foresight based election

[Tom Butler]

We have to keep in mind that that God even sees all things as accomplished acts, even if they haven't happened yet. We can never imagine God saying, "whoa, I didn't see that coming." Or, "hey, I just saw Tom confess me as Lord in 1947. Great, I'll move him over to the elect column." What God knows, he has always known. Did it occur to you that nothing ever occurs to God?

So it is possible to describe God's foreknowledge of whom he will save as an intimate relationship, since in the mind of God, it already exists.

If we try to make this the case from our human perspective, it won't work. We operate in time.

When Paul quoted the OT in Romans 9, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated," He was speaking of God's love for Jacob before Jacob was born, and before either Jake or Esau had done anything one way or the other. This is how one could say that God "fore-loved" Jacob. He certainly foreknew him.

And later, Paul in Chapter 8 lays out the sequence. God foreknew, predestined,called, justified, and glorified.

And also note that Paul used "glorified" not as future, but concurrent with his other actions. This is another example of God's seeing things future as already accomplished. I'm not glorified, but the mind of God sees my glorification as a done deal.

 

[Winman]

We have to keep in mind that that God even sees all things as accomplished acts, even if they haven't happened yet. We can never imagine God saying, "whoa, I didn't see that coming." Or, "hey, I just saw Tom confess me as Lord in 1947. Great, I'll move him over to the elect column." What God knows, he has always known. Did it occur to you that nothing ever occurs to God?

So it is possible to describe God's foreknowledge of whom he will save as an intimate relationship, since in the mind of God, it already exists.

If we try to make this the case from our human perspective, it won't work. We operate in time.

When Paul quoted the OT in Romans 9, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated," He was speaking of God's love for Jacob before Jacob was born, and before either Jake or Esau had done anything one way or the other. This is how one could say that God "fore-loved" Jacob. He certainly foreknew him.

And later, Paul in Chapter 8 lays out the sequence. God foreknew, predestined,called, justified, and glorified.

And also note that Paul used "glorified" not as future, but concurrent with his other actions. This is another example of God's seeing things future as already accomplished. I'm not glorified, but the mind of God sees my glorification as a done deal.

I agree that God knows all things from the beginning.
But what do we know of Jacob and Esau? Jacob had regard for God's promises, he believed them. This is why he wanted Esau's birthright. Esau had no regard and sold his birthright for a bowl of soup. Don't you think that God knew this?
But once again, no man can have an intimate and personal relationship with the Father unless he first comes to Jesus and has his sins washed away.

 

[Winman]

Thanks. Hearing this from you means a lot.



I do find it interesting you keep switch the perspective around. Doing that on purpose maybe? We said that God foreknew us, personal relationship with us, but you keep talking about us having a personal relationship with Christ.

It is Calvinism that changes the gospel. The scriptures are clear that there is one person who is the mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ.

Calvinists here have said the Father had a personal relationship with the elect in ages past. That is impossible unless you first come to Jesus and have your sins washed away. God does not have a personal relationship with unforgiven sinners.

 

[quantumfaith]

We have to keep in mind that that God even sees all things as accomplished acts, even if they haven't happened yet. We can never imagine God saying, "whoa, I didn't see that coming." Or, "hey, I just saw Tom confess me as Lord in 1947. Great, I'll move him over to the elect column." What God knows, he has always known. Did it occur to you that nothing ever occurs to God?

So it is possible to describe God's foreknowledge of whom he will save as an intimate relationship, since in the mind of God, it already exists.

If we try to make this the case from our human perspective, it won't work. We operate in time.

When Paul quoted the OT in Romans 9, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated," He was speaking of God's love for Jacob before Jacob was born, and before either Jake or Esau had done anything one way or the other. This is how one could say that God "fore-loved" Jacob. He certainly foreknew him.

And later, Paul in Chapter 8 lays out the sequence. God foreknew, predestined,called, justified, and glorified.

And also note that Paul used "glorified" not as future, but concurrent with his other actions. This is another example of God's seeing things future as already accomplished. I'm not glorified, but the mind of God sees my glorification as a done deal.

Tom,

You are a very balanced and fair representative of the reformed camp, and for that I am grateful. The "dilemma" that we non-cals (one of them anyway) is the idea that God "s...elected" some to be members of the household of faith, and thus by default, did not s....elect others. I understand the argument of the reformed that says "Well God just left them to their own devices and nature". Personally, that just does not "cut it" for me. I do absolutely believe in God's sovereignty, as a result I believe that God can "do things" as He pleases, which leaves open the possibility of supralapsarianism, infralapsarianism.....et al. Thus, I "attempt" to glean His nature by the totality of His revelation in scripture, in nature, in the fact that I am created in His image.

So, "Can God s....elect some to salvation and ignore (decline) others, yes, it is within the realm of possibility, but not how I see and read God's nature in totality.

In Molinism, the basic premise being that God "actualized" the world that would lead to the greatest number of persons coming to Him in faith, which one could argue is still representative of God doing the choosing.

Both sides of the debate, in truth, have a dilemma. The "reformed" like it or not, distills down to God being the cause of sin in creation, whereas, the "non-cal" position distills to God "deciding" at some point. Both sides attempt to "wiggle" around these dilemmas appealing to either logic, philosophy or mystery.

Blessings

 

[jbh28]

It is Calvinism that changes the gospel.

What part of the gospel does Calvinism change

 

[Jarthur001]

It is Calvinism that changes the gospel. The scriptures are clear that there is one person who is the mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ.

Calvinists here have said the Father had a personal relationship with the elect in ages past. That is impossible unless you first come to Jesus and have your sins washed away. God does not have a personal relationship with unforgiven sinners.

Winman,

Humans reach covenants and relationships through their own self will. God's covenants with people are usually unilateral. He alone determines the terms and conditions.

This is what we see in 1 John..

1 John 4... We love Him because He first loved us.

Notice the subordinate conjunction."BECAUSE". This shows a dependent clause in our love and indicates the nature of the relationship among God and mans and only reason why man loves God.

The cause of our love, comes from the fact that he loves us. This love was placed on the love object from the moment of creation. Gods' love never fails/stops. (1 Cor 13)

But all men do not love God.

That is BECAUSE God's love is not upon them. Again...Gods' love never fails/stops. (1 Cor 13)

 

[Tom Butler]

Tom,

You are a very balanced and fair representative of the reformed camp, and for that I am grateful. The "dilemma" that we non-cals (one of them anyway) is the idea that God "s...elected" some to be members of the household of faith, and thus by default, did not s....elect others. I understand the argument of the reformed that says "Well God just left them to their own devices and nature". Personally, that just does not "cut it" for me. I do absolutely believe in God's sovereignty, as a result I believe that God can "do things" as He pleases, which leaves open the possibility of supralapsarianism, infralapsarianism.....et al. Thus, I "attempt" to glean His nature by the totality of His revelation in scripture, in nature, in the fact that I am created in His image.

So, "Can God s....elect some to salvation and ignore (decline) others, yes, it is within the realm of possibility, but not how I see and read God's nature in totality.

In Molinism, the basic premise being that God "actualized" the world that would lead to the greatest number of persons coming to Him in faith, which one could argue is still representative of God doing the choosing.

Both sides of the debate, in truth, have a dilemma. The "reformed" like it or not, distills down to God being the cause of sin in creation, whereas, the "non-cal" position distills to God "deciding" at some point. Both sides attempt to "wiggle" around these dilemmas appealing to either logic, philosophy or mystery.

Blessings

You know something, QF? I don't like it either. My human thought processes just don't compute the idea that God chooses some for salvation and chooses others for condemnation. Or, as I hold, that God simply leaves the non-elect alone to suffer their well-deserved punishment.

If I were God, I guarantee you it'd be different. But I'm not God and I'm bound by what I believe to be the teaching of Scripture, even if I don't like that teaching.

 

[Winman]

Winman,

Humans reach covenants and relationships through their own self will. God's covenants with people are usually unilateral. He alone determines the terms and conditions.

This is what we see in 1 John..



Notice the subordinate conjunction."BECAUSE". This shows a dependent clause in our love and indicates the nature of the relationship among God and mans and only reason why man loves God.

The cause of our love, comes from the fact that he loves us. This love was placed on the love object from the moment of creation. Gods' love never fails/stops. (1 Cor 13)

But all men do not love God.

That is BECAUSE God's love is not upon them. Again...Gods' love never fails/stops. (1 Cor 13)

I agree we love God because he first loved us. How could we not love God for giving his Son Jesus to die for our sins?

But I disagree that God does not love the unsaved. Jesus said to pray for our enemies and do good to them, for our Father makes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust. The reason men do not love God is because they are selfish and self-centered. They love their sin and do not want to give it up. They do not want God to rule over them. But God loves them and is longsuffering, desiring that all come to repentance.

 

[Jarthur001]

I agree we love God because he first loved us. How could we not love God for giving his Son Jesus to die for our sins?

But I disagree that God does not love the unsaved.

I understand. I made the statement, it is up to me to prove it. We will go over this.

Jesus said to pray for our enemies and do good to them, for our Father makes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust. The reason men do not love God is because they are selfish and self-centered. They love their sin and do not want to give it up. They do not want God to rule over them.

Here we agree too.


So, where we disagree is who God loves. A study of Gods love helps.

1 John is the passage that tells us we must love one another. But it also tells us why we do love one another.

7Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

You must be BORN of God, BEFORE you can love God. You cannot love God 1st, and then you are born again. The love comes from the new birth. The next verse tells us this...

8He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

One element I find amazing that the atonement is always linked to Gods love. This passage you will find this truth again. Right in the middle of talking about God's love John brings up the atonement.

9In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. 10Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Christ was SENT here to die for sinners. The atonement was a love act by Christ. Verse 10 says...This is what love is. Love is the atonement. Love is not we loving God, but God loving us. Its the reason why he came. He came for the intent of saving sinners.



John uses this love of God to tell us we should love other believers..

11Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. 12No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
13Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

Notice that the only way we can have this perfect love is >>BECAUSE he has given us the Spirit, Now read the next verses very close...

14And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
15Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

The ONLY WAY we can confess Jesus, is that we must 1st have him in us. A non-believe does not confess Christ and then is born again. His birth comes 1st, then he has the love of God in him to confess Jesus.


John seals this in the next verse....

16And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

Notice what we are believing. We believe that Gods love is IN US. We do not believe and then Gods love comes in us. Its in us because of the new birth.





Now being that God is love, we should be able to see who God is, when we study "love". If we study love we must go to 1 Cor 13. 1 Cor 13 will tell us a lot about Jesus love...



1 Cor 13..

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy;

We know that Jesus love is long suffering. We know that he is kind.

love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own

In John 5 we read..

“I do not accept praise from men, but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?
​

5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity,

Verse 5 and part of 6 LIMITS gods love. God hates evil. God hates iniquity.

Eph 2 gives the contrast of those in the dark kingdom and those in the kingdom of light,

Those in the Dark kingdom God has his WRATH upon them.

1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
​

Now look and understand fully verse 8 of 1 Cor 13.....

8 Love never fails.

Christ came to SAVE sinners. He did this through the LOVE act of the atonement. This was the intent. This is what love is..


True love never fails. It worked. He came to save sinners, and every person he gave his love for will be saved. Count on it.


Romans 8....


Romans 8 is often used for "eternal security". And I will not deny that this is the main point by Paul in the passage. But there are other things we can lean here..

31What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

Notice that Paul gives the power of his claim in the atonement. Who can be against US..the believer...When God sent his Son to DIE for them? If God did this, would he not do all things?

33Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.
34Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised— who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.

The main pont here is GOD. How can you stand and charge the elect, when GOD is the one that justifies? The atonement WORKED.

Now read this verse and think...

35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?

God's love did not start after we believed. God SENT his Son as a LOVE act...The atonement. Love was the intent of the atonement.

WHO IS GOING TO KEEP US SEPARATED FROM GOD????????
Yes...who will separate us..AFTER WE ARE SAVED...but also..WHO WILL KEEP US SEPARATED FROM GODS LOVE???

BECAUSE>>>>> this is the REASON why he came.

Paul answers...

36As it is written,
"For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered."
37No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[quantumfaith]

You know something, QF? I don't like it either. My human thought processes just don't compute the idea that God chooses some for salvation and chooses others for condemnation. Or, as I hold, that God simply leaves the non-elect alone to suffer their well-deserved punishment.

If I were God, I guarantee you it'd be different. But I'm not God and I'm bound by what I believe to be the teaching of Scripture, even if I don't like that teaching.

Please confirm for me that this was not "snippiness". If so, I meant nothing of the sort.

 

[Tom Butler]

Please confirm for me that this was not "snippiness". If so, I meant nothing of the sort.

Oh, my goodness, I truly apologize if I came across that way. I took your post seriously, and was hoping to explain that from a human standpoint, unconditional election is just not fair.

But God does not have to be fair. He is God. He is just.

But to tell you the truth, I don't want God to be fair or just. I want him to be merciful. If God were fair and just to me, I'd be deservedly condemned.

I hope this clears up any misconception I may have created.

 

[quantumfaith]

Oh, my goodness, I truly apologize if I came across that way. I took your post seriously, and was hoping to explain that from a human standpoint, unconditional election is just not fair.

But God does not have to be fair. He is God. He is just.

But to tell you the truth, I don't want God to be fair or just. I want him to be merciful. If God were fair and just to me, I'd be deservedly condemned.

I hope this clears up any misconception I may have created.

Thank you, it was simply the way I read it. I agree with you "unconditional" election is not fair, I even agree with you that God can and will do as He pleases. I am not a "whiner" about God being "unfair". I just dont agree intellectually with unconditional election. (by and large).

Again I thank you.

 

[Winman]

Jarthur001, I disagee with your use of 1 Cor 13:8. It seems you are using this verse to prove God only loves the elect, AND irresistable grace. You reason that "love never fails", therefore God could not have loved the unelect, else they would be saved irresistably.
I disagree with this and believe you are taking this verse out of context to say something it does not say. This verse is speaking of spiritual gifts, not salvation or election.

 

[Winman]

Tom and Quantum, I disagree that God is not fair. How can God be just and not fair? That is a contradiction.
Whether we live one month or 100 years, we are God's creation and he has the perfect right to take our life when he deems fit. I personally believe all infants and children who die go to heaven. There is some advantage here, they do not have to suffer the pains and corruptions of this life. I think this is what Job was saying when he wished he were born stillborn.
As for people who go to hell, that is their choice, they could have believed and been saved if they had chosen to do so. So God is perfectly fair and just.
As for men who have never heard the gospel, this is one of those questions that are not clearly answered in scripture, but we know that God knows the hearts of all men and will judge them fairly and justly.

 

[jbh28]

Tom and Quantum, I disagree that God is not fair. How can God be just and not fair? That is a contradiction.

If God was fair, we would all be in hell

 

[Jarthur001]

Jarthur001, I disagee with your use of 1 Cor 13:8.

ok

It seems you are using this verse to prove God only loves the elect, AND irresistable grace. You reason that "love never fails", therefore God could not have loved the unelect, else they would be saved irresistably.

Part true. The passage is about LOVE. I bring up 1 Cor 13, because you stated that God does love the non-elect. This chapter shows two things that disagree.

1) Gods love is limited to things that are not EVIL.
2) Gods love never fails...it never stops. If he loves you today, he will love you tomorrow.

When we consider point 2 (love never fails)with the fact the the atonement is a love act and the very reason Christ came, it says it all.

I disagree with this and believe you are taking this verse out of context to say something it does not say. This verse is speaking of spiritual gifts, not salvation or election.

I'm sorry but please read the passage again. It is saying that LOVE is greater than ALL spiritual gifts.

Romans 12:6-8
* Prophecy
* Ministry
* Teaching
* Exhortation
* Giving
* Leading
* Showing mercy

Ephesians 4:11
* Apostolic
* Prophetic
* Evangelical
* Pastoral
* Teaching

1 Corinthians 12:1-14
* Wisdom
* Knowledge
* Discerning various spirits
* Speaking in tongues
* Interpretation of tongues
* Prophecy
* Faith
* Working of miracles
* Healing

But it should be noted that just after Paul list the gifts in Chapter 12 he says...

9Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.

So you see, this is indeed in full context and is seen throughout Scripture. I gave a short list, but there are many many more.

Notice the particular love shown by God in Isa 43...

3 For I am the LORD your God,
the Holy One of Israel, your Savior;
I give Egypt for your ransom,
Cush and Seba in your stead.
4 Since you are precious and honored in my sight,
and because I love you,
I will give people in exchange for you,
nations in exchange for your life.



​

 

[Winman]

I'm not buying your application of 1 Cor 13:8. This verse has nothing to do with election or salvation whatsoever.

That God loves the unsaved is proved in the account of the young rich ruler in Mark 10.

Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him LOVED HIM, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. 22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

This young man went away unsaved, and yet the scriptures clearly say Jesus loved him.

 

[Winman]

If God was fair, we would all be in hell

That sounds cute, but it is not scriptural.

Rom 3:26 To declare at this time his righteousness: THAT HE MIGHT BE JUST, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

If it was unjust for God to save sinners, then God could not do it, as God is always just.

I am amazed at what many Calvinists believe, that God can lie, that God can be unfair... Your conception of God is very different from a non-Cal.

 

[jbh28]

That sounds cute, but it is not scriptural.

Rom 3:26 To declare at this time his righteousness: THAT HE MIGHT BE JUST, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

If it was unjust for God to save sinners, then God could not do it, as God is always just.

I am amazed at what many Calvinists believe, that God can lie, that God can be unfair... Your conception of God is very different from a non-Cal.

So you deserve Heaven and don't deserve hell? If God gave full justice to us, we would be in hell. That's what MERCY is all about and GRACE! He is just because Jesus Christ paid the penalty for our sins. But if God was fair, we would be in hell. Was it fair that Jesus died on the cross to save our sins when he didn't commit any sins?

I didn't mean it to sound cute, it's called truth.

I hope you don't think that it was fair that God gave you grace.

 

[Winman]

So you deserve Heaven and don't deserve hell? If God gave full justice to us, we would be in hell. That's what MERCY is all about and GRACE! He is just because Jesus Christ paid the penalty for our sins. But if God was fair, we would be in hell. Was it fair that Jesus died on the cross to save our sins when he didn't commit any sins?

I didn't mean it to sound cute, it's called truth.

I hope you don't think that it was fair that God gave you grace.

I certainly don't believe I have done anything good, but nevertheless it is just that God gives grace to believers, else he could not do it. God cannot do that which is unfair or unjust.

Don't you understand that? If it was wrong for God to show mercy and grace to believers, then God could not do it, God cannot do wrong.