How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

Clare73 · Nov 3, 2022

John Caldwell said:
That does not make sense.
In your post (the one I addressed and quoted...i.e. your pre-edited post) you erroneously claimed that atonement means ἀντίλυτρον (ransom....what we were discussing)

Was the ransom not the atonement?
Problem?

but then here you switch to ἱλαστήριον.
ἱλαστήριον does mean what we call Atonement (reconciliation), to include escaping the wrath to come.
But you change your posts so much it is difficult to follow your train of thought.
But yes, Jesus Christ ransomed us from the power of death (Hosea 13), He ransomed us from the grave (Job 33), He ransomed us from the powers of darkness and freed us from the bondage of sin and death (Colossians 1).

You change the powers of darkness to God's wrath.

Actually, it is Paul, not me, who teaches that Jesus saved us from God's wrath (Romans 5:9).

And you are still failing to address my two/three questions regarding Romans 3:25 in

Post #849:
dikaiosune - quality or character of being right or just, and which root word is
dike - justice (execution of a sentence--2 Thessalonians 1:9; punishment, vengeance--Acts 28:4;
Jude 7).

How does God demonstrate his justice (dikaiosune - sentence, punishment, vengeance)
in Jesus' sacrifice of atonement (Romans 3:25)?

How did God "pass over," what did he previously omit doing (Romans 3:25), that he then did on the cross, regarding the sin of the OT saints, and which was Jesus' payment of the ransom to buy us back, redeem us from our sentence to eternal death (Romans 5:18)?

My problem with and objection to your view of the ransom is that it is in disagreement with the NT apostolic teaching of Romans 3:25 regarding God demonstrating (showing forth) his justice on the cross.

John Caldwell · Nov 3, 2022

Clare73 said:
Was the ransom not the atonement?
Problem?

Which does not address
Post #849:
dikaiosune - quality or character of being right or just, and which root word is
dike - justice (execution of a sentence--2 Thessalonians 1:9; punishment, vengeance--Acts 28:4;
Jude 7).

How does God demonstrate his justice (dikaiosune - sentence, punishment, vengeance)
in Jesus' sacrifice of atonement (Romans 3:25)?

How did God "pass over," what did he previously omit doing (Romans 3:25), that he then did on the cross, regarding the sin of the OT saints, and which was Jesus' payment of the ransom to buy us back, redeem us from our sentence to eternal death (Romans 5:18)?

My problem with and objection to your view of the ransom is that it is in disagreement with the NT apostolic teaching of Romans 3:25 regarding God demonstrating his justice on the cross.

Ransom does not mean "Atonement". And no, the Ransom was an important aspect of the Atonement but words have meanings.

The Ransom was that purchase (we were purchased with the blood of Jesus). But the Atonement refers to our reconciliation to God and includes all aspects of God's work of redemption (from the Incarnation to the Resurrection).

This Atonement (reconciliation) includes such things as Christ as our High Priest, for example. It includes Christ as the Firstborn of many brethren. It includes the necessity for Chriat to die by the "powers of darkness" and be vindicated by the Father.

So no, Ransom does not mean atonement. But ransom is vital to atonement.

2 Thessalonians 1:9–10 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed.

If you are asking if we escape the wrath to come by being in Christ, then yes, we do.

But this is the Judgment.

Scripture states that Christ ransomed us "from the powers of darkness". The Judgment is not a power of darkness but God's righteousness judgment against those who do not believe in Christ (John 3).

Clare73 · Nov 3, 2022

John Caldwell said:
Ransom does not mean "Atonement". And no, the Ransom was an important aspect of the Atonement but words have meanings.
The Ransom was that purchase (we were purchased with the blood of Jesus). But the Atonement refers to our reconciliation to God and includes all aspects of God's work of redemption (from the Incarnation to the Resurrection).
This Atonement (reconciliation) includes such things as Christ as our High Priest, for example. It includes Christ as the Firstborn of many brethren. It includes the necessity for Chriat to die by the "powers of darkness" and be vindicated by the Father.
So no, Ransom does not mean atonement. But ransom is vital to atonement.
2 Thessalonians 1:9–10 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed.
If you are asking if we escape the wrath to come by being in Christ, then yes, we do.
But this is the Judgment.

Scripture states that Christ ransomed us "from the powers of darkness". The Judgment is not a power of darkness but God's righteousness judgment against those who do not believe in Christ (John 3).

And Scripture states that Christ saved us from God's wrath (Romans 5:9).

And you are still failing to address my two/three questions regarding Romans 3:25 in post #849, copied in post #881, above.

John Caldwell · Nov 3, 2022

Clare73 said:
And Scripture states that Jesus saved us from God's wrath (Romans 5:9).

And you are still failing to address my two/three questions regarding Romans 3:25 in post #849, repeated in post #881, above.

Yes, we are saved from the wrath to come.

Clare73 · Nov 3, 2022

John Caldwell said:
Yes, we are saved from the wrath to come.

And whose wrath is that?

And he ransomed us from the powers of darkness to come.

And you are still failing to address my two/three questions regarding Romans 3:25 and God demonstrating his justice in his ransoming atonement, of post #849, repeated in post #881, above.

John Caldwell · Nov 3, 2022

Clare73 said:
And he ransomed us from the powers of darkness to come.

And you are still failing to address my two/three questions regarding Romans 3:25 and God demonstrating his justice in his ransoming atonmement in post #849, repeated in post #881, above.

The verse does not say "to come". It says He ransomed us from the powers of darkness.

The Judgment is what is to come. It is not right, IMHO, to equate this Judgment (the wrath to come) with "the powers of darkness".

The idea that Satan rules Hell is mythology, not Scripture. Heaven and Hell belong to God, and Hos judgment is righteousness, not a power of darkness.

I did answer your questions involving God passing over past sins and demonstrating His justice. I don't have anything to add to my answer. It (passing over sins until that present time) shows that God is just and the justifier of sinners. Read my previous posts.

John Caldwell · Nov 3, 2022

Clare73 said:
And whose wrath is that?

And he ransomed us from the powers of darkness to come.

And you are still failing to address my two/three questions regarding Romans 3:25 and God demonstrating his justice in his ransoming atonement, of post #849, repeated in post #881, above.

We are saved from the wrath to come ("in Christ we escape the wrath to come"). This is God's judgment on the wicked.

But we were ransomed "from the powers of darkness". That is why we can, in Christ, be judged righteous.

John Mullally · Nov 3, 2022

atpollard said:
Let us ... just for the sake of discussion ... begin with the assumption that your synergistic "cooperative salvation" is 100% correct and my monergistic "sovereign salvation" is 100% wrong. It changes nothing toward:

your point: "five-points in the TULIP acronymn - with each point in turn requiring long argumentation"

my refutation: "Not that long an argumentation."

1 Timothy 2:6 and 1 John 2:2 torpedos limited atonement as those scriptures list the atonemenent as being provided for all men. Additionally 2 Peter 2:1 says the atonement was made for Apostates on there way to destruction. 2 Peter 2 torpedos perseverence of the saints because Peter identifies false teachers who were once saved and are on their way to destruction (Apostates) - in addition, there are numerous warnings throughout the NT of falling away - warnings are not given for impossibilites. I reject Total Depravity because all the unsaved are reachable by the Holy Spirit tecause He convicts the world (not just the ones who respond positively, termed the elect) of sin, righteousness, and judgement.

atpollard said:
Contrary to your opinion, Jesus did not address John 6:44 to the Pharisees ... he addressed it to the doubting crowd:

John 6:26, 41-45 [NKJV] Jesus answered them and said, "Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. ... The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven." And they said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, 'I have come down from heaven'?" Jesus therefore answered and said to them, "Do not murmur among yourselves. "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. "It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me."

Yes I errored. I corrected that post before your response. Jesus was addressing free-loaders who wanted to make him king because they were fed miraculously - He was not addressing Pharisees.

atpollard said:
You are conflating the Son with the Father. The Son does draw "all men" to him [we can debate "all without exception" vs "all without distinction" another day] ... however a more careful reading of John 6:44 will reveal that all whom the FATHER DRAWS will come and THOSE INDIVIDUALS will ALL be raised by the Son on the Last Day. One group - drawn by the Father and raised by the Son - contrasted with another group - grumblers told to "stop complaining". Identical to John 10 and "not my sheep" vs "my sheep, given to me by my Father".

Jesus was the exprssion of the Father on earth - Trinity. Up to that time, the only men the Father drew were Jesus's disciples. Again there are many NT verses warning about falling away - you can't fall away from something you never had.

atpollard said:
As I said, kick at the goad to your heart's content with my blessing. God's word can defend itself and only God changes hearts and minds. I merely accepted the challenge of creating a SHORT "argumentation" for TULIP ... I only needed the words found in John 6:44 to explain TULIP.

Commonly the presentation of TULIP is far longer as it is more explanatory because it is weak. In any case it is easy to poke holes in TULIP. TULIP is basically fatalistic philosophy - what will be, will be (you can find Doris Day singing that on the internet). In Acts 2, Peter strongly implores his audicence to save themselves - its quite raw.

Clare73 · Nov 3, 2022

John Caldwell said:
The verse does not say "to come". It says He ransomed us from the powers of darkness.

The Judgment is what is to come. It is not right, IMHO, to equate this Judgment (the wrath to come) with "the powers of darkness".

Is that Judgment (court, Final Judgment at the second coming) or Judgment (sentence, wrath)?

The idea that Satan rules Hell is mythology, not Scripture. Heaven and Hell belong to God, and Hos judgment is righteousness, not a power of darkness.

If you're saying there is light and holiness in hell, you got it wrong.

John Caldwell · Nov 3, 2022

Clare73 said:
Is that Judgment (court, Final Judgment at the second coming) or Judgment (sentence, wrath)?

The idea that Satan rules Hell is mythology, not Scripture. Heaven and Hell belong to God, and Hos judgment is righteousness, not a power of darkness.

If you're saying there is light and holiness in hell, you got it wrong.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that Satan does not rule Hell and our escaping God's wrath is not escaping the powers of darkness.

Hell is not evil. It is justice. It is a holy justice because God is holy.

The Judgment is an execution of a sentence. The condemned have already been judged (John 3). You could say it is the day of reckoning, the day when God exercises Judgment.

Clare73 · Nov 3, 2022

John Caldwell said:
We are saved from the wrath to come ("in Christ we escape the wrath to come"). This is God's judgment on the wicked.

But we were ransomed "from the powers of darkness". That is why
we can, in Christ, be judged righteous.

We can be declared righteous (justification, sentence of acquittal) by
1) remission of sin by faith, which is salvation from eternal death, and by
2) imputation of Christ's righteousness to us (Romans 4:1-11).

And you are still failing to address my two/three questions regarding Romans 3:25 in

Post #849:
dikaiosune - quality or character of being right or just, and which root word is
dike - justice (execution of a sentence--2 Thessalonians 1:9; punishment, vengeance--Acts 28:4;
Jude 7).

How does God demonstrate his justice (dikaiosune - sentence, punishment, vengeance)
in Jesus' sacrifice of atonement (Romans 3:25)?

How did God "pass over," what did he previously omit doing (Romans 3:25), that he then did on the cross, regarding the sin of the OT saints, and which was Jesus' payment of the ransom to buy us back, redeem us from our sentence to eternal death (Romans 5:18)?

My problem with and objection to your view of the ransom is that it is in disagreement with the NT apostolic teaching of Romans 3:25 regarding God demonstrating (showing forth) his justice on the cross.

Clare73 · Nov 3, 2022

Clare73 said:
If you're saying there are light and holiness in hell, you got it wrong.

John Caldwell said:
I'm saying that Satan does not rule Hell and our escaping God's wrath is not escaping the powers of darkness.
Hell is not evil. It is justice. It is a holy justice because God is holy.

It's not about being evil, it's about being punishment.

The Judgment is an execution of a sentence.

The execution (Judgment) is of the sentence (Judgment) of the Court.

The condemned have already been judged (John 3). You could say
it is the day of reckoning, the day when God exercises Judgment.

God "exercising Judgment" is the consequence of his "sentence of Judgment" by his Court.

John Caldwell · Nov 3, 2022

Clare73 said:
We can be declared righteous (justification, sentence of acquittal) by
1) remission of sin by faith, which is salvation from eternal death, and by
2) imputation of Christ's righteousness to us (Romans 4:1-11).

And you are still failing to address my two/three questions regarding Romans 3:25 in

Post #849:
dikaiosune - quality or character of being right or just, and which root word is
dike - justice (execution of a sentence--2 Thessalonians 1:9; punishment, vengeance--Acts 28:4;
Jude 7).

How does God demonstrate his justice (dikaiosune - sentence, punishment, vengeance)
in Jesus' sacrifice of atonement (Romans 3:25)?

How did God "pass over," what did he previously omit doing (Romans 3:25), that he then did on the cross, regarding the sin of the OT saints, and which was Jesus' payment of the ransom to buy us back, redeem us from our sentence to eternal death (Romans 5:18)?

My problem with and objection to your view of the ransom is that it is in disagreement with the NT apostolic teaching of Romans 3:25 regarding God demonstrating (showing forth) his justice on the cross.

I dp not believe God declares one righteous without making that declaration a reality.

My position is in no way a disagreement with Romans 3:25.

You have to realize tge verse is in context of a larger passage.

Romans 3:21–29 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Who's sins were passed over? Those before "that time" (before the Promise was fulfilled). Their faith was reckoned as righteousness, but they still looked for the Promise.

God passed over their sins. But they were not ignored (they are addressed in Christ). God is just (He will punish the wicked) and the justifier of sinners (He recreates them, cleanses them, gives them a new heart and spirit, puts His Spirit in them...a rebirth is necessary).

Clare73 · Nov 3, 2022

John Caldwell said:
I dp not believe God declares one righteous without making that declaration a reality.

You are in disagreement with the meaning of the word dikaiosis (justification), which is a declaration of "not guilty," a sentence of acquittal by the Judge. It is forensic.

My position is in no way a disagreement with Romans 3:25.

You have to realize tge verse is in context of a larger passage.

Romans 3:21–29 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Who's sins were passed over? Those before "that time" (before the Promise was fulfilled). Their faith was reckoned as righteousness, but they still looked for the Promise.

God passed over their sins. But they were not ignored (they are addressed in Christ).

God is just (He will punish the wicked)

dikaiosune - quality or character of being right or just, and which root word is
dike - justice (execution of a sentence--2 Thessalonians 1:9; punishment, vengeance--Acts 28:4;
Jude 7).

And how did God demonstrate his justice in Jesus' sacrifice of atonement?
How did he punish the previous wickedness (Romans 3:9-11) of the NT redeemed?

How did God "pass over," what did he previously omit doing (Romans 3:25),
that he then did on the cross, regarding the sin of the OT saints, and
which doing was Jesus' payment of the ransom to buy us back, redeem us from our sentence to eternal death (Romans 5:18)?

These questions remain unanswered by you.
Their correct answers; i.e., in agreement with NT apostolic teaching,
and the correct meaning of justification (dikaiosis) as forensic
demonstrate penal substitutionary atonement.

and the justifier of sinners (He recreates them, cleanses them, gives them a new heart and spirit, puts His Spirit in them...a rebirth is necessary).

That is not the meaning of the word dikaiosis (justify, justification, justifier) which is explained above.
Justification is forensic.

John Caldwell · Nov 3, 2022

Clare73 said:
You are in disagreement with the meaning of the word dikaiosis (justification), which is a declaration of "not guilty," a sentence of acquittal by the Judge.

And how did God demonstrate his justice in Jesus' sacrifice of atonement?
How did he punish the previous wickedness (Romans 3:9-11) of the redeemed?

How did God "pass over," what did he previously omit doing (Romans 3:25),
that he then did on the cross, regarding the sin of the OT saints, and
which was Jesus' payment of the ransom to buy us back, redeem us from our sentence to eternal death (Romans 5:18)?

That is not the meaning of the word dikaiosis (justification), which is explained above.

No, I am not in disagreement with the word dikaiosiß.

I said God declares us righteousness. Where we disagreed is I also said this declaration points to a reality (God taking out our old heart, giving us a new one, giving us a new spirit, putting His Spirit in us, and cleansing us).

Our disagreement is in that point. Where I view God as cleansing us, putting His Spirit in us, making us new creations, requiring a rebirth you seem to think God merely declares us righteousness.

But Scripture states my view, I think clearly. Men must be born again, made new creations in Christ Jesus.

Gr8Grace · Nov 3, 2022

atpollard said:
No, no, no ... none of that offers the short explanation of TULIP that he was asking for.

... but this does:

“No one can come to Me (T)
unless the Father who sent Me (U)
draws him; and I will (I)
raise him up (L)
on the last day." (P)
- John 6:44

I just asked a couple of questions. Jesus Christ said He will draw all men to himself.

Is Jesus Christ God? Are Jesus and the Father one?

Mark Quayle · Nov 3, 2022

John Caldwell said:
No, I didn't speak in haste. And I do not believe in luck (a very strange claim as you know I believe everything is predestined to occur according to God's plan).

Why do you imply I hold to Arminianism? Do you believe that us being honest?

I believe men are predestined to be saved while others are predestined to condemnation.

Explain to me how that is Arminianism.

What I do not believe is the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Arminianism, being of a Calvinistic trajectory (and at one time...i.e., during the life of James Arminius... orthodox Calvinism) holds the theory as being correct.

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."

I absolutely agree with Isaiah 53. He was wounded for our transgressions. He shared in our infirmity. Our sins were laid upon Him and by His stripes we are healed.

It appears you may have read or responded in haste. I never denied that our sins were laid upon Christ. I never denied that Christ shared our infirmity or took upon Himself the curse of mankind.

I said that Scripture does not say our sins were transfered from us.

The reason our sins are not on us is they have been forgiven. Unlike Calvinism I do believe that God is able to forgive sins where Calvinism holds that God forgives sinners by punishing sin.

Yes, Jesus was forsaken to suffer and die on the Cross (and Psalm 22 foretells of this). But you ate adding that God's wrath was upon Christ.

Romans 6 and 1 Corinthians 15

Quite a few things are apparent in your expression of your theology. But, DO YOU, OR DO YOU NOT BELIEVE IN FREE WILL?

Also, I notice you still have not told me what the basic Calvinist tenets are.

But to the subject at hand. If our sins are laid on Christ, does that not tell us how our sins are forgiven? They are paid. You apparently ignored the texts I presented you in answer to your claims.

Clare73 · Nov 3, 2022

John Caldwell said:
No, I am not in disagreement with the word dikaiosiß.

Previously addressed. . .you are in disagreement with its forensic definition.

I said God declares us righteousness. Where we disagreed is I also said
this declaration points to a reality

The reality of "not guilty," sin remitted, in right standing with God's justice.
According to its definition. . .justification (dikaiosis) is forensic.
It is not a statement of personal character, only a statement of judicial right standing.

(God taking out our old heart, giving us a new one, giving us a new spirit, putting His Spirit in us, and cleansing us).

That is the new birth.

Imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, a righteousness from God by faith (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21) is the righteousness of the born again (Romans 4:1-11).
And then there is the work of sanctification, which is righteousness leading to holiness through obedience in the Holy Spirit (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19).

Our disagreement is in that point. Where I view God as cleansing us, putting His Spirit in us, making us new creations, requiring a rebirth you seem to think God merely declares us righteousness.

That is the new birth. . .
As previously demonstrated, you are in disagreement with the forensic meaning of the word dikaiosis, attributing to it the righteousness imputed from Christ (Romans 4:1-11), as well as the effects of regeneration.

But Scripture states my view, I think clearly. Men must be born again, made new creations in Christ Jesus.

Assertion is not Biblical demonstration, and which is necessary for assertion to have merit.

Gr8Grace · Nov 3, 2022

Calvinism and Arminianism Are one in the same. Just worded a little different.

Cal: If you don't have the right works.......You really were not saved.

Arm: If you don't work you will lose salvation.

Both are works centered religion.

fhansen · Nov 3, 2022

Mark Quayle said:
Or so you assume. Prove it. Specially would be nice if you could prove it from Scripture.

Already have. To begin with, we'd have no need for Scripture or the revelation of Christ to begin with if we didn't need to know-so that we can decide. Then, we woudn't need or have in Scripture all the commands, the warnings, the exhortations, the instructiions, the "ifs", in order to have and keep eternal life unless for the possibility of disobeying, turning back away from God, failing at choosing rightly. God is infinitely higher than we are, but He's certainly not irrational.

How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

Blood-bought

Me

Blood-bought

Me

Blood-bought

Me

Me

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Me

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Me

Blood-bought

Me

Well-Known Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Oldbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency