Foreknow

[canadyjd]

I don't agree with the Arminian system, but since only God can offer salvation, He can be nothing but the initiator. ... What does the Bible say?

The bible says He is the author and finisher of our faith. That is more than the "initiator".

peace to youraying:

 

[psalms109:31]

heaven

When we end up in heaven and see our Lord Jesus Christ. When God gave us the faith that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. We will know that Jesus is the author ,finisher and perfecter of our faith.

Hebrews 12:2 (New International Version)

2Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Hebrews 12:2 (King James Version)
2Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

 

[The Archangel]

Brother, are you ashamed of the gospel that God has given to us?

How could you not "like" the position you hold, if you believe the position you hold is the God-given truth?

You seem to be apologizing for believing God-given truth. How can that be?

peace to youraying:

Canadyjd,

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not intending to say that I loathe the Doctrines of Grace. On the contrary, I love them.

When I say that I don't like the position I hold, that is based on these things:

1. I don't like that man is dead in his trespasses and sins.

2. I don't like that I am unable to please God in and of myself.

3. I don't like that God had to intervene to make my cold, unwilling heart willing.

4. I don't like that I had to give up on the pride I once had as an Arminian--thinking I made all the right choices and was, therefore, better than all the non-believers.

After all, I am a human being and for any human, pride is always an issue. Like so many others I want to be proud about what I have done.

I don't like the theological position I hold in the sense that it reveals my utter and total inability to be or do anything good. I love the Doctrines of Grace because in them, God solves all these problems and debases my pride at the same time.

The Doctrines of Grace constantly and consistently show me what a vile sinner I am and they show me that even my best works are shot-through with sin.

But, with Paul, I am not ashamed of the Gospel...

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[BaptistBob]

A problem with foreknew meaning "to know beforehand."

1 Peter 1:20-21 says: 20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you 21 who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

This passage is talking about Christ Himself. If we take "foreknew" to mean know beforehand then we have a huge theological problem. While many insist the foreknew of Romans 8 is to be seen as God knowing who would believe that definition cannot be applied here--and the words are the same (except this passage is a slightly different form, but the roots are the same).

You've been telling us all about your profound education, but perhaps those of us (not me) less educated might talk about the passage while you look on:

It says that Jesus is the "lamb without blemish or defect" who:

1. was "foreknown before the foundation of the word"

and

2. "but was made manifest in the last time for your sakes"

Notice that Jesus was already the unblemished lamb prior to his entry into human history. How so? He was known to be unblemished. The contrast is between two points in time, with "foreknown" being then and "made manifest" being now.

It cannot be said that God knew what Jesus would do beforehand. That is true, certainly, but it is not the full meaning. Christ was chosen before the foundation of the world to accomplish the mission the Father gave Him--our redemption. The Father's choice of Christ was not based on the Father seeing what Christ would do of His own free will, rather what Christ freely did was based on the the Father's choosing of Him to accomplish our redemption.

The time contrast is quite clear, as I pointed out above. The inference, if any, is that God chose Christ because he was foreknown to be unblemished. He was already more valuable than the "silver and gold" mentioned in the preceding text because the would be unblemished at the time of the sacrifice. Therefore, if you must, he was chosen because he was unblemished, more precious than silver or gold. God knew it in advance.

 

[BaptistBob]

1. Like when God chose Abraham out of all the people on earth? Especially considering Abraham was an idol worshiper this seems more like God's sovereign choice rather than Abraham's.

2. Like when God chose the Nation of Israel instead of the Moabites or the Philistines? Certainly Israel did not choose God. Even after God choosing Israel, Israel still repeatedly (as a whole) rejected God. So, that "choosing" was not based on foreseen faith because (on the whole) there was none.

The OT is quite clear that Israel shared in that election:

19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him."

Of course, Paul makes this very point, that Israel is chosen to receive many great an precious promises. However, apart from faith they are merely favored because of that election, because the election was not to faith.. To them was given much, but they did not believe. To the Jews first.......

God's sovereign choosing of persons and the Nation of Israel is one of the most prominent themes in all of Scripture.

Of course. But that begs the question. Chosen for what?

For I have chosen him,----> so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD

 

[The Archangel]

You've been telling us all about your profound education, but perhaps those of us (not me) less educated might talk about the passage while you look on:

Well, well, well...that's rather snotty on your part. Does my theological position really bother you to the point that you have to engage in an ad hominem commentary on me? Is that any way to treat a fellow Christian? I think not.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[BaptistBob]

The bible says He is the author and finisher of our faith. That is more than the "initiator".

peace to youraying:

You're adding pronouns.

The idea is that Christ pioneered and accomplished what faith in God accomplishes, by entering into heaven before us. Therefore, faith in him, held to the end, will not disappoint. Calvinist commentators that agree will be supplied upon request.

 

[BaptistBob]

Well, well, well...that's rather snotty on your part. Does my theological position really bother you to the point that you have to engage in an ad hominem commentary on me? Is that any way to treat a fellow Christian? I think not.

Blessings,

The Archangel

I don't think you understand how condescending your comments about your education are. I'm interested in what your argument is, not that you've arrived at such a higher understanding of those who oppose you. Yet you repeatedly employ that argument.

 

[The Archangel]

I don't think you understand how condescending your comments about your education are. I'm interested in what your argument is, not that you've arrived at such a higher understanding of those who oppose you. Yet you repeatedly employ that argument.

I'm sorry if you are intimidated by my education. I certainly don't intend the comments to be condescending. The facts of my education are just that--facts. It should count for something that I am making comments on things of a theological nature having had a formal theological education...instead of a formal education as a plumber. After all, if you hire a plumber to install a toilet, you should want to know he's been well-trained to do the job.

If you have taken my comments, which are, admittedly, often based on the Greek or Hebrew texts, to be indicative of a "higher understanding," then I think the problem is yours, I'm sorry to say.

I don't remember making "repeated" reference to my education, as you suggest. I have made references to it in the past, but it was a factual reference.

Recently, however, I made reference to how I became convinced of the truth of the Doctrines of Grace. That was based on my education, that is true. But, I explained exactly how I came to my conclusions, in a manner of speaking. I was not making a comment on a particular aspect of the Doctrines of Grace. I was making a general comment to Robert Snow. So, if that is what has bothered you so much, frankly you're being bothered by something not directed to you, which suggests that you have a nerve exposed.

Again, sorry if you are intimidated. Even so, it doesn't elicit comments such as you made earlier.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[BaptistBob]

I'm sorry if you are intimidated by my education.

I'm not, since you are not more educated.

Recently, however, I made reference to how I became convinced of the truth of the Doctrines of Grace. That was based on my education, that is true. But, I explained exactly how I came to my conclusions, in a manner of speaking. I was not making a comment on a particular aspect of the Doctrines of Grace. I was making a general comment to Robert Snow. So, if that is what has bothered you so much, frankly you're being bothered by something not directed to you, which suggests that you have a nerve exposed.

It appeared to me that you were saying that you were reading Scripture in context because of your education. If so, that is simply an assertion, and nothing more than posturing.

And, yes, it does strike a nerve when I see someone appeal to their alledged status with regard to Scripture, rather than discuss their argument regarding the context. If I did that to a student in class, I would lose the respect of every person in the room, regardless of their opinion. I've seen it done. Perhaps we all have.

In the end, the scripture was too convincing.

And those who disagree with you don't find Scripture convincing? Who do you think you are?

Anyhow, this issue about your comment isn't worth pursuing any farther. If it hits the mark, great. If not, so be it.....

 

[The Archangel]

And those who disagree with you don't find Scripture convincing? Who do you think you are?

When did I ever say this?! Again, I think you have issues, and they are not, ultimately, with me.

I certainly think the ones on the other side of the argument can be convinced and convinced by scripture. I think, however, it is possible for them to understand something incorrectly, as we all do from time to time.

Again, you are attributing things to me that I have never said nor implied. That is very unfortunate.

Why I am deserving of your vitriol for things I have never said is beyond me.

Furthermore, you chastise me for touting my education yet you say this: "I'm not, since you are not more educated." You are doing what you deride me for doing. That smacks of hypocrisy. So, I'd encourage you to be careful lest you fall into sin.

Since I didn't address any of my "offensive" comments to you in the first place and since you are insisting on campaign of ad hominem after ad hominem (completely eschewing your own desire to talk about my arguments), I see no need to continue this or any other conversation with you.

In any event, your comments to me were completely unbecoming of a "brother" in Christ. That is something we must all guard ourselves against and I'd encourage you to redouble your efforts.

May God richly bless you,

The Archangel

 

[BaptistBob]

When did I ever say this?! Again, I think you have issues, and they are not, ultimately, with me.

That's fine, as long as you admit that its merely your understanding of Scripture. No appeal to your education is necessary.

I certainly think the ones on the other side of the argument can be convinced and convinced by scripture. I think, however, it is possible for them to understand something incorrectly, as we all do from time to time.

Agreed.

Furthermore, you chastise me for touting my education yet you say this: "I'm not, since you are not more educated." You are doing what you deride me for doing. That smacks of hypocrisy. So, I'd encourage you to be careful lest you fall into sin.

On the contrary, you attributed something to me that could not be true, so I responded and told you why it could not be true. (You desired a response, right?) If I wanted to do what you accuse me of, I could have implied that I am more educated than you. So far only one of us has done that.

Since I didn't address any of my "offensive" comments to you in the first place and since you are insisting on campaign of ad hominem after ad hominem (completely eschewing your own desire to talk about my arguments), I see no need to continue this or any other conversation with you.

Only those being addressed can point out fallacious arguments?

In any event, your comments to me were completely unbecoming of a "brother" in Christ. That is something we must all guard ourselves against and I'd encourage you to redouble your efforts.

I will try to tread lightly in the future. I will not use arguments that appeal to my progress from Calvinism to non-Calvinism through the intense and advanced study of Scripture, although I must say that Scripture is too convincing.

 

[webdog]

The classic Arminian position of "Conditional Grace" says that God looked through time and saw who would believe and based on that foreseen faith, he elected those certain persons.

So, in this scheme, God's actions of election are a reaction to man's act of faith that God foresees. Therefore, God is ipso facto responding to man's initiation.

I can't buy that because it turns the Biblical order of things upside-down.

Blessings,

The Archangel

I can't either as it is linear. Calvinism is linear as well, and I can't buy that either.

 

[The Archangel]

Ok...I will address this, likely for the last time.

That's fine, as long as you admit that its merely your understanding of Scripture. No appeal to your education is necessary.

The problem is that the scripture says what the scripture says. As in the case of "foreknew," the scripture is quite clear in the contextual usage--it means to choose. So to apply the your preferred definition is not a matter of interpretation or of understanding, it is a question of going against the text.

So, to you it may seem like an interpretive issue, but it only seems that way.

On the contrary, you attributed something to me that could not be true, so I responded and told you why it could not be true. (You desired a response, right?) If I wanted to do what you accuse me of, I could have implied that I am more educated than you. So far only one of us has done that.

Perhaps you've forgotten this post of yours:

Speaking as a former Calvinist, educated and switched to non-Calvinism while studying the bible in context (including socio-rhetorical and socio-cultural context) at the feet of some of the most famous living Calvinists, reading Greek, diagraming in Greek, etc. it became impossible to deny that Cavlinism is false. In the end, the Scripture was too convincing.

The above post was the first time you addressed anything of what I said in this thread. You tout your training at the feet of some "famous living Calvinists," your "reading Greek," and "diagramming" in Greek. Now, either you have that training and are therefore touting your own education or you don't have that education and were only mimicking my post and being disingenuous at the same time. Either way, you don't address any textual arguments I've made.

So, assuming you do have the training you profess, you are in fact, touting your education and abilities. So, pot, kettle, black.

Only those being addressed can point out fallacious arguments?

No, certainly anyone can can address anyone else. But your first address was a mimic of my post. It didn't deal with any of my arguments (you would do that later). Rather, your post (quoted above) was at me in an ad hominem.

So you didn't address any "fallacious arguments." You attacked me for mentioning my Greek studies to someone else. Obviously, you think any mention of education in an attempted refutation of the theological position you happen to hold, whether directed at you or not, is an attack on you. Perhaps you are seeking to make yourself a pariah for all non-Calvinists?

I will try to tread lightly in the future. I will not use arguments that appeal to my progress from Calvinism to non-Calvinism through the intense and advanced study of Scripture, although I must say that Scripture is too convincing.

That's not what I'm getting at at all! I'd love to hear what changed your mind. I love to examine and refine my own arguments. But you have not been addressing my arguments--you mimicked a post of mine (and therefore you yourself did exactly what you accuse me of).

Unlike you, the issue I have with your posting is not necessarily what was said, but how it was said. I am not threatened in the least by your holding a different theological position from me--something I cannot say about you.

