Believing or Not Believing Because of Evidence

[Mountain Man]

You are correct. It is from a presuppositionalist. The presuppositionalist that I heard would say that if something other than God or the Bible gives proof that the Bible is the word, then that proof is your final authority. In other words, he would say that if X proves that the Bible is the word of God, then X is your final authority.

That doesn't make sense. If I am convinced by historical evidence that the Bible is true, that in no way diminishes the authority of the Bible.

[Littlejoe]

He always knew that certain men would never accept Him, yet He still allowed them to come into this world.

Since one thing you and I absolutely agree on is that Scripture is the final authority, how do you back up that statement from Scripture.

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

Proof texts are that without context, I agree, but I don't believe mine are proof texts because of the context (which I didn't quote because of time and space) I've yet to see a Calvinist proof text that could not be explained under an Arminian Hermeneutic using the context of the chapter around it. Also, you probably don't know this (or remember it) but I was discipled as a new Christian in 3 - 4 point Calvinist church. My first true mentor (outside of my Dad who is also a 3 pointer) was a 4 point youth pastor. Years of study convinced me that it was the wrong hermeneutic. I'm an Open Theist which is more free will leaning than the standard Arminian...

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.

We Arminians would say the same thing, that all the glory goes to God, no one can save themselves, on that I think everyone agrees. The disagreement comes into play in how much participation is required by the believer.

Short answer is probably more disappointment than anything....that I was so wrong after diligently studying Scripture.

[Mountain Man]

So the question is, why is the Holy Spirit working in one man and not the other?

I believe the Holy Spirit offers every man the same opportunity to repent, and each man has the freewill to either accept or reject the offer.

[Mountain 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...

I'm probably butchering this to some degree, but this reminds me of what William Lane Craig once said, that it would be rational to believe in a God who can make himself known to the individual even if every piece of evidence was against it, similar to how it would be rational for a man who knows he didn't commit a crime to believe in his own innocence even if all available evidence said he was guilty.

In the case where there appeared to be clear evidence that contradicted the Bible on any given point, my first instinct would be to suspect that we had either misunderstood the evidence, or misunderstood the Bible, and not that the Bible itself was in error.

[seer]

Since one thing you and I absolutely agree on is that Scripture is the final authority, how do you back up that statement from Scripture.

There are claims to inspiration all through both Testaments, you either buy that or you don't.

Proof texts are that without context, I agree, but I don't believe mine are proof texts because of the context (which I didn't quote because of time and space) I've yet to see a Calvinist proof text that could not be explained under an Arminian Hermeneutic using the context of the chapter around it. Also, you probably don't know this (or remember it) but I was discipled as a new Christian in 3 - 4 point Calvinist church. My first true mentor (outside of my Dad who is also a 3 pointer) was a 4 point youth pastor. Years of study convinced me that it was the wrong hermeneutic. I'm an Open Theist which is more free will leaning than the standard Arminian...

And I have spent years as both a Calvinist and later an Arminian - and I just don't know who is correct. And BTW I have never heard a good answer for Romans 9:6-24 from the Arminian side...

[Littlejoe]

There are claims to inspiration all through both Testaments, you either buy that or you don't.

I meant how do you back up the statement below with scripture (since I accept, as you do, Scripture as the final authority):

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I have spent years as both a Calvinist and later an Arminian - and I just don't know who is correct. And BTW I have never heard a good answer for Romans 9:6-24 from the Arminian side...

That's one of the best Calvinist arguments out there. A good explanation takes more time than I have right this moment. I'll start with a short(ish) explanation for now...

To read Romans 9 with a deterministic/Calvinistic hermeneutic is IMHO very wrong on many fronts when we contrast them with other Scripture pointing to a God who IS Love, and loves us so much, he sent his only son to pay for our freedom.

So, first off, you shouldn't shorten the context as it's all relevant. Vs 1-5 sets up the topic that's to be addressed, and the final verses are a summary of his points...so, all of ch 9 is important to the context. Paul isn't talking about individual salvation here, (he's actually continuing the discussion from Chapter 8 on WHO is/are God's PEOPLE), not, who God individually elects to be his people...

So, the purpose of Romans 9 is to explain the statement Paul makes in vs 6, namely, "...has the Word of God Failed..." That is, has God’s promise to be the God of the Jews and to have them as his covenant people been rescinded? That's THE burning question of the Jewish believers in Rome....because, that seems to be what the natural conclusion is from Paul's' previous statements in Romans 8. If what Paul was preaching was true, that is, if salvation was available to anyone, including Gentiles, simply on the basis of their faith — then a person being Jewish, or how well they obeyed to the law didn't count for anything. Paul seemed to be telling them that the uniqueness of being Jewish and following the law was for naught...even worse, because now it seemed to be working against them. Because they strove for righteousness based on observance of the law (works) instead of faith, they are the ones who were now being hardened (as evidenced by the fact that so few believed in Jesus) (look at Rom 9:31-32 below). This meant that, if Paul’s Gospel was true, the very ones whom God made covenant promises to were now being hardened! Hence it looked like “the word of God had failed.” So, Paul in Romans 9, 10 and 11 is addressing this concern of God's faithfulness to Israel and on what basis God makes anyone a covenant partner.

So, in answer to this concern, Paul refutes the idea that God’s covenant promises had failed. He does this by showing that God’s covenant promises were never based on a peoples’ nationality or external obedience to the law. Rather, Paul argues, God had always exercised his sovereign right to choose whomever he wanted to choose (as a people). And to illustrate this point, he refers to God's choice of his covenant people with examples of Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau without any consideration for their works or nationality...this illustrates God's sovereign right to choose and defends his right to choose them by any means he chooses. Paul is putting forth the argument that the Jews shouldn't be shocked that God now chooses to enter into a covenant with Gentiles simply on the basis of faith, he's always done what he wants to do. Why Paul uses the illustrations he does speaks to the fact that they represent people groups not individuals, and that they are not individually saved or condemned. IOW, God was illustrating his choice of Israel (the descendants of Isaac and Jacob) over the Moabites (the descendents of Ishmael) and the Edomites (the descendents of Esau). Again, this didn’t mean that all Moabites or Edomites were eternally lost. It just means that these nations were not chosen for the priestly role in history for which God chose the Israelites. Paul is trying to get them to realize that God has always wanted Israel to be a nation of priests (Is 61:6) to show the "...light to all the nations..." Israel was to be the nation the all the other nations of the world would be blessed by, because salvation of the world was to come through the Jewish people. But, since the Jews rejected the Messiah, (As Paul says in Romans 11:11-32), that now God is going to use their blindness instead of their obedience to accomplish his will...

There's a lot more packed into those verses, the clay analogy that Paul uses, if read in the light of its Old Testament background, doesn’t imply that the potter unilaterally decides everything, as the deterministic reading of Romans 9 would suggest. No, instead, in the Old Testament passage that makes the most use of the potter-clay analogy, it has the exact opposite meaning. (Jer. 18) In that passage (that Paul was obviously alluding to) shows teh potter working on a pot that doesn't turn out right, so, he revised his plan and forms a different pot, just as God did with an Israel that rejects it's Messiah...So, the Lord said, since he is the potter and Israel is the clay, he has the right (and he is willing) to “change his mind” about his plans for Israel if they will simply repent (Jer. 18:4-11). In fact, the Lord announced that whenever he’s going to judge a nation, he is willing to change his mind if the nation repents. (Jonah comes to mind) On the flip side, whenever God announces that he’s going to bless a nation, he will change his mind if that nation turns away from him. (Israel time and again) In other words, the point of the potter-clay analogy is not God’s unilateral control, but God’s willingness and right to change his plans in response to changing hearts.

There's a lot more, but lets jump to the end. Whenever we are reading a complex section of scripture, it pays to pay close attention to the writers own summation of his reasoning's/arguments. When it come to Pauls writing, I think that's absolutely crucial. So, how does Paul begin his summary? He starts by asking in vs 30 "What shall we say, then" Why doesn't Paul start by saying something like..."God in his sovereign will has determined who will be the elect and who will not." No, he says:

Scripture Verse:

"30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness[d] did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written,

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

© Copyright Original Source

This is very, VERY significant. Paul wraps up chapter 9 by explaining everything he's been talking about...by pointing to the morally responsible choices of both Jews and Gentiles (of having faith in Messiah) Because, THE one thing God has always looked for in a people is faith. Paul continues in Rom 10:3 that the Jews didn't seek the righteousness of God but they tried to invent their own. Therefore (Rom 11:20) they are broken off for their unbelief (as a nation) and that's why they were being hardened toward God.

The conclusion seems obvious to me, that a Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9 is both misguided and unfortunate as it has lead many down the wrong path toward determinism...and paints God not as loving God by sending Jesus Christ to die on a cross for us undeserving sinners, but with a picture of a God who goes against his own morality and creates certain people to be vessels of wrath only fit for eternal damnation and then punishing them for being that way. I believe Paul is affirming that God “has mercy on whomever he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whomever he wants to harden.” I would simply add that the “whomever” he has mercy on refers to “all who choose to believe” while the “whomever” he hardens refers to “all who refuse to believe.” The passage demonstrates the wisdom of God’s loving flexibility, not the deterministic fate of individual people.

[seer]

I meant how do you back up the statement below with scripture (since I accept, as you do, Scripture as the final authority):

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.

Joe, first I will take more time to re-read your points on Romans 9 (did you write that yourself?). Second, I'm not clear on what you are asking here.

[Littlejoe]

Joe, first I will take more time to re-read your points on Romans 9 (did you write that yourself?). Second, I'm not clear on what you are asking here.

What Scripture do you see that supports the statement that "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 the world." Is that based on Romans 8 and 9?


Paraphrased from my notes in a thread (which I'm not finding right now for some reason)that was similar to this very subject.

[seer]

What Scripture do you see that supports the statement that "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 the world." Is that based on Romans 8 and 9?

No, I assumed that we both agree that God has foreknowledge.

Paraphrased from my notes in a thread (which I'm not finding right now for some reason)that was similar to this very subject.

OK...

[Littlejoe]

No, I assumed that we both agree that God has foreknowledge.




OK...

Well, yes God knows what you believe or don't believe in, but...No, as an Open Theist, I believe that God doesn't always know the free will decisions of people. There's lot of instances of that both in the Old Testament and New. It's certainly a tough concept for most people to embrace. (I don't expect you to find it convincing though.)

[seer]

Well, yes God knows what you believe or don't believe in, but...No, as an Open Theist, I believe that God doesn't always know the free will decisions of people. There's lot of instances of that both in the Old Testament and New. It's certainly a tough concept for most people to embrace. (I don't expect you to find it convincing though.)

I understand Open Theism, I read Greg Boyd years ago. But even there, God would certainly know that there would be people He created that would be lost. Second, what if Calvinists are correct, that God elects some and passes other by. Are we saying God is obligated to save rebels? With open theism, how would Christ know that before the rooster crowed Peter would deny him me three times?

[Terraceth]

That doesn't make sense. If I am convinced by historical evidence that the Bible is true, that in no way diminishes the authority of the Bible.

Welcome to presuppositional apologetics.

[Littlejoe]

I understand Open Theism, I read Greg Boyd years ago. But even there, God would certainly know that there would be people He created that would be lost.

Does God know that there are people He created that will be lost? Sure, but it's a stretch to say that the Bible supports the notion that God knows before He created them that they would, indeed, refuse His free gift. If God is a God of His Word, (and we both believe He is) then God must give each person a chance to accept His Son as the payment for their sins, otherwise, it's a false promise. Limited Atonement is unsupportable from Scripture.

Second, what if Calvinists are correct, that God elects some and passes other by. Are we saying God is obligated to save rebels?

If by this do you mean do I believe in Universal Salvation? If so, then no I do not. Is God obligated to save those that stay in rebellion to him? No. It's a common saying among Calvinist that God is not obligated to save anyone...that's not true, God was not obligated to before Christ came, but afterward, His promise now reigns supreme. He promised He would save all who trust in His Son Jesus. God doesn't break His promise.

With open theism, how would Christ know that before the rooster crowed Peter would deny him me three times?

Before I give you an explanation, I would ask if you understand Open (View) Theism (OVT) then how do you think they would answer the question? Do you believe that while on earth, Christ was Omniscient? If so, then show why you believe that. If not, why do you credit this with proving absolute foreknowledge (Omniscience) and not his power, (Omnipotence)?

[seer]

Does God know that there are people He created that will be lost? Sure, but it's a stretch to say that the Bible supports the notion that God knows before He created them that they would, indeed, refuse His free gift. If God is a God of His Word, (and we both believe He is) then God must give each person a chance to accept His Son as the payment for their sins, otherwise, it's a false promise. Limited Atonement is unsupportable from Scripture.

I'm not sure what you mean Joe, most of humanity, for most of history never heard the Gospel. How did they have the opportunity to receive Christ?

If by this do you mean do I believe in Universal Salvation? If so, then no I do not. Is God obligated to save those that stay in rebellion to him? No. It's a common saying among Calvinist that God is not obligated to save anyone...that's not true, God was not obligated to before Christ came, but afterward, His promise now reigns supreme. He promised He would save all who trust in His Son Jesus. God doesn't break His promise.

Where does the Bible say that God PROMISED to save everyone?

Before I give you an explanation, I would ask if you understand Open (View) Theism (OVT) then how do you think they would answer the question? Do you believe that while on earth, Christ was Omniscient? If so, then show why you believe that. If not, why do you credit this with proving absolute foreknowledge (Omniscience) and not his power, (Omnipotence)?

I believe it was possible that Christ was not omniscient on earth, but God the Father always was, and Christ was in constant communication with the Father. BTW - I don't think Open Theists have a good explanation. Lucky guess?

[Littlejoe]

I'm not sure what you mean Joe, most of humanity, for most of history never heard the Gospel. How did they have the opportunity to receive Christ?

With man it's impossible...but with God, ALL things are possible. Or do you not believe that?

Where does the Bible say that God PROMISED to save everyone?

Did you misread what I wrote or just misunderstand it? Because this is not what I said and I know you wouldn't deliberately misquote me so....?

I said that God promised to save "everyone who trusts in His Son" . I never said He promised to save everyone.

I believe it was possible that Christ was not omniscient on earth, but God the Father always was, and Christ was in constant communication with the Father. BTW - I don't think Open Theists have a good explanation. Lucky guess?

Well, one theory would include, the "Doctor Who" type theory that there are fixed points in God's plan that MUST take place and cannot be changed, and, this would be an acceptable explanation since in OVT theology, the future is as open or as closed as God wants it to be, so, this is plausible. God can close certain things but maintain a VAST majority of Free will. ISTM that in Calvinism they seem to be an all or nothing type theology. But, Scripture is full of examples of God doing exceptional things but not making it a rule. For instance, how many talking donkeys have there been? How many parted sea's? How many prophets swallowed by a fish to be regurgitated later? How many people were healed by Jesus power by grabbing his clothes? Just because it's happens a certain way once doesn't make it a rule.

There are several different ways this could have happened without Omniscience (absolute foreknowledge). Omnipotence would do it, i.e. God says this is going to happen and He just....makes it happen.

Another more nuanced way would include Jesus knowing Peter better than Peter knew himself and the whole point of this "predictions" was to bring Peter to a point that he would recognize he was actually a coward at heart and was only brave when Jesus was around doing miracles etc. Jesus who knew the time was short, (Judas was already in the process betraying him) also, He knew Satan was going to attack Peter. "...Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to have you, (past tense) that he might sift you like wheat..." Notice that Bible Gateway footnotes that in vs. 31 "you" is plural...IOW, Jesus is talking to ALL of them (the disciples) but in vs. 32, Jesus shifts to a singular "you". Speaking only of Peter. So, Jesus knew all the disciples hearts and knew that Peters faith was so weak that he would deny him if push came to shove. Next, It would not have been anything to convince Peter to follow Jesus to the courtyard. Peter had been traveling with Jesus for over 3 years and was pretty well known. That a juicy piece of gossip would be in the works when Jesus is hauled into court in the middle of the night would have had anyone curious as to why. Seeing someone who had been his disciple for over 3 years there, it would be a natural question would it not? Hey! Your one of his disciples, what's going on? No, I don't know him. Are you sure? I know I've seen you with him. See, simple for God to see how this was going to go. To give you a simple example, if I offer my oldest son a choice between a bowl of Mint Chocolate Chip Ice Cream OR a bowl of steamed broccoli, I can tell you without even asking him which one he will choose one million times out of one million. He loves Mint Chocolate chip ice cream and absolutely HATES broccoli. If I being a mere mortal can make a determination like that, how much more can God who is infinitely more intelligent than I am.