How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[JAL]

I have no view of God as puppet-master, regardless of how YOU see it.

Talk about self-contradiction. You define God as the First Cause in a chain of inviolable causality. And then claim He is not the puppet-master?

Does the law of non-contradiction mean anything to you at all?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Read between the lines. Paul merely makes accommodation for the weak conscience of the weak brother. He never says that eating such food is wrong in itself.

"8But food does not bring us closer to God: We are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do."

It all comes down to conscience. Paul seems clear enough on that point. For me that would mean, if I'm in the privacy of my own home, and I'm confident that no weak brother will be apprised of my meal for today, I am free to eat whatever I want.

The food. Paul provides no reference to the rest of morality there.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Nope.

Ok, Mark, you concoct meaningless terms like "self-existent" and pretend that you're making good sense - superior sense - here. Whatever.

My God is every bit as self-existent as yours, as far as I can see. Get off your philosophical high horse and let's just focus on what Scripture says about Him.

So God is not self-existent?

 

[JAL]

So God is not self-existent?

I don't know for sure what you mean by that term. I assume it has something to do with existence, and my retort to you, earlier, was that my God is every bit as existent as yours.

 

[JAL]

The food. Paul provides no reference to the rest of morality there.

Again, if food sacrificed to idols is the only scenario that you glean from a study of 1 Corin 8 and Romans 14, I'd have to seriously question your exegetical skills.

And, again, I see no need to exegetically prove my conclusions 100%. Regardless of those 2 Pauline chapters, the rule of conscience is simply the undeniable obligation to try to do as much good as possible.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Strawman. Misrepresentation. I didn't adduce the paradox, ""Can God make a rock too big for him to pick up?"

My argument was different. There are several problems with infinitude, and in these last several posts, I've been focusing on one major problem - that an infinite quantity is a gibberish assertion.

In other posts I have mentioned some of the other problems with infinitude. But in no case have I ever built an apologetic based on the paradox, "Can God make a rock too big for him to pick up?"

Why do you keep resorting to polemics, caricatures, slanders about me? Is that all you've got?

I don't know how to make this any more plain than I have. You have done the same thing as to ask if God can make a rock too big for him to pick up —I provided that to demonstrate an obviously self-contradictory statement. You introduced a self-contradictory notion by asking if God can cease to exist, a construction of human terms that cannot as assembled describe anything meaningful. It is not a matter of whether God is obligated to do anything, as though God is subject to some principle of existence. Existence itself is what it is because of GOD.

 

[JAL]

I don't know how to make this any more plain than I have. You have done the same thing as to ask if God can make a rock too big for him to pick up —I provided that to demonstrate an obviously self-contradictory statement. You introduced a self-contradictory notion by asking if God can cease to exist, a construction of human terms that cannot as assembled describe anything meaningful.

We are humans. Every philosophical construct must be in human terms, otherwise it is useless gibberish. You continually brandish your "transcendent-above-humans" gibberish as if such nonsense were a valid debating point. In so doing, your own words best describe your rants:

Mark: "[This] cannot as assembled describe anything meaningful."

It is not a matter of whether God is obligated to do anything...

What do you mean by obligated? From the outset, my God had free will. He chose to do good. Again, you seem to be rambling. Empty statement after empty statement.

....as though God is subject to some principle of existence. Existence itself is what it is because of GOD.

What does this rambling even mean? No one could possibly know. You're not stating anything clear here. Again, get off your philosophical high horse. Your words sound similar to Paul Tillich's claim (paraphrased here), "God is not one being of the many beings. He is Being itself."

These kinds of unintelligible statements are empty because they are unfathomable. Useless rambling.

When you make some coherent statements, then we'll have something worthy of discussion.

 

[John Mullally]

Calvinism, or Reformed Theology, as I understand it, fully allows that people make real choices, with real, even eternal, consequences. People choose for themselves wrong from right, and right from wrong, PRECISELY AS GOD HAS DECREED. But you need to skip a few steps and invoke puppetry. You would describe God acting on our level of existence, like JAL, as thought he is not omnipotent creator. Not so.

God spoke all this into being. It will happen precisely as he spoke it. He does not depend on chance to see it through.

Calvinism does not allow for men to make real choices per Calvin who states that man's every action is appointed before hand. You concur in your Upper-case text that I quoted. Stop saying that Calvinism allows men to make real choices. If that were the case, God would not script (or decree) our every action - as Calvinism purports and you agree stating DECREED. A God who scripts man's ever action can be termed as our puppet-master - meditate ont that! Try to be transparent, instead of playing hide the ball and being duplicitous. You cannot say God decrees our actions while saying we make real choices - durrrr! Remember you disagree with Paul in 1 Timothy 2:4.

“…it is vain to debate about prescience, which it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)​

 

[Mark Quayle]

Calvinism does not allow for men to make real choices per Calvin who states that man's every action is appointed before hand. You concur in your Upper-case text that I quoted. Stop saying that Calvinism allows men to make real choices. If that were the case, God would not script (or decree) our every action - as Calvinism purports and you agree stating DECREED. A God who scripts man's ever action can be termed as our puppet-master - meditate ont that! Try to be transparent, instead of playing hide the ball and being duplicitous. You cannot say God decrees our actions while saying we make real choices - durrrr! Remember you disagree with Paul in 1 Timothy 2:4.

“…it is vain to debate about prescience, which it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)​

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.

 

[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.

Just because God can script the motion of every partical with start conditions and quantum mathematics does not mean he does so via your "first cause". I give no credance to "first cause" as it is pure speculation and not mentioned in the Bible. Per the Bible there is plenty of motion that cannot be reconcilled via the laws of physics - as indeed Jesus confronted demons and the work of angels is also documented. All this leads to argumention that flies by the "seat of your pants". Enough!

You cannot have it both ways: God cannot decree every action, while attributing real choices to his creation (man).

As to your observation that Liberterian free will invokes causation by chance: The Bible contains thousands of directives to men. If men do not have Liberterian free will, then God is a trickster - teasing us with choices that we cannot make (as we are constrained by God's decree made long ago). That is idiocy!

 

[JAL]

You tend to conflate two separate issues. The first issue is your claim that your (supposedly omnipotent, infinitely powerful) God is not powerful enough to endue His creatures with libertarian freedom. (Not a terribly convincing position).

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.

The main problem is that the entire Bible, with respect to morality, justice, and divine retribution, makes absolutely no sense without libertarian freedom.

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

That was the first issue. The second issue is your repeated insinuation that libertarian freedom necessarily boils down to meaningless random chance. As you put it:

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.

This is the fallacy of special pleading. You admit that, for God, libertarian freedom is a valid concept. You then insist that, for man, it is necessarily a self-contradictory concept. Make up your mind. No self-respecting Arminian will take seriously your blatant inconsistency and double standard here.

 

[Clare73]

Read between the lines. Paul merely makes accommodation for the weak conscience of the weak brother. He never says that eating such food is wrong in itself.

Note the "accommodation" for the inadequate conscience , which cannot be the primary authority but only the default authority because the consciene can be
1) uninformed. . .making it contrary to the law,
2) weak. . .making it not in agreement with the law,
3) seared. . .making it contrary to the law.

No "accommodation" needs to be made for the authority of the law.

 

[JAL]

Note the "accommodation" for the inadequate conscience , which cannot be the primary authority but only the default authority because it can be
1) uninformed, making it contrary to the law,
2) weak, making it not in agreement with the law,
3) seared, making it contrary to the law.

No "accommodation" needs to be made for the authority of the law.

You understood neither Romans 14 nor 1 Corinthians 8.

Paul says it is an issue of conscience, not of laws. You're trying to shove the exact opposite message down Paul's throat. Why am I not surprised.

 

[JAL]

Note the "accommodation" for the inadequate conscience , which cannot be the primary authority but only the default authority because it can be
1) uninformed, making it contrary to the law,
2) weak, making it not in agreement with the law,
3) seared, making it contrary to the law.

No "accommodation" needs to be made for the authority of the law.

The rule of conscience merely states that one should try to be as good as possible rather than as evil as possible.

Why are we still debating this?

 

[Clare73]

You understood neither Romans 14 nor 1 Corinthians 8.

It's not about Ro 14 or 1Co 8.
It's about objective authority.

Paul says it is an issue of conscience, not of laws.

Of course it's an issue of conscience when it is not in the law.
A natural moral law is given to the human conscience, and since the conscience is subjective, that perception can be skewed by the human experience.
The law however is an objective written code, legally altered not by subjective experience but only by proper authority.

You would replace objectivity with subjectivity in God's moral order.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Just because God can script the motion of every partical with start conditions and quantum mathematics does not mean he does so via your "first cause". I give no credance to "first cause" as it is pure speculation and not mentioned in the Bible. Per the Bible there is plenty of motion that cannot be reconcilled via the laws of physics - as indeed Jesus confronted demons and the work of angels is also documented. All this leads to argumention that flies by the "seat of your pants". Enough!

You cannot have it both ways: God cannot decree every action, while attributing real choices to his creation (man).

As to your observation that Liberterian free will invokes causation by chance: The Bible contains thousands of directives to men. If men do not have Liberterian free will, then God is a trickster - teasing us with choices that we cannot make (as we are constrained by God's decree made long ago). That is idiocy!

Then, you agree with JAL that God is less than omnipotent, that he too is subject to causes beyond his control and outside of his own making.

Just because God can script the motion of every partical with start conditions and quantum mathematics does not mean he does so via your "first cause". I give no credance to "first cause" as it is pure speculation and not mentioned in the Bible. Per the Bible there is plenty of motion that cannot be reconcilled via the laws of physics - as indeed Jesus confronted demons and the work of angels is also documented. All this leads to argumention that flies by the "seat of your pants". Enough!

How else, but by being the first to cause anything, can God 'script' the "motion of every partical with start conditions and quantum mathematics"? But more to the point, how, but by being first to cause anything, can God be omnipotent? Does not omnipotence itself by definition, imply "first on the scene", or more accurately, the one who created the "scene"? God is subject to nothing but himself.

Nevertheless, it is mentioned in the Bible, as he is the "I AM", and "all things were made by him", just for starters. I don't know how much more plain it can be. I use the term, 'first cause', only as a way to direct the mind to consider the implications along that line of logic. 'Omnipotence' necessarily implies 'first cause' and 'first cause' necessarily implies, among other things, 'omnipotence'.

You cannot have it both ways: God cannot decree every action, while attributing real choices to his creation (man).

On the contrary, it is ONLY by God decreeing every action, motion, thought and fact, that choices of the creature can be real. God did not show up within, co-emerge with, nor was he created subject to, reality. Reality is HIS construction. How can anything else be fact, if God did not cause it?

As to your observation that Liberterian free will invokes causation by chance: The Bible contains thousands of directives to men. If men do not have Liberterian free will, then God is a trickster - teasing us with choices that we cannot make (as we are constrained by God's decree made long ago). That is idiocy!

If, as all men agree is true, there are things we cannot do, though we may choose to do, then what is the difference if God requires pure holiness yet it is only by attributing Christ's righteousness to those to whom he has chosen to show mercy, that any are considered pure and holy?

The condemnation is already the default here; we are born into it! But you paint of picture of neutrality on the part of the creature, pure victimhood, instead of whole-hearted synergism with his own sin.

You are looking at this backwards.

 

[Clare73]

The rule of conscience merely states that one should try to be as good as possible rather than as evil as possible.

Which is my point. . .you have substituted your standard for God's standard.
"Trying" is not the standard of God's judgment.
Obedience is his standard.

One can "try" not to be jealous, or angry, or covetous, etc., but to the degree that one is, one is breaking his law.

God's objective law states that I must or must not, and judges accordingly.
Obedience is not based on trying, but on conformity.

 

[Clare73]

You understood neither Romans 14 nor 1 Corinthians 8.

Paul says it is an issue of conscience, not of laws. You're trying to shove the exact opposite message down Paul's throat. Why am I not surprised.

Marvelous grasp of the obvious. . .of course it's not an issue of laws when it is not in applicable law.

In regard to the law, you mistake accommodation to conscience for authority of conscience.

And why is the conscience involved?

Because it subjectively and erroneously "feels" that it is against the law.

And for the sake of not searing the function of that natural subjective monitor of morality, even though it can be misinformed,
it is better to preserve it and have it than to be without it. . .so it is to be observed and preserved, not seared.

None of which places conscience above the law, but allows the objective law to accommodate the subjective conscience.

 

[JAL]

It's not about Ro 14 or 1Co 8.
It's about objective authority.

Of course it's an issue of conscience when it is not in the law.
A natural moral law is given to the human conscience, and since the conscience is subjective, that perception can be skewed by the human experience.
The law however is an objective written code, legally altered not by subjective experience but only by proper authority.

You would replace objectivity with subjectivity in God's moral order.

You are not infallible. At no point, then, do you have an objective knowledge of God's will. The best you can do is adhere to what you feel certain about.

What point are you trying to make here? That's there's an exception to the rule of conscience? Meaning, an occasion when we should try to be evil instead of good?

This debate is ridiculous.

 

[JAL]

Marvelous grasp of the obvious. . .of course it's not an issue of laws when it is not in applicable law.

In regard to the law, you mistake accommodation to conscience for authority of conscience.

And why is the conscience involved?

Because it subjectively and erroneously "feels" that it is against the law.

And for the sake of not searing the function of that natural subjective monitor of morality, even though it can be misinformed,
it is better to preserve it and have it than to be without it. . .so it is to be observed and preserved, not seared.

None of which places conscience above the law, but allows the objective law to accommodate the subjective conscience.

What point are you trying to make here? That's there's an exception to the rule of conscience? Meaning, an occasion when we should try to be evil instead of good?

This debate is ridiculous.