Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

FFC wrote:

God allows Satan, and others, to do us harm if He has to discipline us. Sorry you don't believe that.

This is very true as you read the books of the prophets from Isaiah on. God seems to be continuously using one nation or another to punish the Jews to get them back to Himself and then punishing the other nation for punishing the Jews. Almost like a big game of chess that God is playing with Himself. God is either demonstrating his great wrath or his loving kindness and mercy.

It is also a test. My question is simply .............. why?

Because our faith grows through adversity. Peter and James deal extensively with that issue.

Absolutely. But where does that leave predestination?

Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

This verse says to me that before the foundation of the world our omnicient God saw that you would believe in him and so He predestinated you to be conformed to the image of His Son. This is how I see it right now anyway.

PL is standing right behind me...isn't he?

FFC,

First, regarding "professed Christians", I'm not sure how long you've been a Christian. Surely, anyone who has been a Christian for any length of time knows some, including pastors, who have professed their faith falsely. The parable of the sower is an easy illustration of such (Matthew 13:1-23). The purpose of teaching God's Sovereignty isn't to drive us to despair, but to cause us to run to Christ, asking for Him to give us what we lack. Believe me, our Salvation is better off in His hands than ours anyway, for "He is also able to save to the uttermost" (Hebrews 7:25)

regarding "foreknowledge" there are several problems here...

First, It says WHOM He foreknew, not what. There is nothing in the Bible that says that God predestines according to the foreknowledge of faith. That's a "foreknowledge" invented by Arminians, solely out of whole cloth, (just like Jac's noun "Salvation" in Eph. 2:8).

Second, This type of "Predestination", is by definition, not predestination. It is ratification. In this view, God doesn't predestine anything, but simply puts His stamp of approval on our decision. This is only one of many terms that "free-willer" need to redefine. For example, by their theology...

Salvation become "potential salvation"
Eternal Life becomes "possible eternal life".
Redemption become a "general ransom".
The conquest of death becomes a only a possibility.
Election becomes ratification.
and God's immutable decrees become everchanging.

Third, Eph. 1:11, says that God does this according to HIS will, not ours.

Fourth, Ephesians 1:4 says that "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, (not because He foresaw that He would be holy and blameless).

If you read this entire thread, you'll see that I have thoroughly refuted the Arminian view of "foreknowledge" and toppled the goddess "Contingency" from her pretend throne.

Jac, I'll respond in more detail tomorrow, but in the meantime answer me these questions regarding God's sovereignty over man's sinful acts.

1.) Did God do Absalom's incest openly before all Israel? Sorry, but all of the textual criticism in the world isn't going to allow you to change what the Scriptures actually say. If you TC violates Scripture, then the TC is the problem, not the Scripture.

2.) Was Absalom's incest inevitable once God proclaimed the curse? If so, How? It certainly could not be due to Absalom's free will, for he wasn't born yet. Was it the Devil? Fate?

Just some food for thought for overnight. More tomorrow.

PL

FFC,

First, regarding "professed Christians", I'm not sure how long you've been a Christian. Surely, anyone who has been a Christian for any length of time knows some, including pastors, who have professed their faith falsely. The parable of the sower is an easy illustration of such (Matthew 13:1-23). The purpose of teaching God's Sovereignty isn't to drive us to despair, but to cause us to run to Christ, asking for Him to give us what we lack. Believe me, our Salvation is better off in His hands than ours anyway, for "He is also able to save to the uttermost" (Hebrews 7:25)

The Calvinist message just scares me a little because I'm not perfect. I still stumble and fall every day. I repent and ask for forgiveness and I know He is faithful and just to forgive me and cleanse me of my sins because Jesus is my advocate but then I sin again and repeat the process. Do you see what I am saying? Am I not demonstrating the fruit of a goat according to Calvinism?

First, It says WHOM He foreknew, not what. There is nothing in the Bible that says that God predestines according to the foreknowledge of faith. That's a "foreknowledge" invented by Arminians, solely out of whole cloth, (just like Jac's noun "Salvation" in Eph. 2:8).

I respectfully submit that if God foreknew whom He was going to predestinate then aren't you saying the same thing? The only difference is that Calvinists say that God knew in advance who He was going to predestinate to believe in Him and Arminians say that God knew who was going to believe in Him and be predestinated to be conformed to the image of His son. It seems to me that the promise of being conformed to the image of His son is the main issue anyway, and is meant to be a message of hope, not of God being a respecter of persons. Yes, in your view God who is sovereign did it all, and I believe that, but I'm still confused as to why God cannot be just as sovereign and still save all who choose him freely. Either way He is the one who saves and is in complete control.

BTW, I started Owen's book and am enjoying it. Hopefully it will clear up these issues for me, or at least help me to see where you are coming from.

FFC wrote:The Calvinist message just scares me a little because I'm not perfect. I still stumble and fall every day. I repent and ask for forgiveness and I know He is faithful and just to forgive me and cleanse me of my sins because Jesus is my advocate but then I sin again and repeat the process. Do you see what I am saying? Am I not demonstrating the fruit of a goat according to Calvinism?

Perhaps I've done a poor job of explaining the Calvinist message. We certainly do not believe in perfection in this lifetime. Let me ask you this.

You say that "I repent and ask for forgiveness". Why do you do that? Do you not see the hand of God in all of this? Did God not bring about all the details of your life to make you a Christian? Could you have just as easily been born the son of a Muslim, being taught that the best way to heaven is to blow yourself up in a Jihad? How is it that you came to the faith? Was is not Providence that allowed you to even learn of the Gospel? Did he not change your heart? What makes you different from others who do not believe?

I want to emphasize once again that Jesus has never turned away a penitent sinner because of election. It is election that enables you live a life of repentance. Without it, you would never truly repent. Repentance is the fruit of a sheep, not a goat.

AS far as the rest of you post, Owen's book will explain and exhaust the issue. The book actually gets easier as you get into it. Book I is the most difficult to read.

God Bless,

PL

PL wrote:You say that "I repent and ask for forgiveness". Why do you do that? Do you not see the hand of God in all of this? Did God not bring about all the details of your life to make you a Christian? Could you have just as easily been born the son of a Muslim, being taught that the best way to heaven is to blow yourself up in a Jihad? How is it that you came to the faith? Was is not Providence that allowed you to even learn of the Gospel? Did he not change your heart? What makes you different from others who do not believe?

I want to emphasize once again that Jesus has never turned away a penitent sinner because of election. It is election that enables you live a life of repentance. Without it, you would never truly repent. Repentance is the fruit of a sheep, not a goat.

Thank you. I know what you say is true. I appreciate your comforting words. God is truly soveriegn. I'm glad because it takes the pressure off of me.

First, It says WHOM He foreknew, not what. There is nothing in the Bible that says that God predestines according to the foreknowledge of faith. That's a "foreknowledge" invented by Arminians, solely out of whole cloth, (just like Jac's noun "Salvation" in Eph. 2:8).

Hmm . . . where did I say that Eph. 2:8 was referring to the noun salvation? As I read the verse, soteria ("salvation") isn't even there. PL, I've laid out a grammatical argument that is rooted in Greek Grammar textbooks. The specific one I am going through is written by Daniel Wallace. He's on your side of the Calvinism debate - not mine. Again, we are not dealing with interpretation; we are dealing with grammar. So, which part of this are you not understanding or not buying? I ask with all sincerity, because I can provide the references and quotes necessary, and if it helps, I'll only use Calvinistic sources!

Besides, I already pointed out that Calvin himself disagreed with you. Maybe you should reconsider a position that Greek grammar textbooks and the greatest exegetes of the past didn't hold to? As an aside, did your position (that "faith" in this verse is the gift) originate with Augustine? You do a good job referencing the history of your material, and I know the argument predates Calvin. Where did it come from and who popularized it?

I ask because Augustine never learned to read Greek, so if it came from him, the misunderstanding is perfectly acceptable. Regardless, if you are going to insist that "faith" is the gift in that verse, I am going to ask you to justify yourself grammatically.

Anyway, I do agree, though, that Arminians have a terrible problem when it comes to "election by foresight." BTW, PL, since you bring in up, I'd like to get your comments on Eph. 1:4

• For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight (NIV)

What do you understand the function of "in Him" to be in this sentence?

Jac, I'll respond in more detail tomorrow, but in the meantime answer me these questions regarding God's sovereignty over man's sinful acts.

1.) Did God do Absalom's incest openly before all Israel? Sorry, but all of the textual criticism in the world isn't going to allow you to change what the Scriptures actually say. If you TC violates Scripture, then the TC is the problem, not the Scripture.

2.) Was Absalom's incest inevitable once God proclaimed the curse? If so, How? It certainly could not be due to Absalom's free will, for he wasn't born yet. Was it the Devil? Fate?

Just some food for thought for overnight. More tomorrow.

First off, "textual criticism" has nothing to do with examining what a verse says in Greek or Hebrew. TC has to do with comparing variants in the original text and trying to determine which reading is the original. There are no TC issues that I am aware of as it relates to our discussion regarding Absalom.

Second, I'll answer your questions when you get around to responding to mine. Unless you can prove that your god isn't a sinner, I don't suspect there's much else we need to say in terms of God's relationship to Absalom, or anyone's, sin.

God bless

Jac,

My problem with these interpretations of Eph. 2:8 is that there are only two nouns that Paul could have been referring to, both feminine. Perhaps it is bad grammar to use the neuter pronoun, but the pronoun has to refer to something. "Faith" seems to be the clearest, most logical noun being referred to. The only other choice is "grace", and that does not appear to be the case without turning the sentence completely around.

Jac3510 wrote:Anyway, I do agree, though, that Arminians have a terrible problem when it comes to "election by foresight." BTW, PL, since you bring in up, I'd like to get your comments on Eph. 1:4

• For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight (NIV)

What do you understand the function of "in Him" to be in this sentence?

I believe that "in Him" is the result of being chosen, and the key is that it was done before the foundation of the world. That pretty much eliminates the idea of "free will" salvation. I'm aware of your argument that God chose those who were already "in Him" as a position. This holds no water, unless you want to suggest that we used our free will to be "in Him" from the foundation of the world. I certainly couldn't pull this off.

Jesus was very clear that no one could come to Him unless it was granted to him by the Father (John 6:65). Therefore, in order to be "in Him", we must first have it granted to us "by Him", for "of him are ye in Christ Jesus" (1 Cor. 1:30).

I believe that faith is a gift from God because one, the scriptures I gave you tell me so, and two, there in no other logical option. All in all, you still haven't explain where your faith comes from. How does one get to be "in Christ" so that he can be chosen (if we can really call this "chosen")? If it is the result of free will, then...

1.) All men must have faith, since they all have free will (see 2 Thess. 3:2)

or

2.) Those who use their free will to obtain faith must have some inherent goodness in them that the lost do not have. What is it? Righteousness? Wisdom? The problem here is that these are a gift from God as well.

I believe that without Him we can do nothing (John 15:5), and that includes having faith.

Second, I'll answer your questions when you get around to responding to mine. Unless you can prove that your god isn't a sinner, I don't suspect there's much else we need to say in terms of God's relationship to Absalom, or anyone's, sin.

Of course God isn't a sinner. He did not "force" Absalom to commit incest. Of course, when you do not have a clear understanding of the Fall of Man, this is a theological bombshell. Why should Absalom's incest surprise us? What should surprise us is that all of us aren't this wicked. God does not tempt with sin (James 1:13). How does God decree and work in the sinful acts of wicked men (which He obviously does) without being the author of sin? The answer is that God does not force man to sin. He doesn't have to. While "in Him is no darkness" (1 John 1:5), man has enough sin in himself to accomplish all the evil that God could ever decree, for when a person sins, "each one is tempted, by his own desires being led away and enticed, afterward the desire having conceived, doth give birth to sin, and the sin having been perfected, doth bring forth death." (James 1:14-15). All God has to do is withhold grace, and "[deliver] them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient..." (Romans 1:28). Man's sins, even decreed by God, remain man's own. This is what man's "free will" profits him. We are free to sin, because we are "slaves to sin". While God Himself is not the temptor, but He does send evil Spirits to accomplish these acts (See 1 Kings 22:19-23; 1 Samuel 16:14-23, 1 Samuel 18:10, 1 Samuel 19:9). Absalom sinned because he wanted to. It was enticing to him, and he enjoyed it for a season. But that doesn't answer the ultimate question which I will pose again below.

Did God do Absalom's incest openly before all Israel (2 Sam. 12:12)? Does God cause His people to walk in His Statutes (Ezekiel 36:27)? How does this fit in with libertarian free will?

PL

I believe that faith is a gift from God because one, the scriptures I gave you tell me so, and two, there in no other logical option.

How about this option? Grace through faith is the gift. Maybe the gift doesn't have to contain one or the other but both, which is salvation.

PL wrote:My problem with these interpretations of Eph. 2:8 is that there are only two nouns that Paul could have been referring to, both feminine. Perhaps it is bad grammar to use the neuter pronoun, but the pronoun has to refer to something. "Faith" seems to be the clearest, most logical noun being referred to. The only other choice is "grace", and that does not appear to be the case without turning the sentence completely around.

FFC is pretty much on here, PL. Both "grace" and "faith" are feminine nouns. It is a grammatical impossibility for either to be the antecedant for "it." What Greek grammar DOES say is that the neuter pronoun can be used to reference the idea under discussion. In fact, that is a common usage of the Greek neuter pronoun, and it is exactly what we find here. Paul says we are saved by grace through faith. He then says "it" is a gift . . . what is "it"? It is the idea he has been talking about - salvation by grace. Thus, there is no "noun" that Paul is referring back to. There is a concept - salvation by grace.

I'll deal with the rest later - right now I'm at work, but I really want to make sure the Ephesians argument is clear.

FFC wrote:

I believe that faith is a gift from God because one, the scriptures I gave you tell me so, and two, there in no other logical option.

How about this option? Grace through faith is the gift. Maybe the gift doesn't have to contain one or the other but both, which is salvation.

Even if I grant that, it still doesn't help. Afterall, didn't we define faith as "the act of believing". If so, then grace comes from "the act of believing". That, by definition, makes it not a gift, but rather a reward given to those who "act" properly.

And I still don't know where Arminian faith comes from in the first place, since not all have it (2 Thess. 3:2).

puritan lad wrote:

FFC wrote:

I believe that faith is a gift from God because one, the scriptures I gave you tell me so, and two, there in no other logical option.

How about this option? Grace through faith is the gift. Maybe the gift doesn't have to contain one or the other but both, which is salvation.

Even if I grant that, it still doesn't help. Afterall, didn't we define faith as "the act of believing". If so, then grace comes from "the act of believing". That, by definition, makes it not a gift, but rather a reward given to those who "act" properly.

And I still don't know where Arminian faith comes from in the first place, since not all have it (2 Thess. 3:2).

I believe 2 Thess. 3:2 is referring to those who do not believe rather than making a distinction between persons who have the ability to have faith and persons who do not.

In any case, let's re-establish one thing, EVERYTHING comes from God. I don't think you're going to find anyone who will argue with that. He created the universe and everything in it, including us and, therefore, everything within us can be attributed back to God. The question then becomes, did God give everyone the ability to have faith, which they can freely exercise or did he give faith to a select few and not others, with no prospect for choice?

This is the question that's gnawing at me, why the illusion of free will then? Why make me look like I have a choice when in fact I do not? Why make me feel like I'm in control of my choices then yank them from right under me? Don't you think that's a little deceitful?

Byblos wrote:I believe 2 Thess. 3:2 is referring to those who do not believe rather than making a distinction between persons who have the ability to have faith and persons who do not.

In any case, let's re-establish one thing, EVERYTHING comes from God. I don't think you're going to find anyone who will argue with that. He created the universe and everything in it, including us and, therefore, everything within us can be attributed back to God. The question then becomes, did God give everyone the ability to have faith, which they can freely exercise or did he give faith to a select few and not others, with no prospect for choice?

Then you would hold the second option, that God gives everyone the ability to have faith, it's just that some are better at obtaining it than others. That would have to be the logical Arminian conclusion. I have faith, and my unsaved neighbor doesn't because I was a little better at ____ (fill in the blank). So much for the Doctrine of Election. In the end, faith is either a gift or a work, neither of which an Arminian wishes to hold to. It is either something God gives to us, or it is something we must obtain for ourselves. If there is another option, please present it.

Byblos wrote:This is the question that's gnawing at me, why the illusion of free will then? Why make me look like I have a choice when in fact I do not? Why make me feel like I'm in control of my choices then yank them from right under me? Don't you think that's a little deceitful?

Free-will, as defined by Arminians and Pelagians, does not exist, as any basic philosopher could tell you. Man's will is free to do what he wants to do, but that is the limit. Man's will is not autonomous or libertarian, nor does it have Divine properties, able to forgive sins and save souls. Man's will, by nature, is at emnity with God. The whole person, including His will, must be transformed. Man's will is a dependent entity, controlled by a lot of things. In fact, the definition of a rational person is one who will is controlled by reason and rational thinking. To be "free" from such would make one, by definition, insane. The question, therefore, isn't one concerning whether man is free to make choices. Rather, it concerns what controls one's will, the flesh or the Spirit. Are we slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness? We are not "free" until the Son makes us free.

As far as God's Word goes, God makes to pretense whatsoever of "free-will". In fact, it is denied at every turn. (John 1:13; Romans 9:16).

PL wrote:As far as God's Word goes, God makes to pretense whatsoever of "free-will". In fact, it is denied at every turn. (John 1:13; Romans 9:16).

I'll concede that we can't by any act of our own will save ourselves, but what about after we are saved? Do we have free will to walk in the Spirit or in the flesh then...and if so what does this say about God's sovereignty as you view it?

Why does it seem that our flesh is stronger than his Spirit much of the time. How, as righteous, Holy, sanctified, Spirit indwelled, born again children of God, can we ever sin considering these credentials bestowed upon us by Christ?

I'm leaning toward Jac's explanation that as Believers the difference is now that we are not in bondage to sin and have free access to the Spirit. Is this not free will?

Byblos wrote:This is the question that's gnawing at me, why the illusion of free will then? Why make me look like I have a choice when in fact I do not? Why make me feel like I'm in control of my choices then yank them from right under me? Don't you think that's a little deceitful?

This confuses me too. If the elect are only those who God has chosen from the foundation of the world, why is the invitation universal? What is the point of faith, repentance or anything else. Why would any of this please God in the least if He is the one who pulls all the strings anyway? I'm trying to learn.

Byblos wrote:This is the question that's gnawing at me, why the illusion of free will then? Why make me look like I have a choice when in fact I do not? Why make me feel like I'm in control of my choices then yank them from right under me? Don't you think that's a little deceitful?

FFC wrote:This confuses me too. If the elect are only those who God has chosen from the foundation of the world, why is the invitation universal? What is the point of faith, repentance or anything else. Why would any of this please God in the least if He is the one who pulls all the strings anyway? I'm trying to learn.

Read my last post on the other thread -READ HERE

Confusion arises in not understanding "How God Shows Mercy", and that God knows all things before all things happen.

As stated before - Reformed Doctrine leads to extreme predeterminism and thus makes God the author of all sin, unjust, and contrary to his nature and character. Thus according to where predeterminism leads - It is no longer the goodness of God that leads to repentance as the bible declares but rather the harshness of God does.

Know matter the argument — it leads back here. Either God gave you a choice or not - if then - not, then God sinned and is not perfect.
-
-
-