religion- is there free will?

[Hooahguy]

this thread really is only for the religious folks out there, but atheists are welcomed to read and comment! :2thumbsup:

this question popped up in my mind today during my Jewish philosophy class.
we were discussing Immanuel Kant and how his question on prayer turned many away from it.
Kant's question was "if god knows everything, then he obviously knows what we want, so why do we have to ask through prayer?"
my teacher then presented Rabbi Issac Kook (a Jewish philosopher) and his answer to that question.
according to Kook, god knows what we want. but through prayer, we make ourselves worthy of receiving what we want.
that made a lot of sense to me.

then i began to ponder if there was free will, since if god knows all and what we are going to do, then we dont have free will. yes, its an age old debate.
i remember i had this debate 2 years ago, but i wasn't smart enough to really think about it.
what i came up with today is this.
we sorta have free will. its like a fork in the road. we have options of what we can do, but god knows what the consequences are depending on which path we take. but then again, that has a big hole in that theory, since if god knows all, he knows which road we are going to take.
im still divided on this issue and i spaced out in every class today thinking about it.


in addition, i learned something else to day- Pascals Wager.
this, IMO, is brilliant.
my teacher explained it like this: you have a steak. there is a 50% chance that it is poisoned. now, do you take that chance and eat it, or do you leave it alone? the obvious thing is that you leave it alone.
now, when you apply this to religion, you come to this:
if you think there is no god when there is, you go to hell when you die, or something like that. now, if you do believe in god when there is none, what happens when you die? nothing. you just die.
the safer of the 2 routes? id say the religion path is.

gee, i guess it is true that you learn more as you get older.

meanwhile, i think after today im going to devote my life to philosophy. it just makes so much sense....
:study:

[CountArach]

Allow me to paraphrase one of the two existential arguments that Sartre set up to defend the existence of free will.

First consider an alcoholic who is attempting to break the habit. He suffers from anxiety because inside him he knows that there is absolutely nothing that stops him from drinking except his own willpower. As such he is scared about what he might do, which leads to a fork in the road type situation where he can see two futures. One where his willpower is strong enough to resist temptation and one where it is not. That is the essence of free will - making that choice and having the power to do that.

Of course Sartre was an Atheist, so that is where that standpoint comes from.

if you think there is no god when there is, you go to hell when you die, or something like that. now, if you do believe in god when there is none, what happens when you die? nothing. you just die.
If the only reason you are following a religion is for your own good then are you truly a follower? Further, I am not going to constrain myself to the rules of a greater being I don't truly believe in.

[LittleGrizzly]

It is 'pascals wager' you refer too... theres a problems with it imo... theres has been far too many religions and a few of them state that worship of false idols is very bad (or the supposed followers burn or otherwise punish others as heretics)

As the great Homer once said "What if im worshipping the wrong god and pissing the real one of even more" (ok so so that's a very rough translation of what he said...)

The other as CA pointed out is believing just incase isn't really going to satisfy god... or the ones that have a hell place for bad people...

And my last reason would be if there is a god willing to reject people on the basis of my non belief then that is no god i wish to serve

Me and my friends have this joke about hell being were all the cool people, fun drugs and kick ass parties are... whereas heaven is something like the little old ladies clubs that some church congregations look like...

Onto the free will question, if there truely is a god who made us and can see all ends, then there is absolutely no free will, he knew we would be alive today, all of us, and things had to happen almost exactly how they happened for all of us to be here, think how easy it would have been for your parents or thier parents or thier parents and so on to have never met up in the first place, he is all knowing and he designed us

You could make the argument that god just knows what choice we will make with our own free will... but what do we use to make our decisions... our brains... our decision making is informed by nature and nurture, god essentially controls all nature, so that just leaves nurture, but if god knew what the first what was going to happen to the first living things capable of thinking, then he controlled thier nurture, and these things through the generations passed the nurture on until our parents nurtured us... so if god controls the nature and nurture of your decision making... he essentially controls your decision making...

Which then leads into all kinds of confusing thinking about god purposfully making people disbelieve in him so he can punish people...

[Uesugi Kenshin]

My answer to your comment on atheism is that the risk of being religious when in fact there is no God/gods is that you will have potentially wasted much of your short life in the pursuit of paradise or whatever.

To be clear I say potentially because I am assuming if you are following religion for your own good you are not happy with going through the motions of religion, whereas if you are happy to do whatever your religion asks of you then that is something different.

I have some other thoughts on this, but unfortunately no time to fully develop them, maybe later.

[Strike For The South]

You have complete free will. YOU have to find God. God can not find YOU.

I would say as a Christian that Pascals wager is not truly believing. The whole point of having a relationship with God is that you can feel him with you. Believing to be on the safe side is the ultimate cop out.

There is always a disconnect with atheists (not saying yall aern't an ok lot) I do not believe to save my own skin. Thats is not truly believing. I can feel the Lord with me when I wake up and when I go to bed. My own skin has nothing to do with it.

[LittleGrizzly]

You have complete free will. YOU have to find God. God can not find YOU.

This goes against my nature and nurture point, though i guess if you say that finding god is something that happens independently of your thinking then that sidesteps my point...

But on your point, it is my brain.. my decision making that holds me back from believing... im pretty sure i would like to believe in a god... so you could say i want to find god in a way, but my brain does not allow it...

[Strike For The South]

This goes against my nature and nurture point, though i guess if you say that finding god is something that happens independently of your thinking, as that through nature and nurture is essecntially decided by god if he nows everything...

But on that point it is my brain.. my decision making that holds me back from believing... im pretty sure i would like to believe in a god... so you could say i want to find god in a way, but my brain does not allow it...

God is omnipotent but gives you the freedom to choose. I made a decision to be baptized because I felt God around me. I could've walked away at anytime.

Your brain does not allow because you let it. Not believing is a whole lot eaiser than having blind faith. Not saying Im somehow better than you. Im just saying that "my brain doesnt allow it" reasoning could be the same logic I use for not eating walnuts.

[LittleGrizzly]

God is omnipotent but gives you the freedom to choose.

But my point is, being omnipotent he knew however he designed (lets go with christian theory here) Adam and Eve would affect the rest of humanity, by god designing the first people (natural makeup... dna of personality so to speak) and then designing the enviroment around them, nowing when a volcano would erupt or a storm would occur, so adam and eve have thier nature created by god, and then the earth around them with all the good and bad things is created by god, so thats part of nurture, the other part would be adam and eve's influence on each other, but with all the influences around them being god's, thier decision making process is completely influenced by god, so even thier influence on each other is god's influence...

So basically from here history is set in stone, with them and everything around them being completely designed by god he is thier nature and nurture, which is basically how you make decisions, so the next generation would be affected by the enviroment, which god completely controls, thier nature, which god completely controls, and other people*

* and because he designed the original people and everything around them he basically designed thier decision making process, so people's influence on other people is also basically gods will...

I could've walked away at anytime.

You could have... but you didn't want to... you decided to be baptised... which links back into the above...

[Uesugi Kenshin]

You have complete free will. YOU have to find God. God can not find YOU.

I would say as a Christian that Pascals wager is not truly believing. The whole point of having a relationship with God is that you can feel him with you. Believing to be on the safe side is the ultimate cop out.

There is always a disconnect with atheists (not saying yall aern't an ok lot) I do not believe to save my own skin. Thats is not truly believing. I can feel the Lord with me when I wake up and when I go to bed. My own skin has nothing to do with it.

Strike I mean nothing of the sort. I was just trying to respond to the way he was responding to atheism.

The reason I am an atheist is because I just don't believe in a divine being of any sort, not because of a cost benefit analysis. And I believe truly religious people are exactly like me, except they believe in a divine being of some sort. It was this cost-benefit analysis approach to religion that he was bringing to the table which I was responding to, and the people practicing religion because of this better off some chance at paradise than none idea I wouldn't deem truly religious.

I hope that clears things up?

You're right though. There is a disconnect. I can't imagine how/why you believe there is a God, just like you probably can't actually understand how I believe there isn't one. It's just one of those funny things about people and life.

EDIT:
To address one of your points Strike I think it is probably easiest to be somewhat religious because sticking closely to a religion's doctrine and believing very strongly is I imagine somewhat difficult, and being an atheist and telling people that can also pose its difficulties, while being just religious enough to satisfy the vast majority of the population seems to be the "easiest" option.

Though really I haven't experienced any significant amount of prejudice, just a bit of proselytizing now and again.

[Strike For The South]

Uesugi I wasn't speaking to you directly I was talking more about the OP. Sorry.

I think you LG and me all agree to disagree. I don't think there is a point to try and convert any of us...or is there :mellow:

[seireikhaan]

I think you LG and me all agree to disagree. I don't think there is a point to try and convert any of us...or is there :mellow:
*Promptly begins preaching to all 3 about the wonders of Kharma and Dharma.*

[Strike For The South]

*Promptly begins preaching to all 3 about the wonders of Kharma and Dharma.*

You have been converted until you've been converted by a southern baptist. Ask Seamus or Don C. WE DO IT BIG

[InsaneApache]

religion- is there free will?

Not if you've been brainwashed since birth, no.

As for Pascals Wager, IIRC it only applies to Roman Catholics. So, as LG posted, if you wind up on your knees to the wrong deity you're screwed.

Also even if he were right, you'd have a lot of explaining to do to St. Peter at the pearly gates about how you hedged your bets about the almighty.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't think free will can be reconciled with Christian doctrine, or indeed Jewish beliefs. The story of the Old Testament is about God guiding his chosen people out of iniquity. Similarly, the New Testament constantly refers to the chosen, the elect, those whom He did predestine etc.

Does not having free will mean we are simply robots with no influence over what we do? Absolutedly not. Not having 'free will' does not mean that every single person has no 'will'. That 'will' has an impact on the course of history; just because God knows what every one of us will do does not mean that we do not 'will' to do it. Why should the fact that we have a creator make any one of us any less of an individual?

Presumably an atheist would agree that we are not sovereign beings. We don't make decisions regardless of any factors that could influence them, we are limited by the strength of our will and our own weaknesses. The course of events, all human history is due to the way in which the wills of every person involved interact - there is no direct divine influence over this making us mere puppets.

However, when it comes to the matter of salvation, it just so happens that our own 'will' is not sufficient to make us see the state of our sin. The Bible says that God draws near to us so that we may draw ourselves to Him. If God did'nt make the first move then we would never will to know Him. This is one matter in which God is sovereign. He transforms us, recreates us with a new will - we are born again (that does'nt necessarily refer to baptism). Just as our first creation did not mean that we were not individuals with a will, why should this one?

So, my first point is that the fact we have a creator in no way means we could not have free will. Secondly, that will is very rarely, if ever free. But that does not mean that every individual does not have a will, it's just that the sovereignty of the individual in exercising that will is often limited by personal/wordly influences to varying degrees depending on the matter.

EDIT: Also Pascal's wager is no good for Christianity, not sure about other religions.

[Andres]

If there's no free will, then [insert supreme being(s) of your choice] did a splendid job of hiding that for us, didn't he?

Why would you even bother to ask the question "is there free will"?

The answer is obviously "yes" and if it's "no", then it is because of reasons beyond our comprehension and it makes no sense worrying about it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

this thread really is only for the religious folks out there, but atheists are welcomed to read and comment! :2thumbsup:

this question popped up in my mind today during my Jewish philosophy class.
we were discussing Immanuel Kant and how his question on prayer turned many away from it.
Kant's question was "if god knows everything, then he obviously knows what we want, so why do we have to ask through prayer?"
my teacher then presented Rabbi Issac Kook (a Jewish philosopher) and his answer to that question.
according to Kook, god knows what we want. but through prayer, we make ourselves worthy of receiving what we want.
that made a lot of sense to me.

There is an alternative answer to this: That we have to ask before we get anything. This is not necesarely about worth, but has to do with a willingness to engage with God, rather than taking him for granted.


then i began to ponder if there was free will, since if god knows all and what we are going to do, then we dont have free will. yes, its an age old debate.
i remember i had this debate 2 years ago, but i wasn't smart enough to really think about it.
what i came up with today is this.
we sorta have free will. its like a fork in the road. we have options of what we can do, but god knows what the consequences are depending on which path we take. but then again, that has a big hole in that theory, since if god knows all, he knows which road we are going to take.
im still divided on this issue and i spaced out in every class today thinking about it.

Well, God is all knowing, all present, and all powerful. The arguement is favour of free will is that, because he is all powerful, God can change the future, therefore the path is not fixed, and he can also chose not to know our futures.

The first of these propositions states that God's power precludes him being limited in any way, save as he should chose to limit himself. Therefore, what he knows he can change, so that the future is not fixed. Ergo, we have free will. This does not mean that God cannot ordain a particular course, such as he did for Moses, but this is an extraordinary case which, if anything, supports the arguement of free will because it demonstrates God interfering with the natural order.

The second proposition, linked to the first, states that God (being all powerful) simply chooses not to know, and that since we exist in a termporal world this means that free will exists because the Almighty effectively decides our actions only after we take them, or put another way, he leaves us alone to make our own choices.


in addition, i learned something else to day- Pascals Wager.
this, IMO, is brilliant.
my teacher explained it like this: you have a steak. there is a 50% chance that it is poisoned. now, do you take that chance and eat it, or do you leave it alone? the obvious thing is that you leave it alone.
now, when you apply this to religion, you come to this:
if you think there is no god when there is, you go to hell when you die, or something like that. now, if you do believe in god when there is none, what happens when you die? nothing. you just die.
the safer of the 2 routes? id say the religion path is.

gee, i guess it is true that you learn more as you get older.

meanwhile, i think after today im going to devote my life to philosophy. it just makes so much sense....
:study:

This has been fairly well demonstrated to be an elaborate piece od sophistry. It requires a single, identifiable, God and one who does not demand sincere worship or love. Clearly, this applies to neither Christianity, Jewdaism, Islam, Hinduism or Sihkism.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think free will can be reconciled with Christian doctrine, or indeed Jewish beliefs. The story of the Old Testament is about God guiding his chosen people out of iniquity. Similarly, the New Testament constantly refers to the chosen, the elect, those whom He did predestine etc.

