How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[JAL]

I don't consult my conscience regarding good investments, I consult financial data and operating strategy.

And having consulted it, you go with the option you feel most certain about. That's the rule of conscience.

And you know that God has not built the environment to deal with deadly carcinogens, how?

Exactly. We don't know. That's why we need the Voice.

And you know there is no way that carcinogens can be neutralized, how?

Exactly. We don't know. That's why we need the Voice.

Not talking ethics. . .talking obedience to God's laws. . .I leave the "ethics" of them to God.

This sounds like Looney-Tunes. . .

Any control issues?

Looking to the Voice is looney? Tell it to Jesus (John 10:27).

 

[JAL]

And so now we've migrated to driving being a necessary matter of conscience.

Sounds goofy to me. . .

Like I said, zilch.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Nope. I previously demonstrated that your complaints about "final authority" are irrelevant and thus a word game. Ultimately we face a pragmatic issue: what principle guides our conduct? Answer: rule of conscience.

You live by it - otherwise you would have named a scenario in your life warranting departure from it.

Tell me, Mark, when should one try to do evil? And how often?

Continued deflection. "Complaints" about final authority? You have demonstrated nothing except that you want the game run by your rules, on your terms, following YOUR lead. Well, I'm not playing by your rules.

Tell me, JAL, where does Conscience get its authority?

 

[JAL]

@Clare73,

Continued deflection. "Complaints" about final authority? You have demonstrated nothing except that you want the game run by your rules, on your terms, following YOUR lead. Well, I'm not playing by your rules.

I've literally BEGGED everyone dozens of times to tell me YOUR set of rules. Paint me one scenario where you'd see fit to depart from the rule of conscience, one scenario where a person should try to be evil. And still - nothing.

Tell me, JAL, where does Conscience get its authority?

Why does any father expect his kids to obey him? How do the kids "know" that the father is authoritative? And since they don't really have objective knowledge of their true father, how dare he punish them for disobedience? He punishes them based on the rule of conscience. Meaning, he believes the kids felt certain enough of the father's authority to warrant punishment.

In terms of authority, then, conscience is, like the Voice, self-authenticating. By causing you to feel certain that a particular course of behavior is the "good" behavior (versus evil), it thereby imposes upon you a moral obligation. You might want to argue - as those kids could argue - that such is not "objective" and therefore not "really" authoritative. That argument is one's prerogative to make but, if he rebels against the rule of conscience on that basis, I'm pretty sure he'll find that the heavenly Father won't put up with it.

To answer your question, then, I don't think any of us have fully objective knowledge of ANYTHING. Being fallible, you don't even know for sure that Christianity is the true religion. None of us really knows anything for sure. But I think it's most probable that, if we do indeed have a heavenly Father, He will evaluate us the same way any father evaluates his kids.

 

[JAL]

You don't know how to follow God?
I suggest you take a look at his law.

@Mark Quayle: Also interested to hear your thoughts on this too.

And what if you make mistakes in your reading comprehension? Especially if you're a mentally handicapped person, or someone without a strong education (including children and teenagers) , or an Alzheimer's patient? Should God regard your behavior as disobedience?

I mean, let's assume you acted with a clear conscience. You studied the law until you felt certain about the correct behavior, and then acted accordingly. Only made some mistakes in your exegesis and thus misconceived God's will for your life.

On what basis would a fair and loving God evaluate your behavior? Do you think He is likely to regard it as disobedience and rebellion? Or do you think He will be satisfied that you did your very best to do good - which is what the rule of conscience means?

 

[Mark Quayle]

God's purpose is found in His word, not in speculation that contradicts God's word! Given that God desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), our God of grace does not create any men for the purpose of relegating them to the lake of fire! That would be satanic (2 Corithians 4:4). Ditch the fatalism/determinism which exalts itself above the knowledge of God (i.e. word of God)! Just because God can do something, doesn't mean that He does that. Again, God's word says that He desires all men to be saved - thus He does not relegate any to hell. Your error stems from believing that God scripts everything - when in fact God has left man's decisions up to man.

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,​

Indeed, it is so, that "God's purpose is found in His word, and not in speculation that contradicts God's word!" You see, even if 1 Timothy 2:4 means what you insistently, and contrary to all good sense contradicting it, say it means, it still does not imply what you speculate it implies —that God intends to (poor helpless fellow) save all the souls he can.

Determinism isn't fatalism. Fatalism is impersonal. God's retribution against sinners is intensely personal. What's worse, extrapolating from your claim that Determinism, aka Predestination, is equivalent to Fatalism, you not only make sin of no particular matter to the Creator —you make God's purpose for the redeemed of no particular interest. No! Predestination is not Fatalism.

