In Christ, Eph 1:4: A question for Reformed Baptists

[reformedbeliever]

As I have stated before, I believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnitemporal God. Our soteriology is looked at from a finite stance, while soteriology is looked at by God from an infinite stance. I think you know this already from the threads on God being outside of time, but are only looking to demean me. I believe I have even asked you at what specific point in "eternity past" did God elect you. I don't recall your answer.

How would I know at what point in eternity past that God elected me, and why would that be important? It was before the foundation of the world. I know you have a problem with the term eternity past... but that is your problem. That term is used by theologians on both sides of the issue.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Now webdog... are you going to show us how your view that God elected due to foresight is not fatalistic, or will you dodge the question again. Why not take up where Richard left off?

 

[webdog]

I have heard it all now.

James, I take it you are not blind. ARe you omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent? Please explain how the physical act of seeing DOES encompass all of the above?!?

 

[webdog]

Now webdog... are you going to show us how your view that God elected due to foresight is not fatalistic, or will you dodge the question again. Why not take up where Richard left off?

First, please represent what I believe accurately as you have been told numerous times. I don't believe God elects due to "foresight", so it's irrelevant for me to even touch on fatalism, as my beliefs don't reflect that.

 

[reformedbeliever]

First, please represent what I believe accurately as you have been told numerous times. I don't believe God elects due to "foresight", so it's irrelevant for me to even touch on fatalism, as my beliefs don't reflect that.

I have asked you numerous time to tell us just what it is that you believe. You keep saying that we know....... why don't you tell us?

 

[webdog]

I have asked you numerous time to tell us just what it is that you believe. You keep saying that we know....... why don't you tell us?

*sigh* Use your search function and go back through the many God and time threads.

 

[reformedbeliever]

*sigh* Use your search function and go back through the many God and time threads.

I'm sorry friend.... but that simply is not worth my time.

 

[webdog]

I'm sorry friend.... but that simply is not worth my time.

Mine neither, the reason I wanted you to do the search and not me

But at any rate, I have given my beliefs on this matter.

 

[DHK]

First, please represent what I believe accurately as you have been told numerous times. I don't believe God elects due to "foresight", so it's irrelevant for me to even touch on fatalism, as my beliefs don't reflect that.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that he "elects according to foreknowledge," which is the expression used here in 1 Peter 1:2

1 Peter 1:2 [Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

God did not elect arbitrarily as some Calvinists seem to believe. He elected according to his foreknowledge--the knowledge that he before the world even began that he knew who would believe and who wouldn't. Free choice was still there. But God did not force any one to receive or reject Christ. He only knew ahead what man would do. That in no way is electing some to heaven and consigining others to hell as many Calvinists believe.

 

[Rippon]

DHK , come on . You know better than to believe that trite stuff . Do you or do you not believe that man is dead in sin ? If one is dead in sin -- he can not turn to God on his own . The Lord doesn't look into the future and make a decision based on a person's response . Tom Butler said somewhere that God is not responsive -- but proactive . No one can turn to Jesus unless the father draws him . I believe in a God-centewred theology .

 

[reformedbeliever]

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that he "elects according to foreknowledge," which is the expression used here in 1 Peter 1:2

1 Peter 1:2 [Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

God did not elect arbitrarily as some Calvinists seem to believe. He elected according to his foreknowledge--the knowledge that he before the world even began that he knew who would believe and who wouldn't. Free choice was still there. But God did not force any one to receive or reject Christ. He only knew ahead what man would do. That in no way is electing some to heaven and consigining others to hell as many Calvinists believe.

Maybe I misunderstand what moderators functions are. It seems you would be up to date on the debates on foreknowledge and what that terms means. Those who hold your position are stating that the word means foresight, or prescience.
The Calvinist view is that it is an intimate knowledge of an individual. We believe that knowledge starts with God's perfect knowledge... He is the first cause. Not mere foresight.

I've addressed this in the thread "what is fatalism". I believe that those who hold to the prescience or foresight view are lead to a fatalistic doctrine. Either way, it seems you would be up to date on what we are debating, but I could be wrong. I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.:jesus:

 

[DHK]

DHK , come on . You know better than to believe that trite stuff . Do you or do you not believe that man is dead in sin ? If one is dead in sin -- he can not turn to God on his own . The Lord doesn't look into the future and make a decision based on a person's response . Tom Butler said somewhere that God is not responsive -- but proactive . No one can turn to Jesus unless the father draws him . I believe in a God-centewred theology .

All that I did is give a simple exposition of 1Pet.1:2. It is what the Bible says. Call it trite if you wish. I prefer to believe the Bible over your opinion or over one man's system of theology who was as far away from Baptist as one could possibly be.

 

[DHK]

I've addressed this in the thread "what is fatalism". I believe that those who hold to the prescience or foresight view are lead to a fatalistic doctrine. Either way, it seems you would be up to date on what we are debating, but I could be wrong. I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.:jesus:

I don't have time to read all the threads, but do look into most of them from time to time, and sometimes voice my opinion. When I do, I certainly confess my guilt in not going back and reading some 20 pages of what has been previously written. But I do thank you for clarifying terms.
I don't believe either of the positions you describe can lead to a fatalistic doctrine. That is too extreme of a position. The Muslim religion, of which I am acquainted with, believes in a fatalistic God, Allah. Our God is not fatalistic, but vitally concerned in each and every aspect of the affairs of our lives. He is not impersonal like Allah, but very personal, so much so that we may have a personal relationship with Him, and are encouraged to grow in grace and knowledge. There is nothing that is fatalistic about that. The fact that God knows ahead of time does nothing to change these facts.

 

[J.D.]

Well I've gotten myself quite a headache tonight trying to read all the posts in this thread.

If "examiningcalvinism" is still out there (I know he's busy writing books and stuff) I would like to ask him a question.

I assume your whole premise to your "in Christ" election theory is that one becomes "in Christ" by choosing to believe in him. Now we know there's nothing new about the corporate election theory. But here is my question. What do the following verses tell us about how one might come to be "in Christ"?


2 Cor 1:21 Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God;

1 Cor 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that he "elects according to foreknowledge," which is the expression used here in 1 Peter 1:2

1 Peter 1:2 [Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

God did not elect arbitrarily as some Calvinists seem to believe. He elected according to his foreknowledge--the knowledge that he before the world even began that he knew who would believe and who wouldn't. Free choice was still there. But God did not force any one to receive or reject Christ. He only knew ahead what man would do. That in no way is electing some to heaven and consigining others to hell as many Calvinists believe.

Why do you think Calvinist believe that God elects arbitrarily? That is a false misrepresentation. We believe that He elects according to His gracious will. He elects because He knows what is good for those who love Him.

We agree that God sovereignly knows who will believe before the world began..... before man had done any good or bad. God knows what we will do before we do it (psalms 139). That knowledge is supernatural right? If God knows what man will do, and He does, then could man do differently than what God knows man will do? Not if God is all knowing. Therefore man really has no choice in what he will do.... because God's perfect knowledge dictates what man will do.... they can not do what God perfectly knows they will not do. How is this different than Calvinism?

The difference I see between God decreeing what will be due to foresight, or God determining what man will do is this.
Foresight is God only determining what man will do because of what He forsees man doing.
God determining what man will do because His perfect plan is God centered. It is for His glory and for His will. That is Calvinism.

Now you tell me.... if one is fatalistic.... so is the other. How is it different if man can not choose differently than what God knows He will choose?

 

[webdog]

Why do you think Calvinist believe that God elects arbitrarily? That is a false misrepresentation. We believe that He elects according to His gracious will. He elects because He knows what is good for those who love Him.

...which if conditioned on nothing but His will, makes it arbitrary.

Now you tell me.... if one is fatalistic.... so is the other. How is it different if man can not choose differently than what God knows He will choose?

God's witnessing and seeing who chooses doesn't mean He caused them to choose that which they did. After the fact, no, man cannot choose differently than how God knew he would, but that is obvious.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Quote:
Why do you think Calvinist believe that God elects arbitrarily? That is a false misrepresentation. We believe that He elects according to His gracious will. He elects because He knows what is good for those who love Him.

...which if conditioned on nothing but His will, makes it arbitrary.

Finish reading.... He elects because He knows what is good for those who love Him. (His elect) But if you want to say if He elects simply due to His right to make vessels as He see fit... as arbitrary.... your choice. I'll not reply to God like that.

Quote:
Now you tell me.... if one is fatalistic.... so is the other. How is it different if man can not choose differently than what God knows He will choose?

God's witnessing and seeing who chooses doesn't mean He caused them to choose that which they did. After the fact, no, man cannot choose differently than how God knew he would, but that is obvious.

No, it is not obvious. The bible does not say after the fact.... read Psalms 139.... it says before. You keep up with the same lame arguments webdog. Do you think repeating them will make them correct?

I understand that God is present in the future.... way after we have chosen what we choose. But I am in the present... and His perfect knowlege will still cause me to choose the way He knows I will choose. Changes nothing.

 

[webdog]

Finish reading.... He elects because He knows what is good for those who love Him.

Where is this in Scripture?

(His elect) But if you want to say if He elects simply due to His right to make vessels as He see fit... as arbitrary.... your choice. I'll not reply to God like that.

His election is never arbitrary, if anything calvinism makes His election arbitrary. He has a purpose for everything. If, as calvinism teaches, He elects individuals to salvation, not conditioned on anything (the "U" in your flower), this is in fact arbitrary.

No, it is not obvious. The bible does not say after the fact.... read Psalms 139.... it says before.

Now you are erecting strawmen. I neve claimed the Bible said that.

You keep up with the same lame arguments webdog. Do you think repeating them will make them correct?

...and we now resort to kindergarten behavior. Nice.

I understand that God is present in the future.... way after we have chosen what we choose. But I am in the present... and His perfect knowlege will still cause me to choose the way He knows I will choose. Changes nothing.

Read this again and you will see how truly ridiculous this statment is. His knowledge causes you to choose? When you choose to sin, are you helpless to not sin because His knowledge caused you to choose? This sounds awfully hyperC to me.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Where is this in Scripture?

His election is never arbitrary, if anything calvinism makes His election arbitrary. He has a purpose for everything. If, as calvinism teaches, He elects individuals to salvation, not conditioned on anything (the "U" in your flower), this is in fact arbitrary.

Now you are erecting strawmen. I neve claimed the Bible said that.

...and we now resort to kindergarten behavior. Nice.

Read this again and you will see how truly ridiculous this statment is. His knowledge causes you to choose? When you choose to sin, are you helpless to not sin because His knowledge caused you to choose? This sounds awfully hyperC to me.

Can I choose to do what God knows I will not do? Prove it.

 

[webdog]

You are evading the questions and points I'm trying to make.
The burden of proof is on you to show that God's knowledge causes your choices. Be careful with that, as you may very well make God out to be the cause of your sin becaue He "knows" what you are going to do.