How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[ICONO'CLAST]

I don't know how the Scriptures I presented could be any more clear.

If your assertion is true, then your sin debt, penalty--eternal death for your sin-- has not been paid,
and you are still dead in your trespasses and sin.

Which is usually the case in misunderstanding of Scripture.

While I take a Biblical approach in the context of all Scripture.

Yes....you can explain what scripture you are using.You do not offer parts of verses and say, see I believe this.

 

[Clare73]

First of all God hardened Pharaoh’s heart because He knew that Pharaoh would not do as He had commanded.

We don't have to surmise, Scripture tells us precisely why God hardened Pharaoh's heart (Romans 9:17; Exodus 9:16)

“But I know that the king of Egypt will not permit you to go, except under compulsion. So I will stretch out My hand and strike Egypt with all My miracles which I shall do in the midst of it; and after that he will let you go. I will grant this people favor in the sight of the Egyptians; and it shall be that when you go, you will not go empty-handed. But every woman shall ask of her neighbor and the woman who lives in her house, articles of silver and articles of gold, and clothing; and you will put them on your sons and daughters. Thus you will plunder the Egyptians.””
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭3‬:‭19‬-‭22‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Second there was no secret will in this case because God specifically told Moses why He was going to harden Pharaoh’s heart.
“But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭7‬:‭3‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Was it not a secret to Pharaoh, as far as Pharaoh was concerned?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I am saying what Scripture presents.

God exercises kindness and patience, to demonstrate their hardness and rebellion, in waiting for men to repent, so that they will have neither excuse nor just claim against him for their failing to do so.

Ok so what your saying is that God’s patience and kindness wasn’t really leading them to repentance because in His kindness He did not allow them to be capable of repentance. That’s not actually being very kind is it? It’s not kind to knowingly withhold the grace they require to repent then waging wrath of eternal punishment for failing to meet God’s expectations. Is that what you would consider to be and act of kindness and patience that is truly leading someone to repentance?

 

[Clare73]

Im sorry but according to the scriptures that explanation doesn’t work because no one can come to Christ unless The Father draws them and the tares are planted by the evil one not The Father. So those who fail to remain in Christ were drawn by The Father not planted by the enemy. Tares are never in Christ.

No one can savingly come to Christ unless the Father draws them by his Holy Spirit.
The tares don't effectually come to Christ by the Holy Spirit.

They come for their own reasons, which are not saving reasons.
But they look like wheat.

 

[BNR32FAN]

We don't have to surmise, Scripture tells us precisely why God hardened Pharaoh's heart (Romans 9:17; Exodus 9:16)

I wasn’t surmising at all. I was saying that in this particular case God’s will was not a secret because He had revealed His will in the first place before Pharaoh was made an example of.

 

[Clare73]

No it wasn’t explained I just wanted you to expound on your point to further expose your flaw in reading that verse. Your skirting around your implication that verse 5 doesn’t apply to the saints in Ephesus.

“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 ‭5‬:‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

But that’s ignoring verses 3 & 4.

“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.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭5‬:‭3‬-‭4‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Verse 5 begins with the word “For” meaning because. Verse 5 explains why immorality must not be named among them and the consequences that will take place if immorality is named among them. I suspect that you know this and that’s why you declined to explain further.

I'm not understanding your point.
Would they not be tares?

 

[Clare73]

Ok so what your saying is that God’s patience and kindness wasn’t really leading them to repentance because in His kindness He did not allow them to be capable of repentance. That’s not actually being very kind is it?

It is kindness for those sinners who are the elect who have not yet come in.

It’s not kind to knowingly withhold the grace they require to repent then waging wrath of eternal punishment for failing to meet God’s expectations. Is that what you would consider to be and act of kindness and patience that is truly leading someone to repentance?

How "kind" is it to impute Adam's sin to everyone?
How "kind" is it to allow us to inherit Adam's fallen spiritual nature?
How "kind" is it to let us die physically?
How "kind" is it to let us suffer physically?
How "kind"is it to allow murder, rape, and pillage?
Etc., etc., etc.

 

[Clare73]

I wasn’t surmising at all. I was saying that in this particular case
God’s will was not a secret because He had revealed His will in the first place before Pharaoh was made an example of.

And I pointed out that it was a secret as far as Pharaoh was concerned, to give a concrete example of its operation.
Pharaoh was told to do one thing, when God had just the opposite planned for him

It's not rocket science.

 

[John Caldwell]

I don't know how the Scriptures I presented could be any more clear.

If your assertion is true, then your sin debt, penalty--eternal death for your sin-- has not been paid,
and you are still dead in your trespasses and sin.

Which is usually the case in misunderstanding of Scripture.

While I take a Biblical approach in the context of all Scripture.

I once believed as you, @Clare73 . I was a Calvinist throughout seminary and years preaching and teaching in Baptist churches. As you ate doing, I defended Calvinism.

After one well recieved sermon on a Sunday night as a guest preacher I went home content with my evening. That night I had preached on the Cross, and being a Calvinist I laid out the Atonement of Christ within that particular understanding. It went well.

But the next morning I awoke with a conviction that I had preached not only my understanding but an error. I just could not shake that conviction.

I bought a couple of dry erase boards and started at the foundation of Calvinism - the Atonement. I wrote down every passage I could think of and erased every passage that did not actually confirm Calvinistic Atonement. In the end no passages remained.

I still sought to hold on to Calvinism, I guess because I was so invested. I spoke with a friend who was a professor at Dallas Seminary. He could not provide a passage stating what I started to see as Calvinistic assumption (something read into Scripture). I took the question to two online forums. The best I could get was that Calvinism was what Scripture teaches when properly understood, or that was the real meaning of the Bible.

The problem, of course, is every answer I received served to confirm what I had already begun to suspect. Calvinism can only be correct if specific presuppositions are right because at its very foundation lies an unquestioned judicial philosophy applied to divine justice. To make matters worse, this Atonement idea is merely a revision of Thomas Aquinas' view (replacing merit with justice).

I didn't want you to be under the impression I left Calvinism on a whim. It was very difficult for me, and the task of setting aside its presuppositions was not an easy chore (once someone tells you an ink blot is a bat you'll be hard pressed to see just an ink blot).

There are things I still hold in common with Calvinism (especially Edwardian Calvinism . . . I.e. Jonathan Edwards). I have no issues, per se, with the "Five Points" if the presuppositions are removed.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yes. . .and all these things God works in us to will and to do (Philippians 2:13)

If we listen and comply. I’ve already proven with John 15:6 and Hebrews 6:4-6 that

I'm not understanding your point.
Would they not be tares?

No, Paul is addressing the saints in Ephesus who are faithful to Christ and who have been sealed with the Holy Spirit. He’s giving these instructions to believers not the tares. He specifically said “but immorality must not be named among YOU”. That’s not a message for tares that a message for believers. If he was talking about tares he would’ve had to make a reference to a different group of people. The same “you” in Ephesians 4:30 is the same “you” in Ephesians 5:3. He hasn’t changed his audience. He says this like 4 sentences after telling them not to grieve the Holy Spirit with whom they have been sealed.

 

[Clare73]

This should (for those who take a literal

I once believed as you, @Clare73 . I was a Calvinist throughout seminary and years preaching and teaching in Baptist churches. As you ate doing, I defended Calvinism.

Actually, I'm defending Paulism.

If Calvin agreed with Paul, then good for him!

After one well recieved sermon on a Sunday night as a guest preacher I went home content with my evening. That night I had preached on the Cross, and being a Calvinist I laid out the Atonement of Christ within that particular understanding. It went well.

But the next morning I awoke with a conviction that I had preached not only my understanding but an error. I just could not shake that conviction.

I bought a couple of dry erase boards and started at the foundation of Calvinism - the Atonement. I wrote down every passage I could think of and erased every passage that did not actually confirm Calvinistic Atonement. In the end no passages remained.

I still sought to hold on to Calvinism, I guess because I was so invested. I spoke with a friend who was a professor at Dallas Seminary. He could not provide a passage stating what I started to see as Calvinistic assumption (something read into Scripture). I took the question to two online forums. The best I could get was that Calvinism was what Scripture teaches when properly understood, or that was the real meaning of the Bible.

The problem, of course, is every answer I received served to confirm what I had already begun to suspect. Calvinism can only be correct if specific presuppositions are right because at its very foundation lies an unquestioned judicial philosophy applied to divine justice. To make matters worse, this Atonement idea is merely a revision of Thomas Aquinas' view (replacing merit with justice).

I didn't want you to be under the impression I left Calvinism on a whim. It was very difficult for me, and the task of setting aside its presuppositions was not an easy chore (once someone tells you an ink blot is a bat you'll be hard pressed to see just an ink blot).

I see Paul, Isaiah and Leviticus as presenting penal substitutionary atonement.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And I pointed out that it was a secret as far as Pharaoh was concerned, to give a concrete example of its operation.
Pharaoh was told to do one thing, when God had just the opposite planned for him

It's not rocket science.

Ok I apologize I misunderstood you. Yes Pharaoh did not know what was happening, I absolutely agree. I’m sorry I thought you were saying that it was a secret to everyone and that only God knew because that’s what the verse in Deuteronomy said.

““The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.”
‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭29‬:‭29‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

So this verse doesn’t apply to the situation of Pharaoh because it was revealed, it was not a secret known only to God.

 

[fhansen]

The elect respond to and obey the instructions.

That's putting the cart ahead of the horse, though. Of course the elect will ultimately persevere, but we can't predict that perseverance for ourselves. There's isn't even necessarily agreement on what we must persevere in.

Nevertheless, only Scripture governs.

No, Scripture is only the written Word. The governance comes via the interpreter, whether they're interpreting Scripture or Tradition. And whether or not the interpretation is a private, possibly erroneous, one, or otherwise, they'll still be governed by it.

 

[John Caldwell]

Actually, I'm defending Paulism.

If Calvin agreed with Paul, then good for him!

I see Paul, Isaiah and Leviticus as presenting penal substitutionary atonement.

No, Calvin did not agree with Paul. And what you believe is not Paulism. Paul preached Christianity, not something new but explaining something older than he.

But I am glad you believe you are being faithful to Scripture. We need to be as faithful as we can, even limited as we are. I don't judge that because I once stood where you stand now.

I don't know if you heard of Charles Haddon Spurgeon but he is one of my favorite preachers of old. He preached in London for almost four decades. We do not have the sermons he preached, but we do have revisions he published each week. My favorite is titled Choice Portions.

One thing Spurgeon insisted on (in another sermon, I don't recall the title) is no one theological camp is completely right. He saw this as a result of the "human condition" and believed that competing beliefs often resulted in an overall benefit for Christianity as a whole. One group inflates this, another that. He compared this to rocks worn down in a stream.

I am glad God led me to Calvinism (to some truths I came to understand by being there) and I am glad God continued to mature my understanding that He led me away once I had "eaten the meat" so that I wouldn't "choke on the bones".

Had I remained a Calvinist I would be no less saved, no less God's child, and no less redeemed. I would have missed out on a depth of Scripture, but not the joy of walking with Christ.

 

[Clare73]

If we listen and comply.

Which is what regenerated hearts do.

No, Paul is addressing the saints in Ephesus who are faithful to Christ and who have been sealed with the Holy Spirit. He’s giving these instructions to believers not the tares. He specifically said “but immorality must not be named among YOU”. That’s not a message for tares that a message for believers.
If he was talking about tares he would’ve had to make a reference to a different group of people. The same “you” in Ephesians 4:30 is the same “you” in Ephesians 5:3. He hasn’t changed his audience. He says this like 4 sentences after telling them not to grieve the Holy Spirit with whom they have been sealed.

Problem?

And how are new converted Gentiles (pagans) going to know how to live the Christian life if Paul does not spell it out for them, it being so different from the religious life they had before?

It's what I would expect Paul to be telling former pagans and Gentiles who are now believers.

 

[Clare73]

That's putting the cart ahead of the horse, though. Of course the elect will ultimately persevere, but we can't predict that perseverance for ourselves. There's isn't even necessarily agreement on what we must persevere in.

Well, that's no mystery. . .the only thing that matters. . .saving obedient faith in Jesus Christ.

No, Scripture is only the written Word. The governance comes via the interpreter, whether they're interpreting Scripture or Tradition. And whether or not the interpretation is a private, possibly erroneous, one, or otherwise, they'll still be governed by it.

God did not leave us with a word we cannot understand, nor without teachers to assist us.

 

[Clare73]

No, Calvin did not agree with Paul.

I haven't seen anything of his yet that did not.

And what you believe is not Paulism.

Au contraire. . .I've studied Paul, not Calvin.

Paul preached Christianity, not something new but explaining something older than he.

Which takes us back to Leviticus.

But I am glad you believe you are being faithful to Scripture. We need to be as faithful as we can, even limited as we are.

Do those limitations apply to all of us?

I don't judge that because I once stood where you stand now.

Is changing one's stance proof of truth?

I don't know if you heard of Charles Haddon Spurgeon but he is one of my favorite preachers of old. He preached in London for almost four decades. We do not have the sermons he preached, but we do have revisions he published each week. My favorite is titled Choice Portions. One thing Spurgeon insisted on (in another sermon, I don't recall the title) is no one theological camp is completely right. He saw this as a result of the "human condition" and believed that competing beliefs often resulted in an overall benefit for Christianity as a whole. One group inflates this, another that. He compared this to rocks worn down in a stream.

I agree. . .

I am glad God led me to Calvinism (to some truths I came to understand by being there) and I am glad God continued to mature my understanding that He led me away once I had "eaten the meat" so that I wouldn't "choke on the bones".
Had I remained a Calvinist I would be no less saved, no less God's child, and no less redeemed. I would have missed out on a depth of Scripture, but not the joy of walking with Christ.

I haven't choked on any bones of Paul yet.

When I do, you will be the first to know.

 

[John Caldwell]

I haven't seen anything of his yet that did not.

There is plenty. First is infant baptism (whether correct or incorrect, Calvin differed here). Second is Calvin's idea of a Church-State union. Third is Calvin defining divine justice as the 15th century judicial philosophy in which he was trained. Fourth is the idea that God punished Jesus instead of punishing to pay our sin debt.

There is a long list of Calvin and Calvinism differing from Paul and from Scripture (whether rejecting that God will never punish the innocent or simply adding what is not there to the text).

Au contraire. . .I've studied Paul, not Calvin.

You should not study Paul. Paul did not invevent any new doctrine and when you become a disciple of Paul you divorce God's words given through Paul from the rest of Scripture.

Do those limitations apply to all of us?

Yes, they do. That is why I insist that foundational doctrines must be written in the text of Scripture. If I read "Christ bore our sins" and do mot understand how except that I add "instead of us" then it would be better to just stop and accept God's in faith Word without adding to it. Over time I'd learn how Christ bore our sins without this meaning "instead of us" (that's actually in Scripture as well). But if I lean on my understanding I'd never have moved beyond Calvinism.

Have all those who do not stand where you stand abandoned truth?

No. I just mention it because I held your position for so long, much of the time knowing nothing of John Calvin.

We can't unsee error. But if I an standing in the same theological place five years from now then that will be sad as I'd have grown stagnant in my Christian growth.

Too often I see Calvinists feast upon a diet of Calvinistic writings. These are not bad (I did and still do). But Scripture needs to be the yest of doctrine.

Calvinism tests its doctrine not against what is written but against what they believe is taught (against Calvinism). They are not alone here (we all do this to an extent).

I haven't choked on any bones of Paul yet.

We are not dealing with what Paul wrote (the words of God delivered through Paul). We ate dealing with what you believe Paul really meant but did not write. That is where we differ- I told you, I'm a biblicist. I don't want to know what somebody believes God meant, I want to know what God actually spoke to us.

When I do, you will be the first to know.

Me? No. I don't need to know. Your walk and study of God's Word is between you and God.

My only hope for you is that you be the best Christian you can be regardless of an adherence to Calvinism, Pentecostalism, Baptist doctrine, Catholicism, etc.

The danger of Calvinism (and other Christian philosophies) is that these understandings can overshadow spiritual growth in our lives. This, of course, is not necessary as there have been spiritually mature Calvinists (Spurgeon, Keller, Muller, etc). But online I've encountered many that exchange spiritual growth for cognitive growth in their chosen philosophies. Spiritual truth is important regardless of one's theological ideas.

 

[Clare73]

There is plenty. First is infant baptism (whether correct or incorrect, Calvin differed here). Second is Calvin's idea of a Church-State union. Third is Calvin defining divine justice as the 15th century judicial philosophy in which he was trained. Fourth is the idea that God punished Jesus instead of punishing to pay our sin debt.
There is a long list of Calvin and Calvinism differing from Paul and from Scripture (whether rejecting that God will never punish the innocent or simply adding what is not there to the text).

What innocent? We are all born condemned by the sin of Adam (Romans 5:18) imputed to us (Romans 5:12-17), by nature (with which fallen nature we are born) objects of wrath (Ephesians 2:3). . .
and reversed only by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us (Romans 4:1-11) by faith.

You should not study Paul. Paul did not invevent any new doctrine

Of course, he didn't "invent" any. . .he "received" his doctrine from Jesus Christ personally (Galatians 1:11-12), as in:
the body of Christ being a new doctrine;
co-heirs with God's own Son, Jesus Christ, being a new doctrine;
the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit being a new doctrine,
the catching up of the saints at the second coming being a new doctrine. . .
that should do for now.

Why should I not study Paul? Do you think his teaching is not authoritative, from Christ?

and when you become a disciple of Paul you divorce God's words given through Paul from the rest of Scripture.

All Scripture is to be understood in the light of all Scripture, with the NT governing.

Yes, they do. That is why I insist that foundational doctrines must be written in the text of Scripture. If I read "Christ bore our sins" and do mot understand how

Then hit the pages of Scripture, studying it in the light of all Scripture until the Holy Spirit gives you light.

except that I add "instead of us" then it would be better to just stop and accept God's in faith Word without adding to it. Over time I'd learn how Christ bore our sins without this meaning "instead of us" (that's actually in Scripture as well). But
if I lean on my understanding I'd never have moved beyond Calvinism.

Your mistake was learning/believing in "Calvinism" instead of learning/believing the NT.

And now you over-correct and toss the baby out with the bathwater.

The last state of that man is worse than the first (Matthew 12:43-45).

 

[John Caldwell]

What innocent?

Not what, but Who. Your question should be "Who is innocent?".

2 Corinthians 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

I have and do study Scripture. And I have studied enough to know your belief (my former belief) is mot contained in the written Word of God.

Your posts prove this, as you have thus far been unable to provide passages stating your belief. You say it is what Scripture means, but what I'd Scrioture actually means what it says?

We simply differ in how we read Scripture. I take Scripture in a literal way (granted, with literary devices included). BUT I do not believe God put a secret meaning into Scripture. I believe Scripture means what it says.

That is my presupposition. Holding that Scripture means what is written in the text, I cannot be a Calvinist or hold to Arminianism (or many other Christian positions).