Election being according to foreknowledge

[percho]

Something in that is verse is according to foreknowledge. What is it?

If you are going to start a discussion about foreknowledge but do not know what it is then your ability to discuss it is inept at best. I am puzzled at how you believe that you can engage this subject?

The foreknowledge was that God was going to scatter (διασπορᾶς) the only people of all the earth that he had known, (the, ἐκλεκτοῖς who the KJV translators put way down in verse 2; the, AV — elect 16, chosen 7)
and by the obedience of Jesus Christ unto death they would be set apart by the Spirit. And through Jesus they would begin to be regathered.

Ezek 36:19, 27 And I scattered them among the heathen, and they were dispersed through the countries: according to their way and according to their doings I judged them. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them]. Jer 3:14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: Romans 8:23,29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. And not only [they], but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.

The foreknowledge of the foreknown. Acts 15:14 and fol.

The diaspora of 1 Peter 1:1 is not the diaspora of Acts 8. Those were people of Jerusalem who were diaspora (scattered) into Judaea and Samaria.

 

[The Archangel]

Yes...this is all true. And it doesn't demonstrate compatibilism or Calvinism at all.

God is "Sovereign" yes...
Man is "responsible" yes...
And yet...man ALSO has "free-will"...and that is what makes him responsible. Man didn't do it merely because God "determined" or "decreed" thus (although he absolutely did)...he did it because he "chose" to....They are ALL true. It is our responsibility to find a reasoned way to wrap our heads around that idea...and how what might be, at first glance, seeming contradictions, are not ACTUALLY contradictions at all, but there are reasonable explanations of this.

While this passage, in and of itself, doesn't demonstrate "Calvinism" in toto, it does, in fact, demonstrate compatibilism.

You are suggesting disparity where none exists between our position of compatibilism and man having free will.

We affirm that man has free will. We just don't affirm that it is a libertarian free will.

We say this to describe our position: God ordains the free and sometimes sinful actions of man to display His glory and to serve His purposes.

What this means is this: God, while being absolutely sovereign, is, for lack of a better term, "so sovereign" that even the free actions of man are ordained (not "caused) by God so that His plan, which is exhaustive, is always followed and never in question.

In other words, everything man does by and according to his own will, is exactly what God ordained.

There is, indeed, a mystery here. But, the Bible does affirm the free will of man and the absolute sovereignty of God, while never going so far as to suggest man's free will could ever surprise God or thwart His plan(s).

The Archangel

 

[percho]

While this passage, in and of itself, doesn't demonstrate "Calvinism" in toto, it does, in fact, demonstrate compatibilism.

You are suggesting disparity where none exists between our position of compatibilism and man having free will.

We affirm that man has free will. We just don't affirm that it is a libertarian free will.

We say this to describe our position: God ordains the free and sometimes sinful actions of man to display His glory and to serve His purposes.

What this means is this: God, while being absolutely sovereign, is, for lack of a better term, "so sovereign" that even the free actions of man are ordained (not "caused) by God so that His plan, which is exhaustive, is always followed and never in question.

In other words, everything man does by and according to his own will, is exactly what God ordained.

There is, indeed, a mystery here. But, the Bible does affirm the free will of man and the absolute sovereignty of God, while never going so far as to suggest man's free will could ever surprise God or thwart His plan(s).

The Archangel

Amen brother there is nothing new under the sun.

But as for you, ye thought evil against me; [but] God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as [it is] this day, to save much people alive.

 

[Allan]

While this passage, in and of itself, doesn't demonstrate "Calvinism" in toto, it does, in fact, demonstrate compatibilism.

You are suggesting disparity where none exists between our position of compatibilism and man having free will.

We affirm that man has free will. We just don't affirm that it is a libertarian free will.

We say this to describe our position: God ordains the free and sometimes sinful actions of man to display His glory and to serve His purposes.

What this means is this: God, while being absolutely sovereign, is, for lack of a better term, "so sovereign" that even the free actions of man are ordained (not "caused) by God so that His plan, which is exhaustive, is always followed and never in question.

In other words, everything man does by and according to his own will, is exactly what God ordained.

There is, indeed, a mystery here. But, the Bible does affirm the free will of man and the absolute sovereignty of God, while never going so far as to suggest man's free will could ever surprise God or thwart His plan(s).

The Archangel

Greetings Arch.. :wavey:

Yes. but it is important to point out what is meant by 'ordaining' in the above.
Are you meaning ordained in the sense:
1. God knowing all things determined it what was/is to be done, but is not the causation of it being done.

2. God caused it to be done thus He knows what will be done.

I believe this is a key point in moving along without talking past one another as some Reformed will hold to #2 and others to #1.

