How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Clare73]

Hello QED,

Per Ephesians 1:1-14 all we can ascertain is that God chose the "faithful in Christ Jesus". From our perspective the Gospel message from Jesus in Mark 16:16 pertains - the promise is to those who believe. Why do you add to that with your predestination

The point is not about adding predestination, but about grammatical construction.

 

[Clare73]

Could you give a few examples of this? It caught my interest

Gr: prognosis (used only of divine foreknowledge) - Ac 2:23, 15:18; 1 Pe 1:2,
proginosko - (used of divine foreknowledge) Ro 8:29, 11:2; 1Pe 1:20

 

[Lost Witness]

what's a Calvinist?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark,
Why would God command all people everywhere to repent
if He knows it's not possible?

Would you ask a 5 year old child to write a thesis on justification?
No. Because you know it's not possible for him to do so.

So since he cannot do this - do you punish him?

Ask God! But he doesn't punish them for not repenting. If anything there, it is for rejecting him. But they were guilty before that. Born in sin.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Can't remember what I was to cite...
I think it was compatibilist free will, which will not be found in the bible because it doesn't exist in the bible.
So...

What I asked was this: "Which theology states that our will is dependent on coercion? Can you cite it?" I didn't ask you to cite something from the Bible. I wanted a citation, perhaps an excerpt from some confession or denominational statement, that states that our will is dependent on coercion. Since you didn't do so, but continuing upon a false premise, with "So..." the rest of your post does nothing to further the discussion as it had gone.

However, I will answer some of the points in your post, since they are relevant to the core issue anyhow (i.e. not just 'coercion' as you were using the term).

As I implied in a post a few minutes ago, we don't operate on a spiritual economy with God, as separate, able, players. This isn't Mt Olympus, where other deities negotiate with Zeus, or his father or whatever. The Romans 9 picture of clay in the Potter's hands is a far more accurate notion of what we are. Inanimate, compared to him. Material, to do with as the Potter pleases. The clay has no rights, to be demanded of him. There is no principle to which the Potter must answer concerning justice done to the clay. By the way, we are mostly ignorant of his justice and how it applies, though we know enough to be without excuse.

Notice that the clay is formed for a PURPOSE, for a use. It is not made for itself.

A. Determinism​

The view outlined in the introduction of this article when we quoted from the Belgic - and Westminster confession can be taken as our definition of determinism. More accurately, it can be described as theological determinism. Stated in simple terms, theological determinism can be defined as:

God providentially determines everything that comes to pass, including human choices [5].

B. Indeterminism​

Indeterminism is basically the negation of determinism. In the context of theological determinism, we can define it as such:


God does not providentially determine everything that comes to pass, [or at least not all human choices].

C. Moral responsibility​

A person is morally responsible for a given action if and only if that action is morally significant. An action is morally significant if it involves "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong". It is morally significant if a person deserves blame or praise for their action. Bad actions deserve blame, whereas good actions deserve praise [6].

D. Compatibilism​

Compatibilism is the thesis that determinism is compatible with moral responsibility. This is the Calvinist position.


It means God has granted us the ability to act freely (that is, voluntarily without being coerced into doing something we don't want to do), but not independent from God nor free from our desires, but to act according to our desires and nature. In other words, voluntary choice (to choose to act as we please) is compatible with determinism.


That we act according to our nature and desires is Scriptural (Luke 6:42-45), but we'll get to that later.

E. Incompatibilism​

Incompatibilism is the denial of compatibilism. It is the thesis that determinism is incompatible with moral responsibility: If human agents are determined, they cannot be blamed for anything that they choose to do.

F. Free will​

Someone has free will if they have the power or ability to make morally responsible choices.

Bignon notes that this definition importantly says nothing about the choices being determined or not. Free will does not necessitate indeterminism. Free will can be used by both determinists and indeterminists to refer to what they take to be morally responsible choices and actions [7].


For example, Calvin, in examining the question of free will, says that if we mean by free will that fallen man has the ability to choose what he wants, then of course fallen man has free will [8].

G. Libertarianism (libertarian free will)​

Libertarian free will is the ability to make free choices that are not determined by prior conditions. It is the sort of free will that persons must have if incompatibilism is true: it is a free will that is not determinist, and it is the sort of free will that Calvinists must reject.


source: Calvinism, human free will, and divine sovereignty explained


I like the following explanation and why it doesn't work...put simply, IF GOD determines everything, that would include YOUR CHOICE of something.
IOW, of course it's what you desire, God makes you desire it.

Compatibilists (Calvinists) attempt to maintain that men are free in the sense that they are “doing what they desire.” However, this appears to be an insufficient explanation to maintain any sense of true freedom considering that compatibilists also affirm that even the desires and thoughts of men are decreed by God. (i.e. WCF: “God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass.”)

This is an important circularity in the claim by Calvinists that humans can be considered genuinely free so long as their actions are in accordance with their desires (i.e. “voluntary”). Given the long-held Calvinistic belief that all events and actions are decreed by God, then human desire (the very thing that compatibilists claim allows human choices to be considered free) must itself also be decreed. But if so, then there is nothing outside of or beyond God’s decree on which human freedom might be based.

Put differently, there is no such thing as what the human really wants to do in a given situation, considered somehow apart from God’s desire in the matter (i.e., God’s desire as to what the human agent will desire). In the compatibilist scheme, human desire is wholly derived from and wholly bound to the divine desire. God’s decree encompasses everything, even the desires that underlie human choices.

This is a critical point, because it undercuts the plausibility of the compatibilist’s argument that desire can be considered the basis for human freedom. When you define freedom in terms of ‘doing what one wants to do’, it initially appears plausible only because it subtly evokes a sense of independence or ownership on the part of the human agent for his choices.

source: Why the Theory of Compatibilism Falls Short

I had all this answered so well, so thoroughly, so witty! Hit Post Reply and closed the window before I realized I wasn't online. Guess you'll have to take my word for it that I solidly trounced your objections, haha!

I'll try to put a much shorter rebuttal here: Starting from the bottom, I don't care what the writer thinks "a compatibilist" argues, I don't say desire is the basis for human freedom. To me, that is a strawman. Actually, I don't even like the sound of the word, compatibilist. But anyhow, the basis for human freedom is God's decree.

Also, the argument of the last 4 paragraphs above depends on the same notion visible from the beginning of the claim of "libertarian free will". By definition, libertarian freewill is will (or at least choice) apart from causation. Not only is that illogical, but it is unBiblical, as has been shown repeatedly and in many passages. It is self-determination, by definition, and it assumes warranted worth of the person apart from Christ. WRONG! The clay has no rights.

So if I beat up my dog every day, I am JUST in doing so because I'm his master?
Could we define JUST please?
It means GIVING TO EVERYONE WHAT THEY DESERVE.
If God made a plan for me to become saved because He knew Adam would fall,
and I decide NOT to take advantage of it and end up in hell - that is justice.

If God arbitrarily decides who is to be saved or damned - that is NOT justice.

As to the beginning of your statement above, IF God decides ALL, you are NOT freely choosing.
Because your preference has been decided for you by God - and not by your circumstances.

But why are you beating your dog? JK

Nobody I know says God does anything arbitrarily. That is a strawman. God forms the clay as he pleases, for his own purposes.

Also, if my preferences are caused by my circumstances they were caused by God, because my circumstance were caused by God.

This is not Mt Olympus where we are gods and demi-gods negotiating with Zeus.

I wonder why works was such as issue with you. I wonder if you went to a holiness church that could damage persons.
Only God could make demands of us -- not persons or churches.
Because, if so, the demands become burdensome, but God's commandments are not burdensome. As Jesus stated.
Choosing God is an act of the will - it's not a feeling we get (although sometimes the Holy Spirit does kick-in).
God does not make us obey...He wants us to obey out of love for Him.
The obedience does not have to be perfect.
We do our best,
Jesus does the rest.
I'm sorry you felt this way and believe it was due to incorrect teaching of the NT doctrine.
I know that we can feel secure of our salvation, as long as we're kneeling at the foot of the cross.

