Evidence for God from Science

I'm not attempting to fault anyone. I just know I haven't seen anything near to a single themed definition that is consistent in any of the areas noted. As I'm brushing up and reminding myself of the positions on supralapsarianism and High Calvinism, there are things there that in the past I might have just tossed into a hyper-Calvinist category, but it's not really very fair or accurate to do that when the position itself can be traced directly to Calvin and it's not being exagerated.

I put up a link a while back to an article on Hyper-Calvinism by Phil Johnson from over on RC Sproul's site and I thought it was helpful because it was coming from a Calvnist about Hyper-Calvinism, but then in the same material I'm looking at from Sproul he give classic Calvinist definitions with regard to double predestination, but then goes to remarkable length to attempt to parse meaning in such a manner that he keeps the definition while denying the heart of it. He refers to those who elevate the importance and direct attribution to God of both election and reprobation as "hyper-calvinists"! That just boggles my mind, so I'm having to back off on thinking it's that simple and to this point at least, I've not seen any of our resident reformed believers here offer something from their perspective that sheds any light on it for me, anyway.

Arminianism/Molinism - Denies that God ordains the ends of saving faith (the actual salvation of the elect).

Hyper-Calvinism - Denies that God ordains the means of saving faith (the universal call and preaching of the gospel)

Calvinism - God ordains both the salvation of His elect, and the means by which they will be saved.

puritan lad wrote:Arminianism/Molinism - Denies that God ordains the ends of saving faith (the actual salvation of the elect).

Hyper-Calvinism - Denies that God ordains the means of saving faith (the universal call and preaching of the gospel)

Calvinism - God ordains both the salvation of His elect, and the means by which they will be saved.

That's helpful and parallel tracks on what I've seen in some other appeals. Just as a point of understanding and not a desire on my part to start another conversation or argument that is already going on elsewhere, how would you relate double-predestination to hyper-calvinism in this context. Is double predestination, where it's stated that God solely wills reprobation on an equal level with election by your definition hyper-calvinism or are there additional nuances to it, in your understanding?

Philip wrote:While the REACTION to Five Point answers to the above might indeed become emotional, the questions themselves, however, as to their end-resulting realities, are either true or are not? Are the realities I described not true and were or were they not chosen COMPLETELY independent of any sin or in reaction to any CHOICE any man might have made?

Byblos replied: "Philip, those realities are true irrespective of your or my stance on the TULIP."

My reply: Well, as he stated, Byblos believes that, for most of humanity, God IS a nightmare (although He created ALL of the ingredients in the cake mix, put them together, turned on the oven and what comes out is HIS cake. So the nightmare cake is, ultimately, of God's choosing, as it is exactly as He desired it to be baked? But He COULD have changed fate of for those vast billions of unbelieving/unsaved, but offered them no choice to get out and nothing but suffering and later eternal punishment. Oh, yes, He made a way out for SOME. And so He tells ALL of humanity repent, but yet we're to believe He doesn't want ALL to do so, nor does He even give them an ability to? He hates sin and rebellion, but insured these would never have an earthly end? He tells us to love those He has always hated? Something very strange is going on with such a god, as he seems very double-minded.

Byblos said, "Well I Think I've answered that but here are a few questions for you to ponder (and not necessarily answer):

1. Does God love everyone equally?
No, He loves conditionally - for all those who He has always known and desired that they obey his directives of repentance and faith in Jesus. But ALL can obey his initiating overtures - this is not yet faith but will lead to it - as GOD will reward obedience in what and as to what they can obey, each step of the way.

2. Do we have any inherent power within us to save ourselves?
No, but we DO have free will to respond as God enlightens and draws - responding positively to his drawing will result in his leading us all the way to salvation - we cannot do it without His drawing. But he also foreknows all who will rebuff all of His initiating. He draws all so willing to obey, as He knows precisely who these are.

3. Are some people saved and not others?
Yes. But most refuse to do as God has commanded them, and Scripture repeatedly makes it is obvious that 1) we can repent and 2) that God will provide the way for us to do what He wants us to - but we CAN reject his overtures which would otherwise lead us to that repentance. He allows rejection. We are created in His image - we are free beings and He gave us The choice of Jesus. We can reject that Choice.

4. What conclusion do you draw from answering these questions?
That they can be sufficiently answered so as to refute a Calvinist take on them.

