Should we put much stock in relatively NEW doctrine?

[percho]

Why? Why anything?

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 1 John 3:8 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; Hebrews 2:14

The Common Denominator. Is that it?

But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 1 Peter 1:19,20
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev 13:8

Why would it be necessary for man, made a little lower than the angels to have free will?

If he has free will he is then going to have to save himself because in the end of it all he will have to choose.

Since Adam what has every man that has chosen to will, willed?

The only man born of woman for whom it mattered was, the Christ, made a little lower than the angels.

He has become the new creation.

 

[Iconoclast]

Yes, but this the Calvinist would not disagree with, for they would say that all are responsible. The conflict is between predestination and the freewill to choose God in real time so to speak. It's the classic which came first the chicken or the egg, which came first, a decision for Christ or regeneration. I believe the answer is quite simple and is given in the Scripture, it lies in the foreknowledge of God. 1Pt1:2 with one word marries the two making both freewill and election truth.

1]You are not using the biblical word foreknowledge correctly


2] The chicken came first

3] regeneration comes first

 

[steaver]

1]You are not using the biblical word foreknowledge correctly

I'm listening...........please explain the correct definition of foreknowledge.

The way I understand foreknowledge is that God cannot learn anything, God already knew Eve would choose to partake of the forbidden fruit, God already knew Adam would choose to sin, God already knew Noah would choose to obey and build the ark, God already knew David would choose to slay the giant, God already knew Judas would choose to reject Jesus as Christ, God already knew _________ would choose to....etc.

 

[steaver]

We must accept that the doctrines of Election/predestination/Sin/etc came to us from God thru divine revealtion/inspiration, so problems happen when we want to try to outthink Him in it!

Amen! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Skandelon]

Scripture tells us:

Romans 3:10-18
10. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15. Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16. Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17. And the way of peace have they not known:
18. There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Given the above Scripture and the insistence in your quote on the absolute freewill of man does that in itself dictate that the Doctrine of Sovereign Election and Grace is necessary and true?

In Romans 3:9-10 Paul teaches that not one person is righteous, yet just one chapter later he declares that Abraham was righteous. Is this a contradiction? OR is Paul addressing two different types of 'righteousness?' Could this distinction help in our discussion regarding soteriology?

Rom 3:20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. 21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

Rom 9:30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.

Two types of righteousness:
1. Righteousness pursued by works = unattainable
2. Righteousness pursued by faith = attainable

How can proof that righteousness by works is unattainable likewise prove that righteousness by faith is unattainable, as Calvinists suggest?

 

[Reformed]

It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near the end of the fourth century. The earlier church fathers placed chief emphasis on good works such as faith, repentance, almsgiving, prayers, submission to baptism, etc., as the basis of salvation. They of course taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the gospel. Some of their writings contain passages in which the sovereignty of God is recognized; yet along side of those are others which teach the absolute freedom of the human will. Since they could not reconcile the two they would have denied the doctrine of Predestination and perhaps also that of God’s absolute Foreknowledge. They taught a kind of synergism in which there was a co-operation between grace and free will. It was hard for man to give up the idea that he could work out his own salvation. But at last, as a result of a long, slow process, he came to the great truth that salvation is a sovereign gift which has been bestowed irrespective of merit; that it was fixed in eternity; and that God is the author in all of its stages. This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine, the great Spirit-filled theologian of the West. In his doctrines of sin and grace, he went far beyond the earlier theologians... --Calvinism in History: Before the Reformation by Loraine Boettner​

Even Boettner, a notable Calvinist, admits the Reformed theological perspective doesn't appear until the 4th century. Does that matter? If not, why not?

It doesn't matter because the patristic age was preoccupied with more pressing issues. The Church was being persecuted by Rome and it was fragmented within. The prominent doctrinal controversies were baptism, Arianism, and Gnosticism. With the ascendancy of the Roman Catholic Church true theological debate was stifled until the 16th Century Reformation.

As an aside I think the Dispensationalists on this board would make the argument that the fact that their theological system did not appear until the mid-19th Century is immaterial. What's good for the goose....

 

[Iconoclast]

I'm listening...........please explain the correct definition of foreknowledge.

The way I understand foreknowledge is that God cannot learn anything, God already knew Eve would choose to partake of the forbidden fruit, God already knew Adam would choose to sin, God already knew Noah would choose to obey and build the ark, God already knew David would choose to slay the giant, God already knew Judas would choose to reject Jesus as Christ, God already knew _________ would choose to....etc.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Attributes/attrib_04.htm

this will help:wavey:

 

[quantumfaith]

Good grief!!!
Relax Biblicist, you've already got your undies in a bunch:

1.) No one was really making an "argument". Skan was asking an open-ended question for discussion.

