The certainty of God's Foreknowledge?

I had said :Why will the elect respond favorably to the calling?

Then you replied that it's "the same reason that the elect will fall into sin." I do not understand your answer. Please elaborate. Don't just say:"It's perfectly clear."as you have before. It may be clear in your mind only. If I say it's unclear, I want a rephrasing.

 

Allan replied with merely a "Yes I am". That's not much of an answer. Prove to me that God loved and hated Esau at the same time.Scripture is deadset against your idea. Maybe you're dealing with this from a sentimental angle.

 

Hey Outsider,

So are you interpreting this passage to mean that the sacrifice of Christ made it possible for all men to be justified? As you know, that is what Calvinists contend against, that the redemption of Christ merely made salvation possible, not actually accomplishing it for those for whom He died.

I certainly don't believe that your using this verse to say that all men are justified unto life, because it seems to me that woudl be an espousing universalism.

I am all for practical Christianity. At our church there are times of fellowship together apart from our worship service on Sundays. There are church-wide fellowships, men's Bible study, women's Bible study, and of course the time we spend together after the services. I normally don't attend the Sunday evening or Wednesday evening service. The meeting place is just too far from my house at the moment.

My wife enjoys has a hobby scrapbooking. And she is continually inviting the ladies for times together to do that. We also invite families to our home from time to time for a meal, but not all take us up on it.

I am not in the habit of inviting people to church. Perhaps that is a more culturally relavent way to reach someone with the Gospel. When I speak with my neighbors in the course of my contact with them I share Christ and Him crucified. Sometimes this does cause them to ask me questions about my church affiliation. And when that comes up I invite them. If I fall short of anything, its going door-to-door to invite everyone, a practice that I have not found to be well-received in our culture.

I did meeting a young man in a Christian chat room related to a particular ministry who began to attend our church, and does so still regularly, because of my invite. But he was already a believer.

I pray for the Lord to give me opportunites to share the Gospel in culurally acceptable, rather than counter-cultural, ways. Some may fault me for this, but I find it better to work in this manner than having to break down the walls people naturally put up when you knock on their door or stop them in the street.

 

Christians are to have a part in their fellow Christians -- it is a burden which AR says "we gladly bear" (Gal 6:2-3, 5-6) because we are part of One Body. In fact, Paul says that the weak are to get all the attention. Seems you might be edified by reading 1Cor 12:20-27 again.

I believe I have seen it. But I also count upon your ability to explain the issues to me, 1Pet 3:15, so that you and I have a "meeting of the minds." It does little good for me to read Spurgeon when I am trying to communicate with you. Or do you not even understand what Spurgeon said?

Please let me wash your feet, then, by taking note of my posts even if in silence. raying:

skypair

 

Some people are not used to "hard preaching," are they, jd. I don't remember the issue but it is possible for someone to blaspheme the Spirit - to call good evil and evil good, is it not? If we took our stand in Catholicism, we would no doubt believe that Protestantism had blasphemed the Spirit in many ways, no? Or vice versa.

"Say soft words that make us feel good about ourselves," right? That seems to be the view of our younger generation anyway.

skypair

 

That is an interesting way to put it. Does that mean saved?

skypair

 

Since you have not refused in your post here to correct the understanding that you were referring to yourself in taking upon yourself the words of Christ and applying them to yourself, I refuse wholeheartly to accept any proverbial washing from you, and in fact, shake the dust off my feet in complete and total rejection of any fantasy you entertain in ministering to me.

I have not seen such insanity to date in my walk with Christ as a man would suggest that if don't accept his ministry to me then I have no part with him just as Christ said to His apostles. The height of arrogance and...I am at a loss of words to describe this at all...is beyond comprehension to me.

I will from this time forward not communicate with you at all in demonstration of my utter rejection of your folly.

 

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us [had a part in us], they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." 1John 2:19

You appear to be under great conviction, my friend. I've seen the same on visitation when the "sword" gets a little too close to the bone and the marrow, the soul and that spirit. I will, as I often have before, be praying for you.
raying:


skypair

P.S. Is it washing your feet with a "wire brush" that is the problem, brother? :laugh:

 

Ditto. Outsider, I think Rippon's points are strong ones.

 

Actually, the word means "Drag". Is "drawing" and "dragging" equivalent? Anyway, my point is, He does it to all.

It is translated as "men". Forgive me, but I will take the Bible's word over yours.

Actually, God loved Esau. For a student of proper translations, you should know this. Many great calvinists refer to this scripture and say "Loved less". Anyway, the scripture is not telling us that Jacob was chosen for heaven and Esau for hell. If we read Romans 9, with an open mind, you would find that God prefered the nation to go through Jacob and not Esau. His sovereign election was in place, Christ would be born from the seed of Jacob rather than Esau.

God bless brother, and many blessings!!!

 

Brother RB,
I hope you had a Spirit filled day.

Actually, yes I am brother. Not in the way you think, but I find that Christ paid for the sins for every man. He took away the penalty of the original sin of Adam. When someone dies and goes to hell, it wasn't because they were born dead (because of Adam) and was never effectually called. That would be dying in the original sin of Adam. Actually, it wouldn't be dying, they were never alive to die. No my friend, because of Christ, we are born penalty free from the curse of Adam. When someone dies and goes to hell, they died in THEIR SINS, not Adams.

Consider this:
1 Tim 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
I ask you brother, is He the Savior of all men or not? Then I will ask you this, "Is that what our theology tells us"? Look at the next verse:
4:11 These things command and teach

Now we are faced with a delima. This couldn't be right. Maybe we can dig through translations and find other words that COULD change the meaning. Maybe we sweep it under the rug and pretend its not there. We must do this because it destroys the very foundation of our theology. Only problem, it is there and its not going away.
My wife tells me that sometimes I have "Selective" hearing. She maybe right. Sometimes we have selective understanding. We truly strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. It is so plain, but just like Israel, we sometimes would rather keep our traditions that accept the truth. Lets go a little deeper:

Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

I ask you, who did the greater work? Adam or Christ? If you believe that we are all born dead, then Adam did a much greater work. This is why I have accepted the fact that we are all born Spiritually alive. Not dead like the calvy's believe. Christ undone what Adam did. Christ did the much greater work.

I'm sorry brother, which scripture are you referring too? Lets look at his comments:
1. I observe more errors from non-Cals on the BB than I can shake a stick at.
(This is strickly his opinion and nothing more. That like George Bush saying the democrats are wrong more than republicans.)
2. The effectual call that the Lord gives to some is also "effectual"to those who turn away?! I'm sorry. Words mean things to me. There is no such thing as an effectual call which is ineffectual.That's just plain nonsensical.
(Again, his opinion. What scripture did he refer to when he said that there is no such thing as an effectual call which is ineffectual? Now, he MAY be right, but I need more than an opinion to say these comments are "Strong")
3. how can you claim that His call goes out to everyone. Do you realize how all-inclusive the word "everyone" is?His call goes out to those who have never heard of Christ or the Gospel?!
(I feel I have provided scripture as to why the call goes out to everyone, where is the scripture that says it doesn't)

Lots of love brother. May God bless!!!

 

Only process and open theism and Arminianism have a problem with the certainty of God's foreknowledge.

 

If you are speaking of me, you are mistaken. I have no problem with His foreknowledge. I accept it.

 

Just a general statement. :thumbs:

 

Rather than me answer this part, let's start another thread to discuss the doctrine of original sin.

There are a couple of problems with your reasoning here. It presupposes that your understanding is perfect. There is no dilema at all. The Scripture is right and true. No one with a shred of integrity would try to find other translations or words to change the meaning. No one is going to sweep it under the rug. And the foundation of my theology is Christ and the Holy Scriptures. Nor is my tradition keeping from the Scriptures. The Scriptures are my tradition.

Now I examined this passage at length. And it caused me to ask the question: Is there any sense in which Christ is the Savior of each and every man, and not just the elect. And I think you have made the same assumption I did when I first read this passage, namely, that Jesus being described as a Savior must always mean is a salfivic sense. The very word that the Holy Spirit used in the Greek doesn't permit this. It can mean Preserver or Deliverer. Like nearly every word, its meaning must be derived from its context. God is said in the Psalms to preserve both man and beast. Every moment that goes by where He does not destroy the wicked for their sins, He is acting as their Savior, but espeically for those who believe. In other words, He is an especial and particular manner is the Savior of those who believe. Am I reading my theology into this passage? Only in the sense that I am harmonizing the particular redemption of God's people made abudantly clear in other passages with this one.

Christ work is greater inasmuch as He is God and Adam was not. But your reasoning falls apart here my brother. If you base your belief that all are born spiritually alive on this reasoning, and a single one of them is eternally lost, then you are by that denying what you affirm! There was not one of mankind who was not in Adam at the fall. And in Adam all die. "But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." Romans 5:15 And so there is not one in Christ who is not made alive. As it is written, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Cor 15:22 Is the Aposlte speaking of the general ressurection? After all, he is arguing in the context that the dead are raised. No. verse 23 says, "But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." The apostle is not speaking concerning the those resurrected to damnation. He is speaking of those that are Christ's, Christ Himself being the first of the many who are raised to incorruption.

So you see how your reasoning does not work here. There are those who are damned. And if even one is lost in Adam, then by your reasoning, you must conclude that Adam's work was greater. But in this I believe your reasoning is mistaken.

The great truth and superiority of Christ seen in Romans 5 is not that more or less are dead than saved. But that in Christ is grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life, wheras in Adam death reigns. And Life is much greater than death.

They cannot be born spiritually alive who do not receive life. For it is "...they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ."

By your interpretation one must conclude that men are born into the world with the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness, already reigning in life by Jesus Christ.

No brother, your interpretation does not square with the Scripture. As in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive. Are you saying everyone is born alive in Christ by their birth? What need then is there of being born again?

 

Outsider,

Re-reading some of your post to me and to Rippon, I have a question. This question is not to judge, but to understand. Do you hold to the belief of what is called "KJV-onlyism"? Basically, do you subscribe to the notion that the KJV as a translation is the only inspired Word of God, and all other translations are perversions?

 

First, there were some Pharisees that were believers, so the whole group is not condemned.

But you are missing the point of what Jesus tells them. They do not believe because they are not His sheep. If Jesus had said they were not His sheep because they did not believe, then that statement would support your view; but that is not the case.

I see no reference in this passage, in context, to anything we are talking about. Nothing about election or foreknowledge that I can see. Exactly what do you think this adds to the conversation?

First, I don't know what AoA refers to. Second, you are confusing terms. Christ did not "call them", He "spoke" to them. The "them", in context, is the "world" which hates Him and will also hate His disciples since they do not know the Father. He told them everything the Father gave Him to tell. He did all the works that Father gave Him to do. They (the world) crucified Him anyway. (John 15:18-19).

You have missed the context, and therefore, have missed the meaning of the passage. This particular discourse on His coming death was prompted by two events. The first was the death and resurrection of Lazarus. This event prompted the Pharisees to say "....look, the world has gone after Him" because they could not stop His influence among the Jewish people. (John 12:19) The second was that Gentiles came to His disciples and sought an audience with Jesus. (20v.20) "Now there were some Greeks among those who were going up to worship at the feast (21)these then came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee, and saying 'Sir, we wish to see Jesus'."

Now, you can take the use of the word "world" to mean every person that has ever lived, without exception. There is no scriptural or historical support for the position that every person that has ever lived has heard the gospel and had a chance to respond.

Or, you can see the passage in the context it was written, and see "world" as meaning both Jews and Gentiles will be drawn to Christ without distinction.

That view, BTW, is consistent with Christ saying He has other sheep, not of this fold (the fold of the Jews), and that He will call them as well.

No, you have not.

No.

Yes. There is a two-fold purpose in the gospel. One is to bring those whom God has chosen to salvation. The other is to condemn those who have rejected God and His gospel.

I agree with a couple of points. All humanity rejected God and chose to follow Satan and live in darkness. That God has mercy on those He has predestined and elected according to His will is a testimony to the Glory of His Grace.

I do and I have. The more I understand the glorious truth of election and grace, the more I come before God in humility and thanksgiving for the mercy He has shown.

peace to youraying:

edited: The bolded areas are there accidently. I am not yelling at you, my brother, I simply don't know how to fix it.

 

Be careful. That log in your eye is blurring your vision.

Skypair, I just don't see your arguments having biblical support. I have tried to engage you by focusing on scripture. When you are shown to have completely misread a passage, you simply go to the next passage that has been butchered by your logic, as if nothing has been said.

Interaction with you has been futile, at least on my part.

peace to youraying:

 

Everyone is born alive by the sacrifice of Christ. The scripture you quoted says it best. In Adam, all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive.
The "all" who die are the same "all" who shall be made alive. Where do you place the unregenerate to be alive in Christ?

The term "Regenerate" means something. Look at the very first part of the word, "Re". If you have been re-generated, when where you generated the first time?

When we look at Christ's teaching, He lets us understand this:
Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Now am I to believe that Christ was telling them that they had to be converted, as spiritually dead children, if they wanted to enter into the kingdom?

Mat 18:5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
Again, if this child (Or any child) was Spiritually dead, I do not understand the message He is giving. If they recieve this child, they recieve Him.
There are a couple of problems with your reasoning here. It presupposes that your understanding is perfect. There is no dilema at all. The Scripture is right and true. No one with a shred of integrity would try to find other translations or words to change the meaning. No one is going to sweep it under the rug. And the foundation of my theology is Christ and the Holy Scriptures. Nor is my tradition keeping from the Scriptures. The Scriptures are my tradition.
Brother, I was generalizing. Understand I am not attacking you or the way you believe. I have seen this many times. Maybe you have not, but I have. I struggle with these things myself. I have caught myself several times looking at a scripture and saying to myself "I know it can't mean this, it has to be meant another way". Now, you may not have seen this or may not struggle with this at times, but I do.

I sometimes read other translations, but I hold true to the KJV. When I have Bible studies, I like to have one common text. Not to say one is better than the other, but when I read other translations, I find a lot of inconsistencies. This maybe a traditional thing with me, I admit it. But I do trust it completely. I will take this translation over another.

Anyway, God bless brother. As always, I enjoy our talks. Many blessings to you and your family!!!

 

Praise be to God!!!
God bless and many blessings to you and your family!!!!