• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
28,492
7,319
North Carolina
✟336,093.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.
Previously addressed. ..let's not go in circles.
The title "the word of God" is used only by John (Rev 19:13) in regard to Jesus, and nowhere else in Scripture.

Rather Scripture states that "the word is God." (Jn 1:1)

No "do-over" on the Scriptures for the sake of your theology.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
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.
Is anyone denying secrets on this thread? I don't think so.

What is denied is a Calvinistic extrapolation of the secrecy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GodsGrace101
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Previously addressed. ..let's not go in circles.
The title "the word of God" is nowhere applied to Jesus in Scripture.
That is not the meaning of logos.

Rather Scripture states that "the word is God."

No "do-over" on the Scriptures for the sake of your theology.
Ditto. Previously addressed.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
28,492
7,319
North Carolina
✟336,093.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.
How does it deny such. . .in the light of Ex 4:21-23?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
How does it deny such. . .in the light of Ex 4:21-22?
I think it's silent on the issue, yet you keep citing it as proof. Why didn't you also cite the other 31,000 verses silent on the issue?
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
28,492
7,319
North Carolina
✟336,093.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I think it's silent on the issue, yet you keep citing it as proof. Why didn't you also cite the other 31,000 verses silent on the issue?
I cite it as an explanation. . .which reconciles what you see as contrary to one another; i.e., 1Ti 2:4 and 1Pe 1:2, that
God desires all men to be saved (1Ti 2:4) and
God chooses some (not all) to be saved (1 Pe 1:2).

Now deal with what is on the table, stop kicking up dirt to cloud the issue and avoid dealing with the fact that Dt 29:29 reconciles Ex 4:21-23, as well as 1Ti 2:4 with 1Pe 1:2, and Biblically demonstrate why it cannot.
Nor is Dt 29:29 silent on the issue, it is the issue, unless you can Biblically demonstrate that it is not.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I cite it as an explanation. . .which reconciles what you see as contrary to one another; i.e., 1Ti 2:4 and 1Pe 1:2, that
God desires all men to be saved (1Ti 2:4) and
God chooses some (not all) to be saved (1 Pe 1:2).

Now deal with what is on the table, stop kicking up dirt to cloud the issue and avoid dealing with the fact that Dt 29:29 reconciles Ex 4:21-23, as well as 1Ti 2:4 with 1Pe 1:2, and Biblically demonstrate why it cannot.
Nor is Dt 29:29 silent on the issue, it is the issue, unless you can Biblically demonstrate that it is not.
I don't see any productivity in discussing a verse silent on the issue at hand.

I won't deny you've provided one possible interpretation of Dt 29:29 . I just have no strong reason to think it's the most plausible one.
 
Upvote 0

Brother-Mike

Predetermined to freely believe
Aug 16, 2022
626
537
Toronto
✟49,841.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Private
This is probably as good time as any for me at least to step out of the endless and debatably useful war-zone we've been having over 89 pages now. I would presume like me you take a moment or two to ponder the utility of rehashing these arguments versus reading the Bible, or indeed just general study. Wouldn't it be funny if we're all just arguing but within each of us we're all wondering why we're doing this?

So if there's any highly specific questions or observations re. Calvinism on this thread at least I'll keep an eye out for @-mentions, but otherwise I might suggest the horse has been properly flogged and double-flogged.

As for the new and weird turn the thread has taken regarding your Rule of Conscience, I can offer some final thoughts based on some of your latest replies (I suspect there might be further development on this topic so if tempted I might weigh in there too).

On to the ROC:

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

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

It is never righteous to do evil by definition. Evil can be defined as something like "that which is not righteous". Still floating in the air is HOW we discern righteous from non-righteous, but I suspect we'll get to that.

If you're saying that ROC is really just "Good is what you believe is good, and evil is what you believe is evil" (or maybe "A man's knowledge of good and evil dictate his righteousness of action") then I wouldn't disagree, although we're importantly leaving out HOW he came to his moral position. You've earlier stated that if I subjectively decide that killing cats is good then it's good (I guess you mean at least "for me"?).

Recall that the whole reason this ROC discussion came about was because I was claiming that God and his word are needed to establish moral foundations. You claimed that they aren't, ROC is enough. So it seems to me that again you're skirting the deep problem of moral definition in much the same way that atheists do: you presume good and evil are so fundamentally implicit that they can be assumed. They cannot.

