Wow ... Calvin was right .... I thought I'd whip up a little discussion on predestination, since one of our Christian advocates has recently asserted it: The obvious point, then is why bother? The psychosis of Calvinism had much to do with not knowing how God had judged you, and a frantic need to keep on God's good side, just in case that's where you were already. Jack Cady, whom I consider among the US's finer writers, wrote of early Euro-American religion: The American experience would begin with Calvinist Puritans .... (1) These Calvinist Puritans, of course, are the same who would, around 1658, begin destroying lives, hanging people [and] tying old women to the back of carts, stripping them to the waist and whipping them from one town to the next through New England snows. (2) And Cady, born in 1936, is not alone when he notes that the medieval mind of Puritanism lives on. Emma Goldman, in the early decades of the 20th century, wrote that Puritanism no longer employs the thumbscrew and lash; but it still has a most pernicious hold on the minds and feelings of the American people. (3) This sentiment is important: that witch-burnings and abusive, harrowing Inquisitions against ideas and the people who hold them are generally considered unacceptable does not mean that the Puritan theocratic impulse has died. We see it in modern attempts to proscribe speech; a friend once humorously noted that pornography might be the undoing of Christianity: the rules which keep one from broadcasting Debbie Does Dallas, or Taboo XIII on CBS at 7am, Saturday, find their root in Judeo-Christian morality, and the measure of social redemption applied by the Supreme Court in determining the obscenity standard is drawn from such principles as well. But to remain in the realm of the more reasonable, music, painting, photography, sculpture, dance, literature ... just about every form of artistic expression ... has come under fire from the postmodern Puritan mindset. The perception of witchcraft in a story is grounds for the religious to demand a book's banning. The arbitrarily-declared "profane" words have prevented the sale of rock and roll in recent years, and been a hinderance to jazz, rock, rap, and metal. Some people even find reasons to protest ambient music forms without lyrics, perceiving drug-conducive sounds. The attitude reaches beyond art--the representation of the living experience--and into the living experience itself: sexuality, child-rearing, and labor issues have all met Puritanistic interference. Perhaps the most stark embodiment of the Puritan mindset is a 1996 Pensacola, Florida court decision awarding custody of an 11 year-old girl to a convicted murderer and accused child molester because the mother was lesbian: All of this negativity finds its roots in a specific idea of redemption by God--the Calvinist idea. Typically, I sling the phrase "post-Victorian" at Americans, but the damage done to our country by the constant cacophony of hideously perverse Christian-derived values is downright terrifying. What is it about these faithful that it is merely not enough to live in quiet peace and communion with God? What is it that compels them to hypocrisy? In short, what compels these Christians who protest art, human association, and free thought in the name of God to do so? What compels them to make their faith shine publicly, and to wield it as a sword? If we look to Calvinist predestination, we find that those condemned cannot gain salvation, but those predistined for salvation can certainly earn condemnation. Taken in the context of Matthew 25.41-ff, we begin to see a possible explanation: One can lose their salvation by simply leaving a stranger in sin; it is part of the basis for any evangelical fervor; it is the necessity motivating the conversion of native Americans, for Inquisitions in Europe (*), for Witch Trials and other horrors of antiquity. In the modern day, the need to purge sin from society for fear of condemnation for allowing one's human brethren to remain trapped in sin motivates censorship, externalized homophobia (OCA, the Pensacola decision, the GodHatesFags ministry, &c), antieducational politics (no sex ed., more homophobia, lies about drugs), usurpation of liberty (anti-abortion), and a host of demands which hinder society's attempts to heal and progress. This simple, personal greed, inspired by predestination, creates a number of problems which the more liberated aspects of Christian faith work fervently to alleviate (abortion, homeless children, battered wives, &c). It frightens souls into adherence and not exploration; the souls never find God, merely obey as best their limited perspective allows. So the simple answer to Why bother? is twofold: The outward symptom is a "caring" for humanity that compels the Puritan mind to ostracize, denounce, harass, and, sometimes, kill; the inward symptom is a deep fear that failure to persecute these perceived evils will result in a soul's condemnation. This is what I describe when I talk about the effects of Christianity. Sack the message, it's been lost for centuries. What the people respond to most is greed: their soul is the ultimate currency. In a more normal redemptive scheme, there is pursuit of salvation; in the Puritan scheme, though, there is protection of an unsure salvation--one knows not whether or not they are saved, and the pressure mounts, invoking greater severity. Especially in the Puritan scheme, it is why it is so difficult for a believer to address the issue: God loves you; that's why He condemns you to Hell. The predestined, Puritan mind is sick with its insecurity and greed. It motivates the worst evils of the faith, and manifests itself more boldly, and pronounces itself more loudly, than any other method of Christian faith. Predestination creates evil among the faithful and drags society into the quagmire. And it is the basis for the most undereducated, ill-tempered charity in history. And thus we see the value of faith in predestiny. I would like to thank Rambler and Tony1 for bringing this issue to light. It serves well as an explanation for much of what we see in Christianity, and much of what infidels have come to object to among those faithful. Predestiny is philosophic cancer. Notes: 1) Cady, Jack. The American Writer: Shaping a Nation's Mind. New York: St Martin's, 1999. (pg. 36) 2) ibid. (pg. 48) 3) Goldman, Emma. "The Hypocrisy of Puritanism." Anarchism and Other Essays, 3rd ed. Mother Earth, 1917. http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Goldman/Writings/Anarchism/hypocrisy.html 4) Associated Press, 2/3/1996. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur61.htm *) Much of the Inquisitional attitude was provoked by fear regarding passages in Matthew. While certain aspects of predestiny have popped up throughout Christian history, it is worth noting that the Inquisitions predated John Calvin, and thus Calvinism and Puritanism. However, the greed for salvation and fear of condemnation was a strong motivator, and that, perhaps, is a larger issue for another time. thanx much, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
God loves you. That's why He sent a His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. You can accept His free gift, or reject His free gift to you. To receive a gift you must accept it, and because it is free you can not earn it. However, you stand condemned if you have rejected Jesus Christ. But as long as you are still alive in this life you can accept Jesus at any time. Our God could not be just if He let sin into His kingdom. God is holy. But remember, God is a just and merciful God, and His mercy is greater than His justice. Therefore, you may ask for His mercy. You are condemned to hell for your sins, not because God doesn't love you. In fact, God loved you so much that He sent His only Son to die for you, and yes, His Son loves you too. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Living in the US, you would probably know about all of the high crime rates. If you let all of the rapists and thieves and murderers on the streets and let them go about their business what kind of world would this place be. Would it be a loving world? I personally would not want to live in a world where rapists, thieves and murderers were running rampant. If our politicians let these people go unpunished would you say that they[politicians] loved YOU? or they[politicians] only wanted what was best for YOU? I'm not saying that we all go around murdering, thieving and raping people but that sinful nature still exists in us all. You can choose to kill the sinful nature and turn back to God. Or you can decide to give your life over to the sensualities of this world and shove God out of the picture. Which do you choose?
Wow, Deadwood So, do you have any thoughts on predestination? Or is that the best you can do? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It would be good to note that while many things that the puritans did were at best neurotic and at worst homicidal, that there is an opposite extreme, where people do the same homicidal things but don't care anymore because nothing is really valued that much. It was said that the Babylonians would grab infants from their mothers arms and smash the infant on a rock to get a rush from the reaction of the mother just before killing her as well. We don't want to become a bunch of bloodthirsty brutes either in the absense of religion or in its presence. In the same way, we don't want to have husbands and wives be frightened of sex, but we don't want to become so used to sex that orgies happen everywhere and STDs are rampant. So we push for a balance, and how you act is based on where you see the balance. Do you see it sliding towards a sexually frightened, or neurotically homicidal witchhunt--or do you see it going towards a violence-loving mass orgy? I think somehow every slippery slope is supposed to end up in Nazi Germany, but I can't figure out how to get there from these. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So anyway, about predestination--I don't think it matters. Even if you get to heaven, you will be judged for what you have done in life. The whole concept is in a non-Biblical base anyway.
Well, my thoughts are that we are predestined to have the freewill to choose between God or sin. Well, thats the best I can do.
Dan ... Deadwood ... Dan-- The citation from Revelations provided by Tony1, which was the Biblical basis for my bothering with this topic in the first place, was among those cited by the churches that believed in predestination. I think your interpretation of that quote would be most appropriate, then, if you don't mind. Biblical citation is non-Biblical? Don't get me wrong ... I hear you loudly and clearly on this one, for Calvin was often referred to as a man who made God in his own image. But for something like the Bible, why do Christians want to avoid discussion of the larger effects of their faith? This strange concept of predestiny does, according to those who believed it, have Biblical foundation, and history shows us how that affected the believers and what the human toll of this philosophy was. The point, of course, being, that this is an effect of the Bible among mankind, and that the modern faithful will still behave in this Puritanical manner, despite its detriment to society, and despite its creation of less-than-Christly psychology. Thanx much .... Deadwood-- O ... K .... Part of the problem of predestiny is that it nullifies the free-will choice .... But thanx for your input on this one. --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Tiassa, If Dan is right and predestination is truth and since that rules out human free will then he is right that there is nothing we can do about it. Each of us is predestined to go to hell or heaven. It’s a somewhat sick, unjust, and evil creation. Cris
I never said that predestination is truth. I said, "I don't think it matters." The sense is that if you are predestined or not, you are still judged for what you do. If you want to go on the free will side of it, I think you need a better idea of what is knowing and what is doing. If God simply knows what choice you will make and does not interfere, then your choice is your choice. If He does interfere, then your choice is influenced by God to whatever degree He has chosen to interfere. If you want to deny free will, then you are saying that God makes your choices for you, and I think you would frown on people who say, "God made me do it."
Considering there is no indication of free-will in the Bible and every indication of predestination (see the Elect) God judges us before we were born. So? Calvin was right that no one knows if their name is in the book. He is incorrect that we can do anything about it. No one goes to heaven or hell until they die. You go to hell because you reject the notion that in the end God really doesn't care what you did (and have no clue as to what that statement means) or you go to heaven because in the end God doesn't care what you did (and are versed enough to understand what that statement means) No Christian can say to anyone "you're going to hell" no matter how vial they are because they don't know. There are no indicators. Just look at that whole theif on the cross incident. The most vial people are the earth have an equal opporunity (from our perspective) of being saved. I don't know why Christians have this idea that some people are too sinful for God. Sad really. A minister once said "it's a good thing God chose me before I was born because he certainly wouldn't have liked me afterwards." I have to agree but it's not about works. We're all equally sinful. It's about the potter and the clay. Choice. Thinking you have a choice is like thinking God's not good enough at making the right decisions. Ben
I should say a few things. I voted that I know I'm already saved. I'm saved because I put my faith in Jesus as the sacrificial substitution for my sins. I also believe in predestination, as this is what the Bible seems to indicate. There does seem to be a little bit in the Bible about free will, but not very much. I also admit that I don't fully understand what really is truth in this matter, except to know what the Bible says. One possible way to resolve the issue (and I'm not saying this is necessarily the right way, but its a starting place at least) is that God knew ahead of time who would freely choose Him. That may place too much emphasis on choice. Another possibility is to say that no-one has enough faith to freely choose God, but God gives that faith to believe in Him to whoever <i>will</i> believe Him (but He doesn't give faith to those who will reject Him). This begins to get into principles such as causality - which comes first -- our choice, or God's giving us the gift of faith? At any rate, its a moot because <i>God is outside of time</i> and is also <i>omniscient</i> -- he knows what would happen under any set of hypothetical circumstances that could possibly. Also, please note that here I admit my own ignorance in the area, and am merely spouting ideas, not neccessarily claiming them to be true. In reality, there seem to be elements of each, but predestination is the one that is most clearly expounded in Scripture. I also tend to agree with dan that its not too important (except, I would add, in a theological context of an entire, consistent system such as Calvanism). The reason it is not important, is because, irregardless of whether your name is or is not written down, you are ignorant of this fact, and salvation involves at the very least, the appearence of a choice (and here is where I would want to say it is more than appearence). You must decide to accept Christ Jesus as your Saviour to remove your sins. This is the method of salvation. Whether or not the conclusion is pre-determined does not remove the necessity for the method. You earlier asked why salvation is even neccessary if the result is predetermined. Let me give an example. When you begin to watch a movie, you know that by the end, the bad guy will probably get it -- the result is pretty much pre-determined. So what is the purpose of Schwartzenager pulling the trigger at the climactic scene? It is to bring about the predetermined conclusion. Pulling the trigger is the method of bringing about the pre-determined conclusion. The whole question really boils down to: <b>How does the Law of Cause and Effect apply to the interations between an infinite, eternal, supernatural entity that is <i>outside of time</i> with finite, mortal, temporal entities.</b> This question cannot really be answered by science or math because it belongs to the realm of metaphysics, in which practicaly nothing can be empirically proved. However, I must point out that predestination isn't even the question that you raise in your poll. You are asking about people's confidence in there own salvation. Even if I were absolutely against the doctrine of predestination (which I'm not at all) I would still mark the first answer, because I have confidence that I have been saved ("we know whom we have believed", "this is the confidence that we have in Him...", etc). What you are basically asking is: do you know you're saved? (#1) do you hope you're saved? (#2-3) do you not even really care (or are opposed)? (#4) what is hell (#5) -- an unrelated topic In other words, looking at just the first three choices, you are pretty much asking "what is the method of salvation" 1) faith 2) works 3) unsure The answer that Scripture puts forth time and again is #1. ~Caleb
General commentary It seems we're missing some key elements of predestination. This means that before you were born, Caleb, you were chosen by God to live a life that earns redemption. Good for you. I would ask, however, what of those who, before they were born, were chosen by God to be condemned? The element of predestiny you're most missing in the Calvinist sense is that no amount of faith, no amount of good works, and no amount of walking in the manner of Christ can save certain people. The objectionable element being that some people are born predestined to condemnation; there is no issue of free will here, there is no issue of acceptance of a free gift. The Calvinist idea of predestination advises that some are condemned from the word, "Go". It seems rather quite strange that God should even bother, but then again, the LORD works in mysterious ways. What is not necessarily important is whether the theory is right or wrong; if the theory is right then there's no point in debating. If it's wrong, there is an issue worth considering: how that idea has affected the execution of Christianity in practice throughout the years of its influence. It is, in the American heritage, an incredibly powerful force for something that should, by all means, be a dead idea. It would not speak well of Biblical faith for such a cruel idea as Calvinist predestination to be a natural conclusion of the Bible--however, such it seems to be, for Calvinism affected many who put in place the cornerstones of the American future. To one who lives the American experience, there is no doubt that the fearful shadows of predestiny still stain the beacon of liberty. Consider the generations driven away from God by this idea: is this really God's will? The only objection I would posit here is that this still reduces the situation to a matter of God's will beforehand. God blesses and endows, and chooses to go ahead creating a being that will reject him, so that He may punish, annihilate, or deny--according to one's faith--what he has created specifically for punishment, annihilation, or denial. I was actually looking more toward the diversity of salvation ideas among Christianity, but I think part of a separate point has been demonstrated. I accept the thematic extractions only if we apply Caleb's faith structure specifically; it does not, however, reflect any sense of homogenous Christian faith, as there are faiths that would advise that Caleb's comfort in salvation is, in itself, sinful. I accept that the Law of Cause and Effect, as invoked, is a faith matter and metaphysical, and will refrain from undertaking the question at this time. I reiterate here that under the Calvinist predestination scheme, those who are predestined to salvation may still lose it--a free will choice, indeed, such as choice with an deliberately-constructed stake to win or lose is concerned--but those predestined to condemnation cannot ever win salvation. What compels a person to make their faith a public demonstration for another's benefit? What compels a person to take their case for God's morality to the public and attempt to subvert the very liberty which allows a person the diversity of faith? The meddling, dangerous nature of Calvinist Puritanism rises from a person's concerns about salvation; the meddling method still lives today in some diluted form. As Goldman noted, just because the thumbscrew and rack aren't acceptable in the modern era does not mean the sentiment has died. If not this Puritan streak, what, then, compels people to pronounce loudly their faith, and to expect a conforming reaction from those around them? For, after all, this seems to be the purpose of the OCA, the various pro-censorship groups, the anti-sex-ed crowd, &c. And this is where the question becomes vital: What, then, of the generations of people who have had to deal with the choices posed by this brand of Christian faith? There are those who reject the faith altogether for its living countenance; there are those who accept the faith and assume their duty among those who would divide society. Is this, then, the plan of the Christian God, that so many people should be mortified by the state of the faithful, and yet still be expected to submit to what one might view as hellish obsession? Should God abandon these souls to Hell because they chose not to accept a blasphemy against His name? Throughout various topics at Sciforums, I am advised by fellow posters that should I attain God's heaven, I will be sharing it with mass murderers, misogynists, and others whose ticket in was the mere faith that God loved them and wanted them to behave this way. This makes even less sense than predestination, but I'm willing to bet such ideas arise from a fear-inspiring redemption scheme. God may work in mysterious ways, but some Christians make the whole thing seem ludicrous, or extortionist, or even downright hateful. Isn't blaspheming God in your preaching of His Glory the one unforgiveable sin? The idiots who buy into the hateful redemption schemes deserve the punishment God has waiting; but what about those who never learn otherwise? I've met Christians so enthralled by their faith that they would have to throw away their entire Universe in order to escape the sins inspired by that faith. These people were taught as youth to distrust so much of the world that the truth they have faith in may well escape them entirely, and their lives will offer the glorious sum of nothing. If this is God's plan, then it's definitely a sadistic racket. (I'll step off my soapbox now.) thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wrong!!! No one can ever <i>earn</i> redemption. "All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags" "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" "By the works of the law is no man justified" "When the disciples heard this, they were astonished, and asked, "Who then, can be saved?" And Jesus answered them and said, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." "Without faith it is impossible to please God" ~Caleb
We know you disagree with predestination, Caleb As it's quite plainly clear. But must you protest on your own context instead of the one in question? All you're doing at this point is demonstrating two things about Christian faith: A) it is diverse, and B) it does not tolerate disagreements. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"I'll save myself thanks..." You don't even know where you're going so how do you intend to get there? "intolerace towards dissagreement." Staunch evolutionists and aithiests blow off God and Creation no argument presented. I've seen a number of posts that say "such and such doesn't exist" whether it be heaven, hell, God or some event with nothing else stated. Your statement is not limited to Christianity. There are close minded people on all sides of the fence. I can honestly say that my mind is closed when it comes to the absolute authority of the Bible. Simply because if it contains errors then you might as well burn it because it doesn't do you any good anyway. Why I chose the Bible as my absolute is another topic. Ben
KalvinB ... a short point or two This has nothing to do with the intolerance shown by one Christian to another. Caleb is defending his own perception of faith, not the predestiny in question (as well as missing the point). Take as another example Deadwood's second post, in which he redefined the word predestiny for what reasons I know not. The point regarding Christianity being intolerant toward disagreement has largely to do with how Christians can't agree, and when they discuss with non-Christians a non-Christian's perception, such as I have offered on predestiny, the Christians largely seem to overlook the validity of the faith of their Christian brethren. People are so anxious to tell me the perception of faith is wrong that they're forgetting or else ignoring that the perception offered in question is an affecting movement of Christian faith in history. As Deadwood noted, predestiny to make the free will choice; the only problem is that the predestiny in question does not allow the free-will choice as a dogmatic point. What Deadwood offered has no relevance to the Calvinist predestination discussed in the topic post. Or perhaps Dan1123 who calls the concept of Calvinist predestination non-Biblical, and therefore a non-issue, despite the Biblical quote which I provided in the topic post, reminding that this was among those provided by Calvinists as justification of their beliefs. What, is that passage suddenly extra-biblical? And according to whose faith? The intolerance I'm addressing seems unique to Christians. I acknowledge your point, KalvinB, but it's beside the point for the present discussion. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Tiassa Sorry about not being of much use in this discussion but whenever I try to look into Predestination and Election my head goes into a spin. I don't really think it is something anyone could be sure of. But off hand would anyone know the definition of predestination? This is something I've never really understood, and never really tried to go into because it is just confusing and I think somewhat irrelevent. However, I do realize that Luther would think otherwise. There was a quote of him saying that if anyone thought this irrelevent then they were not Christian. But then who is he to judge? But anyway, lets not turn this into a Protestant vs Catholic why each is better debate. So please carry on.
"Who is he to judge?" Judging is only forbidden if it's hypocritical. And even then it's not forbidden but don't expect to not be judged in return. The reason it matters is because it is a big part of the gospel. It's also well defined in the Bible (break out a concordance if you have to) and so there is no reason to say "we don't know" or "it doesn't matter." A.W. Pink's "The Soveriegnty of God" without the commentary is about 50 pages of verses covering the issue. I know because I worked through it. I got yelled at by the Calvinists when I told them what I did to Pink. I deleted all the commentary. You can't just look up the 12 verses with the word "elect" in them (though they are clear enough) you have to hit it from the side as well. You have to be pretty well versed to do that though. I was raised a Lutheran but have my pages of scripture studies (no commentary) which define what I actually believe which may or may not be in alignment with any denomination. "dismissing verses" It may be prevelant in Christianity. I've met a lot of people over the years that do it and it still bugs me. I don't know what it means to you but to me it just means I need to show them that when you take ALL the verses you get one nice picture that everyone should agree on. Ben
Now I understand what you're saying. We're talking about two different forms of predestination. The first is the idea that God knows all who will go to heaven and who will go to hell. This is Biblical, and is supported by many parts of the Bible. The non-Biblical predestination is the idea that there is no free-will involved. It's the idea that you can do whatever you want and if your name is written in the book, then you make it in. However, the name being written in the book <i>does</i> depend on your future actions because God knows what those are since He can see the entire expanse of time at once (being a creature outside of and greater than time). God knowing what you will do does not affect your choice to do what you will. Some use this extended predestination concept to justify not doing anything for Christianity. My point in the earlier post about being judged for our actions even in heaven was directed at that belief. (Which is also unBiblical) The point was that since you will be judged in heaven for your actions even after you've "made it", means these people don't get to fence themselves in and hope God brings unbelievers to ask about Jesus if He really wants them converted. (But I bet some people who have been accosted on the street about "being saved" would enjoy more Christians with this kind of belief) So maybe this clears things up some.
"The non-Biblical predestination is the idea that there is no free-will involved." Define "we can do whatever we want" You obviously have never read or have never understood Romans or the nature of the law and how God works in our hearts to not WANT to do evil. and How do you derive "free will" from the Bible? Give me a verse that says we chose or can choose God. Ben
