Jesus is the Reason for Calvinism

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
387
38
Northwest
✟39,150.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
Jesus is the reason for the Bible.

Calvinism and Calvin's Institutes are not quite the same thing - Calvinism and the five points are more of a distillation of Calvin's theology given in the Institutes. Unless the five points are properly articulated there can be problems and misunderstandings. Some theologians have also noted some differences in English Calvinism which is mediated more from Theodore Beza through the works of William Perkins, and differs in some significant ways from Calvin.

What I am trying to say is that Calvinism would be pointless if it weren't supported by the Bible, especially by the words of Jesus. Protestants, including John Calvin, historically believe in Sola Scriptura.
 
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,086
1,305
✟596,524.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Galatians 2:7-9 Romans 15:8 Matthew 26:13 say there are two different gospels.

Sorry I don't understand how your comment relates to what I was saying about Calvin and Calvinism or Jesus being the reason for the Bible, can you elaborate a bit more?
 
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,086
1,305
✟596,524.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Galatians 2:7-9 Romans 15:8 Matthew 26:13 say there are two different gospels.

The first scripture I understand to mean Peter was sent to preach the Gospel to the Jews mainly, and Paul to the Gentiles mainly. One Gospel is preached to both groups, not two different gospels. The last verse I don't see as having any relevance to the question.

Here is the same scripture in the NIV.

Bible Gateway passage: Galatians 2:7-9 - New International Version

7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.​

Verse 8 indicates one God at work in both Peter as apostle to the circumcised and Paul as Apostle to the Gentiles.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,184
1,809
✟825,826.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Have you read Romans 9?
I have taught Romans 9 many times to adults and will spend hours on it. You have to keep it in context of not only Ro. 9-11, but also all of Romans and what Paul is teaching. We like to pull verses out to support a point, but do not address why that verse was written to that place at that time.

Romans 9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.

The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!

This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).

Some “Christians” do not seem to understand How Paul uses diatribes and think since he just showed God being “unjust” and saying God is “not unjust” that God has a special God definition of “just”, making God “just” by His standard and appearing totally unjust by human standards. God is not a hypocrite and does not redefine what He told us to be true.

Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?

If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?

This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.

Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”

The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).

How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.

Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.

If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Rm 9:22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

Just because Paul uses a Potter as being God in his analogy and Jerimiah uses a Potter as being God in his analogy, does not mean the analogies are conveying the exact same analogy. Jerimiah is talking about clay on the potter’s wheel being change while still being malleable clay (which fits the changing of Israel), but Paul is talking about two pots (vessels) so they cannot both be Israel, the clay is the same for both and the clay is not changing the outcome of the pot. The two pots (vessels) are completed and a person is asking “Why did you make me like this”, so it is about “how a person is made (born)” and not a nation.

Since Jerimiah talks only about one pot on the wheel changing and Paul is talking about two kinds of completed pots (vessels), who are the two different pots?


Paul is saying in 2 Tim 2: 21 even after leaving the shop the common vessels can cleanse themselves and thus become instruments for a special purpose. So, who is the common vessel and who is the special vessel in this analogy?

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.
 
Upvote 0

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
387
38
Northwest
✟39,150.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
I have taught Romans 9 many times to adults and will spend hours on it. You have to keep it in context of not only Ro. 9-11, but also all of Romans and what Paul is teaching. We like to pull verses out to support a point, but do not address why that verse was written to that place at that time.

Isn't Romans 8 the context of Romans 9?

Romans 8:30
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

If your exegesis of the text doesn't explain the sense of outrage against human standards of fairness that Paul answers in Romans 9, you're probably interpreting it wrong.

This is not to say that there can't be various interpretations of Romans 9, but if you mean to say that God's sovereignty in salvation is constrained by human standards, I can't be there with you. I'd have to agree to disagree.

Isaiah 55
8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.

Please also keep in mind that the interpretation of Romans 9, unconditional election, espoused by Luther and Calvin was already taught by Augustine:
This is the changeless truth concerning predestination and grace. For what is it that the apostle says, ‘As He has chosen us in Himself before the foundation of the world?’ (Ephesians 1:4) And assuredly, if this were said because God foreknew that they would believe, not because He Himself would make them believers, the Son is speaking against such a foreknowledge as that when He says, 'You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you’ (John 15:16).
CHURCH FATHERS: On the Predestination of the Saints, Book I (Augustine)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
387
38
Northwest
✟39,150.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
If your apartment building was burning down, and a firefighter died while saving you but not your neighbor, what would your proper response be?

Should you gripe and grumble about how unfair it was that the firefighter gave up his life for you, but not your neighbor? Or should you be thankful for his sacrifice?

If you are among God’s elect, then Jesus suffered the full weight of His wrath in payment of your sins. He willingly died so that you’d have eternal life. There was no way, in your spiritual deadness, that you could save yourself.

There is nothing unfair about God’s sovereignty in election.(Romans 9:21) No one who desires to be saved will be turned away. (John 6:37) If you sincerely care about your salvation, that’s a sign you are among God’s elect.

