JudgeRightly's POTD February 15, 2022

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Been a while since we've had a post of the day, but here's yet another one from @Clete absolutely BLASTING it outta the ballpark!

I haven't seen you (or anyone) do it yet. I don't recall you making any effort to refute a word of what I've said with anything that looks like an actual argument. You're great at declaring your doctrine in opposition to what I say but that isn't what an actual argument looks like.


You see, this is the sort of "arguments" you make. Wow!

Groups act quite differently than individuals. Groups are very predictable, even by us mere humans. They are also quite easily manipulated if one has the proper means (the last two years is proof enough of that). Individuals however are notoriously difficult to predict except in broadly general terms. Men (i.e. human beings) are bent toward evil and this propencity is more evident in groups, the bigger the group to more likely it is to be evil. (This, among other reasons, is why justice by committee (i.e. Juries) is a really bad idea, by the way.) So, while groups are made up of individuals, their behavior patterns are not the same because any one person can choose to act apart from the mob around them.


You don't actually know that, Arial. This assertion assumes facts not in evidence. There may have been several people that God had to work around and in spite of in order to accomplish the work of Calvary. People like Peter, for example, who, if he had been permitted to continue his attack against the Roman guards, may have ended up having Jesus killed before the proper time. If there had been a guard who refused, for conscience sake, to act against Jesus, then it would not have been difficult for God to find a replacement and such an action would not have been known by anyone other than the righteous guard and God Himself, much less recorded in scripture.
The point here being that God DID NOT need to predestine every detail in order to accomplish His goal!


This isn't quite accurate either. Nearly all of the scriptures that were fulfilled at Calvary that you are no doubt thinking of, were not overt prophecies when they were written down and had things gone in an appreciably different manner then you'd not even recognized them as being prophesies, never mind failed prophesies.
That isn't to say that God didn't have them in mind as being prophetic. He clearly did but, again, the point is that it wasn't NECESSARY (i.e. in the logical sense of that word) for things to go precisely the way they went and, had they gone differently, then there'd be a whole different sent of passages that you'd have in your mind as fulfilled prophesies.


So says you. The bible tells us otherwise.


I didn't suggest that they would. It was a hypothetical.


No, He accomplished plan A! Calvinists always over react and start yammering on about nonsense that no one has said. It's just so much silliness.


No, He didn't.

(See! I can say things without supporting them too! Are you convinced when I do it cause I'm definitely not when you do!)

Double talking nonsense!

You literally do not even understand your own doctrine! Perhaps you'd reject it if you did understand it.

Calvinism teaches that whether or not you obey has been infallibly predestined by God before you ever existed.

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)​

It also teaches that our obedience or lack thereof has NOTHING to do with being elected, either for salvation or damnation...

“God is moved to mercy for no other reason but that he wills to be merciful.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 8)​
“… predestination to glory is the cause of predestination to grace, rather than the converse.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 9)​
“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christia/n Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)​
“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)​
These are not cherry picked quotes of Calvin that distort the normal teaching of Calvinist doctrine. I have never one time found a single Calvinist who denies belief in every single syllable of what I've quoted above. They all, to a person, also say the same sort of thing you've said above and they simply accept the contradiction and move on. Their willingness to accept the openly glaring contradiction is, in their view, a sign of their piety. Many, in fact, believe that accepting contradictions as truth is what faith is and have said as much to my face.


It does teach that, Arial. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, that is what it teaches. No one ever states it in those terms but sewage by any other name still stinks just as badly.

Again, I have quoted the following to dozens and dozens of Calvinist both in writing and in person and never have I ever come across a single one that disagrees with the following statements...

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)​
“But since he foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place, they vainly raise a quarrel over foreknowledge, when it is clear that all things take place rather by his determination and bidding.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)​
“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)​
"I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of Adam's children have fallen by God's will...​
...Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23)​
Now, to your point, Calvinists DO indeed believe that somehow, in spite of all of that being the absolute truth, we are not robots or puppets, as you put it. They believe both! They are also quite fully aware and accepting of the contradiction. They DO NOT CARE that their doctrine makes no sense. They, in fact, EXPECT for the things of God not to make sense to use poor stupid human beings!


It isn't hubris, it's experience. You are no different that the dozens of other Calvinists that have tried the same silly double talk.

Prove me wrong by telling me which of the quotes from Calvin are in contradiction to Reformed Theology.

You won't do it because there isn't one.


One topic at a time. If you'd like to learn what the bible teaches about what our responsibilities are in regard to judging others, I invite you to read the definitive treatment on the topic - HERE.


My alias?


That's my line!

Of the two sides on this debate, there is only one which cites original sources. There is only one who demonstrates the historical linkage between Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, Luther and Calvin. The side that does that also has to beg and plead with the other to even make actual arguments, which they flatly avoid doing like the plague because, as I've already pointed out more than once, Calvinists who know anything about what their doctrine actually teaches are quite fully aware that irreconcilable contradictions are plentiful throughout! The word, "antinomy" was surely coined by a Calvinist, or if it is wasn't it would have been (i.e. in the theological sense of the term)! It's their favorite theological term!


That statement of Christ's was said to hypocrites. Look it up. It's in Matthew chapter 7.


judge-matthew-7-crossed-out-kgov.jpg



This was either an intentional lie or you are as ignorant about Calvinism as it possible to be. (I strongly suspect the latter at this point!)

Perhaps you should ask your pastor. Maybe you'll find that you aren't as Calvinist as you like to think you are because I can guarantee you that Reformed theology DOES NOT teach that you have a will such that you can choose to do or to do otherwise. They do not teach that - period. So much so that if they discover that you believe it, you may well be excused from your church. Although, based on the complete ignorance you're displaying on what the bible teaches about judging, it is unlikely that your church would have the temerity to do such a thing.

Go ahead and try your best to get B57 to agree with you on this. He would die first!


I've quoted original sources the prove otherwise.


You not only digress but you do so into error. The difference between "Reformed Lutheran" and "Lutheran" has mainly to do with issues concerning baptisms and the Eucharist and other such ritualistic type issues. In so far as soteriology is concerned, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between them.


None of this is relevant to the point, Arial! I don't even care whether he ever made a public confession of faith. I would like to give these churches the benefit of the doubt and presume that they don't make unbelievers the president of their elder board but maybe the do! Who cares! That IS NOT THE POINT!

The point is that YOU CANNOT TELL!!!

YOU cannot tell!

You, Arial, are incapable of knowing!

Get it?

Not only do you have no rational way of telling whether Rader is saved, you have exactly equal means of telling whether B57 is saved and ultimately you have the exact same means to tell whether YOU are saved yourself!

The point isn't about Rader or even B57, its about the Calvinist's inability to know whether they are one of the big cosmic lottery winners or not! What's more is that they will not ever know for sure until they are able to walk through the Pearly Gates!

Why?

Because your doctrine DOES NOT TEACH that it has anything to do with a person's fruit! It doesn't have anything to do with whether you've made a public profession of faith or even if you believe at all! According to your own doctrinal documents, your salvation is a result of NOTHING other than an ARBITRARY declaration of God! Here it is again, right from the horses mouth...

“God is moved to mercy for no other reason but that he wills to be merciful.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 8)​
“… predestination to glory is the cause of predestination to grace, rather than the converse.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 9)​
“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)​
“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)​


Which of those statements do you disagree with, Arial? Because, whether you choose to believe it nor, that is what your Reformed doctrine teaches.


Actually, I do. There was a time when I did some considerable amount of study on the subject of serial killers. His own testimony is voluminous and they've done several interviews with members of his family, friends and fellow church members.


Perhaps, but none that have ever been recorded saying so. All those who knew him, including his own daughter, were all stunned to find out the truth of his depravity.


You're right about him being suspected as a serial killer not being the point but what you aren't getting is that your doctrine teaches that the only people that you spotted as wolves in sheep's clothing were the ones that God predestined you to spot as such and you have no rational means to tell whether or not your spotting scope is accurate because your doctrine doesn't just teach that you were predestined to spot them as wolves but the extent to which they actually are wolves was also predestined, even if that extent is none at all!

Do you follow the point there?

If you only think you've spotted wolves in sheep's clothing but are actually wrong about it, THAT TOO was predestined according to your doctrine!

The point being made here is that ANY claim you make concerning a person's salvation, including your own, is both unprovable AND unfalsifiable!


It isn't a mistake, Arial. And if you actually believe that, which I have no reason to doubt, then you are not Calvinist and do not adhere to Reformed doctrine.

Don't take my word for it! Go ahead and ask someone you trust. Someone you know for a fact is an actual Calvinist! B57 comes to mind but it doesn't have to be him. Chances are your own pastor would work. Ask them the same exact question and do so straight. Don't poison the well by implying an answer before you ask the question. Just ask them straight up and tell them that you want a straight answer to the following question...

"Did God predestine Dennis Rader to rape that eleven year old girl and hang her from a plumbing pipe in her basement?"

If he doesn't know who Rader is then ask him whether God predestine Jeffery Dahmer to rape, kill and eat all the young men and boys he could get a hold of.

Here's Calvin's answer to basically the same question...

"I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of Adam's children have fallen by God's will...​
...Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23)​
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Arial's response to that post was rich! The blatant hypocrisy of people like Arial just makes my blood boil! The worst part of which is that if she would just engage the argument, she and I both would benefit whether she ever came to agree with me or not! We could even end up being friends! But, NO! All she's capable of is running away when someone present a serious challenge to her dogma. Makes me wonder whether she even actually believes it!

Regardless, people who refuse to substantively engage with those who have apposing views, or are too lazy to read posts that are longer than three sentences, have no business being here, if you ask me. (Not that anyone would or should be asking me!)
 

Poly

Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Great response, Clete. Nice to read your posts around here again. You've definitely been one of the most sharp minded of all the truthsmackers back in the day.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Great response, Clete. Nice to read your posts around here again. You've definitely been one of the most sharp minded of all the truthsmackers back in the day.
Thanks Poly!

You're not such a bad truthsmacker yourself and you've always been a great encouragement to me!

God bless you!
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Regardless, people who refuse to substantively engage with those who have apposing views, or are too lazy to read posts that are longer than three sentences, have no business being here, if you ask me. (Not that anyone would or should be asking me!)
This has been nagging at me for days. I understand where you're coming from, but please keep in mind that not all of us are as sharp as you are, Clete. I'm one of those who can get lost reading long posts. When it's a subject I'm really interested in, I can read and go back again to catch what I missed. As I said before....you're a fount of information, so don't stop what you're doing so well. :)
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
This has been nagging at me for days. I understand where you're coming from, but please keep in mind that not all of us are as sharp as you are, Clete. I'm one of those who can get lost reading long posts. When it's a subject I'm really interested in, I can read and go back again to catch what I missed. As I said before....you're a fount of information, so don't stop what you're doing so well. :)
It seems that I am incapable of stopping. I've intended to many times and it never sticks.

And, of course, I agree with your sentiment here. I don't expect anyone to go into the detail that I often do and when I write a particularly long post, I don't ever expect someone to necessarily read the entire thing and I certainly don't expect them to respond to every point. What I do expect is that they don't take one look at it length and blow the entire thing off and abruptly shut down the whole discussion because they can't be bothered to read it at all. I don't think that it's too much to ask that someone at least skim through what I've written and pick a point or two or three to focus their response on so that they aren't just blatantly wasting my time.

The way Arial blew off that post was just her flipping me the bird and it's not the first time she's done it and she isn't the only one who's done it either and it simply ought not be allowed. Although, I admit, I don't see any practical way to prevent it without destroying the whole website. It's just something I have to live with, I suppose.

Clete
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
It seems that I am incapable of stopping. I've intended to many times and it never sticks.

And, of course, I agree with your sentiment here. I don't expect anyone to go into the detail that I often do and when I write a particularly long post, I don't ever expect someone to necessarily read the entire thing and I certainly don't expect them to respond to every point. What I do expect is that they don't take one look at it length and blow the entire thing off and abruptly shut down the whole discussion because they can't be bothered to read it at all. I don't think that it's too much to ask that someone at least skim through what I've written and pick a point or two or three to focus their response on so that they aren't just blatantly wasting my time.

The way Arial blew off that post was just her flipping me the bird and it's not the first time she's done it and she isn't the only one who's done it either and it simply ought not be allowed. Although, I admit, I don't see any practical way to prevent it without destroying the whole website. It's just something I have to live with, I suppose.

Clete
I'm surprised you took the time with Arial. You're really more patient that you might think, and you've been a real blessing to me and many others, I know. I often have a lot to say, but can't gather my thoughts and words the way you do....so I envy you (in a good way).
 

Derf

Well-known member
By the way, I'll tell you some of the reasons it was a good post.
-it was thorough
-it was thoughtful
-it responded directly to the thread it was answering
-it did not invoke childishness
 
Top