Why I don't believe in evolution...

[Job 33:6]

There's the problem of evil. Would God create evil people for the purpose of torturing them forever in Hell?

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

How do you interpret Romans 9:14-23?

14 What then shall we say? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For to Moses he says, “I will have mercy on whomever I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I have compassion.”


16 Consequently therefore, it does not depend on the one who wills or on the one who runs, but on God who shows mercy. 17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very reason I have raised you up, so that I may demonstrate my power in you, and so that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Consequently therefore, he has mercy on whomever he wishes, and he hardens whomever he wishes. 19 Therefore you will say to me, “Why then does he still find fault? For who has resisted his will? 20 On the contrary, O man, who are you who answers back to God? Will what is molded say to the one who molded it, “Why did you make me like this”? 21 Or does the potter not have authority over the clay, to make from the same lump a vessel that is for honorable use and one that is for ordinary use? 22 And what if God, wanting to demonstrate his wrath and to make known his power, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And he did so in order that he could make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy that he prepared beforehand for glory,

 

[The Barbarian]

How do you interpret Romans 9:14-23?

Since God is eternal, and does not change His mind, the truth must be consistent with Peter's statement that He is not unwilling that any be lost, and the statement in Romans that he raised up the Pharaoh with the intent to bring him down to demonstrate to mankind His power.

So Peter is talking about judgement and one's eternal home, and God is in Romans, saying that He handed Pharaoh worldly power to bring that down.

As a wise man once remarked, God is just, but not just as we count justice. If He was, the good would always prosper and the evil always fail in this world.

I suppose you could reverse it and say that Peter was talking about earthly success and Romans was talking about eternal salvation or damnation, but that doesn't make much sense in the context of those verses; at least, it doesn't to me.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

Roman 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. [14] For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: [15] Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,

Paul clearly describes the situation of the Good Muslim and the Good Samaritan. It's not the hearers of the law who are just, but "the doers of the law shall be justified."

Even, as Paul explains, the Gentiles who show the work of the law written in their hearts.

Paul does not mean what you mean, though.

Let's say someone is invited to church and hears the gospel of Jesus Christ, and rejects it. He believes it to be utter nonsense. Yet, he is a really good person by the world's standards. He really believes in the golden rule and volunteers at the local shelters - yet this person dies without becoming a Christian. Saved? Eternally lost? What about a "righteous" Muslim? Saved? Lost?

Is there any scenario where a person can willfully reject Christ and still go to heaven?

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

How do you interpret Romans 9:14-23?

14 What then shall we say? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For to Moses he says, “I will have mercy on whomever I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I have compassion.”


16 Consequently therefore, it does not depend on the one who wills or on the one who runs, but on God who shows mercy. 17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very reason I have raised you up, so that I may demonstrate my power in you, and so that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Consequently therefore, he has mercy on whomever he wishes, and he hardens whomever he wishes. 19 Therefore you will say to me, “Why then does he still find fault? For who has resisted his will? 20 On the contrary, O man, who are you who answers back to God? Will what is molded say to the one who molded it, “Why did you make me like this”? 21 Or does the potter not have authority over the clay, to make from the same lump a vessel that is for honorable use and one that is for ordinary use? 22 And what if God, wanting to demonstrate his wrath and to make known his power, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And he did so in order that he could make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy that he prepared beforehand for glory,

It doesn't need to be interpreted, as it means exactly what it says, and is in no way an outlier. It is fully consistent with the doctrine of election, which is found all over the Bible. As for your earlier response to me, it was just the same, tired old "boohoo God is not a meeeany" complaints that have been leveled at the reformed for centuries, every time someone presents a Gospel that is not man-centered. Don't give me that. I am only interested in Bible.

BTW, as for 2 Peter 3:9. which the apostate cited above, I think it's clear what Peter means. He is writing to whom? The church.

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

God is patient, not wishing for any of the elect to be lost, but for all to come to repentance.

 

[The Barbarian]

Paul does not mean what you mean, though.

He means exactly what he says. And it's true.

Let's say someone is invited to church and hears the gospel of Jesus Christ, and rejects it. He believes it to be utter nonsense. Yet, he is a really good person by the world's standards. He really believes in the golden rule and volunteers at the local shelters - yet this person dies without becoming a Christian. Saved? Eternally lost? What about a "righteous" Muslim? Saved? Lost?

As Paul says,
Roman 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

This is true. It's God's word.

Paul explains:
[14] For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: [15] Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,

Paul clearly describes the situation of the Good Muslim and the Good Samaritan. It's not the hearers of the law who are just, but "the doers of the law shall be justified."

Is there any scenario where a person can willfully reject Christ and still go to heaven?

Not if they willfully do so. That is, if they know the truth and reject it, they are lost. If for any reason, they are unable to know the truth, they are not condemned. As Paul says, it is not the hearers of the law, but the doers of the law who are justified. And if they show the work of the law written in their hearts, they are justified.

This is what Jesus is telling you in Matthew 25; He will separate the sheep from the goats, depending on their works. Indeed, some of the saved will ask Him, "when did we do anything for you?" If they were Christians, they would know. They are the people Paul is talking about, who depend on the law written in their hearts, and are justified thereby.

 

[The Barbarian]

BTW, as for 2 Peter 3:9. which the apostate cited above, I think it's clear what Peter means. He is writing to whom? The church.

That isn't what Peter says. The notion that it's just for the Church is man's addition to His word.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? Jeremiah 17:9

as it is written, “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.” Romans 3:10-12

I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father, except through Me John 14:6

For unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins John 8:24

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved Acts 4:12

There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus 1 Tim 2:5

So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith Galatians 3:24

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord Romans 6:23

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast Ephesians 2:8-9

 

[The Barbarian]

And yet, God says that we re justified by works as well as by faith.

I believe Him. Others don't. That's all there is to say about it.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

No, you only believe what you desire to believe. That's obvious to anyone. Your "method" fluctuates from allegorical to strict literalism based entirely upon presupposition. You have made that abundantly clear. You continue to cite James 2:24, like a dog guarding it's bone, while you stubbornly ignore the countless other verses that prove it's proper context. Well, you hold on to that. Let it comfort you at night. Refuse to read it in context - deny that James is saying that saving faith is followed necessarily by works. Believe that it means praying the rosary, or kissing the pope's ring. Ignore explicit verses like Ephesians 2:8-9 and Galatians 3:24 and many more. Deny all the verses that tell us how God created the earth. Believe that salvation can be had apart from Christ. You will know soon enough that you were gravely mistaken. In the meantime, I will let you have a chance at the last word, and then, you are going on ignore. I refuse to waste any more time on someone who so clearly hates the truth.

 

[Job 33:6]

So Peter is talking about judgement and one's eternal home, and God is in Romans, saying that He handed Pharaoh worldly power to bring that down.

I suppose you could reverse it and say that... Romans was talking about eternal salvation or damnation, but that doesn't make much sense in the context of those verses; at least, it doesn't to me.

I would say that the verse are referring to salvation and damnation. If we look at Romans 9 again, we see the following:

9:22 and 9:23 - "fitted for destruction" and "fitted for glory".

I wouldn't think that God would prepare pharaoh for destruction just to then switch and save him in the end. But if we continue further,

9:27 - the remnant will be saved.

Sounds like salvation to me.

9:28 - for the Lord will execute His sentence.

"The one who believes in Him will not be put to shame"

9:33
Also referring to judgement.

But anyway, there are still the verses of Ephesians as well. Suggesting that at least in some cases, God established salvation vs damnation when He established the foundation of the earth.

It's an unfortunate dichotomy. That God might never change His mind, and yet it is only after a person acts that they are saved in response. Unless God were to, as we've discussed, be in utter control and predestine people for Hell despite any action they could ever choose to make.

Despite what others may think, I think this is simply a contradiction in scripture. Presumably a product of misunderstanding of God in our efforts to explain the circumstances in scripture.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, you only believe what you desire to believe. That's obvious to anyone.

No one really is like that. We don't control what we think is true. We might try to talk ourselves into it, but we know better. That's why it's always important to keep that on top, so you can consider it.

Your "method" fluctuates from allegorical to strict literalism based entirely upon presupposition.

No. As you see, some scripture is written as parable or other figurative story. And some is written as history. There's really no way to avoid the fact.

I can see that you're getting upset about this; you're making all sorts of accusations that you should know aren't true. At this point, you're putting more effort into assailing the Evil Barbarian, than you are in trying to understand His word.

So I think you are right; we just shouldn't talk about it any more.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

No one really is like that. We don't control what we think is true. We might try to talk ourselves into it, but we know better. That's why it's always important to keep that on top, so you can consider it.



No. As you see, some scripture is written as parable or other figurative story. And some is written as history. There's really no way to avoid the fact.

I can see that you're getting upset about this; you're making all sorts of accusations that you should know aren't true. At this point, you're putting more effort into assailing the Evil Barbarian, than you are in trying to understand His word.

So I think you are right; we just shouldn't talk about it any more.

Well, maybe I did come on a little too strong. I have a tendency to do that at times. I also know you are my elder - when you are online, though, it's hard to take that into consideration. All I see is text - ideas.

So I apologize for my ungracious tone.

However, I really do believe that is a mistaken approach to James. I cannot imagine how one comes to the conclusion, based on the context, that James 2:4 is to be taken woodenly. I think it's clear it is more in the spirit of, "A good tree is a good tree because of both it's root and it's fruit." I think the context demands that James is implying that works follow true faith necessarily, and that this interpretation is clearly reinforced by other scriptures, from the Lord's parables to the teachings of Paul.

Maybe you already explained your hermeneutical approach, and in my zeal I overlooked it. But I don't think so. I think you probably just assumed your position, and maybe weren't so inclined to change it due to the fact we are debating. Perhaps you can at least concede I make a good case for my position, or you can make a sound, scriptural case for why I don't.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well, maybe I did come on a little too strong.

It's O.K. No hard feelings on my part. But I'm pretty sure we shouldn't be discussing this again.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

I would say that the verse are referring to salvation and damnation. If we look at Romans 9 again, we see the following:

9:22 and 9:23 - "fitted for destruction" and "fitted for glory".

I wouldn't think that God would prepare pharaoh for destruction just to then switch and save him in the end. But if we continue further,

9:27 - the remnant will be saved.

Sounds like salvation to me.

9:28 - for the Lord will execute His sentence.

"The one who believes in Him will not be put to shame"

9:33
Also referring to judgement.

But anyway, there are still the verses of Ephesians as well. Suggesting that at least in some cases, God established salvation vs damnation when He established the foundation of the earth.

It's an unfortunate dichotomy. That God might never change His mind, and yet it is only after a person acts that they are saved in response. Unless God were to, as we've discussed, be in utter control and predestine people for Hell despite any action they could ever choose to make.

Despite what others may think, I think this is simply a contradiction in scripture. Presumably a product of misunderstanding of God in our efforts to explain the circumstances in scripture.

Well, there are three options of which I am aware:

Synergism:

If you threw a bag of rocks off a cliff, and God had ordained they all fall a certain way, they would all fall that way - and still be a perfectly natural, physical, unrigged result. The natural world assembles itself according to His decrees, while still remaining perfectly natural. The same is true for the will of man, which likewise, assembles according to His purpose and eternal decree, while at the same time, remaining absolutely the will and responsibility of man. This is a mystery, but God is God, and our tiny brains cannot always fathom these things.

Reformed:

We are all dead. Period. God, in His grace, chooses to move upon whom He chooses. Because we are totally depraved by nature, no part of our salvation can be dependent upon us. This is my view.

Molinism: God works in the world to bring His sovereign election to fruition, using the will of man. His irresistible grace being based on His knowledge of what a person would do or not do, accept or not accept, under any given circumstance. For instance, if I caused John and Jane to cross paths knowing that they would choose to marry. I was in control, yet I was working with actual free will. The scripture where Jesus is lamenting how Tyre and Sidon would've repented if His miracles had been done in their midst is used as an example of Molinism.

Personally, I believe that the reformed view is more in line with what the Bible teaches. But no matter what, election is a biblical concept.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, there are three options of which I am aware:

Synergism:

If you threw a bag of rocks off a cliff, and God had ordained they all fall a certain way, they would all fall that way - and still be a perfectly natural, physical, unrigged result. The natural world assembles itself according to His decrees, while still remaining perfectly natural. The same is true for the will of man, which likewise, assembles according to His purpose and eternal decree, while at the same time, remaining absolutely the will and responsibility of man. This is a mystery, but God is God, and our tiny brains cannot always fathom these things.

Reformed:

We are all dead. Period. God, in His grace, chooses to move upon whom He chooses. Because we are totally depraved by nature, no part of our salvation can be dependent upon us. This is my view.

Molinism: God works in the world to bring His sovereign election to fruition, using the will of man. His irresistible grace being based on His knowledge of what a person would do or not do, accept or not accept, under any given circumstance. For instance, if I caused John and Jane to cross paths knowing that they would choose to marry. I was in control, yet I was working with actual free will. The scripture where Jesus is lamenting how Tyre and Sidon would've repented if His miracles had been done in their midst is used as an example of Molinism.

Personally, I believe that the reformed view is more in line with what the Bible teaches. But no matter what, election is a biblical concept.

The only issue I have with the reformed position, really boils down to the problem of evil. Because God would basically just send people to damnation despite our nature being created in a broken way beyond our control.

Adam would hypothetically put all of man under sin, but then Jesus would then save only some and not all that are broken, and so salvation would become kind of half baked. And God has a will to save all, though He would then simply pre ordain that some hearts are hardened anyway in seeming contradiction to His own will.

The problem of evil I think just puts a number of holes in these ideas.

Alternatively, if we assumed pure free choice, then a number of passages in Romans and Ephesians don't really add up about vessels prepared for Glory or destruction, or predestination at the foundations of creation etc.

And molinism just seems to suffer from the same issues, but sounds rehashed in an effort to resolve the dilemma, though it doesn't. It's more like a play on words or ideas than it is a real resolution. It's just a bunch of mental gymnastics.

I think it's easier to conclude that some of the authors of scripture just made some kind of a blunder in their experience/perception. I think that it makes more sense that perhaps God just doesn't pre - ordain the future. In which case we have resolved the problem of evil by making ourselves responsible for evil and not God, we resolve the question of if we have free will or not, because God has given us that liberty. The saving Grace of Jesus Christ becomes whole again and for everyone who accepts Him and there's no partiality in God hardening the hearts of some people but not others.

And there's this idea that "God works in mysterious ways" for people who are predestined for damnation. But if I went and pushed an old lady onto the ground and stole her money, nobody would ever look at me and say "oh he just works in mysterious ways and he's not actually evil". It's more like reformists just don't want to acknowledge an ugly truth.

We might tell ourselves "it's a mystery", but I don't think this really resolves anything. Why not just conclude that it's not a mystery at all, and conclude that maybe Paul made a mistake (what Catholics might internally think but don't want to say)? Or for reformists, why not just conclude that Peter made a mistake? Because after all, aren't we just using mental gymnastics to get around accepting what these verses say anyway?

Is denying a verse (not a chapter or book, but just a verse here or there) really any worse than changing a verses original meaning to make it fit what we believe?

You guys keep accusing eachother of changing the meaning of verses. But maybe the issue isn't in either of you two, but rather maybe the issue and the contradiction is truly just engrained in scripture itself as a product of an error by the authors.

I think I otherwise prefer the bag of rocks analogy of the 3 ideas listed.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

The only issue I have with the reformed position, really boils down to the problem of evil. Because God would basically just send people to damnation despite our nature being created in a broken way beyond our control...

...

I think it's easier to conclude that some of the authors of scripture just made some kind of a blunder in their experience/perception. ...

People are already damned. That's why salvation is so wonderful. God doesn't owe salvation to anyone. People are not going to hell because God didn't choose them, but because of sin that their wicked hearts produced. God doesn't predestine anyone to hell, except in the inactive sense of not electing them. They are still beings who are responsible for their own wickedness.

Besides, unless you adopt the heresy of open-theism, it just pushes the problem back a step. God had, theoretically, an infinite choice of possible humans to create, yet He created those He knew full well would ultimately wind up in hell. And did so anyway.

If you are going to reject some scriptures on the basis of human error, you cannot really know anything for certain. That's the problem. The Word of God is true.

 

[Job 33:6]

People are already damned. That's why salvation is so wonderful. God doesn't owe salvation to anyone. People are not going to hell because God didn't choose them, but because of sin that their wicked hearts produced. God doesn't predestine anyone to hell, except in the inactive sense of not electing them. They are still beings who are responsible for their own wickedness.

Besides, unless you adopt the heresy of open-theism, it just pushes the problem back a step. God had, theoretically, an infinite choice of possible humans to create, yet He created those He knew full well would ultimately wind up in hell. And did so anyway.

If you are going to reject some scriptures on the basis of human error, you cannot really know anything for certain. That's the problem. The Word of God is true.

Well here's the question, if God loves us, why wouldn't He save us? Given that we have no power to save ourselves? According to reformed theology I mean.

I understand that God doesn't owe anyone anything, but the question is a fair question none the less.

"They are still beings who are responsible for their own wickedness." Could be considered an answer. And yet, how could you, or me, or anyone else, be responsible when there is no choice that we could make to change such a thing?

It's like being born with light colored skin. If a person cannot choose otherwise, then how could we be responsible for it?

"If you are going to reject some scriptures on the basis of human error, you cannot really know anything for certain."

