Foreknowledge/election and honest invitation

[Winman]

I think the foresight faith view is a joke, personally.

Why is the foresight view of faith a joke when we are told directly that Jesus knew "from the beginning" who would believe not and who should betray him?

Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Jhn 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

Jesus not only knew who believed not from the beginning, he knew the other 11 would believe. This is foreknowledge, and it is speaking directly about who would believe and who would not, so why is this view so incredible?

If you ask me, any other view than this is a joke.

 

[OldRegular]

Why is the foresight view of faith a joke when we are told directly that Jesus knew "from the beginning" who would believe not and who should betray him?

Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Obviously Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God, knew from the beginning who would believe. He was with God the Father when He chose those who would believe.

 

[Iconoclast]

Obviously Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God, knew from the beginning who would believe. He was with God the Father when He chose those who would believe.

It is simple when you understand the verses rather than explain them away:wavey::thumbsup:

 

[convicted1]

Has anyone ever heard the phrase "beating a dead horse"? Well this thread qualifies.

Don't forget the flies, too.

 

[Winman]

Obviously Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God, knew from the beginning who would believe. He was with God the Father when He chose those who would believe.

Don't you mean that God "determined" who would believe? No Calvinist I have ever seen says God elected persons according to foreseen faith, that is the non-Cal/Arminian view.

 

[freeatlast]

Arminians argue that the foreknowledge/election of God that is mentioned in scripture refers to God looking through time (Since God exists outside of time) and seeing who will believe the gospel message and God then responds to that choice of man by choosing them to be His elect.

If this argument is true, it raises Questions:

1. Since God has already seen, before the foundation of the world, who will believe and who will not, how can any arminian preacher honestly say that salvation is open to all people?

God has seen those who will not believe. None of those whom God has already seen reject the gospel is capable of accepting the gospel since God has already seen the rejection. It has become a determined fact...a reality. Therefore, the arminian claiming that salvation is open to all is not giving an honest invitation.

2. How can the arminian preacher claim a man must make a choice, to accept or reject God according to their "free-will"? Since God has already seen, before the foundation of the world, those who would believe the gospel, they are incapable of rejecting the gospel. God has already seen the acceptance, therefore it is a reality that cannot change. They are not capable of exercising their "free-will" to reject the gospel.

peace to youraying:

If God is looking down through time to see anything that is going to happen then that means God is subject to time. Probably not the best of theologies.

 

[OldRegular]

Don't you mean that God "determined" who would believe? No Calvinist I have ever seen says God elected persons according to foreseen faith, that is the non-Cal/Arminian view.

You apparently have difficulty understanding what I say. I will try to make it clear:

Obviously Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God, knew from the beginning who would believe.

God the Father chose certain people to Salvation in Jesus Christ.

God the Son laid aside His Glory took upon Himself the form of a servant, humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; a sacrifice for the sins of those chosen by God the Father unto Salvation.

God the Holy Spirit applied the Cross-work of Jesus Christ to those chosen by God the Father. He regenerated them, gave them the gift of faith unto conversion, pardon, and justification. He kept them in the faith to present them spotless unto Jesus Christ.

Of course Winman you always without fail, make the mistaken assertion that I am a Calvinist! I am beginning to think you do it deliberately.

 

[Yeshua1]

If the astronomers were the ones who designed the cosmos knowing fell well that if they built it that way then these things would happen- then yes, the astronomers would have been the ultimate cause of every eclipse that ever happens.

God's foreknowledge is connected to God's power.

There is nothing but God.

Then God makes everything. But before he makes everything, there was a plan which the making of everything would eventually bring to pass.

If there is something that God is totally unwilling to happen in the creation which he makes, then he can make creation in a way that that which he is totally unwilling to happen will NOT happen.

Therefore, God has a purpose for EVERYTHING that EVER happens- good and bad. If he did not have a purpose for it then he would not have built the universe the way he did knowing that it would come to pass before he built it.

That is enough to establish the fact of God's ordination of all that ever comes to pass.

But there is more.

ALL THINGS are upheld by his power. Not only were they designed to come to pass in the past- God is actively BRINGING them to pass in the present.

The only counter-argument to these facts is to water down the omniscience and omnipotence of God.

Apostle paul ties into this concept election/foreknowledge, and the foreknowledge is due to the fact that God HAS initied/started/determined those whom will be elected! its God choosing us, NOT other way around!

 

[Skandelon]

Why is the foresight view of faith a joke when we are told directly that Jesus knew "from the beginning" who would believe not and who should betray him?

Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him

I think you misunderstand the Corporate View of election if you think it negates God's foreknowledge of all things or if you think it doesn't involve the salvation of individuals. The point I think is a joke is the belief that election is God looking down the corridors of time to see who will have faith in Christ and individually elects to save them.

Election is corporate in that God has elected to graft people into the tree of his revelation by which they MAY enter covenant with him. Israel was grafted in first, thus granting them the ability to enter covenant with God, but later they are 'cut off' and the Gentiles are grafted in. This is speaking generally/corporately about groups. But, the individuals in those groups still must believe and repent in order to enter covenant and be saved. Being apart of the nation that is granted the ability to enter (elected) doesn't guarantee that an individual in that nation will do so. But, if an individual who is part of the elected body does enter by faith he is individually referred to as an "elect one." So, election involved both the corporate (those grafted in) and the individual (those who believe).

