Cured

[amity]

I think if the Calvinists will look at the predestination verses in context, they will find that those who are saved are predestined for certain things, and not that they were predestined to be saved.

God knew ahead of time what the choices would be, but the choices were freely offered and very really possible for all people. Those who chose the truth were led to Christ and predestined to be adopted as sons and daughters, predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ and it was predestined that this would be accomplished by the work of the Holy Spirit.

But it was never predestined who the believers would be.

I see, russell55. Thank you for the explanation.

Helen, if that is the true meaning of foreknowledge, then it makes no particular point at all, since we already know that Christ came to redeem people to Himself. We also already know that God is omniscient. So why did God include this passage in the Bible?

In every instance where the word 'foreknowledge' is used, it does seem to refer to specific people.

 

[Jarthur001]

I think if the Calvinists will look at the predestination verses in context, they will find that those who are saved are predestined for certain things, and not that they were predestined to be saved.

God knew ahead of time what the choices would be, but the choices were freely offered and very really possible for all people. Those who chose the truth were led to Christ and predestined to be adopted as sons and daughters, predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ and it was predestined that this would be accomplished by the work of the Holy Spirit.

But it was never predestined who the believers would be.

aaaw ok. So what you are saying is, God looks and sees that Paul would believe and chose God, if God would blind Paul and speak to him from heaven, so then God choose to blind Paul and to speak to Paul from heaven, so that Paul would believe. Where as God know also that if He did not blind Mr Smith nor speak to Mr Smith from heaven, that Mr Smith would not believe as Paul did and that Mr Smith would not choose God, so God decided to choose NOT to speak to Mr Smith from heaven or blind Mr Smith and what do you know...Mr Smith did not believe.

Is this what your saying?

 

[Helen]

aaaw ok. So what you are saying is, God looks and sees that Paul would believe and chose God, if God would blind Paul and speak to him from heaven, so then God choose to blind Paul and to speak to Paul from heaven, so that Paul would believe. Where as God know also that if He did not blind Mr Smith nor speak to Mr Smith from heaven, that Mr Smith would not believe as Paul did and that Mr Smith would not choose God, so God decided to choose NOT to speak to Mr Smith from heaven or blind Mr Smith and what do you know...Mr Smith did not believe.

Is this what your saying?

You are missing the main point about Paul. He already was a firm, God-worshiping Jew. He sincerely believed He was maintaining the pure Scriptural faith in God. He believed he was serving God in the best way he knew. He was wrong and the God he knew to be real and the God he prayed to showed him the truth. That is a far cry from being a pagan and not believing in God in the first place.

Your fictional Mr. Smith, like every man alive, is also given enough truth to follow or suppress. See Romans 1. God knows what he will do, but God does not force or predestine him to do it.

 

[amity]

God does not force or predestine him to do it.

Helen, predestination is not the same thing as "forcing" at all.

Here's a possible analogy: I work in a Junior High School. We oftentimes express their decision-making to them as a "choice." "Right choices, right now" we say. Supposedly, it gives them a greater feeling of self-control. In truth, it is a choice in only a very limited sense. We do not give them a full range of options to choose from. We could not even if we wanted to, for circumstances compel all of us, whether 7th graders or adults. Most of the time it still boils down to "straighten up and fly right or you will go to the principal's office. Those are your choices."

This discussion has gone so fast so far that now I either have to go back and read almost 300 posts to get caught up to speed ... or drop out and read other threads instead.

 

[Helen]

Helen, predestination is not the same thing as "forcing" at all.

Smile...that is why I said 'or'.

Here's a possible analogy: I work in a Junior High School. We oftentimes express their decision-making to them as a "choice." "Right choices, right now" we say. Supposedly, it gives them a greater feeling of self-control. In truth, it is a choice in only a very limited sense. We do not give them a full range of options to choose from. We could not even if we wanted to, for circumstances compel all of us, whether 7th graders or adults. Most of the time it still boils down to "straighten up and fly right or you will go to the principal's office. Those are your choices."

This discussion has gone so fast so far that now I either have to go back and read almost 300 posts to get caught up to speed ... or drop out and read other threads instead.

And some of those kids end up in the principal's office, right? God has told us in the Bible and in our consciences what the right choices are, and many choose otherwise....just like in junor high school.

 

[amity]

And some of those kids end up in the principal's office, right? God has told us in the Bible and in our consciences what the right choices are, and many choose otherwise....just like in junor high school.

Oh, yeah, ALL of them will wind up in the principal's office if they don't straighten up! But they won't be executed for it. They are our kids and we love 'em....

And same with believers, too. That element of choice, restricted as it is, is not inconsistent with predestination at all. God didn't necessarily ordain that fly to land on my baloney sandwich just now. He also didn't necessarily ordain me to go get the flyswatter. Or at least I don't see that level of foreordination of meaningless minutiae taught in scripture, let me put in that way.

What is inconsistent with predestination is the belief that man has a so-called "free will." Just like my 7th-graders, none of us have a full range of choices, and in fact our choices are also very circumscribed. If I had been born to Zoroastrian parents in India, I might have never been blessed to learn about Christ. God arranged things so that I did. That wasn't MY choice. Nor was the fact that God opened my eyes and heart so that I could see and believe, and this rather abruptly even after I had heard the same things repeated many times before and had NOT believed. So in that sense my choice was made for me in God arranging the attending circumstances. Could I now, even loving the Lord, go out tonight and find some sinful mischief to get into and not bother to go to church tomorrow? If I set my mind to it, maybe. But God has fixed my heart so that I don't want to. I understand from the Bible that He did so in order that whatever needs to happen in order for His will to be done will happen!

 

[Jarthur001]

You are missing the main point about Paul. He already was a firm, God-worshiping Jew. He sincerely believed He was maintaining the pure Scriptural faith in God. He believed he was serving God in the best way he knew. He was wrong and the God he knew to be real and the God he prayed to showed him the truth. That is a far cry from being a pagan and not believing in God in the first place.

Your fictional Mr. Smith, like every man alive, is also given enough truth to follow or suppress. See Romans 1. God knows what he will do, but God does not force or predestine him to do it.

1st let me say I disagree. but....

Lets see if this works out.

Ahyash Sad is like Paul. Ahyash already is a firm, God-worshiping Arab. Ahyash sincerely believed He was maintaining the pure Scriptural faith in God. Ahyash believed he was serving God in the best way he knew. Ahyash was wrong ...SO >>> now will God blind Ahyash as He did Paul and tell him the truth?

 

[GordonSlocum]

Speaking only as a irreverent pompous poster ...better known as IPP ...I would like to ask you...

I'm not a smart Calvinist, but I am a dumb blind, programmed one. So...please tell me why you think this hurts my nose.

At least you have a sense of humor. I can handle that.

 

[GordonSlocum]

Gordon - The passage states that whom God knew He did also predestinate, etc. If this means only that he "knew before" then the rest of the sentence is meaningless. Or are you saying, as the Bible does, that everyone whom God "knew before" was predestinated?

To preserve any meaning for the sentence, foreknowledge must be something more than just knowing in advance. Or did God also predestinate everyone to be conformed to the image of His Son?

And BTW, I have never heard anyone equate God's foreknowledge with election. They are two different things, obviously, according to the syntax of the sentence. The posts on this thread have been coming so fast and furious I have not been able to read all of them. If someone dealt with this already, please direct me to post number.

If you will read carefully the Calvinist points they have tried to say that "foreknow" means "choose someone beforehand"

In defining the word a lot of smoke and mirrors are produced to divert attention away from the point.

The word foreknows antecedent is "the ones loved God". The passage does not support either the Calvinist position or the Non-Calvinist position with respect to did God arbitrarily pick some or not.

What we know is that God knows something about the ones loving him.

How they come to love Him is not addressed except for in verse 24.

 

[GordonSlocum]

The point was made, earlier in the thread, that BDAG, which is supposed to be the gold standard of lexicons, along with many other lexicons, say it means something like choose beforehand in this passage. It would mean something like that in Romans 11: 2, too: God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew!

Not really, in this verse. God chooses people, and then he destines them for all the other things in the verse: calling, justification, glorification.

You did it again.

You falsely say "foreknow" means chose. I have told you plainly that DBAG which I have quoted above has not bearing on the actual meaning of foreknow. Why he inserts that statement is beyond me but he is wrong regardless of how "Gold Standard" DBAG is. I have demonstrated clearly that that statement "choose beforehand "tian" someone; which follows the Romans 11:2 comment that it is in error. I am telling you that the statement is absolutely wrong. I have demonstrated it by quoting the Greek, the meaning of the word, by dissecting the word and by listing all the variant manuscripts to show that they are the same and by quoting a large number of credible translations. All of which disagree with the statement found in DBAG's meaning.

Foreknow means "to know beforehand" not "choose someone beforehand"

 

[npetreley]

In every instance where the word 'foreknowledge' is used, it does seem to refer to specific people.

I'm not sure about every instance, but it's so obvious in Romans 8:29-30 that any other interpretation is just plain silly.

29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

WHOM He foreknew, He also predestined. If "foreknew" meant "knew ABOUT beforehand" it would have to include everyone, in which case this passage must teach universal salvation, because those same people will end up justified and glorified.

This whole thread has degenerated into silliness, though. There's no getting around the Greek meaning of the word. It means to know someone, as opposed to not knowing them. And the language clearly indicates there's a subset that doesn't meet this qualification. Whom He foreknew as opposed to whom? It is as opposed to Whom He did NOT foreknow. That precludes the idea of knowing about someone (God knows about everyone) or know what they'll do (God knows and/or directs what everyone will do).

 

[GordonSlocum]

Jarthur001 states,

The word pro..I understand. Now please post what the word egnoo means.

I am not trying to be a jerk. But either you are playing games or you have your head in the sand.

I have over and over and over and over and over told you the meaning of the word proignoo and I have told you.

 

[GordonSlocum]

Gordon - The passage states that whom God knew He did also predestinate, etc. If this means only that he "knew before" then the rest of the sentence is meaningless. Or are you saying, as the Bible does, that everyone whom God "knew before" was predestinated?

To preserve any meaning for the sentence, foreknowledge must be something more than just knowing in advance. Or did God also predestinate everyone to be conformed to the image of His Son?

And BTW, I have never heard anyone equate God's foreknowledge with election. They are two different things, obviously, according to the syntax of the sentence. The posts on this thread have been coming so fast and furious I have not been able to read all of them. If someone dealt with this already, please direct me to post number.

Somewhere prior to this I decline this verb for all to see. I clearly demonstrate what the word means and you are correct proignoo means ''foreknew" God's foreknowledge.

 

[GordonSlocum]

Then if ' to foreknow' means 'to choose before' then what does 'predestinate' mean? They cannot be synonyms.

I will :applause: that. Good Job

 

[GordonSlocum]

Predestinate would be determining the destiny of those who are chosen. They are chosen as God's own, and their destiny is to be conformed to the image of his son. The predestining tells you the purpose for which those foreknown were foreknown.

Russell55 - you will never get that from the Greek Grammar from verse 28 and following.

I will say this with our reserve and unashamedly - You don't know what you are talking about.

I will say this clearly too. If you would accept the Grammar in these verses you would not say what you did. You have to deny the grammar and twist the meaning of words and their relationship to each other as it is clearly laid out in these verses.

My Friend I love you but you are so Grammatically wrong.

 

[GordonSlocum]

I want to thank everyone from all views and sides for your post. I also want to thank the moderators for letting us duke it out.

I will be back tomorrow. Have to get some sleep. Taking my turn to care form my Mom, she has Alzheimer's and she requires 24 / 7 care. Some of you will understand where I am coming from on this.

If I could encourage anything it would be "stay close to the text" Read and Study all kinds of Books, but then set them aside and do your own study of the Word. Authors are human like we are and they do make mistakes. Let not take a mistake of an author and make it Gospel. So it is with The Lexicon mentioned above.

God Bless

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

Authors are human like we are and they do make mistakes. Let not take a mistake of an author and make it Gospel.

I couldn't resist highlighting this since it is implies that the post's author sometimes makes mistakes, but perhaps he is using an exclusive we here?

 

[russell55]

Why he inserts that statement is beyond me but he is wrong regardless of how "Gold Standard" DBAG is.

BDAG isn't a he. It's a group of hes. And other lexicons agree, too. But whatever. You're not going to change your mind, I'm not going to change mine, and all the lexicons will keep on defining it as to choose beforehand or foreordain. We could go on and on, but it would there would be no point.

 

[Jarthur001]

I am not trying to be a jerk. But either you are playing games or you have your head in the sand.

I have over and over and over and over and over told you the meaning of the word proignoo and I have told you.

Nor am I,
Lets do it this way. Please post the verse that uses your word "proignoo".

 

[skypair]

Larry

I see you been busy. Most of my posts to you are way back on page 27 if you are still there :type:

This is the nub of the one on Westminister Confession -- this "Word and Spirit" by which the "effectual call" comes, it appears to me, like justification from sins of a Catholic infant being baptized. When the priest reads the Word over the infant, who obvously cannot comprehend, Catholics say that the Spirit takes away their "original sin," their "sin guilt from Agam."

That is the "passive role" the WC seems to describe for the "elect" during the "effectual call." It can only happen to those to whom the Spirit directs it (without mentioning their names, mind you, as a good Catholic baptism would). Then that "elect," "discovering" that he/she is being "called," joins the church and begins his/her journey of sanctification therein.

The point is, they are given confirmation classes likely -- they recite the Apostle's Creed with gusto now -- but since they are "elect," there is no need of praying for salvation. Same as it is hard for a Baptist to admit he/she has gone to a Baptist church for years but was never saved in the manner God called for, it is near impossible for a Reform/Calvinist member to do so seeing the thinking there is that we do nothing in salvation -- we are passive in our own salvation.

Is that a decent rendering of "effectual calling?" Without hearing, the "elect" is given discernment of the Word and Spirit?

skypair