Foreknow

[percho]

Why do you use one isolated incident that is NOT the norm to prove your point? Does everyone come to Christ by having Jesus appear to them on a road? Nobody is debating that God elects people for His work.

Do you think Paul had a choice after encountering Christ to obey or not? Jonah was told by God to do something as well. Why did one obey and disobey?

No I do not think either had a choice. You know Paul had a habit of going to Jerusalem for feast days. Do you think he heard Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost? Course we don't know I was just wondering what you thought.

 

[Skandelon]

Amy is talking about God appearing to be monstrous in the Calvinistic system. As a former Calvinist myself and one who has studied these matters for a couple decades, I thought her statement was a bit over the top. But if you really think about it objectively, I believe she has a point.

Calvinists teach that God creates 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 them to eat. And with the exception of a chosen few the mass of humanity, because of this divine condemnation, will spend eternity burning in torment and pain.

What monster do you know of in any book or story that is scarier than that?

 

[Allan]

So we muster up some kind of belief/faith in an object that being The Christ and then he saves us.

No need to 'muster up' anything. Either choose to believe or not.

Paul was going down the road not believing that Jesus was the Christ and killing and or putting in prison thoes that did, Jesus struck him blind, after three days of thinking it over he developed faith Jesus removed the scales from his eyes he received the Holy Spirit and began preaching that Jesus is the Christ.

Great, end of debate - even you acknowledge Paul had to chose to believe in order for God to save him.
Regardless of the special event that transpired to open his eyes (ironically they were closed so he could see), God didn't save Paul apart from his choice to believe. God used many great events in times past to call people to repentance but we still find that at times some believed and others some didn't.

Once again it isn't about if he is saving some and not others but the manner he is bringing about what he is doing by calling some for service.

Some he calls do in fact reject His calling (Prov 1:24; parable Marriage feast) and others don't. It isn't any surprize to Him who comes and who doesn't even though He calls them all like.

Back to my post above. Why the story about the two sticks and/or folds.

A.T. Robertson on John 10:16 like you asked

Joh 10:16
Other sheep (alla probata). Sheep, not goats, but “not of this fold” (ek tēs aulēs tautēs). See Joh_10:1 for aulē. Clearly “his flock is not confined to those enclosed in the Jewish fold, whether in Palestine or elsewhere” (Westcott). Christ’s horizon takes in all men of all races and times (Joh_11:52; Joh_12:32). The world mission of Christ for all nations is no new idea with him (Mat_8:11; Luk_13:28). God loved the world and gave his Son for the race (Joh_3:16).

Emphasis mine - specifically on the point that he states that God gave His Son for the 'whole of human race' and not a selct group from within it.
And then he gives this next portion of the verse:

Them also I must bring (kakeina dei me agagein). Second aorist active infinitive of agō with dei expressing the moral urgency of Christ’s passion for God’s people in all lands and ages. Missions in Christ’s mind takes in the whole world. This is according to prophecy (Isa_42:6; Isa_49:6; Isa_56:8) for the Messiah is to be a Light also to the Gentiles. It was typified by the brazen serpent (Joh_3:14). Christ died for every man. The Pharisees doubtless listened in amazement and even the disciples with slow comprehension.

Again, same point.
THen he presents next this from the verse:

And they shall hear my voice (kai tēs phōnēs mou akousontai). Future middle indicative of akouō with the genitive phōnēs. These words read like a transcript from the Acts and the Epistles of Paul (Rom 9-11 in particular). See especially Paul’s words in Act_28:28. Present-day Christianity is here foretold. Only do we really listen to the voice of the Shepherd as we should? Jesus means that the Gentiles will hearken if the Jews turn away from him.

Here his is without a doubt speaking of the calling of God going out to all men, the 'same'.
Here is Act 28:28 with his comments following:

Act 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.


Act 28:28
This salvation (touto to sōtērion). Adjective from sōtēr (Saviour), saving, bringing salvation. Common in the old Greek. The neuter as here often in lxx (as Ps 67:2) as subtantive like sōtēria (cf. Luk_3:6).

They will also hear (autoi kai akousontai). Autoi as opposed to the rejection by the Jews, “vivid and antithetical” (Page).

Notice he emphasises 'they' will hear, reflecting a choosing to listen when Israel chooses not to. But moving on...

And here is his last portion:

And they shall become one flock, one shepherd (kai genēsontai mia poimnē, heis poimēn). Future middle indicative of ginomai, plural, not singular genēsetai as some MSS. have it. All (Jews and Gentiles) will form one flock under one Shepherd. Note the distinction here by Jesus between poimnē (old word, contraction of poimenē from poimēn, shepherd), as in Mat_26:31, and aulē (fold) just before. There may be many folds of the one flock. Jerome in his Vulgate confused this distinction, but he is wrong. His use of ovile for both aulē and pomnion has helped Roman Catholic assumptions. Christ’s use of “flock” (poimnē) here is just another metaphor for kingdom (basileia) in Mat_8:11 where the children of the kingdom come from all climes and nations. See also the various metaphors in Ephesians 2 for this same idea. There is only the one Great Shepherd of the sheep (Heb_13:20), Jesus Christ our Lord.

Now watch what he says next tying in the 'flocks':

Joh 10:17
For this reason (dia touto). Points to the following hoti clause. The Father’s love for the Son is drawn out (Joh_3:16) by the voluntary offering of the Son for the sin of the world (Rom_5:8). Hence the greater exaltation (Phi_2:9). Jesus does for us what any good shepherd does (Joh_10:11) as he has already said (Joh_10:15). The value of the atoning death of Christ lies in the fact that he is the Son of God, the Son of Man, free of sin, and that he makes the offering voluntarily (Heb_9:14).

Riddle me this
If Christ died for all mankind as Robertson states, who is the 'us' that is refered to regarding his statement "what he does for us what any good shepard does." referencing back to 10:11:

Layeth down his life for his sheep (tēn psuchēn autou tithēsin huper tōn probatōn). For illustration see 1Sa_17:35 (David’s experience) and Isa_31:4. Dods quotes Xenophon (Mem. ii. 7, 14) who pictures even the sheep dog as saying to the sheep: “For I am the one that saves you also so that you are neither stolen by men nor seized by wolves.” Hippocrates has psuchēn katetheto (he laid down his life, i.e. died). In Jdg_12:3 ethēka tēn psuchēn means “I risked my life.” The true physician does this for his patient as the shepherd for his sheep. The use of huper here (over, in behalf of, instead of), but in the papyri huper is the usual preposition for substitution rather than anti. This shepherd gives his life for the sin of the world (Joh_1:29; 1Jo_2:2).

I guess when we look at A.T. Robertson in total he speaks contrary to your view.

Ezek 37:28 That the heathen ie whosoever will call ie that the residue of men

Wow, now that is what I call some serious eisegesis

 

[Amy.G]

Here is the post that got this "monster" thing started.

Originally Posted by OldRegular
And their characterization of GOD, who died for them who redeemed them, as a MONSTER is perhaps the saddest thing about their response. Not only is it sad but it is blasphemous.

Originally Posted by AmyG.That is not true. We do not characterize God as a monster. We believe the Calvinist doctrine characterizes God in that way. Big difference.

I was simply responding to OR's accusation that non-cals characterize God as a monster and also accusing us of blasphemy. If that is over the top, I apologize.

 

[OldRegular]

From the Thread “Regeneration: Begotten By God”, Post # 145, 01-11-2010, 04:26 PM,
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=63812

Originally Posted by OldRegular
That is the beauty of the Sovereign Grace of GOD. He is able to save all those that HE chose unto Salvation in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world!

There's nothing beautiful about the Calvinist view of God's sovereign grace.

It makes God a cold hearted monster. Only a monster would take someone born into total depravity and refuse a way out. That is not the God of the Bible. People do not go to hell because God refused to regenerate them to faith, but rather because He held out His hand and they refused to take it.


Jesus was lifted up to draw ALL men unto Himself. Not just a few.

************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Sorry Amy but above is the type of post that elicited my comment regarding those who refer to GOD as a monster. There may have been others. I did not try to find all.

Here is the post that got this "monster" thing started.

Originally Posted by OldRegular
And their characterization of GOD, who died for them who redeemed them, as a MONSTER is perhaps the saddest thing about their response. Not only is it sad but it is blasphemous.

Originally Posted by AmyG.That is not true. We do not characterize God as a monster. We believe the Calvinist doctrine characterizes God in that way. Big difference.

I was simply responding to OR's accusation that non-cals characterize God as a monster and also accusing us of blasphemy. If that is over the top, I apologize.

 

[Amy.G]

Sorry Amy but above is the type of post that elicited my comment regarding those who refer to GOD as a monster. There may have been others. I did not try to find all.

I did not refer to God as a monster. I refered to the Calvinist doctrine as making God to look as a monster. I apologize if you are offended by my post, but that is the way that I see Calvinism. Calvinism is doctrine. I have no ill feeling toward any Calvinist. It is the doctrine that I have a problem with.

Here is what I said:

There's nothing beautiful about the Calvinist view of God's sovereign grace.

It makes God a cold hearted monster.


"It" refers back to my statement about the Calvinist "view". I have never called God a monster. And I have not committed blashemy as you said in your post.

Originally Posted by OldRegular
And their characterization of GOD, who died for them who redeemed them, as a MONSTER is perhaps the saddest thing about their response. Not only is it sad but it is blasphemous.

Again, I have not characterized God as a monster. It is the Calvinist doctrine that does that. I am not blasphemous in saying that. It is my view.

 

[webdog]

No I do not think either had a choice. You know Paul had a habit of going to Jerusalem for feast days. Do you think he heard Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost? Course we don't know I was just wondering what you thought.

Really?!? God told Jonah to go to Nineveh, and then made him disoby causing him to sin?!?

 

[AresMan]

It has been stated here on the BB:

"For-know = intimate relationship of God from eternity past with ones He chose to show grace/love to"

Yet there is no proof even though this has been questioned by many.

How do you Calvinists know that this is not referring to the ones who will exercise their freewill and accept Christ?

The Greek word ginwskw denotes "experiential knowledge" whereas the Greek word eidw denotes "cognizant knowledge."

To understand foreknow (proginwskw) in the context of Romans 8:29, we need to look at cases also of know (ginwskw).

Mat 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Mat 1:25 And knew [eginwsken] her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (

[Was Joseph merely cognizant of Mary, or did he "know" her through a relationship?]

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never [egnwn] knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. [Is Jesus as God not cognizant of these people's existence, or does He not "know" them through a relationship? Surely God is all-knowing, right?]

Mar 5:29 And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt [egnw] in her body that she was healed of that plague. [Was the woman healed of the issue of blood merely cognizant of her healing by being told, or did she experience the effect?]

Luk 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know [ginwskw] not a man? [Was Mary stating that she was not cognizant of a man, or that she did not have a certain kind of relationship?]

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew [egnw] him not. [Was "the world" not aware of His presence while He was on earth or did "the world" not have an experiential relationship with Him?]

Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know [ginwskw] my sheep, and am known [ginwskomai] of mine. [Is the Good Shepherd simply cognizant or aware of the existence of His sheep, or does He have a relationship with them?]

Joh 10:15 As the Father knoweth [ginwskei] me, even so know [ginwskw] I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. [Are the Father and Son merely cognizant of each other's existence, or do they have a relationship with each other?]

Now, if a person is the direct object of ginwskw, that most likely means that there is some kind of experiential knowledge or personal relationship. Foreknow or proginwskw would simply attach a prefix to this experiential knowledge or relationship "action." To "foreknow" someone would be to have a relationship with that person "beforehand." In the case of God's omniscience and atemporality, "foreknowing" people would mean to have a relationship with them "before" they have a relationship with Him.

Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow

[proegnw], he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son [or sanctify], that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate [for sanctification], them [these same ones] he also called [What?! You mean there is a special kind of calling that pertains to those who will be sanctified?!]: and whom he called, them [these same ones] he also justified [What?! The same ones He "called" are justified?!]: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Those whom God "foreknew" or "fore-relationshipped" He predestined for sanctification, called, justified, and glorified. The verse does not say "of whom he did foreknow." The verse does not say "whom he did foreknow would believe." People, not their actions or anything they "do" are the direct object of foreknow. God foreknew people, not what they would do. Based upon His own foreknowing or fore-relationshipping them, He then called these people for His purpose. This calling is an effectual calling because the same ones who are called--all of them and only them--are justified, sanctified, and glorified.

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Rom 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
Rom 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name;
Rom 1:6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
Rom 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. [We are "called to be saints"! Why? Because we are "beloved of God." We are "the called of Jesus Christ"! And we know that we love Him because He first loved us.]

Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared [compare this with foreknew and predestined for sanctification] unto glory [those whom he foreknew, he called, justified, and glorified],
Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews [as a whole] a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks [as a whole] foolishness;
1Co 1:24 But unto them which are called, both [from the] Jews and [from the] Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

1Co 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: [Who does the calling? God! The ones called are from the Jews and from the Gentiles.]

1Co 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness [justification], and sanctification, and redemption:
1Co 1:31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

The reason that we are in Christ Jesus is because of God the Father. Of Him are ye in Christ Jesus! We are of Him in Christ Jesus because He effectually called us out of the whole of the Jews and Gentiles to be justified, sanctified, and glorified. This is all because He foreknew us or "fore-relationshipped" us. He didn't "foresee" something that we would do such as our faith. Our faith is a result of His "fore-relationshipping" us for His purpose to call us, justify us, sanctify us, and glorify us.

Continued...

 

[AresMan]

Our faith and repentance are not the qualifier of God's foreknowledge; they are the result of God's work on our behalf according to His "fore-relationshipping" us for His purpose.

Act 5:31 Him [Jesus] hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. [They were foreknown/fore-relationshipping, predestined for sanctification, called, and justified.]

2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

Phi 1:28 And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God.
Phi 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

Our repentance and faith toward the gospel is the result of God's foreknowing us--His fore-relationshipping us--as the Father "knows" the Son and the Son "knows" the Father. Those whom He did foreknow--not about whom He did foreknow--He predestinated for sanctification, called, justified, and glorified.

 

[AresMan]

There's nothing beautiful about the Calvinist view of God's sovereign grace.

It makes God a cold hearted monster.

Do you believe that we all deserve hell as just punishment for our sin? If that is the case, how can God be holy and just to provide no salvation and send everyone to hell, yet be a "monster" if He shows undeserved grace and mercy to some? I do not understand this dichotomy.

If a governor or President exercises the power to pardon someone on death row--and he has no obligation to do so--does he then have the obligation to pardon everyone on death row? Keep in mind that death row is the just sentence that they all deserve. If the governor or President shows undeserved grace and mercy to some, does that make the rest no longer deserve their sentence? Does God choose to extend grace and mercy to people because they are somehow "worth saving" or does He do so in spite of that fact? If someone deserved grace and mercy in any way, or if God had any kind of moral obligation to extend it, it would not be grace and mercy.

Why is God a "monster" for being good to people who could not deserve it in any shape or form? Do you believe that God has any "moral obligation" to show any grace or mercy to anyone when they are already, by default, under a just sentence?

The wonder of God's mercy and grace is not that He doesn't save everyone; it is that He even saves anyone.

 

[percho]

Question for all? I guess this has to do with the OP. Rom 11:7,25 are
these that are blinded, is that by God by Satan or by their own unbelief?
Are they doomed to eternal torment in the fires of hell? What is the purpose for them be be blinded if any?

 

[Rippon]

I did not refer to God as a monster. I refered to the Calvinist doctrine as making God to look as a monster.

No Calvinist views God as a monster. That is just monstrously absurd. What you have a problem with is that the biblical portrait of God is quite objectionable to you.

I apologize if you are offended by my post, but that is the way that I see Calvinism. Calvinism is doctrine. I have no ill feeling toward any Calvinist. It is the doctrine that I have a problem with.

Since you think Calvinism believes in a monster-God -- you have ill-feelings against Calvinists. That's just common sense.

Here is what I said:

There's nothing beautiful about the Calvinist view of God's sovereign grace.

Now that is a supreme pity.

It makes God a cold hearted monster.

There you go again. Please eliminate references to God as a monster -- and your views will not be seen as so absurdly sinful.

 

[OldRegular]

Do you believe that we all deserve hell as just punishment for our sin? If that is the case, how can God be holy and just to provide no salvation and send everyone to hell, yet be a "monster" if He shows undeserved grace and mercy to some? I do not understand this dichotomy.

If a governor or President exercises the power to pardon someone on death row--and he has no obligation to do so--does he then have the obligation to pardon everyone on death row? Keep in mind that death row is the just sentence that they all deserve. If the governor or President shows undeserved grace and mercy to some, does that make the rest no longer deserve their sentence? Does God choose to extend grace and mercy to people because they are somehow "worth saving" or does He do so in spite of that fact? If someone deserved grace and mercy in any way, or if God had any kind of moral obligation to extend it, it would not be grace and mercy.

Why is God a "monster" for being good to people who could not deserve it in any shape or form? Do you believe that God has any "moral obligation" to show any grace or mercy to anyone when they are already, by default, under a just sentence?

The wonder of God's mercy and grace is not that He doesn't save everyone; it is that He even saves anyone.

Excellent post! The last sentence is a classic statement in explaining the Doctrines of Grace.:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

Do you believe that we all deserve hell as just punishment for our sin?

First, the bible is clear that we are not going to be sent to hell as punishment for our sin (breaking the law of God), so this premise if flawed.

Instead, I believe we will go to hell for rejecting the revelation of God.

Jesus said, "47 "If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day."

Is it the man's sin against the law that judges man? NO, its the words of Christ...his revelation.

See, the righteousness from the law has been fulfilled in Christ, and now there is a NEW righteousness being revealed that comes through faith in Him. It is by that "new righteousness" that we are either accepted or rejected by God. You made the mistake that God is still rejecting/judging men based upon their righteousness according to them keeping the law. Not so. We are judged by what we do with the revelation...God's message of reconciliation.

So, your question should be, "Do you believe anyone deserves hell as just punishment for rejecting the clear and understood revelations of God?"

The answer to that question is a resounding "yes." Why? Because we are all "without excuse" because we all clearly see and understand the revelations of God. (see Romans 1)

The question we have for Calvinists is, "Do you believe anyone deserves hell as just punishment for rejecting a message they were born unable to clearly see and understand?" That is the real problem with Calvinism. It gives men the perfect excuse and nullifies Paul's point in Romans 1-3.

 

[Allan]

There you go again. Please eliminate references to God as a monster -- and your views will not be seen as so absurdly sinful.

There is no need. She didn't say 'God is a monster'.
She said "IT" (doctrines of grace) makes God a cold hearted monster.
It might not be the best way to illistrate how she sees the teachings but her statement as a reflection of her views being absurdly sinful.. not even remotely.

 

[Allan]

Now, trying to get the discussion back to the OP...

Quote:
Originally Posted by percho
So we muster up some kind of belief/faith in an object that being The Christ and then he saves us.

No need to 'muster up' anything. Either choose to believe or not.


Quote:
Paul was going down the road not believing that Jesus was the Christ and killing and or putting in prison thoes that did, Jesus struck him blind, after three days of thinking it over he developed faith Jesus removed the scales from his eyes he received the Holy Spirit and began preaching that Jesus is the Christ.

Great, end of debate - even you acknowledge Paul had to chose to believe in order for God to save him.
Regardless of the special event that transpired to open his eyes (ironically they were closed so he could see), God didn't save Paul apart from his choice to believe. God used many great events in times past to call people to repentance but we still find that at times some believed and others some didn't.


Quote:
Once again it isn't about if he is saving some and not others but the manner he is bringing about what he is doing by calling some for service.

Some he calls do in fact reject His calling (Prov 1:24; parable Marriage feast) and others don't. It isn't any surprize to Him who comes and who doesn't even though He calls them all like.


Quote:
Back to my post above. Why the story about the two sticks and/or folds.

A.T. Robertson on John 10:16 like you asked

Quote:
Joh 10:16
Other sheep (alla probata). Sheep, not goats, but “not of this fold” (ek tēs aulēs tautēs). See Joh_10:1 for aulē. Clearly “his flock is not confined to those enclosed in the Jewish fold, whether in Palestine or elsewhere” (Westcott). Christ’s horizon takes in all men of all races and times (Joh_11:52; Joh_12:32). The world mission of Christ for all nations is no new idea with him (Mat_8:11; Luk_13:28). God loved the world and gave his Son for the race (Joh_3:16).

Emphasis mine - specifically on the point that he states that God gave His Son for the 'whole of human race' and not a selct group from within it.
And then he gives this next portion of the verse:

Quote:
Them also I must bring (kakeina dei me agagein). Second aorist active infinitive of agō with dei expressing the moral urgency of Christ’s passion for God’s people in all lands and ages. Missions in Christ’s mind takes in the whole world. This is according to prophecy (Isa_42:6; Isa_49:6; Isa_56:8) for the Messiah is to be a Light also to the Gentiles. It was typified by the brazen serpent (Joh_3:14). Christ died for every man. The Pharisees doubtless listened in amazement and even the disciples with slow comprehension.

Again, same point.
THen he presents next this from the verse:


Quote:
And they shall hear my voice (kai tēs phōnēs mou akousontai). Future middle indicative of akouō with the genitive phōnēs. These words read like a transcript from the Acts and the Epistles of Paul (Rom 9-11 in particular). See especially Paul’s words in Act_28:28. Present-day Christianity is here foretold. Only do we really listen to the voice of the Shepherd as we should? Jesus means that the Gentiles will hearken if the Jews turn away from him.

Here his is without a doubt speaking of the calling of God going out to all men, the 'same'.
Here is Act 28:28 with his comments following:

Quote:
Act 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.


Act 28:28
This salvation (touto to sōtērion). Adjective from sōtēr (Saviour), saving, bringing salvation. Common in the old Greek. The neuter as here often in lxx (as Ps 67:2) as subtantive like sōtēria (cf. Luk_3:6).

They will also hear (autoi kai akousontai). Autoi as opposed to the rejection by the Jews, “vivid and antithetical” (Page).

Notice he emphasises 'they' will hear, reflecting a choosing to listen when Israel chooses not to. But moving on...

And here is his last portion:

Quote:
And they shall become one flock, one shepherd (kai genēsontai mia poimnē, heis poimēn). Future middle indicative of ginomai, plural, not singular genēsetai as some MSS. have it. All (Jews and Gentiles) will form one flock under one Shepherd. Note the distinction here by Jesus between poimnē (old word, contraction of poimenē from poimēn, shepherd), as in Mat_26:31, and aulē (fold) just before. There may be many folds of the one flock. Jerome in his Vulgate confused this distinction, but he is wrong. His use of ovile for both aulē and pomnion has helped Roman Catholic assumptions. Christ’s use of “flock” (poimnē) here is just another metaphor for kingdom (basileia) in Mat_8:11 where the children of the kingdom come from all climes and nations. See also the various metaphors in Ephesians 2 for this same idea. There is only the one Great Shepherd of the sheep (Heb_13:20), Jesus Christ our Lord.

Now watch what he says next tying in the 'flocks':

Quote:
Joh 10:17
For this reason (dia touto). Points to the following hoti clause. The Father’s love for the Son is drawn out (Joh_3:16) by the voluntary offering of the Son for the sin of the world (Rom_5:8). Hence the greater exaltation (Phi_2:9). Jesus does for us what any good shepherd does (Joh_10:11) as he has already said (Joh_10:15). The value of the atoning death of Christ lies in the fact that he is the Son of God, the Son of Man, free of sin, and that he makes the offering voluntarily (Heb_9:14).

Riddle me this
If Christ died for all mankind as Robertson states, who is the 'us' that is refered to regarding his statement "what he does for us what any good shepard does." referencing back to 10:11:

Quote:
Layeth down his life for his sheep (tēn psuchēn autou tithēsin huper tōn probatōn). For illustration see 1Sa_17:35 (David’s experience) and Isa_31:4. Dods quotes Xenophon (Mem. ii. 7, 14) who pictures even the sheep dog as saying to the sheep: “For I am the one that saves you also so that you are neither stolen by men nor seized by wolves.” Hippocrates has psuchēn katetheto (he laid down his life, i.e. died). In Jdg_12:3 ethēka tēn psuchēn means “I risked my life.” The true physician does this for his patient as the shepherd for his sheep. The use of huper here (over, in behalf of, instead of), but in the papyri huper is the usual preposition for substitution rather than anti. This shepherd gives his life for the sin of the world (Joh_1:29; 1Jo_2:2).

I guess when we look at A.T. Robertson in total he speaks contrary to your view.


Quote:
Ezek 37:28 That the heathen ie whosoever will call ie that the residue of men

Wow, now that is what I call some serious eisegesis

 

[Rippon]

She said "IT" (doctrines of grace) makes God a cold hearted monster.
It might not be the best way to illistrate (sic)how she sees the teachings but her statement as a reflection of her views being absurdly sinful.. not even remotely.

So if someone would say that your God is a monster -- that would be fine with you?It would not be a sinful thing in your estimation?

 

[The Archangel]

Do you believe that we all deserve hell as just punishment for our sin? If that is the case, how can God be holy and just to provide no salvation and send everyone to hell, yet be a "monster" if He shows undeserved grace and mercy to some? I do not understand this dichotomy.

If a governor or President exercises the power to pardon someone on death row--and he has no obligation to do so--does he then have the obligation to pardon everyone on death row? Keep in mind that death row is the just sentence that they all deserve. If the governor or President shows undeserved grace and mercy to some, does that make the rest no longer deserve their sentence? Does God choose to extend grace and mercy to people because they are somehow "worth saving" or does He do so in spite of that fact? If someone deserved grace and mercy in any way, or if God had any kind of moral obligation to extend it, it would not be grace and mercy.

Why is God a "monster" for being good to people who could not deserve it in any shape or form? Do you believe that God has any "moral obligation" to show any grace or mercy to anyone when they are already, by default, under a just sentence?

The wonder of God's mercy and grace is not that He doesn't save everyone; it is that He even saves anyone.

AresMan,

Excellent post. Thank you. The last sentence encapsulates the wonder of God's Sovereign Grace--that's why it's beautiful and not monstrous.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

So if someone would say that your God is a monster -- that would be fine with you?It would not be a sinful thing in your estimation?

Your side says worse. Your side says we claim to be sovereign over God, in essence making us gods.

 

[Allan]

Do you believe that we all deserve hell as just punishment for our sin? If that is the case, how can God be holy and just to provide no salvation and send everyone to hell, yet be a "monster" if He shows undeserved grace and mercy to some? I do not understand this dichotomy.

If a governor or President exercises the power to pardon someone on death row--and he has no obligation to do so--does he then have the obligation to pardon everyone on death row? Keep in mind that death row is the just sentence that they all deserve. If the governor or President shows undeserved grace and mercy to some, does that make the rest no longer deserve their sentence? Does God choose to extend grace and mercy to people because they are somehow "worth saving" or does He do so in spite of that fact? If someone deserved grace and mercy in any way, or if God had any kind of moral obligation to extend it, it would not be grace and mercy.

Why is God a "monster" for being good to people who could not deserve it in any shape or form? Do you believe that God has any "moral obligation" to show any grace or mercy to anyone when they are already, by default, under a just sentence?

The wonder of God's mercy and grace is not that He doesn't save everyone; it is that He even saves anyone .

This is a very poor understanding of the argument. Not to mention an illistration that you most likely will never use again after you think about it a little more.

First, the president or govenor have only a limited amount they are 'allowed' to pardon, and they examine 'the best ones' THEY deam worthy to let go.

So their power and ability to pardon is limited to a certian amount and the choice they make they pick is based upon the ones most deserving. Are you saying this is your argument for God's election? Didn't think so.

We agree that :
The wonder of God's mercy and grace is not that He doesn't save everyone; it is that He even saves anyone

This is the very essense of non-cal theology. I praise God that you are starting to come around However, God is not in any way morally obligated to save anyone because we deserve it. Again this is pure Non-Cal theology.

Yet He 'has' obligated Himself, both morally and judicially, to save whosoever will come/believe not because they deserve it but because He sent forth His Son to be a propitiation for sins of whole world to be applied only by/through faith.