The ones God has predestined are the very ones on which He bestows salvation.
So trite and unbiblical at the same time!
-
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!
Foreknow
- Thread starter Robert Snow
- Start date
The ones God has predestined are the very ones on which He bestows salvation.
So trite and unbiblical at the same time!
We believe the Calvinist doctrine characterizes God in that way.[/QUOTE]
As Calvinists we do not characterize God as a monster. That is just rubbish. Do you want to join Dave Hunt's club?
I had said :"God knows no one intimately who will not spend eternity with Him." To which DHK replied with :"Perhaps I could say the same thing. But it doesn't make me God."
Perhaps you could say the same thing? Can't you give unequivocal assent?
Why would that make you God, by agreeing with that proposition?!
Perhaps you could say the same thing? Can't you give unequivocal assent?
Why would that make you God, by agreeing with that proposition?!
Okay Mr. Contrarian. Then do you believe the very opposite? Do you think that God predestines the very ones on which He does not bestow salvation? You are being nonsensical in the extreme.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Apology gladly accepted.
Is it possible? Sure. What the Calvinist side of the argument is saying, however, is that God did not do that.
Had God wanted to rewrite the entirety of the Biblical storyline, I suppose He could have looked forward to see who would believe and then conditionally elected based on foreseen faith. But, that would ipso facto make God the responder to man. The Biblical storyline always portrays God as the main actor and man is always the responder.
I agree completely with this order--foreknowledge and then predestination. However, you are, again, completely misunderstanding and mis-defining what foreknowledge means. It does not and cannot mean what you want it to mean, as I have already showed.
The challenge you have is that you are trying to redefine something that is clearly defined and in doing so you are coming to theological conclusion that are less than textually based.
After all, as Lincoln asked, if you called a dog's tail a leg, how many legs would a dog have? Four is the answer, because no matter how earnestly you wish to redefine a tail as a leg it will always be a tail.
Blessings,
The Archangel
Amo 3:1 ¶ Hear this word that the LORD hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, Amo 3:2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.
To know intimately as a husband knowes his wife.
Jer 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. Hsa 1:6 ¶ And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And [God] said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away. Hsa 1:9 Then said [God], Call his name Loammi: for ye [are] not my people, and I will not be your [God]. Amo 9:9 For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as [corn] is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.
Hsa 1:7 But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.
Act 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Rom 9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. Rom 9:26 And it shall come to pass, [that] in the place where it was said unto them, Ye [are] not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
To know intimately as a husband knowes his wife.
Jer 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. Hsa 1:6 ¶ And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And [God] said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away. Hsa 1:9 Then said [God], Call his name Loammi: for ye [are] not my people, and I will not be your [God]. Amo 9:9 For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as [corn] is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.
Hsa 1:7 But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.
Act 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Rom 9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. Rom 9:26 And it shall come to pass, [that] in the place where it was said unto them, Ye [are] not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Yeah, and your point is??? This still says nothing to God's predetermining who will and will not believe in him.
Robert Snow
New Member
You say it's trite and unbiblical. I notice you don't use any Scripture to back up your calim. I believe the problem you have with it is not that it is unbiblical, it is that it shows a major flaw with Calvinism and you know it! The only way this error of Calvinism works is to redefine certain words to fit this unbiblical doctrine. When the whole of Scripture is considered, Calvinism falls like a house of cards.
Robert Snow
New Member
No sir, you have not showed this at all. The very makeup of the word "fore" something that precedes, and "knowledge" something that is known. It means that God knew something in advance. No Calvinist has proven anything. They have just stated that it means God choose certain ones. I don't think this is consistent with the nature of God. I choose to believe it means God knew who would accept his gift of salvation.
We are at an impasse. The Calvinist says it means one thing and the non-Calvinist says it means something else.
I do appreciate your attitude. Too bad Rippon doesn't have the ability to communicate in like manner!
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Robert,
Please don't read any sarcasm into this post, because that would be easy to do. I am not intending to make a sarcastic post at your expense. Rather, I want to ask some serious questions based on your following statement.
1. Like when God chose Abraham out of all the people on earth? Especially considering Abraham was an idol worshiper this seems more like God's sovereign choice rather than Abraham's.
2. Like when God chose the Nation of Israel instead of the Moabites or the Philistines? Certainly Israel did not choose God. Even after God choosing Israel, Israel still repeatedly (as a whole) rejected God. So, that "choosing" was not based on foreseen faith because (on the whole) there was none.
God's sovereign choosing of persons and the Nation of Israel is one of the most prominent themes in all of Scripture. All of scripture supports the doctrines of grace to one degree or another. Your statement, while understandable, is quite overstated and inaccurate.
Blessings,
The Archangel
Please don't read any sarcasm into this post, because that would be easy to do. I am not intending to make a sarcastic post at your expense. Rather, I want to ask some serious questions based on your following statement.
1. Like when God chose Abraham out of all the people on earth? Especially considering Abraham was an idol worshiper this seems more like God's sovereign choice rather than Abraham's.
2. Like when God chose the Nation of Israel instead of the Moabites or the Philistines? Certainly Israel did not choose God. Even after God choosing Israel, Israel still repeatedly (as a whole) rejected God. So, that "choosing" was not based on foreseen faith because (on the whole) there was none.
God's sovereign choosing of persons and the Nation of Israel is one of the most prominent themes in all of Scripture. All of scripture supports the doctrines of grace to one degree or another. Your statement, while understandable, is quite overstated and inaccurate.
Blessings,
The Archangel
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Robert,
Don't take this post harshly for I do not intend it to be so.
Well...I have shown it and I have shown it clearly. If anything, I have not convinced you, and that's fine.
Again, you are insisting on taking the component parts of the word and divorcing them from the clear context of the passages that help define the meaning of the words.
You are absolutely free to believe foreknew "means God knew who would accept..." but you do so against the clear meaning of Paul.
Well...the Bible says it means one thing and many, such as yourself, say it means something else. Again, I don't mean that to be harsh, but the meaning of the word and Paul's usage is quite clear.
But, take heart--many excellent Christians take "foreknew" as you do. I think it's quite possible many of them are better Christians than us Calvinists.
Thank you. I do my best to make sure I address persons as I want them to address me (I think I read that in the Bible somewhere!). Many on my side and many on your side seem to loose sight of the fact that we are to be Christians--brothers and sisters--first and demonstrate love and restraint, even if we make strong statements. There's a right way and a wrong way to address one another, no matter how hard or harsh the statement might be. It is my hope that I will always address those with whom I disagree as brothers and sisters.
Blessings,
The Archangel
Don't take this post harshly for I do not intend it to be so.
Well...I have shown it and I have shown it clearly. If anything, I have not convinced you, and that's fine.
Again, you are insisting on taking the component parts of the word and divorcing them from the clear context of the passages that help define the meaning of the words.
You are absolutely free to believe foreknew "means God knew who would accept..." but you do so against the clear meaning of Paul.
Well...the Bible says it means one thing and many, such as yourself, say it means something else. Again, I don't mean that to be harsh, but the meaning of the word and Paul's usage is quite clear.
But, take heart--many excellent Christians take "foreknew" as you do. I think it's quite possible many of them are better Christians than us Calvinists.
Thank you. I do my best to make sure I address persons as I want them to address me (I think I read that in the Bible somewhere!). Many on my side and many on your side seem to loose sight of the fact that we are to be Christians--brothers and sisters--first and demonstrate love and restraint, even if we make strong statements. There's a right way and a wrong way to address one another, no matter how hard or harsh the statement might be. It is my hope that I will always address those with whom I disagree as brothers and sisters.
Blessings,
The Archangel
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
A problem with foreknew meaning "to know beforehand."
1 Peter 1:20-21 says: 20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you 21 who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
This passage is talking about Christ Himself. If we take "foreknew" to mean know beforehand then we have a huge theological problem. While many insist the foreknew of Romans 8 is to be seen as God knowing who would believe that definition cannot be applied here--and the words are the same (except this passage is a slightly different form, but the roots are the same).
It cannot be said that God knew what Jesus would do beforehand. That is true, certainly, but it is not the full meaning. Christ was chosen before the foundation of the world to accomplish the mission the Father gave Him--our redemption. The Father's choice of Christ was not based on the Father seeing what Christ would do of His own free will, rather what Christ freely did was based on the the Father's choosing of Him to accomplish our redemption.
Therefore, the understanding of foreknew meaning "knowing beforehand" has to be amended. The clear meaning is "chose" whether it is this passage or Romans 8:29 or Romans 11:2.
Blessings,
The Archangel
1 Peter 1:20-21 says: 20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you 21 who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
This passage is talking about Christ Himself. If we take "foreknew" to mean know beforehand then we have a huge theological problem. While many insist the foreknew of Romans 8 is to be seen as God knowing who would believe that definition cannot be applied here--and the words are the same (except this passage is a slightly different form, but the roots are the same).
It cannot be said that God knew what Jesus would do beforehand. That is true, certainly, but it is not the full meaning. Christ was chosen before the foundation of the world to accomplish the mission the Father gave Him--our redemption. The Father's choice of Christ was not based on the Father seeing what Christ would do of His own free will, rather what Christ freely did was based on the the Father's choosing of Him to accomplish our redemption.
Therefore, the understanding of foreknew meaning "knowing beforehand" has to be amended. The clear meaning is "chose" whether it is this passage or Romans 8:29 or Romans 11:2.
Blessings,
The Archangel
Except that it doesn't, and any reasonable discerning Christian (whether Calvinist or not) would be insulted at the attempt to paint Calvinist doctrine as such. Most noncalvinists would not stoop to such a level.
Well, I guess I'm not a reasonable, discerning Christian then. How dare I question a man made doctrine! Do you think God will forgive me?
And what about all the remarks made by Calvinists on this board....like...."non cal's think they are sovereign in their salvation"....."they think they can save themselves"....."they accuse God of being a monster".....need more?
Are they being "reasonable and discerning"?
John, I have every right and even the responsibility to question any doctrine out there. It doesn't mean I have ill feelings toward any person. My beef is with doctrines, not people.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
To be fair here, even some Calvinistic scholars admits that Calvinism's claims are very difficult to accept. (I'm thinking of RC Sproul's book "Chosen by God.") And I think if a Calvinist is being objective and looking at it from the perspective of another Christian who hasn't heard these teachings all their lives or accepted them as truth that they could see how this would make God appear to be very "monstrous."
I mean think about it objectively guys. You've got God creating a world in which he chose to condemn all mankind into a state of complete and utter hopelessness because a couple people ate a piece a fruit that he had forbidden. With the exception of a chosen few the mass of humanity, because of this divine condemnation, will spend eternity burning in pain.
What monster do you know of in any book or story that is scarier than that?
I mean think about it objectively guys. You've got God creating a world in which he chose to condemn all mankind into a state of complete and utter hopelessness because a couple people ate a piece a fruit that he had forbidden. With the exception of a chosen few the mass of humanity, because of this divine condemnation, will spend eternity burning in pain.
What monster do you know of in any book or story that is scarier than that?
Since Calvinism has scriptural support, it's incorrect to say it's "manmade", at least the way you're inferring.
Sure you do. But to paint doctrines in the manner you did, based simply on the fact that you disagree with it, it, imo, out of bounds, because it's not simple disagreement, it's outright attacking. Save that sort of thing for KJVOism or other TRULY manmade doctrine. But Calvinism, in and of itself? No.
Even JW's claim scriptural support, as do Arminians, semi-pelagians, ect... thus that in and of itself doesn't mean much, without examining it and many who have find problems within the system, while others don't.
This just non-sense. And the reason I say that is because you seem to have forgotten one important thing; she doesn't disagree because it just don't sound good, she disagrees because she sees scripture disagreeing with it.
So the fact is, she also has scriptural support for her rebutal against it's view. And yes, Calvinism like any other system is MAN setting out what they THINK scripture is trying to convey. Thus all systems are man-made to some degree or other.
Yes, just like others are as well. Completely man-made? No, but most definately it like others are man-made to some degree.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks Allan. You nailed it. :thumbsup: