Lydia responded to the gospel of God's grace because God opened her heart. She accepted Christ because God regenerated her. God's act of regeneration resulted in Lydia's act of saving faith. I'm not arguing that Lydia didn't accept Christ willingly. She did. But she was only able to accept Christ because God opened her heart. How do you interpret the words, "The Lord opened her heart"? I think they mean that God regenerated her. Could she have prevented God from opening her heart? I don't think so.
"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified" (Romans 8:29-30). On what basis did God predestine certain people unto salvation?
Religious Troll, Religious Troll, Religious Troll, Religious Troll, Religious Troll, Religious Troll, Religious Troll, Religious Troll, Religious Troll, Religious Troll,
"All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away" (John 6:37). "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:44). "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him" (John 6:65). "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep" (John 10:14-15). "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand" (John 10:25-28). Do you believe that the Father "draws" everyone to Christ? I think that the Father draws only the elect to Christ. Jesus didn't say, "You do not believe; therefore you are not my sheep." He said, "You do not believe because you are not my sheep" (John 10:26; emphasis added). "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd" (John 10:16). According to your interpretation of "sheep," Jesus (in John 10:16) must have been referring to people who had already accepted Christ. I think that the sheep that were "not of this sheep pen" were Gentiles predestined unto salvation who had not yet accepted Christ. Jesus said, "They too will listen to my voice." They would accept Christ.
God opens our heart to him in all kinds of way all the time. Sometimes we rebel and don’t respond. Invariably that doesn’t work out well for us, but unfortunately that’s our human nature and we are doomed to struggle with such things, at least in this part of the journey. We need to make choices. Yes, God calls, but we need to meet his call. We need to choose to affirm it. That goes for salvation too. We are told to knock. We are told to ask. We must take positive action. Jesus tells a number of people in the Bible what they need to do to be saved. Never does he say, “Sorry, there’s nothing you can do. You’re not on the list.” More directly with respect to this passage, I think this is just part of telling Paul’s and Barnabas’ story. This was a woman who was converted along with her household (which would be quite an improbable occurrence if only certain people were predestined) and she asked them to stay at her place. I don’t see that this is about predestination at all. I don't think it suggest that she didn't make a choice Could she have prevented God from opening here heart? I don’t think so, but I surely think she could have refused to respond to what she was being called to. I’ve heard many testimonials of people who feel they refused the call before finally accepting it. And again, I’m believe that regeneration occurs after acceptance. That’s my personal experience as well as the experience of others I’ve talked to about this. I can’t really see how it could be any other way. Just so we don’t confuse anybody, this is actually a quote from Romans 8: 29-30. I have two points here. First, I dont think the passage says that anyone is predestined for salvation. This is a passage to people who are already Christians, and people who have become Christians are indeed predestined to be conformed to the likeness of Christ. The word “foreknew” is problematic but it is unclear to me what it refers to. Given that the idea of predestination is in conflict with so much else in the Bible one shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that this is what it implies. Taking things out of context can be very misleading. For example, in Matt 15: 24 Jesus says “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." Does this mean that he came only for the Jews? If you take it out of context that’s what it appears to mean. In the greater context of the Bible, however, we come to understand that while this statement is true, it has a very different meaning that what it appears to have on its face. So in order to make a convincing argument for predestination you have to also address the parts of the Bible that suggest that there is no predestination. You’d have to address the other issues and passages that seem to refute it that I’ve raised. I’ll ask that you start with this one: What possible positive role could the concept of predestination play in the life and faith of a Christian, or a non-Christian for that matter? Also, what are the negative temptations that influence Christians and non-Christians from the idea of predestination? I believe that as the Bible says, you can tell a tree by its fruit, and I see no good fruit at all in the concept of predestination, and I also see quite a bit of negative potential. I’m extending this from people to an idea, but I think it works the same way. Yes I do, and I’ll quote Romans 1 on this too: 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. God makes himself known to all men, and they/we would have nothing to be excused for if we were not being called to him. Note that this passage is a lead up to what is discussed in Romans 2 and 3. It refers to all of us. We are all sinners. “No one is sinless, no not one,” but as we see in Romans 3: Righteousness Through Faith 21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Hey twhy! How are things? We’ve sure got an interesting mix here now. We’ve got a Calvinist, a Calvinist lite, a Catholic, and a non-denominational Christian. Oh for the day when we’re all just Christians, eh?
I try to stay out of these arguments because they usually turn into shouting matches, plus I'd feel much more comfortable with a theology degree; too afraid I'd spread some tasty heresy, so at this point, its better for me to stay out. I just don't get how it can't be a contradiction to say both faith alone and grace alone. Are they really alone? I like the saying above the door to the Trappist Monastery in Kentucky, God Alone.
Grizzled, In his book, The Holy Spirit, Billy Graham writes, "Unlike the gifts of the Spirit, the fruit of the Spirit is not divided among believers. Instead, all Christians should be marked by all the fruit of the Spirit. The fruit of the Spirit is God's expectation in our lives." I agree 100%. You wrote, "We are told in the Gospels how to recognise (but not infallibly) who and what is truly good. 'By their fruit you will recognize them' and above is clearly listed the fruit of the Spirit." Who is the one who predestines, though? God. You asked, "Which of those fruit does the idea of predestination support?" I'm not sure what you meant, but, since God is the one who predestines, isn't it more appropriate to ask whether the Reformed view of predestination is consistent with what we know about God?
twhy77, Salvation is by the grace of God alone. Justification is by faith (in Christ) alone. Faith in Christ is the necessary means by which Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. To God alone be the glory. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law" (Romans 3:28).
I agree too. I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at here, but hopefully to clarify I think that we all have all these qualities as part of our new Spirit-filled nature, but we’re not perfect at them, and we’re not to judge others absolutely based on our perception of these fruits in them. On the first point, we all have our bad days and our areas that we struggle with so we don’t produce 100% grade A fruit all the time, but in spite of this somewhat imperfect and mangled fruit we produce you can usually tell that the nature of the tree is that which will tend to produce good fruit. On the other hand, there are a number of prominent Christian leaders today who are primarily angry, judgemental, manipulative and even materialistic. If this is who they primarily are, then their fruit is from a very different tree, and they are probably not real Christians. (The Matt 7 passage is about false prophets). On the second point, I used the word probably because we are never to judge. That’s God’s job not ours. It’s not for me to say that someone isn’t a Christian. It’s only mine to say that to the best of my ability to discern it doesn’t look like it to me, and I won’t go to that Church and won’t let my children watch that television program, etc. I don’t believe that individuals are predestined, at least not the vast majority of them, and I think I’ll stick with none for the purpose of this discussion for now. I don’t see any convincing evidence in the broader context of the Bible in favour of predestination. What I’m saying is that since the concept of predestination (the way Calvinism presents it) doesn’t seem to produce any good fruit (I’m extending the analogy from people to an idea), and only seems to produce bad fruit, then that is convincing evidence that it isn’t true, that it isn’t an idea that came from God. Said another way, at best the idea of predestination is irrelevant to us and to non-Christians in this life. At worst it damages our Christian life and it discourages non-Christians from pursuing a relationship with God. So, with no possibility of producing good fruit and a considerable and realised possibility of producing bad fruit, it suggests to me that predestination, as defined in this way, is not from God.
Well now, you know your Catholic theology degree isn’t going to sway us at all. Seriously though, I think we all have things to learn from each other. I was reading a book by James Fowler (who I believe is a Catholic) on the stages of spiritual development recently and I quite enjoyed it. I think we really need to try to stay away from the shouting matches (not always easy) and listen for the things we can learn from each other. At the very least I find that having to explain my beliefs forces me to do quite a bit of reading and researching in the Bible and commentaries etc., and I always find new things and understandings when I’m doing that too.
Sorry if I confused you. The words I emphasized are emphasized in the book. My point was, since God is the one who predestines, I think that what we know about God is more relevant to the discussion than the fruit of the Spirit is.
What's your interpretation of Romans 8:29-30? "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified" (Romans 8:29-30).
"One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message" (Acts 16:14). Grizzled, What did God intend for Christ's death to accomplish? And what did Christ actually accomplish by dying on the cross? Is it possible that everyone could have ended up in hell, despite Christ's death?
Tangent succeeded. Being raised Christian, I have always had unanswered questions, and I always will. I had to go outside my own religious tradition to help answer them. I kind of hope that the hole is never filled. I don't see how it could be. (Some "Christians" have been known to take their inner sense of "rightness" a little too far...) Once again from my current quote machine, Thomas Merton: "This obsession with doctrinal formulas, juridical order and ritual exactitude has often made people forget that the heart of Catholicism, too, is a living experience of unity in Christ which far transcends all conceptual formulations." (Zen & Birds of Appetite, p. 39.) These is no "sense" of emptiness in Buddhism, but there is an concept of emptiness in Buddhism. (is that what you are referring to?) If anything there is a sense of wholeness.
That's what I'm talking about! But he's not saying that doctrinal formulas, juridicial order and rituals are neccessarily bad. In fact I remember around 100 places in 7 Storey Mountain where he does nothing but praise the tradition and developement of Catholic theology. The point he is trying to make I believe, is that Catholic Theology centers around Christ, his very essence, the Eucharist. So I admit, I've never been in a Protestant Church before, and I had the wierdest dream the other day. I went into a church, and right away the first thing that hit me was the blankness of the walls, looked like a high school cafeteria. In the middle of the church there was this room, and in this room there was a tabernacle, and there were people kneeling around it and praying, and I remember walking around the room kind of looking at them and being like wow, this is great, Protestants sink deep into prayer just like Catholics, and then I went up to the Tabernacle and I was like, wait, something is missing, and I looked at it closely without opening it and I started shouting, but there's nothing in here, there's nothing in here! Ok that was a wierd dream yes and probably influenced by years of theology classes rather than any angelic influence. I think Nietzsche was one to criticize Buddhism, saying it was like an endless wave crashing upon a shore, struggling to reach emptiness. Of course ni essence he was the real nihilist so I don't think he has room to talk. However, I was wondering if you could inform me about the concept of trancendence in Buddhist thought?
This is a self contradictory statement. The presence of God and the Spirit of God is evidenced by the fruit of the Spirit in people. The absence of the fruits of the Spirit is evidence of the absence of God in people and I claim in ideas too, (although I don’t think all ideas need to show all the fruits of the Spirit, they merely need to be in keeping with the Spirit, in keeping with the Spirit of God). Absence of good or what supports good is evidence that the idea is not of God. Address this point and I think you will have the answer to your dilemma. I’ve dealt with that Romans quote a couple of times. Have you been reading my responses? I have claimed that Calvinist predestination is a creation of man, not God, and that it relies on taking passages out of context and giving the word "predestination" a meaning that is not God's meaning. To address that you need to address the passages and issues I’ve presented. I’ll wait until you answer some of my questions before I answer any more of yours.
Not being raised a Christian I had to go outside my faith (essentially atheist humanism) too. I didn’t really go anywhere though. I simply honestly sought God (who I had very little knowledge of at the time other than as general idea, perhaps even a general distant presense) from where I was at, and this is where I ended up. I couldn’t agree with you more on the second point. I would even add that there quite a few prominent ones and not so prominent ones who go a lot too far and say things that are not of God at all. But this was true even in Jesus time. (See Matt 23). To tell the difference I always point to Matt 7 “you will know them by their fruit” and the above quoted fruits for the Spirit. Note that these have noting in common with angry, self-righteous, judgemental legalism. That is the fruit of a very different tree. As far as the hole goes, it’s filled by a Spirit, the afore mentioned Spirit. To use a very inadequate example, it’s like raising a level in your consciousness. You can’t really imagine it until you’ve experienced it. You can see it in others though. If you were raised a Christian I hope you knew at least a few people who exhibited the fruits of the spirit as their basic nature. Do you know the ones I’m talking about, the truly movingly good Christian people? That comes from that Spirit. (As a footnote, some of the people who have moved me most this way have happened to be Catholics). Absolutely true. I’m referring to things I’ve read from Ken Wilber in the context of a discussion on the levels of consciousness, which he equates with spirituality and I don’t. I think they are elevated levels of consciousness, but this is not what spirituality is. He talked about the sense of emptiness (and despair IIRC) as a natural part of this process. I’m saying that that is the Spiritual component that he is missing. In a sense being a Christian is like being in a non-dual state because the law is no longer applicable, but the duality is really about a relationship with God, a Spiritual relationship, or the absence of a Spiritual relationship with God, and that relates directly to that hole, IMO.