RickD wrote:Byblos, just because there's no scripture quoted, that doesn't mean it's nothing more than appeal to emotions. This post by Philip, seems to me , to be an appeal to look at how each of us views God's character, or His nature. And scripture has been used to argue against Calvinism, as a whole. The same thing happens on both sides, when scripture is used. Both sides disagree on how scripture is interpreted.

Rick, then why isn't scripture being presented to refute the scriptural arguments which have been given? It's not Calvin you're fighting, brother, but the scripture.

DannyM wrote:

RickD wrote:Byblos, just because there's no scripture quoted, that doesn't mean it's nothing more than appeal to emotions. This post by Philip, seems to me , to be an appeal to look at how each of us views God's character, or His nature. And scripture has been used to argue against Calvinism, as a whole. The same thing happens on both sides, when scripture is used. Both sides disagree on how scripture is interpreted.

Rick, then why isn't scripture being presented to refute the scriptural arguments which have been given? It's not Calvin you're fighting, brother, but the scripture.

Scripture is not a magic formula that somehow when it's cited as a proof text makes the statement it's attached to independent of scripture somehow correct. There's no shortage of doctrinal statements endlessly proof-texted, many of which say the exact opposite of each other with all involved fervently claiming that they're being true to the scripture and anyone who disagree with them disagrees with God.

This is one of the greatest weaknesses in my opinion, of the type of scholastic, systematic theology upon which Calvinism (and Arminianism too) rests. By chopping the scriptures into little bitesize pieces of independent thoughts it allows the doctrinal artist to make a jigsaw of his own design. Or better yet, in honor of this time of year, they pick any tree they want and then hang the pretty little scriptural ornaments and claim if you reject the tree that you're rejecting the ornaments.

Scripture is written in larger components than verses (which are man made contrivances anyway). Scripture has it's own logic, structure and progression that it builds and presents within itself and frankly, you lose a tremendous amount of it when you pull verses out and play with them independently outside their assigned role in the orginal passage. I don't find most of what passes for Scriptural arguments using the systematic methodology all that impressive and I find plenty of detailed "revelations" attributed to scripture that can't be found anywhere in scripture by themselves but instead have to be built carefully by inference from multiple passages pulled from multiple locations within Scripture, written at multiple times from multiple contexts that may or may not be accurately preserved in their use in the resultant methodology. A lot of these issues, in fact, in my opinion are attempting to answer Questions that Scripture itself doesn't ask or attempt to answer in accordance with the methods of the reader without deference to the Scriptures to establish that too for itself in passages that are read as full units in the way they were written and build upon their own planned progression to the conclusions being drawn.

Other than that though, by all means, let's throw some more Scripture around and I'm sure that will clear everything up to everyone's satisfaction.

I'm going to work on starting this thread all over again (remember Wesley?), with less hyperbole this time from yours truly.

What are the odds that it turns into a Calvinist-bashing thread within, oh I don't know, a couple of posts?

I won't let it - I won't I won't I won't

Canuckster1127 wrote:Scripture is written in larger components than verses (which are man made contrivances anyway). Scripture has it's own logic, structure and progression that it builds and presents within itself and frankly, you lose a tremendous amount of it when you pull verses out and play with them independently outside their assigned role in the orginal passage. I don't find most of what passes for Scriptural arguments using the systematic methodology all that impressive and I find plenty of detailed "revelations" attributed to scripture that can't be found anywhere in scripture by themselves but instead have to be built carefully by inference from multiple passages pulled from multiple locations within Scripture, written at multiple times from multiple contexts that may or may not be accurately preserved in their use in the resultant methodology. A lot of these issues, in fact, in my opinion are attempting to answer Questions that Scripture itself doesn't ask or attempt to answer in accordance with the methods of the reader without deference to the Scriptures to establish that too for itself in passages that are read as full units in the way they were written and build upon their own planned progression to the conclusions being drawn.

Fair enough, bro. I respect that that's your opinion. Believe it or not I am actually trying to respect the whole counsel of Scripture, not just ‘convenient’ parts to suit.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Other than that though, by all means, let's throw some more Scripture around and I'm sure that will clear everything up to everyone's satisfaction.

