Foreknowledge, Foreknown, Predestined

[TCGreek]

I don't want to be a but-in-ski but I wanted to comment on one thing you mentioned here RB, more specifically here:

This does not speak in any manner about regeneration preceding faith. But states that it is by faith we are saved through His grace. It just appeared that you left off HOW we are 'saved' with regard to 'grace', which is 'BY FAITH'.

If we are saved by 'Grace alone' then, my friend faith is inconsequential, or better it is of no worth. But we are saved (as you rightly claim most often)Salvation is: In Christ Alone, by Grace alone, Through Faith alone.

So it is: "By grace you are saved through faith".

What I would like to know is simply this (and you don't have to answer it cause I think I will make another thread for it).
If we are regenerated before we are saved by faith, we have a very bibilical problem, at least from what I see.

In order to be regenerated one must be made in a right relationship with God (Justified).
In order to be regenerated one must be made seperated unto God (sanctified).
In order to be regenerated one must be made 'alive IN Christ'. (unitied IN Chrst).
and a couple more but you get the idea...

Now, the problem I see regarding all of these which entail regeneration is that scripture states these all are done or obtained "by faith" and yet the person has not yet set forth any faith thus far (by your definition) through which the scriptures state they become operational in and for the individaul.

He's quoting Eph 2:5 not v. 8, so RB is correct in his quoting.

 

[skypair]

Actually, Sproul is correct. he is saying nothing more than man cannot, from his condition of being dead in his sins and trespasses, by his own power or reason make himself come alive in Christ. This is the work of God. God must first quicken a man so that he can believe. Sproul aslo denies the Roman Catholic concept of previenent grace whereby man cooperates with God in the process.

The ground of our belief that "regeneration precedes faith" is Eph 2:5. This teaches us that while we were dead...we were made alive. And this is called "by grace have you been saved" I was dead in my sins and He made me alive. I can attribute my regeneration to none but to Christ alone.

Sproul explains his understanding here http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul01.html

I like this quote:

Which proves Dr Roger's point. You may have received and lost your regeneration numerous times before you had faith.

And of course Eph 2:5 supports both of us. We were "dead" when we were revived. It could be no other way. However, that does NOT preclude our believing, repenting, and receiving before being regenerated. Those acts do NOT regenerate us -- God does.

Let me know exactly why you are saying we cannot believe, repent, and receive prior to regeneration, pls.

skypair

 

[Allan]

He's quoting Eph 2:5 not v. 8, so RB is correct in his quoting.

I know that , but it is verse 8 that explains verse 5. You can not seperate them.

Paul expounds on what what he means :

Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved
Eph 2:6 And hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus:

This is about salvation NOT regeneration. If you just take vs 5 and run with it then yes, I see the arguement but verse 6 brings the light which reveals an improper assumption.

If it is speaking of regeneration and not of salvation then before we are ever saved, we have ALREADY be made to sit together with Christ in heavenly places.
So there is no need for salvation since my position is ALREADY established. This is why verse 7 says this SALVATION (not regeneration) shows froth His richs and glory, ext... for the ages to come. Verse 8 goes on to explain HOW salvation comes By Grace and that is by 'Faith".

(now if you hold that regeneration IS salvation but not yet yeilded to faith, then you have another biblical problem which states salvation is BY Faith and not that salvation is confirmed through faith)

 

[TCGreek]

I know that , but it is verse 8 that explains verse 5. You can not seperate them.

Paul expounds on what what he means :

This is about salvation NOT regeneration. If you just take vs 5 and run with it then yes, I see the arguement but verse 6 brings the light which reveals an improper assumption.

If it is speaking of regeneration and not of salvation then before we are ever saved, we have ALREADY be made to sit together with Christ in heavenly places. (now if you hold that regeneration IS salvation then you have another biblical problem which states salvation is BY Faith and not that salvation is confirmed through faith)
So there is no need for salvation since my position is ALREADY established. This is why verse 7 says this SALVATION (not regeneration) shows froth His richs and glory, ext... for the ages to come. Verse 8 goes on to explain HOW salvation comes By Grace and that is by 'Faith".

RB is more than capable of giving his own rebutall, but I'll venture this:

1. There's no one text that gives us a complete view of ordo salutis, so we must take several texts into consideration before make a proper conclusion.

2. For example, Eph. 2:8 is a more condensed for of Rom 8:29-30 and so on.

3. As someone who adheres to the doctrines of grace, I do believe regeneration precedes faith and oftentimes, and the mention of just one of the links in the chaing of ordo salutis assumes the others.

4. For example, Paul is fond of using "calling" or "called," which points to the whole salvation reality and experience.

5. So when Paul mentions "made alive with Christ" and so on, Paul has the whole ordo salutis in mind.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Which proves Dr Roger's point. You may have received and lost your regeneration numerous times before you had faith.

Your going to have to explain this. I do not follow.

And of course Eph 2:5 supports both of us. We were "dead" when we were revived. It could be no other way. However, that does NOT preclude our believing, repenting, and receiving before being regenerated. Those acts do NOT regenerate us -- God does.

I see no need for comment here.

Let me know exactly why you are saying we cannot believe, repent, and receive prior to regeneration, pls.

I am saying that man left in his natural, unregenerate state, apart from the influence of God upon him, cannot and will not (of his own free moral agency) repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Allan]

RB is more than capable of giving his own rebutall, but I'll venture this:

1. There's no one text that gives us a complete view of ordo salutis, so we must take several texts into consideration before make a proper conclusion.

2. For example, Eph. 2:8 is a more condensed for of Rom 8:29-30 and so on.

3. As someone who adheres to the doctrines of grace, I do believe regeneration precedes faith and oftentimes, and the mention of just one of the links in the chaing of ordo salutis assumes the others.

4. For example, Paul is fond of using "calling" or "called," which points to the whole salvation reality and experience.

5. So when Paul mentions "made alive with Christ" and so on, Paul has the whole ordo salutis in mind.

And I will grant you that, so there is no real but an 'assumed' order. So why be absolutely dogmatic regarding it?

But that was my point, which you illistrated well with Paul. Yet we also must 'assume' Paul is speaking of the whole order of Salvation, or maybe Paul is speaking of the completeness OF salvation without regard to an order but finished work (thus verses 6, 7, and 10). Yes, it 'can' regard both the beginning AND the End or just the finished product regardless of the 'beginning'.
I will though go along the whole concept of salvation just for agurments sakes but remind you that it has to do with Salvation and NOT regeneration "before" faith since it speaks of the salvation establishing us IN Christ.

 

[Allan]

I am saying that man left in his natural, unregenerate state, apart from the influence of God upon him, cannot and will not (of his own free moral agency) repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

You can't use THOSE words. That is almost word for word my line I use in debating. :laugh:
* with the exception of unregenerate of course *

 

[TCGreek]

And I will grant you that, so there is no real but an 'assumed' order. So why be absolutely dogmatic regarding it?

But that was my point, which you illistrated well with Paul. Yet we also must 'assume' Paul is speaking of the whole order of Salvation, or maybe Paul is speaking of the completeness OF salvation without regard to an order but finished work (thus verses 6, 7, and 10). Yes, it 'can' regard both the beginning AND the End or just the finished product regardless of the 'beginning'.
I will though go along the whole concept of salvation just for agurments sakes but remind you that it has to do with Salvation and NOT regeneration "before" faith since it speaks of the salvation establishing us IN Christ.

1. Well, if we didn't have other texts to consider, I think you'll agree that we'll be lost at sea.

2. How can one who is "dead in sins" (v.1) come to faith in Christ? V. 4 answers the question.

3. But what does it mean for a person "dead in sin" to be made alive in Christ? What is involved?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

You can't use THOSE words. That is almost word for word my line I use in debating. :laugh:
* with the exception of unregenerate of course *

Glad your almost a Calvinist. :laugh: :laugh:

A distinctly Evangelical Arminian position is that of the Methodist Episcopal Church and of the United Methodist Church is:

"The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and works, to faith, and calling upon God; wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will." Article VIII - Of Free Will


From this I can see that my Evangelical Arminian brethren agree with Calvinists that God exerts an influence upon the minds of men which (at least) leads in a great number of instances to regeneration and that their free agency is left free.

What I contend that God does do this unto a CERTAINTY. God can and does exert His influences that certainly lead to regeneration and conversion in every case where it is put forth.

In neither is the free agency of man being taught to be destroyed. To say so, either of the Methodist article or the Calvinist doctrine of effectual grace, it to assert it without a shred of evidence.

 

[TCGreek]

Glad your almost a Calvinist. :laugh: :laugh:

A distinctly Evangelical Arminian position is that of the Methodist Episcopal Church and of the United Methodist Church is:

"The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and works, to faith, and calling upon God; wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will." Article VIII - Of Free Will


From this I can see that my Evangelical Arminian brethren agree with Calvinists that God exerts an influence upon the minds of men which (at least) leads in a great number of instances to regeneration and that their free agency is left free.

What I contend that God does do this unto a CERTAINTY. God can and does exert His influences that certainly lead to regeneration and conversion in every case where it is put forth.

In neither is the free agency of man being taught to be destroyed. To say so, either of the Methodist article or the Calvinist doctrine of effectual grace, it to assert it without a shred of evidence.

That should put things into perspective, I hope. :thumbs:

 

[reformedbeliever]

Glad your almost a Calvinist. :laugh: :laugh:

A distinctly Evangelical Arminian position is that of the Methodist Episcopal Church and of the United Methodist Church is:

"The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and works, to faith, and calling upon God; wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will." Article VIII - Of Free Will


From this I can see that my Evangelical Arminian brethren agree with Calvinists that God exerts an influence upon the minds of men which (at least) leads in a great number of instances to regeneration and that their free agency is left free.

What I contend that God does do this unto a CERTAINTY. God can and does exert His influences that certainly lead to regeneration and conversion in every case where it is put forth.

In neither is the free agency of man being taught to be destroyed. To say so, either of the Methodist article or the Calvinist doctrine of effectual grace, it to assert it without a shred of evidence.

He is the best Calvinist-non Calvinist on the bb. :laugh:

 

[Amy.G]

He is the best Calvinist-non Calvinist on the bb. :laugh:

Hey! I used to have that title. I guess I've been replaced. :tear:

 

[Allan]

Hey! I used to have that title. I guess I've been replaced. :tear:

You can't be replaced Amy, I was just allowed to enter into your presense for a short time. :laugh:

 

[Amy.G]

You can't be replaced Amy, I just allowed to enter into your presense for a short time. :laugh:

Thanks Allan. You're alright! :wavey:

 

[Allan]

Glad your almost a Calvinist. :laugh:

Does this mean your almost not. :laugh: (j/k)

A distinctly Evangelical Arminian position

I'm sorry but you have used this term 'Evangelical' on me before and since it is used in both good and bad cases (according to the person using it), please explain YOUR meaning of its usage

From this I can see that my Evangelical Arminian brethren agree with Calvinists that God exerts an influence upon the minds of men which (at least) leads in a great number of instances to regeneration and that their free agency is left free.

I have no problem contending for the fact that God must exert His influence upon the minds and hearts of men, for without it NO MAN can nor will come to Christ in his depraved state.

What I contend that God does do this unto a CERTAINTY. God can and does exert His influences that certainly lead to regeneration and conversion in every case where it is put forth.

I agree that God excerting His influence upon man will certainly lead to those whom He foreknew (or if you like elected) will be His own.

But what about those that Paul speaks to stating "Harden not your hearts". How can Paul knowing the certainty of Gods influence imply that we can harden anything against the thing we can not resist? And yet Paul make that statement very plain as a plea not to be like the Jews did under Moses leadership.

Or where Paul states "I beseech thee, be ye reconciled" Why plead for 'them' to be reconciled with God if they are already reconciled with Him? And other states which 'seem' to show not to show your contention of Grace being 'irresistable'.

IMO - I believe it is a certainty that God will bring unto Himself by His means those whom He foreknew but and yet by the sames means and with the same intent extends his offer to others who will not come to God (thus the universal usage of whosoever, if any man thirst, ext..), whom He also foreknew would not be His as they will reject His truth which you also agree they 'willing' do.

In neither is the free agency of man being taught to be destroyed. To say so, either of the Methodist article or the Calvinist doctrine of effectual grace, it to assert it without a shred of evidence.

Which is why I state it is not Doctrine which are at issue but the mechanics of those Doctrines to which we both adhere.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I'm sorry but you have used this term 'Evangelical' on me before and since it is used in both good and bad cases (according to the person using it), please explain YOUR meaning of its usage

I mean it in the best possible light, Gospel. It means to me that I regard you as saved and orthodox in the faith. By arminian I only use as a matter of convience to make the difference between a calvinist. The term non-calvinist is too general.

I have no problem contending for the fact that God must exert His influence upon the minds and hearts of men, for without it NO MAN can nor will come to Christ in his depraved state.

Amen.

I agree that God excerting His influence upon man will certainly lead to those whom He foreknew (or if you like elected) will be His own.

Amen.

But what about those that Paul speaks to stating "Harden not your hearts". How can Paul knowing the certainty of Gods influence imply that we can harden anything against the thing we can not resist? And yet Paul make that statement very plain as a plea not to be like the Jews did under Moses leadership.

In the same breath, within the scope of your own theology, how can God make the offer of salvation to those whom He foreknew would not accept it? The "harden not your heart" falls within the scope of the universal, general call to salvation.

Or where Paul states "I beseech thee, be ye reconciled" Why plead for 'them' to be reconciled with God if they are already reconciled with Him? And other states which 'seem' to show not to show your contention of Grace being 'irresistable'.

The means are not destroyed by the certainty of the end. Irresistable is a poor use of languge to fit an acronymn. Effectual would be better.

IMO - I believe it is a certainty that God will bring unto Himself by His means those whom He foreknew but and yet by the sames means and with the same intent extends his offer to others who will not come to God (thus the universal usage of whosoever, if any man thirst, ext..), whom He also foreknew would not be His as they will reject His truth which you also agree they 'willing' do.

Indeed, God will bring to Himself by His means those whom He foreknew. But this seems to leave out foreordained. It's not merely that God foreknew, as in knowledge. But also foreordained.

What is surprising to me is that those who teach men are elected because God foreknew they would believe don't see the problem they pose to calvinists in their own theology. If God knew ahead of time who would believe then their belief is as certain and unchangeable as one whom could would foreordain to salvation. Our use of foreknowledge deals with God's infallible knowledge. He is all-knowing. Open theists realizing this have gone into heresy and impugned the foreknowledge of God. Calvinists contend against the idea because to them it is contrary to Scripture when we learn the "why" of GOd's election being His own good purpose (foreordination) and not because of something He foresaw in man.

 

[Amy.G]

In the same breath, within the scope of your own theology, how can God make the offer of salvation to those whom He foreknew would not accept it? The "harden not your heart" falls within the scope of the universal, general call to salvation.

RB, what do mean by the boldened part?

God offers salvation universally to "all" but will not draw "all" in order that they might be saved?

Why offer salvation to someone who you never intend on giving it to?

.

 

[reformedbeliever]

RB, what do mean by the boldened part?

God offers salvation universally to "all" but will not draw "all" in order that they might be saved?

Why offer salvation to someone who you never intend on giving it to?

.

Then this might confuse you even more. Christ is the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world. Why would God give Adam and Eve a choice if He knew they would disobey Him?

 

[Amy.G]

Then this might confuse you even more. Christ is the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world. Why would God give Adam and Eve a choice if He knew they would disobey Him?

Some would say because God wanted His children to love Him freely, which means there must be a choice between Him and something or someone else.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Some would say because God wanted His children to love Him freely, which means there must be a choice between Him and something or someone else.

The only way His children (the elect) can love Him is through the miracle of regeneration. We are regenerated, born again, by His will not our own. That is true freedom.
Those who are not the elect hate God. See John 8. They are actually children of the devil.
The realization of the sovereign grace of God truly sets you free Amy.