coatta@cs.ubc.ca (Terry Coatta) (10/27/89)
The moderator's recent discussion of the positions of the RC church, the Reformers and most current day Protestants, with respect to faith, justification and free will has aroused my curiousity about a few things. Since the Reformers (at least so I am lead to believe) advanced the notion of sola scriptura (apologies for possible mispelling), what is the scriptural basis of election? It would seem to me that various portions of the gospels at least suggest some degree of free will (John 3:16 John 5:24 Acts 16:31 Mark 11:22 The first three all use the word ``believe'' or derivations of it. I don't know about the original Greek, but that word has connotations of personal volition associated with it for me. The last one I find most interesting because Jesus says ``Have faith in God''. He doesn't say ``Pray for faith'', but actually directs people to act, which seems to imply some degree of free will). Another item which I'm curious about is the notion that the only way one can be condemned is by rejecting Christ/God. If indeed this is an accurate assessment of salvation, I am curious about excatly what ``rejection of Christ/God'' is. Each denomination presents a different Christ/God and to reject any of these ``shadows'' of God is not to reject God himself. An extension of this type of argument would be that it is very difficult, if not impossible, for a human to actually know God in completeness (the transcendance of God), and therefore, a person cannot truly reject God in this life. Is this type of argument representative of any branch of Christian theology? Terry Coatta Dept. of Computer Science, UBC, Vancouver BC, Canada coatta@cs.ubc.ca ``To conquer death, all you have to do is die.'' Jesus, in Jesus Christ Superstar [The best place to go for the Biblical background on election is certainly Romans. Probably you should read at least Rom 9-11. Parts that particularly suggest election are 9:10-18. This seems pretty clearly to suggest that God chooses those who he is going to reveal himself to, and makes the rest stubborn. That passage cites a lot of the OT evidence: Jacob and Esau and God's hardening of Pharaoh. There are some other ways to read these passages -- e.g. Rom 9 has to be taken in the context of Rom 11 -- but I do see where Luther and Calvin get their ideas. Remember that for those who believe in election, things happen on two levels at the same time. It does not remove decision: people do still make choices. It's just that God has arranged things so that they make the choices that he wants. It does still make sense to call on people to decide: your calling may be part of the means God is counting on to carry out his election. Anyway, I don't intend to go into all of this yet again, but just to point out that there is at least some Biblical basis for election. I don't know of any denomination that makes exactly the argument you ask about. Generally people acknowledge that there are disagreements, but not to the extent that they think different denominations are talking about different Gods. Within the American Protestant tradition at least, priority normally seems to be on following Christ as your savior, and salvation is associated with a commitment to Christ, not with holding a particular doctrinal view. To say that no one can be condemned because there is no agreement about what is essential is essentially an agnostic position. This might be congenial to some of the Unitarian/Universalist tradition, but I'm not up on that. --clh]
COSC2U2%JANE@uhvax1.uh.edu (10/30/89)
[In article <Oct.27.03.05.54.1989.17932@athos.rutgers.edu>, coatta@cs.ubc.ca (Terry Coatta) asks about the Biblical basis for election. John 3:16 John 5:24 Acts 16:31 Mark 11:22 seem to him to imply free will.--clh] > The last one I find most > interesting because Jesus says ``Have faith in God''. He doesn't say > ``Pray for faith'', but actually directs people to act, which seems to > imply some degree of free will). I CONSIDER THIS AN UNDRSTATEMENT [--CEB] > > Another item which I'm curious about is the notion that the only way > one can be condemned is by rejecting Christ/God. BRAVO !!!!!!!!!!!! >If indeed this is an > accurate assessment of salvation, I am curious about excatly what > ``rejection of Christ/God'' is. Each denomination presents a different > Christ/God I found that the Athanasian Creed to be a pretty good definition of God, and of Man's Relation to God. It does not have the Seal of Approval of a General Church Council like the Nicene Creed, but it in no way contradicts it. I discount blind faith, after all, "THE HEAVENS DECLARE THE GLORY OF GOD", and "THE FOOL HAS SAID IN HEART THAT THERE IS NO GOD". Last but not least, did not Christ say that "THE VERY STONES WOULD CRY OUT" on the first Palm Sunday if the people were not allowed to sing the Messianic Hymns ? > [The best place to go for the Biblical background on election is > certainly Romans. Probably you should read at least Rom 9-11. Parts > that particularly suggest election are 9:10-18. Let's not forget Deuteronomy 30:19 and Revelation 22:19. The role of "ELECTION" has been GROSSLY EXAGERATED. Revelation 22:19 shows that a specific instance of the mis-exercise of FREE WILL, the deletion of a part of the Apocolypse, can lead to the deletion one's name in the Book of Life. Further, Deuteronomy 30:19 echos GOD's directive to CHOOSE, and GOD's advice to CHOOSE LIFE. > This seems pretty > clearly to suggest that God chooses those who he is going to reveal > himself to, and makes the rest stubborn. That passage cites a lot of > the OT evidence: Jacob and Esau. For the UMPTEENTH TIME, GOD DOES NOT HATE ESAU. GOD STRONGLY PREFERS JACOB. ESAU WAS NOT CUT OUT. PROVISIONS WERE MADE TO PERMIT ESAU TO SHARE JACOB'S INHERITANCE !!! All Esau had to do was to claim it. The Proof: 1) Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite (Descendant of Esau), he is your brother. 2) Edomites had the right to directly enter an Assembly, that is, become a Jew. Second best was the Egyptian, who had to wait 3 generations. 3) Caleb, the Kennazite, descendant of Kennaz, grandson of Esau, was prominent among the Jews, and well respected. (Even more extreme is Ruth, the Moabitess, who were never to enter an Assembly, but we are talking about Esau.) 4) The last Chapter of Amos states that a Remnant of Esau will be preserved, in the NON-Septuagint-based translations. 5) History shows that Edom became part of Judah in Christ's time, supporting #4. 6) The Davidian Kingship passed to the Herods of Edom after the Maccabbees. The Kingship was considered as part of Jacob's legacy. GOD STRONGLY PREFERRED JACOB, . . . , But God did not prevent Esau from sharing Jacob's blessings. Nor did Esau act against GOD's will in doing so. Who are the Elect? "God would have ALL MEN to be saved." Divine Grace is Universal. > There > are some other ways to read these passages -- e.g. Rom 9 has to be > taken in the context of Rom 11 -- but I do see where Luther and Calvin > get their ideas. Do not sleight Erasmus. I think that his Freedom of the Will is the MOST SIGNIFICANT contribution to this Free Will-Predestination Debate. I do not see any good faith in Luther's introduction in the Bondage of the Will, when he state that Erasmus'es arguments are like gold vases full of "defecation". [Luther probably used the German words MIST or SHEISS, which I will leave to the Scatologist to translate, in his original German version. I point this out because I feel that it is intellectual dishonesty to sanitize Luther.] As for Calvin, his deed of manipulating the burning at the stake of opponent Michael Servetus is an act of TOTAL DEPRAVITY that reminds me of "BY THEIR WORKS YOU SHALL KNOW THEM". > --clh] By the way, the Coptic Orthodox have put out an excellent series of tracts, of which DIVINE GRACE is prominent. I'll try to get the publisher's name to you shortly. Probably the best 20th Century Eastern Orthodox work on the subject, surpassing Frank Gavin, whose fault/virtue is the deep level of abstraction. --ceb I DOUBT SO THAT I MAY UNDERSTAND. --Pierre Abelard