How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[JAL]

Sure, but isn't your "exegetical proof" just your opinion? Which is it, is Biblical exegesis a trustworthy source or isn't it?

Absolutely, just my opinion. The question is, when you see my exegesis, whether or not you can, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, regard your own position as stronger.

 

[Fervent]

Exactly. Convincing to the level of 100% certainty.

Doesn't matter HOW God convinces/convicts - He just has to get the job done.

A wicked generation asks for a sign.

Rebellion disproves conviction? You've got it backwards. Conviction is what makes it rebellion. They knew they were supposed to submit to Moses but rebelled against the truth.

They didn't simply rebel, they challenged whether Moses was speaking for God at all. And this was in the face of the signs in Egypt and on Sinai, so why should people without such exceptional demonstrations expect to be 100% convinced?

Again, not all prophecy is foretelling.

Good thing there are two other tests, then.

 

[JAL]

A wicked generation asks for a sign.

Please.

They didn't simply rebel, they challenged whether Moses was speaking for God at all. And this was in the face of the signs in Egypt and on Sinai, so why should people without such exceptional demonstrations expect to be 100% convinced?

You're missing the big picture. You see, even if I'm wrong, I'm still right. Here's why.

I am battling for the pursuit of prophecy (1 Cor 14:1) - infallible revelation. Even if that's not what God wants for us, we need to know infallibly that such is not what He wants, because, since creation, 100 billion souls are at stake if we are wrong about anything. We can't afford to be wrong about such things.

Therefore it's a no-brainer. In SOME sense we need to pursue infallible revelation, if we care about those 100 billion souls.

 

[Fervent]

Please.

You're missing the big picture. You see, even if I'm wrong, I'm still right. Here's why.

Right...

I am battling for the pursuit of prophecy (1 Cor 14:1) - infallible revelation. Even if that's not what God wants for us, we need to know infallibly that such is not what He wants, because, since creation, 100 billion souls are at stake if we are wrong about anything. We can't afford to be wrong about such things.

Therefore it's a no-brainer. In SOME sense we need to pursue infallible revelation, if we care about those 100 billion souls.

What's this about 100 billion souls? And who are you to deem what God deems sufficient insufficient?

 

[JAL]

Right...

What's this about 100 billion souls?

Population studies concerning the number of people born on earth since creation.

And who are you to deem what God deems sufficient insufficient?

Sola Scriptura is sufficient? Is that an infallible conclusion?

I hope so, because 100 billion souls are potentially at stake if you're incorrect.

You do realize that Sola Scriptura is a logically self-contradictory hypothesis, right?

 

[Fervent]

Population studies concerning the number of people born on earth since creation.

Population studies...done by whom?

Sola Scriptura is sufficient? Is that an infallible conclusion?

Has God revealed any other means of knowing who He is?

I hope so, because 100 billion souls are potentially at stake if you're incorrect.

As God wills.

You do realize that Sola Scriptura is a logically self-contradictory hypothesis, right?

How's that now?

 

[JAL]

Population studies...done by whom?

Do we really need to dispute this? Tell me how many billions is your estimate. Whatever your number, I'm pretty sure it's enough to validate my point.

Has God revealed any other means of knowing who He is?

Um...er...the Bible did not always exist. Do the math.

As God wills.

You're presuming no responsibility for the 100 billion souls. And I'm saying that lying in the pulpits probably isn't helping.

How's that now?

I'll clarify in a moment.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't follow you. Imagine a kid gifted from conception - the most gifted person in all the world. He says to himself, "Since I'm so gifted, I deserve to be glorified. If I happen to find it glorious to throw 75% of the world in a pit of everlasting fire, so be it, I deserve it."

This is your understanding of Agape love? Unselfish love?

Right, you expect me to admit that your false and denigrating description of my understanding is truly representative??

God is not an incredibly gifted kid among kids. Are you serious??

This whole life, and all of creation, is about God. Not about us kids. Yes, he deserves all glory. If you can't fit that into your notion of love, you need to rethink your notion.

 

[JAL]

Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the Bible is the only final authority for both doctrine and practice. You ask how this could be self-contradictory?

How's that now?

The short version first. It's simple, right? If the Bible is the only authority, on what authority should I accept the Bible?

A longer version:

If blind faith were commendable, it would be commendable to convert to Islam (or some other religion) on blind faith. On what basis/ authority, then, does a typical Christian accept the Bible? Reason? Conscience? History? Regardless of his or her particular choice of basis, this selected basis now functions as a higher authority than the Bible because it dictated the decision to accept or reject the book. For example suppose I accepted the Bible on the basis of Reason, but tomorrow my reasoning leads me to conclude that Islam is a more rational choice. In that case I will abandon the Bible in favor of the Koran, thereby confirming that Reason is, for me, a higher authority than the Bible, since it governs my willingness to accept or reject the book. Thus the Bible can never be legitimately construed as our highest authority because some other authority clearly dictates our decision to accept or reject it.


And finally, the solution to the whole problem:

The Inward Witness. The Spirit convinces/convicts us that the Bible is inspired - He raises our degree of certainty about it. This elevation of certainty is the same dynamic operative within prophets except that THEIR level of certainty was 100%. It's all the same thing. Certainty is, well, certainty, no matter how you slice and dice it.

Your faith isn't based on Sola Scriptura - it's based on the prophetic dynamic.

Has God revealed any other means of knowing who He is?

Yes. The Inward Witness operated long before the Bible.

 

[JAL]

Right, you expect me to admit that your false and denigrating description of my understanding is truly representative??

God is not an incredibly gifted kid among kids. Are you serious??

This whole life, and all of creation, is about God. Not about us kids. Yes, he deserves all glory. If you can't fit that into your notion of love, you need to rethink your notion.

Your version of God is a narcissistic adult who is really just a spoiled brat selfish enough to throw billions into a pit of everlasting fire for his own self-gratification. Nice caricature of the biblical God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Admittedly freedom can be costly - it can lead to victims.

Reduces God? Whereas portraying God as a control-freak somehow magnifies Him?

Minor edit to your words: A more accurate summary would be "victims of freedom" rather than chance.

God is first cause. It is simple logic. Causation is pervasive. If you can show me how little chains of causation beginning with each decision we make, uncaused, is logically valid, I'd like to see it! You haven't even been able to show me how it is scripturally valid, but then you do seem to stray from scripture in your notions of God's mode of being. Frankly, I don't see how you can call your construction by the name of God. At best, that should take the little g --god-- since you make him in your image, at the mercy of circumstances beyond his control, subject to principles from outside himself.

"Victims of freedom"? What sort of freedom would that be? Have you finally found a way to prove that we can do something that we are not caused to do?

 

[JAL]

Has God revealed any other means of knowing who He is?

John 10:27 is an excellent verse in support of the Inward Witness. This voice applies to both testaments. Faith comes by hearing - hearing that voice.

 

[JAL]

God is first cause. It is simple logic. Causation is pervasive. If you can show me how little chains of causation beginning with each decision we make, uncaused, is logically valid, I'd like to see it!

Chains of causing is your logical/philosophical construct. Don't confuse it with straightforward biblical exegesis.

You haven't even been able to show me how it is scripturally valid, but then you do seem to stray from scripture in your notions of God's mode of being.

More philosophical bias.

Frankly, I don't see how you can call your construction by the name of God. At best, that should take the little g --god-- since you make him in your image, at the mercy of circumstances beyond his control, subject to principles from outside himself.

More philosophical bias. We've been over this. Even your god is a subject to an existence he cannot relinquish - circumstances beyond His control.

"Victims of freedom"? What sort of freedom would that be?

People with free will sometimes prey on others. The prey are sometimes called "victims". That wasn't clear?

Have you finally found a way to prove that we can do something that we are not caused to do?

Finally? The proof has always been there. You're just in denial about it.

The proof is that only an evil God would punish people for things they were deterministically caused to do.

 

[Mark Quayle]

More philosophical bias. We've been over this. Even your god is a subject to an existence he cannot relinquish - circumstances beyond His control.

People with free will sometimes prey on others. The prey are sometimes called "victims". That wasn't clear?

The context had nothing to do with preying on others. It had to do with impotence against determination by chance, which, just so we're clear, in itself is self-contradictory nonsense. Apparently you agree it is nonsense, since you changed it to "freedom".

Finally? The proof has always been there. You're just in denial about it.

The proof is that only an evil God would punish people for things they were deterministically caused to do.

By your judgement. But do they not in and of themselves freely choose to do precisely what they were caused to do?

Back away from the idea of God being in the mix for a moment. Do you, or do you not, agree that, (except for God as first cause) our choices are the result of long chains of causation? Does anything happen nowadays that is not caused to happen? If you are logical, or as you would say, rational, you will admit, there is a cause behind everything that happens, including decisions. But somehow, since we must admit that God is first cause, you must discard the whole principle of causation as being comprehensive of all effects. You will say that decisions are not effects, because even in your distorted view of who God is (he that you claim grows and changes, contrary to scripture), you can't abide the notion that he is mean, which after all he must be (to you) if he does exactly what is demanded by justice for crimes committed against God. YOU come up with a rule that if a person is caused by whatever reason (well, that is, by your thinking, if it is somehow caused by God) to do evil, that person is not responsible.

Did they choose it? Then they are responsible for what they did. Simple. It doesn't matter that there is a chain of causation by which they chose, nor where that chain begins. You have proved nothing.

Do you not, even in your distorted view of what God is, admit to his absolute mastery over creation? He owns us even more surely than a potter owns his clay. And compared to him, we are at least that inanimate.

