human responsibility

[soleil10]

Deuteronomy 30:19 (New International Version)
This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.

In Deuteronmy 29:24, God reveals that the curse in the law will only be invoked, not by His Will, but only if Israel were to relinquish faith in His Word. Ezekiel says that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

The Chosen people must play a role in the accomplishment of
God’s Will. This is reflective of the dynamic that God had established
with the first man and woman. Human responsibility
is a key componant in God’s plan for humanity. It is the element
that gives us the possibility to enter into a direct partnership
with God, thereby inheriting his life, love and lineage.

Likewise, in God’s Providence, the providential
people must fulfill a portion of responsibility in the completion
of God’s Will.

 

[juantoo3]

I'm not sure I understand the question, but gauging by this:

The Chosen people ...

I would have to say the answer is the Jews. The book of Deuteronomy was written to collective Israel, of whom the only recognized remaining are the House of Judah (Judah, Benjamin and Levi; commonly called *the Jews*).

So the question to me seems invalid, unless you are specifically asking this question of Jewish persons?...in which case this is the incorrect board.

 

[citizenzen]

A few months ago, in an IO thread I addressed a similar question by performing an experiment. In this experiment I randomly scratched my left or right armpit about two dozen times and recorded the results in my post.

I then asked the question that I will ask now...

Was God directing me to scratch my pits, or was I responsible for it?

My contention is that I alone was responsible and that God would have little interest in my pits or which one was being scratched at the time.

But maybe you see it differently. You comments on the matter are greatly appreciated.

 

[Dream]

I'm not sure I understand the question, but gauging by this:



I would have to say the answer is the Jews. The book of Deuteronomy was written to collective Israel, of whom the only recognized remaining are the House of Judah (Judah, Benjamin and Levi; commonly called *the Jews*).

So the question to me seems invalid, unless you are specifically asking this question of Jewish persons?...in which case this is the incorrect board.

Are you saying it is going to be moved, for sure? There is interesting stuff in the OP that I didn't notice before, like for instance the phrase "Now choose life." If somebody moves the thread to the Jewish section then we would have to discuss it with Jewish rules, which would make it hard for me to post about it since I don't know the rules. Plus they might not even be interested. If you moved it to the Abrahamic section instead, then I would be able to post and Jewish folks could still feel free to object to the phrase 'Chosen people'. There are connections between these verses and the NT. Like John 10:10 "...I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly." or Luke 12:15 "...a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions...."

 

[juantoo3]

I don't think there is any intension to move the thread at this time.

I was merely pointing out some of what I feel are inaccurate presumptions underlying the formulation of the question.

I long ago noticed that a large percentage of Christianity operates on the presumption that they are the chosen people of G-d. Yet the Bible distinctly only uses that term in reference to the Jews. Particularly with an Old Testament reference, which can only have been pointed directly at the Jews when considered in context, the underlying inference that it applies to Christians is...how shall I say politely?...mistaken.

 

[Dream]

A few months ago, in an IO thread I addressed a similar question by performing an experiment. In this experiment I randomly scratched my left or right armpit about two dozen times and recorded the results in my post.

I then asked the question that I will ask now...

Was God directing me to scratch my pits, or was I responsible for it?

My contention is that I alone was responsible and that God would have little interest in my pits or which one was being scratched at the time.

But maybe you see it differently. You comments on the matter are greatly appreciated.

I'd go so far as to say that even choosing the marriage partner or business partner is strictly a human choice. The dangers and benefits are yours, both of which you must navigate. Just because you don't know about icebergs doesn't mean you never chose to get onto the Titanic. Just about everybody on the Titanic goes down, both saints and sinners. Even Benny Hinn. If you're on the Titanic, then you go down with it. Even if you are special.

 

[wil]

I see man as responsible for man's perceptions.

I see us liking to blame G!d for plenty of things we are to blame for ourselves.

Personal responsiblity is something we need to understand, and prefer to pass on....

If we can't put it on G!d or another (wo)man, we invent the devil.

 

[lunamoth]

God seems to take our choices seriously. I guess that we should too.

 

[soleil10]

God seems to take our choices seriously. I guess that we should too.

Yes... and there are consequences with these choices

 

[Netti-Netti]

I long ago noticed that a large percentage of Christianity operates on the presumption that they are the chosen people of G-d. Yet the Bible distinctly only uses that term in reference to the Jews.

Hosea 2:23 reads

I will plant her for myself in the land; I will show my love to the one I called 'Not my loved one.' I will say to those called 'Not my people... and they will say, 'You are my God.'
​

This reads as G-d saying that His election of His people will be more inclusive, i.e., will not be limited to the Israelites. It will be extended to any and all persons of faith.

It makes sense that the "chosen people" language was dropped in the NT.
The notion of tribal/ethnic priviledge/exclusivism was made obsolete when the covenant promise become universal through Christ Jesus.

However, the idea of covenant was not dropped entirely. It was reworked as "Heavenly Calling," i.e., the calling to witness (disclose G-d's purpose) after becoming a vessle of G-d's mercy and adopting the vocation of "chosen servant."

Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest whom we confess. (Hebrews 3:1)
​

 

[citizenzen]

God seems to take our choices seriously. I guess that we should too.

I took scratching my pits very seriously.

 

[seattlegal]

I took scratching my pits very seriously.

Try a little
tea tree oil for that nasty itch.

 

[juantoo3]

This reads as G-d saying that His election of His people will be more inclusive, i.e., will not be limited to the Israelites. It will be extended to any and all persons of faith.

It makes sense that the "chosen people" language was dropped in the NT.
The notion of tribal/ethnic priviledge/exclusivism was made obsolete when the covenant promise become universal through Christ Jesus.

However, the idea of covenant was not dropped entirely. It was reworked as "Heavenly Calling," i.e., the calling to witness (disclose G-d's purpose) after becoming a vessle of G-d's mercy and adopting the vocation of "chosen servant."

Yours is an interesting interpretation, Netti. I would not disagree. I do think though that as commonly taught the subtlety of what you are alluding to is overlooked and whitewashed, and it does in fact become an exclusivist battle cry. One needn't look far to see what I am referring to.

 

[juantoo3]

I took scratching my pits very seriously.

You really ought to get that looked at. By a professional this time.