Evidence for God from Science

Echoside wrote:Emotionally charged words aside I don't think I've ever heard a satisying answer to this question.

Satisfying in what respect?

1 John 1:9 God is fair and just (Sovereign Ruler); believers are predestined (We have to be called) God chooses, however unbelievers are in hell due their own choice (freewill). God knows everything, you cannot fool, trick, nor deceive Him. He gives us the freewill choice to choose... whatever that choice may be good or bad, to accept His son or deny, He already knows. Not to say He chooses for us because He doesn't, He just knows which choice we are going to choose. What parent doesn't know their own children, at least better than anyone else?

Gods plan for salvation was predestined through His Son Jesus, and His will (desire) for us to all accept Him. If we accept Him we have in part become part of what has been predestined.

Man is a free moral agent (Rev. 22:17). If man were not a free moral agent, God would be entirely responsible for all sin, the effects of sin, rebellion, sickness, and the damnation of men, demons, and angles. Man has no choice about coming into the world but after he is here and old enough to be responsible, he is held accountable for his salvation or damnation (Mk. 16:15-16, Lk. 13:3, 5). Man has his own will to exercise in this matter (Jn. 3:16, 6:37, 7:17, Rev. 22:17). It is God’s will that all men who “will” to be, shall be saved (1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Pet. 3:9, Rev. 22:17). Promises are given to men upon the basis of their choice (Mt. 16:24-25, Mk. 3:35, 16:16, Jn. 3:16, 5:40, 7:17, 9:31, 12:26). In over 4,000 scriptures where “choose”, “will”, and other words expressing will power are used, not one suggests that God forces any man to accept Him and do His will. Man’s relationship with God is entirely on a voluntary basis (Mk. 16:16, Jn. 3:16, 7:17, 1 Pet. 5:2). No man recognizing that endless decisions are necessary to daily life can deny the fact of free acts and conduct, for he knows he has freedom of action-moral action-concerning right and wrong, and that he is responsible to God for his every act. If one can deny these facts, he can deny his very existence and prove it on the same basis he tries to prove that he is not a free moral agent. That he is and that he is free to choose his own destiny and daily moral actions are facts known to sane beings. Note some prophesies in (Heb. 10:26-39). Also, why fear and tremble if there is absolutely no possibility of a fall and a failure (Phil. 2:12, 1 Cor. 9:27, 10:12-14, Heb. 6:4-9, 10:26-39, 2 Pet. 2:20-22)? Suppose one will not obey in working out His own salvation, will God continue to work in him when man refuses to permit Him? Man’s power to will and to do as he pleases should not be puzzling. Such power comes from God but the use of it lies with man. One, who will not use this power to work out His salvation, will be held responsible. All men posses the power but all do not use it (Jn. 3:16-20, Mk. 16:15-16, 1 Jn. 1:9, Rev. 22:17)

August wrote: Satisfying in what respect?

Not in the sense that it is incorrect, but it seems as though to deny libertarian free will results in :

-Embracing many naturalistic philosophical positions. In fact, the atheist who denies God does not even contradict biblical worldview, as the denial's source is in both ideologies beyond his control.
-The question "Does God exist" becomes meaningless. Even if you arrive to the conclusion that God does indeed exist, whether you are one of the elect is outside your control. Go even further, your arrival to that conclusion was also outside your control. Pure naturalism in every sense.
-Embracing the idea of "live your life however you want", as if I do not know if God has elected me I should probably do as much as I can before being sent to hell.

I'm sure you've seen these before, but I doubt there's a reasonable answer. The very concept of judgement stems from a realisation that someone knowingly made an immoral/illegal choice. If that choice was forced, judgement is withheld. Maybe the concept of libertarian free will is illogical itself, but then I'm just left with a branch of naturalism that adds a God into the mix, which results in morality, etc. no less arbitrary for the atheist than the Christian.

Echoside wrote:

August wrote: Satisfying in what respect?

Not in the sense that it is incorrect, but it seems as though to deny libertarian free will results in :

-Embracing many naturalistic philosophical positions. In fact, the atheist who denies God does not even contradict biblical worldview, as the denial's source is in both ideologies beyond his control.
-The question "Does God exist" becomes meaningless. Even if you arrive to the conclusion that God does indeed exist, whether you are one of the elect is outside your control. Go even further, your arrival to that conclusion was also outside your control. Pure naturalism in every sense.
-Embracing the idea of "live your life however you want", as if I do not know if God has elected me I should probably do as much as I can before being sent to hell.

I'm sure you've seen these before, but I doubt there's a reasonable answer. The very concept of judgement stems from a realisation that someone knowingly made an immoral/illegal choice. If that choice was forced, judgement is withheld. Maybe the concept of libertarian free will is illogical itself, but then I'm just left with a branch of naturalism that adds a God into the mix, which results in morality, etc. no less arbitrary for the atheist than the Christian.

Echoside, the way I understand Libertarian free will, is that it is a free will that is very extreme. LFW is free from any and all outside influences. IMO, LFW isn't practical. All choices we make, are made with at least, some kind of influence.

August,
Norman is an apologetic and philosopher. If he doesn't even do his job as you say, then he is just a plain hack. If this is what you are affirming then you are doing nothing but an ad hominem attack.
The philosophical face value of Calvinism is something he has thought about. He understands reformed faith. Just saying he doesn't understand does not refute his position. That's not even a rebuttal. He is a philosopher and its his job to point out truths and expose falsehood wherever it clearly is. Do you object? Go ahead and make your point.

Also, BASIC ELEMENTARY philosophy from NO particular person has drawn me to this conclusion of "Devine rape"

This word "Rape" carries a stigmata we do not like, I understand. But it does have a meaning, folks.

Forcing yourself upon another WITHOUT CONSENT

However God does not do this, correct? Otherwise, you see how Echoside slid right in and saw that you just validated naturalism? Funny thing is, he seems to have found that "rape" has propositional meaning when it comes from a devine being, but carries no meaning for humans today. That's hilarious Echoside, but thanks for the demonstration and ultimately proving something in 2 different threads.

Anyhow, Norman described Calvinism. Can anyone describe 5 point Calvinism differently then he has? Feel free to do so. Just make sure you watch his presentation first

Rick, it sounds like you just don't know too much about Christianity and how to defend yourself from falsehood. Matthew 7:13 Jesus tells us to stay away from the wide path that leads to destruction. The truth is narrow. Remember that. Test everything.

Rick, it sounds like you just don't know too much about Christianity and how to defend yourself from falsehood. Matthew 7:13 Jesus tells us to stay away from the wide path that leads to destruction. The truth is narrow. Remember that. Test everything.

Dom, I'm going to give you a chance to back up this claim. If you can show proof, that "I don't know too much about Christianity, and how to defend myself against falsehood", then we'll proceed with how to deal with the evidence you have with your claim about me. You have been seen as one who can't separate his emotions, from his argument, and seem to be on a personal crusade against anyone with differing views than you. Most here are Christians, and we need to keep that in mind. It's one thing to criticize someone's theology, out of love, and compassion, for a brother or sister in Christ. Its a completely different thing to attack someone personally, without merit. Here's your chance to defend your claim. You better make it count.

Here you go, Danny.

domokunrox wrote:(NASB)Genesis 2:16-17
The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; [17] but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

(NASB)2 Corinthians 9:7
Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

(NASB)Philemon 1:14
but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will.

(NASB)Revelation 22:17
The Spirit and the bride say, "Come " And let the one who hears say, "Come " And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.

(NASB)1 Peter 2:16
Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God.

(NASB)1 Corinthians 2:12
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,

(NASB)Exodus 13:17
Now when Pharaoh had let the people go, God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines, even though it was near; for God said, "The people might change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt."

(NASB)Jeremiah 23:21-22
"I did not send these prophets, But they ran. I did not speak to them, But they prophesied. [22] "But if they had stood in My council, Then they would have announced My words to My people, And would have turned them back from their evil way And from the evil of their deeds.

Also, I do not deny any form of predestination from God, Danny. I accept it. I do not accept your definition of it. Would you like my official position on it?

Rick, I said IT SOUNDS like you don't. I made no affirmative. The problem is that you seem frazzled from Danny's comments. Its upsetting to see someone play with someone like a toy and arguing semantics. It simply bothers me. That's all, and you show little resistance to it as if you are unsure of your view. I want everyone to be sure that they are on that narrow path Jesus said we should take

Don't be offended. Just looking out for you.

Rick, I said IT SOUNDS like you don't. I made no affirmative. The problem is that you seem frazzled from Danny's comments. Its upsetting to see someone play with someone like a toy and arguing semantics.

So, by listening to Danny, and trying to really understand what he's saying, comes across as being played with like a toy? I have a great amount of respect for Danny. And if someone who neither knows Danny nor me, thinks Danny is playing with me, then so be it. You completely misread Danny and my conversation. Danny and I are both Christians, sealed in Christ, by the Holy Spirit of God. Nothing in creation will change that.

I want everyone to be sure that they are on that narrow path Jesus said we should take

I'm starting to see that your path is a lot narrower than even Christ intended.

I respect that, Rick. I mean no offense to either of you. But we should talk it out. What do you think about the bible quotes? Most importantly the fact that God told Adam and Eve that they were free to eat of ANY tree, but warned and commanded to not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? And they had the CHOICE to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

God DID NOT predestine that Adam and Eve disobey him. That would make God evil. You see that, right?

Anyhow, Norman described Calvinism. Can anyone describe 5 point Calvinism differently then he has? Feel free to do so. Just make sure you watch his presentation first

Dom, this link describes Calvinism from a calvinists pov. This is straight from the horse's mouth. Not from someone, however sincere, that's trying to attack Calvinism. After reading this link, I find Calvinism isn't entirely what I thought. If we want to know about old earth creationism, we'd find a more accurate description, from GodandScience.org, or Reasons.org. Not from looking at the AIG website. Let people decide what they want to believe "within Christianity", by honest research. That's how I came to this site.





http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/index.html

I haven't had time to watch Geisler's video. it is important when discussing reformed theology that we understand the various opinions within RT. I agree when one uses a term like, devine rape, it is prejudicing the discussion from the onset.

domokunrox wrote:Here you go, Danny.

domokunrox wrote:(NASB)Genesis 2:16-17
The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; [17] but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

(NASB)2 Corinthians 9:7
Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

(NASB)Philemon 1:14
but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will.

(NASB)Revelation 22:17
The Spirit and the bride say, "Come " And let the one who hears say, "Come " And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.

(NASB)1 Peter 2:16
Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God.

(NASB)1 Corinthians 2:12
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,

(NASB)Exodus 13:17
Now when Pharaoh had let the people go, God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines, even though it was near; for God said, "The people might change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt."

(NASB)Jeremiah 23:21-22
"I did not send these prophets, But they ran. I did not speak to them, But they prophesied. [22] "But if they had stood in My council, Then they would have announced My words to My people, And would have turned them back from their evil way And from the evil of their deeds.

Also, I do not deny any form of predestination from God, Danny. I accept it. I do not accept your definition of it. Would you like my official position on it?

Sorry, what's this supposed to be, Dom?

You have an "official position", Dom?

domokunrox wrote:Rick, it sounds like you just don't know too much about Christianity and how to defend yourself from falsehood. Matthew 7:13 Jesus tells us to stay away from the wide path that leads to destruction. The truth is narrow. Remember that. Test everything.

It must be wonderful being you, Dom. You seem to like to dish out advice to others. You sound like a self-appointed 'expert,' Dom. But in truth you have so far been full of empty rhetoric. Take a wee step back and look at your words, Dom.

RickD wrote:http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/index.html

Fine. Look at the according to Calvinism statement with my commentary in it

Salvation is accomplished by the almighty power of the triune God. (Ok so far)
The Father chose a people (How?),
the Son died for them (What is his name? Profess his name!),
the Holy Spirit makes Christ's (Who? Is his name Jesus? or just Christ?) death effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance, thereby causing them to willingly obey the Gospel. (Connect the 2 bolded and underlined setences. You cannot MAKE ANYONE WILLING obey the gospel!!! I am not the only one who sees this, right? We need to hear the gospel, believe it, repent, confess Jesus is our savior, and be baptized!)
The entire process (Yes, the ENTIRE process!) (election, redemption, regeneration) is the work of God and is by grace alone. Thus God (Just God), not man (Yes, not you! Even if you believed the gospel and want to be saved!), determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation. (Wonderful! Looks like a great prospect. Where do I sign up?! There isn't a sign up sheet?!)