How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[JAL]

So that's what's going on. . .total subjectivity.
There are no absolutes.

One cannot "objectively" know God's law. . .
"Thou shalt not murder" is subject to interpretation.
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" is subject to interpretation.

That's good work if you can get it.

The rule of conscience is pragmatic rather than philosophical. You could spend your entire life in the study of epistemology trying to figure out to what extent we can "really" acquire an objective knowledge of God's will. Good luck with that PhD.

The rule of conscience is more practical. It simply points out that the end result is the same - we always need to try out our best to be good which means, at the moment of a decision, acting on what we feel most certain about.

 

[Clare73]

Deflection. That's not what I asked.

The answer to your question is in my question; i.e., it is no more wrong for Abraham to kill his son that it was for God to kill his Son, both are on the authority of God.

 

[JAL]

In my Bible, it's a good thing to obey God, even when he uses you as the instrument of his judgment on the wicked.

Ok, so where is the objectivity? You admit that the Law said, "Thou shalt not murder", and yet Joshua and Moses set out to murder 7 nations.

By your objective standards, they were in sin?

 

[JAL]

The answer to your question is in my question; i.e., it is no more wrong for Abraham to kill his son that it was for God to kill his Son, both are on the authority of God.

So "Thou shalt not murder" is NOT an objective standard, then. We're back to subjectivity, aren't we?

 

[JAL]

@Clare73,

Here's what you need to understand. A set of fixed laws cannot encapsulate God's will because life is too complex - there are exceptions to pretty much every rule. For example, when David was hungry, he "unlawfully" ate consecrated bread, and Jesus commended his behavior - because David acted with clear conscience.

How then shall we live?
....(1) Ideally we need Direct Revelation - the leading of the Spirit - to inform/update our conscience from moment to moment, notifying us of God's will. Those Direct Revelations convict/convince us, causing to feel certain about His will.
....(2) Where such Direct Revelation is lacking, we need to act according to what we already feel most certain about.

In the case of Abraham, Moses, and Joshua, they received Direct Revelations causing them to feel certain about their attempted murders.

Ultimately all of this is an application of the rule of conscience.

 

[Clare73]

I usually do at least as much demonstration as you, and then you always accuse me of no demonstration. It's like listening to a broken record.

Still no demonstration of your point, leaving it without merit.

 

[John Mullally]

Is he not creator? Is he not first cause? How then, can anything else happen that he has not caused, whether directly, or by chain of cause and effect? Get the default fact straight in your mind. Then work out the rest if you can. Libertarian Free Will, as I have heard it defined, where somehow the creature is absolutely spontaneous, is a self-contradictory notion, as the creature is himself purposely caused. God does not operate in guesswork and is not relegated to flying by the seat of his pants. Libertarian free will invokes causation by chance, where the creature, none better than another, somehow makes choices of his own integrity, being in and of himself of some power apart from God's causation. By mere chance, it implies, one person chooses good and another evil. Libertarian freewill is self-contradictory at best, and heresy at worst. Either way, illogical and unBiblical.

God have mercy on me for saying so, because I too will be measured by my own standard, but self-determination places itself in opposition to God.

Your argument is that given that God can script every action. He does so - as Calvin also states. The problem is that 1 John 4:16 says that God is love and 1 Timothy 2:4 says that God desires all men to be saved. That effectively cancels God predestinating any to eternal torment from before their birth as Calvin proclaims. That should spell the end of Calvinist doctrine - their claiming solo scriptura is just more posturing. Self determination is not in opposition to God, as Jesus states in Mark 16:16 that God has made provision for men - as those who believe and are baptized are saved - that is the good news, the Gospel! The power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16-17). Believe the Gospel without throwing in caveats!

 

[JAL]

Still no demonstration of your point, leaving it without merit.

Intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Clare73]

The rule of conscience is pragmatic rather than philosophical.

The rule of conscience is an accommodation when the law is now known.
It is not the primary authority, which is God's law.

 

[Clare73]

Ok, so where is the objectivity? You admit that the Law said, "Thou shalt not murder", and yet Joshua and Moses set out to murder 7 nations.

By your objective standards, they were in sin?

By my objective standards they were obeying God, which is always good.

It's no more murder than is the death chamber.

 

[Clare73]

So "Thou shalt not murder" is NOT an objective standard, then. We're back to subjectivity, aren't we?

