Foreknowledge

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by l_PETE_l, Nov 5, 2006.

  1. l_PETE_l

    l_PETE_l
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did not want to clutter another thread with this because it is quit long, but I did think it interesting and informative.



    MEANING OF THE TERM:
    The word “foreknowledge” has two meanings. It is a term used in theology to denote the prescience or foresight of God, that is, His knowledge of the entire course of events which are future from the human point of view; and it is also used in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) to translate the Greek words proginoskein and prognosis in the New Testament, in which instances the word “fore-knowledge” approaches closely the idea of fore-ordination.
    FORE-KNOWLEDGE AS PRESCIENCE:
    In the sense of prescience foreknowledge is an aspect of God’s omniscience (see OMNISCIENCE). God’s knowledge, according to the Scripture, is perfect, that is, it is omniscience. It is true that the Scripture makes use of anthropomorphic forms of expression as regards the way in which God obtains knowledge (Gen 3:8), and sometimes even represents Him as if He did not know certain things (Gen 11:5; 18:21); nevertheless the constant representation of the Scripture is that God knows everything. This perfect knowledge of God, moreover, is not merely a knowledge which is practically unlimited for all religious purposes, but is omniscience in the strictest sense of the term. In the historical books of the Old Testament the omniscience of God is a constant underlying presupposition when it is said that God watches men’s actions, knows their acts and words, and discloses to them the future; while in the Psalms, Prophets and Wisdom literature, this Divine attribute becomes an object of reflection, and finds doctrinal expression. It cannot, however, be said that this attribute of God appears only late in the history of special revelation; it is a characteristic of the Biblical idea of God from the very first, and it is only its didactic expression which comes out with especial clearness in the later books. God’s knowledge, then, is represented as perfect. Since He is free from all limits of space, His omniscience is frequently connected with His omnipresence. This is the thought which underlies the anthropomorphic expressions where God is represented as seeing, beholding and having eyes. God’s eyes go to and fro throughout the whole earth (2 Ch 16:9), and are every place beholding the evil and the good (Prov 15:3). Even Sheol is naked and open to God’s sight (Prov 15:11; Job 26:6). The night and darkness are light to Him, and darkness and light for God are both alike (Ps 139:12). All animals and fowls are His, and so are known by Him (Ps 50:11), and as their Creator God knows all the hosts of the heavenly bodies (Ps 147:4; Isa 40:26). He knows also the heart of man and its thoughts (1 Sam 16:7; 1 Ki 8:39; Ps 7:9 (Hebrew 10); 94:11; 139:2; Jer 11:20; 17:9, 10; 20:12; Ezek 11:5). Furthermore, God knows man entirely in all his ways (Ps 139:1-5; Prov 5:21). He looks from heaven and sees all men (Ps 11:4; 14:2; 33:13, 14, 15). Evil and sin are also known to God (Gen 3:11; 6:5, 9, 13; 2 Sam 7:20; Ps 69:5 (Hebrew 6); Jer 16:17; 18:23). In a word, God knows with absolute accuracy all about man (Job 11:11; 34:21; Ps 33:15; Prov 5:21; Hos 5:3; Jer 11:20; 12:3; 17:9 f; 18:23). This perfect knowledge finds its classic expression in Ps 139.
    God is also, according to the Old Testament, free from all limitations of time, so that His consciousness is not in the midst of the stream of the succeeding moments of time, as is the case with the human consciousness. God is not only without beginning or end of days, but with Him a thousand years are as one day. Hence, God knows in one eternal intuition that which for the human consciousness is past, present and future. In a strict sense, therefore, there can be no foreknowledge or prescience with God, and the distinction in God’s knowledge made by theologians, as knowledge of reminiscence, vision and prescience, is after all an anthropomorphism. Nevertheless this is the only way in which we can conceive of the Divine omniscience in its relation to time, and consequently the Scripture represents the matter as if God’s knowledge of future events were a foreknowledge or prescience, and God is represented as knowing the past, present and future.
    It is God’s knowledge of events which from the human point of view are future that constitutes His foreknowledge in the sense of prescience. God is represented as having a knowledge of the entire course of events before they take place. Such a knowledge belongs to the Scriptural idea of God from the very outset of special revelation. He knows beforehand what Abraham will do, and what will happen to him; He knows beforehand that Pharaoh’s heart will be hardened, and that Moses will deliver Israel (Gen 15:13 ff; Ex 3:19; 7:4; 11:1 ff). The entire history of the patriarchal period of revelation exhibits plainly the foreknowledge of God in this sense. In prophecy this aspect of the Divine knowledge is made the subject of explicit assertion, and its religious significance is brought out. Nothing future is hidden from Yahweh (Isa 41:22 ff; 42:9; 43:9-13; 44:6-8; 46:10; Dan 2:22; Am 3:7), and this foreknowledge embraces the entire course of man’s life (Ps 31:15 (Heb 16); 39:5 (Hebrew 6); 139:4-6, 16; Job 14:5). These passages from Isa show that it is from the occurrence of events in accordance with Yahweh’s prediction that the Prophet will prove his foreknowledge; and that in contrast with the worshippers of idols which are taken by surprise, Israel is warned of the future by the omniscient Yahweh.
    In the New Testament likewise, God’s omniscience is explicitly affirmed. Jesus taught that God knows the hidden secrets of man’s heart (Lk 16:15); and this is also the teaching of the apostles (Acts 1:24; 15:8; 1 Cor 2:10; 3:20; 1 Thess 2:4; Rev 2:23). In a word, according to the author of the Epistle to the He, everything is open to God, so that He is literally omniscient (Heb 4:13). And as in the Old Testament, so also in the New Testament, foreknowledge in the sense of prescience is ascribed to God. Jesus asserts a foreknowledge by God of that which is hidden from the Son (Mk 13:32), and James asserts that all God’s works are foreknown by Him (Acts 15:18). Moreover, the many references in the New Testament to the fulfillment of prophecy all imply that the New Testament writers ascribed foreknowledge, in this sense of foresight, to God.
    Denials of the Divine foreknowledge, in this sense of prescience, have been occasioned, not by exegetical considerations, but by the supposed conflict of this truth with human freedom. It was supposed that in order to be free, an event must be uncertain and contingent as regards the fact of its futurition, and that too in the most absolute sense, that is, from the Divine as well as the human point of view. Hence, the Socinians and some Arminians denied the foreknowledge of God. It was supposed either that God voluntarily determines not to foresee the free volitions of man, or else that since God’s omniscience is simply the knowledge of all that is knowable, it does not embrace the free acts of man which are by their nature uncertain and so unknowable. And upon this view of freedom, this denial of God’s foreknowledge was logically necessary. If the certainty of events with respect to the fact of their futurition is inconsistent with freedom, then human freedom does conflict with God’s foreknowledge, since God cannot know future events as certainly future unless they actually are so. Since, therefore, the Divine foreknowledge is quite as inconsistent with this view of freedom as is the Divine foreordination, the view of those who regard God as a mere onlooker on the course of future events which are supposed to be entirely independent of His purpose and control, does not help matters in the least. If God foreknows future events as certain, then they must be certain, and if so, then the certainty of their actually occurring must depend either upon God’s decree and providential control, or else upon a fate independent of God. It was to escape these supposed difficulties that the doctrine known as scientia media was propounded. It was supposed that God has a knowledge of events as conditionally future, that is, events neither merely possible nor certainly future, but suspended upon conditions undetermined by God. But this hypothesis is of no help and is not true. Besides being contrary to the Scripture in its idea that many events lie outside the decree of God, and that God must wait upon man in His government of the world, there is really no such class of events as this theory asserts. If God foreknows that the conditions on which they are suspended will be fulfilled, then these events belong to the class of events which are certainly future; whereas if God does not know whether or not the conditions will be fulfilled by man, then His foreknowledge is denied, and these events in question belong to the class of those merely possible. Nor do the Scripture passages to which appeal is made, such as Gen 11:6; Ex 3:19; Dt 7:3, 4; 1 Sam 23:10-13; 2 Sam 12:8, etc., afford a basis for this doctrine. The Scripture of course recognizes that God has put all things in relations of mutual dependence, and speaks of what can or cannot happen under such and such conditions; but none of these passages assert or imply that the events are suspended upon conditions which are either unknown or undetermined by God.
     
  2. l_PETE_l

    l_PETE_l
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    Foreknowledge Based On Foreordination

    FOREKNOWLEDGE BASED ON FOREORDINATION:
    God’s foreknowledge, according to the Scripture teaching, is based upon His plan or eternal purpose, which embraces everything that comes to pass. God is never represented as a mere onlooker seeing the future course of events, but having no part in it. That God has such a plan is the teaching of the entire Scripture. It is implied in the Old Testament conception of God as an Omnipotent Person governing all things in accordance with His will. This idea is involved in the names of God in the patriarchal revelation, ’El, ’Elohim, ’El Shadday, and in the prophetic name Yahweh of Hosts. This latter name teaches not only God’s infinite power and glory, but also makes Him known as interposing in accordance with His sovereign will and purpose in the affairs of this world, and as having also the spiritual powers of the heavenly world at His disposal for the execution of His eternal purpose. Hence, this idea of God comes to signify the omnipotent Ruler of the universe (Ps 24:10; Isa 6:3; 51:5; 54:5; Jer 10:16; Am 9:5; compare Oehler, Theol. of the Old Testament, English translation, II, 280).
    Not only in this conception of God as omnipotent and sovereign Ruler is the thought of His eternal plan evolved; it is explicitly asserted throughout the whole Old Testament. The purpose of God as determining human history in the Book of Gen lies clearly upon the surface of the narrative, as, for example, in the history of Abraham and of Joseph. And where there is no abstract statement of this truth, it is evident that the writer regards every event as but the unfolding of the purpose of God. In the Psalms, Prophets, and Wisdom literature, this truth finds explicit and reiterated assertion. Yahweh has an eternal purpose (Ps 33:11), and this purpose will certainly come to pass (Isa 14:27; 43:13). This purpose includes all events and renders certain their occurrence (Isa 14:24; 40:10; 46:9, 10; Zec 1:6). In the Wisdom literature the ethical character of this plan is dwelt upon, as well as its all-embracing character, and the certainty of its fulfillment (Prov 16:4, 33; 19:21; 20:24; Job 28:23). The providential control wherewith Yahweh executes this plan includes the heart of man (Prov 21:1).
    The New Testament likewise regards all history as but the unfolding of God’s eternal purpose (Acts 4:28), which includes man’s salvation (Eph 1:4, 5; 2 Tim 1:9), the provision of Christ as Saviour (1 Pet 1:20), and the good works of the Christian (Eph 2:10).

    Now while the writers of the Old Testament and the New Testament do not write in an abstract or philosophical manner nor enter into metaphysical explanations of the relation between God’s foreknowledge and foreordination, it is perfectly evident that they had a clear conception upon this subject. Although anthropomorphisms are used in regard to the manner in which God knows, He is never conceived as if He obtained His knowledge of the future as a mere onlooker gazing down the course of events in time. The idea that the omnipotent Creator and sovereign Ruler of the universe should govern the world and form His plan as contingent and dependent upon a mere foresight of events outside His purpose and control is not only contrary to the entire Scriptural idea of God’s sovereignty and omnipotence, but is also contrary to the Scriptural idea of God’s foreknowledge which is always conceived as dependent upon His sovereign purpose. According to the Scriptural conception, God foreknows because He has foreordained all things, and because in His providence He will certainly bring all to pass. His foreknowledge is not a dependent one which must wait upon events, but is simply the knowledge which God has of His own eternal purpose. Dillmann has called this “a productive foreknowledge” (Handbuch d. attest. Theol., 251). This is not exactly correct. The Old Testament does not conceive God’s foreknowledge as “producing” or causing events. But when Dillmann says that in the Old Testament there is no hint of an “idle foreknowledge” on God’s part, he is giving expression to the truth that in the Old Testament God’s foreknowledge is based upon His foreordination and providential control of all things. The Divine foreknowledge, therefore, depends upon the Divine purpose which has determined the world plan (Am 3:7), and all its details (Job 28:26, 27). Before man is born God knows him and chooses him for his work (Jer 1:5; Job 23:13, 14), and God’s thorough knowledge of man in Ps 139 is made to rest upon the fact that God has determined man’s lot beforehand (Ps 139:14-16).
    The same thing is true of the New Testament teaching on this subject. The Divine foreknowledge is simply God’s knowledge of His own eternal purpose. This is especially clear in those cases where God’s eternal purpose of redemption through Christ is represented as a mystery which is known by God and which can be known by man only when it pleases God to reveal it (Eph 1:9; 3:4, 9).

    Orr, J., M.A., D.D. 1999. The International standard Bible encyclopedia : 1915 edition (J. Orr, Ed.). Ages Software: Albany, OR
     
  3. l_PETE_l

    l_PETE_l
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    Foreknowledge As Equivalent To Foreordination

    FOREKNOWLEDGE AS EQUIVALENT TO FOREORDINATION:
    While, therefore, the foreknowledge of God in the sense of prescience is asserted in the New Testament, this is not the meaning of the term when used to translate the Greek words proginoskein and prognosis. These words which are translated in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) by the word “foreknowledge,” and once by the word “foreordain” (1 Pet 1:20 the King James Version), mean much more than mere intellectual foresight or prescience. Both the verb and the noun approach the idea of foreordination and are closely connected with that idea in the passages where these words occur. Thus, in Peter’s speeches in Acts the predestination which finds expression in 4:28 is practically identified with the term prognosis in 2:23. Everything which happened to Jesus took place in accordance with “the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,” so that nothing happened except that which God had foreordained. In this verse the term foreknowledge is an expansion of the idea of God’s “counsel” or plan, regarding it as an intelligent prearrangement, the idea of foreknowledge being assimilated to that of foreordination. The same idea is found in 1 Pet 1:20. Here the apostle speaks of Christ as a lamb “foreordained” by God before the foundation of the world. The Greek verb proegnosmenou, meaning literally, “foreknown” (as in the Revised Version (British and American)) is translated “foreordained” in the King James Version. It is evidently God’s foreordination of Jesus as Saviour which Peter has in mind. Also in 1 Pet 1:2 those to whom the apostle is writing are characterized as “elect according to the foreknowledge (prognosis) of God,” where the election is based on the “foreknowledge.” By the prognosis or foreknowledge, however, far more is meant than prescience. It has the idea of a purpose which determines the course of the Divine procedure. If it meant simply prevision of faith or love or any quality in the objects of the election, Peter would not only flatly contradict Paul (Rom 9:11; Eph 1:3, 4; 2 Tim 1:9); but also such a rendering would conflict with the context of this passage, because the objects of election are chosen “unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of .... Christ,” so that their new obedience and relation to Christ are determined by their election by God, which election springs from a “foreknowledge” which therefore cannot mean a mere prescience.
    In view of the fact that there was a classical use of the simple verb ginoskein in the sense of “resolve,” and more especially of the fact that this word is used in the New Testament to denote an affectionate or loving regard or approbation in accordance with a common use of the Hebrew yadha` (Mt 7:23; 1 Cor 8:3; Gal 4:9; 2 Tim 2:19), there is nothing arbitrary in giving it this sense when compounded with the preposition pro when the context clearly demands it, as it does in the above passage (compare Johnstone, Commentary on Peter in the place cited.: per contra Meyer on passages in Acts and Romans). The word prognosis is, however, discriminated from “predestination.” It is that loving regard in God from which the Divine election springs, which election Peter evidently regarded as sovereign, since sanctification is only a confirmation of it (2 Pet 1:10), and stumbling and disobedience are referred to `appointment to unbelief’ (1 Pet 2:8). Here, then, we have a pregnant use of foreknowledge in which it is assimilated to the idea of purpose, and denotes a sovereign and loving regard.
    The word prognosis is also found in this sense in the writings of Paul, in cases where it is manifestly impossible to regard it as a mere intellectual foresight, not only because of Paul’s doctrine that election is absolutely sovereign (Eph 1:3, 4; Rom 9:11; 2 Tim 1:9), but also because of the contexts in which the term occurs.
    In Rom 8:29, 30 the word “foreknow” occurs in immediate connection with God’s predestination of the objects of salvation. Those whom God foreknew, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His son. Now the foreknowledge in this case cannot mean a mere prescience or foresight of faith (Meyer, Godet) or love (Weiss) in the subjects of salvation, which faith or love is supposed to determine the Divine predestination. This would not only contradict Paul’s view of the absolutely sovereign and gracious character of election, but is diametrically opposed to the context of this passage. These verses form a part of the encouragement which Paul offers his readers for their troubles, including their own inward weakness. The apostle tells them that they may be sure that all things work together for good to them that love God; and these are defined as being those whom God has called in accordance with His purpose. Their love to God is evidently their love as Christians, and is the result of a calling which itself follows from an eternal purpose, so that their Christian love is simply the means by which they may know that they have been the subjects of this calll. They have not come within the sphere of God’s love by their own choice, but have been “called” into this relationship by God, and that in accordance with an eternal purpose on His part.
    What follows, therefore, must have as its motive simply to unfold and ground this assurance of salvation by tracing it all back to the “foreknowledge” of God. To regard this foreknowledge as contingent upon anything in man would thus be in flat contradiction with the entire context of the passage as well as its motive. The word “foreknowledge” here evidently has the pregnant sense which we found it to have in Peter. Hence, those whom God predestinates, calls, justifies and glorifies are just those whom He has looked upon with His sovereign love. To assign any other meaning to “foreknowledge” here would be out of accord with the usage of the term elsewhere in the New Testament when it is put in connection with predestination, and would contradict the purpose for which Paul introduces the passage, that is, to assure his readers that their ultimate salvation depends, not on their weakness, but on God’s sovereign love and grace and power.
    It is equally impossible to give the word prognosis any other sense in the other passage where Paul uses it. In Rom 11:2, speaking of the Jews, Paul says that “God did not cast off his people which he foreknew." It is quite impossible to regard this as meaning that God had a foresight or mere prevision of some quality in Israel which determined His choice of them, not only because it is the teaching of the entire Scripture that God’s choice of Israel was sovereign and gracious, and not only because of the actual history of Israel, but also because of the context. Paul says that it would be absurd to suppose that God had cast off His people because He foreknew them, His foreknowledge of them being adduced as a ground for His not casting them off. Hence, the argument would have no force if anything in Israel, foreseen by God, were supposed to ground an assurance that He had not cast them off, because the context is full of the hardness of heart and unbelief of Israel. The foreknowledge here has evidently the same sense as in the former passage.
    Foreknowledge, therefore, in the New Testament is more than mere prescience. It is practically identical with the Divine decree in two instances, and in the other places where the term occurs it denotes the sovereign loving regard out of which springs God’s predestination or election of men to salvation
    Orr, J., M.A., D.D. 1999. The International standard Bible encyclopedia : 1915 edition (J. Orr, Ed.). Ages Software: Albany, OR
     
  4. Baptist_Pastor/Theologian

    Baptist_Pastor/Theologian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    437
    Likes Received:
    0
    The whole foreknowledge discussion is interesting but I do not see that it really matters much. If God prior to creating had knowledge of who would and would not receive him and he created with that knowledge then one must conclude that it was in keeping with God's will to create the world in such a way that those whom he foreknew would come to saving faith. However, I honestly do not like the notion of double predestination anymore than the next guy. The thought that God created someone in order for them to go to hell is unfathomable for a loving God. Where the answers rest are in the mind of God. None of us have access to his mind and the order of creation is no real help in resolving this dilemma.

    Theological convictions are one thing, theological certainty is another. I am convinced that God predestined some to salvation and others to reprobation. I am not certain how or why he did what he did. I am convinced that those who believe in the freedom of the will over emphasis the role of man. I am certain that regardless of what you or I say, the gospel is indispensable and that saving faith is essential.
     
  5. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am convinced that God did not create some to be saved but created all equal and sees all things at once and in being able to see all things knows those who believe and therefore is not great thing to predestinate them to be conformed to the image of His Son. I do not believe God predestinated some for Heaven and some for Hell but gave all a choice to choose who he would serve. God did not direct or make robots out of any but they chose to believe and God being able to see all things from beginning to end of time sees who to predestinate.
     
  6. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3

    I've never understoop the difference between predestination of the elect to heaven and double predestination. If someone is not one of the elect, what eternal destination will they be sent to? Therer's only one one other choice. It's a question of semantics unless you believe thyat one of the non-elect can change his destiny and enter the heavenly kingdom.
     
  7. Baptist_Pastor/Theologian

    Baptist_Pastor/Theologian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    437
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since we serve the same Lord and have faith in the same gospel this all has to be a matter of semantics.:jesus:
     
  8. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    Indeed it does not matter much. It is the very same thing as predestination. Anyone that takes a close look, can easly see it.
     
  9. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother Bob
    Now you just made God a robot based on what He sees us do He must follow. We control God by our actions with this low view of God and God is helpless to change things. Why not give God the glory and say He is in control. God learns nothing from us.

    Where is Gods will in this view? Its not there. God cannot express His will, if man is in charge.
     
    #9 Jarthur001, Nov 5, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 5, 2006
  10. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I don't make God nothing but show that He is a God of "reason". You are the one who says God picks a few and makes them robots, though you don't call them that but in reality that is what they are for they can do anything but be an "elect" and all that goes with being an "elect". No choice in anything, all their movements are controlled by God even to the end.
    What I don't understand is that you say God chose His "elect" but yet you say they can commit adultery, murder, lying, dishonor, covet, steal and are supposed to be the "elect" the "temple" of God. Amazing, they are no different than they were under the Law so there was no reason for the coming and dying of Christ if according to you the "elect" were already chosen but even under Grace, filled with the Holy Ghost, they can lend their members to the devil. I don't believe in a Church or God like that.
     
    #10 Brother Bob, Nov 5, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 5, 2006
  11. GordonSlocum

    GordonSlocum
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    0




    But there you go again accusing Free Willers of making God a robot to man. :godisgood: Free Willers don’t believe that nor do they promote man in control of God. :thumbs:

    This issue as I see it: If a Fatalist accepts the meaning Free Willers use then “Fatalism” dies. :eek: The Shell is not Free Will but Fatalism,jor Philosophical Calvinism, which causes the sickness known as Tulipitis. Tulipitis can be CURED.

    Fatalist continue to force their definitions on common understanding and meaning. As long as Fatalist can continue this the debate with false “definitions” the debate will go on. Bible Believers are obliged to counter these false claims and combat the fatalitistic "shell" which is a philosophical man made prideful argument.
     
  12. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sounds right to me.
     
  13. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    You make GOD under the will of man.

    lets look in greater detail at foreknowing as you see it.

    1) God wants to save ALL mankind.
    2) God gives man a will to choose.
    3) God foreknows Cain will not choose God.
    4) God makes Cain.

    If the goal of God was to save all of mankind, He could have done this before Cain was born. Why did God not?

    Now...7000s years later..how many people have not believed?

    Each day Christ does not come back 1000s more die.
    **************************
    Now i ask you....
    Is the goal to save all mankind?

    or

    Is the goal to wait and save each of the elect?

    ***********************
    If the goal of God was to save all mankind, there was only one time He could have done this in foreknowing Cain. That is before Cain was born.

    If the goal is to save all the elect, God will weight till each are born and believe, ...and then...only then will He return.


    Which is it???? One way God fails on His goal. The other way God keeps His word.


    :)
     
    #13 Jarthur001, Nov 5, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 5, 2006
  14. GordonSlocum

    GordonSlocum
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    0
    You repeat the same mistake: This Calvinistic philosophy you teach by forcing a meaning on clear Biblical truth, which twist the true meaning is a dangerous sickness. It has been know to drive some crazy. That is how bad it can be. . Notice how foolish your statement is:

    Here it is again:
    Notice that the only way you can argue your philosophy is to reword and twist what people say. This is exactly what you have done. First foreknowing does not save we both know that - foreknowing knows who receives Christ vs. your view whereby your "god" not mine God picks a few of the all. You see, my God the God of the Bible lets man decide freely if he or she wants to be saved. Your view as expressed in this statement first, shows how illogical your philosophy is and second it seeks to rule God and instead of letting God be the ruler of his plan. You see His plan is His - not the property of philosophy namely philosophical Calvinism.

    The truth will set you free. All infected with Tulipitis can be CURED.

    Now the second statement - you got right. All the elect are not going to be missed. Whenever it is that my heavenly father, the God of the Bible has decided to end this world then and only then will his plan for this dispensation be complete.

    Philosophical Calvinism (Fatalism) the sickness that infects people with Tulipitis can not stop my heavenly Father - The real God of the Bible from running His plan His way - not according to philosophical Calvinism the illness known as Tulipitis. And God in his infinite wisdom knew there would be those who would willfully and freely develop false philosophies against His truth, His sovereignty, His Holiness, His Character, against Christ, the Holy Spirit and the Father - none other than philosophical Calvinism, Tulipitis a deadly high-minded proud humanistic approach that twist Biblical truth.

    :Jesus: died for all mankind, Glory to God on High.


    I love you brother - that is if you are truly "freely believed" whereby you are then and only them one of the elect. I hope I have helped you see the light. :godisgood:
     
  15. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    You DO make God a robot. When you pray do you pray to God and say..

    "Your will be done on EARTH as it is in heaven"?

    or do you say...

    "May mans will be free over Your will Lord"?

    Freewillers hold high the will of man and at the same time place Gods will under mans. That my green friend is a robot controled by man. God help us.
     
  16. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    What more philosophies from you? Alot of words...but notice you did not address what was asked

    Maybe you just forgot...let me repost.
    well?? one or two??
    all you need to do...is type "1" or you can type " 2" or you can dodge the issue AGAIN and post alot of hot air.

    Come now...what will it be?

    1?
    2?
    hot air?


    In Christ...James
     
  17. GordonSlocum

    GordonSlocum
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    0
    Forcing all to be saved or only some of the all is not what God is all about.

    God is not willing that any perish (God said this not me). His willingness demonstrates His love. Forced salvation as in universalism or Calvinism are both wrong. His desire and willingness is for our good but He has allowed us in His infinite wisdom to decide on our fate. We either except His love or reject it. It really is that simple.

    Gordon
     
  18. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    1st..you have a mis-understanding of Calvinism. Calvinism does not teach God forceing salvation.


    Ok..you said God is not willing any should perish....but is this not talking about Christ coming back? If it is...and each day more go to hell...how do you make this fit?
    Maybe...just maybe there is another meaning that fits better. Any ideas??

    God forknows Cain would not believe...
    Could God have come back before Cain was born?
    If so..would all men be saved? (YES)
    Then why did he not come back before Cain was born if the goal was to save all men?

    Think!!!! read the context. Its not that hard.

    sorry to be so hard on ya....just pushing you to study the Bible and not believe mans writings. Its clear if you read it


    In Christ....James
     
  19. skypair

    skypair
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey guys,

    I got a real easy way to tell what foreknowledge means -- go to the place where it is mentioned, Rom 8:29.

    IF foreknow = predestinate, then this is NOT a sequence of events here, is it (foreknow, predestinate, call, justify, glorify)??

    IF these are sequential events -- which they appear to be -- then before creation God could first know who would believe, could next predestinate/foreordain THEM alone to be conformed to the image of Christ. Then in the course of time, He would call them, justify them on account of belief, and glorify them doing these things ONLY for the believers He foreknew and predestinated (Absolutely NO commentary here on the unbelievers that I can see).

    The error people make is in looking at other passages as if they declare some other order of events.
    But that view violates the order given in Rom 8 and, in reality, only points out part of the original method revealed there!

    But if y'all are intent on misconstruing God in Rom 8:29-30 as saying "whom He did predestine, them He did also predestine to be conformed..." who am I to question what God you serve?

    skypair
     
    #19 skypair, Nov 6, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 6, 2006
  20. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    What I been saying all along but have you ever seen the "calvinism twist"?

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...