Deathblow to Arminian "Foreknowledge"

This is a crucial point, IMO. The phrase, "those He foreknew" requires that there are "those he did not foreknow", which is supported by the remark Jesus makes, "I NEVER knew you."

If one assumes God foreknows all, the foreknowledge referred to here cannot mean there are some people God simply did not know would exist, or that God knew would exist but didn't know what they would choose of their own free will. So something altogether different must be in view by the term "foreknow."

You described that difference very well, but I would add the observation that that to "know" in the Biblical sense describes something very intimate. (Please don't misunerstand me - yes, it refers to physical intimacy, and perhaps there's even a parallel since we are the bride of Christ, but I'm talking about a spiritual intimacy.)

 

Romans 11:2 Paul is addressing what every Jew knows, that God has elected them for himself, they are His chosen people, elected for God's own purposes. Every Jew is an elected person in God's eyes.

Don't make it say what you want it to say!

 

The point is the meaning of foreknow. And nthing you say alters the fat that foreknow in this case refers to God's choosing, not human decision. it cannot depend on human decision since no one chooses to be born a Jew. The very fact of the temproal prefix "pro" implies that God knew Israel before Israel existed. Election therefore is all of God in this case, and hence it is also all of God in the other context as well.

And if this is the only defense you can come up with, then truly the deathblow has landed.

 

What of the relation of Romans 8:28 to Romans 8:29? You say that foreknowledge means to have a relationship with beforehand, right? Well then, perhaps you will allow that the classic Arminian formula that God foresaw who would believe was wrong and rather God foresaw who would love Him based on His sacrifice and who would be indifferent or hateful?

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God,"

I honestly don't care to impose on anyone my idea of what God's basis of foreknowledge is - as long as a man sees election as conditional, I can agree with him on it. We have free will, and no one who reads the story of Cain and of what God told him can deny it! Those who deny free will have erected an idol in their minds - an idol that lies to men telling them "If thou do well, shall thou not be accepted?" but has decided already that he will never accept them regardless.

 

SolaScriptura,

What do you think happened to man's free will, nature, and spiritual abilities in the Fall in the Garden of Eden?

 

You are a long long way from being convincing.

You are putting too much weight on only one "leg" of Christianity. If not distributed evenly across all legs, you cause Christianity to topple or crumble!

 

Read the account! God gave Cain a choice - do well or sin. Cain chose sin. He did have a choice - God said so.

 

Main Entry: elect
Pronunciation: i-'lekt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin electus, past participle of eligere to select, from e- + legere to choose -- more at LEGEND
Date: 15th century
1 : carefully selected : CHOSEN
2 : chosen for salvation through divine mercy
3 a : chosen for office or position but not yet installed <the president-elect> b : chosen for marriage at some future time <the bride-elect>

Election is certainly conditional. One is either chosen or not chosen, conditional upon the decision of the One choosing -- God.

 

Sola,

As to the connection between Ro. 8:28 and 29, it is one of purpose; Paul is is setting out the planand purpose of God as wellas the groundds of the promise made in 8:28, not to mention the assurance that is the theme of Romans 8 as a whole. That is totally in keeping with Calvanistic understanding, but not Arminian understanding

The Arminian view of Roamns 8:29 does not allow for the meaning of entering into relationship before; it demands strictly the sense of mere cognitive knowledge. If entering into relationship were the meanig that would preclude fre will as a basisi for relationship since God would have entered into rlationship "beofrehand", before the individual believed; and that speaks to the Calvanistic position that God knew people, and then only certain people, and not things about them.

 

I am not arguing against that. However, you have not answered my queston, SolaScriptura.

[ January 25, 2003, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: Ken H ]

 

This does not make a lot of sense. No one here has said that or even intimated that.

Once again, your problem is the text. If you use "foreknew" in terms of simple knowledge (as you appear to have done here), then God forekenw everyone. But you have a problem in the passage that relate "those whom he foreknew" to salvation because he saves "those whom he foreknew." If he "foreknew" everyone, then you are a universalist. Of course, that is untenable. The other option is to use "foreknew" and its related words as Scripture does. Then you avoid the problems you have put yourself in here.

Who here has said that?

 

It seems as if you are the one having difficulty making the connection between words and concepts.

Do you say that God saves the elect and none but the elect?

Do you say that "all" of the elect are saved from the foundation of the world?

Do you say that Salvation is available only to the elect, or do you say that only the saved are the elect?

Do you say that there are two calls for man to come to salvation? one generic which the non elect "hear" but refuse and one effectual which only the elect hear and cannot refuse?

 

What these questions have to do with the evdence presented is a puzzle.

It seems to me that in resposne to specific eveidence of a lexical and exegetical nature, Yelsew wants to argue that the words and passages cannot mean what they say on account of some broader philosophical precommitment on his part. He has problems with what Scripture teahces and wnts to argue with Scripture.

 

Yes

No ... I say what Scripture does: That the elect are elect from the foundation of the world. You have tried to conflate election with salvation. They are not the same. You try to pin us with a position you want us to have becuase you fail to accept the biblical terms for it.

This is a false dichotomy and is typical of the type of false dilemma you want us to be in. Salvation is available to all who will call. As to the last, I would say that only the elect are saved. But one can be elect and not yet be saved. Election means that he or she will be saved.

Yes ... becuase there is no other way to make sense of Scritpure. The terms used are "general" (not generic) and effectual. The general call is always refused because man freely refuses it.

[ January 26, 2003, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

What happened to man's free will? It became more informed. After eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, man became informed of what is good and what is evil. As a result, man did not lose free will, but rather now has an informed free will. Upon gaining this new understanding and seeing that he was naked, man took measures to correct such a problem, although he really didn't solve it, did he? By committing that first sin, man actually gained more freewill and with it more trouble! Before the fall man had no consciousness of what nakedness meant, but now has a choice between nudity and clothing! Etc.

What happened to man's nature? Man became mortal. Man's body now wears old like a garment, and eventually dies, and decays. Also, the earth being cursed for man's sake, man is forced to work hard to live. Woman had the pain of childbirth multiplied.

What happened to man's spiritual abilities? Adam became guilty by his personal sin, and it became requisite that he offer sacrifices of animals for temporary atonement until Christ come and through the Eternal Spirit offer himself as the perfect Atonement for sins. Each man after Adam, becoming guilty by his own personal sin ended up in this same sad state of affairs. Man can no longer approach God without the shedding of blood. (Ezek 18:20)

[ January 26, 2003, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

So he could see that he was naked before, but didn't know what nakedness meant, so he didn't have the choice between nudity and clothing. He gained some added free will by becoming more informed, which is demonstrated by his feeble attempt to cover himself up. Um. Okaaay...

Mine must be on the early-retirement plan, since it's already decaying and I'm not dead yet, but I digress...

Or, put another way, the pain of multiplication increased. Not sure what this cameo appearance of a bit o' Genesis paraphrase has to do with anything, but what the heck?

What is temporal atonement? Is that like covering over our sins with a water-based paint?

 

</font>[/QUOTE]You say that God saves those he foreknew, and I presume that you understand that Omniscient means all knowing, or knowing all. So,
Of all mankind, fewer are saved than are lost, The road to hell is broad, the pathway to heaven is narrow, and the gate is too.

Therefore, you are telling us that you do not believe that God is omniscient. You are also telling us all that God saves everyone because he saves all that he foreknew. What an Armenian point of view!

 

Notice how you subtly change words. The Scripture (not me) says that God saves whom he foreknew. YOu have tried to make that his omniscience. It is not. God's foreknowledge is his choice to know someone intimately and personally.

In the OT, the phrase "knew his wife" does not refer to simply knowledge. It refers to a relationship that is different than everyone else. The term "Foreknow" is used in a similar fashion.

It is you who made the mistake of trying to make "foreknowledge" the same as "omniscience," when Scripture clearly does not do that.

YOu have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. I did not say that God is not omniscient. In fact, I Didn't even say anything about his omniscience. I said what Scripture says, that God saves those whom he foreknew.

However, your whole point has served to demonstrate the fallacy of hte position that Ray has tried to foist off on us here.

You have simply exchanged words and tried to make them mean the same thing. In so doing, you have twisted what I Have said to try to make it be what you wish I had said. That is completely inappropriate. My words speak for themselves. IF You have a question about what I have said, then ask. Do not start twisting them and exchanging them. You did the same thing above when you exchanged "saved" for "elect." That is simply wrong. Let's put an end to this tactic.

 

If God wanted to cast a complete autocratic perspective on His election He would merely have said something like, "Those I predestinate-- become conformed to the image of His Son; and those I called I justified and those I justified I also glorified." But rather than doing this He uses the word, (prognosis) suggesting that those who will become the elect will not surprise God by their coming. In fact He has always seen them coming because He is omniscient and sees that they have not refused His Son. He does not intimate that He has, somewhere during time, found out who His elect will be. In His sovereignty He has allowed freedom which He always has had, to become part of His creation who are or were created after His Image or likeness. [James 3:9d]