Theology lesson for Stefan (or others)

[elzoog]

In the video "A Dishonest Conversation About Evolution" Stefan talks to a creationist.   I wanted to make some comments about this because I have studied the same kind of Christian theology the caller has studied.  It may, or may not be worth Stefan's time to consider it, but I will make the case that it may be worth his time (only he can judge that) on the basis that.

 

1)  This kind of theology has had a MAJOR influence on western culture, which Stefan can research himself.

2)  It may help him if he meets callers of this ilk in the future.

 

Basically, this caller has been very heavily influenced by Calvinism.

 

I have read Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion (a really lengthy tome) but Calvinism can be summerized by TULIP, which is

 

T  -  Total depravity (i.e. that we are totally evil and that any good we do is because of God and not us)

U  -  Unconditional election (meaning that if God has decided that you are saved, you have no choice in the matter)

L  -  Limited atonement  (meaning that Jesus's sacrifice only saved the elect)

I   -  Irresistible grace  (meaning that if you are saved, you can't resist God's grace)

P  -  Perseverance of the saints  (meaning that if you are saved, you will persevere to the end)

 

See for example:
http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm

 

As to the caller having no free will, that is addressed here:

http://www.calvinistcorner.com/free-will.htm

Before anyone gets on my case, I am not a Calvinist.   The reason I know about the topic is I once had a serious relationship with someone who was Calvinist who believed that she was one of those who was predestined by God to be eternally damned.

 

Personally, I would simply tell a Calvinist that if his theology is true, then I can't really choose it and therefore, my hearing about it or debating it is pointless.   But I would be a bit interested in other people's opinion of this.

[Worlok]

It's true that if Calvinism was true that any debate or discussion is irrelevant. Not only are you already fated to have the discussion, it will have the same outcome, you will die the same way at the same time and you can never change anything you do or say because it was pre-determined.

 

I would have to ask a particle physicist, but insofar as free will and dominoes go, all of the physical universe consists of space, energy, matter, and fields. If given the an exact set of variables ( position in space/time in relation to all other mass/energy/fields being exactly the same) which cannot be changed or added to that either a type of field/energy/matter has more than one option of occurrence, then it is bullshit. However, if given an exact set of variables that cannot be changed added to or taken from that no matter/space/energy/field can take any route other than 1 specified by the set variables, then fate is a fact and there is nothing that you can do about it. To dumb it down, if you are playing billiards, if you hit a ball at the same angle and speed at the exact same place at the exact same time (exactly the same) and you turn back time to replicate it perfectly, the balls will always function exactly the same unless there is some natural force at work that allows a molecules or the strong force or anything else to change it on its own.

 

As far as I am aware, the commonly known, Uncertainty principle is indeed a natural law that disproves Calvinism quite soundly. So if there is fate, then god is an asshole.

 

 

  Your first link is an utter logical failure. "We must be able to conceive of an idea, need, want, etc., before it can be desired, chosen and accomplished."  I can want specifically anything that I cannot conceive of. I simply have to be made aware of something that I cannot conceive by somebody else. Like if they tell me they have something that I cannot conceive. Considering that there is anything that I actually cannot conceive, if another person has conceived it and I decide I want this unknown thing, I have met all the requirements except for conceiving or being able to conceive what is in question. This disproves the entire rest of that page.

 

The second page is also a joke. Total depravity is nonsense. It is a point of view assuming meanings of scriptures in a very specific way, when every quote can be understood quite differently. Unconditional election and limited atonement require each other to refer to each other for this point of view. They also take quotes out of context and suggest them in a very specific manner that is not directly referred to. Irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints seem to go hand in hand in explaining how awesome god is and that once you are saved, you are saved. These last two really seem to be added to support the "elect" argument that was poorly made in the first two sections. The entire thing is based on the idea that if you take a specific agenda and form definitions for words and meanings around it. I read the scriptures used in the article and I got a very different picture from it. I'm agnostic, thus neutral, so maybe I just looked at it a bit too honestly.

[csekavec]

Matt Slick vs Matt Dillahunty

 

 

presuppositionism is a joke. 

[castus]

Every Christian believes in determinism in some way, Calvinism just sounds way more exclusive.

 

The truth of the matter boils down to:

 

The mind of the Father must be supreme (to be worthy of God status), which includes information (omniscience), therefore, He is aware of things without our linear constraint of time. However, just because the awareness is there, does not make our choices moot. Consider one of the concepts derived from quantum physics: that an object can exist and not exist in the same space. Consider this same principle in regards to information, and you have a duality that cascades/relates to much of our understanding tied with the supremacy of God: though God may know all, He must  be aware of the contrast of not knowing something. Can there ever be a thing external within the totality of God? Nope, but at the same time, there can exist a lever to move an immovable rock God has placed, thus we can deduce that the figurative sense should be particularly recognized when regarding information and the perception of choice

 

The power to choose - particularly- is a perception derived from a relational view - relative to objects (whether the configurations of information, or the configuration of matter in general). This capability cannot go into absurdity, but must logically stem from a side, to an ultimate point of reference in order to really distinguish anything coherent.

 

This again falls in line with the notion aforementioned in regards to duality of information: that we are beings capable of not knowing or knowing (distinguishing) but because of the portion of knowledge given by the Father(mind); that He, by His very nature, must entertain the most efficient course and design therefore, must plot the allotment of information.

 

Another point related to this would call upon the matter of the purpose of creation, which is rooted with the matter of liberty: that God in His most perfect mind created the universe for the fulfillment of His just nature; to give existence to beings that were innocent/worthy; thus, we could almost argue, He was compelled to do so by His very nature. From this notion of innocence existing and the requirement to manifest out of the mind of God, we can draw upon the notion of liberty also existing since innocence requires it .... which of course yields the matter of choice or 'free will'.

 

So there's no real contradiction to have the belief of BOTH determinism in a limited sense and freewill . It's actually more complete this way.

 

So to rehash in a nutshell: The totality of God (the aspect of the Father) is aware of our destiny but the portion of Him (the Son - Jesus Christ) is the only thing that can relate to us in regards to our destiny - which is a conveyance inherently limited - within our limitations - because of the liberty given. God does not violate Himself to accomplish anything, including the liberty He gave/gives us or the matter of completely revealing Himself.

 

He does indeed call out to people (that I think Calvanism dwells on right?), we don't just find Him, like he's somehow lost, or aloof to us (That alone doesn't fill the blank). By His just nature, we are given time to be refined, forgiven or thrown aside - based on what He says, not what we think we are inventing. His persistence and grace given to us isn't really ours to claim; more like borrowed at most.

 

Liberty has been split over the years in a more secular tone than what the founder of the US understood it to be: that it is derived from the Creator, not self-made. The proclamation of it being self-made/self-contained is a real lie in actuality. Think of the fall in the tale of the garden of Eden, then consider the lie of somehow being like God (which, such an offer is really a sales gimmick) - you can imagine that you are, but really, you're just inviting a delusion - and playing that thought virus out to its ultimate course (which happened to be death).

 

Liberty (choice) really is something based in relation to something immovable (God) - which thus pertains to a totality that will never change (all information etc).

 

 

Something to keep in mind:

We are on His time table, in His library, and though we may think the effort put into learning these things make it ours somehow, it is, still really His by design. Yet, because of His most awesome totality, He is completely rational thus respects our limited rationale, therefore relates to us with grace - because we are not Him in totality.