His determinate counsel

I don't think so either...nor have I ever heard Allan say this.

You're right, it cannot be proven, and not because I said so, but you have made a declarative statment that you cannot prove (third party testimony is not conclusive proof either). If I say "everyone owns a red shirt", that is a declarative statment that I cannot prove. Adding "there are family members who told me so-and-so owns a red shirt" is not proof, either.

I have NEVER said God saves those who never hear. Romans 1 makes it clear that all HAVE heard at least SOME truth to which to respond. That is fact.

 

Please define your use of "know" in #2. Normally we do not use the word we are attempting to define in the defintion.
What does Christ "fully know of them"?

Please explain how.

Show me where I have based it on a preconceived idea of what it means. I'm allowing the context to define the way the word is used. You need to explain why the words I suggested are not supported by the texts. And you need to explain and show me a passage where "love" is "implied" in the word "know" without it becoming another definition which you will not allow for.

No one is redefining a word. We are simply allowing for another defintion to be employed in certain contexts where the other definitions are not adequate. The definitions you have supplied are not adequate in relation to God's knowledge of some people or groups.
And I have briefly showed you OT examples of this occurance.

Let me provide a quote from Walter Kaiser Jr. in his book Toward an Exegetical Theology to show what I'm describing.

And this is from a non-theological website explaining English grammar.

That's what I am advocating is happening with the word "know" in the passages I've referenced. The definition is being determined by the environment or context of that word.

 

Again web... that SOME truth is not enough, unless you want to say that the Gospel of Christ is not necessary. Again web... we have the testimony of family, who were with their loved ones whom they knew had never heard of Jesus Christ, when they died. They died without ever hearing of Jesus. We have this testimony of many missionaries. You wouldn't call them liars would you?
Now if you say that God could have came to them in thier sub-conscience before their death and supernaturally impart His Spirit... then you are leaning waaaayyyyyyy over to the Calvinist side.

 

We really should finish the discussion about God's omniscience and His decree(aka the blue-eyed conversation). I left a post for you somewhere, I just have to find it.

This statement is in need of some major clarification. What do you mean by, "saves by election"? What do you mean by, "those God knows will believe". You deny it is a foreseen faith, yes?

Once what is "decreed"? What does this mean: "knowledge of their choice is established"?
God's knowledge of "their choice" is "established"? Meaning, it was previously, "unestablished" or unknown?

What choice is made? Do you mean, man's choice is "made because of His decree"

not sure what this means.

From God's perspective yes, the saved do not have a choice, cause He has elected them to salvation. From man's perspective, we do have a choice, which is why we are responsible and accountable. We do not fully know God's perspective, we only know what has been revealed to us in His word. Man is commanded to repent and not to do so is sin, that's man's perspective. The Bible shows us but a glimpse of God's perspective, but provides a mirror for man's perspective. Spurgeon is quoted as saying something like the following: "If God had revealed that the elect had a yellow stripe down their back, then I would run around lifting men's shirttails. He has not, so I preach to all men." That's man's perspective, but God's persepective is different. He knows who the elect are and therefore, He knows that none can change what He already has known and I would say, decreed.

And again, everything you've stated is what we believe the Bible teaches about God's perspective. God's election is to secure a people for Himself who will for all eternity glorify His Son in whom God delights the most in.
From man's perspective, we are commanded to obey Jesus Christ and there is grave penalty for those who do not. The Bible teaches that man sins because he wants to, it's what he desires the most. And were it not for God's gracious election, we all would eternally perish doing that which we desire the most, sin. Instead, God has set aside a people for Himself who will desire His Son the most for all eternity.

 

Again, in this case, He is not sovereign over their decisions. You can't have it both ways.

 

Thank you for your defense brother. I too, can not see where he thinks it to be in direct conflict with irresistible grace. You were doing such a good defense of my statement.... I didn't see any need to put one on myself.
I think he needs to go back and read my statement. I KNOW I need to be able to better articulate myself..... but due to my handicap in English.... it will have to be good enough.

 

Does God forfeit any of His sovereignty if He truly listens and reacts to prayer?

 

I thought prayer was designed to bring us inline with God's will. God's will simply "will be." Do you think prayer causes God to change His decrees?

 

He forfeits a lot more than sovereignty. "For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him." If it is possible for God to NOT know what you are going to ask, and then react to it when He learns of it, then it's not the same God as the God of the Bible.

 

How does one explain God telling Hezekiah he was going to die...but after hearing Hezekiah's prayer granting him another 15 years? Either God really wasn't going to kill Hezekiah initially and lied...He was pretending so that He could grant Hezekiah 15 more years knowing he would ask...or He heard Hezekiah's prayer and granted him what he asked (while remaining totally sovereign, I might add).

This is the whole time element we humans will never understand. I realize God is omnitemporal, but how He reacts to finite beings within time is a mystery.

 

My pleasure. I get weary of some of these blanket statements without support. In another thread, he stated that a choice is not a choice unless "no" is a possibility. I challenged that, and he ran away then, too.

That saddens me because I believe I asked a legitimate question, and it relates directly to this topic of irresistible grace. If God's grace is irresistible in the sense that EVERYONE who receives it will find it so desirable that they would never say, "no", then why is that NOT a choice? They weren't forced. They simply did what was natural - they chose what they found to be irresistibly desirable.

Is your (not you, personally, the editorial "you") definition of "choice" so important that you would really tell God to make enlightenment less desirable so that some people will say "no" and go to hell? Is that the only way you'd be satisfied that it was really a choice?

I maintain that it is a legitimate, hostility-free question. But still, no answer.

 

You asked a question and then almost answered it. Do you think any of the Bible was inspired to show men what God is saying in a way that we could understand it?

 

...

Y'all are just talking past one another not even willing to consciene parts of each side that might be right.

I go back to my answer to Jarthur - that God decrees/counsel is informed by His foreknowledge. It could hardly be the other way around because it would contradict the very definition of foreknowledge.

For instance: Let's say that God decrees/foreordains that He will love Joe. Joe who? He hasn't even considered anything about Joe. All God has done is decree Joe is "elect." And yet He foreknows/"foreloves" him? Again, He doesn't "know" anything if His decree precedes His knowledge.

skypair

 

Sorry.............................. :laugh:

 

I appreciate apologies beforehand. :laugh: In what way did you think you could offend me??

skypair

 

Offense? To write something and then change your mind is offensive? Oh well. To be Calvinist is offensive to you.

 

God uses means. The prayers of His people are one of those means. God didn't need to tell Hezekiah that he was going to die. He doesn't usually do that for people. But he did with Hezekiah who then prayed and beseeched the Lord for more time. The praying was for Hezekiah's benefit, not for God's(in a sense). Prayer changes us, it shows us our dependance on God. We have to pray, we don't have anywhere else to turn. So it is a means that God uses to accomplish His will and also brings glory to Himself(that's the benefit for God, if you understand what I mean)
We pray, we plead, we depend and He delights in hearing and answering according to His will. It was His will that Hezekiah pray and rely on Him and He graciously responded in a way that not only positively answered Hezekiah, but it furthered Hezekiah's praise and glory for His Creator and Sustainer.

 

So according to what you wrote above:
1) God is informed then by something outside of Himself, not His own counsel or decree, or to use Alex's word, "mentality".
2) His knowledge of what will happen is based on the creature and creaturely events.

I think that you will find that your statements will bring you into disagreement with even some of the non-Calvinists here.

 

If I remember correctly.... sky does not think God knows of an event or person until that event or person actually exists.

 

I love skypair theology. God rolls the dice, sees that it comes up eleven, and then decides what to do about it.