On that note, my personal conviction is that if one learns to read the scripture (bible) with the same approach as one has to the Q drops, things would change significantly in how we understand the providence of God.
For example, future proves past. (IMO) some of the things in scripture cannot be understood until the time has come. Folks try to figure it all out, which is good, but humility is critical in recognizing that there is much about God's work that we don't yet understand, even though Jesus promised a future time when we would, and Paul also prophesied that such a time would come.
But there are numerous questions that the faithful have grappled with over the past 2000 years, but one's on which there is no real definitive answer. (Theology has attempted to grapple with these.)
Questions such as, what is the original purpose of creation? Does predestination exist, and if so, how does it work? God is perfect and absolute, so God's will is also perfect and absolute, but does this mean that everything is God's will?
What do all the symbols in the scripture mean? Are they literal? Symbolic? How can we decode them in a way that reconciles logical understanding, empirical knowledge, and faith?
Why did it take thousands of years (biblically) after the Fall for God to send the Messiah? If Christ had to die on the cross (if this was the only way) why did God prepare and work with the Israelites for 2000 years? Was the cross inevitable, or were there other possibilities?
Etc.
The fact that there are so many different denominations with thousands of different points of interpretation of these and other questions indicates that as a collective, we don't know the whole story. We are trying to put it all together but with a limited understanding and limited information.
The first step in moving out of ignorance is to learn that we do not know. REal ignorance is not simply "not knowing". Real ignorance is not knowing that you don't know.
If you don't know that you don't know, you can never move out of ignorance. But once you learn that you don't know something, you are then position to begin to learn it.
In order to preserve authority that they deemed so important, historically, the church in all its forms has settled on to the idea that firstly, we know and understand everything the scripture is meant to tell us, but secondly, also, there are some things that we just cannot know, and therefore should not even try to know.
In my view, both of those positions are wrong or (softly) less than productive. I think they were derived from the need to preserve 'authority', and we see the end results of that in all sorts of problems within the body of Christ, as it were.
In my view, firstly, the body of Christ clearly does NOT understand everything the scripture is mean to tell us, and secondly, we can know those things, but we have to try and we have to make the effort.
Commensurate with that view is the belief that the New Testament has one primary mission and one primary mission only: to prepare thumanity for the second coming of Christ, just as the Mosaic law had one purpose, to prepare a people for the first advent of Christ.
But look at how badly the Israelites screwed that up. They lost their way time and again, and when Christ arrived, the failed, as a whole, to recognize him. They didn't know that they didn't understand. They thought, in their arrogance, that they did know everything they were supposed to.
What are the lessons there for Christianity? Important lessons.
"Does predestination exist, and if so, how does it work?"
I would argue that predestination is at odds with free will. Also God is good. He would never create a person to do evil, then turn around and condemn them. Doing evil is a personal choice.
Aha. I agree, although this is the very problem, because there are scriptural foundations both for asserting 'predestination' and also for refuting it. So how do we resolve this? Accepting only those scriptures that support our view and discarding those that do not is only a short-term stop gap solution, and is one reason why we have so many fractures within the Christian world.
For example, Rom 8:30
And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified. What then shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
Paul directly references "predestination". Here. Also, Rom 9:15
For He says to Moses: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then, it does not depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.
But at this point, we should also take to heart Paul's words: "For now we see dimly as in a mirror..." where he acknowledges himself that his understanding is limited.
In contradiction to the idea of absolute predestination, we have Matt 7:7
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you.
Clearing indicating that some effort is required on the part of the person.
Also, in Genesis, God warned Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit. They disregarded God's warning, ate the fruit and fell. But in Gen 6:6
And the LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
It makes no sense that Adam and Eve were predestined to fall, because if God had predestined them to fall, He would have no reason to grieve, because they would have been doing what he predestined them to do.
So, how can we possibly resolve this apparent contradiction, between God's predestination on one had, but the clear evidence of human agency aka free will on the other?
What if the key to this is to understand that God's purpose of creation is in fact a joint project between God and his children? That is, what if the absolute creator established a purpose of creation that requires human beings to play a specific role and part?
What if God's purpose of creation is to create an ideal world aka the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, but made it necessary for human beings to contribute to that and fulfill a specific necessary responsibility? That would make sense, because the core element of such a kingdom (aka ideal world) would be true love, and true love can never be coerced, but must be given freely with free will.
