Should we put much stock in relatively NEW doctrine?

[Winman]

Winman

Your false teaching is because of this twist that you attempt everday; I posted this earlier in the thread...it fits your false ideas rather well.

I am quite aware that Calvinism must reject the traditional definition of the word foreknowledge.

You post this error day after day as truth eludes you.

It is not a surprise that you could post literally dozens of articles from fellow Calvinists that redefine foreknowledge, as your false system depends upon it. Only simpletons are taken in.

Here is an example of foreknowledge in scripture.

Exo 3:19 And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand.

Here God tells Moses that he is sure that Pharaoh will not listen to him when he requests that Pharaoh let the Israelites go three days into the wilderness so that they might sacrifice to God.

Now, you have two options here;

#1 God caused Pharaoh to refuse to listen to God's command from Moses, thereby making God the author of sin. God's foreknowledge here is not based on contingency, but knowledge of what God had predetermined to cause.

#2 God simply knew with absolute certainty (foreknowledge) that Pharaoh would refuse to listen to God's command from Moses. This would not make God the author of sin.

Which answer is correct Icon?

And try speaking in your own words, anybody can copy and paste what others say.

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman

I am quite aware that Calvinism must reject the traditional definition of the word foreknowledge.

Christians get their understanding from the scripture and how God uses the words, not any supposed traditional understanding...
You ignore and despise true biblical teaching[what I cut and paste]......you again want us to listen to your vain reasoning as you once again try to offer your blame God for mans sin theology.

It is not a surprise that you could post literally dozens of articles from fellow Calvinists that redefine foreknowledge

,

Your problem is that you hate that the language of scripture that these teachers open up.It does not allow your false ideas.

Here is an example of foreknowledge in scripture.

except the word is not used:thumbs:...you do not grasp the difference between omniscience and biblical foreknowledge...you want to substitute your ideas instead of scripture once again, then make fun of real biblical teaching and the saints who welcome it

[

B]Exo 3:19[/B] And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand.

Here God tells Moses that he is sure that Pharaoh will not listen to him when he requests that Pharaoh let the Israelites go three days into the wilderness so that they might sacrifice to God.

Now, you have two options here;

#1 God caused Pharaoh to refuse to listen to God's command from Moses, thereby making God the author of sin. God's foreknowledge here is not based on contingency, but knowledge of what God had predetermined to cause.

#2 God simply knew with absolute certainty (foreknowledge) that Pharaoh would refuse to listen to God's command from Moses. This would not make God the author of sin.

Which answer is correct Icon?

Both answers are wrong because of your defective ideas of a Holy and omniscient God. You use a secular idea rather than the biblical concept

When God uses the word...He speaks of ...WHOM...not what..

If you read the cut and paste links...[with any comprehension at all]...you might have learned this by now:thumbs:

And try speaking in your own words

,

I just did Winman ...but it still does not turn your error into truth.You cannot begin to handle the links I posted because they expose the "true simpleton"...to use your word:thumbs:

 

[Winman]

Winman

Christians get their understanding from the scripture and how God uses the words, not any supposed traditional understanding...
You ignore and despise true biblical teaching[what I cut and paste]......you again want us to listen to your vain reasoning as you once again try to offer your blame God for mans sin theology.

You cut and paste because you do not have the ability to explain yourself. Lazy.

The word foreknowledge does not always agree with your Calvinist definition. In Acts 2 it does not agree;

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Pink's explanation here is ridiculous and nonsensical. This verse shows that Jesus was delivered by God's determinate counsel and foreknowledge. God KNEW the Pharisees would send men to take Jesus, and Jesus allowed himself to be taken.

This verse has absolutely nothing to do with God's personal relationship with Jesus.

Your problem is that you hate that the language of scripture that these teachers open up.It does not allow your false ideas.

No, the problem is that I can think and easily see that Pink's explanation of this scripture is ridiculous. Of course, you believe anything a "Reformed scholar" tells you, because you cannot think for yourself.

except the word is not used:thumbs:...you do not grasp the difference between omniscience and biblical foreknowledge...you want to substitute your ideas instead of scripture once again, then make fun of real biblical teaching and the saints who welcome it

God knew ahead of time that Pharaoh would not obey Moses command to let the Israelites go three days journey into the wilderness and sacrifice to God.

In your view, God could only foreknow this because he CAUSED Pharaoh to be disobedient. Not only would this make God the author of sin, but it would also be God divided against himself, which Jesus showed is impossible.

The only other explanation is that God simply knew that Pharaoh would be disobedient. This is the correct definition of foreknowledge and does not make God the author of sin.

Both answers are wrong because of your defective ideas of a Holy and omniscient God. You use a secular idea rather than the biblical concept

You won't answer because you know your view makes God the author of sin. Nobody is fooled.

When God uses the word...He speaks of ...WHOM...not what..

Not in Acts 2:23, the word foreknowledge here simply means God knew the Jews would come for Jesus, and God allowed Jesus to be delivered to them.

The word foreknowledge here has nothing to do with a personal relationship.

If you read the cut and paste links...[with any comprehension at all]...you might have learned this by now:thumbs:

I read them with comprehension. Total baloney. It is simply another case of Calvinism trying to redefine words that do not fit with your false doctrine. Calvinism is famous for having to constantly redefine words, you know that as well as I do, but continue in error anyway. Your loss.

I just did Winman ...but it still does not turn your error into truth.You cannot begin to handle the links I posted because they expose the "true simpleton"...to use your word:thumbs:

No, you copy and paste. You are a WANNABE. You want to appear like you know something, so you copy and paste what you believe "scholars" say. You have no ability to think for yourself. Anybody can parrot others.

If you could really think you would know you are being deceived.

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman

You cut and paste because you do not have the ability to explain yourself. Lazy.

I can explain myself very well to those without an agenda

The word foreknowledge does not always agree with your Calvinist definition.

The biblical teaching and definition stands

In Acts 2 it does not agree;

Sure it does...you just are unable to grasp it:thumbsup:

Acts 2:23 [B]Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, [/B]ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Pink's explanation here is ridiculous and nonsensical. This verse shows that Jesus was delivered by God's determinate counsel and foreknowledge. God KNEW the Pharisees would send men to take Jesus, and Jesus allowed himself to be taken.

This verse has absolutely nothing to do with God's personal relationship with Jesus.

Sure it does....HIM...by the DETERMINATE COUNSEL AND FOREKNOWLEDGE.....see it.I know you do not,but others will.

Jesus was the SENT one..He was sent...He was always central and us in Him....you will not connect the dots but here it is explained;


49 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.

2 And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me;

3 And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

4 Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my work with my God.

5 And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength.

6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

7 Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the Lord that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.

No, the problem is that I can think and easily see that Pink's explanation of this scripture is ridiculous. Of course, you believe anything a "Reformed scholar" tells you, because you cannot think for yourself.

You cannot understand the links...not a surprise

God knew ahead of time that Pharaoh would not obey

The bible does not descibe this as "foreknowledge"..you still are clueless.

In your view, God could only foreknow this

I do not use your false understanding ...in "my"view.

In the bible...whom he did foreknow.....not He foreknew..THIS:laugh:YOU MISS IT EVERYTIME:laugh:

because he CAUSED Pharaoh to be disobedient. Not only would this make God the author of sin

,

ONLY YOU AND TEAM ANTI-CAL JIHAD OFFER THIS FALSE SUGGESTION

The word foreknowledge here has nothing to do with a personal relationship.

lol...... nothing to do with a personal relationship:laugh:

and yet scripture says...whom 4x and them 3x.....you say, not personal

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate

them he also called

and whom he called, them he also justified:

and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

I read them with comprehension.

Not even close
.

No, you copy and paste. You are a WANNABE. You want to appear like you know something, so you copy and paste what you believe "scholars" say. You have no ability to think for yourself. Anybody can parrot others.

I understand your frustration...you have no answer ,so you resort to this base attack....I understand TK.

 

[Winman]

Winman

I can explain myself very well to those without an agenda

The only thing you are good at is posting smilies. How impressive.

The biblical teaching and definition stands

Not in Acts 2:23. The scriptures had repeatedly told us Jesus would be betrayed and taken, this is what was foreknown.

Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Here we have both foreknowledge of faith (or lack of) and and foreknowledge of what actions Judas would take. Plain as day.

Jhn 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Here we see foreknowledge of faith, only "one" was a devil. And again, we see foreknowledge that Judas would betray Jesus. This is foreknowledge of actions.

Jhn 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

Here is foreknowledge that the Jews were planning to kill Jesus.

Jhn 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.
19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.

This is foreknowledge, knowing an event before it comes to pass. It has nothing to do with a personal relationship here, Judas was lost.

Sure it does...you just are unable to grasp it:thumbsup:

The only one grasping is you.... at straws.

Sure it does....HIM...by the DETERMINATE COUNSEL AND FOREKNOWLEDGE.....see it.I know you do not,but others will.

