Jarthur001
Active Member
Web, You were shown 2 years ago that the Methodist "now theory" is in fact Arminian. I mean really...Why would a Methodist come up with the idea if it wasn't Arminian????
:BangHead:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Are the five points Biblical or man made?
- Thread starter Dale-c
- Start date
- Status
Web, You were shown 2 years ago that the Methodist "now theory" is in fact Arminian. I mean really...Why would a Methodist come up with the idea if it wasn't Arminian????
:BangHead:
OK. This is a fair question, so let me clarify.
In calvinistic writings, the word "foreknowledge" is treated this way: The word is made up of two roots. "for" means "before" and "knowledge" means "to know". However, this knowing according to calvinists is not simple knowing but is from a word that means intimate and detailed knowledge and it includes the concept of intimate love, the way the scriptures use "know" when the text says that "Adam knew his wife". So, this knowing means that God did not merely have a general knowledge of who would be saved, but that he intimately knew and loved those who would be saved prior to their salvation and this intimate knowing in eternity past is the basis for election.
This explanation is pretty common. I cannot remember specifically where I have read it off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure I have read it in MacArthur's writings, James White's, and John Piper's. If it is in dispute, I will try to provide some sources, though it might be a couple of days until I can get to it.
This explanation is faulty for several reasons. First, word meanings are not determined by breaking them into their roots, defining the roots in a wooden, literal way, then putting them back together to define the word. Kindof like the definition of "fellowship" is not "two fellows in a ship". Second, as Allan mentioned, lexicons do not define this particular word the way calvinists define it in their theological explanations. At least, I have not found one that does and it sounds like Allan has not found one either. Third, God's foreknowledge, as it relates to his attributes, is not limited to his knowledge of His elect. God's foreknowledge is far, far more comprehensive. In fact, his foreknowledge is so complete that, to man, it is incomprehensible. The verse does not mean that God elected His saints because of his intimate knowledge of them, rather, he elected them based upon his comprehensive knowledge of all things. This comprehensive knowledge includes (not to be redundant) all things that happen, all things that could happen but do not, and all things that would happen if the things that could happen but do not did happen. It encompasses his grand design overall and every intricate detail that occurs. This comprehensive knowledge includes knowledge of the free choices made by his creatures. So, in a sense, his foreknowledge does include forseen faith in men, but his foreknowledge is so much greater than this single aspect that foreseen faith is wholly inadequate as a definition of foreknowledge.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jarthur001
Active Member
Calvinist take the context into their reason.
Who does God foreknow "information about"?
let my limit this to one man....CAIN
Did God foreknow that Cain would reject God?
James, all definitions are derived from the context in which it is used. Therefore it should be in any or all lexiconal aides which expound those various aspects and meanings of which ever word they are emphasizing at present.
The problem with your argument is that your particular version of the defintion for 'foreknowedge' and 'foreknew' can not be found in any Greek lexicon. It is not and has not ever been defined in the manner in which your view redefines it.
Tom Butler
New Member
Two scriptures come to mind.
First, Romans 8:28-30, where Paul says "whom he did foreknow, he did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son..
It seems clear that in this instance, God foreknew someone, not just some thing, and that someone was predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son.
Further, that same person, or those same people--all of them, without exception--he called, justified and glorified. In v 28 those people are called "the called."
The other scripture verse is Matthew 7:23, where Jesus says to a group of people "I never knew you."
At least in these two passages, the context is that God and Jesus know (or never knew) someone. Those whom he knew are believers and those whom he never knew are people who pretended to be believers, but were not.
Further, since God is immutable, those whom he knows (believers) he has always known, or foreknown. He knew them before they were born.
God has always purposed to bring those whom he foreknows into conformance with the image of his Son. They are the ones he called. They are the ones he justified. Only them.
Conversely, those whom Jesus said he never knew were never called or justified.
I don't know about the Greek lexicons. But the English translations seem pretty clear to me.
First, Romans 8:28-30, where Paul says "whom he did foreknow, he did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son..
It seems clear that in this instance, God foreknew someone, not just some thing, and that someone was predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son.
Further, that same person, or those same people--all of them, without exception--he called, justified and glorified. In v 28 those people are called "the called."
The other scripture verse is Matthew 7:23, where Jesus says to a group of people "I never knew you."
At least in these two passages, the context is that God and Jesus know (or never knew) someone. Those whom he knew are believers and those whom he never knew are people who pretended to be believers, but were not.
Further, since God is immutable, those whom he knows (believers) he has always known, or foreknown. He knew them before they were born.
God has always purposed to bring those whom he foreknows into conformance with the image of his Son. They are the ones he called. They are the ones he justified. Only them.
Conversely, those whom Jesus said he never knew were never called or justified.
I don't know about the Greek lexicons. But the English translations seem pretty clear to me.
Obviously the lost wasn't predestine to conform to Jesus's image, only those whom God "foreknew" would be saved, fall into this category of being "predestine".
There's nothing "inferred" about the lost being "predestined".
God chose "ALL PEOPLE".. in him..(through Jesus) before the foundation of the world, that's the "plan of salvation".
Did God withhold Faith from Israel, preventing them from believing/accept Jesus???
Mr 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
How many "IF" exist in "Sovereign will/Predestination"???
Ro 10:9 That "IF" thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Ge 4:7 "IF" thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?
and "IF" thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.
"FAITH" comes by the "HEARING", and it's a hearing you can turn on or off, as Israel did to Jesus.
Mt 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
John 3:36, 5:24, and 6:47 - He that believeth hath everlasting life. All 3 texts show that the person that is in a present state of belief presently possesses everlasting life. The bible doesn't say there, if you will believe you shall receive everlasting life, it says present belief shows that you already have it.
John 10:26 - but ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep. Now, here are some that don't believe, and the reason for their unbelief wasn't their refusal to exercise faith. The reason they didn't believe is given in plain english - they weren't His sheep. One that is not a sheep is not going to believe. Belief doesn't make one a sheep, but rather shows that one is a sheep.
The bible also says this about faith. For one thing, all men have not faith says Paul. Then, in Galatians, Paul says that faith is fruit of the Spirit. How can fruit grow without a tree? You ask did God withhold faith from Israel? My answer is He has never given grace to a single goat in the history of the world since not a single goat has ever been born of the Spirit.
If God chose all people (I take your meaning to be every single person), then where is the break between the choosing and the saving? What differentiates between one saved everlastingly and one that is not? Paul says all spiritual blessings come from God in accordance with this election. Paul says that this choosing was "that we might be holy and without blame before him in love." He says that he "predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ unto himself." Paul then says that this is "to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." He then states that in Christ "we have redemption through his blood." Notice the same us that was blessed with all spiritual blessings were also chosen before the foundation of the world, predestinated unto the adoption of children, made accepted (not acceptable) in the beloved, and have redemption through Christ's blood. If God chose every single person in verse 4, then every single person has been made accepted in Christ and has redemption, the forgiveness of sins. How then can anyone be cast away into everlasting fire? Obviously the us must be the elect.
John 10:26 - but ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep. Now, here are some that don't believe, and the reason for their unbelief wasn't their refusal to exercise faith. The reason they didn't believe is given in plain english - they weren't His sheep. One that is not a sheep is not going to believe. Belief doesn't make one a sheep, but rather shows that one is a sheep.
The bible also says this about faith. For one thing, all men have not faith says Paul. Then, in Galatians, Paul says that faith is fruit of the Spirit. How can fruit grow without a tree? You ask did God withhold faith from Israel? My answer is He has never given grace to a single goat in the history of the world since not a single goat has ever been born of the Spirit.
If God chose all people (I take your meaning to be every single person), then where is the break between the choosing and the saving? What differentiates between one saved everlastingly and one that is not? Paul says all spiritual blessings come from God in accordance with this election. Paul says that this choosing was "that we might be holy and without blame before him in love." He says that he "predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ unto himself." Paul then says that this is "to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." He then states that in Christ "we have redemption through his blood." Notice the same us that was blessed with all spiritual blessings were also chosen before the foundation of the world, predestinated unto the adoption of children, made accepted (not acceptable) in the beloved, and have redemption through Christ's blood. If God chose every single person in verse 4, then every single person has been made accepted in Christ and has redemption, the forgiveness of sins. How then can anyone be cast away into everlasting fire? Obviously the us must be the elect.
The fact that some were predestined to a role is God's plan is biblical fact this is true.
But those people played a role in the grand outcome of everything, Pharaoh(Exodus), Moses, Joshua, etc, etc, etc, Mary, Joseph, the Apostles, etc. Romans 9 even states that the 1st century Jews that didn't believe were predestined to do so if I'm reading it right.
But what about me or you for that matter? The reason for their predestination is obvious.
But those people played a role in the grand outcome of everything, Pharaoh(Exodus), Moses, Joshua, etc, etc, etc, Mary, Joseph, the Apostles, etc. Romans 9 even states that the 1st century Jews that didn't believe were predestined to do so if I'm reading it right.
But what about me or you for that matter? The reason for their predestination is obvious.
Jarthur001
Active Member
In this thread I have yet to give a definition. At this point we were dealing with context.
Who does God foreknow "information about"?
let my limit this to one man....CAIN
Did God foreknow that Cain would reject God?
You know why I'm asking this. Because in context you can only see it oee way.....UNLESS...you read into it.
so....Who does God foreknow "information about"?
Jarthur001
Active Member
No it says.....Whom......that means all of them. Every person that God foreknow......was predestined
would be saved...is not in the context. Now I do agree, for then we could read the verse as...The elect is predestined, which is what Calvinist say.
We are trying to get to the meaning of "Foreknow". One view held by the Arminian is that God "KNOW ABOUT"...
so I ask....Did God foreknow Cain would reject him?
Jarthur001
Active Member
If you wish to look at the Lexicon, we will.
1st..
Greek lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary
Proginosko
1. to have knowledge before hand
2. to foreknow
a. of those whom God elected to salvation
3. to predestinate
*************
At least one verse in the Bible means..."
2. to foreknow
a. of those whom God elected to salvation
**********
Remember the lexicon uses WHOM...so we know its a person. and....the election is TO salvation.
What verse is this???
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom Butler said:
And regardless of how you view that, do not the scriptural statements still indicate that election is not unconditional but is conditioned upon His foreknowledge?; "elect according to foreknowledge" as Peter says.
Tom, let me probe your understanding a bit on the matter of God's foreknowledge. Are you saying that God's foreknowledge is limited to his knowledge of who will and will not be saved? Or would you say that God foreknows everything and his specific foreknowledge of the elect and non-elect is a part of his greater total foreknowledge?
And regardless of how you view that, do not the scriptural statements still indicate that election is not unconditional but is conditioned upon His foreknowledge?; "elect according to foreknowledge" as Peter says.
I am not of the Reformed Theology but none of this holds a problem for me. It appears the difference between those in the reformed camp and those not lies in the basis of God's knowledge. Is it based simply on his immutability or is it something more?
John 1:12 says those that received Him, first, then became the sons of God. Of course then we need to get into the mechanics of how God is received. Of course your understanding leads you to conclude that there are some God never reaches out to. Yet, Jesus reached out to a rich young ruler who came to Him.
But ultimately I see the primary difference between the two camps as falling in the understanding of what God's "will" is. The question is if it is expressed in scripture that God wills something must it come to reality exactly as God wills it? Our Reformed brethren often say yes or God is not sovereign. Can God will that all men in the whole world who have ever been born to be saved, and at the same time not all come to know God and God still be sovereign?
Is it possible that God wills (wants, desires, plans etc) that a man be saved and yet he does not? In my conversations with the reformed camp the understanding of the word "will" does not allow such an idea when combined with God's sovereignty.
I would argue that the word "will" does not refer to a plan that cannot be interrupted but simply indicates God's desire. There is nothing in scripture that shows that God's will can never be simply and inclination rather than a determination. And God having an inclination that does not come to pass isnot contrary to His sovereignty if He plans for or allows it.
Again, the phrase "unconditional election" is speaking of it being unconditional on our part. In other words, the elect didn't do anything to merit being chosen by God. To say that it can't be unconditional if it is based upon an act of God (Him foreknowing) is wrong.
If you read that whole text Peter will say, "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: grace to you, and peace be multiplied." Where is my part in this? Nowhere. Notice the monergistic work of God on display here.
If you read that whole text Peter will say, "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: grace to you, and peace be multiplied." Where is my part in this? Nowhere. Notice the monergistic work of God on display here.
Sorry, I know nothing of the "Methodist Now" theory. I only know of what omnipresence truly entails. If the Methodists got this aspect right, so be it. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut on occasion. Tom (not an arminian) said he agreed, are you accusing him of being an arminian also?
I guess since presbyterians are calvinistic in nature and hold to infant baptism, you must to? :BangHead:
Last edited by a moderator:
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
John 1:12, 13 says those that received Him were already born of God. The greek word rendered become here is the same one used in Matthew 5:45 and rendered may be. Jesus tells the disciples to love their enemies, then says, "that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven." Now, does one have to love their enemies to become children of God and be saved eternally? Or, when one does this, does he/she manifest the fact that he/she is already a child of God?
To the part about God's will, let me point out Isaiah 46 among many that affirm that absolute sovereignty of God. Over there we are told that "my counsel shall stand and I will do all my pleasure." Then we are told, "yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it." What goes purposes to do, and says He will do, He does. He does all His pleasure. Nebuchadnezzar said, "he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand or say unto him, What doest thou?" Paul says that "he worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." I have not the time or space to quote all the texts that not only affirm His sovereignty, but also that God's will is done.
To the part about God's will, let me point out Isaiah 46 among many that affirm that absolute sovereignty of God. Over there we are told that "my counsel shall stand and I will do all my pleasure." Then we are told, "yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it." What goes purposes to do, and says He will do, He does. He does all His pleasure. Nebuchadnezzar said, "he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand or say unto him, What doest thou?" Paul says that "he worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." I have not the time or space to quote all the texts that not only affirm His sovereignty, but also that God's will is done.
If unconditional is speaking of being so on our part, then you must also hold that predestination and foreknowledge are also on our part to. Can't have it both ways.
- Status