 

[Fervent]

The short version first. It's simple, right? If the Bible is the only authority, on what authority should I accept the Bible?

This is a straw argument, because ultimately it is not the Bible that is the authority but the apostolic/pophetic witness which is derived from proximity to Jesus.

So while today what we have is the Scriptures, their authority is the Apostolic authority

 

[JAL]

This is a straw argument, because ultimately it is not the Bible that is the authority but the apostolic/pophetic witness which is derived from proximity to Jesus.

So while today what we have is the Scriptures, their authority is the Apostolic authority

This reply makes no sense. On what basis/authority do you accept the Bible?

Your reply is, "On apostolic authority?" Care to explain that?

That's like me asking a Muslim, "On what basis do you accept the Koran?", and he replies, "On prophetic/apostlic authority - namely Muhammed's authority". A Muslim who replies that way is ultimately relying on blind faith.

To call this a strawman point sounds like intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Fervent]

This reply makes no sense. On what basis/authority do you accept the Bible?

Your reply is, "On apostolic authority?" Care to explain that?

That's like me asking a Muslim, "On what basis do you accept the Koran?", and he replies, "On prophetic/apostlic authority - namely Muhammed's authority". A Muslim who replies that way is ultimately relying on blind faith.

To call this a strawman point sounds like intellectual dishonesty.

I accept it on God's authority, vested in the Apostles selected by Christ.

 

[JAL]

I accept it on God's authority, vested in the Apostles selected by Christ.

That makes no sense, epistemically. That's exactly what the Muslim would say of the "apostle" Muhammed. It reduces to blind faith. Again, if blind faith is commendable, it is perfectly commendable to convert to Islam on blind faith.

 

[Fervent]

That makes no sense, epistemically. That's exactly what the Muslim would say of the "apostle" Muhammed. It reduces to blind faith. Again, if blind faith is commendable, it is perfectly commendable to convert to Islam on blind faith

Faith? Yes. Blind faith? No. Unlike the Muslim I'm not basing it off of a chain of transmission but the conviction of the Holy Spirit who resides in me.

Faith is not commendable in and of itself, but only when the proper object is identified.

As I said at the beginning, with the Bible with have the presence and testimony of the Holy Spirit.

 

[JAL]

The context had nothing to do with preying on others. It had to do with impotence against determination by chance, which, just so we're clear, in itself is self-contradictory nonsense. Apparently you agree it is nonsense, since you changed it to "freedom".

We're talking past each other.

By your judgement.

By yours too. You're well aware that any parent who behaves as the Calvinistic God is pure evil. You therefore persist a contradiction.

But do they not in and of themselves freely choose to do precisely what they were caused to do?

No on your deterministic assumptions, they don't.

Back away from the idea of God being in the mix for a moment. Do you, or do you not, agree that, (except for God as first cause) our choices are the result of long chains of causation?

I thoroughly disagree. There are chains of influence, certainly, but I don't agree that all my decisions are rigorously caused.

Does anything happen nowadays that is not caused to happen? If you are logical, or as you would say, rational, you will admit, there is a cause behind everything that happens, including decisions.

My freedom is that cause, in many instances - (self-propelling freedom). This is what you fail to understand.

When God does something, need He find fuel to power the event? No. He does it by the self-propelling power of His own free will.

Apparently, your ASSUMPTION is that God is the only self-propelling entity? How then do angels move? Do they fill up at the gas station? Are they literally banging on all cylinders?

But somehow, since we must admit that God is first cause....

By first cause you essentially mean "the only cause" (in a deterministic chain of dominoes). See above.

You will say that decisions are not effects, because even in your distorted view of who God is (he that you claim grows and changes, contrary to scripture), you can't abide the notion that he is mean, which after all he must be (to you) if he does exactly what is demanded by justice for crimes committed against God. YOU come up with a rule that if a person is caused by whatever reason (well, that is, by your thinking, if it is somehow caused by God) to do evil, that person is not responsible.

I came up with that rule? Let's suppose you are holding a knife in your hand. I grab you hand and force you to stab someone to death. What are you going to tell the judge? "I take full responsibility, it was all my fault" ??? Let's be honest here.

Or better yet, suppose I slipped you a pill inflaming you with an unquenchable thirst to kill people. What are you going to tell the judge?

Did they choose it? Then they are responsible for what they did. Simple. It doesn't matter that there is a chain of causation by which they chose, nor where that chain begins. You have proved nothing.

You contradict your own values and beliefs, as shown above.

Do you not, even in your distorted view of what God is, admit to his absolute mastery over creation? He owns us even more surely than a potter owns his clay. And compared to him, we are at least that inanimate.

Absolute mastery IS the distorted view of God, if taken to mean a control-freak who punishes deterministic puppets of His own making!