How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Clare73]

There is no free will in heaven....no one will sin,or be free to sin

"Free will" is a philosophical notion of man.

 

[Clare73]

No. Death entered the world through Adam. The Judgment is Christ-centered (John 3).

Christianity knew this for the first millenia.

Christianity knows it now.
We are judged simply on saving faith in Christ (John 3:16-18), which is only by rebirth (John 3:3-8).
Those with it are saved, those without it are condemned.

Unfortunately so many have forgotten with the advent of Penal Substitution Theory in the 16th century.

I don't know anyone who has forgotten that.

 

[John Caldwell]

I don't know anyone who has forgotten that.

I do, although I am not entirely sure they realize what they may accept on the surface their theology has forgotten.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Free will to me has nothing to do with whether one can choose to sin or not. Free will has to do with having a choice independant of prior events. So yes I believe we will have free will now and also in heaven.

Hi Zoidar,
I think you might mean that free will means having the ability to choose between 2 different things with no outside coercion.

I'm not sure what you mean by "independent of prior events".

However, I must say that we cannot make up our own meaning for words or we won't understand each other. When speaking of free will BIBLICALLY, it means a moral free will. The free will to chose between life or death, sin or evil, etc.

I agree with you that we have free will now.

But how will we have free will in heaven?
Will we have the free will to sin?

 

[zoidar]

Hi Zoidar,
I think you might mean that free will means having the ability to choose between 2 different things with no outside coercion.

I'm not sure what you mean by "independent of prior events".

However, I must say that we cannot make up our own meaning for words or we won't understand each other. When speaking of free will BIBLICALLY, it means a moral free will. The free will to chose between life or death, sin or evil, etc.

I agree with you that we have free will now.

But how will we have free will in heaven?
Will we have the free will to sin?

People have different ideas what they mean by free will, so before discussing if we have free will I think it's in order to explain what we mean by free will. The thing is, many Calvinists don't just settle with that it is impossible to live a life completely without sin, but say God controls and have predetermined the action of every atom in the universe and they put that as an opposition to free will. I didn't know such ideas were held by any Christian denomination until I heard it from Calvinists. I think what I hold to is called libertarian free will.

I didn't mean just choosing between two options but a range of options, but the options available are limited by possibilities.

Calvinists believe everything you choose to do is dependent of a prior event. If you hit you neighbour on the head, you can trace that decision back in time to God's decree. You did it because your neighbour insulted you and that stirred up anger in you and the desire to hit him, which you "choose" to do. That response of anger and your choice is depending on your upbringing, by your childhood, you family, friends, events in the past, genetics, were you were born, you personality given you etc. And since God has pretermined all these things there is no free will according to Calvinists. We make choices, it seems to us we have free will, but in reality what I do depend on a chain of prior events, like I explained. Everything goes back to God's decree for Calvinists. So there is no free will to Calvinists, as most people mean when they say free will, so ultimately God is responsible for everything, even sin, but of course Calvinists don't agree with that last part.

Concering heaven. Do you think Jesus had free will and could choose to sin? I believe so. But it's a philosophical question and the Bible isn't answering that. Will anyone choose to sin in heaven? I don't think so. So many things about heaven is a mystery, I'm fine with that.

If there was no libertarian free will I don't think sin could exist. That's one problem I see with the Calvinist notion of "free will". I think it's confusing when Calvinists say they hold to free will. What they mean is "decreed will" not free will.

 

[John Caldwell]

People have different ideas what they mean by free will, so before discussing if we have free will I think it's in order to explain what we mean by free will. The thing is, many Calvinists don't just settle with that it is impossible to live a life completely without sin, but say God controls and have predetermined the action of every atom in the universe and they put that as an opposition to free will. I didn't know such ideas were held by any Christian denomination until I heard it from Calvinists. I think what I hold to is called libertarian free will.

I didn't mean just choosing between two options but a range of options, but the options available are limited by possibilities.

Calvinists believe everything you choose to do is dependent of a prior event. If you hit you neighbour on the head, you can trace that decision back in time to God's decree. You did it because your neighbour insulted you and that steered up anger in you. That response of anger is depending on your upbringing, by your childhood, you family, friends, events in the past, genetics, were you were born, you personality given you etc. And since God has pretermined all these things there is no free will according to Calvinists. We make choices, it seems to us we have free will, but in reality what I do depend on a chain of prior events, like I explained. Everything goes back to God's decree for Calvinists. So there is no free will to Calvinists, as most people mean when they say free will, so ultimately God is responsible for everything, even sin, but of course Calvinists don't agree with that last part.

Concering heaven. Do you think Jesus had free will and could choose to sin? I believe so. But it's a philosophical question and the Bible isn't answering that. Will anyone choose to sin in heaven? I don't think so. So many things about heaven is a mystery, I'm fine with that.

If there was no libertarian free will I don't think sin could exist. That's one problem I see with the Calvinist notion of "free will".

I think a large part of this topic is desire (our will in terms of our desire).

Scripture describes us this way, so I find it beneficial to stay in the category of flesh vs spirit.

But experience has shown me this as well. I can tell that as I journey through this life in Christ there is a change in me. My desires change to fit His desires.

This is not all at once, I must admit, and I believe this change will not be complete in this lifetime (I still struggle with the flesh).

But I believe when I am in my resurrected body that I will be as a metal refined. My flesh will have passed and my desires will be perfectly His.

If this is true, and I hope it is, then I will have free will in Heaven. My will to pursue the Desire of my heart will be absolute.

 

[fhansen]

Which does not state where this notion of "meaningful" is found in Scripture, as being necessary to validate Biblical teaching.
That is your addition to Scripture.

It's in Scripture everytime a command is given, everytime we're told to do this and not that in order to gain life, every time there's an 'if you do this', then this will happen. That's what we know-no need to put the cart ahead of the horse. We won't know with perfect certainty until the end how well we did at it, with the ever-present help of grace. And, BTW, does this somehow validate Biblical teaching, or are you just meaning that man's choices are never meaningful in any case?:

Human choice. . .yes, man makes free and willing choices.

 

[Clare73]

It's in Scripture everytime a command is given, everytime we're told to do this and not that in order to gain life, every time there's an "if you do this', then this will happen. We won't know with perfect certainty until the end how well we did at it, with the ever-present help of grace. And, BTW, does this somehow validate Biblical teaching, or
are you just meaning that man's choices are never meaningful in any case?:

I am saying that "meaningful" is not a Biblical concept, is not a reference point nor measure in Scripture, is not found in Scripture and is a man-made notion, enjoying no Biblical merit.

 

[John Caldwell]

I'm not so sure. "Meaningful" is a major concept in Scripture (perhaps the main concept in Ecclesiastes).

 

[Mark Quayle]

What theory do you hold of atonement? I'm undecided.

Edit: Haven't read the whole thread. Feel free to direct me to a post.

Hi Zoidar. Good to see you. Haven't seen you in a while.

(It's not so you'll subscribe to what I believe, that I'm talking friendly, haha!)

In Romans, Paul takes a lawyerly and rhetorical approach to introducing doctrine as he was using the only tools he had at hand which is long chains of reasoning and OT passages to support his newly introduced doctrine.

But now that Christians have accepted the NT books as being from God, we can use the entire Bible to derive doctrine with preference given to the NT as revelation has been progressive (refer to Ephesians 3 to the mystery of the Gospel now being revealed) and the NT being written to NT believers. Use a Occums Razor approach to doctrine as there is enough in the Bible (especially the NT) in almost all cases to derive doctrine directly through passages without needing to resort to long chains of logic that includes inductive reasoning, questionable assumptions, and philosophy.

Occam's Razor is not a doctrine building tool or method. It is useful sometimes to help avoid wasted time on long walks down a logical trail, but that's pretty much it.

I'm not sure how you can derive "new doctrine" out of Paul's teaching. It's more exposition of God's revelation from the beginning. It makes plain what is in the Old Testament. Not quite what I would call "new".

I agree. That is exactly my argument against Calvinism.

Something's not adding up, here. Long chains of reasoning, you seem to agree with @John Mullally , are Paul's method, yet that is your problem with Calvinism? You have a problem with Paul's method?

I believe the Christis Victor motif is correct as an overall theme.

If I narrow it down to a theory then I'd say the Ransom Theory (the Ransom paid, not paid to Satan). But the Moral Influence view, and Recapitulation, also point out important truths.

Historically there are two main branches of theories - the classic view (Ransom, Moral Influence, Christis Victor) and the Latin view (Satisfaction, Penal Substitution).

I view the Classic as correct and the Latin as a bit too contrived.

I frankly don't see any of those, depending on the depth of focus, perhaps, or the philosophies behind them, or the degree to which you accept any one of them as being THE GOSPEL, as being mutually exclusive with what you call the "Latin view". If one delights in the notion that the "Moral Influence" view supports uncaused free will, then yes, I can see a mutual exclusivity. (But I can't help but wonder about the terminology here —is this a generally accepted difference and organization, in Christian theology /debate?) As far as I know, these are only views —not even Penal Substitution claims to be all there is that happened that day.

 

[John Caldwell]

Hi Zoidar. Good to see you. Haven't seen you in a while.

(It's not so you'll subscribe to what I believe, that I'm talking friendly, haha!)



Occam's Razor is not a doctrine building tool or method. It is useful sometimes to help avoid wasted time on long walks down a logical trail, but that's pretty much it.

I'm not sure how you can derive "new doctrine" out of Paul's teaching. It's more exposition of God's revelation from the beginning. It makes plain what is in the Old Testament. Not quite what I would call "new".



Something's not adding up, here. Long chains of reasoning, you seem to agree with @John Mullally , are Paul's method, yet that is your problem with Calvinism? You have a problem with Paul's method?



I frankly don't see any of those, depending on the depth of focus, perhaps, or the philosophies behind them, or the degree to which you accept any one of them as being THE GOSPEL, as being mutually exclusive with what you call the "Latin view". If one delights in the notion that the "Moral Influence" view supports uncaused free will, then yes, I can see a mutual exclusivity. (But I can't help but wonder about the terminology here —is this a generally accepted difference and organization, in Christian theology /debate?) As far as I know, these are only views —not even Penal Substitution claims to be all there is that happened that day.

No, I have absolutely no problems with Paul's method or reasoning.

That said, the logic does not conclude in the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Nowhere does Paul, or Scripture, indicate that Jesus died instead of us dying. Paul is clear that the believer's hope is founded in the fact that we, experiencing death, will also experience resurrection from the dead.

Nowhere does Paul or Scripture indicate that God poured His wrath on Christ instead of us.

Nowhere does Paul, or Scripture, indicate that our sins were transfered from us. They were instead laid upon Christ as He shared in our infirmity. He takes on our sin and we are clothed in His righteousness.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, and Calvinism, is the result of a long line of philosophy about what Scripture could mean if it does not mean what is in the actual text.

I mention the Classic and Latin views because these are the two competing branches of interpretation.

I agree with you that many theories offer truth. I'd say they focus on different aspects of Christ's work (moral example, Christ as the Last Adam, victory over evil, the ransom paid).

The reason I reject the Latin view (to include the Penal Substitution Theory) is I believe it starts with man, with human philosophy, rather than with God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The Spurgeon Library | Free-Will – A Slave

Ha, ha!! Spurgeon: concerning "And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (John 5:40), says, "Why, beloved, I am almost ready to exclaim, Have all free-willers no knowledge that they dare to run in the teeth of inspiration?"

Love it. Glad you posted the link; not because it was in response to @Clare73 using (and qualifying) the term 'free-will', but for its own argument.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Some people deny spiritual death took place
Some people have posted in times past, Adam had no spirit, he was just flesh.
When questioned they eventually posted a more consistent view.
Once you get the fall wrong it is not long before you deny the atonement as substitution.
This could even lead to unbiblical beliefs about the trinity, confusing the persons of the Godhead, into a modalism of sorts.
I mark such people and avoid them.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Making

A choice does not make the Will free.
The teaching of Calvinism comes from scripture, not gnostic, not carnal
philosophy ,not rc church,.or any other diversion.
The enemies of the teaching try and shift.it away from scripture.
You.jump in to the worldly notion of free will which is not Biblical, and you move away from.revealed truth.

Yet, below you post a link to a man who described free-will, with qualifications

Man's Will - Free Yet Bound by Walter J. Chantry

 

[John Mullally]

Occam's Razor is not a doctrine building tool or method. It is useful sometimes to help avoid wasted time on long walks down a logical trail, but that's pretty much it.

Walking down a long logical trail tends to introduce error or distortion, especially if it relies on questionable assumptions and inductive reasoning, or is motivated by philosophy (like fatalism). For this reason I don't like complex Theological frameworks - I prefer to go straight to the word.

In Romans, Paul takes a lawyerly and rhetorical approach to introducing doctrine as he was using the only tools he had at hand which is long chains of reasoning and OT passages to support his newly introduced doctrine.

I'm not sure how you can derive "new doctrine" out of Paul's teaching. It's more exposition of God's revelation from the beginning. It makes plain what is in the Old Testament. Not quite what I would call "new".

I don't suggest anyone derive "new doctrine" using Paul's lawyerly and rhetorical approach he used in Romans. I believe Paul used this method because it was the best method available to relate the revelation he received from Jesus (Galatians 1:12) to the OT (which is all they had at the time) - it sounds better than to just say believe me because Jesus told me this. I hope you find this meaningful.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Yet, below you post a link to a man who described free-will, with qualifications

Man's Will - Free Yet Bound by Walter J. Chantry

We are free moral agents.

 

[fhansen]

I am saying that "meaningful" is not a Biblical concept, is not a reference point or measure in Scripture, is not found in Scripture and is a man-made notion, enjoying no Biblical merit.

Yes, I guess I see it as a given that God’s work, and man’s free response, are meaningful.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, I have absolutely no problems with Paul's method or reasoning.

That said, the logic does not conclude in the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Nowhere does Paul, or Scripture, indicate that Jesus died instead of us dying. Paul is clear that the believer's hope is founded in the fact that we, experiencing death, will also experience resurrection from the dead.

Nowhere does Paul or Scripture indicate that God poured His wrath on Christ instead of us.

Nowhere does Paul, or Scripture, indicate that our sins were transfered from us. They were instead laid upon Christ as He shared in our infirmity. He takes on our sin and we are clothed in His righteousness.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, and Calvinism, is the result of a long line of philosophy about what Scripture could mean if it does not mean what is in the actual text.

I mention the Classic and Latin views because these are the two competing branches of interpretation.

I agree with you that many theories offer truth. I'd say they focus on different aspects of Christ's work (moral example, Christ as the Last Adam, victory over evil, the ransom paid).

The reason I reject the Latin view (to include the Penal Substitution Theory) is I believe it starts with man, with human philosophy, rather than with God.

Nowhere does Paul, or Scripture, indicate that Jesus died instead of us dying. Paul is clear that the believer's hope is founded in the fact that we, experiencing death, will also experience resurrection from the dead.

Scripture, please, (and don't neglect the context), to the effect "that the believer's hope is founded in THE fact that we, experiencing death, will also experience resurrection from the dead." Are there not other things upon which our hope is founded, such as Christ's righteousness imputed to us unmerited, and our sin laid upon him?

Meanwhile, it seems you spoke in haste; just for starters, and yes there are many more, Isaiah 53:"5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."

In practical terms, MY hope, at least, is founded upon the fact NOTHING I can do will save me (nor even bring me close or 'enable God' to save me), so that I am completely at God's indescribable mercy and lovingkindness. This gives me the hope and included in that hope, the satisfaction, rest and joy in that GOD will see to it that everything he has set out to do will be accomplished.

Nowhere does Paul or Scripture indicate that God poured His wrath on Christ instead of us.

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46)

Nowhere does Paul, or Scripture, indicate that our sins were transfered from us. They were instead laid upon Christ as He shared in our infirmity. He takes on our sin and we are clothed in His righteousness.

How does our sin, "laid upon Christ", not mean, among other things, "that our sins were transferred from us". If they were laid upon Christ, were they still remaining upon us? You aren't making sense to me here.

The reason I reject the Latin view (to include the Penal Substitution Theory) is I believe it starts with man, with human philosophy, rather than with God.

Can you demonstrate just how this is so? Where does it start with human philosophy? No, don't tell me about Calvin. WHERE does human philosophy interrupt or belie scripture, to begin this? Give me specifics, again, just so we don't start around the circle again; I'm not asking "where does Calvinism disagree with Scripture".

See, here is the whole problem with Arminianism, (and whether you claim Arminianism or not, I see it rooted in you from the beginning). You, and the other Arminians, have this worldview, in which God is not, after all, quite in control of everything. You seem to have the basic assumption, that human will must be free and uncaused, to be responsible, and that God operates on the same level as we do, subject to not just chance and accident, but to our wills, in order to save us. This is not just human philosophy, but Humanist philosophy. That "bed is too short, the blanket too narrow, to wrap yourself up in". You will get no rest there. In fact the "bringing of this message will bring sheer terror." Since you believe in luck, good luck.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Walking down a long logical trail tends to introduce error or distortion, especially if it relies on questionable assumptions and inductive reasoning, or is motivated by philosophy (like fatalism). For this reason I don't like complex Theological frameworks - I prefer to go straight to the word.

Unless it is Paul's long logical trail. In the Word.

I don't suggest anyone derive "new doctrine" using Paul's lawyerly and rhetorical approach he used in Romans. I believe Paul used this method because it was the best method available to relate the revelation he received from Jesus (Galatians 1:12) to the OT (which is all they had at the time) - it sounds better than to just say believe me because Jesus told me this.

Where did I suggest anyone "derive new doctrine" from Paul?

So what is your problem with what Paul said? Should I suggest you read Romans again? God does exactly what he set out to do from the beginning, and has every right to do so. We are made by him, and have no rights on our own. Who do we think we are?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, I guess I see it as a given that God’s work, and man’s free response, are meaningful.

What do you mean by 'free' there? You almost seem to be purposefully misquoting her, as though reluctantly agreeing to what @Clare73 said. She didn't say that.