Foreknowledge, Foreknown, Predestined

Since regeneration precedes faith but since there's no proof that it brings immediate faith, it could be lost and gained again and you wouldn't know it.

That's yet to be proven with scripture. I find in 1Cor 2:1-6 and 15:1-3 that they can. I find in Acts where they have. Where do you find that they can't?

skypair

 

Assertions:

(1) Fallen Man (as we all are), "left to himself" (apart from God), has z-e-r-o ability to turn to YHWH-God (in any meaningful, steadfast way)

(2) YHWH-God, by His Grace, and through His firstborn son Jesus Christ, is actively calling all men to Him (John 12:32)

(3) Thus "buoyed up" by God's Grace, Fallen Man is graciously empowered (by YHWH-God) with the ability to Believe the Gospel.


Analogy 1:

Believing the Gospel is like bench-pressing 4,000 lbs.

You cannot do so on your own.

But if YHWH-God, by His Grace, calls you to Him through his firstborn son Jesus Christ (John 12:32), and does the heavy lifting for you, you can*get on the bench-press and push the weights up and down (as long as, and only because, YHWH-God's Helping Hand is on the bar).


Analogy 2:

Believing the Gospel is like shooting a Bullseye at 4,000 yards.

Even with the best rifle, you cannot do so on your own. Your bullet will eventually veer off course, and fall short, and miss the target.

But if YHWH-God, by His Grace, guides your bullet, you can pick up the rifle, squeeze the trigger, and hit the mark (as long as, and only because, YHWH-God is guiding your aim and carrying your bullet along).

Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom.
Luke 12:32​

In short, I am arguing (essentially) that YHWH-God's "regenerative Grace" has already (John 12:32) been extended to all mankind — because YHWH-God has chosen to do so, by His Grace, and even despite Fallen Man's putrid & unworthy unholinesses.


I would like to try to defend this position Scripturally, to see how well it holds together.

 

Good luck!

 

What verse was that again?

 

Ok, I didn't figure you meant anything other than good. I just wanted to make sure.
I understand about trying appropriate a type of label so as to better siginify to what we are addressing. But remember that Arminian is a system of theology just as Calvinism is and it has it's specific beliefs of which I do not agree with.

And yet in the same breath you also state God is making a general call (to repentance and salvation) to them who will not respond.
So then it is pointless for Paul to even make the statement of "harden not your heart" since Paul KNOWS they can do nothing BUT Harden their hearts (because it is the will of God) or that they can do nothing but Relent to God (because it is the will of God).
I don't believe (based on my studies of scripture) there are two types of 'calls' found in the scripture.
So I am merely acknowledging what I beleive scripture states regarding God truely offering savlation even to those He knows will not accept it (like 2 Thes 2 - they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved).
God does not only do good to those who will love him back, nor does He love only those who will love Him in return. (granted there IS a distinction in the 'type' of love given but God loves them none the less)

This verse speaks of 'us' with regard to us being in the likeness of our Father:

Is God greater or equal to fallen man?
Obvious Answer: Greater and by far. For if fallen man will only do good to those who will do good back, how much greater is God who will do good even to those who will not recieve it nor give it back. As God's children we are to become like He is (as see above), and as Christ's disciples we are to be like He is. See below:

It can even be said that 'we' as the Church bride are to be even as He (our husband) is.

Agreed.

I don't agree that 'effectual' is any different than 'irresistable' according to the soveriegn dotrices of grace.
Both imply that it is God by grace which compels us to be saved. Yet grace compels nothing but extends something (favor) to one/those who does not deserve it.
That extention is not a compultion to receive that which grace is offering (Gospel call) to the person. That is also why grace is the means of the Gospel call and that call is the offering of a 'gift' of salvation according to scripture that is only received "By Faith". A gift does not have to be received when it is offered yet offered a 'gift' must be regardless of intent of the recipient.

IMHO - To state that grace is 'effectual' seems to miss the very meaning and scope of what grace is - an offer thus it is seen as synonomous with the Gospel or Good news. This offer isn't limited and thus the General Call. Therefore, IMO it appears that grace is more a subjective matter (regarding effectual) rather than objective.

It might 'seem to' but it does not since nothing could come into existence that God did not foreordain to exist and be as He foreknew.

NOTE: Foreknew is not about 'looking into the future' but that God knows already the future, present, and past - all at once. It is that God knew and not so much as our discriptor of a time period when it was known - fore. To state that God knew because He pre-determined what each man will do puts that person in a very unbilbical position of God (though logical) making men act both glorious and wicked, righteous and sinful. So that their actions are squarely and singularly done because of God making man to want to do them. Man would then have no responsiblity and be punished because that was his intended purpose from the outset of why God created him - to endure Eternal torments for doing exactly as God made him to. Not even you agree with that as far as I know.

Agreed, He IS all-knowing. But No, it causes no problems whatsoever. We acknowledge and fully agree that in Gods knowing who will and will not believe and that Gods knowledge of it is unchangable or certain. Yet that knowledge is in accordance with the rest of the plan of God of HOW He determined salvation to come (through faith), and how that faith would come (The Gospel or Word of God), and how that Word would come into being when men seperated from God are deserving of His wrath (by Grace).

Calvinists are not the only ones who contend against Open Theists my friend.
It is a true statement that God chose according to His good purpose (foreordain) and not because of something he foresaw in man.
For Man by himself and left to himself has nothing redeeming in himself because Man would be the very object of his own salvation and therefore wholely unworthy.

Therefore it by the grace of God man is revealed even in nature and his conscience any truths of God. It is by the grace of God that He reveals to man he has nothing worthy in and of himself to 'offer' to God in exchange for salvation (works), and then continuing in grace, God reveals the very object of God's salvation to and for man - the Man Christ Jesus (who has done all the works). This Man can now 'potentially' be saved (with regard to knowing biblical truth) because he sees he can not be the object of his own salvation but that Christ Jesus 'the gift of God' is only one worthy to be that object for his/mans salvation. Therefore 'faith' in His or Christ's work unto our salvation is what saves. Faith is not a work (Rom 4:4-5) but it receives that work another has already done on our behalf.

God's foreknowledge includes this otherwise God is not truly all-knowing. Especially since the scriptures attest that those who are condemned have been so condemned by their rejection of the truth "THAT COULD HAVE SAVED THEM".
What is the converse of this statement and many more like it?
IOW - If THEY were condemned for rejecting the Truth, what does that say about 'why' those who are saved are not condemned?

 

Not quite right, RB. Man must be preached to in some way in order to find Christ. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." But your apparent assertion is that man can't hear, repent, or receive until he/she is regenerated, right? Whereas the verses I cite show no such limitation on man's part.

Let's even bring it down to something more specific --- Why does Jesus tell Nicodemus "Ye must be born again" rather than "men must be born again?" If Nicodemus has nothing to do with it ("It's all of God."), why does Jesus offer the personal challenge?


skypair

 

Skypair,

Do you acknowledge that 1 Cor 2,15; Acts, etc...

all happened after the crucifixion?


If you were to draw a time line, you'd put the Crufixion at Passover 30 AD...

and then Acts, and 1 Cor would be to the right of that on the time line.


Why is this important? B/c John 12:32 says that, once the Messiah was "raised up", he began "drawing" all men unto him. Cf. John 3:16, "for God so loved the world that He [reached across the gulf of Fallen Man's sin and] sent his firstborn son" (paraphrase).


Thus, since Passover 30 AD, God's Spirit has been "invading" the Fallen World = domain of the adversary (1 John 5:19). Thus, your Scripture citations do not actually address the issue of whether Fallen Man left apart from God can, or cannot...

b/c, since 30 AD, nobody has been fully left apart from God, but instead — b/c God so loved the world, all praises be unto Him — all have been "drawn" back to Him.


In short, I agree with your conclusions... with the "technicality" that Fallen Men "have" the power to Believe not because it is intrinsic, but instead because for the past 1977 years YHWH-God has been assisting Fallen Man and "doing the heavy lifting for them".

(And why? Because "it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom" (Luke 12:32).)


PS: I believe that John 6:44,64-66 shows that, technically speaking, Fallen Man without YHWH-God's helping hand, are doomed without chance:

'No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day'... '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. And he said, 'Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.' From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
John 6:44,64-66​

All of this occurs before Jesus' Crucifixion. Thus, all of this occurs without YHWH-God's "helping hand" promised by John 12:32.

Against this interpretation, however, is the fact that Peter and the Apostles did not backslide (v. 68-69). I would be very interested to hear your comments on this.

Best re: -B

 

I do indeed. And that is an important issue. There was NO regeneration to the "left side" of the crucifixion. Therefore, no "lifting" --- and yet people were saved then, right? And how will they be "drawn" to Christ? BY the regeneration/"resurrection of the just." Again, it is ALL men who are "drawn."

And you admit that that "power" was not extant preior to the cross --- yet people believed unto salvation pre-cross, right?

So you are saying that all before the cross are lost?

How do you conclude that Peter did not backslide if, after he led Cornelius to Christ, he would not eat with Gentiles -- a travesty which Paul had to "rebuke him openly" for?

skypair

 

Not unless YHWH-God denied His helping hand before the cross. Would you please tell me who as saved before the Cross? I would like an example or two to get me started, that would really help me out, and assure me I'm on the right track.

I should have added "right then and there", in John 6:64-66. Others were falling away, yet at that time Peter and the 12 were steadfast. Thus, even w/o "regeneration to the Left of the cross", Peter & the 12 were steadfast...

or, at least, more steadfast than others.

Peter fell away, after Jesus rebuked him for drawing his sword... and the others all fled too.

Thus, it does seem that "to the left of the Cross", w/o regeneration, all did fall short (cf. Rom 3:23) as they, under (extreme) pressure forsook the Messiah, even Simon "the Rock". (Does John the "Beloved Disciple" disprove this?)


As for Paul rebuking Peter (Gal 2:11ff = Acts 15:2), please allow me to make a technical observation.

"Men came from James" (Gal 2:12), or "from Judah" (Acts 15:1), and Peter bowed to their authority — ie, to the authority of James whom they purported to represent. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, the Head of the Church.

However, they falsly claimed James' authority, and James rejected/disowned them at the Jerusalem Council soon after that Peter-Paul argument (Acts 15:24).

Thus, you might say that Peter did not backslide, but meekly acknowledged James' authority...

and made a dash for Jerusalem, reported to James, highlighted the lies of the "circumcision party" (Gal 2:12 = Acts 15:1,5,24) — often called (not from Scripture) "Judaizers". The Jerusalem Council was then quickly convened (Acts 15:-6).


Thank you for your informative answer.

-B

 

Abel, Enoch, Noah, Rahab, etc. (Heb 11). That should be a good start, right?

skypair

 

Don't forget Lot...one of only a handful of men to be declared both righteous and godly.

 

Rom 11:2
God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
Rom 11:4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to [the image of] Baal.


Rom 11:5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Take your pick!!!