Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

The question stands. Why do some men not believe? Do they identify the grace and just ignore it? If they do not identify the grace then why not if it’s ‘there’?

That's a great question, Danny. I really don't know why some men choose not to believe. I certainly could guess, but I just don't know for sure.

I have an idea why: because they have not been regenerated.

So God quickens all and only some choose to respond to the quickening? [Or is the quickening only identifiable to some?]

RickD wrote:I think all who are quickened, respond. They either accept the gospel, or they deny Christ. And by denying the gospel of Christ, they deny the only way they have to gain eternal life.

So men are first quickened and then reject the quickening? Rick, if that’s what you are saying, then our Lord must have been mistaken:

John 6:37,39
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

John 6:44
No-one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

But of course our Lord can not have been mistaken. Since Christ loses none of those whom the Father draws, and since we know that not all men are saved, this means that God does not draw all men. Now if you disagree with this reading, Rick, then please offer an alternative reading of these verses.

Either way we surely end up with a pretty inefficient mode of regeneration, don’t we?

RickD wrote:I'm not sure I would call the work of Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, inefficient.

Neither would I, Rick. But if salvation is offered to all men head for head, then the mode of regeneration is comparatively shoddy.

But what about this:

John 10:15
just as the Father knows me and I know the Father— and I lay down my life for the sheep.

John 10:26
but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.

10:26 does not say “you are not my sheep because you do not believe”; it says “you do not believe because you are not my sheep.” God’s grace is clearly withdrawn, Rick. Again, if you think I am interpreting this falsely, please offer an alternative reading here.

If Calvinism is true? Rick, are Christ’s words true?

RickD wrote:Danny, if by "Christ's words", you mean he said he only died for the elect, then I certainly don't see what you're seeing.

You have just reverted back to the same line as before. How many times does it need to be pointed out that we do not know who the elect are? Instead of just repeating this fallacious line, why not address our Lord and Saviour’s own words? Where’s Calvinism in our Lord’s own words above? You have issues with Christ’s words, brother, not John Calvin. You’ve basically inferred the same bogus “logical conclusion” as before, thus bringing us full circle.

RickD wrote:No, Danny. You are adding to Christ's words. He didn't say he only died for the elect. You inferred that. Danny, for the umpteenth time, I have issues with Calvinism's interpretation of scripture. I certainly don't disagree with Christ's words.

Rick, Christ died for His sheep. If Christ’s sheep are not His own then who or what are they? I’m giving you my interpretation on a plain reading of the texts, Rick. Now I know we can all claim to be applying a plain reading, so with that in mind I’d now like to see your reading of these verses I’m putting up, bro.

Danny, don't be dense. I am asking you to answer some very simple questions. Don't answer questions with questions.

(NASB)Isaiah 1:18-20
"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool. [19] "If you consent and obey, You will eat the best of the land; [20] "But if you refuse and rebel, You will be devoured by the sword " Truly, the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

Who is God talking to?
He calls someone to reason together with him. Who?
He asks for their consent to obey him. Who?

Secondary question:
Why does he do this?

Supposedly, you are regenerated, Danny. Yet, you sound incapable of understanding the word of the Lord. Go ahead, Danny. Answer these simple questions. I will not answer them for you. Answering questions with a question is not an answer.

I understand epistemology, Danny. I suggest you get on with answering instead of ad hominems. You look like a little pouting child.

domokunrox wrote:Danny, don't be dense. I am asking you to answer some very simple questions. Don't answer questions with questions.

I’ll answer your pseudo philosophy any way I see fit, Dom.

domokunrox wrote:(NASB)Isaiah 1:18-20
"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool. [19] "If you consent and obey, You will eat the best of the land; [20] "But if you refuse and rebel, You will be devoured by the sword " Truly, the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

Who is God talking to?

A rebellious people.

domokunrox wrote:He calls someone to reason together with him. Who?

The rebellious people.

domokunrox wrote:He asks for their consent to obey him. Who?

God doesn’t ask for anything. God is announcing that there will a cleansing from sin. Some will continue to be rebellious, and some will become obedient covenant keepers. This is God’s miracle, since nothing preceding these verses even hints at obedience. So salvation comes before obedience.

domokunrox wrote:Secondary question:
Why does he do this?

He doesn’t ask for anyone’s consent. So what’s your point?

domokunrox wrote:Supposedly, you are regenerated, Danny. Yet, you sound incapable of understanding the word of the Lord. Go ahead, Danny. Answer these simple questions. I will not answer them for you. Answering questions with a question is not an answer.

Yes I am regenerated, Dom. Would you seriously like to bring that into question? I’m more than capable, Dom, the trouble is that you think your questions are somehow profound. Alas they are anything but.

So, now you can play your ace of spades and show me how this undermines total depravity, Dom. Can’t wait!

domokunrox wrote:I understand epistemology, Danny.

No you don’t, Dom. As shown previously, your epistemology is I have no epistemology. Accordingly I have no reason to accept you are a rational human being. And until your ramblings improve this will remain the case.

domokunrox wrote: I suggest you get on with answering instead of ad hominems. You look like a little pouting child.

Do you know what an ad hominem is, Dom?

You sound like a trumpet-blowing cartoon philosopher, Dom. I know you think you’re the bees knees, but a man with no epistemology is a man with no claim to knowledge.

FWIW,

This is how Phil Johnson defines hyper-Calvinism on a Calvinist Web-Site.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm

Johnson is a 5 point calvinist and he has and article addressing what he (from his position as a mainline Calvinist) fears is becoming a wave of hyper-calvinism, particularly from observing forums and web-sites and in particular he notes that he sees it as a disturbing trend particularly among young reformed students. (He wrote this in 1998.)

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

My observation is that most Calvinists (at least that I've been in contact with) have espoused as least 1 of these positions in their teaching and then backtracked to argue that while intellectually and logically the particular element is "indisputable" scripturally, they will then argue that the Calvinist should live and act as if these things are not true because we don't share the same knowledge of God and therefore it's a matter of obedience to God.

Anyway, definitions are important in any discussion like this. In an effort to move forward then, for the purposes of clarity I'd ask if this definition of "hyper-calvinism" from a Calvinist friendly source is accurate. If not, then how would you define hyper-Calvinism?

You sound like a trumpet-blowing cartoon philosopher, Dom. I know you think you’re the bees knees, but a man with no epistemology is a man with no claim to knowledge.

Danny, I'm curious, would you say that about Aquinas?

John 6:44
No-one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

But of course our Lord can not have been mistaken. Since Christ loses none of those whom the Father draws, and since we know that not all men are saved, this means that God does not draw all men. Now if you disagree with this reading, Rick, then please offer an alternative reading of these verses.

'Danny, It does say that God draws all men. John 12:32 (The crucifixion is the move of God, framed before the foundations of the world, in which God would draw all men to himself.) One must equivocate give to draw to arrive at such a conclusion. And even if we did that, there are other explanations for Jesus words to these unbelieving religous folk.

Canuckster1127 wrote:FWIW,

This is how Phil Johnson defines hyper-Calvinism on a Calvinist Web-Site.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm

Johnson is a 5 point calvinist and he has and article addressing what he (from his position as a mainline Calvinist) fears is becoming a wave of hyper-calvinism, particularly from observing forums and web-sites and in particular he notes that he sees it as a disturbing trend particularly among young reformed students. (He wrote this in 1998.)

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

My observation is that most Calvinists (at least that I've been in contact with) have espoused as least 1 of these positions in their teaching and then backtracked to argue that while intellectually and logically the particular element is "indisputable" scripturally, they will then argue that the Calvinist should live and act as if these things are not true because we don't share the same knowledge of God and therefore it's a matter of obedience to God.

Anyway, definitions are important in any discussion like this. In an effort to move forward then, for the purposes of clarity I'd ask if this definition of "hyper-calvinism" from a Calvinist friendly source is accurate. If not, then how would you define hyper-Calvinism?

If that is hyper-Calvinism, then I disagree with it, and agree with the writer. I did at some point wonder about God's love, seeing as God has hated some. But I believe (with the help of B.W.) that God does indeed have a general love for all. But this love can in no way resemble the love God has for the elect.

God's graces upon mankind are obvious. And biblical. Or is there some confusion over what is meant by common grace? God’s saving grace is surely not common. But His general graces visited upon mankind are indisputable.

I liked the bit emphasising the distinction between the two wills of God. I’m surprised anyone could blur the two.

Bart, I've not seen a Calvinist argue for any of these points. I'm sure there are plenty out there, but I see nothing logical about it, not really. It seems to me that it would be easy to get carried away with one’s own ‘importance’ in election if election is looked upon in such a way. But a cursory reading of relevant texts tells us we have nothing to boast about. There is nothing in us worthy of justification. Being elect doesn’t make one special. It makes one extremely grateful, amazed, humbled. What I see in the descriptions provided in that link is an almost reticent stance towards preaching the gospel. But I’m not up on the hyper thing, so maybe there’s more to it.

Danny, funny you say cartoon philosophy because its like I am trying to get you to understand 3 bible verses and its like I am having a dialog with Daffy Duck.

You have glasses on that make you incredibly dense.
You ask such dumb questions like "what does reason have to do with anything?" And make statements like "God doesn't ask for anything".

God calls them to reason with him. Gee....hmmm....maybe its because they can be reasonable? They have the ABILITY to. That the sinful man is NOT "so depraved that they cannot even understand God". Didn't figure that out, did you? By your own standard, you are not regenerated. Thankfully, it doesn't work like you say it does.

Can you explain to me what was done at the Brazen alter?
Can you explain to me what the Brazen Laver was for? What was in it?
Can you explain why the priesthood had to put on the garments?

God certainly did ask for consent. Its right there and you cannot escape it. That distorted Calvinist doctrine you have bought into doesn't allow you to read it correctly.

He calls us to reason (because we can understand), and he asks us to consent and obey.

He lays it down very simple, Danny. And its in chronological order, too. Don't try to change the order of events. Take your John Calvin glasses off and BE REASONABLE.

There is 2 ways here.
Consent, obey, and they will live
Rebel, disobey, and they will die

Danny, don't even attempt to discuss epistemology. You don't even have a clue.
You only need to ask 2 questions to do epistemology.
Why?
How do you know that is true?

Good luck trying to tell me that you can gain knowledge asking those questions instead of doing the actual work in knowledge claims.

Here's epistemology for you
How do you know that?
How do you?
why?
How are you sure?
How do you know that?
How do you know?
Why?
How do you know?
The end of the line? Well, too bad. It doesn't exist.

domokunrox wrote:Danny, funny you say cartoon philosophy because its like I am trying to get you to understand 3 bible verses and its like I am having a dialog with Daffy Duck.

You have glasses on that make you incredibly dense.
You ask such dumb questions like "what does reason have to do with anything?" And make statements like "God doesn't ask for anything".

God calls them to reason with him. Gee....hmmm....maybe its because they can be reasonable? They have the ABILITY to. That the sinful man is NOT "so depraved that they cannot even understand God". Didn't figure that out, did you? By your own standard, you are not regenerated. Thankfully, it doesn't work like you say it does.

Can you explain to me what was done at the Brazen alter?
Can you explain to me what the Brazen Laver was for? What was in it?
Can you explain why the priesthood had to put on the garments?

God certainly did ask for consent. Its right there and you cannot escape it. That distorted Calvinist doctrine you have bought into doesn't allow you to read it correctly.

He calls us to reason (because we can understand), and he asks us to consent and obey.

He lays it down very simple, Danny. And its in chronological order, too. Don't try to change the order of events. Take your John Calvin glasses off and BE REASONABLE.

There is 2 ways here.
Consent, obey, and they will live
Rebel, disobey, and they will die

Danny, don't even attempt to discuss epistemology. You don't even have a clue.
You only need to ask 2 questions to do epistemology.
Why?
How do you know that is true?

Good luck trying to tell me that you can gain knowledge asking those questions instead of doing the actual work in knowledge claims.

Here's epistemology for you
How do you know that?
How do you?
why?
How are you sure?
How do you know that?
How do you know?
Why?
How do you know?
The end of the line? Well, too bad. It doesn't exist.

Dom, the above is so disjointed and haphazard that I am going to leave it unmolested. Once again, after all the talk, you've offered nothing.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/destined.html
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/forgiveness.html

RickD wrote:http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/destined.html
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/forgiveness.html

Long on rhetoric, short on argument.

Some hard comments have been made on this thread. Some of them, made by me.

I want to clarify a few things. I don't hate Calvinism or Reformed Theology (which sometimes are not the same thing). I think Calvinism, in general, is a mainstream and viable system of interpretting and understanding Scripture. I think there is a very broad scope of beliefs and expression of Calvinism and Reformed Theology and that it's a dicey thing to generalize and lump everyone together. Hyper-calvinist fellowships, of which WBC definitely is, is the exception, not the rule. While I believe that, if you take the core of Calvinism (TULIP), (which interestingly was not coined as an acrostic by Calvin himself) and are intellectually consistent I think, in the end you end up elevating the sovereignty of God to the point where the Love of God has to be redefined and you also have to ultimately attribute Evil to God. That's my opinion. That's not a ground shaking opinion and it's one that has been expressed by many, even at times Calvinists and Reformed believers who represent a broad spectrum of beliefs and it shouldn't be assumed that all Reformed and Calvinist people agree on these points. Most Calvinists don't follow through on this logical path (though some do) to that end, and most too wouldn't agree with my assessment which at the end ultimately is my opinion and only that.

Anyway, just so things are clear. My opinions of Calvinism as a system do not necessarily transfer to the person of Calvinists, most of whom are sincere, genuine believers who hold to the basic tenets of historical Christianity, even if they have some different views as to how things fit together to provide meaning (as do I for that matter.)

Those who are fellow moderators on this board are my friends and my brothers and sisters in Christ, as are many more who interact on this board. There's no problem when moderators disagree on something. We have our own backgrounds, views and opinions on things are all of us are works in progress. We're also human and we have things that we're particularly passionate about and when those collide we can have a heated or spirited interaction. We're deliberate in seeking to have some variety of backgrounds and beliefs for those who moderate here. How dull it would be if we didn't have those differences in backgrounds or opinions.

I think that when we discuss and/or debate points the best we can ever do is simply to state what we believe and why and the other person does the same.
Beyond that one can debate the various merits or lacktherof of those view points BUT what should never be done is overly-judgmental words and harsh language and the horrific "I am right you are wrong because my interpretation of the bible says so" that tends to make some Christians look very bad and intolerant of others.
As Christians we all believe in the same lord and saviour and we all believe that he died and was resurrected and will come again.
That is the core of Christianity, that is the core of our love for one another, the common-bond if you will.
We express our views and we do it out of love, we should respect others that do the same just as they should respect Us and our views.