How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[JAL]

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

I'm an old man who forgets a lot of stuff. One place where God overrides free will is in regeneration/sanctification, which makes us holy.

But since I can still sin, it means I only received a sprinkling of the Third Person. The sprinkled parts are regenerated/sanctified, they are holy, they are a new creation. The remainder of me is the sinful nature. (I would qualify this a bit further but getting off topic).

 

[Brother-Mike]

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.


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

Sorry, when someone says "As usual, I rest my case" I had to presume this was sarcasm (or merited being treated as such) hence my response. You rested your case about what? That morality is subjective based on your pet Rule of Conscience, that "If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and action-B is good, I should opt for B." Honestly brother this is beyond ludicrous, and if it fell from the lips of my atheist friends who have no grounding in philosophy I would wincingly let it slip, but surely not from you.

But lest I be accused of not addressing its problems:

1. Fine - I feel certain that being nice to cats is evil, and killing cats is good. So killing cats is righteous? Or I feel certain that our Glorious Fatherland is being destroyed by a certain ethnic population, and exterminating this population is good. So my extermination is righteous? No God needed right?
2. I wish I could say that your Rule expresses the moral value of, say, the Nazis, but unfortunately it's worse. The Nazis at least had rule of law - twisted into genocide by leadership that assumed ultimate authority. Your Rule would place the reins of morality into the hands of each and every individual, free to decide for themselves what is evil or good.
3. You make no claim as to exactly how evil or good is determined. If you're going to stick to your guns and say that that too does not come from God then all you're doing is pushing the problem back one level: "God isn't needed because of my Rule, which requires people somehow self-discern evil from good".
4. Are you still sure that God isn't needed for morality? I cannot fathom that any Christian could make this claim.
5. If you want to express your Rule properly, note that the "action-A is evil" clause is redundant. And the "should opt for B" is ambiguous (by "should" you're implying that there might be times when you "shouldn't"). Maybe you mean "If A is evil and B is good then if you're going to do either then only do B"?

As for post 1648, I thought I responded so it must have slipped by me - I do remember doing some initial analysis on your quoted verses so I'll answer soon for completeness.

 

[JAL]

Honestly brother this is beyond ludicrous...

Actually your superficial analysis is both ludicrous and unbiblical, as I will demonstrate shortly.

 

[Brother-Mike]

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.

Thanks. I ask these questions because I'm trying to understand your structural underpinnings in terms of God and the nature of his actions.

You say your God is just, with the freedom of man's will as priority, yet (I presume you're not an Open Theist here) with vision of all of the evil that will come from man's freedom - and while holding the power to stop this evil - God still placed Satan in the Garden to accelerate temptation and all that it would lead to.

Is any of this wrong?

 

[JAL]

That morality is subjective based on your pet Rule of Conscience, that "If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and action-B is good, I should opt for B." Honestly brother this is beyond ludicrous...
But lest I be accused of not addressing its problems:

1. Fine - I feel certain that being nice to cats is evil, and killing cats is good. So killing cats is righteous?

Abraham felt certain that murdering his son was the right thing to do. Was that attempted slaughter unrighteous?

But lest I be accused of not addressing its problems:

1. Fine - I feel certain that being nice to cats is evil, and killing cats is good. So killing cats is righteous?

Yes - for YOU. In your hypothetical scenario, to abstain from the killing is the EVIL thing to do, in your own mind. Thus to abstain would be YOUR BEST EFFORT TO DO EVIL. Shall God consider such an effort righteous? Shall He reward you for trying to be as evil as possible?


What was that term you used a moment ago? Ludicrous, right?

Any proposed exception to the rule of conscience is obviously ludicrous. Your own words are apropos for your analysis:

"Honestly brother this is beyond ludicrous, and if it fell from the lips of my atheist friends who have no grounding in philosophy I would wincingly let it slip, but surely not from you."

Or I feel certain that our Glorious Fatherland is being destroyed by a certain ethnic population, and exterminating this population is good. So my extermination is righteous? No God needed right?

How did Moses and Joshua know that it was the true God who spoke to them, when they set about slaughtering 7 nations to lay hold of Canaan? All they knew is that they felt certain about it. Do you want evidence their slaughter was righteous? See the book of Hebrews. Abraham is mentioned there too, in his attempt to slaughter his own son.

I wish I could say that your Rule expresses the moral value of, say, the Nazis, but unfortunately it's worse. The Nazis at least had rule of law - twisted into genocide by leadership that assumed ultimate authority. Your Rule would place the reins of morality into the hands of each and every individual, free to decide for themselves what is evil or good.

Human justice systems - systems without God - are imperfect justice because a judge cannot read your conscience. He has to assume that you either (A) have a reasonable conscience or (B) are criminally insane.

Otherwise law makes no sense. None of this refutes the rule of conscience.

You make no claim as to exactly how evil or good is determined. If you're going to stick to your guns and say that that too does not come from God then all you're doing is pushing the problem back one level: "God isn't needed because of my Rule, which requires people somehow self-discern evil from good".

The question was whether there is any standard of evil outside of God. I gave you the correct answer. If a man does what is good to the very best of his knowledge and ability, you cannot reasonably regard him as a bad person. His conscience might be misinformed as to what constitutes being a good person, but he hasn't behaved unrighteously.

Are you still sure that God isn't needed for morality? I cannot fathom that any Christian could make this claim.

That's actually a broader question. For a perfectly informed conscience, we do need God to speak to us. That's largely what prophecy is all about. But righteousness itself must be defined as fidelity to the rule of conscience, regardless of whether God exists.

If you want to express your Rule properly, note that the "action-A is evil" clause is redundant. And the "should opt for B" is ambiguous (by "should" you're implying that there might be times when you "shouldn't"). Maybe you mean "If A is evil and B is good then if you're going to do either then only do B"?

I think my rule is expressed well enough, as it is both logically and biblically defensible, and I can't think of any plausible exceptions to it.

 

[JAL]

Thanks. I ask these questions because I'm trying to understand your structural underpinnings in terms of God and the nature of his actions.

You say your God is just, with the freedom of man's will as priority, yet (I presume you're not an Open Theist here) with vision of all of the evil that will come from man's freedom - and while holding the power to stop this evil - God still placed Satan in the Garden to accelerate temptation and all that it would lead to.

Is any of this wrong?

I AM an Open Theist, at least I hold to its central thesis that God does not know the future, except for those events that He has decided to bring to pass.

 

[Brother-Mike]

Actually your superficial analysis is both ludicrous and unbiblical, as I will demonstrate shortly.

Sorry, it's too late. I have already rested my case!

 

[JAL]

Sorry, it's too late. I have already rested my case!

See post 1745.

 

[black-pawn]

Just so that I understand, is your God all powerful?
If so then why does he permit evil?

It is man (Adam who represented mankind) who opened the door to evil. God brought the remedy through Yeshua, the Messiah of the world (Jn 3:16). God is love (1Jn 4:8, 16) while man is lost in need of a Savior.

 

[JAL]

You make no claim as to exactly how evil or good is determined.

Regardless of that: trust me, you do NOT want God to evaluate you based on right and wrong. It's MUCH better to be evaluated on the rule of conscience because you lack omniscience to KNOW right from wrong.

Example. Suppose you attend university-A feeling certain it is the right thing to do per the best of your knowledge. You seriously want to be punished because God actually preferred that university-B was the right place to go?

 

[JAL]

You make no claim as to exactly how evil or good is determined.

If it will help you understand my views: prophecy operates in tandem with the rule of conscience. Such a Direct Revelation causes the recipient to feel certain about the message from God. This feeling of certainty imposes a moral obligation upon him, per the rule of conscience.

 

[Brother-Mike]

Abraham felt certain that murdering his son was the right thing to do. Was that attempted slaughter unrighteous?

Hold on here! We're debating your Rule of Conscience that serves as a basis for morality WITHOUT God and your defence immediately appeals to Biblical claim? Naughty naughty.

1. Fine - I feel certain that being nice to cats is evil, and killing cats is good. So killing cats is righteous?

Yes - for YOU. In your hypothetical scenario, to abstain from the killing is the EVIL thing to do, in your own mind. Thus is to abstain would be YOUR BEST EFFORT TO DO EVIL. Shall God consider consider such an effort righteous? Shall He reward you for trying to be as evil as possible?

To badly paraphrase Jerry Maguire, "You had me at yes killing cats for me is righteous".

Any proposed exception of the rule of conscience is obviously ludicrous. Your own words are apropos for your analysis:

"Honestly brother this is beyond ludicrous, and if it fell from the lips of my atheist friends who have no grounding in philosophy I would wincingly let it slip, but surely not from you."

I'm sorry brother but it seems that you've made a shiny little bull idol out of your Rule of Conscience - any proposed exception of the rule is obviously ludicrous? Isn't philosophical debate precisely all about testing claims against exceptions? You're just decreeing that any exceptions to your model are false?

How did Moses and Joshua know that it was the true God who spoke to them, when they set about slaughtering 7 nations to lay hold of Canaan? All they knew is that they felt certain about it. Do you want evidence their slaughter was righteous?

a) again, a biblical appeal in a debate about not needing biblical appeals?
b) It's a bad day for cats and now for ethnic populations in the Glorious Fatherland it seems. Both get greenlit because of my subjective morality.

Human justice systems - systems without God - are imperfect injustice because a judge cannot read your conscience. He has to assume that you either (A) have a reasonable conscience or (B) are criminally insane.

Otherwise law makes no sense. None of this refutes the rule of conscience.

Human justice systems are certainly informed by the Christian faith, more or less universally. And the few that aren't, or that have justice value systems greatly different than ours we would generally consider repellent. But maybe you mean that they are "without God" in their apparent secular/universal-rights current manifestation. I at least wouldn't disagree that that's how they might view themselves, but to me they're not fooling anybody

The question was whether there is any standard of evil outside of God. I gave you the correct answer. If a man does what is good to the very best of his knowledge and ability, you cannot reasonably regard him as a bad person. His conscience might be misinformed as to what constitutes being a good person, but he hasn't behaved unrighteously.

Sorry, you can't just claim you've given the correct answer and it is magically so. If you're defending that there is a standard of morality outside of God yet still adhere to terms like "good" then how does man determine good?

That's actually a broader question. For a perfectly informed conscience, we do need God to speak to us. That's largely what prophecy is all about. But righteousness itself must be defined as fidelity to the rule of conscience, regardless of whether God exists.

The plot thickens. Now there's a "perfectly informed conscience" that's reliant on your Rule of Conscience to define righteousness. If this works for you then more power to you brother

I think my rule is expressed well enough, as it is both logically and biblically defensible, and I can't think of any plausible exceptions to it.

Then it must be true.

I AM an Open Theist, at least I hold to its central thesis that God does not know the future, except for those events that He has decided to bring to pass.

I'm an Open Theist too! Well, except for (as you say) those events that He has decided. Which turns out to be every subatomic particle in all things, all the time, from Creation to the New Earth into eternity. But everything else is in my hands.

 

[Brother-Mike]

Regardless of that: trust me, you do NOT want God to evaluate you based on right and wrong. It's MUCH better to be evaluated on the rule of conscience because you lack omniscience to KNOW right from wrong.

Example. Suppose you attend university-A feeling certain it is the right thing to do per the best of your knowledge. You seriously want to be punished because God actually preferred that university-B was the right place to go?

Huh?? Whose God is going around punishing people over which university they've chosen?

But finally we agree JAL at least on one point: I DO NOT want God judging me, because I am a sinner. By his standard, not my subjective standard. And I (and you brother) are destined to eternal punishment unless we believe and go on believing. Simple, clean and most importantly Biblical.

 

[Brother-Mike]

If it will help you understand my views: prophecy operates in tandem with the rule of conscience. Such a Direct Revelation causes the recipient to feel certain about the message from God. This feeling of certainty imposes a moral obligation upon him, per the rule of conscience.

Your model seems to be morphing back into what any plain-ole' non-Material-Monist-Open-Theist Christian would simply call the Word of God. God reveals to us (via natural and special revelation) our moral obligations. Isn't it? I don't see why you need the Rube Goldberg contraption of "Rule of Conscience", which itself is incoherent sans Bible.

 

[JAL]

Hold on here! We're debating your Rule of Conscience that serves as a basis for morality WITHOUT God and your defence immediately appeals to Biblical claim? Naughty naughty.



To badly paraphrase Jerry Maguire, "You had me at yes killing cats for me is righteous".



I'm sorry brother but it seems that you've made a shiny little bull idol out of your Rule of Conscience - any proposed exception of the rule is obviously ludicrous? Isn't philosophical debate precisely all about testing claims against exceptions? You're just decreeing that any exceptions to your model are false?



a) again, a biblical appeal in a debate about not needing biblical appeals?
b) It's a bad day for cats and now for ethnic populations in the Glorious Fatherland it seems. Both get greenlit because of my subjective morality.



Human justice systems are certainly informed by the Christian faith, more or less universally. And the few that aren't, or that have justice value systems greatly different than ours we would generally consider repellent. But maybe you mean that they are "without God" in their apparent secular/universal-rights current manifestation. I at least wouldn't disagree that that's how they might view themselves, but to me they're not fooling anybody



Sorry, you can't just claim you've given the correct answer and it is magically so. If you're defending that there is a standard of morality outside of God yet still adhere to terms like "good" then how does man determine good?



The plot thickens. Now there's a "perfectly informed conscience" that's reliant on your Rule of Conscience to define righteousness. If this works for you then more power to you brother



Then it must be true.

Unblievable. You act like I need to defend the rule of conscience any further.

Let me get this straight - is it righteous to TRY TO DO EVIL?

Because that's all the rule of conscience is addressing.

 

[JAL]

Hold on here! We're debating your Rule of Conscience that serves as a basis for morality WITHOUT God and your defence immediately appeals to Biblical claim? Naughty naughty.

Nothing naughty about it. Effectively it's the same because Abraham had no epistemologically objective knowledge that the Voice came from God. Fact is he had to make a moral decision. And the only way to make sense of it is the rule of conscience. He did what he felt certain about.

 

[JAL]

Hold on

Sorry, you can't just claim you've given the correct answer and it is magically so. If you're defending that there is a standard of morality outside of God yet still adhere to terms like "good" then how does man determine good?

Sorry, you can't just claim you've given the correct answer and it is magically so. You can't claim that just because God exists - an ontological claim - that a standard of morality therefore exists. Atheists also have ontological claims.

 

[John Mullally]

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

In Acts 15:28, Paul says "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us". So being led by the spirit can be "it seems". Those resisting God learn by hard knocks - as we see with the prophet Jonah and Saul on the way to Damascus. The Holy Spirit can be resisted (Acts 7:51). This all points to God respecting man's free will. Although per Jonah and Saul, we see God applying severe pressure.

 

[JAL]

"Rule of Conscience".... is incoherent sans Bible.

Morality didn't exist until the Bible?

Even the Fall is coherent only on the rule of conscience.

 

[JAL]

I feel certain that being nice to cats is evil, and killing cats is good. So killing cats is righteous?

You stand where Abraham stood. Same place where Adam and Eve stood. You have no epistemologically objective knowledge and, moreover, you are a potentially fallible being.

Ultimately you MUST fall back on the rule of conscience in all your decisions (assuming you behave righteously). You must do, not so much what you KNOW is right, but what you feel certain is right.