How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Mark Quayle]

@Clare73 is the one who brought up the Trinity, insisting a biblicist would not hold the doctrine that "God is three in one" because it is not in the Bible. I don't know where she gets those ideas, or why she introduced them on this thread.

"Biblicist" is another one of those words. She is talking there about what happens when you take literalism to its ridiculous end. She introduced it on this thread because you had taken her (or was it me?) literally to mean something I (she?) had not meant, (haha, or something like that —I don't remember). It was tongue-in-cheek, at least at first.

 

[John Caldwell]

I'm glad to hear it. Yes, Clare is debating tenets and methods —not debating her beliefs here, as such. She was comparing the discarding of the doctrine of the Trinity over the fact that it is not mentioned as such in Scripture, with the literalism you claimed to espouse, after you took her to say ...haha, shoot, I'm not going to go back and look!

Yes, I understood what she was saying.

I am saying she needs to read Scripture more carefully (the text).

I am saying that Scripture DOES state that God is One, the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit, and the Father and Son are One.

That is essential doctrine, IMHO. AND teaching that DOES exist in the text of Scripture.

I am concerned about biblical literacy. This is far from the first time I have encountered people defending their methods by attacking the biblicist presuppositions and claiming Scripture itself (the text) does not present God being One, the Holy Spirit being God's Spirit, or the Father and Son being One.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I asked a long time ago and that was the answer I recieved. You'll have to ask @Clare73 again.

Claire is female spelling, clare is short for clarence so I believed him.

I don't have to ask @Clare73 anything. Nor is she required to answer anyone on the matter. I am apparently privileged in that she has already answered the question to my satisfaction, and that, twice.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Can you show, other by such inference, anything that comes right out and says that the regenerate believer can lose his salvation?

Do conditional statements count?

“And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach, if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭1‬:‭21‬-‭23‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, I understood what she was saying.

I am saying she needs to read Scripture more carefully (the text).

I am saying that Scripture DOES state that God is One, the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit, and the Father and Son are One.

That is essential doctrine, IMHO. AND teaching that DOES exist in the text of Scripture.

I am concerned about biblical literacy. This is far from the first time I have encountered people defending their methods by attacking the biblicist presuppositions and claiming Scripture itself (the text) does not present God being One, the Holy Spirit being God's Spirit, or the Father and Son being One.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think you will find her disagreeing with you on what Scripture does teach concerning the Trinity in the confines of this discussion —i.e. their persons and unity.

 

[John Caldwell]

"Biblicist" is another one of those words. She is talking there about what happens when you take literalism to its ridiculous end. She introduced it on this thread because you had taken her (or was it me?) literally to mean something I (she?) had not meant, (haha, or something like that —I don't remember). It was tongue-in-cheek, at least at first.

I never claimed that "biblicist" is a word in the Bible. I do not believe the principle an essential doctrine. That said, I hadn't considered it.

Is defending on "what is written" rather than one's own understanding in Scripture? I think so.

How can @Clare73 's insistence that the Trinity is a challenge for those of us who take Scripture literally have any merit since Scripture states in its text that God is One, the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit and the Father and Son are One?

I am not claiming that @Clare73 is aware of those passages. I am merely claiming they exist.

 

[John Caldwell]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think you will find her disagreeing with you on what Scripture does teach concerning the Trinity in the confines of this discussion —i.e. their persons and unity.

I don't think she and I disagree on the Trinity, but I don't know as we haven't discussed the topic.

When it comes to unity within the Trinity the doctrine does by necessity imply a degree of philosophy. She and I probably agree there (as she does seem to hold beliefs common to mine). But we are also getting into human understanding and secondary doctrines.

I am talking about the need to rely on what is written in God's Word concerning foundational doctrines (e.g., doctrines upon which ibe continues to build).

Her inderstanding of the Cross is not actually in the Bible. I question this method because the Bible ("what is written") makes sence and states (in the actual text) something entirely different from what @Clare73 believes.

So when there is a difference what do we believe...what is written or what some believe the text teaches? I say the former, @Clare73 the latter. We simply will never agree because of our approach to Scripture.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Where are you getting the definition of the word “just” from?

Are you asking where I get God from? Or why I suppose justice to be a concept entirely tied to God's own being?

I get the doctrine of God from Scripture.

But I am beginning to think you don't like the "attributes of God", (or perhaps you are unaware of them due to your theology) —Asceity and Simplicity in particular. Those too are from Scripture, and from good reasoning.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I don't have to ask @Clare73 anything. Nor is she required to answer anyone on the matter. I am apparently privileged in that she has already answered the question to my satisfaction, and that, twice.

@Clare73 has more than just the trinty accountability. It seems that she/he has said different things to different people. I'm not mistaken on what was said.

 

[Mark Quayle]

God is required to honor His covenant God is required to be just and holy. God is required to follow thru on prophecy.

Who requires these of God?

 

[Clare73]

Just like God killing Uzzah for trying to prevent the Ark from falling, was that unjust? No because we don’t know what his fate was.

No, it was not unjust because he violated a command of God with the death penalty attached (Numbers 4:15), just as Adam did (Genesis 2:17).

And what does "fate" have to do with breaking a command of God with the death penalty attached?

Where do we find this condition of justice depending on fate in Scripture?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

No, it was not unjust because he violated a command of God with the death penalty attached (Numbers 4:15), just as Adam did (Genesis 2:17).

And what does "fate" have to do with breaking a command of God with the death penalty attached?

Where do we find this condition of justice depending on fate in Scripture?

There is a discussion that I'm being doubted in ... when I asked if you were male or female ... Claire or Clarence .. I was sure you said male ... please correct me with the truth so as not to offend my brother further .. thanks

 

[Clare73]

Your missing the entire point here. It’s the punishment that makes your theology unjust. I’ve stated that several times throughout this discussion. We can’t say that God killing children was unjust without knowing what happened to them after their death. We can say that the punishment of the Uvalde shooter being thrown into the lake of fire for all eternity is unjust if God made him shoot those children and he was not capable of refraining from shooting them because God had decreed that he would do it. So those are two completely different situations.

And yet God decreed that Pharaoh's heart would not be softened (Exodus 4:21), and also held him accountable for it (when no one's heart is/can be softened apart from God softening it).

Even if they were immediately taken to paradise for all eternity?

Oh, I see now. . .we have written our own laws of justice apart from and in disagreement with Scripture.

It's only unjust if he goes to hell. But it's not unjust if a life of effective evangelizing is cut short

Sure, why not. . .since fallen man is making up the rules?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Are you asking where I get God from? Or why I suppose justice to be a concept entirely tied to God's own being?

I get the doctrine of God from Scripture.

But I am beginning to think you don't like the "attributes of God", (or perhaps you are unaware of them due to your theology) —Asceity and Simplicity in particular. Those too are from Scripture, and from good reasoning.

Yes just as I suspected your getting it from inference not the actual definition of the word.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Who requires these of God?

God does. He cannot contradict Himself.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No, it was not unjust because he violated a command of God with the death penalty attached (Numbers 4:15), just as Adam did (Genesis 2:17).

And what does "fate" have to do with breaking a command of God with the death penalty attached?

Where do we find this condition of justice depending on fate in Scripture?

Yes I agreed with that already. And in answer to you last question the scriptures state repeatedly that God’s judgement is just. His judgement is directly related to our fate.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Oh, I see now. . .we have written our own laws of justice apart from and in disagreement with Scripture.

Sure, why not?

Not if you don’t ignore the meaning of just judgement. Where do you get your definition of the word “just”?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes absolutely, in order for God’s punishment to be just we must be capable of meeting His expectations. Your saying that we are incapable of meeting His commandments and on top of that your saying that we can’t meet them because He doesn’t allow us to. That is unjust, and I completely understand that you don’t believe that God has to be just because He can do whatever He wants and call it just but if that’s the case then He has just redefined the word and it doesn’t actually mean just at all. If your theology is correct then the word just simply means whatever someone wants to do.

No. There is only your inference drawn on presuppositions such as that the command implies the ability to obey, when right in front of your eyes, God says the mind of the flesh is unable to submit to God's law and unable to please God. Period. When God says be perfect, does he mean that on day one we will know all our faults and correct them?

BTW, you are implying, whether you mean to or not —or at least causing the reader to infer— that I "don't believe God has to be just", which you apparently take to mean that I think he can be unjust. What I said was that justice derives FROM God. So no man can say (truthfully at least) that God "has to" or "is required to" comply or live up to anyone's definition of "just". That he does justice, always, is beyond question. The fact is that our notions, our definitions, are required to live up to him, and at that, we always fall short.

So because we know what the word “just” actually means we can conclude that the shooter had to have had the ability to refrain from shooting anyone and thus was able to comply with God’s commandment thereby making God’s judgement upon him actually just according to the actual definition of the word.

We know relatively little the meaning of "just". Our notions are necessarily self-important, just for starters. It seems throughout this conversation and my other ones with you on various threads and forums, that you also assume you know all need be known about the person and character of God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, I understood what she was saying.

I am saying she needs to read Scripture more carefully (the text).

I am saying that Scripture DOES state that God is One, the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit, and the Father and Son are One.

That is essential doctrine, IMHO. AND teaching that DOES exist in the text of Scripture.

I am concerned about biblical literacy. This is far from the first time I have encountered people defending their methods by attacking the biblicist presuppositions and claiming Scripture itself (the text) does not present God being One, the Holy Spirit being God's Spirit, or the Father and Son being One.

You say, "I am saying she needs to read Scripture more carefully (the text)." —Don't we all? Where did she say the text does not present God being One? I very sincerely doubt she said that!

 

[Mark Quayle]

No doubt, you suppose you get your meaning of "just" from Scripture. Does that make your conception of it full?