wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (12/06/90)
In article <Dec.3.23.59.14.1990.28188@athos.rutgers.edu> farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes: >In article <Nov.30.04.27.14.1990.4844@athos.rutgers.edu>, wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes: >>Neither can an adult unbeliever make such a decision, for he is 'dead >>in his transgressions and sins' (Ephesians 2). Conversion is no less >>miraculous in the adult than it is in an infant. It might be more >>miraculous, because the adult has had plenty of time to harden his >>heart. >Your premise, if it would be true, would remove anything on our part which >would have anything to do with our salvation. Meaning that predestination >would be in effect, meaning that God would predestine us for either salvation >or to condemnation. Predestination is explicity taught in the Bible. If you say you don't believe in predestination, then you don't beleive the explicit words of Scripture. We might discuss what sort of predestination there is, but if you reject any kind of predestination, you reject the word of God. I admit that predestination is difficult to understand, and that to some people it sounds harsh. But you seem to prefer to ignore the problem by ignoring the Scriptures. "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those *who have been called according to his purpose*. For those God foreknew he also *predestined* to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he *predestined*, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified." --Rom 8:28-30. So if you claim to believe the Bible, tell us what you believe this Scripture teaches -- what is its *doctrine*? I'll tell you what I think. The context of this passage is given in Rom 8:18: "I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us." So he wrote this part of Romans to comfort those who are suffering, or being persecuted, or will be persecuted. He writes to tell the Chrisians to hang on their faith, that God is in control of things, and to keep their sights on the eternal reward God has predestined them for. Similarly in Ephesians 1:3-8 we read: "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he *chose* us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he *predestined* us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will -- to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding." v. 11-14: "In him we were also *chosen*, having been *predestined* according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. And you were also included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession--to the praise of his glory." So from the Scripture, it is clear that God chose, or predestined some to be believers in Christ, to be saved. Scripture does NOT teach, however, that God chose some to be unbelievers and to be damned. In fact in 1 Tim. 2:4 we read that God wants all men to be save and to come to a knowledge of the truth. Paul even says that we should pray for "kings and all those in authority" -- namely, those persecuting the church at that time -- either so that the kings etc. will be save, or so that the church will be permitted to do the work Christ gave to it. So now we come to the hard part. If God wants all men to believe and be saved, why don't all men believe? The answer that Scripture seems to teach is that some, first of all, never hear the Word, and secondly, some resist the Holy Spirit -- See Acts 7:51. So while the unbeliever is dead in his transgressions and sins (Eph 2:1) and cannot make himself alive again, but God must make him alive with Christ -- Eph. 2:4,5 -- he can resist the Holy Spirit. >I believe that you are being carried away with your logic and you push >ideas and concepts to their logical conclusion, where they get distorted. >It is one thing to say that we are saved by the grace of God, and another >that we have no role to play in it at all. Based on your logic, if I will >be condemned to go to hell, it is not my fault at all. It is God's fault >because he didn't save me. It is you who is pushing ideas and concepts to their logical conclusion, without support from Scripture. I say God chooses the believers, which Scripture teaches explicitly. I have no particular reason to believe this except that it is in Scripture. But you use reason to say, 'then God chooses who is to be damned' even where I deny it and so does Scripture. A good example is given in Scripture, in the person of the Paraoh of Egypt who dealt with Moses. In Ex 7:3 we read: "But I will harden Pharaoh's heart." which show's God's foreknowledge of what will happen. Nine times in Exodus the hardening of Pharaoh's heart is ascribed to God - 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; 10:1,20,27; 11:10; and 14:4,8. Another nine times the pharaoh is said to have hardened his own heart: 7:13-14,22; 8:15,19,32; 9:2,34-35. Not until the sixth plague did God confirm the pharaoh's willful action, as we read in 9:12: "But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said to Moses." So I believe that Pharaoh was responsible for the hardening of his own heart. God foreknew that he would not believe, but Pharaoh hardened his own heart agaist God, and then God confirmed the hardening. Likewise God has foreknowledge that some people will resist His Spirit, but that hardness of heart is their own responsibility. I don't see determinism in this, especially because we are not privy to God's foreknowledge. >Free agency is one of the very basic principles which is in effect on both >in heaven and on earth. Denying free agency is one of the most evil part >of Satans plan. Without free agency we are reduced to a thing, and it >denies that we have been called to be joint heirs with Christ. Kindly show me one word of scripture in support of 'free agency'. >However, you have ignored my comments and pertaining scriptures that the >thief didn't go to heaven. He went where Christ went "today". The scripture >explicitly states that Jesus did't go to his Father. Peter explained that >he went into the spirit world to preach the gospel. The bottom line is that >the thief went to heaven is on of the many para scriptures which we believe >in, which is in fact not true at all. It seems that you missed one of my articles in which I did respond to your comments. If you can't find it, it is the predecessor to my article 'Preaching to the Dead?'