How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[JAL]

You don't have to reply to this Mark.
I'm understanding why you couldn't get what I was writing to you.
From the above, I see that you're not a real calvinist.
I don't know how you came up with your beliefs, but they DO tend toward calvinism....

I don't see any relevant differences. Everything he writes reeks of Calvinism.

Most theologians have a few minor differences at least. But I see no major differences here.

 

[JAL]

Calvinists seem to have a lot of guts - on that point I'm inclined to hand it to them. There are 100 billion souls at stake since creation, and their teaching potentially discourages evangelism. If they are wrong, they will have to answer to God. I don't have that much courage. If I were a Calvinist, I'd probably keep it to myself.

Well, let's hope it's courage on their part. The other possibility, of course, is presumptuous theological arrogance.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I don't see any relevant differences. Everything he writes reeks of Calvinism.

Most theologians have a few minor differences at least. But I see no major differences here.

There are differences because of how he words ideas.
I've been told by some that they come to calvinistic conclusions all on their own.
How this is possible, I don't know. It seems to me that it has to be taught.
The other member has had problems in understanding me - or I haven't been expressing
myself properly, but there is some problem in posting to him.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Calvinists seem to have a lot of guts - on that point I'm inclined to hand it to them. There are 100 billion souls at stake since creation, and their teaching potentially discourages evangelism. If they are wrong, they will have to answer to God. I don't have that much courage. If I were a Calvinist, I'd probably keep it to myself.

Well, let's hope it's courage on their part. The other possibility, of course, is presumptuous theological arrogance.

James 3:1
1Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.


There really would be no purpose in evangelization.
Also, it discourages some from coming to God and they just sit and
wait patiently for some kind of sign.

 

[zoidar]

James 3:1
1Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.


There really would be no purpose in evangelization.
Also, it discourages some from coming to God and they just sit and
wait patiently for some kind of sign.

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.

 

[JAL]

I think 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.

True enough, but the pitfall remains. If they are wrong, they may have wrongfully discouraged some potential evangelists.

 

[zoidar]

True enough, but the pitfall remains. If they are wrong, they may have wrongfully discouraged some potential evangelists.

From experience Calvinism was very damaging to my faith, as I thought it was true. But thank God (excuse me my dear Calvinist brothers and sisters) it wasn't.

I'm not saying it's damaging to everyone, but to me all joy being a Christian went away.

 

[JAL]

From experience Calvinism was very damaging to my faith, as I thought it was true. But thank God (excuse me my dear Calvinist brothers and sisters) it wasn't.

I'm not saying it's damaging to everyone, but to me all joy being a Christian went away.

Right. It could be very depressing to believe that God is the quintessential narcissist preoccupied only with His own glory even at the expense of His children's welfare. Heck, even having such a human father would be depressing enough.

 

[John Mullally]

1. Mine is a lot more straighforward than that. John 1 says everything was made by him. God is therefore 1st cause. He created, therefore he determined everything subsequent to that creation.
2. Ephesians 2 follows it, with "not of the will of man".
3. Calvinism does not deny that people assign themselves to either category. But it does say that the one category, the fallen, is default. Their assignment is proof of it. The other category, the regenerated, assign themselves too, in obedience, but that too is proof of their assignment. But this whole point takes a strange turn away from the basis for the whole question. They are not assigned to a category by God, as such. The names given to the categories are by the assignation by God before the foundation of the world. They are not assigned by God to the category as such, I say, because they are CREATED by God for that purpose, (among whatever other purposes he sees fit to use them for).

I noticed that you did not respond to my critiques on Calvinist proof text verses - that was probably a big ask (time consuming?). I appreciate your response via ther 3 points.

