The basis of God's predestination

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mikayehu:
Oh, and Chris and Pastor Larry, as for Calvinists at BJU, that really is somewhat of an interesting situation. Almost everyone I know in seminary and most of the Bible faculty are either heavily "Calvinistic" or flat-out 5-point Calvinists.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but they lost two of the strongest last year, which is both good and bad. And there are some very inconsistent ones.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There is not enough information in general revelation to save. It is only sufficient to condemn. There is no "gospel in the stars." Everyone who looks only at general revelation suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. Furthermore, everyone does not have equal opportunity to choose Christ if for no other reason simply because they have not heard of Christ. You cannot believe with hearing (Rom 10:14). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I knew I should have included the rest of it. The idea behind this statement was not that "general revelation" itself saved, but that if a person who never heard of Christ sincerely cried out to "God" ("whoever you may be"), God would send a person to him with the Gospel, so "hearing he might believe". At least this was how it was explained to me whan I used to ask Christians "what about those who never heard?" when I was new in the faith.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eric B:
...if a person who never heard of Christ sincerely cried out to "God" ("whoever you may be"), God would send a person to him with the Gospel, so "hearing he might believe". At least this was how it was explained to me whan I used to ask Christians "what about those who never heard?" when I was new in the faith.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

General revelation does not cause men to call out to God. They have rejected it as the text says. They have ignored it and instead chosen to exalt the creature over the Creator.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry: Yes but they lost two of the strongest last year, which is both good and bad. And there are some very inconsistent ones. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, I agree. Those two were my two favorite teachers and, I felt, served nicely to balance the university out. Fortunately for me, both are still and town, so I still get to talk with them frequently.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mikayehu:
Yes, I agree. Those two were my two favorite teachers and, I felt, served nicely to balance the university out. Fortunately for me, both are still and town, so I still get to talk with them frequently.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately, they both misrepresented dispensationalism (one more than the other) and in the process led many astray.

 

Pastor Larry,
Maybe we should start a new thread for this. Your call. I was just curious whether your last statement about those men "misrepresenting dispensationalism" was from your own experience or from something you heard. Its not a big deal to me, but I am curious. One of the men is about as cautious of a person as I've ever heard at stating others positions in terms they would agree with. He is basically a Reformed Presbyterian, but he is pre-trib and pre-mil. Go figure. The other man says certain phrases for the purpose of shocking the students. A bit "Spurgeonesque" I would say, but just like Spurgeon, he gets misquoted a lot. So I guess I would find it hard to fathom the first man "mispresenting" (purposefully) anyones theological view (I've had 7 classes with him). The second man may well have made a statement which, in isolation, could be viewed as unfair, but in context, I find it difficult to imagine his misrepresenting dispensationalism either.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mikayehu:
Pastor Larry,
Maybe we should start a new thread for this. Your call. I was just curious whether your last statement about those men "misrepresenting dispensationalism" was from your own experience or from something you heard. Its not a big deal to me, but I am curious. One of the men is about as cautious of a person as I've ever heard at stating others positions in terms they would agree with. He is basically a Reformed Presbyterian, but he is pre-trib and pre-mil. Go figure. The other man says certain phrases for the purpose of shocking the students. A bit "Spurgeonesque" I would say, but just like Spurgeon, he gets misquoted a lot. So I guess I would find it hard to fathom the first man "mispresenting" (purposefully) anyones theological view (I've had 7 classes with him). The second man may well have made a statement which, in isolation, could be viewed as unfair, but in context, I find it difficult to imagine his misrepresenting dispensationalism either.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both firsthand and by reports. We can start another thread if you like but I don't know that it would be beneficial. Basically the issue was that they were painting with a broad brush, assuming that all dispenstionalists held the faulty theology of some. I talked to someone who had classes just recently who, when he found out what dispensationalism really teaches, was surprised because it was not what he had heard.

Send a private message to me if you wish and we can discuss it more.I don't know that we need a thread on these two guys.

If someone wants to find out more about dispensationalism per se, we can start a thread on that.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> General revelation does not cause men to call out to God. They have rejected it as the text says. They have ignored it and instead chosen to exalt the creature over the Creator. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a general statement about man in general. It doesn't mean that nobody can call out to God based on general revelation. Especially since God is holding them responsible for what they do with that revelation (but then Calvinism teaches that God holds people responsible for things they themselves were helpless in doing because of His decree)

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eric B:
That is a general statement about man in general. It doesn't mean that nobody can call out to God based on general revelation. Especially since God is holding them responsible for what they do with that revelation (but then Calvinism teaches that God holds people responsible for things they themselves were helpless in doing because of His decree)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this a biblical statement or one from someone's head? You have provided no Scripture to support your point. Why not?

 

We were talking about the same scripture. You made one comment on it, and I added another.
This issue gets so conjectural, that believe me, lot of stuff on both sides is coming out of people's heads

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eric B:
We were talking about the same scripture. You made one comment on it, and I added another.
This issue gets so conjectural, that believe me, lot of stuff on both sides is coming out of people's heads<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This issue is not conjectural. You said that men can call out to God on the basis of general revelation. The Scripture says that man does not call out to God on the basis of general revelation. It clearly states that man rejects general revelation in favor of their own mind.

If you make a statement such as you have made, in contradiction to a clear passage of Scripture, it is incumbent on you to support your statement by showing a text in which it is found.

So again, I ask, Where does Scripture say that man can call out to God on the basis of general revelation??

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You said that men can call out to God on the basis of general revelation. The Scripture says that man does not call out to God on the basis of general revelation. It clearly states that man rejects general revelation in favor of their own mind. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>When it comes to this question, I always think of Romans 2.

Romans 2
13
for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
14
For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15
in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16
on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Scripture says that man does not call out to God on the basis of general revelation. It clearly states that man rejects general revelation in favor of their own mind. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But once again it doesn't necesarily say that ALL men ALWAYS reject general revelation. Man in general does. But it doesn't mean some won't be begin to accept it. You ask me "is this a biblical statement", but then neither is your generalistic assumption. They are both interpretations. We can argue over other scriptures to try to prove one interpretation right, but as for Romans 1 itself, it cannot be used to teach total inability and limited atonement.

 

Tuor,

I've been pointing that very chapter out for some time now, but I'm glad you cited it again; Calvinists ignore scripture that contradicts them, so it's important to keep reminding everyone that there is such scripture.

 

Tuor,

Romans 2 is talking about general revelation of God. Notice that it does not attribute any kind of saving efficacy to that. You have read into that. It is talking about man's conscience which instinctively tells him that there is right and wrong. It does not save that instinctively doing right things has any saving effect. Notice that the judgment still comes through Christ Jesus, meaning that those who accept him through revelation will be saved and those who do not will be condemned.

As I said to Michael before when we addressed this, you will have to be more clear about why you think this is a problem. I think it is perfectly consistent with what Calvinism understands from Scripture.

 

Eric,

Rom 1 does teach that man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness and is therefore without excuse. Rom 3 clarifies that this is all men, not just some men. All have turned aside; all are become useless; there is none that does good not even one.

General revelation can testify to the existence of God; it cannot save anyone. Until a person responds to the special revelation of God, he cannot be saved.

 

Mikayehu used this quote a page back about Acts 2:23: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The words boule (cousel) and prognosis (foreknowledge) are in a construction called Granville Sharp's rule, where two nouns are in the same case, connected by kai (and), the first noun preceded by the article, the second noun without the article. The rule states that in this construction, the second noun refers to the same thing to which the first noun does, and is a further description of it. That means that boule and prognosis refer to the same thing, the act of selecting the One out of the Persons of the Godhead who would be the Lamb slain as the Sacrifice for sin. The word prognosis, therefore means more here than mere previous knowledge, even though that knowledge be part of the omniscience of God. It partakes of the nature of boule, and is part and parcel of the same act. It means "foreordination." Wuest's Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Vol 1, Romans, page 142. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is actually incorrect. It is proper to call the construction the TSKS construction (Article, Substantive, kai, Substantive) Only when the substantives are 1. Singular, 2. Not Proper Names, and 3. Personal is it proper to call the TSKS a Granville Sharp application. The options for impersonal substantives may include overlapping entities, identical, distinct-though-united, or one a subset of the other. See Dan Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics for an excellent chapter of special uses of the article. He points out that the Granville Sharp rule has been much abused throught the years.

Best wishes, Chick

[ December 18, 2001: Message edited by: Chick Daniels ]

 

Chick, just for the sake of clarification, at least in my circles, we use the term "Granville Sharp" very loosely to refer to anything (other than proper names) in a TSKS construction. Wallace prefers to define his terms more precisely and make the distinctions you listed in your previous post. So, let's call it TSKS instead of Granville Sharp. That's fine with me. Here is Wallace's argument on Acts 2:23 (under TSKS constructions) in his book that you mentioned. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The realationship between the two terms [counsel and foreknowledge] here may be one of distinctness or the subsumption of one under the other. In the context of Acts 2 and in light of Luke's christological argument "from prophecy and pattern," the most likely option is that "prognosis" is grounded in the "horismene boule" (thus "foreknowledge" is a part of the "predetermined plan"), for one of the foci of the chapter is on the divine plan in relation to the Messiah's death and resurrection. Thus, God's decrees are not based on him simply foreknowing what human beings will do; rather, humanity's actions are based on God's foreknowledge and predetermined plan. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So, my argument earlier was that "foreknowledge" as seen in Scripture is not about God seeing what man will do and then acting, but about God's acting which results in man's actions. Acts 2:23 was the weakest of the three passages I mentioned, but it nevertheless points to the proper definition of foreknowledge.

 

I think the reference to Romans 2 in an attempt to prove that people can call on God because of general revelation is futile (I know that came as a shock to everyone ). I think if you'll follow Paul's argument through the first 3 chapters of Romans, this becomes evident. Paul's argument is that all men everywhere are justly condemned before God. The reason for that is that all men have transgressed the law ("There is none righteous no not one. There is none that understandeth there is none that seeketh after God."). And, lest anyone should raise the objection, "Well, what about the heathen who don't have the law?" Paul answers that with the statement that the Gentiles have the law written on their hearts, so they are without excuse. Pauls argument is that the law saves no one. ("Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ.") General revelation and conscience only condemn man. That is the argument of Romans 1-3:19; hence the section concludes, "Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified." Paul's whole argument has been that the law on man's heart is not enough. It takes faith in Christ (which Paul argues comes only through hearing the Word of God) to save a man.

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Mikayehu ]