In some of your later postings I see you making progress by bringing up Abraham's lack of objective moral definition. For example:

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.

This is good and I believe gets closer to the heart of the issue, backing you into the corner that atheists have to defend. In precisely the same way that you're saying that Abram only had a voice to go on, atheists would claim the same for the Bible. Let's all sing along now: "The Bible is just a subjective book written by man to manipulate the gullible". The atheist would claim that even if Abram did hear a voice it was more likely a figment of his imagination than God. In fact there would be no evidence that the atheist would accept. Wasn't it Dawkins, when asked if he would believe if God appeared in the sky with big golden letters spelling "Richard I am God" and answered to the effect of "No, I would still presume my senses were failing me"?

The atheist accepts no objective basis for moral claims. All is ultimately subjective, although they'll point limply at natural morality or utilitarianism. But ultimately their systems will boil down to "He who is strongest makes the rules". They can still call things "good" or "evil" but there is no objective foundation. You, yourself a brother in Christ but clinging to ROC, were willing to admit that killing cats or even ethnic populations is not evil in a mere 500 words or so of gentle prodding. How would non-believers fare with ROC as their North Star?

I submit that a Christian has a far easier claim to moral objectivity: we believe in a sovereign God, and go on believing. He told us that the Bible is his Word - that is the serpent-staff planted before subjective morality. If the Word is true, then so are the commandments, and they undergird our legal systems and declarations of human rights. If the Word is true, then so was the voice of God to Abram, and so was Abram's belief. If the Word is true, then so is killing cats or ethnic populations, regardless of my subjective desires or knowledge.

We know what it looks like when we remove the Christian cornerstone of objective morality. Throughout ancient history right into the Roman Empire it was normal and accepted to simply discard unwanted newborns on garbage heaps to die. Did the fruits of Greco-Roman philosophy and ethics lead those civilizations away from this practice? No. But the early Christians were known, with some humorous derision, as the people that go around collecting and raising those little garbage babies.

The deepest and most ironic delusion - and this applies to atheists as well as proponents of any kind of subjective moral system like ROC - is that they fail to understand how much they already accept the cornerstone of objective morality, to the point where they believe that it's not even there. But I presume not you - I presume you are a good Christian, a good and moral member of our civilization who doesn't kill cats or ethnic populations and, if faced with either of these injustices would fight against them.
 
Upvote 0

John Mullally

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2020
2,454
857
Califormia
✟146,819.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
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!
Following one's conscience is best until one violates it so much it becomes seared. At which point a tramatic event like being blinded, knocked off your horse, and rebuked by Jesus may be necessary. Note that happened to Paul and note that God did not give Paul a new heart until Paul exhibited a willingness to change. That is the pattern we see in Ezekiel 18.

Ezekiel 18:30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GodsGrace101
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
28,492
7,319
North Carolina
✟336,093.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't see any productivity in discussing a verse silent on the issue at hand.
It's not "silent," it is the issue.
I won't deny you've provided one possible interpretation of Dt 29:29 . I just have no strong reason to think it's the most plausible one.
I note your usual rejection coupled with lack of Biblical demonstration otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
28,492
7,319
North Carolina
✟336,093.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I was hoping Clare would read the above post.
Did Calvin extrapolate it that way?

I'm impressed!

It's so silly to blame Calvin for what the Scriptures present. . .
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Following one's conscience is best until one violates it so much it becomes seared. At which point a tramatic event like being blinded, knocked off your horse, and rebuked by Jesus may be necessary. Note that happened to Paul and note that God did not give Paul a new heart until Paul exhibited a willingness to change. That is the pattern we see in Ezekiel 18.
FYI: Please bear in mind that the rule of conscience as I have defined it does not mention the word "conscience". So a seared conscience has no relevance here.

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

There are no possible exceptions to this rule. In fact, that's how Paul got saved on the Road to Damascus: the vision/voice caused him to suddenly feel certain that Jesus is Lord. It was all very convincing.

And that's how Direct Revelation ALWAYS works. It provides a message while raising your degree of felt certainty about it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: GodsGrace101
Upvote 0

Receivedgrace

Active Member
Aug 9, 2022
255
56
71
Hershey
✟28,748.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Fundament. Christ.
Marital Status
Married
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.
It is not like any other book. The bible is the written word of God. It is able to make one wise unto salvation.
If one does not believe the bible, they cannot be saved. The Holy Spirit of God acts through no other book.
 
Upvote 0

GodsGrace101

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2018
6,713
2,297
Tuscany
✟255,207.00
Country
Italy
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Following one's conscience is best until one violates it so much it becomes seared. At which point a tramatic event like being blinded, knocked off your horse, and rebuked by Jesus may be necessary. Note that happened to Paul and note that God did not give Paul a new heart until Paul exhibited a willingness to change. That is the pattern we see in Ezekiel 18.

Ezekiel 18:30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live
I just noticed Ezekiel 18:30 - commands for man to change, to get a new heart.
Ezekiel 36:26 - God will put a new heart in man.

Same as for Pharaoh
Exodus 4:21 - God hardens his heart.
Exodus 8:32 - Pharaoh hardened his heart.
 
Upvote 0

GodsGrace101

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2018
6,713
2,297
Tuscany
✟255,207.00
Country
Italy
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is not like any other book. The bible is the written word of God. It is able to make one wise unto salvation.
If one does not believe the bible, they cannot be saved. The Holy Spirit of God acts through no other book.
What you've written is true.
Except I cannot agree that the bible is the only way to be saved...
if that's what you mean.
If you mean that we must believe what the NT states, then this is true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zoidar
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It is never righteous to do evil by definition.
Exactly. Attempting to do evil is inappropriate. My name for that axiom is the "rule of conscience."

If you're saying that ROC is really just "Good is what you believe is good, and evil is what you believe is evil" (or maybe "A man's knowledge of good and evil dictate his righteousness of action") then I wouldn't disagree, although we're importantly leaving out HOW he came to his moral position. You've earlier stated that if I subjectively decide that killing cats is good then it's good (I guess you mean at least "for me"?).
Subjectively "decide"? What's that supposed to mean? Where did I say it's an arbitrary decision? The rule refers to being convinced that something is true. As for most things I am convinced of, I didn't "subjectively decide" to be convinced. Something convinced me.

Also be aware that levels of certainty vary. Abraham needed 100% certainty to make the attempt to kill his son. Only a psychopath could make the attempt, with no compunctions, on less than that.

Your conscience will direct you to do what is MOST certain. Vizualize:
...(1) I feel 95% certain that I should kill cats right now.
...(2) However, I feel 96% certain that 95% is not enough certainty to justify such behavior.
Therefore, I will wait. I will pray for a Direct Revelation that will hopefully provide me more certainty on this issue.
OR
I will try studying my Bible for more certainty on this issue. (Problem here is that exegesis, being fallible, won't get you to 100% certainty. But maybe it will get you close enough to satisfy your conscience).

Recall that the whole reason this ROC discussion came about was because I was claiming that God and his word are needed to establish moral foundations. You claimed that they aren't, ROC is enough. So it seems to me that again you're skirting the deep problem of moral definition in much the same way that atheists do: you presume good and evil are so fundamentally implicit that they can be assumed. They cannot.
I'm saying:
...(1) There is no 100% epistemologically objective way to establish ANYTHING.
...(2) The rule of conscience seems logically inescapable in ANY system of morality - the lowest common denominator - and it doesn't even mention God.

You say you're talking about foundations - sounds to me you're talking about fine details of morality. The rule of conscience was never meant to address that.

In some of your later postings I see you making progress by bringing up Abraham's lack of objective moral definition. For example:

This is good and I believe gets closer to the heart of the issue, backing you into the corner that atheists have to defend. In precisely the same way that you're saying that Abram only had a voice to go on, atheists would claim the same for the Bible. Let's all sing along now: "The Bible is just a subjective book written by man to manipulate the gullible". The atheist would claim that even if Abram did hear a voice it was more likely a figment of his imagination than God. In fact there would be no evidence that the atheist would accept. Wasn't it Dawkins, when asked if he would believe if God appeared in the sky with big golden letters spelling "Richard I am God" and answered to the effect of "No, I would still presume my senses were failing me"?
I didn't get your point here. The atheist WOULD accept that intentionality plays a role in morality, which largely summarizes the rule of conscience. For example accidental harm is less punishable than intentional harm - and even exonerated in some cases.


The atheist accepts no objective basis for moral claims.
I'm not sure any of us has a fully objective basis for anything. Ultimately we have to do what we feel certain about, and hopefully we do our best to become as well-informed as possible, to the end of feeling certain about the correct set of beliefs.
[For the atheist] All is ultimately subjective, although they'll point limply at natural morality or utilitarianism. But ultimately their systems will boil down to "He who is strongest makes the rules". They can still call things "good" or "evil" but there is no objective foundation. You, yourself a brother in Christ but clinging to ROC, were willing to admit that killing cats or even ethnic populations is not evil in a mere 500 words or so of gentle prodding. How would non-believers fare with ROC as their North Star?
North Star? Again, you seem to be speaking of the fine details of morality. Rule of Conscience is merely the foundation, the least common denominator.

I submit that a Christian has a far easier claim to moral objectivity: we believe in a sovereign God, and go on believing. He told us that the Bible is his Word - that is the serpent-staff planted before subjective morality. If the Word is true, then so are the commandments, and they undergird our legal systems and declarations of human rights. If the Word is true, then so was the voice of God to Abram, and so was Abram's belief. If the Word is true, then so is killing cats or ethnic populations, regardless of my subjective desires or knowledge.
It was morally wrong for Moses and Joshua to slay entire populations? Have you checked with Scripture on this?

We know what it looks like when we remove the Christian cornerstone of objective morality. Throughout ancient history right into the Roman Empire it was normal and accepted to simply discard unwanted newborns on garbage heaps to die. Did the fruits of Greco-Roman philosophy and ethics lead those civilizations away from this practice? No. But the early Christians were known, with some humorous derision, as the people that go around collecting and raising those little garbage babies.

The deepest and most ironic delusion - and this applies to atheists as well as proponents of any kind of subjective moral system like ROC - is that they fail to understand how much they already accept the cornerstone of objective morality, to the point where they believe that it's not even there. But I presume not you - I presume you are a good Christian, a good and moral member of our civilization who doesn't kill cats or ethnic populations and, if faced with either of these injustices would fight against them.
Again, you're getting into fine details. Admittedly the Rule of Conscience won't stabilize civilizations, establish world peace, and insure the safety of all people. Unless God intervenes. Actually, then, the ROC is indeed enough to provide the fine details of morality, since He does exist (in my opinion). It works like this. If we were consistently faithful to the ROC, God would speak to us more, He speaks via the ROC (feelings of certainty), and it is His desire to convey the specific instructions necessary for world peace and universal well-being.

Just an FYI.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,778
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It is not like any other book. The bible is the written word of God. It is able to make one wise unto salvation.
If one does not believe the bible, they cannot be saved.

I'm not getting you. People were saved before the Bible, by the divine Word. Paul says that saving faith comes by hearing the Word (Rom 10:17). In both of his main discussions of justification by saving faith (Romans 4 and Gal 3), he refers the reader back to Genesis 15:

"The [divine] word came to Abram in a vision [speaking promises]"

THAT is what it means to hear the Word of God. Jesus put it like this: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" (John 10:27).


The Holy Spirit of God acts through no other book.
You're speaking Christianese - popular Christian cliches that often have no discernible meaning. Even if I were you to ask you, "What precisely do you mean by the Spirit "acting through" the book?", you'd simply respond with more Christianese. This is how cults operate: everyone is running around speaking cliches that sound sophisticated but have no clearly defined meaning.

You seriously think that the Spirit operates more powerfully in today's Christians - who have this book - than in the prophet Abraham?
Not even close. Trust me, you don't compare to Abraham.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
28,492
7,319
North Carolina
✟336,093.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm not getting you. People were saved before the Bible, by the divine Word. Paul says that saving faith comes by hearing the Word (Rom 10:17). In both of his main discussions of justification by saving faith (Romans 4 and Gal 3), he refers the reader back to Genesis 15:
"The [divine] word came to Abram in a vision [speaking promises]"
THAT is what it means to hear the Word of God. Jesus put it like this: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" (John 10:27).
You're speaking Christianese -

Would you rather they speak Paganese. . .or anti-Christianese?

When did Christianese become a bad thing?

Thy unorthodox theology doth betray thee.




 
Upvote 0