First let me say I am not a Bible scholar. So this response is not about the Bible. However, this whole concept of being chosen by God is so interesting to me....because I was a degenerate living a very secular (antichrist) lifestyle having been in the New Age and Shamanistic world for decades. Sometime in my mid 60's I was introduced to The Jesus Prayer in the most convoluted and random way, and it intrigued me so much I started using it as a mantra when I was hiking or cross country skiing. After a couple years of absorbing as much as I could online about the prayer, I was compelled to contact the Father of the Orthodox Church in my vicinity. I was so in need of repentance and I wept often about what a sinner I had been and still was. My prayer was (and still is) "You didn't give up on me." And I still weep to think about how close I was to eternal separation from God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Even though the church I have chosen to be baptized in does not believe in "predestination" I can't help but think that God loved me so much that he pulled me from the flames at the last minute. By God's grace I live a completely different life now. In peace and repentance. All Glory to God!
Diana not only did He not give up on you, but He chose that you would become a servant with a powerful testimony in due time, and He allowed you to experience everything you had to in order to become the witness you were meant to be. Glory to God, indeed!
Much to consider here, thank you Terry for your courageous writing. Finding your Winter Christian Substack a couple years ago was truly a blessing.
Here's the bullet point for me in this post- "The Bible does not teach God’s universal love for mankind, but scolds mankind for thinking highly of themselves."
Brought on by the subtle deception of the enemy's winning strategy- Genesis 3:5
It would lead to me to ask about the deserters: the apostates of the faith. Were they chosen?
If they were, it can imply that chosen people can be unchosen.
If they weren't, were they experiencing a true and genuine faith?
It seems to imply even through being chosen, there is still some sort of agency of effort given to those chosen. (The king and the talents) Or am i confusing that with those who are called. What does it mean to be called?
Terry, I'm too ignorant to be able to leave a comment of any substance, but suffice to say I'm happy to support you and always look forward to your posts.
“And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.”
Genesis 6:6 NKJV
It doesn’t mean that God didn’t love them (ever), or still but that he would no longer deal with the evil in them (mind blowing to know that all but Noah’s family was destroyed).
Be careful with those translations. You seem to be quite aware of the translation issues with John 3:16. Great! Translators seem reluctant to go up against KJV tradition, and things like this happen. The verse opens with Οὕτως - "In this way...". It can also be translated "so", but shouldn't be in the context of ὥστε -- "so that [He]..." which follows.
Details, details. There is also the question as to whether vv.16-21 were meant to be the words of Jesus. Translations vary with that one too. It makes sense to attribute them to John as narrator, commenting in relationship to his ch. 1 prologue, and there are clues in the specific wording of vv. 13-15 that point to John here and Jesus in the preceding passage as the speakers.
Now on to Luke 17:1-4. I could never quite make sense of this passage, and that is because it is often translated in a way that doesn't quite make sense. The beginning of ch. 17 follows from the preceding chapters -- Lazarus and the Rich Man coming immediately before -- linked by the postpositive δὲ translated "now" in the NASB, "and" in the ESV, omitted in the CSB, and so on. Could we be a little more confusing here?
Lazarus is a "little one", as are others in Luke 13-16. "These little ones" is a literal translation of τῶν μικρῶν τούτων ἕνα, but the statement itself isn't literal in that sense. μικρός ("mikros" -- think of "micro..." in English) can have different meanings. It is applied to Zacchaeus in Luke 19, because he was short. "Importance" in Luke 17, "stature" in Luke 19, ὅτι τῇ ἡλικίᾳ μικρὸς ἦν - "because he was short". The meaning here in ch. 17 is "the least of these" (those mentioned in the immediately preceding chapters).
Could it apply to little children? They are short, and often treated as unimportant. As in Mark 10:15, except there is no "little" there and παιδίον is used for "child". It's a different thing.
The problem in Luke 17 is causing "the least of these" (such as Lazarus) to stumble, and the warning is extreme (consider the rich man). I don't see any reference to children here.
This is what stood out for me. I happen to qualify as among 'the least of these' according to common evangelical and fundamentalist tradition, so it is personal for me. And I associate with, advocate for, and work with other "leasts". I stumbled hard, and repeatedly. God put me back on my feet each time, and I have forgiven those involved.
As for the rest of your discussion, oh I don't know. I have regular conversations with God about it. My concerns are satisfied that way, for a time, but I think each individual needs to have those conversations. There is so much we aren't told, beginning with what precisely occurred, and how, to kick off this mess in the first place. Is corruption possible in the heavenly realm?
No, I am not going to try to answer that. I know of a passage that might shed a little light on the question, but it appears to have translation issues too, and the MT may be corrupted vs. the LXX. I have other things to focus upon.
Terry, as the author of one of the comments you are responding to, thank you for spending so much time and thought on this. I read it yesterday. I need to re-read it - possibly more than once - and digest what's in it, without which making anything much of a comment would be pointless.
You said there would be more follow-up. Perhaps you might consider including talking about the concept of God and eternal torture. That's the concept that keeps the most people from engaging with Christianity, it would seem.
I have skin in the game. My daughters did not choose to join the Church when they reached adulthood. If someone had told me 40-odd years ago that I was a carrier of a genetic disease that meant any children I had would have a 90% chance of living a life of pain and suffering, I would have chosen not to have children. Likewise, if I'd really thought at the time that any child I had would have a 90% chance of inheriting not just three score years and ten of 'pain and suffering' but an eternity of torture, I wouldn't have had children either. By having children I have merely increased the amount of horror and torture in the world - or rather after it. That is a horrific thought.
"Paul instructs Timothy to pray for all men; not for Jews and Gentiles in the general sense, but for kings and all in authority; for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God, who will have all men to be saved. So John says, "if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father." (1 Epistle John 1:1) Is not the language here designed to apply to all men: Who can dispute it?"
"He gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." (1 Tim. 2:6)
"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man." (Heb. 2:9)
"And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2)
It's the humanist position that's at best stolen God's ideal for mankind but actually inverts it such that humanist ideology isn't really about equality especially when they follow the eugenic paths of Darwinism.
The full title of Origin of the species is
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
Men and women bear the image of God that is marred by being born into a fallen world. Humanists turn that around to declare they are gods.
The questions seem heartfelt but they also imply the humanist position of being better than God because of course we would never allow such suffering or create a world with the potential for evil, would we?
"For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body."
Romans 8:19-23
The story of redemption is about the Prodigal Father.
The promise of the Kingdom was always there since the very beginning. Relationship with God was lost back then. But God never gave up on mankind.
"The questions seem heartfelt but they also imply the humanist position of being better than God because of course we would never allow such suffering or create a world with the potential for evil, would we?"
That certainly isn't what was in my mind. My last sentence didn't really follow from the main paragraph. I am trying to understand how God would choose people's destiny from before they were born and then blame them for it.
I was brought up in a Reformed church that was technically Calvinist, then moved to Scotland where I joined the Church of Scotland (again, technically Calvinist). I never heard a sermon during any of that time (that I recall anyway) that really talked about predestination.
I find the doctrine of predestination horrific - I'm just being honest. I genuinely don't know how people feel joy at the thought of their loved ones, or anyone else's loved ones, being tormented when they were predestined to be so. Maybe I'm just dumb.
One other thing to consider; where our soul/spirit comes from. If from our parents, then that was both our material (body) and immaterial (soul/spirit) start. If from God (at some point after conception), then we had an immaterial life/existence before incarnating. God then obviously knew about our tendencies/inclinations (albeit pre-incarnation these were not sinful) and was in the know as to our probable path in the material world we currently inhabit.
First let me say I am not a Bible scholar. So this response is not about the Bible. However, this whole concept of being chosen by God is so interesting to me....because I was a degenerate living a very secular (antichrist) lifestyle having been in the New Age and Shamanistic world for decades. Sometime in my mid 60's I was introduced to The Jesus Prayer in the most convoluted and random way, and it intrigued me so much I started using it as a mantra when I was hiking or cross country skiing. After a couple years of absorbing as much as I could online about the prayer, I was compelled to contact the Father of the Orthodox Church in my vicinity. I was so in need of repentance and I wept often about what a sinner I had been and still was. My prayer was (and still is) "You didn't give up on me." And I still weep to think about how close I was to eternal separation from God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Even though the church I have chosen to be baptized in does not believe in "predestination" I can't help but think that God loved me so much that he pulled me from the flames at the last minute. By God's grace I live a completely different life now. In peace and repentance. All Glory to God!
Diana not only did He not give up on you, but He chose that you would become a servant with a powerful testimony in due time, and He allowed you to experience everything you had to in order to become the witness you were meant to be. Glory to God, indeed!
Thank you Terry. God Bless you in your ministry.
Much to consider here, thank you Terry for your courageous writing. Finding your Winter Christian Substack a couple years ago was truly a blessing.
Here's the bullet point for me in this post- "The Bible does not teach God’s universal love for mankind, but scolds mankind for thinking highly of themselves."
Brought on by the subtle deception of the enemy's winning strategy- Genesis 3:5
It would lead to me to ask about the deserters: the apostates of the faith. Were they chosen?
If they were, it can imply that chosen people can be unchosen.
If they weren't, were they experiencing a true and genuine faith?
It seems to imply even through being chosen, there is still some sort of agency of effort given to those chosen. (The king and the talents) Or am i confusing that with those who are called. What does it mean to be called?
Terry, I'm too ignorant to be able to leave a comment of any substance, but suffice to say I'm happy to support you and always look forward to your posts.
“And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.”
Genesis 6:6 NKJV
It doesn’t mean that God didn’t love them (ever), or still but that he would no longer deal with the evil in them (mind blowing to know that all but Noah’s family was destroyed).
I agree that this is a significant turning point.
Be careful with those translations. You seem to be quite aware of the translation issues with John 3:16. Great! Translators seem reluctant to go up against KJV tradition, and things like this happen. The verse opens with Οὕτως - "In this way...". It can also be translated "so", but shouldn't be in the context of ὥστε -- "so that [He]..." which follows.
Details, details. There is also the question as to whether vv.16-21 were meant to be the words of Jesus. Translations vary with that one too. It makes sense to attribute them to John as narrator, commenting in relationship to his ch. 1 prologue, and there are clues in the specific wording of vv. 13-15 that point to John here and Jesus in the preceding passage as the speakers.
Now on to Luke 17:1-4. I could never quite make sense of this passage, and that is because it is often translated in a way that doesn't quite make sense. The beginning of ch. 17 follows from the preceding chapters -- Lazarus and the Rich Man coming immediately before -- linked by the postpositive δὲ translated "now" in the NASB, "and" in the ESV, omitted in the CSB, and so on. Could we be a little more confusing here?
Lazarus is a "little one", as are others in Luke 13-16. "These little ones" is a literal translation of τῶν μικρῶν τούτων ἕνα, but the statement itself isn't literal in that sense. μικρός ("mikros" -- think of "micro..." in English) can have different meanings. It is applied to Zacchaeus in Luke 19, because he was short. "Importance" in Luke 17, "stature" in Luke 19, ὅτι τῇ ἡλικίᾳ μικρὸς ἦν - "because he was short". The meaning here in ch. 17 is "the least of these" (those mentioned in the immediately preceding chapters).
Could it apply to little children? They are short, and often treated as unimportant. As in Mark 10:15, except there is no "little" there and παιδίον is used for "child". It's a different thing.
The problem in Luke 17 is causing "the least of these" (such as Lazarus) to stumble, and the warning is extreme (consider the rich man). I don't see any reference to children here.
This is what stood out for me. I happen to qualify as among 'the least of these' according to common evangelical and fundamentalist tradition, so it is personal for me. And I associate with, advocate for, and work with other "leasts". I stumbled hard, and repeatedly. God put me back on my feet each time, and I have forgiven those involved.
As for the rest of your discussion, oh I don't know. I have regular conversations with God about it. My concerns are satisfied that way, for a time, but I think each individual needs to have those conversations. There is so much we aren't told, beginning with what precisely occurred, and how, to kick off this mess in the first place. Is corruption possible in the heavenly realm?
No, I am not going to try to answer that. I know of a passage that might shed a little light on the question, but it appears to have translation issues too, and the MT may be corrupted vs. the LXX. I have other things to focus upon.
I appreciate your insights.
Very thought provoking and touches on many questions that have existed in the minds of many Christians for a very long time.
Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Terry, as the author of one of the comments you are responding to, thank you for spending so much time and thought on this. I read it yesterday. I need to re-read it - possibly more than once - and digest what's in it, without which making anything much of a comment would be pointless.
You said there would be more follow-up. Perhaps you might consider including talking about the concept of God and eternal torture. That's the concept that keeps the most people from engaging with Christianity, it would seem.
I have skin in the game. My daughters did not choose to join the Church when they reached adulthood. If someone had told me 40-odd years ago that I was a carrier of a genetic disease that meant any children I had would have a 90% chance of living a life of pain and suffering, I would have chosen not to have children. Likewise, if I'd really thought at the time that any child I had would have a 90% chance of inheriting not just three score years and ten of 'pain and suffering' but an eternity of torture, I wouldn't have had children either. By having children I have merely increased the amount of horror and torture in the world - or rather after it. That is a horrific thought.
"Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people." (Luke 2:10)
"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me." (John 12:32)
Thomas Whittemore in 1840:
"Paul instructs Timothy to pray for all men; not for Jews and Gentiles in the general sense, but for kings and all in authority; for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God, who will have all men to be saved. So John says, "if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father." (1 Epistle John 1:1) Is not the language here designed to apply to all men: Who can dispute it?"
"He gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." (1 Tim. 2:6)
"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man." (Heb. 2:9)
"And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2)
It's the humanist position that's at best stolen God's ideal for mankind but actually inverts it such that humanist ideology isn't really about equality especially when they follow the eugenic paths of Darwinism.
The full title of Origin of the species is
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
Men and women bear the image of God that is marred by being born into a fallen world. Humanists turn that around to declare they are gods.
The questions seem heartfelt but they also imply the humanist position of being better than God because of course we would never allow such suffering or create a world with the potential for evil, would we?
"For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body."
Romans 8:19-23
The story of redemption is about the Prodigal Father.
The promise of the Kingdom was always there since the very beginning. Relationship with God was lost back then. But God never gave up on mankind.
"The questions seem heartfelt but they also imply the humanist position of being better than God because of course we would never allow such suffering or create a world with the potential for evil, would we?"
That certainly isn't what was in my mind. My last sentence didn't really follow from the main paragraph. I am trying to understand how God would choose people's destiny from before they were born and then blame them for it.
I was brought up in a Reformed church that was technically Calvinist, then moved to Scotland where I joined the Church of Scotland (again, technically Calvinist). I never heard a sermon during any of that time (that I recall anyway) that really talked about predestination.
I find the doctrine of predestination horrific - I'm just being honest. I genuinely don't know how people feel joy at the thought of their loved ones, or anyone else's loved ones, being tormented when they were predestined to be so. Maybe I'm just dumb.
https://open.substack.com/pub/holytrinitywinchester/p/blood-and-joy?
One other thing to consider; where our soul/spirit comes from. If from our parents, then that was both our material (body) and immaterial (soul/spirit) start. If from God (at some point after conception), then we had an immaterial life/existence before incarnating. God then obviously knew about our tendencies/inclinations (albeit pre-incarnation these were not sinful) and was in the know as to our probable path in the material world we currently inhabit.