His determinate counsel

[webdog]

Hmmmm........ according to Allan, God has to learn who will believe, and then elect them. I don't think so.

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

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

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.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

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.

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"?

They fit perfectly.

Please explain how.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Usually the particular meaning a word has in a particular situation is clearly specified by the grammatical constructions in which it occurs. Modern linguists refer to this as syntactic sign of meaning. Thus the same word stone may appear in one sentence as a noun, but in another as a verb. In these instances, then, the meaning of the term is indicated by the grammar, that is, by the syntactic construction.
In other situations, the meaning of the word may be marked by the interaction of that word with the meaning of the terms which surround it. This is called the semotactic sign of meaning. The key element here is not the grammatical use of the word, but a striking application of that word in a totally new context, with the result that a new meaning is conveyed.--pg. 105, bolded emphasis mine, italics are from original

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

Semotactic marking refers to the determination of the meaning of an English word by some other words in the sentence, which form the semotactic environment for that word. In other words, the context, built up by the words prior to or following the word, can often provide clues as to what the word means.

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.

 

[reformedbeliever]

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.

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.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

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.

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.

2) God saves by election those God knows WILL believe as He gives the choice.

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?

3) Once decreed the knowledge of their choice is established and is in perfect harmony with God's ALL of God other decrees.

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?

The choice is made BECAUSE of His decree and not the decree made becaus of choice.

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

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).

not sure what this means.

It is only a non-choice when you have no other option. In your view even the saved do not have choice.

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.

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.

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.

 

[npetreley]

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.

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

 

[reformedbeliever]

How so? You continue to refuse to explain or back up your statement about how a description of man's choice is in direct contradiction to irresistible grace. You listed a bunch of verses with no quotes or explanation. That is exactly what I said, and it's all true.



I beg to differ. RB said this.



To which you replied...



I find the statement, "it here it is in direct conflict with irresistible grace" to be outrageous. I even explained that "irresistible" can be interpreted more than one way (which needs no scripture to understand or defend). But you stand by the statement without any support for it other than a handful of scripture references with no quotes or explanation.

Back it up. Explain why it must be in direct conflict with irresistible grace. Use scripture to support your statement WITH explanation as to WHY the scripture supports your statement. Or just cry "you're hostile" and run away. Whatever.

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.

 

[webdog]

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

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

 

[reformedbeliever]

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?

 

[npetreley]

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

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.

 

[webdog]

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.

 

[npetreley]

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.

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.

 

[reformedbeliever]

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.

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?

 

[skypair]

...

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

 

[reformedbeliever]

...

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 instructed 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:

 

[skypair]

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

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

skypair

 

[reformedbeliever]

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.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

How does one explain God telling Hezekiah he was going to die...but after hearing Hezekiah's prayer granting him another 15 years?

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.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

...

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

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.

 

[reformedbeliever]

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.

 

[npetreley]

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.