Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:I wanted to get an "outsider" view on predestination and the elect, so I asked an atheist friend of mine and a Jewish friend of mine to take a look at this thread and hare their thoughts.
You can well imagine, LOL !
The atheist basically said that IF there was a God and he elected some people for eternal damnation even before they were born that this God is far less moral than any imperfect human since he knows of no human that would condem anyone ( much less their "child") before they are even born.
The Jewish person asked me if I wanted to convert !
He mentioned that the God Of Abraham was far less cruel than this God that condemns those that have not even born to do something worth condemning.
I think he was serious about the conversion thing too...
Anyways, it was very interesting to hear their views on this.
I am gonna ask a muslim friend of mine to take a look too.

Sorry if I am not impressed with what non-Christians think.

For your Jewish friend, what about all the nations outside of Israel in the OT? Did God create them or not? Was it His intent to create them from before creation or not? I fail to see his point.

In addition, did you atheist friend manage to justify the moral standard by which he would judge God?

PaulSacramento wrote:The atheist basically said that IF there was a God and he elected some people for eternal damnation even before they were born that this God is far less moral than any imperfect human since he knows of no human that would condem anyone ( much less their "child") before they are even born.

Nice to get an atheist’s perspective on the “morality” of election, Paul.

PaulSacramento wrote:The Jewish person asked me if I wanted to convert ! He mentioned that the God Of Abraham was far less cruel than this God that condemns those that have not even born to do something worth condemning.

Perhaps your Jewish friend hadn’t read the thread after all. God’s decree of reprobation is made in light of the fall. We all deserve condemnation, Paul. How did your friend miss this?

No-one is arguing that. Everyone needs faith. The argument in this thread is about how we come to faith, from within ourselves, or with the help of the Spirit. The sidetrack is the extent of propitiation.

Actually no. That isn't it at all. I don't know of anyone here who is advocating Pelangianism. If Christ is crucified before the foundations of the earth, then God has already moved. As Christ said, "when the son of man is lifted up, he WILL draw all men." John 12:32
The real question is, 'what is the help of the spirit, not whether it occurs or not.' And secondly, whether faith is a cooperative and volitional act. And that is an argument that has raged on long before any of us were born, by men who were far more qualified to argue it.

He mentioned that the God Of Abraham was far less cruel than this God that condemns those that have not even born to do something worth condemning.

Actually an error is being made here. God has already condemned all people before they are born. The fallen nature of man is not what is being argued here. All have sinned. The OT is full of examples. God has always condemned sin. And therefore all sinners are condemned. As God said to the OT prophet Jerimiah, before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. We sin because we are sinners. The Jew is contradicting himself. The issue isn't whether God elects or predestines. If one denies that, they deny what is written in the scritpure. What is at issue is how does God elect and predestine.
Regarding the atheist. I think it is totally ridiculous.

Can antichrist be saved, or is he predestined to Hell?

Define antichrist my preterist friend.

So a person can be justified and not saved? How then can God say that the justified will be sanctified, and ultimately glorified?

Personally, I wouldn't say that. Obvioulsy, this isn't new to you. I no you've been part of these discussions before. I'm not specifically advocating a position. Since the point was implied that someone was arguing for Arminianism, i wanted to point out what those positions and other might be. The article linked disagrees with Calvinism and Arminianism. (At least in some key areas) But just to clarify I think you may speaking of universal atonement.

jlay wrote:

No-one is arguing that. Everyone needs faith. The argument in this thread is about how we come to faith, from within ourselves, or with the help of the Spirit. The sidetrack is the extent of propitiation.

Actually no. That isn't it at all. I don't know of anyone here who is advocating Pelangianism. If Christ is crucified before the foundations of the earth, then God has already moved. As Christ said, "when the son of man is lifted up, he WILL draw all men." John 12:32
The real question is, 'what is the help of the spirit, not whether it occurs or not.' And secondly, whether faith is a cooperative and volitional act. And that is an argument that has raged on long before any of us were born, by men who were far more qualified to argue it.

jlay, thanks brother. I was concerned, given his arguments, and the definitions from earlier, that neo-x was indeed advocating Pelagianism, and I still am to some extent.

**Edit: Just to be clear, I also include Finney and semi-Pelagianism as part of the same question.

I guess you restated what I said, if I was not clear, then I agree with you "'what is the help of the spirit, not whether it occurs or not.". I laid out a much longer answer to this earlier in the thread.

jlay wrote:The real question is, 'what is the help of the spirit, not whether it occurs or not.' And secondly, whether faith is a cooperative and volitional act. And that is an argument that has raged on long before any of us were born, by men who were far more qualified to argue it.

Where may one find the answer to this question?

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God." (Ephesians 2:8).

I know that the aforementioned Jac objected to this rendering, but this passage clearly teaches that faith is a gift from God.

jlay wrote:Define antichrist my preterist friend.

The eschatological viewpoint really doesn't matter here, because the passages were future at the time they were written. We still need to answer that question: Can Antichrist be saved, or is (or "was" of you're a preterist) He predestined to Hell?

jlay wrote:Personally, I wouldn't say that. Obvioulsy, this isn't new to you. I no you've been part of these discussions before. I'm not specifically advocating a position. Since the point was implied that someone was arguing for Arminianism, i wanted to point out what those positions and other might be. The article linked disagrees with Calvinism and Arminianism. (At least in some key areas) But just to clarify I think you may speaking of universal atonement.

The Arminian view is universal atonement, which is really no atonement at all. While it sounds "fair" to say that Christ died for everybody, what it really teaches is that Christ death and resurrection were effective in the salvation of nobody. It helps, but the remaining part of justification is up to us. (Of course, we need to ask how Christ could be sure that He would be for firstborn of many brethren.)

The Arminian view is universal atonement, which is really no atonement at all. While it sounds "fair" to say that Christ died for everybody, what it really teaches is that Christ death and resurrection were effective in the salvation of nobody. It helps, but the remaining part of justification is up to us. (Of course, we need to ask how Christ could be sure that He would be for firstborn of many brethren.)

PL, I don't think this is accurate. Christ's work is effective for all who believe. And as far as the remaining part of justification being up to us, not all Arminians believe they can lose their salvation.

RickD wrote:PL, I don't think this is accurate. Christ's work is effective for all who believe.

No argument here, but Christ's work is not effective on the condition that they believe. He died for the elect, that they should believe. That's the difference.

RickD wrote:And as far as the remaining part of justification being up to us, not all Arminians believe they can lose their salvation.

They are then, by definition, not Arminians. (I would add that the blend of "free will salvation" and "eternal security" is a most dangerous concoction.)

The eschatological viewpoint really doesn't matter here, because the passages were future at the time they were written. We still need to answer that question: Can Antichrist be saved, or is (or "was" of you're a preterist) He predestined to Hell?

Anyone who denies Christ, is predestined for Hell. I don't think anyone other than the universalist who would deny that. We may differ in our understanding or predestined, but not in the end result.
The Bible says many anti-Christ have already come. An antichrist is someone who is anti-christ. I assume you mean the specific one in Revelation

The Arminian view is universal atonement, which is really no atonement at all. While it sounds "fair" to say that Christ died for everybody, what it really teaches is that Christ death and resurrection were effective in the salvation of nobody. It helps, but the remaining part of justification is up to us. (Of course, we need to ask how Christ could be sure that He would be for firstborn of many brethren.)

You sound like Spurgeon. I understand that is your view. I disagree and with good reason. Your conclusion of unlimited atonement is the result that harkens all the way back to the determined views that underlie all 5 point calvinism, which starts with soveriegnty. And I really don't have the time to rehash this ancient debate. Here is a link for anyone who wants to explore on their own time.

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/do ... chdied.htm

RickD wrote:
PL, I don't think this is accurate. Christ's work is effective for all who believe.
No argument here, but Christ's work is not effective on the condition that they believe. He died for the elect, that they should believe. That's the difference.

That's not consistent with scripture. Christ died for all, not just all the elect. And anyone who believes on him, will have eternal life . Anyone who believes on him. Not anyone who was made to believe in him. Anyone can choose to accept God's gift of eternal life. But, we can't be forced to accept the gift. God wants all men to spend eternity with Him. God will not force us to love Him, however.

[/RickD wrote:
And as far as the remaining part of justification being up to us, not all Arminians believe they can lose their salvation.
They are then, by definition, not Arminians.)

By your definition, certainly not theirs.

(I would add that the blend of "free will salvation" and "eternal security" is a most dangerous concoction

I'm sure you would, PL. Whatever your meaning of "freewill salvation" is.

jlay, you are dancing around the question. For clarification, let's just call him the Beast, since Revelation does not refer to "antichrist" by name. Can the beast be saved, or is he predestined to hell?

jlay wrote:And I really don't have the time to rehash this ancient debate. Here is a link for anyone who wants to explore on their own time.

That is your prerogative, but that is what we are debating.

RickD wrote:That's not consistent with scripture. Christ died for all, not just all the elect. And anyone who believes on him, will have eternal life . Anyone who believes on him. Not anyone who was made to believe in him. Anyone can choose to accept God's gift of eternal life. But, we can't be forced to accept the gift. God wants all men to spend eternity with Him. God will not force us to love Him, however.

Why does Christ say that no man can come to Him? We aren't talking about "force" per se, but rather a change in nature. God changes man's nature to serve him, neither asking not requiring His approval.

RickD wrote:By your definition, certainly not theirs.

Words mean what they mean Rick. An Arminian. by definition, believes that one can lose their salvation (ie. the 5th point Arminianism).

RickD wrote:I'm sure you would, PL. Whatever your meaning of "freewill salvation" is.

Whatever it means, it clearly opposes Scripture. Over and over again, we are told that it is not the result of human will. I don't get why people still insist that it is.

jlay, you are dancing around the question. For clarification, let's just call him the Beast, since Revelation does not refer to "antichrist" by name. Can the beast be saved, or is he predestined to hell?

No, I'm just not going to be cornered into answering a loaded question.
Could Peter be saved since Jesus called him Satan?

Obviously, I believe that ANY man (person) has the potential to be saved, as determined by the grace and sovereignty of God, as he desires that ALL men repent, and has drawn all me to himself.

Why does Christ say that no man can come to Him?

WHERE does Christ say that no man can come to Him?

John 14:6:Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

No man can come to the Father, except through Christ. The efficacious work of Christ, is what enables men to come to the Father.

We aren't talking about "force" per se, but rather a change in nature.

But, we are talking about a forced love, in Calvinism. In Calvinism, the elected are forced to come to God. Just like the ones elected to eternal damnation, are forced into hell. Those that are elected to be damned, by the god of Calvinism, have no choice in the matter.

God changes man's nature to serve him, neither asking not requiring His approval.

That, PL, is the very definition of forced love. And, forced love, is not real love.

RickD wrote:
By your definition, certainly not theirs.
Words mean what they mean Rick. An Arminian. by definition, believes that one can lose their salvation (ie. the 5th point Arminianism).

Not all Arminians believe that, PL. Just like not all Calvinists, are hyper-Calvinists.

RickD wrote:
I'm sure you would, PL. Whatever your meaning of "freewill salvation" is.
Whatever it means, it clearly opposes Scripture. Over and over again, we are told that it is not the result of human will. I don't get why people still insist that it is.

Maybe for the same reason people still insist that God damns people to hell. Some People want to believe things to justify something that they don't want to deal with in their own lives. For example, Joe Blow chooses to believe in the God of Calvinism, who hates certain people, so that Joe Blow's hate of someone that hurt him terribly, can be justified.

Sorry jlay, a "loaded question" is a logical fallacy where the answer to one question is presupposed before asking th other, ie. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" It is loaded because it assumes that the answer to "Have you ever beat your wife?" is "yes", when it may not be. My question is not loaded. It is a simple question. Can antichrist be saved, or is he predestined to Hell? Your inability to answer it while remaining consistent with your theology does not make it loaded.

It's a question that will have to be answered if predestination is to be denied.