How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[JAL]

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

When did Christianese become a bad thing?

When no one can provide a clear explanation of what is actually being said. Thought I was crystal on that?

Thy unorthodox theology doth betray thee.

For someone who touts Scripture as her only authority, you rely on a conspicuously large number of ad hominem statements against me. Why that crutch? Obviously it betokens your inability to refute my conclusions biblically.

 

[Clare73]

When no one can provide a clear explanation of what is actually being said. Thought I was crystal on that?

For example?

For someone who touts Scripture as her only authority, you rely on a conspicuously large number of ad hominem statements against me.

It's not me, but you, who states that Scripture is not the word of God, and with which Jesus disagrees in Jn 10:35, where he is not talking about God's own spoken words.

It's not me, but you, who denies the supernatural (i.e., operating outside the natural physical laws).

Neither are orthodox.

Why that crutch? Obviously it betokens your inability to refute my conclusions biblically.

Assertion without demonstration is assertion without merit.

 

[JAL]

For example?

Did you read the post I was responding to?

Assertion without demonstration is without merit.

My point exactly.

 

[Clare73]

When no one can provide a clear explanation of what is actually being said. Thought I was crystal on that?

For someone who touts Scripture as her only authority, you rely on a conspicuously large number of ad hominem statements against me. Why that crutch? Obviously it betokens your inability to refute my conclusions biblically.

Did you read the post I was responding to?

My point exactly.

Is your theology orthodox?

 

[JAL]

Is your theology orthodox?

Define orthodoxy. I accept the Nicene creed.

 

[JAL]

Assertion without demonstration is assertion without merit.

You seem to have more in common with the Calvinist camp than the Arminian camp. And you always insist on your ability to defend your position. Earlier I posted a couple of challenges to Calvinists but didn't get as much feedback as I expected. Care to pitch in? I'm referring to post 1648 and post 1698.

 

[Clare73]

Ok well in that case here's one I find puzzling, if I try to read it from a Calvinistic perspective:

“The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. 38Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.” (Mat 9)

Why are the workers few? Apparently the Lord doesn't know how to properly foreordain/predetermine His decrees?

Or is it just possible that real, libertarian, human freedom played a role in this calamity?

I don't defend Calvinism, I defend Scripture (Paulism).

I have no problem with understanding that Scripture, and have no need to to know "why?"
That's your question, not mine.

A preliminary guess would be that only a minority are saved, and therefore, only a minority are available to work in the much larger vineyard.

 

[Clare73]

@Mark Quayle,
@Brother-Mike,

Imagine a scientist who genetically pre-engineered 7 of his 10 kids to perform evil atrocities unleashing catastrophic suffering upon humanity. He engineered the remaining 3 kids to be model citizens. He does this for his own glory.
When all is said and done, you are appointed, as a human judge or juror, to pass sentence on both:
...(1) The 7 evil kids. You will need to restrain them, to protect society, but would you consider them (A) evil or (B) criminally insane and thus effectively innocent?
...(2). The geneticist himself. Are his actions praiseworthy? Or reprehensible?

As much as possible, let's try to leave Christianity and the Bible out of this analogy so I can get a more objective sense of your personal feelings and ethics. Obviously I am trying to find out if there is a double-standard in your views of divine ethics versus human ethics.

And therein you have betrayed your Biblical fallacy. . .judging the infinite divine by the finite human.

Thanks in advance for any candor on this topic.

Let's cut to the bottom line. . .without all the phony baloney of human rationale.

I don't question God, he questions me (Job 40:7).
I don't judge God, he judges me (Job 38:2).
I'm not the potter, I am the clay (Isa 29:16, 45:9).
I don't call God to the bar of my reason to give an account of his ways (Isa 55:8-9).

That being said, I am convinced (convicted) that the infinite divine wisdom has chosen the best means to the best end.
My wisdom may not agree with God's wisdom, but I have no trouble believing and understanding whose is the real wisdom,
and I have absolutely no trouble accepting it, being fully convinced of the superiority of the divine wisdom over my own.

And that's all I got on the matter. . .

 

[Clare73]

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:



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:



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.

Please don't go away. . .

 

[zoidar]

I don't defend Calvinism, I defend Scripture (Paulism).

I have no problem with understanding that Scripture, and have no need to to know "why?"
That's your question, not mine.

A preliminary guess would be that only a minority are saved, and therefore, only a minority are available to work in the much larger vineyard.

Christians of every church and every denomination defend Scripture (Paulism). It is not saying anything about which theology we hold. If you agree with all or most of the things of Calvinism and believe Calvinism is "Paulism" why don't you just affirm yourself as being a Calvinist?

 

[JAL]

A preliminary guess would be that only a minority are saved, and therefore, only a minority are available to work in the much larger vineyard.

I don't see how that works. Supposedly God foreordained exactly how many would be saved, and even foreordained the workers. Shouldn't the Lord therefore have said, "The harvest is plentiful, but fortunately the Father appointed exactly the right amount of workers" ?????

I have no problem with understanding that Scripture, and have no need to to know "why?"

But those of us unsure of your views need to see how well they line up with Scripture. In this case I don't see how they line up.

That's your question, not mine.

Of course it's my question. This is a debate forum, right?

 

[JAL]

And therein you have betrayed your Biblical fallacy. . .judging the infinite divine by the finite human.

Does God play by any (internal) rulebook? Does He see Himself as bound to a set of ethical rules? Or does He make up any rules He wants, as He goes along?

 

[JAL]

And therein you have betrayed your Biblical fallacy. . .judging the infinite divine by the finite human.

OR, maybe I'm judging whether your version of God matches the biblical version.

 

[Clare73]

Christians of every church and every denomination defend Scripture (Paulism). It is not saying anything about which theology we hold. If you agree with all or most of the things of Calvinism and believe Calvinism is "Paulism" why don't you just affirm yourself as being a Calvinist?

Because I don't know it well enough to know if I do or not.

 

[zoidar]

Because I don't know it well enough to know if I do or not.

What church do you fellowship in? You know where your church stands? Do you agree with your church? That may give you a good pointer to where you stand.

 

[JAL]

@Clare73,

Here's a similar verse:

"However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8).

He seems to be expressing concern that men will have less faith than ideally what He wants them to have. But if the Lord foreordains every detail of our lives, whose fault is that, really? Shouldn't He have said, "When the Son of man returns, He will find precisely the right amount of faith on earth" ????

 

[Brother-Mike]

Ok well in that case here's one I find puzzling, if I try to read it from a Calvinistic perspective:

“The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. 38Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.” (Mat 9)

Why are the workers few? Apparently the Lord doesn't know how to properly foreordain/predetermine His decrees?

Or is it just possible that real, libertarian, human freedom played a role in this calamity?

"35 Then Jesus went throughout all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and sickness. 36 When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them because they were bewildered and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. 37 Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. 38 Therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest-ready fields.” - Matthew 9:35-38 (NET Bible 2nd edition)

To me, Matthew 9:35-38 (Workers for the Harvest) should have really been the beginning of Chapter 10, and is understood in terms of the rest of Matthew 10. Good work Stephen Langton... don't quit your day job.

9:35 Jesus himself is travelling and preaching, presumably some of which in turn would spread the Gospel to others after Jesus' departure. These new preachers are counted among the "few" in 9:37, and would already be at work before the Twelve are sent.

9:36 Establishes the "bewildered and helpless" nature of the Gospel-hungry crowds. These eager hearers are the "harvest" in 9:37.

9:37 Now addressing his disciples on the eve of the Sending of the Twelve, Jesus is simply acknowledging the need for more (i.e. in additional to any evangelization already being done by others) workers to gather the harvest. 10:1 naturally follows that it's the disciples he was referring to, with the added gift of cleansing authority.

My two cents at least... your milage may vary

 

[JAL]

"35 Then Jesus went throughout all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and sickness. 36 When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them because they were bewildered and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. 37 Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. 38 Therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest-ready fields.” - Matthew 9:35-38 (NET Bible 2nd edition)

To me, Matthew 9:35-38 (Workers for the Harvest) should have really been the beginning of Chapter 10, and is understood in terms of the rest of Matthew 10. Good work Stephen Langton... don't quit your day job.

View attachment 324119

9:35 Jesus himself is travelling and preaching, presumably some of which in turn would spread the Gospel to others after Jesus' departure. These new preachers are counted among the "few" in 9:37, and would already be at work before the Twelve are sent.

9:36 Establishes the "bewildered and helpless" nature of the Gospel-hungry crowds. These eager hearers are the "harvest" in 9:37.

9:37 Now addressing his disciples on the eve of the Sending of the Twelve, Jesus is simply acknowledging the need for more (i.e. in additional to any evangelization already being done by others) workers to gather the harvest. 10:1 naturally follows that it's the disciples he was referring to, with the added gift of cleansing authority.

My two cents at least... your milage may vary

Maybe this specific passage isn't critical. After all, it seems to merely highlight a general problem for Calvinism: in both testaments, the Lord complained about a LOT of things, faulting both believers and unbelievers alike. Why all these complaints, if He foreordained everything? The ambiance of both testaments, then, seems decidedly non-deterministic, contrary to Calvinism's determinism. For many of us, Calvin's conclusions (delusions?) seem impossible to believe.

 

[Brother-Mike]

Why all these complaints, if He foreordained everything?

Because he’s a storytelling God, and we are the story, breathed out and sustained by his Word. And the rescue mission’s already been accomplished, so all that’s left for us to do is awaken to and accept our place in the narrative, playing our roles as he’s told us to, “that they may have life, and may have it abundantly”. We get to see out of the story, to the love of our author, who has granted us the gift of co-improvisation.

 

[Brother-Mike]

Because he’s a storytelling God, and we are the story, breathed out and sustained by his Word. And the rescue mission’s already been accomplished, so all that’s left for us to do is awaken to and accept our place in the narrative, playing our roles as he’s told us to, “that they may have life, and may have it abundantly”. We get to see out of the story, to the love of our author, who has granted us the gift of co-improvisation.

The complaints are for dramatic effect