I'm gonna dig this thread back up from the depths of the Spare-Oom to raise a question brought up in my Philosophy class.

We were talking about whether or not God exists, and how the world came into existence... etc.

Anyway my professor proposed that the Multiverse Theory, isn't a very good argument because according to the physicists own definition it's impossible to discover any evidence for. Apparently according to it, two Universes must not be in contact with each other or else, they'd be in the same universe. According to him this is a bad argument because it sounds like you're just trying to make up an excuse out of thin air, since you know it can't be supported. And since science and philosophy are about supporting things with evidence... it's slightly contradictory. I'm sure I'm explaining this very badly, but I wanted people's takes on this. Is his argument for it being a bad argument valid?

Another fun tidbit from lecture: apparently the Big Bang Theory was initially rejected by scientists because it sounded too much like God was behind the Universe.

...apparently the Big Bang Theory was initially rejected by scientists because it sounded too much like God was behind the Universe.

Too true, too true. The term "Big Bang" itself was invented to ridicule the theory...For a long time the prevalent model was the Steady-State Theory, which asserted the universe has always existed and always will (it had its own set of problems). Once the expansion of the universe was discovered by Hubble and others, momentum for a competing theory which posited a specific beginning (and implying a specific ending too) of the universe grew. Famous British astronomer Fred Hoyle, a main supporter of the Steady-State view, ridiculed this new theory when he coined the term "Big Bang" on BBC Radio in 1950.

Anyway my professor proposed that the Multiverse Theory, isn't a very good argument because according to the physicists own definition it's impossible to discover any evidence for.

Do you mean that it's a poor argument scientifically, in that it can't be proven? Or is it tied somehow to the question of proving the existence of God?

The multiverse theory (or ideas of extra dimensions) are theoretical constructs rising from quantum mechanics. It can help explain things even if we can't 'prove' it in the strictest sense (for example, the Anthropic Principle as an explanation as to why our universe seems so finely tuned for the existence of life as we know it). To be sure, the fact that it doesn't have the weight of practical proof weakens conclusions drawn from it (to use a poor example, the Anthropic Principle isn't as widely accepted as the physical laws we can measure, such as gravitation).

Maybe I'm not understanding your professor's point.

Do you mean that it's a poor argument scientifically, in that it can't be proven? Or is it tied somehow to the question of proving the existence of God?

I think he meant it's a poor argument philosophically (and perhaps scientifically too), because you step into it knowing you can't support it with any evidence. He didn't mean prove in and of itself (theoretically you can not prove anything). But he meant you can't even find evidence to support it.

I think he meant it's a poor argument philosophically (and perhaps scientifically too), because you step into it knowing you can't support it with any evidence. He didn't mean prove in and of itself (theoretically you can not prove anything). But he meant you can't even find evidence to support it.

Well, this is both true and not true. There is no scientific evidence for God, but there are certainly physical phenomena and spiritual phenomena which point to the existence of one, in many people's opinions. Can you scientifically or philosophically prove God? In my opinion you cannot, but, many people would argue that if you take a look at everything in our universe, it points to a God...

It could be the same way for the multi-universe theory. There are certain physical phenomena that occur and certain thought experiments. We've come across many... problems! Here's a quote from a Wikipedia article that explains the multi-universe theory better than I can:

In many-worlds, the subjective appearance of wavefunction collapse is explained by the mechanism of quantum decoherence, which resolves all of the correlation paradoxes of quantum theory, such as the EPR paradox and Schrödinger's cat, since every possible outcome of every event defines or exists in its own "history" or "world". In lay terms, there is a very large—perhaps infinite —number of universes, and everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but did not, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes.

I think to put these words into even more understandable terms... There are things that happen/paradoxes in our current thinking that cannot be explained with a "single-universe" theory, or have not yet been able to be explained. If that is the case, is it really that unscientific to think that if our current theory cannot explain the phenomena, that another theory might be more correct, even if there is technically no physical evidence of other universes, but simply things that couldn't be explained any other way?

So far, anyways!

There are things that happen/paradoxes in our current thinking that cannot be explained with a "single-universe" theory, or have not yet been able to be explained.

What are these things that can't/haven't been explained with only a single universe theory? (In layman's terms.)

Also, I've heard of Schrödinger's cat before, and tried looking it up on Wikipedia, but didn't really understand where the article was going with it. Wikipedia doesn't seem to be very good at using layman's terms.

I've never heard of the EPR paradox before.

~Riella

I'm not sold on the 'multi-verse' theories. It's interesting, but it's just theory. It's an idea that can't be tested and doesn't have any real evidence to support it. Evolution makes a stronger case (and I hold it to be very weak). But one thing I do believe is that there are more dimensions that interact with our world than we can perceive (length, width, and depth). I have a personal theory that beyond the theoretical space-time dimension that there is the spiritual dimension as well. I can't really describe how it would work, but God, the angels, and demons are able to interact with what we can see but are not limited by our physical constraints. I describe it as a forth dimension reaching into a 3D world. It's quite mind boggling so I'll leave it at that for now.

Also, I've heard of Schrödinger's cat before, and tried looking it up on Wikipedia, but didn't really understand where the article was going with it. Wikipedia doesn't seem to be very good at using layman's terms.

I have the barest understanding of basic physics, and so Schroedinger's cat has always been something of a mystery to me too. I've read that the cat has two distinct phases it can have at the same time (alive/dead) although both defy reason and observable physics. More often people use Schroedinger's cat more because it sounds kind of cool and intelligent and witty, and actually if I had a cat I think Schroedinger would be a pretty nifty name for it, yes?

I remember just a tiny bit of high school physics, coupled with some larger books on the subject as I've gotten older (A Brief History of the Time by Stephen Hawking does a pretty good job of explaining hard concepts in layman's terms), but I can reliably tell you that Einstein's Relativity theory and the Theory of Quantum Mechanics are designed to explain the universe around us and how it functions. One of these theories is likely correct (or a variation of it), but not both because they kinda run into fisticuffs with each other at certain points, and I think Schroedinger's cat may be one of them. TOR makes more sense to me (from my extremely limited knowledge of the subject) than does QM, but Edwin Hubble I'm not.

It's like Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle. A Scientist can determine the speed of a particle in a given situation but not it's place, or they can figure out said particle's place but not it's speed. You cannot have it both ways. This is why we'll likely never see a Star Trek transporter because in order for such a device to function you'd have to know the exact speed and placement of every atom in the body! Funnily enough Star Trek uses a nifty little device called a "Heisenburg Compensator" in it's transporters to explain this little scientific "issue" away.

Well, this is both true and not true. There is no scientific evidence for God, but there are certainly physical phenomena and spiritual phenomena which point to the existence of one, in many people's opinions. Can you scientifically or philosophically prove God? In my opinion you cannot, but, many people would argue that if you take a look at everything in our universe, it points to a God...

It could be the same way for the multi-universe theory. There are certain physical phenomena that occur and certain thought experiments. We've come across many... problems!

Usually in philosophy, multiverse theory is used as a counter to arguments such as the cosmological argument (why is there something rather than nothing?) and the teleological argument (why does there seem to be purpose in the universe? How is it that with so many factors against it, the conditions necessary for human life are in place?) for the existence of God.

Multiverse theory provides an alternate answer to this question, but even setting aside special revelation and looking at both as answers to the question, it turns out that the existence of God is (to my mind) the better explanation. Why? Because multiverse theory violates Occam's Razor. This is the principle that one must not multiply entities beyond necessity. We have here the question of one entity (God) versus a potentially infinite set of universes, none of which could be discoverable even in principle. It's a very weak explanation, in my view.

Schroedinger and Heisenberg drove each other bonkers that way. Pop culture might make it easier to explain.

Schroedinger's Principle on the series The Big Bang Theory: as long as a couple never goes on a date, the relationship they could have had but never pursued is simultaneously a great future and an unhappy future. The imagination can conjure both. Only the pursuit of the relationship will determine which version is the accurate future.

Dilbert on the Uncertainty Principle: the more certain the knowledge of one almost-unknowable thing, the more it will foul up your attempt to measure the other almost-unknowable thing. Just as a person may behave differently when the boss is watching, the act of observation skews the data.

[/end off-topic]

Although since we're bringing up the subject of parallel universes, that's a dodgy question, isn't it. Sheldon Cooper's version is the easy version:

Sheldon: You know it just occured to me, if there are an infinite number of parallel universes, in one of them there's probably a Sheldon who doesn't believe parallel universes exist.

Leonard: Probably. What's your point?

Sheldon: No point. It's just one of those things that makes one of the mes chuckle. *Laughs*
"The Desperation Emanation"

After all, if you're going to propose multiple universes, you have to set some parameters. Are your multiple universes alternate versions of the same thing, or are they so different that they just had to be separated because they had so little in common? If you make your alternate universes parallel universes, you run the risk of having, say, saved and unsaved versions of the same person. It's hard enough trying to settle whether multiple personalities in a single universe -- such as Batman's Harvey "Two Face" Dent or Arnold "Scarface" Wesker -- will stand or fall on the Last Day. Which side of their personality decides the face of their eternal soul? Now you want to introduce multiple versions of people in a multiverse. Oy vey!

But imagine what it would do to your mind, your heart, your spirit to have a beloved but unsaved parent, spouse, child, or friend in this life and to think to yourself, "Oh well, there's probably a saved version of that person in an alternate universe."

Imagine also what it would do to your mind, your heart, your spirit to think that a beloved parent, spouse, child, or friend who is saved in this world is unsaved in a parallel universe and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Assuming they existed, how would you even pray for them?

Now if all of that makes you feel just rotten, imagine how it would make our God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit feel. The God who loved us enough to create us, who loved us enough to die for our sins and rise so that we will rise, and who loves us enough to indwell within us to comfort and guide us. That God. Although we don't know very much about God, we may know enough to ask if this is the sort of thing that He would do, creating entire universes of disposable people.

So upon reflection, I'd say that doubles are great storytelling devices in Star Trek or The Twilight Zone, but they're probably not part of our theology. Rather, C.S. Lewis may have had the better idea. In his Wood Between the Worlds, many pools exist and each pool does lead to a world. But just because Adam and Eve, young King David, Simon Peter, and other Biblical figures exist in our world, that doesn't mean that the Seven Friends of Narnia meet doppelgangers of these people in the Narnian world. Instead, they meet (and sometimes become) people who filled a similar role. They mee Frank and Helen. They meet Prince Caspian and his "Saul," in his case a relative. In one case an Earth person even becomes Peter the Magnificient, the keeper of the Keys of the Kingdom of Narnia -- but Peter Pevensie does not become Simon Peter. There are Narnian founders and rebels, leaders and prophets. None of these people are doppelgangers of "our" Adam and Eve, David, or Simon Peter. The only one who was intended to be the same person was Aslan, as a way that Christ might manifest Himself on another planet, in another world.

That sounds a lot better to me.

As to the question up-thread that started us in this direction, are there other universes? Is there a multi-verse? I don't know, but I don't know that it's especially important to know. It's like the question of whether there is life on other worlds in the one universe we do know. If God chooses to create as many children of God as He pleases, that is to His glory. They would have to "work out their salvation with fear and trembling" as well. But if God chooses to create only one world with people on it, like the metaphor of God writing His name on a single grain of sand on an endless beach and that is the only world that exists (namely our world), that is to His glory as well. It is simultaneously a question that piques our curiosity yet may end up being none of our business.

Of course, in Sci-fi when they do find aliens, we get great characters like Brother Theo of Babylon 5 who decide to go evangelize among the aliens. As soon as he found out that the aliens claimed to have had a visitation, he felt he had to do something about it. We're not that far along yet.

*comes in*

So...I have a question related to the topics on the first page of this thread, and hope that it isn't too broad or huge a subject... but I recently attended a class with my family at a Reformed Church (whose pastor's teaching I have not yet disagreed with, except one sermon dealing with repentance and forgiveness that left me a bit perplexed) Anywho, in this class, the pastor is teaching about the Cannon of Dordt. I've learned basic Calvinism, but never gone into the depth of what Calvinist and Arminians believe. First of all, I agree with Article 1. Man is totally depraved, and if God decided to leave humanity, He would've done no injustice. And with Article 2, which says that God's love caused Him to send Jesus, His only begotten Son, as an atonement for our sins. We've gotten to Article 4 and so far I agreed with everything. That point about "living faith" spoke so deeply to me: I immediately thought, "What's the opposite of living? Dead. And doesn't James say "Faith without works is dead." Anyways, that class was the highlight of the day! (actually, it was that after my mom's Valentine's Day Quiche. )

However, I looked up the Five Points of Calvinism and the Arminian version of that and am a it perplexed. (These are from Wikipedia, so if someone notices that the information presented on either side is false, utmost thanks to you if you inform me.)

My thoughts on The Five Points of Calvinism from Wiki:

"Total depravity": This doctrine, also called "total inability", asserts that as a consequence of the fall of man into sin, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures. (The term "total" in this context refers to sin affecting every part of a person, not that every person is as evil as possible.)[8] This doctrine is borrowed from Augustine.

Yep, totally agree. People's moral standards generally deteriorate. I believe in Total Depravity: our good cannot outweigh the bad. We are not good. We are totally depraved
But I must admit that I wonder--what about unsaved people who are moral and strongly charactered? Where does their goodness come from? (I know several people who are/were not saved but were still likable, good, charitable, etc.)
Any goodness that I have is not from myself, it is the Holy Spirit regenerating me. I can't take any credit for it... Just to clear up my views. My question above was not a challenge to the point of Total Depravity; I just wanted to ask the question to you all. I agree that man is Depraved.

"Unconditional election": This doctrine asserts that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God's mercy alone. God has chosen from eternityto extend mercy to those He has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen. Those chosen receive salvation through Christ alone. Those not chosen receive the just wrath that is warranted for their sins against God[9]

In the class, my sister mention an analogy of an author to God. An author writes something; he can discard the story, characters, etc. He knows where the story is going, where the characters are going. I totally believe that God knows who will be saved and who won't be saved. But the one phrase that I really cannot understand is "God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those He has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen." Like I said above, I completely agree that God, the Omniscient, all-knowing, wonderful one who the human mind can never fully comprehend, knows who will be saved and who will not be saved. Indeed, everything goes as per His plan. However, I wonder how the statement "God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those He has chosen and to withhold mercy from those he has not chosen" stands in the light of the verse that says something along the lines of, "For God does not will that any would perish." or "God so loved *the world*" (emphasis added) By saying this, I'm not saying that everyone in the world is or will be saved, but I strongly believe that God has opened salvation to all of humanity and that man chooses or doesn't choose, but God knows who will accept because the Holy Spirit works in that person. Not by any merit of the person who is chosen... just because God sees it fit. But I do believe that salvation is open to anyone, but not everyone will accept it. Not that God is some mindless, desperate person just waiting to beg someone to accept salvation... not at all. I hate things that portray God as desperate or that God needs man.
Again, I do see how this point could be looking at it in the perspective of total sovereignty of God (which I believe in), in that, while salvation is open to anyone, not everyone will be saved, and God knows how.
I don't know here; I'm just trying to sort out my thoughts and having this interesting class, I thought it'd be very enriching to come in here and ask y'all.

"Limited atonement": Also called "particular redemption" or "definite atonement", this doctrine asserts that Jesus's substitutionary atonement was definite and certain in its purpose and in what it accomplished. This implies that only the sins of the elect were atoned for by Jesus's death. Calvinists do not believe, however, that the atonement is limited in its value or power, but rather that the atonement is limited in the sense that it is designed for some and not all. Hence, Calvinists hold that the atonement is sufficient for all and efficient for the elect.[10] The doctrine is driven by the Calvinistic concept of the sovereignty of God in salvation and their understanding of the nature of the atonement.

Um, yes. Like I said, I'm a bit iffy on the "elect" and need to pray about and read on that, but I beleive, yes, that Jesus' sacrifice is only for those who have salvation.

"Irresistible grace": This doctrine, also called "efficacious grace", asserts that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (that is, the elect) and, in God's timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith. This means that when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved. The doctrine holds that this purposeful influence of God's Holy Spirit cannot be resisted, but that the Holy Spirit, "graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ."[11]

Firstly, the phrase, "This means that when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved." -- Amen. I totally believe that wholeheartedly. But the sentence that troubles me is the last one, because that implies that the person is just... IDK. they don't even say yes, like no action is required on their part. Not goodness, just action--acknowledging. I'm NOT saying that the Holy Spirit does not control salvation; why do we pray before giving the Gospel to someone? So that the Holy Spirit speaks to us and does the convincing. So..this is another one that I'm a bit perplexed about because it's that whole "elect." Looking at it from God's grand plan of the world--yes, of course, there are people who will be saved, and those the Holy Spirit works on. Are these points speaking from that point of view? Help and clarification would be appreciated. This thing is just gnawing at my brain.

"Perseverance of the saints": Perseverance (or preservation) of the saints (the word "saints" is used to refer to all who are set apart by God, and not of those who are exceptionally holy, canonized, or in heaven). The doctrine asserts that since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with or will return.[12]

My mind is divided on the "Once saved, always saved" school of thought. I understand it-- in a deep sense, it could be true. A lot of times though, people abuse God's grace with the "Once saved, always saved" thing; this could show that they are not saved after all. However, I think I do know of people who were saved and fell forever... I know the following argument would be "Maybe they were really never saved." but what if they were? I know one could say, "That's impossible" but, still. This point irks me, too. I think someone could fall from the faith, yes... but I also believe that God holds on to sincere believers. So... like I said... I'm looking forward to this class and hope I can ask these questions, but I also really wanted to ask you guys them. Thanks for going through my rambled thoughts.

I want to post the Articles on Arminianism and give my point of view but it's late and I have to be heading out, so I guess this will do for now.

To be perfectly honest, sometimes I wonder if such categorizing is strictly right. I mean, I understand it for study purposes--but couldn't someone's mind get so wrapped around five points that they adhere to them instead of searching the Bible with a fresh mind? I understand that they say that these are very Biblical, so, they are merely just studying scriptural truth and that may be true to some degree, but somehow the picture of a true, sincere believer searching the Bible for God's truth appeals to me more. Searching what God has to say. Reading the Bible in its entirety. I think one always learns something new when they read the Bible. I don't want to be convinced with Calvinism; I want to be convinced with what the Bible says. Not that Calvinism does not have Biblical truths, but I'd rather be influenced with Pure Scripture. I'm not nullifying the vast amount of Bible study done in order to formulate such points, but I'm just expressing my opinion on the matter.

But I must admit that I wonder--what about unsaved people who are moral and strongly charactered? Where does their goodness come from? (I know several people who are/were not saved but were still likable, good, charitable, etc.)
Any goodness that I have is not from myself, it is the Holy Spirit regenerating me. I can't take any credit for it... Just to clear up my views. My question above was not a challenge to the point of Total Depravity; I just wanted to ask the question to you all. I agree that man is Depraved.

Morality can come from many places. It often comes from the desire to be a good person. It is learned from parents, friends, culture. I also believe that something deep down inside everyone, Christian or not, knows right from wrong, because God has made His laws known to us. So technically, even though they themselves don't have God, their goodness still comes from God (assuming it is something actually good, and not something that is merely deceiving us into thinking it's good). We can choose to disobey His laws, we can choose to obey them, and we can choose to obey them but for the wrong reasons.

I totally believe that God knows who will be saved and who won't be saved. But the one phrase that I really cannot understand is "God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those He has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen." Like I said above, I completely agree that God, the Omniscient, all-knowing, wonderful one who the human mind can never fully comprehend, knows who will be saved and who will not be saved. Indeed, everything goes as per His plan. However, I wonder how the statement "God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those He has chosen and to withhold mercy from those he has not chosen" stands in the light of the verse that says something along the lines of, "For God does not will that any would perish." or "God so loved *the world*" (emphasis added) By saying this, I'm not saying that everyone in the world is or will be saved, but I strongly believe that God has opened salvation to all of humanity and that man chooses or doesn't choose, but God knows who will accept because the Holy Spirit works in that person. Not by any merit of the person who is chosen... just because God sees it fit. But I do believe that salvation is open to anyone, but not everyone will accept it. Not that God is some mindless, desperate person just waiting to beg someone to accept salvation... not at all. I hate things that portray God as desperate or that God needs man.
Again, I do see how this point could be looking at it in the perspective of total sovereignty of God (which I believe in), in that, while salvation is open to anyone, not everyone will be saved, and God knows how.

The subject of predestination is a fascinating study, and I'm so glad you're taking an interest in studying it.

About a year ago, I had the same exact views on the subject which you do now. I couldn't imagine God choosing someone to go to Hell. But a few things have altered my opinion since then. I hope you don't mind taking a look at them.

With the scriptures you've mentioned, I have heard some discussion on those. I could be wrong, since it's been awhile since I read the discussion. But if I remember right, the scripture that says "God so loved the world" means it in the context of "God loved the world in this way", rather than "He loved the world sooo much". Kind of like the use of the word "so" in the sentence, "She set the candlestick on the table, like so." It's referring to a way of doing things. "God loved the world, like so, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have ever lasting life." In the end it does say whoever believes in Him will not perish, but the real question is -- how did they come to believe in Him in the first place? John 3:16 doesn't answer this question; though I believe other verses do, as you'll see in a bit.

About God loving all people in general, I don't think it can really be categorized that way. It's too general. I believe He may love different people in different ways, for different reasons. I don't believe He loves the unsaved the same way as He does His elect. In fact, there are many scriptures where God says He hates people. I don't mean it says He hates their sin, but loves them. The scriptures said He hated them -- literally them. "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." -- And this was said about them when they were still in the womb, before either of them had committed any sin. I believe God may love them in the way that they are His creation, because He is proud of his own work. But anything beyond that I'd be a wee bit suspicious of. (That's not to say we shouldn't love them. Even though we should strive to be like Christ, there are some things we have to view differently than He does, because we have different roles; and because He is perfect and we are not. Which puts us in a very different position. After all, we are just like the unsaved, apart from Christ; and therefore should keep in mind the wise old adage "There, but for the Grace of God, go I." We must be compassionate toward the unsaved and sinful, fallen people because, when we look at them, what we are really looking at is ourselves -- what we would have been -- if Christ had not saved us.)

With the scripture about not wanting "any" to perish, I've heard that, in the Hebrew, the word "any" may be referring to "any of the elect". If this is true, it would change the meaning quite a bit.

As for the issue of predestination itself -- God choosing who is saved and who isn't -- I believe the stance comes from Romans 9. Take a look at this verse:

15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f]

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

One thing I found interesting is it mentions that salvation does not depend on human desire. Which means, it does not depend on us wanting to come to Christ. It depends on God alone. And if you believe in human depravity, then you also believe we are unable to accept Christ. It is the Holy Spirit that goes into our hearts and softens it toward God. The only difference between a person who has accepted Christ and one who has rejected Him is that, one person had his heart changed by the Holy Spirit and the other had their heart left alone. On our own, we all reject Christ. No one chooses God. We need help from God to accept Him. That's what total depravity means. And so, if the Holy Spirit works on some people's hearts, and doesn't work on the hearts of other people... well, that's Predestination. That's God choosing some and not others. Actually, it's God choosing who will choose him, if that makes sense. (Yes, we Calvinists believe in free will along with predestination. Compatibilism is a complicated subject, but one I believe to be Gospel truth. )

This verse is also quite interesting:

10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that,

“‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”

If God really wanted everyone to be saved, why would he purposely speak in a way they would not understand or accept in order to stop them from turning to Him?

A similar verse:

9 He said, “Go and tell this people:

“‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’
10 Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.[a]
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.”

Food for thought.

My mind is divided on the "Once saved, always saved" school of thought. I understand it-- in a deep sense, it could be true. A lot of times though, people abuse God's grace with the "Once saved, always saved" thing; this could show that they are not saved after all. However, I think I do know of people who were saved and fell forever... I know the following argument would be "Maybe they were really never saved." but what if they were? I know one could say, "That's impossible" but, still. This point irks me, too. I think someone could fall from the faith, yes... but I also believe that God holds on to sincere believers.

The idea of a person never being saved if they leave the faith comes from the Bible itself. It's from 1 John 2:19.

19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

That being said, it only counts toward those who never come back. A true Christian can backslide for awhile and then come back later. And we humans can't tell which people those are really, even after the person has died; because even in their last breath they can come back to Christ in their hearts. This can happen in the very last seconds. Even the person's closest friends and loved ones might never hear of it happening.

To be perfectly honest, sometimes I wonder if such categorizing is strictly right. I mean, I understand it for study purposes--but couldn't someone's mind get so wrapped around five points that they adhere to them instead of searching the Bible with a fresh mind? I understand that they say that these are very Biblical, so, they are merely just studying scriptural truth and that may be true to some degree, but somehow the picture of a true, sincere believer searching the Bible for God's truth appeals to me more. Searching what God has to say. Reading the Bible in its entirety. I think one always learns something new when they read the Bible. I don't want to be convinced with Calvinism; I want to be convinced with what the Bible says. Not that Calvinism does not have Biblical truths, but I'd rather be influenced with Pure Scripture. I'm not nullifying the vast amount of Bible study done in order to formulate such points, but I'm just expressing my opinion on the matter.

I definitely agree that we shouldn't automatically adhere to a principle and forget about the Bible, but rather weigh every principle we hear against the Bible to determine whether or not the principle is true. It's important to keep in mind (and from your post, it sounds like you are) that words like Calvinism and Arminianism are mere names for ideas expressed (or believed by some to be expressed) in the Bible, rather than just an idea on it's own. It's a view of, or from, the Bible.

Let me give you an example. If someone said, "I don't want to believe in a principle that states salvation is through Christ. Instead, I just want to believe what the Bible says" -- then that wouldn't entirely make sense. Because that principle comes from the Bible. And that's the point -- you definitely have to be wary of things at first. But it's different after you've established whether it's Biblical or not. Whenever you hear something, you have to weigh it against scripture and see if it matches up with it. But if a principle matches up with scripture (or literally comes from scripture itself) then, by believing it, you are basically just... believing the Bible.

Keep in mind, a lot of people who place firm belief in certain ideas or principles like those are doing so after years of studying the Bible. If you are just beginning to study the Bible, it wouldn't be wise for you to do that. Not yet. First you have to go and find out what the Bible says. For you to do any differently at this point of your life would be a bit like writing a book report on a book you're about to read. There are different stages in one's life. First comes the stage where you study the material as objectively as you can. Then comes the stage when you form your beliefs based on what you studied. At that point, you should be able to have full confidence. But not before that point, because you can't be sure what you're having confidence in, until you've researched it.

It's very good you want to remain objective and understand the Bible for what it is. But you have to be careful (because it's a very easy thing to do) not to get into a mind view where you inadvertently start saying in your subconscious, "I don't want to believe what the Bible says, because if I do, I might not be able to see what the Bible says." Otherwise, you might not ever reach the point where you can hold your Biblically-based views with confidence. You would be constantly going in circles. Research is absolutely vital. But after thorough research, there comes a time when we have to trust in the results of our research. It is true we discover something new every time we read the Bible, but the things we discover become smaller and smaller details as the years go by and we get to know the scripture more. It's very unlikely that, after honest and hard study of scripture over years and years, you'll discover some little detail that will overthrow all the main principles of your beliefs. So, while we keep learning new things, we can still have confidence in the things we have already learned. Does that make sense?

Good luck on your studies. I wish you all the best!

~Riella

Many of the NWebbers who post on this thread tend to side with the Calvinistic view on salvation. I do not in it's entirety. I don't have time to go into details this morning but one thing I will throw in there. The Greek meaning of the ideas of 'to accept' or 'to receive' the free gift of God requires our action. The best word I know to describe it is 'appropriation'. Just like I can give you a $20 bill, but I don't take your hand and force the $20 into it. If you want the $20, you have to take it and claim it. Another analogy I've heard used is like a bank account. Each of us has an account and due to sin each of us has an extensive debt that none of us can pay. When Jesus died, he put the money to cover the debt into our account. But we have to go an appropriate it.

Another thing I will also add before I go, Romans 9-11 has actually nothing to do with salvation explicitly. In those three chapters, Paul is talking about the Jewish people. With 'hating Esau', God has a perfect hatred. That's different than what we tend to think about hate. Another translation I've heard is not 'hate' but 'loved less'.

I'll wrap up by saying that Calvinists do tend to claim that Armenian (free will) defies sound doctrine by making and claiming that salvation would be earned by the 'act of acceptance'. But does the patient who just came out of life saving surgery boast about his/her decision to accept the doctor's advice to get the surgery? No, the patient thanks the doctor endlessly for saving his/her life. The patient still could have rejected the surgery (the doctor never forces the patient to go through it, in most cases . And the patient would have died if not.

I truly believe God gives every one of us an opportunity to accept and receive salvation. It by no means takes away from his sovereignty. God can still do whatever he wants and we are not in position to question what he does (as clay to the potter). I do know that God gave me the chance to receive him (and I felt no irresistible urge to accept it when I did). I'll try to say more later this afternoon after I get back from school (teaching).

Many of the NWebbers who post on this thread tend to side with the Calvinistic view on salvation. I do not in it's entirety. I don't have time to go into details this morning but one thing I will throw in there. The Greek meaning of the ideas of 'to accept' or 'to receive' the free gift of God requires our action. The best word I know to describe it is 'appropriation'. Just like I can give you a $20 bill, but I don't take your hand and force the $20 into it. If you want the $20, you have to take it and claim it.

Another thing I would like to mention is that Calvinists also believe that we have to claim salvation as our own, just as you do. But we also believe that anyone who is chosen by God will claim it. Whether we feel like it or not, the Holy Spirit is molding our heart in a way that we will choose to accept it of our own free will. The option will still be there to refuse it, but we won't take that option.

Another thing I will also add before I go, Romans 9-11 has actually nothing to do with salvation explicitly. In those three chapters, Paul is talking about the Jewish people.

He's talking about the salvation of the Jewish people and the salvation of the gentiles.

I'll wrap up by saying that Calvinists do tend to claim that Armenian (free will) defies sound doctrine by making and claiming that salvation would be earned by the 'act of acceptance'. But does the patient who just came out of life saving surgery boast about his/her decision to accept the doctor's advice to get the surgery? No, the patient thanks the doctor endlessly for saving his/her life. The patient still could have rejected the surgery (the doctor never forces the patient to go through it, in most cases . And the patient would have died if not.

That is one of the reasons we believe in predestination, yes. But there are many other reasons as well -- particularly total depravity. That example doesn't quite work because the patient is able and willing to accept the surgery, whereas we are not. And like I said above, Calvinists believe in free will too. Compatibilism is the doctrine we adhere to -- and that is predestination and free will working together in harmony.

~Riellla

Aslanisthebest,

Part of what you're getting hung up on here is the terminology. The TULIP acronymn has limitations and problems that make it somewhat problematic.

I think, though, that your understanding here is one that most Presbyterian and Reformed folks would agree with---you're in good company.

I think it's also good to note that Predestination is a doctrine that is meant to comfort the Christian---it's an aid to assurance of salvation and a reassurance that, whatever doubts you may have, God is always faithful and will be there holding you up even when you fall.

I also should commend you for your desire to be bound by Scripture and not merely by the traditions of men. My caution here though is that you not disregard tradition and that you be humble in letting the historic witness of other Christians inform your reading of Scripture.

In view of that, I would recommend Ten Myths About Calvinism by Kenneth Stewart (one of my profs).

TBG

Pardon, while I pop in and leave a word. I have a few thoughts on Calvinism in general and then what AITB asked about, as well.

First, I would mention that Calvinism is a reactionary theology. The five points of Arminianism were formed and as rebuttal, Calvinism's TULIP came about. While this isn't a bad thing, it simply means that Calvinism shouldn't be held as the standard, but rather the truths examined more closely, in light of scripture. Rarely have I met a Calvinist who was not first a Christian

Secondly, I would caution that Calvinism, if not taken in the correct context and treated with great caution, can easily become an issue the hurts the body of Christ. Calvinists must understand that this is not a dividing issue and one may still be a Christian, even while following Armenian doctrine. The moment Calvinism becomes such an issue that you aren't able to dialog with another Christian, you've pushed the limit, gone too far and need to seriously re-evaluate what the Gospel means. We must never exchange the dialog of the Gospel for a theological battle on issues that should remain open handed. As someone comes to Christ, matures in their walk and learns to love the Lord, those theological issues become more and more sure. If we have relationship with people, we should be able to have intelligent discussion with them in a loving way.

At one point and time, I told a friend, "Sure you're a Christian, you're just a Christian who is wrong!" She was an Armenian and knew me well enough not to take me seriously. Instead she responded, "Funny, I've always thought the same about you!" In a moment, I found how pompous of an ass I had sounded.

The one phrase that I really cannot understand is "God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those He has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen."

I'm afraid you've answered your own question, AITB. Now you just have to believe it.

God, the Omniscient, all-knowing, wonderful one who the human mind can never fully comprehend, knows who will be saved and who will not be saved. Indeed, everything goes as per His plan.

At one point, I was a struggling with these issues as well: How could I trust my life to a divine plan? God must have created freewill, because if He didn't, I would have no part of His dominating, controlling ways. Sure, let Him be God, as long as He's the safe God who throws salvation and love in our direction and allows us to pick it up safely and then do with it as we please.

In hindsight, this wasn't how I thought of it, but I thought rather, I had a very rational view of a God who created freewill by blocking himself from having omnipotence in that area. Somewhat the, "Can God create a rock that He cannot lift" conundrum. How this changed, I have no earthly idea, other than the fact that I was struck with the power and awe of a Creator so vast and unfathomable, that my tiny existence could no more fathom Him, than an ant can fathom the solar system. When did it become my right to say, "God is all powerful, all knowing, all good, as long as He is as good as my moral standard."

If God is all knowing, if God is all powerful, if God is all good, then why do we have such an issue his redemption of those He chooses? Is not the fact that He is God sufficient? It was Lewis who once said, "Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable. How many hours are there in a mile? Is yellow square or round? Probably half the questions we ask - half our great theological and metaphysical problems are like that." I think this is one of those theological questions. God omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent or He is not God. You know it, now believe it.