His determinate counsel

[npetreley]

No one can, Nor can anyone resist Gods decision to will that man must choose

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

 

[Allan]

If "know" is intellectual knowledge of, then when Jesus says, "I never knew [ginosko] you", does that mean Jesus was ignorant of their existence?

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

 

[Allan]

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

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

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

 

[npetreley]

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

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.

 

[Allan]

I agree. And I asked this very thing on the now closed "who did Christ die for" thread.
NEVER is the key word

Mat 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

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).

Mat 7:24 ¶ Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

Mat 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

Mat 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

Mat 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

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.

 

[Allan]

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.

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.

 

[Jarthur001]

This knowing here is based upon something which identifies them as those whom He knows.

Allan,


Even you must laugh at this line. You based you whole post on this line, and it is useless.

which know is it...
1) did Christ not have knowledge of or learn of them?
2) did Christ not understand them?
3) did Christ not have a close PERSONAL intimate love for them?
4) did Christ not get acquainted with them to know what they were like?

2. ginōskō:
1) to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of, perceive, feel
....a) to become known

2) to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of
....a) to understand
....b) to know

3) Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman

4) to become acquainted with, to know

 

[Allan]

Allan,


Even you must laugh at this line. You based you whole post on this line, and it is useless.

which know is it...
1) did Christ not have knowledge of or learn of them?
2) did Christ not understand them?
3) did Christ not have a close PERSONAL intimate love for them?
4) did Christ not get acquainted with them to know what they were like?

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

Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman

And yours:

...a close PERSONAL intimate love for them

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:

Gen 38:16 And he turned unto her by the way, and said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; (for he knew not that she [was] his daughter in law.) And she said, What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me?

Gen 38:26 And Judah acknowledged [them], and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.

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

Jdg 19:25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

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

 

[Jarthur001]

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.

I have to disagree with this. Allan and the non-Calvinist has said many many times now, along with some freewillers, like webdog, That it works this way.

1) God saves by election because God foresees which man will believe.
2) Next, God decrees all believes to believe
3) Once decreed, there is no choice. That man or lady WILL believe and be saved.

the 1st cause of all this action was MAN believing. Its all up to man, and God only carries out mans will to believe.

Likewise the hell bound sinner is this way.

1) God does not elect because God foresees who will not believe.
2) Next, God decrees all non-believes not to believe.
3) Once decreed, that hell bound sinner will never believe.

The 1st cause of all this action was MAN not believing. Its all up to man, and God only carries out mans will not to believe.

As part of Gods salvation plan, God sent His Son to die as a atonement for sins.

1) The atonement has the power to wash away all the sins of the people.
2) Man has the power to stop this atonement from happening to them.
3) The saving power of Christ blood saves sometimes.

The power of salvation is in the hand of man. Its all up to man, and God only carries out mans will.

Where as Calvinist say...

1) God decrees...
2) It happens...


Of the two systems....which gives man all the power...and which gives God all the power?

 

[Jarthur001]

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 a distortion for the purpose fudging scripture in the hopes of making your non scriptural point.

You are going by strongs only. I can back my claims. I used this only because you posted it.

For now that is beside the point.

which is it.....

which know is it...
1) did Christ not have knowledge of or learn of them?
2) did Christ not understand them?
3) did Christ not have a close PERSONAL intimate love for them?
4) did Christ not get acquainted with them to know what they were like?

3 is out...


is it 1,2,4?

 

[Isaiah40:28]

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 a distortion for the purpose fudging scripture in the hopes of making your non scriptural point.

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

2. ginōskō:
1) to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of, perceive, feel
....a) to become known

2) to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of
....a) to understand
....b) to know

3) Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman

4) to become acquainted with, to know

But if you will note there is not one thing about 'love' specifically in those distinctives of the definition of knowledge.

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?

And the LORD said to Moses, "I will do the very thing you have asked, because I am pleased with you and I know you by name."

And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.

You have been rebellious against the LORD ever since I have known you.

Ye have been rebellious against the LORD from the day that I knew you.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

"You only have I chosen
of all the families of the earth;
therefore I will punish you
for all your sins."

You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.

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.

 

[Allan]

I have to disagree with this. Allan and the non-Calvinist has said many many times now, along with some freewillers, like webdog, That it works this way.

1) God saves by election because God foresees which man will believe.
2) Next, God decrees all believes to believe
3) Once decreed, there is no choice. That man or lady WILL believe and be saved.

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.

the 1st cause of all this action was MAN believing. Its all up to man, and God only carries out mans will to 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).

Likewise the hell bound sinner is this way.

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.

Of the two systems....which gives man all the power...and which gives God all the power?

And here again is proof.

 

[Allan]

You are going by strongs only. I can back my claims.

Not so far

For now that is beside the point.

which is it.....

which know is it...
1) did Christ not have knowledge of or learn of them?
2) did Christ not understand them?
3) did Christ not have a close PERSONAL intimate love for them?
4) did Christ not get acquainted with them to know what they were like?

3 is out...


is it 1,2,4?

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.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

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

 

[Allan]

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

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

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

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.

How do any of these fit with the following passages?

They fit perfectly.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Allan]

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

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.

 

[webdog]

I have to disagree with this. Allan and the non-Calvinist has said many many times now, along with some freewillers, like webdog, That it works this way.

1) God saves by election because God foresees which man will believe.
2) Next, God decrees all believes to believe
3) Once decreed, there is no choice. That man or lady WILL believe and be saved.

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.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

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.

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.

 

[reformedbeliever]

I have to disagree with this. Allan and the non-Calvinist has said many many times now, along with some freewillers, like webdog, That it works this way.

1) God saves by election because God foresees which man will believe.
2) Next, God decrees all believes to believe
3) Once decreed, there is no choice. That man or lady WILL believe and be saved.

the 1st cause of all this action was MAN believing. Its all up to man, and God only carries out mans will to believe.

Likewise the hell bound sinner is this way.

1) God does not elect because God foresees who will not believe.
2) Next, God decrees all non-believes not to believe.
3) Once decreed, that hell bound sinner will never believe.

The 1st cause of all this action was MAN not believing. Its all up to man, and God only carries out mans will not to believe.

As part of Gods salvation plan, God sent His Son to die as a atonement for sins.

1) The atonement has the power to wash away all the sins of the people.
2) Man has the power to stop this atonement from happening to them.
3) The saving power of Christ blood saves sometimes.

The power of salvation is in the hand of man. Its all up to man, and God only carries out mans will.

Where as Calvinist say...

1) God decrees...
2) It happens...


Of the two systems....which gives man all the power...and which gives God all the power?

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

 

[reformedbeliever]

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: