foresight based election

[Tom Butler]

Let me quote another scripture that should shed some light on the issue:

Acts 2:23 "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain."

God's decreed that the Son would come to this earth and be crucified. That's how he knew it would happen. There was no way it would not happen. He decreed that it would happen at the hands of wicked men. And they were held responsible for it.

 

[glfredrick]

I hope Calvinists on this board are educated enough to know that the "foresight of faith" view is not representative of serious scholars from the Arminian perspective.

Surely, you are mistaken... Article 1 of the Remonstrance says this:

That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.

And, should you make that familiar cry of Arminians and suggest that Jacob Arminius disavowed that article, these two quotes from his works should put that issue to rest:

"The providence of God is subordinate to creation; and it is, therefore, necessary that it should not impinge against creation, which it would do, were it to inhibit or hinder the use of free will in man." The Works of James Arminius, Vol. 2, p. 460

"God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons. This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing [going before] grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere . . . by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere." The Works of James Arminius, Vol 1, p. 248

And, should you take the position of John Wesley -- perhaps the one who most promulgated the tenets of Arminianism into the world -- note that he is fully in concert with the Articles of the Remonstrance and preached their content:

http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/58/

In that sermon, Wesley conveys exactly the same sentiments as Arminius above, and more, conflates justification with sanctification:

5. And, First, let us look forward on the whole work of God in the salvation of man; considering it from the beginning, the first point, till it terminates in glory. The first point is, the foreknowledge of God. God foreknew those in every nation, those who would believe, from the beginning of the world to the consummation of all things. But, in order to throw light upon this dark question, it should be well observed, that when we speak of God's foreknowledge, we do not speak according to the nature of things, but after the manner of men.

9. "Whom he called, them he justified." This is the Fourth step. It is generally allowed that the word "justified" here is taken in a peculiar sense; that it means he made them just or righteous. He executed his decree, "conforming them to the image of his Son;" or, as we usually speak, sanctified them.

I think that you are treading in deep and dark waters when you and the theology you profess removes from God any aspect of His divine sovereignty.

 

[Winman]

Now, I know you Calvinists will disagree, but I believe a figure of election is shown in Judges 7, when Gideon went against the Midianites and Amalekites. Look how God chose who would fight with Gideon.

Jud 7:1 Then Jerubbaal, who is Gideon, and all the people that were with him, rose up early, and pitched beside the well of Harod: so that the host of the Midianites were on the north side of them, by the hill of Moreh, in the valley.

2 And the LORD said unto Gideon, The people that are with thee are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hands, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, Mine own hand hath saved me.

3 Now therefore go to, proclaim in the ears of the people, saying, Whosoever is fearful and afraid, let him return and depart early from mount Gilead. And there returned of the people twenty and two thousand; and there remained ten thousand.

4 And the LORD said unto Gideon, The people are yet too many; bring them down unto the water, and I will try them for thee there: and it shall be, that of whom I say unto thee, This shall go with thee, the same shall go with thee; and of whomsoever I say unto thee, This shall not go with thee, the same shall not go.

5 So he brought down the people unto the water: and the LORD said unto Gideon, Every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue, as a dog lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; likewise every one that boweth down upon his knees to drink.

6 And the number of them that lapped, putting their hand to their mouth, were three hundred men: but all the rest of the people bowed down upon their knees to drink water.

7 And the LORD said unto Gideon, By the three hundred men that lapped will I save you, and deliver the Midianites into thine hand: and let all the other people go every man unto his place.

I believe there are a few symbols or figures in this story. First notice that God did not want Gideon to take a great army lest the Israelites believe they saved themselves through their own strength. You Calvinists have to like that.

I believe the twenty-two thousand who left in fear represents unbelief. The water that the remainder drank from represents the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is often compared to water in scripture.

I believe those who lapped like dogs represents men who humble themselves and see themselves as sinners. A dog was considered a very dirty animal in OT times.

We see also that only a very few were chosen. The scriptures say many will go into destruction, but few find life. In this account, only 300 men out of an original 32,000 men were chosen by God.

I believe God can see through time and chose those who believed on Jesus. This does not take away from God's sovereignty, because no man could believe unless God had revealed his Son to us. In fact, believeing is called "obeying" the gospel, so how can that take away from God's sovereignty by coming and believeing? It is those who rebel and do not believe and obey the gospel that try to take from God's sovereignty.

Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

Believeing God is obeying God.

Abraham believed God, and God said Abraham obeyed his voice.

Gen 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

Calvinists believe that non-Cals like myself steal from God's sovereignty. That is not so. I obeyed Jesus. When Jesus said, "Come unto me", I came.

 

[Robert Snow]

Amen, Tom. Sad case for a "god"

Still amazed at people who don't understand that forKNOWING has nothing to do, even remotely, with forSEEING.

In eternity past God forKNEW me, forming an intimate relationship with me long before I was formed in my mother's womb.

If there were any "forSEEING", my tag line says the rest . .

You continue to say this, but you are yet to prove it scripturally.

 

[Skandelon]

Surely, you are mistaken...

Surely, the word "foresight" was not used once in all the quotes you provided, thanks for proving my point. Which was, if you read all my posts on the subject, that the simplistic and really non-sensical explanation that an omnipresent God merely looks through the corridors of time to foresee who will believe and then individually chooses to save them is not representative of true Arminian scholarship. Your quotes help prove that point.

Obviously an omnipresent and all knowing God knows who He will spend eternity with, but the biblical doctrine of divine election must be understood from the national perspective as described by Paul in Romans 11 and elsewhere (and as I elaborate on in my first post). Predestination is never in regard to men believing, it is always about what believers (those in Christ) will become. They will be "adopted" and "conformed" to the image of Christ.

 

[rsr]

I hope Calvinists on this board are educated enough to know that the "foresight of faith" view is not representative of serious scholars from the Arminian perspective.

Election: We believe that God has elected to reveal himself first to the Jew (law and prophets) and later to the Gentiles (through the gospel). In doing so he has provided people the means to enter into covenant with him. This is what Paul was speaking of in Romans 11 when he speaks of the Gentiles being "grafted into the vine." The Jews were "cut off" (which clearly doesn't mean they lose salvation), but that they lost the means by which they could enter covenant with God, but the Gentiles were "grafted in" so that they now have the opportunity to enter the covenant through faith. If the Jews "leave their unbelief" they can be grafted back in, so as to enter covenant with God and the Gentiles if they get prideful may be "cut off again" just like Israel. Again, does that mean they can lose their salvation individually? Obviously not, it means they can lose the means through which the can enter covenant with God...his election, or choice of a nation or group of people, grants them the means to enter covenant with Him. It has nothing to do with God individually choosing to save certain individuals to the neglect of all others. God does elect messengers individually, but that is not proof that he somehow elects those who will individually believe or reject their message.

Just as there are different flavors of Calvinists, there are different flavors of Arminians, so one shouldn't paint with too broad a brush. But I do want to pass on the comments of Jack Cottrell in his explanation of classical Arminianism in "Perspectives on Election: Five Views," 2006.

As I am using the term, it is the view that before the world ever existed God conditionally predestined some specific individuals to eternal life and the rest to eternal condemnation, based on his foreknowledge of their freewill responses to his law and to his grace. For most of those described here as classical Arminians, the key idea is that God predestines according to his foreknowledge (prescience) of future human free-will decisions. Jewett calls this the oldest view of predestination, traceable to the early Greek Fathers ... (pp 72-73)

In his Christian Theology Alister McGrath leaves the impression that all Arminians understand predestination corporately, but this simply is not true. In fact, Arminian defenders of individual election are abundant, beginning in modern times with Arminius himself, who declares that his own sentiment on predestination include the “decree, by which God decreed to save and damn particular persons. This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God,” by which from all eternity he knew which individuals would believe and persevere and the ones who would not. (pp 79-80)

Without question, when the Bible speaks of predestination to salvation, it refers to persons and not to an impersonal plan ... Revelation 17:8 implies that specific names have been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world. What can this be but individual predestination? As we shall see below, a distinctive feature of the Arminian view of predestination is that it is based on literal divine foreknowledge of individuals. One cannot believe in predestination according to foreknowledge and at the same time deny individual predestination. Thus a consistent Arminian theology affirms the predestination of individuals. (p 80)

Erickson rightly observes that the “role of foreknowledge in the election of persons to salvation” is a basic concept of Arminianism. It is the heart of the classical Arminian view of predestination. (p 85)

 

[quantumfaith]

"In other words, God predestines believers to go to heaven, just as he predestines unbelievers to go to hell. But he does not predestine anyone to become or remain a believer or to become or remain an unbeliever. This choice is made by each person, and as foreknown by God it is the factor that conditions the predestination of an individuals eternal destiny."

Jack Cottrell, "The Classic Arminian View of Election" (Perspectives on Election: 5 Views) p. 83

 

[Tom Butler]

After working through Dr. Cottrell's explanation of classic Arminianism, to me still boils down to what I said in an earlier post. Election based on foreknowledge simply means that one who believes elects himself.

To be sure, election and foreknowledge are inextricably linked. Arminians (and other non-Cals) want election to follow foreknowledge. Calvinists want foreknowledge based on election.

Now, I think we'll all agree that there is not a time when God doesn't know something, so we can't really talk about a chronological order. What God foreknows, he has always foreknown.

But we can talk about a logical order. Arminians, therefore, hold that election logically must follow foreknowledge. Calvinists see it the other way around.

To put it another way, God foreknows whom he elects because he elected them first.

I know, I know, my way of expressing this is inadequate, because God is outside of time. But if there is an order to election and foreknowledge, I like my order better.

 

[Jarthur001]

I believe the twenty-two thousand who left in fear represents unbelief. The water that the remainder drank from represents the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is often compared to water in scripture.

I believe those who lapped like dogs represents men who humble themselves and see themselves as sinners. A dog was considered a very dirty animal in OT times.

We see also that only a very few were chosen. The scriptures say many will go into destruction, but few find life. In this account, only 300 men out of an original 32,000 men were chosen by God.

I believe God can see through time and chose those who believed on Jesus.

Every one believes God can as you say.."see through time". But is the reason why he choose?

Again lets limit this to two men.

Paul...
Are you saying God saw Paul would CHOSE God, because God looked ahead and saw Paul choosing God, so God choose Paul and then made Paul?

Cain...
Are you saying God saw that Cain would NOT CHOSE God, because God looked ahead in time and saw Cain not choosing God, so God did not choose Cain and then he made Cain?


Paul...
Could Paul have rejected God based on what you believe?

Cain...
Could Cain become a believer based on what you believe?

 

[psalms109:31]

Election

God elected us first, but His election places two roads in front of us.

To believe in Jesus and be saved or not and be condemned. The only way anyone knows they are His is to love others as ourselves and that we trust in Jesus. No matter how you slice it both have to take a good look at himself to know that if they are an elect or not.

You came to Jesus because He ask you to come, but you also could of continue your path to destruction.

It is funny how men try to say their salvation depends on God, but they have to look at themselves to know they are an elect or not; unless you believe you can live the life the way you want to and God choose you no matter what for salvation, because you are just chosen by God because you think you are.

 

[glfredrick]

Surely, the word "foresight" was not used once in all the quotes you provided, thanks for proving my point. Which was, if you read all my posts on the subject, that the simplistic and really non-sensical explanation that an omnipresent God merely looks through the corridors of time to foresee who will believe and then individually chooses to save them is not representative of true Arminian scholarship. Your quotes help prove that point.

Obviously an omnipresent and all knowing God knows who He will spend eternity with, but the biblical doctrine of divine election must be understood from the national perspective as described by Paul in Romans 11 and elsewhere (and as I elaborate on in my first post). Predestination is never in regard to men believing, it is always about what believers (those in Christ) will become. They will be "adopted" and "conformed" to the image of Christ.

What a neat technical way to get around a very obvious point... Good for you. But that really doesn't help your case at all. It just proves that you are good at debating. I'll give you that... :wavey:

But, as I've said before, couching your doctrine in fancy words does not change the doctrine. The reason "foresight" was not included is because it is not in the Scriptures. Yet foresight is EXACTLY what everyone in the Arminian camp is arguing, even while misapplying the biblical "foreknowing." That is PRECISELY why we Calvinists are taking you to task.

So, no point won for you. Sorry.

 

[quantumfaith]

What a neat technical way to get around a very obvious point... Good for you. But that really doesn't help your case at all. It just proves that you are good at debating. I'll give you that... :wavey:

But, as I've said before, couching your doctrine in fancy words does not change the doctrine. The reason "foresight" was not included is because it is not in the Scriptures. Yet foresight is EXACTLY what everyone in the Arminian camp is arguing, even while misapplying the biblical "foreknowing." That is PRECISELY why we Calvinists are taking you to task.

So, no point won for you. Sorry.

Hey GL, are you now the theology nazi?

 

[glfredrick]

Hey GL, are you now the theology nazi?

Nope, but an obvious dodge is just that.

From the Articles of the Remonstrance to the observed doctrines of Arminians, to the posts from Arminians and others disavowing themselves of the Doctrines of Grace, these doctrinal issues are plainly evident.

God helps them who help themselves, and that based on what God sees (or saw) them doing.

 

[quantumfaith]

Nope, but an obvious dodge is just that.

From the Articles of the Remonstrance to the observed doctrines of Arminians, to the posts from Arminians and others disavowing themselves of the Doctrines of Grace, these doctrinal issues are plainly evident.

God helps them who help themselves, and that based on what God sees (or saw) them doing.

Well, I am not sure I am "dialing" into your charge of "God helps those who help themselves."

When I do not comment, I am not "dodging", I simply am unavailable or simply just don't know.

 

[Skandelon]

What a neat technical way to get around a very obvious point... Good for you. But that really doesn't help your case at all. It just proves that you are good at debating. I'll give you that... :wavey:

Do mean like the "technical" way you get around the idea that whether or not you choose to Evangelize really matters?

See, what you think is merely "technical" maneuvering is actually my desire for our position to be correctly represented, just like you want Calvinism correctly represented. If I represent you as a hyper-C you would provide explanation and rebuttal as to how you are not. How would it make you feel if I dismissed those explanations as mere debate tactics to avoid the "OBVIOUS" reality that evangelism just doesn't matter in your system?

The fact of the matter is it is easier to create a straw-man and dismiss it than it is to actually deal with the content of ones arguments. Non-Cal do it to you when they dismiss you as being hyper, and now you are doing it to me. Is that what you want?

But, as I've said before, couching your doctrine in fancy words does not change the doctrine. The reason "foresight" was not included is because it is not in the Scriptures. Yet foresight is EXACTLY what everyone in the Arminian camp is arguing, even while misapplying the biblical "foreknowing." That is PRECISELY why we Calvinists are taking you to task.

So, no point won for you. Sorry.

This is not about winning anything glf. I'm sorry you think that it is. It is about accurately representing the point of view you are attempting to discredit. If they meant foresight they would have said it. They said foreknowledge because that is what they meant. The reason you straw-man them by putting words in their mouths is because then it is easy to dismiss them as "silly." I know because I did it too when I was a Calvinist. I used to believe that the non-C position really was just some silly foresight of faith view which is why I didn't give it any credibility and dismissed it without really understanding its claims. That is what you are doing now.

Listen, it is fine if you want to disagree with Arminianism, but shouldn't you at least know what we believe before you dismiss us?

Answer me this, how does "foreknowledge" fit into the Calvinistic position? What does it mean and what is it's purpose? (This isn't an argument, it is my desire to know what you believe about the role of God's foreknowledge in salvation)

 

[glfredrick]

Well, I am not sure I am "dialing" into your charge of "God helps those who help themselves."

When I do not comment, I am not "dodging", I simply am unavailable or simply just don't know.

Skandelon was dodging, not you.

 

[glfredrick]

Do mean like the "technical" way you get around the idea that whether or not you choose to Evangelize really matters?

I have NEVER once said or implied that sentiment in any form or fashion. That is merely a fancy ad hominem attack on those holding the DoG. OF COURSE IT MATTERS WHETHER OR NOT WE EVANGELIZE! For the Calvinist, how else do we discover the elect?

For one attempting to find "common ground" in so many debates, you can sure get off the reservation rather quicky...

See, what you think is merely "technical" maneuvering is actually my desire for our position to be correctly represented, just like you want Calvinism correctly represented. If I represent you as a hyper-C you would provide explanation and rebuttal as to how you are not. How would it make you feel if I dismissed those explanations as mere debate tactics to avoid the "OBVIOUS" reality that evangelism just doesn't matter in your system?

If you desire the nuanced position between true Classical Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism, then you will also completely understand why we Calvinists are interested in the nuanced position between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism.

Again, you are continuing the dodge by turning the discussion to hyper-Calvinism and some straw man lack of desire or effect in evangelism. IT IS NOT TRUE AND YOU KNOW IT. Be the scholar you claim...

The fact of the matter is it is easier to create a straw-man and dismiss it than it is to actually deal with the content of ones arguments. Non-Cal do it to you when they dismiss you as being hyper, and now you are doing it to me. Is that what you want?

Since you have now suggested that I have created a straw man, you will have to demonstrate that I in fact did that. Burden of proof is on you. I posted the Articles of the Remonstrance that largely define Classical Arminian belief. I am working off of them in my responses to your line of reasoning. No "straw man" involved.

And, if you disavow some aspect of the Articles, then you will need to come forward and let it be know where you take your stand. I will be most happy to engage you at that point. Trust me, I am not really afraid of any of your arguments. So far, they have not really carried the day.

This is not about winning anything glf. I'm sorry you think that it is. It is about accurately representing the point of view you are attempting to discredit. If they meant foresight they would have said it. They said foreknowledge because that is what they meant. The reason you straw-man them by putting words in their mouths is because then it is easy to dismiss them as "silly." I know because I did it too when I was a Calvinist. I used to believe that the non-C position really was just some silly foresight of faith view which is why I didn't give it any credibility and dismissed it without really understanding its claims. That is what you are doing now.

Again, where is my straw man? That you "define" a term otherwise does not make it so... The Articles clearly delineate a position that states that God elects those to salvation whom he foreknows will accept Christ. How is that different in FACT from His foreseeing. The event STILL has to happen in the individual before God acts. Know=See in your line of reasoning.

Listen, it is fine if you want to disagree with Arminianism, but shouldn't you at least know what we believe before you dismiss us?

I am OH, SO familiar with Arminianism. Remember, I'm the one posting the actual Articles of the Remonstrance and points made by Wesley here...

Answer me this, how does "foreknowledge" fit into the Calvinistic position? What does it mean and what is it's purpose? (This isn't an argument, it is my desire to know what you believe about the role of God's foreknowledge in salvation)

I will deal with this in a bit... Have some work to handle on my job. :wavey:

 

[webdog]

I have NEVER once said or implied that sentiment in any form or fashion. That is merely a fancy ad hominem attack on those holding the DoG. OF COURSE IT MATTERS WHETHER OR NOT WE EVANGELIZE! For the Calvinist, how else do we discover the elect?

For one attempting to find "common ground" in so many debates, you can sure get off the reservation rather quicky...

You have just proven your inability to read and comprehend what someone says. Skandelon was using a hypothetical situation by asking a hypothetical question, and you took it as a literal ad hominem.

The rest of your replies stem from your inabilities and are rendered moot.

No point for you.

 

[glfredrick]

You have just proven your inability to read and comprehend what someone says. Skandelon was using a hypothetical situation by asking a hypothetical question, and you took it as a literal ad hominem.

The rest of your replies stem from your inabilities and are rendered moot.

No point for you.

That is because it was a literal ad hominem. He used that PARTICULAR hypothetical situation because he well understands just how much a straw man it is, and by default is saying that I'm stupid enough to not get how I've just done likewise.

Like I said, Skandelon is a great debater, but making great points in a debate doesn't mean that those points are also true or pertinent. You, on the other hand, mostly jump in when you think you can score a point or so somewhere, but seldom ever actually carry the discussion forward in any way, meaningful or otherwise.

 

[Skandelon]

Again, you are continuing the dodge by turning the discussion to hyper-Calvinism and some straw man lack of desire or effect in evangelism. IT IS NOT TRUE AND YOU KNOW IT. Be the scholar you claim...

Brother, please follow my reasoning before you start with the rebuttals.

I know that is not what you believe. I know you are evangelistic. I was a Calvinistic missionary for many years. I understand that!!!

That wasn't my point. I was comparing what you are doing to me with what non-Cals do to you when they dismiss you as being a hyper. Understand now?

Since you have now suggested that I have created a straw man, you will have to demonstrate that I in fact did that.

1. You insert the term "foresight" in for "foreknowledge"

2. You neglect the explanations regarding Romans 11 involving the national election of the Gentiles (grafted in) and hardening of Israel (cutting of). Which yes, we do affirm involves individuals, but must be understood from the national perspective in order to avoid the concept of individual's losing their salvation and getting it back again ("cutting off" and "grafted back in" etc.)

3. You neglect the explanations with regard to what believers are predestined to become, rather than the assumption that non-believers are predestined to become believers.

4. You neglect the fact that in Calvinism God doesn't ever merely foreknow anything, making the very use of the word meaningless. For Calvinists, He knows what will happen because He will make it all happen, which isn't foreknowledge, its "pre-determination." This again leads to the inevitable conclusion that God is the cause and author of all sin and evil in the universe. He makes sin and evil happen just as He makes everything else happen. One cannot appeal to "secondary causes" because God must make them happen as well. Thus the concept of God's foreknowing evil and permitting it is (as even some Calvinistic scholars and confessions attempt to do) is meaningless because Calvinists ultimately deny the idea that God merely foreknows anything, because that would necessitate something "informing" God. Thus, the very concept of the biblical word foreknowledge has no place in the Calvinistic worldview, unless one redefines the word to mean "pre-determined."

Trust me, I am not really afraid of any of your arguments.

Good, then stop dismissing them as "foresight faith" and "God helps those who help themselves" and deal with them for once. It should be easy for you.

So far, they have not really carried the day.

God carries the day, I thought of all people a Calvinist would know that.

The Articles clearly delineate a position that states that God elects those to salvation whom he foreknows will accept Christ. How is that different in FACT from His foreseeing.

I don't know, why don't you provide a working definition of the word foreknowledge and we'll see how that differs from mere foresight. I bet Arminianism is closer to actually meaning "foreknowledge" than Calvinists are.

The event STILL has to happen in the individual before God acts.

Do you mean that a coach can't determined his game plans and how he is going to condition his team to make sure they are in great shape prior to his team being assembled? Are you sure about that?

Can the coach determine to recruit people from Town A and Town B prior to his team being assembled?

Is there no action the coach can take prior to his team acting on that day they join the team? Really?

This accusation only shows you really don't understand our perspective. The coach (God) acts to predetermine many things prior to the players (people) response to His appeal to join the team.

Know=See in your line of reasoning.

Know means know in our line of reasoning. Why would it be merely limited to seeing?

Does know mean know in your system? Or could it mean "determine?"

I am OH, SO familiar with Arminianism

Well, then act like it and deal with our actual arguments instead of your straw-men.

I will deal with this in a bit... Have some work to handle on my job. :wavey:

Good luck. :wavey: