I’m going to respectfully bow out of this tangent as a mod has admonished me in the past for going too far astray from the OP in a like way.
Fair enough, feel free to tag me if you want to start a new thread.
I agree. While Job was complaining of his ill fate, he asked whether God is punishing him for the ‘inequities of his youth’. This implies that Job had sinned in his youth (unlike Jesus), though perhaps not a mortal sin. It is also implied that punishing Job now for those sins would be unjust. His friends, in their defense of God, do not even entertain the notion and instead assume Job had sinned more recently.
Therefore when Job is described as blameless or perfect, it is only in a relative sense. The same Hebrew (תם) is used Job 9:22, contrasted with “wicked”.
Job’s sin was in accusing God of being unjust, as if was in any position to judge God’s governance. Satan struck Job before he sinned, so how can this have been a corrective action?
Premise A: A choice always implies nobody else - God included - knows beforehand.
Premise B: God always knows beforehand.
Conclusion C: There is never a choice.
Premise A: A choice always implies nobody else - God included - knows beforehand.
Premise D: Salvation is always a choice.
Conclusion E: God sometimes does not know beforehand.
Contradiction: God always knows beforehand, yet God sometimes does not know beforehand.
C: There is never a choice.
D: Salvation is always a choice.
Conclusion F: There is never salvation. (Absurdity)
You seem to grant premises B (God is omniscient) and D (salvation is a product of free will), so unless I am mistaken, you must necessarily reject premise A (definition of free will).
What I meant was, Job had no knowledge of Jesus and therefore could not achieve salvation through Jesus, who had not yet been sacrificed to atone for the sins of man. There were burnt offerings but these were a poor substitute for faith in Jesus, per Hebrews 10 they do not offer true atonement: “for it is impossible for blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.”
In certain Christian faiths, Job would have sat with the other holy men in Hell (compare Abraham in Luke 16:23, contrast Matthew 8:11), at least until the 1st century when Jesus took them to heaven (for those who believe in the harrowing of Hell). This is, I believe, the position of the Catholic church, Lutherans, and Anglicans.
~Max
I’m not seeing this. Why does a choice necessarily imply that nobody knew beforehand?
Because it is given as a premise:
~Max
But doesn’t Jesus & the New Testament - and our Free Will to choose Jesus - supercede Job’s trial? I don’t think God can know our decision with Jesus beforehand, or else there would have been no reason to send Jesus to begin with. He gave us each the Free Will to choose Jesus. If it’s already pre-determined, then we’re not exercising Free Will.
That was a tangent discussion concerning theodicy (problem of evil) of pre-destination rather than soteriology (study of salvation).
My direct response to your OP is substantially similar, at post #24.
~Max
My answer to that is that God hasn’t written a book where the end of each character is known. We can say that God breathed into the authors of the Bible. And within that Bible, he inserted Jesus, who offers salvation to all. And we are free to receive it, i.e., each of us has the opportunity to write our own ending and we’re not pre-destined to wind up in one place or another.
But how do you know God hasn’t pre-determined whether you will choose salvation?
Your original argument was that if God pre-determined who is or is not saved, a la Calvanism, there is no point. (Implied: Which is absurd and therefore wrong.) But I say there can still be a point, if you think of life (not the Bible, but the entire past, present, and future) as a book written by God. The only thing is that you aren’t the main character - the book is not about you.
~Max
I want to put forth this for consideration:
If free will exists, it appears, and I think the common belief, that is the part God would judge us on. I also feel most would agree that free will would be required for a case against predestination. I do see biblical support that free will is not an act that we do or not, but a condition of our heart, an emotional choice after which we may be locked into an action. It is my conjecture that free will from a biblical perspective is what emotions we chose to entertain. It is not only what God judges us on, but also what happens in our heart (like looking lustfully at a person) that results in the sin. Once we sin, we are a slave to sin (Ro 6:17), so our acts that follow are that of a slave, and a slave does not have free will. We also can be slaves to righteousness. God is also defined as an emotion ‘God is Love’. There are many, literally 100’s of, directly relevant scriptures about the heart, I have just posed a handful.
1 Sam 16:7 But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”
Genesis 6:5
The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.
Genesis 8:21
The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
Matthew 5:8
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Matthew 9:4
Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?
Matthew 15:18
But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.
Matthew 15:19
For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
Matthew 18:35
“This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”
Acts 1:24
Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen
Romans 1:24
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
Romans 8:27
And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.
We need to define what is free will in a Christian biblical context, and also tackle the question of if God himself has free will, including the 3 persons.
While it does seem to follow, I do have to add that there was a time when Jesus ‘didn’t know enough to reject the wrong and chose the right’ (Is 7:15-16). Now I am uncertain that this could refer to the heavenly Jesus, but such a case can be made. Either way it appears that God allows ‘youthful innocence’. If so that statement of Job may be reflecting upon this time in his own youth, which I think we all had in our own lives. And though Job is racking his mind trying to understand why these things are happening, I’m not sure that sins of his youth would have been held against him.
To me the sin of Job, and what God was trying to correct, was he allows his children to continue in their sin without consequence (A father is biblically responsible for the proper raising of children), and without Job even knowing if they sinned, and apparently his sons even knowing or caring that Job is doing that . Job can not take away the sins (of the world) as Job can not bear it. God was demonstrating what it would be like to do so by allowing it within certain limits. The ending repent ’ I know you can do all things’ seems a bit larger than answering about accusing God of being unjust.
I disagree with this. I feel if Jesus is the way, and Jesus is God, and God does not change, the way does not change. Jesus claims to be before Abraham. Jesus being the only way, and we know that Moses and Elijah were in the promised land in glorified bodies, and Enoch and Elijah were both taken and did not die show that the way was always open. The instruction seek and you shall find would be the way to find Jesus before and after the sacrifice, note that finding is a promise of God and does not require to seek in a certain way (such as in the Bible or in church). God also has set eternity in the human heart (ECC 3:11) so eternity is something inherently known in us. Additionally how Elijah and Enoch were taken is in like with Paul’s description about believers who will meet the Lord in air. Jesus has also been given the ability to forgive sins and did so before His sacrifice (Matt 9 2-8)
So I put forth for Job to be called righteous, he had to know and believe in Jesus, as that is the only way. Also note that God talks about placing Job in Satan hands, and the NT speaks about handing over some to satan for their ultimate salvation.
Perhaps, and I’m sure you are correct about those churches but there seems to be a uncrossable divide between were Abraham was and those in torment. The question of Hell has been a stumbling block with churches divided on what it is.
(I’m still pondering the premises.)
Do you ever ponder — or, uh, ‘put forth’ — the idea that Jesus claiming a thing doesn’t necessarily mean it’s so?
I tend to agree with this. Why is it that something will happen, mean there is no choice that got us there? If we take time as a spacial dimension, a being outside who could move through time and observe all that happens can observe one’s entire live. Why does that negate the choices that one makes. The being is just able to observe the ultimate outcome. I think the question becomes do we actually have choices at all, or is this being or beings interfering with out choices to shape us to his will.
I think I understand what you are saying, and I know how some feel about the christian re-write of the OT, however the OP is specifically asking about a Christian perspective. And Christians do tend to put quite a bit of weight on Jesus’ own words, usually, but not exclusively, more weight than other parts of scriptures. Now different Christians do put differing weights on His words, but, like it or not, it is common enough practice in Christianity to use the New Testament to define the Old Testament.
Since you did ask so nicely, my answer is not if what Jesus claimed is actually so, but did I understand what Jesus is claiming, and my studies and prayers have had me reverse what I initially thought as I believe God has shown me, which puts a lot more weight on the Love shown by Jesus. Jesus appears to have walked a fine line between what he was saying and yet remain untouchable by those who accuse him and I do feel there is some reading between the lines as Jesus was under the law. Additionally Jesus appears to be learning as He goes, even incorrectly stating he was only sent for the Jews. Jesus also tries to explain but says he had to teach in parables so the listeners will gain understanding.
For the sake of the OP, I would like to end this tangent here.
So, you make a good point. To the God that wrote the book, there is a point, since He wrote it.
But if the book isn’t about me, it at least was written for me (or more correctly, for all of humanity, of which I belong). So, if the book is written by or inspired by God, and a major theme is that we need to believe in Christ in order to be saved, and that this is available to all and not just those that were pre-selected, then that implies that I have an actual SAY in the matter. Otherwise, if I’m wrong, and I have NO say in the matter, then part of the Bible was written as a joke against humanity.
But that bit you mention there seems to keep this entirely within the purview of the OP: you’re noting that, sometimes, what Jesus says isn’t so. You’re saying that, from a Christian perspective, you believe that — from time to time — he winds up “incorrectly stating” things.
You’re not saying that from a Jewish perspective (which would be unsurprising). You’re not saying it from an atheist perspective or a pagan perspective or whatever (which would also be unsurprising). You’re saying it from a Christian perspective, and — in that context — it’d seem to bear directly on the topic being discussed.
Okay, here’s the problem. One of the five points of Calvinism is limited atonement (salvation is only for God’s elect). As far as I am aware, the Christian faiths that believe in predestination either:
- reject unlimited atonement, and/or
- believe in universalism (all souls eventually reconciled with God, reject eternal damnation, less common)
~Max