Prescience / Foreknowledge / Foresight

Maybe not...

Psalm 135:4
For the LORD hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure.

As it turns out, the chosing is so that we will believe
Isaiah 43:10
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me


And it was God that did the chosing....before the foundation of the world
Ephesians 1
4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

 

Amy, the main point of my post was to point out that what God does, he does because it pleases him to do it. It is for his good pleasure.

I think Matthew 11:25ff tells us more than you indicated. God indeed has hidden some things from the "wise" and revealed them to babes. What things? Well, how about the mighty works done in Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum? They saw them, but didn't really "see" them spiritually, as related to the Messiah, thus they did not repent.

That's why Jesus, in his prayer of thanks to the Father said that no man knows the Son except the father; and no one knows the Father except the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son reveals him. So we have the Father hiding and revealing, and the Son hiding and revealing. The basis? It seemed good in God's sight. And salvation is in prospect, here.

Ephesians 1:5 tells us that indeed we are predestinated to be God's adopted children for one reason--it was for his good pleasure. Predestination is for God's good pleasure. Adoption is for God's good pleasure.

Isa 46:10 speaks of God doing all things for his pleasure. So, all things except election? All things except predestination? I don't think you want to argue that all things doesn't really mean all things.

 

Tom, no argument here that God does what He pleases, but it still doesn't imply that election means what you say it means. You have created a man made doctrine around a few scriptures that don't say what you claim they say. I do not think Calvinism is Biblical. I respect you as a brother in Christ, but I also respectfully disagree with you.

 

God's good pleasure has been to hide saving truths from some -- to harden heatrs - to keep them in the dark .

2 Peter 3:9 can't mean what you and so many others maintain . He is not willing ( if He is not willing means He will not ) that any ( who are the 'any" in 1st and second Peter ? believers =beloved =saints =the elect ) will not perish ( will not enter Hell but be brought to glory ) . None of His sheep = His Bride = His people will perish . Many others do perish because He was was not willing to save them .

 

Amy, I appreciate your sweet spirit and I enjoy exchanging views with you.

Rippon made the same point that I would have made. That sometimes God's doing what he pleases involves blinding and hardening some people. He told Isaiah what to preach but warned him that the children of Israel wouldn't listen. He explained to Isaiah that the reason they wouldn't listen was because they couldn't. He was going to blind them and cloud their understanding, and would actually resent Isaiah's preaching.

John, in chapter 12, cited Isaiah's experience to describe what was happening in response to Jesus' miracles. They wouldn't believe because they couldn't believe, just like in Isaiah. God had hardened and blinded them to prevent them from believing.

There are those who will argue that the hardening and blinding came as a judgement for their sins. Regardless, in both cases God effectively shut off any possibility of repentance from those under the judgment.

From a human standpoint, it doesn't sound quite right to say that God took pleasure in the blinding and hardening. But all he does is ultimately for his pleasure.

 

Tom, I have to say that I don't understand why God hardens hearts. I have my feelings about it. Maybe those hearts were never going to turn toward God anyway. But, I can't back it up with scripture, so I won't go any further with that. I don't accept the belief that God just randomly chooses this or that person to save and leaves the rest to be condemned. I guess we'll have to part ways on this one, but you have been a gentleman and I thank you for that.
:godisgood: and :jesus: saves! That we can agree on!

 

Since my time has been greatly limited on the BB due to other circumstances, I would like to...if I may...speak to this part you state Tom.

In your "regardless..." You have to also acknowledge that these people were not serving God as God directed and then God blinded them. No, they had already left the truth they HAD for generations and choose NOT to follow after God. It was after their rebelliousness of generations had crescendoed (as a Nation) that God would no longer would stretch out His hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people. (Rom 10:21) God STOPPED reaching out BUT had been UNTIL then urging His people to repent and come back. They had choose who they would serve and God sealed them in their choice. He took nothing from them but up till His judgment gave them every opportunity to come back BEFORE He sealed or judged them. And yet we know He didn't not leave them abandoned but find that He will (as a Nation again) raise up His people whom He elected for Himself once more. (Rom 11)

So from a Human stand point God pleasure in blinding them is easily seen as God simply gives them over to what they desired. He is not pleased that the wicked will be judged but that the judgment of the wicked by their own request, will be judged on their own merits and their rejection of God. So His judgment is Just and Holy and pleasing to Him.

I guess it would be better to say that God takes no pleasure in the punishment of the wicked nor the pain of His child but is pleased in the out come they produce to His glory.

 

But in Isaiah it says that it was the Lord's will to crush Him . (NIV) in the NET : ... the Lord desired to crush Him .

That's referring to Jesus the very Son of God . Speaking of the pain of His child !

 

True --- the Bible says those things (pp#2), but Calvinism says otherwise. Your paradigm of "He chooses by His own good pleasure" would be an example, for sure!

Calvin's version: As one might pick a Christmas toy out of a catalogue (pre-creation), receive it at Christmas and then -- say Oct 2 -- take it out and play with it awhile.

Oh, He loves that toy alright! But there is nothing interpersonal in playing with one's toys.

Toys don't have prayers they wish to have answered.

Toys needn't accept you -- they got you like it or not.

Toys never do anything good of their own choice or power. But they can't help but rust and deteriorate -- they were "made that way," right?

What, my friend, distinguishes you in Calvin's view from the Christmas toy? If you had a will or emotion or thought, as this Calvinist "toy" model illustrates, it wouldn't matter to God. Your prayers are for affecting you, not Him. Your righteous acts (done on account of He makes you) are for pleasing Him -- His good, but not necessarily your good.* You might like to see other "toys" chosen off the shelf but a toy cannot go to another toy and bring it home, now can it.

*In this vein, I can't help but think of the phrase that set my dear MiL against Calvinist-Baptists. At the funeral of a dear relative, a member came to her and said it was God's will that that person die. Friend, that's SATAN'S will! The ONLY person God ever created for death was Jesus!
skypair

 

Tom,

Tom, it was those same "blind" Jews who believed FIRST, remember? the 12 disciples? 3000 at Pentecost? Collectively Israel was blind. Selectively there were 7000 converts that Isaiah didn't even know about who "saw!!"

God didn't condemn even all Jews to blindness nor does He condemn certain persons to blindness. These statements have to do with generalities -- "children of Israel" in general. Do you see that?

skypair

 

Hello Skypair,

The only reason I can see for you to ask this, is that you feel Classic Calvinism teaches man is a toy robot. This is not the case at all. The only systems that teach robots are Hyper Calvinism where man is a robot....and free-willism...where God is a robot. Classic Calvinism is the middle ground that works.

We hardly talk of H-C, but it is not a view Calvinist hold to. I would be glad to share my views as to what is wrong with H-P if you wish me to. The Robot that free-willism makes out of God has been shown in this thread and others.

Gods sovereignty and human responsibility are both at work. Man can only chose what is placed before him, and man will only choose what he sees as good. Man nature must be awakened to the light of truth before he can see God as the good choice. Yes man may say God is good, but he sees no need for God in his life, he does not see God better then the other choice.

Gods sovereignty and human responsibility can be seen in the story of Joseph.

As I said above....
Man can only chose what God has place before man to choose. God placed the choice to sale Joseph as a slave before his brothers. The brothers saw it as a good choice and chose it. The brothers are held responsible for there sins, and God is able to send Joseph to Egypt.

 

Some of this was added after I posted. So let me just ask one thing.

If God gives man freewill to chose God at any time, and if you pray for the unsaved, will God change this persons will?

You see...A Calvinist can pray and ask God to change the person, for a Calvinist believes God can and does do this. But in free-willism, the will of man is in control, and if God steps in and changes a persons heart so that they may believe, freewill is no longer in place.

 

Yes, we can agree on that.

I'm also like you, Amy. I don't understand why God hardens and blinds. But I don't think it's either random or arbitrary. Someday, you and I will be able to stand before him and say, "say, Lord, we've got a couple of questions for you. Got about 100 years?"

 

Jarthur,

I'd like to see how you draw the line of delineation between Cal and Hyper. Are you talking about 4 pointers or 3 pointers? This, to me, is merely someone who thinks he is a Calvinist but isn't.

But saying God is the robot of free willers? How is that? He God sovereignly decides to let men choose salvation, He is not only saying "I so love the world..." but He is also saying I would have them to love Me -- and those are the ones I will save. As in my illustration above, Calvinists reduce men to "toys" but the fact that we can choose God -- a God who answers prayers, who allows us to be His instruments to save others, etc. -- does not make God a robot. In all that He does for us, HE decides the best "answer," right?

skypair

 

Man is free to choose God when God manifests Himself (Rom 1 says He reveals Himself to ALL men and they are without excuse). As you know, man doesn't immediately do so, does he. But he could.

If I pray for the unsaved, I believe God will send the Spirit again to that person with another opportunity to be saved, often from the lips of the one who prayed for them! This especially works when "two or more are in agreement," right? But the Spirit will either be accepted or rejected -- the heart either opened or hardened like Pharoah's.

My understanding of Calvinism is that God gives Spirit indwelling to the "elect" even before they are saved so that they can't help but hear and be saved. My understanding of Calvinism is that whether a person "changes" or not is a done deal from eternity past. Your prayer changes nothing. That person you pray for is either lost or saved already and you are not a necessary part of that determination.

Free will says that the Spirit comes and goes like the wind vis-a-vis the unbeliever (John 3) and that the "born again believer" is just like that -- in bringing the gospel. The unbeliever has to grasp on when the opportunity comes. The unbeliever "controls" his destiny in that he hears the Spirit (and just like with the wind, ALL do hear) and has a choice to make. The Spirit "changes the mind" only if the one who hears affirmatively believes.

What I mean by that is that salvation is received -- asked for. Under "free will," the change in the heart is "conviction of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment" which is why the Comforter was sent to believers. The way you live your very life could be convicting enough to lead someone to salvation upon hearing why you do so -- the gospel.

skypair

 

Scientifically speaking, it's a mechanism God has instilled in all men. Ignore something like an alarm clock for a few mornings and eventually you will not hear it at all. This is how God designed us...meaning if we harden ourselves enough, God will harden us further by the way He has created us. Same thing with pain, IMO. When I sprain an ankle, the first couple steps hurt the worst, but after continued walking, the pain seems to go away. Does it heal while walking, causing the pain to diminish...or is it the same phsychological response as "hardening"?

 

That's a good one, webdog! We INSTINCTIVELY look to our flesh for our decisions. Once we "know better than God," we're lost!

skypair

 

SP, Calvinists do not believe that God gives Spirit indwelling to the elect even before they are born . The elect enter this world like everyone else -- under the wrath of God . When they are regenerated they receive the Holy Spirit . So your understanding is wrong . Where did you hear such a thing ?

 

Hyperness in this case has nothing to do with how many ponits you believe. It has what you do with the points. Hyper Cal says there is no need for mission. Classic Calvinism uses the 5 points to show a need for missions.

Most freewillers say election is based on foreknowledge as in...God forsaw who would believe and elected only those. This makes God a robot, only to carry out what he saw. In this view God cannot change anything and is a helpless actor of mans will.

I'll draw this out to the full end if you still do not understand.