The certainty of God's Foreknowledge?

The unregenerate Pilate asked the same question of Jesus.Or,at least "What is truth?"( John 18:38)

 

Does this mean you are calling me an unregenerate?

Let me rephrase, what is your definition of absolute truth?

God bless and many blessings!!!

 

No, I'm not calling you unregenerate. But Pilate was indeed an unregenerate individual. In my experience only non-Christians have asked me the question -- face-to-face ( an internet forum such as the BB doesn't count).

First, Christ is The Way,The Truth, and The Life.Absolute truths are the opposite of this relativistic age.Many worldlings do not want to face up to the absolute truths of God's Word.

To use the term "absolute truth" is a redundancy actually.The question :"What is Truth?" is sufficient.

 

I appreciate the humble spirit of your discourse. I hope I can add input without being offensive. I'll try to explain how I see scripture defining election using your example.

All of your employees rejected your offer of a bonus. They all refused to wear the blue shirt you provided for them. They thumbed their noses at you and laughed at your blue shirts. They all wore red shirts instead.

You punished your own son, the heir to the company, instead of firing the employees who were laughing at you.

You then sent your own personal assistant to certain of the employees, whom you chose according to your own good will, to personally interact with them, and convince them to turn from the red shirts and wear the blue shirts.

Your personal assistant is so good at what he does, each and every person you sent him to decided to wear the blue shirt.

Your son was then exalted to be CEO and President of the company. All those who wore the blue shirts became employees in good standing.

Everyone else was sent to a sweat shop in China.

peace to youraying:

 

Jesus is the truth.

I am still unclear about what he (RB) was asking me when he asked. Terminolgy is not my strongest thing (As I am sure you may be well aware of). I didn't and still don't know what RB was asking.

Many thanks :jesus:

God bless and many blessings!!!

 

I like it. I have a better illustration of my view that on my blog. In my quick illustration, the blue shirt was Christ. The shirt (Christ) was provided for them.

You went a lot deeper than I did. Glory be to Christ!

God bless and many blessings!!! Peace to you as well.

 

Truth exists outside of what you or I or anyone else thinks or believes. There are no exceptions. There are no qualifiers.

Take the statement, "God predestined us before the foundation of the world to be conformed to the image of His Son."

I see that as an absolute truth. Before God created anything, those who are to be called "saints" were "predestined" (marked out beforehand or set apart) to be conformed to the image of His Son.

You see that as a qualified truth. Before God created anything, He decided that anyone who would believe in His Son would be conformed to the image of His Son.

By qualifying the truth, you have (IMO) neutralized the power of the word "predestined".

In viewing the passage that way, God didn't mark out any particular persons to be set apart to be conformed to the image of His Son. God simply put into place a system, whereby anyone in general (and no one in particular) could gain access to the blessing of being conformed to the image of the Son, based on what they do (not on what God has decreed and has brought about by His own power and will).

There are simply too many passages of scripture that testify to the will of God in the salvation of men for the truth of predestination and election to be qualified in such a way.

peace to youraying:

 

Sorry for the confusion regarding absolute truth. It's a term I got accustomed to use when I was studying at a secular university. By absolute truth, I mean that which is true for all people, in all times, in all places. It is objective, rather than subjective. Truth is absolute vs. relative. Truth is not relative to space, time or persons.

My presenting understanding of truth, and the nature of it, is most agreeable to Aristotle. Now, this is not to say that truth is in Aristotle. Jesus is THE truth. And the truth is in Jesus. What I am talking about is the nature, philosophically, of truth.

Aristotle said, "If there is a man, the statement whereby we say that there is a man is true, and reciprocally--since if the statement whereby we say that there is a man is true, [then in reality] there is a man." (excerpted from New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, McDowell. p. 586)

It appears to me that something is true inasmuch as it corresponds to reality. Jesus rose again from the dead. This statement is true if indeed Christ rose from the dead. And He did rise from the dead, therefore the statement "Jesus rose from the dead" is true. The Bible is true in every regard and word because it is the Word of God. This statement is true if indeed the Scriptures are God-breathed, and they are, therefore the statement is true.

RB

 

Think about what you just said. "I see that as an absolute truth" and "You see that as a qualified truth". We must be careful. Are you saying you know everything? Just because I see it as absolute truth does not make it absolute truth. Just because you see it that way doesn't make it so.

We are predestined. God saw it in Himself to provide a way. He done this of His own will. Those that believe are predestined, not one will be left out. That is power.

I agree.

God bless and many blessings!!!

 

I don't feel so bad now. I get the feeling I'm not alone in what you meant.

I got the video. I love it.

Amen brother. Count me in (On all that fansy stuff you just said - lol)
I believe the Bible and every Word of it.

God bless and many blessings.

 

I thought I was clear that truth exists apart from what I believe or think.

Jesus prayed to the Father that He would sanctify(set apart) believers in the truth. He then said, "Your Word in truth".

To the extent, then, that what we believe accurately reflects what God has revealed in His Word, we are believing the truth.

Words have meaning in the context they were written. The way you understand these words is contrary to their meaning.

But that is not what scripture reveals to us.

Scripture tells us that God predestined specific people to be conformed to the image of His Son, based not on what they do but according to His will.

When you say that God's predestination and election is based on what the people do, and not on what God has decreed according to His will , you are not reflecting the truth that God has revealed to us in His Word. You are not reflecting the meaning of the words.

I am not trying to be offensive, but I can't think of any other way to say it.

Words have meaning. We have to go by what the words mean, in context. Otherwise, we have 6 billion opinions and there is no truth.

peace to youraying:

 

Outsider,

This is where I am picking up a hint of relativism, perhaps I am mistaken. I doubt the one to whom you replied sees himself as the source and standard of absolute truth. God and His Word are. When we discuss whether or not we see it or don't see it, perhaps by making absolute truth statements, we must deal with the statements and their correspondence to reality.

Let me offer an example within the context of our discussion: election.

Statements:

1. We believe in Christ because God elected us before the world began.

2. God elected us before the world began because we believe (or would) in Christ.

These statements do not fall into the illustration you used of the flag with red and white stripes. In your illustration people were looking at the same reality. These statements are saying different things. We cannot say something is black, and the same thing is also white. It is either black or white. Likewise, we cannot say that men believe on Christ because God elected them, and say that God elected them because they believe on Christ. It is either the one, or the other. Only one of the statements can be true.

 

Brother RB,
You are 100% correct. If only one is true. If both are true, then both are true.
If I used the same logic and quoted John 3:16, would you come to the same conclusion on election? Whosoever, not just elect.
If you try to say that the elect are the whosoever, then we must consider this:
You mentioned universalists earlier. They say Christ reconciled "ALL" to Himself. Christ died for "ALL". That must mean all are elect.

We can't take one verse and make all other scripture fit that verse. All scripture must be in harmony. There is a lot I do not understand, but I see two people. I see an elect and those that believe. Two folds, one must be brought in and becomes one fold.

We agree and I believe Christ is the only way. One way, that being Jesus. I do not believe the one way is by election.

I'm off to bed brother. Good talk, I enjoy it.
God bless and many blessings!!!

 

I am not saying that it is based on what people do. His election of grace was according to His will. He set it up and designed it all according to His good pleasure. That is a reflection of what the Holy Spirit teaches me in His Word.

Think of this.
My wife and I chose to have a child. We didn't choose the child. That doesn't make it less unreal or untrue. We elected to have children but didn't choose any of them. Now, we may also elect to adopt a specific child. If we do, it will be just as true as the others. We will be one family.

No offense taken. There is much beauty in the doctrine of election. Don't limit the joy in it by not being willing to accept all of it.

May God bless and many blessings to you!!!

 

Hey brother,

Yes, if you quoted John 3:16 I would come to the same conclusion about it. It's not just whosoever, its whosoever believeth.

Your second part doesn't follow my brother. I say that those who believe savingly in Christ are the elect. Christ did reconcile all to Himself. He reconciled (we are speaking of redemption) all the elect to Himself. Not everyone in the world are elect.

You wrote,

Who are you talking about? Who are the elect, and who are those that believe? How are they distinct? Where are the two folds, and which one must be brought into one fold? Has this happened already, or will it happen yet?

Trying to get your meaning here.

I believe the elect and believers are the same people. See again Romans 8:33 and context. God justified the elect. God delivered up Christ for the elect. Christ intercedes for the elect. All this can be taken from this Scripture. Now, let us harmonize this with John 17:9 "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine."

And lest we think this is for the Apostles only,

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;" verse 20

Look at the objects of Christ's intercession and sacrifice from these verses. The "us" in Romans are the elect. The object of Christ's prayer in John are those whom the Father gave to Jesus--the elect. And the same are those which SHALL believe on Him through their (Apostles) word.

 

Thank you for taking my remarks in such a gentlemanly manner.

I also note that your quote was from Paul's 2nd letter, in both letters of which he endeavored to correct the Corinthians on doctrine. IOW, ignoring them wouldn't have made those problems go away and ignoring the the issues was out of the question.

In 2Thessalonians, he also "took on" someone who falsely wrote to them as if representing Paul and his eschatology.

Getting back to Corinthians, in 1Cor 14:29-33 Paul pretty much sets down the manner of our dialogues here. Each has an opportunity to "speak," others to judge. There will be some go away wiser, some comforted, some intending further study into the matters we post about as we all try to discern what God said and intended.

I guess for me, I would have you engaged in the conversation and examining both sides from scripture and not divided, as Paul found them, by following after men (Paul, Apollos, Cephas, etal.). In fact, Paul was pretty pointed about this saying, "was Paul crucified for you or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"

IMO, to talk about Calvinism among believers is to say that there is someone more important to listen to than Christ and scriptures. But apparently for some, God has not yet made the wisdom of this world "foolish."

skypair

 

Yes, His name is God. And HE, not predestination, is the Only Unqualified Truth! All the rest of truth is what He says it is and, therefore, qualified in some way or another.

Let's take predestination for an example. You admit yourself that it is God Who predestines. Therefore, right on the face of it, predestination is qualified by the parameters of absolute truth. God predestines according to His "good will" as you so often say.

And before God created anything or predestined anything, there was God Who "qualified" everything He would create according to His own will.

skypair

 

Yes, the way you see it and we see it is problematic because...

We're both looking at the same "flag" which is "election." You see that all the "elect" are "believers" -- we see that all "believers" are "elect."

But there is something wrong with YOUR proposition. In biblical usage, elect" can refer to a group in which some DON'T believe. Both regarding Israel and the church, there is a large portion who are not saved (as you equate "election" and "belief" with) at all.

You would even agree with us that there are "elect" who don't believe -- infants, right? Are they saved?

So no --- your analysis of us both looking at the same flag, "election," fails. You can't make that first statement by looking at the same "flag" that we are.

skypair

 

Skypair,

I am going to make a comment or two here concerning your two posts to me subsequent to my post to you that I do not wish to debate you in the matter. I am more than glad to debate the subject, but not necessarily with you.

And you prodivded a perfect example why. You continue to insist, and did the past, in repeating the calumny that because a person refers the doctrines of grace as Calvinism, or themselves as Calvinists, that they are following men. This is such a gross mischaracterization of such men and women that it actually makes dialogue (as opposed to strife and debate) with you virtually impossible. So as I said before, I don't see how any conversation with you on the matter can bring any good to you, to me, or to this board.

No, I don't believe that infants who die in infancy, and are elect, don't believe. Nor do I believe they are saved in any other manner than the same way anyone who is saved or ever will be saved, is saved. I have referenced Spurgeon's sermon on the subject of Infant Salvation numerous times on this board and his views are reflective of my own. If you do want to know what I believe in this regard, read the sermon.

-RB