How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[JAL]

A moment ago you accused me of strawmen statements.

Faith? Yes. Blind faith? No. Unlike the Muslim I'm not basing it off of a chain of transmission but the conviction of the Holy Spirit who resides in me.

Now suddenly you're backpedaling, parroting my whole argument about the Inward Witness of the Spirit convincing/convicting us.

 

[Fervent]

A moment ago you accused me of strawmen statements.

Now suddenly you're backpedaling, parroting my whole argument about the Inward Witness of the Spirit convincing/convicting us.

I'm not repeating your argument, my very first response was about the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[JAL]

I'm not repeating your argument, my very first response was about the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The point is that Sola Scriptura is a contradiction in terms. There has to be an authority/basis for accepting the Bible, and the most plausible candidate for it is the Inward Witness as our authority - the voice of Christ. That voice was authoritative to Adam and Eve in the Garden, to the prophets thereafter, and to all the OT and NT saints (John 10:27).

The "Sola" in Sola Scriptura is therefore a complete lie. The Bible is NOT the only authority.

 

[Fervent]

The point is that Sola Scriptura is a contradiction in terms. There has to be an authority/basis for accepting the Bible, and the most plausible candidate for it is the Inward Witness as our authority - the voice of Christ. That voice was authoritative to Adam and Eve in the Garden, to the prophets thereafter, and to all the OT and NT saints (John 10:27).

The "Sola" in Sola Scriptura is therefore a complete lie. The Bible is NOT the only authority.

The authority of the Holy Spirit is not contrary to sola scriptura, it is only if you miss understand sola scriptura to be some kind of bibliolatry that your objection makes any sense.

 

[JAL]

The authority of the Holy Spirit is not contrary to sola scriptura..

Yes it is.

Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the only final authority. When Adam and Eve heard the voice, did they need to "check it out with Scripture" ?

No - the voice of the Holy Spirit is a final authority in itself.


We've been over this already, a moment of ago. There must be some authority/basis outside of Scripture that convinces you to accept the Bible. It wouldn't make sense to say, "I accept the Bible on the authority of the Bible."

Or, "I accept the Koran on the authority of the Koran."

 

[Fervent]

Yes it is.

Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the only final authority. When Adam and Eve heard the voice, did they need to "check it out with Scripture" ?

No - the voice of the Holy Spirit is a final authority in itself.


We've been over this already, a moment of ago. There must be some authority/basis outside of Scripture that convinces you to accept the Bible. It wouldn't make sense to say, "I accept the Bible on the authority of the Bible."

Or, "I accept the Koran on the authority of the Koran."

No, sola scriptura is the affirmation that the Bible is God's word, and serves as a practical judge of all things doctrinal and spiritual. The Holy Spirit will not contradict Himself, so we can trust it to test whether the spirits are from God or lying spirits. The Holy Spirit testifies to the authority of the Scripture, as does history in Apostolic succession. So sola scriptura does not deny the authority of the Holy Spirit, but recognizes how to discover what that witness is.

 

[JAL]

No, sola scriptura is the affirmation that the Bible is God's word, and serves as a practical judge of all things doctrinal and spiritual. The Holy Spirit will not contradict Himself, so we can trust it to test whether the spirits are from God or lying spirits. The Holy Spirit testifies to the authority of the Scripture, as does history in Apostolic succession. So sola scriptura does not deny the authority of the Holy Spirit, but recognizes how to discover what that witness is.

Then you're alone in your understanding of Sola Scriptura.

I don't know of ANY Sola Scriptura proponent who recognizes the voice of the Holy Spirit as an authority in itself. For example, if you were to tell your pastor, "I heard a voice telling me that some of your doctrines are wrong," his ONLY question to you would be, "Did you check it out with Scripture? Because you can't rely on voices."

 

[Fervent]

Then you're alone in your understanding of Sola Scriptura.

I don't know of ANY Sola Scriptura proponent who recognizes the voice of the Holy Spirit as an authority in itself. For example, if you were to tell your pastor, "I heard a voice telling me that some of your doctrines are wrong," his ONLY question to you would be, "Did you check it out with Scripture? Because you can't rely on voices."

Of course he would, because not every spirit is from God. Just because a spirit is testifying, does not mean it is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit has given us Scripture as our judge, but that does not mean that accepting the authority of Scripture entails denying the authority of the Holy Spirit. Just the opposite, actually.

 

[JAL]

Of course he would, because not every spirit is from God. Just because a spirit is testifying, does not mean it is the Holy Spirit.

Round and round we go in circles. You're now back to the claim that the Bible is the only final authority.

In your view, then, Adam and Eve SHOULD have rejected the voice of Christ. They should have said, "Until I check it out with Scripture, I can't be sure whether this spirit speaking to me is from God. It might be a deceiver."

Your epistemology does not work. It reduces to a problematic dilemma such as, "I cannot accept the Inward Witness because the spirit speaking to me might not be the real Inward Witness. It might be the voice of a deceptive spirit."

Of course he would, because not every spirit is from God. Just because a spirit is testifying, does not mean it is the Holy Spirit.

You still don't get it. He's asking the wrong question.

 

[Fervent]

Round and round we go in circles. You're now back to the claim that the Bible is the only final authority.

I never left it.

In your view, then, Adam and Eve SHOULD have rejected the voice of Christ. They should have said, "Until I check it out with Scripture, I can't be sure whether this spirit speaking to me is from God. It might be a deceiver."

Adam walked with God, not simply a disembodied voice. Scripture is the historical record of what the Holy Spirit has revealed to the faithful, we can trust the Bible because it is the witness of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit continues to affirrm it.

Your epistemology does not work. It reduces to a problematic dilemma such as, "I cannot accept the Inward Witness because the spirit speaking to me might not be the real Inward Witness. It might be the voice of a deceptive spirit."

Ultimately, no epistemology has been shown to escape Munchaussen's trilemma so I see no reason to be concerned.

You still don't get it. He's asking the wrong question.

And what is the right question?

 

[JAL]

I never left it.

Then you're back to the position that you have no authority on which to accept the Bible

You're just contradicting yourself.

Adam walked with God, not simply a disembodied voice.

This makes no sense. On what authority could he conclude that it was not a lying vision from an evil spirit? You yourself said that spirits cannot be trusted, hence the pastor was right that our only option is to "check it out with Scripture."

Scripture is the historical record of what the Holy Spirit has revealed to the faithful, we can trust the Bible because it is the witness of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit continues to affirrm it.

Are we now back to the voice of the Holy Spirit as authoritative Inward Witness?

What happened to the Bible as the only authority?

You're going around in circles, self-contradictory ones.

Ultimately, no epistemology has been shown to escape Munchaussen's trilemma so I see no reason to be concerned.

You should be concerned since you hold to a Sola Scriptura epistemology that already contradicts the experience of Adam and Even in the garden, not to mention the experience of all OT and NT saints, and contradicts the thesis of John 10:27 - namely that we CAN and SHOULD trust the voice of Christ, regardless of whether Scripture exists or is understood.

And what is the right question?

Here it is - wait for it:

To what extent did the voice or vision convict/convince you? What level of certainty did it bring you to? 100%? If not 100%, did it at least raise you to a degree of a certainty such that you cannot question it in good conscience? If so, you are morally OBLIGATED to accept it as truth.

This is how the voice (the Inward Witness) has always functioned, for Adam and Eve, for all the prophets, for all saints in both testaments. This is the only dynamic that makes sense.

It is on THAT authority - that voice - that I accept the Bible. Meaning, I accept the Bible because the Inward Witness has apparently left me too convicted/convinced about the Bible to repudiate it in good conscience.

 

[Fervent]

Then you're back to the position that you have no authority on which to accept the Bible

You're just contradicting yourself.

This makes no sense. On what authority could he conclude that it was not a lying vision from an evil spirit? You yourself said that spirits cannot be trusted, hence the pastor was right that our only option is to "check it out with Scripture."



Are we now back to the voice of the Holy Spirit as authoritative Inward Witness?

What happened to the Bible as the only authority?

Final authority, because it is God's very word.

You're going around in circles, self-contradictory ones.

No, you're just working with a false definition of sola scriptura.

You should be concerned since you hold to a Sola Scriptura epistemology that already contradicts the experience of Adam and Even in the garden, not to mention the experience of all OT and NT saints, and contradicts the thesis of John 10:27 - namely that we CAN and SHOULD trust the voice of Christ, regardless of whether Scripture exists or is understood.

Do you think Christ will contradict Himself?

Here it is - wait for it:

To what extent did the voice or vision convict/convince you? What level of certainty did it bring you to? 100%? If not 100%, did it at least raise you to a degree of a certainty such that you cannot question it in good conscience? If so, you are morally OBLIGATED to accept it as truth.

This is how the voice (the Inward Witness) has always functioned, for Adam and Eve, for all the prophets, for all saints in both testaments. This is the only dynamic that make sense.

It is on THAT authority - that voice - that I accept the Bible. Meaning, I accept the Bible because the Inward Witness has apparently left me too convicted/convinced about the Bible to repudiate it in good conscience.

Essentially what you're saying is we should trust our own judgment above everything else.

 

[JAL]

Final authority, because it is God's very word.

No, you're just working with a false definition of sola scriptura.

Do you think Christ will contradict Himself?

You seem to be rambling now. You'd prefer to loop around in circles than have the humility to admit that some things I write might actually be pretty reasonable.

Essentially what you're saying is we should trust our own judgment above everything else.

Um...er...even if you trust in something else, it's kinda your judgment to do so, right? How does one escape his own judgment? I don't think that's possible.

The epistemology I gave you pivots on certainty. If you are certain of something, the rational thing to do is to operate on that certainty. It's not rational to say, "I believe proposition X. Therefore I will do the opposite of what X entails."

 

[JAL]

Final authority, because it is God's very word.

What was that you said about strawmen? I don't think I debated with you as to whether the Bible is a final authority. I was debating Sola Scriptura - the claim that the Bible is the ONLY final authority.

 

[Fervent]

You seem to be rambling now. You'd prefer to loop around in circles than have the humility to admit that some things I write might actually be pretty reasonable.

When you hit on one, I'll admit it.

Um...er...even if you trust in something else, it's kinda your judgment to do so, right? How does one escape his own judgment? I don't think that's possible.

Ok, this is a fair point. But it misses what I mean.

The epistemology I gave you pivots on certainty. If you are certain of something, the rational thing to do is to operate on that certainty. It's not rational to say, "I believe proposition X. Therefore I will do the opposite of what X entails."

The "epistemology" reduces to trusting one's own intuition without anything approaching objective to weigh it against. It's essentially solipsistic. Which is what I meant by trusting your own judgment.

 

[JAL]

The "epistemology" reduces to trusting one's own intuition without anything approaching objective to weigh it against. It's essentially solipsistic. Which is what I meant by trusting your own judgment.

It's hardly solipsism. It really boils down to an inescapable principle that I call the "rule of conscience":

If I feel certain that Action-A is evil, and Action-B is good, I should opt for B

The Voice always capitalizes on this principle. The Spirit convicts/convicts you of something, causing you to feel certain about it. This imposes upon you a moral obligation to accept the message as valid because, if the degree of certainty is high enough, you won't be able to repudiate the message in good conscience.

There are no exceptions to this rule. Assuming you are trying to live righteously, you LIVE by this rule, even if you hadn't realized it. Ultimately, this rule is our only final authority in life. (Which is a further rebuttal of Sola Scritpura).

The "epistemology" reduces to trusting one's own intuition without anything approaching objective to weigh it against. It's essentially solipsistic. Which is what I meant by trusting your own judgment.

You're missing the point. Moral obligation trumps objective truth. Let me give you example. Suppose a man knows himself to be delusional. He often sees people whom, he later finds out, never really existed. One day, while driving his car, he sees two people blocking the road ahead of him. From past experience, he's pretty sure it's a delusion - it's not likely objective truth. Should he run them over?

It all comes down to the rule of conscience. How certain does he feel it's a delusion? If he lacks sufficient certainty to run them over - if he can't do it in good conscience - then he should bring his vehicle to a stop.

 

[Fervent]

It's hardly solipsism. It really boils down to an inescapable principle that I call the "rule of conscience":

If I feel certain that Action-A is evil, and Action-B is good, I should opt for B

The Voice always capitalizes on this principle. The Spirit convicts/convicts you of something, causing you to feel certain about it. This imposes upon you a moral obligation to accept the message as valid because, if the degree of certainty is high enough, you won't be able to repudiate the message in good conscience.

There are no exceptions to this rule. Assuming you are trying to live righteously, you LIVE by this rule, even if you hadn't realized it. Ultimately, this rule is our only final authority in life. (Which is a further rebuttal of Sola Scritpura).

All I can say is "Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings"

You're missing the point. Moral obligation trumps objective truth. Let me give you example. Suppose a man knows himself to be delusional. He often sees people whom, he later finds out, never really existed. One day, while driving his car, he sees two people blocking the road ahead of him. From past experience, he's pretty sure it's a delusion - it's not likely objective truth. Should he run them over?

If he experiences such hallucinations he probably shouldn't be driving a car, s your question is pretty moot.

It all comes down to the rule of conscience. How certain does he feel it's a delusion? If he lacks sufficient certainty to run them over - if he can't do it in good conscience - then he should bring his vehicle to a stop.

And on what authority is the "rule of conscience" based?

 

[JAL]

All I can say is "Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings"

What's that supposed to mean?

If he experiences such hallucinations he probably shouldn't be driving a car, s your question is pretty moot.

Deflection.

And on what authority is the "rule of conscience" based?

Logical inescapability. To violate the rule of conscience means to say, "I feel certain that action-A is evil, but I insist on doing it anyway."

When is it appropriate to try to be evil? Oh that's right - never.

Of course everything I write is my opinion, so you're free to disagree with me. The question is whether you can reject the rule of conscience without falling into intellectual dishonesty. I don't think that's possible.

 

[Fervent]

What's that supposed to mean?

Do not be led away be diverse and strange teachings.

Deflection.


Logical inescapability. To violate the rule of conscience means to say, "I feel certain that action-A is evil, but I insist on doing it anyway."

When is it appropriate to try to be evil? Oh that's right - never.

Of course everything I write is my opinion, so you're free to disagree with me. The question is whether you can reject the rule of conscience without falling into intellectual dishonesty. I don't think that's possible.

Evil isn't evil because we feel it is evil. Are you saying that if Hitler felt very strongly it would be evil for him not to oversee the holocaust, that his actions weren't evil?

 

[JAL]

Do not be led away be diverse and strange teachings.

Evil isn't evil because we feel it is evil.

A person faithful to the rule of conscience - he always does what he feels is good/right, to the best of his knowledge and ability - is a righteous person. There is no other possible definition.

An unrighteous person, therefore, is someone unfaithful to the rule of conscience.

Are you saying that if Hitler felt very strongly it would be evil for him not to oversee the holocaust, that his actions weren't evil?

See above.