foresight based election

Debt

We believe in DoG through faith.


The penalty for my sin is death not belief, not faith, not trust, but death.

So no matter what we are saved by grace, unless you can find a way to pay your debt and still get saved, but it is impossible.

Jesus paid that debt, and God not man said that He will save those who trust in His Son.

Trust isn't work to God only men say it is, so they can use their political measure to belittle what they consider their opponent which is their brother and sisters in Christ Faith. This faith that they have come to the conclusion that it is different than theirs, but it all ends up as trust in their Savior not themselves.

 

Anyone with any kind of reading comprehension can see your reply took his words as literal...and you now backtrack after it has been pointed out to you it was hypothetical. Apparently Skan felt the same way as he had to explain to you the obvious based on your reply. You are employing questionable debating tactics in order to prop yourself up or in order to admit you were wrong.

...and you are not the authority on what is true and what is not.

I tried having meaningful discussion on numerous occasions with you, and you either deliberately misrepresent my position (if I had a dollar for every "so what you are saying is..." or "so what you mean is..." I would be able to take my family out to dinner tonight), resort to the ad hominem or use the crutch of being too busy to continue. On a public forum we all can choose to partake in any thread we wish in any manner as long as it pertains to the rules. If you don't like that, oh well.

 

About all I can do right here and now is bullet point a couple of statements about this complex biblical doctrine. I can recommend several good books to help to grasp this entire doctrine if that would be helpful.

In any case:

There are essentially 4 views of divine foreknowledge in existence today, with shadings between each view that some may hold, plus the inevitable "cafeteria-type" theology that some may hold not understanding that some tenets of their personal theology are inconsistent with other tenets. They are: Open Theism, Reformed/Calvinistic pre-destination, Molinism or "Middle Knowledge", and a "simple view," i.e., God "just knows."

From most unsure to most sure (God's Perspective) in order: open, simple, middle, and predestination (Calvinist).

Open is just that. God "discovers" the actions of His free agents as they happen, and adjust His will in accordance to what He learns.

Simple is just that. God "just knows" everything, from beginning to end, and no decision is made by the holder of the "simple" theology as to whether God directly dictated those events or they just happened, but in any case, nothing escapes God's knowing.

Middle is perhaps the most difficult to grasp, for it becomes entailed in the realm of counterfactuals, possible worlds, actions that can be true in one dimension, but true in a different fashion in another, with God selecting the best possible free actions to bring about His divine purpose and will, while not hindering the choice of libertarian free individuals.

And Calvinistic predestination, where God's knowing equals God's action, they being one and the same, in that what God knows, God both causes by some aspect of His divine will (which must include all aspects of God's will, permissive, etc.) and desires to be in just that state.

I come down on the soft side of Calvinistic predestination, and I am right next to Molinism, grasping how that concept can help to explain the actions of free agents while preserving God's utter and total sovereignty, but with reservations as to the logical basis (versus scriptural exegesis) of the middle position.



And, I DID note that I well-understood your reasons for using the example you did above.

 

Please (kindly so) explain why it is not (logical, proper et al.) to hold that God knows all of those who will believe and thus become a member of the elect and God not being the direct causer (chooser) without respect to time, which of course is meaningless to God.

Unconditional Election is probably my most personally difficult tenet of reformed theology, not wait, it might be limited atonement, no wait it could be irrestistible grace. (Sarcasm guys....sarcasm....No "hate" mail please)

 

GREAT point!

 

I agree, a good point.

 

No, it is not a good point, in fact it overthrows Unconditional Election.
If foreknowledge means to have a personal relationship with God, that is conditional.

And how can the quality of a man not come into play here? Who ever heard of a person having a personal intimate relationship with another person by himself? Like they say, It takes two to tango.

You did not exist before you were born, therefore you could not have a personal relationship with God. And you cannot have a personal intimate relationship with God until you get to know him either through preaching or reading the Word.

And you certainly can't have a personal intimate relationship with God until you believe, because the scriptures say that whosoever does not believe God makes him a liar.

There is no such thing as a personal intimate relationship that does not involve the knowledge and consent of two parties.

You overthrow your own doctrine.

 

I would agree, which is one of the reasons I reject the idea of mere foresight.

 

With regard to this position, I would like to know what the point is in Paul's use of the word foreknowledge, since the word for "predetermined" was available for him to use? If foreknowing is in essence equal to his "fore-doing" or predetermining, then why didn't Paul simply use that word?

That is the same question I would pose to those who reduce the word to merely mean "foresight," if that is what Paul meant then that is a word the Greek language does possess. Why not use it instead?

We probably aren't really that far from each other then.

Well, then you just WAYYYY overreacted.

 

Winman, I am not persuaded to switch horses, just recognizing a good argument.

 

So says our resident "no clue what Calvinism actually teaches"...

 

Actually annsni,

That question is debated by philosophers and scientists. There are "reasoned" arguments that would say so "in a sense". William Lane Craig has a great book on the different definitions and distinctions of time and how they "could" relate to God.

"Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time"

I do agree with you, if there ARE any limitations of God with respect to time, they would be self imposed limitations.

 

You are missing the point Ann, how can a person be in an intimate personal relationship with God and not know it?
How can one person alone be in a personal intimate relationship? Why, the very definition of relationship requires at least two persons.
So, how could God have an intimate personal relationship with us before we were born? Yes, God could know, but we could not.
It is impossible for a person to have a personal intimate relationship with another person and the other person not know.
Do you disagree with this?

 

You completely miss the whole discussion, much less the point.
God loves the sheep before time.

You speak of two human people in a relationship? That has nothing to say about our creator making covenant with His elect sheep.You bring the god you speak of to a human level. The True God is not like that.

 

That is not what the scriptures show.

Gal 4:9 But NOW, after that ye have known God, OR RATHER ARE KNOWN OF GOD, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

When does it say these believers became known unto God? NOW.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 7 IF YE HAD KNOWN ME, YE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN MY FATHER ALSO: AND FROM HENCEFORTH YE KNOW HIM, AND HAVE SEEN HIM.

You cannot know the Father and have a personal relationship with him until you know and trust Jesus.

 

It was glf that said foreknowledge means an intimate personal relationship, I simply showed why that is impossible.
Whether you will admit it or not, your doctrine denies one of the greatest and most basic doctrines, that Jesus is the mediator between God and man. In your system the Father is the mediator between Jesus and man. This is serious error, no man can come to the Father and know him except through Jesus Christ.
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER BUT BY ME.

You can never come to the Father unless you come through Jesus and have your sins forgiven first. God cannot have a personal relationship with an unforgiven sinner.

You teach serious error.

 

Thanks. Hearing this from you means a lot.

I do find it interesting you keep switch the perspective around. Doing that on purpose maybe? We said that God foreknew us, personal relationship with us, but you keep talking about us having a personal relationship with Christ.