Interpretations For The "predestination" Verses In Romans

[Marsha]

...just an aside...Marsha, I hope you don't mind my going off topic here to use something in your post as an example of something that has arisen in another thread....

 

I mentioned in another thread the potential for mis-communications when people of different religious traditions, denominations, branches of Christianity, when they use words and phrases differently than another, that it can be as if they are speaking different languages without realizing it.

 

An example of that in Marsha's initial post, as she referred to "Orthodox Christianity" followed by "(Calvin, in particular)". This is one I've encountered before, so while it threw me for a loop the first few times I encountered it, I am now aware of it and know to watch out for it. But the first few times I encountered it, such as on Facebook or other contexts in which someone might give "Orthodox Christian" as their religious identiy, I managed to offend highly several of them in assuming they really meant they were "Orthodox Christians", as descended from the early split between the western (Roman Catholic) and eastern (Orthodox) church. In having met a number of Orthodox Christians, most of whom are either immigrants from or second or third generation descendants of immigrants, from regions of the east and middle east (Greek, Eastern, Egyptian Coptic Orthodox), as well as having done at least some intro level study into it, that is what first comes to mind when someone references "Orthodox Christianty".

 

I'm not sure when the term "Orthodiox Christianity" began to be commonly applied to (generally American) evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity, but it can sure be confusing when used outside those circles.

 

Jenell

 

Hi Jenell...good observation! That's probably a good example of what Brian was talking about. Orthodoxy is in the eye of the beholder. It probably used to mean the Catholic Church! But, I have seen it applied (in this country) to mostly Evangelical Christians (Protestants), probably, because they are the majority in this country.

[Marsha]

Those God foreknew are the patriarchs and the Israelites that have come before, not those now living or yet born. Clearly Paul is including everyone he is writing to during this time of persecution assuring them of God's protection and that they are all chosen for good .

 

To say that all are predestined by God before they were born is not consistent with the many passages about freewill. So if we let the Bible interpret the Bible then predestination cannot be understood in a Calvinistic view. We do not have to work hard to prove we are among the elect (Protestant work ethic).

 

35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

 

36As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

 

37Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

 

38For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

 

--- nor predestination. Again, letting the Bible interpret the Bible God would not predestine some but not all to salvation and some to hell, if the opposite, since it is implied, is true.

 

Dutch

 

Thanks, Dutch. I agree, the limited atonement interpretation is not consistent with many other verses, in the Bible. Of course, the Calvinists will tell you that the Bible was written for and about "believers". I, disagree with that, to a great extent, needless to say (although, it was, obviously, written for the "believer" in Christ, as The Way). But, I don't believe it was written to and for a very small group of believers, who will be the only ones "saved".

 

Your presentation is similar to how the Mormons interpret the predestination verses. They believe certain people were called (or predestined) for particular purposes. They don't believe the call has anything to do with salvation, per se.

 

Thanks for the input.

[Nick the Nevermet]

This thread really got moving after I'd gone, and I'm just now getting back and have caught up on this thread.

 

I currently lean toward Barth's version of election. God is outside time rather than before time, and God is free. Consequently, election is not a fixed state. We all experience election and reprobation, our faith waxing and waning through no credit or fault of our own. Community (religious and otherwise) is to help us through those dark moments. I'm lousy at exegesis, however, so I won't try to argue how biblical this is.

 

Also, an irrational allergic reaction: I adore the work of Max Weber, but his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is deeply flawed. The whole Catholic/Protestant split, with Protestants being more hard working because of predestination, calling, and worldly asceticism sounds good, but it reifies categories and leaves out a lot. Lachmann's Capitalists in Spite of Themselves is a much better (better empirical argument) book on the rise of capitalism. In short, conflicts between elite groups accidentally gave rise to capitalism. It is unfair to call the Protestant work ethic propaganda, though it's not exactly the most empirically grounded concept.

[soma]

Nicks I like your statement, "God is outside time rather than before time, and God is free." I would like to expand on this thought in Christian salvation.

 

Salvation is a central theme in Christianity and it seems to be a past, present and future promise and reality, which is beyond or not bound by time. I feel we heal mentally and spiritually with the recognition of love in the present and it’s ever availability. This is hard because we have to not let past and future thoughts control our individual mind. I feel salvation in the past, which is in Christianity an action completed by Christ helps us to break from the power of guilt, which seems to be a dilemma for most Christians. Gazing directly and lovingly at whatever is present, the guilt of the past falls away.

 

Ephesians 2:8, 9

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God

9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

 

It seems this salvation in the moment is for all Christians and non-Christians. Other paths might have a different way to get out of the entanglements of the past and future, but all will experience salvation in the present.

 

1 John 2:1-2

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

In my mind love in the present can break our rigid old ways of thinking and our worry and fear about the future. The present moment breaks our excessive attachment to dreams, desires, and words that become nightmares in the end. They seem to be fulfilled with love in the present light and opening to God. The people who are in the present moment seem to continue to experience love and salvation in that moment and the moments that follow. Their minds are in heaven. The process of salvation is therefore ongoing in the present as long as one is conscious of the moment. Salvation in the present reality frees one moment by moment, and continually frees one from the power of sin. Having been once and for all declared right in God’s eyes, we seem to have been freed from our guilt and freed from sin’s power. The Bible is no longer a history book, but a way to be with the consciousness of Christ in the present.

 

1 Corinthians 1:18

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

 

Death is an end and destruction of the body and many are perishing in the thought that they are a body with a soul, but those who are spiritual and think they are a soul with a body symbolized in Christianity by the message of the cross seem to know they are not the body. They are saved from death. The soul's gift of understanding does not need a body or an organ of understanding. It is not weakened by old age or by any other weakness of the body. Our soul abides in the present moment. I feel as Christians we don’t need to perish in a hurried, scattered mind, but need to focus back to that place where Christ is always waiting —the calm and peace of the present moment. It seems to be a step-by-step or moment by moment walk with Christ in heaven, a salvation that shows up in the present moment.

 

The future reality of salvation is that we all fall or stumble from the present moment, but in mental awareness look forward to being freed from this lack of presence. Having been delivered from the guilt of our sins and the power of our attachments and desires, we can look forward with great anticipation to the cessation of not being aware or in the moment. I feel every one will be saved from the death of sin or lack of love because everyone has a soul or a principle of Divine life ingrained in the present moment experience. Other disciplines use different terminology to describe this grace in the soul in the present moment, this new life in spirit, but as death in the body locks up the senses, seals up its powers, the grace of the present moment unlocks and opens everything expanding our concept of who we are introducing us to who we are. I feel this can be observed in the present moment in a living soul, being born again delivered from guilt, sin and fear of the future with the pardon and grace in a moment. It seems it is not something we do, but something we live from moment to moment.

[Neon Genesis]

I'm not sure this passage needs to be interpreted through a progressive lense. If the bible is a human book and not an inspired word of God, it would be natural to find conflicting theologies about what happens when we die and the nature of free will and no one book is going to agree with any other book on all issues. Paul himself was just a human and not God or divinely inspired and he didn't even meet the historical Jesus. I don't know whether or not this verse really does refer to predestination, but even if it does, there are lots of other bible passages with contradictory view points and there is no one universal view of salvation found in the bible that you can point to say "this is what will really happen when we die." I don't think any of us can know for certain what will happen when we die until that day happens, but all I know for certain is that any god who predestined us for eternal torture is not a loving god worthy of worship and thus not God at all and Paul is not God or inspired. Until the existence of the afterlife has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, Paul is not an authority on the subject anymore than Joe the Plumber is.

[Guest billmc]

I appreciate your post on this, Neon Genesis. It seems that our hope for an afterlife and for special status runs strong in our species. I suspect that Jesus was a great disappointment to the Jewish zealots of his day who wanted to see Israel restored. He refused to call down fire from heaven on his enemies. He refused to march into Jerusalem and take the throne as God's messiah. He certainly didn't kick out all the Romans, establish Israel as the central nation of the world, and begin to rule with a rod of iron to bring all of his enemies under his feet. Though many Christians love to cite all the supposed "messianic verses" or promises that Jesus *did* fulfill, he missed a lot of them.

 

This, IMO, put the early Christians in a quandry. Much of what Jesus allegedly said and did lines up with messianic notions. But much did not. So what were they to do about him? I suspect that they were challenged to either reconsider who messiah was supposed to be and what he was supposed to do, or to take a "to be continued..." view of Jesus. While the church might mention a new view of messiah from time to time (I love Borg's book, "Jesus"), it's main view is the "to be continued..." paradigm where, especially as seen in the book of Revelation, Jesus does return for Part 2 of the messianic prophecies.

 

Paul, IMO, is a supporter of the "to be continued..." view. Being a Pharisee, he wanted to stay close to the scriptures. And though I agree with you that he probably never met the historical Jesus, no doubt he heard from the disciples how Jesus had brushed off their poignant question to him, "Lord, will you at this time restore Israel?" Now? Please?

 

With these dashed hopes and with the pharisaical tendency to take the scriptures literally, I'm not surprised that Paul took the view that God's plan was still on track and that Jesus' failure to restore the nation was all part of God's grand scheme "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." It is at that time, says Paul, that we get to see Part 2.

 

Such eschatology, IMO, does a lot to try to assuage the fears that Jesus had failed in his mission. It is, from a certain point-of-view, comforting to know that nothing can stop God's plan. But, again in my opinion, Part 2 (if it ever does happen as Revelation portrays it) seriously violates the teachings and character of Jesus that we find in the gospels. The lamb in the gospels returns as the lion. The one who forgave his enemies in the gospels returns to slay them in the book of Revelation and I, for one, simply think that Paul and John of Patmos were wrong on this assertion of Part 2. I would find it impossible to offer a "progressive Christian" interpretation of Jesus melting his enemies with his gaze.

 

Predestination as common understood in the more conservative ranks of Christianity panders to our immature need for security. But it does little to instill in us a sense of responsibility for ourselves and our world. If God has "chosen" us for eternal life, then, so it is thought, we can trust God to deal appropriately with the unchosen "left behind", and it is certainly not in a gracious, loving manner. For these reasons, I don't buy into the predestination or Part 2 parts of the Bible. I just don't think they fit very well with the character and teachings of Jesus.

 

For whatever it's worth, I've often wondered if Jesus did return in the second chapter of Acts and we are now supposed to be "his earthly body." If so, what kind of messianic promises do we fulfill with and in our everyday lives?

[JenellYB]

I think in the bible there is a recurring theme of God's intentions and expectations for those "chosen" vs Man's egoist misinterpretation and implimentation of those expectations.

 

The Hebrew people, to become the nation of the Israelites, were "chosen" by God to demonstrate the power of God through their deliverance from literal slavery first, then from slavery to sin as He gave to them the Law, and entered intoo covenant with them to be is specially chosen people that were to bring by their example, other nations and people's to knowledge of the "real God." God's intent that all nations should be blessed through the Israelites' example was quickly perverted into the people's egoist attitudes that as "God's chosen", they had been singled out for a priveledged class as the only people God loved, that set them above other 'inferior, not-chosen' peoples whom they could treat with disregard and disrespect.

 

As result of their mass violations of God's commands for them violated their part in the Covenant, Israel fell. The Israelites seemed to have never figured out why to them it seemed God had failed His part of the covenent, recognizing it was themselves that had broken covenent, and thus lost God's continued favor of them as a nation. Unable to recognize that, the people set themselves up in expectation this fall from grace was only some temporary thing God was subjecting them to, but that at some time on the future, God would raise them up to power once again.

 

Enter Jesus, among those with such beliefs. Once again God was holding out the offer to a "chosen" , this time chosen individuals instead of an entire nation of people, the opportunity to come into personal relationship and covenant with Him. But once again, this "chosen" status was transformed from one of relationship in which the part of the "chosen" was to be examples to the world around them, to teach by example the laws of Godly behavior, into ideas of special favor and priveledge over others, with rights to degrade, mistreat, use for their own benefit, others, the "not chosen."

 

Consider how much this like what can happen in family dynamics when an older child is given a position, based on being older and more expereince, of overseeinng their younger siblings. There is always the risk in this kind of situation for that older sibliing to fall into using and abusing his/her "parent-given authority" over the younger sibliings. Under that power-trip mentality, the things the elder is allowed to do or have that younger siblings do not, becomes in the mind of that elder, and sommetimes the younger siblings as well, as a position of superior favor with the parents, rather than the parent's original intent that the elder should provide example to the younger. It can become Mom and Dad love the elder more than the younger. Of course, this dynamic going on in a family usually results in a lot of messed up kids among whom there are likely to be dysfinctional relationships even into adulthood.

 

I think the same kind of thing is at work as a recurring theme not only within the story of the Israelites in the OT, but can seen in the course of development of christianity over the past 2000 yrs. An especially aburd manifestation of that kind of thing at work is evident among many Christian Americans today that have assumed God's favored nation status, similar to that of covenant Israel in the OT. There is absolutely no scriptural basis for desgnation the United States or any other worldly nation as being "God's chosen for special favor". but its an attitude deeply entrenched in the thinking of American Christiians. Of course, this is not unique, as many other nations and powers have done the same, Christian Europeans assumed it of themselves as they conquered the "new world". the Brits as well as Americans of British descent have assumed it in the idea of a "Bitish Israel', etc.

 

So it seems natural that some would see God's having chosen certain individuals for exemplar service, to be an example to others, the light set on the hill, as being speically chosen for preferential status and favor, ie, the "only" saved.

 

Jenell