How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[JAL]

According to you, God gave us a truth that cannot be truly known.

I have a higher view of God than that.

I have no idea what you mean. When I said that God's love must be the human concept of love - something we can all know and understand - you are the one who ranted and raved about the "secret things of God" which nobody is supposed to be able to know or comprehend.

 

[Clare73]

Minor correction. It contradicts your truncated version of Paul's words, as discussed already.

More bloviation. . .

Nothing was cut out, omitted or any meaning changed.

Demonstrate what was omitted or any meaning changed in post #2201.

 

[Clare73]

I have no idea what you mean.

See post #2216.

 

[JAL]

Read it again. . .

Sin was in the world, but sin is not taken into account where there is no law (with death penalty, as in the Garden, and the Mosaic law).

I have no idea where you're going with this. You start off with a contradiction:
...Yes there was sin.
...No, because it was not counted as sin.

Hence no death penalty? Tell it to the dead wiped out by God in Sodom, Gomorrah, and Noah's era.


Here's a thought. Why not start with an interpretation free of logical contradiction? Then you and I will both have legitimate interpretations worth debating over.

 

[JAL]

More bloviation. . .

Nothing was cut out, omitted or any meaning changed.

Demonstrate what was omitted or any meaning changed in my presentation.

Demonstrate that a truncation of words is likely to change the meaning? Again, is this 1st grade reading class?

 

[JAL]

See post #2216.

How does it help me to refer back to my own post?

 

[Clare73]

I have no idea where you're going with this. You start off with a contradiction:
...Yes there was sin.
...No, because it was not counted as sin.

Hence no death penalty? Tell it to the dead wiped out by God in Sodom, Gomorrah, and Noah's era.

Show the law given and the death penalty attached which caused their death, as in the case of Adam in the Garden (Ro 5:14).

 

[Clare73]

Demonstrate that a truncation of words is likely to change the meaning? Again, is this 1st grade reading class?

Truncate = to cut off, lessen by cutting

Original sentence: All died in the car wreck except the driver.

Truncated: All died in the car wreck.

I will not be doing "the weeds" any further with you.

Now demonstrate what was cut out, omitted or the meaning changed by me in Paul's words of Ro 5:12-15.

 

[JAL]

Show the law given and the death penalty attached which caused their death, as in the case of Adam in the Garden (Ro 5:14).

For the millionth time, the law given was on their conscience, per Rom 2:15.

Here are two shortcomings in your analysis.
...(1) What role does Rom 2:15 play in your understanding of these issues?
...(2) If sin wasn't being counted, why does the OT specifically indicate divine retaliation against the sin of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Noah's era? Why not celebrate their righteousness?

 

[JAL]

Truncate = to cut off, lessen by cutting

Original sentence: All died in the car wreck except the driver.

Truncated: All died in the car wreck.

I will not be doing "the weeds" any further with you.

I am not following. Don't these words just prove my point that truncation matters?

 

[Clare73]

For the millionth time, the law given was on their conscience, per Rom 2:15.
What role does Rom 2:15 play in your understanding of these issues?

The conscience does not impose a death penalty, and has nothing to do with Ro 5:12-15.

 

[Clare73]

I am not following. Don't these words just prove my point that truncation matters?

See post #2225.

 

[JAL]

The conscience does not impose a death penalty, and has nothing to do with Ro 5:12-15.

So if God places a law on my conscience, and I sin against it, there is no death penalty? This is total nonsense.

The truth is that sin is ALWAYS first and foremost a conscience-based issue. I like to express this fact via a biblical principle that I termed "the rule of conscience"

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

Honoring the rule of conscience means to do what is right to the best of one's knowledge and ability. Since that is the utmost we can possibly do, a God who is fair and just will judge us ONLY on the rule of conscience.

Oh nevermind. The Calvinist God was never fair and just to begin with. I should not have posted.

 

[Clare73]

So if God places a law on my conscience, and I sin against it, there is no death penalty? This is total nonsense.

And so God attaches the death penalty to theft and lying?

Are you sure about that?

 

[JAL]

The conscience does not impose a death penalty, and has nothing to do with Ro 5:12-15.

The conscience has nothing to do with Ro 5:12-15? Sheer assertion.

 

[JAL]

And so God attaches the death penalty to theft and lying?

Are you sure about that?

Quite sure. The wages of sin is death (Ro 6:23).

 

[zoidar]

Read it again. . .

Sin was in the world, but sin is not taken into account where there is no law (with death penalty, as in the Garden, and the Mosaic law).

Here is one rendering:

"15 for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.

This verse seems out of place, but it appears that Paul is reminding the audience of what he already taught in Rom 3:20 that “through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.” So, the Law and ordinances in it, such as circumcision, have one sole purpose: to remind us that we are unrighteous and under God’s wrath apart from there being a savior for us. The comment that “where there is no law, there also is no violation” serves as a reminder that self-righteous men shouldn’t boast in the Law; they should wish there wasn’t one! Even the law of nature condemns man. Aquinas observes this when commenting on this verse:

Yet every sinner can be called a transgressor, inasmuch as he transgresses the natural law: “I have accounted all the sinners of the earth transgressors” (Ps 119:119). However, it is more grievous to transgress at once the law of nature and the written law than the law of nature alone.

Therefore, where there is law, there is violation. It does not justify man like faith can, because it cannot."

A “Catholic” Flavored Commentary on Romans: Chapter 4

Before the Council of Trent, Ruffinus, Basil, Tertullian, Hilary of Poitiers, Bernard of Clarivaux, Aquinas, Augustine, Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, and others had no problem elucidating ideas most cl…

orthodoxchristiantheology.com

 

[JAL]

And so God attaches the death penalty to theft and lying?

Are you sure about that?

BTW, why would you assume that the conscience is limited to ostensibly minor sins such as theft and lying?

 

[Clare73]

The conscience has nothing to do with Ro 5:12-15? Sheer assertion.

Biblically demonstrate where Paul refers to conscience in Ro 5:12-15, particularly in his sense of Ro 2:14-15.

 

[John Mullally]

Feel free to exegete Ro 5:12-15, and we can discuss it.

Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.

You repeatedly do not address God choosing only some, and not all in 1Pe 1:2.

Ithinks you are lazy, but prove me wrong. by doing the exegesis of Romans 5:12-15 and 1 Peter 1:2. And let me be the Judge!

Per Jesus in Mark 16:16, God is not in charge of choosing! I cannot help you if you are calling Jesus a liar! Are you going tell Jesus the kettle is black?