How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, All

How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps: - The Cripplegate

 

[FenderTL5]

Since studying the Holy Scriptures along with the history and development of the Church is not included in the steps; it makes perfect sense.

 

[fhansen]

One of the biggest problems I have with Calvinism is that, even if the theology is spot on true, its God isn’t worth following. He may be sovereign and all, but that doesn’t make Him good if He directly wills/ causes/ predetermines every evil act, or predestines anyone to eternal torment. ‘He’s God; His thoughts are not my thoughts’, and that’s supposed to make it ok-to be in the hands of an all-powerful, untrustworthy God.

 

[Brother-Mike]

One of the biggest problems I have with Calvinism is that, even if the theology is spot on true, it’s God isn’t worth following. He may be sovereign and all, but that doesn’t make Him good if He directly wills/ causes/ predetermines every evil act. ‘He’s God; His thoughts aren’t my thoughts’, and that’s supposed to make it ok-to be in the hands of an all powerful, untrustworthy God. Wow.

Just so that I understand, is your God all powerful?
If so then why does he permit evil?

 

[fhansen]

Just so that I understand, is your God all powerful?
If so then why does he permit evil?

To allow it, for a time, for the purpose of ultimately bringing about an even greater good out of it, is diifernt in kind than directly willing the evil act itself, or of causing the rebellion against His will that opened the door to every evil act that subsequently transpired. God cannot be the author of evil without being evil. Otherwise we render the concepts of good and evil to be meaningless.

 

[Brother-Mike]

To allow it, for a time, for the purpose of ultimately bringing about an even greater good out of it, is diifernt in kind than directly willing the evil act itself, or of causing the rebellion against His will that opened the door to every evil act that subsequently transpired. God cannot be the author of evil without being evil. Otherwise we render the concepts of good and evil to be meaningless.

Thanks... so in your model does God "react" to evil to "bring about an even greater good" or does God see the evil and know his plan in response all from the beginning (i.e. omniscience)?

 

[PloverWing]

Thanks for the post. It's interesting to hear about other people's spiritual paths. I don't have any friends (that I know of) who converted to Calvinism from some other branch of Christianity, so it's useful to hear this person's story.

If it were me, I think I'd want a little more reading along the way. It seems that step #4 should include some reading that's outside the Reformed tradition altogether -- something like Christus Victor, or early theologians like Athanasius and Irenaeus, or Catholic or Orthodox writers. And in step #5 I'd want to include reading Calvin's Institutes.

But I enjoyed reading about Rev. Johnson's personal journey.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Good Day, All

How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps: - The Cripplegate

I particularly take note of the second step "accidentally " comming across Calvinism. We all know if the Gospel was preached in light of the predetermined saved, there would be few Christians.
Blessings.

 

[fhansen]

Thanks... so in your model does God "react" to evil to "bring about an even greater good" or does God see the evil and know his plan in response all from the beginning (i.e. omniscience)?

He knows it from the beginning, and, with the greater good in mind, deems it better to create than not create.

 

[Brother-Mike]

He knows it from the beginning, and, with the greater good in mind, deems it better to create than not create.

Thanks again... so in regards to your original response to this thread, where your concern seemed to at least partly revolve around God's hand in evil, it would seem to me that you can have one of the following:

God #1

1. Predestines all, including evil, for the greatest glory of God.
2. All good, and evil, is the unfolding of God's plan.

God #2

1. Does not predestine evil.
2. However, can see all evil down the corridor of time, can prevent it but instead uses this evil to bring about the greatest glory of God.

If God's hand in evil is objectionable then how is God #2 any better? In both cases the child dying with leukaemia has been ordained by God and could have been prevented by God. In her time of prayer for her fading child, is the word from God to the mother to be "Okay, I know it's hard, and I wish it wasn't so that evil has afflicted your child, but instead of saving your child I have something better in mind, I've figured out how to turn this into a greater good. Your child still dies though."

Of course I could equally word God #1's response as cruelly, but my point here is rather to politely suggest that the God you've described in your responses may not be so let off the hook as you believe.

 

[fhansen]

Thanks again... so in regards to your original response to this thread, where your concern seemed to at least partly revolve around God's hand in evil, it would seem to me that you can have one of the following:

God #1

1. Predestines all, including evil, for the greatest glory of God.
2. All good, and evil, is the unfolding of God's plan.

God #2

1. Does not predestine evil.
2. However, can see all evil down the corridor of time, can prevent it but instead uses this evil to bring about the greatest glory of God.

If God's hand in evil is objectionable then how is God #2 any better? In both cases the child dying with leukaemia has been ordained by God and could have been prevented by God. In her time of prayer for her fading child, is the word from God to the mother to be "Okay, I know it's hard, and I wish it wasn't so that evil has afflicted your child, but instead of saving your child I have something better in mind, I've figured out how to turn this into a greater good. Your child still dies though."

Of course I could equally word God #1's response as cruelly, but my point here is rather to politely suggest that the God you've described in your responses may not be so let off the hook as you believe.

And I'd love to disagree but must say that there's not a perfectly pat, easy answer to the problem or mystery of evil. God is ultimately the cause of everything that exists in creation, so: no creation, no evil. And yet we must understand that the possibility of giving creation a will that can freely oppose His own will, detracting away from the good that He creates and wills, to the extent that He allows it, is doable-such freedom is within the realm of possibilities. God is not so small or limited as to not be able to create a rational, sentient being possessing moral accountability, IOW. Otherwise He'd be in the rather absurd position of creating immoral beings whose immoral acts He directly wills and causes, blaming them for being immoral, and then actually sending some to eternal torment for being immoral.

We have to start with the understanding that God is love, and anything inconsistent with love is outside of His will. And that He values our freedom to choose love so highly that he allows for the opposite, the radical potential for us to fail to love, while patiently working, over time, to draw us into it in greater and greater depth as we might begin to value, embrace and express it for ourselves. That’s where man’s justice and purpose lie; that’s his choice of good over evil, life over death, God over no God. And that’s the only sane reason why evil would be allowed to exist at all.

And evil cannot exist at all except for the abuse of the freedom possessed by a created being with free will. All created things possess a perfection and purpose proper to their created natures while no created thing possesses the infinite perfection of God; creation is inherently inferior to its Creator. And only a being with free will, combined with that unavoidable imperfection relative to God, could have the ability-and foolishness- to ignore or overstep his Creator’s will and oppose and thwart his own purpose. We’re here to learn the difference between ourselves and Him, with the benefit of time, experience, and revelation/grace, and to choose and act accordingly.

 

[Blaise N]

One of the biggest problems I have with Calvinism is that, even if the theology is spot on true, it’s God isn’t worth following. He may be sovereign and all, but that doesn’t make Him good if He directly wills/ causes/ predetermines every evil act, or predestines anyone to eternal torment. ‘He’s God; His thoughts are not my thoughts’, and that’s supposed to make it ok-to be in the hands of an all-powerful, untrustworthy God.

ok listen,I really am bothered by you calling God unworthy of being followed and untrustworthy.I as a born again believer actually agree with Calvin’s acronym but don’t consider myself a Calvin,there’s some good rational to both sides of the theological spectrum.But Calvin’s acronym is actually scripturally supported,jacob Arminius actually was very bothered by Calvin’s acronym and made his own.
I don’t see the acronym as a to-do list for salvation,that’s dangerous to do.Remember works CANNOT save(Ephesians 2:8-10).Also one shouldn’t look at Calvin’s tulip like it’s equal to the Bible,because that too is dangerous.But allow me to show you this


T-Total depravity(John 6:44,Jeremiah 17:9,& 1 Corinthians 2:14,Romans 3:10-11,John 6:65,Ephesians 2:1)-Basically every human is a sinner and based on our Lords words,he says that unless God grants us a desire for him,nobody seeks him or wants to love him,they with darkened and blinded minds loathe in sins poisons and evil.God is almighty and Lovingly powerful to bring anyone to repentance and loving faith in him.
U-Unconditional election(Ephesians 1:4,Romans 8:29,2 Thessalonians 2:13,Ephesians 1:5,John 15:16,Ephesians 1:11)-Basically nobody deserves his election,so for him to choose people is incredibly loving,It actually also shows the love he has for every believer he wants in his family,it actually also shows the value of your soul he sees in you.
L-Limited atonement-This one basically is logical for any Christian,Christs death is fully paying for all sins of any believer,but how does his sacrifice pay for the sins of those who reject him?,if one person rejects him their sins are left Unforgiven and are in extreme danger and hopeless.But God gives them every chance to repent.

I-Irresistible Grace-This point is actually true to every Christian.When a believer sees how loving and kind God is they can’t resist him and love him unconditionally

P-Perseverance of the saints(John 10:28,Philippians 1:6)-Perhaps my favorite,especially for someone like me with scary OCD,the Lord says that the ones he loves and saves he will NEVER be lost or fall away.They are secured for eternity and will never perish,anyone who claims to be a Christian but leaves Jesus and forsakes him(what I mean by this is commits apostasy,becomes a Muslim or atheist) was NEVER a true believer(1 John 2:19) People who are classified as these false believers are people who show OUTWARD signs(This includes the Pharisees and Sadducee’s,since they only cared of the fame and power the positions of religious leadership brought,not loving the Lord and teaching and guiding the people in truth,This of course excludes Nicodemus and Paul since they believed in Jesus and weren’t like the other Pharisees) of faith and never take them to heart(Parable of the soils) they were in the class of the path soil or the Rocky soil.A true Christian may become a prodigal son but the LORD WILL bring them back.This is why our lord strongly speaks of examining yourself and making sure you are producing fruits of the spirit.