1. As God, although he could determine everything man does not mean He did. Someone termed this type of thinking as "No fault religion" - as how does one fault man if God pre-determines every man's actions (which Calvin declared). To the preselected elect, How does God have a heartfelt relationship with a puppet. In terms of judgement: I don't fault my dog for pooping in the house when there is no means to go outside for an extended period - so why does God punish what the Reformed term the 'Totally Depraved''? Pertaining to 'first cause', Its frequently not a matter of circumstance: Constrasting Job and Judas: Job was a man who loved God and acted in integrity under dire circumstances which appeared as God killing his loved ones and causing him extreme pain although Job had served God faithfully - whereas in good times Judas betrayed Jesus for a pitance - here circumstances (i.e. first cause) did not dicatate man's action - character did! Job was not perfect - only Jesus was.
2. "Not of the will of man" does not necessarily mean that God excludes man's will as we see all the directives in the Bible. I agree that per scripture, God directs the actions of the king - I suppose that is in response to prayer (1 Timothy 2:1-6). Jesus saugh cooperation fromHis disciples as we see the miracles they witnessed and how strongly He criticized them from time to time. God deos not force anyone to do anything - Job learned the hard way.
3. Allthough you say "Calvinism does not deny that people assign themselves to either category" - Calvin teaches a pre-birth favoritism and malignity. Reformed faith (based upon Calvin's teaching (which constructs the "Total Depravity" and "Irresistable Grace" tenants) to say only a few are enabled to respond to the light of the Gospel. Again "Total Depravity" assigns all men to Hell" - and "Irresistable Grace" cancels that assignment for a lucky few. Mark 16:16 makes no distinction, just come believing. Calvinist's say that only the predestined can come believing - that;s there catch 22. In all his lawyerly mental gymnastics and much writing, Calvin seemes to forget God desires all to be savved (1 Timothy 2:4).

 

[Clare73]

Calvinists seem to have a lot of guts - on that point I'm inclined to hand it to them. There are 100 billion souls at stake since creation, and their teaching potentially discourages evangelism.

Why is that?

The elect are brought in by hearing the gospel.
Not knowing who they are, we must take the gospel to the whole world.

If they are wrong, they will have to answer to God. I don't have that much courage. If I were a Calvinist, I'd probably keep it to myself.

That's not the God of the Bible.

Well, let's hope it's courage on their part. The other possibility, of course, is presumptuous theological arrogance.

That's not the God of the Bible.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I noticed that you did not respond to my critiques on Calvinist proof text verses - that was probably a big ask (time consuming?). I appreciate your response via ther 3 points.

1. As God, although he could determine everything man does not mean He did. Someone termed this type of thinking as "No fault religion" - as how does one fault man if God pre-determines every man's actions (which Calvin declared). To the preselected elect, How does God have a heartfelt relationship with a puppet. In terms of judgement: I don't fault my dog for pooping in the house when there is no means to go outside for an extended period - so why does God punish what the Reformed term the 'Totally Depraved''? Pertaining to 'first cause', Its frequently not a matter of circumstance: Constrasting Job and Judas: Job was a man who loved God and acted in integrity under dire circumstances which appeared as God killing his loved ones and causing him extreme pain although Job had served God faithfully - whereas in good times Judas betrayed Jesus for a pitance - here circumstances (i.e. first cause) did not dicatate man's action - character did! Job was not perfect - only Jesus was.
2. "Not of the will of man" does not necessarily mean that God excludes man's will as we see all the directives in the Bible. I agree that per scripture, God directs the actions of the king - I suppose that is in response to prayer (1 Timothy 2:1-6). Jesus saugh cooperation fromHis disciples as we see the miracles they witnessed and how strongly He criticized them from time to time. God deos not force anyone to do anything - Job learned the hard way.
3. Allthough you say "Calvinism does not deny that people assign themselves to either category" - Calvin teaches a pre-birth favoritism and malignity. Reformed faith (based upon Calvin's teaching (which constructs the "Total Depravity" and "Irresistable Grace" tenants) to say only a few are enabled to respond to the light of the Gospel. Again "Total Depravity" assigns all men to Hell" - and "Irresistable Grace" cancels that assignment for a lucky few. Mark 16:16 makes no distinction, just come believing. Calvinist's say that only the predestined can come believing - that;s there catch 22. In all his lawyerly mental gymnastics and much writing, Calvin seemes to forget God desires all to be savved (1 Timothy 2:4).

My experience has been that my verses are never replied to, or very rarely,
Instead I get back more verses that the reformed THINK explain their theology.
Or, their own idea of how things are with no support at all.

 

[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.

This is just a nice way of the reformed to understand why evangelization would be necessary.
In fact, if the reformed are correct in their view, evangelization would serve no purpose at all.
If God is sovereign, He could surely find His own way to have those to be elected come to Him.
This would fall under IRRISISTIBLE GRACE. He wouldn't need mankind at all in this regard.

Also, why would Jesus' sacrifice be necessary if not for those that wish to be saved TO CHOOSE HIM?
God gives us a choice of life or death from the very beginning in the Garden and carries it through into Revelation.

 

[JAL]

Why is that?

The elect are brought in by hearing the gospel.
Not knowing who they are, we must take the gospel to the whole world.

Why? Will any of God's elections fail? That contradicts Calvinism. You're not making any sense.

That's not the God of the Bible.

That's not the God of the Bible.

Huh? I didn't get you.

 

[John Mullally]

You don't have to reply to this Mark.
I'm understanding why you couldn't get what I was writing to you.
From the above, I see that you're not a real calvinist.
I don't know how you came up with your beliefs, but they DO tend toward calvinism....
You're not orthodox either - so it makes posting a little difficult.

I'm going to make some comments on your post, but I'm not expecting a reply.
This is re your list above:

1. Everything was made by God. God is most definitely the first cause.
He created the entire universe. Then He planned a nice planet for us.
Then He prepared it and placed us on it.
This does NOT mean that He, thus, determined everything that would happen to those on the earth -mankind.
God set in place a system which science acknowledges...all those physics laws we all know a tiny bit about. We must
work within those laws.

2. Ephesians 2: NOT OF THE WILL OF MAN. This simply means that man is not saved by his own works, or his own plan, but by the plan of God.
God is indeed sovereign and we must be saved through HIS plan of salvation, which He has kindly shown to us.

3. All of Christianity believes that the fallen nature is by default.
We are created for good works Eph 2:9 and this from the creation of the world.

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.

 

[Clare73]

Why? Will any of God's elections fail?

No, because God uses means to accomplish his purposes, and he will see to it that the gospel is taken to the whole world.

Huh? I didn't get you.

You don't believe in anything supernatural.

Your view of God is contra-Biblical, it's not the God of the Bible.

 

[zoidar]

This is just a nice way of the reformed to understand why evangelization would be necessary.

Why? Will any of God's elections fail? That contradicts Calvinism. You're not making any sense.

That is a reasonable question.

 

[JAL]

No, because God uses means to accomplish his purposes, and he will see to it that the gospel is taken to the whole world.

Exactly my point. If God is going to take care of it, a typical Calvinist might as well abstain from evangelism.

Like it or not, Calvinism provides fertile ground for sprouting evangelistic indifference.

 

[Clare73]

Exactly my point. If God is going to take care of it, a typical Calvinist might as well abstain from evangelism.

No, my point is not your point.

My point presents secondary causes (means) used by God to accomplish his purposes; e.g., bringing in the elect through evangelization.
You deny his use of the secondary cause, evanglization.

Like it or not, Calvinism provides fertile ground for sprouting evangelistic indifference.

Reflects a failure to understand the supernatural God of the Bible.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You don't have to reply to this Mark.
I'm understanding why you couldn't get what I was writing to you.
From the above, I see that you're not a real calvinist.
I don't know how you came up with your beliefs, but they DO tend toward calvinism....
You're not orthodox either - so it makes posting a little difficult.

I'm going to make some comments on your post, but I'm not expecting a reply.
This is re your list above:

1. Everything was made by God. God is most definitely the first cause.
He created the entire universe. Then He planned a nice planet for us.
Then He prepared it and placed us on it.
This does NOT mean that He, thus, determined everything that would happen to those on the earth -mankind.
God set in place a system which science acknowledges...all those physics laws we all know a tiny bit about. We must
work within those laws.

2. Ephesians 2: NOT OF THE WILL OF MAN. This simply means that man is not saved by his own works, or his own plan, but by the plan of God.
God is indeed sovereign and we must be saved through HIS plan of salvation, which He has kindly shown to us.

3. All of Christianity believes that the fallen nature is by default.
We are created for good works Eph 2:9 and this from the creation of the world.

Then, let's say for the sake of argument, that I'm not representing Calvinism, nor even Reformed Doctrine. I see the following in your arguments, and so will once again attempt to show what is wrong with them, this time from simple logic, since neither of us accepts the use of Scripture texts the other has drawn on for our earlier statements:

1. God is first cause. But you say, "This does NOT mean that He, thus, determined everything that would happen to those on the earth -mankind."
So, I ask you, HOW not?
A. Does not everything that descends from first cause descend specifically? Concerning causation, one rather poetic science writer said something like, "The seeds of every [particular] thing we see now were sown in the big bang." Ignoring the question of whether things began with the big bang, he is correct. Whatever happens, happens specifically, as caused by what causes it. It is not logical to insert causation by chance, or by second first causes. HOW, then, I ask, does anything happen that first cause did not cause? And if he caused, knowing all results, then he thus determined —predestined— that they come to pass.
B. If he does not determine everything, but only some certain things, what does determine the other things? Are you going to say that they are not caused —not determined— without explaining yourself? Or are you going to say that humanity caused them by choice —uncaused choice? Are you going to say that humans are all first causes? Are you going to say that things and events are not determined, with no explanation as to how that is possible? Even you said, "God set in place a system which science acknowledges...all those physics laws we all know a tiny bit about. We must work within those laws." The law of causation is one of those laws; is it not pervasive? What suspended it to allow for the mental construction: the ability to choose uncaused?
C. If God can (and does) determine some certain things, why would not the same be true about all things? I have heard this argument many times, with only the flimsiest framework to show how it happens: "God sees ahead, and is wise enough to know how to influence things to go this way or that. Sooner or later, he always gets to where he meant to go." This they say, because it is better than to admit that he brings to pass what he planned by specific intricate causation from the world's beginning until that thing comes to pass.
D. Are you going to complicate this —that is, to kick the can down the road— by claiming another first cause that is not God and is not free agents? I doubt you will, haha, but yes, I've heard that one speculated on.
E. "All things are made by him..." John 1. Are you thinking that only refers to physical substances? What is your basis for thinking so?

2. "'Not of the will of man'", you say, "...simply means that man is not saved by his own works, or his own plan, but by the plan of God." You aren't very specific what you mean by, "we must be saved through HIS plan of salvation, which He has kindly shown to us.". I'm pretty sure you left the implications out on purpose. Do you mean to imply that he sort of hands us the ball, sits back and waits until his turn comes up again? I responded to someone today, who I'm not sure if he really meant it or not, or even if he thinks himself Calvinist, but he said belief and faith are one and the same, and faith and obedience are interchangeable in the Greek. I know there is something to that, in the meaning of such phrases the church has used for years, such as, "Obey the Gospel.". But this fellow went so far as to say, if I remember right, that belief was a "work". If you decide to believe, then yes, I agree, it is a work, in the same way that choosing to obey is a work.

3. All of Christianity believes that the fallen nature is by default. That is true enough, I suppose, on the surface. But there is rather obviously a huge disparity in just what the fallen nature really is, and how pervasive in the life of the lost. Once again I find myself wondering why you didn't go further with your statement. Were you afraid of driving me off? Because I think you knew I wouldn't just blanket agree with your statements and the explanations or meanings you offered so non-confrontationally. I'm sure you think something is implied in that statement, that brings about your next, "We are created for good works Eph 2:9 and this from the creation of the world." What does the one statement have to do with the other, specifically?

 

[JAL]

No, my point is not your point.

My point presents secondary causes (means) used by God to accomplish his purposes; e.g., bringing in the elect through evangelization.
You deny the use of evanglization.

Reflects a failure to understand the supernatural God of the Bible.

Non-responsive. You're just dancing around a valid point. Nobody's denying that Calvinists CAN evangelize. The question is whether they might be tempted to feel less urgency about it.

I myself was indoctrinated into Calvinism shortly after I was saved. At that time, in fact, I DID feel less urgency.