2.) This was simply a statement by Boettner (hardly an evil Arm. humanist attacking Calvinism)

3.) Boettner didn't say that it was "completely hashed out" by the 4th century, only that it wasn't made a "matter of special study"....that's hardly the same as "completely hashed-out".


That being said:

I agree in general with Greek Tim:
The relative "newness" of those ideas (as they were expressed) is not sufficient reason to mistrust them or deny them. The ante-Nicene fathers were kept quite busy defending the deity of Jesus Christ and other doctrinal essentials.

They didn't always have time to scream about the "RIDICULOUSNESS!" of an Arminian quoting a Calvinist on an online forum and asking the honest question of whether it is a matter for concern or not. They didn't have that luxury.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[quantumfaith]

1]You are not using the biblical word foreknowledge correctly


2] The chicken came first

3] regeneration comes first

Actually ICON, it is VERY likely that Dinosaurs came first, and birds (avian reptiles) descended form particular branches of the dino family tree.

 

[Iconoclast]

Actually ICON, it is VERY likely that Dinosaurs came first, and birds (avian reptiles) descended form particular branches of the dino family tree.

He asked about the chicken or the egg...not the dino..

hope you are not suggesting evolution;

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.


It is 24 hour days....The creation rest[sabbath]..was a 24 hour period...not billions of years.:thumbs:

 

[steaver]

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Attributes/attrib_04.htm

this will help:wavey:

I don't believe the exposition really changes anything.

The last mention is in 1 Peter 1:2: "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father." Who are elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father? The previous verse tells us: the reference is to the "strangers scattered" i.e. the Diaspora, the Dispersion, the believing Jews. Thus, here too the reference is to persons, and not to their foreseen acts.
Now in view of these passages (and there are no more) what scriptural ground is there for anyone saying God "foreknew" the acts of certain ones, viz., their "repenting and believing," and that because of those acts He elected them unto salvation? The answer is, None whatever. Scripture never speaks of repentance and faith as being foreseen or foreknown by God. Truly, He did know from all eternity that certain ones would repent and believe, yet this is not what Scripture refers to as the object of God’s "foreknowledge." The word uniformly refers to God’s foreknowing persons; then let us "hold fast the form of sound words" (2 Tim. 1:13).

When God foreknows a person, this would naturally include absolutely the whole of the person. Everything I would ever do from conception to eternity was foreknown of God before I ever existed, this is foreknowledge. So to separate foreknowledge into two distinct aspects is just an attempt to save a theology in my opinion. In God's foreknowledge He knows me as a person and everything which comes with being a person. God knows every decision I would ever make, and for those who He did foreknow would decide for Jesus Christ He did elect to become conformed to Himself. God did not get the human race started and then make adjustments. God foreknew the beginning from the end and then God set the events into motion to be played out in real time. God created freewill in the human race, and God knows all the decisions a person will make before that person comes into existence, this is foreknowledge. I don't think it should be dissected and divided apart as the person in the article has done. I think this is just an attempt to dismiss the reality of the word.

 

[OldRegular]

In Romans 3:9-10 Paul teaches that not one person is righteous, yet just one chapter later he declares that Abraham was righteous. Is this a contradiction? OR is Paul addressing two different types of 'righteousness?' Could this distinction help in our discussion regarding soteriology?

The Scripture does not say Abraham was righteous it says: Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.. Abraham was declared righteous because of his faith.

Later we read regarding Abraham.

Romans 4:17-24
17. (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
18. Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
19. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb:
20. He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21. And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24. But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;.

Rom 3:20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. 21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

Rom 9:30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.

Two types of righteousness:
1. Righteousness pursued by works = unattainable
2. Righteousness pursued by faith = attainable

How can proof that righteousness by works is unattainable likewise prove that righteousness by faith is unattainable, as Calvinists suggest?

I would not say there are two types of righteousness in the sense you put. I would say that only God is righteous and that redeemed man is declared to be righteous because of his faith, not that faith merits justification.

Skan, I do not consider myself a student of Calvinism. I have never read anything written by Calvin and have no desire to do so. I have read some authors who teach the doctrines of Sovereign Election and Grace, notably Dagg, Lloyd-Jones, Nettles, some of Boyce who is difficult to follow, and then Conner, considered to be weak on the Doctrines by some.

I believe that Scripture teaches that the believer is justified or declared righteous because of his faith. We may argue the origin of that faith but not its result.

 

[quantumfaith]

He asked about the chicken or the egg...not the dino..

hope you are not suggesting evolution;

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.


It is 24 hour days....The creation rest[sabbath]..was a 24 hour period...not billions of years.:thumbs:

I will go into "stealth" mode so as not to derail.

 

[Skandelon]

The Scripture does not say Abraham was righteous it says: Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.. Abraham was declared righteous because of his faith.

He was declared righteous, then...that's what I meant. in one text it says no one is righteous and in another it declares Abraham as righteous...

I would not say there are two types of righteousness in the sense you put. I would say that only God is righteous and that redeemed man is declared to be righteous because of his faith, not that faith merits justification.

You deny it and then affirm it... Righteousness pursed by way of merit is unattainable but righteousness imputed by God through faith IS attainable.

 

[Winman]

I don't believe the exposition really changes anything.

When God foreknows a person, this would naturally include absolutely the whole of the person. Everything I would ever do from conception to eternity was foreknown of God before I ever existed, this is foreknowledge. So to separate foreknowledge into two distinct aspects is just an attempt to save a theology in my opinion. In God's foreknowledge He knows me as a person and everything which comes with being a person. God knows every decision I would ever make, and for those who He did foreknow would decide for Jesus Christ He did elect to become conformed to Himself. God did not get the human race started and then make adjustments. God foreknew the beginning from the end and then God set the events into motion to be played out in real time. God created freewill in the human race, and God knows all the decisions a person will make before that person comes into existence, this is foreknowledge. I don't think it should be dissected and divided apart as the person in the article has done. I think this is just an attempt to dismiss the reality of the word.

Well put. Calvinism must redefine the word foreknowledge as it does many other words. In this case it is to support Unconditional Election. The scriptures clearly say we are elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father. These are the persons God in his foreknowledge knows will believe the gospel when they hear it, these are "the sheep" that God gives to the Son.

The foreknowledge of faith is shown in scripture, John chapter 1 for example, Jesus knew Nathanael would be a believer before he ever met Jesus. Another example of foreknowledge of faith (or lack of) is Judas in John chapter 6, where scripture says Jesus "knew from the beginning who believed not". If Jesus knew from the beginning who would not believe, then he also knew from the beginning who would believe. So foreknowledge of faith is shown directly in scripture.

Calvinism's belief that man is unconditionally elected is nothing but pure presumption.

Scripture actually states that men are chosen because of faith.

Jam 2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

Men are not chosen because they are poor, a poor man can go to hell like any other man, but no man who trusts in God ever goes to hell, so this verse shows men are chosen because of faith.

2 Thes 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

This verse directly says men are chosen to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit (God's part) and belief of the truth (man's part).

There is much evidence that we are elected because of faith.

 

[annsni]

He asked about the chicken or the egg...not the dino..

hope you are not suggesting evolution;

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.


It is 24 hour days....The creation rest[sabbath]..was a 24 hour period...not billions of years.:thumbs:

Not to mention "after their kind" is mentioned. I don't believe that dinosaurs were the same "kind" as birds.

 

[Iconoclast]

I don't believe the exposition really changes anything.



When God foreknows a person, this would naturally include absolutely the whole of the person. Everything I would ever do from conception to eternity was foreknown of God before I ever existed, this is foreknowledge. So to separate foreknowledge into two distinct aspects is just an attempt to save a theology in my opinion. In God's foreknowledge He knows me as a person and everything which comes with being a person. God knows every decision I would ever make, and for those who He did foreknow would decide for Jesus Christ He did elect to become conformed to Himself. God did not get the human race started and then make adjustments. God foreknew the beginning from the end and then God set the events into motion to be played out in real time. God created freewill in the human race, and God knows all the decisions a person will make before that person comes into existence, this is foreknowledge. I don't think it should be dissected and divided apart as the person in the article has done. I think this is just an attempt to dismiss the reality of the word.

You miss the exact point of the exposition.This is because you do not have a dead Adam in view.

God does not look forward to learn anything[prescience]

When the solemn and blessed subject of Divine foreordination is expounded, when God’s eternal choice of certain ones to be conformed to the image of His Son is set forth, the Enemy sends along some man to argue that election is based upon the foreknowledge of God, and this "foreknowledge" is interpreted to mean that God foresaw certain ones would be more pliable than others, that they would respond more readily to the strivings of the Spirit, and that because God knew they would believe, He, accordingly, predestinated them unto salvation. But such a statement is radically wrong. It repudiates the truth of total depravity, for it argues that there is something good in some men. It takes away the independency of God, for it makes His decrees rest upon what He discovers in the creature. It completely turns things upside down, for in saying God foresaw certain sinners would believe in Christ, and that because of this, He predestinated them unto salvation, is the very reverse of the truth. Scripture affirms that God, in His high sovereignty, singled out certain ones to be recipients of His distinguishing favors (Acts 13:48), and therefore He determined to bestow upon them the gift of faith. False theology makes God’s foreknowledge of our believing the cause of His election to salvation; whereas, God’s election is the cause, and our believing in Christ is the effect.

You insert free will where the scripture does not.A nature bound by sin is hardly free.

From A Baptist Catechism with commentary;

What of foreknowledge? Divine election based on foreseen faith would be
election by mere foreknowledge [prescience]. The biblical usage must
determine the exact significance of the term. What is the biblical teaching
concerning the foreknowledge of God? Foreknowledge is not synonymous
with omniscience. It is concerned, not with contingency, but with certainty
(Acts 2:23; 15:18; Rom. 8:29–30), and thus implies a knowledge of what has
been rendered certain. Acts 2:23 would make foreknowledge dependent upon
God’s “determinate counsel” by the grammatical construction which
combines both together as one thought with “foreknowledge” referring to and
enforcing the previous term. Foreknowledge is related to the Old Testament
term “to know,” implying an intimate knowledge of and relation to its object
(Cf. Gen. 4:1; Amos 3:2). The passages in the New Testament (Rom. 8:29;
11:2; 1 Pet. 1:2) all speak of persons who are foreknown, implying much
more than mere prescience or omniscience—a relationship that is absolutely
certain, personal and intimate. The only example of things being foreknown is
clearly based on Divine determination (Acts 15:18).
Because Divine election or foreordination to eternal life is grounded in the
immutable character of God, it is infallible. Were it based upon foreseen faith,
mere prescience, or human ability, it would remain fallible and mutable.
Because of its infallible and immutable character, Divine election or
foreordination to eternal life is the source of the greatest comfort,
125
encouragement and perseverance to the believer. This is exactly the way in
which and the reason why this truth is revealed in Scripture! Note especially
the great and glorious statement of the Apostle in Romans 8:28–39. Under
inspiration, he puts this truth in the context of the present promise (v. 28), the
eternal redemptive purpose (v. 29–34), the very worst that believers can
experience (v. 35–36), the redemptive, covenant love of the Lord Jesus Christ
(v. 37) and the infallibility of the Covenant of Grace (v. 38–39).
God has ordained the preaching of the gospel as the means to bring the
elect to faith in Christ in time and experience (Rom. 10:14–15, 17; 1 Thess.
1:4–10; 2:13). He has ordained the means as well as the end. To glory in the
end without fulfilling the means would be inconsistent and sinful by
disobedience.

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman

Calvinism must redefine the word foreknowledge as it does many other words. In this case it is to support Unconditional Election. The scriptures clearly say we are elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.

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.

What of foreknowledge? Divine election based on foreseen faith would be election by mere foreknowledge [prescience]. The biblical usage must determine the exact significance of the term. What is the biblical teaching concerning the foreknowledge of God? Foreknowledge is not synonymous with omniscience. It is concerned, not with contingency, but with certainty
(Acts 2:23; 15:18; Rom. 8:29–30), and thus implies a knowledge of what has been rendered certain. Acts 2:23 would make foreknowledge dependent upon God’s “determinate counsel” by the grammatical construction which combines both together as one thought with “foreknowledge” referring to and enforcing the previous term. Foreknowledge is related to the Old Testament term “to know,” implying an intimate knowledge of and relation to its object
(Cf. Gen. 4:1; Amos 3:2). The passages in the New Testament (Rom. 8:29;
11:2; 1 Pet. 1:2) all speak of persons who are foreknown, implying much
more than mere prescience or omniscience—a relationship that is absolutely certain, personal and intimate. The only example of things being foreknown is clearly based on Divine determination (Acts 15:18).
Because Divine election or foreordination to eternal life is grounded in the
immutable character of God, it is infallible. Were it based upon foreseen faith, mere prescience, or human ability, it would remain fallible and mutable.
Because of its infallible and immutable character, Divine election or
foreordination to eternal life is the source of the greatest comfort,
125
encouragement and perseverance to the believer. This is exactly the way in which and the reason why this truth is revealed in Scripture

These are the persons God in his foreknowledge knows will believe the gospel when they hear it, these are "the sheep" that God gives to the Son.

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

 

[Iconoclast]

Not to mention "after their kind" is mentioned. I don't believe that dinosaurs were the same "kind" as birds.

Exactly correct and quite the vital truth that is unchangeable.:thumbs::applause::thumbs:

 

[OldRegular]

He was declared righteous, then...that's what I meant. in one text it says no one is righteous and in another it declares Abraham as righteous...

I thought as much.

You deny it and then affirm it... Righteousness pursed by way of merit is unattainable but righteousness imputed by God through faith IS attainable.

I get your meaning but is righteousness that is unattainable, righteousness since it is nonexistent?