How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Mark Quayle]

Christ paid for the sins of everyone so He will be the judge of everyone judging them according to their deeds imputing His righteousness on whoever He so chooses.

So they do? Or they don't, pay for their own sins? Did he, or did he not pay for their sins?

 

[BNR32FAN]

So they do? Or they don't, pay for their own sins? Did he, or did he not pay for their sins?

Jesus paid for them but if He chooses not to impute His righteousness upon someone they that person will pay for them.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yes, I had supposed this conversation would become pointless at some point when I jumped into it, if the point is to convince one or the other. I say what I do, not to convince you, but to hopefully start you, (and whoever might be reading), thinking about the frailty of your notion of freewill.

For me too, it is difficult not to jump into a conversation that needs the 'freewill' notion corrected, that the will of man trumps God's will.

That would require an explanation of post 468. If you can successfully explain how John 15:6, Hebrews 6:4-6, and 2 Timothy 2:12 are not examples of Jesus losing people then that would be a very strong start but at the same time that explanation can’t contradict scripture. If you can do that then I could at least entertain the thought that your theology is a possibility.

 

[BNR32FAN]

God obviously wants obedience from willed creatures, but he himself created them, and put into play the emerging of the very thing that causes disobedience, just as he willed to happen.

What do you believe that thing was that God put into play from which sin emerged? Perhaps the answer to that question is the root of why we differ so much in our theology.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No. You were trying to say that what I believe puts God at fault.

Honestly that statement had nothing to do with God being at fault or your theology implying that God is at fault for sin. It was solely for the purpose of making the point that each individual is responsible for his own sin, both cause and fault.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No. You were trying to say that what I believe puts God at fault. It does not. He is not "at fault" for causing absolutely all things to come to pass, including what leads up to, and causes, us to choose sin; but he absolutely does cause all things to come to pass, including what leads up to, and causes, us to choose sin. To claim otherwise is to claim that mere chance trumps God's will.

Free will is not mere chance it requires a conscious decision. Something that occurs by chance is completely random and uncoordinated.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Sidestepping again? Is God, or is he not, the one and only Omnipotent First Cause?

No I’m not sidestepping at all, I’m making a valid point. I’ve been answering all your questions and addressing all your posts.

When sin is the result of free will both the cause and the fault lies in the individual not his ancestors. My great great grandfather didn’t cause me to steal a pack of bubblegum from the grocery store when I was a child nor did Noah, or Adam, or even God for that matter especially since God had already told me not to steal. I knew it was wrong and I was told not to do it and I chose to do it anyway. The cause of the sin derived from me, from my choice by my own free will.

You accused my of insinuating that your theology puts God at fault for causing sin by this post. This post is demonstrating how the individual who commits the sin is both the cause and at fault not God and not their parents or grandparents or their ancestors. Now your accusing me of sidestepping when I’m directly addressing your statements? This isn’t sidestepping this is called engaging in a discussion. It’s is directly connected to the source and the cause of sin, so I wouldn’t call that sidestepping.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Jesus paid for them but if He chooses not to impute His righteousness upon someone they that person will pay for them.

So, double payment? Where is the justice?

 

[Mark Quayle]

That would require an explanation of post 468. If you can successfully explain how John 15:6, Hebrews 6:4-6, and 2 Timothy 2:12 are not examples of Jesus losing people then that would be a very strong start but at the same time that explanation can’t contradict scripture. If you can do that then I could at least entertain the thought that your theology is a possibility.

John 15:6 needs no explanation. I suppose you think the implication is that they were 'in Christ' but didn't abide. They went by the name, but did not abide. What else needs to be said?

Hebrews 6:4-6 is of the same flavor, and to claim that those who cannot be returned to repentance, that to have "partaken of the Holy Spirit" implies regeneration, is false. The Spirit (John 3) goes where it will, and you can't say it can or can't do this. But more to the point: "It is impossible" may well be referring to the whole scenario, to prove that one who belongs to Christ cannot ultimately fall away, and the whole passage being a warning to those who are regenerated to continue instead to pursue Christ, rather than to be lazy or carnally minded; notice he concludes with, "9 Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case—the things that have to do with salvation. 10 God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. 11 We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, so that what you hope for may be fully realized. 12 We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised."

2 Timothy 2:12 seems rather straightforward to me. Who are those who will deny him? You seem to think that Paul, by speaking of some who will deny Christ, is referring to the regenerated? (The demons also believe —and tremble).

It is possible for any of us to fool ourselves, thinking we are in him but not realizing our faith is self-generated.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What do you believe that thing was that God put into play from which sin emerged? Perhaps the answer to that question is the root of why we differ so much in our theology.

Lucifer, and the possibility of pride. Adam, and the possibility of rebellion. Yes, I said "possibility", so that you can at least accept that sin began with Lucifer's pride and subsequent rebellion, and so that you can at least accept that Adam was able to sin. Now my use of "possibility" ONLY means that it was possible —i.e. I don't think it happened by chance, but I used that terminology for your sake. You should also recognize the fact that omniscient God, even if merely knowing ahead (as you like to define foreknowledge), put these things into play by Creating them and all other things. They did not happen by accident. Notice he made Lucifer more beautiful than all the other angels. Notice he put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Why would he do that if he didn't plan for ("want") Adam to sin? Is God subject to some principle beyond himself?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Honestly that statement had nothing to do with God being at fault or your theology implying that God is at fault for sin. It was solely for the purpose of making the point that each individual is responsible for his own sin, both cause and fault.

Your statements are not made alone. You have reams of posts to show what you think when you say what you say. But ok, I'll leave that alone.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

There is no need to scour 2 million sermons when Calvin states it plainly. See also post 369 in this tread.

“Now, since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, since to him belongs the disposal of life and death, he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)​

The quote is not teaching what you claim it is.
So go ahead and start listening to the sermons.I will select several for you so you do not have to listen to the 2.2 million,

 

[Mark Quayle]

Free will is not mere chance it requires a conscious decision. Something that occurs by chance is completely random and uncoordinated.

You jump several steps farther than necessary. I'm not saying that your decision was random. I'm saying that your notion that anyone's decision is undetermined, invokes the notion that it had no cause, which invokes mere chance.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So, double payment? Where is the justice?

If Jesus bought a ticket to the movies for everyone it’s His prerogative to choose to give it to whoever He wants. He’s not obligated to give it to anyone He doesn’t want to.

 

[BNR32FAN]

John 15:6 needs no explanation. I suppose you think the implication is that they were 'in Christ' but didn't abide. They went by the name, but did not abide. What else needs to be said?

Abide means to stay, remain, or continue.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No I’m not sidestepping at all, I’m making a valid point. I’ve been answering all your questions and addressing all your posts.

So answer mine. Is God, or is he not, the cause of all subsequent things?

You accused my of insinuating that your theology puts God at fault for causing sin by this post. This post is demonstrating how the individual who commits the sin is both the cause and at fault not God and not their parents or grandparents or their ancestors. Now your accusing me of sidestepping when I’m directly addressing your statements? This isn’t sidestepping this is called engaging in a discussion. It’s is directly connected to the source and the cause of sin, so I wouldn’t call that sidestepping.

Are you saying you have not claimed that my theology puts God at fault for sin?

You are not directly addressing the question of whether God is at the head of all causation or is chance, after all. I have heard all the protests —"No, I don't decide by chance, I decide by freewill". Really.

CAN YOU SHOW HOW FREEWILL DOES NOT DEPEND ON CAUSATION?

CAN YOU SHOW HOW FREEWILL DOES NOT DEPEND ON CAUSATION BY CHANCE?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Abide means to stay, remain, or continue.

Right. And those who do not are not "in him" in the same sense as those who do abide.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Hebrews 6:4-6 is of the same flavor, and to claim that those who cannot be returned to repentance, that to have "partaken of the Holy Spirit" implies regeneration, is false.

Well I’m not convinced that they weren’t regenerate since they were once enlightened and had tasted of the heavenly gift. Furthermore verse 6 says it’s impossible to renew them AGAIN to repentance, indicating that they were repentant previously. Then there’s the question who bestowed the Holy Spirit upon them?

The Spirit (John 3) goes where it will, and you can't say it can or can't do this.

I haven’t said the Holy Spirit can’t do anything, you read that for yourself straight from the word of God brother.

But more to the point: "It is impossible" may well be referring to the whole scenario, to prove that one who belongs to Christ cannot ultimately fall away, and the whole passage being a warning to those who are regenerated to continue instead to pursue Christ, rather than to be lazy or carnally minded

Ok so your saying that the term “for it is impossible” is not actually part of the statement “to renew them again to repentance”. Ok let’s try that and see how the passage looks.

“For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible.

To renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.”
‭
No that doesn’t work because then the last part of verse 6 is an incomplete sentence. It’s a predicate with a missing subject.

notice he concludes with, "9 Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case—the things that have to do with salvation. 10 God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. 11 We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, so that what you hope for may be fully realized. 12 We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised."

Yeah the author apparently didn’t think that his audience was this kind of person. I don’t see how that changes anything. The word of God is still saying that Christians who have repented, who were enlightened by the Holy Spirit, and who had tasted of the heavenly gift are in fact capable of falling away. The author wasn’t rebuking his audience he was warning them of potential dangers.

 

[BNR32FAN]

2 Timothy 2:12 seems rather straightforward to me. Who are those who will deny him? You seem to think that Paul, by speaking of some who will deny Christ, is referring to the regenerated? (The demons also believe —and tremble).

The epistles to Timothy are personal letters written from Paul to Timothy. Nowhere in either of Timothy’s epistles does Paul address a congregation or any audience other than Timothy himself. These are not epistles like his other epistles because Paul is not addressing a congregation in the epistles to Timothy, he’s writing directly to Timothy himself. So the statement “if we deny Him, He will deny us” is referring to Paul himself and Timothy.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Right. And those who do not are not "in him" in the same sense as those who do abide.

Well that’s not supported by the surrounding context. First you have Jesus telling His 11 faithful apostles to remain in Him. Then He tells them why they must remain in Him. Then He tells them the consequences of not remaining in Him. Then He tells them what they can expect IF they remain in Him.

““I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit. You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.”
‭‭John‬ ‭15‬:‭1‬-‭7‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

So in this entire conversation Jesus is referring to His 11 faithful apostles telling them to remain in Him then all the sudden switches to speaking about someone who is not connected to Him, then switches back to the faithful 11 again? He certainly didn’t exclude them from verse 6 when He said “anyone who does not abide in Me”. So why would He even mention what happens to those who were never connected to Him during this conversation if it had nothing to do with them? If it had nothing to do with them abiding in Him why would He include that in the middle of telling them to abide in Him, telling them why they must abide in Him and telling them what they can expect if they do abide in Him if it was irrelevant to them?