What is your definition of foreknowledge and...

[convicted1]

Read Scripture!!!!

Why thank you for telling me this, but I do. Maybe not near as much as I should, but I do. I just don't come at it from the bent angle that Calvinism brings to the scriptures.

Romans 9:17-24
17. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20. Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21. Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22. What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23. And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24. Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

I already addressed this with you previously, and you flatly denied what I typed, so I won't waste my and your's time in addressing something I know you won't accept.


Listen, what I am about to type IS NOT directed @ my Calvinistic Brethern, but at their Calvinistic system.


Calvinism does nothing but muddy the water. Take John 3:16 for instance. It says that God so loved the world, but Calvinism states the elect of the world, when God's Word doesn't. When John the Baptist stated, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world,"(John 1:29) again, Calvinism inserts the sin of the elect was placed upon Jesus, and no one else. Romans 5:6 states that Christ died for the ungodly, and true to form, Calvinism bends it to make it say the elect of the ungodly only. Romans 3:23 states that all have sinned. If all have sinned then all were ungodly, so Christ tasted death for every man(Hebrews 2:9), and again, Calvinism bends it in an attempt to state otherwise. This is why I don't adhere to Calvinism. It speaks when not spoken to, it walks where there is no ground, it swims when there is no water, and any other hyperbole I could think of.

Again, please don't take this as a personal jab at my Calvinistic Brethern, but at the system only.

 

[Greektim]

Why thank you for telling me this, but I do. Maybe not near as much as I should, but I do. I just don't come at it from the bent angle that Calvinism brings to the scriptures.



I already addressed this with you previously, and you flatly denied what I typed, so I won't waste my and your's time in addressing something I know you won't accept.


Listen, what I am about to type IS NOT directed @ my Calvinistic Brethern, but at their Calvinistic system.


Calvinism does nothing but muddy the water. Take John 3:16 for instance. It says that God so loved the world, but Calvinism states the elect of the world, when God's Word doesn't. When John the Baptist stated, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world,"(John 1:29) again, Calvinism inserts the sin of the elect was placed upon Jesus, and no one else. Romans 5:6 states that Christ died for the ungodly, and true to form, Calvinism bends it to make it say the elect of the ungodly only. Romans 3:23 states that all have sinned. If all have sinned then all were ungodly, so Christ tasted death for every man(Hebrews 2:9), and again, Calvinism bends it in an attempt to state otherwise. This is why I don't adhere to Calvinism. It speaks when not spoken to, it walks where there is no ground, it swims when there is no water, and any other hyperbole I could think of.

Again, please don't take this as a personal jab at my Calvinistic Brethern, but at the system only.

I think you meant metaphor.

Just as an example, I feel you muddy the water yourself. Jn 3:16, instead of offering a meaning for "world" you assume (whether based on your theology or semantics or whatever) that "world" probably means every single person in history. What if "world" in John's mind was just another way to refer to the nations, tribes, tongues, families, etc.? That seems to be a major movement in Scripture... not the salvation of every person but salvation reaching to every nation. That was Abraham's mission extended to Israel (Gen. 12:3; cf. Gal. 3:8). Notice Abraham comes in Gen. 12 on the heels of Gen. 11 and the tower of Babel where you have the spread of wicked nations as a result. That's no accident.

The mantra "it means what it says" is nothing but a tautology. It means what John and ultimately what God meant it to mean. I would look for the divine author's theme in Scripture and see if that accords w/ the message in Jn 3:16. In this case, yes, God loves every nation, not just 1 nation Israel.

 

[convicted1]

I think you meant metaphor.

Just as an example, I feel you muddy the water yourself. Jn 3:16, instead of offering a meaning for "world" you assume (whether based on your theology or semantics or whatever) that "world" probably means every single person in history. What if "world" in John's mind was just another way to refer to the nations, tribes, tongues, families, etc.? That seems to be a major movement in Scripture... not the salvation of every person but salvation reaching to every nation. That was Abraham's mission extended to Israel (Gen. 12:3; cf. Gal. 3:8). Notice Abraham comes in Gen. 12 on the heels of Gen. 11 and the tower of Babel where you have the spread of wicked nations as a result. That's no accident.

The mantra "it means what it says" is nothing but a tautology. It means what John and ultimately what God meant it to mean. I would look for the divine author's theme in Scripture and see if that accords w/ the message in Jn 3:16. In this case, yes, God loves every nation, not just 1 nation Israel.

