• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,282
6,365
69
Pennsylvania
✟946,685.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Clare73 said:
I can help you with that.

It goes to your assertion of only "literal" interpretation of Scripture, where the Trinity is not "literally" stated in the NT.
If you believe in the "Trinity," you are not employing a "literal" interpretation of Scripture.

Here you are wrong.

My doctrine of the Trinity is that God is One. The Father and Son are God and are One. The Holy Spirit is God's Spirit. The Father sent the Son. The Son sent the Spirit.

I understand if you cannot find those in your Bible, but I can (in the text of Scripture).

A literalist will believe the doctrine of the Trinity because it is in the text of Scripture. They may or may not believe secondary ideas about the Trinity ("personhood", for example) but they will believe the Triune God is three separate intities somehow being One God.

Here is an example of a way Clare is taken wrong. Notice she puts 'Trinity' and 'literal' in quotes; she left it that way to make her point concerning literal interpretation. She did not make more obvious what she thought was obvious enough. But you took her literally, to be saying that if one employs a literal interpretation of Scripture they will not believe in the Trinity. If, by "literal" (in quotes) she meant literal in the extreme, or exclusively literal, then words adopted into doctrine that are not included in the text must be discarded. That is not the common use of literal. Just the technically exact meaning, which nobody I know approaches without becoming superstitious rather than reasoning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,282
6,365
69
Pennsylvania
✟946,685.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
I told you my testimony of how I left Calvinism. What I did not tell you was how hard it was for me to set aside what I had for so long read into Scripture.

It was easy in a way to leave Calvinism (God had convicted me it was incorrect and I could see it wasn't in the Bible). But it was very difficult to simply read Scripture for the text.

Try it. Read "Christ died for our sins" without thinking "Christ died instead of us". It's hard to understand the meaning of the former without automatically thinking king the latter.

What I found, however, is that the text actually makes perfect sense and is fluid with Scripture as a whole without those presuppositions. It also made me appreciate the views of the Early Church a bit more.

It's just hard to look at the ink blot that you've been told is a bat and not see a bat everything.

As an experiment, just try reading as if you were not a Calvinist. See what the words say. Then compare the two. You may decide you prefer Calvinism. You might not.
I had forgotten you were one of those who had told me that. Perhaps, though, judging by your suggestions to how I might try reading the Word, you may have forgotten that I did not come to what I believe by reading what I was indoctrinated in, into the text. I became Calvinistic or Reformed, years before I found out that what I believed resembled what they taught. I don't automatically read that into the Scriptures. In fact, I still have leftover assumptions that keep poking their ugly noses into what I read, and I have to purposefully discard them.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,282
6,365
69
Pennsylvania
✟946,685.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
I'm disappointed. No, not because you didn't keep it unresolved, but because I was hoping your name was a play on words, concerning clarity or something.
Thanks for your prayers! :laughing:
 
Upvote 0
Aug 10, 2019
691
269
56
North Augusta
✟61,068.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I had forgotten you were one of those who had told me that. Perhaps, though, judging by your suggestions to how I might try reading the Word, you may have forgotten that I did not come to what I believe by reading what I was indoctrinated in, into the text. I became Calvinistic or Reformed, years before I found out that what I believed resembled what they taught. I don't automatically read that into the Scriptures. In fact, I still have leftover assumptions that keep poking their ugly noses into what I read, and I have to purposefully discard them.
I didn't forget. I was the same way (but initially studying election).

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is ingrained in our culture (I'd say it is a part of the world - how we view justice. . . An eye for an eye type of thing).

The logical conclusion to Penal Substitution Theory is Calvinism.

I am saying try to set aside reading anything into the text. Start with the wages of sin being death. Pretend this is a physical death and then the Judgment, and this being a Christ-centered Judgment.

You will not end up with Calvinism, of course, but just understand what Scripture would mean if that were true.

Then compare what you end up with against Calvinism.



As a grad student I wondered how the Early Church missed so much of what I believed (Calvinism, Penal Substitution). How could they not see that Christ suffered God's punishment instead of us? How could they not see that the wages of sin was a spiritual death?

Reading Scripture for the text allowed me at least to understand how they came to their belief.

This lead some to error (actually seeking death by taunting Roman soldiers). But I do not think, although sometimes misapplied, that the Early Church got it wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,126
7,520
North Carolina
✟344,096.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is ingrained in our culture (I'd say it is a part of the world - how we view justice. . . An eye for an eye type of thing).
That "thing" being straight from Scripture. . .
The logical conclusion to Penal Substitution Theory is Calvinism.
The Biblical conclusion to Penal Substitutionary Atonement is Calvinism.

Who paid the ransom (the price) which saved us (redeemed, bought us back) from the wrath of God? (Romans 5:9)

And what was that ransom price? . . .his death.
And why was that the ransom price? . . .death is the wages owed to us for our sin (Romans 6:23).

So the sinless one received the wages of death for the sinful ones.

If that's not substitutionary atonement, it oughta' be.
A rose by any other name is still sweet.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0
Aug 10, 2019
691
269
56
North Augusta
✟61,068.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
That "thing" being straight from Scripture. ..
.
Almost. You have ignore Matthew 5:38-48 (where Jesus clarifies the passage).

(redeemed, bought us back) from the wrath of God? (Romans 5:9)
This is exactly what I mean.

You read that as having been justified we escape the wrath to come which is the wages of sin. Why? That is not what Scripture says.

The wages of sin is death. The wrath to come is Judgment (all Judgment has been given to the Son). This is the "second death" when the wicked are cast into the Lake of Fire.

Your theology is a mess (biblically speaking). It is a theory where you've (or others) have gone to Scripture for support. It is eisegesis.
Atonement is Calvinism.
That is how you understand the Atonement, but it is not what the Bible says.
And what was that ransom price? . . .his death.And why was that the ransom price? . . .death is the wages owed to us for our sin (Romans 6:23)..
Uh....no. Death is what we earned (wages). It is the consequence of sin. And God is immutable (we die, but the gift of God is life in Christ Jesus)
So the sinless one received the wages of death for the sinful ones.
I agree.
If that's not substitutionary atonement, it oughta' be.
No, but I understand why you prefer the theory. In the end it magnifies man and man's sin (although I'm sure you can't see that).
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,282
6,365
69
Pennsylvania
✟946,685.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
I didn't forget. I was the same way (but initially studying election).

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is ingrained in our culture (I'd say it is a part of the world - how we view justice. . . An eye for an eye type of thing).

The logical conclusion to Penal Substitution Theory is Calvinism.

I am saying try to set aside reading anything into the text. Start with the wages of sin being death. Pretend this is a physical death and then the Judgment, and this being a Christ-centered Judgment.

You will not end up with Calvinism, of course, but just understand what Scripture would mean if that were true.

Then compare what you end up with against Calvinism.



As a grad student I wondered how the Early Church missed so much of what I believed (Calvinism, Penal Substitution). How could they not see that Christ suffered God's punishment instead of us? How could they not see that the wages of sin was a spiritual death?

Reading Scripture for the text allowed me at least to understand how they came to their belief.

This lead some to error (actually seeking death by taunting Roman soldiers). But I do not think, although sometimes misapplied, that the Early Church got it wrong.
I haven't studied the early church —just the Bible, mostly. What I found there is Gospel Grace without qualifications, Absolute sovereignty, Severe purity, Horror of sin, Mathematical precision of purpose, "Otherness" of God, Focus on God (not man), the absolute majesty of God's love, including the tenderness and kindness that only omnipotence can give. The joy in suffering, the delight in God's satisfaction with his own work, the privilege of being allowed even to watch. Dependence on Christ. So many other things that I hadn't known.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 10, 2019
691
269
56
North Augusta
✟61,068.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I haven't studied the early church —just the Bible, mostly. What I found there is Gospel Grace without qualifications, Absolute sovereignty, Severe purity, Horror of sin, Mathematical precision of purpose, "Otherness" of God, Focus on God (not man), the absolute majesty of God's love, including the tenderness and kindness that only omnipotence can give. The joy in suffering, the delight in God's satisfaction with his own work, the privilege of being allowed even to watch. Dependence on Christ. So many other things that I hadn't known.
I found the same thing in Scripture. I suspect every believer has. That is why we can discuss the things where we differ as brothers.

Studying the early Church has its benefits - not seeing what to believe but realizing other Christians have believed differently without compromising the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I didn't study the early church until seminary (it was required then, but I also found it fascinating). Even if we were to dismiss earlier Christian doctrine, that doctrine at a minimum demonstrates that Calvinism was not the only way to understand Scripture. In fact, it arrived fairly late in Christian history (granted - a fact that does not make it wrong).

So at a minimum we should ask why the church for so long did not read Scripture as a Calvinist reads Scripture. Why did they come to so different a conclusion regarding the Atonement?

Why did it take almost a millennia and a half for Calvinism to develop since today it appears to those who never even studied Christian history to be the natural reading?

Maybe it was because the early church was focused on its own persecutions. Maybe they relied too much on the Apostles teaching passed down to another teacher.

But maybe it is because it is impossible to read Scripture and believe Calvinism without being from a culture that benefitted so much from the Renaissance Humanism movement.

Maybe it is Aqunas' contributions that was held by the RCC and that Calvinism took as a foundation (and reformed to be based on justice rather than merit) that colors our thinking.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
25,846
8,376
Dallas
✟1,087,715.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Look how you and I both have a different take on the word, "just". Yet you think some dictionary is going to make the difference as to whether God is just? He needn't live up to any supposedly objective definition, nor anybody's subjective take on it. He simply is who and what he is, and that is just.

The word “just” existed before the scriptures were written which means that is the word God chose to use because it possesses the meaning He was trying to convey. You are trying to REDEFINE the word because it refutes your theology.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
25,846
8,376
Dallas
✟1,087,715.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Where does it say he "requires" it of himself?

If you don’t understand that God cannot contradict Himself then we should just throw the scriptures right out the window because they’re trash.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
25,846
8,376
Dallas
✟1,087,715.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
From the Biblical use of it.

It is used of persons and of things. . .and of the ways of God.

Biblically, that means justice is defined by God's ways, rather than God's ways being defined by justice.

just
H6664


1. to be just, be righteous
a. (Qal)
1. to have a just cause, be in the right
2. to be justified
3. to be just (of God)
4. to be just, be righteous (in conduct and character)
b. (Niphal) to be put or made right, be justified
c. (Piel) justify, make to appear righteous, make someone righteous
d. (Hiphil)
1. to do or bring justice (in administering law)
2. to declare righteous, justify
3. to justify, vindicate the cause of, save
4. to make righteous, turn to righteousness
e. (Hithpael) to justify oneself
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
25,846
8,376
Dallas
✟1,087,715.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Who planted the wheat, and who planted the tares? Who harvests the wheat and the tares? (No I did not ask who swings the sickle.) Who determines who is elect, and who is not, from the foundation of the world?

So what was it you were going to say that the Scriptures do say? Oh, I mean, besides repentance? There is almost no end of things like that, that show real difference. Was there not something else you wanted to say?

Who grants repentance? Who bestows the Holy Spirit?
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,282
6,365
69
Pennsylvania
✟946,685.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
The word “just” existed before the scriptures were written which means that is the word God chose to use because it possesses the meaning He was trying to convey. You are trying to REDEFINE the word because it refutes your theology.
No, even if I didn't think God was the very meaning of justice, it wouldn't refute my theology. Even the secular dictionary definition doesn't refute my theology. My only point in this is that YOU can't apply YOUR notion of justice to God. He need not answer to you, or to anyone else. Further, what he does is just by nature. So if the Bible says he made some for one use, and the rest for another use, that is what he did. There is no need to qualify it according to what YOU think is just.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,282
6,365
69
Pennsylvania
✟946,685.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
If you don’t understand that God cannot contradict Himself then we should just throw the scriptures right out the window because they’re trash.
Of course he cannot contradict Himself. What is your point? Where do you keep coming up with these veiled accusations?

The whole notion is absurd. He need not figure out a way to avoid contradicting himself. He need not make a decision whether or not to be just. He is not like us. Why do we need to keep talking about what he can't do? Or even worse, as though he has to decide how to behave, or as though anyone has the authority to judge him and what he does? It's absurd.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,282
6,365
69
Pennsylvania
✟946,685.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
I found the same thing in Scripture. I suspect every believer has.

Well, no. I was a believer, and studied the Scriptures for around 40 years, before finding some of these things, and even after 66 years, and am still discovering them. All believers may think they believe in the sovereignty of God, but they still subject his plan to mere chance. They may see John 1 saying he made everything, but apparently they must add, if they reason about it at all, "'everything that has been made', that is, which does not mean everything" so therefore we can say that such principles as 'chance' and 'randomness' and 'true chaos' and 'reality' etc are not made by him, since they are just 'the way things are'. But mostly, they just don't see a problem between their worldview and God's sovereignty. The same applies for a LOT of the things I found out. I could go on for days.

That is why we can discuss the things where we differ as brothers.

Studying the early Church has its benefits - not seeing what to believe but realizing other Christians have believed differently without compromising the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I didn't study the early church until seminary (it was required then, but I also found it fascinating). Even if we were to dismiss earlier Christian doctrine, that doctrine at a minimum demonstrates that Calvinism was not the only way to understand Scripture. In fact, it arrived fairly late in Christian history (granted - a fact that does not make it wrong).

So at a minimum we should ask why the church for so long did not read Scripture as a Calvinist reads Scripture. Why did they come to so different a conclusion regarding the Atonement?

Why did it take almost a millennia and a half for Calvinism to develop since today it appears to those who never even studied Christian history to be the natural reading?

Maybe it was because the early church was focused on its own persecutions. Maybe they relied too much on the Apostles teaching passed down to another teacher.

But maybe it is because it is impossible to read Scripture and believe Calvinism without being from a culture that benefitted so much from the Renaissance Humanism movement.

Maybe it is Aqunas' contributions that was held by the RCC and that Calvinism took as a foundation (and reformed to be based on justice rather than merit) that colors our thinking.

My problem with your whole approach here is that you seem to assume that the writings of the "early church" reflect the truth of the Bible, and not their use of it. It doesn't take long for Christendom to migrate from what they once focused on. One of my early observations (I'm an MK (missionary kid)) upon returning to the field after a year's deputation in "the States" where I had noticed "new teachings" being taught in the churches, was that in about 4 years, the mission field churches had fully adopted those new teachings, and the cycle continued indefinitely.

Two, or even ten writers from the year after the last book of the Bible had been written do not represent that early church. Even DURING the writings, perversions had begun. Meanwhile, the truth continued, quietly or loudly is irrelevant. I have noticed some of the less taught, but respected, but persecuted believers, seem to have a better grasp on the sovereignty of God, and predestination and providence, than the majority of those claiming to believe. Their belief is not theoretical. They may not even have considered some of the questions, because they already assume the truth that God does whatever he wants, and he is to be praised and depended on for it.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,126
7,520
North Carolina
✟344,096.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Almost. You have ignore Matthew 5:38-48 (where Jesus clarifies the passage).
There is no question here regarding the meaning of "an eye for an eye" in Scripture.

The question here lies in your "literal" notion of Scripture as being "two-dimensional," separating it contextually from the rest of Scripture--its necessary "third dimension," thereby diminishing its fullness.
Much Biblical testimony is not "literal," as in the testimony to the personhood of the three separate persons in the one God.
You won't correctly apprehend much of the NT, as you do not the Trinity (presented in posts #656, #680), using that contra-Biblical hermeneutic.

A ransom pays the price for redemption from a situation.

Jesus "died as a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28),
he paid the price to buy them back, to redeem them from a "third dimension" of this reality; i.e.,
their condemnation (Romans 5:18) to the wrath of God (Romans 5:9) for eternity
as the penalty for sin.