I know what you mean, however there are some words that once the other party sees of hear them, they stop listening because they presume the meaning is something they disagree with and the rest makes no sense after that

 

[HeirofSalvation]

While this passage, in and of itself, doesn't demonstrate "Calvinism" in toto, it does, in fact, demonstrate compatibilism.

You are suggesting disparity where none exists between our position of compatibilism and man having free will.

We affirm that man has free will. We just don't affirm that it is a libertarian free will.

We say this to describe our position: God ordains the free and sometimes sinful actions of man to display His glory and to serve His purposes.

What this means is this: God, while being absolutely sovereign, is, for lack of a better term, "so sovereign" that even the free actions of man are ordained (not "caused) by God so that His plan, which is exhaustive, is always followed and never in question.

In other words, everything man does by and according to his own will, is exactly what God ordained.

There is, indeed, a mystery here. But, the Bible does affirm the free will of man and the absolute sovereignty of God, while never going so far as to suggest man's free will could ever surprise God or thwart His plan(s).

The Archangel

We affirm that man has free will. We just don't affirm that it is a libertarian free will.

To ANY non-Calvinst...there is no distinction between "free-will" and "libertarian free will"....BY "free-will" I think we ALWAYS mean "libertarian" free will. On the other hand:

Yessir....I agree with you SOOO much more than I think you know... You will think if forward of me to say this...but I don't think you are the true "dyed-in-the-wool" Calvinist that you think you are.....I think you are a prime candidate for Molinism. Pretend for one second, that you believe EVERYTHING you do....minus this, which might have been more forced on you than you know:

God ordains the free and sometimes sinful actions of man to display His glory and to serve His purposes.

Depending on what you mean by "ordain"....I am not sure you are the "Calvinist" you think you are...Consider this: You claim a "mystery" (every reasoned Theological position does at some point)....but I think we should appeal to "mystery" only as a "last resort"....we shouldn't appeal to mystery out of laziness. If a reasoned explanation exists...we perhaps try to embrace it until it creates more problems than it solves. You assert this:

But, the Bible does affirm the free will of man and the absolute sovereignty of God, while never going so far as to suggest man's free will could ever surprise God or thwart His plan(s).

Neither a purely Calvinistic nor a purely "Classical" Arminian approach solves this dilemma as well as others do...Don't redefine terms....If you mean a "Free" will...then you MUST mean a "FREE" one...and you can't IMO, then distinguish between a "libertarian" version of it and a non-libertarian version of it...Surely you know that to the average normal human...the term "free-will" means "Libertarian free-will", and it is only the obfuscations of Calvinists which have rendered that term redundant..."Free" and "Libertarian" mean the same thing.....Well...Maybe we will talk later, in a thread more conducive to this. This thread isn't about that topic anyway....maybe you have "weighed them in the balance and found them wanting"...but I think there are better explanations than the ones usually posed.....and they don't usually involve saying..."well, Paul adressed this before in Romans with "who art thou oh, man and blah blah.." To me...this translates as:
"I am the mighty and powerful OZ....Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"...

There are more sufficient explanations IMO than this.

 

[Winman]

Depending on what you mean by "ordain

Seems to me that this is the word Calvinists use to say God allowed men to do what they freely chose to do.

We know of at least twice that the Jews attempted to kill Jesus, once by casting him off a cliff, and another time they tried to stone him. God could not have caused these events, because it was not the proper time or place for Jesus to die. In both instances Jesus escaped out of their hands.

On the night Jesus was taken, Peter tried to fight. Jesus told him to put his sword away and told Peter he could easily call on his Father who would send 12 legions of angels to deliver him. He told Pilate he could have no power over him at all unless it were given him from above.

So, all along the Jews were trying to kill Jesus. God knew this and prevented it until just the right time. This is what is meant by "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God". On this occasion, God allowed the Jews to take Jesus. God did not cause this sin, he only allowed it to happen to fulfill his purpose that Jesus would go to the cross on the Passover and die as our Passover Lamb.

This was foreknowledge of an event, what the Jews would do.

 

[Greektim]

That has been MY point on recent threads. 1 Peter 1:2 is similar to Romans 8:29, except that proginwskw in Peter is nominalized. It still has to do with foreknowing people, not something they would "do." It is "elect according to the foreknowing [of them] of God."

This is what this thread is really about. How do you know "elect" and "according to foreknowledge" are tied together the way you translated it.

 

[Greektim]

The foreknowledge was that God was going to scatter (διασπορᾶς) the only people of all the earth that he had known, (the, ἐκλεκτοῖς who the KJV translators put way down in verse 2; the, AV — elect 16, chosen 7)
and by the obedience of Jesus Christ unto death they would be set apart by the Spirit. And through Jesus they would begin to be regathered.

Ezek 36:19, 27 And I scattered them among the heathen, and they were dispersed through the countries: according to their way and according to their doings I judged them. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them]. Jer 3:14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: Romans 8:23,29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. And not only [they], but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.

The foreknowledge of the foreknown. Acts 15:14 and fol.

The diaspora of 1 Peter 1:1 is not the diaspora of Acts 8. Those were people of Jerusalem who were diaspora (scattered) into Judaea and Samaria.

Thank you for finally addressing the OP in this thread. I think that is a valid option, although I'm not convinced that it has to be taken that way.

 

[Greektim]

Seems to me that this is the word Calvinists use to say God allowed men to do what they freely chose to do.

We know of at least twice that the Jews attempted to kill Jesus, once by casting him off a cliff, and another time they tried to stone him. God could not have caused these events, because it was not the proper time or place for Jesus to die. In both instances Jesus escaped out of their hands.

On the night Jesus was taken, Peter tried to fight. Jesus told him to put his sword away and told Peter he could easily call on his Father who would send 12 legions of angels to deliver him. He told Pilate he could have no power over him at all unless it were given him from above.

So, all along the Jews were trying to kill Jesus. God knew this and prevented it until just the right time. This is what is meant by "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God". On this occasion, God allowed the Jews to take Jesus. God did not cause this sin, he only allowed it to happen to fulfill his purpose that Jesus would go to the cross on the Passover and die as our Passover Lamb.

This was foreknowledge of an event, what the Jews would do.

So now that Winman is here, can you address the OP and why you think "elect" must be tied to "according to foreknowledge"??? I want to hear your reasoning, especially considering the many more likely options "elect" refers to.

 

[webdog]

This is what this thread is really about. How do you know "elect" and "according to foreknowledge" are tied together the way you translated it.

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand:

 

[Greektim]

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand:

Not sure how that proves your point from 1 Peter 1:1-2. From that passage, how do you know election and foreknowledge are 2 ideas coupled together one based on the other?

My contention is that the KJV has lead many astray here linking those two together. I'm sure it is not just the KJV, but that has influenced much of the way this verse is quoted and referred. It is a passing assumption that elect and foreknowledge go together when the reality is, syntactically, that is hard to establish. There are better options for the phrase "according to foreknowledge".

 

[webdog]

Not sure how that proves your point from 1 Peter 1:1-2. From that passage, how do you know election and foreknowledge are 2 ideas coupled together one based on the other?

If they are coupled together in Romans 9, why would it be any different there?

 

[Greektim]

If they are coupled together in Romans 9, why would it be any different there?

different authors, different contexts, different styles, different syntax (big one). Not saying the ideas are exclusive, just saying that 1 Pet. 1:1-2 is not a verse to prove that point.

 

[Revmitchell]

different authors, different contexts, different styles, different syntax (big one). Not saying the ideas are exclusive, just saying that 1 Pet. 1:1-2 is not a verse to prove that point.

There is no way you can know since you do not even know what it means.

 

[Bronconagurski]

I like what J. Vernon McGee said concerning election.

He said when he was a young preacher, he had election all figured out and didn't see what the controversy was. Now he says the older he gets, the more he doesn't know. He concluded by saying that there is no doubt that God has an elect, and that elect must have faith in Christ. Other than that, he doesn't know. That seems to be where I am going to leave it myself. Either way it won't change my witnessing. BTW, I have never heard a preacher say, Come to Christ, unless, of course, you are not one of the elect.

 

[Revmitchell]

He said when he was a young preacher, he had election all figured out and didn't see what the controversy was. Now he says the older he gets, the more he doesn't know. He concluded by saying that there is no doubt that God has an elect, and that elect must have faith in Christ. Other than that, he doesn't know. That seems to be where I am going to leave it myself. Either way it won't change my witnessing. BTW, I have never heard a preacher say, Come to Christ, unless, of course, you are not one of the elect.

A very wise man. :thumbs:

 

[webdog]

different authors, different contexts, different styles, different syntax (big one). Not saying the ideas are exclusive, just saying that 1 Pet. 1:1-2 is not a verse to prove that point.

I don't see any of that being different. God's purposes according to election don't change, nor did He inspire different authors to contradict this truth. When you let Bible explain Bible the wide lens begins to come into focus.

 

[percho]

To ANY non-Calvinst...there is no distinction between "free-will" and "libertarian free will"....BY "free-will" I think we ALWAYS mean "libertarian" free will. On the other hand:

Yessir....I agree with you SOOO much more than I think you know... You will think if forward of me to say this...but I don't think you are the true "dyed-in-the-wool" Calvinist that you think you are.....I think you are a prime candidate for Molinism. Pretend for one second, that you believe EVERYTHING you do....minus this, which might have been more forced on you than you know:

Depending on what you mean by "ordain"....I am not sure you are the "Calvinist" you think you are...Consider this: You claim a "mystery" (every reasoned Theological position does at some point)....but I think we should appeal to "mystery" only as a "last resort"....we shouldn't appeal to mystery out of laziness. If a reasoned explanation exists...we perhaps try to embrace it until it creates more problems than it solves. You assert this:



Neither a purely Calvinistic nor a purely "Classical" Arminian approach solves this dilemma as well as others do...Don't redefine terms....If you mean a "Free" will...then you MUST mean a "FREE" one...and you can't IMO, then distinguish between a "libertarian" version of it and a non-libertarian version of it...Surely you know that to the average normal human...the term "free-will" means "Libertarian free-will", and it is only the obfuscations of Calvinists which have rendered that term redundant..."Free" and "Libertarian" mean the same thing.....Well...Maybe we will talk later, in a thread more conducive to this. This thread isn't about that topic anyway....maybe you have "weighed them in the balance and found them wanting"...but I think there are better explanations than the ones usually posed.....and they don't usually involve saying..."well, Paul adressed this before in Romans with "who art thou oh, man and blah blah.." To me...this translates as:
"I am the mighty and powerful OZ....Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"...

There are more sufficient explanations IMO than this.

the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Now from the same book and chapter of the OP

But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,


Question? If the Lamb, the Son of Man, the Son of God was fore ordained for death was not what brought that death not also fore ordained?

What was the primary purpose for,"the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world?"

 

[The Archangel]

Greetings Arch.. :wavey:

Yes. but it is important to point out what is meant by 'ordaining' in the above.
Are you meaning ordained in the sense:
1. God knowing all things determined it what was/is to be done, but is not the causation of it being done.

2. God caused it to be done thus He knows what will be done.

I believe this is a key point in moving along without talking past one another as some Reformed will hold to #2 and others to #1.

I know what you mean, however there are some words that once the other party sees of hear them, they stop listening because they presume the meaning is something they disagree with and the rest makes no sense after that

ALLAN!!!! Good to see (and read) you!

I don't think the answer can be an either/or answer. To some extent it has to be both/and.

We know that God is not and cannot be the author of sin. But, we know that sin exists. We learn that it is a result of the fall--Adam & Eve's choice to rebel against God. We know that, in some sense, Man has inherited something from Adam--either guilt based on his headship of the human race and/or the propensity to sin, respective to one's theological persuasion.

We also know--according to Genesis--that God intends Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery and we know that his brothers did so willingly.

So, did God merely "see" that the brothers would hate Joseph and, therefore, built His plan accordingly? Or is it the case that God intended Joseph to be all he was in Egypt and ordained (caused, in a passive sense) the brothers to hate and sell Joseph.

I think at some point it has to contain elements of both. But, pushed to the wall, I'd have to answer option #2 above: God caused it to be done... But, I'd have to issue the caveat that "causing" in the "ordaining" of things is not the same as "causing" in the "dictation" of things. This is why, I think, some elements of #1 are important and have given the answer "both/and."

Also, let me mention something I'll address later: I think the concept of Libertarian free will is not correct, that is no surprise. But, there are many who are conflating the two issues of "Free-will" and "Self-determinism." These two issues are, I think, related.

Many of the non-Calvinists here are seeking to translate free will into self determinism. There is, likely, a huge difference and separation in having a will that is free to choose good and evil and having the ability to actually do good or evil. In other words, free will does not necessarily presuppose self determinism, or vice-versa.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[percho]

He said when he was a young preacher, he had election all figured out and didn't see what the controversy was. Now he says the older he gets, the more he doesn't know. He concluded by saying that there is no doubt that God has an elect, and that (the) elect must have faith in Christ. Other than that, he doesn't know. That seems to be where I am going to leave it myself. Either way it won't change my witnessing. BTW, I have never heard a preacher say, Come to Christ, unless, of course, you are not one of the elect.

I have listened to a lot of JVM, before and after his demise. Now I would like to ask.

If that in bold is, "the truth," then how is it possible that, "the elect," are the elect of God?

Now if they are, "the elect," because of the faith of Jesus Christ then and only then would they be, "the elect," of God, which I believe the word of God teaches.

The righteousness of God being manifest by the faith of Jesus Christ.
Being now justified (made righteous) by his blood.
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

I know about the, "of and in thing," but the bulk of scripture points to of.
We have been moved from unbelief unto belief, are now, "ones believing,"
by the faith of Jesus Christ. If it was because of we believing it would be the flesh doing it.

I understand you have received the Spirit by the hearing of faith.

Why were you able to be given the Spirit. Because Jesus learned obedience through sufferings unto death, Heb. 5:7,8 Because Jesus became obedient unto death Phil. 2:8

Because Jesus went away in death.

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

That is what enabled the Spirit of God to be given unto you.

The faith of Christ.


Please do not say Jesus did not need faith because he was God. Please examine the scriptures as to what they say.