Even if you disagree with me--which, obviously, you are free to do--you must address me in a respectful manner, not because of me, but because we both call ourselves Christians. That is a biblical requirement (read 1 John).

I think you are having a serious issue--You continue to accuse me of the very things you are doing and you seem to feel that any disagreement (by anyone--whether addressed to you or not) with the position you hold is an attack on you. Very unfortunate.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

I can't either as it is linear. Calvinism is linear as well, and I can't buy that either.

Webdog,

Just out of curiosity, is there any publication (internet or books) that deals with your non-linear position?

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Robert Snow]

Imagine a Governer standing in front of a bunch of prison inmates knowing full well that 95% of them couldn't understand any english and saying without any interpretation, "If you will come to me and apologize for your crime you will be set free, otherwise you will be tortured for the rest of your life in this prison." All the while making statements like, "I don't want any one to be tortured, but all to be set free from this prison," and "I love the prisoners and have provided pardon for their crimes."

Is that a genuine invitation? Of course it isn't.

The evils of Calvinism in a nutshell!

 

[Johnv]

The evils of Calvinism in a nutshell!

Oh, please

 

[Skandelon]

All other systems, to some extent, seek to make God the responder to man's initiating action. This, of course, is not the Biblical model. The Bible always presents God as the initiator and man as the responder. The Doctrines of Grace go along with this model.

Really? Suppose you planned a banquet where your only Son was the guest of honor and you sent messengers all over the world with your invitations (filled with YOUR SPIRIT). Do you think that those who got those invitations were the initiators? Really?

In fact, I think it is obvious that YOU are the initiator and the those being invited are responders.

As I stated, I don't like the position I hold, but I am convinced with every fiber of my being that it is the correct position.

Blessings,

The Archangel

With all due respect, maybe the reason you are rejecting my position is because you don't fully understand it yet. That can be my only conclusion based upon statements like these.

 

[The Archangel]

It says that Jesus is the "lamb without blemish or defect" who:

1. was "foreknown before the foundation of the word"

and

2. "but was made manifest in the last time for your sakes"

Notice that Jesus was already the unblemished lamb prior to his entry into human history. How so? He was known to be unblemished. The contrast is between two points in time, with "foreknown" being then and "made manifest" being now.

Your textual assumption is not accurate.

Peter is not saying that Christ was "the unblemished lamb prior to his entrance in history." Peter uses the unblemished lamb comment at the end of a sentence and it modifies "Christ" in verse 19 and it is intended to speak of the value of His blood being more than that of gold or silver and that's where that though ends.

The time contrast is quite clear, as I pointed out above. The inference, if any, is that God chose Christ because he was foreknown to be unblemished. He was already more valuable than the "silver and gold" mentioned in the preceding text because the would be unblemished at the time of the sacrifice. Therefore, if you must, he was chosen because he was unblemished, more precious than silver or gold. God knew it in advance.

This cannot be grammatically. There is no "inference" between the two verses.

There is a clear break between verse 19 and verse 20 (certainly the idea is still flowing, but there is a grammatical break).

At verse 20, Peter uses a μεν...δε construction which means something like "First...second" or "On the one hand...on the other hand." So the μεν...δε construction shows that Peter is addressing what comes after the μεν, not what comes before.

The deeper argument present in verse 20 is that Christ was intended to be our substitutionary sacrifice "before the foundation of the world." But, given that truth, the visible outworking of God's plan (the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ) happened in recent history--for the sake of those to whom Peter is writing.

Furthermore, the participle construction of "foreknown" completely eliminates your argument that Christ was "foreknown to be unblemished." The participle shows that it is not something about Christ that was foreknown (again, the improper definition and usage is used in your argument--the idea that it is seeing beforehand). Rather, what this shows is that Christ Himself was foreknown, that is chosen, before the foundation of the world and in the grammatical construction there is no allusion to the reason. Peter is making a simple statement of fact.

So, your argument doesn't comport with the context or grammar of the text.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Robert Snow]

Oh, please

Surely someone as smart as you can see the evils of Calvinism, but then again, maybe not.

One former pastor I had told me that Calvinism is the lazy Christian's theology. I disagree. I believe it is the arrogant Christian's theology. After all, they are the ones who believe themselves to be somehow better. After all, they are the chosen ones.