In Exodus 12, who was the the sacrificial lamb for? In Leviticus 16, whose sins were placed upon the goat, who Aaron placed both his hands upon?

 

[humblethinker]

I think you meant metaphor.

Just as an example, I feel you muddy the water yourself. Jn 3:16, instead of offering a meaning for "world" you assume (whether based on your theology or semantics or whatever) that "world" probably means every single person in history. What if "world" in John's mind was just another way to refer to the nations, tribes, tongues, families, etc.? That seems to be a major movement in Scripture... not the salvation of every person but salvation reaching to every nation. That was Abraham's mission extended to Israel (Gen. 12:3; cf. Gal. 3:8). Notice Abraham comes in Gen. 12 on the heels of Gen. 11 and the tower of Babel where you have the spread of wicked nations as a result. That's no accident.

The mantra "it means what it says" is nothing but a tautology. It means what John and ultimately what God meant it to mean. I would look for the divine author's theme in Scripture and see if that accords w/ the message in Jn 3:16. In this case, yes, God loves every nation, not just 1 nation Israel.

It matters not what John had in mind as it does what Jesus had in mind since Jesus is the one actually speaking to Nicodemus. Also, according to your view Jesus' use of "the world", "whosoever", and "he that believeth" would all have point to some very specific limited understanding of who Jesus is talking about. This seems a stretch from what Nicodemus would reasonably understand in his conversation with Jesus. Why should I expect that Nicodemus left that night with the understanding that you have? I find no support for this whatsoever, however, it seems perfectly reasonable that Nicodemus understood Jesus as meaning anyone in the world with no qualifications.

 

[webdog]

I think you meant metaphor.

Just as an example, I feel you muddy the water yourself. Jn 3:16, instead of offering a meaning for "world" you assume (whether based on your theology or semantics or whatever) that "world" probably means every single person in history. What if "world" in John's mind was just another way to refer to the nations, tribes, tongues, families, etc.? That seems to be a major movement in Scripture... not the salvation of every person but salvation reaching to every nation. That was Abraham's mission extended to Israel (Gen. 12:3; cf. Gal. 3:8). Notice Abraham comes in Gen. 12 on the heels of Gen. 11 and the tower of Babel where you have the spread of wicked nations as a result. That's no accident.

The mantra "it means what it says" is nothing but a tautology. It means what John and ultimately what God meant it to mean. I would look for the divine author's theme in Scripture and see if that accords w/ the message in Jn 3:16. In this case, yes, God loves every nation, not just 1 nation Israel.

Tell me...why didn't John say elect, believers, etc instead of world?

Your reasoning reminds me of satan's reply to Eve "did He really say...".

The hoops one needs to jump through is amazing.

 

[Greektim]

Tell me...why didn't John say elect, believers, etc instead of world?

Your reasoning reminds me of satan's reply to Eve "did He really say...".

The hoops one needs to jump through is amazing.

It can be just as easily argued that--"why didn't John say every single person who ever lived instead of world?"

You are asserting a definition just as I am. But I am trying to base it off of a Biblical theme that is woven and intertwined throughout Scripture. And if you follow the direction of John's teaching, "world" eventually morphs into "tribes, tongues, nations" etc. That speaks volumes to me.

FYI... I'm not interpreting this to help prove Calvinism. I am doing this more to help prove a missional reading of Scripture. It just so happens that it tends to refute the non-Calvi interpretation. This is not hoops. This is biblical theology (as opposed to systematic theology).

 

[OldRegular]

Listen, what I am about to type IS NOT directed @ my Calvinistic Brethern, but at their Calvinistic system.


Calvinism does nothing but muddy the water. Take John 3:16 for instance. It says that God so loved the world, but Calvinism states the elect of the world, when God's Word doesn't. When John the Baptist stated, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world,"(John 1:29) again, Calvinism inserts the sin of the elect was placed upon Jesus, and no one else. Romans 5:6 states that Christ died for the ungodly, and true to form, Calvinism bends it to make it say the elect of the ungodly only. Romans 3:23 states that all have sinned. If all have sinned then all were ungodly, so Christ tasted death for every man(Hebrews 2:9), and again, Calvinism bends it in an attempt to state otherwise. This is why I don't adhere to Calvinism. It speaks when not spoken to, it walks where there is no ground, it swims when there is no water, and any other hyperbole I could think of.

Again, please don't take this as a personal jab at my Calvinistic Brethern, but at the system only.

If one takes what you write literally it would mean Universal Salvation.

 

[psalms109:31]

All men, the world is the dead sinning world, the heathens. That He sent His Son. Jesus came to save sinners which I am, the worst. The world is not limited not that they will be saved that He loved them that He sent His.
The saved goes on the next sentence whosoever believes they are the elect.

I pray for the sinners if men ever get a hold of the word of God and change the inspired word of God to men’s own understanding.

If the Holy Spirit meant nations, tribes, tongues, families, etc.? He would of said it.

"My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater"

C.H Spurgeon

 

[humblethinker]

If one takes what you write literally it would mean Universal Salvation.

No it wouldn't. Only in your theological construct.

 

[webdog]

It can be just as easily argued that--"why didn't John say every single person who ever lived instead of world?"

He did...he said the world. Pretty broad and encompassing. He goes even further in referencing whole world. Nothing inclusive about that at all.

You are asserting a definition just as I am. But I am trying to base it off of a Biblical theme that is woven and intertwined throughout Scripture. And if you follow the direction of John's teaching, "world" eventually morphs into "tribes, tongues, nations" etc. That speaks volumes to me.

I disagree. I believe you are reading it with your presupposition already built in.

FYI... I'm not interpreting this to help prove Calvinism. I am doing this more to help prove a missional reading of Scripture. It just so happens that it tends to refute the non-Calvi interpretation. This is not hoops. This is biblical theology (as opposed to systematic theology).

Eisegesis is not a missional reading of Scripture. It is a faulty one.

 

[humblethinker]

I disagree. I believe you are reading it with your presupposition already built in.

I agree WD! That is the only way that one could come away with such an understanding. We need to come to the text with the context in mind. This was a conversation between Nick and Jesus. Jesus clearly communicated to Nick and There is no reason to think that Nick walked away with the understanding of a calvinistic doctrine... That just seems so obvious. Please Cals, show me how Nick would have understood it as you say you understand it. This is just rediculous.

 

[Greektim]

He did...he said the world. Pretty broad and encompassing. He goes even further in referencing whole world. Nothing inclusive about that at all.

According to your understanding, but kosmos has a broad range of meaning. You still have to insert a meaning to "world" to get to every single person who ever lived. To deny this is to adhere to hypocrisy.

I disagree. I believe you are reading it with your presupposition already built in.

I'm not denying that. But for you to deny that for yourself would be a mistake and more hypocrisy. We all bring presuppositions to the text. My supposition is one centered around a biblical theological theme of God blessing the nations - i.e. the mission of God. Paul was so moved by that theme of God blessing the nations that he calls it the gospel!!!

Eisegesis is not a missional reading of Scripture. It is a faulty one.

Not sure what to make of your first sentence. A missional reading of Scripture is a hermeneutic; and one practiced by Jesus himself as demonstrated in Luk 24:44f. He interpreted TNKh messianically and missionally. So there is a biblical basis for it. To write it off so disrespectfully is also a mistake.

Your tone is one as if you are the end all be all of interpretation and truth. Just a caution.

 

[Greektim]

I agree WD! That is the only way that one could come away with such an understanding. We need to come to the text with the context in mind. This was a conversation between Nick and Jesus. Jesus clearly communicated to Nick and There is no reason to think that Nick walked away with the understanding of a calvinistic doctrine... That just seems so obvious. Please Cals, show me how Nick would have understood it as you say you understand it. This is just rediculous.

If we keep in mind that Nicodemus was Jesus' audience, then you are right, he is not going to think of Calvinistic doctrine. He is going to think of OT theology (and I would argue that John the writer is thinking of that too; in case you wanted to make the point to interpret the text rather than the event). And that is a theology centered around the nations not individuals. So you are making my point. I am not saying Jn 3:16 proves Calvinism. I am just saying that it does not disprove it as the non-Calvie asserts. Its point is more about the mission of God to bless the nations. The grand narrative of Scripture is caught up with that theme, begun in Gen. 12:2-3.

 

[OldRegular]

No it wouldn't. Only in your theological construct.

Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

John 1:29
Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world,

If Jesus Christ "tasted death for every man", if He "takes away the sins of the world" then why is salvation not universal?

