How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, my God who allows libertarian freedom isn't the entirely-sovereign control-freak of Calvinism. I thought we were discussing the rule of conscience?

No, we weren't. We were discussing the supremacy of conscience.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

I've only been telling you from the beginning of our interactions, that you depend on mere CHANCE instead of on God's providence, for causation. "Good luck with that!"

But here's another riddle from the book of Isaiah, for one who thinks one need not live up to more than just the conscience:


"The understanding of this message will bring sheer terror. The bed is too short to stretch out on, the blanket too narrow to wrap around you."

 

[JAL]

I've only been telling you from the beginning of our interactions, that you depend on mere CHANCE instead of on God's providence, for causation. "Good luck with that!"

Oh. This is your special pleading, double-standard again. Already addressed.

But here's another riddle from the book of Isaiah, for one who thinks one need not live up to more than just the conscience:

"The understanding of this message will bring sheer terror. The bed is too short to stretch out on, the blanket too narrow to wrap around you."

I don't think that verse is a commentary on the rule of conscience.

 

[John Mullally]

I've only been telling you from the beginning of our interactions, that you depend on mere CHANCE instead of on God's providence, for causation. "Good luck with that!"

You told us from philosophical argurment that refusal to accept fatalism/determinism causes God to depend on chance. I don't folllow man's philosophy. Fatalism/determinism is cancelled in 1 Timothy 2:4 as it shows that God desires all be saved, but multiple scriptures say that is not the case - therefore, God in His sovereignty has left much to men (as although He desires all men to be saved, it is not totally up to Him) - which is supported in John 3:16-18. Given that Christ has paid the ransom for our salvation (1 Timothy 2:6), Jesus in Mark 16:16 indicates our part in receiving that redemption relies on us believing the Gospel. Mark 16:16 is meaningless and pure Catch-22, if a trickster God controls man's every thought as Calvin states. Thus I believe in free will!

I don't think that verse is a commentary on the rule of conscience.

I agree with JAL (who is no Calvinist) that conscience is very important - which does not seem to be seriously addressed by his Calvinist opponents on this thread. But then again, where does the importance of the role of conscience land the Calvinist who trumpets that God predestines many to eternal torment from before birth to give himself glory?

“…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)​

​

Doesn't conscience rely on believing that God is good? In scripture, doesn't Jesus command his disciples to follow the example of God's love to all men and to love their enemies?

 

[JAL]

@Mark Quayle,

The rule of conscience simply enjoins us to do good rather than evil. Since no one has offered a plausible rebuttal to this thesis, I'd like to move away from that topic and come back to the election passages. If you recall, I don't read the election verses like Arminians do. (Note: my system is flexible enough to allow for an Arminian variation).

Calvinism isn't fully proven because it casts aspersions on God. Neither can I prove my position, but at least it doesn't villainize God.

To be more precise: I think my proofs that souls are physical are plausible enough. It's merely my stance on the election passages that I cannot really claim to prove.

To recap my theory: Before the foundation of the world, God pre-elected/foreknew/predestined many pieces of Adam's soul unto salvation in case he should fall. Everyone has at least one elect piece, hence anyone can be saved via intercessory prayer. If a person dies unsaved and thus goes to hell, God simply removes his elect piece unto the next generation. Eventually all elect pieces will be saved by divine monergism.

Admittedly every system, including mine, faces some problem passages. Although I have never bothered to examine the election passages in any depth, I'd be surprised if any of them poses a serious problem for me. But that could be my own ignorance speaking. Feel free to call to my attention any such passage.

 

[JAL]

@John Mullally,

The way you wrote your post 2544, it makes me look like a Calvinist. As you know by now, I am vehemently opposed to Calvinism.

Can you clarify why you wrote it like that? Or maybe edit it?

 

[John Mullally]

@John Mullally,

The way you wrote your post 2544, it makes me look like a Calvinist. As you know by now, I am vehemently opposed to Calvinism.

Can you clarify why you wrote it like that? Or maybe edit it?

Thanks for telling me, I editted it.

 

[zoidar]

I'm not sure why you posted this. Do you think Calvinism differs from —i.e. opposes this?

With all the 'huff and puff" in this thread (which I am part of too) I wanted us to not lose sight of what is truly important. If it differs from Calvinism? Actually I wasn't sure and wanted to know. You say it doesn't and that is great. Carry on! God bless!

 

[Mark Quayle]

You told us from philosophical argurment that refusal to accept fatalism/determinism causes God to depend on chance. I don't folllow man's philosophy. Fatalism/determinism is cancelled in 1 Timothy 2:4 as it shows that God desires all be saved, but multiple scriptures say that is not the case - therefore, God in His sovereignty has left much to men (as although He desires all men to be saved, it is not totally up to Him) - which is supported in John 3:16-18. Given that Christ has paid the ransom for our salvation (1 Timothy 2:6), Jesus in Mark 16:16 indicates our part in receiving that redemption relies on us believing the Gospel. Mark 16:16 is meaningless and pure Catch-22, if a trickster God controls man's every thought as Calvin states. Thus I believe in free will!

I agree with JAL (who is no Calvinist) that conscience is very important - which does not seem to be seriously addressed by his Calvinist opponents on this thread. But then again, where does the importance of the role of conscience land the Calvinist who trumpets that God predestines many to eternal torment from before birth to give himself glory?

“…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)Doesn't conscience rely on believing that God is good? In scripture, doesn't Jesus command his disciples to follow the example of God's love to all men and to love their enemies? Not surprising that Calvin missed the boat on God's love as he condemned renouned scientist Servetus to death for opposing infant baptism! Infant baptism is not supported in scripture - as scripture only instructs baptizing new disciples! Per Jesus, by their fruits you shall know them (Matthew 7:15-20)! Calvin and his ilk are responsible for persecuting thousands of anti-baptists to death for rightfully dividing the word of God!

We did not spend time countering nor affirming what he says arguing for his "rule of conscience" because that was not the point of the argument. If you think we don't believe in the importance of conscience you need to spend time with one of us. Whole chapters and maybe even books are written on the importance of not fooling oneself, not going against one's conscience, even not sinning against one's conscience.

But I think we're pretty much done playing in and on the edge of JAL's weeds.

Conscience perhaps subconsciously relies on believing that God is good, for those who hate him, those who disbelieve him. Beyond that even some may believe he exists, in perhaps some deistic manner, but is irrelevant nowadays, who may believe in an ultimate goodness and believe in striving toward that, but whose conscience is not protected nor informed by God. For the believer, I'm not even sure what you mean by 'relies' there. The believer relies on at least the fact that God is good. His conscience is only part of that.

Modern Calvinists remain aggressive and continue their general war against other believers who do not accept their theology: As the "American Gospel" flick published by many prominent Calvinists about 5 years ago on Netflix slings heresy accusations at WOF (which I can defend if you have questions), and "John MacArthur's Strange Fire conference" that accuses Charismatics who speak in tongue of blaspheming the Holy Spirit - which is just nuts.

Many don't, unless you mean spiritual warfare, which is pretty obviously what you think you are doing in your attacks on Calvinism.

Beleivers should treasure what scripture clearly states: God is love (John 16:8) and thus men can get to know God from 1 Corithians 13 as it describes love, God desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), Christ gave himself a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:6), and God has not traded places with satan (2 Corinthians 4:4). Given that God desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) and yet not all are (multiple scritputes0 - God is not the sole determinent on who is saved.

And you continue to swing the same old misuse of scripture as if it was a war hammer. You have been reminded repeatedly that these do not teach what you mistake them to teach, but you somehow think you can kill your enemy by blunt force trauma with your imagination. You never answer the arguments rationally and systematically showing the exegesis as to why our use of them is wrong, except (at best) to appeal to what you think is "the plain reading", which method you immediately abandon when Scripture is brought to bear, the plain reading of which opposes your 'free will' notions.

I know of a few otherwise Calvinistic people who claim to not understand how passages like 1 Timothy 2 can say what they say, and end up calling it a mystery. My own mother says that on this side of the Gates of Heaven the headboard reads "Whosoever will" and on the other side it says, "Elect from the foundation of the world". Her, I call Arminian, but you won't even go as far into obvious and logical truth as she did. All truth is God's truth, both the big picture and the particulars within it. By definition, God's creation includes every particular. God does not deal in speculation nor chance.

You continue to misrepresent Calvinism and what I believe and say: 1. I do not say that God is the sole determiner —after all, I do say that man also chooses exactly the things God determined he would choose. I honestly do not get how you and JAL and others attribute to man this life of ability and existence apart from God. It is to deny the meaning of the term, 'God created'. 2. Calvin condemned nobody to death. You, like apparently pretty much everything you believe that is contrary to Calvinism, such as your use of Scriptures, jump onto whatever conclusion or bandwagon you can in your antagonism. 3. John McArthur, and many others of note, say and believe many things I don't, and do not represent me, nor indeed are they quite representative of Calvinism in general. There is plenty of disagreement between them. There's no use in going there, if you wish to prove me wrong. 4. I've never read Calvin, but I doubt very much "Calvin states" that God is a "trickster". 5. You do not say it in this post, and maybe I'm thinking of the wrong person, but I think you have repeatedly claimed that Calvinists/ Reformed believe what they do because they were brought up to believe it. You are wrong about many of us, and it gets old hearing that same mantra. It certainly does not apply to me. I have said many many times now, that I was brought up semi-Arminian, full fundamentalist, almost Wesleyan (i.e. I was not taught a 'second work of grace' doctrine), and was as much a believer in free-will as you are, as it had always seemed obvious. I didn't even know what Calvinism was except by caricature.

At least 2 things are evident in your posts: 1. You don't listen, you just keep on reciting your mantra, in your antagonism for what you seem to think will eventually fall before your repetition. 2. You typically, in matters of will and choice and ability, attribute to man what belongs only to God. In fact, I would go so far as to say that that is your worldview. 3. I add this to your credit: At least so far you do not blatantly, as JAL does, but only by implication of your arguments, claim that God is not quite omnipotent.

 

[Mark Quayle]

zoidar said:
I love Jesus, because he died for me on the cross and he forgave my sins. Who can understand such a love? I'm certain that whoever turns to him will be forgiven, because he was punished for their sins too! I want to share this with the world: "Turn to Jesus and you too will be forgiven!".

With all the 'huff and puff" in this thread (which I am part of too) I wanted us to not lose sight of what is truly important. If it differs from Calvinism? Actually I wasn't sure and wanted to know. You say it doesn't and that is great. Carry on! God bless!

zoidar said:

Calvinism doesn't oppose anything you said there.

If you read much Calvinist/Reformed writings, you may find a LOT that emphasizes God's tenderness and love. It is, as far as I know, only in fighting back against misrepresentation and in fighting what they perceive as false teachings that they become antagonistic; otherwise I don't see that as their typical method. You may find me on other threads not specifically related to these debates, repeatedly quoting such passages as, "A bruised reed he will not break; a smoldering wick he will not snuff out.", and, "Come unto me, ye who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.", and, "Blessed are they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.", and:

"I know that my redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!"

 

[JAL]

At least so far you do not blatantly, as JAL does, but only by implication of your arguments, claim that God is not quite omnipotent.

Any person including God should pride himself, not in his nature, but in his (freely willed) good behavior. His character. A theologian is faced with a rather disturbing choice, when attempting to construct a proper definition of Yahweh. Either
....(A) Magnify His nature all the way to infinity, including infinite power and sovereignty, as you do. OR
....(B) Magnify His character, to the absolute maximum. This is my position.

You cannot have both A and B, if you're being intellectually honest. You're already intellectually dishonest when, for example, you deny that the Calvinistic God is a deterministic puppet-master. Given this deceptive posture, I'm not even sure why I'm still conversing with you.

As for divine character, Calvinism, in particular, throws it out the window. But even the alternative mainstream views cannot maximize character the way my system does.

Every Doctrine of God has its pros and cons. In one sense, choice A is comforting because it offers immediate reassurance of divine competence. But since it does this in partial disparagement of His character, how comforting is that really - if we are being intellectually honest ???? And that's the whole problem on these forums: I'm often debating with people who are somewhat in denial, as seems to be the case here.

 

[JAL]

No, we weren't. We were discussing the supremacy of conscience.

YOU made it about supremacy, in your desperate need for a strawman argument. For me, the rule of conscience was about moral imperatives. Insisting that God, and His laws, are superior to conscience, as you did, is true but doesn't make a hill of beans difference when my conscience is invincibly impelling me toward a particular course of action.

I regard this strawman argument as intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Any person including God should pride himself, not in his nature, but in his (freely willed) good behavior. His character. A theologian is faced with a rather disturbing choice, when attempting to construct a proper definition of Yahweh. Either
....(A) Magnify His nature all the way to infinity, including infinite power and sovereignty, as you do. OR
....(B) Magnify His character, to the absolute maximum. This is my position.

You cannot have both A and B, if you're being intellectually honest. You're already intellectually dishonest when, for example, you deny that the Calvinistic God is a deterministic puppet-master. Given this deceptive posture, I'm not even sure why I'm still conversing with you.

As for divine character, Calvinism, in particular, throws it out the window. But even the alternative mainstream views cannot maximize character the way my system does.

Every Doctrine of God has its pros and cons. In one sense, choice A is comforting because it offers immediate reassurance of divine competence. But since it does this in partial disparagement of His character, how comforting is that really - if we are being intellectually honest ???? And that's the whole problem on these forums: I'm often debating with people who are somewhat in denial, as seems to be the case here.

God's character and nature are one and the same.

If only B applies, you have removed A and so you have harmed B. You have thrown out reason and scripture with this, considering your earlier claims that what you here describe in A is impossible. Again: Our assessment of the term "infinity" is irrelevant. It is only a human crutch, and at best depends on God himself for its definition, not on our poor comprehension and use of logic and math. It certainly does not depend on YOU for its use, as though human language and thought can sound the depths of infinity. Really??? I mean, being "intellectually honest????"

Calvinism's God is, as opposed to your god, absolutely pure, just and holy, and owns his creation, and as such, your god doesn't even approach Calvinism's God in mercy and love. God has no obligation to creatures but as according to his Word, (and even THAT is a language concession to mere humans, as even his Word is his whole method and reason for creating in the first place)!

You, like Arminians, build your thesis on B, as though we humans have any significant capacity to understand God's love —in fact, you even insist that we can understand it apart from his indwelling Spirit! We assess A as contrary to B, like gibbering idiots. We can't even put proper words to A nor to B, but you think you can add to, and subtract from, what God says, in order to glorify him???

 

[John Mullally]

You continue to misrepresent Calvinism and what I believe and say: 1. I do not say that God is the sole determiner —after all, I do say that man also chooses exactly the things God determined he would choose. I honestly do not get how you and JAL and others attribute to man this life of ability and existence apart from God. It is to deny the meaning of the term,

Calvin writes “All events are governed by God’s secret plan.”. That being the case, God is indeed the sole determiner of every man's action as men can do none other than what God decreed before hand. You cannot say God determines every man's acction and then attribute any real choice to man in the matter. It is not misrepresenting Calvinism to point out the frequent double-speak Calvinist's use to defend their doctrine.

Your last sentence basically says you cannot envision how God could allow men to make true "free will" decisions. I don't know what you mean by "it is to deny the meaning of the term". You frequently make vague arguments over terms, be specifiic, quote Websters, so we know your not making things up, and then make your argument.

References to my not doing Exegesis are cryptic - be specific.

 

[JAL]

God's character and nature are one and the same.

If only B applies, you have removed A and so you have harmed B. You have thrown out reason and scripture with this, considering your earlier claims that what you here describe in A is impossible. Again: Our assessment of the term "infinity" is irrelevant. It is only a human crutch, and at best depends on God himself for its definition, not on our poor comprehension and use of logic and math. It certainly does not depend on YOU for its use, as though human language and thought can sound the depths of infinity. Really??? I mean, being "intellectually honest????"

Calvinism's God is, as opposed to your god, absolutely pure, just and holy, and owns his creation, and as such, your god doesn't even approach Calvinism's God in mercy and love. God has no obligation to creatures but as according to his Word, (and even THAT is a language concession to mere humans, as even his Word is his whole method and reason for creating in the first place)!

You, like Arminians, build your thesis on B, as though we humans have any significant capacity to understand God's love —in fact, you even insist that we can understand it apart from his indwelling Spirit! We assess A as contrary to B, like gibbering idiots. We can't even put proper words to A nor to B, but you think you can add to, and subtract from, what God says, in order to glorify him???

In pretense of sounding profound, you weave together a slew of unintelligible philosophical claims whose dots no one could possibly connect. For example you insist that we "mere humans" can't possibly comprehend God - but yet insist that essentially all tenets of Calvinism are indubitably true !!! How would you know them to be true, if we "mere humans" can't comprehend Him? Such posts are completely irrational. I think I'm finished with this conversation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Calvin writes “All events are governed by God’s secret plan.”. That being the case, God is indeed the sole determiner of every man's action as men can do none other than what God decreed before hand. You cannot say God determines everything man chooses and then attribute to any real choice to man in the matter. It is not misrepresenting Calvinism to point out their absurd posiitions - like your common double-speak.

Your last sentence basically says you cannot envision how God could allow men to make true "free will" decisions. I don't know what you mean by "it is to deny the meaning of the term".

Only so by your logic. Not by man's limited logic concerning God's POV, and certainly not by Scripture.

You necessarily rule out even what theologians have called compatability, which is simple enough to understand, but what is worse, you reject Scripture which repeatedly demonstrates that man does choose, and that God does determine, and that both are in extreme different realms of activity, the one (man's) 'within' and subservient to the other (God's).

Contrary to Scripture and to reason, you continuously exalt man's realm, (or debase God's —take your pick), as though man is actually anything (in and of himself) but dead, apart from God. You would have us operating on God's level, as though we have anything to add to Grace!

 

[JAL]

If only B applies, you have removed A and so you have harmed B.

Typical strawman. What do you mean by remove? Remove His nature? Completely unintelligible claim. If He exists, He's got to have some kind of nature, right?

How can I converse with someone who only speaks unintelligible strawmen, trying to sound intellectually superior and profound?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Calvin writes “All events are governed by God’s secret plan.”. That being the case, God is indeed the sole determiner of every man's action as men can do none other than what God decreed before hand. You cannot say God determines every man's acction and then attribute any real choice to man in the matter. It is not misrepresenting Calvinism to point out the frequent double-speak Calvinist's use to defend their doctrine.

Your last sentence basically says you cannot envision how God could allow men to make true "free will" decisions. I don't know what you mean by "it is to deny the meaning of the term".

By 'true "free will" actions, I mean free will on the level that God has free will. Uncaused free will, will of the creature independent of causation, and in particular, in your case, in some sort of declaration of independence for God, with the paint on it that it is for God's sake, as if we can do him a favor!!!

What I wrote was, "It is to deny the meaning of term, 'God created'." It is pretty simple; what God created was from him, but is not him, yet without him it does not exist. To claim, then, that anything we can do is in and of ourselves, is not only logically self-contradictory, but it denies the meaning of the term, 'God created'.

 

[JAL]

You necessarily rule out even what theologians have called compatability, which is simple enough to understand.

From Wikipedia:
"Compatibilists hold that free will is compatible with determinism. Some compatibilists even hold that determinism is necessary for free will,"

Yes, both @John Mullally and I have voted against determinism. Why do you have to try make it look like we're too stupid to understand what determinism means? (Sigh) We are WELL AWARE that some determinists like to classify their position as a kind of "free will". But that's irrelevant because, obviously, both @John Mullally and I are defending libertarian freedom.

Here again, another strawman.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Typical strawman. What do you mean by remove? Remove His nature? Completely unintelligible claim. If He exists, He's got to have some kind of nature, right?

How can I converse with someone who only speaks unintelligible strawmen, trying to sound intellectually superior and profound?

As you insist that I spell it out for you, I will try. In conversation it is common that one speaks rhetorically to shorten the narrative. I considered you of sufficient intelligence and intellectual honesty to deal with what I said as I meant it. My mistake.

I don't think I said, "remove His nature". I think I said, "remove A". I meant that in your mental gymnastics, if you deny anything about his nature in order to define his character, you have erred, and even denied things concerning his character, adding a little here, subtracting a little there.

Be as antagonistic as you please, or even condescending, it seems rather plain that your use of what I wrote is the strawman here. I see no point in continuing with you, as I run the risk of wasting time and effort untangling your weeds.

Continue as you will, though it is hard for me to not respond to misrepresentations of the truth, I leave you to your somewhat-less-than-omnipotent god.