Also, if God made everything and predestined everything and did it all, and we had no choice or responsibility, would we truly be his children? If God is a creator, we must also be creators, and so His purpose would need to include that factor.
So what if God, as the parent, fulfills 99% of the work by creating the universe, establishing the laws of the cosmos (spiritual and material), but then assigns to his children a portion of responsibility aka (symbolically) 1% of the work? What if the responsibility assigned by God to his children was their own perfection and completion?
In other words, what if, like every other living thing in the creation, human beings were created to grow to completion aka maturity, but, unlike everything else in the universe, human beings growing to maturity was contingent on them fulfilling their own responsibility? It would make sense if such a responsibility was to have faith.
Something like this: human beings are born/created like a seed, with body spirit and flesh, and the flesh, like all other beings, grows automatically to completion, but the spirit, which is the seat of the capacity to think, feel, give and receive love, only grows to maturity by choosing to act in accordance with God's principles?
This would explain why God gave Adam and Eve the commandment "Do not eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil". They would have been required, during the period of this immaturity, when they were vulnerable to being mislead and making a fatal mistake, to believe with absolute faith the word that God gave him.
The serpent Archangel deceived Eve (told her it was good to eat the fruit) and she believed him instead, and fell. She then tempted Adam, and he fell. But if they had believed in that commandment unwaveringly, then they would have continued to grow in heart and mind and capacity to love, and then reached perfection and completion, at which point, they would be irreversibly united with God, because God also is a perfect and complete being of love.
What does all this mean for the idea of predestination?
If God predestined Adam and Eve to grow to spiritual maturity, but for that predestination to be fulfilled they were both required to maintain their faith until they reached maturity, then when they did reach that perfect maturity, it would have been a combination of God's predestination + human free will aka responsibility.
The fact that Adam and Eve fell implies that someone else would have fulfill that predestination instead in their place. This could be the very reason why Jesus is referred to by Paul as the 2nd Adam. Jesus fulfilled where Adam had failed. Thus, Adam's failure destined his descendants to death (sinful separation from God), but Jesus' victory opened the door back up to those descendents to be "reborn" in a new lineage that was founded on the one who first fulfilled the human portion of responsibility to grow to perfection.
If God predestines his Will as absolute, but that Will includes the fulfillment of some responsibility by human beings, then when they fail, predestination would be delayed and postponed, and would require that the fulfillment is achieved by someone else at a later time.
Based on this thinking a formula can be hypothesized:
God's Responsibility + Human Responsibility = Fulfillment of God's Will
Plus:
if that Human Responsibility is not fulfilled by the predestined person or people, another person or people must later emerge who restores the failure and fulfills that responsibility.
In other words,
*the Will (purpose) itself IS absolute, but HOW it is fulfilled, this is NOT absolute
Also,
Human responsibility = human free will. There is no free will without responsibility.
Together, these formulas would explain why the history of salvation is so long. If it was ALL up to God, then why would he not fix everything immediately? The only reasonable answer is that it is NOT all up to God, but that human agency is also required.
This concept could explain why God prepared the Israelites for 2000 years. He predestined the Israelites to receive the Messiah and fulfill the mission of the chosen people, thus being uplifted and glorified, with Jesus becoming the Lord of Glory on the Throne of David. But when they failed their responsibility to unite with Jesus, they failed that responsibility, and the mission had to be passed to Christians. This explains the parable of the Vineyard in Mark 12:
So they seized the son, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants, and will give the vineyard to others.
It also explains why Isaiah made differing prophecies regarding Jesus aka King of Glory or King of Suffering. Theologians have addressed the dual nature of the prophecies by asserting that the first Coming was predestined to be the King of Suffering, and the King of Glory prophecy refers to the Second Coming. But that contradicts Jesus own words:
"For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John." (Matt 11:13)
From this angle, all the prophecies in Isaiah, for example, would actually refer to the time of the advent of the Messiah 2000 years ago, but because of the factor of human responsibility, there are two possibilities.
So, using the formula mentioned above, we could conceive that God gives dual prophecies: one for what would happen if the people (Israelites) fulfill their responsibility to be faithful to God, and the other for what would happen if they failed their responsibility to be faithful to God.
Jesus never said "It is the will of God that you reject me and murder me". He said "This is the will of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent".
From this perspective, it is only when it became apparent that the Israelites and their leaders were failing in their responsibility to believe, it was only then that path of the cross, aka to become the Lord of Suffering, became a necessity, also thus requiring that a second coming would be necessary.
In my view, without understanding the idea that God's absolute will involves human beings fulfilling their own portion of responsibility, which revolves around acting in accordance with faith, then there is no way to resolve the apparent contradictions between the scriptures that imply predestination is real and the scriptures that indicate that human effort and agency - free will - is real.
God predestines his Will absolutely, but he does not 100% predestine a particular person or people to fulfill that will. Rather, the person has a responsibility to fulfill action through faith, and if they fail in that responsibility, the result is evil, which grieves God's heart, and thus creates a necessity for a restoration of the failure to take place. Ultimately, then, the providence of salvation is a providence of restoration.
This is really long, obviously, but if you read this far, thanks! It's a very complex issue in fact, but I hope this provides an example of the sort of issues that have been grappled with for thousands of years and which unfortunately led to division and conflict within Christianity thus opening up the vulnerability to Marxist lies and ideological infiltration.
Each of us has Christ living within our consciousness. I believe that Christ consciousness has returned and many will (re) remember the Providence of God.
I'm not unfamiliar with that view. Personally, however, I think that view is closer to theosophical ideas than is helpful. I would put it in different terms myself.
I also hold the firm conviction that Christ is in fact a role, a position. It is a mission. Christ from Greek means Messiah in Hebrew. Aka "anointed". That mission comes in the form of the individual, who we know as Jesus. The uniqueness of Jesus is an important and critical idea, although as per my previous comment, I don't believe that generally speaking, we fully understand the mission and function of Christ. (We meaning Christians and believers in general.)
When Jesus arrived, he shared a much more profound level of the truth than was previously available. In that sense, the Gospel is an upgrade. It is an upgrade on the Mosaic law and truth God shared to the Israelites. But we are due for another upgrade, much as many believers don't want to admit or recognize, despite the fact that scripture points very clearly to this.
On that note, my personal conviction is that if one learns to read the scripture (bible) with the same approach as one has to the Q drops, things would change significantly in how we understand the providence of God.
For example, future proves past. (IMO) some of the things in scripture cannot be understood until the time has come. Folks try to figure it all out, which is good, but humility is critical in recognizing that there is much about God's work that we don't yet understand, even though Jesus promised a future time when we would, and Paul also prophesied that such a time would come.
The return of Christ is a case in point.
Good point. You must have the context in order to understand the symbols. Until the context manifests, the symbols are meaningless.
Yes, that's one example of it, I suppose.
But there are numerous questions that the faithful have grappled with over the past 2000 years, but one's on which there is no real definitive answer. (Theology has attempted to grapple with these.)
Questions such as, what is the original purpose of creation? Does predestination exist, and if so, how does it work? God is perfect and absolute, so God's will is also perfect and absolute, but does this mean that everything is God's will?
What do all the symbols in the scripture mean? Are they literal? Symbolic? How can we decode them in a way that reconciles logical understanding, empirical knowledge, and faith?
Why did it take thousands of years (biblically) after the Fall for God to send the Messiah? If Christ had to die on the cross (if this was the only way) why did God prepare and work with the Israelites for 2000 years? Was the cross inevitable, or were there other possibilities?
Etc.
The fact that there are so many different denominations with thousands of different points of interpretation of these and other questions indicates that as a collective, we don't know the whole story. We are trying to put it all together but with a limited understanding and limited information.
The first step in moving out of ignorance is to learn that we do not know. REal ignorance is not simply "not knowing". Real ignorance is not knowing that you don't know.
If you don't know that you don't know, you can never move out of ignorance. But once you learn that you don't know something, you are then position to begin to learn it.
In order to preserve authority that they deemed so important, historically, the church in all its forms has settled on to the idea that firstly, we know and understand everything the scripture is meant to tell us, but secondly, also, there are some things that we just cannot know, and therefore should not even try to know.
In my view, both of those positions are wrong or (softly) less than productive. I think they were derived from the need to preserve 'authority', and we see the end results of that in all sorts of problems within the body of Christ, as it were.
In my view, firstly, the body of Christ clearly does NOT understand everything the scripture is mean to tell us, and secondly, we can know those things, but we have to try and we have to make the effort.
Commensurate with that view is the belief that the New Testament has one primary mission and one primary mission only: to prepare thumanity for the second coming of Christ, just as the Mosaic law had one purpose, to prepare a people for the first advent of Christ.
But look at how badly the Israelites screwed that up. They lost their way time and again, and when Christ arrived, the failed, as a whole, to recognize him. They didn't know that they didn't understand. They thought, in their arrogance, that they did know everything they were supposed to.
What are the lessons there for Christianity? Important lessons.
"Does predestination exist, and if so, how does it work?"
I would argue that predestination is at odds with free will. Also God is good. He would never create a person to do evil, then turn around and condemn them. Doing evil is a personal choice.
Aha. I agree, although this is the very problem, because there are scriptural foundations both for asserting 'predestination' and also for refuting it. So how do we resolve this? Accepting only those scriptures that support our view and discarding those that do not is only a short-term stop gap solution, and is one reason why we have so many fractures within the Christian world.
For example, Rom 8:30
Paul directly references "predestination". Here. Also, Rom 9:15
But at this point, we should also take to heart Paul's words: "For now we see dimly as in a mirror..." where he acknowledges himself that his understanding is limited.
In contradiction to the idea of absolute predestination, we have Matt 7:7
Clearing indicating that some effort is required on the part of the person.
Also, in Genesis, God warned Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit. They disregarded God's warning, ate the fruit and fell. But in Gen 6:6
It makes no sense that Adam and Eve were predestined to fall, because if God had predestined them to fall, He would have no reason to grieve, because they would have been doing what he predestined them to do.
So, how can we possibly resolve this apparent contradiction, between God's predestination on one had, but the clear evidence of human agency aka free will on the other?
What if the key to this is to understand that God's purpose of creation is in fact a joint project between God and his children? That is, what if the absolute creator established a purpose of creation that requires human beings to play a specific role and part?
What if God's purpose of creation is to create an ideal world aka the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, but made it necessary for human beings to contribute to that and fulfill a specific necessary responsibility? That would make sense, because the core element of such a kingdom (aka ideal world) would be true love, and true love can never be coerced, but must be given freely with free will.
Also, if God made everything and predestined everything and did it all, and we had no choice or responsibility, would we truly be his children? If God is a creator, we must also be creators, and so His purpose would need to include that factor.
So what if God, as the parent, fulfills 99% of the work by creating the universe, establishing the laws of the cosmos (spiritual and material), but then assigns to his children a portion of responsibility aka (symbolically) 1% of the work? What if the responsibility assigned by God to his children was their own perfection and completion?
In other words, what if, like every other living thing in the creation, human beings were created to grow to completion aka maturity, but, unlike everything else in the universe, human beings growing to maturity was contingent on them fulfilling their own responsibility? It would make sense if such a responsibility was to have faith.
Something like this: human beings are born/created like a seed, with body spirit and flesh, and the flesh, like all other beings, grows automatically to completion, but the spirit, which is the seat of the capacity to think, feel, give and receive love, only grows to maturity by choosing to act in accordance with God's principles?
This would explain why God gave Adam and Eve the commandment "Do not eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil". They would have been required, during the period of this immaturity, when they were vulnerable to being mislead and making a fatal mistake, to believe with absolute faith the word that God gave him.
The serpent Archangel deceived Eve (told her it was good to eat the fruit) and she believed him instead, and fell. She then tempted Adam, and he fell. But if they had believed in that commandment unwaveringly, then they would have continued to grow in heart and mind and capacity to love, and then reached perfection and completion, at which point, they would be irreversibly united with God, because God also is a perfect and complete being of love.
What does all this mean for the idea of predestination?
If God predestined Adam and Eve to grow to spiritual maturity, but for that predestination to be fulfilled they were both required to maintain their faith until they reached maturity, then when they did reach that perfect maturity, it would have been a combination of God's predestination + human free will aka responsibility.
The fact that Adam and Eve fell implies that someone else would have fulfill that predestination instead in their place. This could be the very reason why Jesus is referred to by Paul as the 2nd Adam. Jesus fulfilled where Adam had failed. Thus, Adam's failure destined his descendants to death (sinful separation from God), but Jesus' victory opened the door back up to those descendents to be "reborn" in a new lineage that was founded on the one who first fulfilled the human portion of responsibility to grow to perfection.
If God predestines his Will as absolute, but that Will includes the fulfillment of some responsibility by human beings, then when they fail, predestination would be delayed and postponed, and would require that the fulfillment is achieved by someone else at a later time.
Based on this thinking a formula can be hypothesized:
God's Responsibility + Human Responsibility = Fulfillment of God's Will
Plus:
if that Human Responsibility is not fulfilled by the predestined person or people, another person or people must later emerge who restores the failure and fulfills that responsibility.
In other words,
*the Will (purpose) itself IS absolute, but HOW it is fulfilled, this is NOT absolute
Also,
Human responsibility = human free will. There is no free will without responsibility.
Together, these formulas would explain why the history of salvation is so long. If it was ALL up to God, then why would he not fix everything immediately? The only reasonable answer is that it is NOT all up to God, but that human agency is also required.
This concept could explain why God prepared the Israelites for 2000 years. He predestined the Israelites to receive the Messiah and fulfill the mission of the chosen people, thus being uplifted and glorified, with Jesus becoming the Lord of Glory on the Throne of David. But when they failed their responsibility to unite with Jesus, they failed that responsibility, and the mission had to be passed to Christians. This explains the parable of the Vineyard in Mark 12:
It also explains why Isaiah made differing prophecies regarding Jesus aka King of Glory or King of Suffering. Theologians have addressed the dual nature of the prophecies by asserting that the first Coming was predestined to be the King of Suffering, and the King of Glory prophecy refers to the Second Coming. But that contradicts Jesus own words:
From this angle, all the prophecies in Isaiah, for example, would actually refer to the time of the advent of the Messiah 2000 years ago, but because of the factor of human responsibility, there are two possibilities.
So, using the formula mentioned above, we could conceive that God gives dual prophecies: one for what would happen if the people (Israelites) fulfill their responsibility to be faithful to God, and the other for what would happen if they failed their responsibility to be faithful to God.
Jesus never said "It is the will of God that you reject me and murder me". He said "This is the will of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent".
From this perspective, it is only when it became apparent that the Israelites and their leaders were failing in their responsibility to believe, it was only then that path of the cross, aka to become the Lord of Suffering, became a necessity, also thus requiring that a second coming would be necessary.
In my view, without understanding the idea that God's absolute will involves human beings fulfilling their own portion of responsibility, which revolves around acting in accordance with faith, then there is no way to resolve the apparent contradictions between the scriptures that imply predestination is real and the scriptures that indicate that human effort and agency - free will - is real.
God predestines his Will absolutely, but he does not 100% predestine a particular person or people to fulfill that will. Rather, the person has a responsibility to fulfill action through faith, and if they fail in that responsibility, the result is evil, which grieves God's heart, and thus creates a necessity for a restoration of the failure to take place. Ultimately, then, the providence of salvation is a providence of restoration.
This is really long, obviously, but if you read this far, thanks! It's a very complex issue in fact, but I hope this provides an example of the sort of issues that have been grappled with for thousands of years and which unfortunately led to division and conflict within Christianity thus opening up the vulnerability to Marxist lies and ideological infiltration.
Well said my old friend.
I'm not that old... :P
Each of us has Christ living within our consciousness. I believe that Christ consciousness has returned and many will (re) remember the Providence of God.
I'm not unfamiliar with that view. Personally, however, I think that view is closer to theosophical ideas than is helpful. I would put it in different terms myself.
I also hold the firm conviction that Christ is in fact a role, a position. It is a mission. Christ from Greek means Messiah in Hebrew. Aka "anointed". That mission comes in the form of the individual, who we know as Jesus. The uniqueness of Jesus is an important and critical idea, although as per my previous comment, I don't believe that generally speaking, we fully understand the mission and function of Christ. (We meaning Christians and believers in general.)
When Jesus arrived, he shared a much more profound level of the truth than was previously available. In that sense, the Gospel is an upgrade. It is an upgrade on the Mosaic law and truth God shared to the Israelites. But we are due for another upgrade, much as many believers don't want to admit or recognize, despite the fact that scripture points very clearly to this.