Foreknow

No I do not think either had a choice. You know Paul had a habit of going to Jerusalem for feast days. Do you think he heard Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost? Course we don't know I was just wondering what you thought.

 

Amy is talking about God appearing to be monstrous in the Calvinistic system. As a former Calvinist myself and one who has studied these matters for a couple decades, I thought her statement was a bit over the top. But if you really think about it objectively, I believe she has a point.

Calvinists teach that God creates a world in which he chose to condemn all mankind into a state of complete and utter hopelessness because a couple people ate a piece a fruit that he had forbidden them to eat. And with the exception of a chosen few the mass of humanity, because of this divine condemnation, will spend eternity burning in torment and pain.

What monster do you know of in any book or story that is scarier than that?

 

No need to 'muster up' anything. Either choose to believe or not.

Great, end of debate - even you acknowledge Paul had to chose to believe in order for God to save him.
Regardless of the special event that transpired to open his eyes (ironically they were closed so he could see), God didn't save Paul apart from his choice to believe. God used many great events in times past to call people to repentance but we still find that at times some believed and others some didn't.

Some he calls do in fact reject His calling (Prov 1:24; parable Marriage feast) and others don't. It isn't any surprize to Him who comes and who doesn't even though He calls them all like.

A.T. Robertson on John 10:16 like you asked

Emphasis mine - specifically on the point that he states that God gave His Son for the 'whole of human race' and not a selct group from within it.
And then he gives this next portion of the verse:

Again, same point.
THen he presents next this from the verse:

Here his is without a doubt speaking of the calling of God going out to all men, the 'same'.
Here is Act 28:28 with his comments following:

Notice he emphasises 'they' will hear, reflecting a choosing to listen when Israel chooses not to. But moving on...

And here is his last portion:

Now watch what he says next tying in the 'flocks':

Riddle me this
If Christ died for all mankind as Robertson states, who is the 'us' that is refered to regarding his statement "what he does for us what any good shepard does." referencing back to 10:11:

I guess when we look at A.T. Robertson in total he speaks contrary to your view.

Wow, now that is what I call some serious eisegesis

 

Here is the post that got this "monster" thing started.

I was simply responding to OR's accusation that non-cals characterize God as a monster and also accusing us of blasphemy. If that is over the top, I apologize.

 

From the Thread “Regeneration: Begotten By God”, Post # 145, 01-11-2010, 04:26 PM,
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=63812

************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Sorry Amy but above is the type of post that elicited my comment regarding those who refer to GOD as a monster. There may have been others. I did not try to find all.

 

I did not refer to God as a monster. I refered to the Calvinist doctrine as making God to look as a monster. I apologize if you are offended by my post, but that is the way that I see Calvinism. Calvinism is doctrine. I have no ill feeling toward any Calvinist. It is the doctrine that I have a problem with.

Here is what I said:

There's nothing beautiful about the Calvinist view of God's sovereign grace.

It makes God a cold hearted monster.


"It" refers back to my statement about the Calvinist "view". I have never called God a monster. And I have not committed blashemy as you said in your post.

Again, I have not characterized God as a monster. It is the Calvinist doctrine that does that. I am not blasphemous in saying that. It is my view.

 

Really?!? God told Jonah to go to Nineveh, and then made him disoby causing him to sin?!?

 

The Greek word ginwskw denotes "experiential knowledge" whereas the Greek word eidw denotes "cognizant knowledge."

To understand foreknow (proginwskw) in the context of Romans 8:29, we need to look at cases also of know (ginwskw).

Now, if a person is the direct object of ginwskw, that most likely means that there is some kind of experiential knowledge or personal relationship. Foreknow or proginwskw would simply attach a prefix to this experiential knowledge or relationship "action." To "foreknow" someone would be to have a relationship with that person "beforehand." In the case of God's omniscience and atemporality, "foreknowing" people would mean to have a relationship with them "before" they have a relationship with Him.

Those whom God "foreknew" or "fore-relationshipped" He predestined for sanctification, called, justified, and glorified. The verse does not say "of whom he did foreknow." The verse does not say "whom he did foreknow would believe." People, not their actions or anything they "do" are the direct object of foreknow. God foreknew people, not what they would do. Based upon His own foreknowing or fore-relationshipping them, He then called these people for His purpose. This calling is an effectual calling because the same ones who are called--all of them and only them--are justified, sanctified, and glorified.

The reason that we are in Christ Jesus is because of God the Father. Of Him are ye in Christ Jesus! We are of Him in Christ Jesus because He effectually called us out of the whole of the Jews and Gentiles to be justified, sanctified, and glorified. This is all because He foreknew us or "fore-relationshipped" us. He didn't "foresee" something that we would do such as our faith. Our faith is a result of His "fore-relationshipping" us for His purpose to call us, justify us, sanctify us, and glorify us.

Continued...

 

Our faith and repentance are not the qualifier of God's foreknowledge; they are the result of God's work on our behalf according to His "fore-relationshipping" us for His purpose.

Our repentance and faith toward the gospel is the result of God's foreknowing us--His fore-relationshipping us--as the Father "knows" the Son and the Son "knows" the Father. Those whom He did foreknow--not about whom He did foreknow--He predestinated for sanctification, called, justified, and glorified.

 

Do you believe that we all deserve hell as just punishment for our sin? If that is the case, how can God be holy and just to provide no salvation and send everyone to hell, yet be a "monster" if He shows undeserved grace and mercy to some? I do not understand this dichotomy.

If a governor or President exercises the power to pardon someone on death row--and he has no obligation to do so--does he then have the obligation to pardon everyone on death row? Keep in mind that death row is the just sentence that they all deserve. If the governor or President shows undeserved grace and mercy to some, does that make the rest no longer deserve their sentence? Does God choose to extend grace and mercy to people because they are somehow "worth saving" or does He do so in spite of that fact? If someone deserved grace and mercy in any way, or if God had any kind of moral obligation to extend it, it would not be grace and mercy.

Why is God a "monster" for being good to people who could not deserve it in any shape or form? Do you believe that God has any "moral obligation" to show any grace or mercy to anyone when they are already, by default, under a just sentence?

The wonder of God's mercy and grace is not that He doesn't save everyone; it is that He even saves anyone.

 

Question for all? I guess this has to do with the OP. Rom 11:7,25 are
these that are blinded, is that by God by Satan or by their own unbelief?
Are they doomed to eternal torment in the fires of hell? What is the purpose for them be be blinded if any?

 

No Calvinist views God as a monster. That is just monstrously absurd. What you have a problem with is that the biblical portrait of God is quite objectionable to you.

Since you think Calvinism believes in a monster-God -- you have ill-feelings against Calvinists. That's just common sense.

Now that is a supreme pity.

There you go again. Please eliminate references to God as a monster -- and your views will not be seen as so absurdly sinful.

 

Excellent post! The last sentence is a classic statement in explaining the Doctrines of Grace.:thumbs::thumbs:

 

First, the bible is clear that we are not going to be sent to hell as punishment for our sin (breaking the law of God), so this premise if flawed.

Instead, I believe we will go to hell for rejecting the revelation of God.

Jesus said, "47 "If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day."

Is it the man's sin against the law that judges man? NO, its the words of Christ...his revelation.

See, the righteousness from the law has been fulfilled in Christ, and now there is a NEW righteousness being revealed that comes through faith in Him. It is by that "new righteousness" that we are either accepted or rejected by God. You made the mistake that God is still rejecting/judging men based upon their righteousness according to them keeping the law. Not so. We are judged by what we do with the revelation...God's message of reconciliation.

So, your question should be, "Do you believe anyone deserves hell as just punishment for rejecting the clear and understood revelations of God?"

The answer to that question is a resounding "yes." Why? Because we are all "without excuse" because we all clearly see and understand the revelations of God. (see Romans 1)

The question we have for Calvinists is, "Do you believe anyone deserves hell as just punishment for rejecting a message they were born unable to clearly see and understand?" That is the real problem with Calvinism. It gives men the perfect excuse and nullifies Paul's point in Romans 1-3.

 

There is no need. She didn't say 'God is a monster'.
She said "IT" (doctrines of grace) makes God a cold hearted monster.
It might not be the best way to illistrate how she sees the teachings but her statement as a reflection of her views being absurdly sinful.. not even remotely.

 

Now, trying to get the discussion back to the OP...

 

So if someone would say that your God is a monster -- that would be fine with you?It would not be a sinful thing in your estimation?

 

AresMan,

Excellent post. Thank you. The last sentence encapsulates the wonder of God's Sovereign Grace--that's why it's beautiful and not monstrous.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Your side says worse. Your side says we claim to be sovereign over God, in essence making us gods.

 

This is a very poor understanding of the argument. Not to mention an illistration that you most likely will never use again after you think about it a little more.

First, the president or govenor have only a limited amount they are 'allowed' to pardon, and they examine 'the best ones' THEY deam worthy to let go.

So their power and ability to pardon is limited to a certian amount and the choice they make they pick is based upon the ones most deserving. Are you saying this is your argument for God's election? Didn't think so.

We agree that :
The wonder of God's mercy and grace is not that He doesn't save everyone; it is that He even saves anyone

This is the very essense of non-cal theology. I praise God that you are starting to come around However, God is not in any way morally obligated to save anyone because we deserve it. Again this is pure Non-Cal theology.

Yet He 'has' obligated Himself, both morally and judicially, to save whosoever will come/believe not because they deserve it but because He sent forth His Son to be a propitiation for sins of whole world to be applied only by/through faith.