How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Mark Quayle]

We are free moral agents.

Yet, bound by our inclinations.

 

[John Mullally]

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.

Paul wrote nearly half of the NT.

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.

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

I made no mention of deriving new doctrine from Paul - you did!

So what is your problem with what Paul said?

I did not say I had a problem with Paul. Given he had revelations straight from Jesus (Galatians 1:12), I see the value of his using long chains of reasoning for us to better understand his revelation. Using long chains of reasoning is not the best tactic for the rest of us because it tends to introduce error.

In software long chains of reasoning can pay off because only they have the luxury of testing its effectiveness through billions of simulations. For us, we only have one life to live and it is hard to learn from other's mistakes - there is no re-do - so be intellegent and cautious. If you believe the Bible, keep to short chains of logic from those who wrote scripture.

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?

Should I suggest meditating on what Christ has done for you per Ephesians so you can find who you are? God has good plans for us all. Yes, many don't cooperate and are severely judged.

Jeremiah 29:11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.

Ezekiel 18:23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord GOD, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?

1 Timothy 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Romans 11:22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.
​

Even with the vessels of wrath depicted in Romans 9:22, that He "endured with much longsuffering", I believe God's longsuffering demonstrates an attempt to redeem them. As 2 Peter 3:9 expresses the purpose of God's longsuffering being for good.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.​

 

[fhansen]

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.

No, that’s the distinction that’s being discussed. Free is free and while man’s choice must be aided by God, in order for it to be free the possibility of man making the wrong choice must necessarily always remain, and will remain until he’s perfected in love, in fact.

 

[zoidar]

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!)

Hi Mark! Good to see you too! I've been surfing on Hawaii ... I wish!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Paul wrote nearly half of the NT.

And...?

I made no mention of deriving new doctrine from Paul - you did!

Please show me where, and in context... Sounds like you misunderstood something. Like, maybe I said we don't derive new doctrine from Paul, bc Paul didn't derive new doctrine at all.

I did not say I had a problem with Paul. Given he had revelations straight from Jesus (Galatians 1:12), I see the value of his using long chains of reasoning for us to better understand his revelation. Using long chains of reasoning is not the best tactic for the rest of us because it tends to introduce error.

Ok, I'll play. What are these long chains of reasoning you seem to ascribe to those of us who disagree with your theology?

In software long chains of reasoning can pay off because only they have the luxury of testing its effectiveness through billions of simulations. For us, we only have one life to live and it is hard to learn from other's mistakes - there is no re-do - so be intellegent and cautious. If you believe the Bible, keep to short chains of logic from those who wrote scripture.

I'm starting to wonder how long a chain is long, to you.

Should I suggest meditating on what Christ has done for you per Ephesians so you can find who you are? God has good plans for us all. Yes, many don't cooperate and are severely judged.

Such as, in Ephesians 2, where I find out that (as if experience hadn't already taught me) I am dead, until the Spirit of God makes me alive? Yep, that's who I am.

Jeremiah 29:11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.

Ezekiel 18:23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord GOD, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?

1 Timothy 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Romans 11:22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.

You're repeating yourself. We've been through this. If not with you personally, with others who believe in freewill.

Even with the vessels of wrath depicted in Romans 9:22, that He "endured with much longsuffering", I believe God's longsuffering demonstrates an attempt to redeem them. As 2 Peter 3:9 expresses the purpose of God's longsuffering being for good.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

As @Clare73 says, Already litigated.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, that’s the distinction that’s being discussed. Free is free and while man’s choice must be aided by God, in order for it to be free the possibility of man making the wrong choice must necessarily always remain, and will remain until he’s perfected in love, in fact.

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

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, that’s the distinction that’s being discussed. Free is free and while man’s choice must be aided by God, in order for it to be free the possibility of man making the wrong choice must necessarily always remain, and will remain until he’s perfected in love, in fact.

—Which brings up an interesting question: You agree with me that on this earth we don't even nearly achieve perfection, right? So when he transforms us into what we will be in heaven, "perfected in love", does he give us the right of informed consent concerning what is going to happen? No, don't tell me you know what is going to happen. None of us have more than a clue, if that.

But, if free is free, why must man's choice be aided by God?

 

[John Caldwell]

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.





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



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.



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.

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

 

[atpollard]

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).

Lucky for us! Right.

 

[Clare73]

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.

And not being a Biblical concept, it is not a measure of God's truth, only of man's assumptions regarding God's truth.

 

[Clare73]

Do you believe that is being honest?

Pot calling the kettle black?

As honest as are your "affirmative" and deliberately false insinuations/representations/assertions
in posts #740, #746, #751, #710.

 

[fhansen]

And not being a Biblical concept, it is not a measure of God's truth, only of man's assumptions regarding God's truth.

Only if the Bible itself and Christ's advent and revelation have no purpose or meaning.

 

[Clare73]

Only if the Bible itself and Christ's advent and revelation have no purpose or meaning.

Stay on point. . .

It's not about "purpose or meaning," it's about your notion of "meaningful,"
which personal and subjective notion is not an objective measure of God's truth.

 

[John Caldwell]

Pot calling the kettle black?

As honest as are your "affirmative" and deliberately false insinuations/representations/assertions
in posts #740, #746, #751, #710.

I have not intentionally misrepresented any of your posts. When asked, you ran and hid refusing to answer. So all we have to go on is your posts without explanation.

Granted, I never read you post to be a Calvivinist but from your posts I assumed you were. I apologize if you are not.

That said, how could any member assume I hold to Arminianism when I reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement????

And I was not calling @Mark Quayle dishonest. I was asking him if he thought implying that I held to Arminianism since I reject Penal Substitution Theory and since I believe in predestination & double predestination is an honest assessment of my view as I have relayed.

 

[fhansen]

Stay on point. . .

It's not about "purpose or meaning," it's about your notion of "meaningful,"
which personal and subjective notion is not an objective measure of God's truth.

If something has purpose or meaning then it's meaningful. And it's apparently your opinion that it's not in this case. Stay on point...

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

Do you believe that these choices have no meaning?

 

[Clare73]

If something has purpose or meaning then it's meaningful. And it's apparently your opinion that it's not in this case. Stay on point...

Depends on your subjective point of view.

If that were the case, then God's word is not true because the reprobate sees it as not meaningful.

 

[John Caldwell]

Pot calling the kettle black?

As honest as are your "affirmative" and deliberately false insinuations/representations/assertions in posts #740, #746, #751, #710.

Ok, now let’s look at your claims:

Post#740

You are welcome. And thank you for the discussion.


I engage not to persuaded you away from a position but to explain (and reexamine) my own in the hopes others will also reexamine the issues.


If you change your mind about the "ransom" then please feel free to let me know what part of my explanation you find problematic.


Peace.

This is true, not a false accusation, representation or assertion.

I thanked you for the discussion.

I do engage not to sway you away form a position but to look at views in the hopes others will also examine the issues.


If you change your mind about what you posted regarding the “ransom” (your unwillingness to clarify what you were asking of me) then please do let me know. I want to know what parts of my response you did not understand as you keep asking the same things as if I didn’t answer.


Post # 746:

I did. And I thank you for engaging the discussion.


Often we do not recognize errors in our beliefs until we stumble upon a question we are unable to answer. It appears you have reached that point. I hope that does not dissuade your studies. You have not failed but your doctrine has failed you. That is how we learn.

Here I told you that I did read your post. I also noted that often we do not recognize errors in our beliefs until we stumble upon a question (or questions) we are unable to engage. It does look like you reached this point as you simply ran away and could not explain what exactly you were looking for or what you were asking. You just said to address the ransom, which had been repeatedly addressed.

And it is not that you failed, but your doctrine failed you. It left you unable to provide a reasonable response so you kept repeating that you wouldn’t answer.


Post #751

??


Yes, I read the post.


I asked for clarification about what you didn't understand about my view of a ransom.


You replied that you were not interested in answering.


I understand that you cannot engage the topic by explaining your question to me. That is fine. There is no shame in backing out. Go back and study. We can discuss the ransom when you are better equipped.


You do not need to keep repeating yourself.

This seems self explanatory. I read your post. You replied that you were not interested in answering my question. I had asked you what part of my reply regarding ransom you didn’t understand (because I had repeatedly addressed the ransom). You simply shut down, unable to respond.

In my experience this indicates a lack of study, or at least an inability to express what one believes when faced with those who do not accept those beliefs.

There is no shame in backing out. That is what you did. The shame may, however, be in making claims that those who acknowledge your failure to defend/ articulate your belief is somehow being dishonest.


Post #710

Misrepresentation. . .

The riddles are in prophecy (Numbers 12:8), not the NT.

The literal interpretation of prophetic riddles is in disagreement with NT apostolic teaching, which is why I suspect Calvinists disagree with that "literal" approach to interpreting prophecy.

I would expect Calvinists always to disagree with such erroneous literal interpretation of prophetic riddles.


And I note you failed to address the substance of the post; i.e., Jesus died as a ransom (posts #686 and #698).

This was your post. I agree that it may be less than honest in terms of the accusation of misrepresentation. But that is what you posted, not me.

This is where you noted that I had not addressed Jesus dying as a ransom. The issue is that I had repeatedly addressed Jesus dying as a ransom. This is central to my understanding of the Atonement. So I asked you what part you did not understand and you ran away.

 

[fhansen]

If that were the case, then God's word is not true because the reprobate sees it as not meaningful.

No, it depends on God's will, even though our interpretation of His will, via Scripture, may well be subjective or sketchy. So, do you believe the choices mentioned below are meaningful?

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

 

[Clare73]

Ok, now let’s look at your claims:
Post#740
This is true, not a false accusation, representation or assertion.
I thanked you for the discussion.
I do engage not to sway you away form a position but to look at views in the hopes others will also examine the issues.
If you change your mind about what you posted regarding the “ransom” (your unwillingness to clarify what you were asking of me) then please do let me know. I want to know what parts of my response you did not understand as you keep asking the same things as if I didn’t answer.

Post # 746:
Here I told you that I did read your post. I also noted that often we do not recognize errors in our beliefs until we stumble upon a question (or questions) we are unable to engage. It does look like you reached this point as you simply ran away and could not explain what exactly you were looking for or what you were asking. You just said to address the ransom, which had been repeatedly addressed.
And it is not that you failed, but your doctrine failed you. It left you unable to provide a reasonable response so you kept repeating that you wouldn’t answer.

Post #751
This seems self explanatory. I read your post. You replied that you were not interested in answering my question. I had asked you what part of my reply regarding ransom you didn’t understand (because I had repeatedly addressed the ransom). You simply shut down, unable to respond.
In my experience this indicates a lack of study, or at least an inability to express what one believes when faced with those who do not accept those beliefs.
There is no shame in backing out. That is what you did. The shame may, however, be in making claims that those who acknowledge your failure to defend/ articulate your belief is somehow being dishonest.

Post #710
This was your post. I agree that it may be less than honest in terms of the accusation of misrepresentation. But that is what you posted, not me.
This is where you noted that I had not addressed Jesus dying as a ransom. The issue is that I had repeatedly addressed Jesus dying as a ransom. This is central to my understanding of the Atonement. So I asked you what part you did not understand and you ran away.

Q.E.D.

 

[Clare73]

No, it depends on God's will,

Circular. . .

even though our interpretation of His will, via Scripture, may well be subjective or sketchy.

Previously addressed. . .

So, do you believe the choices mentioned below are meaningful?

Relevance to determining their truth?

What is subjectively meaningful to me could also be untrue.

"Meaningfulness" to me personally is not an objective measure for God's truth.