Believing or Not Believing Because of Evidence

[seer]

Could be any number of things - his upbringing, a recent loss of a loved one to death, events in his life... as opposed to somebody who became "angry at God" due to something 'bad' happening in his life...

OK, but in my case there was a lot to get past before I was open to God, and I mean a lot. He seemed to have conquered that.

Interesting -- we know that the First Church was praying intently for the 'salvation' of Peter from jail, but lemme think on this one a bit --- good discussion question.

That wasn't for the salvation of his soul.

Like Dr J I Packer told me years ago at Baylor University: "Sometimes God does things, and we don't know why He does things, we just know that He does things". It was the most eloquent "I don't know" I have ever encountered.

And Packer was a good Calvinist if memory serves...

[Cow Poke]

OK, but in my case there was a lot to get past before I was open to God, and I mean a lot. He seemed to have conquered that.

I'm glad God never let you go.

That wasn't for the salvation of his soul.

Of course, which is why I put salvation as 'salvation'.

And Packer was a good Calvinist if memory serves...

I just loved the way he pronounced "Eye SIGH Uh" (Isaiah)

[seer]

I'm glad God never let you go.

Me too...

[Hornet]

But that is correct isn't it? If Scripture is inspired then it has to be the final authority. Other proofs and evidences may play in, but something has to have the last word.

That is correct. Scripture is the final authority.

I asked someone this question: "If evidence outside of the Bible were to prove that the Bible is the word of God, then would it have more authority than the Bible?"

His answer was this:
"Let's say that the election between Trump and Clinton ended up in a virtual tie, with the deciding electoral college vote(s) residing in New Hampshire. Let's say, further, that the popular vote in NH was a virtual tie - that on first count, Trump led Clinton by 2 votes (out of a total of 200,000 votes - again, all of this just for the sake of argument/illustration). Let's also say that, given the situation, Clinton demands (quite reasonably) a recount of the NH vote. That recount is to be overseen by the NH state court (or whatever the appropriate state body is - doesn't really matter for the sake of the illustration). The state court then conducts the recount, and confirms that Trump did in fact beat Clinton, by 8 votes overall. The state court then becomes the deciding factor in the outcome of the election - the confirmed NH recount confirms Trump's presidency. Would that mean that the state court holds greater authority than the President of the United States? I hope it is clear that this would not follow.
"

How would you respond to what he said?

[seer]

The state court then conducts the recount, and confirms that Trump did in fact beat Clinton, by 8 votes overall. The state court then becomes the deciding factor in the outcome of the election - the confirmed NH recount confirms Trump's presidency. Would that mean that the state court holds greater authority than the President of the United States? I hope it is clear that this would not follow.
"

How would you respond to what he said?

Actually it is OK, but I would say that the court was not the deciding factor, the actual voters were. And in this case, yes the people do have more authority than the President - they can hire or fire him.

[One Bad Pig]

That is correct. Scripture is the final authority.

On whose authority is scripture the final authority? On whose authority is the canon defined?

I agree that, if Scripture is inspired, it has to be an authority. Can nothing else be inspired?

[seer]

On whose authority is scripture the final authority? On whose authority is the canon defined?

God's...

I agree that, if Scripture is inspired, it has to be an authority. Can nothing else be inspired?

The question comes when we face a contradiction, if something contradicts Scripture then Scripture must win. For instance, if I believed that YEC was the case and evolution could not be reconciled with Scripture, I would take Scripture over Science - all day long...

[One Bad Pig]

God's...

Well, duh. How is that mediated to man?

The question comes when we face a contradiction, if something contradicts Scripture then Scripture must win. For instance, if I believed that YEC was the case and evolution could not be reconciled with Scripture, I would take Scripture over Science - all day long...

*winces* Reinforcing the atheist belief in the conflict between science and religion is perhaps not the best way to go here. YEC does not appear to be scientifically tenable - but my faith does not rest on a particular interpretation of the text of Genesis 1-11 (conversely, materialistic evolution resting on the twin assumptions of a universe arising from a quantum fluctuation and abiogenesis is so wildly improbable that goddidit is much more plausible).

[Littlejoe]

I'm not willing to say that, but it is refreshing to be noted for my brilliance!

Sorry, this got lost in the weeds.

The way I see it, regardless of your IQ or whatever, if you refuse eternal life offered for nothing more than belief, you are pretty stupid. I believe the Holy Spirit gives everyone a chance to respond at some point, therefore, turning it down is the height of stupidity, or arrogance.

[seer]

Well, duh. How is that mediated to man?

I'm not sure what you mean.

*winces* Reinforcing the atheist belief in the conflict between science and religion is perhaps not the best way to go here. YEC does not appear to be scientifically tenable - but my faith does not rest on a particular interpretation of the text of Genesis 1-11 (conversely, materialistic evolution resting on the twin assumptions of a universe arising from a quantum fluctuation and abiogenesis is so wildly improbable that goddidit is much more plausible).

I gave you my opinion, I put Scripture over Science. Science is done by men, men are flawed and often haters of God and Christ. With a built in bias called sin. On the other hand, I don't believe God would be the least disturbed if a devout man took Genesis literally in spite of science.

[seer]

Sorry, this got lost in the weeds.

The way I see it, regardless of your IQ or whatever, if you refuse eternal life offered for nothing more than belief, you are pretty stupid. I believe the Holy Spirit gives everyone a chance to respond at some point, therefore, turning it down is the height of stupidity, or arrogance.

See there is still something in there that I can't get at. Why in the end does one man respond and another doesn't? You can call it stupidity, but why wasn't I just as stupid as the man who refuses? What made me less arrogant?

[Littlejoe]

See there is still something in there that I can't get at. Why in the end does one man respond and another doesn't? You can call it stupidity, but why wasn't I just as stupid as the man who refuses? What made me less arrogant?

Why does anyone do anything Seer? Did God specify which shirt you put on today? Does he specify which loaf of bread you bought? Why do some people buy Artisan bread and others buy cheap store brand white bread? How far down this road do you take salvation and why do you take it that far? Me? I believe what I said, and what I believe Scripture teaches. Namely, that every person has an opportunity to come, the fact that they don't, becomes a choice, otherwise, how can you (or God) automatically condemn someone when they had no choice...and how would you get around the obvious implication that God goes against his own Scripture and is the author of evil?

[seer]

Why does anyone do anything Seer? Did God specify which shirt you put on today? Does he specify which loaf of bread you bought? Why do some people buy Artisan bread and others buy cheap store brand white bread? How far down this road do you take salvation and why do you take it that far? Me? I believe what I said, and what I believe Scripture teaches. Namely, that every person has an opportunity to come, the fact that they don't, becomes a choice, otherwise, how can you (or God) automatically condemn someone when they had no choice...and how would you get around the obvious implication that God goes against his own Scripture and is the author of evil?

Well that would not make God the author of evil, we are the devils are. Scripture says that the natural man receives not the things of God, nor can he. And men can have moral choice in most areas, I'm just not sure if we have a choice whether to believe or not.

[Littlejoe]

Well that would not make God the author of evil, we are the devils are.

We disagree on this point. If God, who I'm sure you would say knows absolutely everything, knowingly and willingly creates human beings that he knows for a fact will never accept him and that he KNOWS he will send to hell, how is he not just the author of evil, but the creator of it on a continuing basis as well?

Scripture says that the natural man receives not the things of God, nor can he. And men can have moral choice in most areas, I'm just not sure if we have a choice whether to believe or not.

I'm sure you would agree that we have to reconcile all of Scripture together would you not? John 3:16 - Whomsoever believes in Him has everlasting life; 2 Peter 3:9 says that God wants everyone to come to repentance; 1 Timothy 2:4-6 also says that God wants all people to come to Christ who gave his life for ALL People; 1 John 2:2 says that Christ is the atoning sacrifice not just for us (already saved) but for the whole world. If God wants that, but it does not happen, how then is he creating people who he knows for a fact are destined for hell...not evil?

Wouldn't that be analogous to when slave owners "bred" their slaves so that could enslave their offspring for their entire life? Was that good or evil? I reject the saying that if God does it/did it then it must be good even though we would see it as evil. That might could be true of the atheist world view but should not be the view of the Children of the Book.

Last point, if God's grace unto salvation is "irresistible" then how is that not a "coerced response"? IMO, it’s one thing to say that humans WON’T believe in Christ without the Holy Spirit and quite another thing to claim that with the Holy Spirit humans MUST believe. Someone who is "forced" to love someone (i.e. such as we are irresistibly saved by grace) does not truly love that person IMO. A coerced love is not a genuine love.

[seer]

We disagree on this point. If God, who I'm sure you would say knows absolutely everything, knowingly and willingly creates human beings that he knows for a fact will never accept him and that he KNOWS he will send to hell, how is he not just the author of evil, but the creator of it on a continuing basis as well?

But God knows that whether you believe in free will or not. He always knew that certain men would never accept Him, yet He still allowed them to come into this world.

I'm sure you would agree that we have to reconcile all of Scripture together would you not? John 3:16 - Whomsoever believes in Him has everlasting life; 2 Peter 3:9 says that God wants everyone to come to repentance; 1 Timothy 2:4-6 also says that God wants all people to come to Christ who gave his life for ALL People; 1 John 2:2 says that Christ is the atoning sacrifice not just for us (already saved) but for the whole world. If God wants that, but it does not happen, how then is he creating people who he knows for a fact are destined for hell...not evil?

I agree those are good proof texts for Arminianism, yet the Calvinist can list text after text for his position too.

Last point, if God's grace unto salvation is "irresistible" then how is that not a "coerced response"? IMO, it’s one thing to say that humans WON’T believe in Christ without the Holy Spirit and quite another thing to claim that with the Holy Spirit humans MUST believe. Someone who is "forced" to love someone (i.e. such as we are irresistibly saved by grace) does not truly love that person IMO. A coerced love is not a genuine love.

That is another good Arminian point. The Calvinist would say that that would just mean that we had to give all glory to God for our salvation. But let me ask you, if you find, in the end, that it was of all God and none of you concerning your salvation is that really going to upset you in the afterlife.