Does not having free will mean we are simply robots with no influence over what we do? Absolutedly not. Not having 'free will' does not mean that every single person has no 'will'. That 'will' has an impact on the course of history; just because God knows what every one of us will do does not mean that we do not 'will' to do it. Why should the fact that we have a creator make any one of us any less of an individual?

Presumably an atheist would agree that we are not sovereign beings. We don't make decisions regardless of any factors that could influence them, we are limited by the strength of our will and our own weaknesses. The course of events, all human history is due to the way in which the wills of every person involved interact - there is no direct divine influence over this making us mere puppets.

You seem to be hedging you bets here my friend. Either we have the free will to act and chose or we don't. Having our choices frustrated is not the same as not making them. This is particually an important point when talking about salvation.

Are we saved against our will or do we chose? Do we have a choice?


However, when it comes to the matter of salvation, it just so happens that our own 'will' is not sufficient to make us see the state of our sin. The Bible says that God draws near to us so that we may draw ourselves to Him. If God did'nt make the first move then we would never will to know Him. This is one matter in which God is sovereign. He transforms us, recreates us with a new will - we are born again (that does'nt necessarily refer to baptism). Just as our first creation did not mean that we were not individuals with a will, why should this one?

Actually, in Christianity this refers to the double Baptism quite specifically:


Now there was a Pharisse named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. He came to Jesus by night and said to him, 'Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God.' Jesus answered him, 'Very Truely, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.' Nicodemus said to him, 'How can anyone be born again after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother's womb and be born?' Jesus answered, 'Very Truely I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and spirit. (John 3.1-6)
You can see this supported by anecdotes from Acts, where both forms of Babtism are necessary. Interestingly enough, this passage preceeds the "And the Lord so love the world..." one which is so popular, which itself preceeds the paasage about those who choose darkness over light (for those not so familiar with scripture, we are talking about all of John 3 here.

Now, how does this relate to free will in a Christian context, beginning with what I said in my previous post about an unlimited God, consider that God sent Jesus to all the world. In Christianity the relationshipwith God is percieved as a two way one, God reaches down and man reaches up. I would contend that is man's choice to reach up, and the act of reaching, which is transformative, not God's reaching down.

If it is the reaching of man that is transformative then God offers salvation to all and hummanity chooses individually whether to accept God or not. In this case we have free will. If it is the reaching of God which is transformative then God chooses the living and the dead and man has no free will. His will is subordinate to the will of God.


So, my first point is that the fact we have a creator in no way means we could not have free will. Secondly, that will is very rarely, if ever free. But that does not mean that every individual does not have a will, it's just that the sovereignty of the individual in exercising that will is often limited by personal/wordly influences to varying degrees depending on the matter.

EDIT: Also Pascal's wager is no good for Christianity, not sure about other religions.

I think you are confusing free will with free action. Spinoza argued for a determinate universe where free will constituted an exceptence of events. Free will is the power to chose a course of action from a certain point, free action is the power to follow that course.

Example:

I get out of bed in the morning: do I decide I want to get out of bed, or does God decide I want to?

As opposed to: can I physically get out of bed, or does someone stop me?

[Hooahguy]

wow. i learned a lot by reading all of this.
this is probably one of the most intelligent conversations ive had all week....
kudos! :bow:

[Subotan]

Even if we don't have free will, who cares? We have the illusion of free will, and as such we live our lives as if we have free will.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Even if we don't have free will, who cares? We have the illusion of free will, and as such we live our lives as if we have free will.

The only problem with that is if people start living their lives as though they don't have free will, even though they do.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You seem to be hedging you bets here my friend. Either we have the free will to act and chose or we don't. Having our choices frustrated is not the same as not making them. This is particually an important point when talking about salvation.

Are we saved against our will or do we chose? Do we have a choice?

As I said, when it comes to salvation God gives us His grace regardless of what we will. So with this issue God is indeed sovereign, we have no choice in the matter. He creates us with an entirely new will, we are born again in the spirit. From that point, we will 'will' to follow God without His direct interference. Although our will would not be strong enough to actually succeed if God did'nt give us a helping hand to keep us on track.


Actually, in Christianity this refers to the double Baptism quite specifically:


Now there was a Pharisse named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. He came to Jesus by night and said to him, 'Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God.' Jesus answered him, 'Very Truely, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.' Nicodemus said to him, 'How can anyone be born again after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother's womb and be born?' Jesus answered, 'Very Truely I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and spirit. (John 3.1-6)
You can see this supported by anecdotes from Acts, where both forms of Babtism are necessary. Interestingly enough, this passage preceeds the "And the Lord so love the world..." one which is so popular, which itself preceeds the paasage about those who choose darkness over light (for those not so familiar with scripture, we are talking about all of John 3 here.

Now, how does this relate to free will in a Christian context, beginning with what I said in my previous post about an unlimited God, consider that God sent Jesus to all the world. In Christianity the relationshipwith God is percieved as a two way one, God reaches down and man reaches up. I would contend that is man's choice to reach up, and the act of reaching, which is transformative, not God's reaching down.

If it is the reaching of man that is transformative then God offers salvation to all and hummanity chooses individually whether to accept God or not. In this case we have free will. If it is the reaching of God which is transformative then God chooses the living and the dead and man has no free will. His will is subordinate to the will of God.

Believers are commanded to be baptised as an public display of their faith, however it is not strictly necessary to be baptised by the water, the obvious example being the criminal on the cross. Most people would be born again of the spirit before they felt the urge to be baptised with water, so you could claim to be 'born again' without being baptised. Unless you count infant baptism, which is a tricky issue.

Whether or not it is the part where man reaches out to God that is transformative, it still depends on God acting first. Also, that theory would depend upon God's grace being resistable. In any case, it would only be possible for the elect to be granted salvation, because Jesus only suffered for the elect. God would be lying if He offered it to anyone else. And of course, Jesus did not take the suffering for those who won't be saved, because they will obviously take in themselves. God is fundamentally just - debts will be payed by the right amount, no more no less; thankfully in His mercy Jesus payed the price for the chosen people.


I think you are confusing free will with free action. Spinoza argued for a determinate universe where free will constituted an exceptence of events. Free will is the power to chose a course of action from a certain point, free action is the power to follow that course.

Example:

I get out of bed in the morning: do I decide I want to get out of bed, or does God decide I want to?

As opposed to: can I physically get out of bed, or does someone stop me?

To will something is really just an action taking place within our mind, if you consider will as being the force that determines how you interact with the outside world. Psychological objects which obstruct the freedom of our minds are every bit as real as a material object blocking our paths in the outside world. Obviously you might say that a material object is not 'part of us', whereas something that exists in our minds is. But I don't think that this is necessarily the case, our minds are constantly being pressured by so many factors that it becomes impossible to tell what our own uninfluenced opinions on something might be. These factors don't just affect our actions, but actually alter our 'will'. We will be judged on our hearts, by whether or not we do things willingly, not the actions themselves.

I don't think a person's will is something unchanging as that must battle to preserve itself. You are what you are at a certain moment in time, if someone's attitudes change then it's not simply a corruption of their true selves - they really are a different person. The greatest change in a person's will takes place when God reaches out to them and saves them. So taking the above into consideration, I would say there's no such thing as a human being with a sovereign free will. After you acknowledge that, everything is simply measured in degrees.

[CBR]

my teacher explained it like this: you have a steak. there is a 50% chance that it is poisoned. now, do you take that chance and eat it, or do you leave it alone? the obvious thing is that you leave it alone.

And that is what makes Pascal's Wager totally flawed. Just because you have narrowed down things to just two options does not mean it is 50/50. I can win the big lottery or not but the chance of winning is not 50%. Your next steak could be poisoned but since most people manage to eat them without dying it is safe to assume it is not 50/50.

Just narrowing it down to just two options is a problem in itself as it assumes quite a lot: There could be multiple gods out there so which one to pick. Maybe there is a god but he does not care. Maybe there is a god but no afterlife.

Free will sounds nice but assumes that all are identical. A simple thing like genes and upbringing makes a specific choice easy for one person but very difficult if not outright impossible for another person. When it comes to believing in a god then some claim they can feel god or whatever. So what to do when you can't feel him?


CBR

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As I said, when it comes to salvation God gives us His grace regardless of what we will. So with this issue God is indeed sovereign, we have no choice in the matter. He creates us with an entirely new will, we are born again in the spirit. From that point, we will 'will' to follow God without His direct interference. Although our will would not be strong enough to actually succeed if God did'nt give us a helping hand to keep us on track.

As I said, this begs the question of to whom God extends his Grace, from the same chapter I quoted above:


'For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. 'Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John: 3.16-17)
The only section of this which might possibly be deterministic is "condemned already" but in the context of the passage that has the force of the judgment taking place in this life, in other words you can't decide once you are dead, you decide now. Aside from that the passage is about choice and clearly states that God loves "the world", not the elect. This is one of the great passages on salvation in the Gospels and not once does it mention God's will, only his judgement.


Believers are commanded to be baptised as an public display of their faith, however it is not strictly necessary to be baptised by the water, the obvious example being the criminal on the cross. Most people would be born again of the spirit before they felt the urge to be baptised with water, so you could claim to be 'born again' without being baptised. Unless you count infant baptism, which is a tricky issue.

Nevertheless, the act of baptism by a baptised follower of Christ is shown to be significant in and of itself, Pater certainly believed it was:


While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who head the word.. Then Peter said, 'Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have?' So he ordered them to be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts: 10.44)
Not a major issue, but what is important is that conversion happens in the presence of one who has the Holy Spirit.


Whether or not it is the part where man reaches out to God that is transformative, it still depends on God acting first. Also, that theory would depend upon God's grace being resistable. In any case, it would only be possible for the elect to be granted salvation, because Jesus only suffered for the elect. God would be lying if He offered it to anyone else. And of course, Jesus did not take the suffering for those who won't be saved, because they will obviously take in themselves. God is fundamentally just - debts will be payed by the right amount, no more no less; thankfully in His mercy Jesus payed the price for the chosen people.

Where does it say that Jesus suffered for the elect in the gospel?

He suffered that the world might be saved, but where do you find the specification of an elect who will be saved, as opposed to an elect who are the messengers of God?

If God is fundamentally just why does he create children only to destroy them?

Jesus says he came only to the Jews several times (the episode of the Cannanite woman in Mathew for ex.), but after the death and resurrection Acts records that God makes no distinction, Chapter 10 of Acts makes this very explicit.

If it is God who chooses who excepts him (which is your arguement) how can he be just if he condemns those who do not except him to hell. If the Judge compels you to commit a crime is it then just for him to punish you?

I'm not denying that Christian salvation comes from God, the question though is whether it is brought to humanity, or whether humanity chooses to grasp it.

If God changes man so that man accepts him (rather than man being changed by choosing God) then surely God loves only the elect, those he chooses, and hates the majoriety of hummanity, whom he calls his children.


To will something is really just an action taking place within our mind, if you consider will as being the force that determines how you interact with the outside world. Psychological objects which obstruct the freedom of our minds are every bit as real as a material object blocking our paths in the outside world. Obviously you might say that a material object is not 'part of us', whereas something that exists in our minds is. But I don't think that this is necessarily the case, our minds are constantly being pressured by so many factors that it becomes impossible to tell what our own uninfluenced opinions on something might be. These factors don't just affect our actions, but actually alter our 'will'. We will be judged on our hearts, by whether or not we do things willingly, not the actions themselves.

I don't think a person's will is something unchanging as that must battle to preserve itself. You are what you are at a certain moment in time, if someone's attitudes change then it's not simply a corruption of their true selves - they really are a different person. The greatest change in a person's will takes place when God reaches out to them and saves them. So taking the above into consideration, I would say there's no such thing as a human being with a sovereign free will. After you acknowledge that, everything is simply measured in degrees.

Ther is no such thing as a "mental object" in the sense you mean, unless you make the human will and distinct and divisable part of the mind. Otherwise what you describe is a conflict within the will. How we respond to external pressures is just another choice we make, and does not influence the issue of free will directly. Of course, some people are less suceptable to some presures than others, but that is once again an external frustration of the will.

[Rhyfelwyr]

As I said, this begs the question of to whom God extends his Grace, from the same chapter I quoted above:


'For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. 'Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John: 3.16-17)
The only section of this which might possibly be deterministic is "condemned already" but in the context of the passage that has the force of the judgment taking place in this life, in other words you can't decide once you are dead, you decide now. Aside from that the passage is about choice and clearly states that God loves "the world", not the elect. This is one of the great passages on salvation in the Gospels and not once does it mention God's will, only his judgement.

There's nothing in that passage to indicate where our decision to believe comes from, whether its from us or from God. The answer in that lies in the countless references the Bible makes to the elect, the chosen, etc, consistently throughout both the Old and New Testaments. I'm sure you know the classic examples.


Nevertheless, the act of baptism by a baptised follower of Christ is shown to be significant in and of itself, Pater certainly believed it was:


While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who head the word.. Then Peter said, 'Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have?' So he ordered them to be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts: 10.44)
Not a major issue, but what is important is that conversion happens in the presence of one who has the Holy Spirit.

I agree baptism is important, but its just one way in which we are 'born again'.


Where does it say that Jesus suffered for the elect in the gospel?

He suffered that the world might be saved, but where do you find the specification of an elect who will be saved, as opposed to an elect who are the messengers of God?

If God is fundamentally just why does he create children only to destroy them?

Jesus says he came only to the Jews several times (the episode of the Cannanite woman in Mathew for ex.), but after the death and resurrection Acts records that God makes no distinction, Chapter 10 of Acts makes this very explicit.

If it is God who chooses who excepts him (which is your arguement) how can he be just if he condemns those who do not except him to hell. If the Judge compels you to commit a crime is it then just for him to punish you?

I'm not denying that Christian salvation comes from God, the question though is whether it is brought to humanity, or whether humanity chooses to grasp it.

If God changes man so that man accepts him (rather than man being changed by choosing God) then surely God loves only the elect, those he chooses, and hates the majoriety of hummanity, whom he calls his children.

"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." (John 10:14-16)

Jesus says in the above passage that he died for his flock. But how do we know if this flock is the entire human population or a limited number of people?

"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." (John 10:26-28)

So, if Jesus only died for his sheep, and the people mentioned above are not of his flock, then he could not have died for their sins. That would require God to punish their sins twice.

God loves justice, righteousness etc. Why would He love sinners? He tells us He hates Esau, yet loves Israel. I don't expect God to have loved me the way I was before I was saved, I would be damnable in His eyes. But becase Jesus died for my sins, God does love me. God demands perfection, and we can only be made pure through Jesus' sacrifice. Heaven wouldn't be Heaven if it wasn't perfect. With all the accussations made against Calvinist doctrine, I sometimes think people forget that there's everlasting life and a perfect new heaven and earth at the end of it all. Unlike Hell which is destroyed.


Ther is no such thing as a "mental object" in the sense you mean, unless you make the human will and distinct and divisable part of the mind. Otherwise what you describe is a conflict within the will. How we respond to external pressures is just another choice we make, and does not influence the issue of free will directly. Of course, some people are less suceptable to some presures than others, but that is once again an external frustration of the will.

I would consider a person's will to be seperate from the electric signals running through their brain which constitutes their decision making. Nonetheless, I think that will is still flexible and can be altered by a person's experiences throughout their lifetime. It's not some unchangeable thing that we are born with, immune to all the influences around us. Otherwise how would God be able to reform our hearts? Replacing a heart of stone with a heart of flesh.

[Reenk Roink]

I'm with Rhyfelwyr on the fact that "free will" as it is commonly understood at least is really not compatible with the doctrine's of Abrahamic religions as a whole. For those who relegate it to a uniquely Calvinist theory, let's remember that Aquinas himself gave a great case for double predestination (predestination of the elect and the damned) in Summa theologiae I xxiii. I'm not sure on the current position of the Catholic Church, but well, Aquinas is the chief theologian by most accounts. I don't have the references at the moment, but I do recall reading works by Jewish and Islamic theologians on the same issue coming to similar conclusions as Aquinas (I'll look them up and if people want references I'll post them - many interesting things like theories of acquisition and so on).

At least to me though, I've never seen it as a problem like some do, with respect to God's justice at all, simply because the easy response for the supporter of Divine predestination is that norms of human justice are not applicable to God. At least to me, that is quite cogent as is; it just makes sense.

[Hax]

I agree with Reenk Roink on this point.

I, personally, have a great problem with being subject to an all-powerful, all-seeing person with no human emotions whatsoever. Next to that, I think that the Abrahamic religions are based mostly on negative emotions: fear and guilt. However, I also think this differs per religious person, and as such I try to treat everyone equally; no matter what their religion is. I don't think it is my responsibilty/duty to judge.

Also: Yes, I am religious, and no, I do not pray.

[Xiahou]

It's an interesting question, but I think most of the perceived paradox has to do with how we think of God. Unlike us, God would exist outside of time and the past, future, and present aren't the same as they are to us. He knows all of them, but it doesn't necessarily mean we don't have a choice.

A good analogy I heard before is comparing it to a time traveler. He returns from the future and already knows you're going to do X,Y and Z, but his knowing that doesn't change the fact that it's your choice to do it. I'm sure it's all much more complicated than that- but that's good enough for me. :beam:

[rasoforos]

then i began to ponder if there was free will, since if god knows all and what we are going to do, then we dont have free will. yes, its an age old debate.
i remember i had this debate 2 years ago, but i wasn't smart enough to really think about it.
what i came up with today is this.
we sorta have free will. its like a fork in the road. we have options of what we can do, but god knows what the consequences are depending on which path we take. but then again, that has a big hole in that theory, since if god knows all, he knows which road we are going to take.
im still divided on this issue and i spaced out in every class today thinking about it.



You have posed one of the questions that a religious person should ignore all his life...

There is no good answer that will allow space for omnipotence and free will. You either go for lesser gods or atheism or accept you have no will.

Of course Monotheism relies on its followers ignoring its basic logical flaws under the 'God is beyond our mere human logic'. Apart from genocides, infanticides and religious murder, this 'mantra' also covers your question.

[Strike For The South]

Edit: I'll take it lying down. I've done it for 4 years why should anything change?

[Ironside]

It's an interesting question, but I think most of the perceived paradox has to do with how we think of God. Unlike us, God would exist outside of time and the past, future, and present aren't the same as they are to us. He knows all of them, but it doesn't necessarily mean we don't have a choice.

A good analogy I heard before is comparing it to a time traveler. He returns from the future and already knows you're going to do X,Y and Z, but his knowing that doesn't change the fact that it's your choice to do it. I'm sure it's all much more complicated than that- but that's good enough for me. :beam:

Your "time traveling" omnipotent god has one problem though. Even as an all knowing observer, he knows that you're going to do long before you were even born, so him doing nothing, thus condemning you to hell or heaven, is already a choise he made "for" you.

To put it differently, if a friend is going to jump from a bridge and you don't know it, then its a tragedy. But if you do know about it, but doesn't act, then you're indirectly making a choise for your friend.

While the above isn't touching on the free will concept, the next part does. For you to know that tragedy in advance as an observer, your friend is already following a pre-determined path, decided by his surroundings, body, mind and past. The omninpotent god already knew this and always known it.

He might limit his knowledge so that the last time he truely touched the world (Big Bang I guess), he wouldn't forsee the consequences in an omnipotent way, but then he cannot use his omnipotence ever again for humanity to remain thier free will. Thus he is no longer omnipotent, even if he was.

Or to put it short, if god has omnipotence, then humanity cannot have a free will. And if humanity have a free will, then no god can have omnipotence.

[Reenk Roink]

You have posed one of the questions that a religious person should ignore all his life...

On the contrary, many, and I mean many religious people have absolutely loved posing this question, thinking about it, writing about it, and arguing about it. Some religious people have argued it is very important to answer this question straight up to get the correct dogma and such.


There is no good answer that will allow space for omnipotence and free will. You either go for lesser gods or atheism or accept you have no will.

Well there are certainly answers. Whether they are "good" is a matter of opinion or not. Also, forget the religious aspect of the will debate entirely. It is quite difficult to argue for a "good" theory of free will, omnipotent god or not.


Your "time traveling" omnipotent god has one problem though. Even as an all knowing observer, he knows that you're going to do long before you were even born, so him doing nothing, thus condemning you to hell or heaven, is already a choise he made "for" you.

To put it differently, if a friend is going to jump from a bridge and you don't know it, then its a tragedy. But if you do know about it, but doesn't act, then you're indirectly making a choise for your friend.

While the above isn't touching on the free will concept, the next part does. For you to know that tragedy in advance as an observer, your friend is already following a pre-determined path, decided by his surroundings, body, mind and past. The omninpotent god already knew this and always known it.

He might limit his knowledge so that the last time he truely touched the world (Big Bang I guess), he wouldn't forsee the consequences in an omnipotent way, but then he cannot use his omnipotence ever again for humanity to remain thier free will. Thus he is no longer omnipotent, even if he was.

Or to put it short, if god has omnipotence, then humanity cannot have a free will. And if humanity have a free will, then no god can have omnipotence.

Well, as mentioned before, I don't really see any problem with predestination in any sense (it's not like secular versions of this question have any better arguments against determinism, specifically hard determinism - determinism is just too strong like Superman), but the bridge analogy is not one I really like. I'm certainly not making any choice for my friend if I knew he would jump off a bridge. Even if I knew I could stop him.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Everyone has 'will'. It's what makes them a human being. I don't know why people feel that 'will' needs to be totally free.

From a Christian perspective, the doctrine of predestination is difficult to refute. From an atheist perspective, I don't think free will could be said to truly exist either, one eletric signal flickering through your brain inevitably leads to another etc.

Maybe this need everyone feels to believe they have a 'free will' is because of this western belief in individuality. I'm not arguing that people lack a 'will', but it will never be a truly 'free will'. Just because God knows someone will chose a certain path does not mean that they did not 'will' to do it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There's nothing in that passage to indicate where our decision to believe comes from, whether its from us or from God. The answer in that lies in the countless references the Bible makes to the elect, the chosen, etc, consistently throughout both the Old and New Testaments. I'm sure you know the classic examples.

I can think of examples, but I'm asking for exegicis from you. The reason being that I need to know where you are coming from in order to engage with you. I know what scripture I draw from, but without knowing where you draw from I find it hard to argue the point (Are you talking about the psalms, for example, or the lives of the prophets?)


"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." (John 10:14-16)

Jesus says in the above passage that he died for his flock. But how do we know if this flock is the entire human population or a limited number of people?

"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." (John 10:26-28)

So, if Jesus only died for his sheep, and the people mentioned above are not of his flock, then he could not have died for their sins. That would require God to punish their sins twice.

The people mentioned above are the pharisees. A very specific group, and the thieves and bandits mentioned in 10, because they offer eternal life without the name of Jesus. This group are directly opposed to Jesus politically and theologically because they are fighting for the same religious ground.

All who came before me are theives and bandits; but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture. The theif comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. (John: 10.7-11.)
What is Jesus saying here? That the pharisees are thieves and bandits? It would seem so, but earlier he sais:

Very truely, I tell you, anyone who does not enter the sheepfold by the gate but climbs in by another way is a thief and a bandit. (John: 10.1)
So Christ is the sheperd and the gate, and the bandits are both false prophets and their followers. Nowhere, however do I see evidence of predestination. Given that this passage is part of John it should be linked with John 3, where Jesus teaches another pharisee, the passages I quoted in my last post. In the wider context of John I find it difficult to detect predestination here, the analogy with the sheperd has as much, if not more, to do with theives and bandits than with sheep.


God loves justice, righteousness etc. Why would He love sinners? He tells us He hates Esau, yet loves Israel.

God hates Esau? No. In Genesis Esau is made rich and his brother is delivered into his hands by God. (Gen.: 31.3). Nowhere does it say that God hates Esau.




No, because God loves you he died for you; not the other way around That is quite explicitely what the Gospel says, particually John 3.

[quote]God demands perfection, and we can only be made pure through Jesus' sacrifice. Heaven wouldn't be Heaven if it wasn't perfect. With all the accussations made against Calvinist doctrine, I sometimes think people forget that there's everlasting life and a perfect new heaven and earth at the end of it all. Unlike Hell which is destroyed.

The charge against Calvin's God is that he makes people guilty, then punishes them and destroys them, or that he knows the hearts of men but chooses to reform only a small portion.

I've asked this before, but I'll ask again:

If God reforms human hearts so that he will accept him and he is irresistable, why does he not reform everyone. Surely that is within his power.


I would consider a person's will to be seperate from the electric signals running through their brain which constitutes their decision making. Nonetheless, I think that will is still flexible and can be altered by a person's experiences throughout their lifetime. It's not some unchangeable thing that we are born with, immune to all the influences around us. Otherwise how would God be able to reform our hearts? Replacing a heart of stone with a heart of flesh.

I see no reason to suppose a person's will is sperate from their physical body. If the soul is something seperate it is still clothed and enmeshed in flesh. Further, since we are physical beings, how can our will be seperate from our physical presence and yet affect it?

[rasoforos]

On the contrary, many, and I mean many religious people have absolutely loved posing this question, thinking about it, writing about it, and arguing about it. Some religious people have argued it is very important to answer this question straight up to get the correct dogma and such.



I meant it in a good way. It takes a lot of mental 'balls' to ponder about that sort of thing. It is much easier to just ignore such difficult questions*. Not only he did not ignore it but he allowed us to comment something so serious to him. Certainly some people have found their answer and they are happy with their belief and stronger within it, others probably lost theirs because of it.

The opinion that there is no good answer is of course subjective. I am not trying to be dogmatic. It is just my 2 cents.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I can think of examples, but I'm asking for exegicis from you. The reason being that I need to know where you are coming from in order to engage with you. I know what scripture I draw from, but without knowing where you draw from I find it hard to argue the point (Are you talking about the psalms, for example, or the lives of the prophets?)

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)

This obviously refers to Jeremiah's fate to become a prophet. While this isn't the same as predestination to salvation, it shows that God has foreknowledge and determines a plan for individuals (without going into the Mormon 'Hall of Souls' idea).

"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." (John 15:16)

Again, God choosing us, an unconditional election.

"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. (Ephesians 2:4-7)"

In the above passage it's all very much about God acting to bring us to salvation. Indeed it points out how He saves us when we ourselves are dead in sins. On a side note, I may have proven my earlier point about God not loving me before I was saved wrong, although its hard to tell because in te KJV the word 'even' seems to be used differently from how we use it nowadays.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)"

As well as clearly making redundant the belief that works are necessary for salvation (why won't the Pope acknowledge this?), this passage shows God's sovereign role in salvation. No one man is any more 'capable' of reaching out to God than another, we have nothing to boast about - neither of better actions or better spirits. Salvation is an unconditional gift from God, it's not dependent on our faith. Which is just as well because we are all born in iniquity - nobody would 'will' to turn to God.

"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began (2 Timothy 1:9)"

Whether or not you believe that God reaches out to us or vice-versa, this shows that our fates are nonetheless predestined by the lamb slain before time. Naturally, the lamb would only be slain for those who will accept his sacrifice, otherwise some people's sins would be punished twice.


The people mentioned above are the pharisees. A very specific group, and the thieves and bandits mentioned in 10, because they offer eternal life without the name of Jesus. This group are directly opposed to Jesus politically and theologically because they are fighting for the same religious ground.


All who came before me are theives and bandits; but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture. The theif comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. (John: 10.7-11.)

What is Jesus saying here? That the pharisees are thieves and bandits? It would seem so, but earlier he sais:


Very truely, I tell you, anyone who does not enter the sheepfold by the gate but climbs in by another way is a thief and a bandit. (John: 10.1)

So Christ is the sheperd and the gate, and the bandits are both false prophets and their followers. Nowhere, however do I see evidence of predestination. Given that this passage is part of John it should be linked with John 3, where Jesus teaches another pharisee, the passages I quoted in my last post. In the wider context of John I find it difficult to detect predestination here, the analogy with the sheperd has as much, if not more, to do with theives and bandits than with sheep.

I posted that more as an example of limited atonement, which obviously ties into predestination because Jesus would not suffer for the sins of people who will reject them and suffer themselves regardless - God is just after all. He specifically says that he dies for his sheep. If you are not of his flock, then he did not die for you.

Whether or not you believe that this is as a result of God's sovereign determination of people's salvation, or simply a result of God's foreknowledge of who would willingly turn to Him, the fact is that limited atonement is a reality. Since Jesus has already payed the sacrifice, the fates of people today have been sealed. Combine this with the references to our own helplessness to achieve salvation and you have a clear and consistent doctrine of predestination.


God hates Esau? No. In Genesis Esau is made rich and his brother is delivered into his hands by God. (Gen.: 31.3). Nowhere does it say that God hates Esau.

"I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. (Malachi 1:2-3)"

There's a big difference between the way God deals harshly with Jacob and Esau. God clearly says that He hates Esau, and works to destroy them. The example you give of His treatment of Jacob is an example of chastisement, done out of love. Generally God wouldn't interefere in the lives of those who are not of the elect (if we consider Israel's history as being a story describing our own salvation at an individual level), however He will cast them aside in order to guide His people to the promised land (whether the land of Israel or the new heaven and earth).


No, because God loves you he died for you; not the other way around That is quite explicitely what the Gospel says, particually John 3.

Well God does hate sinners (or just the sin?), but yes you are right I've been wrong on this, God did love me before I actually was saved, I suppose because Jesus' sacrifice paid for my sins in advance. So it appears God would love the elect before they are saved (or love everyone if you don't believe in predestination of course).


The charge against Calvin's God is that he makes people guilty, then punishes them and destroys them, or that he knows the hearts of men but chooses to reform only a small portion.

I've asked this before, but I'll ask again:

If God reforms human hearts so that he will accept him and he is irresistable, why does he not reform everyone. Surely that is within his power.

Similarly, if all people are equally depraved, would it not be by chance if we were to reach out to God with our 'free will'? Unless you believe that some people are inherently better than others, and are more deserving of salvation for realising that they live in sin. As a Christian, I do not see how I could ever come to believe this.

Also, surely the black and white fates (eternal life/the second death in the lake of fire) offered would be unjust if all people have a unique free will that means that their ability to repent would surely be one of degree. If it is not something of degree, something that can grown and change, then it is something you are either born with or you're not, and your fate is just as predestined from birth by that fact than it would be in the Calvinistic sense.


I see no reason to suppose a person's will is sperate from their physical body. If the soul is something seperate it is still clothed and enmeshed in flesh. Further, since we are physical beings, how can our will be seperate from our physical presence and yet affect it?

Adam had a souleless body before God breathed life into it, soul and body must be seperate.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)

This obviously refers to Jeremiah's fate to become a prophet. While this isn't the same as predestination to salvation, it shows that God has foreknowledge and determines a plan for individuals (without going into the Mormon 'Hall of Souls' idea).

Nice try, but I have never denied the possibility of a destiny ordained by God, the Old Testemant is full of examples of God working against the order of the world as it is through individuals. Even so, the prophets have free will despite their destiny, Jonah was a singularly reluctant prophet. This is not really predestination, it's a course actively chosen by God in the here-and-now. Consider Samual, who recieves revised instructions from God as the situation changes. This is God getting involved, it is explicitely not God setting a course in motion.


"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." (John 15:16)

Again, God choosing us, an unconditional election.

This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my father. You did not chose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name.
This is not God choosing us, it is Jesus choosing his diciples, and this is not really him preaching. As he says, he is talking to his friends, people to whom he has revealed himself fully. While you could apply this to every Christian soul that is a very anti-Catholic interpretation, and the context and intimate setting make a better doctrinal case for the vocation of priests. The latter has nothing to do with salvation or free will in general; though it does relate to those God especially marks out for a specific purpose. So this passage doesn't necessarily have to apply to you or I, unless we are going to be priests or evangelists full time.

Tangentially, this is one of those passages which humanises Jesus, this is his long fairwell to the companions he has shared his travels and hardships with for several years.


"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. (Ephesians 2:4-7)"

In the above passage it's all very much about God acting to bring us to salvation. Indeed it points out how He saves us when we ourselves are dead in sins. On a side note, I may have proven my earlier point about God not loving me before I was saved wrong, although its hard to tell because in te KJV the word 'even' seems to be used differently from how we use it nowadays.

Noted, my translation reads more or less the same. Unless you plan to immerse yourself in secular Early Modern English as a proffession I would strenuously advise you to buy an up to date Bible, they are easier to read and understand, and are drawn from better materials. The KJV is not a terrible translation but you are actually reading through a language barrier, and the texts they were working with have been shown to be faulty. This might also help the thing you were worried about where you have to read a verse for or five times.


"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)"

As well as clearly making redundant the belief that works are necessary for salvation (why won't the Pope acknowledge this?), this passage shows God's sovereign role in salvation. No one man is any more 'capable' of reaching out to God than another, we have nothing to boast about - neither of better actions or better spirits. Salvation is an unconditional gift from God, it's not dependent on our faith. Which is just as well because we are all born in iniquity - nobody would 'will' to turn to God.

The Pope won't acknowledge this because it contradicts the Gospel, nor is this the only time Paul is in conflict with the reported words of Christ:

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will sperate people one from another as a sheperd sperates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom pepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me." Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry...[etc.]" And the King will answer them, "Truely I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are my brothers, you did it to me." (Matt: 25.31-40)
The continuation establishes that the accursed have not done these things, so they are damned for eternity.

Whichever way you slice it, and however you interpret "brothers", actions clearly do matter, because they reflect thoughts and actions. In Catholic doctrine this is interpreted as meaning that after Baptism into the Church (which is the only way to recieve Grace, via a baptised follower of Christ) Good works are beneficial because their doing reforms the spirit futher. In good protestant doctrin good works are seen to proceed from a reformed spirt, and when conducted with a good will are evidence for further erformation.

i.e. chicken and egg.


"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began (2 Timothy 1:9)"

Whether or not you believe that God reaches out to us or vice-versa, this shows that our fates are nonetheless predestined by the lamb slain before time. Naturally, the lamb would only be slain for those who will accept his sacrifice, otherwise some people's sins would be punished twice.

I fail to see how this relates to the Crucifiction. Nowhere here does it say the lamb was slain before time, in so far as the Son is co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Ghost, Jesus was always going to come and die on the cross. However, he died once, for the world, not once for each individual soul. So where's the problem?

Christ sacrifices himself, and whoever believes in him recieves eternal life. That offer can be extended to the whole of hummanity without Jesus dieing repeatedly.

not to mention, Paul is here writing to Timothy, another missionary, so that the "holy calling", once again, cannot be read back onto Christians as a whole directly.


I posted that more as an example of limited atonement, which obviously ties into predestination because Jesus would not suffer for the sins of people who will reject them and suffer themselves regardless - God is just after all. He specifically says that he dies for his sheep. If you are not of his flock, then he did not die for you.

Whether or not you believe that this is as a result of God's sovereign determination of people's salvation, or simply a result of God's foreknowledge of who would willingly turn to Him, the fact is that limited atonement is a reality. Since Jesus has already payed the sacrifice, the fates of people today have been sealed. Combine this with the references to our own helplessness to achieve salvation and you have a clear and consistent doctrine of predestination.

Ok.

1. Why is Jesus' sacrifice limited?

2. How is it that a non-temporal God is bound by temporality in having to determine who he dies for before he dies?

3. Why must Jesus' sacrifice be individual to every sinner?

So Jesus looks after his flock as the Good Sheperd. You have completely missed my point however, that the "sheep" do not have to follow blindly. The passage of Mathew that I posted above indicates that sheep and goats can be differentiated by their own actions. More than that however, I fail to see how Jesus' past death indicates predeterminism.

That's only necessary if his sacrifice is somehow qualified or limited, i.e. his ability to save is limited. That would limit the power of God, however. All that you can establish from these passages is that the "sheep" are those who hear the word of God, and that the shepperd protects the sheep.


"I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. (Malachi 1:2-3)"

There's a big difference between the way God deals harshly with Jacob and Esau. God clearly says that He hates Esau, and works to destroy them. The example you give of His treatment of Jacob is an example of chastisement, done out of love.

Ah, the Oracle. God Hates Edom in that time, because he has destroyed the country. In this instance Jacob is Israel (the Nation) and Esau is Edom (the nation). If you read Genesis you can see that God does love Esau, and a genaeology is provided of his decendents. This is polemic rather than history, and frankly I am tempted to dismiss it out of hand.


Generally God wouldn't interefere in the lives of those who are not of the elect (if we consider Israel's history as being a story describing our own salvation at an individual level), however He will cast them aside in order to guide His people to the promised land (whether the land of Israel or the new heaven and earth).

One of the problems I have with the Old Testemant is that it presents the lineage of a particular bloodline, told entirely from their perspective. Esau's God was Jacob's God, Jacob's people fell away from that God just as Esau's people did. The "historical" books are full of peoples who are converted and then dissapear, only to reapear when the Israelites destroy them.

I don't think the story of Israel is a story related to Christian salvation, Jesus says several times that the Israelites are a hard-hearted people (see any passage on divorce) and that they murdered God's prophets.

As far as God interfering in the lives of the non-elect, he does so by not electing them.


Well God does hate sinners (or just the sin?), but yes you are right I've been wrong on this, God did love me before I actually was saved, I suppose because Jesus' sacrifice paid for my sins in advance. So it appears God would love the elect before they are saved (or love everyone if you don't believe in predestination of course).

"Hate the Sin not the Sinner"? Or consider the number of dinners Jesus had with tax-collectors and prostitutes.

Why do you think Christ's sacrifice paid for your sins "in advance", how about those people yet to be saved, the unborn, those dead before the Incarnation? I think here you are reading your doctrine back onto scripture.


Similarly, if all people are equally depraved, would it not be by chance if we were to reach out to God with our 'free will'? Unless you believe that some people are inherently better than others, and are more deserving of salvation for realising that they live in sin. As a Christian, I do not see how I could ever come to believe this.

You already believe some people are inherently better, because God chooses some not others.


Also, surely the black and white fates (eternal life/the second death in the lake of fire) offered would be unjust if all people have a unique free will that means that their ability to repent would surely be one of degree. If it is not something of degree, something that can grown and change, then it is something you are either born with or you're not, and your fate is just as predestined from birth by that fact than it would be in the Calvinistic sense.

Ok, lets say your ability is one of degree, then maybe the world is such that God, through his perfect will, is able to offer everyone an equal chance over the course of their lives; or perhaps he judges people fairly according to their circumstances.


Adam had a souleless body before God breathed life into it, soul and body must be seperate.

I don't take Genesis litterally, and if you do I doubt there is any value in debate, but I would point out that Adam was a lump of clay, not a body. God's breath was the breath of life, and brought about a physical change. So the soul is inherently bound to the life of the flesh.

[Kralizec]

I was wondering about something.

...And I will harden Pharaoh's heart...
(Exodus, chapter 7 and later)

That doesn´t make it sound as if the Pharao had much free will in the matter...

[Rhyfelwyr]

Nice try, but I have never denied the possibility of a destiny ordained by God, the Old Testemant is full of examples of God working against the order of the world as it is through individuals. Even so, the prophets have free will despite their destiny, Jonah was a singularly reluctant prophet. This is not really predestination, it's a course actively chosen by God in the here-and-now. Consider Samual, who recieves revised instructions from God as the situation changes. This is God getting involved, it is explicitely not God setting a course in motion.

I could be wrong, but I think in a previous debate you argued that God, being all-powerful, could choose not to have foreknowledge, because while I argued foreknowledge was seperate from actively predetermining something (t'was on the issue of double predestination we were talking IIRC), you said that by having foreknowledge this would have the same consequence of predestining someone to a certain fate, because by God's knowing what would happen it became inevitable.

In the example I quoted, it is not simply a case of God giving Jonah a task in te 'here-and-now'. God says He knew Jonah before he was formed, this is clearly an example of Jonah's fate being predestined. Not only made inevitable through God's foreknowledge, but actively predestined through a deliberate election by God. This is one example I gave to show that God does not restrain His potential foreknowledge, and I expanded that into the matter of salvation in my later examples.



This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my father. You did not chose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name.
This is not God choosing us, it is Jesus choosing his diciples, and this is not really him preaching. As he says, he is talking to his friends, people to whom he has revealed himself fully. While you could apply this to every Christian soul that is a very anti-Catholic interpretation, and the context and intimate setting make a better doctrinal case for the vocation of priests. The latter has nothing to do with salvation or free will in general; though it does relate to those God especially marks out for a specific purpose. So this passage doesn't necessarily have to apply to you or I, unless we are going to be priests or evangelists full time.

Tangentially, this is one of those passages which humanises Jesus, this is his long fairwell to the companions he has shared his travels and hardships with for several years.

You could say Jesus is merely choosing them to be his diciples, a special role for people who have already chosen to become believers. But that fact that Jesus says they did not chose him shows there is far more to it than that. If he just said that he chose them, I would say OK, he is simply talking about making them his diciples. But how in that context would it make sense to say that they did not choose him? Choose him for what? To be their 'boss' while they work as his diciples? That doesn't make sense. Jesus could only be talking about the decision to become believers - it did not come from the diciples themselves, but from God.


Noted, my translation reads more or less the same. Unless you plan to immerse yourself in secular Early Modern English as a proffession I would strenuously advise you to buy an up to date Bible, they are easier to read and understand, and are drawn from better materials. The KJV is not a terrible translation but you are actually reading through a language barrier, and the texts they were working with have been shown to be faulty. This might also help the thing you were worried about where you have to read a verse for or five times.

I get by OK most of the time with my KJV, although I get stumped every once in a while I can usually check it up on Biblegateway, even looking at a NKJV translation can make things a lot easier. I've heard that some translations are a bit dubious, but nonetheless I do plan to read a few more versions in the coming years, if anything just to see if they give a different 'feel' to how I interpret things.


The Pope won't acknowledge this because it contradicts the Gospel, nor is this the only time Paul is in conflict with the reported words of Christ:

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will sperate people one from another as a sheperd sperates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom pepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me." Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry...[etc.]" And the King will answer them, "Truely I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are my brothers, you did it to me." (Matt: 25.31-40)
The continuation establishes that the accursed have not done these things, so they are damned for eternity.

Whichever way you slice it, and however you interpret "brothers", actions clearly do matter, because they reflect thoughts and actions. In Catholic doctrine this is interpreted as meaning that after Baptism into the Church (which is the only way to recieve Grace, via a baptised follower of Christ) Good works are beneficial because their doing reforms the spirit futher. In good protestant doctrin good works are seen to proceed from a reformed spirt, and when conducted with a good will are evidence for further erformation.

i.e. chicken and egg.

I wouldn't say the passage you quote is in contradiction to the one I gave (I do admit I struggle with things that appear to be contradicitions from time to time though, right now its the matter of hell and whether or not its eternal). Jesus talks about how the saved helped him, however I would say that those works came about as a consequence of those people's salvation. So yeah its pretty much a chicken and egg scenarion, but we know that God judges us based on our hearts, which I think answers the question. It's not really a major issue here though.


I fail to see how this relates to the Crucifiction. Nowhere here does it say the lamb was slain before time, in so far as the Son is co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Ghost, Jesus was always going to come and die on the cross. However, he died once, for the world, not once for each individual soul. So where's the problem?

Christ sacrifices himself, and whoever believes in him recieves eternal life. That offer can be extended to the whole of hummanity without Jesus dieing repeatedly.

not to mention, Paul is here writing to Timothy, another missionary, so that the "holy calling", once again, cannot be read back onto Christians as a whole directly.

They state their grace was given to them through Jesus before the world began. It's there in antipation of future events. Whether or not you believe this as being applicable to a select few or all of humanity ties into the issue of limited atonement which I'll discuss in a second.


Ok.

1. Why is Jesus' sacrifice limited?

2. How is it that a non-temporal God is bound by temporality in having to determine who he dies for before he dies?

3. Why must Jesus' sacrifice be individual to every sinner?

So Jesus looks after his flock as the Good Sheperd. You have completely missed my point however, that the "sheep" do not have to follow blindly. The passage of Mathew that I posted above indicates that sheep and goats can be differentiated by their own actions. More than that however, I fail to see how Jesus' past death indicates predeterminism.

That's only necessary if his sacrifice is somehow qualified or limited, i.e. his ability to save is limited. That would limit the power of God, however. All that you can establish from these passages is that the "sheep" are those who hear the word of God, and that the shepperd protects the sheep.

1. Because he says it is. He says he will die only for his sheep, and this flock is clearly not intended as meaning every human being. As you said Jesus only dies once, not for every individual. He made the sacrifice nearly 2,000 years ago. So to a person alive to day, their debt will either have been paid or it will not have. For some, the option to be purified through Jesus' sacrifice does not exist. Don't get me wrong though, only God knows who the sacrifice was made for, I will try to evangelise in the best way I can to every person I know. Some could appear to resist the world all their life and then be saved on their deathbed, only God knows what will happen.

2. God chose to be a just God and he chose to suffer, even at his own hand, so that we could be saved. You've said before that there's no reason why God could not choose to do something that appears to limit itself, whether its in giving humanity free will, or by dying on the cross for the rules which He established and the justice they require.

3. God is a just God, if one person is to be purified (and they must be absolutedly purified if the new heaven and earth are to be as they are promised) then their sins must be paid for in full. Jesus didn't just suffer the pain that comes with being crucified like the two men behind him at Calvary did - he suffered the wrath of God, taking the punishment for every soul that would be saved. Perhaps you think I come across as anti-Catholic, but I recently read a discussion on whether or not we should portray Jesus on the cross. As you know I tend to favour reformed doctrines, but I was quite compelled by the Catholic argument for keeping Jesus on the cross. They said that it should serve as a reminder to humble us, that when we see Jesus in that condition on the cross we remember that is it ourselves that put him there. Part of that suffering was inflicted by me, everytime I do something wrong I'm adding to the suffering Jesus took at Calvary. It's humbling, but Jesus paid the price for every sinner that will be saved through him. Of course, he won't have suffered for those who won't be saved. God is a just God, he won't punish people's sins twice - this is a point that must be adressed if predestination is to be refuted.


Ah, the Oracle. God Hates Edom in that time, because he has destroyed the country. In this instance Jacob is Israel (the Nation) and Esau is Edom (the nation). If you read Genesis you can see that God does love Esau, and a genaeology is provided of his decendents. This is polemic rather than history, and frankly I am tempted to dismiss it out of hand.

The Edomites do indeed have the same God as us. But personally I believe the OT on the whole is an example of how we are saved, portrayed on a national rather than individual level. Of course individual Edomites can be saved just like the rest of us, but God uses the Edomites to portray the non-believers and how God treats them today. Of course as I said actually actively seeking to destroy them was an exception.


One of the problems I have with the Old Testemant is that it presents the lineage of a particular bloodline, told entirely from their perspective. Esau's God was Jacob's God, Jacob's people fell away from that God just as Esau's people did. The "historical" books are full of peoples who are converted and then dissapear, only to reapear when the Israelites destroy them.

I don't think the story of Israel is a story related to Christian salvation, Jesus says several times that the Israelites are a hard-hearted people (see any passage on divorce) and that they murdered God's prophets.

As far as God interfering in the lives of the non-elect, he does so by not electing them.

Well as I said above I would consider the OT to be a guideline for our journey as Christians, but this is really a matter of personal opinion and probably reflects our own experiences, I would of course be taking the OT in a very broad respect when I say this. I agree though that God does allow the non-elect to condemn themselves to their fates, however this is different from the very active role God plays in bringing the elect to salvation. Only hyper-calvinists (eg the Afrikaaner calvinists with their racist doctrines) would suggest God plays an active role in actively seeking to condemn people, I have never suggested such a thing.


"Hate the Sin not the Sinner"? Or consider the number of dinners Jesus had with tax-collectors and prostitutes.

Why do you think Christ's sacrifice paid for your sins "in advance", how about those people yet to be saved, the unborn, those dead before the Incarnation? I think here you are reading your doctrine back onto scripture.

Jesus died once, and we are living in the future of that event, so our sins were paid for before we were born. What's interesting is the payment of people's sins before Jesus was sacrificed at Calvary. Maybe it's irrelevant because their sins will have been paid for by Judgement Day (I believe that the elect and non-elect will be sort of 'sleeping' until then). Maybe the animal sacrifices had some real value. Who knows, maybe they even had free will before then, that would be controversial!


You already believe some people are inherently better, because God chooses some not others.

Unconditional election.


Ok, lets say your ability is one of degree, then maybe the world is such that God, through his perfect will, is able to offer everyone an equal chance over the course of their lives; or perhaps he judges people fairly according to their circumstances.

So he ensures that it's a totally random lottery? People codemned because they never drew the lucky straw? Why do you find that any easier to swalllow than unconditional election?


I don't take Genesis litterally, and if you do I doubt there is any value in debate, but I would point out that Adam was a lump of clay, not a body. God's breath was the breath of life, and brought about a physical change. So the soul is inherently bound to the life of the flesh.

We should take things literally when we are supposed to. I'm a fundamentalist, but that might lead you into drawing some false conclusions because it's a word that flung around a little carelessly these days. We should take scripture at face value when it's clear we are supposed to. What we must avoid though is accidently reading our own values/biases into the scripture.

"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:19-20)

I don't want to be guilty of making a private interpretation by reading my cultural values into the scripture.

For example, I don't think the earth is 6,000 years old. If the Bible clearly stated it was, then I would believe it. Scripture before science I say, but that does not mean that science should be discarded, if anything its a useful tool for checking that we are really understanding the scriptures the way we are meant to. For example, if we were to add up the ages of the characters listed in the geneaologies from Adam to Jesus, we would come to the conclusion that the earth is somewhere between 6-10,000 years old (or human life on it at least). As modern westerners, we expect that every entry is the son of the previous one mentioned. But it's unlikely that in an ancient, patriarchal Jewish society that geneaologies would be recorded in such a way. After all, the Hebrew word for father is the same as that for grandfather (may go even further but I can't quite remember). Especially given the pro-human lifespans attributed to many characters, it may be better as interpreting each entry as applying to a tribe, with new entries only being given when I major division is percieved as having occured, or different parts of a tribe have grown apart over time. I've noticed similar trends studying Scottish clans even in the 18th century, it can be a nightmare to follow correctly when a new clan is formed, when to call a new group of people a clan, never mind all the ties of kinship linking clans to each other. To try and form a timespan from those geneaologies would be insane. And that's presuming we're even approaching them in the right way (as clans/tribes or individuals), we can't really know we are doing that with the geneaologies of the OT.

I admit I temporarily wondered if the young earthers could be right, but I quickly dismissed the idea.

[Hooahguy]

sorry to interject, but after reading all this my head REALLY hurts....
lol

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I could be wrong, but I think in a previous debate you argued that God, being all-powerful, could choose not to have foreknowledge, because while I argued foreknowledge was seperate from actively predetermining something (t'was on the issue of double predestination we were talking IIRC), you said that by having foreknowledge this would have the same consequence of predestining someone to a certain fate, because by God's knowing what would happen it became inevitable.

I did indeed, and I further argued that it made more sense for God to restrict his knowledge than his action, because free will and choice are very congent reasons for him to do so. We can see something like this in Samual. God appoints Samual Judge, but the Israelites want a King, so God chooses Saul through Samual, he turns out to be no good so God chooses David. David is also a dissapointment, and so is Solomon, so God casts the Israelites down and the Babalonians destroy the Temple.

Reading it it looks like God makes a decision, Samual enacts it and then someone else messes up. If God knew that Saul would ultimately be a bad King, why choose him as the best of all the Israelites? David was also chosen by God, he failed as well.

Prior to this Samual had replaced the previous priest because his sons were corrupt, even though God had given them the priesthood in perpetuity.


In the example I quoted, it is not simply a case of God giving Jonah a task in te 'here-and-now'. God says He knew Jonah before he was formed, this is clearly an example of Jonah's fate being predestined. Not only made inevitable through God's foreknowledge, but actively predestined through a deliberate election by God. This is one example I gave to show that God does not restrain His potential foreknowledge, and I expanded that into the matter of salvation in my later examples.

Perhpas, but it could also be that God chose and then shaped the prophet's lives in "real time" so to speak. In that case it is not predestination through God's forknowledge, but through his active power.


You could say Jesus is merely choosing them to be his diciples, a special role for people who have already chosen to become believers. But that fact that Jesus says they did not chose him shows there is far more to it than that. If he just said that he chose them, I would say OK, he is simply talking about making them his diciples. But how in that context would it make sense to say that they did not choose him? Choose him for what? To be their 'boss' while they work as his diciples? That doesn't make sense. Jesus could only be talking about the decision to become believers - it did not come from the diciples themselves, but from God.

Well, first off, Jesus is not actually all of God, he is the incarnation of one third of the Trinity, and he is a man. So when he says "I" he is speaking in an ambiguous voice, is it the voice of God, of his prophet, or of a human being, or all three?

While I ake your point, Jesus did actually physically choose these men, they did not exactly seek him out. In John some, like Peter and Philip, were diciples of John the Baptist, (a contradiction with Mathew and Luke) but even so Jesus came to them in almost every case. So I think what he is saying is, "You would not have chosen this course for you life, but I have put you on it and remember that you suffer for me, and that you will be rewarded in the end." I read that whole speach as being very personal, and while the fates of the Apostles are held up as examples they do not really typify Christian experience; not least because these men knew Jesus the man.


I get by OK most of the time with my KJV, although I get stumped every once in a while I can usually check it up on Biblegateway, even looking at a NKJV translation can make things a lot easier. I've heard that some translations are a bit dubious, but nonetheless I do plan to read a few more versions in the coming years, if anything just to see if they give a different 'feel' to how I interpret things.

I would still advise you to get a more up to date version, a lot of important latinate words have changed in force of meaning, while the translation is doctrinally motived, being designed to support the English Church and James' rule. All translations are dubious in one way or another, the best thing to do is get a modern Eangelical and non-Evangelical Bible, as they tend to commit different sins with the language. Don't bother with the modern KJV, it's whole locus is flawed. You can't update a translation by changing out archaic words; believe me I should know, I spend my time studying mediaeval texts.


I wouldn't say the passage you quote is in contradiction to the one I gave (I do admit I struggle with things that appear to be contradicitions from time to time though, right now its the matter of hell and whether or not its eternal). Jesus talks about how the saved helped him, however I would say that those works came about as a consequence of those people's salvation. So yeah its pretty much a chicken and egg scenarion, but we know that God judges us based on our hearts, which I think answers the question. It's not really a major issue here though.

Ok, fair enough. My point was that actions do matter to God, the question to ask is why. That's a whole other kettle of fish though, lets move on.

What we do see in that passage is God's judgement and a justification of that judgement, it is given a gathering of all nations and it places all of hummanity together until they are judged. This usggests to me that hummanity is created without distinction, then divided.


They state their grace was given to them through Jesus before the world began. It's there in antipation of future events. Whether or not you believe this as being applicable to a select few or all of humanity ties into the issue of limited atonement which I'll discuss in a second.

One very real possibility here is that Paul is wrong, and that the Bishops made a mistake by including his letters. The Epistles are neither historical narrative nor prophecy, they're the equivelant of internal church corespondance. I feel that often Paul presents his personal opinion, or that he oversteps the mark. Paul says that there is nothing for a just man to fear from the ruler, yet thousands of Christians were executed for their faith (including him.)


1. Because he says it is. He says he will die only for his sheep, and this flock is clearly not intended as meaning every human being. As you said Jesus only dies once, not for every individual. He made the sacrifice nearly 2,000 years ago. So to a person alive to day, their debt will either have been paid or it will not have. For some, the option to be purified through Jesus' sacrifice does not exist. Don't get me wrong though, only God knows who the sacrifice was made for, I will try to evangelise in the best way I can to every person I know. Some could appear to resist the world all their life and then be saved on their deathbed, only God knows what will happen.

Why does the sacrifice have to be limited temporally? God is not, and the devil is probably not either. Is it not possible that the death of Jesus on the Cross fundamentally changed the laws of the universe? That the past, present and future are idifferent than they otherwise might have been?

I think you view the sacrifice quantatively, Jesus died for x number of people. I see neither reason nor evidence for this. If the flock are defined as those who follow Jesus why must it be that he knew their number at his death?


2. God chose to be a just God and he chose to suffer, even at his own hand, so that we could be saved. You've said before that there's no reason why God could not choose to do something that appears to limit itself, whether its in giving humanity free will, or by dying on the cross for the rules which He established and the justice they require.

I'm not arguing that principle, I'm argueing the nature of the sacrifice, as an unlimited one which can apply to all of humanity. That doesn't change the relationship between sheperd and sheep, it allows the sheperd to accumulate a larger flock.


3. God is a just God, if one person is to be purified (and they must be absolutedly purified if the new heaven and earth are to be as they are promised) then their sins must be paid for in full. Jesus didn't just suffer the pain that comes with being crucified like the two men behind him at Calvary did - he suffered the wrath of God, taking the punishment for every soul that would be saved. Perhaps you think I come across as anti-Catholic, but I recently read a discussion on whether or not we should portray Jesus on the cross. As you know I tend to favour reformed doctrines, but I was quite compelled by the Catholic argument for keeping Jesus on the cross. They said that it should serve as a reminder to humble us, that when we see Jesus in that condition on the cross we remember that is it ourselves that put him there. Part of that suffering was inflicted by me, everytime I do something wrong I'm adding to the suffering Jesus took at Calvary. It's humbling, but Jesus paid the price for every sinner that will be saved through him. Of course, he won't have suffered for those who won't be saved. God is a just God, he won't punish people's sins twice - this is a point that must be adressed if predestination is to be refuted.

This is only a problem if the sacrifice is quantative, if it is qualitative there is no issue. It also isn't a problem if no one is punished until Judgement Day. Further, since the punishment takes place in Hell in either case, and Hell is outside time, there is no temporal issue


The Edomites do indeed have the same God as us. But personally I believe the OT on the whole is an example of how we are saved, portrayed on a national rather than individual level. Of course individual Edomites can be saved just like the rest of us, but God uses the Edomites to portray the non-believers and how God treats them today. Of course as I said actually actively seeking to destroy them was an exception.

This interpretation rather de-values the suffering of the Edomites, doesn't it? According to the Old Testemant destruction is Yaweh's forte, why did Saul displease the Lord? Because he did not slaughter all the Lord's enemies.




Well as I said above I would consider the OT to be a guideline for our journey as Christians, but this is really a matter of personal opinion and probably reflects our own experiences, I would of course be taking the OT in a very broad respect when I say this. I agree though that God does allow the non-elect to condemn themselves to their fates, however this is different from the very active role God plays in bringing the elect to salvation. Only hyper-calvinists (eg the Afrikaaner calvinists with their racist doctrines) would suggest God plays an active role in actively seeking to condemn people, I have never suggested such a thing.

Ok, here we go. If God chooses who are the sheep and who are the goats he condemns the goats. Further, God does not have to actively work to condemn people, because they are condemned already. Double-predestination is a fallacy.


Jesus died once, and we are living in the future of that event, so our sins were paid for before we were born. What's interesting is the payment of people's sins before Jesus was sacrificed at Calvary. Maybe it's irrelevant because their sins will have been paid for by Judgement Day (I believe that the elect and non-elect will be sort of 'sleeping' until then). Maybe the animal sacrifices had some real value. Who knows, maybe they even had free will before then, that would be controversial!

We are living in the future of the termporal event, but all of history, before and after,is affected by that event.




Unconditional election.



So he ensures that it's a totally random lottery? People codemned because they never drew the lucky straw? Why do you find that any easier to swalllow than unconditional election?

How is unconditional election better than blind luck?

[TB666]

Or to put it short, if god has omnipotence, then humanity cannot have a free will. And if humanity have a free will, then no god can have omnipotence.
Indeed, we only have the illusions of free will if god exists.
Or maybe we do have free will however christians got the whole thing wrong with the all-powerful god.
Maybe he is not all powerful and maybe a weak god.
Mean the deity has flaws afterall(if they had child services back then they would have taken Jesus away from him) so he isn't perfect either so maybe he doesn't know what we will and won't do.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Indeed, we only have the illusions of free will if god exists.
Or maybe we do have free will however christians got the whole thing wrong with the all-powerful god.
Maybe he is not all powerful and maybe a weak god.
Mean the deity has flaws afterall(if they had child services back then they would have taken Jesus away from him) so he isn't perfect either so maybe he doesn't know what we will and won't do.

Well done, you have re-invented Epicurus.

May I point out that the possession of absolute power does not require the using of said power.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well done, you have re-invented Epicurus.

May I point out that the possession of absolute power does not require the using of said power.

What do you think of the genealogy idea?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What do you think of the genealogy idea?

I don't think it works, unless you assume that the information is not available to Temple Scribes. The five Patriarchs are more than Tribes, they are quite explicitely men, with personal relationships. So if you go with the genaeology theory then Genesis is no more reliable than the Iliad, which is a perfectly fine with me. I don't know how it sits with you though.

[Kagemusha]

How i see it. The free will is the ultimate gift God gave to men. Basically God gave away control of his own creation, thus enabling possibility of evil. This also answers to the question how can good God allow bad things to happen. The answer is that God does not decide anymore. That is the prize of freedom.

[KukriKhan]

Fascinating discussion. :bow:

In Kukri-ism: The Creator created. Man asserted a knowledge of good and evil and his own situation, and thus: free will - the power to choose. So, whether 'real' or an illusion, we're forced to act as though it's real.

The puzzling bit is: why did the creator not un-create such a rebellious creation? We don't know, and maybe can't know. But we must assume that if The Creator is even a little bit like us, even though there's little evidence of that, she left us and our ancestors breathing for some purpose of benefit (or, at least, not harmful) to her, or her creation.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The puzzling bit is: why did the creator not un-create such a rebellious creation? We don't know, and maybe can't know. But we must assume that if The Creator is even a little bit like us, even though there's little evidence of that, she left us and our ancestors breathing for some purpose of benefit (or, at least, not harmful) to her, or her creation.

Just thought it was interesting you refer to the Creator as a 'she'... do you mean in a mother nature sort of sense?

I'll adress the free will/genealogy debates later, I really should be getting on with my essay, I've been putting it off all weekend...

[Rhyfelwyr]

I did indeed, and I further argued that it made more sense for God to restrict his knowledge than his action, because free will and choice are very congent reasons for him to do so. We can see something like this in Samual. God appoints Samual Judge, but the Israelites want a King, so God chooses Saul through Samual, he turns out to be no good so God chooses David. David is also a dissapointment, and so is Solomon, so God casts the Israelites down and the Babalonians destroy the Temple.

Reading it it looks like God makes a decision, Samual enacts it and then someone else messes up. If God knew that Saul would ultimately be a bad King, why choose him as the best of all the Israelites? David was also chosen by God, he failed as well.

Prior to this Samual had replaced the previous priest because his sons were corrupt, even though God had given them the priesthood in perpetuity.

The obvious answer to that is that God knew they would fail, but He was using them for His purpose regardless. As Christians we are appointed with many tasks - how many can we say we have never failed in at some point? Probably not a single one of them. Despite this, even if you believe that God could withold foreknowledge as a psychic vision of the future, his omnipotence means that at any single point in time God could tell exactly what the consequences of any single action would be, not through foreknowledge, but through observing the consequence of every single action upon the next -right down to the electric signals which spark a decision in someone's brain (at least if you accept the spirit/body as being inseperable). So either way God would know that Samual, David etc would fail Him. Therefore by knowing the consequences of any actions, God predestines us beyond doubts to those consequences. The only way this could be avioded would be for God to limit himself to the point that He had no knowledge of what we would decide or our nature as individuals - this would be in sharp contrast to the countless references made to God looking into our hearts, and indeed shaping our very souls.


Perhpas, but it could also be that God chose and then shaped the prophet's lives in "real time" so to speak. In that case it is not predestination through God's forknowledge, but through his active power.

But it would still be predestination, since he would be transforming them in order to achieve set future results.


Well, first off, Jesus is not actually all of God, he is the incarnation of one third of the Trinity, and he is a man. So when he says "I" he is speaking in an ambiguous voice, is it the voice of God, of his prophet, or of a human being, or all three?

While I ake your point, Jesus did actually physically choose these men, they did not exactly seek him out. In John some, like Peter and Philip, were diciples of John the Baptist, (a contradiction with Mathew and Luke) but even so Jesus came to them in almost every case. So I think what he is saying is, "You would not have chosen this course for you life, but I have put you on it and remember that you suffer for me, and that you will be rewarded in the end." I read that whole speach as being very personal, and while the fates of the Apostles are held up as examples they do not really typify Christian experience; not least because these men knew Jesus the man.

Fair point. This isn't one of the clearer examples, although I still think the language hints to a deeper meaning than that which is immediately apparent.


I would still advise you to get a more up to date version, a lot of important latinate words have changed in force of meaning, while the translation is doctrinally motived, being designed to support the English Church and James' rule. All translations are dubious in one way or another, the best thing to do is get a modern Eangelical and non-Evangelical Bible, as they tend to commit different sins with the language. Don't bother with the modern KJV, it's whole locus is flawed. You can't update a translation by changing out archaic words; believe me I should know, I spend my time studying mediaeval texts.

Do you think a basic NIV would be a safe option for my next buy? It would certainly be very different from the KJV at least.


Ok, fair enough. My point was that actions do matter to God, the question to ask is why. That's a whole other kettle of fish though, lets move on.

What we do see in that passage is God's judgement and a justification of that judgement, it is given a gathering of all nations and it places all of hummanity together until they are judged. This usggests to me that hummanity is created without distinction, then divided.

Absolutedly, faith without works is quite likely dead. While I agree we are all born equal as sinners, the potter & clay passage suggests we are given different purposes by God.


One very real possibility here is that Paul is wrong, and that the Bishops made a mistake by including his letters. The Epistles are neither historical narrative nor prophecy, they're the equivelant of internal church corespondance. I feel that often Paul presents his personal opinion, or that he oversteps the mark. Paul says that there is nothing for a just man to fear from the ruler, yet thousands of Christians were executed for their faith (including him.)

Well you know my views on the authority of the scriptures so I will be very questioning of whether Paul could be blatantly wrong. Although I agree we must undestand the context within which people are writing - a failure on the part of Christian theologians to recognise that Paul incorporated Corinth's own traditions into Christian services in that city led to unfair discrimination against women and their role in the priesthood of all believers.


Why does the sacrifice have to be limited temporally? God is not, and the devil is probably not either. Is it not possible that the death of Jesus on the Cross fundamentally changed the laws of the universe? That the past, present and future are idifferent than they otherwise might have been?

I think you view the sacrifice quantatively, Jesus died for x number of people. I see neither reason nor evidence for this. If the flock are defined as those who follow Jesus why must it be that he knew their number at his death?

There's nothing to suggest that the laws of the universe were changed - the fact that Jesus needed to suffer on the cross at Calvary is testament to God's maintenance of the principles He founded all things upon, the most relevant here being that of justice. The fact that Hell has yet to deal out its punishment as it were (nobody goes there till Judgement Day), is proof of the quantitative nature of punishment that justice still demands - that principle could not have been changed at Calvary. This ties in with my perhaps heretical views to mainstream Christians that Hell will only exist so long as people pay for their sins there - after which it will be destroyed in the Lake of Fire, also causing the second death, a true 'atheist' death (if I may make such a generalisation for atheists' beliefs). This is I suppose an entirely new debate in itself, but our views on different points of doctrine are all so interlinked it's perhaps hard either for us to understand where the other is coming from without mentioning them somewhat.


This is only a problem if the sacrifice is quantative, if it is qualitative there is no issue. It also isn't a problem if no one is punished until Judgement Day. Further, since the punishment takes place in Hell in either case, and Hell is outside time, there is no temporal issue

As I said above, I believe Hell is very much within the bounds of time, and its own existence will be fairly short. Jesus did not suffer eternally at Calvary - while some argue that He could have absorbed infinite punishment within a certain amount of time, I think that the human aspect of Jesus rules this out as a possibility. His divine aspect may mean he could 'take' more punishment, but eternity is not quantifiable and the nature of the sacrifice on the cross therefore rules out eternal punishment for any sinner.


This interpretation rather de-values the suffering of the Edomites, doesn't it? According to the Old Testemant destruction is Yaweh's forte, why did Saul displease the Lord? Because he did not slaughter all the Lord's enemies.

It's earthly suffering, in the end it is all vanity. I still hold firm by the idea that the story of Israel and its progression through the covenants is a framework for our experience as Christians, the chosen nation symbolising the chosen people, ethnic Israel symbolising spiritual Israel etc.


Ok, here we go. If God chooses who are the sheep and who are the goats he condemns the goats. Further, God does not have to actively work to condemn people, because they are condemned already. Double-predestination is a fallacy.

The Bible makes the distinction between predestination and foreknowledge. Predestination implies God playing a more active role because that direct intervention is necessary to achieve God's aims. We'd all be going to Hell if it wasn't for God's intervention is our lives, no direct intervention is required to send a soul to Hell once it has been created (so we agree here upon a second glance). It is the level of direct intervention by God that seperates calvinist/hyper-calvinists. Both technically have theories of double predestination, but the hyper-calvinist suggest that God plays an active role in people's lives to condemn them, which is of course wrong!


We are living in the future of the termporal event, but all of history, before and after,is affected by that event.

You could say that that is because God always had total foreknowledge of said event anyway, maintaining the single timeline theory:

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Revelation 13:8)


How is unconditional election better than blind luck?

Well it makes it a more complete and glorious gift I suppose, although there's not a huge difference. The thing is I think that Calvinism is the strongest scriptural position, and it is as a matter of consience that people seek to disprove it. If a theory more satisfying to our sense of free will can't even be found, then what's the point?

[Caius]

Nice try, but I have never denied the possibility of a destiny ordained by God, the Old Testemant is full of examples of God working against the order of the world as it is through individuals.
Jeremiah is a prophet that announces the Wrath of God (no, he won't kill you in the next night of mafia) if he wasn't heard and followed.


why did the creator not un-create such a rebellious creation? We don't know, and maybe can't know. But we must assume that if The Creator is even a little bit like us, even though there's little evidence of that, she left us and our ancestors breathing for some purpose of benefit (or, at least, not harmful) to her, or her creation.
He let us live, even though we are rebellious. He want us to distingish and to prove us if we are worthy to go to Heaven. He knows we will fail, because we commit mistakes, but He will forgive us as how many times He needs to forgive us because He loves us, even if He doesn't like what we do. There is free will, if we want to do something we will, but sometimes God is working in our neighbourhood, if you get what I am trying to say.

Excellent conversation going on here, keep it goin'!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The obvious answer to that is that God knew they would fail, but He was using them for His purpose regardless. As Christians we are appointed with many tasks - how many can we say we have never failed in at some point? Probably not a single one of them. Despite this, even if you believe that God could withold foreknowledge as a psychic vision of the future, his omnipotence means that at any single point in time God could tell exactly what the consequences of any single action would be, not through foreknowledge, but through observing the consequence of every single action upon the next -right down to the electric signals which spark a decision in someone's brain (at least if you accept the spirit/body as being inseperable). So either way God would know that Samual, David etc would fail Him. Therefore by knowing the consequences of any actions, God predestines us beyond doubts to those consequences. The only way this could be avioded would be for God to limit himself to the point that He had no knowledge of what we would decide or our nature as individuals - this would be in sharp contrast to the countless references made to God looking into our hearts, and indeed shaping our very souls.

That's not a bad point, but it's worth remembering that God can do both. This doesn't mean he does, but it is important to remember he has the capability.

Moving beyond that, when answering questions like this theologians et al. begin with a supposition about divine will and then work back from that supposition. If one supposes that God is all powerful then the failure of his prophets is a problem unless he allows free will.

Freedom to fail.

Otherwise, if God directs our actions, especially those of his prophets, he frustrates his own purpose when he makes them fail. So predestination would be God working against himself, unless fate is something outside God's control which he cannot change.

This would limit his power, and was one mediaeval arguement against Islamic theology.


But it would still be predestination, since he would be transforming them in order to achieve set future results.

Not exactly. One medieval Church theologian made the distinction between arbitary "fate" and fatum which is Latin for "speech", so that fate can only be spoken of as the pronouncement of God. For example, you can be struck down by a disease at random, or God can choose to afflict you with one by exercising his will. The first is chance, the second is providence.


Fair point. This isn't one of the clearer examples, although I still think the language hints to a deeper meaning than that which is immediately apparent.

What you are looking for really is a sermon etc. from Jesus where he preaches to the masses, anything else is too subjectively framed.


Do you think a basic NIV would be a safe option for my next buy? It would certainly be very different from the KJV at least.

The NIV is far from perfect, but I would encourage you to buy one at some point. In general it is a servicable translation. The NRSV is at the other end of the specutrum, but if you get the "Anglisized" version at least it has footnotes which indicate tranlational choices. For example, when I posted Mathew 25 and wrote "my brothers" I was substituting the direct translation from the marginal notes for the text which reads "members of my family". It's my preference, but it's also the preference of the Theology department here.

Your Uni Library should have most editions, you take a look and read the translators' prefaces in the front.


Absolutedly, faith without works is quite likely dead. While I agree we are all born equal as sinners, the potter & clay passage suggests we are given different purposes by God.

Glad you think so, still sort of chicken and egg though. Be nice to the Catholics.:beam:


Well you know my views on the authority of the scriptures so I will be very questioning of whether Paul could be blatantly wrong. Although I agree we must undestand the context within which people are writing - a failure on the part of Christian theologians to recognise that Paul incorporated Corinth's own traditions into Christian services in that city led to unfair discrimination against women and their role in the priesthood of all believers.

I questioned Paul to an Evangelical friend of my, his response was "He's an Apostle and He's writing Scripture". That's something of a tautology, because it litterally means, "He's a messenger and he's writing writing."

Paul's letters are difficult, because their final inclusion in the canon was decided by Saint Augustine and other Bishops in the Fourth Century, quite removed from the "original" Church. While I think Augustine was important and valuable I would not call him infallable. Also, there were letters attributed to Paul which were discredited etc. The whole process was very difficult and drawn out. Eventually, after about 70 years, the Bishops came up with the Canon as we have it now.

This process means for me that the doctrine of Biblical infallibility can only lead to Roman Catholicism, because if God would not allow those Bishops to err here it is inconcievable that he would allow them to err in electing their Patriarchs, who ordain new Bishops, who elect the next Patriarchs.

If we follow that line the Apostolic succession leads to the current Pope, and he must be infallable and directed by God.


There's nothing to suggest that the laws of the universe were changed - the fact that Jesus needed to suffer on the cross at Calvary is testament to God's maintenance of the principles He founded all things upon, the most relevant here being that of justice. The fact that Hell has yet to deal out its punishment as it were (nobody goes there till Judgement Day), is proof of the quantitative nature of punishment that justice still demands - that principle could not have been changed at Calvary. This ties in with my perhaps heretical views to mainstream Christians that Hell will only exist so long as people pay for their sins there - after which it will be destroyed in the Lake of Fire, also causing the second death, a true 'atheist' death (if I may make such a generalisation for atheists' beliefs). This is I suppose an entirely new debate in itself, but our views on different points of doctrine are all so interlinked it's perhaps hard either for us to understand where the other is coming from without mentioning them somewhat.

Before Christ's death hummanity litteraly had no Hope, after Christ's death we do. That's a fundamental change. For the qalative nature of scarifice see below.


As I said above, I believe Hell is very much within the bounds of time, and its own existence will be fairly short. Jesus did not suffer eternally at Calvary - while some argue that He could have absorbed infinite punishment within a certain amount of time, I think that the human aspect of Jesus rules this out as a possibility. His divine aspect may mean he could 'take' more punishment, but eternity is not quantifiable and the nature of the sacrifice on the cross therefore rules out eternal punishment for any sinner.

You have possibly shot yourself in the foot here.

If Jesus is a man (and we are agreed he is) then he can die and suffer only once, as one man. If the punishement is therefore quantative in the sense that it is valued for x number of souls, that number would by one. If on the other hand that one perfect sacrifice breaks Satan's rights over hummanity and his power then the sacrifice is valid for every repentant soul, regardless of number.


It's earthly suffering, in the end it is all vanity. I still hold firm by the idea that the story of Israel and its progression through the covenants is a framework for our experience as Christians, the chosen nation symbolising the chosen people, ethnic Israel symbolising spiritual Israel etc.

I don't think Earthly suffering is vanity, unless it is our own fault; and that requires free will.


The Bible makes the distinction between predestination and foreknowledge. Predestination implies God playing a more active role because that direct intervention is necessary to achieve God's aims. We'd all be going to Hell if it wasn't for God's intervention is our lives, no direct intervention is required to send a soul to Hell once it has been created (so we agree here upon a second glance). It is the level of direct intervention by God that seperates calvinist/hyper-calvinists. Both technically have theories of double predestination, but the hyper-calvinist suggest that God plays an active role in people's lives to condemn them, which is of course wrong!

Personally I think the distinction is a mere nicity, the result of the doctrine is exactly the same.




You could say that that is because God always had total foreknowledge of said event anyway, maintaining the single timeline theory:

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Revelation 13:8)

This is where we apply fatum, God has said it will be so, and it will be; unless God says otherwise.

The single timeline theory is also coming under attack from science, which is a big problem because science observes the natural world and if God falsifies results for scientists he lies (whereas errors in scripture can be a result of human failure).


Well it makes it a more complete and glorious gift I suppose, although there's not a huge difference. The thing is I think that Calvinism is the strongest scriptural position, and it is as a matter of consience that people seek to disprove it. If a theory more satisfying to our sense of free will can't even be found, then what's the point?

Calvinism is avery neat theory, almost perfect in it's symetry. That's why I think it's wrong, Calvin was a Theologin, not a prophet, and his Bible would have suffered from all the deficiancies of editions of the time (lack of complete collation, limited access to early texts). Though he could speak Greek and was a good scholar he was not infallable.

Since I do not believe that man can have a worked-out conception of divine will I find the very neatness of Calvinism suspicious.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That's not a bad point, but it's worth remembering that God can do both. This doesn't mean he does, but it is important to remember he has the capability.

Moving beyond that, when answering questions like this theologians et al. begin with a supposition about divine will and then work back from that supposition. If one supposes that God is all powerful then the failure of his prophets is a problem unless he allows free will.

Freedom to fail.

Otherwise, if God directs our actions, especially those of his prophets, he frustrates his own purpose when he makes them fail. So predestination would be God working against himself, unless fate is something outside God's control which he cannot change.

This would limit his power, and was one mediaeval arguement against Islamic theology.

Fate is very much within God's control - Calvinism is an extension of that fate because it is a form of determinism, God directs the means as well as the ends. In the examples here I am sure that God was well aware of what the outcomes of the prophets actions would be, but God will use those outcomes for His purpose. Often failure serves well in reminding us of how dependent we are on God, it prevents us from clouding ourselves with our own righteousness when we think we are 'on track' as it were. God uses our failures to humble us before Him. Not only do our own failures humble us today, but those we read about in the Old Testament can teach us valuable lessons - Jonah's story is one of the best know stories from the Bible after all.

Also isn't there a debate going on in Islam about predestination?


Not exactly. One medieval Church theologian made the distinction between arbitary "fate" and fatum which is Latin for "speech", so that fate can only be spoken of as the pronouncement of God. For example, you can be struck down by a disease at random, or God can choose to afflict you with one by exercising his will. The first is chance, the second is providence.

All things come directly from God, but that does not necessarily mean they play a direct role in God's greater plans. For example, say I could have picked either a blue t-shirt or a white t-shirt when I got up this morning. In the end I picked the blue t-shirt. This decision was predestined by God, but not because it is somehow part of God's plan for the salvation of mankind and the fulfillment of the prophecies of Revelation (well it could have been but I doubt it). God has no reason to care what t-shirt I picked. At the most basic level, my decision was made inevitable because of the pattern in which every electric signal flickered through my brain, and those would have been influenced by God's active predetermination (importantly in this respect through wordly intervention) of other things relevant to his plan (the butterfly effect). Also, it was made inevitable through God's foreknowledge. So I would not consider there to be any worthwhile distinction between atbitrary fate and 'fatum', although I don't think its necessary to say every decision I make is divine providence - its inevitable but it wasn't planned in itself as a means to fulfilling God's purpose.


What you are looking for really is a sermon etc. from Jesus where he preaches to the masses, anything else is too subjectively framed.

OK, this is really now just a minor disagreement on the significance of the language, and its down to personal opinion, so we can move on.


The NIV is far from perfect, but I would encourage you to buy one at some point. In general it is a servicable translation. The NRSV is at the other end of the specutrum, but if you get the "Anglisized" version at least it has footnotes which indicate tranlational choices. For example, when I posted Mathew 25 and wrote "my brothers" I was substituting the direct translation from the marginal notes for the text which reads "members of my family". It's my preference, but it's also the preference of the Theology department here.

Your Uni Library should have most editions, you take a look and read the translators' prefaces in the front.

I like to buy books, but good idea I could check some out in my library to see which ones I like.


Glad you think so, still sort of chicken and egg though. Be nice to the Catholics.:beam:

Very well, my Ian Paisley thesaurus shall remain in its drawer for today. :laugh4:


I questioned Paul to an Evangelical friend of my, his response was "He's an Apostle and He's writing Scripture". That's something of a tautology, because it litterally means, "He's a messenger and he's writing writing."

Paul's letters are difficult, because their final inclusion in the canon was decided by Saint Augustine and other Bishops in the Fourth Century, quite removed from the "original" Church. While I think Augustine was important and valuable I would not call him infallable. Also, there were letters attributed to Paul which were discredited etc. The whole process was very difficult and drawn out. Eventually, after about 70 years, the Bishops came up with the Canon as we have it now.

This process means for me that the doctrine of Biblical infallibility can only lead to Roman Catholicism, because if God would not allow those Bishops to err here it is inconcievable that he would allow them to err in electing their Patriarchs, who ordain new Bishops, who elect the next Patriarchs.

If we follow that line the Apostolic succession leads to the current Pope, and he must be infallable and directed by God.

It could be used to justify an Episcopalian polity, although not necessarily the Roman Catholic Church. If you believe that in the early days of Christianity none of the Bishops could err, why would only some of them feel the need to appoint a leader over all of Christendom (under God of course)? The Bishops are actually represented in a Presbyterian polity, under the name of elders, and the more 'bottom-up' nature of the Presbyterian system allows for a more accurate reflection of the early Christian socities, not least the Celtic Church here in Scotland.

Are you referring to Titus? Could you post the passage you had in mind so I could give my views on it?


Before Christ's death hummanity litteraly had no Hope, after Christ's death we do. That's a fundamental change. For the qalative nature of scarifice see below.

It's an important development for us as humans, but it's not necessarily a fundamental change in the very laws of the universe. Justice is still being served, only God suffers at His own hand. Some people say that the Calvinist focus on justice underplays the role of God's mercy. I disagree, because without a demand for justice there would be no need for God to show mercy upon us.


You have possibly shot yourself in the foot here.

If Jesus is a man (and we are agreed he is) then he can die and suffer only once, as one man. If the punishement is therefore quantative in the sense that it is valued for x number of souls, that number would by one. If on the other hand that one perfect sacrifice breaks Satan's rights over hummanity and his power then the sacrifice is valid for every repentant soul, regardless of number.

There's no set level of suffering that only one man can take, the second death occurs in the Lake of Fire, not by the fires of Hell, which are themselves destroyed with the damned. If you accept that it is the suffering itself that is the payment for sin, then there is no reason why Jesus could not have taken the punishment for all believers. Despite this, I still believe that this excludes universalism (apart from the scripture showing its falsehood), as while the damned pay for their sins, it is only by justification through faith that we are welcomed into Heaven - the payment of our sins is a prerequisite to entry into Heaven, not the primary means itself. The transformative nature of God's grace on a human soul is what makes us worthy in God's eyes - while the damned pay for their sins in Hell, they remain sinners, just with a clean slate.

I still believe that Jesus' suffering upon Calvary is testament to the maintenance of the original 'laws of the universe', and the demand for justice (hence a quantitave sacrifice - the extent of which is what made it so merciful, rather than one death somehow justifying all of humanity), not based on our actions, but on the content of our hearts. As the Catholic website I quoted earlier said, when you see Jesus on the cross remember your part in inflicting those wounds.


I don't think Earthly suffering is vanity, unless it is our own fault; and that requires free will.

While I think everything is predestined by God, sometimes suffering (especially tragic deaths, cancer etc) just comes about as part and parcel of the fallen world, serving no apparent purpose in God's greater plans (think of my t-shirt example). And earthly suffering is vanity compared to the fire we all deserve. Of course, God would never inflict suffering out of badness. In fact, God would only deliberately inflict suffering as chastisement (not judicial punishment as it turns out despite the wording in the quote) to keep His people on track. As he said to His chosen nation:

"You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities." (Amos 3:2)


Personally I think the distinction is a mere nicity, the result of the doctrine is exactly the same.

It's definitely a distinction worth making though, because hyper-calvinism conflicts with the most basic Christian belief that we are born into iniquity and would be damned with our own natures.


This is where we apply fatum, God has said it will be so, and it will be; unless God says otherwise.

The single timeline theory is also coming under attack from science, which is a big problem because science observes the natural world and if God falsifies results for scientists he lies (whereas errors in scripture can be a result of human failure).

I still think there's no meaningful distinction between arbitrary fate and God's providence. By believing in fate you only remove the deterministic element of achieiving it through set means - in effect the matter has still been predestined to occur by God, its outcome is not prone to chance. This is just as applicable to salvation as the passage we are referring to here, and I think the scripture supports the idea that God uses set means to achieve His purpose.

Naturally God is not bound to act within laws which we understand, but that doesn't mean we should brush aside things which we can attempt to comprehend with our own initiative and the knowledge granted to us through scripture.

As for the single timeline theory, we'll see...


Calvinism is avery neat theory, almost perfect in it's symetry. That's why I think it's wrong, Calvin was a Theologin, not a prophet, and his Bible would have suffered from all the deficiancies of editions of the time (lack of complete collation, limited access to early texts). Though he could speak Greek and was a good scholar he was not infallable.

Since I do not believe that man can have a worked-out conception of divine will I find the very neatness of Calvinism suspicious.

Calvin was a great evangelist too, he would balk at the 'Calvinists' today who don't do their duty to preach because they think some people must be predestined to Hell. :rolleyes:

Of course he was not infallable nor would he claim to be, I'm sure he was just trying to work things out like us here nearly 500 years later. It's not like anyone's suggesting you have to believe/reject predestination to be saved after all.

But I would say that just because aspects of the divine will always be beyond us (unless they're revealed in Heaven?) does not mean that we should not attempt to understand them. Can we really say we know any matter of doctrine to be certain? Because the 'changing the laws of the universe' argument could render anything totally obsolete. There are some things though which I think we are unlikely to ever understand properly, the Trinity for one springs to mind.

[Puzz3D]

Naturally God is not bound to act within laws which we understand, but that doesn't mean we should brush aside things which we can attempt to comprehend with our own initiative and the knowledge granted to us through scripture.

There is no knowledge of the metaphysical granted through scripture. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) demonstrated via philosophical argument in his Critique of Pure Reason that man cannot know anything about a metaphysical realm using Rationalism because that realm is outside of the mind's experience. He also demonstrated that you cannot understand reality through Empiricism because the mind operates to structure the information coming in to it through the senses. For instance, we perceive objects as existing in Space/Time not because that's how those objects actually exist in reality, but because that's the only way our minds can perceive them. Time itself is just how our minds order change. We perceive objects as existing externally to ourselves because that's the only way we can have a sense of self. The reality could be that we are not separate from what we perceive to be outside of ourselves. We are after all composed of something we call "energy", and science has shown that the entire universe is composed of "energy" in different forms which is all connected by a force (the law of nature that governs how energy behaves) which cannot be explained. No one can explain how there can exist action at a distance.

The mind is a product of the natural universe, and we are using that mind to try to understand the nature of the universe. This implies a limitation to the mind's ability to arrive at such an understanding. It's not as though we can stand outside the universe and evaluate it.



But I would say that just because aspects of the divine will always be beyond us (unless they're revealed in Heaven?) does not mean that we should not attempt to understand them. Can we really say we know any matter of doctrine to be certain? Because the 'changing the laws of the universe' argument could render anything totally obsolete. There are some things though which I think we are unlikely to ever understand properly, the Trinity for one springs to mind.
The Trinity is a good example of the difficulties you get into trying to use Rationalism to understand reality. Rationalism alone allows one to arrive at contradictory conclusions such as, "the universe was created at some point in time" and also "the universe has existed forever". These are called Antinomies and they undermine confidence that reason alone can lead to an understanding of reality.

We have to conduct ourselves as thought the laws of the universe won't change. We don't have a choice in this, and it's possible that the physical laws (there is possibly just a single underlying force which may or may not be discoverable) that governs how energy behaves cannot be changed. This would give rise to the stable environmental conditions which allows us to exist as living physical creatures.

Stephen Hawkings, who is not an atheist, has an interesting premise that the total energy in the universe is equal to zero; the negative energy being contained in gravity. If this is true and you brought all of the energy in the universe back to a central point, then the universe would cease to exist. In other words, the idea that energy (which we always observe as positive energy) was created out of nothing is just a perception. An example of this phenomenon of false perception would be vacuum genesis where atomic particles are observed to appear spontaneously in a vacuum. They seem to be created out of nothing, but it's just a perception because the anti-particle that was created at the same time wasn't observed. Hawkings points out that all ancient religions are based on flawed cosmology which leads them to false conclusions.

Likewise, we have to conduct ourselves as though we have free will even if the universe is in fact deterministic. To out mind is appears that we have free will to make choices, and that these choices alter the future course of events. Most likely we can never find out by observation if the universe is deterministic due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. ("In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that the values of certain pairs of conjugate variables (position and momentum, for instance) cannot both be known with arbitrary precision." - From the Wikipedia entry.)

[Rhyfelwyr]

There is no knowledge of the metaphysical granted through scripture. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) demonstrated via philosophical argument in his Critique of Pure Reason that man cannot know anything about a metaphysical realm using Rationalism because that realm is outside of the mind's experience. He also demonstrated that you cannot understand reality through Empiricism because the mind operates to structure the information coming in to it through the senses. For instance, we perceive objects as existing in Space/Time not because that's how those objects actually exist in reality, but because that's the only way our minds can perceive them. Time itself is just how our minds order change. We perceive objects as existing externally to ourselves because that's the only way we can have a sense of self. The reality could be that we are not separate from what we perceive to be outside of ourselves. We are after all composed of something we call "energy", and science has shown that the entire universe is composed of "energy" in different forms which is all connected by a force (the law of nature that governs how energy behaves) which cannot be explained. No one can explain how there can exist action at a distance.

The mind is a product of the natural universe, and we are using that mind to try to understand the nature of the universe. This implies a limitation to the mind's ability to arrive at such an understanding. It's not as though we can stand outside the universe and evaluate it.

Yes, but who said we were dealing with a metaphysical realm when it comes to Jesus' sacrifice? Jesus had a human body on Calvary when he died. My point earlier was that if there's no reason to believe that something is outside the rules that we can understand, then why dismiss it as being so? I agree there are things we can't understand and I gave the trinity as one example, but I don't see why Jesus' sacrifice has to be placed in this same category. Scripture might not give knowledge of the metaphysical - but it does indicate when something is in the metaphysical realm or not.

But I will say that we humans can understand any part of God's nature. He can give that knowledge to us despite the limits of our minds, otherwise He would not be omnipotent. For example, God can give people the understanding to know that He exists.


The Trinity is a good example of the difficulties you get into trying to use Rationalism to understand reality. Rationalism alone allows one to arrive at contradictory conclusions such as, "the universe was created at some point in time" and also "the universe has existed forever". These are called Antinomies and they undermine confidence that reason alone can lead to an understanding of reality.

We have to conduct ourselves as thought the laws of the universe won't change. We don't have a choice in this, and it's possible that the physical laws (there is possibly just a single underlying force which may or may not be discoverable) that governs how energy behaves cannot be changed. This would give rise to the stable environmental conditions which allows us to exist as living physical creatures.

Stephen Hawkings, who is not an atheist, has an interesting premise that the total energy in the universe is equal to zero; the negative energy being contained in gravity. If this is true and you brought all of the energy in the universe back to a central point, then the universe would cease to exist. In other words, the idea that energy (which we always observe as positive energy) was created out of nothing is just a perception. An example of this phenomenon of false perception would be vacuum genesis where atomic particles are observed to appear spontaneously in a vacuum. They seem to be created out of nothing, but it's just a perception because the anti-particle that was created at the same time wasn't observed. Hawkings points out that all ancient religions are based on flawed cosmology which leads them to false conclusions.

One way I described the trinity to someone recently was by comparing God to the UK. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all seperate and distinct from each other, but equally God is composed of all three of them together. Similarly, Scotland, NI, and England/Wales (sorry Welshmen) are all seperate and distinct from each other, but the UK is the combination of all three of them.

As I said above, I agree there are things that can't be explained through our own rational thought, I just think there's no reason to believe that Jesus' sacrifice was one of them - Jesus' spirit was divine but He was in a human body and suffered the punishment that any human sinner would recieve.


Likewise, we have to conduct ourselves as though we have free will even if the universe is in fact deterministic. To out mind is appears that we have free will to make choices, and that these choices alter the future course of events. Most likely we can never find out by observation if the universe is deterministic due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. ("In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that the values of certain pairs of conjugate variables (position and momentum, for instance) cannot both be known with arbitrary precision." - From the Wikipedia entry.)

Of course we act as if we had free will, because only God knows what has been predetermined (well apart from some prophecies).