This is a little about Karma compared to redestination, taken from here: http://www.buddhanet.net/fundbud9.htm Having said this much about the function of karma, let us look more closely at what karma is. Let us define karma. Maybe we can define karma best by first deciding what karma is not. It is quite often the case that we find people misunderstanding the idea of karma. This is particularly true in our daily casual use of the term. We find people saying that one cannot change one’s situation because of one’s karma. In this sense, karma becomes a sort of escape. It becomes similar to predestination or fatalism. This is emphatically not the correct understanding of karma. It is possible that this misunderstanding of karma has come about because of the popular idea that we have about luck and fate. It may be for this reason that our idea of karma has become overlaid in popular thought with the notion of predestination. Karma is not fate or predestination. If karma is not fate or predestination, then what is it? Let us look at the term itself. Karma means action, means "to do". Immediately we have an indication that the real meaning of karma is not fate because karma is action. It is dynamic. But it is more than simply action because it is not mechanical action. It is not unconscious or involuntary action. It is intentional, conscious, deliberate, wilful action. How is it that this intentional, wilful action conditions or determines our situation? It is because every action must have a reaction, an effect. This truth has been expressed in regard to the physical universe by the great physicist Newton who formulated the law which states that every action must have an equal and opposite reaction. In the moral sphere of conscious actions, we have a counterpart to the physical law of action and reaction, the law that every intentional, wilful action must have its effect. This is why we sometimes speak either of Karma-Vipaka, intentional action and its ripened effect, or we speak of Karma-Phala, intentional action and its fruit. It is when we speak of intentional action together with its effect or fruit that we speak of the Law of Karma.
Max: No, I haven't read Instittues, so I'm speaking without a clear picture of what Calvin means by predestination. Please feel free to correct any faulty assumptions I may make. I think there are definitely interesting questions and dilemmas with this issue, no matter which side you come at it from. If you take the standpoint of predestination, you have to address the question of why Jesus would call people to be “fishers of men” if there was no possibility of catching anything? The whole concept of evangelism needs to be addressed too. And what is the point of being the salt and light of the world if the world could never taste or see? How does the concept of repentance (as it pertains to salvation) fit with predestination? If you can’t fall away there is nothing to repent for. If you can’t be saved there is no point to repentance. Do you see my problem? It just doesn’t work for me they way we typically understand predestination. (But maybe the typical understanding is not Calvin's position?). With respect to the passages, other that I’ve read I’ve found to be taken out of even the immediate context, like Romans 9. The statements there are, as I read it, to a significant extent directed to Jews in general in answer to the “Jews are the chosen people” issue. It says essentially that they aren’t predestined. Jews “stumbled” over the law (legalism) and did not pursue a relationship with God. (These were the “chosen people” people remember. Clearly in this context "chosen" does not mean predestined for salvation.) Yet gentiles, who were not the chosen people, by faith can be granted the status of God’s people. (see also Matt 15: 21-28) The chapter says that God puts people in certain roles. I even see it say that God will harden us or show us mercy in certain situations, but I don’t see that as eliminating the free will component, the ability to seek relationship with God. We’re all dealt a hand that we have to play and in this we are certainly predestined to live out that role. I read this passage as also saying that we are given certain personal weaknesses and strengths (harnesses and gifts). But if we didn’t have the choice to seek a relationship with God from whatever position we find ourselves, then there is really no point to the Bible, or the faith in general. There has to be some choice involved, and I believe that that choice is to humbly seek relationship with God from wherever you’re at. Even after that we still have our place in life, our families, our nationalities, our races, our personal strengths and weaknesses (but these can change too), so much of our lives is predetermined. But from a salvation standpoint I don’t believe that we’re predestined. Romans 9 for reference. http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/...age=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on
Grizzled: just a couple of thoughts... 1. certainly free will exists. i think it exists alongside predestination. i don't know if it's just that we comprehend our free will different than God knows it to be...or what...honestly, i'm not sure. 2. evangelism. fishers of men. is it possible that God ultimately knows who will choose Him, but seeks to use us in part of sharing that?? i'm thinking there's tremendous growth not just for the evangelized, but for the evangelizer as well. and i'm not sure if either of those are real words! 3. i'll see if i can find some scripture on this that i've seen before. maybe we should talk about it over email, as i'm sure many here won't be all that interested
We could do it by email, but I wouldn’t want to cut KB out of the discussion. This is her/his topic after all. Have these topics been contentious here recently??
Note to non-Christians: Christians have different views of predestination. Christians who know a lot more about the Bible and the Christian faith than I do—and who have done a lot more to help others and to glorify God than I ever will—would disagree with me regarding predestination. Grizzled and MadMax, Thanks. I'm wondering where you two stand exactly. Do you believe that God gives the ability to accept Christ to everyone? With respect to logical priority, do you believe that saving faith precedes regeneration or vice versa? I believe that God gives the ability to accept Christ only to the elect. I believe that—with respect to logical priority—regeneration precedes saving faith. With respect to time, I believe that God's act of regeneration and the believer's act of saving faith are simultaneous. "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). "When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48). "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 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" (Acts 8:28-30). "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding" (Ephesians 1:4-8). "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).
Grizzled, The site of Bethlehem Baptist Church has a good explanation of Calvinism. I've copied the section about Unconditional Election (Sovereign Election). To see the entire paper, click on Who We Are and then Doctrinal Distinctives. http://www.bbcmpls.org/ Unconditional Election If all of us are so depraved that we cannot come to God without being born again by the irresistible grace of God, and if this particular grace is purchased by Christ on the cross, then it is clear that the salvation of any of us is owing to God's election. Election refers to God's choosing whom to save. It is unconditional in that there is no condition man must meet before God chooses to save him. Man is dead in trespasses and sins. So there is no condition he can meet before God chooses to save him from his deadness. We are not saying that final salvation is unconditional. It is not. We must meet the condition of faith in Christ in order to inherit eternal life. But faith is not a condition for election. Just the reverse. Election is a condition for faith. It is because God chose us before the foundation of the world that he purchases our redemption at the cross and quickens us with irresistible grace and brings us to faith. Acts 13:48 reports how the Gentiles responded to the preaching of the gospel in Antioch of Pisidia. "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of God; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Notice, it does not say that as many believed were chosen to be ordained to eternal life. The prior election of God is the reason some believed while others did not. Similarly Jesus says to the Jews in John 10:26, "You do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep." He does not say, "You are not my sheep because you do not believe." Being a sheep is something God decides for us before we believe. It is the basis and enablement of our belief. We believe because we are God's chosen sheep, not vice versa. (See John 8:47; 18:37.) In Romans 9 Paul stresses the unconditionality of election. For example, in verses 11-12 he describes the principle God used in the choice of Jacob over Esau: "Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call, [Rebecca] was told, 'The elder will serve the younger.'" God's election is preserved in its unconditionality because it is transacted before we are born or have done any good or evil. NOTE: Some interpreters say that Romans 9 has nothing to do with the election of individuals to their eternal destinies. They say that the chapter only relates to the historical roles that are played by the peoples descended from Jacob and Esau. We recommend The Justification of God by John Piper (Baker Book House, 1983) which was written to investigate this very issue. It concludes that Romans 9 not only relates to the historical roles of whole peoples, but also to the eternal destinies of individuals, because among other reasons (Justification, pp. 38-54), verses 1-5 pose a problem about the lostness of individual Israelites which would be totally unaddressed if the chapter had nothing to say about individuals. The unconditionality of God's electing grace is stressed again in Romans 9:15-16, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy." We really do not understand mercy if we think that we can initiate it by our own will or effort. We are hopelessly bound in the darkness of sin. If we are going to be saved, God will have to unconditionally take the initiative in our heart and irresistibly make us willing to submit to him. (See Romans 11:7.) Ephesians 1:3-6 is another powerful statement of the unconditionality of our election and predestination to sonship. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. He predestined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace." Some interpreters argue that this election before the foundation of the world was only an election of Christ, but not an election of which individuals would actually be in Christ. This simply amounts to saying that there is no unconditional election of individuals to salvation. Christ is put forward as the chosen one of God and the salvation of individuals is dependent on their own initiative to overcome their depravity and be united to Christ by faith. God does not choose them and therefore God cannot effectually convert them. He can only wait to see who will quicken themselves from the dead and choose him. This interpretation does not square well with verse 11 where it says that "we were predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will." Nor does the literal wording of verse 4 fit this interpretation. The ordinary meaning of the word for "choose" in verse 4 is to select or pick out of a group (cf. Luke 6:13; 14:7; John 13:18; 15:16,19). So the natural meaning of the verse is that God chooses his people from all humanity, before the foundation of the world by viewing them in relationship to Christ their redeemer. All election is in relation to Christ. There would be no election of sinners unto salvation if Christ were not appointed to die for their sins. So in that sense they are elect in Christ. But it is they, and not just Christ who are chosen out of the world. Also the wording of verse 5 suggests the election of people to be in Christ, and not just the election of Christ. Literally it says, "Having predestined us unto sonship through Jesus Christ." We are the ones predestined, not Christ. He is the one that makes the election of sinners possible, and so our election is "through him," but there is no talk here about God having a view only to Christ in election. Perhaps the most important text of all in relation to the teaching of unconditional election is Romans 8:28-33. "We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose, For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified. What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies." Often this text is used to argue against unconditional election on the basis of verse 29 which says, "Those whom he foreknew he also predestined..." So some say that people are not chosen unconditionally. They are chosen on the basis of their faith which they produce without the help of irresistible grace and which God sees beforehand. But this will not square with the context. Notice that Romans 8:30 says, "And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified." Focus for a moment on the fact that all whom God calls he also justifies. This calling in verse 30 is not given to all people. The reason we know it's not is that all those who are called are also justified—but all men are not justified. So this calling in verse 30 is not the general call to repentance that preachers give or that God gives through the glory of nature. Everybody receives that call. The call of verse 30 is given only to those whom God predestined to be conformed to the image of his son (v.29). And it is a call that leads necessarily to justification: "Those whom he called he also justified." But we know that justification is by faith (Romans 5:1). What then is this call that is given to all those who are predestined and which leads to justification? It must be the call of irresistible grace. It is the call of 1 Corinthians 1:24 which we discussed above on page 6. Between the act of predestination and justification there is the act of calling. Since justification is only by faith the calling in view must be the act of God whereby he calls faith into being. And since it necessarily results in justification it must be irresistible. There are none called (in this sense! not the sense of Matthew 22:14) who are not justified. All the called are justified. So the calling of verse 30 is the sovereign work of God which brings a person to faith by which he is justified. Now notice the implication this has for the meaning of foreknowledge in verse 29. When Paul says in verse 29, "Those whom he foreknew he also predestined," he can't mean (as so many try to make him mean) that God knows in advance who will use their free will to come to faith, so that he can predestine them to sonship because they made that free choice on their own. It can't mean that because we have seen from verse 30 that people do not come to faith on their own. They are called irresistibly. God does not foreknow the free decisions of people to believe in him because there aren't any such free decisions to know. If anyone comes to faith in Jesus, it is because they were quickened from the dead (Ephesians 2:5) by the creative Spirit of God. That is, they are effectually called from darkness into light. So the foreknowledge of Romans 8:29 is not the mere awareness of something that will happen in the future apart from God's predetermination. Rather it is the kind of knowledge referred to in Old Testament texts like Genesis 18:19 ("I have chosen [literally:known] Abraham so that he may charge his children...to keep the way of the Lord"), and Jeremiah 1:5 ("Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations") and Amos 3:2 ("You only [Israel] have I known from all the families of the earth"). As C.E.B. Cranfield says, the foreknowledge of Romans 8:29 is "that special taking knowledge of a person which is God's electing grace." Such foreknowledge is virtually the same as election: "Those whom he foreknew (i.e. chose) he predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son." Therefore what this magnificent text (Romans 8:28-33) teaches is that God really accomplishes the complete redemption of his people from start to finish. He foreknows, i.e. elects a people for himself before the foundation of the world, he predestines this people to be conformed to the image of his Son, he calls them to himself in faith, he justifies them through that faith, and he finally glorifies them—and nothing can separate them from the love of God in Christ for ever and ever (Romans 8:39). To him be all praise and glory! Amen.
http://www.bbcmpls.org/ Historical Introduction John Calvin, the famous theologian and pastor of Geneva, died in 1564. Along with Martin Luther in Germany, he was the most influential force of the Protestant Reformation. His Commentaries and Institutes of the Christian Religion are still exerting tremendous influence on the Christian Church worldwide. The churches which have inherited the teachings of Calvin are usually called Reformed as opposed to the Lutheran or Episcopalian branches of the Reformation. While not all Baptist churches hold to a reformed theology, there is a significant Baptist tradition which grew out of and still cherishes the central doctrines inherited from the reformed branch of the Reformation. The controversy between Arminianism and Calvinism arose in Holland in the early 1600's. The founder of the Arminian party was Jacob Arminius (1560-1609). He studied under the strict Calvinist Theodore Beza at Geneva and became a professor of theology at the University of Leyden in 1603. Gradually Arminius came to reject certain Calvinist teachings. The controversy spread all over Holland, where the Reformed Church was the overwhelming majority. The Arminians drew up their creed in Five Articles (written by Uytenbogaert), and laid them before the state authorities of Holland in 1610 under the name Remonstrance, signed by forty-six ministers. (These Five Articles can be read in Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3, pp. 545-547.) The Calvinists responded with a Counter-Remonstrance. But the official Calvinistic response came from the Synod of Dort which was held to consider the Five Articles from November 13, 1618 to May 9, 1619. There were eighty-four members and eighteen secular commissioners. The Synod wrote what has come to be known as the Canons of Dort. These are still part of the church confession of the Reformed Church in America and the Christian Reformed Church. They state the Five Points of Calvinism in response to the Five Articles of the Arminian Remonstrants. (See Schaff, vol. 3, pp. 581-596). So the so-called Five Points were not chosen by the Calvinists as a summary of their teaching. They emerged as a response to the Arminians who chose these five points to oppose. It is more important to give a positive Biblical position on the five points than to know the exact form of the original controversy. These five points are still at the heart of Biblical theology. They are not unimportant. Where we stand on these things deeply affects our view of God, man, salvation, the atonement, regeneration, assurance, worship, and missions.
A) No kidding. B) In my quest to attain immortality, of a sort, I've crossed off assassinating a famous celebrity, discovering a disease, taking over some part of the planet by military force, sighting a comet, and various other means, and have narrowed it down to two choices: having a cookie named in my honor, or founding a new branch of a major religion. Problem is, I can't decide which flavor or which religion to branch from. I mean, Catholic reformists is just so 16th century ( never mind the Cathars, etc. ) C) KateBecksindale ( the poster, not the Shooting Fish star) is a chick?
Yes. I’m tempted to say that there are exceptions, but I don’t think I’m completely convinced there are, so I’ll start by giving a straight “yes” to this one. I’m aware that this can be a logically tricky point and I think that we will probably have to do some fine tuning around what constitutes faith in this context, but I would say that faith precedes regeneration. That’s how it worked for me. But faith is something that grows and changes, so what it was in that moment is something very elementary in comparison to what my faith is like now. Acts 16: 14 is not clear on this issue I think. We have been told in the preceding verse that she was a worshiper of God, and even the verse doesn’t suggest that she didn’t make a choice of her own to meet God. So what exactly happened and when did it happen? If she was already “regenerated” (I’m not used to using that term but I’ll go with it here) then that passage means something quite different. Acts 13: 48 is preceded by: 46Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. 47For this is what the Lord has commanded us: " 'I have made you[7] a light for the Gentiles, that you[8] may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.'[9] " So if we then look at the sequence of events in 48 we see: they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; Does this mean that they entered a relationship with God here, that they had faith and were regenerated? That would make sense. That’s what honouring the word of the Lord is about. and all who were appointed for eternal life believed Then this means that all those who did honour the word of the Lord and were regenerated, and thereby appointed for eternal life, then believed what Paul and Barnabas were saying. This is a quick analysis but my main point here is that if you’re not looking for predestination here it doesn’t necessarily read that way. Clearly the honouring of the word of God precedes the appointment and could therefore be the cause of the appointment which then led to the understanding and belief in what Paul and Barnabas were saying about their future roles. Further, very basic passages like “knock and the door will be opened”, “ask and ye shall receive” pretty clearly imply choices and action, and note that the passages don’t say “knock and the door will be opened for some of you” and “ask and some of you will receive.” The qualifiers don’t exist for a reason, I contend. And I’ll also add that these passages imply action on both sides, knocking and answering, asking and receiving. The Romans passage is particularly odd because Romans spends a lot of time on new covenant issues which are essentially about the elimination of predestination. No longer is only one tribe “the chosen people.” The promise is extended to Jews and Gentiles alike, and notice that nowhere does it say that the promise is extended to only some Jews and some Gentiles. Again, I suggest that this is not an accidental omission. The only really problematic word in that passage is “foreknew” and the question is, before when? I don’t believe that salvation can be lost so from the point of salvation I think we are destined to be conformed to the likeness of Christ (a slow and painful process that surely isn’t completed in this life) so much of that fits that reading, but I will admit that I don’t feel like I’m entirely getting that passage. The Ephesians passage, without having looked at the greater context, doesn’t appear to relate to the predestination of specific individuals The John passages don’t look like they deny the role of the choice and action of the individual and they don’t say that God doesn’t reach out to everybody. The last one seems to be referring to people who are Christians at that time without suggesting that those who are not then part of the flock could not become part of that flock. Paul himself, for example, could have been on both sides of a statement like that at different times in his life. I’ve quickly scanned the rest and will get back to it later. I found it very interesting but I certainly have lots and lots of issues with it. As a general comment here for now I’ll go back to a point I made earlier and that is that the idea of predestination really serves no purpose. There is no good fruit associated with it as far as I can see. How would it influence anyone to live a better Christian life? It is certainly not for us to judge or even know with certainty who is saved and who isn’t, so what possible purpose could the idea of predestination serve in our lives? It surely tempts people into excuses for not valuing other people and not treating them in Christian ways, so in that way it is clearly damaging. One of my cornerstone passages is Galatians 5: 22-23 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 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. Which of those fruit does the idea of predestination support? Is it in keeping with any of the fruits of the spirit? I don’t see it. I don’t see that it plays any positive role at all. And I have not yet seen any convincing support for its validity, at least the way I understand it to be defined. Good discussion though. I’m learning a lot about Calvinist predestination.
Kate -- As I said, I tend to lean Calvinist a bit. But I'm not dogmatic about it, mostly because I don't understand its tension with free will. I think it's "out there"...but I'm not confident in what it looks and feels like...how it actually works. And in my day to day life as a Christ-follower, I don't find that it has much application. I don't carry on my day finishing tasks and then thinking about how I was predestined to finish that task. And I certainly don't open with the five points of Calvinism when sharing my faith with others. I'm Calvin-lite. I work with a couple of guys I go to church with, and we debate these sorts of things all the time. Just good discussions. But one of us works with youth ministry...another works in juvenile justice ministry, going each week to minister to and love kids who are caught up in that system in a facility in East Texas, and another works with a crisis pregnancy center in the 5th ward. We all have differing viewpoints on Calvinism...along the scale of Calvinism with full out predestination on one spectrum and full out free will on the other...and we discuss how abstract those are when it really comes to being the hands and feet of Christ, as we're called to be. We certainly don't see Jesus dwelling too much on this issue from scripture. It's just hard to find application. And I don't think this is a "salvation" type issue...I think Christ-followers can disagree on this issue peacefully. I do think there are some sovereignty of God issues that those of us in the Western world don't grasp real easily...mostly as a product of not living under a king, but living with the glorified idea of personal choice in every aspect of our lives. And I certainly feel there are some depravity issues with original sin that lend themselves well to the concept that I couldn't have chosen God without some tweaking on His part of my soul. Of my willingness to receive what I would otherwise reject. I feel that in my own experience...and I see it in others I know, as well.
I know this is going to sound wierd, but I believe in both predestination AND free will. They can coexist quite nicely together if you expand your mind. No, I have not been smoking anything.
this is what i'm trying to say. it's just that with a temporal mind, it's hard to understand it. it may be a concept that's completely beyond us. that we can only scratch the surface of.
My beliefs are kind of a strange combination of Buddhism and quantum theory. I believe the creator made the universe completely, including every choice we could possibly ever make along with the consequences of each choice. Visualize your life as a tree. You really don't make choices for a while, but your tree could branch based on what decisions your parents make. As you start making decisions for yourself, the tree gets very busy with forks all over the place representing those choices. When your soul inhabits this body, the choices you have available to you are laid out beforehand (predestination), but you have the ability to go through this life and make the decisions that appeal to you (free will). The Buddhism comes in because I believe that the one unavoidable law in the universe is the law of karma. Christians refer to the Golden Rule, Wiccans cite "thrice good, thrice bad" (the belief that any energy you put into the world will come back to you amplified), and of course karma is itself a Buddhist belief. Basically, anything you do will build up karmic debt that you will have to repay in this life or a subsequent one. That is the basic structure of my belief system.
So why wouldn't God just "tweak" everyone's soul to choose him? Aren't we all his creation? Whether we turn out good or bad, we are all his creations, right? So why not have everyone choose him?
That is part of free will. He put us here to live, learn, and enjoy the human condition. If we choose not to believe in Him, it is no skin off of his nose, He doesn't NEED our belief to exist.
Don't believe in predestination - never have and never will. To me, it contradicts free will. Unfortunately, I have never been in a church that really studied this topic, so I cannot elaborate other than these are my own personal beliefs.
Hmmm… I don’t think I made my points very well. A little too late and a little too hasty perhaps. My point about the fruit of the spirit is that I don’t find that predestination (again, the way we/I commonly think of it) is consistent with the tenor Christianity. “Faith, hope and love, but the greatest of these is love.” These along with the fruits of the Spirit resonate with me, with the Spirit in me, as being true, just and beautiful. Determinism/predestination doesn’t fit for me, and to a significant extent it seems to work against and the very character of Christianity. I’ll be back later to address some of the more direct claims made in the Unconditional Election piece. At the risk of heading off on a tangent, Buddhism does have a lot in common with Christianity, to a point. The primary difference as I understand it is in the sense of emptiness and purposelessness that is acknowledged as a part of Buddhism (again, as I understand it). Christians can and do have their struggles and can in fact be pretty messed up people, but the one thing as a rule they don’t struggle with is that sense of inner emptiness. That question is answered by “regeneration”. We can struggle with almost anything else physical or spiritual, but that inner sense of emptiness is something that has never come back for me or as far as I can tell any other Christians I know. That’s the question that is answered, the hole that is filled. It’s consistently living by and out of the Spirit that fills that hole that is the challenge.
Re: unconditional election Essentially I think that is a misreading of scripture and a failure to consider other parts of scripture that say something quite different. I’ll use this passage as an example and try to be more thorough and clear in my explanation. Pretty clearly Jesus is using the general “you” and is speaking to the point in time when this is happening. This passage says nothing at all about predestination. We know that some Jews do come to God. The Bible says this and gives us many examples of this. Jesus is speaking to them as Jews, not as individuals who are predestined. Paul himself was a Jew and persecuted Christians. He knew the Christian beliefs and not only did not believe them, he persecuted them. Clearly he was not one of the sheep then. He did not believe until his conversion, after which time he became a rather prominent sheep. There is a very fundamental, very deep, very sincere, step of faith that leads to regeneration. At that time the spiritual understanding one receives places the Bible and God’s teachings in a very different context. You then understand and believe in ways that you couldn’t have before. Before that spiritual experience the notion of someone rising from the dead, or the turning of water to wine etc. is silliness. It’s nonsense. You can pretend to believe it, but it’s not logical and at that point logic (or conflicting tribal beliefs) is all you really know. In the greater spiritual context that comes from the spiritual awakening, such things come to make sense. So in a very real way there is much that a person will not and probably even can’t believe until they have a certain fundamental level of spiritual understanding. That understanding that comes from entering a relationship with God is, as I believe and as I believe the evidence suggests, open to everyone, even people who have denied Christianity and even persecuted and probably murdered Christians, like Paul.