My dearest friend,I don’t see Calvin as a prophet or someone adding to the Bible,He simply made the explaining process easier to understand and for others to understand how the Lord works.I agree with things Luther taught as well as Calvin.

 

[fhansen]

ok listen,I really am bothered by you calling God unworthy of being followed and untrustworthy.I as a born again believer actually agree with Calvin’s acronym but don’t consider myself a Calvin,there’s some good rational to both sides of the theological spectrum.But Calvin’s acronym is actually scripturally supported,jacob Arminius actually was very bothered by Calvin’s acronym and made his own.
I don’t see the acronym as a to-do list for salvation,that’s dangerous to do.Remember works CANNOT save(Ephesians 2:8-10).Also one shouldn’t look at Calvin’s tulip like it’s equal to the Bible,because that too is dangerous.But allow me to show you this


T-Total depravity(John 6:44,Jeremiah 17:9,& 1 Corinthians 2:14,Romans 3:10-11,John 6:65,Ephesians 2:1)-Basically every human is a sinner and based on our Lords words,he says that unless God grants us a desire for him,nobody seeks him or wants to love him,they with darkened and blinded minds loathe in sins poisons and evil.God is almighty and Lovingly powerful to bring anyone to repentance and loving faith in him.
U-Unconditional election(Ephesians 1:4,Romans 8:29,2 Thessalonians 2:13,Ephesians 1:5,John 15:16,Ephesians 1:11)-Basically nobody deserves his election,so for him to choose people is incredibly loving,It actually also shows the love he has for every believer he wants in his family,it actually also shows the value of your soul he sees in you.
L-Limited atonement-This one basically is logical for any Christian,Christs death is fully paying for all sins of any believer,but how does his sacrifice pay for the sins of those who reject him?,if one person rejects him their sins are left Unforgiven and are in extreme danger and hopeless.But God gives them every chance to repent.

I-Irresistible Grace-This point is actually true to every Christian.When a believer sees how loving and kind God is they can’t resist him and love him unconditionally

P-Perseverance of the saints(John 10:28,Philippians 1:6)-Perhaps my favorite,especially for someone like me with scary OCD,the Lord says that the ones he loves and saves he will NEVER be lost or fall away.They are secured for eternity and will never perish,anyone who claims to be a Christian but leaves Jesus and forsakes him(what I mean by this is commits apostasy,becomes a Muslim or atheist) was NEVER a true believer(1 John 2:19) People who are classified as these false believers are people who show OUTWARD signs(This includes the Pharisees and Sadducee’s,since they only cared of the fame and power the positions of religious leadership brought,not loving the Lord and teaching and guiding the people in truth,This of course excludes Nicodemus and Paul since they believed in Jesus and weren’t like the other Pharisees) of faith and never take them to heart(Parable of the soils) they were in the class of the path soil or the Rocky soil.A true Christian may become a prodigal son but the LORD WILL bring them back.This is why our lord strongly speaks of examining yourself and making sure you are producing fruits of the spirit.

My dearest friend,I don’t see Calvin as a prophet or someone adding to the Bible,He simply made the explaining process easier to understand and for others to understand how the Lord works.I agree with things Luther taught as well as Calvin.

It's all about theology-and having it as right as we can. What we know and believe about God's nature and will are important, while some things are less so than others. The role of man's will is of fairly high import as it involves what God intends and how He works in a believer's life though it's certainly no deal-breaker to God I'm sure, if we get it wrong. And the church has had great thinkers arguing both sides of this issue dating back many centuries, without ever settling on one single viewpoint other than rejecting double-predestination out of hand.

Anyway, IMO God would not be worth following if He predestined anyone to eternal torment with no regard to their will in any meanginful way. If a created being can do no more than sin, then God the Creator would be more culpable for that sin than he would be, much more. But if God gives that being what he needs in order to make the right choice, and he still refuses to do so, then we begin to understand God's justice and purpose and will in all this.

 

[Blade]

Maybe I'm missing something but...why? Why this *ism vs all the other ones which believe in some way they are right. I Think I will just seek pray follow Christ not man. One of these is based on Christ the other as I have over the years and agree with allot of it yet started from man.

 

[Halbhh]

Just so that I understand, is your God all powerful?
If so then why does he permit evil?

Yes. And we think it is necessary under free will that evil is possible and then we will tend to do some of it in life. Also, the experience of evil around us and our own wrongs we've done and the pain our wrongs caused, and the wrongs of others also -- all of that helps us to learn -- we learn by experience what is truly good, and thus we learn to reject evil and to trust more fully and entirely in God.

 

[Brother-Mike]

And I'd love to disagree but must say that there's not a perfectly pat, easy answer to the problem or mystery of evil. God is ultimately the cause of everything that exists in creation, so: no creation, no evil. And yet we must understand that the possibility of giving creation a will that can freely oppose His own will, detracting away from the good that He creates and wills, to the extent that He allows it, is doable-such freedom is within the realm of possibilities. God is not so small or limited as to not be able to create a rational, sentient being possessing moral accountability, IOW. Otherwise He'd be in the rather absurd position of creating immoral beings whose immoral acts He directly wills and causes, blaming them for being immoral, and then actually sending some to eternal torment for being immoral.

We have to start with the understanding that God is love, and anything inconsistent with love is outside of His will. And that He values our freedom to choose love so highly that he allows for the opposite, the radical potential for us to fail to love, while patiently working, over time, to draw us into it in greater and greater depth as we might begin to value, embrace and express it for ourselves. That’s where man’s justice and purpose lie; that’s his choice of good over evil, life over death, God over no God. And that’s the only sane reason why evil would be allowed to exist at all.

And evil cannot exist at all except for the abuse of the freedom possessed by a created being with free will. All created things possess a perfection and purpose proper to their created natures while no created thing possesses the infinite perfection of God; creation is inherently inferior to its Creator. And only a being with free will, combined with that unavoidable imperfection relative to God, could have the ability-and foolishness- to ignore or overstep his Creator’s will and oppose and thwart his own purpose. We’re here to learn the difference between ourselves and Him, with the benefit of time, experience, and revelation/grace, and to choose and act accordingly.

Thanks for the thoughtful and detailed response. With the possible exception of a few points I'd be hard-pressed to fundamentally disagree with most of what you've written here, so if you want to provide me with a PO box I'll ship off your Honorary Calvin Merit Badge to you right away

More precisely, the points of slight disagreement (e.g. Man's free will choice of God, or evil) are, to me at least, well within the tolerances of Divine-will versus creaturely-will that don't seem to contradict my belief.

Now, it could be that:

1. I am a bad Calvinist, or
2. You are a bad Catholic, or
3. Both

 

[Clare73]

One of the biggest problems I have with Calvinism is that, even if the theology is spot on true, it’s God isn’t worth following. He may be sovereign and all, but that doesn’t make Him good if He directly wills/ causes/ predetermines every evil act, or predestines anyone to eternal torment. ‘He’s God; His thoughts are not my thoughts’, and that’s supposed to make it ok-to be in the hands of an all-powerful, untrustworthy God.

Do you realize what you just said?

Even if it is God's truth, I reject it.

God's truth must fit my personal human notions, or I am not interested.

Actually, you have just stated what many who profess Christianity really think.

It's not about submission to God and his truth, it's about God meeting my standards if I am to submit to him.

The clay thinks it is the potter (Isaiah 29:16, 45:9; Romans 9:20).

 

[fhansen]

Do you realize what you just said?

Even if it is God's truth, I reject it.

God's truth must fit my personal human notions, or I am not interested.

Actually, you have just stated what many who profess Christianity really think.

It's not about submission to God and his truth, it's about God meeting my standards if I am to submit to him.

The clay thinks it is the potter.

Well, you can phrase it however you like but what I said is that if God is evil, and does evil, then He's not worth following- regardless of whether or not He's God. It's a very simple concept. Whether we follow such a God or not wouldn't matter. IOW God can do whatever He wants, of course, but if you can justify any and all behavior simply because you believe it's Him doing it, then I think I'd start with changing my theology; probably got a problem there. Goodness is goodness, and God is infinitely good, and we can know goodness when we see it-because He created us that way.

 

[Clare73]

Well, you can phrase it however you like but what I said is that if God is evil, and does evil, then He's not worth following-

That may be what you meant, but what you said is, "Even if it's true, it's God isn't worth following."

regardless of whether or not He's God. It's a very simple concept. Whether we follow such a God or not wouldn't matter. IOW God can do whatever He wants, of course, but if you can justify any and all behavior simply because you believe it's Him doing it, then I think I'd start with changing my theology; probably got a problem there. Goodness is goodness, and God is infinitely good, and we can know goodness when we see it-because He created us that way.

 

[fhansen]

That may be what you meant, but what you said is, "Even if it's true, it's God isn't worth following."

Well...ya, but in reference to what, my dear? To specific actions ascribed to God by Calvinism that I consider to be evil.