George Antonios
Well-Known Member
I think we may be talking at cross-purposes here. Let me back up a bit.
Do you acknowledge a difference between foreknowledge [foreseeing something] and predestination [forecausing something]?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Were non-Calvinists predestinated to be non-Calvinists?
- Thread starter George Antonios
- Start date
- Status
I think we may be talking at cross-purposes here. Let me back up a bit.
Do you acknowledge a difference between foreknowledge [foreseeing something] and predestination [forecausing something]?
Yes, but the Lord determines to save out His own based upon his own will and pleasure, not due to his foreknowledge!
Yes, and I appreciate the distinction (which I talked a bit about here: Were non-Calvinists predestinated to be non-Calvinists?)
The key to predestination, however, is foreknowledge in the Arminian view, whereas the key to foreknowledge is predestination in the Calvinist view. The Calvinist view is more logical, because it presents God as a cause for everything. Arminianism relies on a separate cause for everything, one that God doesn’t completely control, which would be fine without particular predestination. But with particular predestination, that cause must exist in eternity past with God.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
But, there is no predestination unto salvation anywhere in the Bible. So the discussion, as it revolves around predestination, is a moot point. Please consider the following if you haven't had the chance to already and let me know your thoughts:
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Exce[t many misunderstand the Foreknowledge of God, as it is not merely passive knowing, but that he determines and causes the end result unto salvation!
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Except there is no verse for that.
Entire chapter to that, Romans 8!
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Would you please, please, watch the full video? It delves into Romans 8 and defines terms with only scriptures and in context. Just check it out before blowing it off:
I can admit that I went to Church and heard the Gospel and when I heard it I believed it was true. Saved I was the moment I believed the gospel in that I believed in the life, death and rising from the Dead of Jesus Christ
MB
Why would I try to refute a philosophy not presented in the Bible. If you wish to follow a lie, that is on you.
Again, that works both ways, which is why I thought you would need to refute it, since your philosophy isn’t presented in the Bible.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
pretty good. But adoption as sons seems to be intricately tied up with salvation, so I don’t know that he made that good of a distinction.
To me, he spent too much time talking about our spirits and souls being redeemed separate from our bodies. I think the redemption of the body is the whole purpose of Christ’s sacrifice, and the spirit and soul are redeemed with it. Just as there is no body without the spirit and/or soul, there’s no spirit/soul without the body.
We have the Holy Spirit given to us as an “earnest” , or down payment, of the life we will have after resurrection.
Dave G
Well-Known Member
George,
Sometimes reading through posts on this forum and on others, I find amazing and even somewhat bizarre statements from those who profess Christ...
For example, I find myself amazed at the language contained in this quote, even knowing that in my own flesh dwells no good thing and that I myself have been caught up in making statements similar to this in the recent past.
But when push comes to shove, it seems that no matter who we are as human beings, sometimes the real feelings on a given matter come out under the pressure of the back-and-forth, wouldn't you agree?
As the underlined clearly shows ( to me ), your opinion of all things "Calvinistic"...( which I sense isn't so much a hatred of William Tyndale, John Bunyan, John Newton, Isaac Watts, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, George Mueller or many others who believed similarly to John Calvin, but what those that you cannot find another label to pin on them actually believe from the Scriptures )...Is not one of patiently trying to convince them of what you see in the Bible, but rather in denouncing what they believe and teach.
In other words and from where I'm sitting,
You appear to spend more time stating what a passage doesn't mean, than you do stating what it does mean.
If I'm in error about this, then I offer my apologies and ask your forgiveness for unintentionally insulting you.
What I'd like to offer in the best interests of remedying my misunderstanding of the whole issue ( if my observation of it is, indeed, in error ) is this:
Instead of telling people what passages like Romans 8:28-30, Acts of the Apostles 13:48, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, Ephesians 1:4-11, Ephesians 2:10, Psalms 65:4 and Romans 9 do not mean, we both go through them line by line, word by word and tell the readers of this forum what they state in our own words and how we arrive at our understanding of them.
Some might call this "exhaustive exegesis", and I figure that as a teacher of God's word ( and a pastor, if I'm not mistaken ), you should be able to sit down and do it with no trouble, especially with someone like me that has never professed or confessed to either title.
If you'd like, I can create a thread and we can do this with say, John 6:37-66, John 8:43-47, Ephesians 1:1-14, Ephesians 2:1-10, 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 or any other suitable passage that develops what you call "Calvinism".
Over and above the ones I listed, what I'd really like to see, is whether or not you'd be willing to do it for the entire chapter of Romans 8 or even Romans 9...
If anything, just to see where we differ when one or the other of us reads it for themselves.
That way we can compare notes and perhaps learn where exactly we are going off track with respect to one another.
I look forward to your reply on this, sir.
Last edited:
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
He didn't deny that. But God could have chosen to save us without necessarily giving us Christ-like resurrection bodies. Thus adoption of the body is a blessing connected to salvation but not an inherent part of salvation, conceptually speaking.
Verse?
Paul expressly states that the Holy Ghost is an earnest towards the new body: Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. Which purchased possession is the body as outlined by verses in the video.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Don't know if you don't know, but the video we've been discussing is mine and the study showing what the passages do mean took me hours of study:
I've also posted the following numerous times:
And more scattered in the posts.
Dave G
Well-Known Member
I respect that.
But in defense of my own lack of desire to view videos and to stick with the written text on the page, I was wondering if you'd like to take me up on what I wrote above.
If not, then I will retract my offer.
Only one person on this forum has ever done it, and that person was the one who posted a thread asking for the exegesis of a passage.
I also don't agree with your chart, and feel that it is not detailed enough in its treatment of the contained Scriptures.
- Status