Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Predestination and Judgement Message-ID: Date: 13 Jul 89 08:36:46 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 134 Approved: christian@geneva.rutgers.edu In some ways I wish I had passed on Dave Mielke's comments anonymously. I have very strong feelings about them, but it's not entirely about Dave's posting. His posting is typical of a genre, and is just sort of the last straw. My comments are really about the genre as a whole, and Dave's happens to be the one lying in front of me. Certainly there's nothing unexpected or surprising about his responses. What irritates me is not so much the substance as the manner. There is no sign of any uncertainty at all. Recall that the original posting was prefaced by a comment saying that I see these tendencies in Scripture, but I'm not at all sure how far I want to push it. On any major subject, such as predestination, there is going to be evidence on both sides. Yes, we try to come up with ways of reconciling it, and fitting everything together. But there are always a few pieces left over after we put everything together. I'd like to see just a little sign that people realize this. That is, I'd like to see some sign of humility in these interpretations. >>I've just taken a glance through most of the NT. ... >One of the mistakes that we all make at one time or another is to fail >to treat the most authoritative thing we have, i.e. the very Word of >God Himself, with the greatest amount of respect which we can find >within ourselves to render. No statement of what God has said in the >Scriptures should ever be based simply on something as small as a >glance. Anyone who has read my postings will know that I am quite serious about these things. I would appreciate it if people would give others -- including me -- just a bit of the benefit of the doubt. I said I had just taken a glance through the whole NT, not because I knew nothing about the topic before and didn't think it was worth study, but because I had studied it so carefully that I had the crucial texts almost memorized. I was concerned that I might have lost the forest for the trees, and wanted to get an overall feel for the approach of the various authors. Now for my major comment on Dave's response. My primary problem with it is that it follows the classic fundamentalist method of reading things into the text. Note by the way that I have seldom complained about "literal interpretation". My primary problem with fundamentalists is that they are not literal enough. All too often they adopt interpretations that from my point change the text to say something that doesn't challenge them. My claim is that there are some parts of the Bible that suggest that people will be punished for ever and some that suggest that they will not. I'm still not sure how to reconcile them. That's why I brought it up for discussion. There may be some deeper understanding that will do so. But I don't think interpreting away the difficulty is the way to do it. Let's look: Lk 20:35-36 says "but the men and women who are worthy to rise from death and live in the age to come will not then marry. They will be like angels and cannot die. They are the sons of God, because they have risen from death." I said that this might be taken to imply that only the good are resurrected. (Note by the way that this is a view that ultimately I did not find convincing.) Dave dismisses this by comparing it with John 5:28-29 and saying that what was being referred to was the resurrection to life, as opposed to the resurrection for judgement. This is an interesting distinction, but there is no sign of it in this passage. Here Jesus simply says that people are blessed because they rose. Next we go to Rom 11:25-26. Paul says "And this is how all Israel will be saved." Again, Dave suggests that we should add a distinction. Not visible Israel, but only the spiritual Israel. But if this were true, why would Paul have agonized for a chapter over the implication that the Jews have been rejected? If we turn this into a tautology (all of those who are chosen will be saved), it does not answer Paul's problem. I think I have to stick with what the text actually says. Namely that after all the Gentiles have been saved, "The Savior will come from Zion and remove all wickedness from the descendants of Jacob." Next let's look at I Cor 15:22: "For just as all people die because of their union with Adam, in the same way all will be raised to life because of their union with Christ." Dave suggests that there are some implied insertions, which he supplies in parentheses: "For as in Adam all (who are in Adam) die, even so in Christ shall all (who are in Christ) be made alive." Again, he has turned a difficult passage into a tautology, by reading things into it. We know from Romans that Adam's sin spread to everyone, and that for that reason everyone dies. I find it impossible to believe that Paul intended to confine the damage of Adam's sin to only some people. So it seems clear that he also intends Christ's action to be universal. There are a couple of other texts where the interpretationn depends upon other details. But it bothers me to see the regularity with which a difficult passage is turned into a tautology by reading something into it. If I did that, I would (correctly) be lectured on how lightly I am taking the Word of God. I am particularly upset to see no sign whatever of any uncertainty in these interpretations. I'd be willing to accept it if Dave admitted that these interpretations weren't very attractive, but they were the only way he could see to avoid contradictions. But they seem completely obvious to him. So the question remains, how do I deal with the apparent contradiction between large portions of the NT where various people clearly teach about a judgement, and these small hints of something else. In my opinion the only way to do this without butchering the text is to maintain the tension. In Rom 11:25, Paul calls God's final goal a secret truth. In my opinion, we must maintain that God will judge us. The view that occurs in most of the NT has to be accepted. I have said in the past that I think it's very dangerous to adopt that view that everyone is as a matter of principle saved. It suggests that how they live does not matter. There will be a judgement. And yet. And yet. Somehow the hope remains as a small voice that in the end God will still find a way to redeem people. It will not be by saying that sin is to be ignored. It will no doubt involve him taking the consequences onto himself. There is no reason to think that Paul was privy to the details of this. So we're not going to get a nice neat resolution that wraps up all the details consistently. I'm not saying that the Bible is self-contradictory. I don't think it is. But I do think there is a tension there that is not completely resolved, and probably will not be until we see things "face to face". I think this is the real difference between me and those we call themselves believers in inerrancy. I can live with unresolved issues in Scripture. I am very wary of manufacturing an easy consistency by clever interpretation. Finally, I'd like to make an observation. Dave says of the whole approach I am suggesting: "What an absolute mockery this attempt at an explanation makes of God's righteousness! With a Gospel that teaches that God will really save each and every person who has ever lived, He has absolutely no grounds on which to command us to obey Him." ??? Are you saying that the only grounds he has to command us to obey him is that he will throw us in Hell if we don't? I am willing to listen to the classic position that Hell is necessary because God has no alternative. It is a consequence of creating people with genuine independence. God can't simply ignore the fact that people reject him. But even if you believe that ultimately God will allow people to choose hell, surely you believe that his primary call on us is love. It is my hope that you were overreacting.