Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

1over137 wrote:Byblos, you are writing a book?

English idiom fail!!!

So, I agree with something a priest said in a sermon? That means I can't be all bad, in your book, Byblos.

in my book (informal)
in my opinion

I am writing a book.

Jac3510 wrote: I know am I elect because I believe, and all believers are elect. Calvinists, however, believe (necessarily) in a doctrine called the final perseverance of the saints (that's the P in the TULIP), which says that all believers will persevere in faith and good works until the end of their lives. But the fact is that some people do not persevere in faith and good works until the end of their lives (Jesus said as much Himself in Luke 8:13). So what do we do with them? Calvinists say that those people were not true believers (against Jesus' own words, I would add), and they proved that by not persevering until the end. That means that even though they believed for a time, they were not really elect. So they would deny that all believers are elect. They would say that all true believers are elect, and then they would qualify "true" as those who persevere in faith and good works until the end. So the fact that you believe is no guarantee that you are a true believer. You may be deceived and have spurious faith, which you will eventually prove by falling away.

If I omit the P in TULIP what will happen and why?


Now to the drawing - wooing stuff. Notice for example following verse:
Romans 3:11 : "no one understands; no one seeks for God."

I see regeneration as enabling people to be able to choose for God. Without His help noone would choose for Him.
You say that it's the cross that draws. Ok. But there must be also God's drawing involved too. See verses: 2 Corinthians 4:4,6; Acts 16:14.

1over137 wrote:If I omit the P in TULIP what will happen and why?

The first four points of the TULIP entail the fifth. In other words, you would be being logically inconsistent if you did that. The logic goes as follows:

1. T - Man is totally unable to believe the Gospel because he is dead; therefore
2. U - God must choose (elect) a person for salvation; He does, therefore
3. L - God's mercy is limited to those whom He has chosen; but God's election is always effective, therefore
4. I - God's calling is irresistible. All those whom He calls will necessarily and always believe. The regenerate heart believes the Gospel! But that means
5. P - The elect can never fail to believe. As God chose them for salvation and abandons none of His children, He preserves their faith. But since the regenerate heart always believes the Gospel, the regenerate can never fail to believe. That is to say, those whom God calls He preserves in faith and good works until the end

To drop the P would have God really saving some people just to let them go at some point in their lives, and that violates both the logic of Calvinism and Scripture itself.

Now to the drawing - wooing stuff. Notice for example following verse:
Romans 3:11 : "no one understands; no one seeks for God."

Paul is quoting (rather loosely) passages like Psalm 14 (Psalm 13 in the LXX; other passages such as Psalm 53 are nearly identical). Here's verses 1-3 in the KJV:

• The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
  The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
  They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

It seems to me that David is generalizing here (as is Paul). He doesn't mean, I don't think, that no one ever does a single good thing, that no one has any understanding, that no one ever seeks God at all. That would contradict plenty of passages of Scripture that show that people do understand and do good and seek God. It's fashionable, I know, to qualify David's words here and say, "David means that no one seeks God on his own, that no one does good apart from God's grace," etc. But that isn't what David says. That's just an example of reading a passage in light of our preexisting theology. It's commonly understood among OT interpreters that the Psalms commonly paint idealistic pictures--remember, this is poetry.

I think it's clear that Paul knew this and was using it in the same way. Consider, for instance, Rom 2:14-16. There Paul cites the fact that Gentiles do practice good, and it is this very good that condemns them, for it shows that they know the law implicitly (even if they don't have it explicitly as do the Jews). Also consider Acts 17:26-27. Men do seek God. That's a historical and Scriptural fact. They just don't find Him unless God reveals Himself, which is what Israel was supposed to be about (Exod 19:5-6)

So Paul's point is that we all are sinners. Left to ourselves, there is no salvation--not for the Jew, not for the Gentile. God Himself has to do something to remedy the situation. That is the point of chapters 1-3, and Paul then goes on to point out at the end of chapter three and on into four and five that God DID do something, and that in Christ.

I see regeneration as enabling people to be able to choose for God. Without His help noone would choose for Him.
You say that it's the cross that draws. Ok. But there must be also God's drawing involved too. See verses: 2 Corinthians 4:4,6; Acts 16:14.

But where does the Bible say that regeneration enables us to choose God? That's a logical inference we draw from Calvinism's view of total depravity. But no verse ANYWHERE says that we are regenerated so that we can choose, nor does ANY verse say ANYWHERE that we are incapable of sin. Instead, Scripture constantly exhorts the lost to turn to Christ as if they can do so.

Now obviously God has to draw us. But Scripture says plainly that He does so through the Cross (I've already quoted as much). God certainly opens our heart so that we can believe. But opening our heart so that we can believe is not the same as regenerating us. Rather, its upon that belief that we are then credited as righteous and are therefore justified and regenerated. People choose to reject God all the time. Believers themselves can harden their hearts and reject God (see Ps 95:8; Prov 28:14; Heb 3:8; etc.).

Again, my point about Calvinism is consistently the same: there's just no verses that say what they insist on. Their entire theology is a logical construct based on a theological extrapolation of the Fall, and then construct is imposed upon the text of Scripture. It's all just eisogesis. It's not exegesis. They go to the text with their theology rather than getting their theology out of the text. The result is that they spend all their time explaining away Scripture (e.g., God doesn't really "love the world" like He says in John 3:16--"the world" really just means the elect!) and, far worse, they end up denying the Gospel by having something other than simple trust as the means by which we are declared righteous.

The result is that they spend all their time explaining away Scripture (e.g., God doesn't really "love the world" like He says in John 3:16--"the world" really just means the elect!) and, far worse, they end up denying the Gospel by having something other than simple trust as the means by which we are declared righteous.

So true! And they not only must change the plain meanings of so many Scriptures, but just look at the complexity of it - and then at the glaring contradictions and hideous actions it asserts about God's actions, Holy nature and character. He supposedly chose a nightmarish life and unthinkably horrible eternal fate for billions of people before they were ever born and THEN warns them to do what they cannot and were never even given the ABILITY to - and all this supposedly "for His glory." Just unreal!

Folks, this is dangerous stuff, it's divisive and damaging to those who are investigating Christianity. God said that coming to Jesus is so simple a child can understand and do it, and yet Calvinists have written countless volumes on explaining how this happens, with a complexity that only the theologically savvy can grasp - and none of those showed up for 15 centuries. And they don't even totally agree amongst themselves. And no, it's not for US to say what God's character and actions must be like - because He's already told us! And what God has told us about Himself and how He has demonstrated His love throughout history, how He has told US to pray for and love the unsaved - all this makes the god of Calvinism a perverse, unrecognizable imitation of the REAL God. And it's precisely the pushiness of so many Calvinists who feel compelled to remind us that not just anyone has salvation available to them, that I continue to respond to it. This is also one of the reasons why I have shifted away from long established denominations, as they so often drag in and add on their man-made doctrines and traditions. And so you end up with a "Scripture PLUS" in their doctrinal views.

So Philip, I'm trying to figure out your perspective. Seeing that you have some small issues with Calvinism, you dont seem like a full fledged 5 point, TULIP believing Calvinist. So, would it be safe to say you're a 4 point Calvinist?

No Calvinist would ever say or believe that he is imposing a system onto Scripture. On the contrary, one of a Calvinist's largest concerns is usually taking verses out of context to fit theology (proper exegesis is the specialty of a Calvinist pastor who was very influential for me). To the non-Calvinist it sounds like "Scripture PLUS" or "explaining away Scripture", but frankly some that has been written on this forum in the past sounds like that to me.

Phillip- I already implied that I don't want to keep the debate up, but I'll try to explain once more. Calvinists believe that there are some principles laid out very clearly by Scripture. They believe those Scriptures lead to the Five Points. They believe the Five Points are implied, sometimes more strongly than others. They believe that each verse should be interpreted in light of other verses. They believe that when this is done, the whole of Scripture supports their position. For this reason saying "Find one verse that says x" doesn't do much for me, because if all you can find is one verse you're usually going to have problems (unless its the clearest verse of all time). Disagree with Calvinism, fine, but why can't there be any respect shown, at least for an honest attempt to understand God's Word? Unless you think the attempt isn't honest, and from my personal experience I would be forced to disagree with you.

Hana- there are those who call themselves Calvinists but don't adhere to all five points. Five point Calvinists usually don't consider them to actually be Calvinists. They call themselves four point Calvinists (dropping various points or dropping one and tweaking the others), Amyraldians, and so on. Of course its the nature of things for there to be a bit of controversy about what even the "five points" mean, there's a lot of misunderstanding among non-Calvinists and even among Calvinists sometimes. Calvinism is also more than the Five Points, even though they get all the headlines.

Frankly, all this Protestant infighting, is getting to me. I'm contemplating crossing the Tiber, and going home to Catholicism. At least they have a final authority that can be called upon to settle disputes. If I disagree with someone on Catholic doctrine, we would have an authority to settle the issue. That way, I could stop fighting about the non-essentials, and have more time for the real important stuff. Byblos, bring the papal limo down to the shore of the river. Ive got my speedo on, and I'm a comin home.

RickD wrote:Frankly, all this Protestant infighting, is getting to me. I'm contemplating crossing the Tiber, and going home to Catholicism. At least they have a final authority that can be called upon to settle disputes. If I disagree with someone on Catholic doctrine, we would have an authority to settle the issue. That way, I could stop fighting about the non-essentials, and have more time for the real important stuff. Byblos, bring the papal limo down to the shore of the river. Ive got my speedo on, and I'm a comin home.

You're a treasure! I hope I don't feel like a sweet little ol' granny when I say that.

narnia4 wrote:

RickD wrote:Frankly, all this Protestant infighting, is getting to me. I'm contemplating crossing the Tiber, and going home to Catholicism. At least they have a final authority that can be called upon to settle disputes. If I disagree with someone on Catholic doctrine, we would have an authority to settle the issue. That way, I could stop fighting about the non-essentials, and have more time for the real important stuff. Byblos, bring the papal limo down to the shore of the river. Ive got my speedo on, and I'm a comin home.

You're a treasure! I hope I don't feel like a sweet little ol' granny when I say that.

You kids stop bickering, or I'll cross the Tiber. I mean it!! I'm this close!!! I've got my speedo on, and my sailboard in the water. Here I am:

RickD wrote:

narnia4 wrote:

RickD wrote:Frankly, all this Protestant infighting, is getting to me. I'm contemplating crossing the Tiber, and going home to Catholicism. At least they have a final authority that can be called upon to settle disputes. If I disagree with someone on Catholic doctrine, we would have an authority to settle the issue. That way, I could stop fighting about the non-essentials, and have more time for the real important stuff. Byblos, bring the papal limo down to the shore of the river. Ive got my speedo on, and I'm a comin home.

You're a treasure! I hope I don't feel like a sweet little ol' granny when I say that.

You kids stop bickering, or I'll cross the Tiber. I mean it!! I'm this close!!! I've got my speedo on, and my sailboard in the water. Here I am:

You could have at least spared us the visual Rick. Now I'm not sure you're wanted on the other side of the shore.

You could have at least spared us the visual Rick. Now I'm not sure you're wanted on the other side of the shore.

Ouch! Where's the love? Byblos, you know I've had plantar fasciitis, and I haven't been able to go running, to keep in shape. Cut a guy some slack, for Pete's sake.

I think Rick's "gonna need a BIGGER boat!"

Philip wrote:I think Rick's "gonna need a BIGGER boat!"

Where's the brotherly love? Why all the hatin?

Narnia, my views about the Five Points are in no ways personal. And I well realize it's pretty difficult to not take them that way. But I've tried to attack only the doctrine and its errors, if passionately so. To me, Arminians have many wrongful beliefs as well, as they de-emphasize God's sovereignty and overstate man's position and role. My in-laws are all Catholic, so I CAN be diplomatic (luckily(?), they are not theologically savvy Catholics, they just tend to believe that because they were dunked as babies, "we're in like Flynn." Anyway, the debates here on G&S are quite tame compared to some I've seen on YouTube, etc - about this very issue. I do look forward to that one day when none of this will matter to thus of us in the presence of our Lord. And I"m more than sure we are going to have some doctrinal misunderstandings explained to us - things we may now seem so certain of. And I am in no way asserting you are not sincere in what you believe. If I gave you that impression, I sincerely apologize.

Philip