How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[GodsGrace101]

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.

Your last sentence is correct.
I've bee reading along and technically Brother Mike is correct in that depending on the conscience is only valid if it is formed by God's laws.

But if we follow a God-formed conscience we must know and feel certain that an action is wrong.

Although the Knowing and Feeling Certain is a minute nuance which would be fun to see developed by you two, who are well-versed in both theology and a good dose of philosophy!

 

[JAL]

Your last sentence is correct.
I've bee reading along and technically Brother Mike is correct in that depending on the conscience is only valid if it is formed by God's laws.

I'm pretty much in agreement with these words. Left to itself, the conscience tends to form some very inaccurate theories on how best to treat people (e.g. how to raise kids, how to run institutions including churches, how to govern, how to end world hunger, how to care for the sick, etc. etc. etc.).

As I said, the only perfect fix for a misinformed conscience is infallible revelation from God (prophecy). And where THAT is in short supply, we naturally fall back on exegesis. That sums up my epistemology.

But no matter where one stands, or what he believes, at the current moment he should do what he feels certain is right - whether it is:
....(A) I feel certain that I should study the bible right now.
....(B) I feel certain that I should pray for Direct Revelation right now.
...(C) I feel certain that I should study philosophy right now.
...(D) I feel certain that I should accept Christ as my Lord and Savior right now.
....and so on.

Scenario D is how we got saved. In my opinion, the Inward Witness brought us to reality D, by convincing/convicting us.

 

[JAL]

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.

Personally I don't see how you reconcile Open Theism (human freedom to alter the future) with Calvinistic absolute sovereignty (a future foreordained in every detail). Maybe I'm just slow of understanding.

 

[zoidar]

I don't like the new site changes either. It has become needlessly difficult to add carriage returns and spaces. And where are the search-thread tools?

I wouldn't complain unless my IP adress wasn't banned for some reason. Now I have to use VPN to get access to CF.

 

[JAL]

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.

It's not "morphing back" - it's just consistency of logic. My only final authority is the rule of conscience. Therefore if God exists, He must operate within those boundaries. Meaning, any Direct Revelation must cause me to feel certain that the message is good and obligatory. If I feel certain a message is evil, I should repudiate it and disregard it.

 

[JAL]

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

Suppose God knows that at university-B you will discover the cure for a major disease. In His eyes, then, it is IMPERATIVE that you attend university-B. You SHOULD be punished if you rebelliously refused.

However, if you didn't know it was His will - if you felt certain you attended the right university - you should not be punished.

 

[JAL]

a) again, a biblical appeal in a debate about not needing biblical appeals?

(Sigh). Obviously, I'm killing two birds with one stone. I'm making both arguments in my posts.
...(1) If God doesn't exist, the rule of conscience is still the most plausible definition of righteousness.
...(2) The biblical data lends support to the rule of conscience. Without it, the biblical data doesn't make much sense.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I'm pretty much in agreement with these words. Left to itself, the conscience tends to form some very inaccurate theories on how best to treat people (e.g. how to raise kids, how to run institutions including churches, how to govern, how to end world hunger, how to care for the sick, etc. etc. etc.).

As I said, the only perfect fix for a misinformed conscience is infallible revelation from God (prophecy). And where THAT is in short supply, we naturally fall back on exegesis. That sums up my epistemology.

But no matter where one stands, or what he believes, at the current moment he should do what he feels certain is right - whether it is:
....(A) I feel certain that I should study the bible right now.
....(B) I feel certain that I should pray for Direct Revelation right now.
...(C) I feel certain that I should study philosophy right now.
...(D) I feel certain that I should accept Christ as my Lord and Savior right now.
....and so on.

Scenario D is how we got saved. In my opinion, the Inward Witness brought us to reality D, by convincing/convicting us.

Yeah.
Epistemology.
That's what I thought!
I stayed out of the conversation between you two because I feel it's out of my pay grade!

 

[Brother-Mike]

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.

Thanks John - these one-liner questions that I was asking JAL were just to delve into what his actual beliefs are, so aren't meant to indicate my own uncertainly about God's influence on us.

But to your points here - absolutely! The Bible is packed with Man's agency. Even in the Garden, in the immediate personal presence of God, the serpent must first sin to pitch disobedience which Eve bought with what really looks like freedom. But a Christian who takes a strong position on God's Sovereignty must face the fact that God is sovereign over all things. Once you start to search the Bible for support for his Sovereignty, you quickly realize that it's everywhere too.

