Evidence for God from Science

August wrote:I appreciate the hard work you are putting into this, and I am going to refrain from commenting, as I am kinda burned out on that other thread.

My personal background is a lot more Dutch Reformed, in fact almost exclusively so, and I don't find too much edifying in the work of the neo-Calvinists, as you call them. In my opinion the Dutch Reformed were a lot more advanced in many ways, but especially in their desire to stay true to Scripture and see God as sovereign over all aspects of reality.

I will comment on one thing, the link you posted earlier from the seminary is from the theological school of the Reformed Church in America, and they are one of the more liberal reformed church denominations. The article still made some good points, but I am wary of that specific direction.

Fair enough August. I understand that there's a very broad range within reformed traditions and it's not fair to pigeon hole everyone together. I thought the article was helpful and at least a reformed critique even if it's from a more liberal direction seemed better to use than an Arminian resource where the writer might not be expected to be as friendly.

I don't know if I mentioned it, but when I grew up in Southern Ontario I went to Dutch Reformed Schools from 6 - 8 and also grade 10.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

August wrote:I appreciate the hard work you are putting into this, and I am going to refrain from commenting, as I am kinda burned out on that other thread.

My personal background is a lot more Dutch Reformed, in fact almost exclusively so, and I don't find too much edifying in the work of the neo-Calvinists, as you call them. In my opinion the Dutch Reformed were a lot more advanced in many ways, but especially in their desire to stay true to Scripture and see God as sovereign over all aspects of reality.

I will comment on one thing, the link you posted earlier from the seminary is from the theological school of the Reformed Church in America, and they are one of the more liberal reformed church denominations. The article still made some good points, but I am wary of that specific direction.

Fair enough August. I understand that there's a very broad range within reformed traditions and it's not fair to pigeon hole everyone together. I thought the article was helpful and at least a reformed critique even if it's from a more liberal direction seemed better to use than an Arminian resource where the writer might not be expected to be as friendly.

I don't know if I mentioned it, but when I grew up in Southern Ontario I went to Dutch Reformed Schools from 6 - 8 and also grade 10.

Yes, the article was helpful. Piper is some light reading sometimes, Sproul is not really in the tradition that I am, Driscoll I don't really care, Mohler whatever, I'm not baptist, and in fact, went to Jack Graham's church a few times and his one sermon was "Calvinism is a heresy", so within the SBC there are some strong voices both ways.

I prefer the much more traditional, which is line with my heritage and the churches I grew up in. I didn't know you went to Dutch Reformed schools. Did they teach doctrine as part of the curriculum?

No they didn't. I was one of the few students whose name didn't start with "Vander". Most of the students there were also tied a great deal by Church associations as well as family ties. I was something of an outsidere in that regard, but it was a good experience over all.

Jack Graham was my pastor for a few years when I lived in West Palm Beach in the early 1980's and my family attended First Baptist Church of West Palm Beach. I did most of my undergraduate work at Oral Roberts, but I graduated from Palm Beach Atlantic College (now university). They were tightly tied at the time with First Baptist Church too.

Canuckster1127 wrote:No they didn't. I was one of the few students whose name didn't start with "Vander". Most of the students there were also tied a great deal by Church associations as well as family ties. I was something of an outsidere in that regard, but it was a good experience over all.

So is there a large Dutch community over there then?

Jack Graham was my pastor for a few years when I lived in West Palm Beach in the early 1980's and my family attended First Baptist Church of West Palm Beach. I did most of my undergraduate work at Oral Roberts, but I graduated from Palm Beach Atlantic College (now university). They were tightly tied at the time with First Baptist Church too.

Interesting. He must just have been starting out at that time, and now he has the mega-church just down the road. One impressive palace....

Yes. That was 30 years ago ... (man I'm getting old) and I think Jack was in his early 30's. The church wasn't a small one by any means and it grew quite a bit under Jack's ministry. I think he went straight to Prestonwood from there as you know I'm sure.

Yes, there was a pretty strong Dutch Reformed Community the town near Toronto where I grew up.

Just a note too, a lot of people don't know it, but John Piper focused a lot of his reading and study on Jonathan Edwards. Much of his popular writing, and I give him credit for being a very effective writer and communicator, is by his own admission, just a revision in many places from Edwards into modern language and cultural context.

Canuckster1127 wrote:That's true G-man and frankly, the terms Calvinist and Reformed can be pretty slippery depending upon who is speaking and what the measures used are. Technically, Arminians are reformed too. Calvin College, if I remember correctly is in Michigan? It's actually a Dutch Reformed school if I recall right and it would fall more in the camp of the author of the article I posted earlier. Correct me if I'm wrong in that, please.

That is correct. Grand Rapids, MI to be exact, our (the dutch) spawning grounds. In fact my uncle is a prominent Dutch Reformed minister.

Canuckster1127 wrote:That might help too to clarify some things too. It's unavoidable that I am going to the use the terms "reformed" and "calvinist" on this thread and it's going to seem at times to be broad sweeping statements. Todays Neo-Calvinist movement has gravitated to the TULIP as the defining differentiator as to who is truly Calvinist or Reformed. As the article I put up points up, historically there's a lot more to be reformed in the historical sense of the word than just the TULIP. Yet, that's what's getting the attention now as that element has been elevated.

When I used the terms Calvinist or reformed, just so we're clear, I'm speaking more of Neo-Calvinism and to some extent High-Calvinism and not necessarily lumping all Calvinists and Reformed beliefs together.

Ok got ya... Yes, when we start hearing terms like "Calvin" or "Reformed" and now "Neo" it brings up many different ideas. I like the fact that you are clarifying the positions...

How I wound up in California to become a Messianic Jew defies all comprehension..

I know my parents would have probably laughed at the idea..

Ok got ya... Yes, when we start hearing terms like "Calvin" or "Reformed" and now "Neo" it brings up many different ideas. I like the fact that you are clarifying the positions...

Kinda like a neo nazi, is much worse than an everyday, plain ole, nazi, right?

RickD wrote:

Ok got ya... Yes, when we start hearing terms like "Calvin" or "Reformed" and now "Neo" it brings up many different ideas. I like the fact that you are clarifying the positions...

Kinda like a neo nazi, is much worse than an everyday, plain ole, nazi, right?

Yah.. I mean yes.. Emm.. Now you are scaring me..

Bart... I'm not sure what you mean by High-Calvinism.. Can you explain? Thanks

Sounds like Calvinism on steroids or a higher octane version..

Gman wrote:

RickD wrote:

Ok got ya... Yes, when we start hearing terms like "Calvin" or "Reformed" and now "Neo" it brings up many different ideas. I like the fact that you are clarifying the positions...

Kinda like a neo nazi, is much worse than an everyday, plain ole, nazi, right?

Yah.. I mean yes.. Emm.. Now you are scaring me..

Please tell me that a neo-nazi to nazi comparison, is not the same as a neo-Calvinist to Calvinist comparison.

Well, High Calvinism has to do with one's view of when and whom God has predestined. High Calvinism aligns with a position of supralapsarianiam, meaning that they view the fall as God's deliberate design and plan ultimately resulting in those whom God individually predestined for salvation and those whom He predestined for eternal torment. Low Calvinism generally aligns with infralapsarianism meaning that while God absolutely knew that the fall would take place, He did not plan it with a view to which individuals he had specifically planned for salvation or perdition. His predestined plan relates to the higher level of groups rather than down to the detail of individuals. In general, these two views vied with each other during the Synod of Dort. It's a division within Calvinism itself. Neo-Calvinism takes a High Calvinistic position in general.

If any reading this are Calvinists and want to elaborate or correct me on any element of this, please go ahead. I'm using the terms from a general perspective. I understand that from one perspective or the other, there might be a desire to characterize only High Calvinism as true calvinism and exclude others in an attempt to define things as narrowly as possible. I understand that position, but for the purposes of this thread I'm not going to make that fine a distinction, but in general, my concerns and critiques are directed more toward High Calvinism or Supralapsarianism.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Well, High Calvinism has to do with one's view of when and whom God has predestined. High Calvinism aligns with a position of supralapsarianiam, meaning that they view the fall as God's deliberate design and plan ultimately resulting in those whom God individually predestined for salvation and those whom He predestined for eternal torment. Low Calvinism generally aligns with infralapsarianism meaning that while God absolutely knew that the fall would take place, He did not plan it with a view to which individuals he had specifically planned for salvation or perdition. His predestined plan relates to the higher level of groups rather than down to the detail of individuals. In general, these two views vied with each other during the Synod of Dort. It's a division within Calvinism itself. Neo-Calvinism takes a High Calvinistic position in general.

Ok.. Well, if anyone knows the answers to these questions (about the fall) I would give them high marks.. That is giving it a spiritual and logical stamp of a higher approval.

I for one would try my best to become comfortable with G-d given any one of the views.. As an example, G-d knowing about the fall or even perhaps orchestrating it. Again it just might be possible. I simply don't know but I think the better question here is regardless of G-d's position of knowing about the fall or not, do we still love Him?

I think that may be the bigger question here.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Well, High Calvinism has to do with one's view of when and whom God has predestined. High Calvinism aligns with a position of supralapsarianiam, meaning that they view the fall as God's deliberate design and plan ultimately resulting in those whom God individually predestined for salvation and those whom He predestined for eternal torment. Low Calvinism generally aligns with infralapsarianism meaning that while God absolutely knew that the fall would take place, He did not plan it with a view to which individuals he had specifically planned for salvation or perdition. His predestined plan relates to the higher level of groups rather than down to the detail of individuals. In general, these two views vied with each other during the Synod of Dort. It's a division within Calvinism itself. Neo-Calvinism takes a High Calvinistic position in general.

Here is a link on all supralapsarianiam, infralapsarianism, this article appears to sum these up pretty good in a manner easy to understand.

Link: supralapsarianiam, infralapsarianism

Look forward from hearing more from Bart
-
-
-