How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Not to you anyhow, since you depend on man's words and concepts for fact, instead of realizing your limits, and accepting that there is always more to be known toward a conclusion. In other words, you draw your conclusions too early.
Deflection. Same issue here.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Already been addressed, your questions fail to take into account that good and evil are not subjectively determined. You're essentially advocating following one's heart, which the Bible says:

every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time.
Following his heart? Depends what you mean. If you mean, "following the rule of conscience", then yes, that's what I advocate. No exceptions.

every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time.
Inclination probably refers to the evil desires/disposition of the heart. Fallen man typically doesn't WANT to do what is right. And perhaps, in Noah's region (Mesopotamia), men had become exceedingly corrupt, much like wickedness seems to be on the rise in many cities of today.

I don't see how that is any warrant for departing from the rule of conscience.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?
I don't think that verse impugns the rule of conscience.

For starters, the translation "deceitful" is questionable. "Incurable" is another possibility. In this life, a piece of the old man - the depraved man - will always remain. That won't be entirely fixed until the next life.

Secondly, even if we accept the translation "deceitful", I'm not entirely sure whether it's talking about the evil heart deceiving itself, or deceiving others. There's plenty of con men out there, for example.

Thirdly, I can attest to my own heart deceiving me. I have low pain tolerance. When I suffer, therefore, every fiber of my being begins to lie to me, telling me that God isn't being good to me. I have to fight to see the truth. Suppose I lost all the battles with my deceitful heart such that my moral compass actually shifted - my sense of evil changed. I would still be obligated to heed the rule of conscience to the best of my ability, because, self-evidently, attempting to do evil is never appropriate.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
@Fervent,

Why do you practice Christianity? Since you're a fallible person, you cannot convincingly say, "I have absolute, objective knowledge of the truth."

The most you can reasonably say is, "I currently feel certain that Christianity is true."

You're simply heeding the rule of conscience.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Why not apply the test from Deuteronomy 18?
The rule of conscience begins with the prophet himself. The Voice made him feel certain that the message was from God.

Only then can we talk about the audience of the prophet.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Deflection.
I choose not to address what you have failed to Biblically demonstrate is in error.
You have interpreted Scripture in a way that YOU think is the best interpretation and thus the best outcome. I'm just asking you to clarify what is "best" about 75% of people being thrown in a pit of fire.
I choose to address only Biblically demonstrated assertions here.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
@Fervent,

Why do you practice Christianity? Since you're a fallible person, you cannot convincingly say, "I have absolute, objective knowledge of the truth."

The most you can reasonably say is, "I currently feel certain that Christianity is true."

You're simply heeding the rule of conscience.
No, I'm not "heeding the rule of conscience." because the "rule of conscience" as you've described it places humans as the judge and makes the only consideration a person's judgment.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No, I'm not "heeding the rule of conscience." because the "rule of conscience" as you've described it places humans as the judge and makes the only consideration a person's judgment.
Intellectual dishonesty. Every moment you are faced with this choice:

I feel certain that rejecting Christianity is evil (choice A), and following it is good (choice B). Therefore I will opt for B.

There's no escaping it. You live it every moment, except when behaving unrighteously.

But we knew that, right? All your deflections of my questions already made it clear where you really stand, despite your immature protests and rants to the contrary.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Intellectual dishonesty. Every moment you are faced with this choice:

I feel certain that rejecting Christianity is evil (choice A), and following it is good (choice B). Therefore I will opt for B.

There's no escaping it. You live it every moment, except when behaving unrighteously.

But we knew that, right? All your deflections of my questions already made it clear where you really stand, despite your immature protests and rants to the contrary.
There is a way that seems right to a man, but that way is death.

Your insistence that intent is all that matters is warped and incomplete.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There is a way that seems right to a man, but that way is death.

Your insistence that intent is all that matters is warped and incomplete.
Your empty rants mean nothing. Didn't anyone teach you that actions speak louder than words?

....(1) You adhere to Christianity because you feel certain it's true. That's proof enough.
...(2) Your deflection/avoidance of all my scenarios and questions confirmed it irrevocably.

Both sets of actions are decisive.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your empty rants mean nothing. Didn't anyone teach you that actions speak louder than words?

....(1) You adhere to Christianity because you feel certain it's true. That's proof enough.
...(2) Your deflection/avoidance of all my scenarios and questions confirmed it irrevocably.

Both sets of actions are decisive.
I haven't deflected/avoided your scenarios, I've pointed to their deficiency. You're operating on a partial truth, that intent matters. But that is not the only consideration. it's not even the most important consideration. Your argument amounts to a solipsistic morality that is in fact no morality because everything becomes permissible.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I haven't deflected/avoided your scenarios, I've pointed to their deficiency.
Intellectual dishonesty. There's plenty of scenarios you refused to address.

You're operating on a partial truth, that intent matters. But that is not the only consideration. it's not even the most important consideration. Your argument amounts to a solipsistic morality that is in fact no morality because everything becomes permissible.
See above.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I choose not to address what you have failed to Biblically demonstrate is in error.

I choose to address only Biblically demonstrated assertions here.
When backed into a corner, you're certainly entitled to plead your 5th amendment rights, as you so often do:

"Your honor, I respectfully remain silent on the grounds that answering questions may incriminate me."

That's your right, and your privilege. Nothing I can do about it.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
When backed into a corner, you're certainly entitled to plead your 5th amendment rights, as you so often do:

"Your honor, I respectfully remain silent on the grounds that answering questions may incriminate me."

That's your right, and your privilege. Nothing I can do about it.
Agreed. . .
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No, I'm not "heeding the rule of conscience." because the "rule of conscience" as you've described it places humans as the judge and makes the only consideration a person's judgment.
This is a strawman argument, and totally false.

The rule of conscience is simply the least common denominator of ethics. There is no morality without it.

That's not to say it demands irresponsible behavior. For example if you have two choices A and B, and you feel 75% certain that A is righteous and 85% certain that B is righteous, you can still choose NEITHER. You can say:

"I feel 95% certain that I need to investigate this further, via Scripture, prayer, counseling, etc, because even 85% does not seem high enough to perform option B in good conscience."

You've been trying to build a strawman argument that the rule of conscience only allows personal opinions to be considered.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
All the english translations I see indicate that the thiing that "never entered into God's mind" was man doing the abomination - not God commanding man to do the abomination.
So, no exegesis. Ok.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
By yours too. You're well aware that any parent who behaves as the Calvinistic God is pure evil. You therefore persist a contradiction.
No parent is God. Their children belong to God, as do they themselves. They have no right to behave concerning their children as God does concerning any of his creatures. But the fact you think this comparison is valid, well describes your limited view of God. Your small god is not God at all, by this view.
No on your deterministic assumptions, they don't.
I repeat, did they or did they not choose what they chose? I suppose your objection is the word, "freely"? Ok, not free, I don't care. Nevertheless, they chose.
Seems I missed a couple of posts.

Deflection. You shouldn't deflect on concepts relevant to a debate. To say, "God agrees with me, not you" is sheer assertion.

I gave you four definitions of real-life experiences dependent on time, contrary to atemporality. Deal with it.
From what I can tell by what you quoted, I didn't say there that God agrees with me, not you.

Just without going back, I can tell you that your four definitions of real-life experiences dependent on time, are. if real-life experiences, therefore by definition not atemporal. Yet you seem to think there is something worth contesting here, though you yourself say they are "contrary to atemporality".


You also seem to be operating under the misapprehension that I care to debate further with you. Do you recall the post someone put concerning your ad homs and other ways of distancing your opponents? I have a reason to keep away, too, in addition to that --your god is not my God, yours being, by your own admission, of a changing and growing nature. I have already told you how that is evident in the way you exalt the ability of man to God's level, or that is to say, to bring God down to ours.

I should think that should give @John Mullally, and anyone else who rates your posts with "agree" and the like, pause. And, hopefully bring them to rethink the notion of a God who must deal with circumstances beyond his control.

So we have little common ground for debate.



Edit note: I see I somehow originally sent this post where JAL's words and mine were mixed at one point, and several things he said were somehow quoted into the post without me meaning to. Thus an extensive edit has been done.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
By yours too. You're well aware that any parent who behaves as the Calvinistic God is pure evil. You therefore persist a contradiction.
No parent is God. Their children belong to God, as do they themselves. They have no right to behave concerning their children as God does concerning any of his creatures. But the fact you think this comparison is valid, well describes your limited view of God. Your small god is not God at all, by this view.
No on your deterministic assumptions, they don't.
I repeat, did they or did they not choose what they chose? I suppose your objection is the word, "freely"? Ok, not free, I don't care. Nevertheless, they chose.

Apparently, your ASSUMPTION is that God is the only self-propelling entity? How then do angels move? Do they fill up at the gas station? Are they literally banging on all cylinders?
Mock on!

But are you seriously contending that anything or anybody would continue to exist were God to remove his hand upholding them?
By first cause you essentially mean "the only cause" (in a deterministic chain of dominoes). See above.
No, I don't mean that first cause is the only cause. It is rather obvious that there are uncountable numbers "secondary causes". Even our choices are causes of their consequences, and we cause our choices, just as we ourselves are also the effects of many other previous and ongoing causes.
I came up with that rule? Let's suppose you are holding a knife in your hand. I grab you hand and force you to stab someone to death. What are you going to tell the judge? "I take full responsibility, it was all my fault" ??? Let's be honest here.
Again you try to equate God with man. But again, no wonder you do that, since you make him somewhat less than omnipotent, as you yourself admitted rather proudly, that your god is subject to circumstances beyond his control, and is a growing and changing being.
Or better yet, suppose I slipped you a pill inflaming you with an unquenchable thirst to kill people. What are you going to tell the judge?
See above. Not an applicable parallel.

Absolute mastery IS the distorted view of God, if taken to mean a control-freak who punishes deterministic puppets of His own making!
That should be obvious, IF "taken to mean a control-freak who punishes deterministic puppets of his own making"! Because God is no control-freak. In fact, he rather famously skates so close to the edge of utter ruin that we often consider him to not know what he is doing! Consider, for a moment, how he even allows us to make utter fools of ourselves, in our attempts to describe him!
More philosophical bias. We've been over this. Even your god is a subject to an existence he cannot relinquish - circumstances beyond His control.
No, he is not "subject to an existence he cannot relinquish - circumstances beyond his control". You present meaningless words here, and attempt to subject God to them?? God is not subject to existence. Existence is subject to God. Your weak god keeps showing himself in your words. So weak, in fact, that you seem to think your words adequately describe brute fact.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Clare73 said:
I choose not to address what you have failed to Biblically demonstrate is in error.
I choose to address only Biblically demonstrated assertions here.


When backed into a corner, you're certainly entitled to plead your 5th amendment rights, as you so often do:

"Your honor, I respectfully remain silent on the grounds that answering questions may incriminate me."

That's your right, and your privilege. Nothing I can do about it.
Irrelevant
Agreed. . .

Clare is also free to plead the fifth when she is not backed into a corner. So what? That's hardly what she was doing. She was defining her terms for debate. She's not willing to deal with assertions that aren't Biblically demonstrated.

Your characterization of her position in this fray is like Saddam Hussein claiming he was routing his enemies in the Gulf War.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Clare73
C
Clare73
I'm still wondering about the "gift of infallibility" (post #1833).
Upvote 0
Mark Quayle
Mark Quayle
#1833 is a quote from Justin Martyr, I see nothing in it about the "gift of infallibility".
Upvote 0
C
Clare73
I can't find it, it's not there anymore.
I guess my comment caused a clean-up.
Should I ask if such occurred. . .to see what kind of answer I get?
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No parent is God. Their children belong to God, as do they themselves. They have no right to behave concerning their children as God does concerning any of his creatures. But the fact you think this comparison is valid, well describes your limited view of God. Your small god is not God at all, by this view.
Yes, my God has shamefully chosen to "limit" Himself by virtues like justice, love, kindness, integrity, fairness, and mercy. All the things that Scripture repeatedly says He prizes are the very things that Calvinism despises.


No parent is God. ..But the fact you think this comparison is valid, well describes your limited view of God. Your small god is not God at all, by this view.
God can't be compared to men? If you'd take a serious look at Scripture for half a second, you'd see that it compares God to men repeatedly, mostly to evil men. Scripture is clear that God does not behave like evil men. How do evil men behave? Like the Calvinist God! For example they setup and predestine innocent children to be burned in the fire, just like the Calvinist God!

By comparing evil men to God - diametrically opposing the two - Scripture creates a clear pictorial graph of divine behavior. He is anything but the evil tyrant of Calvinism. The only reason you reject comparisons between man and God is that they devastate your point of view. How convenient for you, right?

I'll say it again: if divine virtues such as justice, love, and integrity, deviate from the human definitions, the Bible affords humans no hope. You have no refutation of this critical objection.

Calvinism is useful to us, as a warning to us on how NOT to theologize.


Just without going back, I can tell you that your four definitions of real-life experiences dependent on time, are. if real-life experiences, therefore by definition not atemporal. Yet you seem to think there is something worth contesting here, though you yourself say they are "contrary to atemporality".
Seems you missed a simple point. You chastised me for dismissing atemporality. I responded by defining 4 time-based experiences critical to life.

You also seem to be operating under the misapprehension that I care to debate further with you. Do you recall the post someone put concerning your ad homs and other ways of distancing your opponents?
Here we have the pot calling the kettle black. You've indulged in plenty of ad homs and unfounded snide remarks.

Funny you make this allegation about me - but not a single example on this thread? Are you trying to find a cheap way to copout of this dialog?


I have a reason to keep away, too, in addition to that --your god is not my God, yours being, by your own admission, of a changing and growing nature. I have already told you how that is evident in the way you exalt the ability of man to God's level, or that is to say, to bring God down to ours.

I should think that should give @John Mullally, and anyone else who rates your posts with "agree" and the like, pause. And, hopefully bring them to rethink the notion of a God who must deal with circumstances beyond his control.

So we have little common ground for debate.
Cheap copouts. You are trying to inappropriately inject off-topic insinuations even if they have nothing to do with the topics at hand. Guilt-by-association and ad homs are the best defense of Calvinism available to you at the moment? Is that really all you've got?
 
Upvote 0