How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Clare73]

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

Why do you assume anyone does assume that?

 

[Clare73]

Ithinks you are vacous, but prove me wrong.

Per Jesus in Mark 16:16, God is not in charge of choosing!

What in Mk 16:16 excludes God's choosing, as stated in 1Pe 1:2?

Those he chooses are enabled to believe, those he does not choose cannot believe because they do not have the Holy Spirit. (1Co 2:14).

I cannot help you if you are calling Jesus a liar!

Nor can I help you if you can't understand NT apostolic teaching.

Being that you brought it up, exegesis Romans 5:12:15 and 1 Peter 1:2 and let me judge!

See post #2201 for Ro 5:12-15,
and 1Pe 1:2 is pretty straight forward, simply stating that the elect are chosen according to God's eternal decree (the subject of his foreknowledge),
by the influence of the Holy Spirit drawing them to holiness for obedience and sprinkling of Christ's blood; i.e.,
the Holy Spirit's sanctifying leads to obedient saving faith and cleansing from sin.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Per Jesus in Mark 16:16, God is not in charge of choosing!

HOW do they come to believe? God is indeed in charge —of everything!

 

[JAL]

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

(Sigh). I don't see any burden of proof on me.
...Sin has no meaning without conscience.
...Without conscience, I would likely be in the same contradiction as you - having to explain away the sin of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Noah's era.

 

[Clare73]

(Sigh). I don't see any burden of proof on me.
...Sin has no meaning without conscience.
...Without conscience, I would likely be in the same contradiction as you - having to explain away the sin of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Noah's era.

Sorry. . .conscience does not govern where there is law.

Try telling the Court it was "not against my conscience."

 

[JAL]

Sorry. . .conscience does not govern where there is law.

You're not making sense. There are no plausible exceptions to the rule of conscience. Name one.

Try telling the Court it was "not against my conscience."

Irrelevant. Courts administer imperfect justice. If courts were perfect, they would judge us ONLY by the rule of conscience. Again, honoring the rule of conscience is the UTMOST a man can do, in terms of righteous behavior. A perfect court would therefore be satisfied with that alone.

 

[JAL]

Try telling the Court it was "not against my conscience."

And in point of fact even the courts sometimes acknowledge the relevance of conscience. Intent is sometimes a consideration in a ruling.

 

[JAL]

Why do you assume anyone does assume that?

You're the one who brought up theft and lying. I assumed there was a reason for it.

 

[JAL]

@Clare73,

The shortcomings at 2229 remain.

 

[Clare73]

Irrelevant. Courts administer imperfect justice. If courts were perfect, they would judge us ONLY by the rule of conscience.

Are you serious?
I rest my case.

 

[Clare73]

of Christ and the day of the Lord (1 & 2 Th),

plus everything else. . .should keep them busy for a while.

 

[Clare73]

You're the one who brought up theft and lying. I assumed there was a reason for it.

They're against conscience. . .

 

[Mark Quayle]

Sorry. . .conscience does not govern where there is law.

Try telling the Court it was "not against my conscience."

Perhaps this notion that "sin has no meaning without conscience", is why some feel free to come up with their own encapsulations of the way of things, to the point that some even claim God is not omnipotent after all, and think they are being Biblical.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You're not making sense. There are no plausible exceptions to the rule of conscience. Name one.

Irrelevant. Courts administer imperfect justice. If courts were perfect, they would judge us ONLY by the rule of conscience. Again, honoring the rule of conscience is the UTMOST a man can do, in terms of righteous behavior. A perfect court would therefore be satisfied with that alone.

I guess Hitler is not to be condemned then, after all?

 

[JAL]

I guess Hitler is not to be condemned then, after all?

If you knew of a scenario warranting departure from the rule of conscience, you'd have already named it hundreds of posts back. Hitler will be judged accordingly.

I think you'll agree with me that Hitler is in hell. So we've got two possible ways to view this outcome:
...(1) God is righteous and good. Hitler chose evil, and is paying for it. This is my outlook.
...(2) Hitler acted in good conscience - he was a perfectly well-intentioned, good guy to be celebrated. He always did what was right to the best of his knowledge, adhering to the rule of conscience. God is thus the evil jerk who wrongly threw this decent man into hell. Evidently this is your outlook.

I'll stick to my guns on this.

 

[JAL]

Are you serious?
I rest my case.

Um...er...we're 2250 posts deep, and you still can't name one scenario that clearly warrants departure from the rule of conscience. I rest my case.

 

[JAL]

Good for them!

Notice how it is the posters steeped in contradictions who need to continually deflect.

 

[JAL]

Funny how people who claim to be exegetically solid fight so hard against Paul's doctrine of conscience. What a crock.

 

[John Mullally]

HOW do they come to believe? God is indeed in charge —of everything

God is not in charge of everything. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16-17). No naval gazing (or theorizing on predestination) is required to accept or reject that Gospel. Do not over-complicate it!

God uses incredible influence as we see with Jonah and Paul. But that does not mean God is a forcer. There is no clear-cut scripture that states that God makes all our decisions. Just reviewing Jesus's interaction with the Jews and His disciples, He was frequently frustrated as man's unbelief (commonly from Jewish leaders, but also sometimes from His disciples) that blocked His operation. If God is in charge of everything, why does Mark 6:5 say that man's unbelief limited Jesus?

HOW do they come to believe? God is indeed in charge —of everything!

God is not puppet-master. Romans 10:17 says that faith comes from hearing the word of God. Why does Paul present that factoid if even what men pay attention is controlled by God? How does God judge men if He controls their every choice of what to think on!? That is your fatalistic and determinist philosophy which assigns God decreeing our every action in advance. I cannot find scripture stating that God signs up for that. Assuming your determinism, men can blame God for sin by saying that God controls our every action. Time for you to ditch the puppet strings. God does not use irresistable force (as taught by Calvin) to influence man's actions. When under severe duress both Jonah and Paul changed course. Under duress, Balaam did not change course as Exodus and the book of Jude explains. Under life's hard knocks, men can choose to be a Paul or a Baalam. Although Balaam was a legitimate prophet who God spoke to, his ass demonstrated more wisdom than he did.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If you knew of a scenario warranting departure from the rule of conscience, you'd have already named it hundreds of posts back. Hitler will be judged accordingly.

I think you'll agree with me that Hitler is in hell. So we've got two possible ways to view this outcome:
...(1) God is righteous and good. Hitler chose evil, and is paying for it. This is my outlook.
...(2) Hitler acted in good conscience - he was a perfectly well-intentioned, good guy to be celebrated. He always did what was right to the best of his knowledge, adhering to the rule of conscience. God is thus the evil jerk who wrongly threw this decent man into hell. Evidently this is your outlook.

I'll stick to my guns on this.

False narrative. I agree with 1, but not with you. Hitler did what his evil conscience directed. Conscience is not always good.