Bible Study: God's Foreknowledge

Repent of what, and for what purpose if He didn't come to die for them?

 

Tom, nobody is denying that God can know a person before they exist or are born. This is exactly what foreknowldge is. But election is based upon this foreknowledge (1 Pet 1:2), not the other way around. Calvinism teaches that God elects persons not according to anything foreseen or foreknown in the man, but scripture says the opposite. God indeed does elect men according to foreseeing or foreknowing something in the man. Calvinism teaches the direct opposite of what scriptures say.
And God's election is not unconditional as Calvinism teaches. God clearly explains who he has chosen and why in 1 Cor 1: 26-29. God says he has chosen the foolish to confound the wise, the weak to confound the mighty, he has chosen the base and despised, the things that are not to bring to nought things that are, that no flesh should glory in his presence.
The reason or purpose God elects persons is not some mysterious secret as Calvinism falsely teaches. And being foolish, weak, base, and despised are definitely qualities or attributes of man.

 

We have to remember that what God decides, he has always decided. Whomever he sets apart, he has always set apart. Paul's understanding was that God had plans for him before he was ever born. If it was to call him as an apostle, evangelist, whatever, it also involved saving him first, and God's informing Paul of his plans.

I wouldn't say that either if God had not said it to Jeremiah.

But each of those election included salvation. God is not going to call one to preach or prophesy independently of his plans to save them, seems to me.

I understand the immediate context of the verses I cited is God's call to service to each one. But one is not required to park his brain in the garage at that point. One may properly conclude some facts based on knowledge of other facts. God's purpose to call them to service must of necessity include his purpose to save them first.

 

Winman, obviously I see this differently from you. I think part of the problem we as human beings have is that we want to put everything on a time line. We Calvinists humanly want to put election first, then foreknowing, then whatever comes after that. Non-Cals want God to foreknow first, then elect, then whatever comes next.

Since God elected you, there never was a time when he didn't elect you. Since God foreknew you, there never was a time when he didn't foreknow you. Because we operate in time, we want to make one dependent on the other in a chronological order. But all these things exist in the mind of God at the same time. Foreknowing, predestinating, calling, justifying and glorifying are all from eternity in his mind.

In each of these, God is the actor. He is acting, not reacting. In the mind of God, all these things are as if they are already accomplished (as in glorifying, for instance).

I wish this subject was simpler to understand. But then, we'd not have much to talk about, would we?

 

Tom, it is God's word that says election is according to foreknowldge, so foreknowledge necessarily precedes election.
But I refuse to believe God can have an intimate and personal relationship with an unbeliever in all his sins. This goes against all scripture. And you cannot have your sins forgiven until you trust Christ. Therefore, I believe when God speaks of knowing someone before they are born, he is speaking of after they are saved.
Did God know Paul would believe? YES. Did he know Isaiah and Jeremiah would believe? YES. And because God could foreknow this personal relationship he would enter into with these men, chose or elected them.

 

If you define foreknowledge as foreseen faith, then sure, it could precede election.

I think that foreknowing involves more than just awareness in the mind of God. We could just as easily say that God, because of his omniscience, knows everybody (and everything). But foreknowledge is always connected to believers, suggesting more than just awareness.

I'm also coming to the point that we may be making too much of the sequence of election and foreknowledge. To me, logically, election precedes foreknowledge. But I'm beginning to view the two in a similar way that I view repentance and faith--as two sides of the same coin. You get one, you get the other--separate, yet joined.

I'm going in that direction because Paul, in Romans 8, said "whom he foreknew, he predestinated..." The foreknown are always predestinated, no exceptions. You get one, you get the other--always.

If I'm right, then the order becomes less important because God always provides both.

 

Repent of what? their sins. People are sinners and God has called all men to repent. The death of Christ is sufficient for all men.

 

How can they repent if not empowered to do so? If they are commanded to turn from their sin...what are they commanded to turn TO? Remember, Christ didn't die for them even if they could repent.

 

He said it here:

 

they can't because they have to desire to do so. And Christ's death is sufficient for their sins. Calvinism doesn't say that the death of Christ wasn't sufficient for them. If they could repent, then they would be "elect."

 

The command is for aLL men to repent and believe

you say;

[/QUOTE] you do not know if Christ died for them or not! They are responsible to repent...they do not want to.

Only the elect will be made willing to do so...so they repent and believe.
the others ....would not.
37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!


Webdog, God might have elected everyone on the planet,so we preach to all men everywhere. God has chosen a multitude...he uses the preaching of the word and the doctrines of grace to discover who they are.
they are the ones who believe.

 

Van,
you are completely missing everything.I will try to look at your posts and go through when i have more time..

You keep redefining words more than bill clinton with monica lewinski
it depends on what is is.

 

So, God needs man's assistance to "discover" who the elect are? How can God discover anything if he knows all things? And why does God need man's help to save people? And if it is so important that salvation be all of God, why does he allow men to work with him? And doesn't God limit himself by allowing men to preach the gospel? If for example there was a populated island that had never heard the gospel, isn't God limited of who he can discover who is elect there if no man goes there and preaches the gospel?

Boy, for a Calvinist, you sure seem to make God dependent on man in this statement.

 

Wow, just wow. Total misrepresentation of what Iconoclast said. Where did he say that "God needs man's assistance to discover who the elect are"? Where did he say that GOD didn't know who the elect are? The answer is no where. you twisted his statements around just to take another jab at his post. your behavior is very unchristlike. you may disagree, but at least act like Christ in your disagreements. Taking someones statements and twisting them around is being dishonest. i accidentally did that with you yesterday and apologized for it, but that's very unusual for me.

 

No, before I formed you in the womb means before you were in the womb. At conception, you are being formed in the womb. Before being formed in the womb, is before conception.

 

Sorry, but that's not how that works. You cannot drop "for salvation." (you can't just take prepositions out) The "through sanctification and belief" is how one is saved. god doesn't need to be sanctified nor believe, so why would that apply to him choosing us.

But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

and besides, why thank God for choosing us if he didn't it just because we chose him?