The certainty of God's Foreknowledge?

This isn't scripture. That's why it isn't truth
MB

 

Your statement is not Scripture, so your statement is not truth. :laugh:

 

At least I can think for myself :laugh:
MB

 

Hi RB,
I do not think we have talked before, if not, I am glad to finally chat some with you.

As I stated earlier, I view predestination (From what I find in scripture) as being for the Christian, after the new birth, being predestined for heaven. We as Christians, are not there yet, but are predestined to get there.

The view that I find many accepting as Double Predestination, is that before the foundation of the world, God elected some individuals to go to heaven and elected some individuals to go to hell. I find this to be against scripture for a number of reasons.
1. I believe that all mankind has a responsibility and is their sole purpose to glorify God. If double predestination is an acceptable doctrine, then many's sole purpose is to not glorify God.
2. When asking myself: "How many sins does it take to make a person a sinner?" I come to the answer of one. One sin makes you a sinner. If we are condemned in Adam (Being held accounatable for his original sin) then his sin made us sinners. Those that go to hell can blame it on Adam because it was his sin that placed them there since his sin was first. Christ said that if you do not believe, ye shall die in YOUR sins (Not Adam's).
3. Children who die at birth. According to the double predestination theory, we must accept that either they were elect and made it or they were non-elect and went to hell. I have seen inconsistancy with this issue among those that accept this doctrine. Some say they went to heaven, because they were no doubt elect and some say they didn't repent and were not born again so they went to hell because they were not one of the elect.
4. It would mean that the work of Adam was greater than the work of Christ. What Adam done, doomed everyone. What Christ done, only saved a few. This is a major reason why I accept the Age of Accountabilty doctrine. If one accepts this doctrine (AoA), that means we are not born spiritually seperated from God. This makes us accountable for our sins and not doomed because of Adam's. Which throws a wrench in many views of total depravity.

I accept the doctrine of predestination (And am so very thankful for it) when put in its proper place. I do not accept double-predestination because I find it simply to be against scripture.

Anyway, this is how I find it in scripture. I hope all is well. Many blessings!!

 

That is how I see it after studying Calvinism for several months. Thanks for saying it better than me. :thumbs:

 

Hi Amy,

I doubt if I have said anything any better than you, but thanks.

God bless and many blessings!

 

Outsider,

Thank you for your reply. I do not think we have chatted before. The reasons for my questions wasn't simply to challenge you, but also to understand where your coming from and understand how your defining your terms. I found something different from you my studies, and that's why I asked. What I mean is the term "double-predestination" has meant to me what one author called "pre-damnation" refering to the notion that God acts actively and purposefully to damn certain souls to hell, not to unsimilar in the way he saves certain souls.

R.C. Sproul defined it like this,

The distortion of double predestination looks like this: There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God WORKS in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative. In the case of the elect, regeneration is the monergistic work of God. In the case of the reprobate, sin and degeneration are the monergistic work of God. Stated another way, we can establish a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry. We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.
This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.

So, perhaps you can see how making a distinction in our terms will help us better understand the meaning of what we are talking about.

I would agree as someone who holds what is called the Reformed doctrine of predestination. God's foreordination, or predestination, for the elect is not the same as His predestination of the reprobate, as Sproul has stated.

I agree that man's chief end is to glorify God. And I believe God will be glorified in both. One to the praise of His grace and mercy, and the other to the praise of His justice.

This deals with doctines of original sin, or federal headship. To comment here would be to move away from the OP and our own conversation, but I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

I don't think this is an acceptable reason to reject the Reformed doctrine of predestination. The Scripture is scant on the subject which we could call infant salvation. Calvinists and others have made an attempt to answer the question, the best of which that I have read was made by C.H. Spurgeon.

It is obvious that you do not accept the doctrine of total depravity. How interesting that in a discussion on predestination, the doctrine of total depravity comes up. But concerning a doctrine which you call AoA, I do not find such a teaching in Scripture. That is, that a particular age is ascibed by decree or doctrine of God to be an age of accountability. So it seems to me to be something your accepting on philosophical considerations only. Indeed, you say this is the major reason why you you accept it, because of what something might mean in your view, namely that Adam's work was greater than the work of Christ.

Rather than the doctrine of predestination being closely related to total depravity, I would suggest that the doctrine of election is.

But a discussion of the doctrine of total depravity could prove useful to us both.

-RB

 

Perhaps you should keep studying it. lol

 

When it comes to Divine truth, I prefer to let God do the thinking, and take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. :jesus:

 

Perhaps.

 

haha! great attitude. You know, when I became convinced of certain things that are called Reformed or Calvinist, it was when I was studying the Scriptures. I was studying Exodus to be exact when the Spirit of God impressed upon my mind His absolute Sovereignty over Pharoah. Of course, I turned over to Romans remember Paul's use of the same passage to see how he applied them, or rather, how the Holy Spirit did, and saw God's sovereignty in the salvation of souls.

It was after that I started looking into what was called "calvinism" which up to that point was a byword to me.

 

RB,
Thanks for your reply. It is a pleasure to discuss the Word with you.

Concerning R.C. Sproul, I agree with his definition of double-predestination. But if he places (Single) predestination (Individually and not categorically) from before the foundation of the world, it is polished double predestination.
What I mean by individually is If he elected you as an individual before the foundation of the world. Now, if God elected a people (Categorical), before the foundation of the world, then it is not double predestination.
In order for Him to elect one, this means He elected the other for something else. It can be polished and shined to look like something else, but at its root, thats what it is.

Could you clarify this for me. I am unsure by what you are meaning.

I agree. I would like to discuss this with you sometime.

I do feel this is relevant to the doctrine of predestination. Simply because it was Spurgeon who claims they are elect. Without repentance, faith or being born again ( I have read only one article on Spurgeon and this topic, so if I am in error, please correct me). I find these things necessary for everyone unless one accepts the doctrine AoA.

I do accept the doctrine of total depravity, just not as the standard 5 point calvinist do. I place it after the AoA. Man, in himself, will never seek God. He has not the ability or the desire to do so. Only by the work of the Holy Spirit can a man respond to the call. That response is either positive or negative.
To clarify AoA, it is not an age, but a time in which God speaks to a person's heart. But that too is another discussion.

Amen. I am sure a thread will come up sometime in the near future - :laugh:

Could you explain to me your definition of predestination and election? We may have ventured off the OP a little, but I find that when dealing with a question, we sometimes have to dig deeper to find answers. It sometimes puts a "Kink" in what we have always thought, but thats one of the reasons why I am here. I would like to iron out the wrinkles....

May God bless you and yours. Many blessings!!

 

I think Amy took the study method that is the most accurate, as she ate the cherries and spit out the pits

 

That's pitiful WD.

 

Good. We are agreed on a definition of double-predestination. And agreed that it is not the Reformed doctrine. However, you are saying that the Reformed doctrine of predestination is polished double-predestination.

I did not in my previous post quote what the classic doctrine is. So, to use Sproul again, here it is:

And again,

Now I could have hammerd that out in my own words, but Sproul's will do. lol

What Sproul is saying I also came to the same understanding from reading Exodus and Romans 9. I was challenged (at the time) to my own belief and understanding of the Sovereignty of God over nations, kinds, and the salvation of souls. I concluded from Scripture that God is absolutely Sovereign, and does whatever He wills and is good to Him.

So, the classic reformed doctrine is not polished double-predestination. It is something different. That God elected a people cannot be denied. What is hard to fathom is how there can be a people without individuals in it. If God's elected People are all those who believe in Jesus Christ (either looking forward, or looking back) then that People are made of individuals. Did God know who would believe? Both the Calvinist and Evangelical Arminian say yes, of course. Is God's knowledge, or foreknowledge (just in terms of information) infallible and perfect?

Of course it is. (unless we are off into Open Theism). You see, there is no "wiggle" room here for either the "arminian" or "calvinist" In the Wycliffe Dictionary of Theology (made up from Fuller scholars, eek!) under the heading Predestination, it reads,

"Objections against the doctrine of predestination bear with equal force against the foreknowledge of God, because what God foreknows must be as fixed and certain as that which is predestinated." p.416

Do you see the force in this? When someone denies the predestination of God they also are denying the foreknowledge of God. If God has predestinated us "unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself" then He foreknows those whom He has predestinated. And this is exactly what the Scripture teaches, and in the proper order, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorifed." Romans 8:29-30

And this foreknowlege of God is infinite. It is from all eternity, to all eternity, without beginning and without end, perfect, holy, and immutable (unchangeable).

So He knew whom would believe, infallibly, and who would not believe infallibly. Where I depart ways with the arminian/non-cal is that God's election of those whom He foreknew is the cause or spring, of their acceptance of Him whom He unfailingly calls in His proper time, justifies and glorifies. Others, what we call the reprobate, He leaves in their sins unto their just condemnation.

Certainly, but it is to restate much of what is written above. That not every man is saved is not denied by any except the universalists. That some are reprobate and damned is most likely agreed upon by us both. It is the why that we probably disagree on. There are those who are damned because God according to His will passed them by to leave them in their sins. The question I think your asking as to how this brings glory to God, since this man's chief end, is that He brings Himself glory by showing His power and justice upon them, not at all different than His purpose for Pharoah. Can we say God's purpose in raising up Pharoah, which the Scripture says He did, be for Pharoah's salvation? Not when God's purpose was to harden his heart! See Exodus 7:3

But then in chapter 8:15 it reads that Pharoah hardened his own heart. What is then? Did God harden Pharoah's heart, or did Pharoah harden his own heart? Or should we ask, how is it that God hardened Pharoah's heart? I would suggest by not restraining him, or witholding him from sin. Let me offer one example.

Consider Abimelech to whom Abraham told him that Sarah was his sister (for the second time). Abimelech took her, but God came to Abimelech in a dream and tells him he a dead man. The Scripture says that Abimelech had not come near her. And he reasons with the Lord that he acted within the integrity of his heart. The Lord tells him that he knows he acted in this manner, "for I also witheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her." See Genesis 20:1-6

Without a doubt Abimelech acted according to his will and volition not even aware that it was the Lord that witheld him. This is a clear act of God restraining sin, like the He says to to the seas, "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here thy proud waves be stayed" Job 38:11

So we see that God may purpose to harden a man or restrain him in his sin. God works all things together according to the counsel of His will. Eph 1:11 And it is in this sense we can understand Proverbs 16:4 "The LORD hath made all things for himself, yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."

Actually my brother, the sermon Spurgeon preached on this subject was that the child is elect, but not without repentance, faith, or being born again. And it is wholly upon Calivinistic principles that he explains his belief. If you like, you can read it here http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0411.htm

Perhaps some of what I have written expains some of this already, but for the sake of a distinct definition:

Predestination: God's purpose concerning the everlasting destiny of the human race.

Election: Included in predestination. His purpose in saving eternally some men and angels. (there are elect angels, and called such in Scripture). And is of individuals. In Romans 8:29,30 it is whom He foreknew, not what, as a class or category. It is "As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed." Jesus tells His disciples that their names, each one, are written in heaven. Their names are written, not the conditions of their salvation. And all the elect of God have their names written in heaven.

I eleborated a little on election because of your statements regarding category as opposed to individuals. God's everlasting and special Love is set upon His people, each one whom He foreknew, above and immeasurably beyond His general care for all men. The doctrine of election ought not to be a doctrine to be despised, but for the believer, a fountain of joy in knowing they are truly love by God with an everlasting love, and spring of rejoicing knowing their names are written in Heaven.

 

Don't fault him Rippon, when that's all a guy has, well, that's all a guy has! :laugh:

 

Hi good brother,

I enjoy reading your responses. It is important to understand that I am not a calvinist despiser. I can appreciate it, I just don't fully agree with it.

According to R.C. Sproul, "God shows mercy sovereignly and unconditionally to some, and gives justice to those passed over in election. That is to say, God grants the mercy of election to some and justice to others. No one is the victim of injustice. To fail to receive mercy is not to be treated unjustly. God is under no obligation to grant mercy to all — in fact He is under no obligation to grant mercy to any."
This is a wonderful illustration of pollished up double predestination. In other words, before the beginning, Sproul says He elected some for mercy and (Elected) some for justice.

As I mentioned earlier, Sproul's view is double-predestination, from my view point. I agree whole heartedly with you that God elected a people, those who believe. This group is made up of individuals that He foreknew.
I see the election being categorical. He elected a people, those who would believe and trust in Christ. Now, it was no shock to God when He saved me. He foreknew me before the foundation of the world. He foreknew me but He elected a people. He didn't elect me from the foundation, but He did foreknow.
Example:
God promised Abraham that a great nation would come from him. He promised this nation a land that flowed with milk and honey. He foreknew every individual that would enter in to the promised land, but He didn't elect any individual. He elected the nation.
I realize that if He foreknew us before hand, then it is written in stone. I do not disagree.
When I was a 5 pointer, I used to say this:
Some can say He foreknows and others say He elects. Either way, the same people are going to the same place. I still agree with this statement. I am not running from a doctrine, I truly have come to see it this way in scripture.

Again, I am a little curious when you say "Election is included in predestination". This makes me think that you place predestination before election, is this correct?
I find election to be first and predestination to follow. God elects a people (Those that believe) and predestines them to be with Him. Not that He elects individuals to believe and elects to passover others. I do believe that He does foreknow them.

If you truley look at what I am saying, you will understand that I agree without question everything you have just said. He has predestinated us. We are predestined. I love that.

True. This is where we do disagree.

Now consider this, Pharoah if the election (Calvinist way) were true, the Pharoah was completely obedient to God. He obeyed God without hesitation. Doesn't the Bible teach us that obedience is better than sacrifice?

This is my definition of election:
"The election of grace is categorical, not individual. It is the divine selection of a people. Those people are selected not by any other means except through faith. It is an election process, divinely selected by God, to give His grace to a certain people by a way that will bring glory to Himself".
Obviously individuals make up the people. He does foreknow those that will believe, and He does predestinate them. but I do not find where He "Passed over" any individual and lets them go to everlasting torment because of Adam's transgression.

Lots of love brother and God bless!!!

 

Study the word of God

When a person looks for a fake dollar bill they don't study all the fake dollar bills to know bad ones, they study the real dollar bill to find the fake one's. Sometimes when you study a fake dollar bill to long the fake one becomes the real one and you start making the real one become the fake one. There is always a glim of the real one in the fake, but it is not the real one.

 

And your point is... what? How is your post relevant to the subject of the OP?

 

The "distortion" does not come out of 'thin air,' rb. Even Sproul has to scramble around for an explanation for 1) the origins of sin (free will) if it's not God and 2) has to figure out how infant "elect" get saved if they die.

I mean, these are not "Rubic's Cube" issues but at least free willers can get all the colors on the right sides! :laugh:

skypair