Evidence for God from Science

This whole conversation boils down to 2 basic issues, which is where the disagreement comes from.

These issues are:
1. The sovereignty of God, and whether salvation is a sovereign act of God, or a co-operative effort between man and God, which takes on several layers:
a. Man can seek out God on his own without any interference from God
b. Man can respond to God, but it requires God to call him. The response is of his own volition, and he receives faith and is reborn after he responds
c. Man responds to God, but only after he has been quickened by the Spirit
2. From 1. what is the natural condition of man:
a. Man is sinful, but retains some measure of morality in him that allows him to respond to the gospel call in the affirmative
b. Man is dead in his sins and cannot do anything towards his own salvation, including respond to the gospel call, unless being enabled to do so by the Spirit

As long as there is disagreement about these points, the argument will not be resolved.

Maytan wrote:

August wrote:My question is simple...how do you distinguish between predestined and "pre-programmed"? If something is bound to happen, and God knows it will happen, then it is going to happen. No chance of it not happening. What then is the cause of it happening? If it is not God causing it to happen, then what is? If God is not determining eternal destinies, then who or what is?

This is very similar to the ever-so-famous "If God knows what we'll do, is there really free-will?"

Let's use my life, for example.

1. I've chosen to follow God, because the Bible tells me to.
2. According to the Bible, those who follow him (are saved) are predestined.
3. Therefore, I was predestined to choose to follow God.

This seems like a contradiction, does it not? Yet, it isn't. I made the choice; yes, but I was predestined to make such a choice. Am I looking at this correctly?

In premise 1., was your choice intellectual assent? It seems to be, since the reason you give is that "the Bible tells me to" and is the reason I ask the question. Or was there some other feeling or emotion along with intellectual assent? What made you believe the gospel message?

I find no fault with your construct (sorry Canuckster) at first glance.

When it comes to "free will", what do we consider the will to be free from? Is it external coercion? If that is the case, how is that possible?

August wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote: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.

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

There is much to respond to here. But let's be clear about one thing. The writer of that article has not studied reformed theology, the history and doctrines in any kind of detail. There is simply very little truth in what he construes reformed theology to be. If one is going to level a public criticism of something, then it should be represented accurately and fully. Since he assumes the opposite to start with, he does exactly what he accuses reformed theologians of doing...bringing philosophical and extra-Biblical assumptions to the table, hence:

When I encountered the Arminian viewpoint in a Church History class, I readily saw that Arminius was on the same road as I and, if I had to choose one system or the other as the better formulation of what the Bible is saying, I would be more comfortable in the Arminian camp.

It is therefore not surprising that he reaches the conclusions he does, even though he admits never having had any teaching of Calvinism.

And I noted that his issues were more reflective of hyper-calvinism. Even with that, there's much there that is worth looking at and considering.

What we see in Scripture, over and over again, is that God predestines and foreknows people. In fact, he predestines everything. As one great theologian pointed out, there is no such thing as a maverick molecule. Everything that happens in the universe has been decreed, predestined, and sovereignly worked out by God. This is what Scripture teaches, not Greco-Roman theology (whose gods, btw, were anything but sovereign).

First. Of course God predestines and foreknows people. More on that later. Now, of course the analogy isn't biblical. It is an analogy. The question is does it conflict or harmonize with the bible. I mean I can throw assertions like TULIP isn't biblical. But that doesn't address whether TULIP does or doesn't comply with the scriptures. Aside from saying it isn't biblical, how does it fail to rightly analyze. My original analogy didn't refer to their actions. It refers to their standing. And I am quite content, for clarity, in the last one to say, "For those whom (stand in the circle/in Christ) he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son..........."
There is no way you can seperate a person from their actions. It's preposterous. So, like I've already said, I can see it isn't Calvinistic, but I don't see where you have done anything except for again, presented your determined Calvinistic presuppostions. Specifically regarding defining sovereign, elect, predestined, etc.

Christ is not an abstract, and have not claimed or inferred such. However, when the bible says someone is "In Christ," (and it does over 100+ times) is that an abstract truth? Paul often refers to the body of Christ, which is in fact an abstract term for a concrete truth. The circle is simply an analogy of the church, which in fact is made up of individuals who are "in Christ." For example, if we substitute circle for "those In Christ" it still says the same thing. Standing. The difference is Calvinism requires preprogramed response, with no genuine response of man to God. Puppetry. Not relational.
If God foreknows people then it is inherent that he foreknows their actions. "Before I formed you in your mother's womb, I knew you." Of course God foreknows everyone. Period. Nor, is He caught off guard by our actions.

What we see in Scripture, over and over again, is that God predestines and foreknows people.

My argument doesn't disagree with this. Only in how your are defining foreknowledge and predestination. I can most assuredly agree that what we see in scripture, over and over again, is that God predestines, and foreknows people.

Everything that happens in the universe has been decreed, predestined, and sovereignly worked out by God. This is what Scripture teaches, not Greco-Roman theology (whose gods, btw, were anything but sovereign).

Then it is futile to argue. I am decreed to have this view, and you yours. It's been sovereingly worked out, and therefore I can't be right or wrong. I can only be what I am preprogrammed to be. It just is. He has predestined your views and my views. If you follow that argument to its ends, it only leads to determinism.

I would agree that everything is sovereignly worked out. However, I don't see in your definition how you can maintain any claim to free will. There are too many areas where God has made it clear that man has been given choice in his response to the Lord.

Jeremiah 36:3 Perhaps when the people of Judah hear about every disaster I plan to inflict on them, each of them will turn from his wicked way; then I will forgive their wickedness and their sin."
Perhaps?
Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?'
Oh my goodness?
Romans 3:17-20 “Now, fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. 18 But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Messiah would suffer. 19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, 20 and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

August wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote: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.

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

There is much to respond to here. But let's be clear about one thing. The writer of that article has not studied reformed theology, the history and doctrines in any kind of detail. There is simply very little truth in what he construes reformed theology to be. If one is going to level a public criticism of something, then it should be represented accurately and fully. Since he assumes the opposite to start with, he does exactly what he accuses reformed theologians of doing...bringing philosophical and extra-Biblical assumptions to the table, hence:

When I encountered the Arminian viewpoint in a Church History class, I readily saw that Arminius was on the same road as I and, if I had to choose one system or the other as the better formulation of what the Bible is saying, I would be more comfortable in the Arminian camp.

It is therefore not surprising that he reaches the conclusions he does, even though he admits never having had any teaching of Calvinism.

And I noted that his issues were more reflective of hyper-calvinism. Even with that, there's much there that is worth looking at and considering.

I am looking through his article in some more detail, and even without taking into account his predisposition against the reformed faith, it seems to be a bit sloppy. For example his assertion that Calvinism is essentially Stoicism is simply not true. A study of any number of the theologians will show that. But even more to the point, if he does want to make that assertion on the basis that he does, then he will have to deal with the witness of Paul in Acts 17 at the Areopagus, which can be construed to have a Stoic flavor in the sense that Chuck wants to use it.

Interesting read, thanks Canuckster.

August wrote:In premise 1., was your choice intellectual assent? It seems to be, since the reason you give is that "the Bible tells me to" and is the reason I ask the question. Or was there some other feeling or emotion along with intellectual assent? What made you believe the gospel message?

This is an extremely difficult question. One I often revisit upon myself. I'd say, it was a combination of both some type of emotion, and an adding up of evidence.

There was a point where I was trying to convince myself of a naturalistic view. What conflicted with me, despite the plethora of atheistic material that was supporting what I was attempting to force upon myself, was the thought that God didn't exist. Just looking outside at nature makes me feel as though it (as a whole) is too miraculous to have not been designed. This 'feeling' doesn't step from any sort of proof at this point. "It looks pretty" or "it seems quite incredible" isn't an argument for or against the existence of a god or of naturalist origins. Not to mention that one needs to explain where everything began from, which also pointed me towards there being a creator.

I guess you can say, I felt in my gut that a 'personal' god existed. To think it was an impersonal one, for some reason, simply didn't add up to me. Why? I don't know. Maybe it's because I couldn't come to terms with thinking that an all-powerful being that can create something so impressive would just walk away and leave what he created; or that he would only observe it. Why would such a powerful being have a desire to watch humans or animals toil and what-not. For entertainment? Perhaps. but it seemed silly to me. From that train of thought, you're getting to the point of making a god in your image.

