How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[BNR32FAN]

Philemon‬ ‭1‬:‭14

New International Version
But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary.

New Living Translation
But I didn’t want to do anything without your consent. I wanted you to help because you were willing, not because you were forced.

English Standard Version
but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own accord.

Interlinear
Apart from however - your consent nothing I wished to do so that not as according to necessity the good of you may be but according to willingness.

The Berean Literal also says "according to willingness". The Berean Standard, and several others are wrong on this one. Philemon 1:14 does not mention free will.

What’s the difference between willingly, voluntarily, or by free will?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I mentioned 'looking into the future' to make the point, that you and apparently most people on this thread and so many others seem to think, that God reacts to what we do in order to establish policy or something. To me that's just about the most coherent way I can see to put the notion. To me it is ludicrous to suppose that God decides what is going to happen, as a result of what is going to happen. His decision is meaningless in that structure.

1 Peter 1:1-2 doesn’t say that God decided what will happen. Maybe that’s the source of your confusion.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Has anyone answered you?

A Calvinist is a person that is of the reformed faith that came about in the 1,500's.
It's called calvinism because it's more understood by most persons.

Calvin believed in double predestination.
This means that:
MAN HAS NO FREE WILL
MAN IS TOTALLY UNABLE TO SEEK OR FIND GOD
GOD HAS TO CHOSE WHOM WILL BE SAVED BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE.

Calvinism is explained by the acronym T.U.L.I.P.
This acronym was explained in the 1930's if I remember correctly.

See the following for an explanation:
Please note that calvinism is not biblical and was never accepted by the church.

T Total Depravity: Man is born totally depraved and is unable to seek God or find Him.
U Unconditional Election: Because of the above, it is God that chooses who will be saved and who will be damned.
L Limited Atonement: Jesus did not die for the whole world, but only for the chosen by God.
I Irresistible Grace: When God wants to save someone, His grace is irristible - the person will be saved.
P Perseverance of the Saints: If a person is chosen by God, he will persevere till the end and never forfeit his salvation.

J Mick said:
what's a Calvinist?

@J Mick I hope you can recognize bias when you see it. Read with a strong dose of skepticism

Are you reformed or not?
What do you disagree with as to what I posted?
This is what calvinists believe...
At least admit you're a calvinist.

Are you saying that you are not biased? We all are. Get used to that fact, so you can try to see around the bias.

You outright instruct @J Mick that Calvinism is not Biblical and was never accepted by the church. No bias there? I notice you didn't mention Reformed Theology, which is pretty much the same as Calvinism in its tenets, which tenets spawned Protestantism.

You didn't represent Calvinism with mere facts concerning Calvinism, and you missed a lot of them. You jump immediately into what seems (granted that it seems to me) to be perhaps a favorite gripe of yours, Double Predestination. You ALL-CAPS the supposed doctrines you seem to hate. (Some people consider this to be SHOUTING). You don't explain what Calvinists mean by MAN HAS NO FREE WILL. You claim that double predestination means that MAN IS TOTALLY UNABLE TO SEEK OR FIND GOD, instead of pointing out any difference between the lost and the regenerated —why didn't you say, "Man as fallen..." or "Unregenerate man is totally unable..."? Then you say that double predestination means that GOD HAS TO CHOSE WHOM WILL BE SAVED BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE. That is simply not true. God doesn't HAVE to do anything. His choice was made by the council of his own will, by his own authority, before the foundation of the world, before any of the three items you list came into play. God chose what he chose because he wanted to, for his own purposes —not as a reaction to anything anyone would do, nor even because of the sorry state they are in. Bias, my man!

And you gloss right over the fact that double predestination doesn't even deal directly with those three items you listed. Not only that, but you don't even mention that "double predestination", while logically reasonable, does not stand alone as such, but is only a logically reasonable conclusion —it is not Calvinist doctrine as such. Calvinism teaches that God does nothing capriciously, though that too is not the core doctrine of the matter. God has a purposeful, and just, reason for the damnation of those at enmity with him, contrary to any notion that he damns the same way that he saves.

But skipping the importance of the doctrine of God's sovereignty, and so on —i.e. that Calvinism isn't merely represented by TULIP— you even presented TULIP wrong:

Leaving alone Total Depravity as you stated it —you were close enough— you present a drawn conclusion from what Unconditional Election does say, instead of showing what Unconditional Election does say: (In my own words), that God's choice is based on nothing that we are, that we did, that we are doing or that we can do.

Limited Atonement you present with words ("Jesus did not die for the whole world") to make it seem to conflict with words of Scripture (such as in Hebrews 2:9 and 1 John 2:2). If I was to present it in opposition to you, I would have put, "Jesus did not die for absolutely every person who ever will have lived". You could at least have presented the notion of Definite Atonement, which is more to the point. But no, you had to jump right in to controversy, with no allowance of what Limited Atonement is really about. Bias.

So no, what you told him is not what Calvinists believe.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Post #1471 being the case, there is no NT basis for maintaining that God's foreknowledge as used in the NT is of what man is going to do, and then maintaining that such "foreknowledge" is the basis for God's decisions regarding man, when there is no foreknowledge by God of man's decisions presented in the NT.
The NT treats of God's foreknowledge (prognosis) only as relating to his own actions, and we are not at liberty to assume its usage means anything other than that for the purposes of our own theology.

The word is only used twice in the scriptures and your only assuming that it refers to God’s foreknowledge of what He would do. I’ve already explained how that interpretation is completely ridiculous that God would choose people before creation based on who He would choose in the future. God would be saying to Himself “I’m going to choose these people in the future so I’ll choose them now before any of them exist”? Your saying God chose them before creation according to Him choosing them in the future. That’s preposterous and it doesn’t make sense because it completely negates the purpose of His foreknowledge. Peter should’ve just said that God chose them and completely left out anything about foreknowledge.

 

[BNR32FAN]

what's a Calvinist?

A Calvinist is someone who believes that God chose who He will save before creation and if God didn’t choose you there’s absolutely nothing you can do about it. If God didn’t choose you, you are completely incapable of believing the gospel, you are completely incapable of repentance, you are completely incapable of coming to Christ. In a nutshell if God didn’t choose you there’s nothing you can do to be saved. Also if God did choose you there’s nothing you can do to be condemned. No matter what you do, if God chose you then your destined to be saved no matter what. God controls everything and nothing happens unless God made it happen. That’s Calvinism.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You outright instruct @J Mick that Calvinism is not Biblical and was never accepted by the church. No bias there? I notice you didn't mention Reformed Theology, which is pretty much the same as Calvinism in its tenets, which tenets spawned Protestantism.

He did right here.

A Calvinist is a person that is of the reformed faith that came about in the 1,500's.
It's called calvinism because it's more understood by most persons.

 

[Lost Witness]

A Calvinist is someone who believes that God chose who He will save before creation and if God didn’t choose you there’s absolutely nothing you can do about it. If God didn’t choose you, you are completely incapable of believing the gospel, you are completely incapable of repentance, you are completely incapable of coming to Christ. In a nutshell if God didn’t choose you there’s nothing you can do to be saved. Also if God did choose you there’s nothing you can do to be condemned. No matter what you do, if God chose you then your destined to be saved no matter what. God controls everything and nothing happens unless God made it happen. That’s Calvinism.

So that means although i disobeyed the LORDS voice when he blessed me with his Holy Spirit ( hallelujah! ) and Didn't leave my life as he called me to but saved it... that i'm going to heaven? isn't that contradictory to scripture. Don't get me wrong, GODs Mercy knows no limits but according to scripture denying his voice on the day you hear it is a NO NO? Wish I could settle this debate for you all but i'm still alive.

 

[Clare73]

The word is only used twice in the scriptures and your only assuming that it refers to God’s foreknowledge of what He would do.

Biblically demonstrate that NT usage of prognosis does not refer to God foreknowing his own actions.

 

[Mark Quayle]

He did right here.

Whether he was right or not, he was not representing Calvinism, but only his way of looking at Calvinism. (As also, by the way, did you).

 

[Mark Quayle]

The word is only used twice in the scriptures and your only assuming that it refers to God’s foreknowledge of what He would do. I’ve already explained how that interpretation is completely ridiculous that God would choose people before creation based on who He would choose in the future. God would be saying to Himself “I’m going to choose these people in the future so I’ll choose them now before any of them exist”? Your saying God chose them before creation according to Him choosing them in the future. That’s preposterous and it doesn’t make sense because it completely negates the purpose of His foreknowledge. Peter should’ve just said that God chose them and completely left out anything about foreknowledge.

I would really like to see where, and in context, @Clare73 said that God would choose people before creation based on who he would choose in the future.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark,
you should quit worrying about boasting and learn about the ONE, TRUE GOD that is biblical.

I'm sure you know of
Ephesians 2:8-9
8God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God.
9Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it.

Grace, Faith and Salvation are gifts.
SO WHERE IS THE BOASTING?

Matthew 6:1
1“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. “

James 3:5
5So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire!

And, regarding boasting, I'd like to say this:

Who is boasting more?
A person that knows they're a sinner and turns to God for forgiveness and thanks God every day for Christ's sacrifice.

or

A person who believes God chose HIM, out of all the persons on earth, he is one of the chosen ones.


I'd say it's the 2nd person.

You said, "What we deserve is based on our accepting God's commandments or not.
Accepting Jesus as our Savior or not." Wrong. What we deserve is the destruction of both soul and body in the Lake of Fire.

What we deserve is based on "Accepting Jesus as our Savior or not"? If your eternal destiny hinged on whether you accepted Jesus as your Savior or not, you have whereof to boast. "Out of all the persons on earth", who apart from the transformation done in them, completely undeserved, by the Indwelling Spirit of God, are unable to choose God, you somehow deserve something because you were able to accept Jesus, before God changed you? Yes —Grace, Faith and Salvation are gifts! You are unable to produce that Faith. It is the gift of God.

You, (yes, I'm assuming again), seem to think that a Calvinist is boasting when he, as you characterize it, "believes God chose HIM out of all the persons on earth, he is one of the chosen ones." (I don't doubt very much that you meant to point that at me. Ironically, I have been told many times on this site that I have no basis by which to quite know I am one of his! But you want to make me sound proud that I am?) You seem to forget that one of the tenets of Calvinism is absolute GRACE, that all of us deserve death, but God by his own choice (not mine) has seen fit to have mercy on me, not by anything I have done or deserve; HE put his Spirit in me, and gave me new birth. If he had first consulted me on the matter, I wouldn't even have understood the terms. The Calvinist is the "person that knows they're a sinner, and turns to God for forgiveness and thanks God every day for Christ's sacrifice."

 

[JAL]

J Mick said:
what's a Calvinist?



Are you saying that you are not biased? We all are. Get used to that fact, so you can try to see around the bias.

You outright instruct @J Mick that Calvinism is not Biblical and was never accepted by the church. No bias there? I notice you didn't mention Reformed Theology, which is pretty much the same as Calvinism in its tenets, which tenets spawned Protestantism.

You didn't represent Calvinism with mere facts concerning Calvinism, and you missed a lot of them. You jump immediately into what seems (granted that it seems to me) to be perhaps a favorite gripe of yours, Double Predestination. You ALL-CAPS the supposed doctrines you seem to hate. (Some people consider this to be SHOUTING). You don't explain what Calvinists mean by MAN HAS NO FREE WILL. You claim that double predestination means that MAN IS TOTALLY UNABLE TO SEEK OR FIND GOD, instead of pointing out any difference between the lost and the regenerated —why didn't you say, "Man as fallen..." or "Unregenerate man is totally unable..."? Then you say that double predestination means that GOD HAS TO CHOSE WHOM WILL BE SAVED BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE. That is simply not true. God doesn't HAVE to do anything. His choice was made by the council of his own will, by his own authority, before the foundation of the world, before any of the three items you list came into play. God chose what he chose because he wanted to, for his own purposes —not as a reaction to anything anyone would do, nor even because of the sorry state they are in. Bias, my man!

And you gloss right over the fact that double predestination doesn't even deal directly with those three items you listed. Not only that, but you don't even mention that "double predestination", while logically reasonable, does not stand alone as such, but is only a logically reasonable conclusion —it is not Calvinist doctrine as such. Calvinism teaches that God does nothing capriciously, though that too is not the core doctrine of the matter. God has a purposeful, and just, reason for the damnation of those at enmity with him, contrary to any notion that he damns the same way that he saves.

But skipping the importance of the doctrine of God's sovereignty, and so on —i.e. that Calvinism isn't merely represented by TULIP— you even presented TULIP wrong:

Leaving alone Total Depravity as you stated it —you were close enough— you present a drawn conclusion from what Unconditional Election does say, instead of showing what Unconditional Election does say: (In my own words), that God's choice is based on nothing that we are, that we did, that we are doing or that we can do.

Limited Atonement you present with words ("Jesus did not die for the whole world") to make it seem to conflict with words of Scripture (such as in Hebrews 2:9 and 1 John 2:2). If I was to present it in opposition to you, I would have put, "Jesus did not die for absolutely every person who ever will have lived". You could at least have presented the notion of Definite Atonement, which is more to the point. But no, you had to jump right in to controversy, with no allowance of what Limited Atonement is really about. Bias.

So no, what you told him is not what Calvinists believe.

Your critique of GodsGrace101 sounds a tad bit nitpicky to me? You make it sound as if the entire post was totally out in left field. In point fact, it probably captured some key tenets of Calvinism, even if imprecisely articulated? For example, don't Tulip and double-predestination usually go hand in hand?

I'll admit the post did make one major blunder, when it said:

"Calvinism...was never accepted by the church."

Admittedly that statement is incredibly far off the mark. Even I myself know that much, without being an expert on the subject.

 

[Lost Witness]

Your critique of GodsGrace101 sounds a tad bit nitpicky to me? You make it sound as if the entire post was totally out in left field. In point fact, it probably captured some key tenets of Calvinism, even if imprecisely articulated? For example, don't Tulip and double-predestination usually go hand in hand?

I'll admit the post did make one major blunder, when it said:

"Calvinism...was never accepted by the church."

Admittedly that statement is incredibly far off the mark. Even I myself know that much, without being an expert on the subject.

That was likely a Misquote, LOL. I know Nothing about "calvinism" that's happened a few times in the last couple of days >.<

 

[JAL]

That was likely a Misquote, LOL. I know Nothing about "calvinism" that's happened a few times in the last couple of days >.<

Huh? I didn't get you.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Your critique of GodsGrace101 sounds a tad bit nitpicky to me? You make it sound as if the entire post was totally out in left field. In point fact, it probably captured some key tenets of Calvinism, even if imprecisely articulated? For example, don't Tulip and double-predestination usually go hand in hand?

Perhaps it was nitpicky. But @J Mick only asked what Calvinism was, and that isn't what he got. I wouldn't have minded if he had been told what it was, and after that to hear objections, or even objections clearly delineated as such throughout. Instead, he got biased misrepresentation.

If TULIP and double-predestination go hand in hand, but double-predestination being a conclusion drawn from the tenets, and not itself a tenet, it should have been shown as one of his objections —not as a main Calvinist tenet from the get-go. If he equates TULIP as another word for Calvinism, he should have said it was his equating. At least, to me, that would be fair.

If the tables were turned, however, I can't honestly say I would have done any better, because I admit, I am biased against Arminianism, having grown up close to it, and finding it insufficient to explain why life is the way it is, and why I felt such distrust in the sincerity of my faith.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So that means although i disobeyed the LORDS voice when he blessed me with his Holy Spirit ( hallelujah! ) and Didn't leave my life as he called me to but saved it... that i'm going to heaven? isn't that contradictory to scripture. Don't get me wrong, GODs Mercy knows no limits but according to scripture denying his voice on the day you hear it is a NO NO? Wish I could settle this debate for you all but i'm still alive.

Not exactly, Calvinists don’t teach that you will be saved regardless of what you do, at least not in that sense. They teach that if God has chosen you, you will eventually repent and abide in Christ no matter what. If you are rebellious towards God and indulge in a sinful lifestyle you will eventually repent and do God’s will before the end. So they don’t teach a license to sin they teach that God will absolutely make you want to do His will before it’s too late.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Your critique of GodsGrace101 sounds a tad bit nitpicky to me? You make it sound as if the entire post was totally out in left field. In point fact, it probably captured some key tenets of Calvinism, even if imprecisely articulated? For example, don't Tulip and double-predestination usually go hand in hand?

I'll admit the post did make one major blunder, when it said:

"Calvinism...was never accepted by the church."

Admittedly that statement is incredibly far off the mark. Even I myself know that much, without being an expert on the subject.

I’m sure that when God’sGrace101 said that Calvinism was never accepted by the church he was most likely referring to the apostolic church, not the reformed church.

 

[Lost Witness]

Not exactly, Calvinists don’t teach that you will be saved regardless of what you do, at least not in that sense. They teach that if God has chosen you, you will eventually repent and abide in Christ no matter what. If you are rebellious towards God and indulge in a sinful lifestyle you will eventually repent and do God’s will before the end. So they don’t teach a license to sin they teach that God will absolutely make you want to do His will before it’s too late.

doesn't necessarily apply to my particular problem?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I would really like to see where, and in context, @Clare73 said that God would choose people before creation based on who he would choose in the future.

I’d like you to see it to.

 

[BNR32FAN]

doesn't necessarily apply to my particular problem?

No, in Calvin’s theology you have no say in your salvation, it’s not up to you. If Calvinism was true when the jailer asked Paul “what must I do to be saved” Paul should’ve replied “nothing it’s not up to you”.