How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[BBAS 64]

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

Good Day, Mark

SO true:

Tit_1:15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled.

In Him,

Bill

 

[Mark Quayle]

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?

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.

You continue to tear at your strawman!

Who said theorizing on predestination is required to accept or reject the Gospel?

Who said God makes all our decisions?

Who said God is a puppet-master?

Where does Calvin teach that God uses irresistible force to influence man's actions?

By the way, Romans 10:17 says that faith comes from (or by) hearing, and hearing through the word of God. It doesn't say that faith comes from hearing the word of God. You skipped an important point, jumping to a typical conclusion. You believe that faith is a choice by man's prerogative. But that isn't what the verse says.

 

[JAL]

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

False testimony. You agreed with #2, obviously.

 

[JAL]

Conscience is not always good.

Paint me one scenario that clearly warrants departure from the rule of conscience.

I've been asking this for hundreds of posts and still - nothing. So can we please put an end to all this intellectual dishonesty?

 

[JAL]

Per the rule of conscience, feelings of certainty rule. You deny this, claiming that law rules.

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

Um...er..not if God is fair and just. Suppose God gave the law to Israel but did nothing to convict/convince them of its authenticity - nothing to cause them to feel certain about it. Should He then punish them for transgressions? Makes no sense.

Righteousness stands or falls on the rule of conscience. Law merely serves to help educate the conscience as to the specifics of God's will. Moreover law can be a real problem when outdated, or whenever unsuited for a particular set of circumstances.

 

[zoidar]

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

I think Hitler knew what he was doing was evil, but didn't care for personal gain and thought he would get away with it.

 

[JAL]

Who said God makes all our decisions?

Who said God is a puppet-master?

You did. You clearly stipulated that God is the First Cause of an irrevocable, inexorable chain of causality.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Paint me one scenario that clearly warrants departure from the rule of conscience.

I've been asking this for hundreds of posts and still - nothing. So can we please put an end to all this intellectual dishonesty?

Your antagonism perhaps limits your ability to see where your own standard may be measured against you.

Perhaps you can admit at least to the unreliability of conscience, as seen in the statement, "God is greater than our conscience" and in the fact that where there is no law (yet Scripture says the law is good) there is no transgression. If one has hardened their heart, and seared their conscience, and reasoned themselves into believing that what they do so horrifically is the best thing, they may well be following an evil conscience. As I said before, Hitler. Do you need more? The Crusaders. Or for that matter, the Jihadists. Or the little boy who strikes an opponent because of his feelings of justice.

 

[JAL]

As I said before, Hitler. Do you need more? The Crusaders. Or for that matter, the Jihadists. Or the little boy who strikes an opponent because of his feelings of justice.

Deflection. I asked you to paint me one specific, detailed scenario. Instead you wave a history book at me, without identifying the specifics.

Earlier you said that Hitler heeded his conscience. (Both of us agree that God disapproves of his murderous actions).

I'll say it again. In YOUR mind, then, Hitler did his UTMOST to be a morally good man, he was therefore a perfectly well-intentioned, decent individual. The only problem, then, is that God is an evil jerk who failed to properly reward and celebrate Hitler's noble, meritorious, praiseworthy efforts.

If this is not the scenario that you want to paint, then please paint me a different one - with details. I've been asking this for hundreds of posts.


Having discussed Hitler, I see no need to address your other examples such as the Crusaders. But if you think I overlooked anything, feel free to elaborate.

 

[JAL]

As I said before, Hitler. Do you need more? The Crusaders. Or for that matter, the Jihadists. Or the little boy who strikes an opponent because of his feelings of justice.

Essentially, Mark, you're in denial of Romans 1. You are claiming that ostensibly evil men aren't intentionally doing evil. In your view they are trying their best to do good. That's not what Paul taught in Romans 1.

29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

 

[JAL]

@Mark Quayle,

The rule of conscience means that one should always try to do good instead of evil. Why would you think there could be an exception to this rule?

 

[JAL]

As I said before, Hitler. Do you need more? The Crusaders. Or for that matter, the Jihadists. Or the little boy who strikes an opponent because of his feelings of justice.

I'm still scratching my head over your mention of the Crusaders. Are you not aware that politics is a complex subject? Much too complex for my paygrade. Arguably the Crusaders merely tried to recover land violently captured by evil Islamic conquerors. Whether that was the morally upright thing to do is surely a question better asked of God than of me.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'll say it again. In YOUR mind, then, Hitler did his UTMOST to be a morally good man, he was therefore a perfectly well-intentioned, decent individual. The only problem, then, is that God is an evil jerk who failed to properly reward and celebrate Hitler's noble, meritorious, praiseworthy efforts.

Why the need to elaborate? Of course Hitler didn't do his UTMOST to be a morally good man. Who of us does? You have shown pretty well, my point though. That Hitler thought what he was doing was right —but what you have failed to show is, that doesn't make God a jerk. Your 'rule of conscience' notion —that conscience is the rule for right and wrong— is faulty.

Your demands for elaboration are only yours. I have no further need to say anything to you on the matter. You have just proved my point yourself.

 

[JAL]

Your antagonism...

Shouldn't we all be antagonistic to seemingly dangerous doctrine? I mean, it's not like I'm trying to conflagrate dissenters on the stake!

Oh that's right - it was your hero John Calvin who championed that sort of thing. I almost forgot.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Essentially, Mark, you're in denial of Romans 1. You are claiming that ostensibly evil men aren't intentionally doing evil. In your view they are trying their best to do good. That's not what Paul taught in Romans 1.

I'll give you credit —you don't stop wiggling even when you're pinned down. No, I am not claiming that evil men aren't intentionally doing evil. It is you that gives conscience final authority. Evil men may well be following conscience, as we have seen, but are very obviously doing evil intentionally. They no doubt rationalize it as good, but they do intend it, evil though it be.

 

[Mark Quayle]

@Mark Quayle,

The rule of conscience means that one should always try to do good instead of evil. Why would you think there could be an exception to this rule?

Assuming that is THE definition of the rule of conscience, who said that there are exceptions to that rule? If one has ruined their conscience, and rationalizes evil as good, then he thinks he is doing good, evil though it be. This isn't rocket science —you're just wiggling.

Nevertheless, that is tangential to the debate: Can you show that the rule of conscience is of final authority in God's eyes?

 

[JAL]

Why the need to elaborate? Of course Hitler didn't do his UTMOST to be a morally good man. Who of us does? You have shown pretty well, my point though. That Hitler thought what he was doing was right —but what you have failed to show is, that doesn't make God a jerk. Your 'rule of conscience' notion —that conscience is the rule for right and wrong— is faulty.

Your demands for elaboration are only yours. I have no further need to say anything to you on the matter. You have just proved my point yourself.

Ok, so in your view, God reprimands decent, noble men like Hitler who try to do right. So, then, to avoid God's reprimand, Hitler should have tried his utmost to do the opposite - he should have tried to be as evil as possible.


That sums up your position, right? If not, you'll need to clarify.


BTW, given your confusing posts, should I be asking if you are a white supremacist? Because I'm having trouble following your logic here. You seem to keep painting Hitler as a man faithful to conscience and committed to doing what is right.

 

[JAL]

Assuming that is THE definition of the rule of conscience, who said that there are exceptions to that rule?

Exactly. No exceptions.

If one has ruined their conscience, and rationalizes evil as good, then he thinks he is doing good, evil though it be. This isn't rocket science —you're just wiggling.

Wiggling? You just conceded my position. No exceptions - I don't care how warped your conscience is, the rule of conscience (as I have defined it) is always applicable.

Nevertheless, that is tangential to the debate: Can you show that the rule of conscience is of final authority in God's eyes?

You just did. You admitted there are no exceptions.

But yes, I can show it biblically. The entire Bible enjoins us to put forth our best effort to do what is right, and refrain from what is evil. Do I really need to hold your hand to find sample verses? Have you never read the Bible?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok, so in your view, God reprimands decent, noble men like Hitler who try to do right.

Just WOW! How in the world do you get that? —except by hanging onto your faulty premise for dear life!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Wiggling? You just conceded my position. No exceptions - I don't care how warped your conscience is, the rule of conscience (as I have defined it) is always applicable.

A-sloughing we will go, a-sloughing we will go, hi-ho, the dairy-o.... That there are no exceptions to the rule of conscience always being what it is, does not mean the rule of conscience is always applicable as the authority for justice. It is not. God alone occupies that seat.