And that is penal substitutionary atonement, testified to throughout the Scriptures.
Your theology is a mess (biblically speaking).
The true "theological mess" lies in personal interpretation of prophetic riddles (Numbers 12:8) as the source of one's theology.

Prophetic riddles are subject to more than one interpretation, the only rule being such interpretation must be in agreement with NT apostolic teaching in order not to be incorrect.
Most of the personal interpretation of prophetic riddles, which is the source of much theology being propounded today, is not in agreement with NT apostolic teaching.

The two-dimensional artificial construct of your hermeneutic smacks of (tastes like) a device to separate NT teaching from its roots in the OT, as the remedy for one's personal interpretation of prophetic riddles being contra-NT apostolic teaching.

And that is where the "theological mess" lies, in interpreting prophetic riddles in a manner contrary to NT apostolic teaching.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ICONO'CLAST

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2005
1,902
781
new york
✟93,319.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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)​
CHAPTER 23.
REFUTATION OF THE CALUMNIES BY WHICH THIS DOCTRINE IS ALWAYS UNJUSTLY ASSAILED.

This chapter consists of four parts, which refute the principal objections to this doctrine, and the various pleas and exceptions founded on these objections. These are preceded by a refutation of those who hold election but deny reprobation, sec. 1. Then follows, I. A refutation of the first objection to the doctrine of reprobation and election, sec. 2-5. II. An answer to the second objection, sec. 6-9. III. A refutation of the third objection. IV. A refutation of the fourth objection; to which is added a useful and necessary caution, sec. 12-14.

Sections.

1. Error of those who deny reprobation. 1. Election opposed to reprobation. 2. Those who deny reprobation presumptuously plead with God, whose counsels even angels adore. 3. They murmur against God when disclosing his counsels by the Apostle. Exception and answer. Passage of Augustine.

2. First objection—viz. that God is unjustly offended with those whom he dooms to destruction without their own desert. First answer, from the consideration of the divine will. The nature of this will, and how to be considered.

3. Second answer. God owes nothing to man. His hatred against those who are corrupted by sin is most just. The reprobate convinced in their own consciences of the just judgment of God.

4. Exception—viz. that the reprobate seem to have been preordained to sin. Answer. Passage of the Apostle vindicated from calumny.

5. Answer, confirmed by the authority of Augustine. Illustration. Passage of Augustine.

6. Objection, that God ought not to impute the sins rendered necessary by his predestination. First answer, by ancient writers. This not valid. Second answer also defective. Third answer, proposed by Valla, well founded.

7. Objection, that God did not decree that Adam should perish by his fall, refuted by a variety of reasons. A noble passage of Augustine.

8. Objection, that the wicked perish by the permission, not by the will of God. Answer. A pious exhortation.

9. Objection and answer.

10. Objection, that, according to the doctrine of predestination, God is a respecter of persons. Answer.

11. Objection, that sinners are to be punished equally, or the justice of God is unequal. Answer. Confirmed by passages of Augustine.

12. Objection, that the doctrine of predestination produces overweening confidence and impiety. Different answers.

13. Another objection, depending on the former. Answer. The doctrine of predestination to be preached, not passed over in silence.

14. How it is to be preached and delivered to the people. Summary of the orthodox doctrine of predestination, from Augustine.


John
Since you are fond of Calvin....I see your Calvin and raise the stakes,lol
1. The human mind, when it hears this doctrine, cannot restrain its petulance, but boils and rages as if aroused by the sound of a trumpet. Many professing a desire to defend the Deity from an invidious charge admit the doctrine of election, but deny that any one 2226is reprobated (Bernard. in Die Ascensionis, Serm. 2). This they do ignorantly and childishly since there could be no election without its opposite reprobation. God is said to set apart those whom he adopts for salvation. It were most absurd to say, that he admits others fortuitously, or that they by their industry acquire what election alone confers on a few.
Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children.
Nor is it possible to tolerate the petulance of men, in refusing to be restrained by the word of God, in regard to his incomprehensible counsel, which even angels adore. We have already been told that hardening is not less under the immediate hand of God than mercy. Paul does not, after the example of those whom I have mentioned, labour anxiously to defend God, by calling in the aid of falsehood; he only reminds us that it is unlawful for the creature to quarrel with its Creator.
Then how will those who refuse to admit that any are reprobated by God explain the following words of Christ? “Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up,” (Mt. 15:13). They are plainly told that all whom the heavenly Father has not been pleased to plant as sacred trees in his garden, are doomed and devoted to destruction. If they deny that this is a sign of reprobation, there is nothing, however clear, that, can be proved to them.
But if they will still murmur, let us in the soberness of faith rest contented with the admonition of Paul, that it can be no ground of complaint that God, “willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,” (Rom. 9:22, 23).

Let my readers observe that Paul, to cut off all handle for murmuring and detraction, attributes supreme sovereignty to the wrath and power of God; for it were unjust that those profound judgments, which transcend all our powers of discernment, should be subjected to our calculation. It is frivolous in our opponents to reply, that God does not altogether reject those whom in levity he tolerates, but remains in suspense with regard to them, if per adventure they may repent; as if Paul were representing God as patiently waiting for the conversion of those whom he describes as fitted for destruction. For Augustine, rightly expounding this passage, says that where power is united to endurance, God does not permit, but rules (August. Cont. Julian., Lib. 5, c. 5). They add also, that it is not without cause the vessels of wrath are said to be fitted for destruction, and that God is said to have prepared the vessels of mercy, because in this way the praise of salvation is claimed for God, whereas the blame of perdition is thrown upon those who of their own accord bring it upon themselves. But were I to concede that by the different forms of expression Paul softens the harshness of the former clause, it by no means follows, that he transfers the preparation for destruction to any other cause than the 2227secret counsel of God. This, indeed, is asserted in the preceding context, where God is said to have raised up Pharaoh, and to harden whom he will. Hence it follows, that the hidden counsel of God is the cause of hardening. I at least hold with Augustine that when God makes sheep out of wolves, he forms them again by the powerful influence of grace, that their hardness may thus be subdued, and that he does not convert the obstinate, because he does not exert that more powerful grace, a grace which he has at command, if he were disposed to use it (August. de Prædest. Sanct., Lib. 1, c. 2).
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

ICONO'CLAST

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2005
1,902
781
new york
✟93,319.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There is no question here regarding the meaning of "an eye for an eye" in Scripture.

The question here lies in your "literal" notion of Scripture being two-dimensional, separating it contextually from the rest of Scripture--its necessary "third dimension," thereby diminishing its fullness.
You won't correctly apprehend much of the NT using that contra-Biblical hermeneutic.

A ransom pays the price for redemption from a situation.

Jesus "died as a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28),
he paid the price to buy them back, to redeem them from a "third dimension" of this reality; i.e.,
their condemnation (Romans 5:18) to the wrath of God (Romans 5:9) for eternity
as the penalty for their sin and rejection of him.

And that is penal substitutionary atonement, testified to throughout the Scriptures.

The true "theological mess" lies in personal interpretation of prophetic riddles (Numbers 12:8) as the source of one's theology.

Prophetic riddles are subject to more than one interpretation, the only rule being such interpretation must be in agreement with NT apostolic teaching in order not to be incorrect.
Most of the personal interpretation of prophetic riddles, which is the source of much theology being propounded today, is not in agreement with NT apostolic teaching.

The two-dimensional artificial construct of your hermeneutic smacks of (tastes like) a device to separate NT teaching from its roots in the OT, as the remedy for one's personal interpretation of prophetic riddles being in disagreement with NT apostolic teaching.

And that is where the "theological mess" lies, in relation to NT apostolic teaching.

Several now in the days we live, cannot explain the historic confessional teaching.
There are several who claim I used to be a calvinist.
Actual Calvinists know they might think they were, but clearly never knew the actual teaching.
I am not saying they cannot google it, and cut and paste something, but what I am saying is they clearly never grasped the heart of the teaching at all, and still do not.
They avoid answering the key issues.
They claim I used to be a Calvinist, but have no evidence .
mentioning Beza, or Edwards, does not make anyone a Calvinist.
 
Upvote 0