Our God willed all of Creation into being with a breathed Word - surely we must afford him the power to make a world for us to be free to participate in while simultaneously retaining his total power over it? Is that such a stumbling block to our insistence on personal authority that we say "No! I DO THIS! ME!" and reject his Words?

Take the crucifixion itself - the "Hinge Point of History", the most evil act yet too the greatest manifestation of God's glory - how many thousands, millions of people and their decisions, from infancy until the driving of the nails, were required to kill our brother? How many civilizations, the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Romans, must have been woven into that plan all the way up to placing Jesus on that hill? Yet:

“For indeed both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, assembled together in this city against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do as much as your power and your plan had decided beforehand would happen." - Acts 4:27-28

Do you see it brother? These words are plain. Plain enough that you should sit up and at least for a moment set aside your demand of freedom to at least allow God that kind of power.

If you say "God just reached around and picked up whatever tools were lying about freely at the time to accomplish his plan" then what about the countless events that might have prevented Jesus from even being there at all? Was a criminal free to murder a pregnant Mary? Was a criminal free to murder the mother of Mary? Is God just acting like an accountant, correcting and interceding in billions of tiny ways to ensure all roads lead to the cross? Is this the God of Glory described in the Bible? Is this the God who laid the foundations of the Earth, who fathered the rain and the drops of dew, who prepares the prey for the raven when its young cry out for food?

Do you see it brother?

 

[JAL]

Yeah.
Epistemology.
That's what I thought!
I stayed out of the conversation between you two because I feel it's out of my pay grade!

I'm sure I don't know any more than you do about philosophy, and probably a lot less.

Somehow I landed upon a couple of incredibly simple/simplistic conclusions that seem to me more plausible than traditional thinking. Namely:

...(1) In epistemology, churches tend to lean toward either Tradition or Sola-Scriptura for authority and knowledge. Whereas I have cast my vote for the rule of conscience.
...(2) In metaphysics, churches hold to an immaterial realm. Whereas I hold to a simple material monism.

There's no rocket science in my views. The complex theories of the past seem to overthink things (and are far above MY pay grade), so I landed upon something simpler. To date I haven't seen any overwhelming objections. I suppose time will tell.

 

[rockytopva]

John Calvin... The guy who had Michael Servetus put to death for disagreeing with him? No interest in the guy!

 

[GodsGrace101]

I'm sure I don't know any more than you do about philosophy, and probably a lot less.

Somehow I landed upon a couple of incredibly simple/simplistic conclusions that seem to me more plausible than traditional thinking. Namely:

...(1) In epistemology, churches tend to lean toward either Tradition or Sola-Scriptura for authority and knowledge. Whereas I have cast my vote for the rule of conscience.
...(2) In metaphysics, churches hold to an immaterial realm. Whereas I hold to a simple material monism.

There's no rocket science in my views. The complex theories of the past seem to overthink things (and are far above MY pay grade), so I landed upon something simpler. To date I haven't seen any overwhelming objections. I suppose time will tell.

I know nothing of philosophy. Not that I wouldn't like to, but I think it's too late.
Did you know that Catholic priests were required to take 2 years of philosophy - I think it's been changed to 3, not sure.
William Lane Craig has both a PhD in Philosophy and Theology - I love listening to him.
I like theology.
I read the bible in a simple way, keeping in mind that God loves His creation and will do good for us.
This has kept me for the past 40 years.
The God of the reformed is unknown to me, and, might I say, the rest of Christianity.

 

[Clare73]

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

The Greek word is theopneutos--God-breathed. . .God expired, not inspired.

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

Previously addressed. . .let's not go in circles. . .take it up with Jesus who called Scripture "the word of God" (Jn 10:35; Mt 15:6).

You don't get a "do-over" of the word of God in the Scriptures.

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.
The distinction blurs at times

Jesus didn't think so (Jn 10:35, Mt 15:6), and you have no authority to declare otherwise.

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.

Then you don't understand Jn 10:35.
Nope. . .he was referring to the only thing that existed. . .the written record of the word of God; i.e., the Scriptures.
And he testified to the Scriptures' complete authority and reliability when he said, "the Scripture cannot be broken." (Jn 10:35)

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

Jesus disagreed.
And it seems you actually know little of its power. . .

 

[JAL]

The Greek word is theopneutos--God-breathed. . .God expired, not inspired.

Certainly. God had to expire to inspire.

Previously addressed. . .let's not go in circles. . .take it up with Jesus who called Scripture "the word of God" (Jn 10:35; Mt 15:6).

I think Jesus knew the difference. He was referring to the original Word of God (Isa 55:11). Take it up with Him.

Nope. . .he was referring to the only thing that existed. . .the written record of the word of God; i.e., the Scriptures.

Um...er...the divine Word has always existed.

It seems you actually know little of its power. . .

The Bible isn't the power of God. The spoken Word/Breath of His mouth is His power (e.g. Ps 33:6 Isa 55:11 Heb 1:3 ).

 

[Clare73]

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 opppose what Paul wrote

Playing games. . .oppose or expose (as in exposit)?

and offer a seemingly unrelated OT passage (Exodus 4:21-22) without commentary as something we all should undertand as cancelling what Paul said.

Commentary provided in post #1705, which you fail to address.

And the only thing cancelled was your contra-Biblical understanding, which Scripture deals with in Dt 29:29.

You take up reformed theology positions,

Then you are saying reformed theology is in agreement with Paul's positions, which are the only ones I take up.
So Paul is in error because reformed theology agrees with him?
And you have yet to Biblically demonstrate any error.

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.

Are you sure about that?. . .ever read Dt 29:29?
Or is Scriptual terminology also off limits now?

The only "ism" I do is Paulism, who often grounds doctrine in the OT.

Transparency is appreciated - stop playing games.

Stop covering your failed arguments with false accusations, step up and Biblically address post #1,705.

 

[JAL]

@Clare73,

Contrary to bibliolatry, the Bible isn't the fourth member of the Godhead.

There are only three members. Once you fully accept that fact, you'll be a little more cautious about assigning the same title to the Bible as you do to God.

 

[JAL]

Are you sure about that?. . .ever read Dt 29:29?

There you go again. You always think that your interpretation is the ONLY possible/plausible one. Why? How does that verse clearly postulate a divine secret will contrary to His revealed will? All I see there are secrets of an unknown kind.

 

[Receivedgrace]

@Clare73,

Contrary to bibliolatry, the Bible isn't the fourth member of the Godhead.

There are only three members. Once you fully accept that fact, you'll be a little more cautious about assigning the same title to the Bible as you do to God.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Additional contemplation is required.

 

[JAL]

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

As anyone can see, the divine Word existed long before the Bible. The Bible is not the Word.

The Bible is a history book inspired/authored by the divine Word.

 

[GodsGrace101]

There you go again. You always think that your interpretation is the ONLY possible/plausible one. Why? How does that verse clearly postulate a divine secret will contrary to His revealed will? All I see there are secrets of an unknown kind.

I agree about @Clare73 and I don't have enough time to play both parts,
but...

Here's Deuteronomy 29:29

Deuteronomy 29:29 — New Living Translation (NLT)​

29 “The Lord our God has secrets known to no one. We are not accountable for them, but we and our children are accountable forever for all that he has revealed to us, so that we may obey all the terms of these instructions.

Deuteronomy 29:29 — New Century Version (NCV)​

29 There are some things the Lord our God has kept secret, but there are some things he has let us know. These things belong to us and our children forever so that we will do everything in these teachings.

Deuteronomy 29:29 — American Standard Version (ASV)​

29 The secret things belong unto Jehovah our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Deuteronomy 29:29 — 1890 Darby Bible (DARBY)​

29 The hidden things belong to Jehovah our God; but the revealed ones are ours and our children’s for ever, to do all the words of this law.

Deuteronomy 29:29 — GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)​

29 Some things are hidden. They belong to the Lord our God. But the things that have been revealed in these teachings belong to us and to our children forever. We must obey every word of these teachings.


1. We are not accountable for the secrets God has NOT made known to us. This is just.
2. What we need to know HAS been revealed so that we may keep His word.

Of course we don't know everything about God...
But we know what we need to know and what Jesus revealed to us.

As far as I can tell, Jesus was loving, merciful and just.
Just like God Father.

It's impossible to state that all of us deserve hell fire
UNLESS a just God shows us how to avoid it.
WHICH HE HAS.