-
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!
Do you See God as having Foreknowledge =/same As His Predestination or Not?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
Good!
Someone who belives finally in 'classical Armianism" here on BB!
basis of our salvation is God foreknowing us accepting jesus by faith, and that is what"triggers" us going into Body of Christ!
humblethinker
Active Member
I agree Jim.
In my words, I would say that God's foreknowledge of all things does not necessarily result in those things being determined by God. (One objection that I might have to that is that if God is maximally omniscient, then He did determine to actualize the reality we are experiencing and thereby is exerting some sort of determinism.)
Tom Butler
New Member
Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe God's foreknowledge is based on his determinate counsel. God knows what will happen because that's the way he intends it to be.
We have an example of this in Acts 2:23
From the beginning, it was God's plan (and the Son's) that the Son would die for sinners. It was God's plan that wicked hands would kill the Son, yet they are condemned for it.
The determinate counsel existed from eternity, and therefore, so did the foreknowledge. This makes more sense than having exercised determine counsel in reaction to foreknowledge.
Of course, what God determines he has always determined; and what he foreknows, he has always foreknown. Otherwise a new determination or a new foreknowledge would represent a change in God, and undermine his immutability.
So, it's not a question of which came first chronologically--determination or foreknowledge. It's a question of logical order. And, in the final analysis, that's what we're having a discussion about.
We have an example of this in Acts 2:23
From the beginning, it was God's plan (and the Son's) that the Son would die for sinners. It was God's plan that wicked hands would kill the Son, yet they are condemned for it.
The determinate counsel existed from eternity, and therefore, so did the foreknowledge. This makes more sense than having exercised determine counsel in reaction to foreknowledge.
Of course, what God determines he has always determined; and what he foreknows, he has always foreknown. Otherwise a new determination or a new foreknowledge would represent a change in God, and undermine his immutability.
So, it's not a question of which came first chronologically--determination or foreknowledge. It's a question of logical order. And, in the final analysis, that's what we're having a discussion about.
In area of Sotierology. we are asking here...
is the BASIS for God foreknowlegde based upon him 'seeeing" that we would accept jesus and thus be saved, or else by him dtermining that those He directly elected would receive Christ and be saved?
The one trouble with the question of foreknowledge is we're dealing with someone who is not bound by the limits of time. In other words, this idea of God "seeing the future" almost makes it seem like some sort of distant era that God has to peer into, rather than a time of which He is sovereign and in complete control of. IOW, how can God look ahead to something that isn't ahead of Him?
Maybe a little off topic. Who knows? (Get it) :laugh:
Maybe a little off topic. Who knows? (Get it) :laugh:
Think that CS lewis has one of the better takes on relationship between God and time...
he said God is in "Eternal Now" everything is like present tense to Him, as He is like flying over a parade, and man sees bit and pieces in linear time line, while God sees start to finish as being 'right now" to Him..
That's how I understand it. I believe He exists in the past, present and future all at the same time. This puts a crimp on our linear understanding of systematic theology (regeneration pre faith, etc.)
I agree, Webdog. Pre, post, fore....it just doesn't apply to a God who is not bound by such.
Some might say you and I would be guilty of deism. However, God is not above time. He transcends time. To wit, you used the word "omnitemporal." Well said.
Webdog and I will now go to a conference room and emerge with a new soteriology to confound both the Cals and the Non-cals. Back in ten minutes
Some might say you and I would be guilty of deism. However, God is not above time. He transcends time. To wit, you used the word "omnitemporal." Well said.
Webdog and I will now go to a conference room and emerge with a new soteriology to confound both the Cals and the Non-cals. Back in ten minutes
Tom Butler
New Member
My view is that God determines that his elect will be saved.
I know that we're referring to foreknowledge here as foreseeing, but the scripture also uses it in another way. It's not about what God foreknows, but WHOM he foreknows. As in Romans 8:29. In that scripture God foreknows individuals, not just events.
And since God is immutable, those whom he foreknows he has always foreknown. And those whom he foreknows from eternity, he predestinates, calls and justifies in time. Time, that is, that we experience as human beings. God himself, to agree with webdog and TomVols, is omnitemporal.
I agree, Webdog. Pre, post, fore....it just doesn't apply to a God who is not bound by such.
Some might say you and I would be guilty of deism. However, God is not above time. He transcends time. To wit, you used the word "omnitemporal." Well said.
Webdog and I will now go to a conference room and emerge with a new soteriology to confound both the Cals and the Non-cals. Back in ten minutes
That is assuming our minds do not crack from trying to comprehend the incomprehendable where we will emerge in straight jackets
convicted1
Guest
That is assuming our minds do not crack from trying to comprehend the incomprehendable where we will emerge in straight jackets
I beat you fellas to it. I am already in mine. :tongue3:
Quite comfy, too. If you don't mind having to find someone to scratch your nose for you.
I'm pretty confident I can swing that, it's the...um..."elimination" aspect that concerns me
just wondering...
is the BASIS of our salvation based upon God detrming who is the Elect/saved based upon his decision made, or based upon what He sees in future happening when saved exercise their personal faith?
Tom Butler
New Member
My view is that election is not based on foreseen faith. That would mean that we elect ourselves, essentially.
It makes God reactive instead of proactive.
In my view, Gods election is based on his good pleasure, and for reasons known only to Him. I also hold that God's election also involves the means as well as the end.
By that I mean those whom he elects, he also convicts, illuminates, regenerates, draws and justifies.
I'm thinking of Lydia, whose heart the Lord opened( Acts 16:14) so that she paid attention to what Paul was saying. Two things happened: The Lord opened her heart, and she heeded Paul's preaching.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
With all due respect, this view just seems like an illogical unending cycle.
1. He foresees what we do, which in turn causes Him to
2. Determine what we will do, which in turn causes Him
1. Foresee what we do, which in turn causes Him to
2. Determine what we will do, which in turn causes Him to
1. Foresee what we do, which in turn causes Him to.... etc etc etc etc etc etc etc........
I don't believe this is a true scholarly representation of Arminianism (though some may have held to a form of it).