His determinate counsel

If God "wills" for man to do the choosing, then God has abdicated His sovereignty over that decision.

 

Who ever stated that 'know' [ginosko] ONLY meant intellectual knowledge. :BangHead:

 

Tell God that, He willed it, or I should say "decreed it"

But I guess you are able to resist God's will.

 

In your theology, He decreed that you would decide. After that, it was up to you. Therefore, He was not sovereign in your decision - He was only sovereign over the fact that you had to decide for yourself.

 

The word 'knew' here does not mean, I never loved them, nor that He never had any intellectual knowledge of them. This knowing here is based upon something which identifies them as those whom He knows. That is obeying the Fathers will and these people were told to depart because they were working (continuing in) lawlessness. But those whom He knows were obeying the will of the Father just as Christ came not to do His own will but the will of Him who sent Him - The Father.

So why is the 'NEVER' so important. Becuase these people claim to BE His but Christ says they never WERE His to begin with. They were doing what THEY wanted under the assumption they were doing it in or by His authority. He makes a very clear statement that these people were NOT some who were His but they fell away . No, He clears the arena of ANY such thoughts by stating they did not fall away and therefore are no longer mine because they messed up but because I never knew them. Thus the context regarding knowing is attrbuted to those who obey God through which we enjoy fellowship with Christ as opposed to disobedience proving there was never any fellowship. Why? Because if there WAS fellowship, they would have continued in it and obedience, thus the preceding illistration of trees bearing fruit and the Gate(s).

YOu can't get anymore specific about choice than in the above, straight from Christ.
If any man hears.. and does.. I will consider ... wise
If any man hears.. and does not.. I will consider ... foolish


EDITTED IN - Apparently there are aspects of the Fathers will that can be obeyed AND disobeyed.

 

LOL :laugh:

Dude chill, I was having fun pushing your buttons.

No matter if God decrees all of creation has absolute Free-will (libertarian - of which I disagree with) He will STILL remain soveriegn even in that. God doesn't need you or me to define what makes Him soveriegn or more soveriegn (in our eyes) and what removes it from Him (as if anything can). He does what He does as He likes due to and because of His Soveriegnty.

 

Apparently your love for distortion continues with your #3.
Let us look at it closely, shall we:
The correct one:

And yours:

Sorry James, not even close to a proper rendering.

It is NOT about close PERSONAL intimate 'love' but IS about being intimate in a SEXUAL manner.
Therefore your rendering of #3 is purely a distortion to try to make it 'mean' love.
As in:

No love was in this, just lust.
Or this one:

Again, No love here, just rape.
As well as others. I'm just making my point brother, that is all.

 

Allan, I don't think you've accounted for all the uses of "know" with these defintions.

What is the difference between #1,2, and 4.
They all seem to be imply a simple cognition or awareness of something or someone.

How do any of these fit with the following passages?

I would say in the passages that I referenced above just from the OT, God's "knowing" of certain people or nations can certainly be rendered as a "love" or "affection" and even "appointed". In the NT, there are passages we could look at that imply the same relationship found in the OT with God and His people.
I think there is room to expand the definition to include God's knowledge of some to be spoken as a "covenantal knowing". Those with whom He is in covenant with from the OT to the NT is a form of "knowing" for God.

 

AGAIN WRONG.
Your as bad as Dave Hunt, do you know that?
Your 1 is false - foresees (no has declared this)
Your 2 is false - God does not decree all believers to believe (that is YOUR view)
Your 3 is false - since it is based on your #2 which is in fact your own view and not ours.

IF an order could be assumed, since there IS NO BIBLICAL ORDER. It might be put in general:
1) God decrees He will save man by His grace through faith.
2) God saves by election those God knows WILL believe as He gives the choice.
3) Once decreed the knowledge of their choice is established and is in perfect harmony with God's ALL of God other decrees.

The choice is made BECAUSE of His decree and not the decree made becaus of choice. In so being it REMAINS a choice regardless of God's knowledge and decreeing it to be just as He Knows (as opposed to it now being a non-choice). It is only a non-choice when you have no other option. In your view even the saved do not have choice. As a sinner you will not believe because God will not make him, and as one born again (in your view) one does not have a choice NOT to beleive. There IS NO choice in your view because God does not give a choice. Again, One is bound for heaven because God makes him believe and that other is bound for hell because (as you say) God will not make man believe.

Wrong Yet AGAIN. The 1st cause of this action is Gods decree to save man by grace through faith in God and His word (written and Christ).

If you mean my definition then you bet.

Actually the rest as well as the above is simply empty rhetoric meant to inflame either due to purposeful misrepresentation or honest ignorance because you will not listen.

And here again is proof.

 

Not so far

James, your renderings of the meanings are...inaccurate IMO.

1) did Christ come to know them (as in or like a basic knowledge they even exist)
2) did Christ fully know of them and or have a complete understanding of them
4) did Christ just become aquainted with them but is still in the learning stages.

If we can agree on these, I would say it would be #2.

BTW - I simply used the Strongs as a common ground and it is not incorrect here.

 

Wow. I'm glad you posted this, Allan. I been trying to figure out what your exact position is.

 

Please show what definition I have missed that is in accordance with its common held or "known" meanings. :laugh: Sorry, couldn't resist.

That would be overly simplistic. But basically it is this:

1) did Christ come to know them (as in or like a basic knowledge they even exist)
2) did Christ fully know of them and or have a complete understanding of them
4) did Christ just become aquainted with them but is still in the learning stages.

They fit perfectly.

The problem with that is you are basing it upon a preconceived idea that is what it MEANS, and secondly that your opinion (no offense) can change it's meaning. I have not disputed love can be implied in the word 'know, known' but that is NOT the meaning of the word and should not be and nay can not be substituted for a proper rendering of the word.

Wrong. There is no room to redifine words that have been established for a few thousand years. It is what it is because it is a dead language (not commonly used anymore) and therefore no new definitions can nor will come into play except that which it is already established.

 

Actually, you can not get my 'exact' position from my posting in this thread.
Me and James (and some others) are dialoging on one level - perceptions and false ideas of anothers views and on a seperate but more reletive to the thread the specifics of what God knew, how He knew it, and why He knew it.

I state it can not be fully known other than God foreknew and elected/decreed.

 

Please supply the quote where I have everstated the above...but I won't be holding my breath. Also, define the difference between the non-cal and a "free willer" like myself. James, from two years you know what I believe, but continue to misrepresent that. That's deliberate...not ignorance. That's lying.

 

Don't worry I wouldn't pin your "exact" position on just one post.
But that post does contribute to my understanding of your position.
And that's what I meant.

 

Hmmmm........ according to Allan, God has to learn who will believe, and then elect them. I don't think so. Why would God elect someone who is going to believe anyway? Does not make sense. God is present at the beginning and at the end of time, all at once. He is present right now, at the end. God's perfect knowledge is His perfect will. What He knows to be will be. Get over it.

edited to add. Not everyone gets to hear the Gospel. What about those who God knew would never hear? Here comes webdog to say that you can not prove it.......lol. Ok web, if God just supernaturally saves those who never had the ability to hear..... welcome to Calvinism

 

Lets forget time and chronological order. Imagine time being multiplied to where it passes one million times faster than what we experience. Lets just forget time altogether. Lets just look at a person's life in totality. Either they were believers or they were not. God is in control. God is still God whether they believe or not. With God it is all a done deal. He is seeing our lives in totality. There is no changing what we are, after it is finished. With God, it is finished. His determinate counsel stands. What are you going to be? What does God see as your life in totality right now? The responsibility is ours.... God's decrees are His decrees and they will stand. Both are true. See? I've got it all figured out! :laugh: I wish...... no wait... if I did I probably wouldn't like it, and we probably would argue about it.... seeing as how we are Baptist. :thumbs: