How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[JAL]

@Mark Quayle,

Something bears repeating here. You make assertions about God all the time. But when I myself propose an opinion about Him that you dislike, you immediately reply, "You're wrong because we 'mere humans' can't comprehend Him."

It's a double standard.

 

[JAL]

I don't think I said, "remove His nature". I think I said, "remove A". I meant that in your mental gymnastics, if you deny anything about his nature in order to define his character, you have erred, and even denied things concerning his character, adding a little here, subtracting a little there.

You're assuming I've denied some truth about God. This means you've presupposed the very thing in dispute. This is what you do. You try to shove your opinions down our throats as though infallible truth, and then balk with pretentious indignation when we disagree.

Let's take a look at your silly statement.

If you deny anything about his nature in order to define his character, you have erred,

Really? In your view, God is immutably holy by nature, and infinitely so. Where then is the merit? Such a God would merit no praise because He has no choice to be unholy, no real freedom of the will, and thus atoned for us only because His innate holy nature irrevocably impelled Him to do so. He is completely unaccomplished in terms of character. You've not only harmed B, you've utterly destroyed it.

And that's just one example. I can list several more. The more you magnify His nature toward infinity, the more you utterly destroy His character.

 

[JAL]

@Mark Quayle,

As I told you before, you've always assumed, like most theologians, that God is a philosophically ideal being. And when I point out that such a being does not seem to make any sense, you quickly reply, "That's only because we 'mere humans' can't comprehend Him."

As a fallible thinker, you need to admit the possibility that your assumption might be mistaken. My theory is that He is pragmatically ideal rather than philosophically ideal.

You're far too dogmatic about all this. It's much like the atheist who insists that God cannot possibly exist. He's not even open minded.

 

[JAL]

What I wrote was, "It is to deny the meaning of term, 'God created'." It is pretty simple; what God created was from him, but is not him, yet without him it does not exist. To claim, then, that anything we can do is in and of ourselves, is not only logically self-contradictory, but it denies the meaning of the term, 'God created'.

Non-sequitur. Far too dogmatic. You're assuming that, just because God created me, I can't do anything. I can't take a walk? God must push me? God must push angels? And yet angels flap their wings. The text doesn't say, "God pushed their wings." Here's an angel pushing a stone:

"2Suddenly there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, rolled away the stone, and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow."

You're so entrenched in your weird philosophical dogmas that you can't open your mind to anything else.

 

[JAL]

You even insist that we can understand [God's love] apart from his indwelling Spirit!

A bit misleading. As I've told you before: quantitative understanding versus qualitative understanding.

Qualitatively speaking, I can know what love is, even without the Spirit - it is kindness.

But God's love is of a magnitude utterly incomprehensible to us except insofar as revealed by the Spirit.

 

[John Mullally]

Only so by your logic. Not by man's limited logic concerning God's POV, and certainly not by Scripture.

You necessarily rule out even what theologians have called compatability, which is simple enough to understand, but what is worse, you reject Scripture which repeatedly demonstrates that man does choose, and that God does determine, and that both are in extreme different realms of activity, the one (man's) 'within' and subservient to the other (God's).

Contrary to Scripture and to reason, you continuously exalt man's realm, (or debase God's —take your pick), as though man is actually anything (in and of himself) but dead, apart from God. You would have us operating on God's level, as though we have anything to add to Grace!

Although Calvinists prefer God's POV be unknowable and shrouded in mystery to best avoid the ugly side of their doctine, scripture gives us God's POV. Jesus says that God is love (John 16:8) and Paul describes love in 1 Corinthians 13. Paul says that God desires all men to be saved in 1 Timothy 2:4. Jesus commands His disciples to preach the Gospel - and man's destiny is based on whether or not man believes that Gospel (Mark 16:16).

As you know I never have said that man does not choose. I argue that if God determines our every action before hand it is a sham to say that man chooses. In addition, Jeremiah 32:35 says that man takes some action that never entered into God's mind that man should do - therefore God is not determining man's every action.

Jesus understood that like the rest of us He could do nothing of Himself (John 5:30) and yet He was strongly used by God because He was fully submitted to God. Jesus expects His disciples to also be strongly used (John 14:12) as He was tough on the original 12. Therefore, men submitted to God (as disciples) can do great works. All are invited to submit to God in repentance and become His disciples (Great Commission and Romans 17:30) - and this is not a sham invitation as Calvin states. God is not a trickster, offering that which cannot be received. God has not changed places with satan (2 Corinthians 4:4) - He loves the sinner and does not take a passive stance. Believe the Gospel!