Why not

Danny, the point I'm trying, and failing to make, is that once one considers himself a Calvinist, arminianist, lutheranist, Methodist, etc., then one must interpret scripture by the light of the doctrine one holds to. I'm saying that one who believes in TULIP, must take scripture, then filter it through, the TULIP filter, to see what the scripture really means. Instead of just reading scripture, and let it speak for itself, unfiltered, and pure.

RickD wrote:Danny, the point I'm trying, and failing to make, is that once one considers himself a Calvinist, arminianist, lutheranist, Methodist, etc., then one must interpret scripture by the light of the doctrine one holds to. I'm saying that one who believes in TULIP, must take scripture, then filter it through, the TULIP filter, to see what the scripture really means. Instead of just reading scripture, and let it speak for itself, unfiltered, and pure.

Rick, with respect, that's nonsense. This obsession with the TULIP is not coming from any Calvinist that I can see. One must be a believer and believe in Scripture in order to even consider the TULIP. And the TULIP is not even the be-all and end-all of Calvinism, let alone Scripture. There seems to be this caricature flying about of Calvinists worshipping the TULIP. Perhaps Sunday worship in Reformed churches is, week after week, devoted to praising the TULIP... Maybe so, but, somehow, I very much doubt it.

Philip wrote:

Philip wrote:While the REACTION to Five Point answers to the above might indeed become emotional, the questions themselves, however, as to their end-resulting realities, are either true or are not? Are the realities I described not true and were or were they not chosen COMPLETELY independent of any sin or in reaction to any CHOICE any man might have made?

Byblos replied: "Philip, those realities are true irrespective of your or my stance on the TULIP."

My reply: Well, as he stated, Byblos believes that, for most of humanity, God IS a nightmare (although He created ALL of the ingredients in the cake mix, put them together, turned on the oven and what comes out is HIS cake. So the nightmare cake is, ultimately, of God's choosing, as it is exactly as He desired it to be baked? But He COULD have changed fate of for those vast billions of unbelieving/unsaved, but offered them no choice to get out and nothing but suffering and later eternal punishment. Oh, yes, He made a way out for SOME. And so He tells ALL of humanity repent, but yet we're to believe He doesn't want ALL to do so, nor does He even give them an ability to? He hates sin and rebellion, but insured these would never have an earthly end? He tells us to love those He has always hated? Something very strange is going on with such a god, as he seems very double-minded.

This is simply meaningless drivel and deserving of no response really (to say the least about misrepresenting what I said but I will let that slide for now).

Philip wrote:Byblos said, "Well I Think I've answered that but here are a few questions for you to ponder (and not necessarily answer):
1. Does God love everyone equally?
No, He loves conditionally - for all those who He has always known and desired that they obey his directives of repentance and faith in Jesus. But ALL can obey his initiating overtures - this is not yet faith but will lead to it - as GOD will reward obedience in what and as to what they can obey, each step of the way.

Okay, I can accept that.

Philip wrote:2. Do we have any inherent power within us to save ourselves?
No, but we DO have free will to respond as God enlightens and draws - responding positively to his drawing will result in his leading us all the way to salvation - we cannot do it without His drawing. But he also foreknows all who will rebuff all of His initiating. He draws all so willing to obey, as He knows precisely who these are.

So then those who do exercise their free will have their own free will to thank. This inherent power from within themselves (this free will) that others evidently could not exercise, and thereby get saved. Is that right?

Philip wrote:3. Are some people saved and not others?
Yes. But most refuse to do as God has commanded them, and Scripture repeatedly makes it is obvious that 1) we can repent and 2) that God will provide the way for us to do what He wants us to - but we CAN reject his overtures which would otherwise lead us to that repentance. He allows rejection. We are created in His image - we are free beings and He gave us The choice of Jesus. We can reject that Choice.

Only if you could find such concepts in scripture, alas, you cannot. But see point 2 again.

Philip wrote:4. What conclusion do you draw from answering these questions?
That they can be sufficiently answered so as to refute a Calvinist take on them.

Only if they were answered.

Byblos: 2. Do we have any inherent power within us to save ourselves?

Philip: No, but we DO have free will to respond as God enlightens and draws - responding positively to his drawing will result in his leading us all the way to salvation - we cannot do it without His drawing. But he also foreknows all who will rebuff all of His initiating. He draws all so willing to obey, as He knows precisely who these are.

Byblos: So then those who do exercise their free will have their own free will to thank. This inherent power from within themselves (this free will) that others evidently could not exercise, and thereby get saved. Is that right?

Philip: No, they will have only God to thank for 1) giving them the free will to exercise and 2) for giving them a choice to begin with, and 3) for God providing Jesus' sacrifice that makes salvation even possible. But the first thing we have that our free will allows us, is the ability to respond to God's initiating and prompts. If we will do that, He will do the rest - all the leading us all the way to salvation.

Byblos:3. Are some people saved and not others?
Philip: Yes. But most refuse to do as God has commanded them, and Scripture repeatedly makes it is obvious that 1) we can repent and 2) that God will provide the way for us to do what He wants us to - but we CAN reject his overtures which would otherwise lead us to that repentance. He allows rejection. We are created in His image - we are free beings and He gave us The choice of Jesus. We can reject that Choice.

Byblos: Only if you could find such concepts in scripture, alas, you cannot. But see point 2 again.

Philip: I think the concepts are most certainly in scripture.

Let's look at the story of Peter and Cornelius in Acts 10. Scripture describes Cornelius, BEFORE being saved, as “a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God.” So this Roman was clearly familiar with the OT scriptures and had thus been seeking God as best he knew how. And so how then did God honor Cornelius’ seeking? He sent an angel, who told him his “prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God.” The angel further instructed him to send for Peter.

God’s Spirit said to Peter, “…Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was directed … to hear what you have to say.” Upon meeting Peter, Cornelius, still unsaved and clueless, “fell down at his (Peter’s) feet and worshiped him.” Cornelius first related that the angel had told him that his “prayer has been heard and your alms have been remembered before God.” So while first obviously doing the DRAWING, God was also clearly responding to the obedient actions of Cornelius, who, at that point, was not yet saved (which didn't happen until AFTER hearing and responding to Peter's preaching of the Gospel).

And through the episode with Cornelius, Peter himself learned that God “shows no partiality” and that “in every nation ANYONE who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” Notice Peter makes this statement when contemplating the amazing salvation of Cornelius. Did Cornelius know enough to be able to believe and be saved BEFORE he responded to God's promptings, as he had thus already begun seek God? NO! Was God clearly drawing him? Absolutely. Could Cornelius have used his free will to reject God’s prompting? Certainly – he wasn’t even yet saved, but he WAS, nonetheless, obedient to what God's prompting had already showed him! God did all of the rest – Cornelius was merely obedient and thus RECEIVED salvation as his actions had been "remembered before God." Was, before his salvation, Cornelius so "dead in his sins" that he could not seek God or respond to Him? Clearly this is not true.

Philip wrote:Byblos: 2. Do we have any inherent power within us to save ourselves?

Philip: No, but we DO have free will to respond as God enlightens and draws - responding positively to his drawing will result in his leading us all the way to salvation - we cannot do it without His drawing. But he also foreknows all who will rebuff all of His initiating. He draws all so willing to obey, as He knows precisely who these are.

Byblos: So then those who do exercise their free will have their own free will to thank. This inherent power from within themselves (this free will) that others evidently could not exercise, and thereby get saved. Is that right?

Philip: No, they will have only God to thank for 1) giving them the free will to exercise and 2) for giving them a choice to begin with, and 3) for God providing Jesus' sacrifice that makes salvation even possible. But the first thing we have that our free will allows us, is the ability to respond to God's initiating and prompts. If we will do that, He will do the rest - all the leading us all the way to salvation.

Byblos:3. Are some people saved and not others?
Philip: Yes. But most refuse to do as God has commanded them, and Scripture repeatedly makes it is obvious that 1) we can repent and 2) that God will provide the way for us to do what He wants us to - but we CAN reject his overtures which would otherwise lead us to that repentance. He allows rejection. We are created in His image - we are free beings and He gave us The choice of Jesus. We can reject that Choice.

Byblos: Only if you could find such concepts in scripture, alas, you cannot. But see point 2 again.

Philip: I think the concepts are most certainly in scripture.

Let's look at the story of Peter and Cornelius in Acts 10. Scripture describes Cornelius, BEFORE being saved, as “a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God.” So this Roman was clearly familiar with the OT scriptures and had thus been seeking God as best he knew how. And so how then did God honor Cornelius’ seeking? He sent an angel, who told him his “prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God.” The angel further instructed him to send for Peter.

God’s Spirit said to Peter, “…Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was directed … to hear what you have to say.” Upon meeting Peter, Cornelius, still unsaved and clueless, “fell down at his (Peter’s) feet and worshiped him.” Cornelius first related that the angel had told him that his “prayer has been heard and your alms have been remembered before God.” So while first obviously doing the DRAWING, God was also clearly responding to the obedient actions of Cornelius, who, at that point, was not yet saved (which didn't happen until AFTER hearing and responding to Peter's preaching of the Gospel).

And through the episode with Cornelius, Peter himself learned that God “shows no partiality” and that “in every nation ANYONE who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” Notice Peter makes this statement when contemplating the amazing salvation of Cornelius. Did Cornelius know enough to be able to believe and be saved BEFORE he responded to God's promptings, as he had thus already begun seek God? NO! Was God clearly drawing him? Absolutely. Could Cornelius have used his free will to reject God’s prompting? Certainly – he wasn’t even yet saved, but he WAS, nonetheless, obedient to what God's prompting had already showed him! God did all of the rest – Cornelius was merely obedient and thus RECEIVED salvation as his actions had been "remembered before God." Was, before his salvation, Cornelius so "dead in his sins" that he could not seek God or respond to Him? Clearly this is not true.

Would it surprise you if I said I don't disagree with anything you stated here? I agree that Cornelius cooperated (in some passive sense) with God's prompting, no problem there. The ultimate question I am leading up to is what made Cornelius cooperate with God's prompting. What is this secret that made Cornelius believe and yet does not make others believe who were or are in similar situations? Cornelius knew enough to believe and yet others who know even more still do not believe. What sets him apart from them? After all, they were/are getting the same prompting from God as he was. Is it the mere exercise of his free will? That's some powerful free will my friend, that makes one person get saved and not another. If not, why not?

Agreed Byblos,

One has to ask if God has made people with different degrees of faith, belief, stubbornness, willingness to believe, etc....Are some people more "in tune" to God's voice? Sure, the degree to which Paul/Saul, for instance, needed convincing is far different than the Samaritan woman, evidently. God certainly made his brain just as He made her brain.

If so, is God not culpable of making those people believe or not believe? After all, He made them, so He made some more resistant to His voice.

That also then begs the question of whether God "calls" with the same volume. It would seem that for someone like Saul/PAul, God called His loudest and MADE Himself heard, but it seems that God was mighty silent with Hitchens. Now you could claim that Hitchens refused to hear, but wasn't Paul in a similar "Deaf" condition? Selective hearing is all well as good, but when you have a story where God essentially shouts at Paul but doesn't shout at the Pharisees?

Seems like we still have a moral monster on our hands.

Seems to me that the only fair conclusion is that either God is intentional with His calls or that He has to use the same volume, in which case He still has created each of us with different brains, which means He is still culpable.

If we are to accord God His true nature, we can't use our own failings as sinner to paint His nature.

zoegirl wrote:Agreed Byblos,

One has to ask if God has made people with different degrees of faith, belief, stubbornness, willingness to believe, etc....Are some people more "in tune" to God's voice? Sure, the degree to which Paul/Saul, for instance, needed convincing is far different than the Samaritan woman, evidently. God certainly made his brain just as He made her brain.

If so, is God not culpable of making those people believe or not believe? After all, He made them, so He made some more resistant to His voice.

That also then begs the question of whether God "calls" with the same volume. It would seem that for someone like Saul/PAul, God called His loudest and MADE Himself heard, but it seems that God was mighty silent with Hitchens. Now you could claim that Hitchens refused to hear, but wasn't Paul in a similar "Deaf" condition? Selective hearing is all well as good, but when you have a story where God essentially shouts at Paul but doesn't shout at the Pharisees?

Seems like we still have a moral monster on our hands.

Seems to me that the only fair conclusion is that either God is intentional with His calls or that He has to use the same volume, in which case He still has created each of us with different brains, which means He is still culpable.

If we are to accord God His true nature, we can't use our own failings as sinner to paint His nature.

First of all, Paul was a Pharisee. Paul, as far as we know, did not see any of the miracles performed by Jesus, which the Pharisees did. Jesus condemned the Pharisees as a group, but we have record of Pharisees who were believers.
Paul was knocked off his horse, but what was preventing him from returning to Jerusalem blind and reprobate?
Jesus says blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe.