In article <May.10.05.08.05.1993.3614@athos.rutgers.edu> db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes: [does he believe in predestination] >Of course I believe in Predestination.  It's a very biblical doctrine as >Romans 8.28-30 shows (among other passages).  Furthermore, the Church >has always taught predestination, from the very beginning.   really?  you may be right, but i'd like proof.  as far as i know (and i am not a div school student!) the catholic church does not seem to accept predestination.  my chaplain told me "beware of greeks bearing gifts" with reference to this doctrine: it seems to have the curious result that human beings are not held responsible for their own actions!  i'll answer how you deal with this in a minute.  >But to say >that I believe in Predestination does not mean I do not believe in free >will.  Men freely choose the course of their life, which is also >affected by the grace of God.  However, unlike the Calvinists and >Jansenists, I hold that grace is resistable, otherwise you end up with >the idiocy of denying the universal saving will of God (1 Timothy 2.4).   right.  that doesn't really seem like predestination to me, but i'll continue with what you're saying....  >For God must give enough grace to all to be saved.  But only the elect, >who he foreknew, are predestined and receive the grace of final >perserverance, which guarantees heaven.  This does not mean that those >without that grace can't be saved, it just means that god foreknew their >obstinacy and chose not to give it to them, knowing they would not need >it, as they had freely chosen hell.  this is really confusing to me, especially since i still believe that christ jesus died for ALL of us.  preknowledge of obstinacy seems like an awfully convoluted way to account for a couple of verses.  but then, i am not really biblically supported in this opinion -- or am i? others?  >People who are saved are saved by the grace of God, and not by their own >effort, for it was God who disposed them to Himself, and predestined >them to become saints.  But those who perish in everlasting fire perish >because they hardened their heart and chose to perish.  Thus, they were >deserving of God;s punishment, as they had rejected their Creator, and >sinned against the working of the Holy Spirit.  so God uses grace like margarine: he only spreads it where it's needed and not where it isn't?  and so there are the saved and the not-saved, and nothing in between.  hmmmm.  >>yes, it is up to God to judge.  but he will only mete out that >>punishment at the last judgement.  > >Well, I would hold that as God most certainly gives everybody some >blessing for what good they have done (even if it was only a little), >for those He can't bless in the next life, He blesses in this one.    although i realize this doctrine was not originally intended to cause social problems, it ends up doing just that -- if there is supposed to be some sort of "sign" that someone is elect, like lots of children or success at work, then those who have a good life on earth will go around thinking that those who don't are doomed to hell.  in a way, though, this sounds like the opposite idea -- those doomed to hell will have a great life on earth.  that's almost like the converse of what i believe -- responsibility for what we do now will be punished after we die.  you're saying what we get after we die has a direct bearing on how we live now?  strange....   >And >those He will not punish in the next life, will be chastised in this one >or in Purgatory for their sins.  Every sin incurs some temporal >punishment, thus, God will punish it unless satisfaction is made for it >(cf. 2 Samuel 12.13-14, David's sin of Adultery and Murder were >forgiven, but he was still punished with the death of his child.)  And I >need not point out the idea of punishment because of God's judgement is >quite prevelant in the Bible.  Sodom and Gommorrah, Moses barred from >the Holy Land, the slaughter of the Cannanites, Annias and Saphira, >Jerusalem in 70 AD, etc.  so sin is either punished now or later -- and not both?  what if it's  sort of half-punished?  are there any grey areas in this doctrine?   [my stuff deleted]  >We should stop the slaughter of the innocent (cf Proverbs 24.11-12), but  >does that mean that Christians should support a war in Bosnia with the  >U.S. or even the U.N. involved?  I do not think so, but I am an  >isolationist, and disagree with foreign adventures in general.  But in  >the case of Bosnia, I frankly see no excuse for us getting militarily  >involved, it would not be a "just war."  "Blessed" after all, "are the  >peacemakers" was what Our Lord said, not the interventionists.  Our  >actions in Bosnia must be for peace, and not for a war which is  >unrelated to anything to justify it for us.   the idea (well, my idea) would be that you would intervene to  establish peace and stop the atrocities.  i'm not suggesting wwIII.  i  don't really understand what you mean by a "just war".  of course i am  not an isolationist, although i see some merit in not jumping in at  the first opportunity (can you say kuwait?).  we happen to be a big  country with a lot of resources (as well as a lot of debt), and this  gives us some responsibility in the world, whether we like it or not.  flashbacks of wwII, as well as vietnam, should be haunting us.   yet another difference of opinion.  so be it.   >Andy Byler   thank you for answering; i hope you don't take any of my comments as  flames, but instead as expressions of interest.