How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Clare73]

As I see it, you and I have no direct access to Scripture - only to our fallible translations and interpretations. Some interpretations are more plausible than others.

Oh, that's rich!

Disqualifying the word of God written to settle the matter.

If Scripture is not your authority, then we have no basis for discussion.

 

[JAL]

Oh, that's rich!

Disqualifying the word of God written to settle the matter.

First of all, the Bible is a divinely-inspired, divinely-authored history book - which makes it reliable. It is not the divine Word of God described in John 1.

Secondly, it wasn't written "to settle the matter." God isn't foolish enough to imagine that fallible scholars can "settle the matter" exegetically. They will always have major points of disagreement.

Wisely, God's plan to "settle the matter" is inspiration - we all need to seek the same gift that Paul, the apostles, and the prophets attained (1Cor 14:1). Only then will we all experience infallible understanding of the Scriptures.

Until we have that inspiration, we are forced to rely on exegesis as a crutch.

If Scripture is not your authority, then we have no basis for discussion.

Exegesis IS my authority in these debates. And you know that very well, having debated with me before. So please stop taking unwarranted potshots.

 

[Clare73]

By all accounts, Paul's epistles express God's will for the church, and thus for believers. So when Paul says he wants men to intercede for everyone, we can safely presume he wants - and God wants - all believers to pray.

Apparently your argument is, "As for the unbelievers prayed for, God secretly wants them to remain unsaved."

Do we know which unbelievers will be damned so that we need not pray for their salvation?
Therefore, we pray for all, not knowing which are the elect.

Let me start with this. God's standards often require a LOT of intercessory prayer to get one man saved. And the harder the heart, the more prayer needed. In my opinion, God knew that much prayer was never going to happen for Pharoah in his lifetime.

Pure conjecture. . .and you criticize my explanation of plain text?

Pharoah was a lost cause. You cannot reliably use Pharoah, then, to conclude that secretly God wants all unbelievers to remain in their sin.

We are all born unbelievers. . .so God wants us all to remain in our sin?

Accordingly, God didn't express optimism in this regard. God didn't say, "Pharoah will release Israel with such softness of heart that they will never have to face him again."

Whereas 1 Tim 2 IS INDEED an explicit expression of optimism. It clearly implies that virtually anyone (with the exception of lost causes like Pharoah) CAN be saved. It's asking us to pray with optimism. You cannot convincingly argue that "secretly" God renders all these prayers futile by ignoring them.

Nor can you truthfully say that I argue such.

 

[JAL]

Do we know which unbelievers will be damned so that we need not pray for their salvation?
Therefore, we pray for all, not knowing which are the elect.

And it's all futile in Calvinism, because I have no ability to alter the final outcome of double-predestination. This renders the text meaningless. Christ said, "Apart me from you can accomplish nothing." In the Calvinistic system it should read, "You can accomplish nothing. Period. It's all foreordained."

 

[Clare73]

First of all, the Bible is a divinely-inspired, divinely-authored history book - which makes it reliable. It is not the divine Word of God described in John 1.

Correct. . .It's not "Word of God" in Jn 1:1, it's "the Word was God."

Nowhere is Jesus called the "Word of God" in the NT.

Secondly, it wasn't written "to settle the matter."

And you know this, how?

God isn't foolish enough to imagine that fallible scholars can "settle the matter" exegetically. They will always have major points of disagreement.

Wisely, God's plan to "settle the matter" is inspiration - we all need to seek the same gift that Paul, the apostles, and the prophets attained (1Cor 14:1). Only then will we all experience infallible understanding of the Scriptures.

Until we have that inspiration, we are forced to rely on exegesis as a crutch.

Oh, wow. . ."we have no direct access to Scripture," yet you are foolish enough to claim infallible understanding of Scripture.
I rest my case.

Exegesis IS my authority in these debates. And you know that very well, having debated with me before. So please stop taking unwarranted potshots.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Brother-Mike]

That ambivalence isn't the Calvinist view of absolutely sovereignty dictating and micro-managing every detail.

Oh but I do hold that God is absolutely sovereign and predestined everything before Creation:

"Remember what I accomplished in antiquity. Truly I am God, I have no peer; I am God, and there is none like me, who announces the end from the beginning and reveals beforehand what has not yet occurred; who says, ‘My plan will be realized, I will accomplish what I desire;’" - Isaiah 46:9-10

"For truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." - Acts 4:27-28

Incorrect. There is only one plausible standard of righteousness, and it doesn't even mention God. I call it the rule of conscience:

If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and action-B is good, I should opt for B.

There are no possible exceptions to this rule. Even God Himself is subject to it.

Sorry, but this is incoherent: morality is subjective based on what one feels? Two thousand years of Judeo-Christian civilization begs to differ.

I have defined depravity in a Calvinistic sense. Please do not call my view robotic if you are unwilling to apply the same term to Calvinism.

I apologize if I've offended your scenario-children, but you did not stipulate anything about them having any kind of creaturely-freedom. If you did I wouldn't have called them the r-word.

Let me understand you better: Does God play by any (internal) rule book? Or does He make up His own rules as He goes along? Meaning, does He see Himself as licensed to do whatever He wants with impunity? For example, if He chose to take the shape of a man and then rape innocent human children, would you be fine with that?

Internal rule book? Nope.
Make up his own rules as he goes along? Nope.
God planned it all from the beginning. He's sticking to the script, atom by atom. We're just actors. If you say, "Hmmrph... I don't like being an actor. I'll just purse my lips, cross my arms and do nothing!" then God will let you. Eventually you'll get hungry and stomp off to make yourself a sandwich [[hint: just like he planned you would]] <-- note to other Calvinists: I really like this little thought. Please feel free to steal and use in your own arguments. You can even claim you came up with it yourself!

Hmm... if God became flesh and started sinning up a storm? Well, I'd certainly have to blow the whistle and cry foul that he's violating the Biblical tenets of God not sinning.

 

[JAL]

Oh but I do hold that God is absolutely sovereign and predestined everything before Creation:

You clearly vacillate, when it suits you. Makes it incredibly easy to "defend" your position that way, doesn't it?

Sorry, but this is incoherent: morality is subjective based on what one feels? Two thousand years of Judeo-Christian civilization begs to differ.

You found no specific exceptions to the rule of conscience. As usual, I rest my case.

Hmm... if God became flesh and started sinning up a storm? Well, I'd certainly have to blow the whistle and cry foul that he's violating the Biblical tenets of God not sinning.

Then God DOES play by some rules. In this case, I don't see the justification for Calvinism's double-standard. Seems like sheer inconsistency.

 

[Clare73]

When will you understand to be explicit in your reasoning. As is frequently the case I am left guessing as to the connection you are making as you frequently post scripture without explanation. I don't see any connection here: In Exodus 4:21-22, the text shows that God is not desiring that Pharoah willing let God's people go. On the other hand, in 1 Timothy 2:4 God desires that all men be saved. 2 Corinthians 4:4 says that the god of this world works to blind men to the Gospel.

See post #1,705 where I am explicit.

 

[Clare73]

And it's all futile in Calvinism, because I have no ability to alter the final outcome of double-predestination. This renders the text meaningless. Christ said, "Apart me from you can accomplish nothing." In the Calvinistic system it should read, "You can accomplish nothing. Period. It's all foreordained."

Your issue seems to be Calvin. . .take it up with him.

I am a proponent of Paul.

 

[Brother-Mike]

You clearly vacillate, when it suits you. Makes it incredibly easy to "defend" your position that way, doesn't it?


You found no specific exceptions to the rule of conscience. As usual, I rest my case.


Then God DOES play by some rules. In this case, I don't see the justification for Calvinism's double-standard. Seems like sheer inconsistency.

Well, I guess you got me JAL... especially since you've rested your case.

Just so that I understand your position, and since I've been answering your questions, tell me, how did the serpent get in the Garden?

 

[JAL]

Correct. . .It's not "Word of God" in Jn 1:1, it's "the Word was God."
Nowhere is Jesus called the "Word of God" in the NT.

The title "Word" belongs to God, not to a book. Applying it to a book seems to be nonsense because, as demonstrated before, the book is neither God nor the power of God.

And you know this, how?

How can fallible scholars "settle the matter"? Do you understand the term fallible?

I'm just drawing a reasonable conclusion concerning fallibility. Feel free to demonstrate me wrong - feel free to demonstrate that fallible scholars can attain to an infallible comprehension of Scripture.

Oh, wow. . ."we have no direct access to Scripture," yet you are foolish enough to claim infallible understanding of Scripture.
I rest my case.

More potshots? Where did I claim to have infallible knowledge of Scripture? I'm not a prophet.

 

[JAL]

Just so that I understand your position, and since I've been answering your questions, tell me, how did the serpent get in the Garden?

I'm a material monist. My thinking is that the devil took the shape of a material snake in the Garden. God allowed him to do this. At one point in my life I wondered whether all this stands in contradiction to James:

13When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

But I think James is talking about an efficacious degree of temptation. God facilitates only a lesser degree of temptation, such that we have enough freedom to escape from it. Well I go one step further. Suppose I keep saying Yes to cocaine. Originally I had freedom to escape, but I speculate there comes a point of no return where, quite possibly, I can no longer resist. Here I conjecture that God is perhaps within His rights to continue allowing, possibly even facilitating, my temptation because I've placed myself in that predicament. It's a bit of a gray area at that point.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Brother-Mike]

I'm a material monist. My thinking is that the devil took the shape of a material snake in the Garden. God allowed him to do this. At one point in my life I wondered whether all this stands in contradiction to James:

13When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

But I think James is talking about an efficacious degree of temptation. God facilitates only a lesser degree of temptation, such that we have enough freedom to escape from it. Well I go one step further. Suppose I keep saying Yes to cocaine. Originally I had freedom to escape, but I speculate there comes a point of no return where, quite possibly, I can no longer resist. Here I conjecture that God is perhaps within His rights to continue allowing, possibly even facilitating, my temptation because I've placed myself in that predicament. It's a bit of a gray area at that point.

Does that answer your question?

Thanks.

Why did God put Satan in the Garden?
Could God have chosen not to?

 

[JAL]

Thanks.

Why did God put Satan in the Garden?
Could God have chosen not to?

You're asking me why God allowed, even facilitated, temptation? Acceleration, I suppose. God wanted Adam and Eve to experience temptation, and the devil loves to hasten that process. Naturally it would likely have occurred without the devil, but it would tend to take longer, and probably at lower intensity initially.

God wanted maximum free will in Adam and Eve. I think it takes a significant degree of temptation to maximize free will. It's a fine balance. Too much temptation would actually eliminate freedom.

 

[Clare73]

The title "Word" belongs to God, not to a book. Applying it to a book seems to be nonsense because, as demonstrated before, the book is neither God nor the power of God.

The Scriptures are God-breathed writings (2 Ti 3:16).

Jesus likewise referred to Scripture as the Word of God (Jn 10:35, Mt 15:6).

How can fallible scholars "settle the matter"? Do you understand the term fallible?
I'm just drawing a reasonable conclusion concerning fallibility. Feel free to demonstrate me wrong - feel free to demonstrate that fallible scholars can attain to an infallible comprehension of Scripture.
More potshots? Where did I claim to have infallible knowledge of Scripture? I'm not a prophet.

That's good to know. . .

 

[JAL]

Well, I guess you got me JAL... especially since you've rested your case.

Is this pure sarcasm? The rule of conscience is logically defensible. Also, existentially, the mind cannot posit any plausible exceptions to it. Finally, it has at least a modicum of scriptural grounding.

To summarize, I don't see any warrant for sarcasm.

And since I've been answering your questions...

Thanks for answering. Did you respond to post 1648? I don't recall your response on that one.

 

[Brother-Mike]

You're asking me why God allowed, even facilitated, temptation? Acceleration, I suppose. God wanted Adam and Eve to experience temptation, and the devil loves to hasten that process. Naturally it would likely have occurred without the devil, but it would tend to take longer, and probably at lower intensity initially.

God wanted maximum free will in Adam and Eve. I think it takes a significant degree of temptation to maximize free will. It's a fine balance. Too much temptation would actually eliminate freedom.

So does God ever step in to violate free will? Are we ever directly guided by his hand?

 

[JAL]

The Scriptures are God-breathed writings (2 Ti 3:16).

Yes, they are God-inspired. No quarrel there.

No one is denying that Scripture records a written facsimile of some of God's spoken Words. The Ten Tablets are a good example. That's not the divine Word. Applying the same title to both God (the divine Word) and the Bible is dangerous because it leads Christians to think they can receive the Word by READING it. This is why Paul called the Galatians fools. They were supposed to be seeking OUTPOURINGS of the divine Word (via prayer per Luk 11:13). That's what the prophets sought - and received (in fact, that's how they BECAME prophets).

"The [divine] word of the LORD came to [the prophet] Abram in a vision" (Gen 15)

That was not a Bible dropped on his head. It was an outpouring of the Third Person as divine Word. This is the passage that Paul referred the foolish Galatians back to at verse 3:6.

Jesus likewise referred to Scripture as the Word of God (Jn 10:35, Mt 15:6).

The distinction blurs at times because, as I stated above, Scripture records a written facsimile of some of God's spoken words. That is NOT the spoken Word of God. My belief is that when Jesus used such language, He had in mind the original Word of God.

The Word is the power of God (Isaiah 55:11 Heb 1:3) - which is NOT the Bible.

 

[John Mullally]

Your issue seems to be Calvin. . .take it up with him.

I am a proponent of Paul.

Proponent of Paul? Get out of fantasy land. Paul tells Timothy in 1 Timothy 2:4 that God desires all men to be saved. In Post 1703, you oppose what Paul wrote and offer a seemingly unrelated OT passage (Exodus 4:21-22) without commentary as something we all should undertand as cancelling what Paul said.

You take up reformed theology positions, and then when someone calls you on it you retort. "I am a Paulist, take it up wiith Calvin", No you consistently take up classic Calvinist positions and even use their termonology. For example, you recently directed me to Post #1705 where you speak about God's secret will and God's revealed will - those are reformed theology terms - nobody else uses them. Transparency is appreciated - stop playing games.

 

[JAL]

So does God ever step in to violate free will? Are we ever directly guided by his hand?

I don't know for sure. I suspect He did so with Pharoah, as mentioned before. If God does so, He cannot blame Pharoah for any resulting behavior. He might APPEAR to be blaming Pharoah for it, but it really must be for sins committed by Pharoah in Adam and thereafter.

I am not sure why you are asking me these questions. I believe in a just God. No violations of justice.