How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[JAL]

But are you seriously contending that anything or anybody would continue to exist were God to remove his hand upholding them?

My "small", "weak" God (as you describe Him) holds 100 billion galaxies in the palm of His hand. Are you going to tell it to HIs face that He is too small and too weak for your satisfaction? What next - are you going to try to overthrow Him? And if not you, then who? I can't think of anyone fit for the task.

Not only does He hold 100 billion galaxies in His hand, He also upholds them by His physical divine Word (Heb 1:3). Meaning, His physical fingers rest on every particle of matter in our universe for the sake of imposing upon it a force that scientists misnamed "gravity". Without gravity, all material objects including our bodies and the universe itself would collapse. Did I mention that He simultaneously imposes additional forces like electricity, magnetism, and electro-magnetism?

All this makes Him small, weak, and unskilled in your view, right? Don't worry - I'm confident He'll apologize to you, in due time, for all His shameful and miserable shortcomings and mediocrity. Try to be a little patient with Him - He probably lacks the skills to apologize to you right now. He needs a little more time, I'm ashamed to say.

But are you seriously contending that anything or anybody would continue to exist were God to remove his hand upholding them?

Please. Your God doesn't have any hands. Since He's immaterial/intangible, He can't possibly place anything called a "hand" on ANY particle of matter. He can't do anything at all. He is significantly weaker than any human being - utterly impotent. I'm sorry you've opted for an incoherent ontology and christology, but that was your decision.

Again you try to equate God with man.

In the previous post I mentioned the biblical comparisons/contrasts between God and evil men. I seem to also recall a few comparisons to decent men like David. For example, speaking of David, the prophet Samuel noted, "The Lord has sought for Himself a man after His own heart” (1 Sam. 13:14). What does that mean, from a Calvinistic perspective? It would mean, "God sought a human leader who would setup 75% of His children to be burned in fire." Lovely. Paul commanded:

"Be ye therefore imitators of God, as dear children" (Eph 5:1).

Uh oh! I sure hope Paul doesn't mean the Calvinist God!

Since you keep going off topic, shall I not do the same? The Calvinist God is an OUTRIGHT LIAR, right? He declared 100 billion children of Adam guilty for a sin that only Adam participated in. And if that were not sufficiently dishonest and cruel, He saw to it they were crippled with a sinful nature unasked for, unwanted, and undeserved, thereby making it impossible for them to live righteously. But why not? Any lame excuse to further punish the innocent will do, correct?

No, I don't mean that first cause is the only cause. It is rather obvious that there are uncountable numbers "secondary causes".

That point was obvious - that's why I said "essentially" the Only Cause since secondary causes are merely falling dominoes. Effectively, your God is the ONLY cause.

See above. Not an applicable parallel.


That should be obvious, IF "taken to mean a control-freak who punishes deterministic puppets of his own making"! Because God is no control-freak. In fact, he rather famously skates so close to the edge of utter ruin that we often consider him to not know what he is doing! Consider, for a moment, how he even allows us to make utter fools of ourselves, in our attempts to describe him!

Empty words. Your First Cause position (effectively Only Cause) is sheer determinism. If it had any real cogency you'd proudly own up to it instead of devising such clever words to evade and dance around the facts of your position.

The problem is the endless contradictions, for example a while back you admitted, if I recall, the possibility that you'd consider exacting justice of anyone who seriously wronged you. Why would you exact justice of a deterministic falling-dominoe?

When I pointed out that angels self-propel instead of relying on the burning of fuel, you responded with the words:

Mock on!

Thereby confirming you have no rebuttal. This fact completely refutes your First Cause (i.e. Only Cause) argument. Are you completely full of yourself, Mark? Meaning, a while back you bragged about discovering this First Cause position all on your own. Have you become so proud of yourself that you mock the very Scriptures that refute it?

I move my body mostly by self-propelling free will (although admittedly food energy lends additional momentum via muscles). Angels do not rely on food-energy and therefore flap their wings exclusively by self-propelling free will. In Isaiah 6:

"Above Him stood seraphim, each having six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. 3And they were calling out to one another: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of Hosts; all the earth is full of His glory.”

Angelic speech involves (self-propelling) movements/vibrations within a mouth.

So much for your "Only Cause" nonsense. You need to rethink your metaphysics. Clearly.

No, he is not "subject to an existence he cannot relinquish - circumstances beyond his control". You present meaningless words here, and attempt to subject God to them?? God is not subject to existence. Existence is subject to God.

No, YOUR words are meaningless. Can He cease to exist? No. He didn't even choose to exist. He is subject to an existence beyond His control.

Nice try, though.

 

[Mark Quayle]

He is too small and too weak for your satisfaction? What next - are you going to try to overthrow Him? And if not you, then who? I can't think of anyone fit for the task.

Not only does He hold 100 billion galaxies in His hand, He also upholds them by His physical divine Word (Heb 1:3). Meaning, His physical fingers rest on every particle of matter in our universe for the sake of imposing upon it a force that scientists misnamed "gravity". Without gravity, all material objects including our bodies and the universe itself would collapse. Did I mention that He simultaneously imposes additional forces like electricity, magnetism, and electro-magnetism?

All this makes Him small, weak, and unskilled in your view, right? Don't worry - I'm confident He'll apologize to you, in due time, for all His shameful and miserable shortcomings and mediocrity. Try to be a little patient with Him - He probably lacks the skills to apologize to you right now. He needs a little more time, I'm ashamed to say.

This only makes him superhuman, immensely powerful, but not God. Being omnipotent makes him God, and if he is not first cause, not self-existent, not the cause and upholder of all other existence, and subject to other principles from outside himself, then he is your god, not my God.

Please. Your God doesn't have any hands. Since He's immaterial/intangible, He can't possibly place anything called a "hand" on ANY particle of matter. He can't do anything at all. He is significantly weaker than any human being - utterly impotent. I'm sorry you've opted for an incoherent ontology and christology, but that was your decision.

Alright. This is enough. You knew well I was talking figuratively, but you insist on mocking. Maybe I should accuse you of deflecting.

 

[JAL]

This only makes him superhuman, immensely powerful, but not God. Being omnipotent makes him God, and if he is not first cause, not self-existent, not the cause and upholder of all other existence, and subject to other principles from outside himself, then he is your god, not my God.

Mispresenting both me and yourself in one post. Clever, but not factual.

Alright. This is enough. You knew well I was talking figuratively, but you insist on mocking. Maybe I should accuse you of deflecting.

I haven't mocked anything. Prove me wrong. Explain to me how an intangible/immaterial God can pick up a piece of matter.

"Use the immaterial Force, Luke!"

As I warned you before, if we immerse ourselves in incoherent fairytales, we should ask ourselves whether we are much better than a cult.

 

[JAL]

On libertarian freedom.

6Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

If men have no real freedom, what was the point of Christ's temptation in the wilderness? Was that yet another deceptive lie and a farce fabricated by the Calvinist God?

 

[John Mullally]

So, no exegesis. Ok.

Exegesis means the interpretter is led to his conclusions by following the text - which when I provide exegesis by breaking down what scripture says, you parrot "please provided exegesis" - its like getting a tape recording. Anyone home?

What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Mark Quayle]

Exegesis means the interpretter is led to his conclusions by following the text - which when I provide exegesis by breaking down what scripture says, you parrot "please provided exegesis" - its like getting a tape recording. Anyone home?

What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis? | GotQuestions.org

Funny how I could say the same. Scratched LP

 

[JAL]

Perhaps I should address your misleading slanders. (I'm writing this post for others, not for you Mark).

You exalt the ability of man to God's level.

False. A human can't even converse with two people, or juggle 25 rubber balls. Yahweh governs all matter.

Your god is not my God, yours being, by your own admission, of a changing and growing nature.

The only growth known to me is knowledge. Infinite knowledge is a meaningless theory because infinity is not a specific/discrete value.

Sharing this fact isn't enjoyable because it breeds dislike and animosity from everyone on this forum. But it is biblical. Either:
....(A) God is infinite in knowledge and therefore cannot learn, OR
....(B) He is the type of person who can learn.

Jesus proved B. @Clare73 objected, "Jesus was a man!". I replied, "That man was 100% God. Therefore God can learn.".

Historically, theologians ASSUMED that Yahweh must be a philosophically ideal entity. Hence they devised their very best philosophical model - their best conceptual idol including infinitude - and insisted upon it. They didn't much care whether it still had a number of problems because, after all, they had done their best. There was no room for improvement.

They refused to consider the possibility that Yahweh is a regular person, our father, who matured Himself to be pragmatically ideal rather than philosophically ideal. Meaning that, much like us, He found Himself thrown into an existence that He never opted for, and realized He should struggle to make the best of it. (Anyone can read my definition of Yahweh, at post 15 on another thread).

Upon request, I can enumerate some of the problems facing the traditional definition of God. Several were already mentioned.

 

[zoidar]

Neither of those are doing a word study. Lexicons/concordances are decent supplements but ultimately they tend to reflect theological traditions especially on contentious words like "foreknow" and rarely are the result of original research. A word study requires independently searching where the word is used in the Bible, and possible other 1st cenury Greek sources(usually the LXX, Josephus, and Philo) to determine a range of meaning for the word.

Have you made any conclusions from your word study? I can guess you have done one on the word "foreknowledge"?

 

[Receivedgrace]

That's what I said. Prophethood is how we come to rightly understand the Scriptures.

"16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Tim 3).

See that expression "man of God" ? That's an OT expression for a prophet. Note that this letter was written to a prophet named Timothy, not to the whole church. Here's what Paul commanded the whole church:

"Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy" (1 Cor 14:1).

The apostolic gifts have ended per 1 Cor 13:8
There are no more prophets to consult. The bible represents a written record of God's prophecy for us in the age of grace to lead us into His truth.

