How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[BibleBeliever1611]

You seem to me to be looking at it from the POV of a person who thinks he has a little to do with it, as if most of the Glory goes to God, and an almost insignificant part belongs to man. But you are wrong on both counts. ALL the glory goes to God. Have you forgotten the doctrine of Total Depravity? The elect are no better than anyone else, and don't claim to be. "In me there dwells no good thing."

My point is that if God chooses you, and not some other person, then that makes you a better person than that other one. In Calvinism all the glory goes to you and zero gloy to God. That's my point and you don't seem to get it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle had said: "Did God not predestine the events of Calvary? Acts 2:23"

Why do you think I disagree with this?

Because you said,
Jesse Dornfeld said:
"That's just it. In Calvinism, it is God's unmerited grace that saves a person. It's called Unconditional Election - the U in TULIP. I don't believe that the U in Tulip is true, but I understand it. I believe who God chooses is not based on a strength a person has, but a weakness to shame the wise. So we do have some information on why God chooses who he does. So it's not a vacuum where God just picks people out of a hat which is basically what Calvinists believe, but I believe that who Christ picks is based on the idea of shaming the wise."

And because you said,
Jesse Dornfeld said:
"That's whatever to me. God rose up Pharoah to do what he wanted by hardening his heart in Calvinism. Lots of other examples where God chooses peoples or nations to punish someone else. Basically the same thing."

—Both of which I took to imply that you don't believe that God predestines all things —in particular, that he does not cause the wicked to do what they do.

Proverbs 16:4
"The LORD has made everything for His purpose—even the wicked for the day of disaster."

BTW, you also say, "...it's not a vacuum where God just picks people out of a hat which is basically what Calvinists believe..." to which I vehemently disagree. Calvinists believe God has very specific reasons for whom he picks, and not only that, but that the "picking" is not at all the same as choosing from a pool of possibles, but rather indicative of causation —God made them for the purpose, not because they are better, but by the counsel of his own will and through the mercy of his grace.

 

[Mark Quayle]

My point is that if God chooses you, and not some other person, then that makes you a better person than that other one. In Calvinism all the glory goes to you and zero gloy to God. That's my point and you don't seem to get it.

I wrote what I said to counter that notion. We do NOT believe such a thing. The logic of the doctrine does not at all make any one a better person than anyone else. You are dead wrong. The whole point is that God alone saves, and not by the merit or worth of the person, but by the counsel of his own will.

Over twenty years ago, I was in tears talking about the grace of God with a Jewish Christian (who was also in tears), where I said that historically concerning the Jews, and by extension (and by personal experience) concerning the elect, they, the same as anyone else, "if not worse", were chosen by God in order to demonstrate his wisdom, power and grace. And he almost screamed at me: "NO! NO DIFFERENCE! THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT! NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT THE ELECT!" I admit, I had to agree with him, and still do. No difference. It is OUR mentality that infers that if God chose us, there is about us something better, or more fitting, or in some other way of a more worthy, than about the reprobate.

I DO say that God specifically made us for that purpose, and I don't pretend to reconcile the two notions —1. That we are in no way any different. 2. That God made the elect specifically for his purposes, to become the perfect members of the Body of Christ, 'the materials' of God's Dwelling Place.— Nor do I pretend to need to reconcile them. They are both done on God's level, and need not be reconciled, except to our needy self-determination. Again, it is not endemic to me, that God should choose me, but it IS about God and entirely by Grace.

BUT, if, as you seem to think, there is an intellectual need to consider the elect as better, since they are not "picked out of a hat", consider this: That it is only by God's doing and not by that of any worth endemic to the creature, that anyone is in any way or even for any particular use, better or more suited than anyone else. To me, if one thinks that by his own free will, uncaused, he, and not some others, choose ("accept") Christ, then by implication that one is claiming to be in some way better than the others. Dare I mock your words and use them against you, to say it is YOU who claim 100% of the glory for yourself?

 

[All Becomes New]

Mark Quayle had said: "Did God not predestine the events of Calvary? Acts 2:23"


Because you said,
Jesse Dornfeld said:
"That's just it. In Calvinism, it is God's unmerited grace that saves a person. It's called Unconditional Election - the U in TULIP. I don't believe that the U in Tulip is true, but I understand it. I believe who God chooses is not based on a strength a person has, but a weakness to shame the wise. So we do have some information on why God chooses who he does. So it's not a vacuum where God just picks people out of a hat which is basically what Calvinists believe, but I believe that who Christ picks is based on the idea of shaming the wise."

And because you said,
Jesse Dornfeld said:
"That's whatever to me. God rose up Pharoah to do what he wanted by hardening his heart in Calvinism. Lots of other examples where God chooses peoples or nations to punish someone else. Basically the same thing."

—Both of which I took to imply that you don't believe that God predestines all things —in particular, that he does not cause the wicked to do what they do.

Proverbs 16:4
"The LORD has made everything for His purpose—even the wicked for the day of disaster."

BTW, you also say, "...it's not a vacuum where God just picks people out of a hat which is basically what Calvinists believe..." to which I vehemently disagree. Calvinists believe God has very specific reasons for whom he picks, and not only that, but that the "picking" is not at all the same as choosing from a pool of possibles, but rather indicative of causation —God made them for the purpose, not because they are better, but by the counsel of his own will and through the mercy of his grace.

You are assuming what you think my view is. I don't believe in LFW. I'm a Compatibilist.

As far as your other comment about God picking people for a specific purpose, that is only loosely within Calvinism. Calvinists believe you can't know why God chose certain people and I disagree with that.

 

[zoidar]

No, strictly speaking, the Calvinist has no duty toward the lost but to live and present the truth, even the Gospel, and to try to do it in terms the individual can understand. The Calvinist's duty toward the lost by Calvinist doctrine is no different/harder/more involved than the duty of any other believer by any true doctrine.

Your question implies the sinner turns to Christ out of intellectual rigor. Even one who has no concept of Calvinistic doctrine, like all the lost, can be convicted of sin and seek relief, yet even that is not the evidence of salvation, nor even does it mean that he has 'turned to Christ for forgiveness'.

The heart of the individual may be full of the anguish of conviction, emotion and determination, but it means nothing apart from the work of Christ, and of the Spirit of God in regeneration. Witness King Saul.

Nobody alive as of yet has full understanding of the Gospel of Christ, but the Spirit of God within does. When Scripture says, "The Spirit witnesses with our spirit that we are the children of God" it is not only about feeling eternal security, but about how the thing is done that we can 'understand' in whatever sense we actually do understand. It is more than intellectual. Our faith is by the work of the Spirit of God, not by the will of man.

I don't know if you remember me trying to reduce the Gospel to the simplest terms the clinical idiot, who has no understanding or conceptual ability the common man has, never saw nor felt anything external, yet God can convict him of the huge moral distance between God and himself, and make him glad that GOD has provided a way to bring him into oneness with God. The things we seem to think we have to reason into being are not what produces faith. It is not a product of emotion, felt need, human knowledge, intellectual integrity, force of will, nor anything else we can do. It is the gift of God, the work of the Holy Spirit that has taken up permanent residence within us. (But, oh! yes, it is done IN us. That we accept it, is beyond question.)

Let me ask you this question. You said you are not 100% sure you are of the elect. That means you are not 100% sure Christ took the punishment for your sins. You don't find that problematic?

When I was in deep spiritual despair, the only relief I had was trusting that Christ had forgiven me and that I was a child of God, even I felt like a child of the damned. God honored that, and pulled me out of the pit. If I hadn't known back then that Christ was punished for all sins in the world, also my sins, I might not have been here today. Sorry for being a bit dramatic, but it was dramatic.

 

[BibleBeliever1611]

Over twenty years ago, I was in tears talking about the grace of God with a Jewish Christian (who was also in tears), where I said that historically concerning the Jews, and by extension (and by personal experience) concerning the elect, they, the same as anyone else, "if not worse", were chosen by God in order to demonstrate his wisdom, power and grace. And he almost screamed at me: "NO! NO DIFFERENCE! THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT! NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT THE ELECT!" I admit, I had to agree with him, and still do. No difference. It is OUR mentality that infers that if God chose us, there is about us something better, or more fitting, or in some other way of a more worthy, than about the reprobate.

If you are a humble person, God can lift you up and make you special. If you think you are nothing, God makes you more than nothing. If you think you don't deserve God's blessing, that actually makes you deserve it even more than someone else. Heaven is going to be full of special people, and the most special person is going to be the same person who was the most humble and who didn't even think he was worthy to be special to begin with. The rich man has as hard time going to heaven as the camel going through the needle because often times rich people are prideful.

You know how you can be a person who is not special? By being a prideful and arrogant jerk. That is how you are left to be someone who is not special at all. So I definitely agree with what you are saying. There is nothing special about the Calvinists, because the Calvinists are arrogant jerks. They don't deserve to be special.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Let me ask you this question. You said you are not 100% sure you are of the elect. That means you are not 100% sure Christ took the punishment for your sins. You don't find that problematic?

The only reason for 'not being 100% sure I am of the Elect', is the evidence of my works, and my sometimes rebellion against what I know to be right, and rebellion's accompanying reminder that I can be fooling myself. I have no doubt of the power of Christ's sacrifice.

You seem to imply that if one doesn't think that Christ's atonement was universal, that one cannot be secure in what Christ has done. I don't get that at all. How can universal atonement, (even if it was a valid concept), lend itself to the knowledge of and confidence in the integrity of anyone's 'decision for Christ', any more than particular redemption can?

My focus has for many years now changed from whether or not I am one day going to be there, to the anticipation of seeing him as he is, and the present enjoyment of his pleasure and satisfaction with what he has done/ is doing, and the fellowship with him and his, and the joy of him being my life. But regardless, the Spirit does witness with my spirit, that I am a child of God.

When I was in deep spiritual despair, the only relief I had was trusting that Christ had forgiven me and that I was a child of God, even I felt like a child of the damned. God honored that, and pulled me out of the pit. If I hadn't known back then that Christ was punished for all sins in the world, also my sins, I might not have been here today. Sorry for being a bit dramatic, but it was dramatic.

Sadly (in a way), I can't identify with you here. My deepest spiritual despair, to my memory —actually I would probably more accurately term it 'anguish' than despair— involved my inability to consistently obey, and not my fear of eternal condemnation. (My mother said that I had "accepted the Lord" when I was five. I don't remember it.)

But it may be useful to mention here, that one's experience of such things is not necessarily representative of how God did what he did, and not trustworthy for drawing doctrine. While we may know beyond doubt that our experience was real, we don't know beyond doubt that what happened was more than only a little of the bigger picture of what God has done on our behalf.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If you are a humble person, God can lift you up and make you special. If you think you are nothing, God makes you more than nothing. If you think you don't deserve God's blessing, that actually makes you deserve it even more than someone else. Heaven is going to be full of special people, and the most special person is going to be the same person who was the most humble and who didn't even think he was worthy to be special to begin with. The rich man has as hard time going to heaven as the camel going through the needle because often times rich people are prideful.

You know how you can be a person who is not special? By being a prideful and arrogant jerk. That is how you are left to be someone who is not special at all. So I definitely agree with what you are saying. There is nothing special about the Calvinists, because the Calvinists are arrogant jerks. They don't deserve to be special.

So, you are saying that one CAN be deserving of God's mercy and grace?

 

[John Mullally]

You continue to misrepresent Calvinism and what I believe and say: 1. I do not say that God is the sole determiner —after all, I do say that man also chooses exactly the things God determined he would choose. I honestly do not get how you and JAL and others attribute to man this life of ability and existence apart from God. It is to deny the meaning of the term, 'God created'. 2. Calvin condemned nobody to death. You, like apparently pretty much everything you believe that is contrary to Calvinism, such as your use of Scriptures, jump onto whatever conclusion or bandwagon you can in your antagonism. 3. John McArthur, and many others of note, say and believe many things I don't, and do not represent me, nor indeed are they quite representative of Calvinism in general. There is plenty of disagreement between them. There's no use in going there, if you wish to prove me wrong. 4. I've never read Calvin, but I doubt very much "Calvin states" that God is a "trickster". 5. You do not say it in this post, and maybe I'm thinking of the wrong person, but I think you have repeatedly claimed that Calvinists/ Reformed believe what they do because they were brought up to believe it. You are wrong about many of us, and it gets old hearing that same mantra. It certainly does not apply to me. I have said many many times now, that I was brought up semi-Arminian, full fundamentalist, almost Wesleyan (i.e. I was not taught a 'second work of grace' doctrine), and was as much a believer in free-will as you are, as it had always seemed obvious. I didn't even know what Calvinism was except by caricature.

At least 2 things are evident in your posts: 1. You don't listen, you just keep on reciting your mantra, in your antagonism for what you seem to think will eventually fall before your repetition. 2. You typically, in matters of will and choice and ability, attribute to man what belongs only to God. In fact, I would go so far as to say that that is your worldview. 3. I add this to your credit: At least so far you do not blatantly, as JAL does, but only by implication of your arguments, claim that God is not quite omnipotent.

I don't misrepresent Calvinism. I frequently quote Calvin on this site and here you admit you have never read Calvin - thus losing credibility on the subject.

Calvin did join others in condemning Servetus to death John Calvin justified killing his theological opponents with the Bible

Calvin says that “All events whatsoever are governed by the secret counsel of God.”. Therefore, God is the sole determiner of man's every action as He not us governs that action. No amount of double-speak changes that.

For the record: I never said Calvinist believe what they do because they were brought up to believe it.

God can be omnipotent without governing every man's action (again Calvin's position). How does God judge men for doing that which God governs man do?

 

[zoidar]

The only reason for 'not being 100% sure I am of the Elect', is the evidence of my works, and my sometimes rebellion against what I know to be right, and rebellion's accompanying reminder that I can be fooling myself. I have no doubt of the power of Christ's sacrifice.

You seem to imply that if one doesn't think that Christ's atonement was universal, that one cannot be secure in what Christ has done. I don't get that at all. How can universal atonement, (even if it was a valid concept), lend itself to the knowledge of and confidence in the integrity of anyone's 'decision for Christ', any more than particular redemption can?

My focus has for many years now changed from whether or not I am one day going to be there, to the anticipation of seeing him as he is, and the present enjoyment of his pleasure and satisfaction with what he has done/ is doing, and the fellowship with him and his, and the joy of him being my life. But regardless, the Spirit does witness with my spirit, that I am a child of God.

Sadly (in a way), I can't identify with you here. My deepest spiritual despair, to my memory —actually I would probably more accurately term it 'anguish' than despair— involved my inability to consistently obey, and not my fear of eternal condemnation. (My mother said that I had "accepted the Lord" when I was five. I don't remember it.)

But it may be useful to mention here, that one's experience of such things is not necessarily representative of how God did what he did, and not trustworthy for drawing doctrine. While we may know beyond doubt that our experience was real, we don't know beyond doubt that what happened was more than only a little of the bigger picture of what God has done on our behalf.

To me it's very important to have an "object of truth" where I put my trust. I know Christ was punished for my sins, therefore I have an "object" where I can put my trust. It doesn't sound to me like you have such a clear object of faith. It sounds more like you know there is power in the sacrifice to forgive sins, and you trust Christ that also your sins were borne on the cross. It is quite different than trusting in a fact: "I know my sins were on that cross." In that fact I can trust and have rest. You seem to have found rest in that God will do whatever is right. Again, that is quite different from trusting in the fact that Christ took you punishment 2000 years ago. The thing is, God wants us to trust in what He accomplished through Christ, not trusting in that He will do what is right, which He will do anyway.

 

[BibleBeliever1611]

So, you are saying that one CAN be deserving of God's mercy and grace?

No, it's what you are saying. Unless you say God just rolls a dice and picks the elect randomly.

 

[JLB777]

Good Day, All

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

Calvinism is the doctrine of man.

 

[Mark Quayle]

To me it's very important to have an "object of truth" where I put my trust. I know Christ was punished for my sins, therefore I have an "object" where I can put my trust. It doesn't sound to me like you have such a clear object of faith. It sounds more like you know there is power in the sacrifice to forgive sins, and you trust Christ that also your sins were borne on the cross. It is quite different than trusting in a fact: "I know my sins were on that cross." In that fact I can trust and have rest. You seem to have found rest in that God will do whatever is right. Again, that is quite different from trusting in the fact that Christ took you punishment 2000 years ago. The thing is, God wants us to trust in what He accomplished through Christ, not trusting in that He will do what is right, which He will do anyway.

I do indeed trust in what God accomplished through Christ, and, in fact, I trust in Christ himself.

To paraphrase what you said: You trust in a given fact, that Christ died for all sins, and therefore yours. I trust in a given fact, that Christ died for my sins. You seem to think that yours is more sure, since it follows a logical sequence. But both depend on that fact beyond mere logic, that Christ died for sins. I don't wish to here get into the question of how yours is more sure, beyond mentioning that I don't think it is more sure. One thing I know is NOT more sure for me, in what you say, and I don't see how it can be more sure for anyone else either, is the trust in THEIR faith —how one is absolutely sure that in fact they DID 'accept Jesus into their heart' or any of the many ways it is described. Every disobedience mocks the veracity of that claim.

But predestination, and in particular, providence, gives one assurance beyond the faith one can have in themselves to have been of full integrity in their 'salvation decision'. My security depends on the act of God, your security seems to depend on your trust in the act of God. Further, my security realizes that even my very disobedience is part of what God has planned concerning my life, and is no surprise to him, but a step along the way, a 'teachable moment', and that, agonizingly, at Christ's expense. Your security, well, I can't speak for you, but I remember my thinking back 20 or 30 years ago, of separation from Christ, of doubt in my 'decision for Christ', at every disobedience. My assurance is WITHIN the faith given by the Spirit. Yours seems to be the trust in the integrity of your decision that day you yielded your heart to Christ. Brother, I don't mean to disparage the weight, the power, of that 'crisis' moment. I feel it more than you might think I do. But what YOU did is not itself salvific faith, but the result of it, which God's Holy Spirit did in you.

But I don't see the difference in object. In the end, we both trust not only what Christ did for us, but in Christ himself. Faith is not, then, only trust in a fact or in a logical sequence of thought, but trust in God himself, in either one.

 

[All Becomes New]

The only reason for 'not being 100% sure I am of the Elect', is the evidence of my works, and my sometimes rebellion against what I know to be right, and rebellion's accompanying reminder that I can be fooling myself. I have no doubt of the power of Christ's sacrifice.

Most Calvinist think it's not based on you at all whether you remain a Christian or not. It's all up to God keeping you (or not). So if you are a Calvinist, you are supposed to have assurance of your Salvation. That's the regular line for the Reformed. That doesn't make sense to me because I do believe one can walk away from the faith. The difference is that I think you can lose salvation and the Reformed think you can't.

 

[JAL]

Even my very disobedience is part of what God has planned concerning my life,and is no surprise to him, but a step along the way, a 'teachable moment', and that, agonizingly, at Christ's expense.

For what did Christ atone? If I walk in a divinely foreordained course, shouldn't God celebrate my every act, being glorified in the fact that everything proceeds as planned? And if I lack sufficient freedom to deviate, in what sense have I managed to transgress His will?

I can't make any sense of all this.

 

[zoidar]

I do indeed trust in what God accomplished through Christ, and, in fact, I trust in Christ himself.

To paraphrase what you said: You trust in a given fact, that Christ died for all sins, and therefore yours. I trust in a given fact, that Christ died for my sins. You seem to think that yours is more sure, since it follows a logical sequence. But both depend on that fact beyond mere logic, that Christ died for sins. I don't wish to here get into the question of how yours is more sure, beyond mentioning that I don't think it is more sure. One thing I know is NOT more sure for me, in what you say, and I don't see how it can be more sure for anyone else either, is the trust in THEIR faith —how one is absolutely sure that in fact they DID 'accept Jesus into their heart' or any of the many ways it is described. Every disobedience mocks the veracity of that claim.

But predestination, and in particular, providence, gives one assurance beyond the faith one can have in themselves to have been of full integrity in their 'salvation decision'. My security depends on the act of God, your security seems to depend on your trust in the act of God. Further, my security realizes that even my very disobedience is part of what God has planned concerning my life, and is no surprise to him, but a step along the way, a 'teachable moment', and that, agonizingly, at Christ's expense. Your security, well, I can't speak for you, but I remember my thinking back 20 or 30 years ago, of separation from Christ, of doubt in my 'decision for Christ', at every disobedience. My assurance is WITHIN the faith given by the Spirit. Yours seems to be the trust in the integrity of your decision that day you yielded your heart to Christ. Brother, I don't mean to disparage the weight, the power, of that 'crisis' moment. I feel it more than you might think I do. But what YOU did is not itself salvific faith, but the result of it, which God's Holy Spirit did in you.

But I don't see the difference in object. In the end, we both trust not only what Christ did for us, but in Christ himself. Faith is not, then, only trust in a fact or in a logical sequence of thought, but trust in God himself, in either one.

I think I can grasp your reasoning and can understand it to some degree, even I can't say I really agree. You say: "I trust in a given fact, that Christ died for my sins." That is great, but that is what I mean is inconsistent. How can this be if you can't be 100% sure Jesus was punished for your sins? Then you trust in something you don't know for sure is true.

I can agree with you that there is something else needed for security than just trusting in a choice made some years ago. There I can say I agree.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Most Calvinist think it's not based on you at all whether you remain a Christian or not. It's all up to God keeping you (or not). So if you are a Calvinist, you are supposed to have assurance of your Salvation. That's the regular line for the Reformed. That doesn't make sense to me because I do believe one can walk away from the faith. The difference is that I think you can lose salvation and the Reformed think you can't.

Calvinists are often accused of believing in OSAS; I believe that one cannot lose their salvation, though I don't like the connotations that OSAS brings to mind. A Calvinist's assurance of salvation comes from the fact that God will accomplish whatever he began. A Calvinist's feeling of security comes from the witness of the Holy Spirit within him.

 

[Mark Quayle]

For what did Christ atone? If I walk in a divinely foreordained course, shouldn't God celebrate my every act, being glorified in the fact that everything proceeds as planned? And if I lack sufficient freedom to deviate, in what sense have I managed to transgress His will?

I can't make any sense of all this.

Yes, I see you can't.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think I can grasp your reasoning and can understand it to some degree, even I can't say I really agree. You say: "I trust in a given fact, that Christ died for my sins." That is great, but that is what I mean is inconsistent. How can this be if you can't be 100% sure Jesus was punished for your sins? Then you trust in something you don't know for sure is true.

I can agree with you that there is something else needed for security than just trusting in a choice made some years ago. There I can say I agree.

Let me try this:

1. If I believed that Jesus died for the sins of 100% of humanity, how does that make my choice any more valid?

2. Meanwhile, (since I don't believe #1 above), and if God gives me faith in his work, he also gives me faith in his choice of me.

 

[JAL]

Yes, I see you can't.

I'm pretty sure you haven't made sense of it either. Many people happily embrace religious contradictions.

Personally, I feel void of any such deception.