How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[JAL]

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.

Your reversing the very definition of conscience is in fact the desperate wiggling of a man pinned down. The conscience is the following voice:

Action A is evil. Action B is good. Therefore, you should do B.

When a man hears that voice, and chooses action-A - he intentionally chooses action-A while believing it to be evil - he is rebelling against conscience, not heeding it.

 

[JAL]

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.

Ok now you are just playing word games. Sheer dancing. God is the judge. Duh. The question is on what basis will he judge. Obviously, on the basis of the rule of conscience, if He is fair and just.

 

[Clare73]

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.

Assuming you would really like conscience of Ro 2:15 explained in light of Ro 5:12-15, and are not just being obnoxious, I present the following:

There are two separate issues in Ro 2:15 and Ro 5:12-15.

Ro 2:15 is about the final judgment of the Gentiles, and not about their natural death.
Ro 5:12-15 is about natural death of all mankind, and not about the final judgment.

Ro 2:15 is about Gentile guilt at the final judgment, based on their conscience, in lieu of the law.
Ro 5:12-15 is about natural death of all mankind due to the death penalty of God's law, before the final judgment.

Ro 2:15 does not give ultimate authority of guilt to man's conscience (nor is it related to Ro 5:12-15 and natural death).
Ro 2:15 gives authority of guilt to the conscience only in the absence of God's law, but it has no authority to prescribe a death penalty, only to prescribe guilt in the absence of the law.
It is not the conscience which is the locus of guilt on the earth, it is God's law, and only in the absence of God's law does it become conscience.
The point of Ro 2:15 being that all will be guilty according to God's law on Judgment Day, and where the law was not known, they will be guilty according to their conscience, the consequences of which guilt is prescribed by God's law, not by conscience. . .which does not have the authority to prescribe the death penalty, only the authority to declare guilt.
Ro 2:15 is about the final judgment of the Gentiles.

And then in Ro 5:2-15, the completely different doctrine Paul is demonstrating there is imputation of Adam's sin to all mankind.
He does so with logic, following from two Biblical premises:
1) As in the Garden, death is the result of the death penalty attached to God's law for sinning against (violating) it. (Ge 2:17)
2) Where there is no law (with death penalty attached), sin is not taken into account and, therefore, there is no death as the result. (Ro 5:13, 4:15)

He then presents the factual logical contradiction in these two premises:
1) There was no law with death penalty attached between Adam and Moses. (Ro 5:13)
2) Nevertheless, all died (death reigned) between Adam and Moses.(Ro 5:14)

And presents the resolution of that logical contradiction thusly:
3) Of what sin were they guilty, when sin was not taken into account?
4) They were guilty of the sin of Adam imputed to them. (Ro 5:15)
5) Adam was the pattern for Christ. (Ro 5:14)
6) But of what can sinful Adam possibly be the pattern for the all-righteous Christ?
7) As the sin of Adam was imputed to all those born of Adam, so the righteousness of Christ is imputed, on the pattern of Adam, to all those born of Christ. (Ro 4:1-11)
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (Ro 5:19)
It's not about what man does, it's about what God does in imputation to man.

The burden of Ro 5:12-15 is that mankind died, even when there was no law to cause their death by sin, because (the first) Adam's sin was imputed to all those born of Adam, as the pattern of (the second Adam) Christ's righteousness being imputed to all those born of (the second Adam) Christ.
Ro 5:12-15 is about imputation of Adam's sin to all mankind.

 

[zoidar]

@Mark Quayle

I would say people often justify their evil deeds. That doesn't mean their conscience doesn't say otherwise, they just don't listen to the conscience and persuade themself that what they are doing has a righteous cause.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Your reversing the very definition of conscience is in fact the desperate wiggling of a man pinned down. The conscience is the following voice:

Action A is evil. Action B is good. Therefore, you should do B.

When a man hears that voice, and chooses action-A - he intentionally chooses action-A while believing it to be evil - he is rebelling against conscience, not heeding it.

Where did I say he believes it to be evil? Can you show me where Hitler, the Crusaders, the Jihadists, or the angry little boy who hits his opponent, thought they were doing wrong at the time?

But this is getting ludicrous. First, this whole line is arguing as though your definition of conscience is accurate, which I only allowed for the sake of showing you that conscience does not have final authority, since even allowing for YOUR definition, you still can't prove it has final authority. But now you get into the weeds and try to drag me down into them with you. You will not be successful in that.

Prove to me that conscience is of higher authority than God.

I'm guessing one reason you think this is because you think God is not omnipotent, above all things.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok now you are just playing word games. Sheer dancing. God is the judge. Duh. The question is on what basis will he judge. Obviously, on the basis of the rule of conscience, if He is fair and just.

No, he will not base it on the rule of conscience. Don't you know that we are responsible to keep his commands, even if we are purposely ignorant of what they are? How many of us think he approves (or disapproves, as the case may be) that which others of us sincerely believe the opposite? Does not Romans 1 apply regardless of what perversions have crept into the conscience of the fallen? They are, without exception, without excuse —not because of conscience, but because they rebelled.

No doubt if I concede (rather cheerfully) that God looks upon the heart to judge the deeds, you will crow and claim victory, but notice —he judges the deeds, which, I expect, includes what one did to their conscience!

 

[Clare73]

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

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.

So we have to feel, to agree with God about his law before we are subject to it?

Is that the way it works regarding Stop signs?

Good luck selling that one on Judgment Day.

Righteousness stands or falls on the rule of conscience.

Baloney. . .no one is righteous (Ro 3:9-10).

The law was not given to make righteous, it was given to reveal sin (Ro 3:20).
Righteousness has always been by faith (Gal 3:17), see Abraham (Ge 5:16) and the born again (Ro 4:1-11).

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.

Don't see God buyin' that about his authorized law. . .

 

[Mark Quayle]

@Mark Quayle

I would say people often justify their evil deeds. That doesn't mean their conscience doesn't say otherwise, they just don't listen to the conscience and persuade themself that what they are doing has a righteous cause.

Fair enough. Do you then conclude that Romans 1 doesn't apply to the man who does pretty much everything he can to live according to his conscience by good deeds, by positive attitudes, by the golden rule, even has moments we would consider altruistic, even attempts to live without preconceptions and biases? Is he not still without excuse?

Let me point at the obvious! God demands all men everywhere to repent. What is the basis upon which God will judge those that do not —on their conscience? And what is the basis upon which God will judge those that do repent —on their conscience?

If you are just arguing a smaller point but agree with me that conscience does not have final authority, as JAL claims, then I'm sorry if I seem to be striking out at you. It is not intended as such.

 

[JAL]

Where did I say [Hitler] believes it to be evil?

You are jumping all over the place. I've literally begged you for specific scenarios, and you keep deflecting.

Let's start here. Here's my understanding. A voice comes into Hitler's mind.

Killing six million Jews is evil.

Suppose Hitler rationalizes this away, he warps his own conscience, knowing that such suppression/warping of his conscience is itself evil. He has already violated the rule of conscience. He is already punishable.

NOW that his conscience is warped, it now tells him the following (actually I don't believe this degree of warping is possible, given Romans 1, but I'm going to humor you for a moment).

Killing six million Jews is the right thing to do. Allowing them to live is evil.

What should he do? Should he try his best to be as evil as possible? I don't see that in my Bible.

I'll say it again, if you can't be specific in your scenarios, you're just blowing hot air. You haven't refuted anything.

But this is getting ludicrous. First, this whole line is arguing as though your definition of conscience is accurate, which I only allowed for the sake of showing you that conscience does not have final authority, since even allowing for YOUR definition, you still can't prove it has final authority. But now you get into the weeds and try to drag me down into them with you. You will not be successful in that.

Prove to me that conscience is of higher authority than God.

As I said, that's a silly word game. Again, God is the judge, but His basis for judgment is the rule of conscience. Effectively, then, that is my authority in life.

I'm guessing one reason you think this is because you think God is not omnipotent, above all things.

God is all-powerful. When you can prove to me that infinity is a real number - a specific/discrete number or quantity - we can then debate whether He is infinitely powerful. I don't deal in things not real.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

Keep straining for useful defense. You can't shame me into submission. Nor will your attempt to baffle me with, uh, irrelevant spraying, avail you.

Your logic is that according to your notion of the rule of conscience being supreme, then I'm a white supremacist? Ha. Even you don't believe that follows. (Ok, to be fair, I don't think that is how you came up with that, but that is the way your argumentation goes. Keep on, then. Your whole concept of God is that of a god, who is not omnipotent, (as you have plainly stated yourself), and your arguments are typical of that point of view. I'm not buying it.)

 

[Mark Quayle]

You are jumping all over the place. I've literally begged you for specific scenarios, and you keep deflecting.

Let's start here. Here's my understanding. A voice comes into Hitler's mind.

Killing six million Jews is evil.

Suppose Hitler rationalizes this away, he warps his own conscience, knowing that such suppression/warping of his conscience is itself evil. He has already violated the rule of conscience. He is already punishable.

NOW that his conscience is warped, it now tells him the following (actually I don't believe this degree of warping is possible, given Romans 1, but I'm going to humor you for a moment).

Killing six million Jews is the right thing to do. Allowing them to live is evil.

What should he do? Should he try his best to be as evil as possible? I don't see that in my Bible.

I'll say it again, if you can't be specific in your scenarios, you're just blowing hot air. You haven't refuted anything.


As I said, that's a silly word game. Again, God is the judge, but His basis for judgment is the rule of conscience. Effectively, then, that is my authority in life.

God is all-powerful. When you can prove to me that infinity is a real number - a specific/discrete number or quantity - we can then debate whether He is infinitely powerful. I don't deal in things not real.

Really? Who knows what went on in Hitler's head? The point is moot. Speculation on his specific case does not do the job. Can we agree that at some point he thought he was doing what was right for him to do? I think he, and many under him, thought he was doing what was right, though, of course, I can't prove it concerning any of them.

I know of a case where a mentally ill man knew that society would condemn him for breaking the law, but thought he should do so anyway. Does he get off by reason of insanity, or is he guilty of his crime? If the law says that if he knew what he was doing was by law wrong, but does it anyway, he is guilty of the crime. Whether concession is made, in sentencing, concerning his mental state at the time of the crime, still does not change the fact that he is guilty of the crime. I know of a case where an angry little boy hit another, and when faced with the belt in the hand of his father, he adamantly refused to go apologize or admit he was wrong. He KNEW he was in the right! It took a while, and a lot of pain, for my dad to prove to that little boy that he was wrong! And that little boy will be forever thankful it was proven to him.

 

[JAL]

Ostensibly, these are my words that you are responding to:

JAL: 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.

But instead of providing the requested scenario, you now ramble on about your wild speculations on Rom 2:15 ???? Shall I not again rest my case?

Assuming you would really like conscience of Ro 2:15 explained in light of Ro 5:12-15, and are not just being obnoxious, I present the following:

There are two separate issues in Ro 2:15 and Ro 5:12-15.

Ro 2:15 is about the final judgment of the Gentiles, and not about their natural death.
Ro 5:12-15 is about natural death of all mankind, and not about the final judgment.

Ro 2:15 is about Gentile guilt at the final judgment, based on their conscience, in lieu of the law.
Ro 5:12-15 is about natural death of all mankind due to the death penalty of God's law, before the final judgment.

Ro 2:15 does not give ultimate authority of guilt to man's conscience (nor is it related to Ro 5:12-15 and natural death).
Ro 2:15 gives authority of guilt to the conscience only in the absence of God's law, but it has no authority to prescribe a death penalty, only to prescribe guilt in the absence of the law.
It is not the conscience which is the locus of guilt on the earth, it is God's law, and only in the absence of God's law does it become conscience.
The point of Ro 2:15 being that all will be guilty according to God's law on Judgment Day, and where the law was not known, they will be guilty according to their conscience, the consequences of which guilt is prescribed by God's law, not by conscience. . .which does not have the authority to prescribe the death penalty, only the authority to declare guilt.
Ro 2:15 is about the final judgment of the Gentiles.

And then the completely different doctrine Paul is demonstrating in Ro 5:12-15 is imputation of Adam's sin to all mankind.
He does so with logic, following from two Biblical premises:
1) As in the Garden, death is the result of the death penalty attached to God's law for sinning against (violating) it. (Ge 2:17)
2) Where there is no law (with death penalty attached), sin is not taken into account and, therefore, there is no death as the result. (Ro 5:13, 4:15)

He then presents the factual logical contradiction in these two premises:
1) There was no law with death penalty attached between Adam and Moses. (Ro 5:13)
2) Nevertheless, all died (death reigned) between Adam and Moses.(Ro 5:14)

And presents the resolution of that logical contradiction thusly:
3) Of what sin were they guilty, when sin was not taken into account?
4) They were guilty of the sin of Adam imputed to them. (Ro 5:15)
5) Adam was the pattern for Christ. (Ro 5:14)
6) But of what can sinful Adam possibly be the pattern for the all-righteous Christ?
7) As the sin of Adam was imputed to all those born of Adam, so the righteousness of Christ is imputed, on the pattern of Adam, to all those born of Christ. (Ro 4:1-11)
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (Ro 5:19)
It's not about what man does, it's about what God does in imputation to man.