Not holiness. A missionary kid at a Bible campus. The usual Fundamentalist Dispensationalist Semi-Arminian Evangelical Methodist-leaning mix of people brought me up. Daily Bible and the rest of life growing up from a Bible point of view, including memorization of lots of Bible.

But you have misunderstood me. I didn't expect perfection. I expected consistency and growth and the much-taught "Christian Victory" that I was told was more than theory. "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." "...does not continue to sin." etc. etc. Bible.

I had an epiphany. Jesus just presented Himself to me.
I think God reveals Himself to everyone, but then we have the responsibility to respond NO or YES.
It's this response that will justify God's refusal of us at the judgment.
When we stand before God, will we say that we're saved because He saved us?
Or can we say that we're saved because we accepted His love?
I'm reminded of the washing of the feet.
Peter wanted to refuse the washing...he was, in effect, refusing God's love.
Jesus told him that he must accept or Peter would not belong to Him.
In the end Peter said YES.
This is how I understand God's revelation and our reply.

Is "obedience" salvation? Is "submission" salvation? Of course not. Obedience and submission are results of regeneration.
You have not answered the issue of 'inability' Romans 8:5-8; nor 'dead in sins' Ephesians 2:1-10.

Are you saying your subjective perception is altogether accurate —that because that is when you noticed the change, and that since you noticed it after you responded to him, that it cannot be that you were changed "logically-before" you responded to him? Is it not possible that when "Jesus just presented Himself" to you, that THAT was when he changed you, or even before that?

Is it not possible that you would not have heard his voice (Rev. 3:20) calling out to you, to open the door to his fellowship, if you were not already born-again, and your heart already changed?

I agree.
Faith is a gift.
Eph 2:8 ... it is an accepted fact that the gifts are: Grace, Faith, Salvation

Then is not faith the work of God? It is the Spirit of God in us that generates saving faith, not the will of man.

Agreed. We are enabled to obey.
But how can you speak of CHOICE if you believe God predestined everything?

God's decree is the only warrant for choice. God is the source of all reality.

Agreed. The first cause can have no cause.

LOL
This is true. No one really understands quantum theory. I'm at the top of the list!
In fact, I'm not qualified to continue with this conversation.

Nothing drilled into me by secular sources.
I'm just interested in theology - understanding God.
I will say that I've attended two denominations and am familiar with a 3rd and they agree on the fact that God does not choose arbitrarily,
but based on our decision to reply YES to Him.

The notion that God choosing "arbitrarily" is the only alternative to basing his choice on our decision to reply YES, is false. I don't see anything in Calvinism, Reformed Theology, nor anything in the Bible to even consider that. Where did that come from? God does nothing arbitrarily.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Unconditional Election does not allow us to know HOW God picked.
Is this a just God in your opinion?

You might reply that God can do as He pleases...
BUT does this make Him a JUST God as is explained throughout the bible?

Your post here doesn't make much sense to me. Why should God be considered unjust by not telling us HOW he picked?

But, regardless, Unconditional Election doesn't prohibit us from knowing HOW. Unconditional Election just does not address HOW God picked us. It only states that we did not earn it —that his election is not contingent on anything we are, or that we did or can do. You have to look elsewhere for HOW.

He does tell us quite a bit about it, though, in general. He tells us what he made us for. That, at least, is WHY, if not how. If you want means, it is by the counsel of his own will. If you want method, by the authority of his Word. Not that justice obligates him to tell us anything, though. He owes us nothing. Why should he let us in on his secrets? Do we need to know them in order to walk in them? Not at all. We fulfill them, willy-nilly, even when we oppose him. But fulfilling his plans is not our responsibility. Obedience is.

 

[zoidar]

Gr: prognosis (used only of divine foreknowledge) - Ac 2:23, 15:18; 1 Pe 1:2,
proginosko - (used of divine foreknowledge) Ro 8:29, 11:2; 1Pe 1:20

Thanks! I didn't find it that convincing. Btw Ac 15:18 is gnōstos, gnōrimos.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I would say yes.
How else can we know the truth?
Our authority is the bible.
But WHO wrote the bible?
Who compiled the gospels and letters that were to comprise it?

If you don't trust the Church Fathers, you can't trust the bible.

Wait. I thought, by Church Fathers, you were referring to the early church after the Bible was written. What ARE you talking about now, with this Apostolic succession?

 

[Clare73]

Thanks! I didn't find it very convincing. Btw Ac 15:18 is gnōstos, gnōrimos.

What's to be convincing. . .they are simply the verses where the words are used.

Ac 15:18 implies foreknowledge ("known to the Lord for ages")

 

[BNR32FAN]

I didn't bring up foreknowledge, you did.

Yes when I quoted 1 Peter 1:2. Are you implying that Peter’s choice to use the word foreknowledge was meaningless?

Precisely, just as I gave my daughter my mother's wedding ring because I was going to do so since the day she was born.

Ahh so you predestined her to get married according to your foreknowledge of what you would do. Ridiculous

 

[Mark Quayle]

what's a Calvinist?

per wikipedia: "Calvinism (also called the Reformed Tradition, Reformed Protestantism, Reformed Christianity or simply Reformed) is a major branch of Protestantism that follows the theological tradition and forms of Christian practice set down by John Calvin and other Reformation-era theologians. It emphasizes the sovereignty of God and the authority of the Bible."

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes when I quoted 1 Peter 1:2. Are you implying that Peter’s choice to use the word foreknowledge was meaningless?


Ahh so you predestined her to get married according to your foreknowledge of what you would do. Ridiculous

Pretty obviously, you are taking @Clare73 wrong any way you can, even without any good reason for doing so. And you call her ridiculous?

 

[BNR32FAN]

No, Biblically, "foreknowledge" (prognosis)
is used only of God, and
it refers to him knowing his actions, it does not refer to him knowing others' actions.

Scripture does not refer to God knowing what is going to happen (foreknowledge) apart from his own actions.

Just because it’s only used twice in the Bible in reference to God doesn’t mean that the word only applies to God. Everyone who reads the prophecies has foreknowledge. The wise men who sought Jesus at His birth were seeking Him according to the foreknowledge God had revealed thru the prophecy in Micah.

Are you suggesting that God doesn’t have foreknowledge of what will take place apart from His own actions? He is omniscient and omnipresent He knows everything that will take place even if it’s not from His own actions.

 

[Lost Witness]

He is omniscient and omnipresent He knows everything that will take place even if it’s not from His own actions.

100%

 

[BNR32FAN]

Pretty obviously, you are taking her wrong any way you can, even without any good reason for doing so. And you call her ridiculous?

No the statement Peter wrote was “who were chosen according to the foreknowledge of God”. Her interpretation mandates that they were chosen according to Him choosing them in the future. That means He chose them twice? God says: “I’m going to choose these people in the future so I’ll choose them now”. If He chose them before creation He would have no reason to choose them in the future. How is that not ridiculous?

 

[BNR32FAN]

100%

Amen, sin is not an action of God and He’s known all the sins we would commit before creation.

 

[Lost Witness]

Amen, sin is not an action of God and He’s known all the sins we would commit before creation.

Lamentations 3:22-23 The Lord Is GOOD ALL THE TIME​

 

[Mark Quayle]

Just because it’s only used twice in the Bible in reference to God doesn’t mean that the word only applies to God. Everyone who reads the prophecies has foreknowledge. The wise men who sought Jesus at His birth were seeking Him according to the foreknowledge God had revealed thru the prophecy in Micah.

Are you suggesting that God doesn’t have foreknowledge of what will take place apart from His own actions? He is omniscient and omnipresent He knows everything that will take place even if it’s not from His own actions.

@Clare73 said no such thing! She said words to the effect that the term "foreknowledge" in scripture is indicative of his actions.

You know better than this! Have a little respect!

 

[BNR32FAN]

What do ya’ll think about the profile info being displayed on every single post? I made a suggestion to hide it like it was before. It seems to clutter the discussion with a bunch of irrelevant information. What’s your thoughts?

 

[BNR32FAN]

@Clare73 said no such thing! She said words to the effect that the term "foreknowledge" in scripture is indicative of his actions.

You know better than this! Have a little respect!

She specifically said that He chose us according to His foreknowledge of what He would do not what we would do.