foresight based election

Let me quote another scripture that should shed some light on the issue:

Acts 2:23 "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain."

God's decreed that the Son would come to this earth and be crucified. That's how he knew it would happen. There was no way it would not happen. He decreed that it would happen at the hands of wicked men. And they were held responsible for it.

 

Surely, you are mistaken... Article 1 of the Remonstrance says this:

And, should you make that familiar cry of Arminians and suggest that Jacob Arminius disavowed that article, these two quotes from his works should put that issue to rest:

And, should you take the position of John Wesley -- perhaps the one who most promulgated the tenets of Arminianism into the world -- note that he is fully in concert with the Articles of the Remonstrance and preached their content:

http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/58/

In that sermon, Wesley conveys exactly the same sentiments as Arminius above, and more, conflates justification with sanctification:

I think that you are treading in deep and dark waters when you and the theology you profess removes from God any aspect of His divine sovereignty.

 

Now, I know you Calvinists will disagree, but I believe a figure of election is shown in Judges 7, when Gideon went against the Midianites and Amalekites. Look how God chose who would fight with Gideon.

Jud 7:1 Then Jerubbaal, who is Gideon, and all the people that were with him, rose up early, and pitched beside the well of Harod: so that the host of the Midianites were on the north side of them, by the hill of Moreh, in the valley.

2 And the LORD said unto Gideon, The people that are with thee are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hands, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, Mine own hand hath saved me.

3 Now therefore go to, proclaim in the ears of the people, saying, Whosoever is fearful and afraid, let him return and depart early from mount Gilead. And there returned of the people twenty and two thousand; and there remained ten thousand.

4 And the LORD said unto Gideon, The people are yet too many; bring them down unto the water, and I will try them for thee there: and it shall be, that of whom I say unto thee, This shall go with thee, the same shall go with thee; and of whomsoever I say unto thee, This shall not go with thee, the same shall not go.

5 So he brought down the people unto the water: and the LORD said unto Gideon, Every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue, as a dog lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; likewise every one that boweth down upon his knees to drink.

6 And the number of them that lapped, putting their hand to their mouth, were three hundred men: but all the rest of the people bowed down upon their knees to drink water.

7 And the LORD said unto Gideon, By the three hundred men that lapped will I save you, and deliver the Midianites into thine hand: and let all the other people go every man unto his place.

I believe there are a few symbols or figures in this story. First notice that God did not want Gideon to take a great army lest the Israelites believe they saved themselves through their own strength. You Calvinists have to like that.

I believe the twenty-two thousand who left in fear represents unbelief. The water that the remainder drank from represents the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is often compared to water in scripture.

I believe those who lapped like dogs represents men who humble themselves and see themselves as sinners. A dog was considered a very dirty animal in OT times.

We see also that only a very few were chosen. The scriptures say many will go into destruction, but few find life. In this account, only 300 men out of an original 32,000 men were chosen by God.

I believe God can see through time and chose those who believed on Jesus. This does not take away from God's sovereignty, because no man could believe unless God had revealed his Son to us. In fact, believeing is called "obeying" the gospel, so how can that take away from God's sovereignty by coming and believeing? It is those who rebel and do not believe and obey the gospel that try to take from God's sovereignty.

Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

Believeing God is obeying God.

Abraham believed God, and God said Abraham obeyed his voice.

Gen 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

Calvinists believe that non-Cals like myself steal from God's sovereignty. That is not so. I obeyed Jesus. When Jesus said, "Come unto me", I came.

 

You continue to say this, but you are yet to prove it scripturally.

 

Surely, the word "foresight" was not used once in all the quotes you provided, thanks for proving my point. Which was, if you read all my posts on the subject, that the simplistic and really non-sensical explanation that an omnipresent God merely looks through the corridors of time to foresee who will believe and then individually chooses to save them is not representative of true Arminian scholarship. Your quotes help prove that point.

Obviously an omnipresent and all knowing God knows who He will spend eternity with, but the biblical doctrine of divine election must be understood from the national perspective as described by Paul in Romans 11 and elsewhere (and as I elaborate on in my first post). Predestination is never in regard to men believing, it is always about what believers (those in Christ) will become. They will be "adopted" and "conformed" to the image of Christ.

 

"In other words, God predestines believers to go to heaven, just as he predestines unbelievers to go to hell. But he does not predestine anyone to become or remain a believer or to become or remain an unbeliever. This choice is made by each person, and as foreknown by God it is the factor that conditions the predestination of an individuals eternal destiny."