It’s profoundly humbling to believe that God chose you, irrespective of any merit on your part whatsoever, not even your free-willed efforts to believe or disbelieve, and the proper response is love and obedience. (John 6:44)

If you truly care about the salvation of the lost, you should support evangelism, since the preaching of the Gospel is the means God has ordained to awaken faith in His elect. Some of the greatest missionaries have been Calvinists.

 
Upvote 0

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
387
38
Northwest
✟39,150.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
Not in the way it's generally perceived. But Peter is given a different stewardship than Paul.

Mid-Acts dispensationalism misinterprets Galatians 2:7, “I [Paul] had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised.” The mid-Acts dispensationalist makes a distinction between a “gospel of circumcision,” taught by Peter, and a “gospel of uncircumcision,” taught by Paul. In reality, Paul is referring to different audiences, not different gospels. The Jews whom Peter ministered to were saved by grace through faith, just as the Gentiles to whom Paul ministered.
What is mid-Acts dispensationalism? What is the Grace Movement, and is it biblical? | GotQuestions.org
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
387
38
Northwest
✟39,150.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
Matthew 3:9 beautifully illustrates the doctrine of irresistible grace. If God can raise up children of Abraham from stones, then He can unfailingly turn the hearts of His elect ones from hearts of stone to hearts of flesh.
 
Upvote 0

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
387
38
Northwest
✟39,150.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
There's really no point to arguing with an anti-Calvinist. Those who read their own human standards of fairness into the Bible will not listen, no matter how many verses you quote to them.

Calvinists, on the other hand, typically lack the philosophical presuppositions that would prevent them from accepting Arminianism, if it were proved from scripture.

At the end of the day, it's more important to love God than to be right about everything.
1 Corinthians 8:2-3
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,941
3,539
✟323,838.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Unlike the Catholic church today, Augustine taught that God preserves His elect:

Augustine wrote extensively on the perseverence/preservation of the saints:

The teaching of the Catholic church on election today is not the same as what Augustine taught. If it were, you wouldn't be disputing it. The Catholic church, as an institution, isn't obligated to agree with everything Augustine wrote and said.
Yes that's a good point, and I don’t defend Augustine (or even Aquinas) on everything he taught, nor does the CC. Another good point you've made is the comparison between Paul's battle against Judaism and Augustine's against Pelagianism; they were both battling legalism-so the focus or emphasis was strictly on grace necessarily, with faith being the doorway to that gift, to that relationship that grace flows from. I just think that, at the end of the day, Augustine wasn’t so radical a determinist as Calvin (nor was Paul, either, IMO); pinning him down on the matter of double-predestination isn’t a slam-dunk, for example, according to respected scholars. And you‘re probably aware of a quote from around 416:

He was handed over, you see, because of our wrongdoing, and he rose again because of our justification (Rom 4:25). What does because of our justification mean? In order to justify us, to make us just. You will be God's work, not only because you are human, but also because you are just. It is better, after all, to be just, than for you just to be human. If it was God that made you human and if it's you that make you just, it means you are making something better than God made. But God made you without you. You didn't, after all, give any consent to God making you. How were you to consent, if you didn't yet exist? So while he made you without you, he doesn't justify you without you. So he made you without your knowing it, he justifies you with your willing consent to it. Yet it's he that does the justifying (in case you should think it's your justice, and go back to the dead losses, the wastage and the muck), for you to be found in him not having your own justice, which is from the law, but the justice through the faith of Christ, which is from God; justice from faith, to know him and the power of his resurrection, and a share in his sufferings (Phil 3:9-10). And that will be your power, your strength; a share in Christ's sufferings will be your strength.

ECFs hold to a model where man’s will plays a real role, however small, as well. And when Augustine speaks of being made just, I understand him to hold the same view as Catholicism, that God actually gives man righteousness at that point. Anyway, the CC teaches the beginnings of faith and our turning to God here:

1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:

When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight.42


We can’t be justified apart from Him-we wouldn’t have a clue how to begin with-but we can still say “no”. And of course the elect will persevere; that’s really sort of redundant, isn’t it; they have to persevere?
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
25,225
6,170
North Carolina
✟278,298.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Augustine taught that it was impossible for man to be saved without grace, apart from God IOW. He did not teach that grace was irresistible.
He didn't write Scripture either.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,184
1,809
✟825,826.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Isn't Romans 8 the context of Romans 9?
Ro. 8 ends with: 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

And Ro. 9 begins with another thought: I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

In chp. 8 Paul finishes with “nothing can separate us (including himself) from the Love of God” supported by all of Chapter 8 and starts out chp 9 with the idea “I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ…”.



If your exegesis of the text doesn't explain the sense of outrage against human standards of fairness that Paul answers in Romans 9, you're probably interpreting it wrong.
Paul is addressing only Christians in his letter and Christians and not particular individuals were “predestined” from the beginning of time to be: called out (made Holy), justified and glorified, but that is not before they as individuals decided to accept God’s gifts.


This is not to say that there can't be various interpretations of Romans 9, but if you mean to say that God's sovereignty in salvation is constrained by human standards, I can't be there with you. I'd have to agree to disagree.
There are just somethings God cannot do, since they are impossible to do, like:

Create a clone of Jesus (Jesus is not a “made” individual, but is deity which has always existed), you just cannot “make” something that has always existed. Jesus is thus perfect, where made individuals can only be made as good as any being could be made (very good by God’s standard).

We are made “very good”, so what is the really important thing we lack that keeps us from being “perfect” like Christ is perfect? This goes back to our earthly objective (please read my last post and think about the “objective”), what we are here on earth to try to obtain and it is nothing we can work for and earn, but can only come to us as a pure undeserving gift, we have to humbly accept it as pure undeserved charity.

The greatest gift God could give us is to be like He is and that is Love. God is doing and allowing everything to help us humbly accept as pure undeserved charity, His Love, so, we can Love like He Loves.

The “problem” is Godly type Love cannot be planted into a human (made instinctive to humans) since that would not be Godly type Love but a robotic type Love (a knee jerk reaction). And, Godly type Love cannot be forced on a person making them accept it, since that would be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun. It would not be loving on God’s part nor would the Love we received be Godly type Love.

The easiest way for humans to accept God’s charity (Love) is out of a huge need and that need is the relief from the burden of hurting others in the past (sin). By accepting God’s forgiveness, we accept God’s Love (mercy/grace/charity) and thus we will Love much since Jesus has taught us (we also see this in our own lives) “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…” Luke 7: 36-50. Sin is made unbelievably huge so the forgiveness is unbelievably huge resulting in an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love).

The real issue is with the fact humans have a hard time humbling themselves to the point of accepting pure undeserved charity (no one likes to take charity and will do almost anything to avoid taking charity). Accepting charity is like the opposite of working to obtain something, but that is the only way to obtain “Love”. Those teaching God does the selection independent any human thought, are also saying you do not have to humble accept God’s pure undeserved charity, since you got God’s charity prior to humbly accepting it.

Yes, God is wanting and is offering to everyone eternal life, which comes with accepting forgiveness and Love, but few are willing and wanting to accept this charity, so they would be unhappy in heaven where there is only Godly type Love (unselfish and unconditional type Love). God does not want unhappy people in heaven (those desiring only a carnal type Love, wanting to be “Loved” for the way they want others to perceive them to be).

Much more can be said this is brief.


Isaiah 55
8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
When we cannot explain we can use this verse.


Please also keep in mind that the interpretation of Romans 9, unconditional election, espoused by Luther and Calvin was already taught by Augustine:
The interpretations of other humans is not going to hold up on Judgement Day, so I need to have my Biblical answer.
 
Upvote 0

honestal

Active Member
Mar 27, 2021
111
167
67
Midwest
✟31,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Irresistible grace doesn't mean that God's elect will never sin. It means that God's grace can ultimately overcome our rebellion, turning us from unbelieving to believing, and that, once believing, there will be evidence of sanctification, by the power of the Holy Spirit. But there's no Biblical promise that true believers will never sin.

This is from the 1689 London Baptist Confession, which was adapted from the Westminster Confession:



Because of God's irresistible grace, God's elect, though they might sometimes sin, will never irreversibly fall away.

I realize that's pretty much always the answer I get, but to me it just seems inconsistent.

And yes, I realize and agree, that "there's no Biblical promise that true believers will never sin."

But there are lots of Biblical promises that we don't have to sin.

"Give praise to the One who is able to keep you from falling into sin." {Jude 24 NIrV}
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
25,225
6,170
North Carolina
✟278,298.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Isn't Romans 8 the context of Romans 9?
In the sense that all of Romans is about righteousness:
righteousness from God, unrighteousness of all mankind, righteousness accounted/imputed (justification), righteousness imparted (sanctification), God's righteousness vindicated (in rejection of Israel), righteousness practiced, conclusion and commendations--chp 8 being part of sanctification, and chp 9 being the defense of God's righteousness in the rejection of Israel.
But chp 8 really doesn't serve as the context for chp 9.
If your exegesis of the text doesn't explain the sense of outrage against human standards of fairness that Paul answers in Romans 9, you're probably interpreting it wrong.

This is not to say that there can't be various interpretations of Romans 9, but if you mean to say that God's sovereignty in salvation is constrained by human standards, I can't be there with you. I'd have to agree to disagree.

Isaiah 55
8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.

Please also keep in mind that the interpretation of Romans 9, unconditional election, espoused by Luther and Calvin was already taught by Augustine:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
25,225
6,170
North Carolina
✟278,298.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I realize that's pretty much always the answer I get, but to me it just seems inconsistent.
God works in the disposition--the locus of preference, likes--which governs the will.
He gives some to prefer the things of God, and then they freely and willingly give up their rebellion and receive the things of God.

God does not violate man's free will--the ability (power) to choose what one prefers without external force or constraint--he uses it to draw men to himself.
 
Upvote 0