It would have been immensely easier to renounce Christianity. I wouldn't be troubling myself with the questions we've talked about in this thread. I wouldn't be dealing with opposition from various peers of mine. I ultimately wouldn't have any responsibility to face for my actions, so long as I never got caught performing an action. (that is to say, I wouldn't have *believed* I had any responsibility to face for my actions; I'm not saying that what I think determines what's true...) For some reason, I hung on. Any naturalist would attribute it to the fact that I was raised in a Christian home. Can I say for sure that's not the reason? No, I cannot. I personally choose to believe that it wasn't.

But, then, of course, I started to do some research. I found this website initially, and many articles here answers various questions of mine. The big question being the age of the earth. I had accepted a young-earth, based purely on what the Bible *seemed* to say (and what I had been taught), but it didn't sit well with me. There was so much evidence opposed to a young-earth that I was having troubles believing it. Between articles here (as I just said), and the work of RTB, I felt much more at peace with my beliefs. There are still things I wish I knew about the making of Creation, as to better reinforce my beliefs, (just like anyone else, I still have doubts from time to time) but if we got answers to everything what importance would faith have?

I find no fault with your construct (sorry Canuckster) at first glance.

When it comes to "free will", what do we consider the will to be free from? Is it external coercion? If that is the case, how is that possible?

Aye, this is an area that makes my head hurt sometimes.... The freedom to make a choice. Such as the example (I can't remember where I read it) of flipping a coin, and attributing doing something (don't take me out of context here; I mean something our nature allows. For example, we can't fly, it's physically impossible. Nor can we do something which we cannot think of or comprehend.) to each side of the coin. Flip the coin, and do the action assigned to the side it lands on. Do you have the free will to do so? Yes, nothing's stopping you.

Of course, from the view of Total Depravity, choosing God isn't something in our nature. (akin to that of flying, it's physically impossible.) So, yes, Total Depravity and predestination makes sense to me; the problem is integrating choice with such a thing. I think most Christians you ask will claim that they made the decision to follow God. To me it makes sense to me to say that, while we do make the choice to follow him, we're predestined to make the choice. Is that view not Biblical? Is there any scripture that would be in contrast to such a view? I genuinely am curious.

My question is simple...how do you distinguish between predestined and "pre-programmed"? If something is bound to happen, and God knows it will happen, then it is going to happen. No chance of it not happening. What then is the cause of it happening? If it is not God causing it to happen, then what is? If God is not determining eternal destinies, then who or what is?

It would seem to me that this is the question the Calvinist needs to ask himself. Otherwise the discussion is futile, because are all simply determined in advance to disagree. God knowing what will happen is not the same as Him causing it to happen. He causes all things to work together for those who love him. Not those who are programed. And something happening contrary to the will of God (evil), does not negate it from being redeemed of God, and soveriegnly woven into God's plans. I see a bibical view of predestination that does not fit with Calvinism. I thought I explained it with my analogy in the other thread about the doors.
As far as things being bound to happen. Too me, this is the ultimate mystery and real beauty of God's soveriegnty. If we can in fact respond to God and His work, then we are in fact turning to Him. And this fufills a relational longing that God has for us. God doesn't need us. Yet, here is this incredible being that actually longs for us to come to Him. If it is pre-programmed then how does even remotely become love. How is it a longing. And how is the response love? God says we can love Him. Because He loved us first. We can respond to Him. If not, then love is merely a pre-programmed response. Just as is disobedience. And this is where I see the Calvin positions failing.

Ultimately when you boil Calvinism down, you just can't escape preprogrammed puppetry. Now, ultimately, I'm OK with that, if that is in fact who God is. But we must follow that to its logical ends. That my problems with Calvinism are then in fact, not my problems. I am simply determined by God to be this way. And if I change my mind, I didn't really change my mind at all. Surely, you can see the frustrations with this? I think in an attempt to revere the sovereignty of God, it in fact defiles it. God's ways are beyond our ways. And in reading the scriptures I do not find this conflict. Only when one imposes Calvinistic definitions onto the text.

What made you believe the gospel message?

For example this question you ask. What MADE you believe? Too me that seems like a question that is subtly loaded with determinism and Calvinistic presuppositions.

1. The sovereignty of God, and whether salvation is a sovereign act of God, or a co-operative effort between man and God, which takes on several layers:

Though also subtle I see this as flawed. Does it ultimately come down to these two things. Because I can't help but suspect that you are limiting the discussion with predjudiced terminoloty in that it describes faith as either implanted by God, or requiring effort from man, which implies faith as a work.

2. From 1. what is the natural condition of man:
a. Man is sinful, but retains some measure of morality in him that allows him to respond to the gospel call in the affirmative
b. Man is dead in his sins and cannot do anything towards his own salvation, including respond to the gospel call, unless being enabled to do so by the Spirit

Question. Does the natural man have a conscience? Can he heed or deny it? Was the law put there to lead men to Christ?
c. Man is dead in His sins, but even though immoral and depraved, God has beckoned to man through his senses and conscience.

Man oh man do I remember hearing from God, and the struggle of wills. The internal battle. Oh that He pursued me. Amen.

Maytan wrote: 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.

Hi Maytan,

As you can see, you’ll get a lot of reflex theology and to even find your post amongst the mass of postings took a little time.

Notice what you stated, “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.”

And your answer for why God said, Where are you to Adam and Eve was: “Well, it's friendlier because it shows a pique of interest in the receiver.”

Now let’s proceed to Genesis 3:8, 9, 10c from verse 8, we see that Adam and Eve hid themselves. God certainly being God knew where both where and yet He ask, where are you?

What was presented to both Adam and Eve by God’s words spoken, “Where are you?”

What were Adam and Eve’s options before God spoke?

What would it actually mean if God’s, ‘Where are you?’ to humanity was intended by God to create choice to Adam and Eve to respond or not? (Isaiah 55:1, 8, 9, 11)

Would choice be man’s creation or God’s, then?

If God never spoke out that – where are you – humanity would remain without any choice to return to God. How could God really be God and all He is if he did not call, or create that choice thru his spoken word?

How could God really be as the bible describes Him to be (Deut 32:4, Psalms 97:2, Psalms 92:15, Isaiah 30:18c, Dan 4:37c, Job 34:10c, Psalms 145:17c, Zep 3:5c, Exodus 34:6, 7c) if he did not allow Adam/Eve both a personal response to his own call of – “Where are you?”

What do you see in Genesis 3:9, 10, 11, 12, 13c and Isaiah 1:18, 19, 20c?

By God asking – where are you – what did that create – justly, righteously, without iniquity, without partiality, etc… by God himself proving him as God true to his own self.

What does this reveal about the Lord to you in comparison to your own answers:

Maytan wrote:“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.”

... “Well, it's friendlier because it shows a pique of interest in the receiver.”

Now read Philippians 2:6, 7, 8-10, 11c --

Which of your two comments better reflects the Lords character described in John 3:15, 16c, John 3:17, 18c, John 3:19, 20, 21c?

What are you seeing?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:Hi Maytan,

As you can see, you’ll get a lot of reflex theology and to even find your post amongst the mass of postings took a little time.

Hehe, quite a lot of posting going on.

Notice what you stated, “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.”

And your answer for why God said, Where are you to Adam and Eve was: “Well, it's friendlier because it shows a pique of interest in the receiver.”

Now let’s proceed to Genesis 3:8, 9, 10c from verse 8, we see that Adam and Eve hid themselves. God certainly being God knew where both where and yet He ask, where are you?

What was presented to both Adam and Eve by God’s words spoken, “Where are you?”

To the best of my ability, I thought about this. I'm thinking, a choice. Not only whether or not to answer the question, but also how to answer it.

What were Adam and Eve’s options before God spoke?

I suppose they didn't have any options. They chose to hide their sin, until God spoke to them and asked where they were. But, as you said, before God spoke, what options did they have? I can't really think of anything they could have done, except maybe continue to live with their sin? I am absolutely perplexed by this question, so I apologize for being unable to come up with a better answer.

What would it actually mean if God’s, ‘Where are you?’ to humanity was intended by God to create choice to Adam and Eve to respond or not? (Isaiah 55:1, 8, 9, 11)

That's quite an intriguing look on things. I don't know what it actually means, though. That God created options for us, a choice?

Would choice be man’s creation or God’s, then?

I would have to say God's.

If God never spoke out that – where are you – humanity would remain without any choice to return to God. How could God really be God and all He is if he did not call, or create that choice thru his spoken word?

If he hadn't created the choice, he certainly wouldn't be God as the Bible describes him. Right? So, I'd say that in that type of scenario, he wouldn't be the God we know and love.

How could God really be as the bible describes Him to be (Deut 32:4, Psalms 97:2, Psalms 92:15, Isaiah 30:18c, Dan 4:37c, Job 34:10c, Psalms 145:17c, Zep 3:5c, Exodus 34:6, 7c) if he did not allow Adam/Eve both a personal response to his own call of – “Where are you?”

Oh, you were one step ahead of me here, hehe. There certainly is no way he could be, that I can think of.

What do you see in Genesis 3:9, 10, 11, 12, 13c and Isaiah 1:18, 19, 20c?

I see God giving the choice both to respond and of response. I see that they tried to hide their sin (am I getting that right?), and then admitted it to God. God then asks for the explanation of what happened, and Adam and Eve chose to answer accordingly.

Isaiah 1:18 seems to be talking about the forgiveness of sin. Verses 19 and 20 tell us the results of both of the two choices we have.

By God asking – where are you – what did that create – justly, righteously, without iniquity, without partiality, etc… by God himself proving him as God true to his own self.

It created a choice, as previously stated. I'm not quite sure about the rest of the question, though. Surely, God did not *have* to make a choice, but he did so anyway.. right? Yes, that does mean God stayed true to his own character.

What does this reveal about the Lord to you in comparison to your own answers:

Maytan wrote:“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.”

... “Well, it's friendlier because it shows a pique of interest in the receiver.”

This is one of the more difficult questions, most definitely. It reveals that God created a choice for us, not because he had to, but because he loves us, correct?. Thus, staying true to his character. It shows that God certainly wants to be personal, and takes interest in us. That's all I can think of, at the moment. As I said, this is a rather difficult question for me. So, my answers are probably rather sub-par..

Now read Philippians 2:6, 7, 8-10, 11c --

Which of your two comments better reflects the Lords character described in John 3:15, 16c, John 3:17, 18c, John 3:19, 20, 21c?

What are you seeing?
-
-
-

I'm not quite sure how to apply my comments here. What I think I'm seeing is that God loves us, provided a choice for us, and rewards us for choosing him by holding judgment from us.

I tried as best I could.

August wrote:If our destiny is in our own hands, why not just move it one step back and choose life by choosing not to sin, instead of choosing to believe in Christ? Surely if your destiny is with yourself, you don't have to choose Christ to live, the keeping of the Law is also a choice you can make. What then makes one person choose Christ and another not?

Lol. August, portraying me as advocating or leaving the door open for a salvation outside of Christ is so wide of the mark as to be laughable. Incidentally, how could I choose not to sin? Lol. Slow down and read me.

August wrote:I would also like to know what you believe about faith. What is faith? Do you believe that you can stop having faith? Where does faith come from?

Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference.

It is not my faith that saves but rather the object of my faith - Christ. God credits Jesus' righteousness to the believer.

Trusting in God's promise is the only thing a stinking, low-life piece of dirt like me can 'do.' And is it not in my hands to trust God?

August wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

August wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote: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.

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

There is much to respond to here. But let's be clear about one thing. The writer of that article has not studied reformed theology, the history and doctrines in any kind of detail. There is simply very little truth in what he construes reformed theology to be. If one is going to level a public criticism of something, then it should be represented accurately and fully. Since he assumes the opposite to start with, he does exactly what he accuses reformed theologians of doing...bringing philosophical and extra-Biblical assumptions to the table, hence:

When I encountered the Arminian viewpoint in a Church History class, I readily saw that Arminius was on the same road as I and, if I had to choose one system or the other as the better formulation of what the Bible is saying, I would be more comfortable in the Arminian camp.

It is therefore not surprising that he reaches the conclusions he does, even though he admits never having had any teaching of Calvinism.

And I noted that his issues were more reflective of hyper-calvinism. Even with that, there's much there that is worth looking at and considering.

I am looking through his article in some more detail, and even without taking into account his predisposition against the reformed faith, it seems to be a bit sloppy. For example his assertion that Calvinism is essentially Stoicism is simply not true. A study of any number of the theologians will show that. But even more to the point, if he does want to make that assertion on the basis that he does, then he will have to deal with the witness of Paul in Acts 17 at the Areopagus, which can be construed to have a Stoic flavor in the sense that Chuck wants to use it.

Interesting read, thanks Canuckster.

The sources of stoicism and gnosticism through Augustine and Calvin's own strong early preoccupation with Greek Philosophy including stocism and it's close parallels with fatalism (in a negative sense) or determinism (in a more neutral sense) are pretty well known and not hard to find from multiple sources with only a little effort.

Of course, reformed theologians and proponents themselves are going to make the claim that Calvinism itself is entirely Biblical but that then begs the question as to how anything that arose in terms of a different arrangement and understanding 1500 years after Christ, and then claim it has no context within the renaissance of Greek Philosophy of that day that was pervasive and extensive, is such an incredible claim as to beggar belief. Calvin himself was well trained and familiar with many of these elements of Greek Philosophy. It's absurd to claim he was not influenced by these factors in terms of his thought structuring and approach. The very introduction of a systematic methodology in doctrinal construction was something new for it's time.

It's one thing to assert that the influence was minimal or that its foundations in the personal influences upon Calvin were ameliorated by a Biblical focus, it's quite another to simply deny that it's there.

Stoicism is a form of naturalistic fatalism or determinism, Calvinism employs the same constructs in many regards but instead of a naturalistic source, simply replaces the forces of Nature with God Himself, and comes out with a form of Theistic fatalism. It speaks of the Free Will of God, but in practical terms in terms of men and their ability to choose or move toward God, there's little difference in practice, only in source.

Again Hyper-Calvinism illustrates this most clearly. Other forms of Calvinism attempt to move away from this and speak of choice within their constructs by God's allowance, but it's only very limited, and in the end of no consequence. In that regard, I actually respect hyper-Calvinists for at least being consistent and not trying to present it as something else.

DannyM wrote:

August wrote:If our destiny is in our own hands, why not just move it one step back and choose life by choosing not to sin, instead of choosing to believe in Christ? Surely if your destiny is with yourself, you don't have to choose Christ to live, the keeping of the Law is also a choice you can make. What then makes one person choose Christ and another not?

Lol. August, portraying me as advocating or leaving the door open for a salvation outside of Christ is so wide of the mark as to be laughable. Incidentally, how could I choose not to sin? Lol. Slow down and read me.

Sorry Danny, that was not aimed at you as a person, I should have worded that better so as to portray the rhetorical nature of my questions.

Choosing not to sin is one of the issues, right? That would be to have ones destiny in ones own hands. How is that choice different than choosing Christ?

It is not my faith that saves but rather the object of my faith - Christ. God credits Jesus' righteousness to the believer.

Trusting in God's promise is the only thing a stinking, low-life piece of dirt like me can 'do.' And is it not in my hands to trust God?

Is it in your hands or not? As per my questions above, does man have the faith to trust God in his natural sinful state? Some of us disagree on this point, as per the options I mentioned above.

puritan lad wrote:One problem with "open-ended" anything in theology is what it does to prophecy in general. Here is a question that I love to ask to non-Reformed futurists:

Can the AntiChrist be saved, or is he predestined to Hell?

Does no one want to tackle this?

jlay and Danny M., I'm really interested in your view here. How does this fit with jlay's view of corporate election and and Danny M's "open ended" theology? What about antichrist's ffree will? Certainly we cannot write off anything to that if he hasn't been born yet.

jlay, thanks for the response. Much to talk about.

jlay wrote:

My question is simple...how do you distinguish between predestined and "pre-programmed"? If something is bound to happen, and God knows it will happen, then it is going to happen. No chance of it not happening. What then is the cause of it happening? If it is not God causing it to happen, then what is? If God is not determining eternal destinies, then who or what is?

It would seem to me that this is the question the Calvinist needs to ask himself.

You were the one that brought this up, so you answer it.

Otherwise the discussion is futile, because are all simply determined in advance to disagree.

How do you know the outcome?

God knowing what will happen is not the same as Him causing it to happen.

So God's will is subject to the actions of men. If God knows something, He knows it infallibly, yes? Is there any chance of it not happening? If God is not causing things to happen, what is? Since you seem dead set against God letting or making things happen, are you appealing to uncaused events, or fate as the causal agent?

He causes all things to work together for those who love him. Not those who are programed. And something happening contrary to the will of God (evil), does not negate it from being redeemed of God, and soveriegnly woven into God's plans.

Do you love God before or after you are regenerate?

I see a bibical view of predestination that does not fit with Calvinism. I thought I explained it with my analogy in the other thread about the doors.

I remember that. But you did not explain what makes you choose one door over the other. It boils down to cause or motive. Does God drag someone kicking and screaming into His kingdom? Of course not. It takes a response to the gospel call in the affirmative. Man must repent and believe with his own mind and heart to be saved.

As far as things being bound to happen. Too me, this is the ultimate mystery and real beauty of God's soveriegnty. If we can in fact respond to God and His work, then we are in fact turning to Him.

Yes, we are to turn to God, absolutely. But the basic question remains, are we able to turn to God without some kind of influence? Is the influence from within? Where does it come from?

And this fufills a relational longing that God has for us. God doesn't need us. Yet, here is this incredible being that actually longs for us to come to Him.

Scripture? Are you referring to Is 30 here?

If it is pre-programmed then how does even remotely become love. How is it a longing. And how is the response love? God says we can love Him. Because He loved us first. We can respond to Him. If not, then love is merely a pre-programmed response. Just as is disobedience. And this is where I see the Calvin positions failing.

So jlay, are you able to, out of your own volition, without having heard the Gospel, or seeing or experiencing the beauty of creation, or having any concept of God, able to love God and turn to Him?

Ultimately when you boil Calvinism down, you just can't escape preprogrammed puppetry.

Sorry, that is simply not true. Sure, there are some hyper-somethings-or-other that may hold to such a position, but invoking Calvinism in these terms is inaccurate and portrays a shallow understanding of what it teaches. Calvinism acknowledges both the sovereignty of God and the freedom of man. It does not accept the libertarian free will of man, as that is illogical and untenable in any terms.

Now, ultimately, I'm OK with that, if that is in fact who God is. But we must follow that to its logical ends. That my problems with Calvinism are then in fact, not my problems. I am simply determined by God to be this way. And if I change my mind, I didn't really change my mind at all. Surely, you can see the frustrations with this? I think in an attempt to revere the sovereignty of God, it in fact defiles it. God's ways are beyond our ways. And in reading the scriptures I do not find this conflict. Only when one imposes Calvinistic definitions onto the text.

Fair enough, but you are attacking some strawman of Calvinism, not what it actually teaches, like many do. Unfortunately Calvinism has born the brunt of many post-modern attacks, and this leads to the misunderstanding of what it teaches.

For example this question you ask. What MADE you believe? Too me that seems like a question that is subtly loaded with determinism and Calvinistic presuppositions.

No, it is not, unless you believe in uncaused events. Everything that happens has a cause, no? God is the only uncaused cause, or do you not believe that?

1. The sovereignty of God, and whether salvation is a sovereign act of God, or a co-operative effort between man and God, which takes on several layers:

Though also subtle I see this as flawed. Does it ultimately come down to these two things. Because I can't help but suspect that you are limiting the discussion with predjudiced terminoloty in that it describes faith as either implanted by God, or requiring effort from man, which implies faith as a work.

If you wish to propose other options, I will gladly listen. Faith by man is not a work, but many do trust in works for their salvation, quoting repentance and obedience as necessary for salvation. My statement was not quite around that, but around how you come to have faith.

Question. Does the natural man have a conscience? Can he heed or deny it? Was the law put there to lead men to Christ?

Yes, natural man has a conscience. He shares in common grace. And yes, he can heed or deny it. But what is the status of the heeding or denial of the natural mans conscience before God? How does God regard the deeds of natural man? I don't understand the second part of the question, about the law. Can you expound, before I make a fool of myself and misrepresent you?

c. Man is dead in His sins, but even though immoral and depraved, God has beckoned to man through his senses and conscience.

Man oh man do I remember hearing from God, and the struggle of wills. The internal battle. Oh that He pursued me. Amen.

Amen brother, we all struggle with that.

puritan lad wrote:

puritan lad wrote:One problem with "open-ended" anything in theology is what it does to prophecy in general. Here is a question that I love to ask to non-Reformed futurists:

Can the AntiChrist be saved, or is he predestined to Hell?

Does no one want to tackle this?

jlay and Danny M., I'm really interested in your view here. How does this fit with jlay's view of corporate election and and Danny M's "open ended" theology? What about antichrist's ffree will? Certainly we cannot write off anything to that if he hasn't been born yet.

Prophecy does not force something to happen, but rather says it will happen. While God does not make choices for us, he does know what choices we will make. God is not closing himself off from the Antichrist by making this prophecy. God will offer salvation to the Antichrist, even though he knows that the Antichrist will reject him, and even though he knows what the Antichrist will do.