How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[JAL]

A Calvinist's feeling of security comes from the witness of the Holy Spirit within him.

Italics yours. Wow. After you and @Clare73 berated me across a hundred posts that feelings lack epistemic import. Maybe the rule of conscience is of some value after all.

 

[zoidar]

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.

I first have to ask you what you mean by "his work"? That Christ died on the cross and was resurrected or that Christ was punished for my personal sins?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I first have to ask you what you mean by "his work"? That Christ died on the cross and was resurrected or that Christ was punished for my personal sins?

All the above.

 

[zoidar]

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.

All the above.

If you have gotten faith in that Jesus was punished for your sins, you still don't know Jesus actually was punished for you sins, so you trust in something you don't know is true. Well, you say God gave you the faith, isn't that proof enough? Are you sure God gave you saving faith? So unless you are 100% sure it's saving faith you have and you thereby know God elected you, you don't know Christ was punished for your sins either. So unless you do, it's having faith in something that is possibly true. Then there is no clear fact to trust in, just a probabilty. And here comes the inconsistency. Even you don't know Christ was punished for your sins, you trust in that he was, which you are "sure" of without any real ground, other than believing your faith is genuine.

To know Jesus was punished for you, you have to know you are elect. And the only way you can know you are elect is to know you have saving faith. The way to know you have saving faith is knowing you trust that Jesus died for you. And you know Jesus died for you since you have saving faith, which makes it circular.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If you have gotten faith in that Jesus was punished for your sins, you still don't know Jesus actually was punished for you sins, so you trust in something you don't know is true. Well, you say God gave you the faith, isn't that proof enough? Are you sure God gave you saving faith? So unless you are 100% sure it's saving faith you have and you thereby know God elected you, you don't know Christ was punished for your sins either. So unless you do, it's having faith in something that is possibly true. Then there is no clear fact to trust in, just a probabilty. And here comes the inconsistency. Even you don't know Christ was punished for your sins, you trust in that he was, which you are "sure" of without any real ground, other than believing your faith is genuine.

To know Jesus was punished for you, you have to know you are elect. And the only way you can know you are elect is to know you have saving faith. The way to know you have saving faith is knowing you trust that Jesus died for you. And you know Jesus died for you since you have saving faith, which makes it circular.

In both of these paragraphs you seem to find it necessary to tie faith to certainty of personal applicability of the theory. I don't really get that.

How do you know Jesus was actually punished for your sins? YOUR soteriology. I don't think you would say that your faith is in your soteriology. The faith is not whether I am the one being saved, but in the Gospel. In what Christ has done, and in Christ himself. I am not the focus of that faith.

 

[John Mullally]

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.

Or you could believe Jesus in Mark 16:16 that says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved. Mark 16:16 is what Jesus commanded His disciples to preach just before He left them, and should rid the naval gazing caused by wondering if one was selected to election - which is caused by preferring Calvin''s fatalistic theology, which came 1500 years after Jesus, over Jesus's words. Even if Calvinist predestination is true (which I don't see), it cannot affect the truth in Mark 16:16!

Sadly, there are many sensitive individuals that espouse Calvinism who post on this forum that they are at their wits end as that they want to be saved but are unsure if God elected them - they should have been taught Mark 16:16.

When you really get to Calvinists with scriptural argumentation they will sometimes throw out "you follow a different Jesus" without an explanation! Just an unintelligible smoke screen. The other smokescreen, is claiming you are trying to be saved by works. Their problem is with Peter who pleads with sinners and promises that those who repent and are baptized will receive remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (effectively salvation) in Acts 2:38-39 - showing man that he has his part in being saved - which Mark 16:16 also presents if one reads it without preconceptions. It is not too late to take up Peter's promise in Acts 2:38-39 - which lines up nicely with Mark 16:16 and Romans 10:9-10. It is after all the Gospel (good news)! God is not the one blocking men from receiving salvation (per 1 Timothy 2:4) - it is satan (2 Corithians 4:4).

My experience is that Calvinists give a number of scriptures (i.e. their proof texts like 1 Peter 1:2) that can be interpretted multiple ways concerning predestination and will not discuss an interpretation that does not support Calvinism. On the other hand, they reject the plainest of scriptures like 1 Timothy 2:4 that says that God "desires all men to be saved" which refutes Calvinism. 1 Timothy 2:1 says Timothy (and arguably us) are to pray for the same "all men" in 1 Timothy 2:4 and 1 Timothy 2:6. Although God desires all to be saved, it is not automatic as receiving anything from God requires faith. When Jesus walked the earth, he told men multiple times that their faith saved them. Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17) - so per scripture it is attainable to all who are careful in what they listen to - make sure you are listening intently to the word of God (directly from the Bible or from a preacher).

Recently Mark Q, has stated that he will not respond to my posts as he infers I am conducting spiritual warfare against him. He says I use a war hammer - ha, ha. Paul describes the word of God as a two edged sword - not a war hammer. Paul instructs us to conduct spiritual warfare against imaginations, thoughts, and high things that oppose truth:

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;​

​

Concerning arguments against Calvinism: I frequently quote the Bible and John Calvin, but Mark Q. states he has never read Calvin - even though Mark Q. has posted in support of Calvinism thousands of times on this forum. Its nothing personal: Mark Q. is a nice (acting fair minded and respectible) Calvinist, but is unprepared to debate as he states he never studied what Calvin said and tends to present philosophic arguments (like what he terms "First Cause") that are not in scripture. Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" were translated long ago and are roughly 1500 pages in length (so plenty of material)! I prefer to discuss "Calvinism" strictly from the Bible and Calvin's own words - although to a lesser degree I will listen to modern leading Calvinists (like Spurgeon, MacArthur, Piper, Pink, Keller, James White, etc). Having Mark Q. frequently say "I told you ...." does not register with me - I need something authoritive - again nothing personal!

 

[zoidar]

In both of these paragraphs you seem to find it necessary to tie faith to certainty of personal applicability of the theory. I don't really get that.

How do you know Jesus was actually punished for your sins? YOUR soteriology. I don't think you would say that your faith is in your soteriology. The faith is not whether I am the one being saved, but in the Gospel. In what Christ has done, and in Christ himself. I am not the focus of that faith.

Trusting in Christ is a clear object of faith because it's not depending on whether I'm elect or not. Trusting in what Christ has done, sure you can have faith in that, that you are of the elect that Christ was punished for and was raised for. I just think the object of faith gets blurry. The object gets dependant of my faith, rather of being something true without any correlation to whether I believe or not. That is one reason universal atonement is so important to me. Of course I believe it because it's true, but that's another thing.

If you trust in that Christ was punished for sins and risen from the dead, and you mean that is the gospel, that too is a clear object of faith, since that is true whether we believe or not. It just doesn't get as strong object of faith, as the point of Christ bearing my personal sins on the cross

You don't seem to see a problem and maybe there is no real problem if you are confident in your relation to Christ. The problem I see is if you are in a time of doubt, then it's vital to have a clear point of faith to hang on to. There mustn't be any doubt that also my sins were on that cross. That's my thoughts.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Trusting in Christ is a clear object of faith because it's not depending on whether I'm elect or not.

Agreed. I didn't say otherwise.

Trusting in what Christ has done, sure you can have faith in that, that you are of the elect that Christ was punished for and was raised for. I just think the object of faith gets blurry. The object gets dependant of my faith, rather of being something true without any correlation to whether I believe or not. That is one reason universal atonement is so important to me. Of course I believe it because it's true, but that's another thing.

The object of faith is what Christ has done. Not that he has done it for me personally.

If you trust in that Christ was punished for sins and risen from the dead, and you mean that is the gospel, that too is a clear object of faith, since that is true whether we believe or not. It just doesn't get as strong object of faith, as the point of Christ bearing my personal sins on the cross

I think it is a stronger object of faith, as it needn't depend on me, but on God himself, and the work of the Spirit of God in me. It is not "my"
faith per se, and independent of my faulty, small and weak understanding of the terms of the Gospel —again, the object being Christ himself, and not my concepts. But I don't argue that there are no concepts. Nor that there is no confidence as to whether I am saved, once I am saved.

You don't seem to see a problem and maybe there is no real problem if you are confident in your relation to Christ. The problem I see is if you are in a time of doubt, then it's vital to have a clear point of faith to hang on to. There mustn't be any doubt that also my sins was on that cross. That's my thoughts.

My clear point of faith to hang onto is that God will do what he set out to do. And my feeling on that is that "I love it, even if I am not of the elect." Granted, if I am not of the elect on that day, I won't love it, but for now, I can't help but love it. I trust God's choice far more than I trust mine.

 

[John Mullally]

I think it is a stronger object of faith, as it needn't depend on me, but on God himself, and the work of the Spirit of God in me. It is not "my"
faith per se, and independent of my faulty, small and weak understanding of the terms of the Gospel —again, the object being Christ himself, and not my concepts.

One can avoid the Calvinist naval gazing and unbelief that they package as reverence. Be like the Centurion (Matthew 8:5-13) who Jesus acclaims and who immediately receives what he asks for by taking Jesus at his word. Jesus says in Mark 16:16 that those who belive and are baptized wiil be saved! For Mark Q: Receive the simplicity of God's word in Mark 16:16 and ditch the complex Calvinism that opposes such!

The following may sound harsh: Realize that Mark Quayle and Claire73 have posted thousands of times on this forum in favor of Calvinism (obviously they view it as their ministry to preach such). It is telling when they will not answer my strong objections! I take no response on their parts to concede my points! Thus rest assured, per Mark Quayle's and Claire73's not response per se, Calvinism is false doctine!

 

[Clare73]

One can avoid the Calvinist naval gazing and unbelief that they package as reverence. Be like the Centurion (Matthew 8:5-13) who Jesus acclaims and who immediately receives what he asks for by taking Jesus at his word. Jesus says in Mark 16:16 that those who belive and are baptized wiil be saved! For Mark Q: Receive the simplicity of God's word in Mark 16:16 and ditch the complex Calvinism that opposes such!

The following may sound harsh: Realize that Mark Quayle and Claire73 have posted thousands of times on this forum in favor of Calvinism (obviously they view it as their ministry to preach such). It is telling when they will not answer my strong objections! I take no response on their parts to concede my points! Thus rest assured, per Mark Quayle's and Claire73's not response per se, Calvinism is false doctine!

As you do not answer my rebuttal to your objection. . .

 

[John Mullally]

As you do not answer my rebuttal to your objection. . .

No, I give thoughful answers (reference posts 2589 and 2600) to your arguments. But your responses are dismissive and difficult to understand (2593 and 2601).

 

[Clare73]

No, I give thoughful answers (reference posts 2589 and 2600) to your arguments. But your responses are dismissive and difficult to understand (2593 and 2601).

Where is your thoughtful answer to mine:

God desires that all men be saved (1Ti 2:4), while choosing only some to be saved (1 Pe 1:2).

Likewise, all from divine foreknowledge to the secret will of God has been previously litigated with you.
I will not be relitigating them.

 

[John Mullally]

Where is your thoughtful answer to mine:

God desires that all men be saved (1Ti 2:4), while choosing only some to be saved (1 Pe 1:2).

Likewise, all from divine foreknowledge to the secret will of God has been previously litigated with you.
I will not be relitigating them.

I addressed 1 Timothy 2:4 and 1 Peter 1:2 in Post 2600 and your response was "Strawman". Here is a another argument:

If you assume that God chooses who will be saved and lets the rest suffer for eternity, it would be natural to think 1 Peter 1:2 is addressing that.

1 Peter 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.​

If you know that God desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) and Christ gave himself a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:6) because the meaning of those passages is irrefutable, then you will take a different view of this passage - as God, who desires all men be saved, is not predestining any men to eternal torment - as God is not duplicitous. Per 1 Peter 1:1, 1 Peter 1:2 is addressed to believers and believers qualify for redemption per Mark 16:16. In light of that, I veiw the "foreknowledge of God" here is speaking of "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelations 13:8). Christ's blood makes provision for sanctification of the Spirit.

Litigate means to "to decide and settle in a court of law" - I am pretty sure that never happened.

 

[Clare73]

I addressed 1 Timothy 2:4 and 1 Peter 1:2 in Post 2600. If you assume that God chooses who will be saved you can make an argument that 1 Peter 1:2 is addressing that.

1 Peter 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.​

God's election of some (according to his decree before the foundations of the world, which is the substance of his foreknowledge, which he then executes in their election) is in his drawing them by the Holy Spirit, for their obedience and sprinkling with Christ's blood.

If you know that God desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) and Christ gave himself a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:6), then you will take a different view of this passage - as God, who desires all men be saved, is not predestining any men to eternal torment - as God is not duplicitous. I 1 Peter 1:2 is addressed to believers who qualify for redemption per Mark 16:16. I veiw the passage saying that "foreknowledge of God" here is speaking of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Revelations 13:8). Christ's blood makes provision for sanctification of the Spirit.

However, grammatically here, the foreknowledge (of his decree to do so) is the cause of the choosing them, not of the slain Lamb.

Litigate means to "to decide and settle in a court of law" - I am pretty sure that never happened.

Ya' think?

 

[John Mullally]

God's election of some (according to his decree before the foundations of the world, which is the substance of his foreknowledge, which he then executes in their election) is in his drawing them by the Holy Spirit, for their obedience and sprinkling with Christ's blood.

That is an interpretation that requires ignoring the fact that God desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) as it has God predestinating some to eternal torment. Foreknowlege just means "awareness of something before it happens or exists" as we see in Romans 11:2. You use the word decree which is not in the text. With kings, decree typically refers to directives, assignments, and judgments. For example, Mark 16:16 decrees that those who believe and are baptized will be saved. Of course, God decreed that Christ specifically be slain from the foundation of the world so that fallen man can be saved. But I don't see God decreeing that someone steal a candy bar from the 7-11 at such-and-such a time - which is the kind of thing Calvinists believe.

However, grammatically here, the foreknowledge (of his decree to do so) is the cause of the choosing them, not of the slain Lamb.

Did you just litigate that?

 

[Clare73]

That is an interpretation that requires ignoring the fact that God desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4)

That is the plain reading of the text.
It is simply your assumption that the Holy Spirit in 1Pe 1:2 ignores himself in 1 Ti 2:4.

as it has God predestinating some to eternal torment. Foreknowlege just means

The NT's use of divine foreknowledge has been previously explicated.

Did you just litigate that?

I give up, did I?

 

[John Mullally]

"Foreknowledge" has been previously explicated.

The definition of foreknowledge in Websters and Oxford dictionary does not include any mention of decree.

 

[Clare73]

The definition of foreknowledge in Websters and Oxford dictionary does not include any mention of decree.

Are those Greek dictionaries?

Are they expository dictionaries of Biblical words?

 

[John Mullally]

Are those Greek dictionaries?

Are they expository dictionaries of Biblical words?

Do you have a Greek dictionary or an expository dictionary of Biblical words? If not, what is your point?

If so, why don't you reference it? If it is like Bible Commentaries, it may be very complex.

 

[zoidar]

Agreed. I didn't say otherwise.

The object of faith is what Christ has done. Not that he has done it for me personally.

I think it is a stronger object of faith, as it needn't depend on me, but on God himself, and the work of the Spirit of God in me. It is not "my"
faith per se, and independent of my faulty, small and weak understanding of the terms of the Gospel —again, the object being Christ himself, and not my concepts. But I don't argue that there are no concepts. Nor that there is no confidence as to whether I am saved, once I am saved.

My clear point of faith to hang onto is that God will do what he set out to do. And my feeling on that is that "I love it, even if I am not of the elect." Granted, if I am not of the elect on that day, I won't love it, but for now, I can't help but love it. I trust God's choice far more than I trust mine.

It's a good thing God will accomplish what He has set out to do, but what really means something to me is that God sent Christ to die for our sins. That's the nave of the whole Bible. To me that is the gospel. Everything else loses its meaning without it. I think Pastor Lassman said it well, but you were not that impressed.