Featured Why I became a calvinist

Curious. What particular pieces of Calvinism do you adhere to? Obviously you don't hold to Limited Atonement, but what do you hold to?

 

I made the mistake of studying the book of Romans which lead me to Ephesians. Blame Paul.

 

One does not have to subscribe to the wrath part of penal substitution theory to be able to still hold the doctrines of Grace.

 

The penal aspects are one portion of the substitution theories in which the Scriptures display the work of redemption.

Imo, no single theory stands as complete, for salvation required aspects of redemption to include large expressions of victory, satisfaction, substitution, ransom (I flatly reject the concept f the devil or God being owed a debt, but endorse the ability to redeem)...

If the wrath of God was the only aspect one considers, then (imo) the conformity to Scriptures is limited.

 

I became a Calvinist because I hadn't read my Bible enough times through, believing every word [rather than correcting them], and hadn't studied it by comparing scripture with scripture, but rather adopted someone's else's flow-chart into which verses were forced to fit.

The guys that "become" Calvinists were always poor Bible students to begin with and someone simply hacked into their mind.

I became a Calvinist because someone convinced me that it would be proud to acknowledge free-will and I wanted to be "humble".

I became a Calvinist because someone re-interpreted simple Bible passages in the light of hard ones, rather than the other way around.

I became a Calvinist because I was an intellectual and intellectuals are especially prone to philosophical deceit.

Many become Calvinists because it takes away much of the edge of the Spirit's conviction to preach to the lost and the burden to pray. Every heresy is a work of the flesh, and in Calvinism, the flesh wins much: less of a burden, and a greater claim to "humility".

 

Interesting that you judge me so.

 

I am going to correct you here, not theologically, but grammatically. It's 'led' not lead. Led is the past tense of lead. It's a pet peeve of mine....;-)

 

I have a pet peeve, although he is not friendly to strangers.

 

There are those who would consider God “punished the Son”. I just can’t find support for that in Scriptures.

Humankind punished, did their worst to the son, just as the prophets and parables discussed.

The Son took upon himself the rebelliousness of humankind, but not God’s wrath. Rather, that wrath remains upon the children of rebellion.

The penal (physical) suffering was from humans, it was not from the Father.

The best (imo) picture of the crucifixion perhaps from heavens view is found in the Revelation.

5And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”

6And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7And he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne.8And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
(“All authority is given to me in heaven and earth...’)
​

God was never angry at the Son, never disapproved nor punished the Son.