Evidence for God from Science

I really appreciate your time, B.W. I hope I haven't been too much of a bother.

Now, moving on to your question, this requires quite a bit of thought. I suppose, asking, "Where are you" is more of a personal response. Friendlier even. Whereas, the second statement is a command. It allows for no response, only asks for a following of orders. This gives off a tyrannical impression, to me. That isn't to say God sounds tyrannical for giving us commands; but that, in this situation, with such a wording, it comes off quite harsh. Essentially as if God is forcing them to do something, allowing no choice.

Now, if God *never* spoke to them, there would be no relationship. Which would mean God does not love, nor care, for his creation.

Unless you mean that God never spoke to them, and instead gave a command, in which case I give the same response I first gave.

Maytan wrote:I really appreciate your time, B.W. I hope I haven't been too much of a bother.

Now, moving on to your question, this requires quite a bit of thought. I suppose, asking, "Where are you" is more of a personal response. Friendlier even. Whereas, the second statement is a command. It allows for no response, only asks for a following of orders. This gives off a tyrannical impression, to me. That isn't to say God sounds tyrannical for giving us commands; but that, in this situation, with such a wording, it comes off quite harsh. Essentially as if God is forcing them to do something, allowing no choice.

Now, if God *never* spoke to them, there would be no relationship. Which would mean God does not love, nor care, for his creation.

Unless you mean that God never spoke to them, and instead gave a command, in which case I give the same response I first gave.

No bother at all, glad to work with you on this together.

Great answers too!

You stated friendlier would be of Where are you rather then the other. Now please note what else you said – Where are you - allows for a personal response

Why?

Why would the author allow for a personal response?
-
-
-

puritan lad wrote:

DannyM wrote:Not sure if this has been said or even if it is relevant. But we are all - every man jack of us - predestined to be with God... if only we will take the offer. Our destiny beyond this life is literally in our own hands.

In that case, I'm not sure I want to get out of bed in the morning. I might mess up God's plans for me. Lord knows I mess all kinds of things up.

Thank God he "...brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; he frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the plans of his heart to all generations. Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage!" (Psalms 33:10-12)

What's your point, PL?

I'm not talking of any works, deeds, effort or action...I'm talking of a belief in Christ. We are all predestined to be with God...if only we will believe.

That's my point.

DannyM wrote:

puritan lad wrote:

DannyM wrote:Not sure if this has been said or even if it is relevant. But we are all - every man jack of us - predestined to be with God... if only we will take the offer. Our destiny beyond this life is literally in our own hands.

In that case, I'm not sure I want to get out of bed in the morning. I might mess up God's plans for me. Lord knows I mess all kinds of things up.

Thank God he "...brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; he frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the plans of his heart to all generations. Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage!" (Psalms 33:10-12)

What's your point, PL?

I'm not talking of any works, deeds, effort or action...I'm talking of a belief in Christ. We are all predestined to be with God...if only we will believe.

That's my point.

If God predestined all of us to be with Him, and clearly all humans are not, then He may as well not have predestined anything.

Why's that then, August?

DannyM wrote:Why's that then, August?

What do you believe predestination to be?

Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,

It is the setting apart of a group of people, chosen by God "before the foundation of the world" to be saved through Jesus. If that was everyone, then are some people lost? It is either that they were not predestined to be among this group of people, or God's predestination was of no consequence.

To say that they were predestined based on their foreseen faith is also doesn't work. If God looked into the future and saw that certain people will believe and others not, then it becomes as deterministic as a decree. God's foreknowledge of the future must be absolutely true, or He is not omniscient. One cannot consistently hold that God has foreknowledge about who will believe, and then also believe that He is trying to save everyone. God cannot attempt to do what He knows will not happen, that is not His character.

Ah, Paul, along with others, was undoubtedly chosen or 'elected'. And - quite rightly - paul felt pretty damn privalaged. Question: Is not the destiny of every man in his own hands by the very fact he can choose to believe in Jesus and thus choose life? I'm doing this on my phone, August, so may now be as thourough

Can God choose to provide grace and salvation sufficient to save everyone but then allow men and women to make their own choice? Does omnipotence deliberately not exercised in a proactive, direct manner, mean that omnipotence is no longer an attribute of God?

God can make provision for all, knowing that not all will respond (even knowing specifically who will or will not make such a decision) and still withhold His hand by His choice in a complete or even limited manner.

That's one of my beef's with Calvinism. In many instances it appears to reduce God to the sum of His individual attributes and lock God into a logical construct which then limits God in His Sovereignty. Before it's brought up, no, that doesn't mean God can do "wrong" or that God can contradict Himself. But that recognized there are near infinite possibilities within the internal restraints of God to actively determine a thing and one of the things He is perfectly capable of doing is willing Himself not to determine all things and allow Man, in part as a reflection of the image of God, the power of choice and consequences for those choices up to and including salvation if he so chooses.

There are passages of Scripture that come at this issue from different directions. Calvinism (and Arminianism for that matter too) often chooses one approach over the others and then constructs arguments to strengthen those passages that they believe proves their point while diminishing or negating those that that indicate something other than what fits into the tight theological box that they've created and by which they interpret the Bible and the world around them. God's bigger than that. I believe it's entire possible that in certain contexts God deliberately limits or restrains Himself in order to create the possibility of choice on the part of man as a moral free agent. Along with that, the consequences of those decisions are permitted as well. The amazing thing to me, is that this in the end doesn't threaten God's ability to bring about a conclusion that is in keeping with His will in the first place.

Recognizing the self-limitation of God can be taken further than is justified, and example of which might be extreme forms of Open Theism. It can easily go too far in the other direction as well as in the case of hyper-calvinism which basically embraces elements of Greek and Roman philosophical determinism. Then too, it quite possible, even probably that we're looking at more than two options and a grid if you will, rather than just sliding on a linear scale.

That's one of the reasons I shy away from a lot of this type of argumentation (doesn't always have to be an argument but it seems to gravitate in that direction over time more often that not as the parties involved dig in and entrench themselves believing that their construct provides an answer for every challenge.

Anyway, that's just my quick "in and out" on the matter and I hope it helps rather than confuses the matter, although I'm quite sure it may not sit well with any of the perspectives expressed here on the thread thus far.

May NOT be as THOROUGH! Lol, see what I mean!

To say that they were predestined based on their foreseen faith is also doesn't work. If God looked into the future and saw that certain people will believe and others not, then it becomes as deterministic as a decree. God's foreknowledge of the future must be absolutely true, or He is not omniscient. One cannot consistently hold that God has foreknowledge about who will believe, and then also believe that He is trying to save everyone. God cannot attempt to do what He knows will not happen, that is not His character.

It all gets back to how you are defining predestination. And there is an explanation that isn't this and also isn't Calvinistic. I think I shared it with you on another thread, but I never heard any response. Obviously, Calvinists have a very specific way in which they define predestination.

If God says, everyone who stands inside the circle will be saved, then who will be saved? Is it predetermined? Yep. But is it preprogrammed? Nope.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed (those in the circle) in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
Eph 1:4 even as he chose (those in the circle) in him before the foundation of the world, that (those in the circle) should be holy and blameless before him. In love
Eph 1:5 he predestined (those in the circle) for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed (those in the circle) in the Beloved.
Eph 1:11 In him we (in the circle) have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,

We must understand that in the Calvinists view, faith is NOT a response to God to go and stand in the circle. But in fact is a pre-programming of who will be standing in the circle. I'm very interested to hear how this example violates the character of God.

Jlay,

This is not sound exegesis, but theological desperation. Two problems:

1.) God did not predestine a circle. He predestines people, and he predestined them to adoption. Predestination only has one definition, and we all know what it is (though we may or may not like it).

"For those whom (people) he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." (Romans 8:29)

Your view of "corporate election" makes this passage untrue.

2.) Such a view denies that Christ made any actual payment for sins at Calvary (unless he paid for a circle), as well as denies that Christ knows His Sheep.

"But God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity." (2 Timothy 2:19)

For a good Primer on the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace in a way that a child can understand, read the 10 chapter of John.

B. W. wrote:

Maytan wrote:I really appreciate your time, B.W. I hope I haven't been too much of a bother.

Now, moving on to your question, this requires quite a bit of thought. I suppose, asking, "Where are you" is more of a personal response. Friendlier even. Whereas, the second statement is a command. It allows for no response, only asks for a following of orders. This gives off a tyrannical impression, to me. That isn't to say God sounds tyrannical for giving us commands; but that, in this situation, with such a wording, it comes off quite harsh. Essentially as if God is forcing them to do something, allowing no choice.

Now, if God *never* spoke to them, there would be no relationship. Which would mean God does not love, nor care, for his creation.

Unless you mean that God never spoke to them, and instead gave a command, in which case I give the same response I first gave.

No bother at all, glad to work with you on this together.

Great answers too!

You stated friendlier would be of Where are you rather then the other. Now please note what else you said – Where are you - allows for a personal response

Why?

Why would the author allow for a personal response?
-
-
-

Well, it's friendlier because it shows a pique of interest in the receiver. A harsh command doesn't show any interest or caring from the person giving such a command; rather, it comes off as saying, "All that matters is what I want." It's impersonal.

Responding with "Where are you" shows that you're interested in one's response. It's personal. Showing that He cares about Adam's own personal response to the sin he committed.

Why would the author allow for a personal response? I suppose because, He cares about the person and is interested in a personal relationship. To put it simply, he loves the person. Why does he love the person? I don't have the answer, other than some sort of quite amazing grace.

August wrote:To say that they were predestined based on their foreseen faith is also doesn't work. If God looked into the future and saw that certain people will believe and others not, then it becomes as deterministic as a decree. God's foreknowledge of the future must be absolutely true, or He is not omniscient. One cannot consistently hold that God has foreknowledge about who will believe, and then also believe that He is trying to save everyone. God cannot attempt to do what He knows will not happen, that is not His character.

Not to mention that this, by definition, is not predestination. It is ratification, like a "stamp of approval" for foreseen faith. Then we must answer where that faith comes from, as well as whether or not salvation is by grace alone, or a reward for our faith.

puritan lad wrote:

August wrote:To say that they were predestined based on their foreseen faith is also doesn't work. If God looked into the future and saw that certain people will believe and others not, then it becomes as deterministic as a decree. God's foreknowledge of the future must be absolutely true, or He is not omniscient. One cannot consistently hold that God has foreknowledge about who will believe, and then also believe that He is trying to save everyone. God cannot attempt to do what He knows will not happen, that is not His character.

Not to mention that this, by definition, is not predestination. It is ratification, like a "stamp of approval" for foreseen faith. Then we must answer where that faith comes from, as well as whether or not salvation is by grace alone, or a reward for our faith.

Pelagianism any way you cut it.

Here's an article I found that helps to raise some of the issues and questions that I have particularly with hyper-Calvinism but also with Calvinism. I don't reject it all. It would be simple reactionary behavior to throw out the whole system and imagine that it doesn't have any legitimacy or that it doesn't shed light in certain elements of Christian Belief. My beef is that I believe Calvinism starts with a philosophical framework that is itself not drawn from Scripture and then constructs and lays out the Bible with emphasis upon a few select passages which do not fully embrace all that Scripture has to say on the subject.

Calvinism in that regard is primarily a Systematic Theology approach (Calvin's Institutes are generally recognized as the first such attempt to systematize Scripture in this manner) as opposed to being rooted in what I term a Biblical Theology where Scripture is treated as a narrative with themes arising out of large portions of scripture and those themes being woven together. Systematic theology tends toward reducing Scripture to it's shortest components, (verses and even at times phrases) and then puts theses short portions of scripture together like a jigsaw puzzle. What can happen, is that conclusions and philosophies are drawn that cannot then by themselves be found withing a greater portion of scripture as a direct theme unto itself. That's one of the reason in conversations like this you'll see long laundry lists of single verses or short passages to establish the point being made as somehow uncontestable without rejecting "scripture." Rejecting the proof texting of such constructs often has nothing to do with rejecting scripture. It's rejecting the underlying framework that these verses are hung upon and seeking to return to Scripture as the framework itself.

Anyway, I think this article touches on a great many of the themes and Church History elements that have caused me to walk away from many elements of Reformed and Calvinist theology and teaching despite many influences upon me in my youth. (I spent several years of my elementary and high school education in Dutch Reformed Schools in Canada.)

http://chuck.severnchristian.org/bible/ ... minism.htm

Chuck is coming primarily from an Arminian perspective, which I don't completely embrace either. Given that, there are elements in his article that are clearly debatable. I think he does a credible job however of giving some of the Church History, Philosophical and methodological background to Calvinism and what is taking place inside the structure that is being applied to draw many of the conclusions that don't, in my opinion, capture the entire scope of Biblically based theology.

Maybe it will help to identify some of the elements and concerns that I'm seeing expressed here and provide some additional background to expand the conversation to include the framework that is guiding some of these interpretations.