The Foreknowledge of God and Matters of Morality

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Tom, Just a quick note to get some clarification. What is the distinction or difference you see between the word necessity, and “certainty or inevitability?” If there is only one possible consequence to any given antecedent, what freedom or choice can there be in determining the outcome? Is not the outcome in such a situation 'necessity' without possibility of contrary choice? If contrary choice is eliminated, again, how is necessity not invoked and every hint of morality destroyed?

Can God justly blame or praise man for forming intents and subsequent actions when there is no other possibility other than to form those intents and actions, due to the impossibility of contrary choice?

 

[Tom Butler]

HP, I don't relish arguing a point of view with which I don't agree. So let's call it carrying to a logical conclusion a view with which I differ.

Regarding foreknowledge (which non-Cals define as foreseeing): As I understand it, God looks into the future, sees HP, exercise repentance and faith for salvation at some point in time. On that basis, God elects HP, and saves him in time.

Seems to me that HP, who was lost , then chose to accept Christ, he has made a contrary choice. Seems to me that HP's salvation is a certainty. Unless one is prepared to argue that sometime between the time God foresaw HP's faith, there was a possibility that HP would change his mind. Or change his mind several times back and forth. Thus one can lose his salvation?

It doesn't appear to be a question of the power of contrary choice. He choice was made. Now that the choice has been made (to repent and believe), will he later choose otherwise, thus reverting to being lost?

If that's right, then I imagine this scenario, God speaking. "Oh, look, Son, HP just repented of his sins and trusted you for his salvation way out there in the future. Put him on the elected list, and write his name down in your book. Oops, I just foresaw him change his mind. Never mind. Wait a minute, he's back."

This is the logical result of your argument against necessity/certainty/inevitability.

Now, maybe we simply have a semantic disagreement. Maybe if we simply said that what God foresees, will happen (not can, not must, not certainly, not inevitably, simply will happen), we could skip a lot of our conversation.

To clarify further, I do not believe God saves anyone against his will. I have read this argument from some who ought to know better. That God forces his will on people who don't want to be saved and saves them anyway. And that God sends to hell people who really want to be saved, and have faith, and God says naw, you're not one of the elect.

No one is dragged kicking and screaming into the kingdom. You will never find anyone who would say, "I'm saved, but I didn't want to be. I don't even like God but he saved me against my will."

That's silly, you say, and you're right.

Now I do not want to misrepresent your view, so I'll rely on you to correct me.

 

[trustitl]

I am not going to get into this debate due to time restraints but thought I would like to ask a question. Would it effect this debate if the bible speaks of election relating to the body of believers rather than about individuals.

The book Elect in the Son addresses election from this perspective. It was written by Robert Shank in 1970 and is published by Bethany House.

His thesis is that "the election is corporate and comprehends individual men only in identification and association with the elect body." page 55

Tom contrasts his position on election with the foreknowledge position. I don't know what HP thinks but I wonder if Shanks position would effect this discussion.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: The book Elect in the Son addresses election from this perspective. It was written by Robert Shank in 1970 and is published by Bethany House.

His thesis is that "the election is corporate and comprehends individual men only in identification and association with the elect body." page 55

Tom contrasts his position on election with the foreknowledge position. I don't know what HP thinks but I wonder if Shanks position would effect this discussion.

HP: I must have worked too many hours today because the ‘thesis’ you posted of Shank’s position doesn’t make any sense to me. I have heard about that book for years but have never read it and do not understand just what his position is. Feel free to try presenting the argument as you would if that in fact was your position. I would be interested to hear it presented by you if you feel you have a good handle on it.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Tom Butler: If that's right, then I imagine this scenario, God speaking. "Oh, look, Son, HP just repented of his sins and trusted you for his salvation way out there in the future. Put him on the elected list, and write his name down in your book. Oops, I just foresaw him change his mind. Never mind. Wait a minute, he's back."

This is the logical result of your argument against necessity/certainty/inevitability.

HP: I can certainly see why at first glance that might be perceived as the logical end of my argument, but in reality I do not believe such to be the case. I would hope that over time through our discussions that you might eventually view it differently. If you never see it differently I can still be your brother in the Lord. :godisgood:

For what it is worth, let me try and explain how I see the logical ends of what I understand as the logical ends of your position. When I am done, and after you have shared with me as to how you perceive the logical ends of my position, I am certain we will both be sent back to the drawing board for a whole new round of discussion, and certainly we should have much fodder to keep us awake a night or two considering this subject.

As you pointed out the thing that seems to be unsettling to you about my position is that it might appear to you that it breeds possible uncertainty of ones standing before God or at least vacillating stability. If I am wrong about that, you can straighten me out. The funny thing is that such is exactly how I see your position as it is taken out to it’s logical ends. Let me explain.

A person gets saved that believes in election from a Calvinistic position. He believes that in reality when a person gets saved that they come into the understanding that they have been foreordained or predestined to eternal life by God from the foundations of the world. Their salvation is best thought of as 'not when they got saved,' but rather their salvation is best understood as simply 'the time' that they came to a full realization that they have in reality been saved all along, it is just that now they came to understand it for themselves or become cognizant that in reality had been fixed for all of eternity.

Having now this salvation experience, coming into the realization that they have always been one of the elect, they proceed down the path of life again. Some time after, they fall into sin, and resulting condemnation sets into their heart. For a while they try and convince themselves that there is no condemnation for those that are in Christ Jesus, but the condemnation is relentless. They end up discouraged due to the knowledge that there life is not consistent with their faith, and end up falling by the wayside discouraged.

They are now in a real pickle. When the alter call is given they know in their heart that they need to get right with God, but they do not know what they should testify to. If they were really saved there should have been no condemnation, which they know in reality they certainly have, so they cannot testify that they were saved. They know they cannot say they fell from grace and needed to be resaved, for that is not believed possible in the Church they are in attendance to, so we hear this strange testimony instead. I have heard those that have been in the Church for years, teaching and even elders and deacons in the church, that stand up after conviction sets in over a besetting sin, and testify like this. “I thought I was saved years ago, but today I realize that I was never saved, but I got saved today!”

I seriously doubt such testimonies, especially in light of the stable character they had for a long period of time and the usefulness and vitality they once possessed. I would rather believe that their testimony is nothing other than the only one that can clear their conscience and stay within the bounds of the accepted dogmas of the Church they are in.

So, with all the security that is preached, and with all the strong unwavering assurance such teaching is supposed to gender, it fails the test once again. Their faith in their security in the end proved to be no security at all. I cannot help but wonder how many times one would have to cycle through like temptations, subsequent condemnation for yielding to it, and the process of stating once again that this must have been the first time they were saved, (when in reality it might be the second or third time such testimonies have been given) before the feeling of, ‘how can I be any more certain this time that I really got saved that I have been the last to or so times?’ I cannot help but believe that some of them eventually throw in the towel for good, discouraged that the security they tried to have faith in, in the end left them no peace within. Their faith in their security proved to be no security at all.

That is how I see the logical ends of the argument of eternal security based on the certainty of election and the foreknowledge of God being immutable being played out before our eyes. Eternal security can be just as ‘on again off again’ as any notion conceived by those not holding to election from a Calvinistic position. I personally witnessed the ‘millisecond on again off again effect, so often charged against the Arminian by Calvinists, just as prevalent in reality in Calvinistic circles as in any Arminian circle I have been in.

Now you can set me straight as well if you feel I have misrepresented in any way any position held by yourself or any others.

I believe it is impossible to walk by faith and have absolute knowledge of foreknowledge or election. I also believe that regardless of how God sees the beginning from the end, or who He knows or does not know that will be part of the overcomers in the end, God does not share that absolute understanding with us in this present world. God has withheld such absolute knowledge from us in this present world in any absolute sense. Whatever absolute knowledge God possess can only be realized by us 'by faith' as we are found walking in consistent obedience to His commands. We are not told to relax, OSAS is in effect, but are told instead to make our calling and election certain, and to check ourselves to see if we are of the faith. Our full assurance of our final standing before God can only realized in a consistent manner as we walk consistent righteous lives before Him as we obediently and daily yield ourselves in obedience to His commands, relying on the power and help of the Holy Spirit to live such consistent lives.

Any hope of our final standing with Him, while in a state of disobedience and a conscience not void of offense, is a false hope and will never land one safely into the eternal kingdom God has prepared for those that love and serve Him, regardless of the security one might believe they have in being one of the elect from the foundations of the world.
No belief in God’s foreknowledge of election, allegedly determining for eternity ones standing before God, will ever hold in check the convicting power of the Holy Spirit that faithfully testifies that ones present walk, if not consistently holy, will not safely lead them to the promised land. Nothing other than a consistent holy walk, as testified to our conscience by the Holy Spirit, testifying of a clear conscience before God and man, should suffice any of us in determining our final standing before God hear and now. May we seek and never rest until such a holy walk is a reality made real in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, in and by the help that He has proffered and promised to give.