Personally, I just think it's easier to say that the authors of scripture weren't perfect beings, so if there is an apparent contradiction, rather than saying that Catholics are all wrong, or protestants are all wrong, or reformists are all wrong, it seems to make more sense to me that the issue is in the way some scripture (really only a handful of verses) has been written and that in actuality, all of these groups equally contain both some correct understandings and some incorrect understandings.

Meaning that the reason there are so many divisions among us Christians isn't because of confused theologians, but rather it's because scripture itself contains an apparent contradiction between free will and God's eternal sovereignty.

And while the reformed position appears to eliminate the issue of free will vs eternal sovereignty, it receives the problem of evil in exchange. Whereas the more Catholic position might eliminate the problem of evil, but receive issues of eternal sovereignty.

And so the truth in this really couldn't be in one extreme or the other, but it would have to rest elsewhere. Possibly in the middle.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

Well here's the question, if God loves us, why wouldn't He save us? Given that we have no power to save ourselves? According to reformed theology I mean.

I understand that God doesn't owe anyone anything, but the question is a fair question none the less.

"They are still beings who are responsible for their own wickedness." Could be considered an answer. And yet, how could you, or me, or anyone else, be responsible when there is no choice that we could make to change such a thing?

It's like being born with light colored skin. If a person cannot choose otherwise, then how could we be responsible for it?

"If you are going to reject some scriptures on the basis of human error, you cannot really know anything for certain."

Personally, I just think it's easier to say that the authors of scripture weren't perfect beings, so if there is an apparent contradiction, rather than saying that Catholics are all wrong, or protestants are all wrong, or reformists are all wrong, it seems to make more sense to me that the issue is in the way some scripture (really only a handful of verses) has been written and that in actuality, all of these groups equally contain both some correct understandings and some incorrect understandings.

Meaning that the reason there are so many divisions among us Christians isn't because of confused theologians, but rather it's because scripture itself contains an apparent contradiction between free will and God's eternal sovereignty.

And while the reformed position appears to eliminate the issue of free will vs eternal sovereignty, it receives the problem of evil in exchange. Whereas the more Catholic position might eliminate the problem of evil, but receive issues of eternal sovereignty.

And so the truth in this really couldn't be in one extreme or the other, but it would have to rest elsewhere. Possibly in the middle.

The problem with the Roman church is that it is entirely apostate, but this is another discussion altogether. Suffice to say, the big error in Rome that gives way to all other error is this idea of "apostolic succession" - they believe that the apostles, Peter in particular, was given an eternal office, to be occupied down throughout the generations. Therefore, "the teachings of the apostles" is not what was handed down to us by the original apostles, as contained within the New Testament, but rather, the New Testament as well as whatever comes out of Rome. It's like one, giant, open canon of scripture. That is why they believe they are justified in teaching concepts that are absent from the Bible, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, Mary as co-redeemer, praying to Mary and the Saints, the immaculate conception, the ascension of Mary, that Mary is the mother of God, the sacrifice of the Mass, purgatory, limbo, the Eucharist, confession to priests, praying the rosary, etc, etc. This whole mountain of doctrine all hinges on the idea of apostolic succession, which in turn, is defended by the following:

I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Matthew 16:18-19

According to Catholics, this verse somehow establishes Peter as the rock upon which the entire church was built.

And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles. Acts 1:24-26

According to Catholics, the choosing of Matthias somehow establishes the idea that there is an office that needs be filled at all times. Peter, therefore, is no different. His office remains, and whoever occupies his office also possesses the keys of the kingdom, of binding on heaven and earth.

Here is the problem. Let's look at the context:

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ. Matthew 16:13-20

Here, Jesus is not saying that He would build the church upon Peter. Rather, the "Rock" upon which Christ would build His church was Peter's revelation of who Jesus Christ is. Regardless, I think there is enough ambiguity there to give me some serious pause before I would take such a giant leap in claiming such massive implications as the catholic church.

As for the passage in the first chapter of Acts, let's look at verses 16-21:

“Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. “For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry.” (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

“For it is written in the book of Psalms,
‘LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE,
AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT’;
and,
‘LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.’

“Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us -"

Peter was consciously fulfilling prophecy. Judas' office was to be taken by another not because of apostolic succession, but as a testimony against Judas - his homestead is desolate. And rather than declaring the need for an ongoing office, Peter was demonstrating the need to be mindful of God's Word.

It's all about the Word of God. It's not about the traditions of men.

____________________

As for reformed theology, really think about this:

Joe and John both hear the Gospel. Joe is hostile to the message, rejecting it outright. Having rejected Jesus Christ, Joe goes to hell. John hears the same message Joe heard, but he receives it with joy. And persevering in the faith, John goes on to Life Eternal.

Was John better than Joe? Did John merely choose to have faith? And if so, why did not Joe choose to choose faith? People do not just choose for no reason. There has to be an inclination towards one choice or the other. If God bestows the same amount of grace upon both Joe and John, yet John accepts while Joe rejects, is not the saving difference something that is inherent in John? Really ponder that.

When we read the Bible, we see it is clear that John accepted because John was given faith by God, drawn by the Father, being chosen by God. It had nothing to do with anything inside of John that was inherent to John. John 6:44 Ephesians 1:5 Romans 8:29 Acts 13:48

But it doesn't stop at salvation. The Bible teaches us that we must persevere in faith. This, too, is God's doing! John 10:29 Jude 1:24 Philippians 1:6

The fact of the matter is that we are ALL totally depraved, gone astray, and incapable of seeking after God. If any, and I mean ANY, part of salvation is contingent upon ourselves, we are without hope. Whether it is to believe correctly, respond correctly, persevere correctly, or do anything else correctly, if it falls upon us ourselves to contribute so much as a single ounce of ourselves to it, we can do nothing but bungle it. Indeed, if there is any difference between those of us who will end up in heaven and those who end up in hell, this difference is in no way inherent to us. It can't be! That is what makes it grace. We can do nothing to save ourselves - all of salvation, all of it, every last bit of it - it is GOD'S doing. And this is precisely why we must have boldness that He who began a good work in us will carry it on until completion. And for all eternity, we will not be thanking ourselves that we believed. We will not be thinking, "Phew, I'm glad I believed." Rather, we will be thanking God that He chose us, of all people, and saved us out of the world. To God and God alone, most sovereign Lord of all that is good and right and true, be all the credit and all the praise and all the glory forever and ever.

 

[Job 33:6]

The problem with the Roman church is that it is entirely apostate, but this is another discussion altogether. Suffice to say, the big error in Rome that gives way to all other error is this idea of "apostolic succession" - they believe that the apostles, Peter in particular, was given an eternal office, to be occupied down throughout the generations. Therefore, "the teachings of the apostles" is not what was handed down to us by the original apostles, as contained within the New Testament, but rather, the New Testament as well as whatever comes out of Rome. It's like one, giant, open canon of scripture. That is why they believe they are justified in teaching concepts that are absent from the Bible, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, Mary as co-redeemer, praying to Mary and the Saints, the immaculate conception, the ascension of Mary, that Mary is the mother of God, the sacrifice of the Mass, purgatory, limbo, the Eucharist, confession to priests, praying the rosary, etc, etc. This whole mountain of doctrine all hinges on the idea of apostolic succession, which in turn, is defended by the following:

I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Matthew 16:18-19

According to Catholics, this verse somehow establishes Peter as the rock upon which the entire church was built.

And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles. Acts 1:24-26

According to Catholics, the choosing of Matthias somehow establishes the idea that there is an office that needs be filled at all times. Peter, therefore, is no different. His office remains, and whoever occupies his office also possesses the keys of the kingdom, of binding on heaven and earth.

Here is the problem. Let's look at the context:

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ. Matthew 16:13-20

Here, Jesus is not saying that He would build the church upon Peter. Rather, the "Rock" upon which Christ would build His church was Peter's revelation of who Jesus Christ is. Regardless, I think there is enough ambiguity there to give me some serious pause before I would take such a giant leap in claiming such massive implications as the catholic church.

As for the passage in the first chapter of Acts, let's look at verses 16-21:

“Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. “For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry.” (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

“For it is written in the book of Psalms,
‘LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE,
AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT’;
and,
‘LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.’

“Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us -"

Peter was consciously fulfilling prophecy. Judas' office was to be taken by another not because of apostolic succession, but as a testimony against Judas - his homestead is desolate. And rather than declaring the need for an ongoing office, Peter was demonstrating the need to be mindful of God's Word.

It's all about the Word of God. It's not about the traditions of men.

____________________

As for reformed theology, really think about this:

Joe and John both hear the Gospel. Joe is hostile to the message, rejecting it outright. Having rejected Jesus Christ, Joe goes to hell. John hears the same message Joe heard, but he receives it with joy. And persevering in the faith, John goes on to Life Eternal.

Was John better than Joe? Did John merely choose to have faith? And if so, why did not Joe choose to choose faith? People do not just choose for no reason. There has to be an inclination towards one choice or the other. If God bestows the same amount of grace upon both Joe and John, yet John accepts while Joe rejects, is not the saving difference something that is inherent in John? Really ponder that.

When we read the Bible, we see it is clear that John accepted because John was given faith by God, drawn by the Father, being chosen by God. It had nothing to do with anything inside of John that was inherent to John. John 6:44 Ephesians 1:5 Romans 8:29 Acts 13:48

But it doesn't stop at salvation. The Bible teaches us that we must persevere in faith. This, too, is God's doing! John 10:29 Jude 1:24 Philippians 1:6

The fact of the matter is that we are ALL totally depraved, gone astray, and incapable of seeking after God. If any, and I mean ANY, part of salvation is contingent upon ourselves, we are without hope. Whether it is to believe correctly, respond correctly, persevere correctly, or do anything else correctly, if it falls upon us ourselves to contribute so much as a single ounce of ourselves to it, we can do nothing but bungle it. Indeed, if there is any difference between those of us who will end up in heaven and those who end up in hell, this difference is in no way inherent to us. It can't be! That is what makes it grace. We can do nothing to save ourselves - all of salvation, all of it, every last bit of it - it is GOD'S doing. And this is precisely why we must have boldness that He who began a good work in us will carry it on until completion. And for all eternity, we will not be thanking ourselves that we believed. We will not be thinking, "Phew, I'm glad I believed." Rather, we will be thanking God that He chose us, of all people, and saved us out of the world. To God and God alone, most sovereign Lord of all that is good and right and true, be all the credit and all the praise and all the glory forever and ever.

I don't think any of this really addresses the problem of evil. Which, as noted above, I'd say is probably the primary reason I just couldn't agree.

But regarding Joe and John, I would think that the "inkling" is could come from a number of things. Maybe John heard a compelling message from a millionairy while Joe did not. Or maybe John is literate and was able to understand the message better than Joe, who perhaps relied on hearsay. There are countless hypotheticals for why people make different decisions, just as we differ in all sorts of topics, such as evolution, or politics. But I wouldn't say that God is working in me and driving me to support the theory of evolution. Maybe God would have some influence in some fashion, but I'd still assume responsibility.

Whereas as noted above, if people never really had a choice then how could they be responsible for their own salvation or damnation? Just as if I don't have a choice over my skin color then how could I be responsible for it? Which in turn means that God is ultimately responsible, which further would mean that God has hardened joes heart and sent Joe to hell for no apparent reason that has anything to do with any of Joe's actions.

I see that you're saying that God is responsible for saving these people, but if the people have no choice in the matter, then God is effectively sending these people to hell also for reasons that they cannot control.

And I'm not saying that the Catholic church is right on everything. But, I just don't think it makes sense that God could both want to save everyone, and God would have enough Grace for John, but simultaneously God would not have enough Grace for Joe. Or perhaps wouldn't have the will to truly save mankind.

Now if it were Joe's choice, and if Joe truly did have a choice to accept Jesus, but still chose to reject Jesus, then God would have the justification to send Joe to hell. But if Joe never truly had a choice, and was predestined for hell, then if God created such a system, then God would be responsible for sending people to hell with no exception for any action that they could possibly take to save themselves.

Some say that God is the author of our salvation. But in this view God would almost be like an author of our damnation. And that just doesn't sound like God.


Here's an analogy. Let's say John and Joe were on a train. And this train was headed toward a cliff and a 1,000 foot fall. God created this circumstance.

So in a Catholic position, each person can make a personal choice to take a leap of faith, off of the train before it reaches the cliff. And if someone doesn't choose the leap of faith, the God is righteous and the human being is the cause of their own demise.

But if taking that leap can only happen if a shadowy figure pushes them off from behind (maybe their feet are glued to the ground and they need a push). Then really, if they don't make the jump, and they therefore cannot make the leap of faith, then the system was designed for their damnation to begin with, assuming the shadowy figure does not push them both equally. If the shadowy figure only pushes one but not the other, It would beg the question of if the shadowy figure really loved both people equally. Or if the shadowy figure truly even had the power and authority to push both people. If the shadowy figure truly willed and wanted to save both people, then the shadowy figure should save both people.

And saying "well, it's the nature of the system that cause them to go off the cliff, not God", Then of course the responses that, God is the maker of the train. Joe and John certainly didn't make the train. They never had a choice to be on the train, so how could they be responsible?

And as mentioned above some people would say that people are under sin in Adam. And I think that this sound bite sounds fancy, but I don't think it really addresses the issue. If Jesus truly saved everyone that was damned by Adam, then God would have truly balanced out the sins of Adam. But if Jesus only saves some people who had fallen under Adam, then more people fell under Adam than were lifted up by Jesus. Which just doesn't sound right. It would imply that maybe Jesus didn't fully or wholly rectify the original fall.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't think any of this really addresses the problem of evil. Which, as noted above, I'd say is probably the primary reason I just couldn't agree.

But regarding Joe and John, I would think that the "inkling" is could come from a number of things. Maybe John heard a compelling message from a millionairy while Joe did not. Or maybe John is literate and was able to understand the message better than Joe, who perhaps relied on hearsay. There are countless hypotheticals for why people make different decisions, just as we differ in all sorts of topics, such as evolution, or politics. But I wouldn't say that God is working in me and driving me to support the theory of evolution. Maybe God would have some influence in some fashion, but I'd still assume responsibility.

Whereas as noted above, if people never really had a choice then how could they be responsible for their own salvation or damnation? Just as if I don't have a choice over my skin color then how could I be responsible for it? Which in turn means that God is ultimately responsible, which further would mean that God has hardened joes heart and sent Joe to hell for no apparent reason that has anything to do with any of Joe's actions.

I see that you're saying that God is responsible for saving these people, but if the people have no choice in the matter, then God is effectively sending these people to hell also for reasons that they cannot control.

And I'm not saying that the Catholic church is right on everything. But, I just don't think it makes sense that God could both want to save everyone, and God would have enough Grace for John, but simultaneously God would not have enough Grace for Joe. Or perhaps wouldn't have the will to truly save mankind.

Now if it were Joe's choice, and if Joe truly did have a choice to accept Jesus, but still chose to reject Jesus, then God would have the justification to send Joe to hell. But if Joe never truly had a choice, and was predestined for hell, then if God created such a system, then God would be responsible for sending people to hell with no exception for any action that they could possibly take to save themselves.

Some say that God is the author of our salvation. But in this view God would almost be like an author of our damnation. And that just doesn't sound like God.


Here's an analogy. Let's say John and Joe were on a train. And this train was headed toward a cliff and a 1,000 foot fall. God created this circumstance.

So in a Catholic position, each person can make a personal choice to take a leap of faith, off of the train before it reaches the cliff. And if someone doesn't choose the leap of faith, the God is righteous and the human being is the cause of their own demise.

But if taking that leap can only happen if a shadowy figure pushes them off from behind (maybe their feet are glued to the ground and they need a push). Then really, if they don't make the jump, and they therefore cannot make the leap of faith, then the system was designed for their damnation to begin with, assuming the shadowy figure does not push them both equally. If the shadowy figure only pushes one but not the other, It would beg the question of if the shadowy figure really loved both people equally. Or if the shadowy figure truly even had the power and authority to push both people. If the shadowy figure truly willed and wanted to save both people, then the shadowy figure should save both people.

And saying "well, it's the nature of the system that cause them to go off the cliff, not God", Then of course the responses that, God is the maker of the train. Joe and John certainly didn't make the train. They never had a choice to be on the train, so how could they be responsible?

And as mentioned above some people would say that people are under sin in Adam. And I think that this sound bite sounds fancy, but I don't think it really addresses the issue. If Jesus truly saved everyone that was damned by Adam, then God would have truly balanced out the sins of Adam. But if Jesus only saves some people who had fallen under Adam, then more people fell under Adam than were lifted up by Jesus. Which just doesn't sound right. It would imply that maybe Jesus didn't fully or wholly rectify the original fall.

To follow up on this, one solution to the reformed position that might make sense is if all people, including Muslims, were saved, then God would have truly lifted all of humanity up in Jesus and would no longer be an author of damnation. Then we could all agree That God sent his only begotten son truly for all of mankind and that in this, God can still remain all powerful and all loving, and fully in control of our destiny. And the sins and crimes and pains that we observe in the physical world could simply be rectified by gifts in the afterlife which are vastly greater than any pain we would suffer here, ask scripture also describes in Romans.

Though even the idea of universalism suffers, and that why would God save people who were sinners? And what would we make of verses about hell?

So I think the easier solution is to just step away from predestination, at least in any universal sense.