You are saying that God first elects and saves out among lost sinners His individuals, who together make up his church, correct?
-
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!
Predestination unto salvation
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
A) you didn't answer A) above.
God can't intimately know a lost man who is outside of Christ and unredeemed.
You think the Greek will supplant that foundational truth?!
Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
The Galatians became known of God once they believed on him.
B) Give me a verse teaching me that I must look up the original language. The Greek/Hebrew game is ever the last hideout. But I will indulge you:
Romans 8:29 foreknow
Strong
G4267
προγινώσκω
proginōskō
prog-in-oce'-ko
From G4253 and G1097; to know beforehand, that is, foresee: - foreknow (ordain), know (before).
Last edited:
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
...rather than the regarded words of the living God. Precisely the problem. Do you not know that the scripture hath said the pen of the scribes is in vain (Jer.8:8)?
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Oh really? Based on what? And how do you define "intimately know"?
Great, you gave us the root definitions....
God inspired that term to us, so why would we not use the definition of a respected Greek Lexicon?
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
I rest my case.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
So you concede then?
I disagree. Scripture often speaks of corporate election (choosing a people group).
We are disagrreing with the standard view that God elected out his Church, Corporate Body, and that he merely foresees those whom by their exercising faith comes to Jesus to get into that Body...
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
As always David, as always.
I guess the issue is whether or not you believe that God has chosen a people corporately.
It seems to me that Scripture most often speaks of the Elect (plural) as a people. So I was surprised that there was such disagreement over the issue of "corporate election". I thought that Christianity as a whole believed that the Church (or the "Bride") was a people chosen by God. Many would also point to Israel as a people chosen by God.
I anticipated the disagreement to be whether or not election was individual as well.
But that's why we discuss things - to better understand one another.
For my part, I believe that God has chosen a people (corporately). At the same time I believe that God chooses individuals. To be fair to Scripture, I suppose I have to admit that most of the time Scripture speaks of God choosing a people (Paul goes to great lengths in showing Jews being excluded and Gentiles being included into such a people group). But I do believe that those in this group can look back to an individual election as well. Christ died for his sheep, and these sheep make up a flock.
I think when we get to the point we can only deal with individual election (ignoring corporate election) we have gone a bit too far and are ignoring Scripture. We are saved, but we are saved for a purpose (we are saved as members of a body).
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Do you know why I scoffed at you giving root definitions? My guess is you do not.
I think only @Iconoclast has rejected the idea that God has elected the Church. If I understand @Reformed correctly he holds that God elects corporately and individually (not one at the expense of the other).
I may disagree a little in that I believe God does make a group called the Elect (we are to see that we are numbered among the elect) but God does this by saving individuals (the group is made up of individual people who are chosen in Christ).
You cannot gather a flock without getting sheep.
Because you are a scoffer?
I do not know what you are talking about with "no name election". Corporately the Elect have a name (the Church, or the Bride). Individually election has a name (those whose names are written in the Book of Life, those chosen from the foundation of the earth).
I am saying that the Church is God's chosen people. And I am saying those members (those who are in the Church,the "Bride") can look back and see that they are chosen individually from the foundation of the earth.
Most of the time Scripture speaks of the elect in context of corporate election (in context of a people group God has chosen) and it is up to people to make sure that they truly belong to this group (that they are individually elected).
It is wrong to accept one truth while denying another.
"Are you suggesting our children are by virtue of the parent "elect"?"
John Calvin believe election is hereditary. Along with infant baptism.
1 Corinthians 7
14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Jon you know good and well there is a good reason to scoff, or roll your eyes, if someone uses the root word definition when claiming authority on definition of a word in a passage.Because you are a scoffer?
I was not keeping up with the conversation. I just saw your comment and thought I'd poke you in the eye (we used to have an emoji for that).
Yep. I know many Presbyterians that believe this today. I've heard some Reformed Baptist arguments very close to that idea when discussing infant deaths.
@davidtaylorjr ,
To be fair, "foreknowledge" can mean precognition. To "know" is also a way to indicate sexual relations (which could refer to intimate knowledge).
Personally I like John Calvin's justification for foreknowledge as it relates to predestination. I think that he gets to the same place without making the meaning of the word an issue of debate. In Institutes Calvin argues that "foreknowledge" means precognition (God's pre-knowledge). BUT Calvin bases this pre-knowledge on God's decree (God's foreknowledge is centered on God's sovereignty).
To be fair, "foreknowledge" can mean precognition. To "know" is also a way to indicate sexual relations (which could refer to intimate knowledge).
Personally I like John Calvin's justification for foreknowledge as it relates to predestination. I think that he gets to the same place without making the meaning of the word an issue of debate. In Institutes Calvin argues that "foreknowledge" means precognition (God's pre-knowledge). BUT Calvin bases this pre-knowledge on God's decree (God's foreknowledge is centered on God's sovereignty).
- Status