How long have you studied election?

Hi Larry, you say:

"Show us this from Scripture. Your own post didn't even prove this, much less Scripture. Why do you never use Scripture to support your view? CAn you show any place in Scripture where election comes after faith and repentance? Many people have said that it does, but no one has yet been able to show where God said that."

I refer you to 1 Peter 1:3, which reads:

"elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience..."

Our English "unto" here is from the Greek preposition, "eis", which here would be more correctly rendered, "because of". So, the text reads: "elect...becuse of obedience (faith)"

Can you receive this?

 

Incorrect. This is not a causal eis, a use which most likely does not even exist.

This is clearly a purpose or intended result. Elect unto obedience, or for the purpose of obedience. That fits in with the rest of Scripture and with the meaning of the Greek language.

If you think about your position, it is absurd. Election is said to be from the foundation of the world. How in the world were non-existent people obedient before the foundation of the world?

There is no translation that I know of that translates it as you wish to, and for obvious reasons ... it is illegitimate to do such.

So, No, I can't receive that because it is wrong on a number of different levels, both grammatically and theologically.

 

Please, show us one single translation that renders it that way....

If that's how eis is more correctly rendered, then at least one translation committee must have rendered it that way, right?

 

Define it as you understand it and maybe I'll respond! </font>[/QUOTE]Conditional Election:

Election is conditioned on the foreknown response of an individual to choose to come to Christ. God has enabled all to come to him, but only those who will choose have been elected for salvation.

Or, put another way...

God has elected (based on foreknowledge) those who have willingly chosen Christ.

 

BTW, I'm completely with you on the eis argument.

However, your question is not unanswerable.

1. God is eternal.
2. God has complete foreknowledge.
3. Any event which will ever occur has always been known by God (from 1 & 2).
4. Election is prior to temporal existence (from the foundation of the world).
5. Election is possible based on foreknowledge of future events (from 3 and 4).

 

Please, show us one single translation that renders it that way....

If that's how eis is more correctly rendered, then at least one translation committee must have rendered it that way, right? </font>[/QUOTE]Like Larry, you also display your ignorance of Greek grammar.

Take a loot at Acts 2:38, "...and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins..."

The "Church of Christ" cult, uses this text as one of their "proof texts" that teach "Baptismal Regeneration", based solely on the rendering of the Greek preposition "eis" which is used here. Though the English versions have "for" here, it is quite clear that "because of" is the correct rendering. It is "because of" their repenting from their sins, which saved them, that they were baptised.

There is no problem with this, as it is because of their obedience to the Truth, and accepting of Jesus as their Saviour, they were "elected", based on the "foreknowledge" of God.

 

Cute. And anyone who actually knows Greek knows full well which one of the three--Larry, you, or me--is more ignorant of Greek grammar.

The English versions all have "for" there because that's how it OUGHT to be rendered. It would be really nice for those of us who don't believe in baptismal regeneration if it were "quite clear" that is was more properly rendered "because of", but it isn't.

Isn't it just a wee bit pompous to put oneself in opposition to the word choice of every single committee of every single English translation in these two texts of scripture?

It's also interesting that when you were asked to come up with one place in Scripture where election comes after faith and repentance, the only one you can come up with is one where you have to translate the verse differently than all English translations do, because all English translations say just the opposite of what you want them to: they say that election is TO obedience? That obedience is A RESULT OF election?

 

Which, as I pointed out, removes the whole notion of free will, since man can't do anything except what God knows he will already do. On to of that, such an understanding of "foreknowledge" is contrary to what it actually means.

 

Cute. And anyone who actually knows Greek knows full well which one of the three--Larry, you, or me--is more ignorant of Greek grammar.

The English versions all have "for" there because that's how it OUGHT to be rendered. It would be really nice for those of us who don't believe in baptismal regeneration if it were "quite clear" that is was more properly rendered "because of", but it isn't.

Isn't it just a wee bit pompous to put oneself in opposition to the word choice of every single committee of every single English translation in these two texts of scripture?

It's also interesting that when you were asked to come up with one place in Scripture where election comes after faith and repentance, the only one you can come up with is one where you have to translate the verse differently than all English translations do, because all English translations say just the opposite of what you want them to: they say that election is TO obedience? That obedience is A RESULT OF election? </font>[/QUOTE]Check Dr A T Robertson on the use of "eis" in Acts 2:38, and you will see that I am right in its use! So there. http://www.biblecentre.net/nt/atr/1/mtac-Index.html

 

Ignorance of the Greek language? Yeah, right ... The causal eis may exist, but it's existence is disputed as you should know.

You cite Robertson. Did you look at his comments on 1 Peter 1:2? You probably don't like him that much ... Becuase he appears to agree with everyone else against you. Can't you find any support for your position on this verse?

Face it icthus. This is not support for your position. You know that. You are desperately reaching after straws in hopes that no one actually knows the truth. It won't work.

 

Which, as I pointed out, removes the whole notion of free will, since man can't do anything except what God knows he will already do. On to of that, such an understanding of "foreknowledge" is contrary to what it actually means. </font>[/QUOTE]Larry, I sometime wonder about what you are on about, as you make no sense.

Care to explain why, just because God has foreknowledge of all events that will take place, that this "removes the whole notion of free will"? What has God's forknowledge go to do with our free will? Why sould this mean that our wills are not free? Let me ask you this. Did God always have foreknowledge of all events, or did this begin with, say Creation, or after the fall? It is very clear from Scripture that our first parents had free will, and chose to disobey God's command. There is not a single hint anywhere in Scripture that even suggests that we lost our free will when man fell in Adam.

One more thing old chap , what do you make of what Peter says in 2 Peter 1:10, that we ought to "make our calling and election sure"? Is this because that there is a possibility that there could be some doubt about this? Surely this is strange language if it means nothing. Don't you agree?

 

ATR was a Calvinist. I note what he says on the Peter use of "eis", but don't agree. I refer to him for the use of "eis", and not his theology.

 

You are one of the very few who struggle. If you read carefully, you will find it very easy to understand.

We had this discussion earlier. Since God's knowledge is eternal and infallible, everything he knows must come to pass. If he knows that Joe will commit adultery, Joe has no free will, as you define it, to change his mind. He has to commit adultery, otherwise, God's knowledge would be wrong.

However, you could escape that dastardly conclusion simply be defining free will properly, as the ability to do what is in accordance with one's nature. That doesn't take away the problem of Joe not having any other choice. He still doesn't, but his will is not coerced. He is acting freely to commit adultery.

God's knowledge is eternal. Don't misuse "foreknowledge" however. It refers to God's choice, not merely to knowing something ahead of time (cf. Rom 11:2).

yes, they had free will.

I agree ... Our will is free to do whatever we want to. That is why unsaved man does not seek God and cannot please God. He does not will to.

There absolutely can be doubt about our knowledge of our election and calling. God doesn't doubt it, but we certainly may doubt it. The point of 2 Peter is to make sure you are growing so that you can have assurance of your calling to salvation. We have hashed that out before as well. Nothing new there.

 

Larry, you say,

"God's knowledge is eternal. Don't misuse "foreknowledge" however. It refers to God's choice, not merely to knowing something ahead of time (cf. Rom 11:2)"

Where in this passage in Romans do you read that foreknowledge=choice?

 

Which, as I pointed out, removes the whole notion of free will, since man can't do anything except what God knows he will already do. On to of that, such an understanding of "foreknowledge" is contrary to what it actually means. </font>[/QUOTE]Foreknowledge does not equal predestination.

For instance: Let's say a girl sees two turkey sandwiches, both equidistant from her, and the sandwiches are identical. There is nothing about one sandwich that makes her choose it over another. Nevertheless, she is hungry, so she chooses one.

She had the ability to eat either sandwich.

What caused her to eat the sandwich she chose? She exercised her will to choose one over the other--all things were equal, so she was not forced.

Now, God knew from eternity that she would choose that specific sandwich. Was she able to choose the other sandwich? YES!

God's knowledge was not the cause of her action; God's knowledge was contigent on her action. God's knowledge of a future action is contigent upon the action's future existence (i.e. if there is no future, there can be no knowledge of it; similarly, God cannot know of a square triangle because it does not, nor will it ever exist).

To test this hypothesis, let's remove God from the equation. In an atheistic situation(everything exactly the same but without God), would the girl have chosen differently? If all things were equal, then the girl would have still chosen the same sandwich.

She did not choose the sandwich because God knew she would. God knew she would because she chose the sandwich.

 

And? You found one person who suggests a causal "eis" in Acts 2:38 (not even the verse in question, BTW), and on the basis of this one example--not from a translation committee--you are going to try to argue that the "eis" in 1 Peter 1:2 is a causal "eis"? And all this is because 1 Peter 1:2 is the only verse in the whole Bible that you can find to twist in some sort of very, very, tenuous and convoluted way to say the opposite of what it actually says in order to answer Larry's challenge for you to find one place in Scripture where election comes after faith and repentance?

I'm awarding you this year's Dave Hunt award for excellence in argumentation.

 

And? You found one person who suggests a causal "eis" in Acts 2:38 (not even the verse in question, BTW), and on the basis of this one example--not from a translation committee--you are going to try to argue that the "eis" in 1 Peter 1:2 is a causal "eis"? And all this is because 1 Peter 1:2 is the only verse in the whole Bible that you can find to twist in some sort of very, very, tenuous and convoluted way to say the opposite of what it actually says in order to answer Larry's challenge for you to find one place in Scripture where election comes after faith and repentance?

I'm awarding you this year's Dave Hunt award for excellence in argumentation. </font>[/QUOTE]Did I say somewhere that election came after faith and repentance? No. God, through His foreknowledge elects those who will believe in the Gospel, which is exactly what Acts 2:47 says. When a person is saved, it is only then that they are added to the body of believers, which is known as "the Church", or "elected ones", or "called out ones" "the Lord added those who were baing saved daily to the elected ones". In verse 38 we are told how these were saved, after they "repented". This is the Biblical way, and the only way.

No Calvinist has ever addressed this important issue. ON WHAT BASIS DOES GOD ELECT SOMEONE TO ETERNAL LIFE? Why did God choose you then? What is it based on? Did He see something better in you than the next guy? Are you more faithful in your Christian life than the next guy would have been? What is it? can you show from Scripture what this election is based on? If it is not on the fact that the Lord foreknows those who will believe. You know what, no Calvinist can answer this. No Calvinistic theology book has answered this. Maybe you or Larry, or some other Calvinist here can.

 

Foreknowledge does not equal predestination.

For instance: Let's say a girl sees two turkey sandwiches, both equidistant from her, and the sandwiches are identical. There is nothing about one sandwich that makes her choose it over another. Nevertheless, she is hungry, so she chooses one.

She had the ability to eat either sandwich.

What caused her to eat the sandwich she chose? She exercised her will to choose one over the other--all things were equal, so she was not forced.

Now, God knew from eternity that she would choose that specific sandwich. Was she able to choose the other sandwich? YES!

God's knowledge was not the cause of her action; God's knowledge was contigent on her action. God's knowledge of a future action is contigent upon the action's future existence (i.e. if there is no future, there can be no knowledge of it; similarly, God cannot know of a square triangle because it does not, nor will it ever exist).

To test this hypothesis, let's remove God from the equation. In an atheistic situation(everything exactly the same but without God), would the girl have chosen differently? If all things were equal, then the girl would have still chosen the same sandwich.

She did not choose the sandwich because God knew she would. God knew she would because she chose the sandwich. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Well put. Not hard to understand. I don't think calvinist will pay any attention to this illustration though. They will go right by it and start a strawman.

 

In response, this is simply the Ockhamist solution and there is no need to bypass this solution and start a "strawman." However, this may be fine and good for human actions. My problems with this old medieval theory is how God can foresee His own actions and yet the truthmaker for His foreknowledge of His own actions happens when He acts. This seems to strain libertarian freedom for Him because how can God help but do what He foresees doing? The other problem is that this still does not allow for God to plan things. Jesus predicts Peter's denial, but Peter had to make Jesus' prediction true by actually denying Him. Could Peter have chosen otherwise, then what of Jesus' prediction? Other examples abound and this is why the debate continues (not to mention the open theism offshoot). No strawman needed to object to this one for me.

BJ

 

As to this quote: No Calvinist has ever addressed this important issue. ON WHAT BASIS DOES GOD ELECT SOMEONE TO ETERNAL LIFE? Why did God choose you then? What is it based on? Did He see something better in you than the next guy? Are you more faithful in your Christian life than the next guy would have been? What is it? can you show from Scripture what this election is based on? If it is not on the fact that the Lord foreknows those who will believe. You know what, no Calvinist can answer this. No Calvinistic theology book has answered this. Maybe you or Larry, or some other Calvinist here can.

Exactly right!!! Is this not unconditional election...there is no difference on the human side of things as to why God chooses one and not another. This statement shows the need for unconditional election.

Unfortunately, there is a non-sequitor here: "If it is not on the fact that the Lord foreknows those who will believe." I thought Ephesians 1:11 grounds one's election according to God's purpose of His will. Why should one speculate what God's choice is based on "like foreseen faith" when it is clearly addressed in Scripture?

regards,
BJ