Why foreknowledge = foreordination to God

Please do! After all, it was your thesis, so it is your responsibility to either support it or withdraw it.
</font>[/QUOTE]My "thesis" had nothing to do specifically with the Canons of Dordt, and I am under no obligation to you to address them point by point. God is not bound by time, the authors of those Canons did not adequately deal with that in their canons, and if that answer to your question does not provide enough detail for you, that's your problem not mine.

By that do you mean it would be too much trouble for you to actually support your assertions with facts? Do you find the truth to be "too much trouble?"
</font>[/QUOTE]Not at all. If you knew my history on discussion boards, you would know I am exactly the opposite of your guess. Instead, I believe it would be a waste of time for other reasons, largely based on seeing how you deal with those who disagree with you.

Sorry, no deal. I don't care about your answer to my question that much, it was more of a rhetorical question.

 

I think there's a problem even with your terminology, although I'll admit I'm not sure how to correct it. But when you speak of God's eternal perspective, it sound like God looks on creation and takes in info about it. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry for my lack of clarity. I simply meant that if God is not limited by time, trying to understand him and his ways totally by putting him on a timeline is not going to work perfectly. We do it because that's what we're restricted to, and thus the only way we can attempt to understand, but that restriction is ours, not God's.

 

I doubt that very much.

Again, I can. I simply choose not to with you.

I have. See how easily you misunderstand and assume?

No. I've repeatedly explained the real reason, you just seem unable to accept that reason - which further solidifies and justifies my desire to go into any more detail with you - it would not be worth it as I've previously stated.

 

You doubt I assumed you were being honest? Why?
</font>[/QUOTE]Because of statements like this one: "Yes, of course. Just as the KJVOs can defend their position too, but just don't feel like it. Uh huh. Yep. Really. Sure!"

Again, false.

Again, false.

I know where I am, you seem to be in another reality where you think you can read minds.

Did you ever consider that my position is not "unfounded", but rather that I just don't like to discuss things with you personally, for reasons you are still demonstrating?

Glad you finally agree.

 

I said statements like that one. Like your previous statements that implied I did not know what was in the Canons of Dordt, questions about it being too much trouble to support my assertions with facts, etc. Bottom line, I doubted you thought I was honest, and you proved my doubts were legit.

Perhaps you missed where I said it was my opinion that they didn't "adequately" deal with them. Or maybe you didn't miss it, but pretended to.

No, you won't. You'll just have to have a less abrasive attitude. Haven't you noticed that I don't even discuss things with you even when I do agree with you?

But that's the reason. It's not my problem you don't like it.

I've seen you in action enough times to know what to expect. And you have again met my expectations perfectly.

 

Alright ... discuss the issues or leave it alone. Natters, answer the charge if you respond. Thomas, if he doesn't, let your comments stand as they are.

Let's not go down the personal road.

 

Edit: Sorry Larry, I didn't see your post until after mine was up. I have deleted mine.

 

I am not sure why my posts keep getting deleted. Maybe I am not agreeing with everyone itelligently, because the amount of vitriol I have read in others posts did not occur in mine. Possibly it could be my historical references to some of the practices of John C? I don't know.

As to Election according to foreknowledge...well THAT is Bible. But you must read all scriptures and especially contexts discussing this to allow the Bible to interpret itself. Eph 1. speakes of Election or God chosing my AFTER I have believed. This is where I believe Calvin missed it. God is eternal, and exists ALWAYS, EVERYWHERE across eternity. As the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world, so God knew I would believe and chose my because of it because he was already there before the world began. This also speaks to the unspeakable price he paid for me...he will always be at Calvary...think about that. There are a lot of ramifications of this, and it is a common thread running through all of scripture. For instance, when did God become a man???????? Well, who was it that BREATHED into the nostrils of Adam, and who was it the WALKED in the garden? The Bible is an awesome book!

 

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1624.html

 

I believe that foreknowledge election is Biblical because it fits in with 1st Tim 2 v 4.

Kind regards to all.

Bob