How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Clare73]

I wouldn't say Calvinists aren't motivated to evangelize. History proves othervise. But I think often Calvinists act in a way that is inconsistent (you are free to disagree) with their teachings, which I BTW see as a good thing.

Or is that "inconsistent with your misunderstanding of their teachings"?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm happy I can make you laugh, we all need that.

My favorite Calvinist is one who can laugh at himself.

And one of my favorite videos was a Ligonier's panel with MacArthur, Sproul and I don't remember who else, good-naturedly poking fun at each other's particular differences on such subjects as baptism, etc.

 

[JAL]

"Urgency" is your notion. . .not Scripture's.

You really think that you gain credibility via so many biased posts? If you don't detect a note of urgency in Paul, you're reading with blinders on.

 

[Clare73]

You really think that you gain credibility via so many biased posts?

Assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without merit.

If you don't detect a note of urgency in Paul, you're reading with blinders on.

Example of what you mean by "urgency"?

 

[Mark Quayle]

What the verses from Paul shows here is the theory that "How can one at enmity with God truly desire God? He cannot, until God gives him new birth." is not true. Paul says that he as a man, "can" delight in the will of God, but the flesh overpowers him. It shows that man has the ability to desire good. He goes on to say:

Rom 8:2-3 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,

He talks of two laws, the law of "sin and death", what He was talking about before, the inability to do good, though he willed it, and now the new law "the law of the Spirit of Life", a law that empowers him to live the way he wants to, in a way that pleases God.

When he then states:

Rom 8:6-9 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

He is not stating he is totally depraved, he is referencing back to the struggle with the flesh. That he can not live righteously without God's Spirit enabling him. But looking back even in the warring state, he still maintains the "will to do good".

Let me try to be more specific. You (and so many others here) seem to think that natural man, though spiritually dead, though depraved, is only sort of spiritually dead, not utterly depraved. Scripture shows that even in their supposed "obedience" (which is really only compliance), they do so for their own self-centered reasons —it is not obedience, not submission of will. I have to add, even in that very act they think is submitting the will, the lost are not utterly submitting the will, as is evident later by their disobedience. (This is what the Reformed/Calvinist are referring to as total depravity —not that anyone is as bad as they could be, were God to remove his restraining hand, but that those at enmity with God are bad to the core, and unable to please God nor to submit to him.)

In your construction: "Here we clearly see, the nature of the unregenerated man, he can "agree with/delight in the law of God", but has no ability to carry it out. It is this will that activates salvation.", you take this will that, as the passage says, "delights in God's law", to be not corrupt to the core, yet you admit that it is unable to carry it out. It is THAT inability that is described by Total Depravity. The delight is fleshly, and powerless, helpless. It cannot 'activate salvation'. Only God himself, the Holy Spirit, can do that.

I don't mean to be depressive or disparaging, but I have to say, your construction: "It is this will that activates salvation. By desiring God, a man is pulled away from the unregenerated nature.", does not carry the authority of Scriptural witness. It is only a construction built by eisegesis.

 

[JAL]

Assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without merit.

Example of what you mean by "urgency"?

This is Paul doing EVERYTHING he can to win as many as possible:

19Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings (1 Cor 9).


Elsewhere he tells us that he labored night and day.

 

[Clare73]

Let me try to be more specific. You (and so many others here) seem to think that natural man, though spiritually dead, though depraved, is only sort of spiritually dead, not utterly depraved. Scripture shows that even in their supposed "obedience" (which is really only compliance), they do so for their own self-centered reasons —it is not obedience, not submission of will. I have to add, even in that very act they think is submitting the will, the lost are not utterly submitting the will, as is evident later by their disobedience. (This is what the Reformed/Calvinist are referring to as total depravity —not that anyone is as bad as they could be, were God to remove his restraining hand, but that those at enmity with God are bad to the core, and unable to please God nor to submit to him.)

In your construction: "Here we clearly see, the nature of the unregenerated man, he can "agree with/delight in the law of God", but has no ability to carry it out. It is this will that activates salvation.", you take this will that, as the passage says, "delights in God's law", to be not corrupt to the core, yet you admit that it is unable to carry it out. It is THAT inability that is described by Total Depravity. The delight is fleshly, and powerless, helpless. It cannot 'activate salvation'. Only God himself, the Holy Spirit, can do that.

I don't mean to be depressive or disparaging, but I have to say, your construction: "It is this will that activates salvation. By desiring God, a man is pulled away from the unregenerated nature.", does not carry the authority of Scriptural witness. It is only a construction built by eisegesis.

Is Paul referring to his unregenerate state in Ro 7, or to the conflict between the flesh and the spirit in his regenerate state?

 

[Clare73]

This is Paul doing EVERYTHING he can to win as many as possible:

19Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings (1 Cor 9).

I see that as methodology to effectiveness.

Elsewhere he tells us that he labored night and day.

Paul was charged with the tremendous task of establishing Christianity in a pagan world (not on his own, of course).

 

[JAL]

Read John Owen, The Mortification of Sin, and get back with me concerning urgency in the Calvinist/Reformed.

@zoidar is correct about the inconsistency. As Frederick Copleston put it, determinists are rarely consistent. If I can only do what I'm ordained to do, any attempt to improve my behavior, or respond to urgency, is futile.

It's just like when a determinist punishes his kids for "wrongdoing". It's hard to find logical consistency there.

Determinism doesn't square well with a system of moral imperatives.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What the verses from Paul shows here is the theory that "How can one at enmity with God truly desire God? He cannot, until God gives him new birth." is not true. Paul says that he as a man, "can" delight in the will of God, but the flesh overpowers him. It shows that man has the ability to desire good. He goes on to say:

Rom 8:2-3 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,

He talks of two laws, the law of "sin and death", what He was talking about before, the inability to do good, though he willed it, and now the new law "the law of the Spirit of Life", a law that empowers him to live the way he wants to, in a way that pleases God.

When he then states:

Rom 8:6-9 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

He is not stating he is totally depraved, he is referencing back to the struggle with the flesh. That he can not live righteously without God's Spirit enabling him. But looking back even in the warring state, he still maintains the "will to do good".

Let me try to be more specific. You (and so many others here) seem to think that natural man, though spiritually dead, though depraved, is only sort of spiritually dead, not utterly depraved. Scripture shows that even in their supposed "obedience" (which is really only compliance), they do so for their own self-centered reasons —it is not obedience, not submission of will. I have to add, even in that very act they think is submitting the will, the lost are not utterly submitting the will, as is evident later by their disobedience. (This is what the Reformed/Calvinist are referring to as total depravity —not that anyone is as bad as they could be, were God to remove his restraining hand, but that those at enmity with God are bad to the core, and unable to please God nor to submit to him.)

In your construction: "Here we clearly see, the nature of the unregenerated man, he can "agree with/delight in the law of God", but has no ability to carry it out. It is this will that activates salvation.", you take this will that, as the passage says, "delights in God's law", to be not corrupt to the core, yet you admit that it is unable to carry it out. It is THAT inability that is described by Total Depravity. The delight is fleshly, and powerless, helpless. It cannot 'activate salvation'. Only God himself, the Holy Spirit, can do that.

I don't mean to be depressive or disparaging, but I have to say, your construction: "It is this will that activates salvation."

What the verses from Paul shows here is the theory that "How can one at enmity with God truly desire God? He cannot, until God gives him new birth." is not true. Paul says that he as a man, "can" delight in the will of God, but the flesh overpowers him. It shows that man has the ability to desire good. He goes on to say:

Rom 8:2-3 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,

He talks of two laws, the law of "sin and death", what He was talking about before, the inability to do good, though he willed it, and now the new law "the law of the Spirit of Life", a law that empowers him to live the way he wants to, in a way that pleases God.

When he then states:

Rom 8:6-9 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

He is not stating he is totally depraved, he is referencing back to the struggle with the flesh. That he can not live righteously without God's Spirit enabling him. But looking back even in the warring state, he still maintains the "will to do good".

I wanted to mention, the narrative I hear sometimes from the Arminian, describing either theory or experience or both, where one gradually or in stages ascends to the point where they yield their will to God, does not to me sound to me to oppose the regeneration that Calvinism posits, except in the causal order the Arminian necessarily arranges it. Regeneration is necessary grace for faith and salvation, according to Scripture, not just in theory but in several statements as to the inability of man before regeneration —that seems to me plain as is, with no need to justify it— and not only that, but the regeneration is a change as radical as resurrection, yet there is no implied statement of temporal sudden-ness. Repeatedly I have found myself agreeing with the narrative I hear, sans the 'implications' drawn by the narrator, and hear myself saying, "YES! THAT is regeneration!" And when the narrator has continued with the claim that regeneration follows the submission of the will and repentance, I think, "YES! But that is not regeneration, but the finally recognized effect of being born again. It is the subjective experience of the objective fact of 'living water', etc.

Anyhow, take it for what it may be worth to you to hear. The major pain I feel at the claim of the Arminian, concerns man's complete helplessness, and the utterly comprehensive Grace of God in the Gospel. The tears of joy and fellowship I find at singing with other believers, that old hymn, of the wonderful grace of my Redeemer, are also tears full of pain and intense longing for Him. And I find that very thing, in many others here on this site, who think they hate the Gospel I hold to, because of the implications they think it makes. —What, I ask, is wrong with the notion of God having predestined sin and the loss of many to eternal condemnation? Only that they think it necessarily implies that God is unloving, unjust and capricious. I completely agree that God is not those things. They completely agree with me that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, but I think their narrative ascribes worth and ability to man aside from his use by God, and an ability that in some way detracts from grace. Yet the deepest basics we do agree on, that God is sovereign over all things, and that salvation is by Grace, regardless of our narratives. And THAT, brother, I can fellowship with.

 

[Mark Quayle]

@zoidar is correct about the inconsistency. As Frederick Copleston put it, determinists are rarely consistent. If I can only do what I'm ordained to do, any attempt to improve my behavior, or respond to urgency, is futile.

It's just like when a determinist punishes his kids for "wrongdoing". It's hard to find logical consistency there.

Determinism doesn't square well with a system of moral imperatives.

This, spoken from the viewpoint of one who claims God changes, grows, improves... Ask @zoidar how that figures into his theology!

 

[zoidar]

Or is that "inconsistent with your misunderstanding of their teachings"?

I can mention one thing I find inconsistent with John Piper. He says Calvinists can tell people Jesus died for them. How is that consistent with limited atonement? His answer is because Jesus died in another way for those that aren't elect. IMO it's not only inconsistent, it's also dishonest.

 

[Clare73]

I can mention one thing I find inconsistent with John Piper. He says Calvinists can tell people Jesus died for them. How is that consistent with limited atonement? His answer is because Jesus died in another way for those that aren't elect. IMO it's not only inconsistent, it's also dishonest.

Our authority is the NT, not man.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I think I have come to understand the Calvinist view quite well from all the discussions here and also youtube. The thing is they mean when God decree the elect for salvation God includes all the evangelisation to this plan. If God didn't decree evangelisation none would be elect. But since God decrees it the elect come to salvation through evangelisation. Those who aren't of the elect won't receive the message. This is what I get from Calvinists. It's not that I agree, but I understand the logic.

Yes, you're right. The above is what they believe.
Some will say that evangelization is necessary because we are commanded to do it.

There is a view, to which Bishop Stephen Neill subscribed, that the writings of the Reformers afford 'exceedingly little' evidence of any concern for 'the progress of the preaching of the Gospel through the world' .I More specifically, there is a view that John Calvin had no theology of the mission of the Church. As Gustav Wameck put it, 'there is [in Calvin's theology] no recognition of the duty of the Church to send out missionaries'.2

[The writer goes on to say that Calvin DID have a thought towards missionary work, but it was due to his desire to further the Kingdom of God as he knew it...IOW, to make progress for Calvinism - not necessarily to save souls.]

source: https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/anvil/12-3_201.pdf

 

[GodsGrace101]

For Calvinists who believes that God determines all things - to the unfortunate "Totally Depraved" that are not graced with "Irresistablr Grace" it is too bad, so sad., The quoted portions are their terms. Per Calvin, some are predestined from birth to eternal torment.

“…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)​

Calvin's statement should be a red flag as it paints God as satanic (Jesus termed satan as the destoyer) - but for those under the Calvinist Stronghold, to question Calvinist doctrine is to question God.

Also see Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 5 which is even more evil-sounding and more clear.

And then I hear that God does not double predestinate....
It is not only pure logic, but Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 5 states plainly that Calvin believed in double-predestination.

. By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.

I believe part of the problem is that God's Sovereignty cannot be reconciled by the reformed to free will.
In fact all of TULIP comes from the idea that we do not have free will...
So we cannot decide for ourselves - God must pull us out of satan's web -IF we're of the chosen.
God chooses those saved and lost based on nothing, since we have no free will to choose for ourselves.
Jesus did not die for everyone, only the elect.
God must force His grace on us since we haven't the will to accept it or not.
We must necessarily persevere since it's God doing all the work and we do nothing.

And yet, free will is throughout the OT and NT for those that wish to see it.

 

[JAL]

This, spoken from the viewpoint of one who claims God changes, grows, improves... Ask @zoidar how that figures into his theology!

This sounds like polemics unrelated to the theme of my post - random potshots. Is this how you debate - you deflect to another topic?

 

[Clare73]

And yet, free will is throughout the OT and NT for those that wish to see it.

Free will is not denied.

It's unlimited ability is denied; i.e., it's ability to make all moral choices, as in the choice to be sinless in thought, word and deed, is denied.

 

[JAL]

Free will is not denied.

It's unlimited ability is denied; i.e., it's ability to make all moral choices, as in the choice to be sinless in thought, word and deed, is denied.

So in your view men can freely perform at least a subset of acts not foreordained by divine sovereignty?

 

[Clare73]

So in your view men can freely perform at least a subset of acts not foreordained by divine sovereignty?

Free will, Biblically, being the ability to choose what one prefers does not preclude divine sovereignty,
it precludes only man's ability to make all moral choices.

 

[JAL]

Free will, Biblically, being the ability to choose what one prefers does not preclude divine sovereignty,
it precludes only man's ability to make all moral choices.

Deflection. That was not a direct answer to my question. Your words are just a reiteration of thinly veiled determinism.