Prescience / Foreknowledge / Foresight

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by GordonSlocum, Dec 24, 2006.

  1. GordonSlocum

    GordonSlocum
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are they the same? Some say yes some say no. What is the truth. Glad you ask. Here is the truth.

    PART 1 of 2

    Foreknowledge of God

    The word “foreknowledge” expresses an attribute of God’s ability to know the future and all its workings both actual and potential. The word is for our understanding not God’s.

    In theology there are several words that are use in the debate concerning salvation, such as depravity, election, sovereignty, foreknowledge, foresight, prescience and others.

    First we want to define the terms.

    (1) pre·science - noun - knowledge of things before they exist or happen; foreknowledge; foresight. [source dictionary.com unabridged]
    (2) n. Knowledge of actions or events before they occur; foresight. [American Heritage Dictionary]
    (3) noun the power to foresee the future [WordNet]

    Origin: 1325–75; ME < LL praescientia foreknowledge.

    Pre = Before
    Science = Knowledge of

    Prescience is “foreknowledge

    fore·knowl·edge - noun - knowledge of something before it exists or happens; prescience: Did you have any foreknowledge of the scheme?

    “fore” ME, OE for(e) Origin: 1525–35

    ‘”knowledge” Origin: 1250–1300; ME

    Adding the prefix “pre” / “before” to these words “science” / “knowledge”. mean the same. Theologians have taken the word “prescience” and ‘foreknowledge” and created different meanings. One for “foreknowledge” and the other for “prescience”. With respect to the use of “foreknowledge” in Scripture some say it only means or refers to a intimate relationship while others maintain that the word refers to acts. The third view is that when it comes to people it must always be intimate even if it refers to acts of a person or the person less any action taken. To argue that foreknowledge exclusively refers to an already established intimate relationship is to miss use the word. Both Calvinism and Arminianism are incorrect in their use of the word. The correct view when it comes to Scripture refers to the person who has trusted in Christ, including both the person and the acts of the person. In this case we are speaking of salvation. A person trusting in Christ is a personal decision. Because we are persons created in the image of God all we do between, with, for, or against, help, aid, assist, compliment, etc are things that are personal. Trusting in Christ is an act and a very intimate personal act. Arminian’s are wrong to not defend that it is personal and Calvinist are wrong to claim it is only personal in the sense that it has no reference to any act.


    Lets take a look at the context of Peters use of “election on the basis of foreknowledge” I Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2. according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure. 3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4. to {obtain} an inheritance {which is} imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5. who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 6. In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, 7. so that the proof of your faith, {being} more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
    8. and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, 9. obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls. 10. As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that {would come} to you made careful searches and inquiries, 11. seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. 12. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--things into which angels long to look.

    As you can see the context is salvation (saving faith resulting in being elect according to foreknowledge and it is very personal not just an act or not just referring to a person - it is both - they can not be separated). For a Calvinist to compare it with the term as it refers to sex is a double indictment on their view. Why? Sex is an act and it is personal. God saving a lost soul who freely trust in Him is an act and it is very personal. Arminians should not run from this view because it is the only view and Calvinist need to recognize they are wrong too. Calvinism and Arminianism do an injustice to the text by scrapping and arguing what can not be supported by either side - just intimate vs. just an act. I don’t care how many living and dead believers, with or without PhDs say this or that, all are wrong who hold either position. Salvation is an act of the will and it is free and it is the most intimate personal act any human will ever make with God. All persons that were appointed to eternal life who come to trust in Christ in their life time are Elect on the basis of God’s foreknowledge seeing their faith and upon that in Eternity - God appointed them to eternal life.
     
    #1 GordonSlocum, Dec 24, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 24, 2006
  2. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    This view is correct in only one point, and that being.. that election took place in eternity. It is wrong in that it makes the ground of election to be something in the sinner rather than something in God. Please read Eph 1:4-6 where election and predestination are said to be "According to the good pleasure of His will" and "To the praise of the glory of His grace".

    Eph 1:4-6 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

    There are a few things in which many would object to this view.

    1st ..this is not what the Bible teaches about mans nature. The Bible does not describe the natural man as having faith.

    1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

    Both repentance and faith are gifts of God, and God did not see these graces in any sinner apart from His purpose to give them. "Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins", Acts 5:13 "When they heard these things they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, `Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life'", Acts 11:18. "In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledgement of the truth" 2Ti 2:25. See also:

    Eph 2:8-10 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

    1 Cor 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

    Now please read this carefully. Election was not because of foreseen faith, but because of foreseen unbelief. It is not the election of God's faithful ones, but the faith of God's elect, if we are to keep Scriptural words

    Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

    It makes the human race differ by nature, whereas, the Bible says, we are all by nature the children of wrath and all clay of the same lump.

    Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

    Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

    Men are made to differ in the new birth.

    John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

    It perverts the Scriptural meaning of the word "foreknowledge".

    The word as used in the Bible means more than foreknowledge about persons, it is the foreknowledge of persons. In Rom 8:29,30, the foreknown are predestined to the image of Christ, and are called, justified and glorified.

    Now...In 1Pe 1:2, the word for "foreknowledge" is the same as "foreordain" in the twentieth verse of the same chapter, where the meaning cannot be "foreknowledge" about Christ. God's foreknowledge about persons is without limitations... whereas, His foreknowledge of persons is limited to those who are actually saved and glorified.

    It is open to the strongest objection that can be made against the Bible view.

    It is often asked, "If certain men are elected and saved, then what is the use to preach to those who are not elected?" This is where it is seen the same as hyper-calvinism..... "If God knows who is going to repent and believe, then why preach to those who according to His foreknowledge, will not repent and believe?" Will some repent and believe whom He foreknew would not repent and believe? If so, He foreknew a lie.

    This is a weakness found in many missions outreach. It is based upon sympathy for the lost rather than obedience to God's command. The inspiration of missions is made to rest upon the practical results of missionary endeavour rather than upon the delight of doing God's will. It is the principle of doing a thing because the results are satisfactory to us.

    If we are faithful, God is as pleased with our efforts as when there are no results. Ponder

    2 Cor 2:15-16 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: 16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?

    The elect prior to their conversion are known only to God. We are to preach the gospel to every creature because He has commanded it. He will take care of the results. Compare with:

    Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

    1 Cor 3:5-6 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

    John 6:37-45 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets,

    And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

    It is ours to witness; it is His to make our witnessing effective.
     
  3. reformedbeliever

    reformedbeliever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,306
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Bible tells us that God ‘knows’ His people. This not only means that He has knowledge about them but that He has chosen them and entered into personal relations with them. (The same word for ‘know’ (yada) was used in the Old Testament as a euphemism for sexual relations between a man and his wife (e.g. Genesis 4.1; 4.25 and often)).
    For example, in the Bible God says of Abraham, ‘Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him. For I have known (yatha’) him, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; to the end that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he has spoken of him (Genesis 18.18-19). Here God’s personal call to Abraham (Genesis 12.1) and His covenants with him are described in terms of ‘knowing’ him, and results in godly living and the fulfilment of His covenant.
    This is why God can later rebuke Israel, saying, ‘You only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore I will visit on you all your iniquities’ (Amos 3.2). Because the nation of Israel has been specially favoured by being chosen by Him, and has turned away from Him, it deserves the greater condemnation. And again He says ‘I knew you in the wilderness, in the land of great drought’ (Hosea 13.5). Then He says to the prophet, ‘according to their pasture, so were they filled; they were filled, and their heart was exalted, that is why they have forgotten me’ (Hosea 13.5-6). He had chosen the people of Israel and had entered into a covenant relationship with them in the wilderness, and later provided abundantly for them, but because of the abundance they received they became self-satisfied and forgot Him.
    So when God ‘knows’ people, He does not just know about them, He chooses them and enters into personal relationship with them. But for that reason they are the more accountable. However, in the case of Israel it should be noted that it was Israel as a nation or ‘family’ that He had ‘known’. So His saving purpose did not fail. It continued in those of Israel who were faithful to Him (the remnant 1 Kings 19.18 with Romans 11.4; Isaiah 10.22; the holy seed - Isaiah 6.13). His choice of Israel was not in vain.
    Thus when Paul agonises over the rejection of Israel, he has to ask himself, could God reject those whom He has ‘known’? He answers with a resounding No! For there is a remnant, including himself, who still respond to God and for this reason he declares ‘God has not cast away his people whom he foreknew’ (proginosko - Romans 11.2), for ‘there is a remnant according to the election of grace --- The elect obtained it and the rest were hardened’ (Romans 11.5, 7). So those whom He ‘foreknew’, those whom He has chosen by grace, are still faithful to Him. The verb means in this context ‘to choose and enter into relations with beforehand’.
    This is extended to Christians in general in one of the great verses in the Bible. Speaking of those who are ‘called according to His purpose’ he says ‘For those whom he ‘foreknew ’ (proginosko), he also foreordained (proorizo) to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. And whom he foreordained, them he also called, and whom he called, them he also justified, and whom he justified, them he also glorified’ (Romans 8.28-30). So the process begins with God’s foreknowledge. But this is not just to be seen as intellectual knowledge beforehand, but as a deliberate choice in the past by which He, as it were, entered into personal relations with them. Then, because they have been chosen, the rest follows, they are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, then called, then justified, and finally they are glorified. Their being chosen through God’s ‘foreknowing’ is the precursor of the whole.
    The verb to know is used in the same sense in Galatians. ‘But now, after you have come to know God, or rather to be known of God, how do you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elements, in which you desire again to be in bondage?’ (Galatians 4.9). Here again to be ‘known’ by God is distinctly personal. God has ‘known’ them and entered into personal relations with them.
    Peter teaches the same thing when he describes Christians as ‘elect according to the foreknowledge (prognosis) of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ’ (1 Peter 1.1-2). They are ‘elect’ because God has chosen them and entered into relations with them beforehand, and the purpose of their choosing is that they might be cleansed and obedient. He accomplishes this ‘through sanctification of the Spirit’. On the one side is God’s activity resulting from His pre-choice, the separating and purifying work of the Spirit, and this results on the other side in obedience and cleansing.
    This significance of foreknowledge is illustrated when Peter could say of Jesus Himself that ‘Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge (prognosis) of God, you, by the hands of lawless men, did crucify and slay’ (Acts 2.23). Here the will of God is clearly in action in His ‘foreknowing’. He is not just ‘knowing about it beforehand’, but choosing for it to happen. It results from His determinate counsel. Peter tells us that this ‘foreknowing’ (proginosko) of the Lamb without blemish Who was slain occurred ‘before the foundation of the world’ (1 Peter 1.20). And again he prays to God, ‘For of a truth in this city against your holy Servant Jesus, whom you did anoint, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, in order to do whatever your hand and your counsel pre-determined (proorizo) to come about’ (Acts:4:27-28). So both fore-knowing (proginosko) and pre-determination (proorizo) are part of the same action of God’s will in relation to Jesus as they were in relation to His people.
    The will of God lies at the root of His foreknowing. For God ‘has made known to us the mystery of His will, in accordance with His good pleasure which He purposed beforehand (protithenai) in Himself, unto a dispensation of the fulness of times, to sum up all things in Christ, both things in Heaven and things on earth, in Him in Whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained (proorizo) according to the purpose of Him Who works all things after the counsel of His own will’ (Ephesians 1.9-11). Here Paul takes us right into the heart of ‘the mystery of the will of God’, and that is that His aim is finally, in His outworking in the fulness of times, ‘to sum up all things in Christ’. And he stresses that this is in accordance with God’s purpose and within His good pleasure. Then he brings out that through Christ we also have our part in this ‘having been foreordained according to the purpose of Him Who works all things after the counsel of His own will’ to become part of God’s inheritance. Here all that we have been speaking about of God’s foreknowing, is set within God’s eternal purposes.
    As Paul puts it elsewhere. ‘He saved us and called us with a holy calling, --- according to His own pre-purpose (prothesis) and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before times eternal and has now been fully made known by the appearing of our Saviour Christ Jesus’ (2 Timothy 1.9). So our calling was ‘before times eternal’. Or as Paul puts it in Ephesians 1.4-5, ‘He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before Him in love, having foreordained (proorizo) us to being adopted as sons, according to the good pleasure of His will’. Here again His foreknowing us and choosing us is placed directly in eternity.
    This explains the words of Jesus where He says, ‘All whom the Father gives to me will come to me’ (John 6.37). And ‘this is the will of Him Who sent me that of all that He has given me I should lose nothing’ (John 6.39). And ‘no man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him’ (John 6.44). Here Jesus clearly teaches that there are those who have been given to Him by the Father, whom the Father will draw to Him.This is confirmed in John 17.6. ‘I have made your name fully known to the men whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word’. Note the order. They were the Father’s, then He gave them to the Son. The belonging comes before the outward response. Note further that it results in them keeping His word. Salvation is God’s gift, but there is no salvation without transformation. In most cases the work of election is imputed to the Father. It is God as Father Who calls, enters into relationship with His own, adopts them and gives them to the Son. This does not mean that the whole Godhead is not involved in the work. It is because the Son is the mediator of God’s saving purposes that the Father is shown as the source. Jesus makes clear that He and the Father work together in all aspects of God’s saving purposes.

    Dr. Pete Pettingill http://www.geocities.com/athens/delphi/4027/aboutpredestination.html
     
  4. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    Psalm 1

    NOTE...Notice the parallelism in the shaping or sharpening of the subject. The person "Blessed"...walks...stands...and then sets. This is parallel..ungodly...sinners...scornful. Both "sticks" follow the same sharpening path. There is a shaping of the counsel given to a higher level in degree. A preson 1st walks by with only a small bit of counsel, a word of two from the ungodly. The 2nd step is to stop and stand in the way of the sinner as you listen to their words. Last you sit down and drink in all that the scorner has to say. But those that are blessed, do not follow this path.

    Verse 1 is a negative way of saying those that are not blessed do follow this path.

    "But" in verse 2 indicates a contradistinction to what we have just described in verse 1.

    I think verse 5 is a great play on words pointing back to the words in verse one. The statement is still negative but is pointing toward the ungodly this time. The ungodly are driven away in verse 4. (Isa 40) Therefore the ungodly is not "known" in verse 6. Please notice the parallelism is that the LORD does not KNOW the ungodly. The ungodly is left to be driven away.

    Young reads this way...
    For Jehovah is knowing the way of the righteous, And the way of the wicked is lost!

    This may give us the best picture of "knowing" we can find in the Bible. God knows His own, and the wicked are lost.


    In Christ....James
     
    #4 Jarthur001, Dec 24, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 24, 2006
  5. GordonSlocum

    GordonSlocum
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is a lot all at one time I will hack away at it over the next day or two. Christmas as everyone knows.
     
  6. skypair

    skypair
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Y'all...

    Why don't you just take the text at hand and understand it??

    Those who reside as "aliens" are Gentiles. They were "chosen," like Israel, to the pruposes of God. God knew that they would be 1) saved "by the sanctifying work of the Spirit" in their hearts. That is John 16, right -- "And when He comes, He will convict the world of sin... because they beleive not on Me..."

    2) To "obey" Jesus command "Ye must be born again." Who obeyed Christ and were sprinkled with the blood of His forgiveness -- God or the "aliens??" No matter how you massage it, it was the "aliens" who had "obeyed" who were saved, right? so what was forknown? That God would give them salvation or that He would give it to those who respond in obedience?

    3) By repentance, "sprinkled by His blood."

    To make the OP point, does the text say God didn't know or that Peter was writing to any Gentiles that WEREN'T saved? No. He only foreknew them who would trust in Jesus. "Chosen" obviously refers to God's purposes, not to salvation.

    skypair
     
    #6 skypair, Dec 26, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 26, 2006
  7. GordonSlocum

    GordonSlocum
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas. We did. Christmas, however, for us extends until after the New Year. I would suspect it is the same in your home too.

    There were some great Christmas presentations put on by Churches everywhere. I watched a number of them on the web such as TRBC, FBCW and others.


    During these few days off I have pondered the subject at hand. The essence of the two major sides are not going to change. I think we all know that. The one central "glue", however, is an adherence to the fundamentals of God's world. We understand them differently but we affirm them non-the-less.

    Having said that I will now revert back to the defense of my side of the polemic. As everyone should know my side is correct and all others wrong. Now, be sure to put on a happy face and smile.

    My response to several of the post above is as follows:

    (1) God Absolutely Knows all things (we call it foreknowledge / prescience / foresight

    (2) God knew the Jesus would die for our sins from eternity

    (3) Because God knew Jesus would die on the cross before creation then Jesus must die on the cross. If Jesus did not die on the cross this would make God wrong in knowing the future. But, God is always right because He has Absolute Knowledge.

    (4) Jesus freely made the decision to die on the cross.

    (5) Also, because Jesus freely decided to die on the cross and because God knows all the event was both determined on the basis of foreknowledge of which God's foreknowledge is absolutely perfect and can never be wrong and free on the part of the person making the decision.

    This same truth is applied to salvation. It is the only true pure non-contradictory theological system on the face of the earth. It is the right one, the correct one, and the only Biblical one. Talk about confidence there you have it.
     
  8. skypair

    skypair
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great Christmas, Gordon :D

    And of course you are right! :thumbs:

    Three verses I'd like to add to the discussion Gal 3:22 and Rom 3:22 and Rom 4:5.

    "But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe."

    "Even the righteousness of God [salvation] which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:"

    See, faith IS GIVEN by God (as these others say) to those who believe. No argument. In fact, it is called a SPIRITUAL GIFT (1Cor 12:9).

    But belief is NOT given and it is NOT a "work." It is something the HEARER of the Spirit has to do for himself -- as in Rom 4:5, "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his [God-given] faith is counted for righteousness."

    See, the "natural man," indeed "the whole world," can only hear one thing -- the conviction of the Holy Spirit "of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment." John 16:8

    So God FOREKNEW who the believers would be and predestined THEM alone to be conformed to the image of His Son. (Rom 8:29-30). Did He "forelove" them? Sure! He "foreloved" everyone, "the world," John 3:16!! Did He have to choose salvation for the believers? Absolutely not! Can God not foreknow those who will choose Him instead?

    skypair
     
  9. GordonSlocum

    GordonSlocum
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    0
    ( So true: God Foresee our repentance and faith and accepts it in eternity pass whereby we are chosen and predestined in accordance to God's purposes - great verses)

    (So true: We have all found ourselves speaking about our Christian walk in the presence of the un-converted. They can not understand in their lost state as we too did not when we were in that state as well. What does happen is the Spirit of God convicts them of their darkened sinful heart and they fall under convection of sin and judgment and realize they need Jesus. At this point they are faced with a decision either to repent and believe or not repent and not believe and all this is foreknown of God. He knows all who will trust in Him from free will because we are created in His image - we witness - God convicts and people decide freely form the capacity they have from birth which is a part of being created in the image of God / Always remember dead in sin and trespasses is not cessation of soul, and spirit it is spiritual separation that is a big difference )


    (Amen: God sees our faith in eternity and accepts is as a done deal and we are declared as Elected in eternity and as having been born from above, again. We are appointed to eternal life on the basis of foreknowledge whereby God sees us repent and trust in His work)

    Granting of repentance is on the basis of a contrite heart whereby a sinner upon convection turns to God. Repentance is given to all Gentiles not just some, but repenting is only for those who respond to the Gospel. You are only granted forgiveness if you are of a contrite heart to receive God's Grace. In this sense repentance is use. First, remember that all Gentiles are granted repentance unto life, the issue is who will appropriate it with a contrite heart or a attitude of saying Lord I am guilty and I agree with you and I ask for forgiveness of my sin. )


    (All Christians who are willing to accept the grammar of the text perfectly know that the Calvinist position and the miss representation and interpretation of this verse is obvious. It is like stretching ant around a telephone pole. It can not be done. I know the Greek and all Calvinist Greek so called scholars are absolutely wrong. Calvinist who know Greek have twisted and forsaken sound fundamental rules to force it to mean what they want to support their false belief that "faith is a gift" infused into a person whereby they are forced to trust in Christ.)


    (This verse is so clear of a refutation of Tulip theology and it surprises me that it would be used to support your view. Interesting. The term "elect" is adjectival in use and attributes faith as theirs not a gift from God. The language does not support the view you see in it.)

    (Here is where the TULIP Calvinist miss the boat again. All of God's word is for teaching, doctrine, etc. To understand the Hebrew mind set in expressing God's relationship to man the student of the Bible has to understand the way Jewish though goes. Read Jeremiah 18 and don't forget Romans 11:32 which is the punch line for this portion of Scripture. I personally believe that Calvinism isolates and pulls verses out of context to support their view and do many systems. There are some hard sayings but they can only be correctly understood when the mindset, culture, and proper linguistic idiosyncrasies are applied to it which is part of sound Bible study. This is where Calvinism jumps the ship and moves into Philosophy and leaves the total instruction of God's word - I do not question a Calvinist zeal for truth but there basis is off course and not Scripturally sound)

    (Foreknowledge see a person believe and then they are saved. Election, Predestination, Glorified, Justified, etc. all take place at one point in time and they always follow conversion which is based upon man's free choice to trust in Christ.)


    [Now I chuckle at this. This is a classic example of Greek Language misrepresentation. I will explain: The word for foreknowledge in verse two is a noun - accusative case - feminine in gender - singular in number - form of the word "foreknow"). The word used in verse 20 is a verb form of the same word and is identified as follows "a verb participle - perfect tense - passive mood - genitive case, masculine gender, and singular in number. It is translated this way and it is a perfect English translation and it is exactly what it means and nothing else. Here it is " "of having been foreknown" (now to force it to mean anything else is miss use of Scripture. Here is where Calvinist seek to redefine words, and meanings to support their teaching. Their Calvinist theologians have, over the years, re-defined words in their commentaries and other works and the unknowing buy into the deception of these changed definition of words. Much like trying to make the very form of the word "foreknow" mean something it does not mean, which is the case here. So let it be known that when you read a commentary by a Calvinist you are not going to see the truth because it takes twisting and changing meaning to support a view that can not be supported in Scripture.) ]


    (Hyper Calvinism here is defined by you and you are a Calvinist. Assuming you are a TULIP Calvinist. For those of us who are not Calvinist view the TULIP version of Calvinism as Hyper Calvinism. You are entitled to your definition but we are entitled to ours too. The term Hyper has bad vibes assigned to it and it should. Many Calvinist who have been labeled such that are TULIP Calvinist shun away from the term and have re-define it to their liking, understandably so. Form the none Calvinist view TULIP Calvinist are "hyper" Calvinist. As long as all understand that the definition you assign to a word is not what many of use who are not Calvinist assign to the word, all is well and that way we understand where each is coming from. In this case of assigning a definition to Calvinism we are strictly speaking of a difference in theological view.)

    (Now that is an interesting statement. Can a real believer not have sympathy for the lost? I don't think so. To approach missions with a dry obedience is to deny our "image of God in us". We feel, we have emotions, we care, and are concern. The motivation is about our love of God which compels us to have compassion for the lost where by our obedience is not some robot presentation of words to a force election of a person against their will. "Here Mr. Jones is the Gospel, if you are one of the Elect you will understand - Good day" That is why Calvinism is a Missions killer. Not all who claim to be Calvinist are dry, dead, cold, un-loving, feeling for the lost even though they are wrong in their view on salvation, but most are as I have witnessed over my 40 plus years as a believe).
     
  10. reformedbeliever

    reformedbeliever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,306
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll only respond to this one quote of Gordon's. This one makes him miss the mark by a mile.

    God does not have to learn a thing from man or anything else. He is all knowing. If He had to learn what man would do, He would not be all knowing.
     
  11. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    :eek: Wow, I agree with reformedbeliever!

    You cannot separate God's omniscience with his omnipresence. If God knows all without being everywhere, He is bound by His present location and therefore time and space. These two (omnipresence/omnitemporalness and omniscience) coincide perfectly with election and predestination.
     
  12. reformedbeliever

    reformedbeliever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't get too excited webdog.... this is probably the only thing we agree on.... lol Actually we probably agree on most all the fundamentals.
     
  13. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...as do most cal's and non-cal's. Immutable truth is truth for all, but it is when either side claims their views on the mechanics of this immutable truth is unquestioned truth...we have no immutable truth at all, but only opinionated truth :D
     
  14. skypair

    skypair
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh?? Then why did He "repent" of having made man, Gen 6:6?? I think you don't understand the sovereignty that God gives to man, eh?

    skypair
     
  15. skypair

    skypair
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Huh? God is present like the tree falling in the forest -- if no one hears it, did it really make a sound?

    God is omnipresent wherever man is. But unless you are a "pantheist," God is not present where man isn't (unless you can show me the scripture :D ).

    skypair
     
  16. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then He's not omnipresent...therefore not God.
     
  17. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you have omnipresence and pantheism mixed up.

    Omnipresence is that God cannot be contained and is everywhere in his creation (even where man isn't - of course he's in places where there are no men!).

    Pantheism is God is in all creation (including man). In pantheism, God is not distinct from creation whereas as theistic omnipresence, God is present everywhere but is distinct from the creation.
     
  18. GordonSlocum

    GordonSlocum
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not avoiding answering have some work to do, Locksmith Work, and will attend to this as soon as time is not getting paid. For not time is money and has a grip on certain outcomes and responsibilities.
     
  19. GordonSlocum

    GordonSlocum
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK folks here is the bottom line: Enjoy

    NJKV - 22. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
    23. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.

    NASV - 22. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23. But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.

    I am only going to deal with the Galatians passage because the construction in Romans 3:22 is the same and mean the same.


    You will first notice that the translators of the NKJV and NASV have taken into account the context and the word relationship.

    The very literal word for word translation is as follows (English then Greek using English letters)

    Verse 22: but / alla - shut up / sunekleisen - the / he - scripture / grafe - the / taa - all / panta - under / hupo - sin / hamartian - in order that / hinahe - the / he - promise / epangelia - by / ek - faith / pisteos - of Jesus / Iesou - of Christ / Christou - might be given / dothe - to the one / tois - believing / pisteuousin.

    The words “the promise out of faith of Jesus Christ” What questions does this statement cause you to ask?

    (1) Who made the promise? Jesus Christ “The promise of Jesus Christ”

    But it has some modifiers for understanding but in the Calvinist side miss-understanding.

    (2) The word “ek” out of or from within suggest this: the promise of Jesus is out of faith. This is why the translators of the NKJV and NASV translate it as they do.

    Can the R 3:22 and G 3:22 mean that this genitive use of “faith” mean a gift of faith to the believer? No grammatically it is impossible.

    Why is it impossible? The genitive case is a case of defining. Its basic idea is to define or separate but more so that of defining . Consider the word “of”. If I say , “of faith of John Doe” what are we saying? Would we not be saying John Doe has faith in something? We would. Why? Because faith always takes an object. If we press the relational meaning of this word faith found here in the genitive case to mean precisely the “case meaning” then Jesus Christ is placing faith in an object. Is the object the promise, or God who made the promise?

    If I say “the eternal security out of faith of John Doe we would recognize this to mean that whatever object John Doe’s faith is in it has secured for him “eternal security”. John Doe is not giving faith away to someone else but is exercising faith himself toward something “an object” because there must be an object for faith to have meaning. So to make the statement in verse 22 teach that Jesus is Giving faith to unbelievers whereby they are now able to have faith in Christ can not be supported with the Greek Grammar. Nor can it be supported by the greater context. The practical rendering is as the NKJV and NASV have it. The object of the ones believing is the fulfillment of the promise which is Jesus Christ.

    Again if the Calvinist want to force the issue here fine. The results is forcing Jesus to have fait in something.

    Notice this: What makes more sense The promise “out of the faith of Jesus Christ” or The promise “by faith in Jesus Christ”. If we use the first, then Jesus is exercising faith in something Himself. What is the object of Jesus’ faith? Calvinist can not make this verse teach faith as a gift to the unsaved whereby they are now able to trust in Christ - it is absolutely impossible.

    What is given to the ones believing? The promise - How? By believing. Grammatically the two verses you use are against Calvinist teaching if Calvinist use these as proof text that “faith” is a gift whereby a lost person is infused with faith whereby they are then able to believe.

    Actually, before the issue of faith is addressed there is the problem of regeneration. But that can surface later or in another thread

    Commentary: I am sure one can look far and wide and find a Greek Scholar of some sort that will support each view. I have not done that. The text I use do not address the issue at all. I have taken the grammar principles and applied them to the text. Doing so renders the issue or argument that Jesus is giving “faith” as a gift in either of the two references R 3:22 and G 3:22 impossible. What it forces us to do if we do not consider other factors is make Jesus have faith in something not give faith to someone/s. If we force the text in a pure grammatical sense and not see it as somewhat idiomatic we have to make it say that Jesus is having faith in an object. That being the case we then are force to identify the object of Jesus’ faith.

    Well there you have it. Your turn.
     
    #19 GordonSlocum, Dec 28, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 28, 2006
  20. skypair

    skypair
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gordon.

    Comes off a little "Clintonesque" ("That depends of what the meaning of 'is' is.") but alright. :D

    It is clear to me that faith is given but belief is not. If one has to believe to be saved, then the issue is what connects belief to faith that is given by Someone else? And that would be repentance which is belief "that has legs." Baptists often call it "appropriating the promise of salvation to oneself" lest you "believe in vain."

    I don't think Calvinists can argue with this. I was listening to John Mac on the way to work the other day bloviating on God's sovereignty saying "God rules everything." And that is true! BUT most often He choses NOT to exercise His power over Satan or over us so that we might come to reciprocate His love! :love2: -- or else suffer from the consequences of "cause and effect."

    Same with salvation. He could just make us believe -- or make puppets out of us if he wanted to. He could just give us salvation without anything on our part (good example: through infant baptism). That's not the God any of us knows, is it?

    skypair
     

Share This Page

Loading...