Bible Study: God's Foreknowledge

Keep in mind, that with each verse you are discussing you are giving it a meaning that is not there.

 

jbh28...several good posts

each individual stone,are added by God to be the holy temple

 

And I completely disagree with you, God cannot have an intimate and personal relationship with an unforgiven sinner. You cannot even approach God until your sins are washed away through the blood of Christ. This is why Jesus said, NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER BUT BY ME.
So, you can insist your view is correct all you want, but it is totally unscriptural.

 

First, I don't think you meant to put the "not" in there, based on your argument. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The point of the issue, as I see it, is that in one way of viewing the passage, you have God responding to what men do... then electing, calling, saving them based on that knowledge.

In the other, men respond to God's actions of electing, calling, etc.

If God responds to man in choosing/electing for salvation, then, IMHO, that is works salvation.

But the passage does say "foreknew", not "foreknowledge". That means relationship. The passage is speaking of the relationship God had with these specific people. The passage is not speaking of God foreknowing His plan of redemption.

The words are plainly written, IMHO. They speak of God's activity in bringing His elect to salvation. God foreknew; God predestined; God called; God justified; God glorified.

I don't see any indication in these verses that God is responding to something men did. The focus and context are clearly on what God is doing for those whom He foreknew. Very specific. Not generally.

peace to youraying:

 

You might try to reword the sentence. I simply can't make out what you are trying to say.

You are missing the point. I said God doesn't respond to men in electing to salvation. That is the point. You believe God responds to what men do and then elects, predestined, calls, etc to bring about salvation. That is works based.

I believe men respond to what God does in their lives to bring them to salvation.

But you do have it depend on the man who exercises his own will to believe prior to God choosing that man for salvation. Only then, according to your position, does God intervene with grace.

In the context of Romans 8, it means relationship. That is clear in the context.

peace to youraying:

 

double post

 

But the scriptures DO tell us who God chooses and WHY.
Jam 2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world RICH IN FAITH, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
This verse tells us who God has chosen and why. He does not choose people because they are poor, there are poor people who are atheists, or who follow false religions like Islam or Buddism that deny Jesus. But no one who has faith in Christ is not chosen of God.
1 Cor 1:26 For ye see your calling brethren, how not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called: 27 But God HATH CHOSEN THE FOOLISH THINGS OF THE WORLD TO CONFOUND THE WISE; AND GOD HATH CHOSEN THE WEAK THINGS OF THE WORLD TO CONFOUND THE THINGS WHICH ARE MIGHTY; 28 AND BASE THINGS OF THE WORLD, AND THINGS WHICH ARE DESPISED, HATH GOD CHOSEN, YEA, AND THINGS WHICH ARE NOT, TO BRING TO NOUGHT THINGS THAT ARE: 29 THAT NO FLESH SHOULD GLORY IN HIS PRESENCE.
Generally speaking, it is the poor and weak who look to God and trust in him. The wise, mighty, and rich tend to trust in themselves.

But it is no secret who God chooses and why as Calvinism teaches, God has clearly declared who he chooses and gives the reasons why.

 

the verse does NOT say that he chose those BECAUSE they were right. The point of the passage is actually the OPPOSITE! It's not a matter of being poor or rich. wow, really don't know how to read a passage. The point of the passage is totally opposite of what you are doing. For God to choose "because they are poor" would be to contradict the point of the passage.

Again, it doesn't say that's the reason why he chose them.

And don't say that "I just don't see it" You show me where God said he chose them BECAUSE. What you are doing is inserting the word BECAUSE that isn't there. Especially in the James passage which is totally opposite of what you are trying to say it is saying.

 

I've been having that problem too, but it is catching it.

 

A child could understand these verses, you simply refuse to accept them because they refute your doctrine.

 

I see no rebuttal by you. Let's look at James passage first. What is it about? It's about NOT choosing because one is poor or rich. It's about the sin of partiality and you are saying that God is partial. That he choose one because he was poor when James says thats sin. The point of that verse is saying that we shouldn't look at the rich and give them all the good stuff and ignore the poor because "has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom." These poor people have been chosen by God. Read the passage and don't just copy a verse just because it almost helps you. And besides the fact that the passage is opposite of what you are saying(in fact making the Father to be a sinner) it doesn't say he choose anybody BECAUSE...

 

You are either a poor reader, or else you intentionally misrepresent what I said. I very specifically said God did not choose them because they were poor, he chose them because they were RICH IN FAITH.
You Calvinists think people are stupid, the only one you are fooling is yourself.
And in 1 Cor God very specifically explains why he chose the foolish, weak, base, and despised --> TO CONFOUND the wise and the mighty so that no flesh should glory in his presence. A child could easily understand this, just because God did not choose the word "because" here does not mean he did not reveal his reason for choosing the weak, foolish, base, and despised, he did. You are doting over a word when you know the word "to" here means exactly the same thing as "because" in this context.
You simply refuse to accept this because it refutes Calvinism.

 

Yes it does. It says "whom He foreknew". The passage is speaking of people, not things. The passage is speaking of having a relationship, not knowing a plan. I understand that doesn't support your views, but the passage is clearly speaking of a relationship.

Did you even read my post? I said you were missing the point that I was making about God not responding to man in election. You claimed I had said God never responds to men, which I did not say. Thus, you missed the point I was making. I then explained the point I was making to make it clear to you what I was saying.

I never claimed to know your mind or motives. Good grief.

You have left out the words that don't support your views.

2 Thess. 2:13 "But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth."

Just so we are clear on what the passage says, God chose them from the beginning for salvation...through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

This supports the reformed view of predestination (from the beginning), regeneration (sanctification by the Spirit) and the necessity of the gospel (faith in the truth).

And I didn't have to leave out a bunch of words to claim it supports my views.:smilewinkgrin:

Then you have God responding to what men do in choosing them for salvation. That is a merit based system. God chose some based on what they did, and passed over others that did not do what those did.

That is a works based system, imho.

peace to youraying:

 

sorry about that. I misread what you said...

Not at all. In fact there are a lot of people a lot smarter than I that disagree with me.

Stop the negative statements. I could say you reject the Bible because it disagrees with your doctrine. But you don't see me saying that. Let's look at the James passage first, then to the I Corinthians passage. It's easier for me to focus on one at a time.

You said above that God chose the "because they were RICH IN FAITH." Again, the text doesn't say that. In fact, per my point above, it's not what the passage is about.

Here is the passage. Read it together to help with the context.
My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
(James 2:1-7)

James is dealing with people that are being respecter of persons. They are giving good respect to the one that looks rich and give bad treatment to the poor. That's the context of what is going on. James makes a point about this in saying, "Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?" The point is that God has chosen even the poor people(the object of the example of people being chosen here). Now, what you are doing is extending the object when the text doesn't say that. In fact, looking at how you seem to be saying, the thought of the sentence isn't there. You are saying that God not only chooses the poor(but not because they are poor) but also those that are rich in the faith.(yet this time, it's because they are rich in faith.) You can't make a switch like that. You also have to include the "heirs of the kingdom" section. What has he chosen them for?

Now, for sake of argument, let's assume that the "rich in faith" isn't meant to mean "to be" rich in faith, but is with the poor of this world. If that's true, then if it isn't because they are poor, it isn't because they are rich in the faith. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to say that God chose then because they are rich in the faith, you would have to include the poor as well.

That's why your interpretation doesn't hold any water here. God isn't saying that he chose anyone because they are rich in the faith. That doesn't make any sense, especially in the context of which you see this passage. If God chose everyone with faith, and that's why he chose them, then there would be no point in saying that God chose even those that are poor.

I understand that you will probably disagree. If you do, then give you exegesis of the passage. No childish name calling or just saying I'm wrong or just saying I reject the Bible because of my doctrine. Give your interpretation of the passage.

 

I can say that God doesn't choose people because they are poor, because many millions of poor people do not believe in Christ. There are many millions of poor people who are Muslims, or Hindus, or Buddists. They cannot be saved because they deny Jesus Christ.
But nobody who has faith in Jesus is not chosen.

The point James is making is that we are not to despise the poor. To understand this you must understand that the Jews falsely believed that wealth was a sign that a man was held in favor by God, and that poverty was a sign that a man was hated by God.
This is why when Jesus said how hardly shall a rich man enter the kingdom of heaven that the disciples were exceedingly amazed and exclaimed, WHO THEN CAN BE SAVED? (Mat 19:25)
This was the common mindset of the Jews in that day, but James was showing this error, God was not partial against the poor, and that many were chosen because they were rich in faith. It was a constant theme in the OT that the poor were oppressed and exploited by the rich and powerful, and that these poor cried out to God to help them, their trust was in God. But the religious leaders taught the people falsely that God loved and blessed the rich, and hated and cursed the poor.
And even today people carry many false doctrines because of false teachers.
So James was trying to overcome this predjudice brought about through false teaching.

 

ok... I see where you are coming from and where you are getting your interpretation. I just interpret differently. I don't see James saying that God chose them because they were rich in faith.