No, what was foreknown is that Judas would betray Jesus to the Jews for thirty pieces of silver. What was determined was that Jesus would allow himself to be taken.

Jhn 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

God in his foreknowledge knew Judas would betray Jesus and that the Jews would crucify him, but nowhere do the scriptures say God caused these sinful deeds. What the scriptures do say is that Jesus allowed himself to be taken and crucified, this is what was determined.

The Jews took Jesus and crucified him of their own free will, and this is why they were guilty.

Jesus was the SENT one..He was sent...He was always central and us in Him....you will not connect the dots but here it is explained;

Acts 2:23 is not describing a personal relationship, but the act of Jesus being delivered and taken and crucified.

You cannot understand the links...not a surprise

Right, I cannot understand Pink's article that was written for the sole purpose of redefining the word foreknowledge. Right.

The bible does not descibe this as "foreknowledge"..you still are clueless.

It doesn't have to, this verse is showing God knew ahead of time that Pharaoh would be disobedient.

I do not use your false understanding ...in "my"view.

Denying the logical conclusions of your doctrine does not make the problem magically go away. You are simply closing your eyes to truth.

In the bible...whom he did foreknow.....not He foreknew..THIS:laugh:YOU MISS IT EVERYTIME:laugh:

Not in Acts 2:23. And as Steaver said, knowing someone personally is also to know what they do. You cannot describe another person without describing their actions.

ONLY YOU AND TEAM ANTI-CAL JIHAD OFFER THIS FALSE SUGGESTION

Jihad? Wow, what happened to heretic or Pelagian? Those terms do not carry much impact today, so now you imply folks that disagree with you are Muslims on a Jihad against you? LOL, you are pretty paranoid there.

lol...... nothing to do with a personal relationship:laugh:

and yet scripture says...whom 4x and them 3x.....you say, not personal

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate

them he also called

and whom he called, them he also justified:

and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

The word "whom" does not prove your point at all. I could say I have an idea "whom" will run for President next election, doesn't mean I personally know any of those persons. You simply WANT to believe this false argument.

Not even close
.

I understand your frustration...you have no answer ,so you resort to this base attack....I understand TK.

I am not frustrated at all. Your arguments are bogus, and anybody who can think can easily see that.

You are simply trying to redefine the word "foreknowledge" because you MUST do so for Calvinism to survive. It is plain as day.

 

[Herald]

...............

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman,

Your posts are so foolish...I do not need to answer they answer for themselves.

You are unable to see truth...so I have no need to go over it again and again.

your plain and repeated denial that ...whom and them are not speaking personally is imbecilic and shows you are not serious, or to be taken seriously.

The posts and links stand.Your novelties do not.

 

[OldRegular]

Winman,

Unless you are of the Open Theism crowd it is a given that God knows all there is to know which of course includes events yet to happen in time. It follows that your understanding of foreknew or foreknowledge attributed in Scripture to God s incorrect.

 

[Winman]

Winman,

Your posts are so foolish...I do not need to answer they answer for themselves.

More like unless you copy and paste what others say you've got nothing.

You are unable to see truth...so I have no need to go over it again and again.

Right, you and only you know the truth. You are so spiritual, you are so enlightened, you are the depository of truth. Oh brother, get a new act.

your plain and repeated denial that ...whom and them are not speaking personally is imbecilic and shows you are not serious, or to be taken seriously.

The word "whom" used in a sentence does not necessarily mean you personally know the person. As I said, I could probably guess "whom" is going to run for President next election, doesn't mean I personally know them.

You just don't like it when someone can easily refute your BOGUS arguments. And that is exactly what they are.

The posts and links stand.Your novelties do not.

I have no problem with letting people judge who is telling the truth and who is not. Unlike you, I do not believe myself to be all-knowing and everyone else idiots as you do.

 

[Winman]

Winman,

Unless you are of the Open Theism crowd it is a given that God knows all there is to know which of course includes events yet to happen in time. It follows that your understanding of foreknew or foreknowledge attributed in Scripture to God s incorrect.

I do not even know what Open Theism is.

As far as God learning, scripture shows that in some situations God learns.

Gen 32:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

God told Abraham here that "for now I know" that thou fearest God. I believe the scriptures and what they say.

Are you prepared to call God a liar?

Gen 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

Here God told Abraham he would "now" go down to Sodom and Gomorrah and "see" whether they had done according to the cry of it which came up to him, and if not, "I will know".

Again, I believe God's words. Are you prepared to call God a liar?

Give your answer, yes or no?

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman

I do not even know what Open Theism is.

