Evidence for God from Science

Two part reply!!!

-----------------------------------------------

Well, since I am not a Calvinist, and no amount of screaming, whispering, calling, or other blinding light has managed to change that; since God has not irresistably drawn me to believe His wonderful truths, but has instead left me in the total inability so beautifully articulated by the first petal, I am then off to start--as per a wonderful comic I once saw--the First Church of the Nonelect.

It is in this church that we shall praise God for not saving us. We shall praise Him for His gracious election of the elect, and for the fact that in our condemnation that we might yet still bring to Him the praise and glory that only He deserves. We shall sing songs and hymns and spiritual songs of the wonderful doctrines that we are left unable to believe.

FFC, BW, YLT - I invite you to be on the deacon board. I would also like to invite Puritan Lad and zoegirl to address us, that we may be more fully able to praise God for the truths He will not let us believe.

Again, praise God through whom all blessings flow!!!

[/sarcasm]
--------------------------

btw, it is exactly this question that led many Calvinists to reject the very notion of evangelism. They would condemn our resident five-pointers as soft on the "Gospel".

I think if I were a Calvinist, I would simply walk up to 100 random people a day and use a simple version of Jonah's sermon: "You will die and burn in Hell." At that point, I would expect to be able to say of the Elect: "They believed God. They declared a fast, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth." (Jonah 3:5)

[/logic]

God bless

it is exactly this question that led many Calvinists to reject the very notion of evangelism

Jac,

This is pure ignorance. You badly need to do a study on the History of Revival and Missions. For that matter, you need to do a study on the theology behind the foundation of America. What theology was it that brought the Pilgrims to the country for the express purpose of "propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God"? It was nothing other than pure, Five-Point Calvinism. What theology was the basis for the London and Scottish Missionary Societies? Take a guess.

In the end, you only have two options. Either...

1.) Christ didn't really intend to make actual payment for sins at Calvary, or
2.) Christ intended to pay for everyone sins, but failed.

Which of these unbiblical positions would you like to defend, (without your absurd position that the payment was actually made to the debtor and left in our hands)? The position of universal atonement (and resistable grace) makes Christ's atonement all but useless. In fact, you would hold that it was possible for a person for whom Christ died to actually go to Hell. Some atonement huh?

"all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"" (Daniel 4:35)

We have already been through the Biblical accounts, but you won't accept the clear teachings of Romans 9:10-23, Ezekiel 36:26-27, Ephesians 1:1-11, etc. Reject our methods if you like, but don't insult our intelligence by making these types of ridiculous statements concerning evangelism. Give me the methods of Spurgeon, Owen, Whitefield, Edwards, Boyce, Carey, etc. (I'll bet you love Joel Osteen's evangelism methods).

puritan lad wrote:This is pure ignorance. You badly need to do a study on the History of Revival and Missions. For that matter, you need to do a study on the theology behind the foundation of America. What theology was it that brought the Pilgrims to the country for the express purpose of "propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God"? It was nothing other than pure, Five-Point Calvinism. What theology was the basis for the London and Scottish Missionary Societies? Take a guess.

Funny. I don't recall saying that no Calvinist had an evangelistic fervor. Are you going to tell me that there have never been Calvinists who believed that evangelism was unnecessary? It is a valid understanding of the logic of your position. The fact that the logic is clearly contradicted by Scripture (the requirement to evangelize) isn't my problem. It's yours.

PL wrote:In the end, you only have two options. Either...

1.) Christ didn't really intend to make actual payment for sins at Calvary, or
2.) Christ intended to pay for everyone sins, but failed.

Which of these unbiblical positions would you like to defend . . .

Neither, but then again, you know that.

PL wrote:Which of these unbiblical positions would you like to defend, (without your absurd position that the payment was actually made to the debtor and left in our hands)? The position of universal atonement (and resistable grace) makes Christ's atonement all but useless. In fact, you would hold that it was possible for a person for whom Christ died to actually go to Hell. Some atonement huh?

I don't see what is absured about universal (NOT unlimited) atonement. Christ's death did EXACTLY what it was supposed to do. It removed the guilt of sin from mankind. You are the one who equates atonement with justification, and that in the complete absense of Scripture. It's all tradition, PL.

PL wrote:We have already been through the Biblical accounts, but you won't accept the clear teachings of Romans 9:10-23, Ezekiel 36:26-27, Ephesians 1:1-11, etc. Reject our methods if you like, but don't insult our intelligence by making these types of ridiculous statements concerning evangelism. Give me the methods of Spurgeon, Owen, Whitefield, Edwards, Boyce, Carey, etc. (I'll bet you love Joel Osteen's evangelism methods).

You and I talked about Rom 9, and BIG SHOCK, you ran to OTHER texts to support your conclusions. And too bad you think that Ez 36 is a promise to the church. You and your coveting . . . wanting Israel's promises for yourself. Tsk tsk tsk. And my entire understanding of election is built on Eph 1:1-11. But you know all that, and you just do the same thing you always do: assert/proof text/provide no exegesis/mock.

Fine by me. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a planning session for our first meeting next Sunday. I'm going to preach through Romans 9, or maybe instead I'll just preach through John Piper's Desiring God. I have to tell them the good news that God hates us and refuses to allow us to believe, and we are going to glorify Him for it!!!

--------------------------------------------

As an aside, the biggest fault I see in irresistable grace is that it is logically contradictory to the Calvinist doctrine of election. They believe that individuals were chosen before the foundation of the world to be saved. This election was made before Heaven, Earth, and Hell were even created.Thus, they were never in any danger of Hell. There was, then, nothing to be delievered FROM.

Against this, irresistable grace says that God calls certain lost men--the elect--to be saved. If election is true, there is no such thing as irresistable grace, because there is nothing to bestow grace upon. These men were born justified because God justified them in His election before the foundation of the world. It's utter lunacy.

Now . . . back to that sermon.

Speaking of sermons, PL, have you considered the sermon I provided you in the last post? It would save you a LOT of time. Even Spurgeon never got a WHOLE CITY to repent. Maybe you guys are just making it too complicated???

They believe that individuals were chosen before the foundation of the world to be saved

We believe this because it is scriptural.

In Romans 9:11, God chose Jacob over Esau when "the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand". Ephesians 1:4 says that "he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him", not because he foreknew that we would be holy and blameless. Ephesians 1:5 and Ephesians 1:11 agree that we were "predestined... according to the purpose of his will". In 2 Timothy 1:9, He "saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given to us through Christ Jesus before the world was". The first observation here is that we were saved, not according to our works (or wills), but according to His own purpose and grace". The second observation is that "grace was given us through Christ Jesus before the world was". Therefore, the grace that we have is not the result of foreseen faith, but according to His own purpose before the world was." 2 Thessalonians 2:13 tells us that "God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth". "Belief of the truth" is part of what God chose for us from the beginning.

Even Spurgeon never got a WHOLE CITY to repent. Maybe you guys are just making it too complicated???

Neither did Jesus or Paul. Maybe they got it wrong as well. Or maybe it was never the Father's intention to save a whole city. Maybe it was the will of the father to hide the kingdom from the Pharisees and reveal it to His Apostles. Why? Free will? Hardly. The Biblical answer is the only one we need. "..even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight" (Luke 10:21).

What did Christ accomplish at Calvary?

According to the Scriptures, He came…

1.) “to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (Galatians 4:5).
2.) To “justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities" (Isaiah 53:11).
3.) To “save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21).
4.) “to seek and to save what was lost” (Matthew 18:11; Luke 19:10).
5.) “to save sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15).
6.) To “deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.” (Hebrews 2:14-15).
7.) To “abolish death, and to bring life and immortality to light" (2 Timothy 1:10).
8.) To “sanctify and cleanse His Church” (Romans 5:25-27),
9.) To "make and end of sins, reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in everlasting righteousness” (Daniel 9:24)
10.) To “bear our sins" (1 Peter 2:24),
11.) To “bear our iniquities, and to have them laid upon him" (Isaiah 53:5-12).
12.) To “sanctify Himself, that they (those who the Father had given Him) also might be sanctified through the truth." (John 17:17-19)
13.) "to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34).
14.) To "purchase the church with his own blood" (Acts 20:28).
15.) To give himself to us to redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar (chosen) people, zealous of good works" (Titus 2:14)?
16.) To “enter once for all into the Holy Place, taking ... his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12)
17.) To “lay down His life for His Sheep…to give them eternal life, and they shall never perish” (John 10:11, John 10:27-28).
18.) To “redeem us from the curse, being made a curse for us" (Galatians 3:13)
19.) To “purge your consciences from dead works to serve the living God." (Hebrews 9:14).
20.) To “[give] himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father" (Galatians 1:4).

Did Christ accomplish all of these things for every single person on planet earth, or only for those whom the Father gave Him? I'll let the reader decide…

Let's review: "assert/proof text/provide no exegesis/mock."

PL wrote:We believe this because it is scriptural.

There's the assertion.

PL wrote:In Romans 9:11, God chose Jacob over Esau when "the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand". Ephesians 1:4 says that "he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him", not because he foreknew that we would be holy and blameless. Ephesians 1:5 and Ephesians 1:11 agree that we were "predestined... according to the purpose of his will". In 2 Timothy 1:9, He "saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given to us through Christ Jesus before the world was".

And here are the proof texts.

PL wrote:The first observation here is that we were saved, not according to our works (or wills), but according to His own purpose and grace". The second observation is that "grace was given us through Christ Jesus before the world was". Therefore, the grace that we have is not the result of foreseen faith, but according to His own purpose before the world was." 2 Thessalonians 2:13 tells us that "God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth". "Belief of the truth" is part of what God chose for us from the beginning.

And look . . . no exegesis!!! Just more assertions (which you label "observation").

PL wrote:Neither did Jesus or Paul. Maybe they got it wrong as well. Or maybe it was never the Father's intention to save a whole city. Maybe it was the will of the father to hide the kingdom from the Pharisees and reveal it to His Apostles. Why? Free will? Hardly. The Biblical answer is the only one we need. "..even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight" (Luke 10:21).

OH AND JAC IS 4 FOR 4 - There's the mocking.

And this followed by 20 more proof texts with no exegesis and mocking. Hmmm . . . have I got you pegged or what?!?!?

Now, I handled Romans 9 a LONG time ago, at YOUR request. And you refused to reply to it. I have given extensive exegetical evidences on this board for Eph 1. You simply mock and ignore, as usual. And I can't bother to point out where your exegesis is wrong because you haven't provided any!!!

All this, and we still have your refusal to admit that there have been Calvinists to understand your system to teach non-evangelism. And, of course, you don't bother responding to Jonah's sermon. Hey, if God elected ALL of Nineveh and brought them IRRESISTABLY with Jonah's eight word sermon ("Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned"), then that is obviously all God "needs."

So I tell you what - let's see if you REALLY believe your own thelogy. You tell me in less than one ten words what to believe. If I am elect, I will. If I am not, how DARE you try to change God's will? In the meantime, I'm still working on that sermon. I have a title: "Top Ten Reasons God Loves to Hate Us (and why we love it, too!!!)" What do you think? Pretty catchy, eh?

Umm...pot calling the kettle black? You accuse PL of mocking and your replies are dripping... soaked with sarcasm, disdain, and insult?

I don't care to get into the debate (read both of your threads when you both battled it out earlier), but was laughing when I read your accusation. You can hardly claim your own innocence here.

zoegirl wrote:Umm...pot calling the kettle black? You accuse PL of mocking and your replies are dripping... soaked with sarcasm, disdain, and insult?

I don't care to get into the debate (read both of your threads when you both battled it out earlier), but was laughing when I read your accusation. You can hardly claim your own innocence here.

PL and I have a long, long history, zoe. The Is Calvinism a Heresy and the Romans 9 debates are probably the best examples of a real discussion between the two of us. Now, I don't have a problem with the sarcasm and mocking. Jesus, Paul, many OT prophets, and even God all do that all throughout Scripture. The difference in PL and myself, however, and this has always been the case, is that he 1) asserts, 2) provides proof texts, 3) provides no exegesis, and 4) as if 1-3 were enough, proceeds with mocking.

In my case, I 1) assert, 2) exegete selected passages (by request or to defend my position), 3) draw logical coralaries, and 4) mock

At the end of the day, it's just REALLY hard to take a doctrine like irresistable grace . . . or Calvinism itself . . . seriously. You know when I'll respect Calvinism? When an adherent explains it to me, and when I reject it (as I always do), says, "Hmm . . . must suck to be non-elect" and then walk away, thoroughly convinced that I'm either not elect (and thus, nothing (s)he can do to change it) or that God has not at that time chosen to reveal it to me.

For all y'all's arguing, it just shows your lack of faith in your own theology.

edit: so you think you'll be up for addressing our fledgling congregation is PL refuses to show up???

edit2: besides, even if you read my replies in this thread, which have admittedly contained sacrasm, that sarcasm has been clearly marked off from the content of the rest of the post. Secondly, even the sarcastic portions are meant to drive home a point. In other words, I'm not mocking for the sake of mocking. Nor have I intentionally insulted PL's character, as he has with mine. If you look carefully, my friend, you'll see a vast difference in our posts.

Black? Nah . . . I'm thinking more charcoal gray . . .

No, I have no interest in debating with you. Despite your claims that your mocking is justified (which, by the way, I find your defense insufficient), I find no justification for it. Your defense for your mocking is that either he started it, he is stupid, Jesus mocked sometimes, or as long as you are clear about your sarcasm it is ok.

My students use these arguements and I give the reasons about just as much credibility.

Obviously, any arguments I have would fall on deaf ears, since you have so obviously decided against it. Why should I waste my breath? Since I have read your previous postings, you 100% reject it. I may disagree, but I allow you your theology. In essentials we agree. Pity that you don't and call us heretics.

That's fair, zoe

So you think mocking is never justified. Hey, cool. I'm looking forward to your rebuking PL for it now. And while you are at it, you can correct our Lord while you are at it. Or maybe the apostles? Or the OT prophets???

Wait . . . sorry, that was more sarcasm (or was it?!?!). Look, I, for one, don't have a problem with sarcasm. I mean, as you so beautifully and fully articulated, I am fond of the device myself. My problem is with assertions without Scripture, and with Scripture without exegesis. Now that is a method I don't engage in, but it is one that our good friend PL here has absolutely mastered. I just thought it rather comical that I mentioned his standard formula and his VERY NEXT POST followed it to the T. I mean . . . really. That's comedic gold!!!

No hard feelings. You seem to think we agree on "the essentials." Good for you. Do you happen to be European?

Just a friendly note to all involved, who may take it as they wish.

Please address the issue, and not the person.

Please keep in mind that your words here are preserved (assuming I or another moderator does not remove them) and not only represent your position but your attitude toward one another and consider if you really want to sacrifice your message for the temporary satisifaction of scoring supposed debating points on one another. Keep in mind that people may be watching or come in the future sincerely seeking guidance on this issue and if your words are not as "gracious" as your subject, you may find your attitude proving to be a stumbling block both to your position and also to Christians in general.

Vigorous conversation is one thing. The line is very thin to crossing over to personal attack. This is a worthy subject for debate and the issue is very important . Please don't sacrifice your message to other elements.

I hope that is enough said.

Bart

Hey, knock yourself out with the mocking. I know that you and PL have had it out and dole it out in measure. I just think that in these instances, the defense is weak. I would caution any believer in how we interact with each other. I have been at fault on this site as well, being very tempted (and succumbing to the temptation) to mocking on occasions.

As to your defense that God uses mockery....Glad to know you feel that you have so much regard for your wisdom that you equate God using mockery with your defense. Do we really think that God's use of mockery (if it can even be called that) allows our use? Our sinfulness means that our mockery can never be on the same plane as God's. Are we *really* only using it to drive a point home? Or is there a part of us that enjoys both our wit and our wit at the other persons expense? A part of us that enjoys putting the other person "in their place"? And as long as that part of us exists, I would think we should err on the side of avoiding mockery and sarcasm. PLENTY of verses extolling gentleness in speech and controlling our tongue. (not to mention that it really isn't the best debate tactic)

If you can find me a verse that extols that use of sarcasm (without it being an example from Jesus or God), then I might be willing to accept the argument.

Umm, don't know if I want to know this, but why in the world would you think I am European? (not to mention my location says maryland )
However, this is very off topic....so I've said my piece.

Gotta go....Doctor Who is on!

I knuckles have been thoroughly rapped!

Ok, ok, ok, ok, ok, ok, ok . . . sarcasm aside - my apologies if it was taken the wrong way. I thought the fact the original "mockery" was drawn from a comic would have shown my intentions, but I suppose I have to remember that things don't always translate as easily over text. My bad, guys 'n' gals.

So, for those interested, in nice, clean, and ever-so-neat sarcasticless typeset, I was only trying to get across a few basic ideas:

• 1. If IG is true, then it isn't my fault (or anyone's fault, for that matter) that I don't believe in the tenents of Calvinism. Spiritual truth must be spiritually discerned, and God clearly has not granted me the grace to believe them.
  
  2. If IG is true, then a case can be--and indeed has been--made that evangelism becomes unnecessary (and that case has been made by Calvinists!). Of course, that flies in the face of Scripture. I have a problem with any system that produces a logical necessity that is negated by Scripture.
  
  3. If IG is true, then the methods of those adhering to the position who DO have an evangelistic fervor (i.e., Spurgeon) are unnecessary. Jonah preached eight words and the entire city repented. All kidding aside, I don't know why every Calvinist sermon doesn't consist of reading the words, "Repent and believe the Gospel!" followed with a choir singing "I Surrender All!" The Elect should come without further badgering from mere men. After all, what form of reasoning could ever convince a cadavar that he should believe the Gospel?!?
  
  4. If IG is true, I see a contradiction with the Calvinist doctrine of election. The latter of these teaches that God chose individuals to be saved before the foundation of the world. Thus, they were never in danger of Hell. They were never "saved" from anything. Grace, however, is the not-merited favor of God, in which He saves us from such a danger. Where there is no danger, there is no grace. Where there is no grace, there is no IG.

Concerning my disagreement with PL, I was simply trying to point out that there is nothing I can say in response, because he has given me nothing to respond to. He asserts, I can only counter-assert. To support his assetions, he gives proof texts. I can only ask for his exegesis of those. It is, of course, up to the one making an argument to defend his assertion by explaining his reasoning. However, he gives no exegesis and simply assumes that the Scriptures are "plain" and obviouly support his ideas. Whether or not they DO support his ideas, it is still a simple fact that it isn't "obvious" or the whole of Christianity would be Calvinistic. His mocking, then, which I have no personal problem with, seems to be for the purpose of drawing attention away from the substance of his argument rather than a means of undergirding it.

Now, the above is not intended to be an attack on PL, but simply on his methodology. I would love to reply to his reasoning should he be so kind, and patient, as to provide it. If not, then I suppose that's fine. I don't know that I really see the value in simply making an assertion and walking away from it, but OK then (unless I believed in IG -- SORRY I COULDN'T RESIST!!! )

---------------------------------

And zoe: I suppose I could mention Paul, but I assume you would reply that he was writing Scripture, so it was actually the HS being sarcastic? I dunno. I apologize if my words were composed so that they could be taken with more bite than originally intended.

As for Europe - I didn't notice the location there. The look of the board has changed significantly since my last visit. I didn't see it was still there. Anyway, the last bit of your post just had a sort of European flare (sp?) to it. Many there are Reformed, and as such are post or amillennial. Further, they have a more intellectual air to them which they bolter with a type of "tolerance." I know a few people from Europe, and from my limited experience, they have a tendancy to think of us Americans in the same way as many Northerners think of Southerners - silly, uneducated, and someone to be tolerated while the real issues are discussed by rational and thinking people.

So, I just combined all that and took a stab at it. But you are right this is very off topic. I was just curious.

God bless

OK, back now...such a nerd I am ...cool episode

Didn't mean to come off as tolerant or wimpy on holding to a theology. Obviously I agree with reformed theology. Think you're wrong

By essentials I meant those that would be similar to http://www.godandscience.org/beliefs.html

I guess what most would consider the basics.

I wish you knew how much I want to be wrong. I don't think I am. I'm convinced I'm right. I've tried really, really hard to change my own mind. My uncle, who is a Ph.D. from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, sat me down. He said he wasn't going to try to change my theology, but he wanted to warn me that the camp I'm in is the huge minority.

He is right, and it's tiring. That's why I haven't been around here in a long time, and it's why I probably won't be around all that long even now. But I hope I am wrong. I just can't change my own mind. I wish I was wrong that people will end up in Hell. I don't want to believe it, but I have to, because I know it's true.

You mention essentials? I don't know. I looked at the list. But what on that list is essential? Iit is basic. But what is essential? The only essential is grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone . . .

So whatever, right? We all believe what we believe. God will sort it out in the end. Other than that, all I can say is clarity, not consensus.

Jac wrote:

PL wrote:Which of these unbiblical positions would you like to defend, (without your absurd position that the payment was actually made to the debtor and left in our hands)? The position of universal atonement (and resistable grace) makes Christ's atonement all but useless. In fact, you would hold that it was possible for a person for whom Christ died to actually go to Hell. Some atonement huh?

I don't see what is absured about universal (NOT unlimited) atonement. Christ's death did EXACTLY what it was supposed to do. It removed the guilt of sin from mankind. You are the one who equates atonement with justification, and that in the complete absense of Scripture. It's all tradition, PL.

I do not claim to know how atonement is often used or intended, however in my own mind I understand atonement to be the act of forgiveness by Christ which removes the barrier of sin between God and humanity. Universal atonement is not equivalent to universal reconciliation. In order to say "Some atonement huh?" in response to a universal atonement failing to save some from hell, both forgiveness and reconciliation must be combined under atonement. Yet as I see it, atonement does not involve reconciliation. To say atonement does involve reconciliation I believe pushes too much into its meaning and clear use. No, atonement simply involves an atoning for our sins - making them no longer an issue between us and God. Reconciliation on the other hand involves the forgiven parties, us humans, accepting and receiving such forgiveness and a desire by both parties to be in relationship.

As such, I see we can have someone who has been forgiven, yet who for some reason or another does not accept such forgiveness. In such a case reconciliation is therefore thwarted for reconciliation involves two parties negotiating and accepting the terms of relationship. For example, if the aggrieved (God) forgives the aggriever (us), yet we do not like the aggrieved anyway, or we believe we did no wrong, or we simply do not care about the aggreived, then reconciliation is never going to happen unless we change.

Anyway, just thought I would add my two cents.