How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Clare73]

How is that a question?

By the question mark at the end.

Another word for speculation is conjecture. As in from interpreting scripture,
John Calvin conjectured TULIP and predestination.

And that assertion is conjecture without demonstration of his error, exegeting the Scriptures he presents, in their context and the context of the NT, being true to their words.

Assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without Biblical merit.

 

[John Caldwell]

How do you have single predestination (Romans 8:29-30; Ephesians 1:5, Ephesians 1:11)
without double predestination?
Is to include only some not necessarily to exclude all others?

Yep. To have one group predestined out of a larger group by necessity means the other group is predestined not to be chosen. A decision not to choose is no less a choice.

Last month I looked at vehicles for my wife and me. I chose to buy her a Challenger and chose not to buy the Charger. I chose to buy for me a Jeep and not to buy a Bronco. Two were chosen but four decisions were made.

This is like opportunity cost in economic decisions.

Or...if you're a Rush fan...even if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice

Calvinists, however, define double predestination as God taking a more active role. It is not just that God forms some as vessels of mercy but that He also forms others as vessles of wrath. Or "Jacob I loved but Easu I hated" (both love and hate being actions). It's more than "double election" (choosing this, not choosing that). It's active predestination to destruction.

 

[Clare73]

Yep. To have one group predestined out of a larger group by necessity means the other group is predestined not to be chosen. A decision not to choose is no less a choice.

Last month I looked at vehicles for my wife and me. I chose to buy her a Challenger and chose not to buy the Charger. I chose to buy for me a Jeep and not to buy a Bronco. Two were chosen but four decisions were made.

This is like opportunity cost in economic decisions.

Or...if you're a Rush fan...even if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice

Calvinists, however, define double predestination as God taking a more active role. It is not just that God forms some as vessels of mercy but that He also forms others as vessles of wrath. Or "Jacob I loved but Easu I hated" (both love and hate being actions). It's more than "double election" (choosing this, not choosing that). It's active predestination to destruction.

Based on "objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction?" (Romans 9:22)

In the Greek, Romans 9:22 is in the middle voice, meaning that they prepared themselves for destruction, as Pharaoh prepared himself for destruction by hardening his heart, and as those who disobey the message in 1 Peter 1:8 are destined to stumble.

 

[John Caldwell]

Based on "objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction?" (Romans 9:22)

In the Greek, Romans 9:22 is in the middle voice, meaning that they prepared themselves for destruction, as Pharaoh prepared himself for destruction by hardening his heart, and as those who disobey the message in 1 Peter 1:8 are destined to stumble.

I'm not saying Calvinism is right. I'm saying that "double predestination" is not simply choosing by passing over (in their view). It's the doctrine of reprobation (that God has decreed some men live and other men perish).

And in the Greek the passage does not say they prepared for themselves. It has God as fashioning both types of vessels.

 

[Clare73]

I'm not saying Calvinism is right. I'm saying that "double predestination" is not simply choosing by passing over (in their view). It's the doctrine of reprobation (that God has decreed some men live and other men perish).

And in the Greek the passage does not say they prepared for themselves. It has God as fashioning both types of vessels.

Middle voice?

Thanks for clarifying the meaning of Calvinism.

 

[John Caldwell]

Thanks for clarifying the meaning of Calvinism.

You are welcome. I'm always eager to help and share the wisdom of decades misspent.

 

[ozso]

By the question mark at the end.

And that assertion is conjecture without demonstration of his error, exegeting the Scriptures he presents, in their context and the context of the NT, being true to their words.

Assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without Biblical merit.

The SDA whom you disagree with profusely can say the same thing. The fact is, as the article says, one must become indoctrinated by Calvinists to see Calvinsm in the Bible.

 

[ozso]

I'm not saying Calvinism is right. I'm saying that "double predestination" is not simply choosing by passing over (in their view). It's the doctrine of reprobation (that God has decreed some men live and other men perish).

And in the Greek the passage does not say they prepared for themselves. It has God as fashioning both types of vessels.

The question is how has the overall Body of Chrst interpreted it over the last 2000 years?

 

[John Caldwell]

The question is how has the overall Body of Chrst interpreted it over the last 2000 years?

For most of that time they didn't. Just like limited atonement these philosophical questions were not asked early on as earlier Christians were busy being the Church.

 

[Clare73]

The SDA whom you disagree with profusely can say the same thing. The fact is, as the article says, one must become indoctrinated by Calvinists to see Calvinsm in the Bible.

And you know this, how?

I knew nothing of Calvin when I discovered he agreed with my understanding of the NT.

 

[ozso]

And you know this, how?

I knew nothing of Calvin when I discovered he agreed with my understanding of the NT.

I base it on what the OP article said. Which certainly wasn't all you need to do is read the NT epistles and it will become perfectly clear to you.

 

[ozso]

For most of that time they didn't. Just like limited atonement these philosophical questions were not asked early on as earlier Christians were busy being the Church.

For 1500 years?

 

[John Caldwell]

For 1500 years?

Maybe. At least for 700 years (in terms of predestination and double predestination).

Of course, antiquity does not equate to correct. So I'm not sure how that question it helps.

 

[ozso]

Maybe. At least for 700 years (in terms of predestination and double predestination).

Of course, antiquity does not equate to correct. So I'm not sure how that question it helps.

Usually the later a doctrine or tradition takes hold, the more problematic it is. Like later Catholic doctrines and traditions Protestants object to for instance. Then on the Protestant side there's speaking in tongues, which as a Baptist I figure you don't agree with as far as the Pentecostal doctrine goes. Or Seventh Day Adventism etc. In all of those the question of why if it's such a vital doctrine, did it take so many hundreds of years and thousands of Christians later for it to finally suddenly come to light? Maybe you don't think that has any significance when weighing out a doctrine, but I do.

 

[John Caldwell]

Usually the later a doctrine or tradition takes hold, the more problematic it is. Like later Catholic doctrines and traditions Protestants object to for instance. Then on the Protestant side there's speaking in tongues, which as a Baptist I figure you don't agree with as far as the Pentecostal doctrine goes. Or Seventh Day Adventism etc. In all of those the question of why if it's such a vital doctrine, did it take so many hundreds of years and thousands of Christians later for it to finally suddenly come to light? Maybe you don't think that has any significance when weighing out a doctrine, but I do.

I agree and disagree (how's that for a solid answer ).

I agree that the later a doctrine is developed the more apt it is to contain error. I guess this means those doctrines are problematic. But doctrines developed at a latter date are not necessarily incorrect.

Theology seeks to answer questions, but sometimes questions develop over time. And sometimes retrospect identifies errors that were not apparent at an earlier date.

I am a Baptist and I do not speak in tongues. But I do not disagree with Pentecostals using the gift. I try not to judge the servants of Another. If a Pentecostal says he or she legitimately speaks in tongues then I have no reason to question that they do.

 

[Clare73]

I base it on what the OP article said. Which certainly wasn't all you need to do is read the NT epistles and it will become perfectly clear to you.

I cannot deny my own experience, for the sake of the OP article, which is not in agreement with it. . .and which inadequacy of the article, post #2 adequately addressed.

 

[ozso]

I agree and disagree (how's that for a solid answer ).

I agree that the later a doctrine is developed the more apt it is to contain error. I guess this means those doctrines are problematic. But doctrines developed at a latter date are not necessarily incorrect.

Theology seeks to answer questions, but sometimes questions develop over time. And sometimes retrospect identifies errors that were not apparent at an earlier date.

I am a Baptist and I do not speak in tongues. But I do not disagree with Pentecostals using the gift. I try not to judge the servants of Another. If a Pentecostal says he or she legitimately speaks in tongues then I have no reason to question that they do.

I haven't decided that Calvinism is wrong. But I do question its validity. Or put another way, I don't know if it's correct or incorrect. That goes for speaking in tongues too.

What exactly do you mean by "the servants of Another"?

 

[John Caldwell]

I haven't decided that Calvinism is wrong. But I do question its validity. Or put another way, I don't know if it's correct or incorrect. That goes for speaking in tongues too.

What exactly do you mean by "the servants of Another"?

It's a partial quote of Romans 14:

Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

The context is an admonishment towards Christians condemning other Christians for not observing the Sabbath, or for observing the Sabbath; for eating meat or for abstaining.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

And if there are only two outcomes for the pears, in your basket or in the garbage fire,
is your not putting them in your basket not equivalent to sending them to the fire?

That is adding to the illustration.
Positive choice of 5.
The others are by passed
Preterition.

 

[Clare73]

That is adding to the illustration.
Positive choice of 5.
The others are by passed
Preterition.

If that is not part of the illustration, then the illustration is inadequate to the actual case.