How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Clare73]

I'm tracking...sort of.

What do you mean by the Holy Spirit being a deposit guaranting the "full payment"?

A deposit guaranteeing that the whole will be forthcoming.
The indwelling Holy Spirit is a pledge of our future inheritance, a down payment on that inheritance securing, guaranteeing full payment of our eternal inheritance.

 

[John Caldwell]

A deposit guaranteeing that the whole will be forthcoming.
The indwelling Holy Spirit is a pledge of our future inheritance, a down payment on that inheritance securing, guaranteeing full payment of our eternal inheritance.

Ok. I'm tracking now. Thank you.

 

[Brother-Mike]

A deposit guaranteeing that the whole will be forthcoming.
The indwelling Holy Spirit is a pledge of our future inheritance, a down payment on that inheritance securing, guaranteeing full payment of our eternal inheritance.

As a fairly new Christian I find this language unbelievably confusing. Maybe it’s just me

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Mark Quayle,
Hello MQ,
[Brother, I think she and you and I all agree on this, unless by this you mean that God has not decreed from the foundation of the world who will, and who will not, be saved.]

I like discussing these teachings, but we must be careful to clarify our definitions of the words used.
What I mean is each word has a biblical usage.


[I know what preterition is. But if you think it is left up to chance who will be ultimately condemned, then your reasoning is of the same sort as that of an Arminian.]

Who said anything about being left unto chance.???
The unbelieving world is condemned already.
Unless God intervenes, they all go into second death.
Where do you see chance at all?

[Just as the fact (which I think you agree with) that the elect choose God does not mean that God has not chosen them, so the fact that the non-elect choose against God does not mean that God has not chosen them for that end.]

God in a positive way elects a multitude of sinners to be saving drawn to Jesus in the Covenant of redemption. Jn6:37-44. God chooses and enables them.
Nothing says God in anyway chooses to make non elect persons "choose" against God.
They are leftto themselves and they choose sin and idols over God. God does not make them do that. God does not as you suggested...CAUSE....that. No.

[ I do not say that God chooses them for that end alone. But the structure of all things is by decree of God. No fact escapes his causation.]

I do not agree with your statement as written. I am not sure you mean this as you have posted it.
Let's see the confessional statement;
Chapter 3: Of God's Decree
1._____ God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.
( Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Numbers 23:19; Ephesians 1:3-5 )
2._____ Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything, because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.
( Acts 15:18; Romans 9:11, 13, 16, 18 )

3._____ By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.
( 1 Timothy 5:21; Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:5, 6; Romans 9:22, 23; Jude 4 )

Your error is found in 3:1....that which I bolded in blue
You suggest God causes all things....no.He does not CAUSE sin.


[With this Clare agrees, whether she says so in all posts or not. I have myself dealt with this with her before, and she does not shrink back from declaring that God causes absolutely all things to take place, unsavory as that is to some believers. ]

No...Everything God has ordained to come to pass, that is true. That does not mean God causes sin! nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established;
This means others act according to their nature.
Do you see how this is a critical distinction?

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

BNR32FAN,

[Correct me if I am mistaken but it’s my understanding that irresistible grace means that to those whom God has granted grace they cannot resist His offer and are destined to be saved no matter what.]

You are wrong. People resist God's grace. In the case of those elected by God, God overcomes the resistance and draws them to faith.

Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling
1._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
( Romans 8:30; Romans 11:7; Ephesians 1:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Ephesians 2:1-6; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:17, 18; Ezekiel 36:26; Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:27; Ephesians 1:19; Psalm 110:3; Song of Solomon 1:4 )
2._____ This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
( 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:5; John 5:25; Ephesians 1:19, 20 )

3._____ Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )

4._____ Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

What is the doctrine of preterition? | GotQuestions.org

The Reformed doctrine of preterition says that God elects some people to salvation and leaves the rest of humanity in their fallen condition. The word preterition means “passing over” and, in the context of theology, “omission from God’s elect.” The word implies that God chose to “pass over” some people and save others. The Westminster Confession of Faith teaches preterition: “The rest of mankind [not the elect] God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His Sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice” (Chapter III — Article VII).

Quite simply, preterition says that some people are not chosen for salvation. Preterition is the flip side of predestination. The doctrine of predestination emphasizes the positive aspect of election—some are chosen for heaven. The doctrine of preterition emphasizes the negative aspect of the same doctrine—some are not chosen. It is a logical doctrine. Since not everyone goes to heaven, there must be some who are not elected. Those who are not elected for salvation must perforce be “passed over” in the choosing. If preterition were false, then everyone would be in heaven and no one would be in hell.

It is important to differentiate preterition from double predestination. Double predestination teaches that God proactively elects some to heaven and proactively elects some to hell—it is a balanced predestination in that God is as equally active in choosing people for hell as He is in choosing people for heaven. The problem is that double predestination is not taught in Scripture. The Bible nowhere says that God “elects” people to go to hell; the only election mentioned in the Bible is that which sends people to heaven. Preterition, in contrast, teaches that God actively elects some to heaven and passively allows others to remain in their sin—it is an unbalanced predestination in that God is active toward some and inactive toward others. The doctrine of preterition is careful not to go beyond what the Bible teaches about predestination.

The doctrine of preterition seeks to preserve God’s justice while upholding His sovereignty in election. Since mankind chose to rebel in Eden (and continues to choose to sin), their condemnation is perfectly just. Everyone “stands condemned already” (John 3:18). God cannot be accused of injustice simply because He “passes by” a condemned person and leaves him to the punishment he deserves any more than a governor who “passes by” the last-minute appeal of a death-row inmate and declines to commute the just sentence.

The Bible is clear that God elects or chooses the saved (John 6:37; Romans 9:10–13; Titus 1:1). The dispute over election centers on the basis for it: is election based on God’s foreknowledge of who will respond to the gospel, or is it based solely on God’s sovereign extension of mercy? The relationship between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will has been debated ad infinitum for centuries. The fact is that the Bible teaches God’s sovereignty, wisdom, and mercy in salvation (John 15:16); and it also teaches man’s responsibility to repent and believe (Mark 1:15). We should ultimately be okay with not fully understanding every nuance of God’s work, in the knowledge that His thoughts and ways are infinitely higher than ours (Isaiah 55:8–9).

The doctrine of preterition teaches that election is one-sided. God extended mercy to some whom He chose (Romans 9:18), leaving others to their fate. Meanwhile, the gospel is to be extended to all people (Matthew 28:1 –20). Those who believe in Christ are saved, and those who refuse God’s merciful offer are not (Romans 3:10–11, 20–24). Reconciling God’s proactivity in salvation with the need for human faith is something that finite human minds will continue to struggle with.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Preterition from Carm;


Preterition is the act of passing over something or neglecting it. In theology, it is the Reformed doctrine that God passed over people by not electing them into salvation. Instead, only those elected to salvation will be saved and passed over all others.

 

[John Caldwell]

As a fairly new Christian I find this language unbelievably confusing. Maybe it’s just me

Here are three more you need for this particular topic: infralapsarianism, sublapsarianism, and supralapsarianism.

Christian philosophy ...the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Clare73]

As a fairly new Christian I find this language unbelievably confusing. Maybe it’s just me

The Holy Spirit is the beginning of our inheritance. Our full inheritance, which is a sharing in Christ's own inheritance, will be after the resurrection.
As adopted sons of God, we are entitled to that which his begotten son is entitled from him, we have been given the right to share in Christ's fortune.

 

[Clare73]

Here are three more you need for this particular topic:
infralapsarianism, sublapsarianism, and supralapsarianism.

Christian philosophy ...the gift that keeps on giving.

However, Holy Spirit, deposit, inheritance, guarantee. . .all are Scriptural words.

The above three are not.

 

[John Caldwell]

However, Holy Spirit, deposit, inheritance, guarantee. . .all are Scriptural words.

The above three are not.

I agree. The three I mentioned are basic views within Calvinism (they are important to know as predestination and "double predestination" (as well as "decrees") are within a context of a "logical order").

"Logical orders" are probably not technically theology, but it is Christian philosophy and which ever a Calvinist views as correct dictates the doctrines that follow.

 

[Clare73]

Fair enough, and I do not fundamentally disagree with what you've worded here (well, okay, maybe "free will" is open to debate). If you were to ask me "As a Calvinist do you believe man can choose to walk in The Way or not?" I would answer "Yes, on a creaturely level God has granted us the deeply felt sense that we can make choices. Deep enough that along with the freedom comes the responsibility of our choices."

But I'm not going to let you off the hook so easily Kindly tell me, does the God you've described above:
1. See all of history, including all of your choices, from the beginning?
2. Have the power to intervene and steer your hand from one choice to another?

However, when Scripture refers to what God sees/knows from the beginning, it is not seeing/knowing what man is going to do but what he himself is going to do.

God doesn't have to look ahead to see what man is going to do, for he has decreed from before the foundations of the world what he is going to do, which results in what man does.

 

[Brother-Mike]

Here are three more you need for this particular topic: infralapsarianism, sublapsarianism, and supralapsarianism.

Christian philosophy ...the gift that keeps on giving.

Aye... in reading up about preterition (from Iconoclast above) it discussed these terms.

I'll be honest - there's a part of me keeping an eye out for doctrinal nuance that steps into the territory of "maybe we're just not meant to understand this side of Judgement". Doesn't mean that I still don't want to understand and evaluate for myself, but I should at least treat these differently than doctrine that has a clearer/less-convoluted reading.

 

[Brother-Mike]

However, when Scripture refers to what God sees/knows from the beginning, it is not seeing/knowing what man is going to do but what he himself is going to do.

God doesn't have to look ahead to see what man is going to do, for he has decreed from before the foundations of the world what he is going to do, which results in what man does.

Agreed. In this case I was using "see" colloquially in Arminianese rather than your more technically correct Calvish.

 

[Clare73]

Aye... in reading up about preterition (It Iconoclast above) it discussed these terms.

I'll be honest - there's a part of me keeping an eye out for doctrinal nuance that steps into the territory of "maybe we're just not meant to understand this side of Judgement". Doesn't mean that I still don't want to understand and evaluate for myself, but I should at least treat these differently than doctrine that has a clearer/less-convoluted reading.

There is NT teaching that requires a grounding in basic Christian teaching (doctrine) in order to be understood correctly.

I heartily recommend an old divine, Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible, six volumes (not the abridged one volume, which leaves out much that is important).
It is Christian formation at its best--unsurpassed.

 

[Brother-Mike]

There is NT teaching that requires a grounding in basic Christian teaching (doctrine) in order to be understood correctly.

Agreed, my point was more pointed at *lapsarians, unless you're suggesting that there is NT teaching that requires a grounding there too? If so, example verse and why believing one versus the other would have a functional difference?

 

[John Caldwell]

Aye... in reading up about preterition (from Iconoclast above) it discussed these terms.

I'll be honest - there's a part of me keeping an eye out for doctrinal nuance that steps into the territory of "maybe we're just not meant to understand this side of Judgement". Doesn't mean that I still don't want to understand and evaluate for myself, but I should at least treat these differently than doctrine that has a clearer/less-convoluted reading.

Personally, I do not find a benefit in those things. But it is interesting.

If I believe that God decreed election before the Fall then "double predestination" may be my position.

BUT if I believe God decreed election post-Fall (to save a people out of fallen man) then I probably do not believe "double predestination".

OR I could believe God decreed the Fall and to provide salvation as avaliable to every person, but then chose out of men (who would not of themselves turn to Him) those to be saved.

All fall under Calvinism but the Calvinist's view of predestination depends on which philosophy he chooses.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Fair enough, and I do not fundamentally disagree with what you've worded here (well, okay, maybe "free will" is open to debate). If you were to ask me "As a Calvinist do you believe man can choose to walk in The Way or not?" I would answer "Yes, on a creaturely level God has granted us the deeply felt sense that we can make choices. Deep enough that along with the freedom comes the responsibility of our choices."

But I'm not going to let you off the hook so easily Kindly tell me, does the God you've described above:

1. See all of history, including all of your choices, from the beginning?
2. Have the power to intervene and steer your hand from one choice to another?

Number 1 is correct but number 2 requires a bit of explaining brother. Does God have the power to intervene? Yes absolutely He is omnipotent, all powerful. But now the big question, according to the scriptures does God exercise that power to intervene? I say no and here’s why.

“Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭4‬:‭30‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

If God actually exercised His ability to intervene and steer our hand from one choice to another why do we grieve the Holy Spirit? I absolutely hate it when I do things that grieve the Holy Spirit. It actually grieves me to after I’ve done it. But from what I see the Holy Spirit doesn’t intervene, He’s more like a compass always pointing the way to God. It’s when we don’t pay attention that we get off course. That’s what I see in scripture and it’s what I see in life.

Hebrews 6:4-6 is another example of someone grieving the Holy Spirit.

“For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭6‬:‭4‬-‭6‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

The Holy Spirit urges us to do God’s will but according to the scriptures and what we can see in ourselves we are capable of ignoring Him sometimes. I’m betting you’ve probably done it yourself brother and I bet it probably grieves you just as much as it grieves me when I do it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

There is NT teaching that requires a grounding in basic Christian teaching (doctrine) in order to be understood correctly.

No offense sister but that kind of thinking can also lead to inaccurate interpretations. A lot of people, and I’m not directing this towards anyone in particular, but a lot of people end up twisting the scriptures out of context in order to hold on to doctrines. It’s extremely important that we allow the scriptures to interpret our doctrines not allow our doctrines to interpret the scriptures. For example I once held to the doctrine of eternal security but when I came across verses like Galatians 5:4 or 2 Timothy 2:12 they were confusing to me because these verses indicate that saved Christians can lose their salvation. Instead of letting the scriptures teach exactly what they say I was forced to say to myself I don’t know what those are saying because they can’t be saying that a person can lose their salvation because that would contradict the doctrine of eternal security. To me at the time that was inconceivable so I had to ignore those verses because they just couldn’t make sense to me. Obviously we can’t say that someone who has been severed from Christ and fallen from grace was never saved. That’s ignoring the context. A person can’t be severed from Christ who has never been connected to Him. A person can’t fall from grace who never received it. We also can’t say that Paul & Timothy weren’t saved. Paul wrote over half of the New Testament and Timothy was his favorite disciple. When we come across scriptures like these that are contradictory to doctrines we have to reevaluate our doctrines so that they coincide with the scriptures.

 

[Brother-Mike]

If God actually exercised His ability to intervene and steer our hand from one choice to another why do we grieve the Holy Spirit? I

How do you understand Exodus 7:3 then? i.e. God hardening Pharaoh’s heart.

My own vote’s on divine intervention always, in everything, subatomic. It doesn’t at all impede your “creaturely freedom” to grieve it if you so “choose”.