Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

puritan lad wrote:No. It's called historical fact. I'll let you discover which theology surrounded which set of movements.

While we are discussing logical fallacies, I could discuss "Sweeping Generalization", but certain disclaimers were cleverly inserted into some claims to wriggle their way out of this.

Now if you want a real "Red Herring", someone did make a comment about westboro baptist church in this thread.

The question about WBC was asked by myself to see if Calvinism taken to its logical conclusion would lead to what the WBC is about. Bart seemed to think that WBC is more about hypercalvinism than mainstream Calvinism. I stand by my question, and I'm sure you weren't expecting everyone here to agree with your beliefs.

I'll let you speak for your own motivations, though I would think that your question would be more profitable if directed to a Calvinist. In any case, while I have issues with "hyper-calvinists", I don't even think its fair to to impune them with WBC.

WBC is just plain nutty.

Maybe we should create a new category for WBC .... hyper-hyper calvinists.

It's never fair to define an entire movement by its most extreme fringes. Whether WBC adopts calvinism because it best suits their purposes which have nothing to do with calvinism or they demonstrate what happens when you replace love with hate within the same framework, I wasn't intending to impugn all of calvinism or even necessarily hyper-calivinists (although I stand by my statement that if you're going to call them calvinists then hyper is definitely the best description of the available options.) They do promote calvinism pretty clearly and distinctly, if not in spirit that at least by their use of terminology.

B. W. wrote:Great answers Maytan!

Next question, where in the bible does it say these things?

[Please note, I was in a slight accident today and have 4 stitches in my lower lip and a sore neck and side (was in the hospital all morning long getting checked out – so I might take a break till late Monday Evening to get back on this topic but all things work together for good for them who love Christ and called to his purposes! Amen!]
-
-
-

Sorry for the delay, and even more sorry to hear about your accident! I'll keep you in prayer.

Anyway, scriptures.. scriptures...

1 John 3:19-20, Job 28:24, Job 37:16, Isaiah 46:9, Psalm 139:4.

Those are the verses I could come up with that deal with God knowing the future.

Maytan wrote:

B. W. wrote:Great answers Maytan!

Next question, where in the bible does it say these things?

[Please note, I was in a slight accident today and have 4 stitches in my lower lip and a sore neck and side (was in the hospital all morning long getting checked out – so I might take a break till late Monday Evening to get back on this topic but all things work together for good for them who love Christ and called to his purposes! Amen!

Sorry for the delay, and even more sorry to hear about your accident! I'll keep you in prayer.

Anyway, scriptures.. scriptures...

1 John 3:19-20, Job 28:24, Job 37:16, Isaiah 46:9, Psalm 139:4.

Those are the verses I could come up with that deal with God knowing the future.

These are excellent verses – now since God knows everything about a person before the foundations of the world, then he will know the result of his revelation, or word, would have on each person as thru such presents to them the reality of himself and need of a savior (Romans 1:16, 19, 20, 21c)

With such already knowing the results, God can then do with them as he sees fit. They reject him, he rejects them. The potter shapes the clay. In nowise does God act unfair to them, he dispensed his word to them in many ways. Already knowing their response, the Lord remains fair (equitious – Psalms 98:9c) to them and acts within the realm of perfect justice towards them, and can use them as he sees fit.

Knowing beforehand all things, God acts with perfect justice to all. Even to old Pharaoh, God foreknew he would reject him no matter what, so why not harden such a heart as this to make a spectacle out of him? Same with those mentioned in Romans 1:28 foreknown that they would reject his word/revelation so God rejects them.

Remember God’s word/revelation produces a choice when before there was none and God foreknowing the outcome that his word/revelation/call will have before anyone ever was, God can give what they want more than God, now in this mortal life. God knows which future progeny of such rejecters will be quickened by the word/revelation/call will return to him so he lets the sinners/rejecter go about.

Foreknowing all things as God also helps explain Romans 8:29, 30c.

God, in many ways, speaks that, “Where are you” to every human being, because of the revelation of these words, will either cause a person to remain hiding, lost, or causes them to stand before his grace. That is the purpose and the intent of his word – to produce, thrust a divine choice upon the sons and daughters of mankind. Their sin remains their own, unless they stand resting upon his grace to clothe them by the blood of his sacrifice.

It is the intent of the Word/revelation to present a choice. God already foreknows the results and can do with us as he pleases with no violation to His own nature and character or that of the person either – such is the standards of God’s absolute justice to all. Just think, if God did not speak, we would be lost in sin and rebellion. Praise the Lord that He spoke in such just manner that creates options when before we had none.

Never think God unfair or unjust because his ways are not like our own ways – His ways and wisdom in doing things is so far above us – all we can do is marvel and thank him for his quickening word:

Where are you!
-
-
-

Thanks again, B.W.! That was an enjoyable read, very interesting indeed. (as was the rest of our conversation)

Makes much more sense to me now.

Maytan wrote:Thanks again, B.W.! That was an enjoyable read, very interesting indeed. (as was the rest of our conversation)

Makes much more sense to me now.

Thank you for the time from here, you can see how the rest falls into place!
-
-
-

God's predestination is absolute, and not contingent upon anything man does or wills.

See The Christian "P" Word

The real reason why man rejects the idea of predestination is because our natures strive for autonomy. We want to be in control, and it grates our sensibilities to find out that we are not. "...apart from me you can do nothing." (John 15:5).

It all boils down to the same stuff. The verse cited here is completely off the topic of predestination or election. A poor attempt to justify a position if you ask me.
The assertion is, if you don't agree with Calvinist's definitions it's because you want to be autonomous, and thus impune God's soveriegnty.
It all boils down to definitions. For example, saying 'God's predestination is absolute, and not contingent upon anything man does or wills.' Your concern here is the soveriegnty of God. But really you are narrowly defining predestination, which in fact may not fully represent God's truth on the matter, thus creating your own contingency. I'm fairly certain you won't see it this way. I've got a good commentary from Pettingill on this very thin. Maybe I can find and post.

jlay wrote:It all boils down to definitions...But really you are narrowly defining predestination

That's precisely the issue here. Words have definitions. The other "definitions" of predestination that have been presented are not predestination. They would be more like ratification. Predestination is not merely God's stamp of approval on our good choice, for he predestined is "according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will," (Ephesians 1:11). We aren't allowed to redefine a term to meet our own desires, thus no apology for the "narrow definition".

Predestination is not merely God's stamp of approval on our good choice, for he predestined is "according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will," (Ephesians 1:11).

See we do agree.

We aren't allowed to redefine a term to meet our own desires,

Amen!

I'm confused. Did you finally cross over to Geneva?

PL,
Presestination is a biblical fact. Anyone who tries to deny it, is simply denying the truth of the scriptures.
It is not the doctrine of predestination that is the issue. It is the dogmatic views that you present regarding your understanding of it.

I am not denying that predestination is biblical doctrine. So continuing to quote verses or imply that I do not believe in predestination is simply error on your part. The fact that predestination is, isn't the issue. It is the 'what' regarding predestination that puts us at odds.

You've given your sources. I've given my examples. We vehemently disagree. We both agree that predestination is a biblical fact.

jlay wrote:PL,
Presestination is a biblical fact. Anyone who tries to deny it, is simply denying the truth of the scriptures.
It is not the doctrine of predestination that is the issue. It is the dogmatic views that you present regarding your understanding of it.

I am not denying that predestination is biblical doctrine. So continuing to quote verses or imply that I do not believe in predestination is simply error on your part. The fact that predestination is, isn't the issue. It is the 'what' regarding predestination that puts us at odds.

You've given your sources. I've given my examples. We vehemently disagree. We both agree that predestination is a biblical fact.

As always I am also confused. What exactly are the points of disagreements then?

Definition of terms, Byblos. They agree the word is Biblical but they define it differently.

It would seem to me the question here involves more than pulling out prooftexts. It's a question of what the term and concept means, as pulled out from the Scriptures themselves.

Bart gave the basic gist of it. It involves the words predestination, election, etc.

These are biblical terms and concepts. Period, end of story. How they are understood and defined is what is at issue. PL's persective when you boil it down is that predestination is the preprogramming of an individual by God. (He may argue with that, I don't know.) That a person is incapable of responding to God, period. Saved or Reprobate. Unless the HS places faith in them (programs), they can't have faith, and thus respond (if you want to call it that) to God. That faith is essentially implanted into the person, or it is not. That is election in their view. God has chosen individually, before creation, who will be saved and who will be condemned, and that matter is completely without consideration to the will or choosing of the individual. A condemned person is incapable of responding to the general revelation of God in his life. He refuses to believe because that is who he is programmed to be. Just as well, the saved person is incapable of not responding. They respond because they are programmed to respond.

At focus here is the Calvinist's view of the soverignty of God. In there view, for man to have any free will to respond to God, means that man is cooperating in his salvation and therefore adding to God's work. This impunes their idea of soverignty. So the Calvinist says, God CANNOT permit man, (Actually they would say WILL not) or design man to have a capacity for faith, in which he can receive general revelation about God, or specific revelation about God, and thus willingly respond or reject. They would never agree that they are saying God cannot do something. But, obviously this is a huge area where myself and many others most certainly believe they are doing that very thing. That is why I say, in their attempt to revere the soveriegnty of God, the defile it. But for the framework of TULIP to work, this has to be.

The obvious problems are when you try and reconcile these terms (defined as above) to other areas of scripture where human response and accountability are reality. In fact I don't think they are easy to resolve under any theology. There is a good bit of mystery. And we are not intended or able to understand all of God's ways. Based on how these terms are used in scripture, one must be willing to admit that these things are quite beyond full comprehension. That may be seen as a cop out from the Calvinists, but I think it is a position that one must humble themselves to accept. Naturally though, man wants to wrestle out a reason that fits into a framework he can point to and claim authoritative understanding. PL criticizes a rejection of this view as a desire for autonomy. But I can't help but see the contradiction in that.

So, the quoting of verses that clearly teach election and predestination are not what is at odds. I believe them, as do all sorts of dispensationalists and Armenians. As do I believe in the scriptural truth of the soveriengty of God. And quite frankly I am sick of the implications that I reject election and predestination. I DO NOT. I reject Calvinism. And I think for darn good reasons.