Brainwashing? Christianity seems to be taking weird steps, here at least.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have minimal knowledge regarding Islam, but I heard that Muslims believe that all people are created good, and are only corrupted by this world, and its up to the individual to 'stay true'. Whereas of course with Calvinism you believe all people are born sinners, and God saves those who He chooses without conditions, at least regarding what we do in this lifetime.

Muslims believe that all proceedes acording to God's Will, as do Calvanists, i.e. God makes the choices.

Mainstream Christianity believes that God offers salvation to ALL regardless and that we make an active and very real choice, this is what I believe.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Muslims believe that all proceedes acording to God's Will, as do Calvanists, i.e. God makes the choices.

Mainstream Christianity believes that God offers salvation to ALL regardless and that we make an active and very real choice, this is what I believe.

Everyone could be saved, if they would allow themselves to be.

The idea of limited atonement stems from the fact that God has foreknowledge of who would or would not accept Him, therefore the atonement was suffered for the sins of the elect. If someone else was going to be saved, Christ would have suffered for their sins too, since God's mercy is endless. But since they won't accept God, as He knows to be the case, then Christ would not be punished on their behalf - otherwise their debts would have been paid, when they demand that they are not to be.

So, while some people cannot be saved, it is only since they refused to be saved, and would have refused to be saved regardless of Christ's suffering.

I've been thinking on the matter of unconditional election, and I think that it may be best taken as meaning that the salvation of the elect within their lifetime on earth is unconditional. Since of course no man could accept God without God's grace working through him first, God remains sovereign in salvation, and His grace remains irresistable.

However, all throughout the Bible, (even in the Psalms and other parts of the OT, not just the classic NT predestination quotes) people refer to God choosing them when He made them, long before they were born or conceived on this earth. God sees into the hearts of everyone, and He elects those who He will save based on what He sees, specifically whether they would accept Him. So He predestines those who He elects to accept Him within their lifetime. Coincidentally, this is why I don't agree with double predestination, as God does not work in people's lives to make sure they reject Him.

This is my current theory, my ideas change all the time...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Everyone could be saved, if they would allow themselves to be.

The idea of limited atonement stems from the fact that God has foreknowledge of who would or would not accept Him, therefore the atonement was suffered for the sins of the elect. If someone else was going to be saved, Christ would have suffered for their sins too, since God's mercy is endless. But since they won't accept God, as He knows to be the case, then Christ would not be punished on their behalf - otherwise their debts would have been paid, when they demand that they are not to be.

This arguement was rejected 1500 years ago by Boethius (sadly now little read). To suggest God has forknowledge restricts God temporally, because it requires him to have knowledge before he acts, since God is timeless there is no before and no after. Therefore God would not have forknowledge, because he acts as he knows, simultaneously.

So, while some people cannot be saved, it is only since they refused to be saved, and would have refused to be saved regardless of Christ's suffering.

If God is irrestistable then you cannot refuse to be saved. To suggest that God chooses based on those who would accept him is to sidestep the problem of those who would resist him. This is to limit Gods power, it's actually saying, "He knows he can't, so he won't try."

I've been thinking on the matter of unconditional election, and I think that it may be best taken as meaning that the salvation of the elect within their lifetime on earth is unconditional. Since of course no man could accept God without God's grace working through him first, God remains sovereign in salvation, and His grace remains irresistable.

However, all throughout the Bible, (even in the Psalms and other parts of the OT, not just the classic NT predestination quotes) people refer to God choosing them when He made them, long before they were born or conceived on this earth. God sees into the hearts of everyone, and He elects those who He will save based on what He sees, specifically whether they would accept Him. So He predestines those who He elects to accept Him within their lifetime. Coincidentally, this is why I don't agree with double predestination, as God does not work in people's lives to make sure they reject Him.

This is my current theory, my ideas change all the time...

I'd like to posit one more question to you regarding this. If the "elect" are God's chosen instruments, not merely those he saves, what effect does that have on those passages, if we take them as referring to those especially made to enact God's Will?

What I am asking you to do is to try to step outside Calvinism.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This arguement was rejected 1500 years ago by Boethius (sadly now little read). To suggest God has forknowledge restricts God temporally, because it requires him to have knowledge before he acts, since God is timeless there is no before and no after. Therefore God would not have forknowledge, because he acts as he knows, simultaneously.

I tend to think of time as a little line floating in space, with God himself filling that entire space; before the beginning of time, beyond the end of time, and all around it in every dimension, all at once. God clearly does have foreknowledge, what about the book of Revelation, all the prophecies of the Bible?

He knows how everything will end (or how it wont), and with everything we do (I believe) we are just carrying out the inevitable.

To us, what seems to be foreknowledge may simply be due to the fact that God is timeless. At all times, He knows all things, according to how they appeared at every point in what we regard as time.

If God is irrestistable then you cannot refuse to be saved. To suggest that God chooses based on those who would accept him is to sidestep the problem of those who would resist him. This is to limit Gods power, it's actually saying, "He knows he can't, so he won't try."

God could easily save us all if He wanted. But God chooses to act as the enabler in salvation - cutting us free from Satan's chains so that those who could have faith will have faith.

Salvation remains unconditional of what we do on this earth, God acts as the enabler for those chosen before they entered this lifetime.

I'd like to posit one more question to you regarding this. If the "elect" are God's chosen instruments, not merely those he saves, what effect does that have on those passages, if we take them as referring to those especially made to enact God's Will?

People can be elected by God for many things. Salvation is only one of them. Take for example Israel, it was chosen by God as a nation, yet not all Jews will be saved (at least not in the conventional way), as we are told precisely 144,000 will be saved at the time of the second coming.

What I am asking you to do is to try to step outside Calvinism.

Well I'm defending Calvinism here because it's currently what I believe in. That's not always been the case - I can't see how any Christian could at first hold Calvinist views, they take a lot of time to come to terms with and understand.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Crikey chaps, do you realise quite how barking that stuff reads?

Here I thought Catholicism was loopy, but "do good stuff, say sorry regular, and don't think too much" is at least an intelligible way to paradise. And you got pretty pictures, great music and the odd awesome cathedral.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Crikey chaps, do you realise quite how barking that stuff reads?

Here I thought Catholicism was loopy, but "do good stuff, say sorry regular, and don't think too much" is at least an intelligible way to paradise. And you got pretty pictures, great music and the odd awesome cathedral.

Hay, I live in exeter remember, we have the most elaborate facarde of any Cathedral in Northern Europe!

You're right though, I am a complete nut, it's very sad, I used to be a rational, sane human being.

I tend to think of time as a little line floating in space, with God himself filling that entire space; before the beginning of time, beyond the end of time, and all around it in every dimension, all at once. God clearly does have foreknowledge, what about the book of Revelation, all the prophecies of the Bible?

He knows how everything will end (or how it wont), and with everything we do (I believe) we are just carrying out the inevitable.

To us, what seems to be foreknowledge may simply be due to the fact that God is timeless. At all times, He knows all things, according to how they appeared at every point in what we regard as time.

You are still giving God himself a temporal aspect, because you are implying he does some things before others, makes some decisions before others.

God could easily save us all if He wanted. But God chooses to act as the enabler in salvation - cutting us free from Satan's chains so that those who could have faith will have faith.

Salvation remains unconditional of what we do on this earth, God acts as the enabler for those chosen before they entered this lifetime.

those two sentances don't run. If God's mercy is universal then everyone is saved, if not then he is unjust. you are saying we are not equal before God because some of us can be saved and some can't, or that, again, god makes a choice about beings he has created, based on the way he created them. If God is the enabler of salvation he must be a perfect enabler and therefore everyone must be saved.

People can be elected by God for many things. Salvation is only one of them. Take for example Israel, it was chosen by God as a nation, yet not all Jews will be saved (at least not in the conventional way), as we are told precisely 144,000 will be saved at the time of the second coming.

Revelations has already happened, or has started. Fall of the Roman Empire is the trigger, rise of the Church is the beggining of God's Kingdom on Earth, which makes Calvin the Anti-christ, since Luther wanted to work within the Church rather than outside it.

Or I could give you a completely different interpretation. Biblical prophecy is the same as any other flavour, it never comes about the way its written. As to the 144,000 I think you'll find that's all of the Chosen, which is why Calvin came up with his doctrine of predestination, because that's not very many people.

Well I'm defending Calvinism here because it's currently what I believe in. That's not always been the case - I can't see how any Christian could at first hold Calvinist views, they take a lot of time to come to terms with and understand.

My experience has been the reverse, often people embrace a determinist God whom they later reject.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hay, I live in exeter remember, we have the most elaborate facarde of any Cathedral in Northern Europe!

You're right though, I am a complete nut, it's very sad, I used to be a rational, sane human being.

Lets have a party!

You are still giving God himself a temporal aspect, because you are implying he does some things before others, makes some decisions before others.

To us, it may seem as if God is working within the limits of time, however in reality He is outwith time, but still working within this little time-line simultaneously. He must have chosen to create time, and to use it for His purpose. He isn't limiting Himself when we works within a time-frame, He's simply playing along.

If we acknowledge that time exists (if only within a timless void/whatever), then to say God would limit His powers by interfering within a time-frame would raise the question of how He sent Jesus to die on the cross for our sins, and How any divine revelations took place.

God's decisions were all made and certain before time existed. Now, He has created time and they're playing themselves out in this world He has created for us, all exactly as He planned, and how he envisaged with His foreknowledge (which is merely a term helpful for us bound by time, in reality its just as much current knoweldge and past experience to God, but not really any of those at all).

those two sentances don't run. If God's mercy is universal then everyone is saved, if not then he is unjust. you are saying we are not equal before God because some of us can be saved and some can't, or that, again, god makes a choice about beings he has created, based on the way he created them. If God is the enabler of salvation he must be a perfect enabler and therefore everyone must be saved.

In the flesh and in this world, we are all equally despicable before God. However, I do currently think that we are not all equal in the eyes of God before we are entered into this earth. We are told that He sees into our hearts - if He makes judgements based on that then our souls cannot all be equal.

It is based on what He sees in our hearts that He chooses to save us, to elect us for His grace in our lifetimes here, enabling us to overcome the flesh and the worldliness and to accept Him. Our salvation is not conditional on anything we do in this lifetime - since we can only do wickedness until God saves us.

Revelations has already happened, or has started. Fall of the Roman Empire is the trigger, rise of the Church is the beggining of God's Kingdom on Earth, which makes Calvin the Anti-christ, since Luther wanted to work within the Church rather than outside it.

Or I could give you a completely different interpretation. Biblical prophecy is the same as any other flavour, it never comes about the way its written. As to the 144,000 I think you'll find that's all of the Chosen, which is why Calvin came up with his doctrine of predestination, because that's not very many people.

It's unclear exactly who these 144,000, however I am very doubtful that it would be all those who are saved.

My experience has been the reverse, often people embrace a determinist God whom they later reject.

I suppose I could only really speak for myself, but then I'm not from the US Bible-belt so my situation may well be different from the usual.

[Sigurd]

There is a verse in Matthew which states:

For many are called, but few are chosen

(Matt 22:14)

It is taken out of context from a parable dealing with those that will be saved.
But the message is clear. The Judeo-Christian God invites all to attain salvation, but many will not (I am tossing free will in here) follow His invitation (he orders them killed). Only a few will follow the required steps that will eventually save them.
I must therefore, with free will in mind, call any doctrine that resembles fate a faulty doctrine.

I see you have brought up the 144 000 that will:

1. Be taken (12 000) from each of the tribes of Israel - Rev 7:3-8
2. Be with Christ when he appears on Mount Zion - Rev 14:1
3. Be virgins (not defiled themselves with women) and first fruits (not a final number) - Rev 14:3-5

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thankyou Sigurd, those are good examples.

For myself, I will not even treat with any doctrine which describes man as dispicable before God. A Father who despises his children?

No.

You are still limiting God though, unless you accept that God has created the majoriety of people for destruction. Follow, if God creates every man and woman we cannot be other than as God intended, because God is perfect and all-powerful. So, if we are what God intended and some of us are predetermined not to accept him then we have not been created to accept him.

So, either God has screwed up with hummanity or he has created people with the sole puropse of tempting the elect and then suffering for eternity in Hell.

Sorry, don't buy it. That triggers the Epicuran paradox if anything does, and hence God ceases to exist.

My conclusion is that Calvinism either limits God's power, his justice, his mercy, or his knowledge. Therefore it is bad doctrine.

[Cronos Impera]

That is the failings with Evanghelical Christianity.It fails to answer questions of common Christian sense.
1) So the reason we need a priesthood is?
Answer:
To keep us from jumping horses and throwing the first stone.
The first annointed priest was Aaron, brother of Moses, and he became priest because the Hebrews needed a buffer between them and the confused prophet. So Moses gave Aaron some teritory and proclaimed him a priest to conduct rituals on the behalf of the people. People needed a priest to moderate between a demanding prophet and their worldly views.

Just think what would have hapened ware not for Aaron with his judgement and mercy for his flock. either Moses would have been killed or the flock would have perished taking Moses's signs litteraly. Some stoning did occur, but it was prescribed only in times of crisis when crime itself was capital due to the precarious situation of the Hebrews. Adultery became a sin only after it lead to the loss of human life and the threating of another one. If the adulterers would have repented or gone to Moses than the whole episode wouldn't have occured.

Having a priesthood isn't like establishing a tyrany or establishing a status quo. Priests must exist so that the flock mentains its mundane pleasures while attaining salvation and the Kingdom of Heaven. The militant Orthodox Church of Romania has long abandoned quoting for the Bible to stop people having sex...and through work and discipline has managed to brace itself for the mesianic events of the 21st century, like poverty, corruption and deterirating health conditions among the general population.

Some brilliant Islamic judges have even gone as far as to create "sex marriage contracts" that allow the parties to enjoy sex without legal or moral consequences for either one of them.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You are still limiting God though, unless you accept that God has created the majoriety of people for destruction. Follow, if God creates every man and woman we cannot be other than as God intended, because God is perfect and all-powerful. So, if we are what God intended and some of us are predetermined not to accept him then we have not been created to accept him.

When farmers plant their crops, are they looking to simply destroy them at harvest? The Crops are the vessels of growth, but the roots, stalk and dirt are seldom a part of the harvest.

Do you view destruction of crops as the end - and do you view the spoiling of the crops as the decision of the farmer?

People live and their bodies eventually die. They decide whether the fruit of their life will be spoiled or harvested.

[Rhyfelwyr]

For myself, I will not even treat with any doctrine which describes man as dispicable before God. A Father who despises his children?

No.

He doesn't despise our souls, He would love for everyone of us to come to Him. However, we are born as slaves to sin, and our actions must be pretty despicable to God.

Remember, God knows us before we ever come into this world. Those who are slaves to sin in their lifetime chose that fate. Those who are brought to salvation were elected because they would accept God. Salvation is unconditional on what happens in this lifetime, but God judges based on what He sees in our hearts before we are born. So really, all of history is simply the story of the elect being brought to salvation.

You are still limiting God though, unless you accept that God has created the majoriety of people for destruction. Follow, if God creates every man and woman we cannot be other than as God intended, because God is perfect and all-powerful. So, if we are what God intended and some of us are predetermined not to accept him then we have not been created to accept him.

So, either God has screwed up with hummanity or he has created people with the sole puropse of tempting the elect and then suffering for eternity in Hell.

My conclusion is that Calvinism either limits God's power, his justice, his mercy, or his knowledge. Therefore it is bad doctrine

God does not predestine anyone to damnation (I don't endorse double predestination, "those whom He did predestine..."). Yes, God has foreknowledge of everyone's fate, but their fates are not decided because of His foreknowledge (other than the affect His foreknowledge has on His decision not to elect them to salvation), because God's decision to leave them to their own devices is based on their choice. Of course when people are left to themselves, Satan is quick to enslave them.

Presuming we do not believe that every human will somehow get to Heaven, if you think that peoples fates beyond their lifetime on earth are based on their free-will, why would that make God anymore just than if He used them for His purpose (which is purely good in itself)? Either way, He must have known of their fate.

Unless you also believe that God cannot overrule the dimension of time that He created (to know the fate of all who He creates)? Yet time cannot have always existed, since God himself is timeless.

Never mind Calvinism, that is limiting God.

The arguments against Calvinism seem to be based on the belief that humans somehow deserve salvation. And yet we must acknowledge that without God we are slaves to sin, everything we do is evil, even if we appear to do something good it is for selfish purposes.

It is out of mercy that any are saved.

There is one good thing in existance, and it is God. The two are inseperable, God is good and any good stems from God. Everything He creates is good (in serving its function in God's triumph over evil), even if it does not always appear to us to be so. We know evil must exist. Because if it did not, then God would have to be limited as evil was overpowering Him in establishing itself. So clearly, evil must exist, even if only temporarily. Maybe if only to defeat the original sin, pride.

Which presumably arose out of a desire for free-will, to be independent of God. And still that is what theologians want when they interpret the scriptures - free-will, the root of all evil itself. They want to believe that if they come to God, it is on their terms.

Going back to the original point, God certaintly does not hate His children. He gave us the free-will we desired, and humanity on the whole reaped the consequences. However, those who God knows to have the potential to overcome pride (if we take it as the root of all sin), have with them the grace of God to ensure that they accept Him within their lifetime - that is what predestination is all about. A gift to those who would accept God. For a Christian, you can continue with the parent theme and recognise that suffering is simply God disciplining His children - and you can take confidence in the knowledge that God is guiding you towards Him.

Don't misinterpret me as suggesting that free-will does not exist - it is because of free-will that anyone ever had to endure suffering. However, that free-will exists before our lifetimes on earth - while we sit here everything we do is simply acting out the inevitable, knowing that those who accept God give Him their willing obedience.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

When farmers plant their crops, are they looking to simply destroy them at harvest? The Crops are the vessels of growth, but the roots, stalk and dirt are seldom a part of the harvest.

Do you view destruction of crops as the end - and do you view the spoiling of the crops as the decision of the farmer?

People live and their bodies eventually die. They decide whether the fruit of their life will be spoiled or harvested.

Yes, but that's not pre-deterministic. I am saying that if God is all powerful then, should he so wish he could create the exact situation in which everyone would accept God.

God is Good and God is limitless. My arguement is that Calvinism limits either his power or his mercy, either he cannot save or he will not.

As I said, both trigger the Epicuran paradox because one limits God's power, the other his goodness. Anything which limits the universally agreed and limitless attributes of God would have to be bad doctrine.

I'm not saying he actually saves everyone.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He doesn't despise our souls, He would love for everyone of us to come to Him. However, we are born as slaves to sin, and our actions must be pretty despicable to God.

Slaves to sin? Again, doctrine, not scripture. That's Protestant penitentialism, can you demonstrate we are enslaved to anything? Again I direct you to the book of Job, who never renounced God even as he raved at his fate.

Remember, God knows us before we ever come into this world. Those who are slaves to sin in their lifetime chose that fate. Those who are brought to salvation were elected because they would accept God. Salvation is unconditional on what happens in this lifetime, but God judges based on what He sees in our hearts before we are born. So really, all of history is simply the story of the elect being brought to salvation.

Once again you imply a temporal aspect to God because you give God a "before"

God does not predestine anyone to damnation (I don't endorse double predestination, "those whom He did predestine..."). Yes, God has foreknowledge of everyone's fate, but their fates are not decided because of His foreknowledge (other than the affect His foreknowledge has on His decision not to elect them to salvation), because God's decision to leave them to their own devices is based on their choice. Of course when people are left to themselves, Satan is quick to enslave them.

You have said previously that we cannot escape sin without God's help. If this is so then God's witholding of salvation is an act of damning. If you have the medicine to cure a man, sure to work, and you withold it you murder him. Further, you have said God's call is irresistable, in which case there is NO ONE who would resist when called.

Presuming we do not believe that every human will somehow get to Heaven, if you think that peoples fates beyond their lifetime on earth are based on their free-will, why would that make God anymore just than if He used them for His purpose (which is purely good in itself)? Either way, He must have known of their fate.

I don't believe in election to begin with. God makes no choices about our fate. Second, there are several contingencies wherin everyone can be damned and go to heaven as well. The best at the moment is multiple dimensions, where every choice for evey action is enacted. Leaving that aside, see after your next quote.

Unless you also believe that God cannot overrule the dimension of time that He created (to know the fate of all who He creates)? Yet time cannot have always existed, since God himself is timeless.

I believe God chooses not to be involved, we are not arbitarily created in the womb the way we were thought to be when Calvin was alive, we are the result of random biological processes. Since God is timeless there is no before and no after for him. So for him we do not exist before we were born, we will not have existed after we die. The simplest way of expalining it is to say that God doesn't look, rather than saying he looks and then does nothing. He allows us the choice, and he does not influence the outcome.

The arguments against Calvinism seem to be based on the belief that humans somehow deserve salvation. And yet we must acknowledge that without God we are slaves to sin, everything we do is evil, even if we appear to do something good it is for selfish purposes.

It is out of mercy that any are saved.

There is one good thing in existance, and it is God. The two are inseperable, God is good and any good stems from God. Everything He creates is good (in serving its function in God's triumph over evil), even if it does not always appear to us to be so. We know evil must exist. Because if it did not, then God would have to be limited as evil was overpowering Him in establishing itself. So clearly, evil must exist, even if only temporarily. Maybe if only to defeat the original sin, pride.

Which presumably arose out of a desire for free-will, to be independent of God. And still that is what theologians want when they interpret the scriptures - free-will, the root of all evil itself. They want to believe that if they come to God, it is on their terms.

God created Man, therfore Man must in some sense be good, or at least have a portion of good. You arguement about evil makes no sense to me, you say evil must exist because if it did not it would overpower God. If it didn't exist?

In any case, I would say evil is a state of mind, not a tangible thing. If it is a state of mind it is a result of our faulty and limited perception. In any case, man is considered to have free-will before the fall, if he did not he would not have erred. Erred is the right word, by the way because man when his oginally sinned did not understand the nature of sin. This, I believe is why we are offered salvation.

In any case, you have said that we are only saved out of mercy. That limits God's justice. If God is just he will not save those who do not deserve to be saved. You could respond by saying that we are Justified in faith, but that is anti-Cqatholic rhetoric. It would be more theologically correct to say we are "excused" through faith, we are never justified. However, if we were completely to blame and without redeeming features why would God offer undiserved and therfore unjust mercy?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Slaves to sin? Again, doctrine, not scripture. That's Protestant penitentialism, can you demonstrate we are enslaved to anything? Again I direct you to the book of Job, who never renounced God even as he raved at his fate.

What about Psalm 51 - "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."

We are born as slaves to sin in this world. However, numerous characters in the OT speak of God knowing them before they were born, and David says he was specifically chosen by God. If, as you say, you do not believe God has/uses foreknowledge, how else could be possibly have known them if they had not existed before they were born into this world and enslaved by sin?

Once again you imply a temporal aspect to God because you give God a "before"

No, God is outwith time. Sometimes He just intervenes in earth and plays along to the dimension of time so we can understand what He is doing, whether it is speaking to Moses or whatever.

If God was truly to reveal Himself to us directly, in all His glory, and not just playing along to our worldly limits, then there would be no need for faith - the central idea behind Christianity.

You have said previously that we cannot escape sin without God's help. If this is so then God's witholding of salvation is an act of damning. If you have the medicine to cure a man, sure to work, and you withold it you murder him. Further, you have said God's call is irresistable, in which case there is NO ONE who would resist when called.

By our understanding of time, He judges us before we are born, our names written in the Book of Life (although that was "before" we existed in any manner - God is not limited by time). That fact alone shows our fates are predetermined.

I don't believe in election to begin with. God makes no choices about our fate. Second, there are several contingencies wherin everyone can be damned and go to heaven as well. The best at the moment is multiple dimensions, where every choice for evey action is enacted. Leaving that aside, see after your next quote.

I believe there can only be one dimension, one timeline, and everything that happens in it is inevitable. Otherwise the prophecies in the Bible could never have been predicted.

I believe God chooses not to be involved, we are not arbitarily created in the womb the way we were thought to be when Calvin was alive, we are the result of random biological processes. Since God is timeless there is no before and no after for him. So for him we do not exist before we were born, we will not have existed after we die. The simplest way of expalining it is to say that God doesn't look, rather than saying he looks and then does nothing. He allows us the choice, and he does not influence the outcome.

Flesh comes from flesh, that is true - our bodies are merely the result of biological processes. And that's why we shouldn't be too concerned about them. Our spirit is much more important, it is created by God Himself.

God created Man, therfore Man must in some sense be good, or at least have a portion of good. You arguement about evil makes no sense to me, you say evil must exist because if it did not it would overpower God. If it didn't exist?

In any case, I would say evil is a state of mind, not a tangible thing. If it is a state of mind it is a result of our faulty and limited perception. In any case, man is considered to have free-will before the fall, if he did not he would not have erred. Erred is the right word, by the way because man when his oginally sinned did not understand the nature of sin. This, I believe is why we are offered salvation.

Maybe God judges based on those who sin through ignorance, because they are enslaved to Satan, and those who rejoice in sin, choosing to remain Satan's slave.

The pain suffered by the elect is merely chastisement, like a parent teaching a child that they have erred. Whereas other suffering, the pointless suffering that people bring upon each other, is simply a result of Godlessness. God never randomly punishes sinners, He only ever punishes his children.

Maybe, since humanity chose poorly with its free-will, we must suffer Godlessness in order to willingly be brought back to God - meaning we will never suffer from a misuse of free-will again.

In any case, you have said that we are only saved out of mercy. That limits God's justice. If God is just he will not save those who do not deserve to be saved. You could respond by saying that we are Justified in faith, but that is anti-Cqatholic rhetoric. It would be more theologically correct to say we are "excused" through faith, we are never justified. However, if we were completely to blame and without redeeming features why would God offer undiserved and therfore unjust mercy?

Why must justification through faith be anti-Catholic rhetoric? Just because the Roman Catholic Church disagrees with it?

People have a choice to accept God - I believe that choice is irreversible, and is made before we are born, before we exist in any form on this earth, before we are chained by Satan.

Now, if you chose God before coming into this earth, then God will not deny you His gift, and will overcome all the wickedness in us, overcome us even if we resist Him, and give us the gift that we willingly accepted before Satan corrupted us.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What about Psalm 51 - "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."

We are born as slaves to sin in this world. However, numerous characters in the OT speak of God knowing them before they were born, and David says he was specifically chosen by God. If, as you say, you do not believe God has/uses foreknowledge, how else could be possibly have known them if they had not existed before they were born into this world and enslaved by sin?

That does not demonstrate we are slaves to sin, merely that we are born sinful, i.e. disobedient and imperfect.

No, God is outwith time. Sometimes He just intervenes in earth and plays along to the dimension of time so we can understand what He is doing, whether it is speaking to Moses or whatever.

If God was truly to reveal Himself to us directly, in all His glory, and not just playing along to our worldly limits, then there would be no need for faith - the central idea behind Christianity.

So then we chose in this life? You said we had already chosen before we were born, you can't have it both ways. Either we make the choice in this life or it has already been made.

[quote]By our understanding of time, He judges us before we are born, our names written in the Book of Life (although that was "before" we existed in any manner - God is not limited by time). That fact alone shows our fates are predetermined.[/qutoe]

No it doesn't, because Revelations contains a warning that any tampering with the Book will result in removal from the Book of Life, this injunction indicates two things:

1. The possibility of corrupting scripture.

2. The possibility of a man's fate being changed.

If these things were not possible the injunction and warning would be both unnecessary and pointless.

I believe there can only be one dimension, one timeline, and everything that happens in it is inevitable. Otherwise the prophecies in the Bible could never have been predicted.

Of coure they could. God could predict different things in different timelines. In any case the prophecies are often ofscure and the only definately fulfilled ones are the ones concerning Jesus and it is acceptable to say that in an otherwise changable universe God, and therefore Christ are constant.

In any case the evidence is increasingly pointing towards multiply dimensions and to say, "I don't believe my senses", is as faulty as saying, "America is not in ther Bible and so doesn't exist."

Flesh comes from flesh, that is true - our bodies are merely the result of biological processes. And that's why we shouldn't be too concerned about them. Our spirit is much more important, it is created by God Himself.

If God creates our spirits and some of us are predetermined to reject God then he has created us so. All men and women are created to love God and worship him, so how can you say God creates all souls if some are created to reject him?

Maybe God judges based on those who sin through ignorance, because they are enslaved to Satan, and those who rejoice in sin, choosing to remain Satan's slave.

You mean he judges between those he releases and those he does not? Again, you said previously that Grace is irresistable. If man cannot resist Grace then the wilfully disobedient must have had Grace witheld.

The pain suffered by the elect is merely chastisement, like a parent teaching a child that they have erred. Whereas other suffering, the pointless suffering that people bring upon each other, is simply a result of Godlessness. God never randomly punishes sinners, He only ever punishes his children.

All people are God's children, all people are decended (according to the Bible) From Adam, that is why we sin to begin with.

Maybe, since humanity chose poorly with its free-will, we must suffer Godlessness in order to willingly be brought back to God - meaning we will never suffer from a misuse of free-will again.

Something to think about: Man chose Sin when he did not know what Sin was.

Why must justification through faith be anti-Catholic rhetoric? Just because the Roman Catholic Church disagrees with it?

The doctrine is anti-Catholic because it was designed to neuter the power of the Roman Catholic Priesthood.

People have a choice to accept God - I believe that choice is irreversible, and is made before we are born, before we exist in any form on this earth, before we are chained by Satan.

Now, if you chose God before coming into this earth, then God will not deny you His gift, and will overcome all the wickedness in us, overcome us even if we resist Him, and give us the gift that we willingly accepted before Satan corrupted us.

Frankly, this is doctrine again, and very late doctrine at that.

First principles:

God is Just.

How can a Just God create some to be damned and others not, have us make the choice before we are born, which is determined by our nater He has made, and then force us to suffer through this life?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What about Psalm 51 - "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."

We are born as slaves to sin in this world. However, numerous characters in the OT speak of God knowing them before they were born, and David says he was specifically chosen by God. If, as you say, you do not believe God has/uses foreknowledge, how else could be possibly have known them if they had not existed before they were born into this world and enslaved by sin?

That does not demonstrate we are slaves to sin, merely that we are born sinful, i.e. disobedient and imperfect.

No, God is outwith time. Sometimes He just intervenes in earth and plays along to the dimension of time so we can understand what He is doing, whether it is speaking to Moses or whatever.

If God was truly to reveal Himself to us directly, in all His glory, and not just playing along to our worldly limits, then there would be no need for faith - the central idea behind Christianity.

So then we chose in this life? You said we had already chosen before we were born, you can't have it both ways. Either we make the choice in this life or it has already been made.

[quote]By our understanding of time, He judges us before we are born, our names written in the Book of Life (although that was "before" we existed in any manner - God is not limited by time). That fact alone shows our fates are predetermined.[/qutoe]

No it doesn't, because Revelations contains a warning that any tampering with the Book will result in removal from the Book of Life, this injunction indicates two things:

1. The possibility of corrupting scripture.

2. The possibility of a man's fate being changed.

If these things were not possible the injunction and warning would be both unnecessary and pointless.

I believe there can only be one dimension, one timeline, and everything that happens in it is inevitable. Otherwise the prophecies in the Bible could never have been predicted.

Of coure they could. God could predict different things in different timelines. In any case the prophecies are often ofscure and the only definately fulfilled ones are the ones concerning Jesus and it is acceptable to say that in an otherwise changable universe God, and therefore Christ are constant.

In any case the evidence is increasingly pointing towards multiply dimensions and to say, "I don't believe my senses", is as faulty as saying, "America is not in ther Bible and so doesn't exist."

Flesh comes from flesh, that is true - our bodies are merely the result of biological processes. And that's why we shouldn't be too concerned about them. Our spirit is much more important, it is created by God Himself.

If God creates our spirits and some of us are predetermined to reject God then he has created us so. All men and women are created to love God and worship him, so how can you say God creates all souls if some are created to reject him?

Maybe God judges based on those who sin through ignorance, because they are enslaved to Satan, and those who rejoice in sin, choosing to remain Satan's slave.

You mean he judges between those he releases and those he does not? Again, you said previously that Grace is irresistable. If man cannot resist Grace then the wilfully disobedient must have had Grace witheld.

The pain suffered by the elect is merely chastisement, like a parent teaching a child that they have erred. Whereas other suffering, the pointless suffering that people bring upon each other, is simply a result of Godlessness. God never randomly punishes sinners, He only ever punishes his children.

All people are God's children, all people are decended (according to the Bible) From Adam, that is why we sin to begin with.

Maybe, since humanity chose poorly with its free-will, we must suffer Godlessness in order to willingly be brought back to God - meaning we will never suffer from a misuse of free-will again.

Something to think about: Man chose Sin when he did not know what Sin was.

Why must justification through faith be anti-Catholic rhetoric? Just because the Roman Catholic Church disagrees with it?

The doctrine is anti-Catholic because it was designed to neuter the power of the Roman Catholic Priesthood.

People have a choice to accept God - I believe that choice is irreversible, and is made before we are born, before we exist in any form on this earth, before we are chained by Satan.

Now, if you chose God before coming into this earth, then God will not deny you His gift, and will overcome all the wickedness in us, overcome us even if we resist Him, and give us the gift that we willingly accepted before Satan corrupted us.

Frankly, this is doctrine again, and very late doctrine at that.

First principles:

God is Just.

How can a Just God create some to be damned and others not, have us make the choice before we are born, which is determined by our nater He has made, and then force us to suffer through this life?

[Rhyfelwyr]

That does not demonstrate we are slaves to sin, merely that we are born sinful, i.e. disobedient and imperfect.

How could anyone possibly resist sin without God's grace? I we are born sinners and do not even see our own iniquity, how could we possibly repent and come to God?

So then we chose in this life? You said we had already chosen before we were born, you can't have it both ways. Either we make the choice in this life or it has already been made.

No, we chose before this life. Our souls exist before we are born into this world, before we are conceived in sin. It is in this period when God fashions our spirit that God looks into our hearts and judges us. To those He elects based upon what He sees, He gives them the gift of salvation. It must be irresistable, because to claim it is not would be to deny God's sovereignty, and would mean that the elect could be swayed by the sin of the flesh.

No it doesn't, because Revelations contains a warning that any tampering with the Book will result in removal from the Book of Life, this injunction indicates two things:

1. The possibility of corrupting scripture.

2. The possibility of a man's fate being changed.

If these things were not possible the injunction and warning would be both unnecessary and pointless.

It only says names can be blotted out by the Lamb, so you must still acknowledge that those never mentioned in the Book of Life were never going to accept God - their fates were known to Him. Not because God worked in their lives to ensure that fate as He does with the elect, but because they chose to reject Him before they were born.

However, the fact that it says names can be blotted out is interesting, and I will look into it further...

Of coure they could. God could predict different things in different timelines. In any case the prophecies are often ofscure and the only definately fulfilled ones are the ones concerning Jesus and it is acceptable to say that in an otherwise changable universe God, and therefore Christ are constant.

In any case the evidence is increasingly pointing towards multiply dimensions and to say, "I don't believe my senses", is as faulty as saying, "America is not in ther Bible and so doesn't exist."

We can't really know the answer to this, but I still prefer the one timeline theory.

If God creates our spirits and some of us are predetermined to reject God then he has created us so. All men and women are created to love God and worship him, so how can you say God creates all souls if some are created to reject him?

Indeed they are created to love and worship Him. But they rebel, just as Adam himself did. Their rebellion against God is seen before they are born, therefore they are not elected to salvation.

Is God weak because He allows this rebellion - no! He allowed Satan to rebel too remember - do you think this was because Satan was too powerful for God to handle? Ultimately, God will use such people/creatures/spirits in bringing the elect to salvation, before destroying them utterly in the Lake of Fire.

You mean he judges between those he releases and those he does not? Again, you said previously that Grace is irresistable. If man cannot resist Grace then the wilfully disobedient must have had Grace witheld.

Grace is witheld for some because those people never wanted to accept it. This was before they were born and enslaved by sin, therefore God is righteous in his judgement.

Once you have been elected to salvation, grace is indeed irresistable in this lifetime.

All people are God's children, all people are decended (according to the Bible) From Adam, that is why we sin to begin with.

Agreed.

Something to think about: Man chose Sin when he did not know what Sin was.

Now man knows well what sin is, and must suffer the punishment for rebellion against God, if only as chastisement to be steered back to Him.

The doctrine is anti-Catholic because it was designed to neuter the power of the Roman Catholic Priesthood.

As opposed to only saints in the Catholic sense being justified and having all the benefits of a union with Christ?

Frankly, this is doctrine again, and very late doctrine at that.

First principles:

God is Just.

How can a Just God create some to be damned and others not, have us make the choice before we are born, which is determined by our nater He has made, and then force us to suffer through this life?

Our fates on earth are predestined, based on choices we made (or perhaps simply a judgement by God) before we were born.

We were not predestined to make that choice by God (it was inevitable but He didn't work in our [pre-]lives to influence us), although he did have foreknowledge of it. Indeed, he is outwith time, he can be at the beginning and ends of its dimension at once.

[Sigurd]

This is a refreshing discussion here at the .org.
I want to dissect too.

...
We are born as slaves to sin in this world. However, numerous characters in the OT speak of God knowing them before they were born, and David says he was specifically chosen by God ...
...
Flesh comes from flesh, that is true - our bodies are merely the result of biological processes. And that's why we shouldn't be too concerned about them. Our spirit is much more important, it is created by God Himself ...

The notion that God knew someone before they were born suggest life before birth. And predestination cold translate to preordination, an intriguing thought, and I believe, doctrine in certain branches of Christianity.

No, God is with out time. Sometimes He just intervenes in earth and plays along to the dimension of time so we can understand what He is doing, whether it is speaking to Moses or whatever.

I believe there can only be one dimension, one time line, and everything that happens in it is inevitable. Otherwise the prophecies in the Bible could never have been predicted.

Having different definitions of who or what God is could lead to thrilling discussion on time and space. Considering the story behind how the immaterial God came to be, this very idea should be questioned my modern Christians.

God never randomly punishes sinners, He only ever punishes his children.

Tell that to the pre-deluge people and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Now, if you chose God before coming into this earth, then God will not deny you His gift, and will overcome all the wickedness in us, overcome us even if we resist Him, and give us the gift that we willingly accepted before Satan corrupted us.

Now this is a Mormon doctrine called: pre-mortal life and the choice made at the council in heaven.

Of course they could. God could predict different things in different time lines. In any case the prophecies are often obscure and the only definitely fulfilled ones are the ones concerning Jesus and it is acceptable to say that in an otherwise changeable universe God, and therefore Christ are constant.

To predict things would be simple for an eternal being having omnipotence. Whatever you predict, you will make sure it happens. No need for fate or predestination.

All people are God's children, all people are descended (according to the Bible) From Adam, that is why we sin to begin with.
...
Something to think about: Man chose Sin when he did not know what Sin was.

One of the things I based my leave of the Lutheran church was the notion of original sin and babies going to hell if they were not baptized.

Frankly, this is doctrine again, and very late doctrine at that.

First principles:

God is Just.

How can a Just God create some to be damned and others not, have us make the choice before we are born, which is determined by our nater He has made, and then force us to suffer through this life?

Yes... I think this is the basis for the Christian need of a redeemer. As I understand it God is perfectly just and executes perfect justice.
Like any law that demands payment for breaking it, so does the law of God. No mercy involved.
If you break the law, i.e sin, you are damned from heaven.
Christ atoned for every sin past present and future. He is the mediator with God (Justice).
Justice demands payment and Christ payed up for all (believers and nonbelievers).

This is where it gets tricky. Christ demands something for his leverage with justice. Faith, repentance and baptism is what he asks in addition to some other minor stuff.
Apparently in some denominations all it takes is to speak his name and you will magically be transformed to a clean being, never to do evil again and justice will not have claim on you.
This is what according to Christianity mankind can chose freely. To follow Christ. To chose freedom and heaven or the full weight of justice on their own shoulders and paying out of their own pocket in Gehenna.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Interesting stuff Sigurd, especially the idea of preordination.

One thing though. I know I said we make a decision/are judged before we are born, however I did not mean at the council of heaven, because I am not a Mormon.

Especially in the Psalms, most notably of David, it is mentioned several times that God sees into our hearts when He is fashioning our spirit before we are born into sin and the flesh.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How could anyone possibly resist sin without God's grace? I we are born sinners and do not even see our own iniquity, how could we possibly repent and come to God?

We do not know our iniquity? I think most of us have at least an idea.

No, we chose before this life. Our souls exist before we are born into this world, before we are conceived in sin. It is in this period when God fashions our spirit that God looks into our hearts and judges us. To those He elects based upon what He sees, He gives them the gift of salvation. It must be irresistable, because to claim it is not would be to deny God's sovereignty, and would mean that the elect could be swayed by the sin of the flesh.

So we had Sin before we entered this world? The rejection of God is a Sin, therefore if we reject God we Sin, but if God fashioned our Souls, in heaven or elsewhere, then they must be perfect before we entered this world. So how could we reject God before we entered this world?

Are you suggesting God is incompetant, that he cannot reliable create perfect souls?

It only says names can be blotted out by the Lamb, so you must still acknowledge that those never mentioned in the Book of Life were never going to accept God - their fates were known to Him. Not because God worked in their lives to ensure that fate as He does with the elect, but because they chose to reject Him before they were born.

No, it says specifically, it's right at the end of the bible, the KJV reads roughly," Whosoever adds unto this book the Lord shall add unto him the curses contained with this book and whosoever takes from this book the Lord shall take him from the book of life."

In any case, names blotted out would have had to once have been written. You still haven't provided scriptural support for the assertion that human souls reject God before birth.

[quote]However, the fact that it says names can be blotted out is interesting, and I will look into it further...[/;quote]

Good, glad to hear it. Don't talk to your priest about it first.

We can't really know the answer to this, but I still prefer the one timeline theory.

Personnally I sometimes feel I'd prefer no God, but it doesn't change anything

Indeed they are created to love and worship Him. But they rebel, just as Adam himself did. Their rebellion against God is seen before they are born, therefore they are not elected to salvation.

Again, how can God create souls pre-ordained to reject him before they even come into contact with sin.

Is God weak because He allows this rebellion - no! He allowed Satan to rebel too remember - do you think this was because Satan was too powerful for God to handle? Ultimately, God will use such people/creatures/spirits in bringing the elect to salvation, before destroying them utterly in the Lake of Fire.

So they have been created to be destroyed? How is this Just? Why does God destroy some of his children and not others? Why, if it is so ordained, is their fate so terrible?

Grace is witheld for some because those people never wanted to accept it. This was before they were born and enslaved by sin, therefore God is righteous in his judgement.

You said Grace is irresistable, therefore anyone who is offered it will accept it. To say that some would not is to limit God's power.

Once you have been elected to salvation, grace is indeed irresistable in this lifetime.

So a soul is able, powerful enough, to resist God outside of this world? Then you limit his power.

As opposed to only saints in the Catholic sense being justified and having all the benefits of a union with Christ?

I'm afraid you've been fed lies here. A saint is anyone who enters heaven. A Canonical Saint is one whom the Church considers has definately entered heaven. Whatever you may think of Catholic politics theologically Canonical Saints are no different to others in heaven, they are just the ones the Church is "sure" are there.

Our fates on earth are predestined, based on choices we made (or perhaps simply a judgement by God) before we were born.

We were not predestined to make that choice by God (it was inevitable but He didn't work in our [pre-]lives to influence us), although he did have foreknowledge of it. Indeed, he is outwith time, he can be at the beginning and ends of its dimension at once.

Your arguement doesn't add up. God cannot "allow" things to happen accept by ommission, not saving someone, not extending Grace, is the same as active damnation.

[Sigurd]

One thing though. I know I said we make a decision/are judged before we are born, however I did not mean at the council of heaven, because I am not a Mormon.

You "said" (how I interpreted it) that mankind makes an active choice before coming into this world. I can't think of any other denomination that teaches this.

Hints at preordination is found several places in the Bible and not just Psalms.
Take Jeremiah for example:

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.

(Jer 1:5)

Also, consider John the Baptist mentioned in Isaiah and then later in Luke when Zacharias was told that his unborn child should be named John and should prepare the way of the Lord.

There are other sources of literature that deals with this, but I doubt you would recognize non-canonical texts.

[Rhyfelwyr]

PVC, I will reply to your post later.

Sigurd, that is what I have come to believe, that God knows us before we are born, and not just through His foreknowledge. Maybe that is not strictly Calvinism - does that make me a heretic?

I will look into this further. This has been a really good discussion here folks, plenty of food for thought for myself.

Do you know any of the denominations that hold these views of preordination (specifically to salvation)?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You "said" (how I interpreted it) that mankind makes an active choice before coming into this world. I can't think of any other denomination that teaches this.

Hints at preordination is found several places in the Bible and not just Psalms.
Take Jeremiah for example:

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.

(Jer 1:5)

Also, consider John the Baptist mentioned in Isaiah and then later in Luke when Zacharias was told that his unborn child should be named John and should prepare the way of the Lord.

There are other sources of literature that deals with this, but I doubt you would recognize non-canonical texts.

Feel free to hit me up with the non-Canonical texts any time.

As to preordination, a point of order: It always concerns prophets, and as Sigurd points out, God can make whatever he wants happen. Extrapolating the lives of the (almost universally) disobedient prophets to the general post-incarnation population of humanity is suspect.

As to John, there is some cause to think he might not have been admitted into heaven when you look at Jesus' words after he is taken into captivity.

[Sigurd]

Feel free to hit me up with the non-Canonical texts any time.

Hah.. I would have hoped any of you wanted to hear more of the immaterial God fallacy, but let's stick to the current topic about destiny vs. preordination.

But before I dive into the extra-canonical texts, let's make time for a little apropos.

If we should consider the Judeo - Christian tradition as the basis of the only true religion,the creation story and the prophets from Adam to John the Baptist and the Apostles are all truths and did happen.
If we should consider all that, we should also consider that which it teaches. God invites all to his kingdom and would have provided the means to do so for all mankind in any era.
If all mankind originates from Adam and again from Noah, we should find something that resembles God's gospel in the break off cultures from these men.
We should also expect a corruption of original doctrines and the introduction of new and false traditions. The Jewish history is full of it and that is why prophets were sent.
If God indeed loves all his children he would give them a chance and make sure a prophet was sent to teach his Gospel of faith, repentance and baptism.
These prophets would be recorded where they were accepted and maybe these records were conserved to be found at a later time.
My point is: look for similarities in ancient religious texts and you might just find a core that is collective for them all.
One of these cores are a council in heaven, a war in heaven, preordination, a plan for the souls, a creation of a place to home the souls temporarily and a savior and a rebel.

To the issue at hand:
I believe the doctrine of life before death was a common belief in Judaism and the early church.
If we delve into a few extra-canonical excerpts and look at what is written, this can't be mistaken.
Let's consider the big three: Enoch, Abraham and Moses.
All big prophets in the Judeo-Christian tradition. But the books I'll quote is not found in the canon.

This is taken from the Coptic Enoch and the apocryphon devoted to the Biblical Enoch, the man who was taken to heaven with his city of righteous people or Zion.

All the souls of men, whatever of them are not born, and their places, prepared for eternity. For all the souls are prepared for eternity, before the composition of the earth.

(2. Enoch c23)

The apocalypse of Abraham taken apparently from papyri found with a sarcophagus.

Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; And God saw these souls that they were good and stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers: for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

(Book of Abraham c3)

The Testament of Moses also called the Assumption of Moses found in the Pseudepigrapha.

... Accordingly He designed and devised me, and He prepared me before the foundation of the world, that I should be the mediator of His covenant ...

(Assumption of Moses v1)


The Jewish religion mentions this pre-existence but I have no links or quotes other that from memory.
In the Bereshith Rabba it mentions God holding a council with the souls of the righteous before He creates the earth.
In the Talmud it mentions the 7th heaven where the unborn souls dwell, those who await to be put into bodies. And I distinctly remembers somewhere that the Messiah will not come until the last soul in heaven has been put into the world.

The extra-canonical texts speaks much of this theme, but only fragments remain in the canon.
As Rhyfelwyr noticed, the Bible gives hints to God knowing his children before they were born i.e receive a tabernacle of flesh.
Some He foreordain to carry out certain tasks, but they never execute these tasks until He intervenes. These prophets and formerly great spirits, experience things that put them into the knowing that God exists. Faith is obsolete, they now know.
I am not sure about Christ and John the Baptist, as nothing is written about their "awakening".

As to John, there is some cause to think he might not have been admitted into heaven when you look at Jesus' words after he is taken into captivity.

Which quote are you referring to?
I know of one instance the Christ spoke of John the baptist and that is the verses:

Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

(Matt 11:11)

For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

(Luke 7:28)

The "least in the kingdom of heaven" is a known way of saying he was the servant of all. A humble man and willing to serve everyone.
Besides, it would be horrifying for the different Christian denominations that has named their churches after John the Baptist, to find out that John never went to heaven .

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not familliar with the texts you quoted but from the actual quotes it would seem that it only definately refers to particular prophets, not all humanity.

A quick google turns up a late date of 1stAD for 2 Enoch, but a much earlier date for 1 Enoch, while 3 Enoch seems even later (Medieval even).

Wiki article on Smith Book of Abraham, is this what you were refering to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_abraham

[Rhyfelwyr]

Always put the Bible first, if an ancient text isn't there then it's because God didn't want it to be. I looked up my idea on preordination, however it lacks any clear scriptural backing, and appears to refer to specific matters and not salvation, as PVC said.

Also, I've been looking up some past discussion I had on the topic of predestination. Without going into hyper-calvinism, I think that it is clear that God sends no person to Hell. However, what He does do is save people from Hell.

This is clear from the Psalms, one example being Psalm 65:

4 Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple.

It is important that David acknoweldges that he is chosen, inferring that the alternative would be for him not to be chosen, rather than to be chosen for x fate. Which is why I do not believe the doctrine of double predestination. This theme is continued throughout the Bible, for example when it says "those whom He did predestine...".

Remember, if Jesus had not died on the cross, then we would all go to Hell. It is only because God suffered our punishment that we can ever be gifted His grace. God is just, the wages of all sin will be payed. However, He chose to take the punishment for some - therefore it is God Himself who has been the only one to suffer injustice.

For example, say there are two criminals on trial. Both are on trial for seperate murders, but face the same charges. One murderer is poor and has a rubbish lawyer. The other is a rich gangster, and has bribed the whole jury. So, the poor murderer goes to jail for life, while the rich gangster walks free. The rich gangster escaped justice, but does that make the fate of the poor man any less just? Should he be freed so he received equal punishment to the gangster?

The only difference with the scenario in salvation is that God took the sentence for the rich gangster (the elect), and He did it out of mercy. God was the only one to suffer from injustice, yet He chose to do it anyway.

With God having suffered as He did, should we now complain to Him, saying why did He not take everyone's punishment, why did He not suffer greater injustice for mankind's crimes?

It is important that the elect realise, that just as the rich gangster, they are really no better than the poor man that goes to jail.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Always put the Bible first, if an ancient text isn't there then it's because God didn't want it to be. I looked up my idea on preordination, however it lacks any clear scriptural backing, and appears to refer to specific matters and not salvation, as PVC said.

Your concept of the formation of the bible is extra-scriptual. The text itself does not support it, and neither do the historical accounts of its formation.

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblica...ristian_canons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo

also, the Gospels clearly contradict in detail, examine the calling of the first four diciples in Mathew and John. Peter and his brother are the same but the other two are different, in Mathew Peter is litterally a fisherman, in John he is a diciple of John the Baptist.

Remember, if Jesus had not died on the cross, then we would all go to Hell. It is only because God suffered our punishment that we can ever be gifted His grace. God is just, the wages of all sin will be payed. However, He chose to take the punishment for some - therefore it is God Himself who has been the only one to suffer injustice.

For example, say there are two criminals on trial. Both are on trial for seperate murders, but face the same charges. One murderer is poor and has a rubbish lawyer. The other is a rich gangster, and has bribed the whole jury. So, the poor murderer goes to jail for life, while the rich gangster walks free. The rich gangster escaped justice, but does that make the fate of the poor man any less just? Should he be freed so he received equal punishment to the gangster?

The only difference with the scenario in salvation is that God took the sentence for the rich gangster (the elect), and He did it out of mercy. God was the only one to suffer from injustice, yet He chose to do it anyway.

With God having suffered as He did, should we now complain to Him, saying why did He not take everyone's punishment, why did He not suffer greater injustice for mankind's crimes?

It is important that the elect realise, that just as the rich gangster, they are really no better than the poor man that goes to jail.

So God is unjust?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Who suffered unjustly save God Himself?

[Sigurd]

Wiki article on Smith Book of Abraham, is this what you were refering to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_abraham

Hmmm... not looking good for old Joe Smith there. I find the book of Abraham quite intriguing though.
In stead of the Smith book of Abraham, try the Apocalypse of Abraham found in the Pseudepigrapha. It deals with mostly the same issues and story.

Always put the Bible first, if an ancient text isn't there then it's because God didn't want it to be.

As Philipvs notes, you have a view that the Bible is perhaps infallible and believe that the canon is complete.

It is important that David acknowledges that he is chosen, inferring that the alternative would be for him not to be chosen, rather than to be chosen for x fate. Which is why I do not believe the doctrine of double predestination. This theme is continued throughout the Bible, for example when it says "those whom He did predestine...".

David might have been chosen and pre-ordained to his position as the line in which the Christ would come, but didn't he fall with the Uriah/Bathsheba issue and lost his salvation?