 

[trustitl]

I believe it is impossible to walk by faith and have absolute knowledge of foreknowledge or election. I also believe that regardless of how God sees the beginning from the end, or who He knows or does not know that will be part of the overcomers in the end, God does not share that absolute understanding with us in this present world.

God has withheld such absolute knowledge from us in this present world in any absolute sense. Whatever absolute knowledge God possess can only be realized by us 'by faith' as we are found walking in consistent obedience to His commands.

We are not told to relax, OSAS is in effect, but are told instead to make our calling and election certain, and to check ourselves to see if we are of the faith.

Nothing other than a consistent holy walk, as testified to our conscience by the Holy Spirit, testifying of a clear conscience before God and man, should suffice any of us in determining our final standing before God hear and now. May we seek and never rest until such a holy walk is a reality made real in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, in and by the help that He has proffered and promised to give.

As I look over these comments I am puzzled. You seem to be saying that the only way we can have assurance of our salvation is to be walking in obedience to commands rather than by faith. However, scripture says "the just shall live by faith."

Paul tells the Galatians: "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Gal.3:26-27)"

I know you will be in agreement with these passages but it appears that you fail to keep faith as our "condition" after we are saved. This is where I part with Calvinism for I see faith as a condition for our election.

Peter points out that we "are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations (I Peter 1:5-6)

You appear to put obedience before faith after we are saved.

Paul warned the Galatians of this very thing saying "having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? "These were people saved by faith and had turned to works after salvation.

"For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you." (Gal. 5:5-8)

This was clearly not Paul's gospel. Our works are results of faith in Christ and love of God. They were being hindered by turning it around.

I know this is a debate forum but these comments are really more of an observation than an attempt to debate. Feel free to respond, but my purpose was not to debate but rather to give you something to consider.

 

[trustitl]

HP: I must have worked too many hours today because the ‘thesis’ you posted of Shank’s position doesn’t make any sense to me. I have heard about that book for years but have never read it and do not understand just what his position is. Feel free to try presenting the argument as you would if that in fact was your position. I would be interested to hear it presented by you if you feel you have a good handle on it.

I am hardly qualified to speak on his behalf and it has been a while since I read the book, but I think his point is that election is not concerned with individuals but rather that it is corporate.

I see predestination as God predetermining the destination of those in Christ. Therefore I would say that election is both corporate and personal.

I think election was more about the means by which God saves than about whom God saves.

Eph. 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 4 According 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: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will"

I don't talk a lot about election because I have met very few people willing to consider it with an open mind. I didn't bring this up to really discuss election but rather to see if it would effect this discussion which I have just been reading up to this point.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: I think election was more about the means by which God saves than about whom God saves.

HP: I believe I would agree. None of us know or can know absolutely if we are of the eternal elect……..but by faith. Faith does not speak to that which we know absolutely or that in reality we have seen absolutely, but rather speaks to a hope of things not yet seen. We can believe we see the elect as God see the elect all we want, but again it is only through the eyes of seeing things 'yet hoped for' that we can see it.

I see little benefit, and much evil that can come, from trying to establish dogma via the infinite knowledge of God when we are not in this world privy to see things as He sees them. Talk about His election all you want to, but God tells you that if you desire to be one of them make your calling and election certain, to examine yourselves, to see IF ye be of the faith. It does not say read your name on God’s absolute roster somewhere, or to reason from a foreknowledge that is infintely above your own, but rather to look at your own life, and the intents and subsequent actions that your proposed faith produces to see IF ye be of the faith. Faith without works is dead being alone, and faith in election where there are no works to substanciate ones faith, is dead, and dead faith will not save nor safely guide one to a home in heaven with the Lord. Nothing short of a life lived by consistent obedience to God’s commands should be used as evidence to support ones hope or belief in God’s election 'involving them personally.' Examine yourself is God’s command to us, not ponder or have faith in ones faith concerning His election. His election is what it is, but do our lives show fruits of saving faith is the question. If obedience to God’s Word is not evident, no view on election will prove to be a safe yardstick to judge one own personal relationship with God.

If we do these things, i.e., to examine our own lives in accordance to obedience to God's Word, we shall never fail or be found to be in error as to our standing before Him or our understanding of election in this world from our finite perspective.