If after we've plumbed the depths of Scripture to understand the true nature of God, we're not brought to the doxology of Romans 11:33-36, something is seriously wrong with our motives.
God, logic and His attributes
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Isaiah40:28, Oct 15, 2007.
Page 5 of 7
-
Huh? Where'd that come from? I just thought we were discussing....... -
My use of an example will serve to see if I have understood you correctly.
Using your terms, God's mentality determined something that His attribute of foreknowledge gave Him the capacity to accomplish.
In this verse, the specifics are:
Christ was "delivered" up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.
It was not God's foreknowledge that determined that Christ would be delivered up, but His determined counsel, or set purpose.
So God's foreknowledge is based on His purpose, counsel, decree, etc.
God foreknew the details of Christ's death because He decreed them.
God's mentality decreed that Christ would be crucified in a prescribed manner and His foreknowledge gave Him the capacity to accomplish Christ's death in that decreed manner.
I'll stop here.
Have I applied what you've stated correctly? -
My post was too rash but honest. I should have been more tempered so I apologize there. However, some of your statements were provocative in that they were structured as lectures assuming ignorance on my part. Lectures are great if I have asked posed a question or reveled profound ignorance that simply begs one. But without either of those they certainly aren't the most effective method of eliciting response. -
-
So what about this next passage:
1 Peter 1: 1-2 (NIV)
"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father"
Applying what has been said before we can say, God's foreknowledge did not determine who these elect were. It gave Him the capacity to accomplish the election, but not the mentality to determine the elect.
The determination of the elect came from His mentality.
His determination that there would be those who through sanctification by the Holy Spirit would be obedient to Jesus Christ and worthy of the sprinkling of His blood did not come from His foreknowledge.
His foreknowledge of these Jewish believers scattered abroad was determined by His determinate counsel, purpose or plan which comes from His mentality and in this passage is called, the plan is referred to as "elect[ion].
So election, according to this passage, is the reason for God's foreknowlege of the believers. And not the other way around. God's foreknowledge did not determine His election, instead it gave Him the capacity to accomplish it.
Are we still in agreement? -
-
Though we do not agree on the understanding of election, here it isn't necessary in order for the subject, foreknowledge and the mentality of God, to be understood.
The point you make is very critical, I believe:
-
Your spot on and MUCH better in your wording than I have been. -
-
We can postulate many things about how, when, or what God knew.
Both sides delve in here TCG, the Calvinist as much as the Non-Cal.
All we know from scripture is that He DID know, He DID Elect, and beyond that we must remember that He IS God and we are NOT. Beyond that it is mere speculation but it is important for our theologies to work properly.
Can you imagine trying to explain Calvinism without try to explain how or in what manner God determined His decree, or Election?
You would loose a lot of your material. So it is necessary for the construct of our theological view, but what comes to mind then is - should we really be basing (either side) on that which we truly do not understand? -
2. We know that God's election of us is not based on anything that we have done, but sole based on his sovereign electing grace (Eph 1:4-6; 2 Tim 1:9, 10; Rom 9:14-18).
3. We can only go with what the Scriptures affirm, and I believe the Scriptures affirm sovereign election, for its everywhere. -
-
-
I believe that using words like "cannot" with respect to God is truly questioning His sovereignty and omnipotence. We use words like immutability to describe Him but doesn't that represent putting Him in a box that we have constructed? -
In 1 Peter, "elect in accordance with the foreknowledge" is not a tricky verse. It means what it says..........election is in accord with foreknowledge. It does not speak of either one causing the other, for there is no causality in that verse. "in accordance with" could be explained as "in agreement with" or "in parallel with."
Part of the issue here is our human insistance on trying to put God's decrees in a logical order, of one causing the other. Rather, God's thoughts are non-sequential; they are all in accordance with each other, and God does not have to reason through issues to make a decision.
So we are indeed sovereignly elected, and this election is in accordance with foreknowledge, love, justice, and all the other divine attributes. -
Far from such things limiting God's power, they show how great it is. Who else could truly say, "I do not change"? We all change - we are affected by things within us and things outside us. God is so powerful that He cannot be changed by circumstances.
If we were to say something such as, "That person is so evil; God cannot save him!" that would indeed be "questioning His sovereignty and omnipotence." If we were to say, "God can lie" or "God can change," that also would be "questioning His sovereignty and omnipotence." -
Bro. James Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Putting God in a Box
How many years does one need to study God to find that He is HOLY, HOLY, HOLY? That is day one at seminary. Day two: God is potter, we are clay. Day three: graduation. Send your tuition to your favorite charity.
Now what? Pick up cross. Follow Jesus.
Bro. James -
If you mean that God must give men faith. Then the burden of proof is on you. And those verse you quote in no show this. -
2. Because of the prior divine work of God in bringing sinful man to himself, and because man cannot come to God on his own, the saving faith man expresses is correctly termed a gift from God.
Page 5 of 7