Evidence for God from Science

Narnia,
I read your reply Saturday, but I wanted to wait to respond. You seem to kind of maybe reject DP. I'd also like to know for discussions sake if you consider yourself a 5PC?
1st: I'm not following your analogy. Only that it presumes (wrongly IMO) to prohibit the naughty kid from being persuaded to do otherwise. Not sure how you can make that statement. It's question begging. A naughty kid who is naughty will always do the naughty thing.

2nd: Regarding DP. I probably should have been more specific. As I alluded to, my problem, at least in this discussion, isn't with evil. I would assume that since you reject DP that you would not be able to explain say as well as R.C. Sproul who accepts it. I've read his explanations and listened to him personally cover this issue. I understand that they see man's evil as volitional (and I agree), and yet see man's response as incapable. And thus Total Depravity (T) becomes total inability. So, I'm not going in the direction of "is God the author of evil." That is certainly a topic worthy of disucssion, but not the gist of my argument. It is the total inability that I have issue with when discussing the T, particularly when it comes to one hearing the Gospel.

3rd: This is where I have the biggest issue.

I didn’t want this to be a long post but as far as John 3:16 and being able to preach it in good conscience, I remember a big deal of this being made in the super-thread a few months ago but I still don’t feel the force of it. If you can’t in good conscience use a certain evangelical method, change your evangelical method. Doesn't effect the truth of the matter one iota. But we have to remember that we aren’t in God’s position. As far as we know, almost EVERYONE could be saved by the grace of God. The whole issue here is a Christian one, vitally important yes but no matter which side you fall on it doesn't change the fact that we are to go out and preach the good news (and hopefully have a good time doing it).

The issue of truth is not methodology but orthodoxy. The same truth can be conveyed in different methods. I believe God can and does employ us to many methods. Relationships, friendships, programs, brief encounters.
But that doesn't address whether the gospel and it's truth itself can be changed. It can't. And that is where I see the issue. When you say 'almost' everyone 'could' be, this shows me the flaw in this line of thinking. 'Could be' and 'almost' It's a presumption, and one that doesn't line up if the 5PC or 4PC follows their logic through consistently. (Matt. 7:13) And whether a few are limited or many, the same problem still exists, only the scale changes. If the Reformed view of election is true, then preaching the Gospel (unless you change the gospel) universally would be a contradiciton. I've even read responses by strong Calvinist who nearly say as much. The Gospel is the message that conveys the truth of who Christ is, and what He has done. And its offer is not exclusionary. Whosever will...

jlay wrote:Narnia,
I read your reply Saturday, but I wanted to wait to respond. You seem to kind of maybe reject DP. I'd also like to know for discussions sake if you consider yourself a 5PC?

Saying I "kinda sorta" reject DP might be the most accurate way to put it.

1st: I'm not following your analogy. Only that it presumes (wrongly IMO) to prohibit the naughty kid from being persuaded to do otherwise. Not sure how you can make that statement. It's question begging. A naughty kid who is naughty will always do the naughty thing.

The analogy (very general, I know) was mostly related to the "preaching the Gospel" issue. I'll try to restate what I meant there.

2nd: Regarding DP. I probably should have been more specific. As I alluded to, my problem, at least in this discussion, isn't with evil. I would assume that since you reject DP that you would not be able to explain say as well as R.C. Sproul who accepts it. I've read his explanations and listened to him personally cover this issue. I understand that they see man's evil as volitional (and I agree), and yet see man's response as incapable. And thus Total Depravity (T) becomes total inability. So, I'm not going in the direction of "is God the author of evil." That is certainly a topic worthy of disucssion, but not the gist of my argument. It is the total inability that I have issue with when discussing the T, particularly when it comes to one hearing the Gospel.

In one sense yes, man does have "total inability" and yet its also of his own choosing. I kind of have a bigger thought on this, but I might make a thread on it in the future.

3rd: This is where I have the biggest issue.

I didn’t want this to be a long post but as far as John 3:16 and being able to preach it in good conscience, I remember a big deal of this being made in the super-thread a few months ago but I still don’t feel the force of it. If you can’t in good conscience use a certain evangelical method, change your evangelical method. Doesn't effect the truth of the matter one iota. But we have to remember that we aren’t in God’s position. As far as we know, almost EVERYONE could be saved by the grace of God. The whole issue here is a Christian one, vitally important yes but no matter which side you fall on it doesn't change the fact that we are to go out and preach the good news (and hopefully have a good time doing it).

The issue of truth is not methodology but orthodoxy. The same truth can be conveyed in different methods. I believe God can and does employ us to many methods. Relationships, friendships, programs, brief encounters.
But that doesn't address whether the gospel and it's truth itself can be changed. It can't. And that is where I see the issue. When you say 'almost' everyone 'could' be, this shows me the flaw in this line of thinking. 'Could be' and 'almost' It's a presumption, and one that doesn't line up if the 5PC or 4PC follows their logic through consistently. (Matt. 7:13) And whether a few are limited or many, the same problem still exists, only the scale changes. If the Reformed view of election is true, then preaching the Gospel (unless you change the gospel) universally would be a contradiciton. I've even read responses by strong Calvinist who nearly say as much. The Gospel is the message that conveys the truth of who Christ is, and what He has done. And its offer is not exclusionary. Whosever will...

Here it looks to me like you're begging the question. So you're saying that the truth is that anyone could potentially choose Christ of his own volition, and so the Calvinist cannot in good conscience preach that message? And yet I'm sure you're aware of the Calvinistic interpretations of John 3:16, difference between the general and effectual call, and so on. A Calvinist should preach what he sees to be the truth, and that includes John 3:16. I wouldn't even get bent out of shape about making phrases like "choose to accept", as long as its understood that its God who moves us so that we can accept the Gospel and believe. It seems to me that preaching the Gospel from a Reformed perspective is only wrong if you're assuming that the Reformed perspective is wrong. So that question should instead be addressed directly when this seems to be a roundabout way of getting to the same question.

"Almost" and "could be", those types of phrases are only meant to show that we don't and can't know who will be saved. So there's one reason to preach to everyone. Another is that we're commanded to do so. But even if we did know someone won't accept the message, we still are justified in preaching the Gospel. This was the main point of my imperfect analogy. Even with our limited reasoning and understanding, we can know if a naughty kid is likely to disobey us. Does that mean that you don't even bother to tell the naughty kid right from wrong? Of course not, you teach them what's right and you can't be blamed when they choose to steal a cookie.

I'll take some time and reread this thread to try to see if we're talking past each other or if I'm still missing your point.

as long as its understood that its God who moves us so that we can accept the Gospel and believe.

Well let's be honest. I would also say, it is God who moves us so that we can accept the Gospel. The Gospel, which represents the move of God, is a done deal, and it is true for the one who rejects and receives. Christ died for their sins and is savior of the world.
As far as 'accepting.' That really isn't what the 5PC is saying. The are saying that faith is a commodity implanted. Not merely a move of God on the sinner. I don't know how much study you've actually done on the lapsarian issue, but the way you word this raises some questions, because it sounds more like Arminian prevenient grace.

And yet I'm sure you're aware of the Calvinistic interpretations of John 3:16, difference between the general and effectual call, and so on.

Effectual, Irresistable,..oh yes, quite aware.
I think I already illustrated with John 3:16, the additions that are needed to arrive at those conclusions.

It seems to me that preaching the Gospel from a Reformed perspective is only wrong if you're assuming that the Reformed perspective is wrong.

Two problems. What is wrong is wrong regardless of assumptions. If 5PC is correct, then by golly let's preach it. My point actually is this. Reformed theology (RT) make a big deal out of the logical flow. If for example, atonement is not universal and is limited, then the Gospel is ONLY for the elect (as defined by RT). The reprobate are incapable of being saved. They are immune or cut off from efficacious grace. Thus the gospel is not for them and is impotent to save them. (or they are impotent to hear it) Yet, the Gospel is a move of God, and is universal. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Man is fallen, but he is certainly shown, from the scripture, to have the work of the law on his heart. He can discern right from wrong. Is he fallen? Yes. Lost? Yep. Sinful? Sure thing. But the RT would have us to believe that the Gospel itself has no power to save unless a man is pre-implanted with faith (a commodity) to see and believe that Christ is savior.

"Almost" and "could be", those types of phrases are only meant to show that we don't and can't know who will be saved. So there's one reason to preach to everyone. Another is that we're commanded to do so.

Ah yes!! And that is why the contradiction is so obvious. The Gospel is to be proclaimed universally. The Gospel is not to condemn but to save. (John 3:17,18)
And yet v. 18 says, he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Certainly man is responsible for his own volitional sins. But how is he responsible for something he is not even capable of? If a man is not capapble of any good, then how can his good be rewarded. And if he is incapable of belief then how is he condemned for doing EXACTLY what has been soverignly programmed to do?

The Gospel is the good news that Jesus Christ lived, died and rose to be savior. So, if the Gospel is proclaimed to all (including the reprobate) then it is a lie to tell them that they can be saved by believing it. They can't. Because Jesus didn't live, die and rise for them. It is a lie to even infer that Christ died for their sins according to the scriptures. (1 Cor. 15:3) And yet how can one's faith be credited as righteousness when one cannot resist that faith to begin with? And the reprobate are condemned because they are not able to give in to irresistible grace, since it was never offered to them in the 1st place.

But even if we did know someone won't accept the message, we still are justified in preaching the Gospel.

That is not the issue. They CANNOT accept it. And even if they did beleive it, it wouldn't save them.
Perhaps that is why verses like John 3:16 have to be 'interpreted' with terms like irresistable grace that never appear in the text.

Ugh, had a long reply typed up and I lost it. Well, if I have time I'll try to make a thread in the near future. Not sure how much further I can go on this before needing to get some points across that are even more unrelated to the topic.

If my words sound more like those of an Arminian, its probably because I grew up surrounded by Arminians and was one for most of my life. That is, until I examined the Scriptures myself and tried to determine what best fit Scripture and was logically coherent.

I readily accept John 3:16 and I don't need to do any twisting to believe so. On the contrary, its the other position that has to try to find creative ways to interpret Romans 9, John 6, even the verse this topic was about. And unfortunately, for many it comes to affirming a doctrine or attribute of God and then leaving it powerless without actually anymore or accomplishing anything of value anymore because they feel the need to cling to the notion that its about them and their say-so instead of God. I don't believe the Gospel loses any beauty or power whatsoever under Calvinism. Under Arminianism some will not be saved, under Calvinism some will not believe either. Why should it lose power? It seems to me that you're writing off why they will not be saved and why they don't believe in the first place.

It seems to me that your argument regard John 3:16 is mostly coming down to one point. I'll respond by way of analogy, very imperfect in a couple of aspects but my main point should come across.

Let's say a 100 meter dash was arranged. The organizers of the event make the the announcement that "The person who wins the 100 meter dash will win 100 dollars!" The announcement is sent to everyone in the neighborhood. But as it turns out, Usain Bolt will also be taking part in the 100 meter dash and will win the competition and the 100 dollars. The little old lady doesn't have a chance, even the fastest people in the neighborhood don't have a chance. Does that mean that the organizers of the event (maybe they were even ordered by their boss to make the announcement?) can be sued for false advertising? No of course not, whether or not someone has the ability to win the race does nothing whatsoever to invalidate the announcement.

Let's say a 100 meter dash was arranged. The organizers of the event make the the announcement that "The person who wins the 100 meter dash will win 100 dollars!" The announcement is sent to everyone in the neighborhood. But as it turns out, Usain Bolt will also be taking part in the 100 meter dash and will win the competition and the 100 dollars. The little old lady doesn't have a chance, even the fastest people in the neighborhood don't have a chance. Does that mean that the organizers of the event (maybe they were even ordered by their boss to make the announcement?) can be sued for false advertising? No of course not, whether or not someone has the ability to win the race does nothing whatsoever to invalidate the announcement.

Narnia, that's a pretty good analogy of 5pt Calvinism. The winner(elect) is already chosen by the race organizer(God), beforehand. Anyone not chosen(everyone except Usain) will not win the $100(eternal life). The problem is that's not consistent with the nature of God, IMO. Here's another analogy, while not perfect, I feel it shows the nature of God better.

There is a 100 meter race in the neighborhood. The organizer makes the announcement that whoever finishes the race in under 5 seconds, wins the prize. Now, knowing that nobody is found in the neighborhood who is fast enough to win the prize, and the organizer being the loving man that he is(He really is very generous, and has enough money, and desires everyone to win the prize) the organizer sends his son to run the race. This is no ordinary son. He's not just incredibly fast, he's loved by his father so much that he has the ability to give anyone in the entire neighborhood the prize. Anyone who believes in him. The only qualification for receiving the prize, is simple belief that the son is who he claims to be, and that he has the ability to freely give the prize to whosoever believes he can.

The analogy is well.....
I like analogies, but I'm just not follwing. For one, it's a set up job that is a competition. One's victory is at the expense of another's loss. It's based in personal performace, and such coming at the expense of another. Knowing Bolt will out run the others again sounds more like arminian foreknowledge than it does 5PC election.

On the contrary, its the other position that has to try to find creative ways to interpret Romans 9, John 6, even the verse this topic was about. And unfortunately, for many it comes to affirming a doctrine or attribute of God and then leaving it powerless without actually anymore or accomplishing anything of value anymore because they feel the need to cling to the notion that its about them and their say-so instead of God.

You really need to be more specific when you say, "other position." Because it would seem you are putting me in the position of defending Arminianism, which I am most certainly not.
I would say any position that denies election and predestination is severly flawed. So, it really isn't a question of whether election is, but what election is. I understand your obection here, but based on previous in-depth study, I find it is a flawed position. (Much like you see the accusation of DP critics regarding god being the author of evil.) Because it is an either, or, which of course neglects to consider another alternative. Sure, we want our position to be logically consistent, but we both know that an argument can be logically consistent, yet false. Particularly if the premise is flawed.

It seems to me that you're writing off why they will not be saved and why they don't believe in the first place.

Please elaborate.

Thanks for the discussion, btw.

Yes thank you both for the discussion as well, glad we are able to keep it civil and irenic. I have a question and a few comments related that I'll make a new thread for when I get the chance.

I think jlay hit on the imperfections of my analogy, I kind of like it though so maybe I should try to tweak it a little to fit Calvinism better. The main point is that under Calvinism John 3:16 isn't "false advertising" even if it is true that those who are saved are those who are chosen. There are some more sinister analogies I could use that fit God's sovereignty and predestination but don't hit the grace and love part. I'll throw one out there even though it doesn't fit the character of God or the spirit of election/predestination imo. Say that there's a prize for winning a poker game, but the deck is stacked. That doesn't mean that the statement "win the poker game and you'll receive a prize" is false. Now obviously I don't think that this is the spirit that John 3:16 should be taken in, just trying to clarify this one point.

As far as elaborating on that last point, like I mentioned I'll try to make a new thread instead of completely derailing Hana's top.

narnia4 wrote:As far as elaborating on that last point, like I mentioned I'll try to make a new thread instead of completely derailing Hana's top.

Thank you.

The main point is that under Calvinism John 3:16 isn't "false advertising" even if it is true that those who are saved are those who are chosen.

Narnia, I really don't think that is the issue. I believe that those who are saved are those who are chosen. I just reject the 5PC definition and interpretation, which would be chosen, implanted with the faith commodity, at the exclusion of others.

Say that there's a prize for winning a poker game, but the deck is stacked. That doesn't mean that the statement "win the poker game and you'll receive a prize" is false.

So, "Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved," is a stacked deck?
Let me re-word,
Believe (that is to be implanted with the commodity of faith) on the Lord Jesus and you (well maybe you, but possibly not) will be saved. (Unless you are reprobate, which in case you are incable of believing what you are being asked to believe.)

It seems to me that if one looks at John 6, Rom 9 or any other verse through the lense of 5PC, yes they will arrive at those conclusions as you say. So the only question is, are they the right lenses?

Now its very becoming obvious that we're going in circles here, whether we have complete understanding of each other or not isn't as obvious. If Calvinism is true, then your interpretation of the verse is wrong (and same goes for me if Calvinism is false). I don't think of John 3:16 as a verse that should really be used either way because I think it can be equally true under Calvinism or another view. But you seem to be saying that if Calvinism is true then John 3:16 doesn't imply that everyone can be saved, but my argument is that Calvinism is true and so John 3:16 does not, in fact, imply that everyone can be saved. Only that those who believe in Him will be saved.

narnia4 wrote:Now its very becoming obvious that we're going in circles here, whether we have complete understanding of each other or not isn't as obvious. If Calvinism is true, then your interpretation of the verse is wrong (and same goes for me if Calvinism is false). I don't think of John 3:16 as a verse that should really be used either way because I think it can be equally true under Calvinism or another view. But you seem to be saying that if Calvinism is true then John 3:16 doesn't imply that everyone can be saved, but my argument is that Calvinism is true and so John 3:16 does not, in fact, imply that everyone can be saved. Only that those who believe in Him will be saved.

Narnia, I see the difference. The "whosoever believes" is different for Calvinists, and non-Calvinists. Calvinists believe the "whosoever", in John 3:16, is whosoever God has chosen to believe. Non Calvinists believe the "whosoever" is anyone who chooses to believe, without God preprogramming them, so they have no choice, except to believe.

Well let's back this thing up then. You say, (referring to me) "your interpretation of the verse." First, I'd like to know exactly what you think that 'my interpretation is.' To this point, I've been giving a strong 5PC interpretation as I see it, adding what is in () to illustrate. That of course is an interpretation i strongly disagree with. I'm not even necessarily saying it is your interpretation, and some of the things you've offered make me wonder how much of a 5PC you really are. In fact, I believe I asked you this earlier in the discussion. Ah, yes I did.

I'd also like to know for discussions sake if you consider yourself a 5PC

I don't think of John 3:16 as a verse that should really be used either way because I think it can be equally true under Calvinism or another view.

And there in I think lies the fundemental error. Verses, at least from a biblicist POV, are not to be used, or forced to fit theology, but should (under sound exegesis) shape our theology.

John 3:16 is a truth statement about who Jesus is, (savior) and what He offers. (salvation) And it also conveys the truth that whosoever believes it, will partake in eternal life.
Next, you say,

but my argument is that Calvinism is true and so John 3:16 (a)does not, in fact, imply that everyone can be saved. (b)Only that those who believe in Him will be saved.

I've added the a and b, because it seems to me that because you are looking at the verse through a RT lense, you are creating a conflict that doesn't actually exist.
The statements, "everyone can be saved," and "Only that those who believe in Him will be saved," are NOT at odds. For example, I believe that everyone can be saved, but not everyone will be saved, and that only those that believe in Him will be saved. The 5PC goes further. The reality, for them, is the 'whosever' only apllies to those who are unconditionally pre-ordained (5PC always add pre to the ordained), and thus will be irresistably called, (at the exclusion of others) and thus imparted with the commodity of faith. Now you can say who is reading what into what verses, but this seems crystal clear too me. Thus the message of the Gospel really isn't powerful. The Gospel itself doesn't have power to be proclaimed, speak to the heart of any sinner, and thus bring him to the cross, where he can volitionally place his trust in this revelation. It's actually more like a Manchurian candidate, who was pre-programmed to act a certain way once some encoded message is given.

But if we just take the statement we agree on, "only those that believe will be saved," you will have no disagreement between anyone other than universalists. The issue I see is that often weak Calvinists want to discuss much of this on a point by point basis. But often it seems at the expense of remaining consistent. And, I don't see how that can be done with such a system. The points logically proceed out of the others.

My point in all of this has been that John 3:16 does not obviously, taken on its own, contradict RT. Granted, it doesn't prove RT either, and obviously I don't agree a Reformed interpretation robs the Gospel of the power (I believe the opposite).

Maybe we should have a thread about systematic theology and how to read Scripture. You (yeah I mean jlay here btw) seem to be on the same wavelength as Jac on many of these things. I recall Jac saying in another thread that way too much emphasis has been put on systematic theology in general, do you agree with that? I think Bart has some problems with a lot of systematic theology as well. Also, would you agree that systematic theology is dangerous and/or unnecessary and/or overrated?

I think we all agree that we need exegesis, not eisegesis. Not reader response theory, we want to try to determine what the writers of the Bible actually meant to say. A problem is that we always have our biases and always read our situation into Scripture, we're never going to be able to as fully study some Scriptures as well as others or while we're in the same state of mind. So I see systematic theology as a sort of self-limiting mechanism. Through exegesis we establish the central truths of Scripture and what else we can, but once we establish those central truths we can interpret other verses in light of our understanding of those central truths. So yes, I do read John 3:16 through a Reformed lens, but I believe that through exegesis a Calvinistic interpretation of Scripture can be justified. I also believe that the Bible is inerrant and has no contradictions, so systematic theology is a way to fit everything together logically.

There's a lot more that could be said on that topic though. But I won't shy away from saying that I think that you can gather that RT is largely correct by means of Scripture and then by reason (which is a big claim and a big topic) and that if RT can be established, you can be justified to read Scripture with that fact in mind. Just like you can read Scripture with the fact that Christ died and rose again in mind.

Now one thing I'm not saying, I'm not saying we should close the door on different interpretations or close our theology in any non-essential area and decide that we won't try to read Scripture as it was written.

Maybe we should have a thread about systematic theology and how to read Scripture. You (yeah I mean jlay here btw) seem to be on the same wavelength as Jac on many of these things. I recall Jac saying in another thread that way too much emphasis has been put on systematic theology in general, do you agree with that? I think Bart has some problems with a lot of systematic theology as well. Also, would you agree that systematic theology is dangerous and/or unnecessary and/or overrated?

Well, the question we have to ask is this, "Is systematic theology equal to scripture?" For many 5PCs I have come across, it is, or sure seems to be. For them 5PC is the way and only way to interpret scripture, and thus is on par with the scripture, and there is little humility to even consider they might be wrong. And the reason I make issue with it is because of what we see happening today.

For example, the Pastor at my congregation, who is a Mohlerite (Albert Mohler) made the statement, "if you aren't a calvinist or modified calvinist" then you probably shouldn't be here." Similar and even more divisive statements are being made. Would you consider that dangerous? So, yes, where I see 5PC leading is too me, a dangerous place. And since 5PC is based around a systematic theology I see that as an integral part of the problem.

So yes, I do read John 3:16 through a Reformed lens, but I believe that through exegesis a Calvinistic interpretation of Scripture can be justified. I also believe that the Bible is inerrant and has no contradictions, so systematic theology is a way to fit everything together logically.

I guess you don't see the danger in that statement. That gives systematic theology orthodoxy and authority that I don't think it merits. Or, in this case, we (people) are giving a specific ST authority. The Bible was not written as a systematic theology, nor do I see anything within it to indicate that a ST should be given such authority. Yes, we all bring in our biases, but it seems too me that 5PC brings it in with gestapo like tactics. And we are seeing a resurgence with new-Calvinism.

There are dangers with orthodoxy and tradition and systems of theologies, but on the other hand there are dangers in disregarding those traditions. If you're going to disregard systematic theology, you're going to be reading Scripture only as you see it. Like the statement I see many Christians give, "All I need is Jesus". Well that sure sounds good, but the "I" in that statement and his understanding (which comes from his observations, culture, other people, etc.) is going to get in the way. Then you have to allow for God's Spirit working through other people, through specific theologians and through creeds and counsels and all of that. I realize this probably sounds very Catholic of me but they have a point here imo.

So God could have spoke through Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther. That doesn't mean they were all right either, but you can't disregard the possibility that the same Holy Spirit has worked in others throughout history. Now I know you wouldn't disagree that God can work through those people and I don't disagree that none of these people should be given the same authority as Scripture. You start with the exegetical process, see what the authors intended to communicate. What are the timeless principles and what is God's relationship in man, the whole works.

My main point here is that, what if through exegetical study, logic, and the resources that are available to us in the form of thousands of years of Church history, I come to the conclusion that Calvin was right about Total Depravity and the other 4 points (which as you say, logically follow)? Granted, you'd make sure this is what Scripture is actually saying, read Calvin and weigh it against the Scriptures. If after the entire process, the 5 points still stand, then I am perfectly justified in seeing John 3:16 in light of what I've uncovered by reading other Scriptures.