h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hey PT. I think I actually have something useful to say about this post. Here's my reactions. (As if you asked for them )

However, it permits shocking behaviour since nothing we say, think or do will change our election.... Boy are you right about that. However, James 2 says that you will not choose to live out your life as though you hated God if you are truly saved by His grace. People that claim to be elect and then choose to live in rebellion long-term should question their assumption that they are indeed saved.

In order for salvation by grace to make sense, a few preconditions are needed and these preconditions are problematic. Firstly, it is necessary that people are born of sin and into sin.... Well, Romans 3:23 states that all have sinned. Whether we are born that way or choose it shortly after, the fact is we all have messed up. Also, salvation by grace is verbatim in scripture, Eph. 2:8-9. I can't see how that passage could be interpreted to mean that we also must earn salvation.

The whole issue of sex as being part of the problem is new to me. Is this a RC thing? 'Cause in our church sex is great as long as it's with your spouse. Back to the point of that paragraph though, we are still created in the image of God. As image bearers we have the blueprint of God's intent, creation, knowledge of Him in us. We also have sin. The idea of the fallen-ness of mankind doesn't negate the idea of being an image-bearer. It is through that image that we seek to reflect God's goodness through kind acts, etc. Saved, elect, unsaved or athiest all are image-bearers and are capable of image-bearing works -- in spite of the fact that all are also sinful. God tells us what He thinks of those faithless good works in Isaiah 64:6.

Determinists wouldn't allow baptism to be sufficient because it being saved by baptism implies being saved through works and not faith. [this needs expansion]... Baptism not only isn't sufficient, it isn't relevant to the concept of salvation. There are a host of NT verses that talk about believing and being saved, trusting and being saved, confessing and being saved. Baptism is an after-salvation act of wilfully identifying yourself with Christ. It isn't relevant to whether you get into heaven. (Luke 23:43)

I would say that you've picked a topic that can't be summed up easily. There are passages like Romans 8:29-30 that point to a concept of there being "elect", there are other passages like Eph. 2:8-9 that talk about grace and then there are still others that talk about a willful choice, like Romans 10:9-13. And the different passages are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

(Oversimplified sum-up) So if determinism is the idea that God has tapped a few people on the shoulder, called them elect regardless of what they believe, and the rest of us are left to burn then I agree that it is a heresy. If determinism is a very nuanced concept that blends the concepts of election and foreknowledge with the concept of wilful acceptance then I'm not sure that it is a heresy.

Either way, I'm interested in learning more. Thanks for your entry.

I have done a major rewrite based on your comments. In particular I have introduced the two ideas of baptism: regenerative and covenantal. I might have to start some entries on doctrines to give this corpus some balance.

I will reread you comments over the next few days and add them in. I will also get round to doing a spell check.

Cats are funny creatures you know. They sit there sort of participating but looking fairly relaxed, and then suddenly they do a 8 second 100 yards dash and you are left there breathless

a) trying to catch up
b) realising that the "sort of participating but looking fairly" look may be partly why cats have such a huge reputation.

As if I could leave you in the dust...Good rewrite. Made me say hmmmm.

However, extremists argue that human beings are unable to change our fate because works are without value... I don't know if I'm an extremist or not but I would say that works without faith are without value. (Based on the Isaiah passage referenced in post 1 as one example.) The first act of true faith is the submission of will to Christ. Works do matter after submission to Christ. Works determine reward, quality of life here, stuff like that. If you consider the voluntary act of submission works, then works also matter in salvation. In your entry, that's one part I'm not yet clear on. Does "change our fate" refer to salvation, limited to entry into heaven, or more than that?

Baptism... of the Spirit or of water? What I wrote about was water baptism, the big dipping, not Spirit baptism (and I am not referring to speaking in tongues or some special gift dispensation). If you were writing about water baptism where in the Bible do you find any reference to baptism as a means of salvation?

All very good questions (leading to a long answer). I would say all good works are fabulous and to be encouraged. I think making a sandwich in your own kitchen and giving it to someone who is hungry can be an act with value.

The "change our fate" question is one I was trying to step around in way that no one would notice. With a dog maybe, with a cat? Fat chance. I am being cautious about what I mean by salvation. There is the famous saying "he how would save his life will lose it and he who would lose his life will save it" (or something) and there are many like it. The notion of "dying" and being reborn can be read in two equally valid ways.

Firstly, dying as a human being and being reborn in heaven/hell etc (with lakes of fire and all the rest if you want).

Secondly, by giving up one's old life, dying to sin, being buried and reborn in Christ and raised up in the body of Christ.

In the second model, gaining one's life happens through grace without physical death. Many people argue that the support for "life after death" is fairly flimsy in the bible although I personally think that it is fairly clear. However, I do agree with these people that you don't "go to heaven when you die" - you make your choices right now. It adds a very pointy end to the notion of "giving up one's life for another" - it no longer refers to killing oneself in some romantic sacrificial act but rather a real reorientation of one's priorities.

As for baptism - I grow more reluctant to separate the big dipping and baptism in the spirit. I know in virtually all church circles they have been completely split (few churches would want see them happen on the same day), in fact there isn't that much popular agreement on what baptism in the Spirit is. However, I hope I meant both and at the same time. I will check what I said.

You are right, of course, all good works have value, particularly to those they benefit. I don't agree that they have value to God, however, as it relates to salvation. Rather it seems that God says that good works without faith can cause a person to deny their need for a savior.

I've decided that I tend to over simplify things. (Cats rarely like to put out a lot of effort.) I would consider your first example about dying (physically) and rebirth as bodily death. While I see evidence for a physical resurrection in scriptures it is much less relevant to me than your second example of changing our fate so I tend to lump the two together. You are absolutely right, it happens here and now as we accept Christ.

Baptism... according to Gordy, there is some scriptural basis for tying salvation to baptism. It certainly is a very very important sacrament. The question comes with passages that imply that one can certainly be saved (earthly commitment to Christ, eternal covenant) without it. The story of the thief on the cross (who Jesus told would be in paradise) is the big support for the separation of salvation from baptism. I think my church tends to under emphasize baptism to avoid the risk that a person might believe that a dunking is all that's required rather than baptism as you described it with a full identification with Christ.

Regarding baptism of the Spirit... You are right that there is little agreement about what it is or means. I can't recall the term being used in the Bible. I'll have to look that up. My training was that the Spirit indwells us from the moment we submit to Christ (get saved for want of a better term). That indwelling is termed the baptism of the Spirit. What I am fairly certain of, is what the baptism of the Spirit is not. It is not an event separate from salvation in which the Spirit overwhelms the person and outflows with various "gifts" (typically tongues). The lack of such an event is not an indication of lack of salvation or dedication to Christ (the converse is also true).

The famous saying, by the way, was said by Christ.

PS. Is footy soccer or rugby? (This is really bugging me.)

If one takes "God is love" as a starting point for any theology, then I can't see a loving act by any of God created creatures being valueless to God. It ties into whatever one means by heaven and hell. Hmmm...

A model I have personally used for heaven, and hence the perfect creation prior to original sin, is one in which every being has a full, open and free relationship with every other being. It means that one has appreciation for the beauty of a blade of grass (slightly bent), the freedom to tell a street beggar that you don't hand out money, the willingness to engage in conversation with someone at a shop and (of course) the confidence to invite a hungry stranger into your kitchen to make them a jam sammy. There is an acceptance of everything being in and of itself: an acceptance that logically requires an integrity of one's self. If one hasn't met it, one does't have to "relate" to it, but as things come into one's sphere they are encompassed by love. There is never any need to turn off one's brain nor to be falsely generous or overly smiley: crabby days are fine provided one does one's best and one doesn't _pretend_ to be not crabby. Of course not everyone has the same open relationship with one as one would have with them. The trick here is that the barrier to an open relationship is always the other person: when they forgive one they will always find that one has previously forgiven them. (Cue Theology of Forgiveness...)

Hell, on the other hand, is where everything is measured against the self. The major question faced always is how does this new creature relate to oneself: is it better or worse, taller or shorter, wiser or foolish, richer or poorer. In such a self referential universe ultimately the only creature that can be fully known is the self and the only thing with a wholistic value is the self.

This choice between heaven and hell is a constant one. When you turn down a request for money, have you measured your decision based on yourself or on some other criteria (needing to cover this week's mortgage payment, limiting yourself to paying a dollar a day, prefering to offer them coffee directly rather than giving away cash, needing to catch that train without delaying)? In every case everyone always chooses to value the integrity of the other or the integrity of the self.

I see God as having made the heavenly choice (obviously). Thus the onus is on us to turn to Christ: God has already turned to us. We must forgive as we have already been forgiven. This style of language abounds in the gospels (lost sheep etc). For this reason I see the role of baptism (in its fullest sense) as not being about how God sees us, but about how we approach God. God gives us gifts (7) to do this and we show the fruits (n) of the Spirit in the use of those gifts. God is eternally loving to all of creation.

I suspect my problem with having faith as a requiment for God to notice good works is that I am not sure I have a nailed down definition of what faith is.



Footy is Australian Rules Football. It is a peculiar game that resembles "Keepings off" from primary school with a scoring system built in. It looks a bit like Gaelic Football, but is played on a cricket field (~200x100m oval) with a rugby ball. I let your imagination take it from there.

I have come to the unofficial, certain decision that you and all footy players are absolutely nuts! I looked up Australian Footy on the Internet because your explanation had me pretty curious and saw some footage that stood my fur on end! (Of course it does that pretty regularly anyway.) It's wilder than hockey or American football and has no pads. And people say we're violent.

Needless to say I thought it was way cool. I'm going to have to look up some rules so I can understand it better.

Regarding the main text of your last post I want to give it more thought. The footy has me totally distracted.

Just curious: What do you think "baptism of the Spirit" is?

Hey PT!?! How and why am I listed as the author of the Determinism entry and you are listed as the editor? Did you do that or did I somehow manage to mess it up?

In answer to your question about authorship, I added you as an author since you have contributed so much to the content. Someone once told me that cats like to contribute (on their own terms maybe) but that they also like to be appreciated. I didn't realise how the multiple author thing would display. Do you mind?

Footy is tough but there are some tricks to it which help. The major two are that head high tackles (shoulder or above) are always pinged and that you can never push someone from behind. You are also not allowed to line someone up and just go for them (shoving, pulling down etc are allowed). These days the game seems mostly about foot speed.

As for baptism of the spirit? That's a toughy. I would say that it is when a person becomes a member of the body of Christ and makes a decision to accept in themselves God's gift of the Holy Spirit that was given at Pentecost. I don't think it is connected to conversion or even private choice. This is where I think that the notion of belonging to the church (in its broadest sense) becomes non-negotiable.

Hi PT. I would prefer that you are listed as author. You did all of the work. They are your words and ultimately your opinions. There are parts that I can't agree with but that I can tell are closely held beliefs of yours. You are the author. I am the opinioned cat lounging nearlby ready to stick a whisker in when prodded (and not at all desirous of recognition much as I appreciate the thought).

I think there are ambiguities about the issue of determinism. There is a clear NT reference to God knowing the elect, and the elect being saved by God's grace. There are references to good works being without value to God when done without a living faith. There are references to people whose eternal destiny was changed without baptism. I can't say that I agree with a full determinist position but there are elements that are supported biblically that I can't completely discount. I once attended a 12 week class on Soteriology and ended up believing that God didn't intend for us to be absolutely certain of anything related to salvation. What I do know is that there is more truth in the Bible than what comes out of my head so I try to work from there. Perhaps a little tension keeps us more in line.

In your last post, what do you consider conversion to be? The church in its broadest sense means the body of believers to me. Is that what you meant?

I'll change the authorship thing back then.

Conversion probably means different things to different people. I would be reluctant to tell someone that they were not converted if they had declared themselves to be Christian and they appeared be sincere. If someone is willing to stand up and say some version of the Apostle's Creed (I am not too fussy about chunks of it) with their paw on their fur, then they are in.

The church means the body of believers who participate in the communal worship of God. I don't think you are part of the church if you go it alone.

As you point out, the notion of the saved forming a group, is real. The objection to determinism is how the group is elected, not that it _is_ elected. The other extreme is Pelagianism where one is saved by works alone and without grace.

Hi PT. We have our first glimmers of spring here after a long, cold winter, mid-60s and sunny on Sunday. Pretty soon the catnip will be up.

Do you really think of Heaven and Hell as only a state of mind or perception? (posting 6) There were a couple of things in your post that I couldn't connect with. First, I don't think Eden (pre-fall) was intended as Heaven, the place Christ told us He was preparing for us. Second, I think of Heaven as a place or reality not a state of mind or attitude. The Bible tells us that we will be sinless before we pass into Heaven, so as far as that state would result in an others-focused attitude I can go along with that. But that Heaven can be limited to a state of mind here? Hmmm...

I'm a believer and I think a pretty joyful one for the most part but there is a part of me that I can't escape that complains at what I percieve to be God's injustices, that aches at hurts, that rebels because I can -- even when I don't want to. I have known times of almost painful joy and beauty. The opportunity to serve and to see God working in the lives of those I've been able to serve is incredible, maybe heavenly, but I hope that Heaven is so much more than that.

I look for the day when I can speak directly to Jesus and He will answer. Not through reading the Bible or gentle nudges in prayer but answer. Like, "Do dogs get to see color like cats can?" Jesus would say, "No, Hermi, I intended cats to be superior."

Answers. How is allowing child molesters ply their trade for years fulfilling Your will? Please show me the eternal benefit of an 8-year illness that had a simple cure had we only figured it out. I know that Jesus has the answers to these questions and many more that are infinitely more important and I look forward to learning with a mind not clouded with sin, the same DNA but resurrected without the flaws. I know that Heaven isn't what faith in Christ is all about. It is about relationship but Heaven is the fulfillment of that relationship. No barriers or weaknesses to block complete communion with Christ.

Hey PT.

Then there's Hell. Christ didn't say all that much about Heaven but He had a lot to say about Hell and it sounded like a very real place. He said it was a place "where the fire isn't quenched and the worm doesn't die." He implied that Hell has degrees when He spoke of the Pharisees having greater punishment than the average folk. My impression is that Hell is much worse than self-focused living. After all, many people find self-focused living to be jim-dandy. (That's midwestern for downright good.) Now I'm pretty sure you weren't talking just about self-focused living. The words you used were "measured against self" and I agree that constant guarded self-protection and promotion can be a pretty sin-filled miserable existance but Christ was talking about active punishment, agony of the worst kind.

I wish it wasn't so bad, then maybe I could excuse my laziness, but I have no reason to believe that Hell is anything less than horrifying and eternal. There is no scripture that says you get to leave after you've served your sentence, or mentions a final ending for the souls that end up there.

Do we experience little pieces of Hell here on earth? Maybe as much as we experience glimpses of Heaven. I don't know. I've never been severely burned. The most excruciating pain I've ever experienced only lasted a few hours before it dulled. Maybe things like that give us an idea of Hell. The part I can't conceive is what it would be like to be created to bear the image of God but to be completely separated from Him. I can only imagine the soul-pain that must be involved.

I believe in the resurrection of the body - provided it is perfect. I have no real idea of what this means. As you pointed out in your previous posting, these things can only be guessed at. But heaven and hell, even as I described them, in their embryonic form on earth are more than just mind states. They imply a way of living: doing, thinking and loving. The cat, as God created it, is a complex creature and non-separable. Same for us hoomun beans.

If hell contains active burning ingredients then I would be very disappointed. It could not be timeless and eternal but would require a universe like the one we have now with chemistry, decomposition and pollution. Eternal damnation can be achieved, I am convinced, by far more subtle means that sulphur and in ways that would make cooking skin seem like relief. To do this, each person must know that they _chose_ to exist in the state they are in. However, this takes me way out of my field of knowledge and will happily welcome correction and new ideas!

Hi PT. I have no idea what ingredients, if any, go into hell fire. I once had a 10-translation interlinear guy explain to me (using very small words so's I would understand) that Heaven and Hell were physical places and that we would definitely have perfect resurrected physical bodies. (Except critters, including cats. He said we don't have eternal souls and so will not be resurrected. After I hissed at him and debated shredding his pant leg I went back to the Bible and discovered that he may be correct but I don't have to believe it. There are horses in Revelation you know, and cats are far superior to them.)

Revelation says that the new Jerusalem will be a cube so I'm thinking that there is a bit of artistic license in those descriptions we do have. How would I describe an alien spaceship? I would try to relate what I had seen to something that I thought the audience was familiar with. Like Douglas Adams' "particularly intelligent shade of blue" it is impossible to describe accurately. I think you're right that cooking skin isn't what Hell is about but is Christ's closest proximation to something we can comprehend. I agree that Hell is also chosen, like Heaven, but that every individual must choose. No one gets to choose to just end.

Thanks for clarifying where you're coming from. I think, when dealing with Heaven and Hell, you are more focused on excellence in the here and now whereas I'm more focused on the eternal aspects but both are correct. This probably goes back to training again. I have enough of the determinist teaching in me that I tend to disregard present-day failings. The once saved always saved mentality. As much as I've said there are nuances to the issue I'm not living it as much as I should.

Perhaps two things keep coming back to me. One is that we should not die but have life in abundance. I keep thinking that that means now, not later. Secondly the thoughts that underly my essay of Pelagianism. The arguments that I use there are fairly "first principles" types but that was why I wrote it: heresy is not only an offence to God (well who knows, but enough people suppose it is), but it is also a offence to common sense.

Hi PT. Cool to be able to post when you're actually on your computer. It's after 5:00 pm here. I looked up when that is in your neck of the woods and it seems you're a morning person. So, good morning. Better that I write evenings because I am sooo not a morning person -- rumpled fur and sleepy yawns until 10:00 am.

Life in abundance is funny. Some days you're thrilled that God has placed you where you can be involved in these incredible things and other times you wish for a few weeks _off_. (Good way to add emphasis.) I agree that it refers to the here and now and actually, in as much as Christianity is relationship with Christ and attempting to live life in Him through service, study and devotion, I'm not ashamed of how I live. When I refered to laziness I was thinking specifically of the soul-winning requirement so emphasized in my religion. I am very lazy about that. -Perhaps because I question the method and results.

I went back and reread your entry on Determinism. Really reread in in light of the things we've talked about since my first reading. I know now to emphasize different words in sentences, that sort of thing. It's very good.

It might be worth reading through and identifying those sentences that are unclear. Then we can get them weighted so that they say what they should do. One thing that I am really aware of with this stuff is that it is sooo easy to read the wrong way!

A couple of ideas based on what I said last time: if we can have life in abundance now, then surely we can have the opposite right now too. Not merely a ho-hum existance but doing, loving, thinking death. Obviously it is not eternal and perfect (just as the resurected life is better than life in abundance now) but nevertheless undesirable. Also, Ezekiel keeps on going on about how the rightous can do one evil thing and get turfed from the elect (not quite his words) and about how the sinful can do one good thing and, on the basis of that, are saved. The bearded one seems to have a flexible view as to who's in and who's out. Mind you he also has wierd ideas about orthopaedics so I wouldn't take everything he says at face value...

Footy starts this Friday night. The umpiring appointments for round 1 were read last night at training (I get a few more practice games because I was injured over summer).

I often see you online just as I log in. It is good to catch up synchronously.

Hi PT. I'm traveling and having a furball of a time trying to login and post things. Grrr. I am going to try it in pieces now because I just lost my last effort.

Here are my ideas for clarification.

"Many reformist sects believed in the 'elect' - those who were chosen by God to be saved by grace (faith) and not by works." From our discussions it seems that you believe that it is a combination of grace and willful turning to God in faith through Christ. Works apply in that after faith there should be essential acts of obedience, like baptism. The original sentence sounds as though grace is not as relevant as you go on to say that it is. Maybe say by "grace alone and not by works, not even the work of turning to Christ in faith." (If indeed that is what you think.)

More ideas...

"However, extremists argue that human beings are unable to change our fate because works are without value." Do you mean that works such as the act of turning to Christ is also without value? Or do you mean that works without faith have value? I couldn't really follow the idea in the paragraph.

From our conversations I would think that a determinist would believe that any works with or without faith are without value because you either are or are not "elect" regardless of what you do or believe.

I don't want to give you words to say particularly because I can't see one edit flowing into the next but it seems that adding something like "not even the act of turning to Christ" is needed (again).