Predestination?

junkyard

I hope I'm in the right forum for this one, what are your views on predestination? I'm starting to believe in it in so far as the harder I work the less I seem to achive. Other's I know who take it easy and take no responsibility for anything seem to do just as well if not better then me. I'm not just ranting here but I would like to hear what other people think about this. Should I just go with the flow and give up my fight? Or do I keep fighting and end up in an early grave. It's all a bit confusing really, any suggestions welcome.

BrettGuy

I think you are predestined to make a choice...but noone can make that for you...i suggest that maybe t ake it easy on yourself and study and take one day at a time and let Go and Let God..works for me...Studying scripture has helped me alot. I go back and i see something I didn't see before.I hope this is understandable, you have to make that choice. WE learn by making mistakes so don't be afraid in making a few..hahha:o

Dades

I strongly disagree with the predestination theory.

Life is like a pinball machine. You have minimum control over the ball - the rest of the time it just bounces about in a unpredictable fashion. You can be lucky or unlucky. But the game is not predetermined as long as you have an input, however minimal.

Don't give up any fight. Take stock of what you've got and put on those gloves again.

wolfsbane

Hi, Junkyard.

I'm a firm believer in predestination - the Biblical type, where God ordains all that comes to pass. But this does not allow one to do nothing and wait for it all to happen: God has ordained the means as well as the ends. For example, idleness generally will lead to poverty, but diligence at work to sufficiency. Regarding our salvation, unbelief leads to Hell, but repentance and faith to Heaven.

Ours is not to guess what is God's secret plan. Ours is to do His revealed will and leave Him to do His work.

Ephesians 1:11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.

UU

Myself?

I believe in destiny but not predestination. I used to attend a Presbyterian church and they believed in predestination but I didn't so I left. John Calvin, founder of the Protestant Calvinist Church put forward that our fate is decided by "God" before we are born. Although predestination isn't so much a belief of the Catholic faith as they believe that you go to heaven if you confess and are truly sorry for your sins, although it often gets misinterpreted! :rolleyes:

I never liked the prospect of having my life mapped out for me regardless of how good / bad I lived even before I existed. Everyone can make a difference if they try hard enough. Although I don't believe in "God" but in destiny and energy. Junkyard, if you accept predestination that is your choice but honestly nobody knows what the after-life is. What if you were a good person and you go to "hell" because of predestination or visa-versa - rather unfair, per se?

junkyard

I can see your points of view but I feel that influences outside our control push us into situations where in many cases we don't have a choice only to go the way we are directed. For example I've worked hard all my life and my theory was if I worked very hard early on in my life therefore I should have have been able to save enough, as I wasn't foolish with my savings, to live resonably comfortably as I got older. I was always honest in my dealings etc., and now I find that people I know who squandered their money and scammed their way through life are able to achieve incredible things in life that I can only still dream of. Other influences are bad health which I now suffer from as a result of my hard work. It just annoys me that for all my good intentions I just feel i'll end up on the scrapheap anyway. Forgive me for going on and i'm not looking for sympathy I just want to see what other people think.

wolfsbane

Junkyard said:

It just annoys me that for all my good intentions I just feel i'll end up on the scrapheap anyway.

Yes, life does not always reward the right and payback the wrongdoer. But you do have the satisfaction of knowing you did your duty regarding earning your daily bread. That is a mandate God gave every one of us, and for which He will require an account.

When you do your best and things go awry, then you can know that THIS is God's will, for so long as He sees fit. Our part is to patiently submit to it.

The real issue however is this: am I right with God? If so, my circumstances are His means of sanctifying me further, teaching me to depend on Him first of all. But if I am not right with God, then my circumstances are meant to draw me to Him, to cause me to forsake confidence in myself or some false religion and to trust in Him alone.

Knowing Him, or rather, being known by Him, is the treasure to be sought. Neither poverty or ill-health can separate us from His love, and regardless of our circumstances we will be able to say:
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. Romans 8:18.

junkyard

There was a time when I was very religious, age 9 to maybe 15 or so, but my belief faded over the years as I saw decent people suffering for no apparent reason and they were also very religious people. I feel the Bible in general has been edited by clever people over the centuries and used as a tool to keep people fearing God and under control.
I'm not looking for rewards for every good dead but I think the way mankind is heading is not a good place to be. The pressures in today's world cannot last in my opinion and how some people can exist at all supprises me even more. Good quality of life is a thing of the past for many and I find society has turned a lot more aggressive as a result. I'm probably getting a bit off topic at this stage but I feel God is not paying much attention to what's going on down here or if he is he's certainly putting a lot of faith in man kind to do the right thing. I my opinion I think maybe God should spend a bit more time down here now just like the olden days when he appeared to every Tom, Dick or Harry and set them tasks. Although on second thoughts if someone approached me with a message from God today I'd probably make my excuses and leave. Maybe that's the cynic in me or from years of let downs. But seriously I feel life for me is like waiting at a bus stop for a bus to come along and you don't know where your going or why your waiting there in the first place, I think life is just a bit pointless really because for the few pleasures there are a hell of a lot of hardships along the way. And why is it that the looking forward to anything is the best part of it, when you achieve what you set out to do there seems to be a big let down after...or maybe its just me.:rolleyes:

UU

Perhaps you should look to where 'God' is. I tried to decide what I believed in but I came out with a paradox:
"I am an atheist with a deep and abiding love of 'God'"
Contradictory? Yes. I believe that God isn't a being but a process. Many faith-bound religions are fragmenting into materialism and fundamentalism today but I have a self-spirituality. If we can create an environment, in which people can come and be inspired, not just to search, but also to recreate for them the God that organised religions have banished to heaven, then we will truly have become a force for good on earth.

Junkyard, you don't know what awaits you in the future. Although I have suffered years of emotional pain and loneliness from bullying during my childhood, and as I am now 18, the effects still linger and always will but I hope that that life treats me good but I don't know that. Anything can happen - it's called Destiny, not God. Tomorrow is another day, anything can occur. Just don't give up easily by saying that your life is mapped out for you because it isn't - every action we take continuously changes fate. Some people have an easy life while others have it harder but we are all different so don't compare your situation to anyone else. Look to what you hope the future might be but remember to take each day as it comes also.

"Some people look at what is and ask why?
I dream of what might be and ask why not?"

-Daniel

wolfsbane

Junkyard said:

I'm probably getting a bit off topic at this stage but I feel God is not paying much attention to what's going on down here or if he is he's certainly putting a lot of faith in man kind to do the right thing.

I understand why you are so confused about life. Trying to make sense of it all is just a tail-chaser - if we do not have or do not believe the master plan. The Bible is God's revelation of all we need to know for our eternal happiness. When you familiarise yourself with it you will see God is not putting any faith in man doing the right thing. Man is naturally wicked, and that manifests itself in various ways and to different degrees. Unless God intervened mankind would have destroyed itself long ago. But God has a purpose for us: He has determined that He will save a great number of mankind from their sins, changing them from fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, sodomites, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners, etc. into imitators of His Son. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9-11%20;&version=50;

This world will continue to get worse, culminating in total rebellion against God and those who love Him. Then God will bring an end to it all, rewarding the righteous and punishing the wicked:
2 Thessalonians 1:6 since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed.

That may be news to some on this list, but it is the Christian doctrine of the Last Things.

robindch

> Man is naturally wicked,

This is the second time that you've said this in the last day or two. Could you provide some evidence that people are fundamentally wicked? I certainly don't feel wicked and I don't really like your implied accusation that I am (sorry, don't know how to phrase theis politely).

Excelsior

I like Chesterton's observation that when confronted with the fact that a man can get real pleasure out of skinning a cat, the only two options are to deny the union between God and man, as the Christians do, or deny there is a God, as the atheists do.

(He added that the new theologians, think it a satisfactory solution to deny the cat.)

I think all history points towards this one fact: When **** happens, it is usually someone's fault. Human beings, given the option between a difficult good and an easy bad, will tend towards the bad. Human beings, given the option between serving themselves to the detriment of others or serving themselves only so much as is needed to free them to serve others will tend towards the first option.

So Robin, I think it hard to explain the 20th Century with a concept of human goodness. Our fellow user Wolfsbane uses language I wouldn't have chosen. Wicked seems to not be a sophisticated enough term for the tendency in us to exalt ourselves. But I think we exalt ourselves.


(It might be an interesting thread to see if the hardcore atheists would classify that as "Sin", (where you presume to temporarily use that faulty language of the Christian meme))

hairyheretic

I don't believe in predestination. The choices you make will alter your future, and the future of those around you.

Dades

Excelsior wrote:

So Robin, I think it hard to explain the 20th Century with a concept of human goodness. Our fellow user Wolfsbane uses language I wouldn't have chosen. Wicked seems to not be a sophisticated enough term for the tendency in us to exalt ourselves. But I think we exalt ourselves.

It's possible a lot of our more unsavory characteristics are leftovers from our, ahem, evolution. Maybe we are still practising "survival of the fittest" when we should be looking also to the survival of the unfit. Our tendancy to xenophobia could be traced to animal territoriality.

Of course none of that makes it right. We should be trying to suppress those desires. Isn't "sin" is just a word for doing something wrong? It's the word "wrong" that is often open to interpretation IMO.

wolfsbane

Robindch said:

This is the second time that you've said this in the last day or two. Could you provide some evidence that people are fundamentally wicked? I certainly don't feel wicked and I don't really like your implied accusation that I am (sorry, don't know how to phrase theis politely).

I'm sorry you are offended by this. I am certainly not implying you are different from the rest of us. It is God's evaluation of us, however, so your contention about your spiritual state is with Him.

'Wicked' is not often used today to describe man's bad attitudes and behaviour, unless it is for the exceptionally aweful: the child-sex-killers; the mass-murderers. So our concept of 'wicked' is relative, but God's is absolute. He sees all mankind as perverted in their innermost being, rebels against Him and His righteousness. Even those who have a concern to avoid His judgement seek to earn their way to heaven by their own righteousness.
Romans 3:9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.

To Scripture's verdict I would add my own observations: I was not taught to be envious, spiteful, callous. These things came naturally to me as a child. Certainly I was not as bad as I could have been, so I could compare myself with others and reckon my 'good' side outweighed my 'bad' side. I continued in that frame of mind until, in my mid-teens, God convicted my conscience that I was indeed unholy, without any merit, and worthy only of His eternal wrath. I happily turned from my own 'righteousness' and trusted myself to Christ and His righteousness.

Am I now perfect? Not at all - but I am not the man I once was. God has changed my heart, given my a love for Him and His ways and a dislike of my old ways. Like every true Christian, I have struggles with sin daily, for my new nature still has to confront the old nature. The difference is I am no longer under the dominion of sin. When I confront sin in my life, I can get the victory in both short and long term. When I tried that as an unbeliever, it was like rowing a boat with one oar - I moved away from the spot I touched, but I was only going round in circles. One sin was replaced by another.

I begin 6-night, 12-hour shifts tonight (Royal Mail), so I won't be able debate much 'til after Christmas, but I'll try to stick with these I'm already involved in.

robindch

> God convicted my conscience that I was indeed unholy, without
> any merit, and worthy only of His eternal wrath.

What on earth happened to you? I don't want to sound like I'm being sarcastic here, but christians generally say that the christian god is a "god of love". Why did your belief system lead you into what seems to me to be the depths of a very lonely darkness? Could it be that this experience has led you, erroneously, to believe that all of humanity is evil? And if we all are evil, then why is it that most people, most of the time, rub along just fine, and society generally becomes more peaceful as time goes by?

Asiaprod

wolfsbane wrote:

I begin 6-night, 12-hour shifts tonight (Royal Mail), so I won't be able debate much 'til after Christmas, but I'll try to stick with these I'm already involved in.

There is a lot of good stuff in your post which I would love to take up later. I tend to agree with Robindch that something has gone wrong in that you have such a low level of self esteem. For the moment deal with the workload, we can take this up later. Have a good Xmass

wolfsbane

Robindch said:

I don't want to sound like I'm being sarcastic here, but christians generally say that the christian god is a "god of love".

Yes, God is love. But that is not all the truth about Him. He is also holy and will not tolerate sin. When mankind fell into sin, God would have been perfectly just to condemn them all to eternal separation from Him. But He sent His Son to become one of them, to qualify Himself to be the substitute for everyone of them who would repent and believe in Him. That is the ultimate expression of God's love - to bear the wrath of God on behalf of His people. Christians were once the children of wrath just like everyone else, but God has pardoned them for Christ's sake and brought them into His family. The most famous verse in the Bible speaks of this: John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

So you see, the very lonely darkness was only at the point of my realization of my separation from God. When I turned to Him it was a total reverse: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=58&chapter=1&verse=12&end_verse=14&version=50&context=context

Asiaprod said:

For the moment deal with the workload, we can take this up later. Have a good Xmass

Yes, I look forward to that. Have a good one, too, my friend.

Excelsior

hairyheretic wrote:

I don't believe in predestination. The choices you make will alter your future, and the future of those around you.

Predestination in no way says that the choices you make don't alter your future or those around you. Predestination (at least as originally conceived of by Calvin) still protects the concept of Free Will.

I'll write a post about that if there is interest.

Atheist, I think big fat Gilbert Keith would say that you then deny the God in his illustration. Whether it is evolutionary or not, I propose you only tangentially touch on the issue by talking about it as a survival of the fittest hangover. Evolution doesn't eliminate God. Survival of the fittest doesn't eliminate the fact that sin is a real thing. There are wrong actions. Not everything is permissable based on context.

I'm rambling now...

hairyheretic

Excelsior wrote:

Predestination in no way says that the choices you make don't alter your future or those around you. Predestination (at least as originally conceived of by Calvin) still protects the concept of Free Will.

I'll write a post about that if there is interest.

Please do. It may be that we're thinking of different things.

I see predestination as events happening regardless of choices.

I believe that every choice made increases or decreases the likelyhood of something occuring. Its how I explain things when I do rune readings for people ... what I get from the runes is the most likely outcome, given current circumstances. If the outcome is favourable, you can work to reinforce it. If its unfavourable, by altering your current circumstances you can decrease the likelyhood of that occuring.

Dades

Excelsior wrote:

Atheist, I think big fat Gilbert Keith would say that you then deny the God in his illustration. Whether it is evolutionary or not, I propose you only tangentially touch on the issue by talking about it as a survival of the fittest hangover. Evolution doesn't eliminate God. Survival of the fittest doesn't eliminate the fact that sin is a real thing. There are wrong actions. Not everything is permissable based on context.

Strangely I was kind of agreeing with Wolfsbane in that we may have inherant "wickedness" - only I was suggesting is may come from evolution rather than anything else. I certainly wasn't trying to "eliminate" God from the fray (rather I was hoping to avoid another evolution discussion. ).

Mr Chesterton seems like an interesting chap but your reference is lost on me.

robindch

> Strangely I was kind of agreeing with Wolfsbane in that we may
> have inherant "wickedness" - only I was suggesting is may
> come from evolution rather than anything else

It seems that I'll never be able to stop pointing out that this view of evolution is absolutely wrong -- there are clear evolutionary benefits to living in a co-operative society, ie, one where "wickedness" is rare.

Have a think of it this way: all other things being equal, are there going more kids in a society where everybody's helpful and kind to each other, or where people are unhelpful and dangerous to each other? And over time, which of the two populations (the helpful or the dangerous), is going to out-populate the other?

Read of Dawkins' The Selfish Gene which talks clearly (and at length) about how co-operation almost inevitably arises; it's actually quite fascinating, and the same general rules can also be applied to other animals to explain much of their behaviour too.

> Mr Chesterton seems like an interesting chap

Up to a point. In the little of his writings that I've read, he comes across as a marginally-thoughtful christian fundamentalist. I need hardly add that he was a strident anti-evolutionist too (see here).

> I was hoping to avoid another evolution

Likewise!

Dades

Okay, firstly I was comparing the term "wickedness" loosely - a more correct attribute would a "traits".
i.e. Certain "traits" we've inherited might prevent us from being the perfect beings we are not.

robindch wrote:

It seems that I'll never be able to stop pointing out that this view of evolution is absolutely wrong -- there are clear evolutionary benefits to living in a co-operative society, ie, one where "wickedness" is rare.

I never mentioned anything about behavior within a society.

Have a think of it this way: all other things being equal, are there going more kids in a society where everybody's helpful and kind to each other, or where people are unhelpful and dangerous to each other? And over time, which of the two populations (the helpful or the dangerous), is going to out-populate the other?

Have a think about it this way:

Your tribe/pride/herd is surviving happily on it's territory and another tribe/pride/flock moves in from an area ravaged by famine. Now every member of your tribe/pride/herd is threatened as there is only enough food for one social grouping. Tribal aggression ensues.

I might refer you to Carl Sagan as it was in his writings I first saw this theory elaborated.

Excelsior

hairyheretic wrote:

I see predestination as events happening regardless of choices.

Not that it matters much to you but that is not the Christian conception of Predestination.

You have to remember that Christianity has the concept of Grace at its core. Grace says there is nothing you can do to make God love you more and nothing you can do to make God love you less because he loves you infinitely.

The perfect and pure God can't be reached through our efforts and so Grace is about the fact that in Jesus, God has restored the relationship between us and Him that we destroy when we live as if he doesn't exist (or in other words, by sin). We couldn't do it, so he did it, at great cost. This is Grace. It means we don't have to earn our reconciliation or make good on our failures, which would be impossible. It is justification by faith alone.

This is the heart of all authentic Christianity. The Bible is just one big love letter detailing this concept. And so if when it comes to working it out an interesting question arises:

If we are justified not by our own efforts but by faith in the sufficient efforts of Jesus, then is the decision of faith not a good work?

Or to put it another way, is Grace undermined because we can boast in the fact that we have decided to become Christians?

Predestination deals with this problem. It doesn't actually have much to say about Choice on a grand scale but rather with a technical aspect of Salvation. It has two components: foreknowledge and will.

Foreknowledge states that God has complete grasp of all that will happen (the jury is still out on whether God has complete grasp of all that might have happened but won't). Will is the thing that God wants to achieve. He is interested in both the final destination but also the route to get there. Fascinatingly though, he intends for us to choose the route.

All this works out as: we have complete control over our choices but God knows in advance how we choose and he knows how to work our choices towards his goal. This is actually in no way contradictory.

Most people don't have an issue with how an omnipotent and omniscient God could work choices that are less than optimum into his plan for the great finalé but a way to think about it if that is causing problems is as a beautiful tapestry being woven. All the many threads come together to make the masterpiece. The threads of God's masterpiece are our lives but we can't see the front of the tapestry from where we are. All we can see is the mess at the back of the tapestry. Although our lives seem chaotic, God is working it all to good.

Foreknowledge can be more problematic for people because they think that to know how you are going to choose is to invalidate the freedom of choice. This isn't the case. If I win €500 tonight I can go home and ask my wife whether she would like to spend that money on a great new mp3 player or on a series of great dates. I know in advance because no matter how cool she is, she is still a girly-girl at heart and she'll want to go eat in a nice restaurant and yadda yadda yadda. There is no chance she'd go for the gadgetry. I can reasonably predict all kinds of behaviour for my wife without ever infringing on her freedom to choose that behaviour. How much more so with God who searches your innermost depths?

So what Predestination says is that God calls on his foreknowledge to satisfy his will by seeing who freely chooses his offer of Grace by the end of time. At the end of time some people will have become followers of God and some won't. Those that have will have chosen to be "elected" and those that haven't face a more desperate scenario. God tolerates both of these outcomes. More than that, by allowing them to happen you could say he wills them. Or more specifically, that they are within his will. Yet they have freely excercised their choice that leads to this outcome.

God predestined/predestines some to become Christians meaning that at the end of time some people have chosen to become Christians and that is the will of God. (as an aside, he also knew who would become Christians through their own choice from before the beginning of time) Those that haven't chosen to become children of God were also known before their creation and their decision is respected and integrated into the will of God.

So predestination doesn't free you from the responsibility of choice. God's invitation is made to everyone. Grace applies to everyone. But the Grace stands up the risk of boasting on account of the fact that we choose God because God ordained the choice in the sense that He knew in advance and permitted the situations through which you can accept him.

hairyheretic

Excelsior wrote:

Not that it matters much to you but that is not the Christian conception of Predestination.

It may not matter, but I'm always curious about how other people see and understand things.

Excelsior wrote:

This is Grace. It means we don't have to earn our reconciliation or make good on our failures, which would be impossible. It is justification by faith alone.

I doubt it is what you meant, but that almost sounds like your deeds in life are worthless, if all you have to do is accept Jesus (or what have you).

Excelsior wrote:

If we are justified not by our own efforts but by faith in the sufficient efforts of Jesus, then is the decision of faith not a good work?

Or from perhaps another angle, what of acts that would normally be accounted as evil done by a person who believes those are necessary for their faith? How are those accounted?

Excelsior wrote:

Foreknowledge states that God has complete grasp of all that will happen (the jury is still out on whether God has complete grasp of all that might have happened but won't).

There is a theory (at least in sci fi if not science itself) where every choice made is a decision point that could (does?) create an alternate universe. With infinite choices made, there could be infinite parallel dimensions out there.

Excelsior wrote:

Will is the thing that God wants to achieve. He is interested in both the final destination but also the route to get there. Fascinatingly though, he intends for us to choose the route.

But if the final destination is already determined, and nothing you can do wil change that, then surely free will is effectively nullified?

Excelsior wrote:

Most people don't have an issue with how an omnipotent and omniscient God could work choices that are less than optimum into his plan

I'm not sure I can agree with that. I've seen several threads about people who suffer a crisis of faith through some personal loss, and ask how a good god could do such things.

Excelsior wrote:

Foreknowledge can be more problematic for people because they think that to know how you are going to choose is to invalidate the freedom of choice. This isn't the case.

It would appear that way to me.

Excelsior wrote:

If I win ?500 tonight I can go home and ask my wife whether she would like to spend that money on a great new mp3 player or on a series of great dates. I know in advance because no matter how cool she is, she is still a girly-girl at heart and she'll want to go eat in a nice restaurant and yadda yadda yadda. There is no chance she'd go for the gadgetry. I can reasonably predict all kinds of behaviour for my wife without ever infringing on her freedom to choose that behaviour. How much more so with God who searches your innermost depths?

If you are only allowed a certain number of choices though, is that really free will?

Excelsior wrote:

So what Predestination says is that God calls on his foreknowledge to satisfy his will by seeing who freely chooses his offer of Grace by the end of time. At the end of time some people will have become followers of God and some won't. Those that have will have chosen to be "elected" and those that haven't face a more desperate scenario. God tolerates both of these outcomes.

I think we could argue about that one for quite a while

Excelsior wrote:

So predestination doesn't free you from the responsibility of choice.

It does seem to cut it down though (to me at least). You'xe explained the concept well though, and I can understand where you're coming from now at least.

robindch

> Certain "traits" we've inherited might prevent us from
> being the perfect beings we are not.

100% agreed.

> I never mentioned anything about behavior within a society.

Anti-social behaviours (or wickedness, evils, traits, whatever you wish to call them) don't really have much meaning without a society to be anti-social within. At least, that's my way of looking at it.

> Your tribe/pride/herd is surviving happily on it's territory
> and another tribe/pride/flock moves in from an area ravaged
> by famine. Now every member of your tribe/pride/herd is
> threatened as there is only enough food for one social
> grouping. Tribal aggression ensues.

Yes, of course it does -- competition for scare resources produces violence in just about every organism that I can think of, and humans are no different (whether it's nicking somebody else's food, or their oil supplies). Any organism which is alive is, obviously enough, the latest of a long line of organisms, each of which have successfully competed for whatever resource they needed, reproductive, food, or otherwise.

But this isn't what I was talking about and apologies if I didn't make this sufficiently clear. I mean that evolution, contrary to what I understand your position is (and it's also the position of many creationists, no offence to you intended), actually *does* explain why altruistic behaviour can arise + propagate -- evolution does not require selfish, counter-productive behaviour.

And just to keep it faintly on-topic, the common belief of many religious people that one needs to be religious in order to be somehow un-wicked is referred to by memeticists as the "Altruism trick"

wolfsbane

Excelsior's understanding of the biblical doctrine of predestination is that held by most Christians today. It is not the Calvinistic one, the one held by the Reformers, Puritans and many of the great preachers down to today - for example, George Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards, William Carey, Charles Spurgeon, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John MaArthur. They held to the Calvinism that inspired the Westminister Confession of Faith (Presbyterian), 1688 Baptist Confession, the Philadelphia Confession, etc. All the big Protestant denominations, except the Methodist, are historically Calvinistic. Many have departed from their own creeds now, but this is where their denominations started.

What's the difference? Essentially it is whether predestination is based on God knowing what we will choose and so electing us on that basis, or Him electing us and then predestinating us to make that choice. The latter is Calvinism. The meaning of 'foreknowledge' in Romans 8 is in dispute - Calvinists point out is is not mere knowing before what we will choose, but rather God 'knowing' us - loving us before we even came into existence. This drws on the use of 'know' in the Scripture to denote intimate knowledge, as in Adam knowing his wife and her bearing a son as the result.

But the doctrine is easily proved from many Scripture texts, eg. 1 Corinthians 1:26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence.

Here the truth is presented that God has determined that the great majority of those who will be saved will be the foolish, weak, base, despised rather than the wise, mighty, noble. If it was down to our free-will, He would have to put up with whatever turned out.

Our will is free to decide our spiritual state, but as Luther pointed out, our free-will is tied to our sinful natures. We will always decide according to what we are in our hearts. If our hearts are alienated from God, we will freely reject Him. He does not compel us to do so - we freely choose to hate Him.

Now when it comes to being saved, how does this sinner escape his own evil choice? God spels that out for us in the terms of the New Covenant:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2031:31-33%20;&version=50;

He will give His elect a new heart, so that they will then freely choose according to their new nature. BTW, the New Covenant replaced the Old at Christ's death but it was the retrospective means of the salvation of all the saved from Adam down to then.

Must rush! Catch you tomorrow, DV.

Excelsior

hairyheretic wrote:

I doubt it is what you meant, but that almost sounds like your deeds in life are worthless, if all you have to do is accept Jesus (or what have you).

Well our deeds don't make us good with God. The Bible actually (in one of the few places where the translators deliberately water down the translation for the sake of our cultural values) says that our good works are like menstrual rags before God! Of course our tiny human lives can't lift themselves up to God. So in the question of soteriology, which is the issue of how we can be rescued, Christians would if pushed agree that our deeds are worthless.

But the Christian belief is that we are saved by faith, for works. That is, we are do good works out of gratitude and not seeking repayment. Entirely different way of looking at things but much healthier and I would argue ultimately, resonates with us as true.

hh wrote:

Or from perhaps another angle, what of acts that would normally be accounted as evil done by a person who believes those are necessary for their faith? How are those accounted?

I don't see that as another angle on the question I asked. If someone mistakenly does something evil under the impression that they are right because they are Christians, the just and pure God will hold them accountable for that as an evil action. For example, Rev. Phelps and his lunatic supporters who picket the funerals of AIDS victims are doing evil in the eyes of God, regardless of how they view themselves. But their evil, like all our evil, is nullified by Jesus' payment, which brings us back to the Grace concept of nothing we can do to make God love us more or less.

The question that I was asking is whether it is a good work that you can claim for yourself to choose to believe in Jesus?

hh wrote:

There is a theory (at least in sci fi if not science itself) where every choice made is a decision point that could (does?) create an alternate universe. With infinite choices made, there could be infinite parallel dimensions out there.

And I would be of the opinion that regardless of how the universe works itself out, God is aware of all the unfulfilled potentialities as well as the actualities. But I know some who argue that since the unfulfilled potentialities "do not exist", God can't know them.

hh wrote:

But if the final destination is already determined, and nothing you can do wil change that, then surely free will is effectively nullified?

Not at all. The final effect that is determined is the redemption of the whole Cosmos. Behold, he is making all things new! and all that jazz. But between now and then we can choose to participate in that or not. The glory of God is revealed in that he is working free choices of free agents into his plan in real time (where the phrase "in real time" is very misleading since God is outside time). You are free to live your life as a Norse Pagan (I apologise if I have mischaracterised you) and God is weaving that free choice into the ultimate redemption of everything.

hh wrote:

I'm not sure I can agree with that. I've seen several threads about people who suffer a crisis of faith through some personal loss, and ask how a good god could do such things.

You make a very good point here in response to mine. I would have to agree with you and say that there are a lot of people who have difficulty believing that God works less than optimum life-choices by humans into his plan.

But if I was in a pastoring and caring relationship with such a person I would ask them to consider their assumptions. If you assume that there is an all-powerful and all-loving God you must also struggle with the likelihood that that God might have intentions and motivations beyond our struggle. Philosophically robust but not at all comforting! One would have to be sensitive when making that argument.

Anyway, Predestination is built on this concept of a glorious God working even drunk drivers whose choices kill people into something new.

hh wrote:

If you are only allowed a certain number of choices though, is that really free will?

Of course it is. That is the way it is with all choices. All choices are limited to some degree. We don't have unlimited choice, ever.

hh wrote:

I think we could argue about that one for quite a while

I think we should! Start a thread if you want to.

hh wrote:

It does seem to cut it down though (to me at least). You'xe explained the concept well though, and I can understand where you're coming from now at least.

Thanks. I think Predestination leaves choice well alone. Ultimately, Christianity is founded on the idea that the ultimately free God gifted us with freedom as humans in his generosity. It is because of this freedom of choice that we can be held accountable for sin at all. If we have no choice, we have no responsibility. So Predestination, as I read it in the Bible (admitedly with 3 references, in Romans and Ephesians causing my interpretation difficulty) is almost parallel to choice instead of limiting it.

The hyper-Calvinism that Wolfsbane extends is a choice-limitation but I will look forward to reading Calvin's Institutes of Religion because a few Calvin experts I know have told me that the Calvinists are much more Calvinist than Calvin himself, if that makes sense.

hairyheretic

Excelsior wrote:

Well our deeds don't make us good with God. The Bible actually (in one of the few places where the translators deliberately water down the translation for the sake of our cultural values) says that our good works are like menstrual rags before God! Of course our tiny human lives can't lift themselves up to God. So in the question of soteriology, which is the issue of how we can be rescued, Christians would if pushed agree that our deeds are worthless.

I think I would have to disagree with that. I believe that your deeds do count.

Excelsior wrote:

But the Christian belief is that we are saved by faith, for works. That is, we are do good works out of gratitude and not seeking repayment. Entirely different way of looking at things but much healthier and I would argue ultimately, resonates with us as true.

I can understand that perspective.

Excelsior wrote:

I don't see that as another angle on the question I asked.

Looking back I seee that I misunderstood what you were saying. My bad.

Excelsior wrote:

If someone mistakenly does something evil under the impression that they are right because they are Christians, the just and pure God will hold them accountable for that as an evil action. For example, Rev. Phelps and his lunatic supporters who picket the funerals of AIDS victims are doing evil in the eyes of God, regardless of how they view themselves. But their evil, like all our evil, is nullified by Jesus' payment, which brings us back to the Grace concept of nothing we can do to make God love us more or less.

So god still loves those who do evil in his name? What then will their fate be?

Excelsior wrote:

The question that I was asking is whether it is a good work that you can claim for yourself to choose to believe in Jesus?

I'm not really sure I understand that. I don't see any profession of belief to be a good work in and off itself.

Excelsior wrote:

And I would be of the opinion that regardless of how the universe works itself out, God is aware of all the unfulfilled potentialities as well as the actualities. But I know some who argue that since the unfulfilled potentialities "do not exist", God can't know them.

Parallel dimensions make everyones head hurt

Excelsior wrote:

Not at all. The final effect that is determined is the redemption of the whole Cosmos. Behold, he is making all things new! and all that jazz. But between now and then we can choose to participate in that or not. The glory of God is revealed in that he is working free choices of free agents into his plan in real time (where the phrase "in real time" is very misleading since God is outside time). You are free to live your life as a Norse Pagan (I apologise if I have mischaracterised you) and God is weaving that free choice into the ultimate redemption of everything.

You haven't mischaracterised me, so don't worry about that.

Excelsior wrote:

You make a very good point here in response to mine. I would have to agree with you and say that there are a lot of people who have difficulty believing that God works less than optimum life-choices by humans into his plan.

Its just human nature to do so I guess.

Excelsior wrote:

But if I was in a pastoring and caring relationship with such a person I would ask them to consider their assumptions. If you assume that there is an all-powerful and all-loving God you must also struggle with the likelihood that that God might have intentions and motivations beyond our struggle. Philosophically robust but not at all comforting! One would have to be sensitive when making that argument.

Very true.

Excelsior wrote:

Of course it is. That is the way it is with all choices. All choices are limited to some degree. We don't have unlimited choice, ever.

Well, there is that as well.

Excelsior wrote:

I think we should! Start a thread if you want to.

My point was that what you were saying there is the crux of religious belief.

You believe that those who are not christian will have a problem when they pass beyond this life.

I believe that if I live an honourable life, according to the tenets of my own belief, that I will receive what I am due then.

Am I right? Are you? Is someone else entirely?

We all have our own beliefs.

As a tangent, I believe that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all worship the same deity. Does that not make their beliefs similarly valid to your own?

Excelsior wrote:

Thanks. I think Predestination leaves choice well alone. Ultimately, Christianity is founded on the idea that the ultimately free God gifted us with freedom as humans in his generosity. It is because of this freedom of choice that we can be held accountable for sin at all. If we have no choice, we have no responsibility. So Predestination, as I read it in the Bible (admitedly with 3 references, in Romans and Ephesians causing my interpretation difficulty) is almost parallel to choice instead of limiting it.

Ok.

Let me ask something else then.

Let us assume that you are right in what you say, and that predestination occurs as you have laid out. There are many people who are born, live what would be considered good lives, and die, without ever coming across any reference to christianity.

By what you say, that person is going to have problems in the afterlife. Why then would your god create that person only to eternally punish them for something over which they have no control?

Excelsior wrote:

The hyper-Calvinism that Wolfsbane extends is a choice-limitation but I will look forward to reading Calvin's Institutes of Religion because a few Calvin experts I know have told me that the Calvinists are much more Calvinist than Calvin himself, if that makes sense.

My only experience of Calvin has "And Hobbes" after it, so I'm afraid I'll have to bow out of that conversation

Kernel

Very good question and one I have been pondering lately. I believe that everything happens to us in life for a reason. There are few chance encounters or experiences (if any), and that we all have been given free will to react in a certain way to these experiences - which would in all probability be given to us in order for our souls to learn and to change. That, imo, is the powerful thing about faith. If we give ourselves to the creator, and accept that His plan and His will will be done, and be for the benefit of our own immortal soul, and try to accept the lessons and learn from them, it gives a calmness to the uncertainty of our lives. The Lord is my shepard after all.

Everything that has happened to us, even the bad things, have made us who we are today, and who we are is often changing, hopefully to the point that we are ready for the next level, the Kingdom.

The truly amazing thing is that God would have to have anticipated all of the choices of all of the people, and directed the experiences towards us to teach us the things we need. But then, I guess that's why He's God.

wolfsbane

Excelsior said:

The hyper-Calvinism that Wolfsbane extends is a choice-limitation but I will look forward to reading Calvin's Institutes of Religion because a few Calvin experts I know have told me that the Calvinists are much more Calvinist than Calvin himself, if that makes sense.

There are nuances in Calvinism, some pretty important, hyper-Calvinism being one of these. But I am not a hyper-Calvinist. The doctrines I stated are classic Calvinism. Your misunderstanding is very widespread amongst Christians today, seemingly originating in the misrepresentation of Calvinism carried out by American Fundamentalism. (I have a friend who was expelled from Bob Jones University for holding to Calvinism.)

American Fundamentalists are bitterly opposed to Calvinism and some of their leaders had no problem about misleading their hearers about it. They could not deny that Calvinism was held by the great heroes of the faith, eg. William Carey, the founder of the modern missionary movement, and C.H.Spurgeon, widely regarded as the greatest preacher since NT times. One of the Fundamentalists edited out the Calvinism from these great men's comments, without letting the reader know it had happened. Others acknowledged their Calvinism, but sought to portray it as something like their own 'once saved, always saved' doctrine. So they then described historic Calvinism as 'hyper-Calvinism'.

Hyper-Calvinism involves a denial of the duty of man to believe. Calvinism holds that all men everywhere are under God's command to repent and believe. But neither position really touches on the issue of Predestination: both Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists believe in God's unconditional election, ie. that the elect were predestined not on condition of their choice, but only of God's free-will.

hairyheretic said:

My only experience of Calvin has "And Hobbes" after it,

Ah, I see you are refined in your reading, like myself.:) These and Inspector Clousou are guaranteed to have the tears rolling down my cheeks.

Excelsior

hairyheretic wrote:

I think I would have to disagree with that. I believe that your deeds do count.

I think they count as well, but not for salvation. You can understand the saved by faith (without deeds) for works concept that marks Christianity out as different.

hh wrote:

So god still loves those who do evil in his name? What then will their fate be?

Yes. Absolutely yes. Most certainly yes. There is nothing you can do to make God love you more. There is nothing you can do to make God love you less. Those who do evil, thinking it to be in his name will be judged like the rest of us- fairly. But the justice of God is based on his desire to be in personal relationship with each of us. So if they are in a relationship grounded (like all relationships) on faith, then they will be beneficiaries of the gift Jesus gave them at Easter.

hh wrote:

I'm not really sure I understand that. I don't see any profession of belief to be a good work in and off itself.

Well then you and I agree. I don't think you can boast in making a sensible choice. Others disagree. They include a good friend of mine who is a philosopher at UCD who refuses to become a Christian because he thinks that choosing Christ is a good deed that earns salvation, rendering the whole system incoherent.

hh wrote:

My point was that what you were saying there is the crux of religious belief. You believe that those who are not christian will have a problem when they pass beyond this life. I believe that if I live an honourable life, according to the tenets of my own belief, that I will receive what I am due then.

Am I right? Are you? Is someone else entirely?

[I get a little controversial here, I don't mean to offend at all]
I might be wrong. But with respect, I feel fairly certain that you are wrong. How can we be judged on how sincerely we lived our lives?!? Surely our stated and professed beliefs are a less true reflection of what we really believe than our actions.

I act a certain way because I believe it to be the right course. If I have sex with another woman, I am breaking the Christian creed I subscribe too but in the moment of the decision, I cannot be said to believe that adultery is an infinite rejection of an all loving Creator God. If I really believed in Christianity, then at the moment of decision I would choose not to be unfaithful to my wife. If I am unfaithful to my wife, surely that is a more accurate reflection of my true interior state than my professions on this board?

So as I read it, what you are proposing is self-consistency as the means to salvation. If we behave as we profess to believe, we will be proven alright when the day comes. But the most self-consistent people in the world are the sociopaths and the psychopaths. They don't hide their motivations, intentions and goals in thought or deed. Their whole waking day is a consistent model of their professed goal which is self-exaltation through whatever avenue their illness flows through. So are the mentally ill more virtuous than the rest of us?

If I consistenly live out a stated belief system based on the destruction of everything around me, am I going to be ok? Of course not. Because the standard by which we are judged cannot be ourselves. There is a higher standard. What that higher standard is, is the question that we are all grappling around trying to find. Robin might say that it is perceiving that this higher standard talk is an evolutionary side-effect that no longer has any fitness function. Asiaprod might argue that the higher standard is Maya. (I apologise if I have brutalised your belief systems!) I argue that the higher standard is the Creator God. Whether we are all wrong or only one of us is right, we can't all be right.

hh wrote:

As a tangent, I believe that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all worship the same deity. Does that not make their beliefs similarly valid to your own?

Not at all. Christianity says that the promised Messiah of Judaism is Jesus of Nazareth and in a surprise to everyone at the time, he is also God. Judaism says that there will be a Messiah but he hasn't come yet. Islam says that Jesus can't possibly be Messiah and he cannot under any circumstances be God.

All of these belief systems are revlatory.

The same God could not have revealed them. Christians and Jews do not worship the same God as Muslims.

hh wrote:

Let us assume that you are right in what you say, and that predestination occurs as you have laid out. There are many people who are born, live what would be considered good lives, and die, without ever coming across any reference to christianity.

By what you say, that person is going to have problems in the afterlife. Why then would your god create that person only to eternally punish them for something over which they have no control?

He creates all people so they can have a chance of hanging out with him. He says that everyone will be judged fairly. Those who haven't heard of anything about the Gospel will be judged on what they do know and have lived. Those who have heard the Gospel and rejected God will not so much be punished as will be, in the words of the Bible "given over" to their own choices. The doors of hell are locked on the inside.

What I mean by this is that if you spend your whole life walking away from God, then when you die, you are given the dignity of choice to even then keep walking away. Those that walk away walk into hell. Those that spent their life rejecting God continue to reject him in the afterlife. This is the God who told his autobiography in the form of the Prodigal Son. He will readily accept everyone back into his home, regardless of what they have done. He has created them so that they would choose to love him (for forced love is no love at all) and if they refuse to love him, then they refuse to love him.

Those that haven't heard the Gospel get judged fairly based on what they do know and on that basis will be given the opportunity to share God's presence.

wolfsbane

Excelsior said:

Those that haven't heard the Gospel get judged fairly based on what they do know and on that basis will be given the opportunity to share God's presence.

I've never read this in the Bible. Have you Scripture to prove it or do you say it just because it seems 'fair'?

Excelsior

Prepare the pyre for the heretic.

We touch on this issue in another thread. I love the tone by the way, Wolfsbane, of your question. Loaded with the orthodoxy-police attitudes of modern evangelicalism.

Proof texting is the way to righteousness and by Scripture alone can we know anything!

Romans 1 and 7 but suggest that just judgement of those unaware of the life and ministry of Christ will be based on the truth they do know. By saying that I am not suggesting that they will automatically be saved. I am rather upholding that the utterly Biblical idea that only through Christ can one reach the Father means that there may be roads outside of man-made Christianity that lead home.

wolfsbane

Excelsior said:

I love the tone by the way, Wolfsbane, of your question. Loaded with the orthodoxy-police attitudes of modern evangelicalism.

No tone, my friend. Just a simple question - Do you have Scriptural proof for your assertion that man can be saved without the gospel? You seem to be replying with a negative, and saying that such a demand is improper. If that were the case then we all can make it up as we go, presenting what we think should be the Christian message. Many of the others on this forum have presented what they think is a good and fair world-view. If they want to call it Christianity, what can you say to them? To re-incarnation, karma, etc? Of course, you already did - you pointed out that it is not Christian teaching because it is not what the Bible says. Is this not proof-texting?

Even more, did not Christ answer Satan by proof-texting? Did He not answer in the same way those who asked Him questions or raised objections to His teachings?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:1-11%20;&version=50;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012:1-8%20;&version=50;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:4-6%20;&version=50;

Luke 24:25 Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

I am rather upholding that the utterly Biblical idea that only through Christ can one reach the Father means that there may be roads outside of man-made Christianity that lead home.

Man-made Christianity? I would agree that one does not have to be a member of a Baptist, Anglican, etc. church to be saved. But one does have to hear and believe the gospel. You were saying that mere nature and conscience can give one saving knowledge of God. Paul says men without the gospel are without God and without hope.

The gospel is not a better way to be saved, it is the only way. That is the historic Christian position. Modern ideas may claim to know better - but they cannot point to Scripture for support. I know that tenderness of heart has led good men to imagine such things as salvation without the gospel and even Universalism (the belief that eventually everyone without exception will be saved). But this is our knowing better than God how to run His universe. It is not what the Bible teaches. When we face that fact we must decide who knows best, us or God.

hairyheretic

Excelsior wrote:

I think they count as well, but not for salvation. You can understand the saved by faith (without deeds) for works concept that marks Christianity out as different.

I can understand it, but I can't agree with it. I believe that your words and deeds are what will determine what happens to you.

Excelsior wrote:

Yes. Absolutely yes. Most certainly yes. There is nothing you can do to make God love you more. There is nothing you can do to make God love you less.

Well, even if he loves them, I imagine he feels pretty disappointed in certain segments of his flock from time to time.

Excelsior wrote:

Those who do evil, thinking it to be in his name will be judged like the rest of us- fairly. But the justice of God is based on his desire to be in personal relationship with each of us. So if they are in a relationship grounded (like all relationships) on faith, then they will be beneficiaries of the gift Jesus gave them at Easter.

Chocolate eggs?

Excelsior wrote:

Well then you and I agree. I don't think you can boast in making a sensible choice. Others disagree. They include a good friend of mine who is a philosopher at UCD who refuses to become a Christian because he thinks that choosing Christ is a good deed that earns salvation, rendering the whole system incoherent.

I can't see that simply choosing a faith is worth anything. Living a good life, in accodance with the beliefs of your faith is what should gain you a reward.

Excelsior wrote:

[I get a little controversial here, I don't mean to offend at all]

Whether or not I agree with what you say, you've every right to say it. And I'm fairly hard to offend, most of the time.

Excelsior wrote:

I might be wrong. But with respect, I feel fairly certain that you are wrong.

We each believe what we believe. The only time that we will really know is when we pass beyond. My faith is enough that I have no fear of leaving this life.

Excelsior wrote:

How can we be judged on how sincerely we lived our lives?!? Surely our stated and professed beliefs are a less true reflection of what we really believe than our actions.

Perhaps I was less clear than I should be. We each should try to live our lives in accordance with the stated beliefs of our faith.

Excelsior wrote:

I act a certain way because I believe it to be the right course. If I have sex with another woman, I am breaking the Christian creed I subscribe too but in the moment of the decision, I cannot be said to believe that adultery is an infinite rejection of an all loving Creator God. If I really believed in Christianity, then at the moment of decision I would choose not to be unfaithful to my wife. If I am unfaithful to my wife, surely that is a more accurate reflection of my true interior state than my professions on this board?

If you profess one thing, and do another, then certainly you're not living by the beliefs of your faith, no matter how loudly or often you might proclaim it.

Excelsior wrote:

So as I read it, what you are proposing is self-consistency as the means to salvation. If we behave as we profess to believe, we will be proven alright when the day comes.

Not exactly. You still need to follow the postive aspects of your belief, those that you are told will lead to your reward.

Excelsior wrote:

But the most self-consistent people in the world are the sociopaths and the psychopaths. They don't hide their motivations, intentions and goals in thought or deed. Their whole waking day is a consistent model of their professed goal which is self-exaltation through whatever avenue their illness flows through. So are the mentally ill more virtuous than the rest of us?

Are their acts good or evil?

Let me ask you this then. If someone does "good deeds" in the belief that they're earning spiritual brownie points, are they in fact then selfishly motivated ones, hence not really good?

Excelsior wrote:

If I consistenly live out a stated belief system based on the destruction of everything around me, am I going to be ok? Of course not. Because the standard by which we are judged cannot be ourselves. There is a higher standard. What that higher standard is, is the question that we are all grappling around trying to find. Robin might say that it is perceiving that this higher standard talk is an evolutionary side-effect that no longer has any fitness function. Asiaprod might argue that the higher standard is Maya. (I apologise if I have brutalised your belief systems!) I argue that the higher standard is the Creator God. Whether we are all wrong or only one of us is right, we can't all be right.

We don't know. Perhaps we can all be right. Perhaps every spiritual path has its own places of reward and punishment, where those who follow the path will eventually go.

We don't know.

Far wiser than us have been debating these questions for centuries, so the odds of one of us coming up with THE ANSWER are pretty slim.

For myself, I believe that if I live my life in accordance with the ways the gods have shown us, I will receive my due.

I posted in another thread a bare bones of what I believe .. rather than repost it all, here's the linky

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3418126&postcount=18

What I can boil it down to is this:

I believe that the Asatru Religion, guided by the great Gods of Asgard, provides the best Way of Life for all who choose to follow it, and that the Asatru Way of Life esteems: courage, honor, hospitality, independence (and liberty), individuality (with self- reliance and self-responsibility), industriousness (and perseverance), justice (including an innate sense of fairness and respect for others), loyalty (to family, friends, and the society of which one is a part), truthfulness, and a willingness to stand up for
and do what is right.

I believe that when I die my Spirit will live on in Asgard, if I have earned it, in the company of all of the Aesir and the Vanir --so help me Tyr and Zisa.

I didn't write that, but its what I believe.

I won't claim that its right for everyone, but I believe its right for me.

Excelsior wrote:

Not at all. Christianity says that the promised Messiah of Judaism is Jesus of Nazareth and in a surprise to everyone at the time, he is also God. Judaism says that there will be a Messiah but he hasn't come yet. Islam says that Jesus can't possibly be Messiah and he cannot under any circumstances be God.

All of these belief systems are revlatory.

But don't they all have the same deity at the core? Or am I wrong in that?

Excelsior wrote:

The same God could not have revealed them. Christians and Jews do not worship the same God as Muslims.

Thats odd. I had always understood that all 3 religions believed in the same god.

Excelsior wrote:

He creates all people so they can have a chance of hanging out with him. He says that everyone will be judged fairly. Those who haven't heard of anything about the Gospel will be judged on what they do know and have lived. Those who have heard the Gospel and rejected God will not so much be punished as will be, in the words of the Bible "given over" to their own choices. The doors of hell are locked on the inside.

But with the ammount of lawyers down there I'm sure they've been forced to open the doors for fire safety reasons

Excelsior wrote:

What I mean by this is that if you spend your whole life walking away from God, then when you die, you are given the dignity of choice to even then keep walking away. Those that walk away walk into hell. Those that spent their life rejecting God continue to reject him in the afterlife. This is the God who told his autobiography in the form of the Prodigal Son. He will readily accept everyone back into his home, regardless of what they have done. He has created them so that they would choose to love him (for forced love is no love at all) and if they refuse to love him, then they refuse to love him.

Again we come to belief though. You believe this is the fate of those who do not share your beliefs. Each of those people has their own beliefs about what will happen when they die.

Excelsior wrote:

Those that haven't heard the Gospel get judged fairly based on what they do know and on that basis will be given the opportunity to share God's presence.

If you'll pardon my saying so, I'm more used to hearing the refrain of "If you're not christian, you're toast" when it comes to the afterlife.

JustHalf

wolfsbane wrote:

The gospel is not a better way to be saved, it is the only way. That is the historic Christian position. Modern ideas may claim to know better - but they cannot point to Scripture for support. I know that tenderness of heart has led good men to imagine such things as salvation without the gospel and even Universalism (the belief that eventually everyone without exception will be saved). But this is our knowing better than God how to run His universe. It is not what the Bible teaches. When we face that fact we must decide who knows best, us or God.

Did Abraham and Moses both hear the gospel? Or did they both follow the Law to the letter and become justified by works?

wolfsbane

JustHalf said:

Did Abraham and Moses both hear the gospel? Or did they both follow the Law to the letter and become justified by works?

A very pertinent question. The Bible answers it clearly:

Abraham:

Romans 4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt....20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. 22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

Moses (through whom the Law came):

Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Both:

John 8:51 Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death.”
52 Then the Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon! Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word he shall never taste death.’ 53 Are You greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? And the prophets are dead. Who do You make Yourself out to be?”
54 Jesus answered, “If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God. 55 Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
57 Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”
58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

John 5:45 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

Excelsior

wolfsbane wrote:

If that were the case then we all can make it up as we go, presenting what we think should be the Christian message. Many of the others on this forum have presented what they think is a good and fair world-view. If they want to call it Christianity, what can you say to them? To re-incarnation, karma, etc? Of course, you already did - you pointed out that it is not Christian teaching because it is not what the Bible says. Is this not proof-texting?

Wolfsbane, if I ever slip into holding the Bible as a secondary source for doctrine, rest assured that it will be replaced by even better things like CS Lewis and Philip Yancey.

Seriously though, I think that there are three issues at hand here:
1) What is proof-texting and what good is it?
2) What can we read from the Bible about judgement
The real question:
3) Does the Bible (through a theory of Predestination) teach that we are without choice in issues of soteriology.

(1)

Wolfsbane wrote:

Even more, did not Christ answer Satan by proof-texting? Did He not answer in the same way those who asked Him questions or raised objections to His teachings?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:1-11%20;&version=50;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012:1-8%20;&version=50;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:4-6%20;&version=50;

Touché old boy! But the problem is that Matthew offers us a paragraph glimpse of a titannic 40 day struggle. Jesus uses the Scriptures to ground his position and there are sharp ends to those Scriptures that Matthew quotes, but I think the battle between Jesus and Satan was more than a discussion over a cup of coffee and biblegateway.com

Wolfsbane wrote:

Luke 24:25 Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

This is much more Jesus' style. He has really loves those Scriptures he commissioned and he doesn't break them down into sentences to be interpreted like Kabballah but beginning at the Pentateuch he spans the whole testimony of Scripture to make his point. Surely this is how we should argue too?

If Proof-Texting means showing how the whole of Scripture supports us then let us proof-text till we die. But what I think of with proof-texting is Open Theists using verses out of context to argue for their picture of God.


(2) The Bible clearly paints a picture of God putting people away from him. But it also, throughout the whole scope of its story, exalts free will as the means by which any value can be held in the choices people make. The choices that people make through free will lead them to the place where God puts them away. And in that spot, although God is sending them away, they are also sending themselves away. As awful as eternity without God is, they have chosen a lifetime without him already. In that sense, I think that there is a clear way to talk about the gates of hell being locked from the inside, just as the door of people's lives that Jesus knocks on is locked from the inside.

(3) I suspect that your disagreement with me is not so much on the coherence of my argument but on the assumptions I make. I suspect your interpretation of predestination is not one that holds choice of Man and will of God equally in hand but exalts the will of God at the cost of the choice of Man. I would love for you, if this is the case, to start a thread or send me a pm to try and explain it to me.

Wolfsbane wrote:

The gospel is not a better way to be saved, it is the only way. That is the historic Christian position.

I agree wholeheartedly. I am not softening the position that Jesus alone is the way to the Father. But the Gospel is more than Justification by Faith Alone. It is definitely more than justification by justification by faith alone which is what I fear you might be straying into.

God's justice is fair. For those born before Jesus's incarnation, it will not be by Law that they are saved but like Abraham, by faith in God's Covenantal redemption plan. I think that a similar position can not be discounted for those outside of the revelation today.

God's justice is just. Hell for those who have not heard an alternative is not just. I argue simply that there is a just assessment for them through which the Good and Momentous News of the mission of Christ Jesus might apply as it did for the Hebrews 13 heroes of faith.

wolfsbane

Excelsior said:

If Proof-Texting means showing how the whole of Scripture supports us then let us proof-text till we die. But what I think of with proof-texting is Open Theists using verses out of context to argue for their picture of God.

We agree. When I asked for Scripture to prove your assertion of salvation without the gospel, I was asking for ecactly that - and willing to provide an abundance of Scripture to show that those without the gospel are 'without hope and without God', to quote the apostle.

And in that spot, although God is sending them away, they are also sending themselves away. As awful as eternity without God is, they have chosen a lifetime without him already. In that sense, I think that there is a clear way to talk about the gates of hell being locked from the inside, just as the door of people's lives that Jesus knocks on is locked from the inside.

Again, we agree. It was just that you seemed to suggest that at the Judgement the sinner was still being offered heaven but still chooses to walk away. Whereas the Scripture shows that when the Judgement comes, the day of mercy and grace is over. When Christ returns it is to rescue the righteous and bring retribution to the ungodly, eg:
2 Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

2 Thessalonians 1:6 since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed.

The real question:
3) Does the Bible (through a theory of Predestination) teach that we are without choice in issues of soteriology.

Yes, that is the kernal of our debate. No, that is not what Calvinism teaches. We teach that man freely chooses according to his nature. No one compels him to sin, to reject Christ. He does so freely, because that is the sort of person he is. That was my experience too. I'm sure Atheist and the other non-Christians on board will say that their present rejection of the God of the Bible is absolutely of their own choice.

The difference for Christians is that God intervened in our lives, gave us a new nature ('a new heart', as the New Covenant describes it). This new man then freely decides according to his new nature, gladly repenting of his sin and trusting in Christ.

The key fact: Man's will is tied to his nature and operates freely in that. Man being a sinner by birth, his choice will always be to reject Christ. When God changes that nature, his choice will always be to accept Christ. That is why salvation always came by the eternal covenant, not the Law or conscience. It took God to change us, 'I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people'. Jeremiah 31:33b.

I am not softening the position that Jesus alone is the way to the Father. But the Gospel is more than Justification by Faith Alone. It is definitely more than justification by justification by faith alone which is what I fear you might be straying into.

Yes, it is by Grace Alone, through Faith Alone, in Christ Alone. No mere espousal of or trust in a doctrine can save - only in the One whom the doctrine declares. But you seem to be saying that Hindus, Moslems, Budhists, etc. may well be saved by sincerely being devoted to what they understand of the nature of the real God. The objection being answered was that the Christian gospel means that the great majority of mankind will be in hell. Are you saying there are not?

For those born before Jesus's incarnation, it will not be by Law that they are saved but like Abraham, by faith in God's Covenantal redemption plan. I think that a similar position can not be discounted for those outside of the revelation today.

That seems self-contradictory: 'by faith in God's Covenantal redemption plan' cannot be equated with 'outside of the revelation today'. One was with God's revelation - the gospel being told to Abraham - but this supposed heathen today is to be saved without such revelation. Natre and conscience was not enough for Abraham, and is not enough for the heathen today.

God's justice is just. Hell for those who have not heard an alternative is not just. I argue simply that there is a just assessment for them through which the Good and Momentous News of the mission of Christ Jesus might apply as it did for the Hebrews 13 heroes of faith.

The heroes of Hebrews 13 all heard the good news. they were not saved in ignorance of God and His promise of a Saviour.

More later - must rush.

wolfsbane

Just to finish-up on Excelsior's point:

God's justice is just. Hell for those who have not heard an alternative is not just.

It is not their ignorance that makes them guilty. It is their sin. We all were in the same position - children of wrath. For God to be fair in the terms you suggest, He would have to give exactly the same levels of light to every person: for the animist villager living in fear of demons all his life, for the indoctrinated communist in North Korea, for the ignorant hedonist in Britain, for those raised in Gospel truth at their mother's knee. That is evidently not so.

The fairness issue relates to God saving some and not others. Is He not entitled to do so? None deserve His mercy, so they can have no complaint. If He chooses to spare some of these wicked people, what can we call that but amazing grace? The apostle Paul deals with this very objection:
Romans 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Excelsior

Brilliant posting Wolfsbane. I am convinced of
a) The ambiguity in my posting
b) The ambiguity in my thought (though not as great as a) would suggest)

Now if you want to join me in spreading orthodoxy over WiseOne's gay-hating and Christ-denying, we'd be onto a winner.

I'm still not utterly convinced by Calvinism yet. Give me time and I am sure my heart will harden to my fellow man and I will accept your determinism.

wolfsbane

Excelsior said:

Now if you want to join me in spreading orthodoxy over WiseOne's gay-hating and Christ-denying, we'd be onto a winner.

Good to have been sharpening iron with you on this thread, brother. I will have a look at this other tonight.