nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

God has put us here for a reason

theological

Another thought and another thread.

One of my favourite passages in the Bible comes from the Acts of the Apostles where Paul is preaching in Athens. I find the Acts of the Apostles a hugely encouraging and exciting book to read because the gospel grows and grows even in the face of opposition. We see people sacrificing themselves for a greater work which is to point people to the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.

In this passage in Athens Paul had just walked by a statue to an unknown God and he begins preaching about God who is known through Jesus Christ.

Acts 17:22-34 wrote:

So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for

“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;

as even some of your own poets have said,

“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” So Paul went out from their midst. But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.

In this passage we see a surprising claim in verses 26 and 27. It is the claim that God has determined where we live so that we should find Him. God can be known because He entered into this world in Jesus Christ in history (verse 31) which gives us assurance both of the gospel and the day to come.

It's also interesting to note that although Paul says that God has put them in this place for a given time. Paul has gone to them to share the good news of Jesus.

A few questions.
For Christians:
Paul says that God has made us His offspring. Does that encourage you? Why or why not?

Why do you think God has put you where you are right now? How can you bring the gospel to others?

Paul speaks about repentance in verse 30? What does that mean?

Non-Christians:
Why do you think you are where you are right now? Do you believe your life has a purpose? Why or why not?

All:
Paul is open air preaching in the middle of Athens. What do you think of this? Is there a role for this today?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

antiskeptic

theological wrote: »

Another thought and another thread.

One of my favourite passages in the Bible comes from the Acts of the Apostles where Paul is preaching in Athens. I find the Acts of the Apostles a hugely encouraging and exciting book to read because the gospel grows and grows even in the face of opposition. We see people sacrificing themselves for a greater work which is to point people to the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.

In this passage in Athens Paul had just walked by a statue to an unknown God and he begins preaching about God who is known through Jesus Christ.

In this passage we see a surprising claim in verses 26 and 27. It is the claim that God has determined where we live so that we should find Him. God can be known because He entered into this world in Jesus Christ in history (verse 31) which gives us assurance both of the gospel and the day to come.

It's also interesting to note that although Paul says that God has put them in this place for a given time. Paul has gone to them to share the good news of Jesus.

A few questions.
For Christians:
Paul says that God has made us His offspring. Does that encourage you? Why or why not?

Why do you think God has put you where you are right now? How can you bring the gospel to others?

Paul speaks about repentance in verse 30? What does that mean?

Non-Christians:
Why do you think you are where you are right now? Do you believe your life has a purpose? Why or why not?

All:
Paul is open air preaching in the middle of Athens. What do you think of this? Is there a role for this today?

For what it's worth, I think the reaon we are all here is a stage set. A preliminary 'event' which gives people an opportunity to effectively decide whether they want God or don't want God.

We occupy an environment in which we are exposed (all of us) to what God is about (eg love, creativity, relationship, joy, peace, etc) and what God isn't about (eg evil, hate, selfishness, greed, pride, etc.).

We are exposed too to 'attractors' to both, both without and within ourselves. Conscience and the nice feelings attaching to loving others. Sin within and the pleasure attaching to sin.

We also experience the downsides of sin (the not so nice feedback loop of sin).

So, forces attracting us (just as forces attracted Adam in both directions) and us getting to plump for which it is we want to align with. Typically we swing both ways (people love and hate, people are generous and selfish) as we respond to the attractors. But the question posed os which side do we want to come down on. The good draws us towards it. Will we reliquish the bad. Or not.

Once the decision* is made (whether for God or continuing as we are as unrepentant sinners) then the stage setting has completed its work. Thereafter, the main event: eternity as we have chosen to be.

I don't see how God can coerce love. It must be something we plump for.

* I don't think we decide for God as such. We are sinners and blind and are unable to make a cognitively conscious choice on the matter. But there is a mechanism whereby we effectively chose for God/against God.

Of course I am encouraged to be saved and to know God. Despite the trouble, the world makes sense and I am reassured to know that things are in hand and heading towards a goal that is good. I couldn't conceive of not knowing what I know. The world would appear insane to me otherwise. It would be a very worrisome place to live. Especially these days of global corporatism, mass surveillance, uber ( and very vulnerable) complexity, global warming and resource depletion.

I don't see the significance of me being placed in Ireland as opposed to somewhere else. If so then it wouldn't alter the overall stage setting of each given exposure to and opportunity to perhaps find God. I don't think God micro manages each and every thing. There are natural laws at work - if you smoke then all the prayer in the world won't necessarily prevent lung cancer in a believer. There are also other agents at work will a will to be done contra God. And God has permitted them a voice and an influence in events.

As for gospel to others? I've come to view salvation as something of a process - with the pain of own/world sin on a person driving them to their knees. That pain amplified by a conscience which seeks to convict of the prime sin: going own independent way of living is a fools errand. Combined: man coming to see there is something very wrong with him, yet within, a desire/urge to be made right. He seeks to be made right afterall - even if the only thing he knows to attempt to scratch that God-given itch is sinful ways.

The gospel message can be received by a man at the end of his tether. By a man in pain with all pain reliefs exhausted and found not working (or even contributing to his pain, e.g. alcoholism, workaholism). It won't be received by a man NOT in this position - for who would surrender being king of own destiny if there was no driving need to? People who think they are fine have no need, in their eyes, of salvation.

It tends to be the sick, the dying, the desperate who arrive at Jesus in the Bible. Their arrival at desperate need is the bulk of the work of salvation. The priming work. The gospel message a cherry on the cake.

So, I suppose speaking to the masses might have effect - there will be some who have arrived in a state where they might recieve it. Although in this day and age, with a lot of competition from message bearers (and a lot of competition from send us your money evangelists and hellfire&damnation merchants you might find ears not so attentive.

Salvation of others is not reliant on us and our issuing the gospel. God does work through us and if there is someone who needs the gospel placed as cherry on a cake of their pain and desparation and surrender, then I'm sure they will come across it. As opposed to Pauls day, the church is well established and known. If in need, a person seeking can easily find the way to that last step - hearing of the solution to the problem eating away at them.

smacl

theological wrote: »

Why do you think you are where you are right now?

As human, due to 3.7 billion years of evolution. As a part of Western society, through dint of great fortune to land on the back of hundreds of years of civilisation building. As a person, through the nurture of loving parents, family, good friends and broader society coupled with my own efforts, few successes and many failures.

Do you believe your life has a purpose? Why or why not?

My life has many purposes, some through choice, others through obligation or love. I always liked the Kimya Dawson lyric "We all become important when we realize our goal should be to figure out our role within the context of the whole". Being part of society means others rely on me just as I rely on others.

All:
Paul is open air preaching in the middle of Athens. What do you think of this? Is there a role for this today?

I'm of the opinion that freedom of expression, including religious expression, is a basic right, once their is no coercion involved and you respect other people's rights to contrary expression. A caveat on this would be hate speech, for example publicly declaring all homosexuals, atheists etc... were sinners and going to hell.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that freedom of expression, including religious expression, is a basic right, once their is no coercion involved and you respect other people's rights to contrary expression. A caveat on this would be hate speech, for example publicly declaring all homosexuals, atheists etc... were sinners and going to hell.

Unrepentant sinners I think that is. And hate defined by the particular belief system you adhere to.

So 'free' as defined by you (or whatever argument from authority you might invoke. UN charter on human rights and the like).

theological

smacl wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that freedom of expression, including religious expression, is a basic right, once their is no coercion involved and you respect other people's rights to contrary expression. A caveat on this would be hate speech, for example publicly declaring all homosexuals, atheists etc... were sinners and going to hell.

Hopefully today's thread will help us think about this a bit more. The reason why we protect free speech is really to protect offensive speech. Other speech doesn't need protection. It doesn't mean only allowing speech you like.

The central claim of the gospel is that all people everywhere need to repent. So on your criteria basically all Christian street preaching would be banned. Even this speech in Athens would have been banned because Paul says the following in verse 30.

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

In my view this is love speech because he says it so that people can know Christ. Saying hard things to give people the opportunity to know Jesus is costly sacrificial love speech in the same way a doctor telling someone they have cancer early can save a life.

Peregrinus

There's a big difference, though, between saying that all people everywhere need to repent, and picking on a particular group and singling them out as being in need of repentance. Especially if the particular group is one which has a history of being singled out and victimised.

Who is in greater need of repentnance - homosexuals, or people whose word or deeds contribute to or facilitate the victimisation of homosexuals? Are we justified in preaching about one group while remaining silent about the other?

theological

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's a big difference, though, between saying that all people everywhere need to repent, and picking on a particular group and singling them out as being in need of repentance. Especially if the particular group is one which has a history of being singled out and victimised.

Who is in greater need of repentnance - homosexuals, or people whose word or deeds contribute to or facilitate the victimisation of homosexuals? Are we justified in preaching about one group while remaining silent about the other?

I agree. I'm pretty clear that all people everywhere need to repent. The need isn't greater for anyone else than it is for me. However that doesn't take away from my post.

Peregrinus

Well, I think it does. The fact is that people who preach a universal need for repentance to avoid damnation don't get accused of hate speech, while people who preach the need for gays to repent to avoid damnation do get accused of hate speech. You don't have to consider the second accusation to be justified in order to acknowledge that this difference does exist, and we have to ask ourselves why it exists.

And the answer, I think, lies in the fact that in singling out gays we are singling out a group that has suffered from being singled out and vicitimised, and threatening them with damnation can't be isolated from that context. Similarly if we singled out Jews, or black people, or other historically victimised groups.

We could single out men, say, and call for men to repudiate the culture and attitudes which foster contribute to violence against women. That might be a controversial call, but I don't think those making it would be accused of hate speech (or, if they were, it's not an accusation that would get much traction).

So, yeah, I think a crucial element in the concept of hate speech is that it is directed at people who are in fact hated, and who have suffered from that hatred. Singling out, e.g., gays and calling on them to repent when, as we agree, everyone is called to repentance raises the issue "why single out gays?" And the answer that suggests itself to the dispassionate observer is "homophobia". I think a Christian needs to have a robust response to that accusation, and "well, we're all called to repentance" is not really going to cut it.

theological

I don't think you're actually replying to what I said in all fairness. Saying that all people must repent includes the demographical groups that smacl provided. Urging people to repent also requires an understanding of what sin is. Sexual immorality in all of its forms is sinful. As is rejecting God.

Peregrinus

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, in which case I apologise. But you did say to smacl:

"The central claim of the gospel is that all people everywhere need to repent. So on your criteria basically all Christian street preaching would be banned."

I don't think you're correct there. In fact, as I point out, we know this is wrong, because generalised calls to repentance are not attacked as hate speech, and people don't demand that they be banned. Similarly calls to repentance directed at other groups - e.g. calls on religious hierarchs to repent of complicity in facilitating or covering up sexual abuse - are not attacked as hate speech.

So I don't think it is a corollary of smacl's argument that "basically all Christian street preaching" would be banned. I think you are generalising what he said, and overlooking the factors that result in some messages being viewed as hate speech while others are not.

hinault

Great OP.

The Church has always taught that God has created each and every single one of us for a reason.

The really difficult part is trying to discern the purpose for our existence in this time and in this place. It is the question, for every single one of us to try to discern individually

The Bible is absolutely clear. Each of us is created in the image and likeness of God.
God seeks that we build a relationship with Him, through our own free will.
We are free to accept or reject God's offer of that relationship.

In my view, our time in this place is a salvic opportunity. We either try to take that opportunity or we reject that opportunity.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

Great OP.

The Church has always taught that God has created each and every single one of us for a reason.

The really difficult part is trying to discern the purpose for our existence in this time and in this place. It is the question, for every single one of us to try to discern individually

The Bible is absolutely clear. Each of us is created in the image and likeness of God.
God seeks that we build a relationship with Him, through our own free will.
We are free to accept or reject God's offer of that relationship.

In my view, our time in this place is a salvic opportunity. We either try to take that opportunity or we reject that opportunity.

The only trouble with the idea that we accept salvation through free will is that there is no* biblical warrant for it. There is not a single mention of man choosing FOR God in the New Testament. The only references to mans will are in the negative: it is enslaved to sin, God-hating, etc.

Its the reason why Calvinist theology exists (not that I think it right).

Now I understand The Church might teach free will and choice for. But without biblical warrant.

* Far from knowing the NT line by line, I am relying here on the very frequent quoting of OT Deuteronomy 30 (where God says 'chose life') to support the idea that man can chose for God. There's nothing in the NT apparently - for if their was supporters of choice-for would surely cite it.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

The only trouble with the idea that we accept salvation through free will is that there is no biblical warrant for it. There is not a single mention of man choosing FOR God in the New Testament. The only references to mans will are in the negative: it is enslaved to sin, God-hating, etc.

Its the reason why Calvinist theology exists (not that I think it right).

Now I understand The Church might teach free will and choice for. But without biblical warrant.

Magisterium of the Church throughout Time provides the teaching on Free Will, with biblical reference footnotes in the attached link.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a3.htm

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

Magisterium of the Church throughout Time provides the teaching on Free Will, with biblical reference footnotes in the attached link.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a3.htm

By all means suggest biblical warrant for man choosing to accept God / free will. I'm not that keen on trawling through links to dig for myself.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not that keen on trawling through links to dig for myself.

Why are you not keen to do so?

theological

antiskeptic wrote: »

The only trouble with the idea that we accept salvation through free will is that there is no* biblical warrant for it. There is not a single mention of man choosing FOR God in the New Testament. The only references to mans will are in the negative: it is enslaved to sin, God-hating, etc.

Its the reason why Calvinist theology exists (not that I think it right).

Now I understand The Church might teach free will and choice for. But without biblical warrant.

* Far from knowing the NT line by line, I am relying here on the very frequent quoting of OT Deuteronomy 30 (where God says 'chose life') to support the idea that man can chose for God. There's nothing in the NT apparently - for if their was supporters of choice-for would surely cite it.

Yet you don't accept predestination?

That's fascinating.

One of the great mysteries of the Scriptures is that the Bible doesn't explicitly state that there's free will but humans do have agency and are responsible for what they do. Yet election is a Christian doctrine also. Paul calls the tension between election (Romans chapter 9) and human agency (Romans chapter 10) a mystery that he cannot fathom (Romans 11).

hinault

What is what you call, election?

antiskeptic

theological wrote: »

Yet you don't accept predestination?

That's fascinating.

I do accept predestination - I mean, it's right there in the Bible. I just don't believe its salvation that is predestined. That's the preserve of our Calvinist brethern and they have precious little to support their case.

One of the great mysteries of the Scriptures is that the Bible doesn't explicitly state that there's free will but humans do have agency and are responsible for what they do.

Having agency and being responsible for what you do are ideas that can be sustained without either free will or choice for God.

If the NT (and easily arguably the OT) is utterly silent on the idea of free will and choice-for God then we must look elsewhere for our ideas on how salvation is wrought. We cannot lay an idea, no matter how commonsensical it might seem, onto scripture.

Yet election is a Christian doctrine also.Paul calls the tension between election (Romans chapter 9) and human agency (Romans chapter 10) a mystery that he cannot fathom (Romans 11).

He does nothing of the sort!

Romans chapter 9 deals with a specific objection to the gospel Paul has been laying out since 1:18. He has already ripped a new one in the idea that Israel are anyway chosen or special when it comes to salvation. They judge others (i.e. everyone who isn't a Jew), yet they sin just like those they judge. He (and Jesus) has blown law obedience as a way to righteousness out of the water - for no man will be declared righteous by works of the law. Which is what the Jews were endeavouring to do (see: the gospels)

In chapter 9 he deals with an objection that requires specific attention. He's dealt with other objections 'on the fly' up to this point but this one is big.

"But what about Israel? Aren't they the people of God?" That's the context of election in that chapter. Dealing with a people and the status they appeared to have before God. Israel are a physical people descended fron Abraham. But..

Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring

Fairly straightforward: not physical Jew but spiritual Jews are the people of God. Not circumcised physically but spiritually. Christians are the people of God. Not physically-descended-from-Abraham Jews

He goes on in this people-of God-theme

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal.

Physical Israel 'stumbled over the stumbling stone'. They got it wrong. They are not the people of God, despite all the ways in which they were elevated and lead by God.

-

This is not a chapter dealing with the mechanism of individual salvation. It is a chapter dealing specifically with the question of Israel's status. Salvation is as is elsewhere outlined, and the notion of physical Israel as the people of God (in a salvation sense) is, in this chapter, demolished.

As far as mystery goes:

a) the doxology doesn't reference the specific chapters you mention. I have no idea how you conclude "Paul calls the tension between election (Romans chapter 9) and human agency (Romans chapter 10) a mystery that he cannot fathom (Romans 11)."

A rather better conclusion is to reckon the doxology as a summing up of the first half of the book of Romans - which lays out the workings of the gospel and deals with a number of objections to same. The second half (which starts with 'Therefore" in chapter 12 referencing all Paul has explained) takes up the theme of 'how are we 'spiritual Jews', the saved, to live in light of what we have read'

Its a book of two halves: the gospel workings (dealing with some objections to it) and .. how to live in light of your having being saved by it.

b) If it were all so mysterious then Paul have just wasted half a book explaining it. Paul understands what God has done and is blown away by the breadth, scale and audacity of it. Who wouldn't be? When every religion under the Sun supposes rightstanding and favour before God/god is to be obtained by adhering to his law? When God uses what is low to confound the high? When God himself makes himself lower than what he has created to die on a cross? What madness!

Thing is, whilst God is beyond figuring out, we are not left with a blankety blank. What is revealed is plenty to chew on and insofar as it reveals, isn't mysterious anymore. Else Paul is wasting his and our time.

Chapter 9. Physical Israel are not the people of God. The whole chapter is looking at that issue. It is not about how individuals are saved.

The Calvinists rely heavily on snippets of this chapter. Not least because God-choses-man is a theology built on very slim biblical pickings (so much so that Deuteronomy 30's "chose life" gets wheeled out to butress things). But only by word selection and ignoring the theme of the chapter and book.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

What is what you call, election?

God picking some for salvation and not picking others for salvation (a.k.a. picking them for damnation by virtue of not having picked them for salvation).

The picking this one and not that one for salvation has nothing to do with anything about or in the person. Nothing they do or don't do has anything to do with God's (sovereign) choice.

Why this one and not that one? Well that's a mystery.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

For all we know, God throws dice and saves the ones who roll an even number.

Why would an omniscient being roll a dice?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Why would an omniscient being roll a dice?

Fixed that for you. Although justice (and Calvinists agree God is just) must be seen to be done. So God could roll dice and show us all how all was done fairly.

Peregrinus

How would allocating salvation to people chosen at random be shown to be fair?

antiskeptic

Peregrinus wrote: »

How would allocating salvation to people chosen at random be shown to be fair?

There would be no favouritism. Everybody would have had an equal chance.

If you give everybody a lotto ticket and one wins and the others lose that's fair.

The one's who lost had no prize before the lotto tickets were given out. And they still have no prize. Just (according to Calvinism) as sinners who aren't chosen for salvation go where they were going anyway, before God's grace decided to run a lotto and grant a prize to some

theological

antiskeptic wrote: »

Fixed that for you. Although justice (and Calvinists agree God is just) must be seen to be done. So God could roll dice and show us all how all was done fairly.

This implies that salvation is deserved rather than a free gift (Romans 4 might be useful here too).

Peregrinus

antiskeptic wrote: »

There would be no favouritism. Everybody would have had an equal chance.

If you give everybody a lotto ticket and one wins and the others lose that's fair.

If I feed everybody a dose of arsenic and one dies while another survives, is that fair?

"Everybody having an equal chance" isn't self-evidently fair when there's no a priori reason why their destiny has to be a matter of chance in the first place.

sbsquarepants

theological wrote: »

Non-Christians:
Why do you think you are where you are right now? Do you believe your life has a purpose? Why or why not?

Where i was born is merely an accident of circumstance, who knows what led my ancestors to this little rock on the edge of Europe?

If you think god places people in specific geographic locations so that they will find him, why does he place them in war zones like the middle east, or somewhere like India where they will worship other gods? Or in somewhere where he is shortly planning to send a famine or a tsunami?

So many crappy, cruel decisions on his part do you not think?

theological wrote: »

All:
Paul is open air preaching in the middle of Athens. What do you think of this? Is there a role for this today?

Does it not still go on today?

I occasionally see people preaching on the streets, knocking door to door etc. Plus the modern equivalent - i have about 100 religious channels beamed into my house from, eh, the heavens i suppose:D

antiskeptic

Peregrinus wrote: »

If I feed everybody a dose of arsenic and one dies while another survives, is that fair?

Less so. The one who survived is stronger or has a certain immunity. Which is something within themselves contributing to their remaining alive (which Calvinism excludes) Whereas a lotto pick doesn't rely on anything in the person.

"Everybody having an equal chance" isn't self-evidently fair when there's no a priori reason why their destiny has to be a matter of chance in the first place.

It doesn't have to be chance (Calvinism simply says selection a mystery). But it can be chance. Lets say God's unfathomable plan requires x saved people. Chance is a fair selection process.

antiskeptic

theological wrote: »

This implies that salvation is deserved rather than a free gift (Romans 4 might be useful here too).

I'm not sure where you extract that. God deciding his plan requires x saved people amd using a dice to select them says nothing about anyone deserving it. To be given a lotto ticket you didn't deserve or earn and it turns out to be a winning ticket renders the prize a gift (assuming you consider the prize a good thing).

ChrisJ84

antiskeptic wrote: »

I do accept predestination - I mean, it's right there in the Bible. I just don't believe its salvation that is predestined. That's the preserve of our Calvinist brethern and they have precious little to support their case.

What do you think we're predestined to then? Romans 8:28-30 seems pretty clear? The reformed doctrines of election and salvation are a lot more nuanced than you're implying, and I think do most justice to the parallel truths of God's sovereignty and human responsibility.

I think it's also important to remember to that election in scripture is mainly talked about in the context of providing encouragement to Christians, that behind all our personal decisions and journey of faith lies a sovereign God who loved us and purposed to save us before the very foundation of the world.

The other thing that strikes me is that if people really are, by nature, lost and dead in sin, how would anyone respond to the gospel with faith if God doesn't sovereignly intervene?

antiskeptic

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

What do you think we're predestined to then?

Depends on who you think 'we' is. If the 'we' is people in Christ (or 'us in him' as Ephesians puts it when it speaks of God chosing and predestining things) then what is predestined are things to be applied to that distinct category of people. Such as being made holy and blameless n his sight. If he hadn't chosen that this would occur to people in Christ then they might well be in Christ but not holy and blameless in his sight.

The remarks are addressed to 'us' and us are Christians. It's fair enough to suppose we are being told the detail of what has happened to us. What relevance to our being in him unless it is explained to us what that entails?

We have first to decide who is being addressed. And I think 'us in hims' is clear cut. Christians.

As for foreknew. What did he know? If that they would become Christians by a mechanism not involving God choosing them to become Christians then he knew they would become Christiand by that method.

As for called? Well all are called. So there is no issue in repeating our being called as part of the sequence.

Romans 8:28-30 seems pretty clear? The reformed doctrines of election and salvation are a lot more nuanced than you're implying, and I think do most justice to the parallel truths of God's sovereignty and human responsibility.

As far as I understand reformed theology there is no human responsibility involved in their being saved. God choses to save this one and not that one for reasons unknown - aside from any human influence or involvement. If there is nuance to that side of things then by all means do tell.

I think it's also important to remember to that election in scripture is mainly talked about in the context of providing encouragement to Christians, that behind all our personal decisions and journey of faith lies a sovereign God who loved us and purposed to save us before the very foundation of the world.

I don't see election unto being chosen for salvation biblically supported (see my comment above on the misplaced view of Romans 9 and election). By all means purposed to save. But not with that salvation determined by God without human input.

The other thing that strikes me is that if people really are, by nature, lost and dead in sin, how would anyone respond to the gospel with faith if God doesn't sovereignly intervene?

I'll see can I dig up a post written by me recently on that matter. Needless to say, it doesn't rely on men choosing. Later

antiskeptic

ChrisJ84 wrote:

The other thing that strikes me is that if people really are, by nature, lost and dead in sin, how would anyone respond to the gospel with faith if God doesn't sovereignly intervene?

I think God does intervene. The question is by what means.

1. I solve problems. Technical problems. And I deal in the restoration business - returning things to the way they were originally designed. If there is one rule to solving problems so that they stay solved, it is to deal with the root cause. Find the root of the problem, resolve it, and the problem is no more.

2. The root problem with man is self sufficiency. A desire for self-sufficiency was the very first sin and everything that happened subsequent to that stems from that. If God is in the restoration business (and he says he is) then he too will have to deal with the root cause. Find it and eradicate it.

3. I want things my way. I want it when I want it. I'll decide what is good for me and will do whatever it takes to obtain it (restrained only by conscience and a sense of smarts about how much of my way I can get away with. Suppress conscience enough and obtain enough power and you can be Hitler). I will answer to nobody. I am on the throne.

Self is the King. Pride is the King's four-star General and all the rest: greed, lust, selfishness, hatred, etc are commanders in an army aimed at serving the King. Root cause is self-sufficiency. God must defeat the desire for self sufficiency if he is to be our King.

4. Defeating self-sufficiency can be accomplished by a combination of God's general interventions:

- a conscience which restrains our kingship
- a conscience which brings pain when that restraint is suppressed (guilt, shame)
- the ache in man caused by the "God-shaped hole". Man might attempt to generate own purpose, but since that is vacuous it can never satisfy
- the pressure of death approaching and the God-installed knowledge that all his masks don't quite cover the problem
-pain caused by own sin (for own sin brings pain), others sin, and the fact of a fallen, cruel world.

The key thing is that none of these require any knowledge of God of the Bible. Neither do they require faith, or gospel, or anything else. They are commoner garden forces and influences that all men experience.

All of the above work against the force of desire for self-sufficiency. You might not want to go to the dentist, your self determination not wanting to spend the money, not wanting to take time off work, not wanting to hear that you have to alter your lifestyle and cut out the sweets. Pain might well overcome your desire though. If you relent and go to the dentist, your self-sufficiency and self-determination has been defeated in this area of your life. By pain.

My suggestion is that pain and suffering as well as the attraction of good (for we are capable of being attracted by good) can bring self sufficiency to defeat. Where a person comes to the realisation that they cannot, no way/no how, extricate themselves from their pain.

There is no need for knowledge of God or the gospel at this point. A person acknowledging they are at the end of themselves can be achieved without any "religious" element whatsoever. Just everyday pain and the discomfort of knowing what's good and also knowing they aren't good.

Take smacl. He's an atheist. But he has a God-installed knowledge of good and evil. If smacl thinks he isn't good on this or that matter (and it happens to be not-good from a God perspective), he is in fact responding to God, without believing in or acknowledging God. God is at work in smacl, whether or not smacl believes or acknowledge God. If smacl feels discomfort as his not-goodness on some or other point, then God's pain process is at work in him. It doesn't matter if smacl thinks his pain is a vestige from a long distant evolutionary past. The point is he feels pain. And that pain is part of the salvation process. Whether smacl manages to suppress the pain utilising this or that philosophical construct is neither here nor there. In so far as he suppresses and finds an escape from the current predicament only means he's digging a hole deeper for himself. Like sticking a temporary filling into a rotten tooth cavity.

So what ought happen when a person concludes their self-sufficiency has been defeated? That they aren't in fact Kings and self-determiners. That they are in fact desperate and without hope and bereft of a solution to agonizing problems?

If the root of the problem is self-sufficiency and God has to deal with the root by defeating it, hasn't he just done so: using the commoner garden elements listed above? Elements to which all men at all times and all places are exposed to.

-

It seems to me that that's the route of salvation. Bringing (or attempting to bring) a man to the end of his self-sufficiency using everyday items common to all men. If a man is brought there, he has fulfilled the key criteria for salvation. In which case God triggers salvation.

Such a way is all over the bible: it is desperate people who arrive at Jesus. It is desperate people who, with no place left to go, call on the name of the Lord. Their call is pressed out of them by pain - they don't choose as such, anymore than a person choose to shout "Ouch" when they hit their finger with a hammer.

And God has many, many names. Peace, forgiveness, love, sanctity, release, hope, joy. But salvation is chief. And a person in unbearable pain will cry out for salvation. Not salvation in a religious sense. But salvation from that which they can't save themselves: their physical pain, their guilt, their despair, their shame ... whatever it is that brings them to end of self. It'll be different for everybody: you could be a thief hanging on a cross facing death, you could be caught in adultery in a place where that attracts a stoning, you could be a leper, you could be a despised tax man, or a desperate idol-worshipping Roman commander with a dying child. It doesn't really matter what brings a person to end of self and their seeking salvation from it.

And all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

-

The only thing which prevents a persons arrival at end of self is their will. Their insistence on remaining in the throne. They will bear great pain. They will dull their consciences, they will mask the pain with drugs, money, possessions, the next sexual relationship. They will go further and further into the pit of sin - sin's next step down always promising relief from the pain of the current position. The only trouble is that the relief doesn't last long. And there is trouble and strife for all who sin - that's the deal. But going further down is a route you can go to avoid relinquishing grip on self-determination.

-

Biblically, I don't see a whole lot of difficulty with the above. The bible appears clear on the state of will. When it acts, it can only operate in one direction and that is the direction of sustaining self-direction. It can only sin.

And so we can conclude that every man will be saved (by a process aimed at bringing him to end of self) unless he wills it not. If salvation, then all the credit goes to God: for it is his work, his kingdom way, his holiness (which ensures sin brings trouble and pain) which ran the process leading a man to end of self.

If lost, then all the credit goes to a mans will. He insisted on maintaining self-sufficiency to the bitter end. The root cause being unremovable by God (for God will not insist), then that man's problem cannot be resolved.

Edit. It is interesting to consider the hint given at the crucifixion. Two thieves alongside Jesus (indicating a degree of identicality: facing death, guilt and shame, great physical pain, hopelessness, scorn). Two very different responses. One's self-sufficiency defeated. Anothers sustained to the bitter end.