How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Clare73]

And you already know why God did that because I just quoted this verse to you yesterday.

Everyone who has read the account knows. . .and which is irrelevant to the point.

 

[Clare73]

Well maybe you haven’t read 1 John 2:1-2 or 1 John 4:14 yet. Maybe that’s the problem, I highly recommend them.

Maybe you don't realize that was written to the born again,
which those who do not cash the checks are not.

 

[John Mullally]

Wow that’s hilarious, except that you forgot to mention for God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son and whosoever believeth in Him shall never perish but have eternal life.

So what God really did was provided a way for everyone to be saved. Well at least according to my theology. What about your’s, does God provide a way for all men to be saved? Oh that’s right your a Calvinist so the answer would be no.

Agree. Calvinists have their own book which contradicts the NT.

Baby Boomers have been to motel rooms that include the Gideon Bible in the nightstand drawer and some also include the book of Mormon But I have not yet seen Calvin's 1500 page "Institutes of the Christian Religion". Ha Ha.

 

[John Caldwell]

I don’t know Greek as well as English either and the Greek word translated to “according to” I admit does have a whole lot of meanings. Even the term “in keeping with” in my opinion suggests that His predestination was the result of His foreknowledge. He predestined us before creation. His foreknowledge is something that was foreseen in the future. So before creation He foresaw something that He based His predestination on. Predestined is the action that took place, the effect of what He had foreseen in the future it’s a verb. Foreknowledge is what the action was based on or a result of, it’s a noun.

Ok here’s a side question that might shed some light on this topic. Why did Jesus die for the sins of the whole world?

“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭2‬:‭1‬-‭2‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭4‬:‭14‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

"All" does mean all mankind without exception (ironically, borrowing from John Calvin's commentary).

Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of mankind, no exceptions.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Au contraire. . .

Jesus is God (John 1:1, John 1:14) and

"The Lord (Jesus) is the Spirit" (2 Corinthians 3:17).
"The Lord (Jesus) who is the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:18).

Holy Spirit = Jesus = God.

In stating that Jesus is the Holy Spirit, 2 Corinthians 3:17-18 states that the Holy Spirit is God.

Ok I concede, I was wrong, that is a sufficient statement to undoubtedly indicate that the Holy Spirit is God without inference. Good job, thanks for sharing that I’ll remember that next time. I’ve always struggled to find verses that specifically state that the Holy Spirit is God and that’s the strongest evidence I’ve seen. Although I know I’ve read that verses several times I’m actually a bit embarrassed I hadn’t noticed that. Thanks.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Agree. Mormons have their own book - so do Calvinists. To best understand Calvinism, you have to peruse Calvin's writings that contradict the NT.

I didn’t know Calvinists had their own book. I stay as far away from commentaries as possible with the exception of the first 3 century writings.

 

[BNR32FAN]

"All" does mean all mankind without exception (ironically, borrowing from John Calvin's commentary).

Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of mankind, no exceptions.

I prefer the scriptures unaltered, I don’t do commentaries unless they’re from the first 3 centuries.

 

[Clare73]

It’s the same exact (redundant) word you used in your explanation.

And you are using a prophetic riddle of Revelation, which meaning is not necessarily literal, as it is not here, where the sword could well be a figure for the words of judgment coming forth from his mouth.

The word there has the same meaning that I have presented: "to come forth from within."

The prophetic riddle does not change the meaning of the word: "out from within"

And since sword is not a person (as in Son or Holy Spirit), it cannot be construed as divine (deity).

You're "reaching" here. . .

 

[BNR32FAN]

Everyone who has read the account knows. . .and which is irrelevant to the point.

Well again I apologize I thought your point was that God wanted Pharaoh to let the Israelites go but He hardened His heart anyways for no other reason other than His own purpose. That’s why I wanted to point out that the reason God chose to make an example of Pharaoh was because God already knew that Pharaoh wasn’t going to let them go anyway before He hardened his heart. In this case my point would’ve been relevant. So my mistake…maybe.

 

[John Caldwell]

I prefer the scriptures unaltered, I don’t do commentaries unless they’re from the first 3 centuries.

I do just as a point of studying historical theology.

I wasn't really borrowing from Calvin (even though he did take that position).

But the word "all" means mankind without exception. That is how John uses the word in the surrounding passages and there is no reason to limit it.

Calvinists disagree, not because it challenges Calvinism (it doesn't as the subject is not the "all" but the Propitiation) but because Calvinism often seeks to redefine words to make itself the only interpretation.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Maybe you don't realize that was written to the born again,
which those who do not cash the checks are not.

Lol “not only our’s but also those of the whole world.”

 

[Clare73]

We’re not talking about looks. Does Hebrews 6:4-6 say that the person looked like he was enlightened by the Holy Spirit? Did Jesus say anyone who looks like they’re abiding in Him in John 15:6?

Even now you still can’t admit your mistake.

You have shown no mistake. . .you have not shown that tares are wheat.
Nor have you shown that tares do not look like wheat.

You must be saying to yourself those verses can’t actually be saying what they appear to be saying because that would contradict these doctrines.

Those verses are saying exactly what Hebrews 3:7-4:11 shows.

Yeah, that’s what I used to say to myself to.

Perhaps judging others by yourself is not the best way to arrive at the truth about them.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yet Christ paid for the sins of the whole world, most people won’t cash that check. For many are called but few are chosen.

So God has failed to save some he fully intended to save? Somehow, something God intended is subject to mere accident.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Again your backpedaling from your own statements. Here’s another example.



In one statement you say that “God has decreed WHAT WE DO”. Then in another statement you carefully avoid the conflict by saying that “God has decreed that sin be.” Your not even consistent in your argument here. When it suits you, you will say that God has decreed what we will do but when it comes to sin your saying that we decree what we do. Before you said that whatever happened, happened by His causation.



I’m simply exposing the flaw in your theology by quoting your own words. Your claiming that I misquoted you but I directly quoted your statement in my post. The bottom line is you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that God causes everything to happen then turn around and contradict yourself when someone starts mentioning all the sinful things that happen and say that He doesn’t cause those things to happen. If that’s your position that God does not cause sin to happen then your forced to admit that God does not cause everything to happen.

I would hope not to find you misquoting me by saying that I said "you misquoted me". Where did I say that? What I think I pretty plainly was saying is that you take something I said to imply something YOU make of it, and make as though I had meant what you made of it.

You are really going out of your way to misunderstand me, I think. GOD HAS DECREED THAT WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS DOES INDEED COME TO PASS. IN FACT, HE IS THE FIRST CAUSE BEHIND ALL THAT. BUT HE DOES NOT SIN IN CAUSING THAT SIN BE. He is not subject to our notions of him being to blame for anything.

You have yet to show me how anything bad happens, if God is first cause, but does not cause that bad things happen.

 

[John Mullally]

Irrelevant. . .if he mentions it anywhere else, which he does.

OK, self-proclaimed Paulist, please explain what Paul meant in 1 Timothy 2:1-6 using only what is in the letter itself (i.e. 1 Timothy).

 

[Clare73]

OK, self-proclaimed Paulist, please explain what Paul meant in 1 Timothy 2:1-6 using only what is in the letter itself (i.e. 1 Timothy). It seems self explanatory to the rest of us who have not been swayed from the NT by studying Calvin's 3 volume "Institutes of the Christian Religion" (1500 pages).

"Using only what is in the letter itself" is not yours to require.
If you require that regarding all Scripture, you will not understand much Scripture.

That question was asked in post #224, and addressed in
post #285, as well as in posts #308 and #312.

 

[John Mullally]

I didn’t know Calvinists had their own book. I stay as far away from commentaries as possible with the exception of the first 3 century writings.

I only learned of Calvin's writings and TULIP from this forum. I considered being a Calvinist as a young believer - as eternal security was attractive but the doctrine made no sense per the topic of free-will.

TULIP and Calvins writings help explain how we (Calvinist and non-Calvinist) can read the same Bible and understand what is said completely differently. I see Calvinist's viewing the Bible through their Calvinist lenses. In other words they have already been indoctinated into Calvinism before they pick up a NT - so everything they read in the NT is made to conform to their indoctrination. And their indoctination must be right because they blast anyone who teaches differently - especially WOF.

I prefer Calvinsts who defend their faith through TULIP as they are most transparent. Speaking of lack of transparency: Funny how this one Calvinst who only states he is a Paulist (although he disagrees with 1 Timothy 2:1-6), does not declare his sex on the forum even though he goes by a female handle, does not sign up to TULIP, and is hard to pin down as to what he believes.

 

[John Mullally]

"Using only what is in the letter itself" is not yours to require.
If you require that regarding all Scripture, you will not understand much Scripture.

That question was asked in post #224, and addressed in
post #285, as well as in posts #308 and #312.

Its probably asking too much - but please try to respond intelligibly. Your many links do not work.

 

[Clare73]

Its probably asking too much - but please try to respond intelligibly,

Is the pot calling the kettle black?

 

[John Mullally]

.