 

[canadyjd]

I think you misunderstand the Corporate View of election if you think it negates God's foreknowledge of all things or if you think it doesn't involve the salvation of individuals. The point I think is a joke is the belief that election is God looking down the corridors of time to see who will have faith in Christ and individually elects to save them....Being apart of the nation that is granted the ability to enter (elected) doesn't guarantee that an individual in that nation will do so. But, if an individual who is part of the elected body does enter by faith he is individually referred to as an "elect one." So, election involved both the corporate (those grafted in) and the individual (those who believe).

Yes or no....does God know who will believe and who will not from the foundation of the world?

The point I tried to make was that the Arminian position of foreknowledge (God knows who will believe and chooses the elect based on that info) has the same "problem" as the Calvinist position (God elects particular people to salvation before the foundation of the world and brings them to salvation by His intervention) when it comes to the argument of the "honest invitation".

I have seen many argue against the "calvinist" position on the grounds that the invitation to come to Christ isn't genuine if God has already elected some for salvation and passed over others.

The same argument holds true in either case. If God has already seen who will believe and who will reject Christ, prior to their hearing the gospel message, then the invitation (according to the argument) still holds true.

peace to you raying:

 

[Ceegen]

1. Since God has already seen, before the foundation of the world, who will believe and who will not, how can any arminian preacher honestly say that salvation is open to all people?

Knowing who will be faithful, doesn't mean God intravenes in our free will choices. It just means He already knows what our free will choices are. The choice to forgo or accept God's salvation in Jesus the Messiah, is still a choice.

God has seen those who will not believe. None of those whom God has already seen reject the gospel is capable of accepting the gospel since God has already seen the rejection. It has become a determined fact...a reality. Therefore, the arminian claiming that salvation is open to all is not giving an honest invitation.

Do you spank your kid BEFORE they do something bad?

2. How can the arminian preacher claim a man must make a choice, to accept or reject God according to their "free-will"? Since God has already seen, before the foundation of the world, those who would believe the gospel, they are incapable of rejecting the gospel. God has already seen the acceptance, therefore it is a reality that cannot change. They are not capable of exercising their "free-will" to reject the gospel.

If free will did not exist, there would be no penality for sin.

 

[canadyjd]

If free will did not exist, there would be no penality for sin.

Why?

In what sense do you suppose a person's will is "free"? Is it "free" from any influence at all?

peace to youraying:

 

[Skandelon]

Yes or no....does God know who will believe and who will not from the foundation of the world?

God's knows all things, but not in the limited way you seem to think He knows it. (i.e. Back then in time, God foresaw who would and would not believe) I believe that is a limited linear and very finite perspective of an infinitely eternal sovereign being. I agree that your logic makes since if God were just like one of us, a finite linear being bound by a timeline, and existed back then only foreseeing what was to come in the future. I don't think God's knowledge is like that. That seems much too narrow a perspective. His ways and thoughts are not like ours (Rm 11).

The point I tried to make was that the Arminian position of foreknowledge (God knows who will believe and chooses the elect based on that info) has the same "problem" as the Calvinist position

I agree, which I like most scholarly non-Calvinistic Baptists, reject both of those views. We hold to the Corporate view of Election, not the foresight faith view.

 

[Tom Butler]

If free will did not exist, there would be no penality for sin.

Then Peter got it wrong in his Pentecost day sermon
Acts 2:23:

This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

By God's "determinate counsel" (KJV), wicked men crucified Jesus. Yet Peter described them as wicked, thus to be held responsible for their actions. Jesus' death happened exactly as determined from eternity. There was no possibility that it would happen any other way, or with different people. Yet they will be held accountable.

How can that be? Because they hated Jesus, wanted him dead, and acted accordingly. Not one of those responsible said they didn't want to do it. Not one of them said they were being made to do it by some unseen force, and they were powerless to resist.

 

[Winman]

God's knows all things, but not in the limited way you seem to think He knows it. (i.e. Back then in time, God foresaw who would and would not believe) I believe that is a limited linear and very finite perspective of an infinitely eternal sovereign being. I agree that your logic makes since if God were just like one of us, a finite linear being bound by a timeline, and existed back then only foreseeing what was to come in the future. I don't think God's knowledge is like that. That seems much too narrow a perspective. His ways and thoughts are not like ours (Rm 11).

I agree, which I like most scholarly non-Calvinistic Baptists, reject both of those views. We hold to the Corporate view of Election, not the foresight faith view.

I disagree, I believe God can infallibly know who will believe and who will not, but that does not determine who will believe and who will not.

I see God's foreknowledge as similar to hindsight. He can declare the end from the beginning because he has already seen the end.

If you believe God can only foretell what he has caused to happen, then you must believe that God determined that many would take the mark of the beast and perish. You are just as much a determinist as any Calvinist.

Jhn 6:64 clearly tells us that Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas would not believe and would betray him. If you believe God can only foresee what he has determined, then you must believe that God determined and caused Judas to sin, but the scriptures tell us God never tempts any man to sin (Jam 1:13).

God did not cause Judas to betray Jesus or he would be the author of sin. Therefore God must be able to foresee some things he did not cause.

 

[Ceegen]

Then Peter got it wrong in his Pentecost day sermon
Acts 2:23:


By God's "determinate counsel" (KJV), wicked men crucified Jesus. Yet Peter described them as wicked, thus to be held responsible for their actions. Jesus' death happened exactly as determined from eternity. There was no possibility that it would happen any other way, or with different people. Yet they will be held accountable.

How can that be? Because they hated Jesus, wanted him dead, and acted accordingly. Not one of those responsible said they didn't want to do it. Not one of them said they were being made to do it by some unseen force, and they were powerless to resist.

If (and I only say "if" in a rhetorical manner) Jesus is God in the flesh, then of course he determined beforehand to sacrifice himself. God purposely put himself in a situation, knowing beforehand what it would be, to save all of humanity for whosoever shall call upon His holy name.

If there were no such thing as free will, we would basically be robots. He wants us to love Him back as much as He loves us, and if there were no free will it couldn't come from the heart, it would just be a programmed action.

But the consequence of free will is that we might turn away from God, however in error that may be. It is a choice.

"Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." - John 19:11 (KJV)

Taking the above verse, and applying it to this study in free will, if God determined beforehand all who would sin without the benefit of free will, then it would be God Himself who would have "the greater sin". God forbid!

 

[canadyjd]

If there were no such thing as free will, we would basically be robots. He wants us to love Him back as much as He loves us, and if there were no free will it couldn't come from the heart, it would just be a programmed action.....

In what respect is a person's will "free"? Aren't our decisions dependent upon our experience? Isn't there other influences that effect the decisions we make? Does a person's sinful nature influence the decisions they make?

Why does a person choose one way instead of another? Do you believe that at the moment of choice, the person's will is "free" from any influence whatsoever?

If that were true, then decisions of the will are completely random... without consideration of right or wrong... good or evil.

peace to youraying:

 

[Ceegen]

In what respect is a person's will "free"? Aren't our decisions dependent upon our experience? Isn't there other influences that effect the decisions we make? Does a person's sinful nature influence the decisions they make?

Why does a person choose one way instead of another? Do you believe that at the moment of choice, the person's will is "free" from any influence whatsoever?

If that were true, then decisions of the will are completely random... without consideration of right or wrong... good or evil.

peace to youraying:

Free will is a choice to serve God, or not. There are no other choices aside from that. Choosing not to serve God is the basis for sin. Free will doesn't equal "random", it just means we actually decide. Every time we sin, it was our choice to do so.

I know of a person who has clinically died for a duration of approximately 18 minutes. (They had to stop her heart or it would have exploded, and had a hard time restarting it). She saw heaven, and angels, and all sorts of things... And yet, she denies God exists! Seeing is not always believing.

Some people would rather not believe, simply because they don't want to [personally] be wrong. They don't think themselves as sinners, therefore their sin remains.

 

[Luke2427]

God's knows all things, but not in the limited way you seem to think He knows it. (i.e. Back then in time, God foresaw who would and would not believe) I believe that is a limited linear and very finite perspective of an infinitely eternal sovereign being. I agree that your logic makes since if God were just like one of us, a finite linear being bound by a timeline, and existed back then only foreseeing what was to come in the future. I don't think God's knowledge is like that. That seems much too narrow a perspective. His ways and thoughts are not like ours (Rm 11).

I agree, which I like most scholarly non-Calvinistic Baptists, reject both of those views. We hold to the Corporate view of Election, not the foresight faith view.

But none of that matters, Skan. How God sees the future is not the crux of the issue.

The issue is that God cannot see something inaccurately.

That truth alone is enough to establish that there is a future, regardless of how God sees it, which is set. He cannot see a future which does not come to pass and think that it might come to pass. Then God would be wrong.

Here's how it works:

Premise 1- God cannot be mistaken concerning what he sees and thinks.

Premise 2- God can see the future- regardless of whether he sees it in or out of time, in a linear manner as we do or in some mysterious manner- God sees the future.

Conclusion- God sees a future that will inevitably come to pass unalterably, invincibly.

What he sees, regardless of how he sees it, is as it truly is.

Therefore, when he sees the future he see one that is set. He made the world knowing the future full well.

It is not limiting God to say that he sees the future accurately, as it really is.

It is limiting God to say that being different from us, God might see things that might not come to pass.

But if God sees things in the future, while standing outside of time, that in time will certainly come to pass, then the future is set, unalterable, invincible. What God SEES coming to pass WILL come to pass and there is nothing in heaven, earth or hell that can prevent it.

 

[percho]

If the following is not directly relative to free will-----And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: (the inhabited earth) he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Then why is the following take place very soon after the appearing of Jesus?

And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

Does the man of free will actually have free will?