Only when God's word is human subjectivity.

 

[Mark Quayle]

There it is again - special pleading. You think God has real freedom - it's not random chance - but then claim that, for man, real freedom could only be defined as random chance. It's a double standard.

Are you even serious??? It is a "double-standard" to ascribe to God what cannot be ascribed to man??? But I did not say man has no real freedom —I only say that man has no freedom from causation. His freedom is real enough. He WILL indeed freely choose according to his preferences, even if only what he, for that instant of decision, prefers.

But 3 guesses why he prefers what he prefers! You can freely guess between all perceived options, here. In fact, if you choose to guess at all, you WILL do so.

No it's not absurd, Mark. Your belief is that God created us ex nihilo - out of nothing. So what external factor is impinging on man's freedom? The great pit of Nothingness? You haven't established that creation rules out freedom. It's just a weird philosophical theory contrary to the libertarian freedom implicit from Genesis to Revelation.

Could not that 'logic' be applied to anything else that God created ex nihilo? Aren't, if your logic here is valid, dogs, computers and rocks free? But EVERYTHING dogs, computers and rocks (and humans) do —in fact, their very existence— is caused. Your logic here is not valid.

My question is, what is NOT external to man, impinging on man's freedom? Even what is from within him is caused externally after long-chain causation. Do an easy google, on "necessary" vs "contingent" existence. God IS. Man BECOMES. Man does not exist in and of himself. God does. Deal with it.

Even the claim many make, that man is endowed with libertarian freedom by God, necessarily implies causation, and is therefore a logically self-contradictory statement.


Oh, I forgot to answer another assertion you made, something along the lines that angels exist in and of themselves. Have you anything to back up that assertion? Yep, you guessed it —I think the assertion is as ludicrous as your claim that God is not quite omnipotent.

 

[Mark Quayle]

By my objective standards they were obeying God, which is always good.

But, while I agree with you completely, God does not contradict himself. Contrary to @JAL 's implied assertion that they murdered 7 nations is, like so many other of his assertions, false. It was not murder.

 

[Clare73]

@Clare73,

Here's what you need to understand. A set of fixed laws cannot encapsulate God's will because life is too complex

Baloney. . .the law and God's word is God's will for me and that is all I need to know and do.

- there are exceptions to pretty much every rule. For example, when David was hungry, he "unlawfully" ate consecrated bread, and Jesus commended his behavior - because David acted with clear conscience.

Because the preservation of innocent (convicted of no crime) human life trumps all moral law.

Ultimately all of this is an application of the rule of conscience.

They obeyed the word of God, which is law for us.

 

[Clare73]

Intellectual dishonesty.

Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.

 

[JAL]

By my objective standards they were obeying God, which is always good.

They certainly didn't obey your so-called "objective" law of "Thou shalt not murder".

Please choose A or B:
...(A) When obeying the Voice, they felt certain this obedience was the morally right thing to do.
...(B) When obeying the Voice, they felt certain this obedience was the evil thing to do.

 

[Clare73]

They certainly didn't obey your so-called "objective" law of "Thou shalt not murder".

It's not murder when God commands it, it's obedience.

Please choose A or B:
...(1) When obeying the Voice, they felt certain this obedience was the morally right thing to do.
...(2) When obeying the Voice, they felt certain this obedience was the evil thing to do.

Please choose A or B:
...(1) You have stopped beating animals.
...(2) You have not stopped beating animals.

 

[JAL]

Baloney. . .the law and God's word is God's will for me and that is all I need to know and do.

Because the preservation of innocent (convicted of no crime) human life trumps all moral law.

They obeyed the word of God, which is law for us.

(Yawn). Still waiting for one plausible exception to the rule of conscience. Oh that's right - you don't know of any.

 

[JAL]

@Clare73,

Please address 2436.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I already refuted your (effectively) "Only Cause" claim by referencing angels. Angelic movement is self-caused by free will, much like divine animation.

Ah. There it is. I missed it somehow, and it is a shame, since it is such low-hanging fruit!

Your claim here is mere assertion, just like your libertarian freewill claims concerning humans.

But you again misrepresent me, yet even your strawman is built too strong for you to defeat. You really need to be more careful! I claim no "Only Cause". I claim that Omnipotent God is FIRST CAUSE. And almost all effects of first cause are also causes of other effects.