Jack Cottrell, "The Classic Arminian View of Election" (Perspectives on Election: 5 Views) p. 83

 

After working through Dr. Cottrell's explanation of classic Arminianism, to me still boils down to what I said in an earlier post. Election based on foreknowledge simply means that one who believes elects himself.

To be sure, election and foreknowledge are inextricably linked. Arminians (and other non-Cals) want election to follow foreknowledge. Calvinists want foreknowledge based on election.

Now, I think we'll all agree that there is not a time when God doesn't know something, so we can't really talk about a chronological order. What God foreknows, he has always foreknown.

But we can talk about a logical order. Arminians, therefore, hold that election logically must follow foreknowledge. Calvinists see it the other way around.

To put it another way, God foreknows whom he elects because he elected them first.

I know, I know, my way of expressing this is inadequate, because God is outside of time. But if there is an order to election and foreknowledge, I like my order better.

 

Election

God elected us first, but His election places two roads in front of us.

To believe in Jesus and be saved or not and be condemned. The only way anyone knows they are His is to love others as ourselves and that we trust in Jesus. No matter how you slice it both have to take a good look at himself to know that if they are an elect or not.

You came to Jesus because He ask you to come, but you also could of continue your path to destruction.

It is funny how men try to say their salvation depends on God, but they have to look at themselves to know they are an elect or not; unless you believe you can live the life the way you want to and God choose you no matter what for salvation, because you are just chosen by God because you think you are.

 

What a neat technical way to get around a very obvious point... Good for you. But that really doesn't help your case at all. It just proves that you are good at debating. I'll give you that... :wavey:

But, as I've said before, couching your doctrine in fancy words does not change the doctrine. The reason "foresight" was not included is because it is not in the Scriptures. Yet foresight is EXACTLY what everyone in the Arminian camp is arguing, even while misapplying the biblical "foreknowing." That is PRECISELY why we Calvinists are taking you to task.

So, no point won for you. Sorry.

 

Hey GL, are you now the theology nazi?

 

Nope, but an obvious dodge is just that.

From the Articles of the Remonstrance to the observed doctrines of Arminians, to the posts from Arminians and others disavowing themselves of the Doctrines of Grace, these doctrinal issues are plainly evident.

God helps them who help themselves, and that based on what God sees (or saw) them doing.

 

Well, I am not sure I am "dialing" into your charge of "God helps those who help themselves."

When I do not comment, I am not "dodging", I simply am unavailable or simply just don't know.

 

Do mean like the "technical" way you get around the idea that whether or not you choose to Evangelize really matters?

See, what you think is merely "technical" maneuvering is actually my desire for our position to be correctly represented, just like you want Calvinism correctly represented. If I represent you as a hyper-C you would provide explanation and rebuttal as to how you are not. How would it make you feel if I dismissed those explanations as mere debate tactics to avoid the "OBVIOUS" reality that evangelism just doesn't matter in your system?

The fact of the matter is it is easier to create a straw-man and dismiss it than it is to actually deal with the content of ones arguments. Non-Cal do it to you when they dismiss you as being hyper, and now you are doing it to me. Is that what you want?

This is not about winning anything glf. I'm sorry you think that it is. It is about accurately representing the point of view you are attempting to discredit. If they meant foresight they would have said it. They said foreknowledge because that is what they meant. The reason you straw-man them by putting words in their mouths is because then it is easy to dismiss them as "silly." I know because I did it too when I was a Calvinist. I used to believe that the non-C position really was just some silly foresight of faith view which is why I didn't give it any credibility and dismissed it without really understanding its claims. That is what you are doing now.

Listen, it is fine if you want to disagree with Arminianism, but shouldn't you at least know what we believe before you dismiss us?

Answer me this, how does "foreknowledge" fit into the Calvinistic position? What does it mean and what is it's purpose? (This isn't an argument, it is my desire to know what you believe about the role of God's foreknowledge in salvation)

 

Skandelon was dodging, not you.

 

I have NEVER once said or implied that sentiment in any form or fashion. That is merely a fancy ad hominem attack on those holding the DoG. OF COURSE IT MATTERS WHETHER OR NOT WE EVANGELIZE! For the Calvinist, how else do we discover the elect?

For one attempting to find "common ground" in so many debates, you can sure get off the reservation rather quicky...

If you desire the nuanced position between true Classical Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism, then you will also completely understand why we Calvinists are interested in the nuanced position between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism.

Again, you are continuing the dodge by turning the discussion to hyper-Calvinism and some straw man lack of desire or effect in evangelism. IT IS NOT TRUE AND YOU KNOW IT. Be the scholar you claim...

Since you have now suggested that I have created a straw man, you will have to demonstrate that I in fact did that. Burden of proof is on you. I posted the Articles of the Remonstrance that largely define Classical Arminian belief. I am working off of them in my responses to your line of reasoning. No "straw man" involved.

And, if you disavow some aspect of the Articles, then you will need to come forward and let it be know where you take your stand. I will be most happy to engage you at that point. Trust me, I am not really afraid of any of your arguments. So far, they have not really carried the day.

Again, where is my straw man? That you "define" a term otherwise does not make it so... The Articles clearly delineate a position that states that God elects those to salvation whom he foreknows will accept Christ. How is that different in FACT from His foreseeing. The event STILL has to happen in the individual before God acts. Know=See in your line of reasoning.

I am OH, SO familiar with Arminianism. Remember, I'm the one posting the actual Articles of the Remonstrance and points made by Wesley here...

I will deal with this in a bit... Have some work to handle on my job. :wavey:

 

You have just proven your inability to read and comprehend what someone says. Skandelon was using a hypothetical situation by asking a hypothetical question, and you took it as a literal ad hominem.

The rest of your replies stem from your inabilities and are rendered moot.

No point for you.

 

That is because it was a literal ad hominem. He used that PARTICULAR hypothetical situation because he well understands just how much a straw man it is, and by default is saying that I'm stupid enough to not get how I've just done likewise.

Like I said, Skandelon is a great debater, but making great points in a debate doesn't mean that those points are also true or pertinent. You, on the other hand, mostly jump in when you think you can score a point or so somewhere, but seldom ever actually carry the discussion forward in any way, meaningful or otherwise.

 

Brother, please follow my reasoning before you start with the rebuttals.

I know that is not what you believe. I know you are evangelistic. I was a Calvinistic missionary for many years. I understand that!!!

That wasn't my point. I was comparing what you are doing to me with what non-Cals do to you when they dismiss you as being a hyper. Understand now?

1. You insert the term "foresight" in for "foreknowledge"

2. You neglect the explanations regarding Romans 11 involving the national election of the Gentiles (grafted in) and hardening of Israel (cutting of). Which yes, we do affirm involves individuals, but must be understood from the national perspective in order to avoid the concept of individual's losing their salvation and getting it back again ("cutting off" and "grafted back in" etc.)

3. You neglect the explanations with regard to what believers are predestined to become, rather than the assumption that non-believers are predestined to become believers.

4. You neglect the fact that in Calvinism God doesn't ever merely foreknow anything, making the very use of the word meaningless. For Calvinists, He knows what will happen because He will make it all happen, which isn't foreknowledge, its "pre-determination." This again leads to the inevitable conclusion that God is the cause and author of all sin and evil in the universe. He makes sin and evil happen just as He makes everything else happen. One cannot appeal to "secondary causes" because God must make them happen as well. Thus the concept of God's foreknowing evil and permitting it is (as even some Calvinistic scholars and confessions attempt to do) is meaningless because Calvinists ultimately deny the idea that God merely foreknows anything, because that would necessitate something "informing" God. Thus, the very concept of the biblical word foreknowledge has no place in the Calvinistic worldview, unless one redefines the word to mean "pre-determined."

Good, then stop dismissing them as "foresight faith" and "God helps those who help themselves" and deal with them for once. It should be easy for you.

God carries the day, I thought of all people a Calvinist would know that.

I don't know, why don't you provide a working definition of the word foreknowledge and we'll see how that differs from mere foresight. I bet Arminianism is closer to actually meaning "foreknowledge" than Calvinists are.

Do you mean that a coach can't determined his game plans and how he is going to condition his team to make sure they are in great shape prior to his team being assembled? Are you sure about that?

Can the coach determine to recruit people from Town A and Town B prior to his team being assembled?

Is there no action the coach can take prior to his team acting on that day they join the team? Really?

This accusation only shows you really don't understand our perspective. The coach (God) acts to predetermine many things prior to the players (people) response to His appeal to join the team.

Know means know in our line of reasoning. Why would it be merely limited to seeing?

Does know mean know in your system? Or could it mean "determine?"

Well, then act like it and deal with our actual arguments instead of your straw-men.

Good luck. :wavey: