Sven

Of course the bible counts as evidence.
Evidence about what some folks some thousands of years ago believed about nature and god(s).

But I guess that's not the evidence you are talking about?

BadBadBad

They have no true desire for two reasons that both boil down to one. God doesn't want them to.

1. They have no knowledge or insufficient knowledge of God, because God chose not to reveal himself sufficiently. Men don't desire belief in concepts they have no knowledge of. Should you desire belief in green leprechauns?

2. God reveals himself sufficiently, but he hardens their heart. They have no desire because God prevents them from having desire.

They have no desire because God has predestined them to have no desire. Their desire is irrelevant. God created man with a totally depraved nature. He predestined man to be punished eternally because of their totally depraved nature. It has nothing to do with man. "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth," but God that showeth total depravity.

OnTheThirdRail

LOL... wow, I think we have reached the point where we are simply rehashing the same ideas. I say one thing - you disagree...

as I said in an earlier post.... if the atheist pressuposes the starting point (man is ultimate) and his method of gaining knowledge (autonomous reason) then he can no longer claim neutrality. He presupposes that which is the main contention between the Christian and the atheist. Add to that that the belief that atheists have an inherent ability to determine morals. The Christian uses the evidence of the Bible to show that the unbeliever (Pagan) suppresses his/her knowledge of God. He is at the outset morally depraved.

BadBadBad

In other words, God makes distinction among men (even if that distinction is mysterious), yet he desires all be saved without distinction.

It's OK TR. I understand. Just keep saying it over and over. It's not a contradiction. It's not a contradiction. It's not a contradiction. .....
Maybe that will help!

Yes. Are you surprised? That would be called evidence. It's as simple as that. You know, the same kind of evidence offered to Moses, Abraham, A&E, etc, etc, etc. God may have hardened my heart and predestined me to hell, but he didn't make me stupid. Even Pharoah finally got it. If God wants me to believe, he shouldn't play omni-hide and seek.

What you're saying though is that my belief or unbelief is irrellevant. You are agreeing to the concept of double pre-destination. What I desire is irrellevant. God is the one made all the choices since "before" time began.

You left out the part about God hardening Pharoah's heart once more.

EX 10:16
Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in haste; and he said, I have sinned against the LORD your God, and against you. Now therefore forgive, I pray thee, my sin only this once, and intreat the LORD your God, that he may take away from me this death only. And he went out from Pharaoh, and intreated the LORD. And the LORD turned a mighty strong west wind, which took away the locusts, and cast them into the Red sea; there remained not one locust in all the coasts of Egypt. But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.

Like I said, with double pre-destination, "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God" that showeth total depravity.

blt to go

Thank you, OnTheThirdRail for the sites. I am going to delve into them later when I have more leisure. One thing that did strike me as odd in the second site was this quote: Especially in light of: If he is not willing that ANY should perish and he is not going to do anything he doesn't want to do, aren't we all saved?

Also, thank you for: That was the answer I was looking for. At least you are consistent.

I understand what "L" is in TULIP, and since we are dealing with "U" I thought I would simply respond to your statement regarding Limited Atonement and move on. If you want to start another thread dealing with "L" feel free.

However, I WAS disappointed that you did not bother to take the time to read the atheist's testimony site. See, if you had bothered to delve into that rather long thread, you would see that "if" is a pretty big "if." Many atheists come to that position while theists! In other words, while presupposing a god, they come to a conclusion there is no god.

To dismiss atheism as "well, you presuppose there is no god, so I will reject any statements you may say about god" will not play well here.

(As a side note, I came to agnosticism while presupposing a god. I WANTED a god. I begged for a god. So, anytime a theist tells me that I presuppose there is no god, so I can be dismissed, I inherently reject that position. It is wrong. It is wrong for alot of people here.)

You are free to question whether I was a Calvinist. I frankly don't care. What denomination of church I went to seems to be irrelevant as to my belief. (In point of fact I attended a Weslyan church for 6 months and vehemently argued for Calvinism the entire time. My family happened to like the church.)

And the primary reason I am even IN this thread is that brettc wanted to understand double predestination, so I was presenting the views in opposition to jdlongmire. You have now freely acknowledged double predestination, so I see no need for further discussion at this point.

To be fair, it has been a long time since I dove into the argument for and against Calvinism with any relish, so I may be a little rusty.

BadBadBad

No, I've thrown away my presuppositions for the sake of argument. I'm supposing the presuppositions you've presented, in which God us ultimate. Man's method of gaining knowledge is limited and absolutely controlled by God. The nature of man is defined by God and created entirely by God. Based upon that, I conclude that God is totally depraved. Because that conclusion contradicts your definition of God, I conclude that your concept of God cannot exist.

OnTheThirdRail

I get it sick your teeth into a "supposed" and don't let go....

yet he desires all types be saved without distinction between the types.

Yeah, evidence of what? Are you saying that a "miracle" (something contrary to the laws of nature as we know them) is evidence that God exists? I assert that most likely you would say it was the result of some as of yet unknown law of nature...

No, I didn't say that at all... I didn't say it was irrelevant. If you understood the compatabilistic concept of free-will you wouldn't be making this argument.

and you totally ignored my explaination of hardening...

If you have taken on my presuppositions then you would know that God is the basis for logic, the Bible is the word of God, that nature and man(and needs revelation) are dependent and that fallen men are by nature morally depraved. To thus assert that from those presuppositions that God is totally depraved is the height of irrationality.

This conversation is getting no where fast... so I will excuse myself now. Have a nice day! :wave:

BadBadBad

Evidence of a God? Yeah, you know just like how God made himself known unequivocably to Pharoah. Only he'd have to be careful, if he only popped-in to ask me to butcher all that breath by the edge of the sword, it might not be the best kind of evidence to convince me to worship him. No doubt an omnipotent and omniscient god could provide sufficient evidence that would unequivocably convince me of his existence and glory. You admit that. You admit that God chooses men for belief and salvation. You admit that if I don't believe in God and that I reject his word that I do so at the predestination of God. Yet you assert that I would reject God regardless of his omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent powers to convince me. Surely you recognize the contradiction.

That's the difference between you and I. You will never abandon your pre-suppositions especially in the face of logic and reason. As I demonstrated here, I readily abandon pre-suppositions when they conflict with logic and reason. I considered your pre-suppositions, and found them contradictory. Therefore, I abandoned them. That's how we came to a different conclusion. Your belief in God is absolute, and everything must conform to that pre-supposition, but it doesn't. Therefore, you're pre-supposition is false, and it is irrational to continue to stubbornly hold on to it.

BadBadBad

So I think we're done with the concept of the double pre-destination. I think Longmire still holds his position that we shouldn't label God with the dirty business of pre-destining folks to hell.

I'd like to understand more about this partial pre-destination. How does that work? I think Blt_to_go has made some points I'd like to see addressed. He put up a link that doesn't cast too good a light on this concept. Longmire, I know you like analogies, how about that ice cream analogy? Only let's back the ice cream truck to the Garden of Eden, and let's see why God doesn't buy any ice cream for either Adam or Eve?

Did God predestine A&E to salvation? Did God, with his omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, lead A&E to his glory? Did God, before A&E were born, choose A&E plus all the decendants of mankind to be the elect? At that time, did God desire unequivocably "all" of mankind for salvation? What went wrong?

Yahzi

Yes, he is.

No, it does not.