Posted on 02/28/2010 8:30:39 AM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
John Calvin's 16th century reply to medieval Catholicism's buy-your-way-out-of-purgatory excesses is Evangelicalism's latest success story, complete with an utterly sovereign and micromanaging deity, sinful and puny humanity, and the combination's logical consequence, predestination: the belief that before time's dawn, God decided whom he would save (or not), unaffected by any subsequent human action or decision.
Calvinism, cousin to the Reformation's other pillar, Lutheranism, is a bit less dour than its critics claim: it offers a rock-steady deity who orchestrates absolutely everything, including illness (or home foreclosure!), by a logic we may not understand but don't have to second-guess. Our satisfaction — and our purpose — is fulfilled simply by "glorifying" him. In the 1700s, Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards invested Calvinism with a rapturous near mysticism. Yet it was soon overtaken in the U.S. by movements like Methodism that were more impressed with human will. Calvinist-descended liberal bodies like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) discovered other emphases, while Evangelicalism's loss of appetite for rigid doctrine — and the triumph of that friendly, fuzzy Jesus — seemed to relegate hard-core Reformed preaching (Reformed operates as a loose synonym for Calvinist) to a few crotchety Southern churches.
No more. Neo-Calvinist ministers and authors don't operate quite on a Rick Warren scale. But, notes Ted Olsen, a managing editor at Christianity Today, "everyone knows where the energy and the passion are in the Evangelical world" — with the pioneering new-Calvinist John Piper of Minneapolis, Seattle's pugnacious Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Seminary of the huge Southern Baptist Convention. The Calvinist-flavored ESV Study Bible sold out its first printing, and Reformed blogs like Between Two Worlds are among cyber-Christendom's hottest links.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
I will leave all the “isms” to betty boop and spirited irish and leap right into the math and science.
As I said before, man cannot say that something which has no measureable direct or indirect effects does not exist.
That would apply to undetectable particles, undetectable fields, undetectable dimensions, undetectable types of dimensions, etc.
Photons, though massless, have measureable effects. They are detectable.
If a theory requires something to make it complete, e.g. a "cosmological constant" it is not undetectable, e.g. the constant must hold for all attempts to falsify the theory.
Your previous remarks need a primer on matter, relativity and beginning. From betty boop and my book and my previous posts on other threads.
Matter
Energy is the amount of work required to change the state of a system. Adding to the confusion, energy is also used as a substitute term for relativistic mass.
Relativistic mass is the observed or apparent mass as an object approaches the speed of light and thereby increases mass. To the observer, the relativistic mass increases as the velocity of the object increases. The invariant mass is the rest mass — the unobserved or intrinsic mass — of the object itself.
Inertial mass is the resistance of an object to changing its state of motion when a force is applied to it. In relativity theory, inertial mass is equal to energy divided by the speed of light squared. In other words, E=MC2 transforms to M=E/C2.
Massless particles such as light (photons) cause confusion. In relativity, the energy of a massless particle is its momentum (p) times the speed of light: E=pc.
Massive objects, on the other hand, are described as E2/c2 = m2c2 + p2 (where E = energy, c = speed of light, m = mass, and p = momentum).
Because massless particles do not have a rest frame, they are always moving at the speed of light regardless of frame of reference; hence the “m” is dropped in the previous equation, and for massless particles, it reduces to E=pc.
Matter constitutes the observed universe (space/time). Matter density (mass relative to volume) in the universe is called the critical density.
Antimatter is matter composed of the antiparticles of the particles that compose matter. The Standard Model of physics shows that every particle has a corresponding antiparticle in which each additive quantum number (properties other than mass, such as charge) has a value negative to that of the corresponding “normal” particle. Thus the antiquark is the antiparticle of the quark, the positron the antiparticle of the electron, etc.
When matter and antimatter collide, they are mutually annihilated, and energy is released in a burst of radiation. Matter is also created by energy in pairs, as in the case where two or more photons interact so to create a new fermion/antifermion pair.
We infer our weight from the bathroom scales and are able to calculate the escape velocity necessary to get an object into space. Nevertheless, even though we are able to use these measurements every day, ordinary matter itself has neither yet been created by humans nor directly observed by them (Higgs field/boson). All matter’s properties are therefore inferences from indirect observations and indirect empirical tests. And even if directly observed at last, Higgs would account for only 5 percent of the critical density of the universe. The other 95 percent (25 percent dark matter, 70 percent dark energy) would remain yet to be explained.
The observers of the photon perceive time passing relative to their space/time coordinates. Moreover, space/time itself is expanding. So a photon sent to the observer's space/time coordinates by a star which was a million light years away might arrive eleven million light years later because space/time expanded while it was in route even though from the photon's perspective, no time elapsed.
The observer "in" space/time does not see such phenomena all at once. Nothing is at rest "in" space/time. To paraphrase Tegmark's Level IV cosmology, the observer "in" space/time would see two orbiting particles which the observer "outside" space/time would see as two strands in a double helix. To the observer "in" space/time it is about the relative motion and position. To the observer "outside" space/time it is about the geometry, the mathematical structure.
On top of that, space/time is warped to observers "in" space/time (general relativity.) The equivalence principle leaves us with unavoidable conclusions. While a week elapses for an observer near an event horizon (black hole) forty years might elapse on earth.
The higher the positive gravity regions (dark matter, centers of galaxies, black holes, etc.) the slower time elapses. These can be visualized as space/time indentations. Conversely, the lower the gravity (ordinary matter) the faster time elapses.
One of the most engaging speculations I've seen is that dark energy (space between galaxies) is negative gravity in 4D (gravity as inter-dimensional) which would make it a space/time "outdent" thereby accelerating the expansion of the universe.
Truly, no physical thing is at rest "in" space/time. Space/time is not at rest. And that is the core issue in trying to understand space/time.
My favorite example is a fly in your car going 5 mph. That is his speed from his perspective as the observer.
But your car is speeding down the road at 65 mph. So for the guy watching you from the roadside table, that fly is going 70 mph.
But the road you have taken is on the equator and the circumference of the earth at the equator is 24,901.55 miles and the earth rotates once every 24 hours. So that fly is now going 1,100 mph + 70 mph = 1,170 mph.
Moreover, the orbital length of earth traveling around the sun is 149,600,000 miles, traveled in 365.25 days. That is 67,000 miles per hour. So add that in, and the fly is going 68,170 mph.
The sun orbits the Milky Way galaxy at a speed of 486,000 miles per hour. Add that in, and the fly is now going 554,170 miles per hour.
All of this and we haven’t gotten to the accelerating expansion of the universe, i.e. space/time itself. Space/time doesn’t pre-exist – it is created as the universe expands.
A galaxy 1 million light years away would seem to be moving away from us at a rate of 60,000 miles per hour. For every 3.26 million light years further out that we look, the galaxies seem to be moving away from us at an additional 162,000 miles per hour. In sum, the universe is currently at least 156 billion light years wide.
And that is looking at motion from the fly’s perspective. If we go in the other direction as "observer" – the quantum – the cumulative velocities are even more mind-boggling.
But that's just bickering over terms. Most importantly, why should there be something instead of nothing at all.
But also ex nihilo goes to the heart of physical cosmologists (e.g. Steinhardt and his cyclic model, Hawkin and his imaginary time model): because the physical cosmologist cannot explain the origin of real time, he must take it as a "given."
Infinity past is a "belief" of all atheists which does not hold up to scrutiny by math or science.
Real time and real space are required for physical causation which is the fundamental necessary element for all physical cosmologies whether multi-verse, ekpyrotic, multi-world or whatever.
For instance, the big bang/inflationary model - most widely accepted - is not ex nihilo.
Mathematically, the dimension of a space is the minimum number of coordinates (axes) necessary to identify a point within the space.
A space of zero dimensions is a point; one dimension, a line, two dimensions, a plane; three, a cube, etc.
That is the geometry of it. In zero dimensions, the mathematical point is indivisible.
It is not nothing. It is a spatial point.
In ex nihilo Creation, the dimensions are not merely zero, they are null, dimensions do not exist at all. There is no space and no time. Period.
There is no mathematical point, no volume, no content, no scalar quantities. Ex nihilo doesn’t exist in relationship to anything else; there is no thing.
In an existing physical space, each point (e.g. particle) can be parameterized by a quantity such as mass. The parameter (e.g. a specific quantity within the range of possible quantities) is in effect another descriptor or quasi-dimension that uniquely identifies the point within the space.
Moreover, if the quantity of the parameter changes for a point, then a time dimension is invoked. For example, at one moment the point value is “0” and the next it is “1”.
Wave propagation cannot occur in null dimensions nor can it occur in zero spatial dimensions, a mathematical point; a dimension of time is required for any fluctuation in a parameter value at a point.
But there’s more. Wave propagation must also have a spatial/temporal relation from cause point to effect point, i.e. physical causation.
For instance “0” at point nt causes “1” at point n+1t+1 and “1” at point nt+1 etc.. Obviously, physical wave propagation cannot precede space/time and physical causality.
In the absence of time, events cannot occur.
Both space and time are required for physical causation.
There is no ex nihilo explanation for the beginning of real space and real time and therefore physical causality.
And because, since the 1960’s forward, measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation consistently agree that the universe is expanding – that there was a beginning of real space and real time – we know that there was creation ex nihilo. Moving the goalpost back to prior universes does not make that issue go away.
Space, time and causation are not properties of God the Creator. They are properties of the Creation.
Only God is uncaused.
Only the fool believes that God does not exist.
God's Name is I AM.
No, the idea of Calvinism actually teaches God's determinism.
It's the difference between chance and Christ.
perhaps the internal inconsistency with Arminianism is not with the theology itself, but with those who preach Arminianism on the one hand and then deny that they do believe they are, effectively, their own Saviors.
Arminian is internally inconsistent because it says it believes in God's sovereignty while putting the actions of men outside that sovereignty. Just look at the terms used for "free will" -- a "gift from God."
lol. Talk about inconsistent. There's nothing good about men's "free will." Men's "free will" is fallen and will always choose poorly. Men imbued by God's will, through the Holy Spirit -- THAT is the gift. THAT requires our thanks.
But I understand your complaint against Calvinism because Calvinists seem to be hedging their bets when they talk about wills being slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness and that men "freely choose" what their hearts (stony/flesh) desire.
But it's all of God. We just can't over-estimate that enough. ALL of God.
1) God ordains all things. Period.
1-a) All men are fallen and will choose to sin unless and until God has given them the free gift of the Holy Spirit to enable them to choose righteousness.1-b) Those two subsets of men have been determined by God from before the foundation of the world.
1-c) Since we don't know who's who, we preach to all men, trusting in God's perfect purpose which, one way or another, will result in His glory and our welfare.
"The system that Christians seek to obtain may be said to be analogical. By this is meant that God is the original and that man is the derivative. God has absolute self-contained system within himself. What comes to pass in history happens in accord with that system or plan by which he orders the universe. But man, as God's creature, cannot have a replica of that system of God. He cannot have a reproduction of that system. He must, to be sure, think God's thoughts after him; but this means that he must, in seeking to form his own system, constantly be subject to the authority of God's system to the extent that this is revealed to him." [Cornelius Van Til - A Christian Theory of Knowledge, p. 16]
How about
Maximum Strength Excedrin warnings before you launch into such posts?
LOL.
Well done, as always.
Thx.
"by fate"
Tell me, since you are so smart, is that according to his will, or against it?
I'm of the opinion that all your questioning is very good, Kosta. You are asking exactly the right questions. The modern church, just like the Pelagian church, answered those questions unsatisfactorily by saying that God is somehow "unhappy" and that His love goes unrequited by men whose "free wills" are stronger than the intentional desires of the Holy Spirit.
It was those same errors which contradicted the Bible and destroyed the very notion of what "God" is which resulted in the Reformation.
From Scripture and the world around us we see that God does not love "all men" or all men would be saved. He loves His own.
A hard truth. But one which (because all things work for His glory and the good of those who are called) brings with it a truer sense of Christian redemption and thus, makes us preach the word more loudly and live the word more effectively every day.
No one knows the names of the elect. So we preach to all men as if all men might be saved. Beyond that is God's to know.
So ultimately, I think your questions result in either...
1) atheism/agnosticism (which is really just atheism for the squimish)
2) a lukewarm Arminianism which doesn't have any absolute answers other than "men are in charge"
3) the faith of Christ, Paul, Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Van Til, etc. which says God is in control of all of it. Start to finish. Good and bad.
It's your choice.
But then again, maybe it isn't. ;-)
If you accept the fact that you were born with a sinful nature and that your nature was in rebellion against God, then you would naturally be incapable of accepting God's gift because the thought of that alone would be as pleasing to your natural heart as the thought of eating a bowl of strawberries covered in syrup of ipecac.
Yes, we are born with a sinful nature and are by nature, in rebellion against God. This does not mean that we don't know we are sinners. Every one knows they are sinners whether they are saved or not. God draws us to himself and we can choose to either accept his gift or not. Choosing to repent may be as pleasing as eating ipecac but people do eat ipecac when they know they need it.
In our natural state we are all Christopher Hitchens. We are born with natural enmity against God. So therefore in order for us to accept this Gift, our nature must be changed from one of enmity against God to Love and Fear of God.If God makes the change, then God and God alone becomes our Savior. However if God does not change our nature and somehow we can muster up within our own selves and through our own nature the ability to turn our enmity against God into a profound love of God such that we are now willing to turn from our sins voluntarily and repent and follow Christ, then we are in effect our own saviors.
We can choose to accept God while we are still sinners with a sinful nature. God does draw all men to Himself but many resist him. Its a choice. We don't change our nature in order to accept Gods gift. God changes our nature when we surrender. Again, believing in Jesus does not 'earn' salvation. The price was death on the cross. The penalty was paid in full on the cross. Nothing we can do can add to that. We have been paid for by Jesus's blood. God only asks that we believe and he freely forgives those who believe because the debt was paid for by Christ.
But I think deep down you must recognize that you didn't save yourself (unless you are a full blown Pelagian). It was either your work or the work of God. I suspect that if you are truly saved, that you will recognize that it was entirely the work of God and that it was a miracle that you ever turned to Him and that you could possibly Love him. But if it was just in your nature to turn to him and love him and God did not violate your free will to bring you to him, then I don't think you can escape the conclusion that you saved yourself.
The difference between us is I believe God gave us free will, you don't seem to think so. If we didn't have free will and if we didn't have the knowledge of good and evil we wouldn't have sin. We would be no better or worse than a dog that bites the mail man. Calvinists believe we are no different than a dog and just follow our nature that God gave us but we are different. We are made in His image and can choose good over evil. The fact that we sin when we know better condemns us. The rich young man Jesus called to follow Him had a real decision to make. He chose wealth over God. That was a choice he made of his own free will. Do you think that God predestined him to go to hell and was only teasing him when he said to give away all he has and follow Him? Do you think that man had the freedom to obey and follow? I do.
You will never* get the proof you are asking for. I suspect you already know that though. God is the way He is even if YOU don't understand.
*At least while you are alive.
lol. Even if the Calvinist position was internally inconsistent, which it isn’t, I would think that is better than floating back and forth between the two positions with every whisper of wind.
Who controls your fate?
Free will means that the actual names that wind up in the Book of Life will be determined by chance. Some will choose, some won't. How does an omnipotent God leaving the eternal salvation or not of His most beloved creation up to utter chance glorify Him? True glory to God would be for ALL of His children to be with Him for eternity according to His accomplishment of His own perfect plan. Random chance cannot play a role in glory going to God. It would make no sense. Is deserved glory ever gained by accident?
I don't think so. Obviously you haven't read all the posts on this thread. I think there are posters who would not recognize the idea that they are sinners. I suspect most of the world thinks that their own good works outweigh any bad deeds they have done, if they are even willing to admit to themselves that they have actually done any bad deeds.
Choosing to repent may be as pleasing as eating ipecac but people do eat ipecac when they know they need it.
Indeed, but only when they recognize the gravity of their situation. By then the Holy Spirit has already done His work and their hearts have been changed. Tell me, can a man bring his own dead heart to life by the power of his will? Or does God need to change their hearts and interfere with their free will in order to bring them to this point where they will eat the ipecac coated strawberries?
The difference between us is I believe God gave us free will, you don't seem to think so.
No he did give you a free will, but until God interferes with that will to mold it into a heart which will turn to him, that free will is a slave to the sinful nature. I am actually rather amazed at the number of Arminians who view the idea of a "free will" as some kind of blessing, when in fact it is actually a curse.
Do you really want to have a "free will" or do you want to have your will molded to that of Christ so that God's will becomes your will? If you want your will to be free rather than a slave to Christ, then are you really in God's will? Can you really call yourself saved if you prefer your own free will to the will of Christ?
Lord, take this cursed free will from me! Mold my will to Yours. Enslave my will to Your will, Oh Lord and let the old things pass away so that all things become new!
Can you say that prayer?
To which kosta replied: Tell me, since you are so smart, is that according to his will, or against it?
Dear kosta, why would you conceive of spirited irish's observation as an either/or proposition? The above invites no kind of demonstration of Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle. This is real life. Hint: Look for complementarities, not mutually-exclusive propositions.
God could have made a "perfect" creation; but He didn't. He only made a "good" one.
Had He made a perfect creation, there would be no room for human free will in creation.
God knows His beloved; the Shepherd knows His own; and His sheep know His Voice. This pertains to the "ears to hear" controversy.
About which all I mainly can say to kosta is this: You would probably hear better, if you'd remove the pitch you put in your own ears to avoid God's Voice in the first place. Moreover, you'd probably have better eyes to see, too, if you could just get the self-imposed blinders off....
The Shepherd moreover has "many sheepfolds." And the Father most loves the prodigal son who comes back to Him....
Arrrgh. Have been wool-gathering here. Looks like you're presiding over a "mixed company" in these last posts, dear Dr. Eckleburg. If so, the dialogue appears to be in eminently rational hands.
Thank you ever so much for writing, dear sister in Christ!
“Who controls your fate? “
My actions lead to consequences and these consequences are a direct result of my actions.
However, when the gentle breeze carries you to Arminianism that’s when you become fatalistic.
“Who controls your fate? “
Well said.
Thanks for the ping.
I don't delve into endless speculations why you appear to be the way you appear to be, what seems to drive you, your morals, thinking process, apparent (dis)honesty, state of salvation, etc.
Neither should you make it about me. Thank you.
Are we back to the “wife-beating” line of questioning again? That’s a cheap lawyer trick. I gave my answer and it provided sufficient information as to the cause of my fate.
“Who controls your fate? “
It seems to me that the
genre
of the pseudo-super-rationalist
and the pseudo-super-rationalist’s typical
rationales, perspectives; inconsistencies etc. . .
of which yours just happen to be the present best example . . .
is a fitting topic in all this.
It’s certainly plausible to take such personally.
However, I’m making assertions about the broad genre of such folks. I happen to have had numerous such dialogues with a wide assortment of such pseudo-super-rationalists over at least 5 or so decades. I think I can spot one within 100 feet?
That post I was replying to did kind of seem to invite some specific observations. I guess I could work harder to be more careful about that.
However, I expect to continue to make assertions and observations triggered by your assertions about the genre of pseudo-super-rationalists and their absurdly inconsistent pontifications.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.