Is the "foresight of faith" view to only viable "Arminian" explanation?

[Iconoclast]

Hmmm... Those verses do not seem to be a good example for the idea that God predestines certain people to be saved and I don't think you'll get disagreement from Arms that we are adopted as sons.

For such a strong accusation against Skan and Winman I would think you'd provide some red meet.

HT,

the chapter divisions were added later...this whole thought actually starts in chapter 5 and runs through to the end of 8.....

the whole purpose of our calling is to be adopted/conformed to the Son/to love and serve God....

Skan/win/dhk...are trying unsucessfully to oppose this teaching......they can spin their wheels all day...but the truth stands
I could literally post all 4 chapters here.....he speaks to individuals 5:1 and to the whole group of the justified;
31What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

32He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

33Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

These three men are not looking for answers here as much as they seek to oppose....when they want an answer I will offer more.
These questions have been answered ...but they are not quite ready to hold on to those answers yet:thumbs:

 

[JesusFan]

Surprise, Surprise, a quote from the "reformed-theology.org" web site. Yeah, they aren't biased.

is what was posted concerning classic Arminian theology true or not though?

This is exactly what I've been talking about. No wonder so many go over to Calvinism, they think the foresight faith view is the only alternative. Sad!!!

That viewpoint was/is the prominent one held by xlassical Arminianism since its founding...

Your "corporate" election view was later added in, and just WHERE in the NT is THAT viewpoint upheld and versed out though?

That is like an Arminian thinking Hyperism is the only Calvinistic alternative or even that only Supra-Cal was an option...it is misrepresentative. That is why I asked for a quote FROM a so-called "classical Arminian." I need to see a direct quote from the horse's mouth!

BIG difference in that is that Hyper Cal has NEVER be recognized/seen as being the main/prominent view within calvinism, while the "foresight' view HAS been seen as being the main/prominent view until recently, when Corporate election view came into vogue!

 

[Skandelon]

is what was posted concerning classic Arminian theology true or not though?

There may be some "non-Cals" who hold to something like this and explain it in these simplistic terms, but that is why I asked for direct quotes from some Classic CAls. I think in doing so you will read their context and see there is a bit more to it than that.

That viewpoint was/is the prominent one held by xlassical Arminianism since its founding...

Your "corporate" election view was later added in, and just WHERE in the NT is THAT viewpoint upheld and versed out though?

What is your support for that? Is it true just because you say so? Find some historical or authoritative documentation supporting this and I take a look at it, otherwise I'm dismissing it as your uneducated opinion.

And corporate election was the first example of election as reflected in God choice of the nation of Israel. There is also individual election of his prophets and messengers who were chosen to take the message to the world. So, God elected to send his special revelation first to the Jew and then to the Gentile. You are the ones who later added the concept of God individually choosing individuals for salvation. There is no evidence that any of the apostolic fathers held to such a view.

BIG difference in that is that Hyper Cal has NEVER be recognized/seen as being the main/prominent view within calvinism, while the "foresight' view HAS been seen as being the main/prominent view until recently, when Corporate election view came into vogue!

Proof. I'd like to read your sources. You act as if those two view are mutually exclusive and they are not. One may hold to a corporate view of election and still explain the doctrine of predestination with 'foresight faith' view.

You might be interested to know that Hershel Hobbs, the chairman who helped write the Baptist Faith and Message held to the view that I have defended. He uses a plane analogy. The pilot may have predetermined the destination of the passengers without predetermining who will or will not board the plane etc. That is not the "foresight faith" view.

 

[JesusFan]

There may be some "non-Cals" who hold to something like this and explain it in these simplistic terms, but that is why I asked for direct quotes from some Classic CAls. I think in doing so you will read their context and see there is a bit more to it than that.

classic Arminians would differ from calvinism in these main points...

cals hold that there are some elected by God who will receive Christ
Arms that all might be saved, those who will decide for Christ 'freely" will

cals hold jesus paid for/died for His elect
arms jesus died and paid for all

Cals that the elected ones will be kept saved by God
Arms conditional election."might" be lost in the end

What is your support for that? Is it true just because you say so? Find some historical or authoritative documentation supporting this and I take a look at it, otherwise I'm dismissing it as your uneducated opinion.

Goes back to the 5 articles of the Arminian response against the reformers themselves!

And corporate election was the first example of election as reflected in God choice of the nation of Israel. There is also individual election of his prophets and messengers who were chosen to take the message to the world. So, God elected to send his special revelation first to the Jew and then to the Gentile. You are the ones who later added the concept of God individually choosing individuals for salvation. There is no evidence that any of the apostolic fathers held to such a view.

Would say that OT covenant had a corporate election regarding isreal as a nation/people unto God, the jewish race itself...

NOT same in New Covenant, as that is indeed a seperate/indiviualistic election , as per Apostles John/peter and paul!

Proof. I'd like to read your sources. You act as if those two view are mutually exclusive and they are not. One may hold to a corporate view of election and still explain the doctrine of predestination with 'foresight faith' view.

Believe many do in Arms circles believ in BOTH..

You might be interested to know that Hershel Hobbs, the chairman who helped write the Baptist Faith and Message held to the view that I have defended. He uses a plane analogy. The pilot may have predetermined the destination of the passengers without predetermining who will or will not board the plane etc. That is not the "foresight faith" view.

What actually grets one in to plane though?

What is it based upon?

