What the Non-Cals really want !

:tonofbricks: Did I miss the memo where you were nominated spokesperson for all the non-cals? :saint:

 

O.k., for starters, read Ephesians 1-2, especially ch. 1 as it relates to predestination. Also read Romans 9. There you go. You said you didn't want any commentary, so I won't provide any, including my own. However, I will point out that you provided plenty of your own commentary in the OP. What gives?

 

And, addition to those, Genesis-Revelation. :laugh:

 

Ok - someone want to give your commentary for Rom. 8:29 and what foreknow means? I'm outta here, so I can't do it, plus there are much better guys out there to do it.

Bottom line is that 8:29 says nothing about him foreknowing "who would choose him". It just says foreknow. RB, can you take the batton from here?

 

You seem to be using "foreknow" in a different way than the Bible is. It is speaking of the intimate knowledge of a person, not knowledge of what that person would or would not do. That's why it is "whom he did foreknow."

Predestination is based on nothing man does, it is based solely on God's will. If God predestined us based on what He saw us doing in advance, then the salvation that comes only from God ends up being under our control.

Just look at Rom 8:28...we are called according to "His purpose", not according to our actions.
And let's not stop at Romans 8, Romans 9 clarifies even further.

Rom 9:16- So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" (Rom 9:18-20)

 

I can comment, if you don't mind commentary, cause even my comments would be commentary wouldn't they? lol

"Whom He did foreknow..." "Hoti hos proginosko"

hoti -that, because, since
hos -who, which, what, that
proginosko - to have knowledge before hand

Since the question deals with particularly the foreknowledge part, let's see where else this Greek word is used in Scripture:

Acts 26:5
Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.


Romans 11:2
God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

1 Peter 1:20
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

2 Peter 3:17
Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know [these things] before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

I don't have time to comment right now, as I need to leave work and meet my wife for a date! Of course, check the contexts of all the passages. This is just how I BEGIN understanding a text.

 

The OP is somewhat misleading. I am not a calv., never in my life. I do believe in predestination though, according to the Bible, based obviously on foreknowledge.

But I did have a Calv question yesterday...

Since you all believe man doesn't have free will, why did God make Adam sin in the garden?>

 

With all due respects, answering your question might hijack the thread, so I suggest starting a different thread, and while you're at it, you might as well point out the Scripture that says God made Adam sin in the garden.

 

I haven't studied either side in-depth, so my questions come out of ignorance.

Is it required to choose one side or the other? Can you land somewhere in the middle, or does the nature of these positions require choosing one over the other?

 

Yes, there is a middle view. The biblical one

 

Praise God!

 

This has to do with having the right idea of what the purpose of creation really is. The purpose of God's creation is not to make us comfortable, it is for His glory. Next we realize that God is most glorified when more facets of Himself are revealed...nothing can bring God more glory then Himself...His character.

Then we can begin to understand why the fall was decreed. If it wasn't for the fall we would never see God's justice taken on sinners, we would never see His full hatred toward sin because we would have never seen sin, we would never understand the extent of His mercy and grace because He would never have had to save us, and we would never know the depth of His love (Jn 15:13)

 

I think that is a great question and deserves more than a pat answer. I don't think one is required per say to choose one side or the other. Someone may be more persuded by Scripture to one side or the other without confessing the whole. Part of the large part of the topic deals with the secret counsel of God. God has revealed much in Scripture, but not everything of His counsel. And we ought to try not to go beyond what is written.

In some things honesty and truth will require us not to be able to take a middle ground. To use a simple example, we could not be debating the nature of Christ and on the one side say He is eternal/God and the other say He is created. Honesty and truth compels as that both cannot be true.

I see similiar paralles regarding some of these hotly debated subjects. i.e. Either the atonement was general or particular. I cannot imagine how it can be both. We should seek God for His wisdom and understanding in these matters, study hard, and be patient hoping in Christ that we will be guided by His Spirit into all the truth.

 

Apparently not.

Matt. 7:23, And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

 

Use of Foreknown, Foreknowledge

I just picked up another Greek dictionary tonight. I am not biblical language scholar, so these things help me. The author is William D. Mounce, some may be familiar with his training materials for Greek.

Here's what he has on this term:

Verb: proginoskso, to foreknow.

Noun: prognosis, foreknowledge.

"Two occurances of the verb proginoskso refer to human knowledge, namely, that someone "has known" some person or some Christian teaching "for a long time" Acts 26:5; 2 Peter 3:17

The other three uses of the verb and the two uses of the noun refer to divine foreknowledge. Peter in his Pentecostal message indicates that Jesus was delivered over to his enemies, "by God's set purpose and foreknowledge" Acts 2:23. In fact, Jesus was divinely "chosen" to this task "before" the creation of the world (1 Peter 1:2). Peter also states that believers "have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God" (1 Peter 1:2). Paul emphasizes the same message, that "those God foreknew he also predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son" (Rom 8:29; cf. also 11:2). We serve a God who knows all things and acts in accordance with his will*"

Mounce has an asterick at the end of the definition but I can't find, yet, in what it is in reference to.

The question was raised as to whether or not what is written in Eph contradicts what is written in Romans. The answer is no. What is in view in Ephesians 1:3-6 is the people whom God has elected before the world began, His purpose in them, and why He chose them "..according to the good pleasure of his will." v5

Perhaps this is the reason for Mounce's asterick. He is claiming "We serve a God who knows all things and acts in accordance with his will." Romans teaches us that God foreknew those He also predestinated. Ephesians goes into more detail upon the purpose and end of God's predestination. Foreknowledge deals with "whom" and Predestination deals with purpose. God knew whom from all eternity as well as what He would do in them.

In other words, that believers that have been chosen were chosen according to God's foreknowledge, and this choosing and pre-determining of a people is according to His will. They are foreknown, elect, and predestined according to His will.

Now, this "predestined" is "prooizo" as a verb and means "to predestine, determine, set apart beforehand." Mouce adds, "Iti is derived from pro, meaning "before" or "ahead of" and orizo, meaning "to appoint, decide, determine."

And again,

"God is always the one doing the action in this verb. In Peter's Pentecost sermon, he says of those who put Jesus to death that "they did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen" (Acts 4:28).

Mounce goes on to show the purposes toward believers in this predestination. I will summarize:

1. Adoption as sons.
2. An inheritance
3. Conformed to the image of Christ.

Mounce closes with this,

"These eternal purposes of God for every Christian are a foregone conclusion because they are grounded in his predetermined will. This is why the eighteenth-century theologian Jonathan Edwards referred to God's predestining of believers along with his other saving acts listed in Rom. 8:29-30 as links in the "invioable chain of redemption." Some people struggle with the concept of predestination as it seems to conflict with their supposed personal free will, but the doctrine is clearly taught in Scripture."

This statement of Mounce resonates in my heart. I think much of the struggle and debate that surrounds the doctrine of predestination is for the reason Mounce mentions. Yet, for all that, the doctrine is clearly taught in Scripture.

To God be the glory.

RB

 

We probably shouldn't take the thread in a different direction, but let me highlight that your question is faulty. The reason being is"

1. Calvinist believe in free-will, but not a free-will as defined as being libertarian.

2. God did not "make" Adam sin.

So the question cannot be answered because it presupposes that Calvinists believe these things, and they do not.

 

Thank you for the explanation, and I apologize if I have sounded rude in any manner. What I see from your explanation is that you seem to be (or are you indeed) a double predestinarian ? Or one who holds that God predestined the fall for His honor and glory ?

Correct me if I am wrong, dear sir, as I was not born in the English language, and sometimes misunderstand things.

My co-workers who sidejack with me on the phones sometimes look at me in wonder (or do I awe them because I get away with it) because I do exactly the opposite of what the caller wants.

(Or could it be diabetes ? Uhmmm.....just a thought).

 

I've been trying to say that for the last 100yrs. :thumbs: