How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[JAL]

@Mark Quayle,

1 Corin 8 really plays nicely with Romans 14:

14I am convinced and fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. (Rom 14)

Wow. Hard to imagine Paul making it any more clear. When is something evil? When I regard it as evil. It all boils down to what I feel certain about.

 

[Clare73]

I've been asking for a single scenario for hundreds of posts. You fail to provide it - and then accuse ME of dancing?

(Sigh). I don't see the relevance of your question. You asked:


I'm pretty sure that, at birth, our God-given conscience isn't yet updated/educated with that kind of specific information. What's your point here? That a man should try to be as evil as possible because his conscience is uninformed about shrimp?

Earlier I didn't respond to this question because you seem to be making some kind of ridiculous argument whose dots I can't even begin to connect. I'm still at a loss.

Are Christ-rejecting Jews following their conscience in that rejection?
And if your answer is "yes,"
1) does Scripture present God holding them guiltless, or does it present God cutting them off for doing so?
2) does their "guiltless" conscience save them from God's judgment on their sin of rejection?

 

[John Mullally]

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.

Given your position that God decrees everything that happens, you position God as Puppet-master. In agreement to that, Calvinism declares that God uses irrersistable force to change the nature of some so that they are regenerated - so typical of a Puppet-master. Come clean for once! Stop the double speak! I say that God does not play the role of the Wizard of Oz!

Your commentary on Romans 10:17 reinforces your view of God as puppet-master.You position God as controlling man's choices. This line-of-thinking causes the thousands of directives to men in the Bible as being misdirection. Remember the Bible only terms Satan as the deceiver If you read scripture without Calvinist presumptions (2 Corinthians 10:5), it will begin to make more sense.

Calvinism is for losers who pin their failures on God predestinating them to fail. Jesus said that God is not blocking your success per Mark 11:22-24. Take advantage of the promises of God, like Mark 11:22-24, instead of your unproductive, fatalistic Calvinist naval-gazing!

 

[JAL]

Are Christ-rejecting Jews following their conscience in that rejection?

Here's how it all works, in my understanding. Bear in mind that a person need not know about the historical, incarnate Jesus to be saved - the OT saints were saved without this information.

Every monotheistic person, including Jews and Jehovah Witnesses, worships "God." The problem is that the feeble human mind, on its own, cannot form a reasonably accurate picture of an ineffably holy God. As a result, the unaided human mind will always worship a conceptual idol.

To remedy this, God has always provided - to both OT and NT individuals - two acceptable pictures of Himself. Submitting to either of them is salvific.
....(1) General revelation (Romans 1:18-20). The human heart/conscience is designed to infer, from the beauty and grandeur of Nature, the existence and holy character of God. Admittedly this portrait of God is somewhat vague - but it is approved of God and therefore acceptable in His sight.

....(2) Special revelation. The inward witness of the Holy Spirit. This portrait is an enhancement of General Revelation - a sharpening of the image/picture already there. Special revelation typically includes extra details, for example it might convict/convince the individual that the bible is inspired, that Jesus is God, that He died for ours sins, and even God's triune nature.

Given our hardness of heart since the Fall, it's debatable whether anyone accepts General Revelation by itself. Most, if not all people, probably won't submit to a picture of the Lord until Special Revelation intervenes (e.g. Paul's vision on the Road to Damascus).

If a person DOES submit to General Revelation, I'm pretty sure that God, as a reward, immediately grants him Special Revelation. As a result, a Christ-rejecting Jew CANNOT be a true believer in the Lord, clearly he hasn't submitted to ANY valid picture of God.

 

[Clare73]

Here's how it all works, in my understanding. Bear in mind that a person need not know about the historical, incarnate Jesus to be saved - the OT saints were saved without this information.

They were saved the same way we are. . .faith in the Promise (Seed, Jesus Christ, Ge 15:5).

Every monotheistic person, including Jehovah Witnesses, worships "God." The problem is that the feeble human mind, on its own, cannot form a reasonably accurate picture of an ineffably holy God. As a result, the unaided human mind will always worship a conceptual idol.

Salvation is not by worship of "God."
Salvation is only by faith in and trust on the person and stoning sacrifice (blood, Ro 3:25) of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty," forensically declared righteous (justification), and the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to one (Ro 4:1-11).

To remedy this, God has always provided - to both OT and NT individuals - two acceptable pictures of Himself. Submitting to either of them is salvific.
....(1) General revelation (Romans 1:18-20). The human heart/conscience is designed to infer, from the beauty and grandeur of Nature, the existence and holy character of God. Admittedly this portrait of God is somewhat vague - but it is approved of God and therefore acceptable in His sight.

....(2) Special revelation. The inward witness of the Holy Spirit. This portrait is an enhancement of General Revelation - a sharpening of the image/picture already there. Special revelation typically includes extra details, for example it might convict/convince the individual that the bible is inspired, that Jesus is God, that He died for ours sins, and even God's triune nature.

In NT apostolic teaching, salvation is not about pictures of God.
It's about faith in and trust on the person and atoning work of Jesus of Nazareth (Jn 3:18, Jn 3:36).

Given our hardness of heart since the Fall, it's debatable whether anyone accepts General Revelation by itself. Most, if not all people, probably won't submit to a picture of the Lord until Special Revelation intervenes (e.g. Paul's experience on the Road to Damascus).

If a person DOES submit to General Revelation, I'm pretty sure that God, as a reward, immediately grants him Special Revelation. As a result, a Christ-rejecting Jew CANNOT be a true believer in the Lord, clearly he hasn't submitted to ANY valid picture of God.

Where did you learn Christian doctrine in such hodge-podge of NT concepts?

More importantly, and speaking of time-wasting wiggling and dancing-around deflection, how does this answer the question of conscience regarding the Christ-rejecting Jew:
1) does Scripture present God holding them guiltless, or does it present God cutting them off for doing so?
2) does their "guiltless" conscience save them from God's judgment on their sin of rejection?
3) precisely what bearing does your "rule of conscience" have on their eternal destiny?

 

[Mark Quayle]

You haven't thought it through. A God who is fair and just cannot expect us to pursue something we know nothing about. We must have some degree of felt certainty about the correct course of action.

Two ways you are wrong here. No, three. No, four! 1. He is not "A God". He is GOD. 2. Fair and just is whatever he decides to do. But you seem to have no idea the horror of sin, the severity of rebellion against him. Even one little thing deserves everlasting spiritual death. 3. 'Fair and Just'? Does he not have the right to do whatever he wants with what is his? How does the clay ask the potter for fairness? Do we really think we rate on a scale of sentience, nevermind morality, compared to him? 4. "Know nothing about"?? Where do you get the notion that anyone here claims we don't know more than enough to make us without excuse? 5. The command does not imply the ability to obey. Sorry. It just does not. At most, it only implies the ability to choose.

You think you have thought it through, and conclude that you must be through thinking, as though it is time to jump to conclusions.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Here's how it all works, in my understanding. Bear in mind that a person need not know about the historical, incarnate Jesus to be saved - the OT saints were saved without this information.

Every monotheistic person, including Jews and Jehovah Witnesses, worships "God." The problem is that the feeble human mind, on its own, cannot form a reasonably accurate picture of an ineffably holy God. As a result, the unaided human mind will always worship a conceptual idol.

To remedy this, God has always provided - to both OT and NT individuals - two acceptable pictures of Himself. Submitting to either of them is salvific.
....(1) General revelation (Romans 1:18-20). The human heart/conscience is designed to infer, from the beauty and grandeur of Nature, the existence and holy character of God. Admittedly this portrait of God is somewhat vague - but it is approved of God and therefore acceptable in His sight.

....(2) Special revelation. The inward witness of the Holy Spirit. This portrait is an enhancement of General Revelation - a sharpening of the image/picture already there. Special revelation typically includes extra details, for example it might convict/convince the individual that the bible is inspired, that Jesus is God, that He died for ours sins, and even God's triune nature.

Given our hardness of heart since the Fall, it's debatable whether anyone accepts General Revelation by itself. Most, if not all people, probably won't submit to a picture of the Lord until Special Revelation intervenes (e.g. Paul's vision on the Road to Damascus).

If a person DOES submit to General Revelation, I'm pretty sure that God, as a reward, immediately grants him Special Revelation. As a result, a Christ-rejecting Jew CANNOT be a true believer in the Lord, clearly he hasn't submitted to ANY valid picture of God.

Home-made arrangements abound here, in the barely disguising coat of Biblical reference. Carry on.

To remedy this, God has always provided - to both OT and NT individuals - two acceptable pictures of Himself. Submitting to either of them is salvific.
....(1) General revelation (Romans 1:18-20). The human heart/conscience is designed to infer, from the beauty and grandeur of Nature, the existence and holy character of God. Admittedly this portrait of God is somewhat vague - but it is approved of God and therefore acceptable in His sight.

Where does Romans 1, or anywhere in Romans, or anywhere in Scripture, say that submitting to General Revelation is salvific?

....(2) Special revelation. The inward witness of the Holy Spirit. This portrait is an enhancement of General Revelation - a sharpening of the image/picture already there. Special revelation typically includes extra details, for example it might convict/convince the individual that the bible is inspired, that Jesus is God, that He died for ours sins, and even God's triune nature.

Enhancement of General Revelation? —That's a poetic picture. Did you get that by special revelation? Maybe some day it will show you what the word, GOD, means. Even the Romans 1 reference to what is visible is enough to show that if a god is subject to facts beyond himself or outside of his causation and control, then he is not GOD.

If a person DOES submit to General Revelation, I'm pretty sure that God, as a reward, immediately grants him Special Revelation. As a result, a Christ-rejecting Jew CANNOT be a true believer in the Lord, clearly he hasn't submitted to ANY valid picture of God.

How are you pretty sure of this construction? —A reward? Why not God saving according to his Election of those to whom, of his own council, he chose for a particular purpose? Predestination. You know, like the Bible describes.

 

[Mark Quayle]

God is greater than math. Therefore 2 plus 2 is not 4?

Your non-sequitur makes no sense.

Empty, meaningless polemics. That's all you've got.

That's your non-sequitur.

—Can conscience be mistaken? Yes or no.

 

[JAL]

They were saved the same way we are. . .faith in the Promise (Seed, Jesus Christ, Ge 15:5).

Salvation is not by worship of YHWH.
Salvation is only by faith in and trust on the person and stoning sacrifice (blood, Ro 3:25) of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty," forensically declared righteous, and the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to one (Ro 4:1-11).

In NT apostolic teaching, salvation is not about pictures of God.
It's about faith in and trust on the person and atoning work of Jesus of Nazareth (Jn 3:18, Jn 3:36).

Where did you learn Christian doctrine in such non-NT concepts?

More importantly, and speaking of time-wasting wiggling and dancing-around deflection, how does this answer the question of conscience regarding the Christ-rejecting Jew:
1) does Scripture present God holding them guiltless, or does it present God cutting them off for doing so?
2) does their "guiltless" conscience save them from God's judgment on their sin of rejection?
3) precisely what bearing does your "rule of conscience" have on their eternal destiny?

I don't really see anything here I need to respond to. Your entire post seems predicated on the assumption that I'm obligated to prove all my conclusions and, whenever I neglect to do so, I must default to yours? Sorry, your position is not the default. Some of my posts are merely to clarify the general tenor and consistency of my position, not necessarily to "prove" something. But I will indulge you a little by responding with a few words, here and there.

More importantly, and speaking of time-wasting wiggling and dancing-around deflection, how does this answer the question of conscience regarding the Christ-rejecting Jew:
1) does Scripture present God holding them guiltless, or does it present God cutting them off for doing so?
2) does their "guiltless" conscience save them from God's judgment on their sin of rejection?

You expressly stated that those two follow up questions hinged on my answer the main question being "yes". Clearly, my answer was "no". By your own words, these follow up questions do not apply to me, so I didn't address them. And you call this a case of deflection?

Make up you mind. Do they apply to me, or not?

They were saved the same way we are. . .faith in the Promise (Seed, Jesus Christ, Ge 15:5).

Sure. And since faith is a feeling of certainty, it's a perfect example of the rule of conscience.

Salvation is not by worship of YHWH.
Salvation is only by faith in and trust on the person...

False dichotomy.

...and atoning sacrifice (blood, Ro 3:25) of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty," forensically declared righteous, and the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to one (Ro 4:1-11).

Paul says that OT saints were saved by the same faith as we. I'm not convinced that every OT saint, especially children and young adults, was aware of Christ's atoning sacrifice. Again, I think they were saved by submitting to the Lord as presented/pictured in the mind via either General Revelation or Special Revelation.

In NT apostolic teaching, salvation is not about pictures of God.

Gibberish. The mind thinks and comprehends in mental images appropriately termed "pictures". The mind has to worship something. The mind can only worship that which the mind's eye sees. Therefore, salvation must involve a vision of the Lord. Gordon Fee rightly insisted that 2 Cor 3:18 stipulates a literal beholding of Christ common to every believer.

I don't have time for meaningless gibberish.

Where did you learn Christian doctrine in such non-NT concepts?

You don't see evidence of both General Revelation and Special Revelation in the NT? What Bible are you reading?

 

[JAL]

Home-made arrangements abound here, in the barely disguising coat of Biblical reference. Carry on.


Where does Romans 1, or anywhere in Romans, or anywhere in Scripture, say that submitting to General Revelation is salvific?

Enhancement of General Revelation? —That's a poetic picture. Did you get that by special revelation? Maybe some day it will show you what the word, GOD, means. Even the Romans 1 reference to what is visible is enough to show that if a god is subject to facts beyond himself or outside of his causation and control, then he is not GOD.

How are you pretty sure of this construction? —A reward? Why not God saving according to his Election of those to whom, of his own council, he chose for a particular purpose? Predestination. You know, like the Bible describes.

As I said to Clare, nothing here I need to respond to. Not every posted conclusion of mine necessitates proof. Sometimes I'm just declaring my views. Clare asked me a question - I assumed she wanted clarification of my views, and I supplied it. I don't see any proof needed here.

Proof would be needed if you identified something clearly at variance with Scripture, or some logical inconsistency in my position.

Well you make a pretense of alleged inconsistency here:

Even the Romans 1 reference to what is visible is enough to show that if a god is subject to facts beyond himself or outside of his causation and control, then he is not GOD.

YOUR God is subject to an existence outside His control. Can He cease to exist? No.

 

[JAL]

That's your non-sequitur.

—Can conscience be mistaken? Yes or no.

You ask an essentially loaded question and then demand a simple Yes or No? How stupid do you think I am?

The conscience is NEVER mistaken in reminding you to do your utmost good. You should ALWAYS follow your conscience.

The conscience is often misinformed about the specific direction you should take. That's why we need Direct Revelation (prophethood) as top priority alongside love (1 Cor 14:1). Did I mention that Direct Revelation always capitalizes on the rule of conscience? Meaning the Voice is useful to us only if it helps us to feel certain that the message/information is righteous and obligatory.

 

[JAL]

2. Fair and just is whatever he decides to do.

And there it is. Your evil Calvinist God has no rulebook. He doesn't play by any rules such as fairness and justice - he makes up His own rules as He goes along. He is the Lawless One himself. Funny I always thought that verse referred to the devil.

No wonder you can't comprehend conscience. Your God doesn't have one.

Does he not have the right to do whatever he wants with what is his? How does the clay ask the potter for fairness?

Read Romans 9:22-23 carefully. If you don't see the fairness and justice clearly indicated there, I'll hold your hand and explain it to you. You just need to ask.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Self-contradictory? Foolish? Explain to me, if I'm so foolish, how infinity is a specific/discrete number.

Just because you've accepted nonsense, doesn't mean I'm obligated to the same.

Foolish to assume that infinity must be a specific/discrete number. Where have I said or assumed that it is?

Self-contradictory? Yeah, for sure. An example is the last quote below. You want to claim that I think God can cease to exist? Why don't you present the notion that God can make a rock too big for him to pick up, to prove he is not omnipotent? You present a self-contradictory notion to claim he cannot cease to exist. What makes you think the question has any meaning??? God is the very source of existence. Our foolish words and notions have no claim to reality if you think they govern him.

What we DO recognize about PI is that it doesn't calculate to a finite number of digits if we're trying to capture it to perfect accuracy.

And you're trying to say that this limitation isn't relevant to everyday life, right? That all we need, in daily life, is a finite number of digits, right? EXACTLY. An infinite God has zero relevance to everyday life. This is what you cannot seem to comprehend.

Well, no, actually. I'm not trying to say that all we need in daily life, is a finite number of digits. I didn't even come close to saying such a thing.

And why must PI calculate to a finite number of digits for GOD —not us— to be unlimited?

I don't want to call you unhinged, but this sounds like madness to me.

We've been over this. You're just in denial about the fact that your God, like mine, is subject to an existence He did not opt for and is thus beyond His control. Can He cease to exist? Clearly, no.

Let me repeat and highlight this, for those who might be casually scanning the page. —JAL says this: "You're just in denial about the fact that your God, like mine, is subject to an existence He did not opt for and is thus beyond His control. Can He cease to exist? Clearly, no."

Again, JAL says, "...God...is subject to an existence He did not opt for and is thus beyond His control." Reader, does this sound like the God that you know, trust and love? Does this sound like omnipotence?

Existence is subject to God. Why even ask such a meaningless question as, "Can He cease to exist?" Why would he even want to? Do you think you can throw some human words together that sound to you like they might mean something remarkable, and think they govern God or actually describe facts that govern God? Self-contradictory, moot, useless, foolish.
Why not ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I am not following you. The rule of conscience is my final authority in ever scenario because I should always try my best to do good.

I'm still not sure why you are in disagreement.

Yes, I don't doubt you accept conscience as your final authority. But the Bible presents God as the final authority. You too will have to face him, even if your conscience doesn't condemn you. And so will I, in case you want to retort. I too, like you, will be measured by my standard. Thank God for his mercy. My conscience is much meaner.

 

[JAL]

Foolish to assume that infinity must be a specific/discrete number. Where have I said or assumed that it is?

Self-contradictory? Yeah, for sure. An example is the last quote below. You want to claim that I think God can cease to exist? Why don't you present the notion that God can make a rock too big for him to pick up, to prove he is not omnipotent? You present a self-contradictory notion to claim he cannot cease to exist. What makes you think the question has any meaning??? God is the very source of existence. Our foolish words and notions have no claim to reality if you think they govern him.

Well, no, actually. I'm not trying to say that all we need in daily life, is a finite number of digits. I didn't even come close to saying such a thing.

And why must PI calculate to a finite number of digits for GOD —not us— to be unlimited?

I don't want to call you unhinged, but this sounds like madness to me.

Let me repeat and highlight this, for those who might be casually scanning the page. —JAL says this: "You're just in denial about the fact that your God, like mine, is subject to an existence He did not opt for and is thus beyond His control. Can He cease to exist? Clearly, no."

Again, JAL says, "...God...is subject to an existence He did not opt for and is thus beyond His control." Reader, does this sound like the God that you know, trust and love? Does this sound like omnipotence?

Existence is subject to God. Why even ask such a meaningless question as, "Can He cease to exist?" Why would he even want to? Do you think you can throw some human words together that sound to you like they might mean something remarkable, and think they govern God or actually describe facts that govern God? Self-contradictory, moot, useless, foolish.
Why not ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Madness? Right back at you. All I see here are disjointed ramblings whose dots I cannot even connect. I asked you a simple question. "Can he cease to exist?" You deflect with:

Why even ask such a meaningless question as, "Can He cease to exist?" Why would he even want to?

Repeated deflection tells its own story.

 

[JAL]

Yes, I don't doubt you accept conscience as your final authority. But the Bible presents God as the final authority. You too will have to face him, even if your conscience doesn't condemn you. And so will I, in case you want to retort. I too, like you, will be measured by my standard. Thank God for his mercy. My conscience is much meaner.

For the millionth time, you're playing word games on this point. No one is denying that God is the final judge. The question is on what basis will He judge us. If Paul has any say in the matter, our conscience is that basis. Rather conspicuous is your lack of commentary on the verses I cited from Romans 14, and your apparent silence on 1 Corinthians 8 as well.

 

[Mark Quayle]

And there it is. Your evil Calvinist God has no rulebook. He doesn't play by any rules such as fairness and justice - he makes up His own rules as He goes along. He is the Lawless One himself. Funny I always thought that verse referred to the devil.

No wonder you can't comprehend conscience. Your God doesn't have one.

Oh, my! I genuinely did laugh out loud! God needs a rulebook for himself??? No, the rulebook is God's 'tangible' concrete objective reference TO US for right and wrong, unlike the conscience. You really do think God is merely superhuman! JAL, God is not like us. Understand???

Read Romans 9:22-23 carefully. If you don't see the fairness and justice clearly indicated there, I'll hold your hand and explain it to you. You just need to ask.

Where did I say that God has no fairness and justice? I claim no such thing. What I claim is that we have no authority by which to judge what he does. The clay hasn't even got valid words with which to address the proposition.

 

[Clare73]

I don't really see anything here I need to respond to. Your entire post seems predicated on the assumption that I'm obligated to prove all my conclusions

Yes, we have no basis for our conclusions if they cannot be demonstrated from Scripture.

You expressly stated that those two follow up questions hinged on my answer the main question being "yes". Clearly, my answer was "no".'

It's not clear until you state such specifically.

By your own words, these follow up questions do not apply to me, so I didn't address them and you call this a case of deflection?
Make up you mind. Do they apply to me, or not?
Sure. And since faith is a feeling of certainty, it's a perfect example of the rule of conscience.

"Rule of conscience" has nothing to do with my faith in Jesus as God.
I don't "feel" it with certainty, I know it with certainty.

False dichotomy.
Paul says that OT saints were saved by the same faith as we. I'm not convinced that every OT saint, especially children and young adults, was aware of Christ's atoning sacrifice.

How could any OT saint be aware of Christ's sacrifice.
They were saved by faith in the existing revelation of Christ in the Promise, just as we are saved by faith in the existing revelation of Christ in his atonement.

Again, I think they were saved by submitting to the Lord as presented/pictured in the mind via either General Revelation or Special Revelation.
Gibberish. The mind thinks and comprehends in mental images appropriately termed "pictures".
The mind has to worship something. The mind can only worship that which the mind's eye sees.
Therefore, salvation must involve a vision of the Lord.

God has no visible form, any image would be an idol, contrary to the first commandment.

Gordon Fee rightly insisted that 2 Cor 3:18 stipulates a literal beholding of Christ common to every believer.

We behold the glory, not the image, of Christ in the Scriptures which transforms us into his image.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Did you comment on Romans 14:23? That verse seems to be a fairly clear attestation of what I am saying.

No, I didn't. If you are asking whether Romans 14:23 deals with the rule of conscience, of course it does! But conscience is not therefore the ultimate or final authority on right and wrong.

I'm having a hard time seeing why you can't get past your mental block. Is it because you prefer your conscience to God's law? Self-determination, perhaps?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Here also, from Romans 14.

5One person regards a certain day above the others, while someone else considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who observes a special day does so to the Lord;b he who eats does so to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.


"Fully convinced" means feeling certain about what is good or evil.

Well GREAT! It's wonderful when God and my conscience are in agreement. So what has that got to do with the conscience being the final authority on right and wrong?