 

[Clare73]

Perhaps I should address your misleading slanders. (I'm writing this post for others, not for you Mark).
False. A human can't even converse with two people, or juggle 25 rubber balls. Yahweh governs all matter.
The only growth known to me is knowledge. Infinite knowledge is a meaningless theory because infinity is not a specific/discrete value.
Sharing this fact isn't enjoyable because it breeds dislike and animosity from everyone on this forum. But it is biblical. Either:
....(A) God is infinite in knowledge and therefore cannot learn, OR
....(B) He is the type of person who can learn.
Jesus proved B. @Clare73 objected, "Jesus was a man!". I replied, "That man was 100% God. Therefore God can learn.".

No. . .Jesus was 100% God and 100% man--two natures in one person.
The man was man, and God was God, and Jesus was both--the one person with two natures.

 

[JAL]

The apostolic gifts have ended per 1 Cor 13:8
There are no more prophets to consult. The bible represents a written record of God's prophecy for us in the age of grace to lead us into His truth.

That passage says nothing about the gifts ceasing. It's talking about spiritual maturity defined as mature prophethood and can be paraphrased thus, "'Now we know only in part, and prophesy only in part, but then [in maturity] we will know in full, and prophesy in full."


Let me explain. Paul is speaking in triplets
....faith, hope, love - these 3 abide
....spoke like a babe, thought like a babe, reasoned like a babe, - these three "cease"
....knowledge, tongues, prophecy - these three "cease" (same Greek word for "cease" is here too).

For the babe, in what sense did the three activities "cease"? They did not cease. They matured. (What ceased are the immature executions). Thus:
- The babe is mature ONLY to the extent he has matured in those three activities.
- Ergo, the Christian is mature ONLY to the extent he has matured in the three activities (prophecy, knowledge, and tongues).

Now I'll prove it. If the gift as a whole ceased, you still have to ask, What reason does the passage give for cessation? Answer at verse 11:
"When I became a man, I put away baby things."

This is heresy! Why so? Because if prophethood itself is childish, then Christ The Prophet was a spiritual babe! He never matured! And it would mean that we who have moved beyond the age of prophets are more mature than Christ!!! Total heresy. The reality is that His prophethood defines maturity. Take a look at chapters 2 and 3: Paul is writing to the Corinthian babes. He is trying to mature them - he is not construing them as more mature than Christ.

Back to verse 11: "When I became a man, I put away baby things." To summarize, Paul is saying that the mature Christian has set aside immature prophecies because he now walks in mature prophethood. This happened even for Christ. At birth, Christ's "prophecies" were childish babbling. He had to mature.

 

[Clare73]

Have you made any conclusions from your word study? I can guess you have done one on the word "foreknowledge"?

Foreknowledge is simply knowing in advance.

The NT uses divine foreknowledge to mean God knowing in advance what he is going to do, not to mean knowing what man is going to do (which, however, is foreknowledge, it's just not the NT use of divine foreknowledge).

 

[JAL]

No. . .Jesus was 100% God and 100% man--two natures in one person.
The man was man, and God was God, and Jesus was both--the one person with two natures.

- By all accounts, the hypostatic union is a humanly incoherent/incomprehensible theory. (I have no need for such a strange theory).
- You cannot credibly leverage an incomprehensible theory against my position.
- You yourself admit that Christ was 100% God. That supports my conclusions.

 

[zoidar]

Foreknowledge is simply knowing in advance.

The NT uses divine foreknowledge to mean God knowing in advance what he is going to do, not to mean knowing what man is going to do (which, however, is foreknowledge, it's just not the NT use of divine foreknowledge).

Have you checked how the Early Church Fathers used the idea of "divine foreknowledge"? If not, that might be a good thing to do.

 

[Clare73]

- By all accounts, the hypostatic union is a humanly incoherent/incomprehensible theory. (I have no need for such a strange theory).
- You cannot credibly leverage an incomprehensible theory against my position.
- You yourself admit that Christ was 100% God. That supports my conclusions.

I am satisfied with the orthodox Christian formula for the Trinity.
I am in no need of another position.

 

[Clare73]

Have you checked how the Early Church Fathers used the idea of "divine foreknowledge"? If not, that might be a good thing to do.

Why would I need more than the Biblical presentation of its usage?

 

[zoidar]

Why would I need more than the Biblical presentation of its usage?

If you want to know how it's used in the Bible, it's a good idea to check with those who know how it's used in the Bible, don't you say?

 

[Clare73]

If you want to know how it's used in the Bible, it's a good idea to check with those who know how it's used in the Bible, don't you say?

Are they the only ones who know how it is used?

Are there not other great divines who also know how it is used?

 

[JAL]

I am satisfied with the orthodox Christian formula for the Trinity.
I am in no need of another position.

You are fully satisfied with a formula that nobody knows/understands what it is? Okay.

Are you sure that attitude is significantly better than that of cults? And can you explain how it is better?

 

[JAL]

I am satisfied with the orthodox Christian formula for the Trinity.
I am in no need of another position.

BTW, are you changing the subject here?

I was referring specifically to the Hypostatic Union, not to the general doctrine of the Trinity. I'm a Trinitarian of course.