The burden of Ro 5:12-15 is that mankind died, even when there was no law to cause their death by sin, because (the first) Adam's sin was imputed to all those born of Adam, as the pattern of (the second Adam) Christ's righteousness being imputed to all those born of (the second Adam) Christ.

Assuming you would really like conscience of Ro 2:15 explained in light of Ro 5:12-15, and are not just being obnoxious, I present the following:

There are two separate issues in Ro 2:15 and Ro 5:12-15.

Ro 2:15 is about the final judgment of the Gentiles, and not about their natural death.

And "final judgement" is an evaluation of lifelong behavior. Therefore the actions of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Noah's generation DID count as sinful violations of conscience, contrary to your reading of Ro 5:12-15. As you just admitted:

Ro 2:15 is about Gentile guilt at the final judgment, based on their conscience, in lieu of the law.

Ro 5:12-15 is about natural death of all mankind due to the death penalty of God's law, before the final judgment.

I don't agree that Paul is only dealing with biological death. That's one possible interpretation, but debatable.

Ro 2:15 does not give ultimate authority of guilt to man's conscience (nor is it related to Ro 5:12-15 and natural death).

ANY degree of conscience-based guilt contradicts your exoneration of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Noah's era.

Ro 2:15 gives authority of guilt to the conscience only in the absence of God's law....

Again conceding my point. Whose position are you defending, mine or yours?

.....but it has no authority to prescribe a death penalty, only to prescribe guilt in the absence of the law.

The wages of sin is NOT death? Okay, if you say so.

It is not the conscience which is the locus of guilt on the earth, it is God's law, and only in the absence of God's law does it become conscience.

False, as explained at 2265. Again: 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. If they don't know it's a transgression, why punish them? Oh that's right - the Calvinist God is a complete jerk oblivious to fairness and justice. I forgot.

Conscience is about feeling certain. There is no real justice sans conscience - I don't care how many laws are in writing.

You can't just spew forth total nonsense and expect us to buy it.

3) Of what sin were they guilty, when sin was not taken into account?
4) They were guilty of the sin of Adam imputed to them. (Ro 5:15)

Sorry, the Bible seems to disagree with you. Here you're implying that Sodom, Gomorrah, and Noah's era were guilty only of Adamic imputation, otherwise they were living righteously since there was no written law. That's contrary to fact. God classified their behavior as sinful/evil. And you did too, when you finally admitted that violations of conscience, per Rom 2:15, was punitive.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

Speculation is pretty much useless. ALL scenarios are above your head. Even those in which you have been the protagonist or the antagonist. We all justify ourselves now and then, or even constantly. You don't know all the details of the heart —not even your own. Only God does.

The conscience is fluid, and is not the final authority concerning sin. God is greater than our conscience, which conscience sometimes condemns us unjustifiably, and at other times exonerates us unjustifiably. Do you not know that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God? The conscience is nobody's justification before God. Do you not know that in whatever way we have fallen short, regardless of how far we have grown in the faith, there is more sanctification to be done? Is anyone perfect in every way before they depart this temporal life? Christ covers all that. Repentance is not just for the specific sins we are aware of, but for sinfulness.

 

[JAL]

Keep straining for useful defense. You can't shame me into submission. Nor will your attempt to baffle me with, uh, irrelevant spraying, avail you.

Your logic is that according to your notion of the rule of conscience being supreme, then I'm a white supremacist? Ha. Even you don't believe that follows. (Ok, to be fair, I don't think that is how you came up with that, but that is the way your argumentation goes. Keep on, then. Your whole concept of God is that of a god, who is not omnipotent, (as you have plainly stated yourself), and your arguments are typical of that point of view. I'm not buying it.)

Enough with the take-potshots polemics. If you have a specific point relevant to the rule of conscience, let's hear it.

I'm sorry it frustrates you that I don't accept infinity-gibberish.

 

[Clare73]

Ostensibly, these are my words that you are responding to:

JAL: 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.

But instead of providing the requested scenario, you now ramble on about your wild speculations on Rom 2:15 ???? Shall I not again rest my case?

Departure from the rule of conscience?

Are you serious?

Conscience is not infallible, it can be corrupted by the fallen nature.
Likewise, what in the conscience tells one not to eat shrimp?

And your time-wasting wiggling and dancing-around deflecting falls somewhat short of the only adequate response showing the error of my exegesis; i.e., an exegesis of Ro 3:12-15, being true to Paul's words, their context and consistent with his argument.

 

[JAL]

Really? Who knows what went on in Hitler's head?

Clearly, I was trying to play out YOUR proposed scenario that evil men warp their conscience by rationalizing away their own sense of goodness. I thought that was obvious?

The point is moot. Speculation on his specific case does not do the job. Can we agree that at some point he thought he was doing what was right for him to do? I think he, and many under him, thought he was doing what was right, though, of course, I can't prove it concerning any of them.

What's your point? Should a man try to be as evil as possible? Or as good as possible?

Assuming the latter, the rule of conscience stands firm, and you've merely been wasting my time, blowing hot air.

I know of a case where a mentally ill man knew that society would condemn him for breaking the law, but thought he should do so anyway.

Oh I see how this works. You keep trying to use Hitler to "refute" me - you talk about him whenever it suits you. Then when I myself say something about him, in rebuttal, you object with words like, "Who knows what went on in Hitler's head? The point is moot. Speculation on his specific case does not do the job." It's a double standard.

Now you're at it again. You're TELLING me what was going on in the head of this mentally ill man, as if you know for sure.

Does he get off by reason of insanity, or is he guilty of his crime? If the law says that if he knew what he was doing was by law wrong, but does it anyway, he is guilty of the crime. Whether concession is made, in sentencing, concerning his mental state at the time of the crime, still does not change the fact that he is guilty of the crime.

For the millionth time, if we are discussing perfect justice, the actions of human courts cannot dictate this discussion.

Mentally ill or not, God will judge him by the rule of conscience. Did he set his heart on doing evil? Or doing good? Any other criterion of judgment is total nonsense.

I know of a case where an angry little boy hit another, and when faced with the belt in the hand of his father, he adamantly refused to go apologize or admit he was wrong. He KNEW he was in the right! It took a while, and a lot of pain, for my dad to prove to that little boy that he was wrong! And that little boy will be forever thankful it was proven to him.

Did he try to do good? Or evil? You're saying he tried to do good but SHOULD have tried to be as evil as possible? You are not making any sense here.

 

[JAL]

Departure from the rule of conscience?

Are you serious?

Conscience is not infallible, it can be corrupted by the fallen nature.
Likewise, what in the conscience tells one not to eat shrimp?

(Sigh). Then your job is simple. Just paint me one clear scenario where I should deviate from the rule of conscience.

2295 posts deep, and I'm still waiting.

 

[JAL]

The conscience is fluid, and is not the final authority concerning sin. God is greater than our conscience, which conscience sometimes condemns us unjustifiably, and at other times exonerates us unjustifiably.

(Sigh). Then your job is simple. Just paint me one clear scenario where I should deviate from the rule of conscience - tell me when I should do my utmost to be as evil as possible.

2295 posts deep, and I'm still waiting.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Enough with the take-potshots polemics. If you have a specific point relevant to the rule of conscience, let's hear it.

I'm sorry it frustrates you that I don't accept infinity-gibberish.

I have already shown the specific point relevant to the rule of conscience, that it is not the final rule for behavior. You have not shown it to be, but have only asserted that it was. I have shown multiple examples, that though we don't know the heart of anyone in the examples, our own heart shows our consciences are fluid and ignorant, and that God is greater than our consciences, and that as the Creator of all things, (which fact you plainly, publicly, deny to be so), HE is the final authority, and judges according to the deeds, while looking upon the heart to judge the deeds.

Abstracts of the human mind, such as what you term infinity-gibberish, do not disqualify Scripture's claims as to God's omnipotence. That necessarily implies self-existence, and no dependence on nor obligation to any principle from outside himself. You won't find me submitting myself to a mere superhuman god like yours.

 

[Mark Quayle]

(Sigh). Then your job is simple. Just paint me one clear scenario where I should deviate from the rule of conscience.

2295 posts deep, and I'm still waiting.

If you don't know all the specifics of anybody's heart and thoughts, how can you expect @Clare73 to know them?

But what has become ludicrous here is, you going off on your own use of the word 'rule' in 'rule of conscience' as if that rule by definition is the authoritative rule for judgement of behavior. If Clare says, "there is no deviation from the rule of conscience, although one may ignore or oppose it", she has made no statement one way or the other as to whether conscience is the final authority of behavior. And if Clare says, "There IS deviation from the rule of conscience by ignoring or opposing conscience" you will still claim victory, though she has still made no statement one way or the other as to whether conscience is the final authority of behavior.