2 Corinthians 10:5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,​

 

[John Mullally]

By 'true "free will" actions, I mean free will on the level that God has free will. Uncaused free will, will of the creature independent of causation, and in particular, in your case, in some sort of declaration of independence for God, with the paint on it that it is for God's sake, as if we can do him a favor!!!

What I wrote was, "It is to deny the meaning of term, 'God created'." It is pretty simple; what God created was from him, but is not him, yet without him it does not exist. To claim, then, that anything we can do is in and of ourselves, is not only logically self-contradictory, but it denies the meaning of the term, 'God created'.

In the Bible those rejecting that God would grant them the ability to carry out His clear instruction were rejected (like 10 of the 12 spies who warned against entering Caanan). For the heroes of faith in Hebrews 12: When they received instruction they would frequently prepare (repent, pray for strength and boldness, ask for clarification, or wait on the Lord) before carrying out His instruction. That which God directs can be accomplished if one submits to God - keep in mind there may be a steep price. Acting in Faith on God's word is not presumption and self-exhaltation.

Philosophising over "free will actions", "uncaused free will", "independence of causation", and "pretending to do things for God's sakes" is non-productive and is not Bible.

 

[JAL]

You would have us operating on God's level, as though we have anything to add to Grace!

Again, too dogmatic. When convenient in a debate, you and @Clare73 both insist on two groups of mysteries:
...(1) We 'mere humans' can't comprehend Him.
...(2) God has secrets. This one I agree with but point out that Direct Revelation (prophecy) was supposed to unveil many of them to us.

You can't have it both ways. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't insist, "The Bible is full of mysteries" and then insist, "I know for sure how Grace operates." Your words betoken the Calvinistic presumptuous understanding of Grace.

Enter Calvin's Limited Atonement. How do you know? Are you sure you know how the atonement works? Simple, right? Wrong. None of us knows for sure. Here's four problems that we'll never resolve with any finality, without Direct Revelation:

....(1) What is the meaning of Rev 13:8?

....(2) How could one death on a cross atone for billions of people? Suppose 100 men are on death row. You approach the judge and say, "I want to give my life in atonement for them." The judge says, "Fine - but that's only one life. You can atone for one of them." Is the divine atonement perhaps far more involved than meets the eye? I suspect it is.

....(3) You assume we can add nothing to Grace. I'm pretty sure we add virtually nothing - but absolutely nothing? That I'm not entirely sure of. Recall what Moses said, "Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the LORD [to pray]; perhaps I shall make an atonement for your sin" (Ex 32:30).

....(4) Open Theism flows well with libertarian freedom. In my opinion, God doesn't know the future. This suggests that, during the period when Christ suffered, God did not know how many people would be born and how much total sin there would be. How then could He have known how much suffering to lay on Christ's shoulders? Calvinism solves this problem via determinism, but only at the expense of God's character.

Given these mysteries, it is better to play it safe than presume Limited Atonement. It's best to assume that anyone can be saved, lest we fail to snatch an eligible person from the fire.

 

[John Mullally]

At least 2 things are evident in your posts: 1. You don't listen, you just keep on reciting your mantra, in your antagonism for what you seem to think will eventually fall before your repetition. 2. You typically, in matters of will and choice and ability, attribute to man what belongs only to God. In fact, I would go so far as to say that that is your worldview. 3. I add this to your credit: At least so far you do not blatantly, as JAL does, but only by implication of your arguments, claim that God is not quite omnipotent.

Expect some antagonism when you have put up at least 5000 posts in support of Calvinism, and therefore obviously see that as your ministry. Again expect push-back given their aggressive stance on declaring heresy. I do listen, but its hard for me to respond to word salad philosophic arguments - reason from scripture please. I took a class analyzing the "Republic of Plato" which is older than the NT in college and although at a low level Plato's reasoning seemed OK - I certainly could not agree with his conclusions. I have no interest in philosophical arguments - scripture please.

Calvinism declares God as being good, even though they monstrously attribute God to predestinating much of humanity to eternal torment from before birth for the purpose of giving himself glory (see my quote of Calvin below). Fortunately. that is countered by John describing God as love (1 John 4:16), with Paul defining love (1 Corinthians 13), and with Paul stating that God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4). Our God who desires all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, is not secretly in the business of decreeing many of them be damned from before birth.

“…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)​

​

There are a host of Calvinist preachers in "American Gospel" published on Netflix that take turns defaming Word-of-Faith (WOF). I laugh when Justin Peters calls on WOF proponents to repent - the 90% of Christendom that is not Calvinist, rejects Calvinist deterministic doctrine! No other Christian movement spends nearly so much of their energy attacking other Christian sects as the Calvinists (or Reformed) - this is easily observed by sampling prominent Calvinists sermons, and from their many independent youtube "discernment" ministries. On top of that Calvinism is so poorly supported by scripture (as I point out). It is those considerations that motivates me to post.

 

[JAL]

@Mark Quayle,

For completeness, I suppose I should elaborate further on the election passages.

First, to recap my theory: before the foundation of the world, God pre-elected/foreknew/predestined many pieces of Adam's soul unto heaven. Every human is a piece of Adam's soul AND contains at least one elect piece. This allows anyone to be saved via intercessory prayer. If a person dies unsaved and thus goes to hell, God simply removes his elect piece unto the next generation. All the elect (pieces) will be saved.

A couple of elucidating points probably worth mentioning:
....(1) Several verses tunnel-vision upon the first piece of the believer to be regenerated/sanctified - the elect piece. A great example is 2 Cor 5:17 where the old man is gone. This refers only to the regenerated/sanctified piece since, obviously, the old man still exists. Similarly 1 Pet 1:1-2 hones in on the elect piece:

"To God’s elect...2who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit."

Why aren't "pieces" made explicit/clear in Scripture? God aimed for brevity, not full clarity - clarity was supposed to be ours via Direct Revelation.

...(2) In the Greek, "foreknew" can also mean "was formerly acquainted with" as seen at Acts 26:5 and 2Pet 3:17. Meaning that God "was formerly acquainted with" each elect piece before the foundation of the world. That translation is probably the best fit for my theory, but arguably both work just fine for me.

Hope that helps.

 

[All Becomes New]

There are several "problem texts" for Calvinism.

6. To renew them again into repentance, etc. Though this seems hard, yet there is no reason to charge God with cruelty when any one suffers only the punishment of his own defection; nor is this inconsistent with other parts of Scripture, where God's mercy is offered to sinners as soon as they sigh for it, (Ezekiel 18:27) for repentance is required, which he never truly feels who has once wholly fallen away from the Gospel; for such are deprived, as they deserve, of God's Spirit and given up to a reprobate mind, so that being the slaves of the devil they rush headlong into destruction. Thus it happens that they cease not to add sin to sin, until being wholly hardened they despise God, or like men in despair, express madly their hatred to him. The end of all apostates is, that they are either smitten with stupor, and fear nothing, or curse God their judge, because they cannot escape from him. [99]

In short, the Apostle warns us, that repentance is not at the will of man, but that it is given by God to those only who have not wholly fallen away from the faith. It is a warning very necessary to us, lest by often delaying until tomorrow, we should alienate ourselves more and more from God. The ungodly indeed deceive themselves by such sayings as this, -- that it will be sufficient for them to repent of their wicked life at their last breath. But when they come to die, the dire torments of conscience which they suffer, prove to them that the conversion of man is not an ordinary work. As then the Lord promises pardon to none but to those who repent of their iniquity, it is no wonder that they perish who either through despair or contempt, rush on in their obstinacy into destruction. But when any one rises up again after falling, we may hence conclude that he had not been guilty of defection, however grievously he may have sinned.

Crucifying again, etc. He also adds this to defend God's severity against the calumnies of men; for it would be wholly unbecoming, that God by pardoning apostates should expose his own Son to contempt. They are then wholly unworthy to obtain mercy. But the reason why he says, that Christ would thus be crucified again, is, because we die with him for the very purpose of living afterwards a new life; when therefore any return as it were unto death, they have need of another sacrifice, as we shall find in the tenth chapter. Crucifying for themselves means as far as in them lies. For this would be the case, and Christ would be slandered as it were triumphantly, were it allowed men to return to him after having fallen away and forsaken him.

2 And not for ours only He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.

Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ [63] suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world.

I'll let you guess what this is about. Nothing about this is convincing whatsoever. It is one reason I am not a Calvinist - because I looked at what Calvin had to say about the "problem texts" and found it extremely wanting.

 

[Clare73]

There are several "problem texts" for Calvinism.

6. To renew them again into repentance, etc.

I find this reasonable. . .if you have "tasted" Christianity and spit it out, a second taste is not going to change your mind (repentance).

I'll let you guess what this is about. Nothing about this is convincing whatsoever. It is one reason I am not a Calvinist - because I looked at what Calvin had to say about the "problem texts" and found it extremely wanting.

It's about Jn 1:29, and the meaning of "world," which he states in the context of Judaism, to mean "all without distinction" (Gentile as well as Jew), and not to mean "all without exception" (every man).

 

[John Mullally]

I find this reasonable. . .if you have tried Christianity and spit it out, a second taste is not going to change your mind (repentance).

It's about Jn 1:21, and the meaning of "world," which he states in the context of Judaism, to mean "all without distinction" (Gentile as well as Jew), and not to mean "all without exception" (every man).

He terms himself "slave to Christ" and therefore he proclaims to be a Christian and is not"trying Christianity". He rejects Calvinism as does 90% of Christendom. He is offering up reasons for rejecting Calvinism. Your state he is reasonable and then misreperesents him - time for you to be reasonable. Only defenders of Calvin, like yourself, hold to the abominable doctine that God predestines many to eternal torment from before birth to give Himself glory. That is a red flag to thinking individuals who realize that Jesus commanded disciples to love their neighbor! God will not command disciples to do what He is opposed to doing! Besides 1 John 4:16 says that God is love and 1 Timothy 2:4 declares that God desires all to be saved. Of course, not all men are saved as specified in Mark 16:16 - thus the urgency in preaching the Gospel. God assigned the Gospel to be the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16-17).

“…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)​

Your second paragraph is over the meaning of "world" that is not in John 1:21. On top of that he did not mention John 1:21 - this indicates you are giving canned responses. Try harder next time and avoid judging non-Calvinists as being non-Christian!

 

[Clare73]

He terms himself "slave to Christ" and therefore he proclaims to be a Christian and is not"trying Christianity". He rejects Calvinism as does 90% of Christendom - try to understand that. He is offering up reasons for rejecting Calvinism. Only Calvinists hold to the abominable doctine that God predestines many to eternal torment from before birth to give Himself glory. That is a red flag to thinking individuals who love their neighbor (as Jesus requires) and have a sense of justice!

“…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)​

Your second paragraph is over the meaning of "world" that is not in John 1:21. On top of that he did not mention John 1:21 - this indicates you are giving canned responses. Try harder next time and avoid judging non-Calvinists as being non-Christian!

It indicates only that the poster did not identify the texts, and so it appeared to be referring to Heb 6:4-6 and Jn 1:29, about which my comments are accurate.

 

[John Mullally]

It indicates only that the poster did not identify the texts, and so it appeared to be referring to Heb 6:4-6 and Jn 1:21, about which my comments are accurate.

The poster identified himself as a Christian - which you ignored and termed him as an unbeliever for rejecting Calvinism - that is highly offensive. Apologize to him. You should be addressing him without knee-jerk preconceptions and canned responses. Listen more and assume less.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The poster identified himself as a Christian - which you ignored and termed him as an unbeliever for rejecting Calvinism - that is highly offensive. Apologize to him. Frankly, you should be addressing him without preconceptions and canned responses.

I looked back through this exchange and don't see where @Clare73 termed him as an unbeliever, nevermind terming him an unbeliever for rejecting Calvinism! Can you reference the post for me?

 

[John Mullally]

I looked back through this exchange and don't see where @Clare73 termed him as an unbeliever, nevermind terming him an unbeliever for rejecting Calvinism! Can you reference the post for me?

In post 2572, Claire73 stated "if you have tried Christianity and spit it out", I thought he was directing his statement torwards Jesse.. But on re-reading, Claire73 was speaking about what Jesse said. My mistake - I appologize.

 

[JAL]

The misunderstanding is unsurprising. Jesse's citations were long, somewhat vague, and not clearly situated into this discussion. And then Clare's post, by contrast, was too terse to be perfectly clear. This is often her preferred style, unfortunately. To each their own, I suppose.

 

[All Becomes New]

I find this reasonable. . .if you have tried Christianity and spit it out, a second taste is not going to change your mind (repentance).

It's very not reasonable considering verses 4-5.

It's about Jn 1:21, and the meaning of "world," which he states in the context of Judaism, to mean "all without distinction" (Gentile as well as Jew), and not to mean "all without exception" (every man).

That doesn't work here. Who is the "our sins" in which Christ died?

 

[Clare73]

The poster identified himself as a Christian - which you ignored and termed him as an unbeliever for rejecting Calvinism - that is highly offensive. Apologize to him. You should be addressing him without knee-jerk preconceptions and canned responses. Listen more and assume less.

Hmmmm. . .methinks the pot is. . .