Evolution v Creationism

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yes, there is a difficulty in reconciling his revealed Will to give man free will with his unlimited knowledge, this is, however, due to not understanding the means by which he exercises his power. There is not problem as to why man was given free will to begin with, there is not inconsistancy in God's divine Will itself.

Such practical concerns are only part of the issue with Arminianism. Generally, I think the problem is threefold. Firstly, it lacks scriptural support. Secondly, it has the previously mentioned practical issues. And thirdly, I think it is detrimental to a Christian individual's practice of Godliness, and contradictive with important parts of Christianity in general. The last point is the most important one, with the other two, particularly the second, being secondary issues, but worth noting nonetheless.

If man is a slave to sin, it is by the will of God.

If man does not have the capacity to love God, it is the will of God.

If man is utterly corrupt unless he is forced to redemption, that is by the will of God.

Also, Calvin did not actually believe that you loved God because you want to, he believed God wills that you want to. Your love is the direct will of God, since Special Grace is irresistable.

To suggest otherwise is to suggest there is a force in the universe to oppose God.

And it is true also with Arminianism, that if man has even the capacity to sin, then he was created that way by God, and it is God's will that he may sin. You have the freedom to do good or evil, but ultimately the very nature of your character on which you are judged is created as it is as a result of God's will.

In this case, I agree with what you say on Calvin, but only so far as our fallen nature is concerned. If you are born a slave to sin, even sin itself, then naturally a forceful transformative process will be needed to give a person a heart of flesh. But having been through such a process, the decision to love God is not forced. It is both God's will that we love Him, and our own.

All excellant questions, and equally pertinant for the NT which has also been corrupted.

You could place your faith in God, rather than a book written and authorised by old men long after the fact.

Of course my faith is fundamentally in God Himself, the book is there for general spiritual guidance and to help to spread the word. Generally speaking it is fine to question parts of the scripture and their reliability. But the issue being raised here over Yahweh is far too integrated throughout the entire scripture to dismiss as an inaccuracy on account of it being written by men. Even the historically earliest events in the OT regarding Yahweh's covenants with mankind are constantly referred to throughout the NT, often by Jesus himself, not to mention the fact that Jesus' sacrifice was based upon the prophecies given to the prophets by the Yahweh of the time period which you are calling into question.

Firstly, the State of Israel exists today because of the Holocaust, if you want to ascibe that to God you are beyond all hope, frankly. Aside from that, Jesus CLEARLY rejected the Old Law, he invalidated it, it is explicit.

A little bit extreme in the first sentence there I think. I remember a quote where one of the French kings asks for proof of God's existence, and he is told something along the lines of "the Jews sire, the Jews!". If that was true a few hundred years ago, then it must be ten times moresoe today when we have an Israeli state. There's a reason why dispensationalism has largely replaced covenant theology in Reformed circles. Of course, there are the usual historic forces which played their role in the Isralei state coming into being, it was not just a case of God snapping His fingers. But then, why do you so readily dimiss God playing an indirect role in such a process? You are happy to say that we evolved through the process of evolution by God's design, and yet you cannot say that God played a similar overseeing role in the state of Israel coming into being.

Also, Jesus quite clearly did not abolish the Old Covenant and much of the OT along with it as you suggested. Jesus himself says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matthew 5:17).

Without Preveniant Grace man would be an animal, that its effect in the world is not immidiately obvious does not detract from the fact that it underpins every aspect of our existence.

As to Calvin, he to me represents the worst of Christian polemicists and hate-mongers, his theology bore rotten fruit during the "Godly Republic" when it was used as the justification for the despoiling of tombs, smashing of alters, and closing of churches. I am surrounded daily by reminders of the destruction that took place in the name of God.

Of course God's grace still has a notable role in Arminianism, but it is far less of a force than it is said to be in Calvinism, not such an 'Amazing Grace' at all.

I think you are being harsh on Calvin himself, and that your disapproval would be better aimed at those who upheld the form of Calvinism which led to the things you speak of. Calvin himself never supported violent resistance under even the most extreme circumstances, although in the last version of the 'Institutes of the Christian Religion' which were published in 1559, he did point to the case where Daniel disobeyed what he deemed to be an impious royal edict. Though Calvin himself always held to such a position, his successors did not. John Knox brought a more radical form of Calvinism to Scotland, and indeed his works such as 'The Appellation' were important in justifying the Covenanters role in the conflict you speak of, in which Knox argues that the gentry and other important people within society are appointed to their roles by God just as kings are, and as such may use their God-given roles to protect the common people from tyrants. Also, the man you mentioned earlier as being a victim of the conflict, Richard Hooker, actually played an important role in justifying the Parliamentarians. He was a pioneer of the contractarian branches of resistance theories, as he claimed that kings ruled both by divine right and human right, the latter being a form of contract between the king and his subjects.

I can see you very passionately dislike Calvinism, which is fair enough, indeed if I recall correctly you suggested in a past discussion that Calvin could even have ben the antichrist. But I think you must study it more to truly understand it. Just as surely as modern evangelicals spread misinformation about Catholicism such as saints having special powers as you said to me before; so to are there many misconceptions about Calvinism which are readily passed about in the circles which have had little exposure to it.

So, if you loved a woman, would you rape her to prove your love, or would you let her go if she did not want you? If, once your child had reached their maturity, they no longer wanted anything to do with you, would you lock them up or let them go. Absolute love does not mean unilatteral action.

Your alternative is that God hates most of his children and spiritually rapes the rest.

Those analogies are hardly appropriate, since they involve harming people in the name of the love; a spiritual transformation and eternal life in heaven are hardly comparable. Also, they are wrong because in Calvinism it is taught that we have free will to love God once we are saved, it is purely the transformative process that is forced. Before that process takes place, we are sin, we have nothing but a heart of stone, unable to love God, and unable to even want to.