces listed in 1 Peter 1:1. From Mark 16:16 we know that God decided long agol that those who believe and are baptized will be saved - and thus the goodness of 1 Peter 1:2 applies to them. Peter's is writing to persecuted believers and was encouraging them by telling them God's glorious plans for them. It lines up well with Ephesians 3:14-21. If Peter was tryng to lay down Calvinist Determinism - why wasn't that a theme by early church fathers (with the possible exception of Augistine).

Requiring another to "reconcile them in the light of the whole counsel of God" as you frequently say is arrogance on your part as no man on earth understands the whole counsel of God (1 Corinthians 13:12). On top of that it is always best to be specific in your critique.

God chooses who will be saved from the standpoint of Mark 16:16. Jesus says God chooses to save those who believe and are baptized - no need to overcomplicate it. We receive from God through faith. But God does not make anyone believe and be baptized, as some do not want to beleive per John 3:18. Even when Paul was struck down on the road to Damascus, he could have said no to God then or later. We see that happening with Balaam who had a similar supernatural experience, when his jack ass spoke to him - Balaam complied for a short time, but then reverted to his old behaviour.