How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[John Caldwell]

My point is that Calvinism is not new at all, if it is Bible, though it may be heralded as a latecomer by name. If what you call Early Church did not teach it (how many examples do you have concerning what they taught, btw, to demonstrate it wasn't taught?) how does that relate to what the apostles taught?

What is the subject from which I shifted?

Do you agree with limited atonement?

The issue is not the five points, brother. The issue is the foundation of Calvinism (the philosophy upon which it is founded).

That is what you seem to be missing. You go to biblical conclusions to prove Calvinism (or at least challenge my argument) but you go to conclusions we would probably agree upon.

Do I believe that men are completey unable to turn to God apart from God drawing them? Yes.

Do I believe in predestination? Yes.

Do I believe that God saves apart from any merit on the part of man? Yes.

Do I believe that Christ died to save only the elect, those who believe? Yes, He lay down His life for His sheep - those given Him by the Father.

Do I believe that God's will is going to be accomplished and the acts of men cannot nullify the accomplishment of His predetermined plan? Yes.

Do I believe in the eternal security of the elect? Yes.

What I am arguing against is not the five points but the philosophy that so many Calvinists seem to ignore while appealing to Scripture.

The Calvinistic theory of Atonement did not exist until the 16th Century. That fact demands to be addressed, not skipped over to discuss the five points.

It is also important to remember that just because Calvinism is relatively new does not mean it is wrong. I am convinced it is wrong, but a lot of this is based on my belief that foundational doctrines (doctrines upon which additional doctrines depend..i.e., "first" doctrines) must be in the text of Scripture ("what is written"). From there we go to application.

But I was a Calvinist for a long time. When I taught theology it was from a Calvinistic stand point. Calvinism influenced my preaching because it was what I believed.

So I know my Calvinistic brothers and sisters are sincere. I lament so many argue in a hateful way, but that is not unique to Calvinism. I have a deep kinship for my Calvinistic brethren. I love them. But I know they are wrong on certain areas.

In the end it is wrong to consider any Christian philosophy as if it were the gospel itself. We are called to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ - NOT squabble and judge other servants of Christ.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

I'm curious why you wrote this.

Years ago I was on Baptist board. I was drawn there by an online quote of a poster who posted error concerning Union with Christ.
That is how I discovered messageboards. I and others interacted with this person for about 4 years. He left and revealed he was a seminary teacher, claimed he used to be a Calvinist.
He never could prove it to any Calvinist. We saw right through him.
He might have thought he was, but he could not really grasp it.
He was known as Skandelon on BB.
Now he is known as the false teaching Leighton Flowers,lol.
I have seen on his podcast another person who makes such a claim, but it is in vain.
They turn up on boards from time to time.
They speak down to people, eventually insult them.
I know one who several times insulted Pastors in the ministry, saying they need to sit under another pastor to re-learn some things.
He spoke down to people as if he was an ascended master.
He censored people and edited and deleted their posts, blocking them from responding,lol.
I know it sounds unbeleveable, but it is true. A Christian posting lies on a board to attempt to silence reformed believers, because he could not answer them.
He even posted a lie ,making up a completely fabricated post about one of the real Calvinists, who exposed his ungodly posting.
You live and learn.
I can prove everything I have posted. If you need me to, I can.
Calvinism as a teaching is taught be Jesus and all the men God used to write scripture.

 

[John Caldwell]

@Mark Quayle ,

I want to clarify my last post (I fear the last part may be poorly written).

Calvinism is an understanding of redemptive history, a "theology" (more properly, a Christian philosophy about God and His interactions/ motivations to redeem man).

I was a Calvinist much of my life. I understand Calvinism, not merely from studying historical theology but also from experience. I was a Calvinist, persuaded by Scripture before studying its development in seminary. Later in life I was led from Calvinism through that same study of Scripture. I had benefited and learned, ate the meat until I was left with bones.

So I am particularly concerned with Calvinism as that was from where I came. I was a Calvinist. I was never a Pentecostal, a Methodist, etc.

My concern with my Calvinist brothers and sisters is the risk that the gospel of Jesus Christ be replaced by Calvinism (or, by any understanding in addition to the gospel).

I have witnessed what happens when men lean on their understanding (regardless of that understanding). It breeds hatred.

We start seeing Christians seeking to convert others to their own understanding, even attacking other believers.

Our brethren are Reformed (whether Calvinist or Arminian), Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Pentecostal, etc.

Obviously not all of these are completely correct as they hold opposing doctrines. I personally believe none of our understandings are completely correct as we now see as through a glass, dimly. But EVERY believer has the right to be called a child of God. And EVERY believer deserves to be treated as a child of God by other believers because we are bought by the same blood, serve the same Lord, and are members of the same family despite differences in understanding.

When Christians become hostile to one another for differences in understanding they are being hostile to Christ.

We discuss differences, debate differences, even challenge one amother as siblings. We explain and reexamine our views, learn how others understand Scripture. But we NEVER judge Another's servant, for that is not our place.

 

[ozso]

From the comments I'm seeing in this thread Calvinism is poorly understood by those who have studied it, learned it in seminary, call themselves Calvinists etc. Therefore apparently it's quite esoteric theology.

Then there's also the comments that it was taught by Jesus and the apostles, yet it's named after someone who was born an extraordinarily long period of time after Jesus and the apostles.

While it is not considered a cult, it still has similar earmarks. It is only truly understood by a few. It is only believed by a few. It was started and or named after a person who was born an extraordinarily long time after Scripture was written.

 

[John Caldwell]

From the comments I'm seeing in this thread Calvinism poorly understood by those who have studied it, learned it in seminary, call themselves Calvinists etc. Therefore apparently it's quite esoteric theology.

Then there's also the comments that it was taught by Jesus and the apostles, yet it's named after someone who was born an extraordinarily long period of time after Jesus and the apostles.

While it is not considered a cult, it still has similar earmarks. It is only truly understood by a few. It is only believed by a few. It was started and or named after a person who was born an extraordinarily long time after Scripture was written.

I think we also need to acknowledge that online forums some times attract the extremes of positions. Sometimes they are far from representing the whole, much less the true version of their position.

But you are right. There are some (Calvinists like James White call them "cage stage Calvinists") who cannot imagine a Christian understanding their religion yet rejecting it. So they resort to denial (they suppose anybody who left did so for a lack of understanding). And that is a cult mentality.

The interesting thing is it is an ignorance that seems uniquely present in Calvinism. You don't see Free-Will Baptists or Methodists making such claims about one's who are persuaded to leave.

I do not fully understand the reason. I suspect a part of it may be an inability to reconcile the position with reality. We have, in a way, moved beyond 16th Century philosophy. Even the RCC has made significant advances since that time. Yet Calvinism remains rooted in a philosophy that in all other areas of life has been dismissed.

I think this may be a reason for the movements within Calvinism to reform their view of the Atonement in order to being Calvinism closer to Scripture. More and more Calvnism is but a stepping stone as a younger generation realize there is something amiss, that something just does not fit with Scripture and reality.

Look at threads on Calvinism and you will see this played out. More often I see quotes not from relevant Calvinists but from those from the 16th to 18th Century (e.g., John Gill, Owen, Knox). More contemporary ones like Pink (who died in 1952), Sproul (1939-2017), and MacArthur (83 years old) are sometimes referenced.

 

[GodsGrace101]

And I'd love to disagree but must say that there's not a perfectly pat, easy answer to the problem or mystery of evil. God is ultimately the cause of everything that exists in creation, so: no creation, no evil. And yet we must understand that the possibility of giving creation a will that can freely oppose His own will, detracting away from the good that He creates and wills, to the extent that He allows it, is doable-such freedom is within the realm of possibilities. God is not so small or limited as to not be able to create a rational, sentient being possessing moral accountability, IOW. Otherwise He'd be in the rather absurd position of creating immoral beings whose immoral acts He directly wills and causes, blaming them for being immoral, and then actually sending some to eternal torment for being immoral.

We have to start with the understanding that God is love, and anything inconsistent with love is outside of His will. And that He values our freedom to choose love so highly that he allows for the opposite, the radical potential for us to fail to love, while patiently working, over time, to draw us into it in greater and greater depth as we might begin to value, embrace and express it for ourselves. That’s where man’s justice and purpose lie; that’s his choice of good over evil, life over death, God over no God. And that’s the only sane reason why evil would be allowed to exist at all.

And evil cannot exist at all except for the abuse of the freedom possessed by a created being with free will. All created things possess a perfection and purpose proper to their created natures while no created thing possesses the infinite perfection of God; creation is inherently inferior to its Creator. And only a being with free will, combined with that unavoidable imperfection relative to God, could have the ability-and foolishness- to ignore or overstep his Creator’s will and oppose and thwart his own purpose. We’re here to learn the difference between ourselves and Him, with the benefit of time, experience, and revelation/grace, and to choose and act accordingly.

Wow.
A serious conversation on evil.
I agree with your post, but just got here and am not 100% sure of your beliefs.

I'm adverse to all of reformed teachings.
But my question to you is: How about evil in nature?

 

[ozso]

I will say that regarding what I know about Calvinism, there's nothing about it that makes me think it's heresy or blasphemy. To me it's one way of understanding scripture. But I don't think it's the only way of understanding scripture.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The issue is not the five points, brother. The issue is the foundation of Calvinism (the philosophy upon which it is founded).

That is what you seem to be missing. You go to biblical conclusions to prove Calvinism (or at least challenge my argument) but you go to conclusions we would probably agree upon.

Do I believe that men are completey unable to turn to God apart from God drawing them? Yes.

Do I believe in predestination? Yes.

Do I believe that God saves apart from any merit on the part of man? Yes.

Do I believe that Christ died to save only the elect, those who believe? Yes, He lay down His life for His sheep - those given Him by the Father.

Do I believe that God's will is going to be accomplished and the acts of men cannot nullify the accomplishment of His predetermined plan? Yes.

Do I believe in the eternal security of the elect? Yes.

What I am arguing against is not the five points but the philosophy that so many Calvinists seem to ignore while appealing to Scripture.

The Calvinistic theory of Atonement did not exist until the 16th Century. That fact demands to be addressed, not skipped over to discuss the five points.

It is also important to remember that just because Calvinism is relatively new does not mean it is wrong. I am convinced it is wrong, but a lot of this is based on my belief that foundational doctrines (doctrines upon which additional doctrines depend..i.e., "first" doctrines) must be in the text of Scripture ("what is written"). From there we go to application.

But I was a Calvinist for a long time. When I taught theology it was from a Calvinistic stand point. Calvinism influenced my preaching because it was what I believed.

So I know my Calvinistic brothers and sisters are sincere. I lament so many argue in a hateful way, but that is not unique to Calvinism. I have a deep kinship for my Calvinistic brethren. I love them. But I know they are wrong on certain areas.

In the end it is wrong to consider any Christian philosophy as if it were the gospel itself. We are called to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ - NOT squabble and judge other servants of Christ.

I don't define Calvinism, nor Reformed Theology by the five points. I was asking you because I'm trying to identify specifically how you differ from Calvinism, and was hoping to further deal with that issue. You showed agreement with the other four, but not that one. You have said before what made you turn from Calvinism, but I don't remember specifically what it was, if you said it specifically.

But notice how you phrase what you think is the same, here: You say, "...unable to turn to God apart from God drawing them". Calvinism doesn't say "drawing". It says "regenerating". Your phrasing of the rest sounds great, on the surface, but I have no confidence you mean by them what I mean by them. Even the Arminians say they believe in God's sovereignty, but I heard of one that went so far as to say, rather poetically, "It's the most sovereign thing God can do, to give up some of his sovereignty!" I have yet to find in Scripture anything to show that God does anything that is logically self-contradictory.

You said, "The Calvinistic theory of Atonement did not exist until the 16th Century. That fact demands to be addressed, not skipped over to discuss the five points." (Maybe I'm thinking of a different thread, but @Clare73 and many others have been arguing it at length! And again, I too have said the five points are not Calvinism. I'm not arguing the five points (though I am more than happy to do so). I'm trying to get at the core of what our differences are.) Maybe I don't know Calvinism well enough myself to know what you are referring to by, "The Calvinistic theory of Atonement". To me, in a nutshell, it is Penal Substitution. But I see it all through the Bible. I don't know how it is new —how it "did not exist until the 16th Century". In fact, I was brought up in semi-Arminianism, including pre-trib dispensationalism, fundamentalistic sure-of-themselves-ism. And that is what (I thought) they taught. But maybe they used too much Bible and it betrayed them. I don't know. In fact, most of my arguments against what non-Calvinists/Reformed teach on the matter of limited atonement is drawn on a common understanding of Penal Substitution. I tell them they are being inconsistent: If Christ was the substitution, it means he paid the penalty. If he paid the penalty, they don't. If they do, he couldn't have.

Anyhow, yes, I don't like the squabbling, the unproductive noise and worse, the antagonism. I agree, and you will find me reminding all of us, that none of us has it right. We are, by our temporal humanity, unable to understand even what we DO have right, to its full extent. Just look at the attempts to explain the Trinity —the more the words, the less the meaning!

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

From the comments I'm seeing in this thread Calvinism is poorly understood by those who have studied it, learned it in seminary, call themselves Calvinists etc. Therefore apparently it's quite esoteric theology.

Then there's also the comments that it was taught by Jesus and the apostles, yet it's named after someone who was born an extraordinarily long period of time after Jesus and the apostles.

While it is not considered a cult, it still has similar earmarks. It is only truly understood by a few. It is only believed by a few. It was started and or named after a person who was born an extraordinarily long time after Scripture was written.

Calvinism is the biblical teaching.
It is taught in all 66 books.
Calvin was one of the first who saw it, and wrote about it so they pinned that label on it.
Before the printing press not many had copies of scripture like we do now. We have several copies and study books that were not around then.

 

[ozso]

Calvinism is the biblical teaching.
It is taught in all 66 books.
Calvin was one of the first who saw it, and wrote about it so they pinned that label on it.
Before the printing press not many had copies of scripture like we do now. We have several copies and study books that were not around then.

But there were many theologians before Calvin who had access to the manuscripts of scripture over a really long period of time. From what I've heard, Calvin actually got his ideas from Augustine.

 

[John Caldwell]

I don't define Calvinism, nor Reformed Theology by the five points. I was asking you because I'm trying to identify specifically how you differ from Calvinism, and was hoping to further deal with that issue. You showed agreement with the other four, but not that one. You have said before what made you turn from Calvinism, but I don't remember specifically what it was, if you said it specifically.

But notice how you phrase what you think is the same, here: You say, "...unable to turn to God apart from God drawing them". Calvinism doesn't say "drawing". It says "regenerating". Your phrasing of the rest sounds great, on the surface, but I have no confidence you mean by them what I mean by them. Even the Arminians say they believe in God's sovereignty, but I heard of one that went so far as to say, rather poetically, "It's the most sovereign thing God can do, to give up some of his sovereignty!" I have yet to find in Scripture anything to show that God does anything that is logically self-contradictory.

You said, "The Calvinistic theory of Atonement did not exist until the 16th Century. That fact demands to be addressed, not skipped over to discuss the five points." (Maybe I'm thinking of a different thread, but @Clare73 and many others have been arguing it at length! And again, I too have said the five points are not Calvinism. I'm not arguing the five points (though I am more than happy to do so). I'm trying to get at the core of what our differences are.) Maybe I don't know Calvinism well enough myself to know what you are referring to by, "The Calvinistic theory of Atonement". To me, in a nutshell, it is Penal Substitution. But I see it all through the Bible. I don't know how it is new —how it "did not exist until the 16th Century". In fact, I was brought up in semi-Arminianism, including pre-trib dispensationalism, fundamentalistic sure-of-themselves-ism. And that is what (I thought) they taught. But maybe they used too much Bible and it betrayed them. I don't know. In fact, most of my arguments against what non-Calvinists/Reformed teach on the matter of limited atonement is drawn on a common understanding of Penal Substitution. I tell them they are being inconsistent: If Christ was the substitution, it means he paid the penalty. If he paid the penalty, they don't. If they do, he couldn't have.

Anyhow, yes, I don't like the squabbling, the unproductive noise and worse, the antagonism. I agree, and you will find me reminding all of us, that none of us has it right. We are, by our temporal humanity, unable to understand even what we DO have right, to its full extent. Just look at the attempts to explain the Trinity —the more the words, the less the meaning!

I am not a Calvinist because I do not believe Calvin's theory of the Atonement (the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement) is correct.

 

[John Caldwell]

But there were many theologians before Calvin who had access to the manuscripts of scripture over a really long period of time. From what I've heard, Calvin actually got his ideas from Augustine.

He got a lot of it from Augustine.

What Calvin did (in terms of the Atonement) was reform Aquinas' understanding of the Cross by replacing merit with justice.

But Calvin primarily referenced Augustine. Prior to Augustine Christians refuted non-choice predestination (insofar as salvation goes) as paganism. (Augustine was accused of Manichaeanism when challenging Pelagius as Augustine took a position that was prior to that time considered Gnostic and Stoic philosophy).

It is fair to say that without Augustine there would be no Calvinism.

But Calvin was the first to come up with what we call "Calvinism". He applied Augustine in trying to reform Catholic doctrine, but also incorporated the judicial philosophy of his day (Calvin was a lawyer).

BTW, "Calvinism" is a title given to the sect by Luther to describe Calvin's view of Communion.

 

[Clare73]

Misrepresentation. . .

The riddles are in prophecy (Numbers 12:8), not the NT.
The literal interpretation of prophetic riddles is in disagreement with NT apostolic teaching, which is why I suspect Calvinists disagree with that "literal" approach to interpreting prophecy.
I would expect Calvinists always to disagree with such erroneous literal interpretation of prophetic riddles.

No. As Jesus said to Nicodemus, " Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?"

The problem you have is your philosophy cannot pass the test of Scripture.

No surprise there since I don't do philosophy. . .I can barely spell the word.

And that would be your personal opinion based on your personal interpretation of Scripture, which interpretation manages to deny the orthodox Christian teaching of three separate persons in the one God, presented to you in posts #656 and #680, taken from the Scriptures literally. . .the point being that your personal and "literal" interpretation of Scripture does not guarantee nor necessarily lead to orthodox conclusions. . .and that is your problem here.

All goes to your statement regarding your "literal" interpretation of Scripture by which you disagree with some "Calvinist" doctrines.

And I again note your failure to address Jesus dying as a ransom (posts #686 and #698).

Have you considered that your time might be more productively occupied than in yours above?

 

[John Mullally]

We start seeing Christians seeking to convert others to their own understanding, even attacking other believers.

My observation: So much of Calvinist preaching is spent on things we can do nothing about (i.e. predestination introduced by Augistine) and attacking other Christians claiming heresy, especially against those believing in the continuation of Spiritual Gifts and NT promises addressed to believers (case in point: the movie "American Gospel", which was available on Netflix). How many Calvinist discernment keyboard ministries are out there on the internet with their hit and run tactics? They are not interested in dialog.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

No surprise there since I don't do philosophy. . .I can barely spell the word.

And that would be your personal opinion based on your personal interpretation of Scripture, which interpretation manages to deny the orthodox Christian teaching of three separate persons in the one God, presented to you in posts #656 and #680, taken from the Scriptures literally. . .
the point being that your "literal" interpretation of Scripture does not guarantee nor necessarily lead to orthodox conclusions. . .and that is your problem.

And I again note your failure to address Jesus dying as a ransom (posts #686 and #698).

Have you considered that your time might be more productively occupied than in yours above?

When a person intentionally muddied the waters with vague unclear doublespeak, it is intentionally trying to confuse the readers.
A double minded person hides behind such devices.
They will mention obscure accounts from church history, knowing most people have not looked things up, so they construct fractured fairy tales about history, like Peabody and Sherman, thinking they will appear wise,lol

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLd2ne922MKlfnOGnZLYEgIfRHl6oM47T3

 

[fhansen]

Wow.
A serious conversation on evil.
I agree with your post, but just got here and am not 100% sure of your beliefs.

I'm adverse to all of reformed teachings.
But my question to you is: How about evil in nature?

Evils in nature are of a different kind. We consider them to be natural, "acts of God", and know intuitively that they do not involve malicious intent as do acts that are done by our fellow man who, in the moment, could choose not to commit the evil he has in mind. Being the victim of a deliberate harmful act is the worst of evils and immediately strikes at and offends our innate sense of justice.

The bottom-line message, from Genesis through Revelation, is that created things, on their own, are subject to their inherent imperfections, to decay, to death; God alone sustains life. So the lesson to be learned here on earth, by both the physical evils we observe and experience directly as well as the moral evil (sin) that causes harm to each other is that man needs God, desperately. Adam had opted to be apart from Him, on his own. We’re given time and experience, revelation and grace to work this all out. Creation must be aligned with God’s will and, in the moral sphere, that is a choice, of man’s, and we’re here to learn that fact, certainly not to confuse or detract from it. And God is patient in helping us make it.

 

[zoidar]

There are three verses I believe all Christians should agree on whether Calvinist or not: Eph 2:5, Isa 45:7 and Matt 1:21. There are other verses that could make a case for Calvinism, but these are not it.

even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
— Ephesians 2:5

This does not state that a person can't respond to the gospel without God first regenerating him/her. Even if one holds to total depravity this verse is not the one to go to. It simple states one is dead/under condemnation until one is saved.

The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating calamity (evil);
I am the Lord who does all these.
— Isaiah 45:7

Even if one believes God creates all things, even evil, this is not the verse to go to, since it is not talking about "wickedness" but calamity.

She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
— Matthew 1:21

The final one I have. Even if one believes that Jesus only came to save and die for the elect, this is not the verse to go to. It simply states that Jesus will save His people Israel, the Jewish nation from their sins

That's all. I hope we agree. At least I got that off my mind.

 

[John Caldwell]

No surprise there since I don't do philosophy. . .I can barely spell the word.

And that would be your personal opinion based on your personal interpretation of Scripture, which interpretation manages to deny the orthodox Christian teaching of three separate persons in the one God, presented to you in posts #656 and #680, taken from the Scriptures literally. . .the point being that your personal and "literal" interpretation of Scripture does not guarantee nor necessarily lead to orthodox conclusions. . .and that is your problem here.

All goes to your statement regarding your "literal" interpretation of Scripture by which you disagree with some "Calvinist" doctrines.

And I again note your failure to address Jesus dying as a ransom (posts #686 and #698).

Have you considered that your time might be more productively occupied than in yours above?

Lol....you've "done philosophy" on this thread when you discussed man's "sin debt" to God.

I agree that a literal method of interpretation does not necessarily lead to orthodox. My point was that it does not lead to Calvinism.

I do not understand what part is causing you difficulty.

Christ gave Himself as a ransom for all. We were ransomed from the bondage of sin and death. We were bought with a price.

It seems self explanatory to me. The cost of our redemption was the blood of Christ.

That is not Calvinism. Calvivinism shifts focus from Christ, from His death and His blood, to wonder if the passage implies some entity receiving payment. Of course, it doesn't (but Calvinism adds its philosophy to the text because to Calvinists the text does not make sence as it is written)

 

[Clare73]

Lol....you've "done philosophy" on this thread when you discussed man's "sin debt" to God.
I agree that a literal method of interpretation does not necessarily lead to orthodox. My point was that it does not lead to Calvinism.
I do not understand what part is causing you difficulty.

You have not addressed the Biblical testimony regarding three separate persons in the one God presented in posts #656 and #680.

I am not interested in pursuing this any further. . .thanks.

EDIT: Misrepresentation does not work well with me (in your post #710),
as well as in your "affirmative" and deliberately false insinuations/representations/assertions in
your posts #740, #746, #751.

 

[John Caldwell]

I am not interested in pursuing this any further. . .thanks.

You are welcome. And thank you for the discussion.

I engage not to persuaded you away from a position but to explain (and reexamine) my own in the hopes others will also reexamine the issues.

If you change your mind about the "ransom" then please feel free to let me know what part of my explanation you find problematic.

Peace.