. It begins as a response to Gary Hipp, so you might have missed it. The title is, Re: Validity of Baptism . I had asserted that the thief was saved, apparently without baptism, because Jesus had told him "today you will be with me in paradise." This is a clear passage. Most scholars that I've read really don't know what to make of Christ preaching to the spirits in prison. The Scriptures do not say exactly when this happened. The passage at hand, Luke 23:43, says that the thief, together with Christ, went to 'paradise'. This word appears in the NT only here and in 2 Cor 12:4 and Rev 2:7: "And I know that this man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows--was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell." Apparently 'paradise' is the same as 'the third heaven' -- which is not defined in Scripture. But what Paul describes is comparable to what happened to Daniel , and other prophets, who saw visions of heaven, and were told to seal up, and not reveal parts of the revelation. "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God." I think this defines 'paradise' pretty well. Now I answered your objection that Christ could not have gone to paradise before his resurrection, by saying that when he said "I have not yet returned to my Father" he referred to his bodily ascenscion. It was, in fact, his body that Mary Magdalene was holding on to, and not his spirit :-) . This interpretation is very consistent; more so than yours, for you are forced to say that paradise is not paradise, all so that you can say that the thief was not saved? Why are picking on that poor thief? :-) >The principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ are: > > 1. First, faith in the lord Jesus Christ. > 2. Second, repentance. > 3. Third, baptism with water. > 4. Fourth, laying on of the hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. > >The order is important. We can't speak of repentance with out faith in the >Lord Jesus christ before faith, we cant speak of baptism before faith and >repentance, etc. Can you document the order of this from Scripture? And where did Christ command the laying on of hands? NB, it is somewhat difficult to baptize someone without laying hands on them. I suppose we could pour a pitcher of water over them, but that would be unusual. >I don't know why you are saying that baptism for the dead is unscriptural. >Paul didn't find it unscriptural, why do we? In fact Paul used it to support >the idea of resurrection when he said: > >I Corint 15:29 >-------------- >"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise >not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" Does Paul, Christ, or anyone else *command* baptism for the dead? >If you would say that it is not taught or believed by most Christians today, >it would be correct. Only the LDS church teach it and practise it. You need >to remember that the N.T. is not a manual of discipline, which tells us in >great detail of the ordinaces of the early Christian church. This is one >reason why we need revelation that things which got lost may be restored. >This is what Peter had in mind when he said the following: > >Acts 3:21 >========= >"Whom the heavens must receive until the times of restitution of all things, >which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world >began" > >Peter, the apostle, and eye witness of Jesus Christ, who received the keys >to bind or to loose on the earth, looks forward to the restoration of *all* >things. Christ did not give the keys only to Peter. He gave them to the disciples, e.g., the church, 'wherever two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for'. Matthew 18:18,19. Frank, I don't see what point you are trying to make here. If the revelation we have in the Bible is one which is made complete in the BOM, etc., and this is what Peter was looking forward to, then I have to conclude that Christ has returned, Judgement Day has come, I am in heaven, and I suppose you are in 'paradise' :-). For in modern English Acts 3:21 says: "He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets." You seem to think Joseph Smith, or Brigham Young is the prophet like Moses, spoken of in Acts 3:22, and Deut 18:15. But Peter is talking about Christ, and urging the Jews to follow Christ, lest they 'be cut off from his people.' Joseph Smith was a far cry from either Moses or Christ. It is interesting that you suggest that God's revelation in the Bible is incomplete. I suppose this is why Joseph Smith added verses to the Bible, to produce his 'Inspired Version'. For example the IV as an added section in Genesis that describes Adam's baptism by immersion (Gen 6:67, IV). Gen 1:6 of the IV has God speak in the first person: "And I God, said, Let there be light". Other verses are added to teach the pre-existence if the souls of all men (Gen 1:6,9 IV), that if man had not sinned he would not have been able to propagate himself (Gen 6:56, IV), that the children of Canaan were made black as a curse for their sins (Gen 7:10, IV). Genesis 7:72, IV teaches that the earth shall have rest for a thousand years after the Lord returns. Another addition in Gen 50 seems to prophesy the coming of Joseph Smith "And that seer will I bless ... and his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father... for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation." (Gen 50:33, IV). The Reorganized LDS church accepts the Inspired Version as its official text. The (main) LDS church accepts the regular KJV, but Joseph Fielding Smith, of the Council of Twelve Apostles, said: "The reason why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has not published the entire manuscript (of the Inspired Version of the Bible) is not due to any lack of confidence in the integrity of Joseph Smith, or doubt as to the correctness of the numerous additions and changes which are not in the Authorized Version of the Bible. The members of the Church do accept fully all of these and additions as having come by divine revelations to he Prophet Joseph Smith." --Joseph Fielding Smith, "Answers to Gospel Questions" 3 Vols. (Salt Lake City, Desert Book Co., 1958), II, 207. Joseph Fielding Smith, nephew of Joseph Smith and sixth president of the Mormon Church, also made the following statement: "The revision of the Bible which was done by Joseph Smith at the command of the Lord was not a complete revision of the Bible. There are many parts of the Bible in which the Prophet did not change the meaning where it is incorrect... However, all that he did is very helpful for the major errors have been corrected. --Joseph Fielding Smith, "Doctrine of Salvation", 3 Vols. (Salt Lake City, Bookcraft, 1956), III, 191. Now maybe you don't accept the IV 'corrections' as inspired, and that would be good. But their seems to be plenty of evidence that Joseph Smith did make those 'corrections', and that various Mormons did and do accept them. So is Joseph Smith a prophet, or simply a revisionist? David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran. "God's Word is our great heritage And shall be ours forever; To spread its light from age to age Shall be our chief endeavor. Through life it guides our way, In death it is our stay. Lord, grant while worlds endure, We keep its teachings pure Throughout all generations." --'Guds Ord det er vort Arvegode' --Nikolai F. S. Grundtvig, 1817 From 'The Lutheran Hymnal' #283. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.
farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) (12/11/90)
In article <Dec.6.03.56.26.1990.23700@athos.rutgers.edu>, wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes: >In article <Dec.3.23.59.14.1990.28188@athos.rutgers.edu> farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes: >>In article <Nov.30.04.27.14.1990.4844@athos.rutgers.edu>, wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes: > Much of the text has been delated to reduce the size of the transmission. > >Predestination is explicity taught in the Bible. If you say you don't >believe in predestination, then you don't beleive the explicit words of >Scripture. We might discuss what sort of predestination there is, >but if you reject any kind of predestination, you reject the word of God. >I admit that predestination is difficult to understand, and that to some >people it sounds harsh. But you seem to prefer to ignore the problem by >ignoring the Scriptures. > The word predestination is used in the Bible three places. However, if we examine the original Greek, then we find out that the word has other meanings too. It was the decision of the translaters to *choose* the word "predestination". I don't believe that it ever ment to be understood that it means that we have no free will. Also, please don't confuse foreordination and foreknowledge with predestination. A person who is foreordined has a will, and can decide to do something or not. A person who is predestined has no such choise at all. Can you imagine that the Creator, before we are ever borne, predestine us to either damnation or salvation? Again, I repeat, it would be his doing that he created me for damnation if we have no free will. It would be his fault. However, if we take free will into consideration, then everything changes. He creats us with abilities to make decisions, and to choose either salvation or damnation. I can be foreordined, however, I am still the one who desides. The consequences of my decisions are mine. If this ios not true, then I am no more or less then a lifeless doll. If we really believe that we are predestined, then we need to ask the question, how does this reflect on the charactor of God? Is he still a God, or is he more like the devil? >So I believe that Pharaoh was responsible for the hardening of his own >heart. God foreknew that he would not believe, but Pharaoh hardened his >own heart agaist God, and then God confirmed the hardening. > This is what I call rationalization. There is nothing at all which tells us that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. I take a more honest approach and say that this is a corruption of the Biblical text. The proof lies in the Bible itself, what it teaches about God. >Kindly show me one word of scripture in support of 'free agency'. You got to be kidding! Read the Bible, starting with the decision which Adam and Eve made in the Garden of Eden. >>The principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ are: >> >> 1. First, faith in the lord Jesus Christ. >> 2. Second, repentance. >> 3. Third, baptism with water. >> 4. Fourth, laying on of the hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. >> >>The order is important. We can't speak of repentance with out faith in the >>Lord Jesus christ before faith, we cant speak of baptism before faith and >>repentance, etc. > >Can you document the order of this from Scripture? And where did Christ >command the laying on of hands? NB, it is somewhat difficult to baptize >someone without laying hands on them. I suppose we could pour a pitcher >of water over them, but that would be unusual. > I sure can. Acts 2:37-38 ============ "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and bretheren, what shall we do?" "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." The laying on of the hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost was administered after baptism. Read Acts 8:12-17 and 19:3-6. Now, let me ask two questions: 1. Does it make since to be baptized without faith and repentance? 2. I am not sure what you mean that Jesus didn't taught the laying on of the hands. Do you mean that if it is not recorded it means that he didn't teach it? Tell me, what did he teach for 40 days to his desciples? Show me where is it recorded? >Does Paul, Christ, or anyone else *command* baptism for the dead? The Bible is not a manual of descipline. Besides, you are missing the point I am trying to make. That is that Paul don't find it that it is a problem. Let me give you another passage: Hebrews 11:39-40 ================ "And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:" "God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." Some additional food for taught. >Christ did not give the keys only to Peter. He gave them to the disciples, >e.g., the church, 'wherever two of you on earth agree about anything you >ask for'. Matthew 18:18,19. > Correction, he gave them to the other elevel Apostles, not to all of his disciples. >Frank, I don't see what point you are trying to make here. If the >revelation we have in the Bible is one which is made complete in the BOM, etc., >and this is what Peter was looking forward to, then I have to conclude that >Christ has returned, Judgement Day has come, I am in heaven, and I suppose >you are in 'paradise' :-). For in modern English Acts 3:21 says: > >"He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore >everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets." > That is your interpretation. However, the passage doesn't rule out that the restoration is a process and that Jesus would come when all things will be restored. Now let me ask the question, are you yet looking foreward to the time of apostasy when *all* things will be lost? >You seem to think Joseph Smith, or Brigham Young is the prophet like Moses, >spoken of in Acts 3:22, and Deut 18:15. But Peter is talking about Christ, >and urging the Jews to follow Christ, lest they 'be cut off from his people.' >Joseph Smith was a far cry from either Moses or Christ. > Who is comparing Joseph Smith to Jesus? As far as being compared to Moses, it is your opinion. So, what, even if Moses was a greater prophet then Joseph Smith. What is your point? >It is interesting that you suggest that God's revelation in the Bible is >incomplete. It is the doctrine of the LDS church that the Bible does in fact contain the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It doesn't mean that all revelation ever given and will be given is in the Bible. >I suppose this is why Joseph Smith added verses to the Bible,... Deleted the rest. >Now maybe you don't accept the IV 'corrections' as inspired, and that would >be good. But their seems to be plenty of evidence that Joseph Smith did >make those 'corrections', and that various Mormons did and do accept them. > >So is Joseph Smith a prophet, or simply a revisionist? > Joseph Smith is the prophet of the restoration. I don't know what you mean by him being a revisionist. How do you revise the Bible without being a prophet of the Lord Jesus Christ? >David H. Wagner With brotherly love, Frank [Those who advocate predestination didn't mean to deny that people make real choices. Whether this it is consistent with "free will" or not turns out to depend critically upon what you mean by "free". But Augustine's original concept was that apart from God, people are hopelessly corrupt. They are unable to choose God. When God chooses someone he regenerates them so that they are able to choose the good. Far from eliminating free will, in many ways God's choice creates it. Actually even those who are not chosen make choices that probably qualify as free in the common-language meaning of free. God is not coercing them to choose evil. It is simply their own sinful nature. Normally we refer to a choice as free if it does not have external compulsion, i.e. if it reflects the nature and values of the person that makes the decision. The fact that we can predict that an evil person will choose evil actions doesn't deny the reality of the choice. --clh]
jhpb@garage.att.com (12/12/90)
