MonkeyMan

Hi llamaluvr,

"Um, why didn't you include verses 27 and 28? Those contain the conclusion of the story, no?"

I didn't include it because I wanted people to read it for themselves. No fun giving away the punchline(s) all at the same time.

"In 28, Jesus commends the woman for her faith and heals her daughter. The story ends a lot differently than you insinuated."

No insinuation. First JC says "nyet", then he changes his mind. So either the Son of the Allknowing God is learning (contradicts allknowingness) or he's making it up along the way (my conclusion when I first read the passage). Neither is very flattering.

"No part of that story demonstrates that salvation was only for the Jews. Verse 24 does not say that salvation wasn't for gentiles, it only says that he was sent to the Jews, which is obvious, because he was born in Israel."

Well, given that Jesus was a Jew and only Jews could get salvation from the jewish god, having strict rules defining what made someone a jew. I mean, it's not like Jesus changed the rules, he specifically states in Mt5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." I'd say the conclusion is rather obvious.

"Your implicit interpretation conflicts the explicit declarations of the text in other places, including Matthew 28:19. Therefore, you have not demonstrated that salvation is only for the Jews, and even if you did, you would have demonstrated a logical inconsistency in the Bible, which leaves me wondering why you didn't just point that out instead."

Hmm, so here we have Matthew state something different than earlier on, Mt15:24 not being the only instance:
"10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not.
10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand."

I've connected the dots between these heavy contradictions and "The only way to the Father is through me" (meaning salvation) and ended up with the conclusion: not meant for Gentiles, or, there is no spoon.

Obviously I could argue the other side as well, i.e. salvation includes the Gentiles too. After Jesus' flash of insight (another learning experience) that he was no saint in his own land, he extends his scope to the whole blob, indicating yet another "made up as he went" or "cobble something together and hope noone notices" instance. Why do I keep getting this image of a fox sitting under a bunch of grapes (the Jewry) hanging too high, muttering "those grapes are surely sour"? Or imagine following scene:
(Disciple rushing up to Jesus) "Jesus, our Masterplan hath failed, the Jewry are not buying it! What do we do?!"
(Jesus) "To hell with the Jewry, let's get the Gentiles to swallow it instead!"


The deeper conclusions of all this: he was +only+ human, hence in no position of power to cajole the jewish god into extending the admission regulations of heaven to non-jews. Instead the Evangelists made up a new Masterplan and we Gentiles swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Still, no spoon. :devil3:

johntheapostate

Id like to debut my newfound skill, cutting and pasting. It sure beats having to type everything over again. I don't want to derail this thread into a debate about free will, but when Christians rationalize there god concept by invoking human free will it irritates me. They will talk about it as if it were some unassailable biblical truth, when in fact, if Paul is to be believed free will is nothing but an illusion. I will repost my last post in the Calvinism thread here and if any one wants to debate it, they can post there.


[QUOTE = johntheapostate]I have gone through these passages before, but I would like to go through them again in order to clarify how believers in absolute predestination can integrate the many instances where god condemns and punishes individuals for choices they have made.

The passages from 2 Samuel 24 come to mind, where god is seen to be inciting David and at the same time condemning and punishing Davids actions

If one were not compelled to believe that god would not do such a thing, an idea that it was possible for god to be the instigator of certain behavior and at the same time condemn and punish the individual for that behavior could be justified in the plain reading of the text.


And it is just this conclusion that Paul expresses in his letter to the Romans.

Romans 9:16 ' It does not therefore depend on man's desire or effort but on God's mercy. For the scriptures say to Pharaoh, I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

It is interesting that Paul immediately follows his message of god's mercy with an illustration from scripture that depicts god's lack of mercy in the case of Pharaoh and his people

In Paul's mind it is it is critical that he convey to his readers that god was responsible for initiating all human behavior, good or bad. In fact in these passages he explicitly places the fate of Pharaoh directly after his assertion of the absolute sovereignty of the will of god over the actions of man

We have the assertion that it was god who initiated the actions that led to death and destruction in Egypt. We also are informed of the motive. God initiated the series of event in order to glorify himself in the eyes of the Israelites and of the whole world.

To further illustrate that it was this he intended to convey, Paul adds the passage which show god taking ownership over the actions of men.

"Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden"

Paul shows that god does this only on the basis of his good pleasure, and to enforce that this is the case he anticipates and answers the objection that would only arise if this was so.

" One of you will say to me, Then why does god still blame us? For who resists his will"

This is a question that confirms Paul's intended message. For by his choice of words Paul affirms that yes he is intending that we are to understand that he believes that god will judge us for actions that god himself initiated.

And here we have the crux of the predestination answer to those who insist we must have free will and through this we are able to act in ways contrary to gods will and by which he is justified in imposing condemnation.

One can simply understand that even in those cases where it appears a choice is given and condemnation and punishment are the result, god is still the initiator of those actions.

In his choice of words " Why does he still blame US " Paul shows that he considers everyone to be subject to the doctrine he has just outlined and not just historical figures such as Pharaoh

To any reasonable person a god such as this has no basis in logic and reasonable behavior and we would expect some form of justification for this behavior. Paul supplies the answer to the objection .

" But who are you O man to talk back to god? shall what is formed say to him who formed it, Why have you made me like this?"

Again Paul enforces his intended message. We are the product in every way, positive and negative of the intent of god. Paul reinforces his doctrine in the next passages.

" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble use and some for common use"

Again in his choice of words Paul hammers home his doctrine. In the form of question Paul explicitly defines the role of man and his destiny as having the same relationship as a lump of clay to a potter. To further enforce his point that we have no more influence over our destiny than an inanimate object Paul continues.

What if God choosing to show his wrath and make his power known bore with great patience the objects of his wrath prepared for destruction"

Here Paul clearly defines the reprobate as no more than an object, not preparing himself for destruction, but being prepared by god for destruction.

But why would God do such a thing? Paul could again have answered that we do not have the right to question the motives of god. But as a concession to his readers and a revelation of his personal belief, he elaborates further.

"What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy whom he prepared in advance for glory, even us whom he also called."

And in this passage Paul reveals the justification for all god's actions. In the same way as the reprobate is an object prepared for destruction, the elect is simply an object of mercy prepared for glory. Both objects inherit there fate as a matter of god's good pleasure. And in the same way as god brought death and destruction on to the Egyptians in order that he might be glorified in the eyes of the Israelites and the world, he will also inflict eternal damnation on the reprobate so that he may be glorified in the eyes of the elect in that in comparison to the suffering of the damned the elect may be made aware of gods great mercy to them that received there blessing only at gods discretion and not on any merit in themselves.[/QUOTE]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



There are some Christians who would gladly do away with the testimony of Paul, for the justification of the damnation of the reprobate is simply that in the everlasting agony of the reprobate, the elect will be brought to a fuller comprehension of the glory of god and in comparison to the eternal torture that god inflicts on the reprobate, the elect will fully appreciate gods mercy toward themselves.

llamaluvr

This topic was basically about how salvation through Jesus is supposed to work. Explaining this on the defensive side of things requires that I do two things:
1) Explain how atonement and redemption works according to the Bible, and
2) Debunk claims of contradictions in the doctrines of atonement and redemption.

In essance, this thread is about the logical consistency of atonement, because in demonstrating that, I work to prove that atonement as described by the Bible is logically possible, and, at the same time, expose all the important points regarding it.

Proving the opposite of logical consistency usually involves a proof by contradiction. In that, you start with all of the sentences being true, and, if the one you want to disprove is A, you want to find ~A. Sometimes I've started there, usually starting by negating particular doctrines of Christianity. There's other ways to do it, too.

The bottom line is, in this sort of discussion, you start off by assuming the statements to be true, and you see where you can go from there. This thread is not about proving salvation to be true; it's only about proving it to be reasonable.

So, yeah, picked apart from their original context, and inserted in another post as a pattern of

-one sentence by me-
-comment by you-

for about 2 pages, they're baseless, but, if you put them back where they belong, you'll hopefully see that they were preconditions to a completely different argument.

I will bite on your "who needs salvation?" comment. I totally agree. Nobody needs it. Given an extremely crummy destination for those who don't want it, I would say that it would figure to be at least somewhat useful, however.

It's like a drowning kid. Sure, he doesn't need to be saved by the lifeguard; his dying won't upset the order of the universe or anything, and he'll just be hurrying a process that was going to get to him sooner or later, anyway. But I'm sure he would find it useful if he was saved. It certainly seems like that could have some benefits.

For most of the other things you commented on, I hate to say this to anyone, because I like to answer all concerns, but it all really has been basically covered elsewhere in the thread, so I'd recommend you catch up and post your objections in regard to those.

To be honest, I'm kind of scared by the way you dissected my post. You commented on about every 1 or 2 sentences of mine, and it takes me usually 3 or 4 sentences to explain myself, so we could be dealing with an exponential increase in comments for each reply. I don't have time for that, and I doubt you do, either. Plus, I don't think it's really fair to others involved reading/ posting in the topic- people lose interest fast when discussion degrades like that. Most importantly, I think it is an inaccurate representation of the discussion- certainly people in real life don't discourse like that. Rebuttals focus on topics, not sentences.

I've already been in C&E, and I'd have no clue what in there could possibly debunk any doctrine of atonement, but I'll check again in case I missed something. Same for BC&H, but I haven't been there yet. I can't make it here more than a few times a week...sorry!

johntheapostate and MonkeyMan, I appreciate your posts, and they're next on my list, but not tonight! It's 3:30 am and I've had enough :-)

llamaluvr

Riiiiiiiiiiight.... :-P

just joshin'...

So, are you saying that the optimal conversation would have been for Jesus just to come right out and say that salvation was for her?

MAYBE...but, that conversation would be missing one important part. The end sum of what the woman said to Jesus was, to Jesus, a proof of faith, the most important determinant of one's salvation.

With Jesus's tug-of-war with her, we basically get

Jesus: "Salvation is for the gentiles, too."
Woman: "Derrrrrrrr....cool!"

Not much of a proof of faith. BUT, Jesus should be able to tell who's faithful anyway, right? Of course, but that doesn't mean he didn't want to provide us with tangible examples. Faith is demonstrated through works (James 2), so even lowly humans can have a good idea of who has it.

Jesus does this elsewhere in more inflamitory ways. Whenever he heals someone, it generally is only after they have in some way demonstrated faith (clawing their way to the front of the crowd, getting lowered down a hole, etc).

Non-Jews could get saved, too. The primary qualification was always faith (see Hebrews 11), and that was based on what you knew (see like all of Romans, esp. chapter 2). Heck, how do you think fellas like Abraham got saved? They had virtually none of the law. Revelation at that point was "God made earth. Humans sin".

The ceremonial laws and all the other stuff the Jews had to do were for other reasons, most likely. For instance, being "unclean" doesn't mean that you've sinned- it just means that you need to clean up. And God says in the OT that he's looking more for faith than animal sacrifices.

These things, based on the evidience in the OT and Hebrews, were basically God's way of showing the world how hard it would be to even possibly try to provide atonement on their own. He gave them a good covenant (because it still didn't require them to provide *real* atonement for sins- just a "shadow" (see Hebrews once again)), which they could persist under, but it also showed that they needed an even better one.

Back to "clean" and "unclean" real quick- it is important to note what the consequence of being unclean was. It was that you couldn't go into the camp, or you couldn't go into the temple, or were otherwise prohibited from engaging in the activities which were the shadows of atonement. When Jesus comes along, he does all that stuff, from going into the temple to slaughtering the lamb. So, it's not that cleanliness laws dissappear- it's that they become irrelevant, because Jews are no longer required to emulate atonement.

I'm trying to be brief here, so I'm sure I missed something, but that's it in a nutshell. Hebrews really is great reading for those having trouble reconciling the OT and the NT. It reads more like a thesis defense than a sermon, I think! :-)

At the time of the beginning of Jesus's ministry, his message was not one you could just blurt out anywhere. It would cause more confusion than anything. The Jews already had the prerequisite knowledge of knowing that a messiah was coming; they would see his works and think, "Dang, that's the messiah! He's going to redeem us!" Even if they were slightly confused by what redemption meant, they still would know that it was coming.

On the other hand, if Jesus goes into a gentile town and does what he had been doing most of the time, the gentiles would be more like, "Check it out! Miracle dude!" That's the best-case scenario. More likely, they'll attribute his miracles to their local deity. Even if Jesus explains himself, what is he going to say? "Well, I'm going to die soon and through that I'll conquer sin." How much sense is that really going to make to them at this point?

Jesus was simplifying things greatly by waiting until his message was fully-baked before spreading it to people who had little hope of understanding it as an unfinished work. Heck, his own disciples hardly understood it until it was done, even though he would tell them plainly.

If God's really perfect, then he's also perfectly practical. Most people think of big flashy displays when they think of a perfect, omnipotent being, but if we eliminate sensibility and practicality from the mix, he's not really perfect, no?

SPOON!! :-P

In all seriousness, I think the Matrix is one of the best movies when it comes to paralleling Christianity. It involves an "additional" reality that isn't easily accessible to most, but those few who take a chance find out it's there and how important it is, and experience both great reward and loss because of it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



There are some Christians who would gladly do away with the testimony of Paul, for the justification of the damnation of the reprobate is simply that in the everlasting agony of the reprobate, the elect will be brought to a fuller comprehension of the glory of god and in comparison to the eternal torture that god inflicts on the reprobate, the elect will fully appreciate gods mercy toward themselves.[/quote]
I'm afraid I cannot actually make a full reply at this time. It's a difficult chapter, and, while I still think I'm just as right about free will in spite of it, I don't think I could give a coherent exhaustive commentary at this time. I'm going to gather some more sources, ask a friend or two, and try to get back to you by Friday at the latest (I also have a lot of homework due in the next two days :-) ). Of course, if what I'm saying here is a decent enough rebuttal to work from, just let me know...I guess I'm not worried about stating my position and my support for it- I'm more worried about missing points you want covered.

First, I think I should clarify my position in the "predest vs. free will" debate. The Bible offers confirmations of both positions. I have mentioned it more here because it really does narrow down the behavior we can expect from God. Really, I think the reality of things is that it's a spectacular, mysterious combination of both; God steers things so they go as he wants them, all the while letting men choose their allegiances. I think that position fits the position of scripture, but it is really hard to explain, because we know so little about what it would be like to control a universe from an all-knowing, timeless position while still giving other creatures within time some soverignty over themselves. I guess I could liken it to writing a book- the writer weaves the story as he like, and has instantaneous access to any point within it, but that still misses the mark by quite a bit.

The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God knows who's going to get saved, and that there is some sort of "election", but, at the same time, gives us the opportunity to accept or reject Christ. It is paradoxical, but I don't think it is inconsistent. Until it can be found as such, I'll believe that both things can be true.

This is they way I tend to be with a number of things. For instance, I see strengths and weaknesses in both sides of the Creationism vs. Evolution debate, so at this point, I am convinced that the most likely explaination is a combination of the two.

Anyway, here's my general response on the chapter itself. Calvinists, in regard to this chapter, have a lot of good points, but I just can't seem to understand how they put them all together to form their doctrine of predestination. I can find nothing in the chapter that negates free will- it says God dispenses mercy and wrath as he pleases, but it doesn't say people can't choose to put their faith in Jesus. The only time the word "election", or anything like it, is used is in verse 11, and it is soooooo narrow in scope (in reference to Rebekah). I know Paul insinuates that there is election in other cases, but he doesn't come close to making it sound like the Calvinists take it, I think.

The thing that really raises the red flag for me is the context. Romans is mainly a treatise explaining salvation from start to finish- from BC to AD, focusing on the differences and similarities between the Jews and the Gentiles. This talk of election, and God's free distribution of wrath and mercy is smack dab in the middle of talk about Israel's election, which is smack dab in the middle of more talk about the roles of Jews and Gentiles. I believe Paul is trying to make some sort of generalization about God's choices regarding mercy and wrath, but I don't think it is that sweeping. The beginning and ending of the chapter, and the part in the middle about Pharoah lead me to believe he is talking mostly about the way God chose to be merciful to Israel and not merciful to Israel's enemies. Basically, Paul is saying that he had a darn good reason for doing so, even if we don't know that much about it.

However, he is leaving it open for other situations, and he is allowing this sort of thing to be between persons (see v. 21, 22, 23, 24, 11, 12, 13). He doesn't appear to be talking about mercy in the context of salvation, and wrath in terms of damnation, I think (at least not exclusively). After all, he brings up a lot of non-salvation-related instances of this. He's basically saying that life is not fair- some will experience good, and others bad...

...BUT, it's for a good reason. The Calvinists conclude that God's free will in choosing mercy for some and wrath for others is rooted in love and the glorification of his name- in other words, it often works towards salvation of people, because God doesn't actually want anybody to perish (2 Peter somethingorother). I think they're right about this. What happened to Pharoah and Egypt sucked for them, but it was great as far as getting folks in the kingdom of God was concerned. The results would have been lackluster if God's response would have been lackluster. Showing compassion on Pharoah might have been fruitless, but what he did was not.

It's not as if Israel deserved the mercy and Egypt deserved the wrath; they both deserved the wrath. But God's purposes seemingly would not have been fulfilled very well if he just displayed wrath, so he shows mercy, as well.

The chapter ends with Paul seemingly demonstrating Israel's free will in the matter of salvation (verse 32), while affirming that the Gentiles were shown mercy while the Israelites were shown wrath in the preceeding verses. Paul continues to affirm man's say in the situation in chapter 10.

Okay, back to homework!

johntheapostate

John 14: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

John 3:36 "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for Gods wrath remains in him"

Here we have testimony that Jesus is the only path to salvation and we can see that in the choice of words "Gods wrath remains in him" that the condemnation of the individual is a preexisting condition as the wrath was not a result of the rejection but simply remains in him due to his rejection of Jesus.

John 6:40 "For my Fathers will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

My father was fond of this verse and used it to impress on me the free nature of salvation. He chose to ignore the testimony of the author of John only a few verses down.

John 6:44 " No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day"

Some would argue that God has drawn everybody, but this is a very weak argument in the context of the verse For shortly afterward Jesus again formulates the same concept to explain his betrayal by Judas.

John 6:64-65 " For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him"

Here the text specifically links unbelief to the concept that God had made belief impossible by withholding the enabling that had made it possible for the other disciples to believe.

John 8:47 " He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God"

Jesus had just gone on a fairly extended rant denouncing his countrymen as children of the devil etc and here he also specifies the reason that they reject him. They simply are those whom God has not extended the ability to believe.

So an argument could be made that God has extended the ability for some people to accept or reject Christ but certainly not the ability of everyone to do so on the basis of free will. and even that is a weak argument considering that Jesus insisted that everyone the Father would give him would come to him and would not be lost.

John 6:37 " All the Father gives me will come to me and whoever comes to me I will never drive away"



These verses hit hard at the concept of free will as far as the most important decision any person could make if in fact the New Testament is true. The decision on which rests the fate of ones eternal destiny. We could have perfect free will in all areas of life but it would be of zero value if the ability to reject or accept salvation rest on the good pleasure of gods will.


It is very important to some people that this be denied at all costs. For in their belief in the free will to accept or reject Christ rests there justification for infant salvation.

They just cant bear the thought of deceased infants suffering in agony for an eternity in hell. They subordinate the concept of original sin and make a conscious act of acceptance or rejection of Christ the determining factor in the salvation of the individual.


They insist that because the infant has not consciously rejected Christ he has automatic entrance into heaven.

They choose to ignore the testimony of the author of John which states that the wrath of God was a preexisting condition and that eternal life is dependent on a conscious act of belief on the part of the believer and this is only achieved by god enabling the person to do so.

The logical conclusion would be that as part of that enabling god would also have granted the infant the ability to live to an age where such a decision could be made.

rlogan

Fair enough. It's pretty convoluted after-the-"fact" revisionist history, actually. You can't quote directly a passage that puts this together in a coherent, complete fashion. It is a collage of disjoint bits and pieces. Jesus would have just explained this succinctly. Cogently.


This is merely burden of proof shifting. The OP is a question. It is your answer that requires proof.

Correct.

Go for it.

I don't need a logic lesson. I demonstrated contradictions.

Duh.

No, I don't have to do that. Counterexample: Truth is a lie. Therefore XYZ. The first statement is inherently contradictory and no decent logical debate can follow from it. If you give me a reasonable premise, then I can accept if for argument's sake.

Well, it is highly irrational and therefore unreasonable.

Rules of logic dictate that I examine every link in your chain of logic. You don't get to slip bogus leaps in there.

your opinion is fine.

I don't use analogies. Especially in respect to this material. Nobody is drowning. You have a hypothetical god that can't be shown to exist. People actually do drown and it is a serious issue.

"Answered" means more than that words were put on paper.

A moment ago you were lecturing me on a limited understanding regarding rules of logic. But now you excuse yourself from that very thing. If "B" does not follow from "A" then who cares what the excuse is for it.

That is a pretty amazing statement. There was no Adam and Eve. So how can any of this atonement B.S. stemming from "original sin" possibly be reasonable?

There was no Adam and Eve. Therefore there was no original sin. There is nothing to atone for. Nothing for Jesus to do. Useless. In that respect.

llamaluvr

Right.

(I wasn't sure if this was an objection or just a statement leading up to one, because I totally agree :-) )

What do we make of verse 45, then?

"It is written by the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me."

Here we have Jesus saying that everybody will be taught by God, and that everybody who listens to the Father comes to Jesus. From there, since Jesus said that everybody requires a referal from the Father to come close to him, we can infer that anybody who listens and learns to what is being taught to everybody gets a referal.

In verse 66, the people who left apparently weren't listening and learning, so they didn't have the referal. Perhaps they were just sticking around at that point for the free meal? ;-)

Here, Jesus is merely explaining that they don't have a birthright to God's favor. They don't hear God because they have aligned themselves with Satan rather than God. The Father is still teaching, if we accept verse 6:45. But they're not listening and learning. So, they are not adopted children of God at this point. If they were to do an about face and align themselves with him, then Jesus contends that they would hear, so it is safe to assume that they would become children of God.

Also, this passage is an important place to exercise our knowledge about the trinity. Jesus is God, so when Jesus says verse 47, it is tantamount to him saying "You're not following me, so you don't hear (as in, understand) what I am saying to you."


I think a lot of this comes down to what we do and don't know about the soul. Does being a baby or a fetus mean we actually have an underdeveloped soul (which cannot make a free will choice), or does it mean that we have a fully-developed soul with an undeveloped vessel for expression in the natural world? If it's the latter, I don't see a problem. Salvation is a "mark" on the soul, not the body, so, if there's a full soul, it should be able to make a choice to have or not have that mark.

Of course, I don't necessarily think that free will couldn't be executed even on the way to heaven. Accepting salvation means you're accepting basically 2 terms:

1) I agree to let Jesus be my savior and pay the cost of my sins, so I don't have any debt to be paid by myself upon death.

2) I agree to let Jesus sanctify me, so I am not still a sinful creature upon entering heaven.

#2 is important. What good is it to have all the forgiveness in the world if you keep sinning in heaven? The Bible states God's standard as being higher than that- he doesn't want any sin in heaven (if there was sin in heaven, it would just be earth all over again). That's why he starts santifying Christians on earth, and completes whatever work needs to still be done en route to heaven.

My point is, could a dead baby refuse sanctification, which, for them, would likely only be cleansing their inheiritance of sin (original sin)? Maybe. REALLY, my point is, a lot more happens between death and eternity than we generally assume, so we just can't know how God rectifies this situation. We only know that the Bible says he does, and that's enough, in this case, to beat the rap.

johntheapostate

I believe that I have shown that predestination is a viable interpretation of scripture, but I will admit that the text is sufficiently ambiguous that those people to whom free will is essential to the rationalization of their god concept can also find scripture to support their belief. I just think that between the testimony of the Gospels and the epistles, predestination is the stronger position.

It reminds me of the universalism position. They believe that in the end everyone will be saved, and they to can find scripture to call into question the certainty that many Christians have regarding the separate fates of the elect and the reprobate. And yet it is almost the universal position of most Christians that some will find salvation and others will be lost. And for good reason as this concept is explicitly formulated in the New Testament.

As for the passages of scripture to which Jesus is referring, they can be found in Isaiah 54:13 " All your sons will be taught by the Lord, and great will be your children's peace"

These passages come from a chapter in which god reaffirms his special relationship with the Israelites and promises that he will restore Israel as a nation and bring an everlasting peace for them all. It really does not apply to anyone but the Jews in its context of Isaiah. And in my opinion within the context of the book of John it would be best interpreted as the universality of the elect in comprehending the message that leads to salvation rather than the universality of god drawing all men but some of them rejecting his offer.

I am aware that it is the nature of theology to absolve god of all responsibility in negative matters and to place that responsibility on the individual. We need only refer to the Hebrew scriptures to see that the Jews would rather heap shame on themselves than admit that their god appeared to be completely impotent.

I don't know why the text of John would point out that Judas did not believe and then have Jesus explicitly point out that it was impossible to believe if one was not enabled by god, if the author had not intended his readers to understand that god is not selective in his choice of people who he is willing to enable.

Also why would the text point out that everyone who who had been given to Jesus by god would come to him and would not be lost if indeed the author had intended his readers to believe that god had drawn everyone and it was a matter of free will that determined who would be saved and who would be lost. Surely this verse indicates a special status for some people as chosen by god.

You will excuse me if I don't share the same measure of confidence that you have in the justice of god. For all the evidence of the Bible and the universe is so arranged as to make belief in your god impossible for me. So if I do end up in hell it is because god did not present himself in a fashion that was coherent to me. And it is my very nature does not allow me to interpret the evidence to conform to what I was indoctrinated to believe, and if god exists, then I would have him to thank for that also.

I would like to add, if free will is such a virtue that god would allow the bulk of humanity to be lost, why would he not allow it to exist in heaven? And if free will can somehow exist with an incorruptible nature so that only correct actions will result for those lucky residents of heaven, why did he not equip humanity with this attribute from the beginning.

llamaluvr

I largely agree. However, I don't think it is correct to say that predestination or free will is the stronger position. Both positions are explicitly stated in the Bible. If one is referenced 7 times versus another 5, it does not matter much; we still have the book throwing it's full weight behind both.

I think an oft-neglected point is that there isn't some formula God has to follow to a T. He is not constricted into a single route by conditions such as payment for sin or maintenance of free will. Those are conditions he appears to be dead-set on keeping, but he still has a lot of leeway within that. That's why Paul in Romans refers to the pleasure of God- what he wants to do.

On the same token, we can't forget what sort of being we're dealing with. He has the largest possible amount of wisdom, power, and foresight- part and parcel of the very definition of being perfect. So, when he does something he wants, he can't be doing something that is any less than good (probably more with a capital "G", actually), because that would violate his perfection, which is arguably more important than either of those two other conditions.

I was about to mention that before, but, for whatever reason, I didn't :-). I'm probably reading it wrong, but I don't think the context could be quite what you said- rather, I'd choose among these two:

1) The target audience is everybody.
2) The target audience is the Jews, where the Jews are an elected race (what is meant by God "teaching everyone"), but not all are saved because they all don't listen, and therefore aren't refered to Jesus.

With #2, it makes sense that God is teaching first, and then refering folks who listen to Jesus, because the teaching part could be like the Old Covanent, and then those that responded with faith to that would then be introduced to the New Convenant. Typically, teaching for Gentiles starts with the New Covanent. This also fits in well with the accounts of saving faith among OT saints (see Hebrews 11, Luke 2:25-32 esp.), because it was basically hope in the future messiah ( and, based on John 6, those with that faith would be turned over to him).

On the other hand, the "teaching to everyone" could still make sense even if the context was universal. Even if they've never even read the book before, people don't just accept Jesus without some sort of knowledge of the basic OT teachings. Who wants salvation if they don't think they're a sinner in need of grace? The "teaching" could be revelation of these points, whether it be by presentation of the text to the person, or some other means.

I think we need to reorder Jesus's statements here. In order of when they happen, here's what Jesus says will happen:

1) The Father teaches.
2) The person listen and learns.
3) The Father draws the person to Jesus/ the person comes to Jesus.

#2 is the key. That's the free will action; that's where the choice is made. I think #1 is intuitively not a violation of free will, because you don't actually have to listen and learn from a person who teaches you. #3 is not, because it is initialized by the willfull surrender in #2.

When Jesus talks about "learning" or "listening" or "hearing", it is important to understand that he doesn't just mean processing the information and committing it to memory. Learning here is closer to committing yourself to tutiledge under the teacher. It's almost like an apprenticeship. Being an apprentice is not just a matter of learning a craft; it's an agreement to have the master essentially mold you into that craftsman.

You're totally excused; you'll just have to excuse me because I think the exact opposite. I feel that the universe is so arranged as to make unbelief impossible for me. One of my mantras has been that, in order for my religion to be true, every part of this universe has to back up that notion; it should actually bear the signature of my god. And I believe it does. It's usually just the things that seemed to have been done for our pleasure that convince me of that the most: how the universe is tuned perfectly for human life in this particular location, how we just happen to have just about the best known perch in the known universe in terms of exploration and discovery, the remarkable things we can make and cook (so many uses for eggs!). Yeah, those could technically happen manually with a lot of "luck" (well, there would still be much left to explain even after that), but the universe does bear the mark of serious forethought. The biggest thing, though, is how I often I've seen the equation of "whatever + faith" routinely add up to something much greater than the sum of its parts.

None of these things confirm my beliefs as fact, but I find it very helpful that things work the way I should expect them to based on my beliefs.

I think the biggest key when examining the personal application of any belief system is that we need to look at how we've fulfilled our end of the deal for problems before we check the medium or source of the beliefs. The fundamental properties of the universe don't change, science in and of itself is rooted in set principles, the Bible says God doesn't change, but humans are fickle and fair-weather and they flip-flop a lot. We can hear what we want to hear and read what we want to read. So, even when we're presented with truth from any of those aforementioned sources, we might not actually *get* that truth.

In comes Jesus with the famous words "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:32). I choose to take this as "if you know the truth, then the right way will be undeniable". Obviously, the hard part is knowing the truth, because rarely are we to the point where such an important decision has a path that is that undeniably correct.

I also choose to take these words universally- if I know the truth as a whole, I'll know the right way to go, whether that confirms my current beliefs or denies them.

To cut to the chase, not many people know enough truth to be able to be set "free", whatever that may be. In the context that Jesus is speaking in, the "truth" is his teachings. Regardless of whether or not that is really THE truth, not many people know those. I haven't personally met a non-Christian on these boards or elsewhere who holds a view of the teachings of the Bible that is actually representative of what the Bible teaches (they might know the book cover to cover, but the sum total of their conclusions might be invalid (even if most are correct) ). It may be that they interpret a passage to mean something that is logically inconsistent with another passage, or they see something as a contradiction that isn't, or they maintain that the book says something it doesn't. Therefore, they have less than the "truth" Jesus is speaking of, and certainly less than the total sum of truth available.

In this case, the truth is accessible; it's just not being utilized. Thus, the opposite of Jesus's statement is realized: "You don't have the truth, so the truth won't be setting you free." Here the Bible is fairly blunt about a tangible reason why people aren't believing. I think the best response here is to try to know the truth, and to see what in the world that actually does.

And, since I like to take this verse beyond its scope, I personally find it best to know the truth about things which challenge the truths I've obtained that support my beliefs. Maybe those truths will set me free from Christianity. At any rate, that's a big reason I like coming around here. If there's a truth that does that, I need to know about it, and this seems like a reasonable place to go for that.

1) I think there's free will in heaven. The choice was made on earth, and, as I said in my last post, part of that choice is the agreement to let God sanctify you. The end result is that you undergo a transformation that makes you like God, in the sense that you have the ability to sin, it's just that you absolutely would never do it. Some people actually get relatively close to this point on earth, I think, in fact.

2) If it's that way from the beginning, we end up having no opportunity to choose, so that violates the free will clause.

--------------------------------------

rlogan, I'm confused as to what you want me to do. Do you want a defense of the consistency of salvation, or a defense of a Christian "Theory of Everything"? Are there particular parts you object to, or does all of it just suck? My original post you quoted was mainly a rehash of points that were already made earlier more in-depth, provided simply so we didn't have to keep asking each other the same questions.

Is this the assumption that you claim is unreasonable? I've never come across a way of proving that there was no Adam and Eve that didn't involve a time machine or LSD, so please enlighten me.

johntheapostate

I think that your argument from design is better suited to a debate on the existence of a god, and not as proof of your particular god. But as you deny the validity of every other religion I suppose a belief in a god would also serve as proof of your god, in your mind.

I see I am going to have a difficult time in presenting my arguments as you have invoked gods omnipotence to reconcile what I believe are irreconcilable differences. So we may have to simply agree to disagree as I don't think that I can persuade you to alter your belief and you certainly will not alter mine.

I would like to point out that your book of truth has been interpreted in countless different ways, and everyone seems to hold to their opinion that they have interpreted it correctly.

I am still a little baffled at the ability of the mass of Christianity to suppress the sense of compassion they should feel for the fate of the damned and convert that into some fawning love of a deity who's actions, if committed by a parent toward a child would be soundly condemned. I feel that at the root of it lies personal self preservation and selfishness.

Let me make my appeal to emotion once more. I would rather burn in hell as an act of protest than spend eternity in heaven singing the praises of a sociopath.

And as for your last point, though not directed at me. Why should your belief be held as the default position in cases were you believe it simply can not be disproved. Although I believe that science has rendered belief in the Genesis account as rather childish.