hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (07/08/89)
Unlike some other things I've written, this note does not describe any final conclusions. Rather, I'm putting down some reactions I have to the discussion on predestination. They certainly lead somewhere, but I am by no means completely committed to go there. I propose to deal with both judgement and predestination. The major problem with predestination is that it portrays God as judging people in a way that looks unjust, so we have to look at what is said about judgement. I've just taken a glance through most of the NT. I'm sure I haven't found everything, but I've tried to get a feeling for what the various authors had to say about the subject. Most of the NT is really rather straightforward: God has called us to a life of loving obedience. Those who do are saved. Those who don't aren't. Jesus is unapologetic about talking about people who don't accept his message ending up in hell. Rev gives the by now classic portrait of those who are not in the book of life being thrown into the lake of fire for eternal torment. There are some nuances that give slightly different impressions. Rev 20 is clear that those who are not saved are in for eternal torment. Mat 25 (specifically 41 and 46) says this as well. Lk 20:27-40 sounds like it is implying that only those who are saved are resurrected. Some of Jesus' common reference to "destruction" could possibly be taken this way as well. One could (and I have from time to time) argue that God doesn't punish anyone eternally. They either aren't resurrected at all, or they simply cease to exist. But I think the obvious reading of the NT is that judgement does involve punishment. But beyond this fairly straightforward view, we see signs of something more complex. I believe that predestination is tied up with these concepts. These things are clearest in Paul, but interestly enough there are signs of it in Peter as well. Paul has his share of the standard preaching about judgement. There are several lists of bad actions, with statements that people who do them will never be saved. But in Romans we see signs of something deeper. Much of Romans is dealing with the relationship between the Jews and Gentiles, and in particular with the problem that many of the Jews did not accept Jesus. The comments on predestination (centered around Rom 9) are in this context. At this point Paul makes us privy to what he says is a secret plan of God. He says that the Jews decision to reject Jesus is part of God's plan. It is (1) his way to provide an opportunity for the Gentiles to be saved, and (2) that God intended all to disobey, in order that his mercy to all would be that much clearer: "In the same way, because of the mercy that you have received, the Jews now disobey God, in order that they also may now receive God's mercy. For God has made all people prisoners of disobedience, so that he might show mercy to them all." (Rom 11:31-32) The business about the pots and hardening people (Rom 9:10 ff.) must be taken in this context. First, Paul is not talking about hardening in general, but specifically about the Jews. And second, he describes this as part of God's grand plan for saving everyone, including those who were hardened. He held off the Jews' salvation in order to get an opportunity to graft in the Gentiles. But in 11:25 he tells us the secret that once this happens, all the Jews will be saved. Now it is not entirely clear what is meant by "all" in some of these passages. It certainly means more than now. At the moment God has hardened all but a remnant of the Jews. In the end this will be reversed, and "all" of them will be saved. It may mean all that are still alive at that point, or simply that it will no longer be a small remnant, but the whole people. The point is that it does not necessarily mean every individual Jew that has ever lived. To the extent that Paul's comments about hardening are taken in this context, we need not necessarily say that Rom 9 teaches a general doctrine of double predestination. Rather, he is describing a specific episode of hardening -- namely the Jews -- and for those specific people it becomes clear in 11:25 ff. that it was temporary. However I think if you put this section of Romans in the context of some of Paul's other comments, you can apply them more generally. Rom 11:32 is particularly suggestive. When you take in it the context of Paul's version of sola fide (from Rom. and Gal., primarily), it is attractive to think of this as suggesting that his analysis of Jews and Gentiles is simply a special case of the way God works as a whole. In order to make it clear that salvation comes entirely from his grace, God first hardens and judges everyone, and then he saves them. Thus double predestination does not separate people into two groups, but applies to every individual. Everyone is both Esau and Jacob. First they are convicted of their sin, in order that they can appreciate that their salvation comes entirely from Christ. (This is Karl Barth's interpretation of Rom., by the way, and is also ably defended by C.K.Barrett in his commentary on Romans.) There are several passages in other letters that suggest that this plan applies to all of mankind. The clearest in I Cor 15:20 ff. Remember that one common model that Paul uses for Christ is the second Adam. He says just as sin came to mankind from one man, so did the remedy for sin. But Adam's sin spread to *all* mankind. Did the second Adam's salvation? In Rom 5:12 ff this is not entirely clear. Paul certainly says that Christ more than makes up for Adam. But one could possibly view that he makes up in quality what he lacks in quantity. But in I Cor 15, it really seems likely that he meant the parallism to be complete: "For just as all people die because of their union with Adam, in the same way all will be raised to life because of their union with Christ. But each one will be raised in his proper order: Christ, first of all; then, at the time of his coming, those who belong to him. Then the end will come; Christ will overcome all." (I Cor 15:22-24) and it goes on to say that death will be defeated and eventually everything will be united under Christ's headship. It sounds to me like eventually God will defeat evil and cleanse all people. Those who "belong to Christ" come first, but eventually he will find a way to get to everyone. Col 1:20 and Eph 1:9-10 also talk about God's secret plan that eventually everything will come under Christ's headship. Some people believe that Christ's rule will be complete even if some people end up in hell suffering their just desserts. But I think Paul has in mind a more complete victory. There are also hints of a similar concept in I Pet 3:18-4:6. This talks about what the Apostle's Creed calls Christ's descent into Hell. I Pet says that Christ preached to those who were in Hell because they had rejected God. They were given in effect a second chance. I Pet 3 mentions specifically the people who were alive at the time of Noah and rejected God then. I Pet 4 may be interpreted more widely. In conclusion, this analysis suggests two modifications of the ideas of predestination. One is to realize that it is not taught in the abstract. At least in Rom (which is the primary Biblical reference for the concept) the hardening is done for a specific purpose, which is merciful, and it is temporary. Second is that one can see at least some hints that Paul and possibly Peter saw a secret hope that God did not plan for condemnation to be the last word. Both I Cor and I Pet suggest that a judgement does happen, and people who have not accepted Christ do suffer some sort of punishment. But there are signs that in the end God finds a way to redeem them. If this view is accepted, then one can apply double predestination to everyone, realizing that everyone is both judged because of sin and saved because of Christ.
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (07/13/89)
In article <Jul.8.05.50.28.1989.2595@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu writes: >judgement. I've just taken a glance through most of the NT. I'm sure One of the mistakes that we all make at one time or another is to fail to treat the most authoritative thing we have, i.e. the very Word of God Himself, with the greatest amount of respect which we can find within ourselves to render. No statement of what God has said in the Scriptures should ever be based simply on something as small as a glance. This can lead to misconceptions that we would not tolerate if others were to take the same approach when reading material which we ourselves have written. We must compare Scripture with Scripture until we are sure that we are going to declare something that is not contradicted by any verse in the entire Bible. 1 Corinthians 2:13 instructs us "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.". >really rather straightforward: God has called us to a life of loving >obedience. Those who do are saved. Those who don't aren't. This may be true, however, without God intervening in our lives none of us would ever do so. His analysis of us can be found in Romans 3:10-18 where He says "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat {is} an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps {is} under their lips: Whose mouth {is} full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet {are} swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery {are} in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.". >Lk 20:27-40 sounds like it is implying that only those who are saved >are resurrected. ... Jesus tells us in John 5:28-29 "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.". The passage in Luke that you refer to is speaking of the "resurrection of life". >there are signs of it in Peter as well. Paul has his share of the >standard preaching about judgement. There are several lists of bad >actions, with statements that people who do them will never be saved. Unless, of course, one who has done any of them has been saved and God no longer sees those sins as they have been washed away by the blood of Christ. Anyone who analyzes himself with total honesty will find traces of elements of any of those lists in his own life. >... But in 11:25 he tells us the >secret that once this happens, all the Jews will be saved. This verse in no way tells us that all the Jews will be saved after the Gentiles have been saved. Romans 11:25-26 says "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:". Note that verse 26 does not say "and THEN all Israel shall be saved"; it says "and SO all Israel shall be saved". If one were to take the liberty of expanding the language a bit it would read "and in this manner all Israel shall be saved". This leaves us with what would appear to be a bit of a contradiction, i.e. all Israel will become saved by keeping them blinded to the truth. We must realize, therefore, that the phrase "all Israel" cannot be referring to national Israel. This is confirmed in Romans 9:6 where we are told "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they {are} not all Israel, which are of Israel:". Romans 2:28-29 tells us "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither {is that} circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he {is} a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision {is that} of the heart, in the spirit, {and} not in the letter; whose praise {is} not of men, but of God.". Galatians 3:9 tells us "So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.". Galatians 6:16 says "And as many as walk according to this rule, peace {be} on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.". A common misconception is that God is referring to the earthly nation of Israel whenever He says Israel, when, in fact, He is referring to His Spiritual Kingdom of those whom He has saved. This is because the nation of Israel is something that we can "see", i.e, it is tangible. whereas the Kingdom of God is intangible. He did not establish earthly Israel and then name His Kingdom after it; He, rather, set out to establish His Heavenly Kingdom of Israel and named the earthly nation whom He used as a figure of it after it. >... it is >attractive to think of this as suggesting that his analysis of Jews >and Gentiles is simply a special case of the way God works as a whole. >In order to make it clear that salvation comes entirely from his >grace, God first hardens and judges everyone, and then he saves them. Wouldn't it be nice if this were really the truth. Be careful never to fall into the trap of being tempted to believe something merely because it is attractive. This is Satan's method of luring people into sin. Paul himself was well aware that what he was telling us was extremely unpleasant. He tells us in Galatians 1:10 "For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.". >Thus double predestination does not separate people into two groups, >but applies to every individual. Everyone is both Esau and Jacob. >First they are convicted of their sin, in order that they can >appreciate that their salvation comes entirely from Christ. (This is >Karl Barth's interpretation of Rom., by the way, and is also ably >defended by C.K.Barrett in his commentary on Romans.) What an absolute mockery this attempt at an explanation makes of God's righteousness! With a Gospel that teaches that God will really save each and every person who has ever lived, He has absolutely no grounds on which to command us to obey Him. >There are several passages in other letters that suggest that this >plan applies to all of mankind. The clearest in I Cor 15:20 ff. I suspect you are referring to 1 Corinthians 15:22 which says "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.". Note the use of the word "all" in Luke 2:1 which says "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.". Caesar did not in fact tax the whole world, yet that is exactly what the Scriptures say. God more often than not uses the word "all" without explicitly qualifying exactly what He means "all" of. We must search the rest of the Scriptures to resolve the reference. Using parenthesized qualifications to the Scriptures I shall illustrate what I believe God is really telling us in 1 Corinthians 15:22. "For as in Adam all (who are in Adam) die, even so in Christ shall all (who are in Christ) be made alive.". We must be extremely careful when we say that a given Scripture is the clearest one that we can find on a given topic. >Some people believe that Christ's rule will be complete even if some >people end up in hell suffering their just desserts. But I think Paul >has in mind a more complete victory. There are also hints of a similar >concept in I Pet 3:18-4:6. This talks about what the Apostle's Creed >calls Christ's descent into Hell. I Pet says that Christ preached to >those who were in Hell because they had rejected God. They were given >in effect a second chance. I Pet 3 mentions specifically the people >who were alive at the time of Noah and rejected God then. I Pet 4 may >be interpreted more widely. 1 Peter 3:18-20 says "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.". This Scripture indicates that the saving of those eight people took place at the time of the flood. Even the writers of the apostle's creed knew that Christ's descention into hell took place at the crucifiction. The term "prison" can, therefore, not refer to hell itself. The Scriptures do, however, describe the unsaved as being in Satan's prison house. This Scripture is telling us that even back in Noah's day, i.e. before the crucifiction, people were saved in the same manner as they are now; they are taught by the Holy Spirit. One final comment: Any doctrine that hints that a person has a chance to get out of hell after he has been put into it is in grave violation with the Word of God. Luke 16:26 tells us (hence refers to heaven and thence refers to hell) "And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that {would come} from thence.". Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3
hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (07/13/89)
In some ways I wish I had passed on Dave Mielke's comments anonymously. I have very strong feelings about them, but it's not entirely about Dave's posting. His posting is typical of a genre, and is just sort of the last straw. My comments are really about the genre as a whole, and Dave's happens to be the one lying in front of me. Certainly there's nothing unexpected or surprising about his responses. What irritates me is not so much the substance as the manner. There is no sign of any uncertainty at all. Recall that the original posting was prefaced by a comment saying that I see these tendencies in Scripture, but I'm not at all sure how far I want to push it. On any major subject, such as predestination, there is going to be evidence on both sides. Yes, we try to come up with ways of reconciling it, and fitting everything together. But there are always a few pieces left over after we put everything together. I'd like to see just a little sign that people realize this. That is, I'd like to see some sign of humility in these interpretations. >>I've just taken a glance through most of the NT. ... >One of the mistakes that we all make at one time or another is to fail >to treat the most authoritative thing we have, i.e. the very Word of >God Himself, with the greatest amount of respect which we can find >within ourselves to render. No statement of what God has said in the >Scriptures should ever be based simply on something as small as a >glance. Anyone who has read my postings will know that I am quite serious about these things. I would appreciate it if people would give others -- including me -- just a bit of the benefit of the doubt. I said I had just taken a glance through the whole NT, not because I knew nothing about the topic before and didn't think it was worth study, but because I had studied it so carefully that I had the crucial texts almost memorized. I was concerned that I might have lost the forest for the trees, and wanted to get an overall feel for the approach of the various authors. Now for my major comment on Dave's response. My primary problem with it is that it follows the classic fundamentalist method of reading things into the text. Note by the way that I have seldom complained about "literal interpretation". My primary problem with fundamentalists is that they are not literal enough. All too often they adopt interpretations that from my point change the text to say something that doesn't challenge them. My claim is that there are some parts of the Bible that suggest that people will be punished for ever and some that suggest that they will not. I'm still not sure how to reconcile them. That's why I brought it up for discussion. There may be some deeper understanding that will do so. But I don't think interpreting away the difficulty is the way to do it. Let's look: Lk 20:35-36 says "but the men and women who are worthy to rise from death and live in the age to come will not then marry. They will be like angels and cannot die. They are the sons of God, because they have risen from death." I said that this might be taken to imply that only the good are resurrected. (Note by the way that this is a view that ultimately I did not find convincing.) Dave dismisses this by comparing it with John 5:28-29 and saying that what was being referred to was the resurrection to life, as opposed to the resurrection for judgement. This is an interesting distinction, but there is no sign of it in this passage. Here Jesus simply says that people are blessed because they rose. Next we go to Rom 11:25-26. Paul says "And this is how all Israel will be saved." Again, Dave suggests that we should add a distinction. Not visible Israel, but only the spiritual Israel. But if this were true, why would Paul have agonized for a chapter over the implication that the Jews have been rejected? If we turn this into a tautology (all of those who are chosen will be saved), it does not answer Paul's problem. I think I have to stick with what the text actually says. Namely that after all the Gentiles have been saved, "The Savior will come from Zion and remove all wickedness from the descendants of Jacob." Next let's look at I Cor 15:22: "For just as all people die because of their union with Adam, in the same way all will be raised to life because of their union with Christ." Dave suggests that there are some implied insertions, which he supplies in parentheses: "For as in Adam all (who are in Adam) die, even so in Christ shall all (who are in Christ) be made alive." Again, he has turned a difficult passage into a tautology, by reading things into it. We know from Romans that Adam's sin spread to everyone, and that for that reason everyone dies. I find it impossible to believe that Paul intended to confine the damage of Adam's sin to only some people. So it seems clear that he also intends Christ's action to be universal. There are a couple of other texts where the interpretationn depends upon other details. But it bothers me to see the regularity with which a difficult passage is turned into a tautology by reading something into it. If I did that, I would (correctly) be lectured on how lightly I am taking the Word of God. I am particularly upset to see no sign whatever of any uncertainty in these interpretations. I'd be willing to accept it if Dave admitted that these interpretations weren't very attractive, but they were the only way he could see to avoid contradictions. But they seem completely obvious to him. So the question remains, how do I deal with the apparent contradiction between large portions of the NT where various people clearly teach about a judgement, and these small hints of something else. In my opinion the only way to do this without butchering the text is to maintain the tension. In Rom 11:25, Paul calls God's final goal a secret truth. In my opinion, we must maintain that God will judge us. The view that occurs in most of the NT has to be accepted. I have said in the past that I think it's very dangerous to adopt that view that everyone is as a matter of principle saved. It suggests that how they live does not matter. There will be a judgement. And yet. And yet. Somehow the hope remains as a small voice that in the end God will still find a way to redeem people. It will not be by saying that sin is to be ignored. It will no doubt involve him taking the consequences onto himself. There is no reason to think that Paul was privy to the details of this. So we're not going to get a nice neat resolution that wraps up all the details consistently. I'm not saying that the Bible is self-contradictory. I don't think it is. But I do think there is a tension there that is not completely resolved, and probably will not be until we see things "face to face". I think this is the real difference between me and those we call themselves believers in inerrancy. I can live with unresolved issues in Scripture. I am very wary of manufacturing an easy consistency by clever interpretation. Finally, I'd like to make an observation. Dave says of the whole approach I am suggesting: "What an absolute mockery this attempt at an explanation makes of God's righteousness! With a Gospel that teaches that God will really save each and every person who has ever lived, He has absolutely no grounds on which to command us to obey Him." ??? Are you saying that the only grounds he has to command us to obey him is that he will throw us in Hell if we don't? I am willing to listen to the classic position that Hell is necessary because God has no alternative. It is a consequence of creating people with genuine independence. God can't simply ignore the fact that people reject him. But even if you believe that ultimately God will allow people to choose hell, surely you believe that his primary call on us is love. It is my hope that you were overreacting.
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (07/15/89)
In article <Jul.13.04.36.44.1989.28929@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu writes: >Certainly there's nothing unexpected or surprising about his >responses. What irritates me is not so much the substance as the >manner. There is no sign of any uncertainty at all. Perhaps you have not noted comments I have made in other postings pertaining to the fact that no one of us can ever claim to have even a near perfect understanding of the Scriptures. I am just as fallable as anyone else when it comes to being able to correctly interpret every portion of the Word of God because I, too, suffer from a sin infested body and mind which can cause all sorts of false illusions. Each and every one of us, and that does most definitely include myself, must be very, very careful not to decide that God must have meant something or other just because it is what we were hoping He would say, it is something that makes us a bit happier, it is a conclusion that we could arrive at easily, it seems so obvious, it is something that we couldn't conceive of being any different, it is something that we don't think God would or would not do, or it is something that has any other characteristic other than that it is in complete agreement with everything else that God has told us. We must never place our own ability to think above God's ability to have an intention and explain it to us using whatever terms that He, in HIs infinite wisdom, felt was the most appropriate. I am indeed very sorry if my writing style has offended you, or anyone else for that matter, as my main intention was to be informative. I, personally, find it fairly difficult to be anything other than emphatic when I am trying to explain something that I have been overwhealmingly convinced of because of the total consistency that I observe throughout the entire Bible. I can feel no less than completely joyous when I have finally arrived at a scenario that cannot be contradicted by any verse that I am aware of. I would be very greatful if anyone were to point out to me even one verse that shows that anything I have said cannot possibly be true. You seem to object to the way in which I ascribe meaning to certain verses. Permit me to take a few moments to explain my rationale. Jesus has instructed us to enter the Kingdom of God as little children. I am prepared to believe that He was really referring to babies and not merely to children who are fairly young. Assuming the attitude of a baby must mean that we should find ourselves assuming a number of attributes which, being a parent of six, I have had plenty of time to boserve. We must, above all, realize that we are completely helpless on our own, and absolutely incapable of achieving anything of value through our own efforts. This tells me that I must never say that a Scripture says either what I think it says or what I would like it to say. I must, rather, determine exactly what God has meant by it, just as a baby must learn to determine exactly what his parents are saying when they begin to speak to him in what is at first a completely unknown language. The baby must learn to associate words with meanings, actions, objects, etc. The Bible is a document that has been written by God Himself; He may have used imperfect people to do the physical work of putting the Scriptures together, but I can believe no less than that God would have insured that His message to us which we are to live by would say no more and no less than exactly what He intended to say to us. Surely a God who is capable of putting together this whole universe is capable of insuring that what He has told us is what He meant. For this reason I am most certainly one of those believers in the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Since God is spiritual in nature, and since He tells us that He is really primarily concerned with spiritual matters, I must believe with my whole heart that although the Bible is written in physical language it must really be telling us spiritual truths. I must therefore conclude that each physical word, full of all the various limitations that physical things have, may well be being used in a different way from that which I, as a physical being, am used to. If this were not true than God would be unable to even attempt to explain matters of infinite depth with finite methods. I, therefore, assume the attitude of a baby even more when reading the Scriptures. An adult might ask "what does this say", but a baby asks "what are you saying to me" and doesn't even expect to fully understand the answer to that question. Each time I come across a word I must not jump to the conclusion that I know what God meant by it; this approach would limit me to only knowing the various physical truths which may be behind it. I must do exactly what a baby does and find out precisely how my Father used that word in every other instance to insure that I am correctly interpreting Him. An earthly example of this might be if I, speaking English, heard a French person say the word "oui". With my English ear I would hear the word "we" and interpret what he said as a first person plural subjective pronoun when in fact he meant a word equivalent to the English word "yes". An English baby eventually learns that the word whose sound is "we" means "we" whereas a French baby eventually learns that the word whose sound is "we" means "yes". This is only done through endless reverifications of what he thinks might be the true meaning of the word. I was only able to find total consistency throughout the whole Bible when I started using this approach. You have objected to my sounding rather emphatic and probably feel that the preceeding paragraphs have displayed the same attribute. Permit me to explain that although I have used the word I as though I have some magic ability to do this sort of thing, that is really not what I meant. The Scriptures are God's Word and can only be understood by those whom He has chosen to reveal them to. He also chooses to reveal only certain Scriptures to certain people at certain times. Each of us must be immensely thankful to Him for that which he has been granted the ability to understand. God despises arrogance and any of us who finds himself displaying this attitude really ought to seriously question his perceived salvation. My use of the word I was merely a convenient abbreviation to what would otherwise be a rather long preamble to every sentence. Although it may be what I do, it is really what God recommends; I did not make up this approach on my own. It is also impossible to accurately find spiritual truths in the Scriptures without constantly praying God for the wisdom and understanding to do so. Failure to do so would be an attempt to claim the glory for the acquired understanding for oneself. If this were the attitude of the Bible reader then he can be assured that God will likely prevent him from figuring anything out. He may even permit him to become grossly mislead. Please permit me to give you another angle with which you can see consistency within a couple of the verses under discussion. John 5:28-29 speaks of all, both the saved and the unsaved, being raised from the dead. Luke 20:35 speaks of those who are raised and end up in heaven. I would like to suggest that John 5:28-29 is speaking of physical resurrection (it speaks of those who are in the grave), whereas Luke 20:35 speaks of spiritual resurrection (it speaks of those who have been counted worthy). God does teach that both types of death and subsequent resurrection are a reality and we must be careful not to jump to any conclusions as to how to qualify the terms "death" and "resurrection" before we are sure that our conclusions are entirely consistent with the rest of the Scriptures. Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3 [I didn't mean to accuse you of arrogance. Just of having a no doubt unconscious tendency to bend the meaning of texts to produce consistency. I can live with it. --clh]
jamesa@amadeus.la.tek.com (James Akiyama) (07/19/89)
After reading the articles on "Predestination and Judgement" I feels that more needs to be added. First, Mr. Hedrick says: > My primary problem with it is that it follows the classic fundamentalist > method of reading things into the text. This, in my opinion, is wrong. Some fundamentalists may read things into text, but it is wrong to assume that all do. I believe in doctrinal inerrancy and therefore clasify myself as a fundamentalist. Yet, I'm am perfectly willing to accept that there are things which are not yet known. 1 Corinthians 13:9-10 says: For we know in part, and we prophesy; but when the perfect comes the partial will be done away (New American Standard). 1 Corinthians 13:12 continues: For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known (New American Standard). In fact, I can't see how a fundamentalist can believe that he can comprehend everything unless he believe that the perfect has already come (I don't believe it has). The distinction "fundamentalist" does not imply "knowing all of Scriptures" but rather "inerrancy in all of Scriptures as originally penned". I think this is key. Now I realize that some do read things into text. I do know that from my limited contact at Western Conservative Baptist Seminary and Multnomah School of the Bible, both "fundamentalist seminaries", they often times qualify statements with, "as we understand", or "in my opinion". With this said, let's look at the passages in question: First, LUKE 20:35-36 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection (New International Version). Here I read that "the resurrection" is the resurrection of Christ (since "the" implies "one" or "first" in this context). Thus, I believe, "children of the resurrection" is equivalent to the "children of Christ". Next, in ROMAN 11:25-26 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob (New International Version). This one is more difficult for me. I agree with Mr. Hedricks that the passage must be refering to the nation Israel (not the spiritual Israel). This seems apparent since the previous passages are clearly referring to the nation Israel. One thing I've noted in Scriptures (clearly in the OT; somewhat in the NT) is Gods love for the people of Israel. They were, and possibly still are, his chosen people. Sure, He's letting Gentiles in, but still there seems to be something special about Israel and the Jews. Simply reading Revelations, and the end times will show that God still bestows a special relationship with the nation Israel. I believe that here Christ means that "all of (the nation) Israel will be saved". I believe, however, that this does not necessarily imply all of the people of Israel but rather a large enough portion, so that Israel, as a whole, will be saved as a nation. To me, this is no different that in the OT when God mentions Israel as His chosen, and yet, many were not saved. Were the unsaved people still His chosen? I do not believe so. Rather the nation itself was chosen; nation referring to the people as a whole and not individually. Finally, 1 Corinthians 15:22: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. On this passage I tend to agree with Dave Mielke more. I think here, what is important, is what is meant to be "in Adam" and "in Christ". I believe all are "in Adam" being born of the flesh. To be "in Christ" one must be born again in the Spirit. Thus the term "all" is qualified in the first as those "in Adam" (which includes all of us, since we were all born from flesh to flesh), while the second includes all born in of Spirit to spirit. For, what I believe, a relevent passage: JOHN 3:6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. Again, I don't claim to know everything. This is just my interpretation of some rough passages. When reading these, I often times think of a quote made by Einstein: "I see a pattern but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock but I cannot envision the clock maker. The human mind is unable to conceive of four dimensions--how can it conceive of a god, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one?" James E. Akiyama jamesa@amadeus.LA.TEK.COM UUCP: ....!tektronix!amadeus.LA.TEK.COM!jamesa ARPA: @RELAY.CS.NET:jamesa%amadeus.LA.TEK.COM
tytso@athena.mit.edu (Theodore Ts'o) (07/19/89)
In article <Jul.15.04.51.59.1989.610@geneva.rutgers.edu> davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes: >The Bible is a document that has been written by God Himself; He may >have used imperfect people to do the physical work of putting the >Scriptures together, but I can believe no less than that God would have >insured that His message to us which we are to live by would say no >more and no less than exactly what He intended to say to us. Surely a >God who is capable of putting together this whole universe is capable >of insuring that what He has told us is what He meant. Please do not take for granted this belief that the Bible was "written by God Himself," as there are many Christians who would take serious issue with this statement. I cannot believe that he could insure that the Bible was inerrant --- because if He could do that, He could also make sure that no one could ever do any evil. I cannot see at all how you can reconcile your statement with my belief that God gave us a free will. This means that if one of the Biblical authors really wanted to include a particular point of dogma, God could not have stopped him. For example, suppose that Paul was wrong about homosexuality; that one of his human failings was the fact that he was extremely homophobic. Even if his views were completely uncharitable and exetremely distasteful to God, what could He have done? Well, the Holy Spirit would have moved within Paul to omit those passages. But unless the Holy Spirit is really a Holy Brainwasher, the final choice _must_ lie with Paul alone, or he would have no free choice in the matter. I'm using homosexuality as an extreme example, but the principle holds no matter what the issue is. So we see that God could not possibly have influenced the Authors of the individual books. Again, his Holy Spirit could have moved within the hearts of those that chose which books were to be canonized. But again, even if there were books that were spiritually and theologically perfect, if the early Church Fathers decided to include an imperfect book into the Canon, it would not be possible for God to stop them without violating their free choice. In the end, it boils down to whether or not you think the (human, physical) authors of the books of the Bible and the Church Fathers who chose which books belonged in the canon are human or not. In order to believe that the Bible is inerrant, you either have to believe that they were infallible --- in which case you are doing the same thing which most non-catholics abhor: believing that human, finite persons could be infallible --- or, you have to believe that God raped those peoples' minds and forced them to write something which was spritually perfect and without error, in spite of the finitude and human failings. Unfortunately, I cannot believe either. (I wish I could! It would mean that I could turn off my brain and just blindly follow printed words. Unfortunately, this means that while the words of the Bible invaluable --- possibly more valuable than any other spiritual work --- they still require reason and intelligence to read and filter and apply them.) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Theodore Ts'o bloom-beacon!mit-athena!tytso 3 Ames St., Cambridge, MA 02139 tytso@athena.mit.edu Everybody's playing the game, but nobody's rules are the same! [Alternatively, it may be that he *could* have assured that the Bible was inerrant, just as he *could* have assured that no one would sin, but for reasons of his own decided not to. Those who deny inerrancy don't always do so because they think God was incapable of making the Bible inerrant. --clh]
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (07/21/89)
In article <Jul.19.02.25.08.1989.16621@athos.rutgers.edu> jamesa@amadeus.la.tek.com (James Akiyama) writes: >I believe that here Christ means that "all of (the nation) Israel will be >saved". I believe, however, that this does not necessarily imply all of the >people of Israel but rather a large enough portion, so that Israel, as a whole, >will be saved as a nation. This comment is referring to Romans 11:25-26 which says "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:". This cannot be true. I suggest that you have a very close look at Romans 9:27 which says "Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:". Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3 [The problem with using 9:27 in this context is that may be referring to the present situation, also described in 11:7-10, where most of Israel is hardened. 11:25-27 is referring to some time in the future when God will reverse this. So I don't think that 9:27 alone will solve our problem. Exegesis of 11:25-27 is going to have to be made on a broader context and understanding of what Paul meant. --clh]
jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H. Buehler) (07/23/89)
Theodore Ts'o wrote: In the end, it boils down to whether or not you think the (human, physical) authors of the books of the Bible and the Church Fathers who chose which books belonged in the canon are human or not. In order to believe that the Bible is inerrant, you either have to believe that they were infallible --- in which case you are doing the same thing which most non-catholics abhor: believing that human, finite persons could be infallible --- or, you have to believe that God raped those peoples' minds and forced them to write something which was spritually perfect and without error, in spite of the finitude and human failings. Unfortunately, I cannot believe either. You are assuming a relationship between grace and free will here that I don't find reasonable. Why can't God have someone infallibly do something without violating their free will? Why should He have to violate the nature of His creatures in order to guide them to their destination?
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (07/23/89)
In article <Jul.13.04.36.44.1989.28929@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu writes: > >On any major subject, such as predestination, there is going >to be evidence on both sides. Yes, we try to come up with ways of >reconciling it, and fitting everything together. But there are always >a few pieces left over after we put everything together. I'd like to >see just a little sign that people realize this. That is, I'd like >to see some sign of humility in these interpretations. I didn't want this to be taken as a personal attack--so I deleted your comments about a previous poster. I have long been amazed at some of the provincial thinking that passes for theological thought. Yet when I read the Bible I can understand some of it. IMHO, it comes from within the human being. There seems to be a need to be Right regardless, so people use our Lord and God and the Bible as weapons of their righteousness. God says! The Bible says! are the shouts heard. And if others don't agree, then they must be blind or worse. Had I not gone through this myself, I probably wouldn't be sensitive to it. Nor would I now have a strong desire to share with other Christians in a search for a better understanding of Scripture and our Lord and God. > I deleted a lot of the discussion only because I have not had the time to sit down and study the quoted passages in depth. Also, the only passages I have are the ones from this post. I would like to know what other passages you mean when you said there are others. > >So the question remains, how do I deal with the apparent contradiction >between large portions of the NT where various people clearly teach >about a judgement, and these small hints of something else. In my >opinion the only way to do this without butchering the text is to >maintain the tension. In Rom 11:25, Paul calls God's final goal a >secret truth. In my opinion, we must maintain that God will judge us. >And yet. Somehow the hope remains as a small voice that in the end God >will still find a way to redeem people. I'm not saying >that the Bible is self-contradictory. I don't think it is. But I do >think there is a tension there that is not completely resolved, and >probably will not be until we see things "face to face". One thing that has really struck me is that the Jews seemed to generally not understand that eventually the Church would come. We can look back and in light of the NT and see the Church in the OT. To the Jews, this was a "secret truth." Thus, to me it seems reasonable that we, Christians, don't know the whole of God's plan. We often want to think we do, but as Paul points out "we see through a glass darkly." As for salvation, I think one of the greatest passages is the one that tells us that it was faith that saved even the OT folks--not the sacrifices offered. Yet, this was only hinted at in the OT--"You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise." (Psalm 51:16, 17) I don't want to over interpret the above passage, but the point remains that sacrifices were not what saved the Jews--it was their faith in God. The same holds for us today--our faith in Jesus Christ saves us. What does this say for the future and for those you are concerned with in this posting. I understand your concern and see how difficult are the passages you quoted (esp. Luke). But I see God at work throughout the history of mankind trying to bring us back to Him. Therein rests my hopes for all, that God will continue to work and strive to bring all to Himself. Yes, I am aware of the passage that says that God will not always strive with man to save him. But when will God quit striving? 5 years from now? 50 years from now? 1000 years from now? 1,000,000 years from now? Does anyone dare to tell God when He will stop striving? Further, if the Gospel we believe is one of Love and Hope, isn't that also a key factor here. I think it is. So far God has demonstrated His great Love for mankind through Jesus, and I take Hope from this that God will work all things together in such fashion as to continue drawing mankind to Him. How? Here I can only fall back on Paul's secret truth. Maybe not the most satisfactory of defenses, but I simply don't know how God intends to work everything out. But I am quite willing to let God do His thing--my calling isn't to be God's advisor. If I have caused anyone hurt by the above, I apologize and ask you to forgive me. I didn't do deliberately. If any of you think I'm wrong, I'm willing to accept such counsel and teaching as you are willing to give. My sole desire in all of this is to share what I understand and to share the Love with you who are called Christians. > >I am very wary of manufacturing an easy consistency by >clever interpretation. Is that what I have done? I hope not. I recall listening to a man give his testimony one time. Seems he had been heavily involved in worshipping Satan. He found it amusing when Christians told him that if he didn't change his ways he was going to Hell. He found it amusing because as a Satan worshipper that is exactly where he wanted to go. What drew him to Christ was the Love. It was something he could not understand, why would Jesus love me when I am one of His biggest enemy? Now he understands and that is the emphasis of his ministry. Peace, Gene
tytso@athena.mit.edu (Theodore Ts'o) (07/31/89)
[Context: My claim that you must accept the fact that the authors of the bibles must either have no free will or were infallible.] Joeseph Buehler wrote: >You are assuming a relationship between grace and free will here that I >don't find reasonable. > >Why can't God have someone infallibly do something without violating >their free will? Why should He have to violate the nature of His >creatures in order to guide them to their destination? If I or anyone else resist His grace, there is no way God can do anything through that person, let alone something infallible. Unfortunately, there is no way for anyone but God to know whether or not a person has perfectly submitted him or herself to His Grace. Because of this, I refuse to raise to Divine status anything which depends on anybody's perfect submission to grace --- even my own! (I imagine many of the butchers of the Inquisition were convinced they were doing God's will and full of grace.) And so I refuse to take as infallible either the Bible or Pope --- to me, they are the same expression of the universal desire to have something which finite to be absolute and beyond question. Joey Paul has said that without some solid anchor, there would be chaos in our lives. I submit that it is this universal fear which causes people to idolize the Bible. What then do I use for my authority? Well, I pray, study the Bible, consult other Christian writers, ask my pastor for advice, and many other things. I will readily admit that this requires much more anguish and soul-searching than blindly believing some verse just because it can be found in the pages of a book that happens to be labeled ``The Bible''. As for the danger Joey pointed out of raising ourselves as idols because we have to make judgements on what is reliable and what is not: This is very true. However, it is also possible to approach the scriptures with a humble heart and an awake brain. ("Let us be as innocent as doves, and as wise as foxes") Of course, it goes without saying that you should also ask the Holy Spirit to help guide you to the truth. I try not to introduce my biases into my bible studies, but at least I recognize that they might exist. If it is a group bible study, I draw comfort from the promise that when two or more are gathered in Jesus's name, there he is amongst us. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Theodore Ts'o bloom-beacon!mit-athena!tytso 3 Ames St., Cambridge, MA 02139 tytso@athena.mit.edu Everybody's playing the game, but nobody's rules are the same!
hwt@watmath.waterloo.edu (Henry Troup) (07/31/89)
It seems to me that the argument that the Bible is inerrent is a tale- chasing one. I have easy access to three translations - the King James, the Revised Standard, and the New English. The preface to the New English notes that it is based on a new compliation of Greek and Aramaic sources to the New Testament, and contains over two thousand changes (from the Revised Standard) that change the sense of the passage they appear in. So - what is inerrant? The Greek New Testament - it is the 'original' - but which physical document - there are many, and they vary. The King James - but it is contradicted in places by the New English. The New English - but it contradicts the King James. There is no such thing as 'The Bible'. There are books that Roman Catholics take as canonical that the King James treats as apocrypha - meaning that they are venerable and worthy of study but not to be taken as the word of God. Equally, the argument of inspiration is hard for me to swallow. If God has inspired every single translator and copyist, then there should be no conflicting version. Further, I would then have to submit to the authority of the Pope, who claims to be infallible (in certain designated pronouncements) because he is inspired by God - and knows it. As an Anglican, I do not think that God has exerted very much direct intervention since 35 A.D. To believe that God directs everything that happens, day to day, is hard for me, not because God could not, but because there is too much that is random, or evil done by man. To believe that if good comes from evil, then the evil is God's will is foolish. utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!hwt%bnr-public | BNR is not | All that evil requires hwt@bnr (BITNET/NETNORTH) | responsible for | is that good men do (613) 765-2337 (Voice) | my opinions | nothing. [The normal definition is that the Hebrew and Greek originals are inerrant, not any particular edition or translation. This does complicate things slightly, since it means that there is an inerrant Bible, but we don't have it. However I don't know of any serious theological issue whose outcome is materially affected by textual problems. So in practice it probably doesn't make any difference. --clh]