David Wagner wrote: > Predestination is explicity taught in the Bible. If you say you don't > believe in predestination, then you don't beleive the explicit words of > Scripture. We might discuss what sort of predestination there is, > but if you reject any kind of predestination, you reject the word of God. The interrelationship between predestination, grace, and free will is complex, and I don't think it is completely understandable to us on this earth. Given the above comments of David's, I thought I would take this opportunity to air St. Augustine's explanation of predestination. God grants grace to all men, that they may be saved. Some are, some are not. The reason lies in free will: some men make ill use of their free will, and resist God's grace. That's a key concept to this: the ability for man to resist grace. Now, God, being God, knows all things. In particular, He knows a man's response to any particular grace that He might give. Further, He knows EXACTLY which graces will cause any particular man to become a model of sanctity and virtue (like St. Francis of Assisi). That's where predestination comes in. By choosing the right set of graces, God can infallibly send anyone to heaven. (That's Augustine's primary contribution to the problem, if I understand correctly.) That's what predestination is in Catholic theology: predestination to Heaven (but not to Hell). What about those who end in Hell, you say? What about them? It isn't fair! God could have chosen them too! Well, remember, men have the ability to resist grace. The fact that the series of graces God gave to someone did not end in their salvation is due to one thing and one thing only: their abuse of grace. It is thus not God's fault, but the man's fault, that he is in Hell. God certainly knew what would happen, but the fault lies in the man's evil will. St. Augustine calls this choice on God's part "mystery of mysteries," and says it is vain to ask why He has chosen some and not others. There's no answer to that; it's the mystery of iniquity. Why are some people wicked and others good? There's no real explanation of that. All this leads to the following analogy about life: A man (God, in this analogy) wants to buy an apple from a little boy (a human being). He offers $100 (for an apple!). The boy says no. He comes back the next day and wants to buy an apple. The boy still says no. He comes back the next day, and the next, and the next, and the next, and the boy, who is gradually getting older, *still* says NO. Finally, the boy has become an old man, and he dies. He can't ever sell that apple to that man, now. That's what life is like. For every human being, God has basically set a limit as to how much nonsense He will put up with. The limit isn't a stingy one ($100 for an apple!), but it's there. At some point, God lets a man die and stick to his decision for all eternity. Thus the importance of resisting God's grace as little as possible. Joe Buehler
MATH1H3@jetson.uh.edu (David H. Wagner) (12/14/90)
In article <Dec.11.02.04.56.1990.8332@athos.rutgers.edu>, farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes: > In article <Dec.6.03.56.26.1990.23700@athos.rutgers.edu>, wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes: >>In article <Dec.3.23.59.14.1990.28188@athos.rutgers.edu> farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes: [please direct any e-mail for wagner to wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu] > Much of the text has been delated to reduce the size of the transmission. > Also, please don't confuse foreordination and foreknowledge with > predestination. A person who is foreordined has a will, and can decide > to do something or not. A person who is predestined has no such choise > at all. I share your concern about determinism. However, I am not teaching determinism. I am simply trying to teach what the Scriptures say. What they say, as I have already shown from the Scriptures, is that our faith is a consequence of God's choosing us. That is explicit scripture, see Eph. 1:4, Eph 2:8,9. Perhaps the main point of this is that was cannot take credit for even our faith, i.e., our faith is not a work that we can be proud of. I don't think 'foreordination' is in the Scriptures. I am willing to discuss anything you can show me in the Scriptures about foreordination with regard to salvation. > If we really believe that we are predestined, then we need to ask the > question, how does this reflect on the charactor of God? Is he still a God, > or is he more like the devil? Are we to worship the God who created us, and who does in fact show love and grace even to unbelievers who hate him, or the kind of God we create according to our liking? >>So I believe that Pharaoh was responsible for the hardening of his own >>heart. God foreknew that he would not believe, but Pharaoh hardened his >>own heart agaist God, and then God confirmed the hardening. > This is what I call rationalization. There is nothing at all which tells > us that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. I take a more honest approach and > say that this is a corruption of the Biblical text. The proof lies in the > Bible itself, what it teaches about God. I think I can see how you might say this, because the translators who produced the King James Version that you read *were* into double predestination. There are traces of this even in the NIV, (maybe the New Evangelical Translation (NET) is better this way but I haven't read it yet). But in Ex 8:15 we read very clearly: "But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said." In Ex. 8:32 we read: "But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart and would not let the people go." In Ex. 9:34,35 we read: "When Pharaoh saw that the rain had stopped, he sinned again: He and his officials hardened their hearts. So Pharaoh's heart was hard and he would not let the Israelites go, just as the Lord had said through Moses." The other verses I cited do not say explicitly that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, but they simply say that his heart became hard, or was hardened. They do not attribute this to God, so I think it is only fair that we give God the benefit of the doubt, don't you? You accuse me of rationalization, when I am simply reading the Scriptures to you. Yet you want to take predestination right out of the Bible by saying the text is corrupted. As far as I know you have no hard evidence for this; you simply reject the text because its teaching is unacceptable to you. >>Kindly show me one word of scripture in support of 'free agency'. > You got to be kidding! Read the Bible, starting with the decision which > Adam and Eve made in the Garden of Eden. This shows the degree to which you misunderstand the Bible. Yes, God created Adam and Eve with free will. But they became slaves of Satan when they disobeyed God. Since then no man has been able to do anything good that pleases God. As Isaiah said: "All our righteous acts are like filthy rags" See also John 8:34: "Everyone who sins is a slave to sin." Simlarly Paul said in Romans 7:14: "We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin." Here Paul, a believer, speaks about his sinful nature, still present in him, and still a slave to sin and Satan. And, once again, Paul in Ephesians 2 wrote that as unbelievers, the Ephesians were "dead in your transgressions and sins." All of this says that the unbeliever is spiritually dead, and a slave to sin. I maintain there is not a word of Scripture that says an unbeliever has 'free agency'. I am still waiting for an informed response. >>>The principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ are: >>> >>> 1. First, faith in the lord Jesus Christ. >>> 2. Second, repentance. >>> 3. Third, baptism with water. >>> 4. Fourth, laying on of the hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. >>> >>>The order is important. [deletions] >> >>Can you document the order of this from Scripture? And where did Christ >>command the laying on of hands? > > I sure can. > > Acts 2:37-38 > "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto > Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and bretheren, what shall we do?" "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in > the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the > gift of the Holy Ghost." I don't see any infants asking Peter what they should do here. Nor do I see here a clear setting forth of the order of things. > The laying on of the hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost was administered > after baptism. Read Acts 8:12-17 and 19:3-6. I don't claim expertise regarding the laying on of hands, but I don't believe it is stated in Scripture as a requirement for salvation. It seems to be a means by which the special gifts of the Spirit were bestowed on an individual, These gifts were granted for the special purpose of helping the Christian church to grow and be spread among the Gentiles, who otherwise had no particular reason to take an interest in Jewish Messianic prophecies. > Now, let me ask two questions: > 1. Does it make since to be baptized without faith and repentance? The important question is not so much whether or not it makes sense to minds clouded by sin. The important question is what do the Scriptures teach about Baptism, sinful human nature, our need for forgiveness and salvation, and our inability to obtain forgiveness and salvation on our own. Since in Baptism Christ works the miracle of washing away our sins, of regenerating us, of 'making us alive in Christ', (Titus 3:5, Ephesians 5:26, 1 Peter 3:21), and since infants desparately need this, and since Scripture does not forbid our giving it to them, we baptize infants. > 2. I am not sure what you mean that Jesus didn't taught the > laying on of the hands. Do you mean that if it is not recorded > it means that he didn't teach it? Tell me, what did he teach > for 40 days to his desciples? Show me where is it recorded? If *you* can give *me* a reference from Scripture that shows Jesus teaching the laying on of hands, I will be happy to discuss it. Luke explains some of what Jesus taught his disciples after his resurrection in Luke 24:45: "Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, 'This is what was written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of wsins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." I think he spent a fair amount of time explaining the OT Messianic Prophecies to them. Their understanding of these prophecies is recorded in the New Testament Scriptures. But you want to assert that Jesus taught them many things which they did not record, yet are important for our salvation. I suppose the only way that we can receive this 'oral tradition' is by reading the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price? The 'tradition' of which I am now a part (Lutheranism) takes a rather dim view of 'oral tradition' as a source of divine truth. Our motto is 'Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura' (By Grace alone, By Faith alone, By Scripture alone). Certainly Luther and friends saw 'oral tradition' as a huge loophole by which all sorts of errors had crept into the church of their day. Be that as it may, the ultimate test of Joseph Smith's 'revelations' is not just whether he prayed to ask God whether it was true. He should also have compared the revelation with Scripture. For as John wrote in 1 John 4:1-4: "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of antichrist." Here John addresses a specific heresy. Some in the church were actually denying that Christ had really come in the flesh. Galatians 1:6-10: "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel -- which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if *we* or *an angel from heaven* should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned. As I have already said, so now I say again: If *anybody* is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! "Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ." I sincerely wish Joseph Smith had heeded this warning before producing the Book of Mormon, etc. Acts 17:11 "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness *and examined the Scriptures every day* to see if what Paul had said was true." The ultimate test of 'the spirits' is that they must not contradict what is already revealed to us in the Scriptures. But you want to test the scriptures to see if they are compatible with Smith's 'revelations'. I also sincerely wish more of Smith's followers had followed the example of the Bereans. If they had, or if they had had a good Christian education, they might have rejected him, much to their benefit. Unfortunately, Smith came along in the aftermath of the Great Awakening, which had roused the nation emotionally, but failed to teach much of substance. When the emotions died down, the nation was left in a state of spiritual poverty. >>Does Paul, Christ, or anyone else *command* baptism for the dead? > The Bible is not a manual of descipline. "All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be *thoroughly* equipped for every good work." --2 Tim 3:16,17. > Besides, you are missing the point > I am trying to make. That is that Paul don't find it that it is a problem. > Let me give you another passage: > Hebrews 11:39-40 > ================ > "And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not > the promise:" > "God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should > not be made perfect." It is very hard to know what point you are trying to make when you quote Scriptures that I unerstand very well, yet you do not describe the point you are making. Here the author of Hebrews says that 'Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel, and the prophets' were commended for their faith, and I suppose he means that this is recorded in the OT, but did not receive the fulfillment of the prophecies of Christ, that is, they did not see him come. That this is the correct meaning of the text is made very, very clear, in Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Perhaps, and I'm only guessing because you do not explain yourself, perhaps you interpret 11:40 to mean that we are to do something to make the believers of old 'perfect'. I suppose this to mean that we are to make them perfect by baptizing them. But this completely misconstrues the text. You might understand the modern English a little better: "God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect." We don't make ourselves perfect, God does. Similarly we don't make the OT believers perfect, God does. Perhaps someone with some knowledge of Greek can help us out here? >>Christ did not give the keys only to Peter. He gave them to the disciples, >>e.g., the church, 'wherever two of you on earth agree about anything you >>ask for'. Matthew 18:18,19. > Correction, he gave them to the other elevel Apostles, not to all of his > disciples. Can you support this from Scripture? Matt. 18:1 seems to set this straight: "At that time *his disciples* came to him and asked him...' David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran "Comfort, comfort, ye my people, Speak ye peace, thus saith our God; Comfort those who sit in darkness, Mourning 'neath their sorrows load. Speak ye to Jerusalem Of the peace that waits for them; Tell her that her sins I cover And her warfare now is over." "Make ye straight what long was crooked, Make the rougher places plain; Let your hearts be true and humble, As befits His holy reign. For the glory of the Lord Now o'er earth is shed abroad, And all flesh shall see the token That His Word is never broken" --"Troestet, troestet meine Lieben" v. 1,4 an Advent hymn by Johann Olearius, 1671 from "The Lutheran Hymnal", #61. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston. [I would rather keep this discussion focused on the issue of predestination and not restart the issue of the special LDS revelations. We had a fairly long discussion about LDS beliefs not too long ago. --clh]
farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) (12/19/90)
[This is the latest in a series of exchanges with David Wagner on predestination. >I share your concern about determinism. However, I am not teaching >determinism....our faith is a consequence of God's choosing us. >(Eph. 1:4, Eph 2:8,9.) Perhaps the main point of this is >that was cannot take credit for even our faith, i.e., our faith is not >a work that we can be proud of. --clh] I believe that we need to understand why God has "choosen" us. If we say that He does it for no particular reason, meaning that He is arbitrary, then He is no God at all. Because then He can't be neither just or fair. >I don't think 'foreordination' is in the Scriptures. I am willing to >discuss anything you can show me in the Scriptures about foreordination >with regard to salvation. > You are right, "foreordination" is not, but "foreordained" is. Read I Peter 1:20. [about the hardening of Pharoah's heart >I think I can see how you might say this, because the translators who >produced the King James Version that you read *were* into double >predestination. There are traces of this even in the NIV, (maybe the New >Evangelical Translation (NET) is better this way but I haven't read it yet). >But in Ex 8:15 we read very clearly: --clh] This is my whole point, we can't just read one verse in the Bible and come to a conclusion about what it says. We always need to look at it in a larger context, and ask the question: if this is true, how will it reflect on the character of God? Also, the issue which you raised is a very good one. Is it possible to translate the Bible without translating into it our own theology? I believe that it is not possible without God himself providing such translation. > >You accuse me of rationalization, when I am simply reading the Scriptures >to you. Yet you want to take predestination right out of the Bible >by saying the text is corrupted. As far as I know you have no hard >evidence for this; you simply reject the text because its teaching >is unacceptable to you. > Before we go any further it would be a very good idea to define what predestination means. By the way, "predestination" is not in the Bible, "predestinate" and "predestinated" is. Let me tell you what I reject. I will quote the Webster's Third New International Dictionary. Predestinate: to foreordain to an earthly or eternal lot or destiny (as salvation or damnation) by devine purpose or degree. I understaned that this means that the out come of our existence has been predetermined by God before we were ever borne, meaning that we had nothing to do with it at all. That we are doomed for either salvation or damnation no matter what we do. I don't believe that this is scriptural at all. If you think that it is, please provide some passages from the Bible. I have no trouble at all with foreordination. Interestingly the word "predestinate" also means has a meaning of ordain in both English and Greek. Foreordain: to dispose or appoint in advance. I have no problem at all with the understanding that since God does foreknow, he will also foreordain. one good example is when God calls Jeremiah to be a prophet when he is still a boy: Jeremiah 1:5 ============ "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou comest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." By the way, here is a case where the word "foreordain" is not used, but the text implies it. God has ordained Jeremiah *before* he came out of the womb. In other words, Jeremiah was foreordained. >>>Kindly show me one word of scripture in support of 'free agency'. > >> You got to be kidding! Read the Bible, starting with the decision which >> Adam and Eve made in the Garden of Eden. > >This shows the degree to which you misunderstand the Bible. Yes, God created >Adam and Eve with free will. But they became slaves of Satan when they >disobeyed God. Since then no man has been able to do anything good that >pleases God. Some text deleted. >I maintain there is not a word of Scripture that says an unbeliever has >'free agency'. I am still waiting for an informed response. The fact that we choose evil over good says that we have free agency. If we deny that man has free agency then we deny that he is sinful, because sin is the conscious violation of the law. The fact that sin enslave us is not an arguement against free agency, but it is in fact an arguement for it. For example, we know that drugs are edictive. If a person takes drugs and gets edicted to it, whoes fault is that? Did he use his free agency to take it prior to his ediction? Of course he did! Can he be free of it again? Yes, it is possible. Can he be free of it without that person exercising his or her free agency? Not likely. For it is possible to force a person to go without drugs for a long period of time, but when the opportunity will come again he or she will take it again. The only way it is possible for a person to come clean is that he or she must want to be clean. This means that the person must exercise his or her free agency. Like I said, Adam and Eve did exercise their free agency when they have disobeyed God. We also make such decisions daily. Are you saying that we don't? Let me ask you the question. Did God choose Saul to be the King of Israel? Why did he fall? Did God made him do it? Did God made a mistake, didn't He know what was going to happen? In contrast, why is it that Paul and others who were called magnified their calling? Did God made them do it, or did they choose to do it? Was free agency at work or Not? > Text deleted. >I don't claim expertise regarding the laying on of hands, but I don't believe >it is stated in Scripture as a requirement for salvation. It seems to be >a means by which the special gifts of the Spirit were bestowed on an >individual, These gifts were granted for the special purpose of helping the >Christian church to grow and be spread among the Gentiles, who otherwise had Are you saying that the gift of the holy Ghost is no longer required? If you believe that it is no longer needed, please let me know who received the revelation canceling it. If you believe that it is still needed, then again let me know who received the revelation that the laying on of the hands is no longer required for the gift of the Holy Ghost. >David H. Wagner >[I would rather keep this discussion focused on the issue of >predestination and not restart the issue of the special LDS >revelations. We had a fairly long discussion about LDS >beliefs not too long ago. --clh] I agree with the Moderator. David, if you would like to discuss LDS doctrines, please let me know and we can have some private exchanges. With brotherly love, Frank
carroll@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) (12/19/90)
In article <Dec.11.22.40.31.1990.28517@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@garage.att.com writes: >David Wagner wrote: >> Predestination is explicity taught in the Bible. If you say you don't >> believe in predestination, then you don't beleive the explicit words of >> Scripture. We might discuss what sort of predestination there is, >> but if you reject any kind of predestination, you reject the word of God. Whether I believe the explicit words of Scripture is another question, but I'd be interested to know where predestination is explicitly (and unambiguously) taught. >The interrelationship between predestination, grace, and free will is >complex, and I don't think it is completely understandable to us on this >earth. I thought I'd offer a followup (though netnews is quite a bit behind at my site) from an essentially Wesleyan perspective enlightened by some understanding of 20th century physics. Obviously an omnipotent God resides outside the 4D space-time continuum. He is thus omniscient (as an external observer of the system), as well as eternal (being the same for all time, since he exists independent of time). His omniscience ensures that he knows, at all times (or, equally validly, at no particular time), the ultimate disposition of all humanity. (I ignore for the purposes of the argument the possibilities that an omnipotent God can be non-omniscient, which seems paradoxical, and that of a God who could know but doesn't care to, which is the favorite belief of a friend of mine.) If we further postulate that God created everything, then we can say that every man is predestined, in that his Creator knows at the time of his creation what his ultimate destiny will be. >Now, God, being God, knows all things. >In particular, He knows a man's response to any particular grace that He >might give. >Further, He knows EXACTLY which graces will cause any particular man >to become a model of sanctity and virtue (like St. Francis of Assisi). >That's where predestination comes in. By choosing the right set of >graces, God can infallibly send anyone to heaven. (That's Augustine's >primary contribution to the problem, if I understand correctly.) That's >what predestination is in Catholic theology: predestination to Heaven >(but not to Hell). I take issue with the implicit assertion that a man who is a model of sanctity and virtue (absent a definition of "sanctity") will automatically go to Heaven, and that others will go to Hell. Any man, regardless of the relative depravity of his life, may choose to avail himself of God's free gift of grace. But that's just the old sanctification by faith/works argument. >Well, remember, men have the ability to resist grace. The fact that the >series of graces God gave to someone did not end in their salvation is >due to one thing and one thing only: their abuse of grace. It is thus >not God's fault, but the man's fault, that he is in Hell. God certainly >knew what would happen, but the fault lies in the man's evil will. As a Wesleyan, I assert that the saved (I was going to say "elect", but I realized that that would be a capitulation to the Calvinists) are assured of their salvation by virtue of their faith in the redeeming sacrifice of Christ. >St. Augustine calls this choice on God's part "mystery of mysteries," >and says it is vain to ask why He has chosen some and not others. >There's no answer to that; it's the mystery of iniquity. Why are some >people wicked and others good? There's no real explanation of that. The question of how a creature can have a free will independent of the creator is indeed a mystery which I won't attempt to tackle (Episcopalians are good at letting mysteries remain mysterious), except to note that recent writers have suggested that whatever punishment man suffers is also chosen by free will. (C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce" has become the classic example here; see also Leslie Weatherhead's "The Christian Agnostic", which is a mistitled book if there ever was one.) >That's what life is like. For every human being, God has basically set >a limit as to how much nonsense He will put up with. The limit isn't a >stingy one ($100 for an apple!), but it's there. At some point, God >lets a man die and stick to his decision for all eternity. Umm... this argument is skating on thin ice. I assume that the limit is somewhere above seventy times seven. Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com
math1h3@jetson.uh.edu (12/24/90)
Chuck, could you hold this one for me until January 6? Thanks. I will try to e-mail a copy to Frank. David Wagner. In article <Dec.19.04.15.37.1990.27667@athos.rutgers.edu>, farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes: > I believe that we need to understand why God has "choosen" us. If we > say that He does it for no particular reason, meaning that He is > arbitrary, then He is no God at all. Because then He can't be neither > just or fair. >>I don't think 'foreordination' is in the Scriptures. I am willing to >>discuss anything you can show me in the Scriptures about foreordination >>with regard to salvation. > You are right, "foreordination" is not, but "foreordained" is. > Read I Peter 1:20. "He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake" Your own Webster's does not see much difference between 'predestine' and 'foreordain'. Tell me, what difference would it make to you, whether God 'predestined' Christ to save us, or 'foreordained' him? > This is my whole point, we can't just read one verse in the Bible and come > to a conclusion about what it says. We always need to look at it in a larger > context, and ask the question: if this is true, how will it reflect on the > character of God? Also, the issue which you raised is a very good one. Is > it possible to translate the Bible without translating into it our own > theology? I believe that it is not possible without God himself providing > such translation. But you accused me of rationalizing, when I am only trying to believe and understand the Scriptures. In particular I showed very clearly that Scripture teaches that Pharaoh hardened his own heart before God started hardening it. Yet you have given no answer except to cast doubt on the only Word of God that has been revealed to us. Would God let the text become corrupted? This is what is written about his Word: "The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever." > Let me tell you what I reject. I will quote the Webster's Third New > International Dictionary. > > Predestinate: to foreordain to an earthly or eternal lot or destiny (as > salvation or damnation) by devine purpose or degree. Predestine == foreordain? > I understaned that this means that the out come of our existence has been > predetermined by God before we were ever borne, meaning that we had nothing > to do with it at all. That we are doomed for either salvation or damnation > no matter what we do. I don't believe that this is scriptural at all. If you > think that it is, please provide some passages from the Bible. Actually, I am not absolutely sure what it means that God 'predestines' us for salvation. This is one of the more difficult doctrines of the Bible. It might mean exactly what you've written, that God in his foreknowledge has determined that some will believe and be saved. However, if this is in fact the case, we certainly don't know what God knows, so for us it is not determinism. However I will maintain that the unbeliever cannot 'make a decision' to believe. His conversion and his salvation is entirely God's work. I think the main point of this is not determinism, but a question of 'can I take any credit for my salvation and my faith?' If the answer to this question is 'yes', then I am trusting in my own works, and not in Christ's redemption. When it comes to the unbeliever, one asks, 'Why doesn't God work faith in him, if conversion is entirely God's work?' On this the Scripture is clear: some people resist the Holy Spirit, others never hear the gospel, 'which is the power of salvation of everyone who believes'. (Romans 1:16). In addition, the Scripture is also clear that God 'wants all men to be saved' (1 Tim 2:4). > I have no trouble at all with foreordination. Interestingly the word > "predestinate" also means has a meaning of ordain in both English and Greek. > > Foreordain: to dispose or appoint in advance. > > I have no problem at all with the understanding that since God does foreknow, > he will also foreordain. one good example is when God calls Jeremiah to be > a prophet when he is still a boy: I don't think I would argue with that either. Except that I would use the word predestine, which is the word Paul used in Romans 8:29,30. > Jeremiah 1:5 > ============ > "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou comest forth > out of the womb I sanctified thee, and ordained thee a prophet unto the > nations." > > By the way, here is a case where the word "foreordain" is not used, but the > text implies it. God has ordained Jeremiah *before* he came out of the > womb. In other words, Jeremiah was foreordained. But not predestined? What is the difference? >>I maintain there is not a word of Scripture that says an unbeliever has >>'free agency'. I am still waiting for an informed response. > > The fact that we choose evil over good says that we have free agency. If > we deny that man has free agency then we deny that he is sinful, because > sin is the conscious violation of the law. Then how could David say: "Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." Psalm 51:5 What consciousness did he have in his mother's womb? What knowledge of God's Law? > The fact that sin enslave us > is not an arguement against free agency, but it is in fact an arguement for > it. For example, we know that drugs are edictive. If a person takes drugs > and gets edicted to it, whoes fault is that? Did he use his free agency > to take it prior to his ediction? Of course he did! Can he be free of it > again? Yes, it is possible. Can he be free of it without that person > exercising his or her free agency? Not likely. For it is possible to > force a person to go without drugs for a long period of time, but when > the opportunity will come again he or she will take it again. The only > way it is possible for a person to come clean is that he or she must want > to be clean. This means that the person must exercise his or her free agency. This is an interesting analogy. One wonders how many addicts are cured through an act of their own will? Possibly a few. But the description that Scripture gives is that we were 'dead in our transgressions and sins'. What dead person, besides Christ, has ever made himself alive again? Besides which, Scripture says that God, not us, has made us alive in Christ. -- Ephesians 2:1-5. > Like I said, Adam and Eve did exercise their free agency when they have > disobeyed God. We also make such decisions daily. Are you saying that we > don't? I only say that the unbeliever cannot decide to believe, but that God works faith in him through his gospel, and yes, through baptism. > Let me ask you the question. Did God choose Saul to be the King of Israel? > Why did he fall? Did God made him do it? Did God made a mistake, didn't He > know what was going to happen? > In contrast, why is it that Paul and others who were called magnified > their calling? Did God made them do it, or did they choose to do it? Was > free agency at work or Not? Well, to begin with, God warned Israel not to insist on having a king. The king they were to put their hope in was the Messiah to come. Second, I have never said that God predestines some to damnation. Third, I have never said that believers do not have free agency to disobey God, just as Adam and Eve did. I have only said that unbelievers do not have free agency to believe or obey. I would be interested in seeing any Scripture you can show me that says otherwise. Paul is probably the clearest example of election in the Bible. A persecutor of the church, the 'chief of sinners', as he later called himself, was miraculously converted, and made an Apostle of Christ. Did he deserve this? Certainly not! Did he 'make a decision for Christ'. I would say that Christ 'made a decision' for Paul! But God foreknew Paul to be a useful 'lump of clay' and made of him one of the most important buiders (or foundation stones) of Christ's church. Likewise, I don't claim to deserve to believe in Christ, to receive eternal life. I deserve only eternal damnation. The good news of Jesus Christ is that we will not get what we deserve, but by God's grace alone we have eternal life. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran. "We have a sure prophetic Word By inspiration of the Lord; And tho' assailed on evr'y hand, Jehovah's Word shall ever stand. "By pow'rs of empire banned and burned, By pagan pride rejected, spurned, The Word still stands the Christian's trust While haughty empires lie in dust." --"We Have a Sure Prophetic Word" --Emanuel Cronenwett, 1880. --from "The Lutheran Hymnal" #290. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.
jclark%sdcc6@ucsd.edu (John Clark) (12/25/90)
In article <Dec.11.02.04.56.1990.8332@athos.rutgers.edu> farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes:
+
+This is what I call rationalization. There is nothing at all which tells
+us that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. I take a more honest approach and
+say that this is a corruption of the Biblical text. The proof lies in the
+Bible itself, what it teaches about God.
What does it teach? Where Adam and Eve were 'fully' aware of the
ramifications of taking the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good
and evil? If so then why didn't they 'know' the evil that would
come. The Genesis story give no instructions on sacrificial methods but
Able's sacrifice was 'good' and Cain's not. That David could kill a
friend to obtain the object of his desire, be called righteous, but Uza
was killed in an instant in an attempt to right the ark of the covanent.
That Judah could consort with what he presumed to be a prostitute,
and still be in the lineage of David and eventually Jesus.
The deity seems some what inconsisent to me.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.eduph600fev%sdcc14@ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr) (12/25/90)
In article <Dec.24.03.46.28.1990.16022@athos.rutgers.edu> math1h3@jetson.uh.edu writes: >Chuck, could you hold this one for me until January 6? Thanks. I will try >to e-mail a copy to Frank. >David Wagner. ... ... > >I only say that the unbeliever cannot decide to believe, but that God works >faith in him through his gospel, and yes, through baptism. > As you partially quoted yourself, 1 Tim 2:3-4 states: ...For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who desires all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. If God is omnipotent and he desires all men to be saved, then if what you are saying is true i.e. that everyone who God picks (predestinates) to be saved will be regardless of their obedience or works etc. Then from the above scripture, you have to conclude that either everyone will be saved or that God really isn't powerfull enought to save all those that he desires. The truth is that God desires to save all men but he can only save those who put their faith in him. God although he can help a man to develop his faith (such as in the case of Paul), he cannot force a man to have faith. Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Salvation is desired for all men. It is a gift of God (by grace we are saved) given to those who put their faith in Christ and obey him. Matt. 5-7 tells us what Christ expects us to obey and tells his deciples (all Christians) what will happen if we are not doers of his word (see Matt 7:21-29) Sincerely, Robert
farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) (01/07/91)
In article <Dec.25.01.12.07.1990.4731@athos.rutgers.edu>, jclark%sdcc6@ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: >In article <Dec.11.02.04.56.1990.8332@athos.rutgers.edu> farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes: >+ >+This is what I call rationalization. There is nothing at all which tells >+us that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. I take a more honest approach and >+say that this is a corruption of the Biblical text. The proof lies in the >+Bible itself, what it teaches about God. > >What does it teach? Where Adam and Eve were 'fully' aware of the >ramifications of taking the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good >and evil? If so then why didn't they 'know' the evil that would >come. The Genesis story give no instructions on sacrificial methods but >Able's sacrifice was 'good' and Cain's not. That David could kill a >friend to obtain the object of his desire, be called righteous, but Uza >was killed in an instant in an attempt to right the ark of the covanent. > >That Judah could consort with what he presumed to be a prostitute, >and still be in the lineage of David and eventually Jesus. > >The deity seems some what inconsisent to me. If He does, it is because our lack of understanding. However, let me respond regarding Adam and Eve. It is 100% true what you said, that is that Adam and Eve were not fully aware of what they have done. This is because they have lacked the knowledge of good and evil. One may ask the question, did they know that it was good to keep God's commendment? The answer is no! Did they know that death was bad? The answer is no! Could they had any judgement at all, if they couldn't tell between good and evil? The answer is, once again no! So, what did they knew? They knew that there were consequences if they were going to it of the tree of good and evil, but they didn't know if it the consequences were good or bad. It is true that when Adam and Eve ate from the tree, they have broken the commandment they have received. But it was different then we who do know from good and evil disobey God. Nevertheless, they still had a choice, and they did exercise their free agency. With brotherly love, Frank > >-- > >John Clark >jclark@ucsd.edu