Posted on 11/24/2009 4:10:44 PM PST by NYer
Statistics released Nov. 24 by the FBI show hate crimes against religious groups increased by 9% from 2007 to 2008.
USA Today reported that in 2008, there 1,519 incidents against people based on their religion, the statistics show.
The figures reveal that while anti-Jewish attacks made up the highest percentage of the attacks (17%), there was an increase in hate crimes against Catholics — 75, up from 61 in 2007.
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said the increase may be due to the Church becoming more vocal on life issues such as abortion and homosexual unions.
As the Catholic bishops take a stronger stance, he said, it filters down to the laity, and as more traditional Catholics become more vocal, they become targets for those who disagree with them.
“Unfortunately, it spills over into violence,” he said, adding that it’s just going to get worse before it gets better.
“I’ve never seen our country so culturally divided and so polarized,” he said. “These issues are not going away.”
Now do you really believe that our Lord Jesus spoke in an "wild or vehement way"? Perhaps you may be refering to "righteous indignation". That I could buy.
So why did he preach to them?
Because we are commanded to preach to them. Those who God will saved will hear the Lord's calling through us. Those who hearts are hardened will reject the message. But all will hear the word of God.
“From the very beginning of The Church there were those who did not accept the Real Presence in the Eucharist, Christ’s plain words to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Christ’s plain words no more imply ‘real presence’ than they imply John the Baptist was a torch. When he says, “Do this in remembrance of me”, it defies real presence, since if he is truly present as a perpetual sacrifice, it wouldn’t be in remembrance. If the Eucharist is a perpetual sacrifice of Jesus’s flesh and blood, then there is no remembering required - it is present tense.
If ‘real presence’ was a requirement of Christian faith, real presence would have been explicitely taught by the Apostles.
Just IMHO. Way too busy today to reply properly to this thread - so many folks have added so much interesting stuff for me to read that I’ll probably be swamped for the next few days.
However, I would agree that ‘real presence’ does not in any way imply cannibalism. That was a silly charge, easily refuted by anyone who knew anything about Christians.
It really isn't much of a mystery. The more I study the scriptures the more simplistic they become. I'm afraid we just want to make them more complex then they really are.
The Church does not teach that it is a place but a "state (or condition) of a soul." Technically peaking a soul could be in "heaven" right next to a soul that is in "hell."
That is correct. Apologies for posting it wrong - funny, since I have written many posts correcting others (shakes head).
“Christ’s plain words no more imply ‘real presence’ than they imply John the Baptist was a torch.”
But, Mr. R, that’s the way the Jews to whom the Gospel of John was directed took it and the way The Church from at least the writing of the Gospel according to +John took it. I do not deny that others, outside The Church, took the words metaphorically. As +Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of +John and successor but one to +Peter at Antioch,, wrote in his letter to the Smyrnaeans:
“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”
Or this from his letter to the Romans:
“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”
That’s from the end of the first century, Mr. R. Thereafter there is no question, even among heretics, of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Again, I do not doubt that there were people, somewhere, who denied the Real Presence after +Ignatius of Antioch. They however, left no mark or trace behind and the notion that the Eucharist was NOT the true Body and Blood of Christ doesn’t arise again until after the start of the Reformation.
Mr. R, this is one of the ultimate questions of Faith. Either one believes this or not. Its not something amenable to “proof”, the claims of some Latins to the contrary notwithstanding. Some of us are correct in our belief and some of us are incorrect. Because the solution to this question is not subject to objective proof, I’ll stick with what all Christians believed for the first 1500+ years of Christianity and what all members of The Church have continued to believe since then. Will my belief alone “get me into heaven” or your disbelief “keep you out”? I have no idea; I doubt it on both accounts. That said, there is a danger here to each of us, I suppose; we need to be wary lest our strongly held beliefs leads to this:
“If any of you put a stumbling-block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea.”
Good find, Kolo mou! Kinda sums up the Orthodox mindset, doesn't it?
For your information, Mark, Pope John Paul II asserted this orthodox teaching of the Church when he said emphatically that heaven and hell are not physical "places" but conditions of the souls.
I agree with this, with you both, and with JPII. Thank you.
“That said, there is a danger here to each of us, I suppose; we need to be wary lest our strongly held beliefs leads to this:
“If any of you put a stumbling-block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea.”
Amen! May God bless you, Kolokotronis!
Yes.
If 1 and 2 are true, then every “genetic” Jew still falls under the Abrahamic covenant since expanded by Moses and tradition.
Genetics, matrilinear Jewishness and Hebrew religion all play crucial but separate roles.
Matrilinear Jewishness is a legal concept akin to citizenship, based on birthright. Women were considered passive "fertile soil," akin to a field. If you were brought forth on by a Jewish mother you were born on the Jewish "soil" and that makes you Jewish by birth, just as if you are born in America you are an American by birthright even if you never pledge loyalty to this country, or if your parents were Islamic terrorists who raised you to hate America.
Matrilinear Jewishness is therefore a legal definition of your Jewish "citizenship" and is precisely the criterium used in the Israeli Law of Return. But in order tom be a citizen of a nation you have to have a country and for the Jews it's not just any country. It is a specific place for a specific reason.
That specific reason presented as the "right" of the Jewish people to Israel is both genetic and religious: that land was given to the legitimate descendants of Abraham (genetics) by [the Hebrew] God (religion). And how do you determine who is a citizen of that country? By Jewish birthright (matrilinear).
Thus, all three components are needed and synchronized, when and where needed. Furthermore, you can be a legitimate citizen of Israel by becoming a "naturalized" Jew through a conversion (religious right), thereby lacking both materilinear right and genetic legitimacy. Thus, in this case the religious component trumps the other two.
On the other hand, if the temple were rebuilt, the genetic factor would trump the other two, as it is genetics which determine who can be a priest and who can't.
Thank-you.
It's not a postulate. Hebrew God had no sons. His spirit is simply his own breath. Among the messianic Jews (Essenes, Pharisees) no one expected a divine messiah.
and that the same God who postulated and demanded this Law doesn’t want to be worshiped, just obeyed.
Atheism was unknown. In ancient times, unbelievers (hence infidels, from Latin in=without + fide=faith) were not atheists, but people who worshiped false gods, people unfaithful to the true God.
Atheist is a western prodigy, and modern Judaism recognizes that some Jews are atheists and agnostics. As long as they live righteous lives, give to charities, etc. they can be acceptable to God. Judaism deals with this life and not with afterlife. One's obligation is towards those we live among right now and not what will happen in afterlife, if there is one.
A cursory search on the topic of Jewish atheism will provide you with all the evidence that being Jewish and an atheists is perfectly compatible. In fact, anything that has to do with being Jewish is "maybe, maybe not" kind of a thing, like trying to nail jello to the wall, except when it comes to worshiping someone other than the Hebrew God. Not believing in one is okay, but worshiping other deities is a definite "no,no." And, as far as Judaism is concerned a divine Jesus is not the God of Abraham.
His fellow Jews certainly thought so. At least we know this was a novel approach. I mean, he didn't say "This is like my body..." or "this is like my blood..." In fact, I am not sure what he said, but it sure sounded literal. Of course, he said he was the light, but he didn't say use me as your lamp.
Basically the Gospels say to do the supper in his memory and to eat the bread , which is his body and drink the wine, which is his blood, and thus reaffirm the covenant with him.
Is Greek really that literalistic and without subtlety? Is it a language bereft of double meanings or idioms?
Just to the contrary, but what he said there is about as literal as it gets. The earliest (surviving) documents show that relatively shortly after the Synoptic Gospels were written, and just about when John's Gospel was being written, the Church believed in Real Presence and that the Eucharist is his flesh ("that suffered") and his blood that was shed.
The Gospels were written in their time and in their language and that's how they understood it. It seems a little disingenuous for anyone to suggest we know it better than they did.
That's not my "theory" but the position of the scientific community.
Do you see what I am getting at? A Jew is a Jew and to the Pharisees it is matrilineal and religious. To ignore the Pharisaical practice is to be something other than Pharisaical by default. You can call it what you want, but Sadducean as opposed to Pharisaic makes sense. That is the state of modern Jewry.
It's not Sadducean because the Pharisees, in addition to what we know they believe din, also left us (their version of) what the Sadducees believed in—and modern Jews do not believe that. So, your classification is something popularized in college cafeteria but not in serious research.
You can call modern Jews secularized Pharisees, or wordly rabbinic Judaism, corrupted, relativistic, whatever, but not Sadducean because no Jewish, sect as far as I know, holds on to Sadducean beliefs. You are confusing their openness to the outside, their lax observance, with their religious beliefs.
No, I meant ranting.
Because we are commanded to preach to them.
In your dreams. The eleven disciples were commanded to do that, and I don't think you were one of them. :)
That still doesn't explain why he preached and than ranted for their unbelief if he knew they would not change their minds.
Think about it, if God decided who to give faith and not to, what will preaching accomplish? Those who were destined not to believe will not believe and those who were given the "eyes" will not need convincing. So, it sounds like a lot to do about nothing, HD. kind of like the realization that the whole universe goes around in circles endlessly...some purpose. :)
Are you saying the Great Commission does not apply to us?
That still doesn't explain why he preached and than ranted for their unbelief if he knew they would not change their minds.
He preached to them not to change their minds because man's mind is set to evil (I know the Orthodox does not agree with this position). He preached to them to execute justice. They cannot say they did not hear the word of God.
There is only two types of sentencing by God-justice and mercy. Every one of us should receive justice which is to be cast into the Lake of Fire to suffer in hell for all eternity. The other is to receive mercy which is unmerited and undeserving. Our Lord preached to those who will never come to Him simply to execute justice and so that it can be said that they are without excuse.
BTW-Whenever I talk about hell I can just "feel" a collective gasp from people. Christians make the assumption that everyone wants to go to heaven if they just understood better. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mankind would be quite happy to reside in the flames of hell tormented by the worms for all eternity than to worship God. That is the level of our depravity. It is one that our merciful God has to snatch us out of.
Yet this Wisdom is subordinated to the Father (who is not Wisdom, for there is no mixing or confusion among Hypostrases)? It is the Wisdom of God that says the Father (who is not Wisdom) "is greater than I." What can possibly be greater than wisdom? Are we talking brawn before brains?
His performing a Messianic action in ‘cleansing’ the temple on His first visit to Jerusalem after His ministry had begun
Is that a good example how we should follow in his footsteps? Would it not have been more Christ-like to simply convert their hearts so that they may repent and leave without the theatrics? And I though he was sent not to judge but to save...
His feeding the hungry Galilaeans, though He escapes from them as soon as they try to enthrone Him as an earthly monarch
Which they did in keeping of the same Judaic religion he supposedly came to fulfill. So rather than explain to them why they were wrong, he turns them off so they'd abandon him? What was the feeding then all about? It's like inviting someone over to a dinner and the kicking them out afterwards!
John, having considered the many miracle signs of Jesus, chose seven to demonstrate the true identity of Jesus
But Judaism has seven criteria fort he messiah and Jesus fulfills only one, being Jewish. If John was trying to convince the Jews he was wasting his time. John's Gospel may deal with Jewish issues, but only Greeks would accept them blindly.
Two of the constantly recurring themes of this Gospel are the nature of the unbelief which led the Jews to refuse to accept Jesus as the Messiah, and the factors of the faith which led His disciples (Jews) to acknowledge Him as the One ‘of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write’
Except that claim is a stretch (and no verse clearly shows it to be true). The Jews would know that is not true, but the Greeks would be convinced because they didn't know much about Judaism. The miracles are attempts to convince someone by magic. God couldn't convert their hearts as he does today, but had to resort to magic. The disciples all scattered when Jesus was arrested. So much for their belief. And even after he resurrected and was about to leave, and after they already received the Holy Spirit (according to John) some still doubted (Mat 28:17).
Why would John write tot he Jews when Judaism rejected Christians by that time, and very few Jews were in the Church. And why would he wrote in highly developed Greek if it was intended for the Jews?
To be quite frank with you I don’t have the time or the inclination to debate Bultmann. Back 30 years ago when I studied his theology I became convinced by the writings of other scholars, a few I mentioned in my previous post, that his methodology was wrong and therefore see no value in answering his position point by point.
I wasn't asking you to discuss Bultmann. I asked you to rebut the specific objections he raises on specific verses I posted.
I don’t see where that follows from what I wrote. John, as an after thought, added a postscript.
Holy Spirit had an "oh by the way" after thought and said "quick, John, write this down before I forget?" :)
Google “Bodmer Papyrus”. There are copies there on some of the sites.
I did. They show a page here and there. No complete work.
I do value our discussions and hope this does not insult you or discourage you in any way
I am honored. Why would I be insualted or disocuraged? Disagreement stimulates, and agreement stagnates.
Pretty much. Doesn't the Bible say somewhere that God appointed some to be apostles, some teachers, etc? Besides, there were only 11 of them there and you were not one of them HD. :) Sorry.
In addition to that, they all believed he would be back real soon...
He preached to them to execute justice. They cannot say they did not hear the word of God.
I see, in other words, they were given some tongue lashing...like some Protestant sermons. And what about those who lived before and after him who didn't hear it? I thought we will be judged according to our deeds as per Mat 25. So, why the preaching-leashing?
Mankind would be quite happy to reside in the flames of hell tormented by the worms for all eternity than to worship God. That is the level of our depravity.
But you must admit then that it is so by design, his will and not ours, right?
Simple opinion which you've stated twice as an ad hominem attempt to dismiss what is scholarly. One expects more from you Kosta.
My ideas are sound and based in fact. Continually dissembling in an attempt to preserve an untenable position isn't thoughtful. One cannot argue all sides and then pretend to be right.
You state that we cannot "know" what the Sadducees believed and I refuted that more than once using simple logic and inductive reasoning. You are playing word games, which is not unusual.
As it stands the vast majority of modern Judaism practice a belief system (including worshiping Jesus Christ)well below the Pharisaic minimum as understood in the Scriptures and Jewish history. We have three choices then in defining them; 1) as Pharisees; and 2) as not-Pharisees, namely Sadducees or Essenes. Essene is eliminated by definition: modern Jews are not ascetics. The essential differences between Pharisees and Sadducees can be known by historical reference, the Scriptures, and by simple logic and inductive reasoning (already demonstrated). That 65%-85% of Jews reject the oral tradition and ignore most Pharisaic teachings makes them Sadducean (or not-Pharisaic(?)).
Jewish in the way Kennedy's are Catholics. Ambivalent, but still trying, sometimes and maybe as convenient.
Amen!
It's not an ad hominem; there was no personal attack on you. It is simply my opinion of your opinion, because your opinion does not seem very scholarly to me at all.
My ideas are sound and based in fact
But they appear to be unsoundly synthesized.
You state that we cannot "know" what the Sadducees believed and I refuted that more than once using simple logic and inductive reasoning. You are playing word games, which is not unusual
Do I detect "ad hominism" in this? I am sorry, TenTen, we cannot know for sure what the Sadducees believed because we don't have their rebuttals. All we have are one-sided sources of their bitter adversaries who are not known for objectivity, but rather for hypocrisy, if we can trust the Gospels, that is. :)
And what we do know about the Sadducees seems to prove your comparison of modern Judaism to them completely off the target, even though it may be a popular opinion in come circles.
They were allegedly biblical literlaists, they didn't' castigate their women as much as the holier-than-though Pharisees, and they differed on minor points (which was apparently a big deal) regarding the Temple practice.
Please augment your sound thinking and factual presentations with a scholarly synthesis, using scholarly sources, such as the The Jewish Encyclopedia, and then kindly present your case by drawing parallels to modern Judaism.
It's night and day. The only thing modern Judaism and Sadduceesim (as presented by its rivals) share in common is pragmatism, materialism, and worldliness. That does not make modern day Jews into Sadducees, nor are modern observant Jews necessarily even remotely close to what the Sadducees allegedly believed. They are simply put secularized, even corrupted if you wish, Pharisees.
The Kennedys and the Pelosis, etc. are not Sadducee-like, but hypocrites. That's exaclty what the NT calls the Pharisees.
But you will insist that modern Judaism is Sadducee-like no matter what. That's your right, but don't get offended when someone likens it to popular college cafetria rather than to something scholarly.
As for your insistence that Jews worship Christ, some do, no doubt, but the Jewish community at large says (quite correctly) that they are not Jews but Christans. In that sense, they are even worse than the Sadducees. Except for a small number of Protestants pretending to be Jews, no Jew will accept Christ as God.
You say that "65%-85% of Jews [today] reject the oral tradition"
This is just one of those "shooting from the hip and hoping to hit something " sweeping generalizations that are total nonsense. How can that be when modern Judaism is based on Talmud, that is, Mishnah as its integral part?!
Modern Judaism would be Sadducee-like if it inisisted only on the written Pentateuch and discard the rest. No Jewish sect today does that. But that doesn't stop you from insisting that they are.
Jewish in the way Kennedy's are Catholics. Ambivalent, but still trying, sometimes and maybe as convenient.
The Kennedys (Pelosis, Bidens, Kerrys, etc.) are not ambivalent about their Catholicism; they just interpret it privately obviously indifferent to the Church prohibition of it.
There is nothing ambivalent about the Kennedy's and their Catholicism. It's more like dishonesty. They insist on being Catholic even though they don't believe what the Catholic Church teaches. That's being hypocritial, which is much more akin to the Pharisees then to the Sadducees.
“That still doesn’t explain why he preached and than ranted for their unbelief if he knew they would not change their minds.”
I dunno...I’ve ranted at my computer over some of your posts...
However, for predestination, it occurred to me that it might help to simply look at what scripture says, rather than what people say it says. And FWIW, I think it is closer to the Catholic & Orthodox view than Calvin’s....if I understand the Catholic and Orthodox views!
The bulk of it seems to be found here:
Predestination
proorizo-
1) to predetermine, decide beforehand
2) in the NT of God decreeing from eternity
3) to foreordain, appoint beforehand
Wuest commenting on proorizo writes that...
The genius of the word is that of placing limitations upon someone or something beforehand, these limitations bringing that person or thing within the sphere of a certain future or destiny. These meanings are carried over into the New Testament usage of the word. Thus, the “chosen-out” ones, have had limitations put around them which bring them within the sphere of becoming God’s children by adoption (Eph 1:5-note), and of being conformed to the image of the Lord Jesus (Ro 8:29). (Wuest, K. S. Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: Eerdmans)
Act 4:28
“27for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. 29And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, 30while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”
Rom 8:29, 30:
26Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 27And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. 28And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
1Cor 2:7:
“6Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”
Eph 1:5, 11:
1Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus:
2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 3 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, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
11In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
John 6:
35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36But 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 whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
41So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— 46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
There are other passages that affect the debate, and there are a number of passages talking about ‘the elect’, but for the moment, lets focus on “predestination”.
From Acts we learn that it was part of God’s plan that people would threaten and oppose God;s plan of redemption thru Jesus Christ. It doesn’t say God CAUSED the opposition, but that it happened in accordance with His plan.
Romans teaches us that all things work together for the good of those who love God. Why? “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son...”, and since being conformed to the image of Christ is good, all things work for our good - not our pleasure, but our good.
Again, it doesn’t say God predestined us to become Christians, but that “those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son”, and these are the ones He called. Hmmm...foreknew comes first, then a predestined destination for those He foreknew, and then He called those folks.
There may be some controversy over the idea that God knows in advance who will or will not believe - but there isn’t a lot.
From 1 Corinthians, we see that God’s plan of salvation didn’t just pop up, but has been something He has expected and worked towards. Not much controversy there!
In Ephesians, we find that believers - since that is those whom Paul is addressing - “he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.” OK, so God has always intended that believers should be holy and blameless before Him. What else...
“In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.” It doesn’t say He predestined individuals to be saved or damned, but that those who believe are predestined to obtain an inheritance, so that we might be to the praise of his glory.
None of this seems to imply irresistable grace - that God saves the unwilling, or predestined damnation - that God picks out a bunch of folks he wants to damn.
Those may not be Calvinist teachings, but they certainly don’t seem to be scriptural teachings, no matter where they come from!
In John 6, we have, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out...No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”
Who does the Father give to the Son? Given that 2 sentences earlier he says, “whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst”, and 3 sentences later says, “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day”, it seems plausible that the ones the Father gives the Son are those who believe.
Can God reveal Himself and not be believed? Well, it looks to me like the entire 6th chapter of John is evidence that you can see the miracles of Jesus, and have Jesus talking to you face to face, and not believe.
All this seems to sum up as:
God has always planned that those who believe in Jesus will be given the gift of regeneration and the Holy Spirit, and saved from a wicked world to be conformed to his Son. He knows who will believe, and works all things to their good - becoming like Christ, and for God to receive praise and glory.
What I do not see is that God forces some individuals to live so as to be damned, or forces others to believe in spite of themselves. Predestination seems to suggest the destination is planned, not who will take the journey. That is fore-known, not fore-forced.
This is consistent with John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” and 1 Tim 2: “1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.” and 2 Peter 3 “9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”
I’m sure some disagree, and would like to know why...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.