Sovereignity of God

[webdog]

Hello Bob,

Etymology speaking, you have a problem. But the problem does not end there. This is something that amuses me when I see free-willers, post that God does not determine, but rather only foreknows. I don't really mean to be hard on you, because this is common among free-willers.

The fact is, if God is creator, one can not divide the two.

Let me ask you this. Why is grass green?

Actually, the bigger problem etymology speaking is foreknow = fore love.

The answer to your question is chlorophyll

 

[quantumfaith]

Yes well, the only word that anyone could object to would be amuse.

I do find it funny and to say other wise would be a lie.

Let me ask you. Do you understand why I would say this? I mean this is a MAJOR point with free-willers, so one would think it would matter. Now as said before, the word does not mean what they believe it does, but, lets say it does. If we give them that meaning, it still does not change ANYTHING in the end. does it?

God knows.....
God makes.....

Its the same as supralapsarianism

BTW, I do agree that this appears to be an antimony.

 

[Jarthur001]

Your talk is cheap! Where's the Scripture to back up what you say?

That part is easy...

Romans 9:11a...
11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad

WHY???
Why was it before they had DONE ANYTHING????

Romans 9:11b....—in order that God's purpose of election might continue,

You mean it is not based on what they did???

Nope...

...Romans 9:11c.....not because of works

Then why?? What was election based on?

Romans 9:11d.....but because of him who calls—

Etymology speaking...

Fore = beforehand.

Know = Love..

Together...what is the meaning of foreknow?

Loved beforehand

*******

Back to Romans 9....look two verses down...

13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

That is the point...right?

Loved beforehand

 

[quantumfaith]

Actually, the bigger problem etymology speaking is foreknow = fore love.

The answer to your question is chlorophyll

OH yeah, forgot to answer that question about the grass. Thanks webdog.

C55H72O5N4Mg C55H70O6N4Mg C35H30O5N4Mg C35H28O5N4Mg
C54H70O6N4Mg C55H70O6N4Mg

 

[Jarthur001]

So, in the end, God is not able to create and be Sovereign while still permitting some degree of free agency (meaning more than the typical reformed view allows for) in His creation?

What I mean by the pejorative comment is "free willers" seems to be "spoken" with a bit of disdain, forgive me if I read too much sensitivity into it, spoken by a "free willer".

QF....

Of course he could have, but he did not.

But the point again...Does it change anything? I say NO.

again...why is the grass green? Did God have anything to do with it?

 

[quantumfaith]

That part is easy...





WHY???
Why was it before they had DONE ANYTHING????




You mean it is not based on what they did???

Nope...


Then why?? What was election based on?





Etymology speaking...

Fore = beforehand.

Know = Love..

Together...what is the meaning of foreknow?

Loved beforehand

*******

Back to Romans 9....look two verses down...

13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

That is the point...right?

Loved beforehand

Many Christians are shocked when they read Romans 9:13: “Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’” Since when does the God of love hate people? This verse, coupled with the rest of Romans 9, has led many to believe that God does not love all people, at least with regard to their eternal salvation. He seems to arbitrarily choose some people for salvation and some people for damnation. But must we interpret this verse in that way?

I think the answer is “no.” A more careful reading of this passage indicates that the subject is not individual salvation, but Israel’s national role in redemptive history.

Paul is actually quoting from Mal. 1:2-3, and a reading of those verses in the context of Malachi’s book clearly indicates that Malachi is using the word “Jacob” to refer to the nation of Israel and the word “Esau” to refer to the nation of Edom.

This makes perfect sense because Romans 9, 10, and 11 are all about national Israel and her role in redemptive history. Romans 9 refers to Israel’s past, Romans 10 refers to her present, and Romans 11 refers to her future.

It is a serious exegetical mistake to interpret Romans 9 to be referring to individuals’ salvation. According to Norman Geisler, “the election of the nation was temporal, not eternal; that is, Israel was chosen as a national channel through which the eternal blessing of salvation through Christ would come to all people (cf. Gen. 12:1–3; Rom. 9:4–5). Not every individual in Israel was elected to be saved (9:6).”

God works through nations to accomplish his will, just as he works through individuals. Just because Israel was the chosen nation to bring forth the Messiah did not mean that every Israelite would be individually saved. Individual salvati0n has never been and will never be based on a person’s nationality. Paul is talking about the nation of Israel in Romans 9, not individual salvation.

Finally, it is also important to explain that the word used for “hate” in Malachi 1 is a Hebrew idiom which actually means to “love less.” Norman Geisler explains: “This is evident from Genesis 29:30: The phrase ‘loved Rachel more than Leah’ is used as the equivalent of ‘Leah was hated’ (cf. also Matt. 10:37).”

Quoted from Bill Pratt (Blog of "Tough Questions Answered"

 

[Amy.G]

I think the answer is “no.” A more careful reading of this passage indicates that the subject is not individual salvation, but Israel’s national role in redemptive history.

Paul is actually quoting from Mal. 1:2-3, and a reading of those verses in the context of Malachi’s book clearly indicates that Malachi is using the word “Jacob” to refer to the nation of Israel and the word “Esau” to refer to the nation of Edom.

This makes perfect sense because Romans 9, 10, and 11 are all about national Israel and her role in redemptive history. Romans 9 refers to Israel’s past, Romans 10 refers to her present, and Romans 11 refers to her future.

It is a serious exegetical mistake to interpret Romans 9 to be referring to individuals’ salvation. According to Norman Geisler, “the election of the nation was temporal, not eternal; that is, Israel was chosen as a national channel through which the eternal blessing of salvation through Christ would come to all people (cf. Gen. 12:1–3; Rom. 9:4–5). Not every individual in Israel was elected to be saved (9:6).”

God works through nations to accomplish his will, just as he works through individuals. Just because Israel was the chosen nation to bring forth the Messiah did not mean that every Israelite would be individually saved. Individual salvati0n has never been and will never be based on a person’s nationality. Paul is talking about the nation of Israel in Romans 9, not individual salvation.

Finally, it is also important to explain that the word used for “hate” in Malachi 1 is a Hebrew idiom which actually means to “love less.” Norman Geisler explains: “This is evident from Genesis 29:30: The phrase ‘loved Rachel more than Leah’ is used as the equivalent of ‘Leah was hated’ (cf. also Matt. 10:37).”

Quoted from Bill Pratt (Blog of "Tough Questions Answered"

Give that man a cigar! :thumbsup:

 

[webdog]

Foreknowledge is not an act of God (love beforehand), it is an attribute. This attribute can be found in Psalm 139...

O Lord, you have searched me and known me!
2 You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
you discern my thoughts from afar.
3 You search out my path and my lying down
and are acquainted with all my ways.
4 Even before a word is on my tongue,
behold, O Lord, you know it altogether.
5 You hem me in, behind and before,
and lay your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
it is high; I cannot attain it.

 

[Jarthur001]

Many Christians are shocked when they read Romans 9:13: “Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’” Since when does the God of love hate people? This verse, coupled with the rest of Romans 9, has led many to believe that God does not love all people, at least with regard to their eternal salvation. He seems to arbitrarily choose some people for salvation and some people for damnation. But must we interpret this verse in that way?

I think the answer is “no.” A more careful reading of this passage indicates that the subject is not individual salvation, but Israel’s national role in redemptive history.

Paul is actually quoting from Mal. 1:2-3, and a reading of those verses in the context of Malachi’s book clearly indicates that Malachi is using the word “Jacob” to refer to the nation of Israel and the word “Esau” to refer to the nation of Edom.

This makes perfect sense because Romans 9, 10, and 11 are all about national Israel and her role in redemptive history. Romans 9 refers to Israel’s past, Romans 10 refers to her present, and Romans 11 refers to her future.

It is a serious exegetical mistake to interpret Romans 9 to be referring to individuals’ salvation. According to Norman Geisler, “the election of the nation was temporal, not eternal; that is, Israel was chosen as a national channel through which the eternal blessing of salvation through Christ would come to all people (cf. Gen. 12:1–3; Rom. 9:4–5). Not every individual in Israel was elected to be saved (9:6).”

God works through nations to accomplish his will, just as he works through individuals. Just because Israel was the chosen nation to bring forth the Messiah did not mean that every Israelite would be individually saved. Individual salvati0n has never been and will never be based on a person’s nationality. Paul is talking about the nation of Israel in Romans 9, not individual salvation.

Finally, it is also important to explain that the word used for “hate” in Malachi 1 is a Hebrew idiom which actually means to “love less.” Norman Geisler explains: “This is evident from Genesis 29:30: The phrase ‘loved Rachel more than Leah’ is used as the equivalent of ‘Leah was hated’ (cf. also Matt. 10:37).”

Then you have a larger problem. Which we will get to later.

For now, lets look at a few things.

1st Paul gives us the meaning in the text. The NT gives light to the Old. Let me remind you here of another passage to prove this point.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

Who said these words? Who wrote them?

David wrote them, but it is clear from the NT that he was talking about Christ on the cross.


again...Malachiwrote the words....so what do they mean?

Paul tells us in the NT.

Now does it mean hate or love less?

Well less look at the context.

There is a list of black and whites..

we have one son over the other son.

we have compassion over no compassion.


we have mercy over no mercy


we have honor over dishonor.


we have love over...????

 

[Jarthur001]

Foreknowledge is not an act of God (love beforehand), it is an attribute. This attribute can be found in Psalm 139...

O Lord, you have searched me and known me!
2 You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
you discern my thoughts from afar.
3 You search out my path and my lying down
and are acquainted with all my ways.
4 Even before a word is on my tongue,
behold, O Lord, you know it altogether.
5 You hem me in, behind and before,
and lay your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
it is high; I cannot attain it.

:wavey: Good one.

 

[webdog]

:wavey: Good one.

I know Kind of puts the linear understanding to rest, particularly when you look at the rest of the text :thumbsup:

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."

30. "Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

Notice "glorified" is also listed as past tense, and yet it is a future event for us. Strange, huh?

Clearly it is speaking of an attribute.

 

[Jarthur001]

I know Kind of puts the linear understanding to rest :thumbsup:

Yes....if only

If only it was the same WORD.
:laugh:

 

[Jarthur001]

I know Kind of puts the linear understanding to rest, particularly when you look at the rest of the text :thumbsup:

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."

30. "Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

Notice "glorified" is also listed as past tense, and yet it is a future event for us. Strange, huh?

Clearly it is speaking of an attribute.

You do understand psa is in Hebrew for the most part.

 

[webdog]

Yes....if only

If only it was the same WORD.
:laugh:

Ah yes, like the idea of the Trinity without the word...

See you are starting to get it

 

[quantumfaith]

Then you have a larger problem. Which we will get to later.

For now, lets look at a few things.

1st Paul gives us the meaning in the text. The NT gives light to the Old. Let me remind you here of another passage to prove this point.

Who said these words? Who wrote them?

David wrote them, but it is clear from the NT that he was talking about Christ on the cross.


again...Malachiwrote the words....so what do they mean?

Paul tells us in the NT.

I am interested in your take on Psalms 22. From David's perspective, I see them as a person suffering due to His falliblility and sinfulness. As for Christ quoting this passage on the cross, I see it as a psalm of victory not one of necessary theological meaning.

 

[webdog]

You do understand psa is in Hebrew for the most part.

Not even remotely relevant to "glorified" being past tense in the greek, nor the idea being found both in the OT and NT.

 

[Jarthur001]

Not even remotely relevant to "glorified" being past tense in the greek, nor the idea being found both in the OT and NT.

web....

You built a case on ANOTHER word from HEBREW that has ANOTHER MEANING

That is what is NOT relevant.

 

[Jarthur001]

Then you have a larger
I am interested in your take on Psalms 22. From David's perspective, I see them as a person suffering due to His falliblility and sinfulness. As for Christ quoting this passage on the cross, I see it as a psalm of victory not one of necessary theological meaning.

There are two ways of seeing this, I do believe. Or I should say at least two ways. I'll give you mine.

Did David know that Christ was going to say this words? I do believe David wrote this about himself, not knowing he was also writing about Christ.

Now why did Christ say the words? I believe it was to get others to seek Christ throughout the OT. Mainly to point to this passage telling them it was talking about him. This is the message he kept telling others...SEEK SCRIPTURE for they speak of Me.

I use to think only part of the psa is talking about Christ, But I study it better a few years agao and now believe all of Psa 22 is about Christ.

What do you think?

 

[glfredrick]

Judas was predestined to betray Jesus (This is not the same way God predestines His children), yet God did not cause him to do so. It wasn't an accident that Judas fell into his situation. If foreknowledge is simply God knowing then how can God control the events?

What has to be decided is whether or not you believe God controls the future by His knowing about it or by His mysterious works that He causes all events to work together for His good purposes (including the disasters and bad things).

Excellent point, a point of divergence for many. For many of us are convinced that yes God IS in control, but necessarily the Cause of all things. The promise of the word is simply that "all things will work together for the good".

I understand (intellectually) my determinist brothers, who feel compelled to say that "all things" are good , that would be necessary if you are convinced that God is the immediate cause of all things. For the time being, I am not convinced of such. For me, God is in control of the "sample space" (parameters) and He knew (knows) all the branches of the decision tree diagram.

Furthermore, I without any intellectual hypocricy , am convinced that certain individuals were indeed "selected" for specific roles in redemptive history.

Quantum, you may be one of the only ones on this board who see Arminian theology accurately. Others, either disavow Arminian theology (though they hold many identical tenets) for their IFB, disavow stance on every theology or they are far left of the true Arminian position, being in fact Pelagian in the extent that they see human will as sovereign even over God Himself.

 

[webdog]

web....

You built a case on ANOTHER word from HEBREW that has ANOTHER MEANING

That is what is NOT relevant.

Which word? I posted a portion of the Psalm to prove my notion. I wasn't focused on any one word in the Psalm, but the attribute of God's foreknowledge found within.