Evidence for God from Science

If you're going to disregard systematic theology, you're going to be reading Scripture only as you see it.

I disagree. I think it is how you regard ST.

jlay wrote:SF,

It is important to understand 5 point Calvinism (5PC) to know where the issues lie. It is very systematic and each point does logically flow from the other. So, each point hangs or falls on the other. That is why 4PC is just a nasty compromise IMO. Ultimately, all the Lapsarian issues boil down to the core issue of God's sovereignty, eternality and the very issue of being itself. The 5PC in an attempt to revere the sovereignty of God, actually impugns it. This usually arises is out of the issue of contingency as it relates to God’s sovereignty. God is not a contingent being, so the 5PC concludes there can be no contingencies in the creation. But what if a sovereign God has decreed allowance for such contingencies? The 5PC is saying God isn't sovereign because he doesn’t comply with their idea of sovereignty.

For example why be so adamant that Jonah go and witness in Nineveh if the fate of that city was already written in stone somewhere?

Another important question. But one can reject 5PC and still say that Nineveh's fate was already written. (for lack of a better description.) It was settled, Nineveh would be spared or destroyed. Yet, there was room for a contingent response of Nineveh. Otherwise Nineveh didn't respond at all. They only acted according to their programming. And that would include their evil they were being rebuked for. People today are either saved or condemned. That is true. Of course how a 5PC defines that is where the issue lies. They wouldn’t say people are condemned or saved. They would say people are either condemned or people are either saved.

Wow it sounds like a very deep and complex hole has been dug by these folks and the five point calvinism ideals, based on the conversation i've read between my last post and this one. From my past studies I have found that groups of believers who have many different branches and disagreements among themselves tend to be furthest from the truth. I will admit that, as of yet, I'm still quite confused by calvinism and what exactly it is saying. Once I gather enough resources from all sides and it put it through my tests I'll be able to add more to this convo.

jlay wrote:

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.

I realized that the other thread I was working on (which isn't some huge thread by any means but I'd rather make a little time to think through my arguments there before posting it) wouldn't address this so I will elaborate on my statement there.

Imo this stems back to the whole author of evil thin (and maybe how you view predestination as well). My point here was that it isn't God who's stopping man from reaching God, its man's depravity.

Let's say for a moment that Arminianism is closer to the choose and man has the ability to believe in Christ. Now let's consider a possible world where these people never choose to believe in Christ. What if God, in His mercy, irresistably drew those people to himself? Would that somehow be "cheapening" the Gospel?

Now I know that example above doesn't really explain anything new, I'm just trying to come at it from a different direction. To find a way to explain how merciful and great the "God of Calvinism" is. I just think depravity and sin is something to be taken very, very seriously and I don't think sin nature is something that men occasionally decide against following. In fact, I don't think men will ever believe in Christ unless they are drawn.

jlay wrote:

If you're going to disregard systematic theology, you're going to be reading Scripture only as you see it.

I disagree. I think it is how you regard ST.

Well I explained my reasoning. We all have our own theological systems, its just a question of how well thought out they are and how well they fit Scripture. Like I mentioned, if you interpret Christ's sacrifice in a certain way, it necessarily changes your reading of the rest of Scripture. That's the start of systematic theology right there. I happen to disagree with Calvin on a number of issues, you can use ST without putting your blinders on and following ST instead of Scripture. Using systematic theology can be bad, but anything can be if you misuse it.

Let's say for a moment that Arminianism is closer to the choose and man has the ability to believe in Christ. Now let's consider a possible world where these people never choose to believe in Christ. What if God, in His mercy, irresistably drew those people to himself? Would that somehow be "cheapening" the Gospel?

Narnia, man has the ability to choose to believe in Christ, because God has given man the ability. Calvinism holds that man is so depraved, that he lost his ability to choose Christ. So, in Calvinism, God has to irresistibly call men, or they wouldn't be able to choose Christ. Non calvinists don't believe man is as depraved as Calvinism teaches. Any ability to choose or deny Christ, still comes from God. If God is irresistible in man's choice(thereby God makes those that he elects, choose Christ), then it's not love from us. When someone makes someone love him, then it's not real love, it's forced love. God wants us to choose him, without Him forcing us to choose him. A mutually loving relationship isn't based on forced love.

I see God's election as a "freeing" of the will. I'm not asserting fatalism here. But I'm hoping to address your points in more detail in the future.

Should mention here that I see a lot of assertions that John 3:16 means this or God's love means that. Well that's what we're trying to determine in this thread, isn't it? Whether John 3:16 or Acts 13:48 does and/or must mean what you and jlay believe it mean.

Should mention here that I see a lot of assertions that John 3:16 means this or God's love means that. Well that's what we're trying to determine in this thread, isn't it? Whether John 3:16 or Acts 13:48 does and/or must mean what you and jlay believe it mean.

IMO, the way we see the nature of God, plays a lot, into all of this. I guess I see God's love for all of mankind, as the part of His nature, that influences how I see this, the most. I'm certainly not claiming scripture must mean what I say it means. I see God's love as His greatest attribute. And, as I see Calvinism, it sees God's sovereignty as His greatest attribute. As I see it, God isn't relinquishing any of His sovereignty. But, in 5pt Calvinism, I see God as only showing His love to some of mankind, not all. Just how I see it.

It sounds contradictiory to say, 'the Gospel has power.' if it is not able to be believed. If the doctrine of predestination is true, then the elect and reprobate are unable to beleive. Faith is a commodity, given or withheld by God. End of story.
Abraham believed God and it (his volitional belief) was credited to him as righteousness. Faith comes by hearing, although it would seem this would be turned on its head, and would instead be, 'hearing comes by faith' under 5PC. Faith that is an implanted commodity.

Now let's consider a possible world where these people never choose to believe in Christ. What if God, in His mercy, irresistably drew those people to himself? Would that somehow be "cheapening" the Gospel?

I'd want to chew on that one. If God irresistibly drew all of them, then the Gospel is just a formality. If the example were even valid, it makes the effectual call of some and the deliberate passing by of others all the more peculiar and troubling. It leads to statements like this, "Since the disposition of all things is in the hands of God and he can give life or death at his pleasure, he dispenses and ordains by his judgment that some, from their mother’s womb, are destined irrevocably to eternal death in order to glorify his name in their perdition." John Calvin
Calvin would have us rejoice at the reprobate's fate. We shouldn't lament their fate, but should glory that the fires of Hell await.

Imo this stems back to the whole author of evil thin (and maybe how you view predestination as well). My point here was that it isn't God who's stopping man from reaching God, its man's depravity.

I don't think anyone is arguing for pelagianism or even semi-pelagianism. man is dead in his sin, and I don't see anyone here arguing otherwise. The NEED for the Gospel is most certainly NOT at question. One of the main stay verses is Paul's quotation of Jer. 17:9. However, all one has to do is look at the immediate following verse which says,
“I the Lord search the heart
and examine the mind,
to reward each person according to their conduct,
according to what their deeds deserve.” Jer. 17:10

Now, if all are were so depraved that they are totally incapable, then what is the point of Jer. 17:10. And just go back a couple of verses and Jer. 17:7 says, "But blessed is the one who trusts in the Lord, whose confidence is in him."
The Bible builds a rock solid case that faith/beleif/trust is a volitional act of man for which he will be held accountable.

Well I explained my reasoning. We all have our own theological systems, its just a question of how well thought out they are and how well they fit Scripture. Like I mentioned, if you interpret Christ's sacrifice in a certain way, it necessarily changes your reading of the rest of Scripture. That's the start of systematic theology right there. I happen to disagree with Calvin on a number of issues, you can use ST without putting your blinders on and following ST instead of Scripture. Using systematic theology can be bad, but anything can be if you misuse it

It's just interesting that the earliest church fathers saw grace and faith as synergistic, and rejected other notions.
Boettner, a strong Calvinist if ever there was one said,
“It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near
the end of the fourth century....They of course taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed that man had full power
to accept or reject the gospel. Some of their writings contain passages in which the sovereignty of God is recognized; yet along side
of those are others which teach the absolute freedom of the human will. Since they could not reconcile the two they would have
denied the doctrine of Predestination... They taught a kind of synergism in which there was a co-operation between grace and free
will...”
John Davenant (1572-1641), who was present at the Synod of Dort in 1618. Bishop Davenant wrote:
"It may be truly said before Augustine and Pelagius, there was no question concerning the death of Christ, whether it was to be extended to all mankind, or to be confined only to the elect. For the Fathers…not a word (that I know of) occurs among them of the exclusion of any persons by the decree of God. They agree that it is actually beneficial to those only who believe, yet everywhere confess that Christ died in behalf of all mankind…

Augustine died in AD 429, and up to his time, at least, there is not the slightest evidence that any Christian ever dreamed of a
propitiation for the elect alone. Even after him, the doctrine of limited propitiation was but slowly propagated, and for long but
partially received."

The doctrine of the Trinity wasn't completely ironed out until the 4th century.

I don't know how the Gospel would be made into a mere formality, but like I mentioned a couple times I plan to take a break and actually make a thread on TD (seems a little pointless now that Hana's thread has been completely derailed, but what can you do?).

narnia4 wrote:The doctrine of the Trinity wasn't completely ironed out until the 4th century.

I don't know how the Gospel would be made into a mere formality, but like I mentioned a couple times I plan to take a break and actually make a thread on TD (seems a little pointless now that Hana's thread has been completely derailed, but what can you do?).

Ironed out? Hardly. You could say, even a thousand years later, it was far from ironed out. And even today, it is a doctrine that persistent study will likely lead to frustration if not insanity. There is a lot of mystery in the Trinity.
I don't think the doctrine of the trinity is even necessary to be saved. In fact, i'd say few Christians can adequately explain it. And anyone who says otherwise is boasting on something that even some of the greatest Christian minds can't completely comprehend. You can only apprehend the Trinity.
In fact, it's actually a good comparison. At end of the day the synergism of man's responsibility and election is a mystery. Calvinists would say otherwise. The doctrines of election and predestination, and its unconditional acceptance, is paramount to Calvinism. It stands or falls on this doctrine. And therein lies the problem. I'm certain I can find a few quotes on this. That some Calvinist would say the reason I don't except the doctrine is because I am reprobate and incapable of understanding. (not saying that is your position) In fact I'm fairly certian that Mohler requires staff at Southern to sign a statement on predestination and election.
Got to run, more later.

hey just wanted to check in with you all and let you know im still looking up on this subject. Nothing major to report yet and im also doing other studies at the same time, so things may go a little slower. I will check in again.

ok so i have done some reading up on 5 points calvinism. i'm going to go one point at a time for ease and clarity even though i know some of the points are needed to support others. The first thing I do is read/talk to the proponents of what im studying so that i know more precisely what i need to learn and can filter out the junk and false accusations. It seems Calvinism might be one of those groups that gets more flak than it really deserves, BUT i have just started my study so i'll leave out any of those conclusions for now.
point 1 is original sin.
Things I agree on are: Humans are born with a tendancy more towards sin than to righteousness. At birth humans are neither 100% bad or 100% good. humans Alone cannot restore their relationship with God, they need God. God does the saving act, no amount of chanting, magic water or money can restore your spirit. people can be kind,gentle and pleasant on the outside, but still be sinners on the inside. God does not MAKE people good or MAKE people evil. Some people do seem predisposed to being good, despite environments and teaching as well as some people seeming predisposed to being bad, despite environment and teaching.
Things I disagree on are: Man's fall (in Eden) is responsible for everyone's sinful tendancies. we are born seperated from God. That we by nature have no will or desire to find or please God, to keep his commands. that self will is a totally bad thing which needs eliminating. Their view on human nature in general (very pessimistic)

As you can see i havent found much differing from basic christian understanding. It's mostly a case of goin to the extreme. Here is one quote that a proponent uses "Even the great rationalistic philosopher Emmanual Kant believed and taught this doctrine. His argument is that when men act in the aggregate and in national masses, they show out their real native dispositions, because in these concurrent actions they are not restrained by public opinion and by human laws restricting individual actions, and they do not feel immediate personal responsibility for what they do. The actions of men in the aggregate, therefore, show what man's heart really is. Now, then, what are the morals of the nations toward each other and toward God? Simply those of foxes, wolves, tigers, and atheists." He then goes on to a couple of very negitive examples like waging war against a weaker, innocent nation for your own gain and riot-like behavior. Now this pops up the one-sided equation red flag. I don't think many would dissagree when I say that our nation is getting pretty ungodly lately, but what did our nation do when the earthquake hit haiti? what did our nation do for the victims of Japan's Tsunami? If the Calvinist theory is right, then all the people involved in these humanitarian and rescue efforts had to be saved christians, but i can guarantee you only part of them were.
I find many scriptures that can refute the idea that we are born lost because of Adam's sin. "We will be judged only by our own actions: Mt 12:36-37; Rom 2:6; 2 Cor 5:10; 1 Pe 1:17" and "Isa 59:1-2, 'Your sins have separated you from your God' not Adams" or "Spiritual consequences of sin cannot be transmitted from father to son but only falls on the one who committed the act: Ezek 18:1-4; 18-20; Jer 32:29-30" those quotes came from a site refuting this original sin theory. Because of the fall, spiritual death, sin and a curse came upon mankind. Due to our having a free will, we are more vulnerable to sin (disobediance) and it doesn't help that Satan and other fallen are trying to pull us in that direction. In no way does that mean we are pre programmed to be sinful and automatically fall away. In all honesty most of the support I read for this type of teaching is based soley on assumptions and opinions. Like if you have one verse that's kind of iffy and hard to understand so you take a guess at what it means, but there are 5 other verses that undeniably prove your guess wrong, yet you stick with your original thought anyway. They did that with psalms 58:3. Reading that with a calvinist mindset sounds like we are fallen sinners before we are born, but upon a closer, clearer reading it says they "GO ASTRAY from birth" which means they started out on the right track and even if its 8 years after they are born, that qualifies as "from birth". Then just confirm that with a huge list of verses that also teach we are born as innocents, then go astray by actions later on.
From the little bit I have read so far I can take a guess that Presbyterian churches are quite strict and probably suffer greatly from legalism. I wonder if my local Presbyterian church would even talk to me unless I wear the right clothes and shave as smooth as possible.

so this begs a new question. If human's are born unwilling to understand, obey and seek God, then how does anyone go about being saved? what would make anyone care about reading scripture or believing any of it? to be continued......