How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Blaise N]

This ^^^

If I were you,I’d be very cautious around Piper,I’ve come to see he’s a false teacher.He’s very deceptive and cunning,please avoid him

 

[John Caldwell]

Perhaps you could illustrate some of the entirely difference conclusions drawn from:
The animal died in the sinner's place--as a substitution.
The sacrifices were penalties (Leviticus 5:6-7, 14, 6:6, 26:41, 43)--penal.
Who made that rule?

Yes, I can.

Animals did not die in place of sinners. David offered sacrifices, but David also died. And David needed a Savior (further demonstrating that the animals were sacrificed for sins in obedience to God, but not as substitutes for the sinner).

But yes, sacrifices were a type of penalty.

And the OT sacrifice system points to the cross.

Calvinists view this as the Jew representing God sacrificing an animal. Others view this as foreshadowing what the Jews would do to the Lamb of God.

But here, like I said, we are getting into opinions about what is not actually in the Bible. I'm just saying that Calvin's interpretation is not actually in the Bible.

Your post proves my point (your asking about meaning rather than what is there).

 

[John Caldwell]

If I were you,I’d be very cautious around Piper,I’ve come to see he’s a false teacher.He’s very deceptive and cunning,please avoid him

I like him. I don't believe he is a "false teacher" but I also do not believe everything he says is true. Same with other authors (John MacArthur, NT Wright, TF Torrance, ect.).

My practice is to see what is said and go to Scripture.

 

[Brother-Mike]

If I were you,I’d be very cautious around Piper,I’ve come to see he’s a false teacher.He’s very deceptive and cunning,please avoid him

Any example of his false teaching that I can look into?

 

[Clare73]

Aha! You've (correctly I believe) arrived at what I think is the nucleogenesis of theodicy: did Eve freely eat the fruit? John Piper's answer was something like "As a Christian, and given a plain, honest reading of scripture, you need to have a category in your mind that
allows for everything to be under God's Plan AND SIMULTANEOUSLY creaturely freedom being granted to and held responsible against mankind".

Mitigated somewhat by the fact that since (the first) Adam,
God has imputed Adam's sin/guilt to all those born of Adam (Romans 5:12-17),
for which he holds them guilty and, therefore, condemned (Romans 5:18),
by nature (with which we are born) objects of wrath (Ephesians 2:3),
Adam being the pattern (Romans 5:14) for Christ's righteousness imputed to all those born of (the second Adam) Christ, (Romans 4:1-11, Romans 5:18-19).

We are born guilty of the sin/guilt of Adam and condemned from birth, no matter what we do after birth and, therefore, the need for faith in Jesus, the only remedy for our condition.
Everything else is incidental.

 

[Brother-Mike]

Mitigated somewhat by the fact that since (the first) Adam,
God has imputed Adam's sin/guilt to all those born of Adam (Romans 5:12-17),
for which he holds them guilty and, therefore, condemned (Romans 5:18),
by nature (with which we are born) objects of wrath (Ephesians 2:3),
Adam being the pattern (Romans 5:14) for Christ's righteousness imputed to all those born of (the second Adam) Christ, (Romans 4:1-11, Romans 5:18-19).

We are born guilty of the sin/guilt of Adam and condemned from birth, no matter what we do after birth and, therefore, the need for faith in Jesus, the only remedy for our condition.
Everything else is incidental.

Agreed and thanks as always Clare73 for your helpful and laser-precise commentary

 

[Clare73]

Yes, I can.

Animals did not die in place of sinners. David offered sacrifices, but David also died.

Israel offered sacrifices and they all died also.

The animal sacrifices were to make atonement for (propitiation, Romans 3:25; expiation of) sin
(Exodus 29:36; 30:10 Leviticus 1:4, 4:20, 16:16; Numbers 6:11, 8:12, 19, 16:46, 25:13; 2 Chronicles 29:24), the cause of eternal (spiritual) death,
as a pattern of the propitiation for sin by Christ, who died as a substitute
to pay the debt of our sin, in our stead, so that we would not have to be subject to eternal death (damnation) for lack of payment.

In the OT, the animals died as a substitute to pay for (cover) the debt of their sin, in their stead, so that they would not have to be subject to eternal death (damnation) for lack of payment, the animals being a pattern for Christ dying as the substitute to actually pay the debt of our sin.

Substitutionary atonement is Christ dying as our substitute, pre-figured in the animal sacrifices dying as the Israelite's substitute.
The animals died in place of sinners' eternal death.

And David needed a Savior (further demonstrating that the animals
were sacrificed for sins in obedience to God, but not as substitutes for the sinner).

The blood of bulls and goats did not remit (take away, remove by paying the debt for) Israel's sin (Hebrews 10:4),
they only covered sin (Romans 4:7) until it was remitted (taken away, by payment of debt) on the cross.

But yes, sacrifices were a type of penalty.

So we agree that Jesus' atonement was penal.

And the OT sacrifice system points to the cross.

Calvinists view this as the Jew representing God sacrificing an animal.
Others view this as foreshadowing what the Jews would do to the Lamb of God.

The OT sacrificial system foreshadows Christ, the sacrificed Lamb of God,
who died as our substitute to pay the debt of our sin,
thus propitiating (satisfying, paying the debt to) God's justice,
thereby remitting our sin/guilt,
which remittance is salvation from his condemnation (Romans 5:18) and wrath (Romans 5:9), and
declaring us righteous (justification), both the salvation and justification by faith. . .all stated in the NT.
Penal and substitutionary atonement are stated in the NT.

But here, like I said, we are getting into opinions about what is not actually in the Bible. I'm just saying that Calvin's interpretation is not actually in the Bible.
Your post proves my point (your asking about meaning rather than what is there).

And I have demonstrated that
1) Jesus' penal and substitutionary atonement is presented in both the OT sacrifices as well as throughout the NT (e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 9:28; 1 Peter 3:18, etc.), and that
2) this interpretation is throughout the Bible.

 

[Clare73]

Agreed and thanks as always Clare73 for your helpful and laser-precise commentary

That deserves a hug. . .

If you're going to correctly thread that needle of NT atonement, you have to be laser-precise.

 

[fhansen]

Since all men harden their own hearts, and that hardness is removed only by God's work of softening, all God has to do to "harden" a man's heart is to leave man to his own devices, and withhold his softening of them.

I don't know why you'd even bother to argue the point. If God changes men's dispositions according to His will, as you maintain, then He certainly might harden a heart for His purposes. And while men are born with hard hearts, they can still apparently harden them even more according to the bible, which means they can still play a part in, at least, also allowing them to be softened.

And you know this, how?. . .when Scripture does fully work them out and clarify them on a given matter.

No, not very often, except for wishful thinking because it simply isn't structured to systematically, exhaustively, clearly expound on theological matters- matters of the faith. That comes later, as necessary, performed by the church that received the revelation to begin with, the same church that assembled the canon of the new testament and sat at council to resolve this question/controversy or that one, etc.

Don't mistake one's failure to grasp the teaching of Scripture, with God's failure to fully work out a given matter.

And I won't need to give that same advice to you as long as it's understood that everything will work out according to God's plan within which He incorporated our foreknown choices from the beginning, rather than causing those choices.

Hopefully, from those Scriptures which have been there from the beginning.

Old Testament Scripture was there before the advent of Christ while the New Testamentt came later, after His advent and the revelation that resulted was received. In any case Scripture does little good unless properly understood which is why, as examples, the Bereans and the Ethopian Eunuch needed guidance and instruction from the disciples of Christ in order to understand. Otherwise we're just winging it, often guessing or speculating centuries after the fact now. Without the input rising from of the lived experience of the church that received the gospel at the beginning much if it can be elusive to grasp accurately.

Yes, "man willingly and freely, without external force or constraint, voluntarily chooses what he prefers"

(i.e., definition of "free will").

Sure, and that definition is meaningful only as the freedom and the choosing are understood to come not from coercion or by God’s totally changing man’s disposition such that he has no choice but to choose a particular way.

That depends on whether you believe Scripture (e.g., John 6:39, John 10:28; Romans 8:16; Ephesians 1:14; 2 Corinthians 1:22, 2 Corinthians 5:5) or not.

You can't know with absolute perfect certainty that those verses apply to you. There are simply too many verses intended to balance out an over-confident spirit, exhorting, encouraging, warning and admonishing us to strive, to persevere, to be viglant, to be holy, to put to death the deeds of the flesh, lest we be a branch cut off.

 

[John Caldwell]

Israel offered sacrifices and they all died also.

The animal sacrifices were to make atonement for (propitiation, Romans 3:25; expiation of) sin
(Exodus 29:36; 30:10 Leviticus 1:4, 4:20, 16:16; Numbers 6:11, 8:12, 19, 16:46, 25:13; 2 Chronicles 29:24), the cause of eternal (spiritual) death,
as a pattern of the propitiation for sin by Christ, who died as a substitute to pay for our sin, in our stead, so that we would not have to be subject to eternal death (damnation).

In the OT, the animals died as a substitute to pay for their sin, in their stead, so that they would not have to be subject to eternal death (damnation), a pattern for Christ dying as the substitute to pay for our sin.

Substitutionary atonement is Christ dying as our substitute, pre-figured in the animal sacrifices dying as the Israelite's substitute.
The animals died in place of sinners' eternal death.

The blood of bulls and goats did not remit (take away, remove by paying the debt for) Israel's sin (Hebrews 10:4),
they only covered sin (Romans 4:7) until they were remitted (taken away by payment of debt) on the cross.


So we agree that Jesus' atonement was penal.

It foreshadows Christ, the Lamb of God, who died as the substitute for our sin,
thus propitiating (satisfying, paying the debt to) God's justice,
thereby remitting our sin/guilt,
which is salvation from his condemnation (Romans 5:18) and wrath (Romans 5:9), and
declaring us righteous (justification), both salvation and justification by faith. . .all stated in the NT.

And I have demonstrated that Jesus' substitutionary atonement is presented in both the OT sacrifices as well as throughout the NT (e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 10:28; 1 Peter 3:18, etc.), and that this interpretation is throughout the Bible.

Yes, those who offered animal sacrifices died.

Some mistakenly believe that these sacrifices were substitutes for the men who offered them. But Scripture tells us why the penalty of sacrifice existed - as a reminder of sin.

Hebrews 10:2–7 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.’ ”

 

[BNR32FAN]

It says it is the will (thelema), not desire (thelo), of the Father.

I see you looked them up, did you look at the definition and usage? Thelema is the noun form of the root word Thelo which is the verb form. They both have the same definition. Much like in English the word desire can be either a verb or a noun with the same definition, only difference is in the Greek they are not spelled the same.

Thelema
G2307
Noun
From the root word Thelo G2309

1. what one wishes or has determined shall be done
a. of the purpose of God to bless mankind through Christ
b. of what God wishes to be done by us
1. commands, precepts
2. will, choice, inclination, desire, pleasure

Thelo
G2309
Verb

1. to will, have in mind, intend
a. to be resolved or determined, to purpose
b. to desire, to wish
c. to love
1. to like to do a thing, be fond of doing
d. to take delight in, have pleasure

 

[BNR32FAN]

We disagree about whether what God wills is done. . .his arm is not too short.

Yes well we have to choose the definition that doesn’t cause conflict with other passages. If God wills/determines that Jesus will lose none then verses like John 15:2 John 15:6, Hebrews 6:4-6, and Galatians 5:4 among many others would be impossible. People couldn’t be severed from Christ, they couldn’t fall from grace, they couldn’t fail to abide in Christ resulting in being cast into the fire. So then the obvious definition is desire.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That takes us to Deuteronomy 29:29, and its example in the case of Pharaoh.

I don’t understand what this passage has to do with the conversation, can you please elaborate?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Have you stopped beating animals?

Yes or no?

Jesus was trying to save them as much as he is trying to save anyone to whom he offers salvation by faith in him.

Ok so Jesus was trying to save them but they weren’t saved. We agree on that. So what does that do to the doctrine of irresistible grace and how does that line up with what Jesus said in Luke 13:6-9?

 

[BNR32FAN]

"Pledge" is not in the NT.
"Earnest" (arrabon) is in the NT -- as in "earnest money" deposited by the purchaser as a guarantee of the completion of the purchase (on the cross).

The NASB uses the word pledge in those verses. Do we need to meet any conditions to fulfill our part of the covenant?

 

[BNR32FAN]

What does the NT say?

Well in Colossians 1:21-23 Paul said

“And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach— if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭1‬:‭21‬-‭23‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

So apparently we must remain steadfast in our faith and not turn to disbelief.

And Jesus said

“If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.”
‭‭John‬ ‭15‬:‭6‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

According to this we must abide in Christ and not turn away from Him.

So I would say yes we do have to continue to meet certain requirements in order uphold our part of the covenant.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And there is the answer to your question above. . .at least half of the answer.

You lost me here. You highlighted verse 5 but seem to be overlooking verses 3 & 4 here.

“But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭5‬:‭3‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

You said that verse 5 is half the answer. What do you mean by that?

 

[BNR32FAN]

And. . .with those conditions comes the operation of God working in us both to will and to do those conditions (Philippians 2:13).

So our inheritance is guaranteed by the earnest money (deposit, down payment) of the indwelling Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:14; 1 Corinthians 1:22, 2 Corinthians 5:5) and God's working obedience in us.

I see, so how does someone fail to remain in Christ? John 15:6

How does someone who has been enlightened by the Holy Spirit fall away? Hebrews 6:4-6?

 

[Blaise N]

Any example of his false teaching that I can look into?

I’ve seen his concept of what he calls “Christian hedonism” and I don’t agree with it.I’ve seen. Sources identifying some bad things he’s teaching

 

[BNR32FAN]

Ha! Nice twist of what was said! No, his foreknowledge causes, just as his choice causes. He did not choose by looking into the seeing glass to find out what was going to happen. In the simplest form that I think is humanly understandable, he knew because he caused.

I didn’t twist what you said. You said His foreknowledge is causative. That would mean that His foreknowledge was the cause and the predestination is the effect. Now your changing that. Now your saying the predestination was the cause and His foreknowledge was the cause which doesn’t line up with what the scriptures say. He predestined us according to (as a result of) His foreknowledge. Predestination was an effect of His foreknowledge.