Foreknowledge or Foresight?

Sometimes people are sleeping and away from their computers!

Surrender is not resisting God (or not persisting in rebellion against God) in the presence of his grace.

It is not an active choice to choose God. It is a passive choice to not resist God.

In surrender, God then continues his work of drawing you to himself by regenerating you through his Spirit, giving you the gift of faith to believe and repentance to turn from sin, so that you call out to the Lord and be saved.

We can't choose God because we are dead in our sins and don't want to choose God. But in the encounter with his grace, we are able to stop resisting him. In other words, we can do nothing!

This is looking at prevenient grace from the other side. Prevenient grace doesn't enable us to believe and repent and thus be regenerated. It enables us to become passive before God so that he can draw us to himself.

BTW, these are my ideas only. I've never read them in a book or heard them from a professor. It is my attempt to bridge the gap between Calvinists and Arminians. I think I'm on the right track.

What think ye?

 

A few posts ago, I had my tongue in my cheek, at least part way, when I said that if I was elected because God foresaw my faith, then I elected myself, and deserved most, if not all the glory.

But if foreseen faith is the correct view of election, how can that not be? God had no choice. He was forced to elect me. I had something the un-elect didn't have--faith. Why did I have it? Why, I was smarter and more enlightened. Why should I thank God? Shouldn't I thank myself?

Obviously, I don't believe all that, so holster your weapons, please. Just trying to point out some inconsistencies in the foreseen faith view.

Tom B.

 

Well stated Tom. This discussion is always brought into perspective by asking that question. What in one person causes them to accept Christ while another person rejects? Is there something slightly better in them? Are they smarter or more sensitive? Are they slightly less sinful and rebellious? No! Our salvation relies totally on God's grace & mercy. He chose us, we did not choose him.

 

Tom quote

EXACTLY man gets the glory and not God, very good.

 

Well J.D. the correct translation of Foreknowledge is ORDAINED

 

It might [rove interesting for some of you to go to: http://www.mrdsnotes.com
Go to his book on theological notes pages 985-994 and see what that says.I did'nt want to cut and paste.By the way many other interesting things to see and read.
Mr D is a seminary proffessor in a Baptist seminary in Oregon.

 

I obviously disagree, but the problem I have with your response is that you simply dodged the whole issue. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

Peter's epistle says we are "elect according to foreknowledge." Note that it is "according to" not "based on." It is in accordance with: e.g., agrees with, is parallel to, does not conflict with, etc. This is different than saying God makes decisions "based on" foreknowledge, which He does not do.

 

Frenchy,

No. Foreknowledge is not foreordained -- foreknow is proginwskw, foreordain is prohoridzw -- two very different words, but they are connected in idea as far as election is concerned...

Ray

 

Not quite. God is not restricted by time.Time is a dimension for man not God.Words like foreknowledge and forsight are useful to man,God just knows since He is omniscient.

 

Dr. Dericksons' notes on theology are worth taking the time to read.He takes a little different view and coins the term "Calminian",which is where I think most people actually fall theologically.That view seems to me to be a bit more biblical.We take the best of both which align closest to the Bible and throw out the rest.

We learn from others but must not follow men blindly. Calvin was 29 when he wrote the institutes, less than half my age.I wonder how much his views had shanged that we don't know about between the years of 29 and his last breath.We will never know because he did'nt record all of his thoughts.

 

I agree. This is a VERY important point. This, to me, is one of the keys to the whole thing. There is no "before and after" with a being who is not in time, who is in one everpresent eternity. So, God's actions are unified, and not done in sequence. Technically, He does not "fore-" anything. However, in order to communicate with us, who are stuck in time, he uses anthropomorphisms to make things a tad clearer.

 

I agree. This is a VERY important point. This, to me, is one of the keys to the whole thing. There is no "before and after" with a being who is not in time, who is in one everpresent eternity. So, God's actions are unified, and not done in sequence. Technically, He does not "fore-" anything. However, in order to communicate with us, who are stuck in time, he uses anthropomorphisms to make things a tad clearer. </font>[/QUOTE]I am with you there Humblesmith. I tried to convey the same thing quite a while back. It is perplexing. I think those terms are used to help us understand.

 

They can be useful terms until people get to hung up on them.I think we often tend to overwork theological words(foreknowledge,predestination,peccable,impeccability,ect.).