Political Crossfire Forums

[thefranzkafkafront]

Been doing a bit of ethics on the consioucs and Christianities development of it, and within the dark and dreary texts books i found this bad boy.

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

From Scotland no less :cool:, the guy to me seems to be hitting a lot of theological nails directly on the head with this.

Quote: Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which, being created from God, was divine), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for its own salvation in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, since man is no longer in need of any of God's graces beyond the creation of his will the Sacrament of Baptism is devoid of the redemptive quality ascribed to it by orthodox Christians.

I mean surely by the logical conclusion that the quest for salvation is in essence a individual quest, this seems to make perfect sense that man is responsible for both his salvation and his moral actions.

I mean you either choose to accept Christ or not surely, how is any other interpretation logical?

Were as predestination, effectively makes man a mindless automaton, e.g whats the point of righteousness if your going to hell anyway, and if you don't choose your actions.. then in a nutshell your not responsible for them.

However Pelagism was heavily heavily repressed by the catholic church well into the 15th century.

Also the reformation was pretty set against with men like Calvin.

Only recently has there been any revival of it until Semi-Pelagianism in certain churches in America (even then i don't think its that widespread) and is frankly a weak copout in my opinion.


So i put it to you, what are you views on this apparent Heresy?

[Jonah]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Been doing a bit of ethics on the consioucs and Christianities development of it, and within the dark and dreary texts books i found this bad boy.

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

From Scotland no less :cool:, the guy to me seems to be hitting a lot of theological nails directly on the head with this.

Quote: Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which, being created from God, was divine), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for its own salvation in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, since man is no longer in need of any of God's graces beyond the creation of his will the Sacrament of Baptism is devoid of the redemptive quality ascribed to it by orthodox Christians.

I mean surely by the logical conclusion that the quest for salvation is in essence a individual quest, this seems to make perfect sense that man is responsible for both his salvation and his moral actions.

I mean you either choose to accept Christ or not surely, how is any other interpretation logical?

Were as predestination, effectively makes man a mindless automaton, e.g whats the point of righteousness if your going to hell anyway, and if you don't choose your actions.. then in a nutshell your not responsible for them.

However Pelagism was heavily heavily repressed by the catholic church well into the 15th century.

Also the reformation was pretty set against with men like Calvin.

Only recently has there been any revival of it until Semi-Pelagianism in certain churches in America (even then i don't think its that widespread) and is frankly a weak copout in my opinion.


So i put it to you, what are you views on this apparent Heresy?

If eating the fruit did not taint human nature, then why did God warn that he would surely die? Spiritual death was immediate, the loss of God's glory reflected in Adam for the sake of representing God, eventual physical death, and the turning over of authority (by default) to Satan.

The whole good example/bad example thing is a pathetic, false gospel that sidesteps true redemption by Christ's innocent blood shed for us.

God predestines, but man is fully responsible for the leg work. God prompts and we pray that someone gets saved. God answers the prayer, Holy Spirit works on them, they get saved.

Yep, it's a weak, false gospel, I agree with you.

[John]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Been doing a bit of ethics on the consioucs and Christianities development of it, and within the dark and dreary texts books i found this bad boy.

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

From Scotland no less :cool:, the guy to me seems to be hitting a lot of theological nails directly on the head with this.

Quote: Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which, being created from God, was divine), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for its own salvation in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, since man is no longer in need of any of God's graces beyond the creation of his will the Sacrament of Baptism is devoid of the redemptive quality ascribed to it by orthodox Christians.

I mean surely by the logical conclusion that the quest for salvation is in essence a individual quest, this seems to make perfect sense that man is responsible for both his salvation and his moral actions.

I mean you either choose to accept Christ or not surely, how is any other interpretation logical?

Were as predestination, effectively makes man a mindless automaton, e.g whats the point of righteousness if your going to hell anyway, and if you don't choose your actions.. then in a nutshell your not responsible for them.

However Pelagism was heavily heavily repressed by the catholic church well into the 15th century.

Also the reformation was pretty set against with men like Calvin.

Only recently has there been any revival of it until Semi-Pelagianism in certain churches in America (even then i don't think its that widespread) and is frankly a weak copout in my opinion.


So i put it to you, what are you views on this apparent Heresy?

What you need to know....

[Snarf]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Been doing a bit of ethics on the consioucs and Christianities development of it, and within the dark and dreary texts books i found this bad boy.

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

From Scotland no less :cool:, the guy to me seems to be hitting a lot of theological nails directly on the head with this.

Quote: Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which, being created from God, was divine), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for its own salvation in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, since man is no longer in need of any of God's graces beyond the creation of his will the Sacrament of Baptism is devoid of the redemptive quality ascribed to it by orthodox Christians.

I mean surely by the logical conclusion that the quest for salvation is in essence a individual quest, this seems to make perfect sense that man is responsible for both his salvation and his moral actions.

I mean you either choose to accept Christ or not surely, how is any other interpretation logical?

Were as predestination, effectively makes man a mindless automaton, e.g whats the point of righteousness if your going to hell anyway, and if you don't choose your actions.. then in a nutshell your not responsible for them.

However Pelagism was heavily heavily repressed by the catholic church well into the 15th century.

Also the reformation was pretty set against with men like Calvin.

Only recently has there been any revival of it until Semi-Pelagianism in certain churches in America (even then i don't think its that widespread) and is frankly a weak copout in my opinion.


So i put it to you, what are you views on this apparent Heresy?
Frankly, the idea of Original Sin is heresy in itself, and not a very a good one. Like the Trinity, it is seriously lacking in logic and doesn't pass the test of minds created in His image.

What Eve did in the Garden was to open mankind’s eyes to the wider world beyond pure submission, slavish submission it must be noted, to God. The Tree was there for a reason and Eve did us all a favor by eating of the one thing that freed the human mind...

[Aqualung]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Been doing a bit of ethics on the consioucs and Christianities development of it, and within the dark and dreary texts books i found this bad boy.

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

From Scotland no less :cool:, the guy to me seems to be hitting a lot of theological nails directly on the head with this.

Quote: Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which, being created from God, was divine), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for its own salvation in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, since man is no longer in need of any of God's graces beyond the creation of his will the Sacrament of Baptism is devoid of the redemptive quality ascribed to it by orthodox Christians.

I mean surely by the logical conclusion that the quest for salvation is in essence a individual quest, this seems to make perfect sense that man is responsible for both his salvation and his moral actions.

I mean you either choose to accept Christ or not surely, how is any other interpretation logical?

Were as predestination, effectively makes man a mindless automaton, e.g whats the point of righteousness if your going to hell anyway, and if you don't choose your actions.. then in a nutshell your not responsible for them.

However Pelagism was heavily heavily repressed by the catholic church well into the 15th century.

Also the reformation was pretty set against with men like Calvin.

Only recently has there been any revival of it until Semi-Pelagianism in certain churches in America (even then i don't think its that widespread) and is frankly a weak copout in my opinion.


So i put it to you, what are you views on this apparent Heresy?
Interestingly, I agree with the conclustions you draw, but not from the article from which you drew them.

Quote: I mean surely by the logical conclusion that the quest for salvation is in essence a individual quest, this seems to make perfect sense that man is responsible for both his salvation and his moral actions.
True dat.

[thefranzkafkafront]

John wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Been doing a bit of ethics on the consioucs and Christianities development of it, and within the dark and dreary texts books i found this bad boy.

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

From Scotland no less :cool:, the guy to me seems to be hitting a lot of theological nails directly on the head with this.

Quote: Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which, being created from God, was divine), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for its own salvation in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, since man is no longer in need of any of God's graces beyond the creation of his will the Sacrament of Baptism is devoid of the redemptive quality ascribed to it by orthodox Christians.

I mean surely by the logical conclusion that the quest for salvation is in essence a individual quest, this seems to make perfect sense that man is responsible for both his salvation and his moral actions.

I mean you either choose to accept Christ or not surely, how is any other interpretation logical?

Were as predestination, effectively makes man a mindless automaton, e.g whats the point of righteousness if your going to hell anyway, and if you don't choose your actions.. then in a nutshell your not responsible for them.

However Pelagism was heavily heavily repressed by the catholic church well into the 15th century.

Also the reformation was pretty set against with men like Calvin.

Only recently has there been any revival of it until Semi-Pelagianism in certain churches in America (even then i don't think its that widespread) and is frankly a weak copout in my opinion.


So i put it to you, what are you views on this apparent Heresy?

What you need to know....

Afraid my college network states that real media files are a no no :(

[thefranzkafkafront]

Jonah wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Been doing a bit of ethics on the consioucs and Christianities development of it, and within the dark and dreary texts books i found this bad boy.

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

From Scotland no less :cool:, the guy to me seems to be hitting a lot of theological nails directly on the head with this.

Quote: Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which, being created from God, was divine), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for its own salvation in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, since man is no longer in need of any of God's graces beyond the creation of his will the Sacrament of Baptism is devoid of the redemptive quality ascribed to it by orthodox Christians.

I mean surely by the logical conclusion that the quest for salvation is in essence a individual quest, this seems to make perfect sense that man is responsible for both his salvation and his moral actions.

I mean you either choose to accept Christ or not surely, how is any other interpretation logical?

Were as predestination, effectively makes man a mindless automaton, e.g whats the point of righteousness if your going to hell anyway, and if you don't choose your actions.. then in a nutshell your not responsible for them.

However Pelagism was heavily heavily repressed by the catholic church well into the 15th century.

Also the reformation was pretty set against with men like Calvin.

Only recently has there been any revival of it until Semi-Pelagianism in certain churches in America (even then i don't think its that widespread) and is frankly a weak copout in my opinion.


So i put it to you, what are you views on this apparent Heresy?

If eating the fruit did not taint human nature, then why did God warn that he would surely die? Spiritual death was immediate, the loss of God's glory reflected in Adam for the sake of representing God, eventual physical death, and the turning over of authority (by default) to Satan.

The whole good example/bad example thing is a pathetic, false gospel that sidesteps true redemption by Christ's innocent blood shed for us.

God predestines, but man is fully responsible for the leg work. God prompts and we pray that someone gets saved. God answers the prayer, Holy Spirit works on them, they get saved.

Yep, it's a weak, false gospel, I agree with you.

Im not stating i agree with all the spesifics of pelagiaus, but what i find most intresting about it is its rejection of predestination, a concept which i quite honesty find baffeling to the extreme.

I also don't think hes trying to write a gospel here, mearly downplay the idea of orginal sin being passed on from man to man, something that as all human souls are sposedly unquie i also find strange.

Lets expand this debate then are you a man who belives in predestination?

[thefranzkafkafront]

So predestination... anyone?

[John]

Quote: Lets expand this debate then are you a man who belives in predestination?

The heart of the matter is do you believe that it is God who saves a man...or does that man save himself. I believe it is 100% God who rightly deserves the credit for a person's Salvation...so yes...I believe whole heartily in predestination.

[Jonah]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Jonah wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Been doing a bit of ethics on the consioucs and Christianities development of it, and within the dark and dreary texts books i found this bad boy.

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

From Scotland no less :cool:, the guy to me seems to be hitting a lot of theological nails directly on the head with this.

Quote: Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which, being created from God, was divine), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for its own salvation in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, since man is no longer in need of any of God's graces beyond the creation of his will the Sacrament of Baptism is devoid of the redemptive quality ascribed to it by orthodox Christians.

I mean surely by the logical conclusion that the quest for salvation is in essence a individual quest, this seems to make perfect sense that man is responsible for both his salvation and his moral actions.

I mean you either choose to accept Christ or not surely, how is any other interpretation logical?

Were as predestination, effectively makes man a mindless automaton, e.g whats the point of righteousness if your going to hell anyway, and if you don't choose your actions.. then in a nutshell your not responsible for them.

However Pelagism was heavily heavily repressed by the catholic church well into the 15th century.

Also the reformation was pretty set against with men like Calvin.

Only recently has there been any revival of it until Semi-Pelagianism in certain churches in America (even then i don't think its that widespread) and is frankly a weak copout in my opinion.


So i put it to you, what are you views on this apparent Heresy?

If eating the fruit did not taint human nature, then why did God warn that he would surely die? Spiritual death was immediate, the loss of God's glory reflected in Adam for the sake of representing God, eventual physical death, and the turning over of authority (by default) to Satan.

The whole good example/bad example thing is a pathetic, false gospel that sidesteps true redemption by Christ's innocent blood shed for us.

God predestines, but man is fully responsible for the leg work. God prompts and we pray that someone gets saved. God answers the prayer, Holy Spirit works on them, they get saved.

Yep, it's a weak, false gospel, I agree with you.

Im not stating i agree with all the spesifics of pelagiaus, but what i find most intresting about it is its rejection of predestination, a concept which i quite honesty find baffeling to the extreme.

I also don't think hes trying to write a gospel here, mearly downplay the idea of orginal sin being passed on from man to man, something that as all human souls are sposedly unquie i also find strange.

Lets expand this debate then are you a man who belives in predestination?

I have always believed in predestination, because I have only to look at the things God orchestrated prior to my conversion to know that it wasn't me; it was Him.

People get hung up on the concept of original sin, because they feel that people are being blamed for Adam's sin. That's not the case.

Adam's sin did not impute the guilt of his act onto mankind, it communicated the consequences of it. Same thing that happens everyday in the world, the parent's sins have an undeniable consequence that sooner or later is visited on their children - that's simply cause and effect.

The consequence of Adam's sin is our being born spiritually dead: such a person cannot relate to God, who is a Spirit, he is self-centered because his nature is totally depraved in that it is alienated from God. An unregenerate man is a slave to sin, he knows no other language, so to speak.

Such a one cannot even choose God without God giving him the faith to do it.

So you might say, "God is unjust, he chose that person, but let that other one perish." Wrong. Everyone who is condemned deserves it. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

[thefranzkafkafront]

John wrote: Quote: Lets expand this debate then are you a man who belives in predestination?

The heart of the matter is do you believe that it is God who saves a man...or does that man save himself. I believe it is 100% God who rightly deserves the credit for a person's Salvation...so yes...I believe whole heartily in predestination.

But surely that completely undermines man as a moral agent, if eveything is predestined free will is impossible, and if free will is impossible, how can you blame murder, hes effetivly just a mindless automoton.

[Aqualung]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: John wrote: Quote: Lets expand this debate then are you a man who belives in predestination?

The heart of the matter is do you believe that it is God who saves a man...or does that man save himself. I believe it is 100% God who rightly deserves the credit for a person's Salvation...so yes...I believe whole heartily in predestination.

But surely that completely undermines man as a moral agent, if eveything is predestined free will is impossible, and if free will is impossible, how can you blame murder, hes effetivly just a mindless automoton.
I disagree with that. Predestination does not preclude free will. For example, I believe I was predestined to come to the earth at this exact time (and, in fact, I believe that everybody was predestined to come to the world at their exact time) because it was at this time that I would be able to do the most, and to learn the most. However, that does not necessarily mean I had to choose to do the right thing. A specific example is this - I bet one of the reasons I was born when I was was so I could convert to Mormonism. I got thrown in with a lot of Mormons in my life. I don't think I could have met as many Mormons as I did if I had lived in Utah. Then I converted to the Church. But, I didn't HAVE to convert. I could have ignored the teachings of the church. I could have decided I didn't want to be friends with anybody who was a Mormon. But I didn't. I was predestined, IMO, to find the church like I did, but I didn't necessarily have to join if I didn't want to.

[thefranzkafkafront]

CrossEyedMary wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: John wrote: Quote: Lets expand this debate then are you a man who belives in predestination?

The heart of the matter is do you believe that it is God who saves a man...or does that man save himself. I believe it is 100% God who rightly deserves the credit for a person's Salvation...so yes...I believe whole heartily in predestination.

But surely that completely undermines man as a moral agent, if eveything is predestined free will is impossible, and if free will is impossible, how can you blame murder, hes effetivly just a mindless automoton.
I disagree with that. Predestination does not preclude free will. For example, I believe I was predestined to come to the earth at this exact time (and, in fact, I believe that everybody was predestined to come to the world at their exact time) because it was at this time that I would be able to do the most, and to learn the most. However, that does not necessarily mean I had to choose to do the right thing. A specific example is this - I bet one of the reasons I was born when I was was so I could convert to Mormonism. I got thrown in with a lot of Mormons in my life. I don't think I could have met as many Mormons as I did if I had lived in Utah. Then I converted to the Church. But, I didn't HAVE to convert. I could have ignored the teachings of the church. I could have decided I didn't want to be friends with anybody who was a Mormon. But I didn't. I was predestined, IMO, to find the church like I did, but I didn't necessarily have to join if I didn't want to.

I've heard of views that state that predisination and free will and compatible (but i can't for the life of me rember the the thinker involved which is annoying) that states that as god is allknowing he knows the choice you will make freely.

However if god is also infallible, and thus can't make a wrong desision, if he knowns the desision you are going to make (and he will know this a million years before you make it or simply becuase hes outside of time) its still locked in place, you can't not make that desision.

Its the essential problem with hard determanism, if you going to make the thouse desisions, essentially you have no free will over the matter, and frankly how can there be moral debate without free will.

Yes man is still in essence the cause of the actions he undertakes without free will, but how is he any more responcible that the pool ball hit towards another pool ball if he has no possiblity to change it.

You see to me and moral debate requires the freedom to change thing your only a moral agent and morally responcible, so that even if you were put in a locked room and had no wish to leave (and of course coulnt) you still could wish to change your circumstance, i think G.E moore Summed this up well.

"I am free in preorming an action if i could have done otherwise had i chosen to do so"

Then dose not the same go for salvation, if the reward for salvation is the kingdom of god, whats the point in essence in giving such a reward to a person if they were predestined to be saved anyway.

Dose not a reward in this case the Kingdom of God the outcome of salvation require that, that person could have possibility chosen not to be saved?

[Aqualung]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: I've heard of views that state that predisination and free will and compatible (but i can't for the life of me rember the the thinker involved which is annoying) that states that as god is allknowing he knows the choice you will make freely.

However if god is also infallible, and thus can't make a wrong desision, if he knowns the desision you are going to make (and he will know this a million years before you make it or simply becuase hes outside of time) its still locked in place, you can't not make that desision.
It's not that you CAN'T not make it. It's that you WON'T not make it. For example, I'm free to go to a party tonight and get positively plastered. My parents, on the other hand, know me well enough to know that my convictions in my religion are stronger than any desire to get plastered. They're not even God, and they know what descision I'm going to make in this area.

Quote: Yes man is still in essence the cause of the actions he undertakes without free will, but how is he any more responcible that the pool ball hit towards another pool ball if he has no possiblity to change it.
He can always stick his hand in front of the ball. On the other hand, if I know he's quite the pool player, I know he's not going to risk a game by cheating like that.
G.E moore Summed this up well.

Quote: Then dose not the same go for salvation, if the reward for salvation is the kingdom of god, whats the point in essence in giving such a reward to a person if they were predestined to be saved anyway.
Nobody is predenstined to be saved.

Quote: Dose not a reward in this case the Kingdom of God the outcome of salvation require that, that person could have possibility chosen not to be saved?
People can choose not to be saved, and I'm sure there are some who actually have.

[John]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: John wrote: Quote: Lets expand this debate then are you a man who belives in predestination?

The heart of the matter is do you believe that it is God who saves a man...or does that man save himself. I believe it is 100% God who rightly deserves the credit for a person's Salvation...so yes...I believe whole heartily in predestination.

But surely that completely undermines man as a moral agent, if eveything is predestined free will is impossible, and if free will is impossible, how can you blame murder, hes effetivly just a mindless automoton.

Who said anything about lack of freewill? And I didn't say everything is predestined...just that my Salvation was predestined. My ability to believe is my proof that it was....and so far your lack of belief is proof that you weren't....yet you have the freewill to believe. But you yourself are guilty of predestination. Before you even read this post...you have predestined to blow off what I have to say. So why do you have such a problem with God predestining my Salvation when he looked through the course of time and saw my heart?

[Snarf]

John wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: John wrote: Quote: Lets expand this debate then are you a man who belives in predestination?

The heart of the matter is do you believe that it is God who saves a man...or does that man save himself. I believe it is 100% God who rightly deserves the credit for a person's Salvation...so yes...I believe whole heartily in predestination.

But surely that completely undermines man as a moral agent, if eveything is predestined free will is impossible, and if free will is impossible, how can you blame murder, hes effetivly just a mindless automoton.

Who said anything about lack of freewill? And I didn't say everything is predestined...just that my Salvation was predestined. My ability to believe is my proof that it was....and so far your lack of belief is proof that you weren't....yet you have the freewill to believe. But you yourself are guilty of predestination. Before you even read this post...you have predestined to blow off what I have to say. So why do you have such a problem with God predestining my Salvation when he looked through the course of time and saw my heart?
Predestination is both illogical and irrational. It’s unlikely that God is either of those.

If God knew the future, there would be no reason for us to live through it or Him to watch it occur. As a sentient being, He would likely be big on the past, mildly aware of the present, and curious about the future.

It seems likely that He appreciates those who seek Him. It also seems just as likely He respects those who don't, as the past would have shown Him multitudes of both, all of whom eventually died and were reabsorbed back into the folds of time, space, and matter. If He is a student of history, the one thing He would be sure of is that the future, like the human heart, is never fixed or entirely predictable…

[thefranzkafkafront]

John wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: John wrote: Quote: Lets expand this debate then are you a man who belives in predestination?

The heart of the matter is do you believe that it is God who saves a man...or does that man save himself. I believe it is 100% God who rightly deserves the credit for a person's Salvation...so yes...I believe whole heartily in predestination.

But surely that completely undermines man as a moral agent, if eveything is predestined free will is impossible, and if free will is impossible, how can you blame murder, hes effetivly just a mindless automoton.

Who said anything about lack of freewill? And I didn't say everything is predestined...just that my Salvation was predestined.
Can you see how the two are incompatible, if it was predestined, as god cannot possbily be wrong, you coulnt not have possibily chosen not to be saved.
As Moore stated above to be free you have to have the possibility of choosing the other option, predestination removes this.

Quote:
My ability to believe is my proof that it was....and so far your lack of belief is proof that you weren't....yet you have the freewill to believe. But you yourself are guilty of predestination. Before you even read this post...you have predestined to blow off what I have to say.
Its just as likely that i could never have responded, or even agreed with your post. :wink:

Quote:
So why do you have such a problem with God predestining my Salvation when he looked through the course of time and saw my heart?

Becuase its not a matter of god looking through time, gods outside of time, your very peroid on this earth and subsequent salvation was going to happen and could not have happened any other way according to predistionation, in essence your simply a cog in a machine a non-moral agent.

If we hold predestination to be true, theres simply no place for moral debate, how can you praise or chaste a man if he could not have acted any diffrently?

Why should a mans salvation be rewarded with the Kingdom of God if there wasunt even a possibility that he could have chosen otherwise, and like wise why should a man be punished if he coulnt possibility have chosen to be saved?

[Hawkins]

I dont really know coz i seldom think deep on this, thou the the kind of faith i am holding is that I believe in predestination.

Yet some points to say about,

While you use your freewill, you have an option list for your freewill to act upon, while the list is finite. You dont simultaneously process throught unlimited options to make a decision, this will drive you nuts. :lol:

So your freewill will be acting upon a set of options to make decisons. Maybe when I can have a sneak peek on your option list, i'll have clue about what you are going to choose, in accordance to your characteristics and tendencies. Of course, I'd like to see the "option lists" at the turning points of your life to make my best guess of your "destiny".

If my capability is good enough to allow me to jump abit advance of time as my freewill wishes, maybe I not only see how you choose, but also remove/add some options to some of your option lists for your freewill to digest. Such that your destiny is loosely defined but well, 1st you have options, 2nd you can break the "destiny" I defined for you when you choose as opposite to what I forecast.

I dont mean it for real, just for the sake of argueing. :lol:

[John]

Quote: Becuase its not a matter of god looking through time, gods outside of time, your very peroid on this earth and subsequent salvation was going to happen and could not have happened any other way according to predistionation, in essence your simply a cog in a machine a non-moral agent.

Wrong.

It's about the relationship one has with God. Through a relationship we are predestined to be saved. It's through this relationship that God changes one's heart and it is the transformation of the heart that brings us back into a relationship with God.

I believe that the whole purpose of "time" is because God allows the ones He has predestined to choose Him in and of their own free will. It's why things are not just fixed in the blink of an eye and why there is so much suffering that happens. Because God isn't interested in "cogs in a machine"....it's about a personal relationship.

Don’t you understand that reading the Bible isn’t about bringing God to human logic….it’s about adjusting human logic to God’s logic.


Luke 22

22 "For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!"


John 6
36"But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.
37"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
38"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.




This is why we have the entirety of scripture. Something like predestination can not be understood with just a few sections of God’s word. It’s only in it’s entirety that we can get a true representation of the logic of God.

I’ve heard you mention the Gospel of John and the differences between the other three. You miss the importance to this in understanding God’s logic….and that Truth isn’t something understood from the perspective of one angle.

[John]

thefranzkafkafront,

Here's something I wrote out a good while back that I think explains what I believe about this subject pretty well, I know it's a little long...but I think it was nessasary to explain the point.



One of the most memorable and most important events in the book of Acts is the out pouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, fifty days after the Resurrection of Christ. This event is now known as the day of Pentecost and is also called the birthday of the Christian Church. There are many interesting details about this subject, but what I would like to cover is what this event has to do with salvation and the Christian’s everyday walk with the Lord.

A casual reading of Acts chapter two could give one the impression that this was the first occasion of people receiving the Holy Spirit and in effect the first occurrence of people becoming “born again”. I personal do not believe this is the case and I plan on explaining this by examining the scriptures carefully. By taking a closer look at the Gospels and what Jesus said about the Holy Spirit we will see that the Spirit is revealed in three stages, that He interacts with us in three types of relationships. The first relationship is when the Holy Spirit is abiding with you. This is the time that the Holy Spirit is convicting the unbeliever that he or she needs salvation and is in fact a sinner. The second relationship is when the Holy Spirit is in you. This happens at the moment one truly believes and accepts the Lord Jesus as their Lord and Savior. And the third relationship is when the Holy Spirit has come upon you. This happens also at the moment that you receive it by faith and involves receiving spiritual gifts that are custom made for each believer for the empowerment of service and fulfilling the will of God. I believe that the day of Pentecost is an example of the third type of relationship with the Holy Spirit coming upon the Apostles, gifting them with the necessary empowerment to spread the Gospel and permanently turn the world upside-down.

In order for someone to even be able to believe and accept Jesus as their redeemer, the Holy Spirit must first convict them and guide them into the understanding that they are a sinner and need a savior. Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit explains this in his epistles. This can be fully understood by examining the whole of scripture in context, here are two examples that express this concept.
Romans 3 (NASB)
9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
10 as it is written,
"THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;

2 Thessalonians 2
13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
14 It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Lord Jesus Christ also made this clear in his teaching to the disciples that Grace was of the sovereign will of God. He made it crystal clear that it wasn’t something they did but His works that assured their salvation. That even the ability to believe is a gift from God given through His Grace.

John 6
44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
45"It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.
46" Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.
47"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
John 15
16" You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.

According to the word of God, the only way someone can be born again is if God sovereignly chooses them and sends the Holy Spirit to tug on their heart strings. Before Jesus had died on the cross the disciples were still in the first type of relationship with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was abiding with them, but not yet in them because the resurrection hadn’t happened yet. Here in John chapter fourteen, Jesus reveals two of the three relationships of the Holy Spirit to His disciples.


John 14
16 "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;
17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.
18 "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.
19 " After a little while the world will no longer see Me, but you will see Me; because I live, you will live also.
20 " In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.

As we clearly see in verse seventeen, Jesus is explaining to His disciples that at this point the Holy Spirit is abiding with them and that later He would be in them.

After reading thus far you’re probably thinking that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit or relationship of being in the believer could have had its first occurrence on the day of Pentecost. Jesus did say that it would happen later, and Pentecost definitely happened later. Well that brings us to the Gospel of John chapter twenty were the Lord Jesus Christ appears to the disciples after the crucifixion and resurrection from the dead. The disciples had locked themselves in a room out of fear of the same fate of Jesus happening to them when out of no where Jesus appears in the midst of them.

John 20
19 So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be with you."
20 And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord.
21 So Jesus said to them again, " Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you."
22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

Here we see Jesus breathe on the disciples and tell them to receive the Holy Spirit. There is no doubt in my mind that at this point they received the Holy Spirit and were born again; no doubt about it. Now they’re born again; it couldn’t have happened before that time because Jesus had not yet died. They had been following Jesus but had not been regenerated or more commonly stated born again because Jesus had to die for their sin. So Jesus dies on the cross, raises from the dead, shows up, breathes on them, they receive the Holy Spirit and are born again; the Holy Spirit is in them. They have moved on to the second type of relationship with the Holy Spirit. Every person who has moved passed the first relationship of the Holy Spirit convicting them to accept the Lord as their personal savior and has opened up their heart to Jesus has the Holy Spirit in them. They are born again and have the Holy Spirit. So now that they’re born again, what now? Well that’s where the third relationship comes in.

This third relationship with the Holy Spirit was an important message from Jesus to His disciples and is recorded as the main topic of discussion before His ascension. The last words of Jesus recorded in the gospel of Luke are His comforting words that He would send forth the promise of the Father; that he would send the Holy Spirit upon them to empower them with the abilities to spread the gospel. He tells them to wait in the city until the event occurs. Let’s take a look at the scripture.

Luke 24
45Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
46and He said to them, " Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day,
47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
48"You are witnesses of these things.
49"And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high."

Notice that Jesus has described each different type of relationship with the Spirit in a different manner. He used “abides with” which is expressed with the word “para” in the Greek manuscripts. Then he uses “in”; the manuscripts use the Greek word “en” in this case. And now, for the third relationship he uses “upon”; this you will find is translated from the Greek word “epi”. A careful study of the text shows that these three terms are used consistently for each description of each different type of relationship. In Acts chapter one we have another recorded instance of Jesus explaining that the Holy Spirit would come upon them after they had already received the Holy Spirit as described in the gospel of John chapter twenty.
Acts 1
7 He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;
8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."

So at this point we have the disciples who have received the Holy Spirit being told to wait until the Holy Spirit comes upon them; but what’s the difference and why does the Holy Spirit need to come upon them if they’ve already received Him? I believe the answer is obvious and given to us in both occasions that Jesus spoke on this topic. Jesus clearly says that the coming upon of the Holy Spirit would cause the believer to be empowered. The Greek word for power used in the text is dunamis and is where we get the English word dynamite! This empowerment involves gifts that vary depending on the need and the situation in regards to bringing glory to Christ and establishing the Kingdom of God. It involves the empowerment for ministry.

The Holy Spirit inspired the book of Acts with a perfect picture of what kind of empowerment the coming upon of Himself would cause. The Holy Spirit conveniently places this picture of the empowerment directly before and after the event of Pentecost. This picture can be seen in the result of Peter’s decisions recorded while waiting for the coming upon of the Holy Spirit and directly after he had been come upon.

During the ten days that the disciples were waiting for the day of Pentecost to happen, Peter (who was notorious for sticking his foot in his mouth) decides that the vacant Apostleship position of Judas needed to be filled. It is evident that Peter is well versed in the scriptures because he had the discernment in understanding the scriptures in that it was prophesied that Judas would betray the Lord and that the twelfth Apostleship position would be re-filled by another man. The Gospel of Luke states that Jesus “opened their minds to understand the Scriptures”, plus hanging around Jesus for three years surly had a positive effect in biblical knowledge. So Peter, understanding the scriptures (Psalms 41:9, 69:25, 109:8) decided that he needed to make this happen by using logic and his understanding of the word of God to help this prophecy to be fulfilled. He narrows it down to two logical candidates and even uses the Old Testament method of casting lots in an attempt to assure the choice was God’s will; but was it?
Peter was told to wait on the Holy Spirit but instead of just waiting he gets ahead of the Lord by trying to get something to happen that seems to fit scripturally but isn’t necessarily God’s plan on how this prophecy was to be fulfilled. Peter has acted before the power of the Holy Spirit came upon him on the day of Pentecost. I believe this was a big mistake. Surly God used Matthias in the spread of the gospel and there was much fruit as a result but we wouldn’t know it from the scriptures. Matthias is never mentioned again and any positive results of this decision to appoint him as an Apostle would be mere speculation on our part. On top of that we have Paul, who in my strong opinion was the fulfillment of prophecy that Peter had discerned from scripture of replacing Judas as one of the twelve Apostles. Paul wrote fourteen epistles and nine of them begin with him defending his Apostleship. Paul eloquently explains that he meets all the requirements and was personally called out as an Apostle by the Lord Himself. Revelation chapter 21 tells us that the names of the twelve Apostles will be written on the twelve foundation stones of the wall of New Jerusalem, I do believe that it will be Paul and not Matthias’ name written on the foundation stone.

Now this brings us back to the event in question; the day of Pentecost, the actual event that Jesus had instructed them to wait on. In the scripture we find that it happens in the beginning of Acts chapter two after the decision to draw lots for a new Apostle in chapter one. Let’s have a look at the scripture.

Acts 2
1 When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place.
2 And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.

Here we see the event of God pouring out His Spirit, empowering the believers that were waiting with effectiveness. The initial pouring out is marked with a noise that sounded like a strong wind and a visual appearance of “tongues as of fire” that rested on all of the disciples that were in the house waiting as Jesus had instructed. Notice that the descriptions of the physical manifestations of the Spirit in this event are described as being on the disciples. It’s also interesting to notice that it had the appearance of fire which gives us the impression of power. The Spirit was already inside of them since they had believed and accepted the risen Jesus as the Messiah and their Savior. The Holy Spirit is described as coming upon them just as the Lord had said it would happen.

We’ve already seen that Peter was well versed in the scriptures by his ability to understand them in the prophecies expressed in chapter one, but as discussed, his lack of ability to apply his discernment lead to what seems to be a mistake. As the event of Pentecost occurred, it drew a large crowd due to the commotion caused by the Holy Spirit. Peter, empowered by the Holy Spirit doesn’t waste any time and takes charge of the situation. He delivers one of the most articulate sermons in the bible now known simply as Peter’s Sermon. His knowledge of scripture comes into play yet again but this time he has the empowerment of the Holy Spirit to properly guide him in the application of the scriptural knowledge and principals that he understood. This time, instead of his actions resulting in what seems to have been a mistake, around three thousand new converts were added to the Kingdom of God. The results of Peter’s actions when lead by the Holy Spirit are without question the will of God. I find it interesting that on the original Pentecost (the giving of the Law upon Mount Sinai) around three thousand people died. Yet on this day of Pentecost around three thousand people were saved. I personally believe that the actions and results of Peter were recorded directly before and after the event of Pentecost to give us a picture of the purpose of this third type of relationship with the Holy Spirit; empowerment for service.

The Holy Spirit truly lives up to the symbolism often used for Him as a gentle dove. The three relationships of the Holy Spirit reveal the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in a way that doesn’t overwhelm or demand understanding to an empowerment that we’re not ready for. In the beginning it’s a subtle whisper of a small still voice tugging at your heart strings to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. He puts a conviction upon the human heart that isn’t demanding or forceful, just a gentle tug that can be resisted or submitted to at the free will of the person under conviction. The Holy Spirit will gently abide with the person until he or she is ready and willing to submit. Unless the Spirit is utterly rejected and feels blasphemed in which case He will not abide with the person any longer and will accept the person’s decision to do things their own way. If the person chooses to submit to his or her conviction and receive Jesus into their life as Lord and Savior and be baptized into the body of Christ they immediately receive the Holy Spirit and he comes inside of them and changes them forever. I personally do not believe that someone can possibly be un-born again once they have been transformed into a new creature, but that’s another topic for another time. Now at this point a few things can happen with the transition of receiving empowerment from the Holy Spirit. I believe that ideally the Holy Spirit will come upon the believer at his or her baptism by the immersion with water; just as was modeled by the Lord Jesus Christ at his baptism. Let’s take a quick look at the account.

Matthew 3
13Then Jesus arrived from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be baptized by him.
14But John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?"
15But Jesus answering said to him, "Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he permitted Him.
16After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him,
17and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."

The coming upon of the Holy Spirit is recorded as happening immediately as Jesus came up from the water of His baptism. We also notice that He says, “…for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Jesus being the perfect model of how one should be, it would logically be the case also that His baptism would model the ideal baptism and coming upon of the Holy Spirit. Since we see both events recorded simultaneously, it leaves me to understand that this would be the ideal situation. The believer that has been instructed correctly according to the scriptures should expect by Faith the coming upon of the Spirit at that time.

In the real world things don’t always happen like they ideally should. Most people don’t understand this possibility, so it can be months, years or even decades before they understand that they need an empowerment in their spiritual life. These born again believers are most definitely saved and headed for Heaven but their spiritual life is dull and empty. In time they finally realize that they need the Holy Spirit to come upon them so they open their heart to it and receive the power for effective service of the Lord. Unfortunately some people decide that having the Spirit in them and being born again is all there is to have with the Holy Spirit. They live their whole life without the empowerment of the Holy Spirit that would have caused them to be a more effective witness and better serve the Lord in building the Kingdom of God. If they would have just really truly believed what the Lord promised He would do, they would have seen how simple it really is.

Luke 11
13"If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?"

It’s as simple of just having Faith and asking the heavenly Father for the Holy Spirit to come upon you and empower you with your own custom made spiritual gifts. Spiritual gifts that will cause you to be a witness and to effectively serve the Lord in His will.