As far as God learning, scripture shows that in some situations God learns.

Gen 32:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

God told Abraham here that "for now I know" that thou fearest God. I believe the scriptures and what they say.

Here God told Abraham he would "now" go down to Sodom and Gomorrah and "see" whether they had done according to the cry of it which came up to him, and if not, "I will know".

This is not a Christian view of the All knowing God.This is blasphemy and a denial of God Himself. This is where your error leads to.

 

[Winman]

Winman

This is not a Christian view of the All knowing God.This is blasphemy and a denial of God Himself. This is where your error leads to.

What is not Christian is denying what the word of God says.

 

[Reformed]

Winman




This is not a Christian view of the All knowing God.This is blasphemy and a denial of God Himself. This is where your error leads to.

Anthony, correct. Some people have a difficult time understanding figures of speech. When Jesus refers to Himself as the bread of life are we to think of Him as a loaf of bread? Does His title "Lamb of God" mean that He is a sheep? Of course not! God's test of Abraham was not for God's sake but for Abraham's. God knew the outcome before it occurred.

 

[Iconoclast]

What is not Christian is denying what the word of God says.

Christians understand the language and teaching on God's attributes.
God is all knowing and learns nothing as he is God.To suggest anything less is as much a blasphemy as when a cultists denies the Divine perfection.

You do this at least once a week. It is horrible

 

[Iconoclast]

Anthony, correct. Some people have a difficult time understanding figures of speech. When Jesus refers to Himself as the bread of life are we to think of Him as a loaf of bread? Does His title "Lamb of God" mean that He is a sheep? Of course not! God's test of Abraham was not for God's sake but for Abraham's. God knew the outcome before it occurred.

For this to be posted on a Christian board is shocking.If it were a novice asking a question and then welcomed correction it would be sad, but understandable.
This posting is out of line and a denial of the faith once delivered to the saints.
No one has seen it yet, or they would all protest it.

 

[OldRegular]

I do not even know what Open Theism is.

As far as God learning, scripture shows that in some situations God learns.

That is Open Theism! Congratulations!

 

[Reformed]

For this to be posted on a Christian board is shocking.If it were a novice asking a question and then welcomed correction it would be sad, but understandable.
This posting is out of line and a denial of the faith once delivered to the saints.
No one has seen it yet, or they would all protest it.

Anthony, I'm not sure I'm understanding you right. Are you taking me to task? My post was to agree with your response to Winman. Winman is either A. Adovacting Open Theism or B. Having a difficult time understanding figures of speech. This is what happens when someone believes in rigid literalism. The rigid literalist cannot distinguish between figures of speech such as simile, allegory, metaphor, anthropomorphism etc. and true literal meaning.

 

[Winman]

Anthony, correct. Some people have a difficult time understanding figures of speech. When Jesus refers to Himself as the bread of life are we to think of Him as a loaf of bread? Does His title "Lamb of God" mean that He is a sheep? Of course not! God's test of Abraham was not for God's sake but for Abraham's. God knew the outcome before it occurred.

Very poor example. Everyone knows Jesus is not literally bread and that you cannot eat his body and drink his blood.

But for God himself to tell us "for now I know" is not figurative speech.

If the plain sense of scripture makes plain sense, look for no other sense.

You just don't like when scripture does not agree with your presuppositions.

 

[Winman]

Christians understand the language and teaching on God's attributes.
God is all knowing and learns nothing as he is God.To suggest anything less is as much a blasphemy as when a cultists denies the Divine perfection.

You do this at least once a week. It is horrible

Show where scripture says God cannot learn.

Why does God "search" the heart if he cannot learn? Why does he test or "try" people?

Jer 17:10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

2 Chr 32:30 This same Hezekiah also stopped the upper watercourse of Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David. And Hezekiah prospered in all his works.
31 Howbeit in the business of the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, who sent unto him to inquire of the wonder that was done in the land, God left him, to try him, that he might know all that was in his heart.

Here the scriptures say God tried Hezekiah to know all that was in his heart.

Your argument is that scripture doesn't mean what it plainly says. Absurd.

 

[Winman]

Look at the numerous scriptures that says God searches men's hearts and tries them "to know" what is in their hearts;

Deu 8:2 And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.

Psa 139:23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:

Pro 17:3 The fining pot is for silver, and the furnace for gold: but the LORD trieth the hearts.

1 Pe 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

Deu 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul

If God cannot learn, why does he need to try persons "to know" what is in their hearts?

You folks sure got a lot of scripture to explain away. :laugh: