Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ukma!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jamesa@amadeus.la.tek.com (James Akiyama) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Predestination and Judgement Message-ID: Date: 19 Jul 89 06:25:09 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 108 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu After reading the articles on "Predestination and Judgement" I feels that more needs to be added. First, Mr. Hedrick says: > My primary problem with it is that it follows the classic fundamentalist > method of reading things into the text. This, in my opinion, is wrong. Some fundamentalists may read things into text, but it is wrong to assume that all do. I believe in doctrinal inerrancy and therefore clasify myself as a fundamentalist. Yet, I'm am perfectly willing to accept that there are things which are not yet known. 1 Corinthians 13:9-10 says: For we know in part, and we prophesy; but when the perfect comes the partial will be done away (New American Standard). 1 Corinthians 13:12 continues: For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known (New American Standard). In fact, I can't see how a fundamentalist can believe that he can comprehend everything unless he believe that the perfect has already come (I don't believe it has). The distinction "fundamentalist" does not imply "knowing all of Scriptures" but rather "inerrancy in all of Scriptures as originally penned". I think this is key. Now I realize that some do read things into text. I do know that from my limited contact at Western Conservative Baptist Seminary and Multnomah School of the Bible, both "fundamentalist seminaries", they often times qualify statements with, "as we understand", or "in my opinion". With this said, let's look at the passages in question: First, LUKE 20:35-36 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection (New International Version). Here I read that "the resurrection" is the resurrection of Christ (since "the" implies "one" or "first" in this context). Thus, I believe, "children of the resurrection" is equivalent to the "children of Christ". Next, in ROMAN 11:25-26 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob (New International Version). This one is more difficult for me. I agree with Mr. Hedricks that the passage must be refering to the nation Israel (not the spiritual Israel). This seems apparent since the previous passages are clearly referring to the nation Israel. One thing I've noted in Scriptures (clearly in the OT; somewhat in the NT) is Gods love for the people of Israel. They were, and possibly still are, his chosen people. Sure, He's letting Gentiles in, but still there seems to be something special about Israel and the Jews. Simply reading Revelations, and the end times will show that God still bestows a special relationship with the nation Israel. I believe that here Christ means that "all of (the nation) Israel will be saved". I believe, however, that this does not necessarily imply all of the people of Israel but rather a large enough portion, so that Israel, as a whole, will be saved as a nation. To me, this is no different that in the OT when God mentions Israel as His chosen, and yet, many were not saved. Were the unsaved people still His chosen? I do not believe so. Rather the nation itself was chosen; nation referring to the people as a whole and not individually. Finally, 1 Corinthians 15:22: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. On this passage I tend to agree with Dave Mielke more. I think here, what is important, is what is meant to be "in Adam" and "in Christ". I believe all are "in Adam" being born of the flesh. To be "in Christ" one must be born again in the Spirit. Thus the term "all" is qualified in the first as those "in Adam" (which includes all of us, since we were all born from flesh to flesh), while the second includes all born in of Spirit to spirit. For, what I believe, a relevent passage: JOHN 3:6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. Again, I don't claim to know everything. This is just my interpretation of some rough passages. When reading these, I often times think of a quote made by Einstein: "I see a pattern but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock but I cannot envision the clock maker. The human mind is unable to conceive of four dimensions--how can it conceive of a god, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one?" James E. Akiyama jamesa@amadeus.LA.TEK.COM UUCP: ....!tektronix!amadeus.LA.TEK.COM!jamesa ARPA: @RELAY.CS.NET:jamesa%amadeus.LA.TEK.COM