How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Clare73]

I noticed it. And for a time Arminianism existed as orthodoxed (but extreme) Calvinism (James Arminius never lived to see the day he wasn't a Calvinist).
I agree that much of Protestantism is at least Calvinistic to a degree. Even non-Protestant denominations (like some Mennonite groups) have adopted some Cakvinistic views.
I believe everything is predestined because God is omniscient. The future will unfold as God knew from the beginning it would.

But the heart of Calvinism is their view of the atonement. That is what I reject. And that is what cannot be found in Scripture (although they will tell you their view is its meaning).

So what is Calvin's atonement theology?

 

[Clare73]

Are you referring to "Limited Atonement"?
In my opinion it is the only "TULIP" that must be inferred rather than explicitly stated in scripture (just as the "prevenient grace" of Wesley must be inferred rather than being explicitly stated.) I have personal suspicions on why, but no clear answers revealed from the mind of God.

I asked: "Who besides me did you die for?"
God said: "Nunya."
Confused, I asked: "Nunya?"
God replied clearer: "Yeah, None of your business!"

Nunya business!. . .love it!

I'm inclined to think God's arm is not too short. . .and that if he died for you, it was effective--your sin is remitted , you are no longer guilty and, therefore, no longer subject to his condemnation (Romans 5:18) and wrath (Romans 5:9); i.e., you are saved from damnation.

Therefore, I'm inclined to think that he died only for those to whom his blood (death, sacrifice) is applied by faith, as it was applied by hyssop in the OT for cleansing.
I am not inclined to think that anything the Almighty God does is ineffective.

 

[Clare73]

Also note that 'according to' and 'in keeping with', both valid uses contextually of the preposition κατὰ can mean the same thing, but often don't. It can also mean, "unto", "toward" or "for" or "against (positionally)" or even "of".

The Greek is pretty plain in most cases, but to your two examples: (1 "He chose us according to His foreknowledge", which I suppose you take from 1 Peter 1:2 contextually, even in the same verse 2, shows choosing for a purpose —"...through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood:" and (2
“for those whom He foreknew He predestined” (Romans 8:29) continues with "to be conformed to the image of his son." —purpose

"Choosing for a purpose" and "choosing according to his purpose" being the same thing?

(Haha looking for a different reference, I came on this, from bing: In Acts 2:23 God’s foreknowledge is explicitly causative: Jesus was “delivered over [to death] by the predestinating purpose and foreknowledge of God.” and this: "Also, if God’s choosing us were based on His foreknowledge that we would choose Him, then He really didn’t choose us at all. Rather, He only would have responded to our choosing Him by then choosing us. But this would make God’s plan of salvation depend on the choices of fallen sinners, rather than on His purpose and glory.")

In all cases, the principle acknowledged by Biblical philosophy concerning God, is that, since he is not bound to time, for him to foreknow something is for it to have happened already. Further, since all things come from him, whatever happened, happened by his causation. There is no other creator.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Which has nothing to do with grounding in basic Christian teaching from the NT.
"Twisting the Scriptures" is no different than excising some Scriptures,
neither of which qualifies for "grounding in basic Christian teaching (doctrine)."

If you're new to Christianity, you don't come to the Scriptures with your own doctrines by which you interpret the Scriptures.

"Fallen away from grace" in context there refers to "falling away from grace" and "into law" for justification/righteousness, not a falling out of salvation.

Trusting God to keep him in the salvation, to which he was guaranteed by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:14), does not mean he fears possibly losing that salvation. It means he believes and trusts God's guarantee to keep him saved.

No offense, brother, but actually it is you that has been persuaded by Scriptures being twisted out of context.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps you needed a teacher in that case, whom God has appointed to the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11) for that purpose?

However, it seems you have reevaluated the Scriptures to coincide with your (incomplete understanding of) doctrine of eternal security (i.e., John 6:39, John 10:28; Ephesians 1:14; 2 Corinthians 1:22, 2 Corinthians 5:5).

Its no secret that the doctrine of eternal security didn’t exist before the 16th century and has been refuted by every single apostolic church. So I don’t think it can be qualified as “basic Christian teaching” since it’s exclusively reformed theology.

 

[atpollard]

So what is Calvin's atonement theology?

John clarified in another post:

No. I'm referring to understanding the atonement strictly through retributive justice (I believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement problematic).

His issue is one that a lot of people have trouble with. Around the 1500's people started to suggest that Jesus had died to "pay a debt" and a series of arguments arose about who owed what to whom. That is the whole "Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement" (Jesus died to pay a 'sin debt' to someone instead of us.)

Before that, thinkers in the church viewed Christ's death in less Courtroom/Legalistic terms. For example, one earlier view was "Christus Victor" ... Jesus died to defeat death, hell and the grave and to give us victory over the power of sin in our lives. See, no "sin debt" owed to anybody.

 

[Clare73]

As a Calvinist, I agree. However as someone that has read the Bible, Doesn't it claim BOTH? God has "foreknowledge" of all things [1 John 3:20]

However, the word "foreknowledge" (proginosko) is not used there, is it?
The word there is "knows" (gnosis), right?

and God has "predestined" some. [Romans 8:29]

I agree.
He can and did. [Joshua 24:15]
[... but we are flawed: Genesis 3:8, John 3:19-20, Romans 3:10-11] (At least, I am.)

... but God [Ephesians 2:4]​

 

[Clare73]

No. I'm referring to understanding the atonement strictly through retributive justice
(I believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement problematic).

However, the OT atoning sacrifices were the pattern, type, shadow of Jesus' atonement.

They were substitutionary--the animal died in the sinner's place.
They were penal--the sacrifices were penalties (Leviticus 5:6-7, 14, 6:6, 26:41, 43).

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

However, the OT atoning sacrifices were the pattern, type, shadow of Jesus' atonement.

They were substitutionary--the animal died in the sinner's place.
They were penal--Leviticus 5:6-7, 14, 6:6, 26:41, 43.

yes some deny this central bible theme and are drifting from truth.

 

[atpollard]

However, the word "foreknowledge" (proginosko) is not used there, is it?
The word there is "knows" (gnosis), right?

Correct, however was there a time when God did not know (gnosis) that and then suddenly omniscient God gained that knowledge? No, God always "knew" the facts. There is another more intimate and experiential knowledge [like Romans 8:29] ... but I do not think that is the "foreknow" vs "predestine" distinction that others wanted to make. I think they were leaning towards the "God looks ahead and knows who will say yes, so God predestines them" approach to the mystery of "WHY SOME AND NOT OTHERS".

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

However, the word "foreknowledge" (proginosko) is not used there, is it?
The word there is "knows" (gnosis), right?

God foreknows the people, not what the people do...in romans 8
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Whom/ Them
the people, God foreknows the sinner, not what he will do, believe, accept, etc.

 

[Clare73]

Our actions are not predestined just because God foreseen them.
Foreknowledge is knowing what will happen,

Actually, Biblically divine foreknowledge is of what God will do, not what man will do.

God knows what is going to happen because he has decreed from before the foundation of the world his actions which will cause it to happen.

predestination is determining what will happen.

Predestination is predetermining one's destiny. . .based on God foreknowing what he has decreed that he shall do; i.e., regeneration.

Knowing what will happen does not make God the cause of what happened

Actually it does, when you understand that divine foreknowledge is in regard to what God will do--not what man will do--to cause his purpose to happen.

when the acting agent has free will outside of God’s control. God does not control anyone even Christians which is precisely why we all still sin after coming to Christ and receiving the Holy Spirit.

God works in the disposition of man (which controls the will), giving man to prefer God's will, which man then freely and willingly, without external force or constraint, voluntarily chooses (definition of "free will").

God does not violate the free will of man, God uses the free will of man to save the elect.

 

[BNR32FAN]

He chose us according to what he knew he would do regarding us--regeneration.

He chose us beforehand (predestined)
according to what he knew he would do for us (regeneration) beforehand (foreknowledge).

Agreed. . .predestination is setting man's destiny, while
divine foreknowledge is knowing of his own future actions (i.e., regeneration).

The (pre)destiny is based on the actions of the foreknowledge.

Well that’s certainly one hypothesis but how does it stand up to scripture?

Was Jesus trying to save these people?

“But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved.”
‭‭John‬ ‭5‬:‭34‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Were they saved?

“Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?””
‭‭John‬ ‭5‬:‭45‬-‭47‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

I have more examples but I think it’s best to concentrate on one at a time.

 

[John Caldwell]

So what is Calvin's atonement theology?

Calvin was educated in law and heavily influenced by the Renaissance humanism movement. He understood the atonement within this context (it is natural, perhaps necessary, for men to understand things within the context they find themselves).

I disagree with Calvin's understanding of Divine Justice, therefore I find his concept of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement lacking biblical merit.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Actually, Biblically divine foreknowledge is of what God will do, not what man will do.

God knows what is going to happen because he has decreed from before the foundation of the world his actions which will cause it to happen.

Predestination is predetermining one's destiny. . .based on God foreknowing what he has decreed that he shall do; i.e., regeneration.

Actually it does, when you understand that divine foreknowledge is in regard to what God will do--not what man will do--to cause his purpose to happen.

God works in the disposition of man (which controls the will), giving man to prefer God's will, which man then freely and willingly, without external force or constraint, voluntarily chooses (the definition of "free will").
God does not violate the free will of man, God uses the free will of man to save the elect.

Like I said that’s one hypothesis so let’s test it according to scripture. I’ll wait for your reply to my questions in post 212.

 

[Clare73]

Well that’s certainly one hypothesis but how does it stand up to scripture?
Was Jesus trying to save these people?
“But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved.”
‭‭John‬ ‭5‬:‭34‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬
Were they saved?

Did they believe?

“Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?””
‭‭John‬ ‭5‬:‭45‬-‭47‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Looks like they didn't believe. . .ergo, they were not saved.

I have more examples but I think it’s best to concentrate on one at a time.

Like I said that’s one hypothesis so let’s test it according to scripture.
I’ll wait for your reply to my questions in post 212.

See it here, above.

 

[Clare73]

Its no secret that the doctrine of eternal security didn’t exist before the 16th century

Are you saying that John 6:39, John 10:28; Ephesians 1:14; 2 Corinthians 1:22, 2 Corinthians 5:5 were added in the 16th century?

Surely not. . .they have been in the Scriptures from the beginning.

and has been refuted by every single apostolic church. So I don’t think it can be qualified as “basic Christian teaching” since it’s exclusively reformed theology.

The only criteria is what is in the Scriptures, which this is.

 

[BNR32FAN]

• [John 6:37-40] "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
  
• [Philippians 1:6] being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;
• [Philippians 2:12-13] Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

The FATHER gives.
The SON will not cast out.
The SON will raise on the last day.
GOD who began a good work will complete it.
GOD is at work IN YOU both "to will" (desire) and "to do" (walk the walk).

God did it ... you only need to hold on to the trust IN HIM! (It was never about how good you are.)

You need to understand those verses correctly to see how they do not support eternal security. The Greek word translated to “comes” is only used in the present and imperfect tense, meaning those who presently and continuously come to Him, He will not cast out. It doesn’t imply that those who came to Him but stopped coming will not be cast out.

Verse 39 does not say that Jesus will lose none. If Jesus will lose none then John 15:1-7 is useless message especially John 15:6 since it would be an impossibility. John 6:39 says “it is the will/desire of The Father that He should lose none”. Just because it’s The Father’s desire that Jesus lose none doesn’t mean that Jesus won’t lose any. It’s also God’s will/desire that all men be saved and come to the full knowledge of truth. 1 Timothy 2:3-4. We all know that’s not going to happen even tho it is what God desires.

Verse 40 is the exact same situation it’s the will/desire of The Father that everyone who believes in Christ will have eternal life. That does not mean that everyone who believed in Jesus at one time or another will be saved. It also doesn’t mean that everyone who ever believed in Him will always believe in Him. Jesus said Himself that the rocks that fell along the rocky path believe for a while but when times of temptation come they fall away. Luke 8:13 Simon Magus the sorcerer also believed for a while and fell away in Acts 8:9-24.

Philippians 1:6 does not say that “He who has begun a good work in you will complete it”. It says “I am confident…” It’s not a definite statement it’s an estimation. Like if I were to say I am confident that the beam will hold the weight. It’s not a statement of fact it’s an estimation. If Paul taught eternal security then he wouldn’t have written to the Galatians that those who were trying to be justified by the law had been “severed from Christ and had fallen from grace” in Galatians 5:4. He wouldn’t have written Timothy and told him “if we deny Him, He will deny us” in 2 Timothy 2:12. He wouldn’t have written

“But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭5‬:‭3‬-‭4‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Why must immorality not be named among them?

“For (because) this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭5‬:‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

And

“Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭5‬:‭6‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Philippians 2:12-13 Yes it is God who is at work in us to His will. But do we sin? Is it God working in us while we commit sinful acts? We are a servant of the one whom we serve.

“Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭6‬:‭12‬-‭16‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Like I said when you understand these verses correctly none of them say we can’t lose our salvation.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Did they believe?

Looks like they didn't believe. . .ergo, they were not saved.


See the above.

Ok I agree they weren’t saved. So what about the first question. Was Jesus trying to save them?

“But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved.”
‭‭John‬ ‭5‬:‭34‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[BNR32FAN]

Are you saying that John 6:39, John 10:28; Ephesians 1:14; 2 Corinthians 1:22, 2 Corinthians 5:5 were added in the 16th century?

Surely not. . .they have been in the Scriptures from the beginning.

The only criteria is what is in the Scriptures, which this is.

No I’m saying you don’t understand them correctly. John 6:39 doesn’t say that a person can’t lose their salvation. It is the will/desire of The Father that Jesus should lose none. It doesn’t say that Jesus will lose none. It is the will/desire that all men be saved and come to the full knowledge of truth. 1 Timothy 2:3-4. Is that passage saying that all men will be saved and come to the full knowledge of truth?

 

[Clare73]

Ok I agree they weren’t saved. So what about the first question.
Was Jesus trying to save them?

“But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things
so that you may be saved.”
‭‭John‬ ‭5‬:‭34‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

"So that you may be saved" sounds conditional.