Featured Foreknowledge/election and honest invitation

I agree, but then what is the point of Romans 3:21 if indeed the righteousness which is thought to come by works though the law is just as unattainable as the righteousness which comes by Grace through faith?

What does Paul mean in contrasting the righteousness through law in vs. 10 with the 'righteousness apart from the law' which is 'now being made known' in verse 21?

I mean if both are equally unattainable then what is Paul's intention in drawing such a contrast? It doesn't appear your view has any contrast between the two.

 

The righteousness thought to come from the law is mythical- it does not exist.

That's the difference.

I'm not sure I understand your point?

 

Yes.

I know.

Let me put it in question form and see if that helps clarify. Will what God sees is going to come to pass most assuredly come to pass?

I do not think that linear has anything to do with what I am saying there.

God sees the future even if, for sake of argument sake, he is neither seeing it now or in eternity past. Let's say that God is NOT here now nor in the past. Let's say that He is in the future looking at the future. What he sees is accurate. What he sees IS. It cannot be otherwise. It must be unalterably be what he sees it to be.

Therefore, what God sees is SET in the sense that it cannot be otherwise.

 

I would get my concordance and look up the word "ordained" ("... and as many as were ordained ...") as it is used in the verse you quoted, but it is in storage in another state. I am almost certain that the word is either mistranslated (as is the case with A LOT of the KJV) or doesn't mean what it used to mean. Either way, to prove the point without the use of a concordance...

As an example, back in the days of George Washington, the word "satisfied" was synonymous with "convinced". This is not the case in every-day usage of the English language of today.

This theological idea that God has everything all "planned out" to a T, in regards to who goes to eternal life or the lake of fire, is one that leads to the dangerous idea that, "If I sin, it doesn't matter, because God forgives me anyway!"

Yes, God will probably forgive you anyway if you sin... But seeing as how God knows our very thoughts, He knows our intent and judges us according to that. If you think that you can just sin all willy-nilly, because it was all pre-determined anyway, and you're going to go to heaven regardless... You're wrong. Obviously God doesn't WANT us to sin, else there would be no commandments.

"Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame." - 1 corinthians 15:34.

Basically, sinning because you believe you're saved anyway, causes others who don't believe in God to say to themselves, "Well, if they believe in God, and sin according to their own laws, then I can sin all I want and still not believe in God. It doesn't matter!"

And personally, I am not saying that this is what you believe, but I've seen it sooooo many times elsewhere, I just had to put that right out front. I just perfer to write in a "dialogue" style, as if we were actually talking. But, I find it a common occurance with regards to people who believe that, basically, God said we could sin because we're saved anyway. It is folly.

 

I agree, but that was the commonly accepted belief of that day which Paul was debunking when he wrote 3:10. But you seem to equate that view of righteousness (which is indeed unattainable), which the correct view of righteousness which is attainable.

Let me demonstrate it this way:

1. Righteousness by WORKS through LAW = unattainable

2. Righteousness by GRACE through FAITH = attainable
​

Your system of thought seems to argue that because (1) is unattainable that (2) must likewise be unattainable, but where does scripture ever teach this? In fact, it appears to teach just the opposite:

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. -Romans 9​

 

But Skan, we don't have to know HOW it works to be able to affirm the premise.

Can't you affirm the premise that God cannot ever be mistaken?

And can you not see how these statements carry the air of open theism. I do not believe you are an open theist.

But it does seem hard to me to reconcile these comments with the idea of God being eternally all knowing (having always known all there is to ever know about everything).

But the Bible does say that he sees the future.

To know it is to see it as I understand it. Scripture uses this terminology interchangeably.

I agree that God doesn't ever tempt men to sin. No one can say that god forced anyone into sin by his direct agency. But God CAN ordain things that are sinful to come to pass and that not at all violate his holiness.

We both know that the bible is clear that he does just that, at least many times. I, of course would argue that he does it in all things. But at least we agree that he does it sometimes (like with the crucifixion of Christ).

So if you agree that he can do it sometimes without himself having "tempted men to sin" and that those times were ordained by God without affecting his holiness, then you cannot state that me saying that he ordained all that comes to pass violates his holiness.

I think it does, but that's not the point we are discussing. He sees what IS. What IS cannot NOT BE. What is must BE.

Where he is standing when he sees it is irrelevant. It is set. Why? Because it MUST BE.

No. I think he is so BIG that he cannot do it, but I think that's another discussion.

 

Well, obviously what God sees/knows is what is, but because He knows it to be in no way dictates His predetermination of it (as if it is some future yet to be realized to God). Its only when you limit God to the linear foresight construct that this dilemma even exists. God knows that I'll type this word right NOW, because he experienced me typing it in the eternal NOW, not because he existed in some past point on the linear timeline of history and foresaw me typing it and then decided to ordain me to type it. That is a linear perspective not an eternal one.

Now, don't misunderstand me. Clearly God interacts imminently with man within time and space. But while speculating about God the Father's infinite knowledge I don't feel it is wise or prudent to draw hard and fast cause/effect conclusions such as the deterministic system does. It reminds me way too much of the Geocentric model of the universe, because it relies to heavily upon our finite perception of the world and God.

 

I got you and I like the point. I think it is fair.

Here is my answer. The unregenerate are not able to trust Christ for the exact same reason that they are not able to keep the law.

Keeping the law is, at it's core, the exercise of trusting God. God gives a command. You either trust his goodness and wisdom and keep that law or you trust in something else and do NOT keep it.

Eve's sin was disobedience. Her disobedience was based on believing something other than God.

The reason we cannot trust Christ is the same reason we cannot keep the law. We are born in sin, born deceived, born with a nature that always pursues unrighteousness and is unable to keep the law BECAUSE it is unable to trust God.

 

But, I have affirmed the premise that God's both knows all things and is never mistaken. I have only rejected the premise that such knowledge comes by way of God existing at some point in the past while looking into the future to see what will come to pass. I believe His knowledge isn't attained by mere foresight (i.e. crystal ball analogy)

If you mean by 'open theist,' one who denies God's omniscience, then you are correct that I am not one, however I'm not sure many who have had that label (and this very rudimentary definition) slapped on them actually do deny omniscience; but rather understand it from a higher/deeper eternal perspective than those who'd rather label and dismiss.

But, that is my point Luke. We can't even scratch the surface of that kind of knowledge or its origin. You even admitted in past discussions the the origin of evil is a mystery. We can claim He has always know of every evil, but at the same time say its origin is found outside of Him, right? HOW IS THAT? How has He always fully known of that which didn't originate with Him? Baffling. So, why try to answer it by drawing a hard and fast conclusions like, "Well, since I can't figure out HOW God came to know it, then I'll just conclude He must have determined it." On what authority can anyone draw such a conclusion? Just accept it is a mystery and affirm that the responsible agent determined his own choice. And leave it at that.

Yes, and it says he makes choices, changes his mind, and holds the world with his mighty right hand. I thought you and I agree these were anthropomorphic?

Which is what makes those events so uniquely Divine and only credited to God Himself. To conclude that because God intervened to accomplish the crucifixion somehow proves He intervenes to accomplish EVERYTHING only undermines His unique acts of direct intervention. (i.e. God intervened to ensure the crucifixion proves God intervenes to ensure every sinful act)

1. God's work to ensure the crucifixion didn't involve his tempting of men. It involved his judicially hardening/blinding men in their already rebellious ways.

2. As you have argued, and which I agree to some degree, God's motive for ensuring the crucifixion was redemptive even for those being hardened (Rm. 11:14), thus his work was pure because his motive was for their good.

3. Again, proof that God directly intervenes to ensure ONE act of "evil," is not proof that God has likewise intervened to ensured every act of evil.

Notice your use of the future and past tense? That is the problem with your argument. It begs the question by presuming IT (the future, a linear term) MUST BE because God knows it BEFORE (the past, a linear term) it comes to BE. When, I believe, God's knowledge is not linearly attained...its infinitely known, meaning it doesn't have a beginning (i.e. seen at some point in time) and a cause/effect relationship (i.e. allowed to happen as foreseen to happen).

 

Or you surrender, give up, and admit you can't do anything...cry out for help and he has mercy on you. You seem to put surrendering to Christ in the same category as striving under the law. I don't see where Paul ever does that.

Now, I agree, that there are many who make that mistake and think salvation comes through striving to be like Christ and to be faithful and trustworthy. They have just made a new law and continue to strive to earn their way into God's favor through being a 'faithful' Christ follower. They too will come to the end of their law, fall flat on their face, and give up (like I did).

That's where God takes my filthy rag smelling, mustard seed sized faith by which I cried out in surrender and graciously credits it my account as 'righteousness.' So, if I boast, I suppose I could boast in surrendering to my natural born enemy, but I've yet to see anyone who'd call that boast worthy.

If left to ourselves, I'd agree, we would be unable to trust God. But when He sends His Son, the apostles, the scripture, His Bride, and the Holy Spirit to enable us to see the truth and respond then we have NO EXCUSES. We can't say, "God didn't give me what I needed to believe." We can't say, "God didn't really love or choose me." Or , "I didn't really understand." We all have everything that we need to willingly turn and surrender to Him. Those who don't, perish in their unbelief.

 

No matter how mysterious God's omniscience is, it is true omniscience. Thoughts do not OCCUR to God. There is no first time God thinks of something or realizes something. That can not happen and God be omniscient.

God realizing something or figuring something out while being omniscient is as much a contradiction as dry water or bright darkness.

Omniscience means something.

If we can say that omniscience can mean that the One who has it has things occur to him that he did not know before then we might as well say that darkness can be bright. In that kind of world we can know NOTHING because NOTHING has any real meaning. In that kind of world anything can be anything and NOTHING can be defined.

Who knows? But what we don't do is totally render the idea of God's omniscience meaningless just because we don't understand the origin of evil.

Let's say that THAT'S a mystery without saying that God is not really omniscient in the only meaningful definition of the term.

OR... let's argue that the Bible does not TEACH omniscience.

But let's not embrace omniscience in one hand while dismantling the idea of it in the other.

That he determined it does not rest fully upon the fact that he knew it would come to pass.

It rests upon the fact that he is the planner, Maker and sustainer of all things and all things have a purpose. Nothing that ever happens happens without his divine purpose at the back of it.

God can determine that evil will exist and not be evil because his motives for the existence of evil are pure and noble.

Then you have a God who is not in control of all things, who has TRILLIONS of things happen in his universe every day that he does not purpose which happen apart from his plan and are meaningless.

That is not the God of the Bible, as I understand the Bible.

The God of the Bible ordains the good as well as the evil and they all serve a glorious purpose and we can find peace in knowing that.

But his omniscience is not anthropomorphic. The fact that he has always, does and will always know all there is to ever know about everything is literal, actual fact. It is a doctrine of God.

But my point stands. You cannot argue that God ordaining evil contradicts his holiness if you agree that he indeed HAS ordained some evil and still remains perfectly holy.

The "holy argument" does not stand. Will you concede that much?

I don't think I used past tense there, did I?

 

Ceegen

Hello again ceegan.....you like many others have not understood this whole passage.notice the context...he is writing to the beloved,and contrasting them with scoffers.....he then says...God is long suffering...to usward
God bears with unsaved men until all the elect get saved.

God is very willing that many perish mt7:21-24

No...free will is a made up philosophical term.....

Yes that is a great promise. We know that if anyone calls upon Him, God has already drawn them to faith!

This passage is speaking of an offering that was not required by law...they could offer it voluntarily.....it is not speaking of their will being free.

No...election is God's buisness.....he elects who he will from among fallen sinners....we were not there before the world was,when God planned redemption of His elect. God does not wish....He purposes

 

I used to think like you do, but nothing you will say will sway me on this for the simple fact that God said that Satan is a fallen angel. Lucifer WAS the most beautiful of all angels. God creates only good, and sin which is a condition of turning away from God is a personal choice. God did not create things with evil built into them.

"12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:" - Isaiah 14:12, 13.

Denying that free will exists, is denying that each person is held personally accountable for the evil that they do. It is making God the scapegoat, by saying that He created us evil.

"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." - Genesis 1:31.

We were "very good" before the fall of Adam.

 

On what basis does the person decide? Why does a person choose one way rather than the other?

Let's say someone has an hour to kill. The person can choose to watch TV, or read his bible. How does the person's will consider the benefits/consequences of both... weigh them in the balance and then choose....?

At the moment of choice, IMHO, the person's will chooses that which seems most desireable to it. The person may regret the choice immediately, or later,... but they will always choose that which is most desireable at the moment of decision.

At the moment of choice, there are a multitude of factors that influence the decision we make. We are influenced by our lifetime of experience., the opinion of friends and family, our understanding of right/wrong...good/evil... as well our own sinful nature and deceitfulness of Satan... and so on. Do you believe that?

If those things, and many others, do not affect the decisions we make, then any decision made must be random since it isn't based on anything.

peace to youraying:

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

If Adam & Eve were the first humans, tell me then who are the "we" you are talking about?

 

I agree to an extent. The scripture does speak of God's thoughts and choices, so while he may not think 'new' thoughts or make choices like you and I do, He still does these things somehow. That is mysterious and too high for us to grasp. What I reject is the concept that evil must have originated with God because the only alternative is that he is 'informed' or 'learns' of evil from another being. That is the impasse you and I came too a long while back, and we both appeal to mystery. What this proves is that even Calvinists can accept the mystery that God can know something without determining it...because the only alternative is that evil finds its origin in God (God authoring evil).

How has my explanation rendered the idea of omniscience meaningless? Be specific? To appeal to mystery (as you do too) doesn't render it meaningless, it only admits our limited perspective.

Who here is saying God is not really omniscient? I'm saying God is omniscient and men determined their own evil choices, but how those two things work together is mysterious because God's infinite knowledge of all things is unknowable to us. Calvinists are the ones denying one of those clear truths, not me.

Specifically explain how I have 'dismantled the idea' of omniscience? Do you think taking God out of the linear timeline dismantles omniscience? Do you think appealing to mystery with how man's self-determination works in light of God's omniscience dismantles it? How so? On what basis do you make such a judgement?

He is also HOLY, HOLY, HOLY and has no trace of evil in him, so while he may permit evil to reign and have dominion doesn't mean he determines evil, or that it originates with Him.

How so? Only a weak God wouldn't be able to 'control' or 'manipulate circumstances' or 'intervene to ensure his ultimate plans,' despite the independent free actions of his creation. Only a weak God would have to 'play both sides of the chess board' to ensure a victory. I believe it is a much stronger view of God to acknowledge that there is a real enemy, making independent evil choices, that God is able to overcome despite and even through evil.

His ways are higher than your ways, so I'd submit that your understanding (like mine) is limited in this regard. Why draw conclusions about things we cannot know?

Then you leave no real distinction between good and evil. It is all God's doing and that denies the biblical teaching of Holiness.

It is to the extent that you and I can't know how God knows. Our knowledge is not like His knowledge, so to speak of His knowing of all things is fine, but to draw conclusions which presume His knowledge of things is like our knowledge of things is unfounded.

Again, notice the past and future tense of your statement above. You have once again place God on man's finite linear level and are drawing conclusions based on that perspective. That is what I reject.

Well, this goes back to defining what is meant by 'ordaining.' You use that word interchangeably with 'determines' or 'causes,' so it is hard to communicate the distinction clearly.

God permitting, using, and blinding evil men to ensure His own death for the redemption of mankind is very different from God unchangeably determining every evil action. Proof of one doesn't validate the other.

 

Ceegan,
Gen 1:31 is an important verse,and you are correct to look there first.However it does not make your case at all. that Satan as the opposer entices men to sin, also does not make your case about the will.

Not at all ceegan! The verse you pointed out shows that it was not so.
men were accountable to God before the fall.men are accountable to God after the fall.....they are responsible to be perfect .

Your reply does not address the wrongly offered passage from 2 pet 3...did you see why it was used out of context???

ceegan...we always need to be influenced by scripture only....
[QUOTE7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.][/QUOTE] is how paul said it.

 

Good discussion.

I don't think that he thinks new thoughts at all, though. If he does, omniscience is not one of His attributes. Things cannot occur to a God who eternally knows all there is to ever know about everything.

You know what I think would be helpful to us? If we defined our terms a bit better. I know that I could do better in this area.

We need to define thoroughly terms like: evil, originate, determined, ordained, time, knowledge, etc...

I don't think that I do accept that.

There can be nothing that occurs to a mind that eternally knows all. There is no first time a thought generates in an omniscient mind.

If God is truly omniscient and truly eternal and immutable in all of his attributes then he does not make choices in the sense that he considers between two options, ponders the factors and then selects.

An omniscient mind cannot do these things any more than darkness can be bright.

I don't think Calvinists, or Calvinism, does necessarily deny either of these two truths: That God does not do evil bringing evil to pass by his direct agency or that God is omniscient.

Men can do things and they be evil. God can do the very SAME things and they be perfectly righteous.

An example would be self-worship. Another would be killing the Son of God. The list goes on and on.

So God can determine that a man will do a deed that will be evil for the man to do and it not be evil for God to determine it.

God can determine and ordain and orchestrate the killing of his Son by the hands of Herod, Pilate, the Romans and the Jews and God not be evil in so doing while those people be very evil in the same exact deed.

We probably ought to start a thread if we are going to go down this road again.

By implying that God has thoughts for the the first time or makes choices for the first time.

No sir, I do not.

I don't grant the premise of creaturely self-determination.

Defining our terms would help us progress in our discussion here, I think.

Because in a world of nearly seven billion people, trillions of sins are taking place every day. If God has nothing to do with evil, if he has not determined it at all, if he has not ordained it, then he is in control of WAY less of the world than the portion he IS in control of.

But if he is bringing it ALL to pass the same way he brought the crucifixion of Christ to pass then we can rest assured that God is in control of everything on a molecular level and that EVERYTHING is part of his plan and that it ALL serves an infinitely high and gloriously holy purpose.

We can say to the person who has suffered extreme tragedy as the result of some unspeakable evil- God had a purpose for this and it will serve an eternally glorious, everlasting purpose.

It's not a competition that God is trying to win. It is a story God is telling. This whole universe is made of words- God's words. It is all upheld by the WORD of his power.

God has spoken it all- that's why it exists. He has spoken into his story heroes and villains, tragedy and triumph and the greatest "happily ever after" imaginable- in fact it is beyond imagination.

The victory you speak of is just part of the story. The victory is made of words to- it will come by a sword that proceeds out of His mouth.

But there is no such thing as creaturely independence. We depend on him for our very existence. We can do nothing but that which he enables.

If we became truly independent we would, not only atomize and explode into a decillion sub, sub-atomic particles. No. Even those particles would cease to exist.

Creaturely independence is a myth.

I do not think it does. God can bring something to pass and it not be evil while a man is bringing the same deed to pass and it be VERY evil.

It is perfectly OK to place God in a linear timeline so long as you understand he exists within and without that timeline. The same is true of all of creation.

God does exist within creation. He also exists above it and beyond it.

I do tend to think that they are nearly synonymous. As I said above, it would be beneficial to devote some time to defining our terms better.

God did permit, use and blind these men. That is true. But that is not all he did. He himself brought the crucifixion of Christ to pass by their hands for his own purposes.

What the proof of the one does is establish this: if God can EVER determine an evil deed and it not be evil for Him and He at the same time perfectly maintain his holiness- then you cannot argue that it is unholy for God to do such a thing. You cannot say God would be unholy if he determined evil if you admit that, at least on occasion, he has done this very thing.

If it is not unholy for him to do it once, then it is not unholy for him to do it ALWAYS.

 

God cannot do whatever, and simply because he is God that makes it right.

Jhn 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

God cannot do whatever, and simply because he is God that makes it right as Luke seems to suggest. Here Jesus said that if he were to deny that he knows the Father, he would be a liar like any other man.

God did not kill Jesus, he offered him to save mankind, huge difference. And Jesus did not commit suicide, he willingly offered himself to save man. It is like a soldier who leaps on a hand grenade to save his fellow soldiers, or a fireman who loses his life rushing into a burning building to save a child.

It is like parents who allow their child to go off to war to defend their country. Do we think these parents killed their child? No, at least I do not consider it that way.