God indeed does leave man's decisions up to man, to carry out precisely what God has decreed concerning them, by means of obedience and disobedience, and by other circumstances, causes. It is God who works in you both to will and to do according to his good pleasure, and it is God who has made even the wicked for the day of evil.

What makes you think Free Will, which is not mentioned in Scripture, but does fit perfectly with self-determination, which always vaunts itself against the Lord and Creator, is not exalting itself above the knowledge of God? I sincerely hope that 2 Corinthians 4:4 does not apply to you, as you no doubt apply it to others.

You too, will be measured by 2 Corinthians 10:5, because you used it to measure others, just as surely as I will be measured by what I say here about you. Sobering thought.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I've literally BEGGED everyone dozens of times to tell me YOUR set of rules. Paint me one scenario where you'd see fit to depart from the rule of conscience, one scenario where a person should try to be evil. And still - nothing.

There you continue, demanding that "everyone" answer you on YOUR narrative. Just so you know, and maybe it will stop you in your tracks, but I doubt it, I fully agree the conscience is authoritative, but it is a simple point of further logic, that it gets its authority from God, and is itself subject to the objective law of God, whether it recognizes God or not. The conscience is fickle and presumptuous, though of more reliability than our desires and will. But the law of God is objective and stands firm. It does not equivocate, it does not play games, it does not make excuses. And even the law proceeds from God.

Why does any father expect his kids to obey him? How do the kids "know" that the father is authoritative? And since they don't really have objective knowledge of their true father, how dare he punish them for disobedience? He punishes them based on the rule of conscience. Meaning, he believes the kids felt certain enough of the father's authority to warrant punishment.

In terms of authority, then, conscience is, like the Voice, self-authenticating. By causing you to feel certain that a particular course of behavior is the "good" behavior (versus evil), it thereby imposes upon you a moral obligation. You might want to argue - as those kids could argue - that such is not "objective" and therefore not "really" authoritative. That argument is one's prerogative to make but, if he rebels against the rule of conscience on that basis, I'm pretty sure he'll find that the heavenly Father won't put up with it.

Wax as eloquent as you wish and show all the logic you can concerning the fact that conscience is authoritative —it does not bear on the fact that conscience is easily secondary in authority to God and his law.

To answer your question, then, I don't think any of us have fully objective knowledge of ANYTHING. Being fallible, you don't even know for sure that Christianity is the true religion. None of us really knows anything for sure. But I think it's most probable that, if we do indeed have a heavenly Father, He will evaluate us the same way any father evaluates his kids.

It does not follow. You see this backwards. Not only are we only as human as our kids are, but God is not like us; we are made in his image, and not the other way around. He will evaluate us according to justice —thank God for his Christ!

 

[JAL]

I fully agree the conscience is authoritative, but it is a simple point of further logic, that it gets its authority from God, and is itself subject to the objective law of God, whether it recognizes God or not. The conscience is fickle and presumptuous, though of more reliability than our desires and will. But the law of God is objective and stands firm. It does not equivocate, it does not play games, it does not make excuses. And even the law proceeds from God.

And what difference does all that make if, in the final analysis, the rule of conscience dictates my behavior? Again, you can call God the "final authority" - or apply that designation to the law if you prefer - and you can sing this song until the cows come home, but it doesn't make a hill of beans difference if ultimately the rule of conscience defines proper behavior from moment to moment. That's why I keep telling you it's just a useless word game to debate "final authority."

Wax as eloquent as you wish and show all the logic you can concerning the fact that conscience is authoritative —it does not bear on the fact that conscience is easily secondary in authority to God and his law.

So? What has that got to do with ANYTHING? You're splitting theological hairs or, as I said before, playing word games. God will evaluate your behavior based on your fidelity to the rule of conscience. (I'm not referring to your eligibility for salvation, which is by the cross).

It does not follow. You see this backwards. Not only are we only as human as our kids are, but God is not like us; we are made in his image, and not the other way around. He will evaluate us according to justice —thank God for his Christ!

False dichotomy. The only plausible theory of justice hinges on the rule of conscience.

 

[JAL]

There you continue, demanding that "everyone" answer you on YOUR narrative.

No. Across literally hundreds of posts I have waited patiently while you, and others, literally squandered hundreds of opportunities to tell YOUR narrative, showing how it deviates from my rule of conscience. Still waiting in vain for one palpable scenario.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No. Across literally hundreds of posts I have waited patiently while you, and others, literally squandered hundreds of opportunities to tell YOUR narrative, showing how it deviates from my rule of conscience. Still waiting in vain for one palpable scenario.

And it does not matter whether we are able or not to show how something deviates from your rule of conscience. The question is not whether the rule of conscience is pervasive, but whether it too is under further authority. We answer to God, in the end —not to conscience.

 

[Mark Quayle]

And what difference does all that make if, in the final analysis, the rule of conscience dictates my behavior? Again, you can call God the "final authority" - or apply that designation to the law if you prefer - and you can sing this song until the cows come home, but it doesn't make a hill of beans difference if ultimately the rule of conscience defines proper behavior from moment to moment. That's why I keep telling you it's just a useless word game to debate "final authority."


So? What has that got to do with ANYTHING? You're splitting theological hairs or, as I said before, playing word games. God will evaluate your behavior based on your fidelity to the rule of conscience. (I'm not referring to your eligibility for salvation, which is by the cross).


False dichotomy. The only plausible theory of justice hinges on the rule of conscience.

Whether conscience ends up dictating your behavior or not is irrelevant. The question is to what do you have to answer in the final analysis —your conscience, or God? EVEN IF it is considered by God to be good enough to obey your conscience, and to not mistreat it, you still answer to God in the end.

False dichotomy. The only plausible theory of justice hinges on the rule of conscience.

Not at all. The only plausible theory of justice is that by which God judges —himself, his perfection. THIS is why living according to conscience will not save anyone.

 

[JAL]

And it does not matter whether we are able or not to show how something deviates from your rule of conscience. The question is not whether the rule of conscience is pervasive, but whether it too is under further authority. We answer to God, in the end —not to conscience.

Splitting theological hairs. Meanwhile misleading Christians. Your words purport to defend God's authority but actually undermine it in the life of Christians! When I got saved, I was taught that neither conscience nor voices were a final authority - only Sola Scriptura. Don't seek the Voice, they told me. Voices can't be trusted! Take a look at the following passage and tell me where it says, "Don't trust voices, just trust Sola Scriptura":


12“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.” (John 16).

The rule of conscience alerts the Christian that the Voice CAN be safely pursued and trusted - not because voices per se are trustworthy, but because the rule of conscience is trustworthy. Meaning, if I feel certain about a voice, God must reward my obedience to it since He is fair and just.

Christians have been misled about this for 2,000 years. You want to keep fighting me on this? You want to keep splitting theological hairs to "prove" that I'm all wrong about the rule of conscience? Fine. You can answer to Christ someday. You can explain to Him why you are fighting so hard to perpetuate a traditional perspective that has misled Christians for two millennia.

 

[Clare73]

And having consulted it, you go with the option you feel most certain about. That's the rule of conscience.

Actually I go with what I think. . .I don't have an emotional reaction to data.

 

[Clare73]

@Clare73,

I've literally BEGGED everyone dozens of times to tell me YOUR set of rules. Paint me one scenario where you'd see fit to depart from the rule of conscience, one scenario where a person should try to be evil. And still - nothing.

Keeping in mind this self-authored "rule of conscience" is your construct.
Don't see it authorized anywhere, and until I do, there is no reason for me to address it.

 

[Clare73]

@Mark Quayle: Also interested to hear your thoughts on this too.

And what if you make mistakes in your reading comprehension? Especially if you're a mentally handicapped person, or someone without a strong education (including children and teenagers) , or an Alzheimer's patient? Should God regard your behavior as disobedience?

If love doesn't answer those questions for you, than all other answers are useless.

 

[JAL]

Actually I go with what I think. . .I don't have an emotional reaction to data.

Strawman caricature of my position. Feeling certain isn't some random emotion.

If you say, "I have saving faith. I believe the gospel" - it means you feel certain about it. And that's why you are committed to the gospel.

Nothing in Christianity makes sense without the rule of conscience.

 

[JAL]

If love doesn't answer those questions for you, than all other answers are useless.

Deflection. As expected.

 

[JAL]

Keeping in mind this self-made "rule of conscience" is your idea.
Don't see it authorized anywhere, and until I do, there is no reason for me to address such.

Except you live by it from moment to moment. If not, you'd cite at least one counter-example.

 

[JAL]

Keeping in mind this self-made "rule of conscience" is your idea.

It's my idea that we should try to be good rather than evil? I'm the originator of that recommendation?

In that case, you should be celebrating me! Effectively, it means I've contributed as much to Christianity as the Bible itself!

You sure give me a LOT of credit. Thanks. I'll take it.

 

[Clare73]

Strawman caricature of my position. Feeling certain isn't some random emotion.

If you say, "I have saving faith. I believe the gospel" - it means you feel certain about it. And that's why you are committed to the gospel.

Nothing in Christianity makes sense without the rule of conscience.

Certainty for me is surety of mind, not of emotion.