4 Views on God's Foreknowledge - Omniscience

Whosoever will

Brandon,

I'm really busy, so my response time will be pretty slow. Sorry.

There are dozens of verses that say, some quite clearly, others merely implying, that salvation is offered to "everyone," "whosoever," and the whole "world" and look to individuals to respond to the gospel plea. For example, 1 John 2:2 says, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Calvinists say that verses which appear to say that salvation is offered to "everyone" should actually be read as "salvation is offered to all of the elect." But 1 John 2:2 above doesn't work even with that approach. That involves twisting a natural reading of the texts, IMO.

So are unbelievers totally incapable of responding to God in faith? I do not see that anywhere in scripture. Is God involved in the process of drawing people to faith in His Son? Most definitely. And that work is absolutely necessary.

OK, here's a few verses which show that man can respond to God, he can seek Him.

But first, two things need to be emphasized here:

1 - Man has the capacity to believe and is held responsible if he does not do so in many places in the Bible.

2 - Man's faith can only occur in response to divine illumination.

"...God rewards those who diligently seek Him" (Heb 11:6). Jesus said, "If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority" (John 7:17). Clearly man has the capacity to desire to do God's will... and if such a one sincerely seeks God, He will reveal the truth to him.

Paul's statement that "there is none who seeks after God" in Rom 3:11 may seem at first glance to contradict this, but it doesn't. This text does not say that man cannot seek God. Look more closely. In Acts 17:26-27 Paul makes it clear that man can and should seek God. But he doesn't (unprompted by the Spirit) and, therefore, is responsible for not doing so. I know that this appears to be picking at straws, but it is relevant to the concept of "total depravity," which most definitely cannot be ignored when considering the election/choosing of God. That is a key to understanding this apparent contradiction, IMO. There are none who do seek God on their own. Only those drawn to God DO seek God. But God draws more than just the elect. Hence, the purpose of the gospel. But only the elect will respond to the point of trusting in Him - eventually.

The Bible teaches that God genuinely desires all of those who are perishing to be saved. 2 Peter 3:9 says, "He is patient with you, not willing/desiring for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance."

Why are people perishing? Is it because they cannot come to God? No. The Bible says people are perishing because no one has brought them the message, and that is consisnt in the OT as well as in the NT. Hosea 4:6 says, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" and Corinthians 15:34 says, "For there are some who are ignorant of God - I say this to your shame."

I don't see how we can keep the irresistible grace soteriology from essentially leading to saying that God "hates" all of those of the non-elect. (I realize that Reformed theology does not, in general, teach that either, but logically, how can we not end up there?) That is an issue I have with it. Yet, when the rich young ruler turned his back on Jesus, we read that Jesus "loved" him, and that is certainly consistent with what we would expect of a God of love.

There are many verses where God commands the world to seek Him. But if some are not capable of seeking God, why did He command it? For example, Hebrews 11:6 says, "He rewards those who earnestly seek him." Acts 17:26, 27 speaks of His sovereingly working in the world to cause us to respond to Him:

Acts 17:26, 27, 30 From one man He has made every nation of men to live all over the earth and has determined their appointed times and the boundaries of where they live, 27 so that they might seek God, and perhaps they might reach out and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. ... He commands all people everywhere to repent."

Here you can see that God has arranged things in such a manner that we are capable of responding. How could God command everyone to repent if we are not capable of doing something in response to this command? (BTW, "repent" [METANOEW/METANOIA] essentially means to change your mind regarding some perceived need... it does NOT mean "to turn from sin to God.)

Why would God say to Israel, "Seek me and live" (Amos 5:4) if this was already predetermined? God was offering his salvation to the whole nation of Israel. Yet from the Bible we know that not all of the Israelites became believers. This means many of the Israelites God wanted to go to heaven ended up going to gehenna. The same will be true now.

The Bible also says we can resist God. For example, look at Matthew 23:37, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing." This means some people were resisting God’s call to salvation. It also means some people were condemned against His will. This does not contradict God's sovereignty - because God is just and cannot act in such a manner in which we are forced to respond in a certain manner since that would contradict his justice.

To say that God is sovereign is not to say that He controls everything that happens like a puppet-master. And few Calvinists do think this way.

Why did Jesus have to suffer such a terrible spiritual damnation? It could be argued that there was no need for us to be lost and ultimately redeemed. That there was no need for Jesus to suffer such a brutal, humiliating, and despicable punishment in our place...

There is an interesting argument that says that it election is truly irresistible then parental influence should not increase or decrease a child’s liklihood of becoming a Christian. However, we find children raised in Christian homes are several times more likely to become Christians than children who are raised in atheistic homes. Also, children who are raised by mature Christians are much more likely to become Christians than children raised by spiritually immature Christians. We cannot ignore the logic based on this observation, that our choices do make a difference regarding salvation.

Joshua in Joshua 24:15 admonished the children of Israel to "choose you this day whom you will serve... but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." If God's grace is irresistible, then why was it so important for Joshua to make this stern warning? It just doesn't make sense to me.

IMO the doctrine of irresistible grace presents a God who is arbitrary, rather than loving, compassionate, and not willing for any to perish. The basic premise of irresistible grace says that God chose to love or hate certain people purely on an arbitrary basis. Well, we do know that He loves us even though we are all sinners, but why should I have been chosen and some other sinner have been rejected? Certainly not based on any quality about me. But there is a basis, a clear, biblical one... faith, and faith alone. God has chosen to use this response of mankind. Why? Because faith indicates a reliance upon God, rather than myself. It assumes that we have no ability to come to God on our own, and that we recognize our deplorable, sinful state. There is absolutely nothing to brag about a faith that says, "OK, I'm a mess. I can't do a thing unless you do it, Lord. Help!"

SO IMO without a balance in this doctrine, we face a multitude of problems with getting God's Word and God Himself to be consistent. And if you think about it, love can not be commanded... it is a response. God allowed us to choose so that we could respond in love to Him. You can’t force someone to truly love you. In order for us to truly have the ability to love God, we need to have the ability to reject Him.

And such a view of sovereignty makes prayer essentially useless as well. Why ask God to alter events if everything is already completely set in stone... if our requests make absolutely no difference at all? But there are not only many scripture texts that tell us that our prayers will prompt God to respond, we are told that God is pleased when we pray. I realize that this is from God's perspective, but we cannot ignore that logic.

Look at Job. Satan knew that when faced with very difficult circumstances that we might be brought to the position of cursing God. Satan truly thought this was possible. And in the end, we see that Job did not have the perfect response. His self-righteousness was glaringly obvious.

I am speaking about irresistible grace because that is a key argument against my position that says that we can respond to the gospel and God is appealing to all to do so.

I think I need to stop here and continue my arguments in the next post.

FA

 

More "whosoever will"

Brandon,

The parables of the lost things in Luke 15 (lost sheep, lost coin, and the lost son – Luke 15:3-32) show that there is great joy when a lost item is recovered. The application intended is that this is especially true when a lost sinner is saved. Yet where would be the great joy if this was fully predestinated to happen - and we have no choice whatsoever in the matter?

There are parables of varying amounts of rewards at the BEMA seat (judgment seat) of Christ. Why would God reward varying degrees of obedience if it is all predetermined?

I firmly believe in election. The Scriptures teach that God chooses those who will be a part of His family, IMO. But are the non-elect able to choose to believe in Christ? Some would say that only the elect can believe. They would say that the non-elect are unable to choose to believe. That's where we part company.

Belief in individual election does not necessitate belief that the non-elect cannot trust in Christ. I happen to believe they can - from man's perspective. Of couse, also from God's perspective, no one would respond in faith if God does not draw them and convict them of their sin and need for a Savior. Butthat does not negate the choice - the will of the one who comes to believe the gospel.

Jesus said, "If I be lifted up, I will draw all unto Me" (John 12:32). All most naturally refers to all people, each and every one, including the non-elect. In John 16:8ff Jesus said that the Spirit would convict the world of "sin, righteousness, and judgment." This is the same world (KOSMOS - "world system") as in John 3:16. Christ died for all in the world (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2) and everyone could be said to be drawn by God to Him. God is drawing both the elect and the non-elect to Himself. But will all respond to the gospel? No. Only the elect will respond in faith. But could the non-elect respond in faith? From OUR perspective, "yes," they could. But from God's pespective, "no," they could not.

I take this position because it would be very difficult to show from scriptures that God does not make an appeal to everyone. Things have to be done regarding how "world" (KOSMOS) and "all" (PAS) are viewed in passages in which gospel appeals are made that I do not feel comfortable about. All is all.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, we see Paul who is really excited about the fantastic growth of these Gentile believers, in contrast to the unbelievers Paul had just mentioned. In context, it shows both "free agency" and "election" aspects, IMO:

2 Thessalonians 2:9-14 The coming of the lawless one is based on Satan's working, with all kinds of false miracles, signs, and wonders, and with every unrighteous deception among those who are perishing. They perish because they did not accept the love of the truth in order to be saved. (Notice that unbelioevers can display a "love of the truth." To those who respond positively to the truth shown them, God will reveal more truth. I have been saying this often recently, and here is one more place it is clear.) For this reason God sends them a strong delusion so that they will believe what is false, so that all will be condemned--those who did not believe the truth but enjoyed unrighteousness.
(Notice that the determining factor here is whether they believe the truth [above] or believe what is false.)

But we must always thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God has chosen you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, so that you might obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
(Notice that God chose us not only through sanctification by the Spirit but also through belief in the truth. I still see two aspects to our coming to Christ - God's part and our part. God does it all. We will never believe unless the Spirit works, but we do believe - we can respond in faith to the truth.)

The reason Paul was so excited was that God had chosen them for eternal life... "before time began" through sanctification by the Spirit and also through belief in the truth. Here "sanctification" is referring to being set apart for His purpose. BTW, the word for "choose" here is different than usually used. (It's used only here and Philippians 1:22 - "to choose, to take, as in picking out fruit." In Phil. 1:22 it refers to Paul's saying that he has difficulty choosing between remaining to minister in their lives, or to go to be with the Lord.)

So IMO Paul consistently taught that the initiative, the starting point in salvation, comes from God, not man. This is true in every instance IMO. The means God uses to bring about salvation is the work of His Holy Spirit who convicts us of sin and our need for a Savior and then sets aside chosen individuals for lives of separation from sin. He accomplishes that through the sending of men to preach the gospel. But let's not forget the human aspect of salvation: belief in the truth of the gospel. The Holy Spirit then continues to use the Word of God to sanctify the believer’s life.

IMO, it all ties together. But if I ignore the responsibility of the individual to respond to the work of the Spirit, or if we denegrate the choosing by God, our picture will be lacking in some point. We also will be able to find verses which clearly teach that the other side, which we're denouncing, actually has some validity.

And we must not forget that God is drawing everyone to Himself:
John 12:32, "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." - NET

Because of that, they CAN respond. That is assumed, is it not? Read the text by itself, and who would normally come to any other conclusion? God is not willing that ANY should perish... As I said, I agree with Calvinists in that unless the Spirit worked in our hearts we would not be able to respond to the gospel. But I do not equate that with the new birth. The new birth is a result of our response of faith in Christ when we hear the gospel. The ordo salutis ("order of salvation") is different here. (Rom. 10 - "how can they..." Just check out the order of salvation, the ordo salutis, there.)

FWIW,

I'd like to look at Lydia in Acts and see God's working and her choosing as well as election as taught in 1 Corinthian 1 - a seldom used text, but that will require another post... sometime later.

FA

 

But I really do not want this thread to reduce down to arguments for or against Calvinism.

Can those of you who hold to another position explain why you like that particular position? You've obviously done a lot of thinking about it, and I'm very curious about that.

FA

 

BJ,

I take the time to answer your question, which requires some work and cannot be done w/ brevity, and you don't read it? But I much appreciate the tone of your response, and the joke went right by me, BTW.

Now FYI I agree fully that God must be the initiator, though I do not refer to such initiation as regeneration. You say that those who hold to a libertarian free will say that man's will does not really need redeeming--it just needs a fair chance.

I don't think that represents how I or those with my position think. Man needs redeeming, and God must initiate that. But nowhere does the Bible specifically refer to redeeming the will that I am aware. The person is dead spiritually and needs to become a new creation.

I started this thread in the hopes of interesting some, such as yourself, who have done some thinking about this issue. I am not interested in a Calvinist-Arminian debate here either - esp. since I am neither, though closer to Calvinist.

BTW, I assume you are aware that Craig holds to a libertarian free will for man, right, as did Molina? A libertarian free will simply means that he makes the choices of his own volition. The assumption that is made is that God cannot predetermine what such a person will do and he truly have a free will in the libertarian sense. But that is based on a limited view of God's omniscience in which God only knows of (or needs to know of) those events which were counterfactuals to the actual world. He need not, or does not, know of any counterfactuals to hypothetical worlds. But I see no basis for that, and I have already listed a couple of examples in which God's Word assumes or asserts that God does have such counterfactual knowledge.

Anyway, perhaps you could share with us how those scriptures often quoted regarding man's free will are not libertarian in nature, and while doing so could you define what you mean by that? I'd much appreciate it. I'm really not looking to debate this. I want to understand the various positions better, and it's obvious you can help with the Augustinian viewpoint.

Thx,

FA

 

Brandon,

I did not start this thread IOT have people arguing with one another about who's right and have a bunch of labeling and name-calling. I wanted to have a thread which was stimulating and thought-provoking for many who may, as myself, not have heard of such things before (until relatively recently).

As such, I am very interested in the arguments that lay people put forth. Yes, I have a couple of books which give me a definition and description of your position, just as you can see my own with similar works. But I am sure that my position is different than William Lane Craig's. But it makes sense to me. I was hoping that your descriptions would be revealing to me as well.

Now regarding the blue text above, God's Word tells us that there's nothing special about them, just as the Israelites were not better than other nations. In 1 Corinthians 1 we read that not many believers were powerful, wise or rich.

But God chose to make the gospel available to all who simply rely upon His work on the cross. It's fair. All are saved purely by grace. But all can choose to rely upon Him to save them.

In general I simply find it reasonable to assume that God knows so much more than we give Him credit for. And I refuse to believe that all those appeals to trust in Christ were intended to be understood as "once I save you, you will be able to believe and to choose Me." That is simply not what the Greek structure allows. So hence I find myself in a quandrary. The gospel was genuinely made available to all, and God chose those who would believe. Middle knowledge gives me a possible framework that would make it possible.

FA