How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[BNR32FAN]

Really bad logic. You think him to operate in our economy of existence. Don't you even have some idea how he is not like us? It is not a matter of degree, but of WHO he is as God.

It’s your logic not mine. You specifically stated that God causes all things to happen and whatever happened happened by His causation. So when I apply that same logic to things that happen all the sudden you backpedal.

In all cases, the principle acknowledged by Biblical philosophy concerning God, is that, since he is not bound to time, for him to foreknow something is for it to have happened already. Further, since all things come from him, whatever happened, happened by his causation. There is no other creator.

 

[Brother-Mike]

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

Thanks for providing an example.

Indeed I can somewhat understand a raised-eyebrow over the usage of the word "hedonism", but I suspect this was intentional on Piper's part and to me functions in the same way that a Kireji does in Haiku - to serve as a "cutting word", provoking thought.

I've listened to perhaps 5+ hours of sermons and discussions regarding "Christian Hedonism" and myself don't find any significant fault, certainly not enough to brand him a false prophet. The primary articulation of the concept, "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him", with its cited roots in Edwards and CS Lewis, shouldn't put a bee in anyone's bonnet.

My two cents at least

 

[Brother-Mike]

Regarding your comment here on scripture...

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.

... I would disagree with some of your approach while agreeing with some of your points individually.

1. Scripture must be the final authority.
2. Agreed that it isn't structured systematically - hence the value of systematic theology (albeit that cites scripture as its authority).
3. Agreed that it isn't exhaustive or clearly expounded - hence the value of councils, commentaries, assemblies, etc (albeit that all cite scripture as their authority, at least in terms of supporting their outcomes). Without tying back to scripture these efforts are at best novel thought exercises that, while they may present interesting or even useful analyses, have no authority.
4. I myself grant no authority to any decrees or teachings by any body or individual if they cannot convincingly appeal back to scripture. And l strive to be open to all, whether it's the Pope or RC Sproul or my plumber or a Buddhist or a Satanist, if they serve to scripturally illuminate or clarify, or at least do so in a manner that I myself can establish the scriptural connection and wisdom. "Eat the fruit and spit out the seeds".

 

[fhansen]

Regarding your comment here on scripture...



... I would disagree with some of your approach while agreeing with some of your points individually.

1. Scripture must be the final authority.
2. Agreed that it isn't structured systematically - hence the value of systematic theology (albeit that cites scripture as its authority).
3. Agreed that it isn't exhaustive or clearly expounded - hence the value of councils, commentaries, assemblies, etc (albeit that all cite scripture as their authority, at least in terms of supporting their outcomes). Without tying back to scripture these efforts are at best novel thought exercises that, while they may present interesting or even useful analyses, have no authority.
4. I myself grant no authority to any decrees or teachings by any body or individual if they cannot convincingly appeal back to scripture. And l strive to be open to all, whether it's the Pope or RC Sproul or my plumber or a Buddhist or a Satanist, if they serve to scripturally illuminate or clarify, or at least do so in a manner that I myself can establish the scriptural connection and wisdom. "Eat the fruit and spit out the seeds".

Just saying, Scripture, alone is insufficient to serve as the sole rule of faith. It doesn't work.

 

[Brother-Mike]

Just saying, Scripture, alone is insufficient to serve as the sole rule of faith. It doesn't work.

I'm happy leaving it then as a point of disagreement

And equally happy to delve further if you want to articulate what "sole rule of faith" means to you.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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

Well how does that line up with Ezekiel 18:20?

“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”
‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭18‬:‭20‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Paul doesn’t say that we are guilty of Adam’s sin in Romans 5 nor does he say that we are condemned by Adam’s sin. Paul specifically stated that death spread to all men because all sinned, not because Adam’s sin was imputed upon us. That would be a direct contradiction of Ezekiel 18:20. Thru Adam’s sin the result was condemnation for all because we inherited his sinful nature and committed our own sins. So I have to disagree with her interpretation on this one because it adds to what Paul actually stated. Paul never said that Adam’s sin was imputed upon us nor does he say that the guilt of his sin imputed upon us. He said that the condemnation of all resulted from Adam’s sin. That result was because we all sinned ourselves as a result of inheriting Adam’s sinful nature. The imputation of Adam’s sin, the guilt of Adam’s sin, or the punishment of Adam’s sin contradicts Ezekiel 18:20.

“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭5‬:‭12‬-‭19‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[Clare73]

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.

Scripture presents no one, including the subject, preventing Almighty God from softening a heart he chooses to soften.

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.

Irrelevant artificial restrictive construct of man. . .

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.

Protestants are likewise the body of Christ, the church, also performing by the church,

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.
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.

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.

You can't know with absolute perfect certainty that those verses apply to you.

That's not what the Scriptures say.
You know Romans 8:16 applies to you when you actually have the witness to which it testifies.

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.

That they are seen as in conflict indicates failure to Biblically reconcile Scripture to itself.

 

[fhansen]

I'm happy leaving it then as a point of disagreement

And equally happy to delve further if you want to articulate what "sole rule of faith" means to you.

The final, sole source of authority to which we must appeal when determining truths of the faith.

 

[fhansen]

Scripture presents no one, including the subject, preventing Almighty God from softening a heart he chooses to soften.

Of course it does, constantly instructing and exhorting us to be and remain with Him, evidenced by what we do, how we live and how we love.

Irrelevant artificial restrictive construct of man. . .

No-just honest truth. You've assumed that Scripture serves as the way you prefer it to.

Protestants are likewise the body of Christ, the church, also performing by the church,

Protestants could never covene an ecumenical council, for example. Protestants are part of the church, yes, but can the church be divided in beliefs? Protestants disagree widely and significantly all day long with each other on these forums, as well as between denominations, which often split with each other because of disagreements. Protest is the spirit of Protestantism after all, based on the bible.

That's not what the Scriptures say.
You know Romans 8:16 applies to you when you actually have the witness to which it testifies.

Quite subjective. Anyway, one must read and include all of Scripture. A little input from the historic church and ECFs doesn't hurt at all either.

That they are seen as in conflict indicates failure to Biblically reconcile Scripture to itself.

Wishful thinking. Scripture, itself, often provides the source of controversy, ambiguity.

 

[Clare73]

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.

Actually, Scripture tells us what their repetition reminded them of.

The sacrifices were not given to be a reminder of sin, they were given to cover sin (Hebrews 10:4),
but the covering did not cleanse (remit) sin once for all, leaving them still with guilty consciences,
and which guilty consciences, not the sacrifices, reminded them of their sin and caused them to offer more sacrifices. (Hebrews 10:1-4)

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.’ ”

 

[John Caldwell]

Actually, Scripture tells us what their repetition reminded them of.

The sacrifices were not given to be a reminder of sin, they were given to cover sin (Hebrews 10:4),
but the covering did not cleanse (remit) sin once for all, leaving them still with guilty consciences,
which guilty consciences, not the sacrifices, reminded them of their sin and caused them to offer more sacrifices. (Hebrews 10:1-4)

Yes, God "overlooked" their sins. Their sins were covered by their obedience. Animal sacrifices were never substitutes for men.

Regardless, Calvinism is not "in" Scripture. It depends on a philosophy that may or may not be correct.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Scripture presents no one, including the subject, preventing Almighty God from softening a heart he chooses to soften.

Actually that’s not true.

“Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭2‬:‭4‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[Clare73]

Yes, God "overlooked" their sins.
Their sins were covered by their obedience.

Nope. . .the sacrifices (propitiation) covered their sin (Romans 4:7), just as the testimony to their sin was covered in the Ark by the hilasterion (mercy seat, propitiation), the cover of the Ark.
Their sin was not remitted until the cross (Romans 3:25).

The testimony of their sin covered in the Ark (Hebrews 9:4) was:
1) jar of manna - testimony to their grumbling (Exodus 16:2-4, 33),
2) Aaron's staff - testimony to Korah's rebellion against the priesthood (Numbers 16:1-3, 17:10),
3) stone tablets - testimony to their breaking the commandments.

Animal sacrifices were never substitutes for men.

Au contraire. . .
The death of the animal sacrifice was a substitute paying the penalty for sin in the sinner's place,
just as the divine sacrifice on Calvary was a substitute paying the penalty for sin in our place.

Regardless, Calvinism is not "in" Scripture. It depends on a philosophy that may or may not be correct.

I have Biblically demonstrated otherwise, and you have not Biblically defeated it.

 

[John Caldwell]

Nope. . .the sacrifices (propitiation) covered their sin (Romans 4:7), as the testimony to their sin was covered in the Ark by the hilasterion (mercy seat, propitiation), the cover of the Ark.
Their sin was not remitted until the cross (Romans 3:25).

The testimony of their sin covered in the Ark (Hebrews 9:4) was:
1) jar of manna - testimony to their grumbling (Exodus 16:2-4, 33),
2) Aaron's staff - testimony to Korah's rebellion against the priesthood (Numbers 16:1-3, 17:10),
3) stone tablets - testimony to their breaking the commandments.

Au contraire. . .
The death of the animal sacrifice was a substitute paying the penalty for sin in the sinner's place,
just as the divine sacrifice on Calvary was a substitute paying the penalty for sin in our place.

I have Biblically demonstrated otherwise.

A better word (better than "overlooked") is "passed over". And "covered" is correct in the passage you mentioned.

But let's not get off track and simply move on.

Either way animal sacrifices were not substrates for sinners.

No passage presents animal sacrifices as substitutes for men. No passage presents animal sacrifices as paying a penalty in our place.

The issue is one of small changes. Where Scrioture says Christ died for us Calvinism changes that to read "instead of us". Why? Because of the judicial philosophy under which Calvin was trained as a lawyer.

Most Calvinists I have encountered do not even notice the change, and if they do their justification is believing that is the obvious meaning (even though for most of Christianity it isn't).

 

[Clare73]

Actually that’s not true.

“Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭2‬:‭4‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Seeing the kindness, tolerance and patience of God should be enough evidence to cause them to repent.
Scripture does not present there a direct action of God in the unregenerate which is being prevented by them.

 

[Clare73]

A better word (better than "overlooked") is "passed over".

And the difference?

And "covered" is correct in the passage you mentioned.

Note that it was also not a matter of my opinion.

But let's not get off track and simply move on.
Either way animal sacrifices were not substrates for sinners.
No passage presents animal sacrifices as substitutes for men. No passage presents animal sacrifices as paying a penalty in our place.
The issue is one of small changes.

"Small changes" are in the eye of the beholder.
It's no small change for me to have my eternal death penalty removed.

Where Scripture says Christ died for us Calvinism changes that
to read "instead of us".

And how does "dying for us" keep us from having to suffer eternal death?
Something somewhere has to be applied, and if it is applied, it is substitutional.

I can die in my backyard for my son in prison who is sentenced to the death penalty.
But unless the judicial system applies my death to my son, he is still going to be executed.
I haven't saved him from anything.

Likewise, I have a fine, penalty, debt (condemnation) to be paid for my sin.
Jesus saves me from suffering condemnation as the fine, penalty, debt for my sin
by paying my sin debt for me.

I find "the fifth gospel," "the gospel of Isaiah" 53, to be clear on the matter of substitutionary atonement,
as I find Colossians 2:1-14, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Galatians 3:10-13 to be the same.

Why? Because of the judicial philosophy under which Calvin was trained as a lawyer.

Most Calvinists I have encountered do not even notice the change, and if they do their justification is believing that is the obvious meaning (even though for most of Christianity it isn't).

The truth of Scripture is not a matter of popular vote.

 

[John Caldwell]

And the difference?

Note that it was also not a matter of my opinion.

They mean the same but "passed over" is what the Bible says God did to those sins (until Christ).

I also like "passed over" because it links to Exodus in the English.

I love Isaiag 53. I think it is an excellent explanation of the Cross.

That is actually the passage I had in mind when I said Calvinists tend to read into Scripture without even realizing it. Where Christ bore our inequities they read "instead of us". Where the men considered Christ stricken by God they tend to ignore the conjunction (the "yet") and assume those who crucified Christ got that part correct.

Isaiah 53 is far from Calvinistic in what is written. Calvinists argue what they believe is taught.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Seeing the kindness, tolerance and patience of God should be enough evidence to cause them to repent.
Scripture does not present there a direct action of God in the unregenerate which is being prevented.

Are you saying that God was being kind, tolerant, and patient with them hoping that this would bring them to repentance yet at the same time knowing they were incapable of repentance because He had not bestowed His grace upon them?

 

[Clare73]

They mean the same but "passed over" is what the Bible says God did to those sins (until Christ). I also like "passed over" because it links to Exodus in the English.
I love Isaiag 53. I think it is an excellent explanation of the Cross.
That is actually the passage I had in mind when I said Calvinists tend to read into Scripture without even realizing it. Where Christ bore our inequities they read "instead of us". Where the men considered Christ stricken by God they tend to ignore the conjunction (the "yet") and assume those who crucified Christ got that part correct.

And an excellent explanation of the nature of Christ's atonement on that cross:
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him (v.5),
the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all (v.6),
for the transgression of my people, he was stricken (v.8),
he will bear their iniquities (v.11),
he bore the sins of many (v.12).

God nailed our record of wrong doing to the cross in nailing Christ to the cross, the bearer of our iniquity.
Christ died for our sin, in our place--our substitute (Colossians 2:13-14).
Jesus was made a sin-bearer, he bore our sin, in our place--our substitute (2 Corinthians 5:21).
He became a curse for us, on our behalf, in our place--our substitute (Galatians 3:13).

Isaiah 53 is far from Calvinistic in what is written.
Calvinists argue what they believe is taught.

Au contraire. . .
Calvin argued from the meaning of the Greek words themselves--e.g.,
justification - declaration of not guilty, sentence of acquittal of guilt - forensic;
imputation - reckoning/accounting/crediting righteous to one - forensic;
sanctification - righteousness imparted to one through the obedience of faith by the Holy Spirit which is righteousness leading to holiness (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19) - actual.
What they believe is taught.

What is stated above couldn't be clearer. . .Christ died in our place for our sin, that we might become the righteousness of God. . .by justification (declared not guilty).
It was another exchange of imputation. . .our sin imputed to Christ on the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21)
and Christ's righteousness imputed to us (Romans 4:1-11).

 

[John Caldwell]

And an excellent explanation of the nature of Christ's atonement on that cross:
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him (v.5),
the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all (v.6),
for the transgression of my people, he was stricken (v.8),
he will bear their iniquities (v.11),
he bore the sins of many (v.12).

God nailed our record of wrong doing to the cross in nailing Christ to the cross.
Christ died for our sin--our substitute (Colossians 2:13-14).
Jesus was made a sin-bearer, he bore our sin in our place--our substitute (2 Corinthians 5:21).
He became a curse for us, on our behalf--our substitute (Galatians 3:13).
Au contraire. . .
Calvin argued from the meaning of the Greek words themselves--e.g.,
justification - declaration of not guilty, sentence of acquittal of guilt - forensic;
imputation - reckoning/accounting/crediting righteous to one - forensic;
sanctification - righteousness imparted to one through the obedience of faith by the Holy Spirit which is righteousness leading to holiness (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19) - actual.
What they believe is taught.

What is stated above couldn't be clearer. . .Christ died in our place for our sin, that we might become the righteousness of God. . .by justification (declared not guilty).
It was another exchange of imputation. . .our sin imputed to Christ and Christ's righteousness imputed to us (2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 4:1-11).

I agree with the passages you quote. I am a biblicalst, so that affects how I interpret Scripture and explains our disagreement.

I appreciate you offering your belief, and to facilitate you and I exploring our differences (and areas of agreement) I'll offer my belief concerning the previous posts.

I believe Jesus was despised by men, who considered Him stricken by God. But Jesus was bearing our sins (He was pierced for our transgressions). God made Him (Jesus) sin for us. He died for us, for our sins.

God laid our iniquities on Him, and it pleased Him to crush Him for our sake. He became a curse for us.

He is the "Last Adam". The first Adam was made a living soul, the Last a life giving spirit.

That said, there are no passages that say Jrsus died instead of us dying, or that He was substituted for us (other than the context of representation as the Last Adam).

Like I said, we approach Scripture differently. I take a literal approach to what is written in the text of God's Word - especially with foundational doctrines like the Atonement.

So we can come together on many things, but this will never be one of them.