 

[DHK]

Election is individual......forming us into a corporate body is the Spirits work in sanctification

That is your opinion. You are welcome to it.
The Jewish nation was formed, and those that were in it had to believe--individually.

The plural only indicates that it is true for each individual...who are placed by God in a local body...you have the same YE in 1cor3.....

The "YE" in 1Cor.3 simply means that he is addressing the entire church as a whole--the corporate body of that local church.

Corporate--Ye
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (1 Corinthians 3:16)

Individual responsibility--"your body"
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? (1 Corinthians 6:19)

 

[Skandelon]

What actually grets one in to plane though?

What is it based upon?

I only reply to this part because its the only part not in a quote box...thus when I reply this is all that shows up. That is why you need to learn to use the quotes.

Faith gets them on the plane. Faith come by hearing the word, but not irresistibly so. Some may hear and trade the truth for a lie and justly die without excuse for their unbelief.

 

[JesusFan]

I only reply to this part because its the only part not in a quote box...thus when I reply this is all that shows up. That is why you need to learn to use the quotes.

Faith gets them on the plane. Faith come by hearing the word, but not irresistibly so. Some may hear and trade the truth for a lie and justly die without excuse for their unbelief.[/QUOTE

]


Faith is the Gift of God towards His people though...

NO excusing for the sinner though, as it is his sin nature and free will to chose to sin that will get him to hell in the end, NOT due to JUST rejecting the Son of God!

 

[DHK]

Faith is the Gift of God towards His people though...

Faith is never referred to as "the gift of God" in the Bible.

 

[Skandelon]

NO excusing for the sinner though, as it is his sin nature and free will to chose to sin that will get him to hell in the end, NOT due to JUST rejecting the Son of God!

It's not about excusing his sin. Paul, in Romans 1, is talking about excusing unbelief and rebellion against truth that is clearly seen and known.

 

[Tom Butler]

Faith is never referred to as "the gift of God" in the Bible.

Philippians 1:29 suggests it, though.

For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him

The word "granted" is a synonym for "given."

 

[DHK]

Philippians 1:29 suggests it, though.


The word "granted" is a synonym for "given."

The context doesn't warrant it. If faith is given before salvation so is suffering. It doesn't make sense.

For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake; (Philippians 1:29)

Then faith and suffering are given at the same time?
No. It is the will of God that man be saved; that man suffer for the sake of Christ. He is speaking to Christians. Suffering comes with salvation.

 

[JesusFan]

[

QUOTE=Skandelon;1734515]It's not about excusing his sin. Paul, in Romans 1, is talking about excusing unbelief and rebellion against truth that is clearly seen and known.

[/QUOTE]

That is why the Apostle calls them condemnation as being just and true...

They know God exists by nature, but freely chose to worship gods on their own making instead of the true One!

 

[Skandelon]

That is why the Apostle calls them condemnation as being just and true...

They know God exists by nature, but freely chose to worship gods on their own making instead of the true One!

Yet, you don't define freely in the same manner, do you? You don't believe they could have willingly done otherwise, do you?

 

[JesusFan]

Yet, you don't define freely in the same manner, do you? You don't believe they could have willingly done otherwise, do you?

Man can freely chose to do all that is possible, based upon the limitations placed on us by our sinful natures!

 

[Skandelon]

So, how do you define "freely?"

 

[JesusFan]

So, how do you define "freely?"

Hopefully, BOTH of us would agree that ONLY God has 'true" free will!

We as sinners can chose to do whatever we want, its just that due to being limited by a sinful nature, some things we will not want to do!

 

[preacher4truth]

Hopefully, BOTH of us would agree that ONLY God has 'true" free will!

We as sinners can chose to do whatever we want, its just that due to being limited by a sinful nature, some things we will not want to do!

The feeling from non-cals that we are "free," seeking God (prior to salvation) "good" contrary to Scriptures et al is fallacy.

Jesus said we are not free, but are slaves to sin in our lost state.

The failure is that they look through man's lens and fail to see what God sees through His lens, which is given to us in the Word of God.

 

[JesusFan]

The feeling from non-cals that we are "free," seeking God (prior to salvation) "good" contrary to Scriptures et al is fallacy.

Jesus said we are not free, but are slaves to sin in our lost state.

The failure is that they look through man's lens and fail to see what God sees through His lens, which is given to us in the Word of God.

They uphold man free will, some deny original sin, most deny the full effect of the fall of Adam...

basically, think more interested in putting down calvinism than what the Bible teaches in this area!

 

[DHK]

They uphold man free will, some deny original sin, most deny the full effect of the fall of Adam...

basically, think more interested in putting down calvinism than what the Bible teaches in this area!

JF, you were the one that brought free will into the discussion here:

They know God exists by nature, but freely chose to worship gods on their own making instead of the true One!

Note your words carefully: "They freely chose to worship gods on their own making instead of the true One.
FREELY CHOSE

If man can freely choose to worship one God, then he can freely choose to worship the true God. This is basically what you said, contradicting what you have posted in this post. You admit that man can "freely choose."

As God commands every man to choose:
"But now commands all men everywhere to repent."

If all men are to repent they of their own free will are to repent. God is not going to force them to do it. He commands them to repent; he doesn't make them robots. He has given them a free will that they may repent.

 

[Iconoclast]

Philippians 1:29 suggests it, though.


The word "granted" is a synonym for "given."

You are of course correct here;

29because to you it was granted, on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in him, but also on behalf of him to suffer

This word is also translated as GRACED:thumbs::thumbs:

to you it was graced....:thumbs: