How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

zoidar said:

The way you put it is good. Sadly there are Christians who believe in Christ but have not submitted their life to God. I will say, and I don't know if you agree, this is not a matter of theology, but a matter of the heart. Though a good theology can stear our heart right.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And bad theology can steer the heart wrong. And I mean, even if that bad theology is Calvinistic. Some of the supposedly Calvinism I have heard taught is phrased in terminology to directly oppose the Grace of God, delivered antagonistically (apparently for its shock value) instead of accurately. Some of the strawmen that opponents make of Calvinism are of that same nature. (For example: An Arminian might say Calvinism posits a god who accuses robots. I have heard self-described Calvinists say that there is no such thing as choice, for the sinner, which to me is pretty much the same thing the Arminian says. But even Calvin didn't say that, as far as I know.)

zoidar said:

I would disagree to the order you suggest. Belief, repentance, submission of the heart first, then the gift of God the Holy Spirit, salvation which is faith, love for Christ, submission of life.

Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
— Acts 2:38

Click to expand...

You may have heard of some Calvinists (and others) who say there was no such thing as regeneration occurring in the Old Testament and the Gospels up until Acts 2. I don't say that, but I mention it as a "Who knows how this played out?". To my thinking, the ONLY way for any true virtue or grace is by the Spirit of God. While that brings up many questions I have not answered to my satisfaction, such as the apparent displacement Jesus mentions in John 16:7 "For if I should not go forth, the comforter shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." On the other hand, why would he then say, "And lo, I am with you always."?

As for sequence, while it may be hard to take because of our dependence on time passage, causative sequence is not necessarily time dependent. Remember 1 John 1:9, where the Greek says that the forgiveness is already accomplished in the past, yet contingent on our confession present time. We also consider that a person is not actually saved until they believe, yet we know their salvation was accomplished by Christ in the past. We do couch that in all sorts of temporal doctrines in order to make it work for our minds, but that isn't how God sees it. And as I said, I see no way the "spiritually dead" can do a "spiritually alive" thing. He MUST be born again ("from above") John 3

To be fair to other Calvinists/Reformed who don't see the temporal issue the way I do, I should mention that there are several other ways to take the matter of 'receive the gift of the Holy Spirit', most prevalently, I suppose, being that it is talking about the filling, and not the indwelling. But whatever the case. I find no reliable way to see it meaning that the sinner's choice, apart from regeneration, produces regeneration. Concurrent? —maybe. Causation? —Regeneration first.

zoidar said:

I don't think God creates randomly either, but I don't believe God intended every detail, since that would mean He intended all the sins in my life, which in turn means He intended things that are against His nature, which by itself must be a contradiction.

Click to expand...

When you say, "...which in turn means He intended things that are against His nature, which by itself must be a contradiction." You generalize in such a way that only one statement in scripture to the contrary shows you misunderstand the reality behind God's causation. I will show you two very definite references:
1) In Genesis 50:20 what Joseph's brothers intended for evil, God intended for good. Same word. (In the Hebrew it is also the same, but with the grammatically-correct different person and number, so it looks a little bit different.)
2) In Acts 2:23 Christ was murdered "by God's deliberate plan"

Mark Quayle said:

When you say, "...which in turn means He intended things that are against His nature, which by itself must be a contradiction." You generalize in such a way that only one statement in scripture to the contrary shows you misunderstand the reality behind God's causation. I will show you two very definite references:
1) In Genesis 50:20 what Joseph's brothers intended for evil, God intended for good. Same word. (In the Hebrew it is also the same, but with the grammatically-correct different person and number, so it looks a little bit different.)
2) In Acts 2:23 Christ was murdered "by God's deliberate plan"

Click to expand...

I think God can intend to use sin, without intending for its existence.

Mark Quayle said:

Agreed. And bad theology can steer the heart wrong. And I mean, even if that bad theology is Calvinistic. Some of the supposedly Calvinism I have heard taught is phrased in terminology to directly oppose the Grace of God, delivered antagonistically (apparently for its shock value) instead of accurately. Some of the strawmen that opponents make of Calvinism are of that same nature. (For example: An Arminian might say Calvinism posits a god who accuses robots. I have heard self-described Calvinists say that there is no such thing as choice, for the sinner, which to me is pretty much the same thing the Arminian says. But even Calvin didn't say that, as far as I know.)

Click to expand...

I think it's great that you have the humilty to criticize the wrongs you see also among those in your own denomination.

Mark Quayle said:

You may have heard of some Calvinists (and others) who say there was no such thing as regeneration occurring in the Old Testament and the Gospels up until Acts 2. I don't say that, but I mention it as a "Who knows how this played out?". To my thinking, the ONLY way for any true virtue or grace is by the Spirit of God. While that brings up many questions I have not answered to my satisfaction, such as the apparent displacement Jesus mentions in John 16:7 "For if I should not go forth, the comforter shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." On the other hand, why would he then say, "And lo, I am with you always."?

As for sequence, while it may be hard to take because of our dependence on time passage, causative sequence is not necessarily time dependent. Remember 1 John 1:9, where the Greek says that the forgiveness is already accomplished in the past, yet contingent on our confession present time. We also consider that a person is not actually saved until they believe, yet we know their salvation was accomplished by Christ in the past.

Click to expand...

I'm not of that belief, but that salvation is accomplished as we believe. The price for our sin was paid in the past though.

Mark Quayle said:

We do couch that in all sorts of temporal doctrines in order to make it work for our minds, but that isn't how God sees it. And as I said, I see no way the "spiritually dead" can do a "spiritually alive" thing. He MUST be born again ("from above") John 3

To be fair to other Calvinists/Reformed who don't see the temporal issue the way I do, I should mention that there are several other ways to take the matter of 'receive the gift of the Holy Spirit', most prevalently, I suppose, being that it is talking about the filling, and not the indwelling. But whatever the case. I find no reliable way to see it meaning that the sinner's choice, apart from regeneration, produces regeneration. Concurrent? —maybe. Causation? —Regeneration first.

Click to expand...

I have thought about it. I do not think Acts 2:38 is about a filling of the Holy Spirit. The possibility is there, but I don't find it likely. I have also thought about the mentioning of baptism. I do not believe we receive the Holy Spirit at baptism, but at repentance. But looking at acts 2:38 it could be taken as we receive the Holy Spirit when being baptized. Some believe that. Also Jesus received the Holy Spirit at baptism, which makes me wonder.

zoidar said:

I think God can intend to use sin, without intending for its existence.

Click to expand...

Sounds illogical, unless you mean he is an opportunist. Flying by the seat of his pants, so to speak. That implies an awful lot of things, such as that God is not after all omnipotent. And that something happened that he did not cause, nor did he prepare for it though you will claim he knew about it. It also implies that he is not first cause, but something else came along —who knows how— and corrupted creation, beginning, apparently with Lucifer. Now, I'm not saying God created sin; it is not a creation, but is only the privation of good.

But as God is absolute first cause, then anything that comes to pass is because he created. His creating set up the whole matter. There is no plan B. Everything fits his decree precisely.

zoidar said:

I'm not of that belief, but that salvation is accomplished as we believe. The price for our sin was paid in the past though.

Click to expand...

Well, maybe you can see how God might see that differently, time-irrelevant.

zoidar said:

But looking at acts 2:38 it could be taken as we receive the Holy Spirit when being baptized. Some believe that. Also Jesus received the Holy Spirit at baptism, which makes me wonder.

Click to expand...

I don't see where Jesus "received the Holy Spirit at baptism" All it says, that I have seen, is words to the effect that the Spirit of God descended and alighted on him in bodily form as a dove, and a voice came from heaven. It also says later that Jesus, filled with the Spirit, did certain things. I'm not saying you are wrong. I just don't see it said. Being filled with the Spirit, I don't take as the same as being filled with the Spirit, nor being baptized in the Spirit.

Mark Quayle said:

Sounds illogical, unless you mean he is an opportunist. Flying by the seat of his pants, so to speak. That implies an awful lot of things, such as that God is not after all omnipotent.

Click to expand...

It's not implying that at all.

Mark Quayle said:

And that something happened that he did not cause, nor did he prepare for it though you will claim he knew about it.

Click to expand...

Of course God prepared for it.

Mark Quayle said:

It also implies that he is not first cause, but something else came along —who knows how— and corrupted creation, beginning, apparently with Lucifer.

Click to expand...

Free will?

Mark Quayle said:

Now, I'm not saying God created sin; it is not a creation, but is only the privation of good.

But as God is absolute first cause, then anything that comes to pass is because he created.

Click to expand...

Of course! If God didn't create, nothing would be.

Mark Quayle said:

His creating set up the whole matter. There is no plan B.

Click to expand...

Agree! Maybe a way to put it is that God created from His intention, but planned from His all knowing.

Mark Quayle said:

Everything fits his decree precisely.

Click to expand...

Sure, but God didn't decree everything.

I think one thing you are missing is that God deals with us from the present, not from His all knowing. That's one reason God can command a Christian to do something He knows the person won't do. If God acted from all knowing He could just abstain from giving the command.

Mark Quayle said:

Well, maybe you can see how God might see that differently, time-irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Hm, that's like saying for God judgment has already taken place and Christ has already returned. That's not how it is, not for us and not for God.

Mark Quayle said:

I don't see where Jesus "received the Holy Spirit at baptism" All it says, that I have seen, is words to the effect that the Spirit of God descended and alighted on him in bodily form as a dove, and a voice came from heaven. It also says later that Jesus, filled with the Spirit, did certain things. I'm not saying you are wrong. I just don't see it said. Being filled with the Spirit, I don't take as the same as being filled with the Spirit, nor being baptized in the Spirit.

Click to expand...

I don't know. Some even say Jesus couldn't perform miracles until being baptized.

zoidar said:

It's not implying that at all.

Of course God prepared for it.

Free will?

Of course! If God didn't create, nothing would be.

Agree! Maybe a way to put it is that God created from His intention, but planned from His all knowing.

Sure, but God didn't decree everything.

Click to expand...

Nothing new there.

zoidar said:

I think one thing you are missing is that God deals with us from the present, not from His all knowing. That's one reason God can command a Christian to do something He knows the person won't do. If God acted from all knowing He could just abstain from giving the command.

Click to expand...

Do you mean he deals with us IN the present? And of course not from his all-knowing; it's from the counsel of his own will. Oh well...

Mark Quayle said:

Nothing new there.

Do you mean he deals with us IN the present? And of course not from his all-knowing; it's from the counsel of his own will. Oh well...

Click to expand...

Ok, from the counsel of His will God decided to command the Christian to do A, but decreed him to not do it. It sounds strange to me. Why decide from His counsel to command the Christian and at the same time decree the Christian to not obey?

zoidar said:

Ok, from the counsel of His will God decided to command the Christian to do A, but decreed him to not do it. It sounds strange to me. Why decide from His counsel to command the Christian and at the same time decree the Christian to not obey?

Click to expand...

Why not? If you look at it in our terms of final result, the disobedience was necessary for redemption to be necessary for the Dwelling Place of God (etc) to become what it will be.

And, maybe more to the point, so it will be obviously God accomplishing the construction of his Dwelling Place, etc, and not self-determining creatures becoming worthy. We are the body of Christ.

Mark Quayle said:

Why not? If you look at it in our terms of final result, the disobedience was necessary for redemption to be necessary for the Dwelling Place of God (etc) to become what it will be.

And, maybe more to the point, so it will be obviously God accomplishing the construction of his Dwelling Place, etc, and not self-determining creatures becoming worthy. We are the body of Christ.

Click to expand...

We can just conclude we don't see this the same way. But no worries! Christ love!

Mark Quayle said:

Why not? If you look at it in our terms of final result, the disobedience was necessary for redemption to be necessary ...

Click to expand...

For God has concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all. Rom 11:32

Mark Quayle said:

And, maybe more to the point, so it will be obviously God accomplishing the construction of his Dwelling Place, etc, and not self-determining creatures becoming worthy. We are the body of Christ.

Click to expand...

Blessed are all those who wait for Him. Isaiah 30:18

Clare73 said:

No more than if he couldn't make a rock too heavy for him to lift, he is not God.

Click to expand...

It was not an illogical riddle I presented (anymore than God decreeing everything is an impossible riddle), but a possible option.

I'm against the idea that God only knows things for He decreed it. From my view God's decree has nothing to do with His foreknowing (pls don't misunderstand what I'm saying). Whether God decreed all things or not is a different question.

A question for you. From the very beginning did God's decree exist or only God? I mean did God's decree always exist?

zoidar said:

It was not an illogical riddle I presented (anymore than God decreeing everything is an impossible riddle), but a possible option.

I'm against the idea that God only knows things for He decreed it. From my view God's decree has nothing to do with His foreknowing

Click to expand...

So God's foreknowledge of the cross had nothing to do with his decree of such?

zoidar said:

(pls don't misunderstand what I'm saying). Whether God decreed all things or not is a different question.

A question for you. From the very beginning did God's decree exist or only God? I mean did God's decree always exist?

Click to expand...

I give up. . .did it?

Clare73 said:

So God's foreknowledge of the cross had nothing to do with his decree of such?

Click to expand...

He didn't need to decree it to foreknow it.

Clare73 said:

I give up. . .did it?

Click to expand...

I don't think so. I want to hear your view. From there I can possibly make an argument.

zoidar said:

It was not an illogical riddle I presented (anymore than God decreeing everything is an impossible riddle), but a possible option.

I'm against the idea that God only knows things for He decreed it. From my view God's decree has nothing to do with His foreknowing (pls don't misunderstand what I'm saying). Whether God decreed all things or not is a different question.

A question for you. From the very beginning did God's decree exist or only God? I mean did God's decree always exist?

Click to expand...

Before his decree, there was no "always".

Mark Quayle said:

Before his decree, there was no "always".

Click to expand...

Ok, so there was a before God's decree? Before His decree, did God know everything that were come to be, the fall of Adam, the hardened heart of pharao, the promise to Abraham, Moses and the Law, the betrayal of Judas, the crucifixion of Christ, his resurrection and coming again, you and me being Christians etc?

zoidar said:

Ok, so there was a before God's decree? Before His decree, did God know everything that were come to be, the fall of Adam, the hardened heart of pharao, the promise to Abraham, Moses and the Law, the betrayal of Judas, the crucifixion of Christ, his resurrection and coming again, you and me being Christians etc?

Click to expand...

Even the "before", we use there, which is (usually) a time-related notion, is said for the sake of sequence, not time. Thus also, "before his decree" gives false implications. Pretty much everything we say about God is said in a way that is useful to Human understanding, more than useful to accurately describe God.

Just take, for example, our arguments concerning what God's omnipotence or omniscience means. Here we fight over the particulars of that without bearing in mind all the other attributes that are 'co-existent' with those two. Yet each of his attributes bear upon all the other attributes. For eg. his goodness and creativeness, unlike ours, co-exist with his power, and like a mathematical product, we see, Intent. He does not have power that does not have intent. He does not have goodness that does not have power. He does not have anger that does not have mercy. He does not have justice that does not have creativity. And his love is effective throughout. (Disclaimer — my combinations there are also of Human derivation, and are therefore not entirely accurate, and certainly not complete.)

If we are to admit to a time before time, I would be forced to say that even though his knowledge of absolutely all things is 'co-existent' with his decree, he knew what he would do, "before" he did it. Thus he also knew what would happen, "before" he did it. And thus, then, his decree being the cause of his knowledge of history (as @bling puts it) before history occurred, demonstrates the absence of time, before he created.

Even the reasoning that comes necessary to us to think about sequence of causation, is child's prattle to God. God does what God is. (Yet even that is so full of character, and not mere cold fact, that we remain convinced of the validity of our anthropomorphisms, while we know he is not like us. Instead, we are like him, however poorly it be so.)

All that to say, don't trap me with the "before" part of your question. Thus, then, I answer your question: Yes, God knew all that, and the slightest motion and potential of every particle of matter or force/energy existing.

Mark Quayle said:

Even the "before", we use there, which is (usually) a time-related notion, is said for the sake of sequence, not time. Thus also, "before his decree" gives false implications. Pretty much everything we say about God is said in a way that is useful to Human understanding, more than useful to accurately describe God.

Just take, for example, our arguments concerning what God's omnipotence or omniscience means. Here we fight over the particulars of that without bearing in mind all the other attributes that are 'co-existent' with those two. Yet each of his attributes bear upon all the other attributes. For eg. his goodness and creativeness, unlike ours, co-exist with his power, and like a mathematical product, we see, Intent. He does not have power that does not have intent. He does not have goodness that does not have power. He does not have anger that does not have mercy. He does not have justice that does not have creativity. And his love is effective throughout. (Disclaimer — my combinations there are also of Human derivation, and are therefore not entirely accurate, and certainly not complete.)

If we are to admit to a time before time, I would be forced to say that even though his knowledge of absolutely all things is 'co-existent' with his decree, he knew what he would do, "before" he did it. Thus he also knew what would happen, "before" he did it. And thus, then, his decree being the cause of his knowledge of history (as @bling puts it) before history occurred, demonstrates the absence of time, before he created.

Even the reasoning that comes necessary to us to think about sequence of causation, is child's prattle to God. God does what God is. (Yet even that is so full of character, and not mere cold fact, that we remain convinced of the validity of our anthropomorphisms, while we know he is not like us. Instead, we are like him, however poorly it be so.)

All that to say, don't trap me with the "before" part of your question. Thus, then, I answer your question: Yes, God knew all that, and the slightest motion and potential of every particle of matter or force/energy existing.

Click to expand...

I have played in my mind the different "possibilities" and it's sometimes like it makes your head spin. It's hard for the mind to grasp the things of the Eternal, All knowing, Almighty God. The whole thing seems (oh, boy! I use that word a lot) to end up in philosophy.

Thanks for the reply btw! It was originally intended for Clare, but it was fine you responded.