 

[humblethinker]

Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

John 1:29
Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world,

If Jesus Christ "tasted death for every man", if He "takes away the sins of the world" then why is salvation not universal?

Do you read much besides your own? There's theological explanation for this at your fingertips, should be easy to find. The atonement is available to all and to those who don't believe, not putting their trust in Christ, the blood will not go to waste. It will indeed be a testimony against them for had the provision not been made then there would be no reason for them to come to Him. Your claim is like me saying that your voicing to people everywhere should be, "Come to Jesus, while the odds are against it, perhaps there is atonement for you!"

I ask you, if Jesus Christ "tasted death for every man", if He "takes away the sins of the world" then how can that be so?

 

[Van]

I see we are on page eight and no discussion of the topic, the meaning of foreknow and foreknowledge is occurring because once again the Calvinists are talking about everything and anything except the scriptures using those two words.

If Calvinism could be defended from scripture, they would post scripture, but instead we have one assertion after another.

 

[psalms109:31]

Luke 17
Jesus Heals Ten Men With Leprosy

11 Now on his way to Jerusalem, Jesus traveled along the border between Samaria and Galilee. 12 As he was going into a village, ten men who had leprosy[The Greek word traditionally translated leprosy was used for various diseases affecting the skin.] met him. They stood at a distance 13 and called out in a loud voice, “Jesus, Master, have pity on us!”
14 When he saw them, he said, “Go, show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went, they were cleansed.
15 One of them, when he saw he was healed, came back, praising God in a loud voice. 16 He threw himself at Jesus’ feet and thanked him—and he was a Samaritan.
17 Jesus asked, “Were not all ten cleansed? Where are the other nine? 18 Has no one returned to give praise to God except this foreigner?” 19 Then he said to him, “Rise and go; your faith has made you well.”


Hosea 6:
6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

Psalm 73:28
But it is good for me to draw near to God: I have put my trust in the Lord GOD, that I may declare all thy works.

Romans 4 :
4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

James 2:14
[ Faith and Deeds ] What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?



God didn't give us a Spirit of fear,fearing that everything we do is earning our salvation instead of praising God and acknowledging what He has done.

Faith without deeds is dead, that we should be walking in the new life acknowledging God and what He has done, not what we have done.

 

[Van]

1 Peter 1:2 says what it says for anyone willing to read it straightup. The believers of the dispersion were chosen according to God's foreknowledge is how it reads. So the NIV, ESV, NASB, and NKJV. The method or how they were chosen is by the sanctifying work of the Spirit who set those chosen apart for obedience and sprinkling with the blood of Jesus.

Folks the Calvinist assertion that foreknow and Foreknowledge are not used to describe actions based on prior plans of action, i.e. God's plan of redemption formulated before creation, is simply fiction.

Folks, Van's assumptions are wrong for as the list of verses posted below shows there is a book of life with all the names already recorded from BEFORE the foundations of the world were established. It further shows that that those who were NOT written in the book from before the foundation of the world were deceived?

When are the names written in the Lamb's book of life? Before the foundation of the world as Calvinism claims, or from the foundation of the world as found in scripture?

These verses each have three words, together - "the book of life."

Philippians 4:3 And I entreat thee also, true yoke fellow, help those women which labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellow laborers, whose names are in the book of life.

Revelation 3:5 He that overcomes, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Revelation 13:8 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.

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou saw was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Revelation 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defiles, neither whatsoever works abomination, or makes a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.​

So the very verses posted demonstrate our names are written in the Book of Life from or after the foundation of the world. Calvinism has once again referred to a verse saying the exact opposite of what they claim.

NO Scripture ever indicates names are ADDED

Yet another fiction from the falsehood collection of Calvinism. When are we enrolled in heaven? When we are saved, i.e when we are made perfect by being spiritually placed in Christ. Hebrews 12:23

In summary, names are written from the foundation of the world and this period starts at creation and extends to the end of the age. We are individually enrolled in heaven when we are spiritually placed in Christ, and thus made perfect.
The claim of Calvinism, names written before the foundation of the world, has been shown to be refuted by the very scriptures cited.

 

[OldRegular]

Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

John 1:29
Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world,

My comment to convicted1's post #61 was that if the above Scripture and associated verbiage were taken literally it would mean universal salvation. [My post #67]

You responded as follows:

No it wouldn't. Only in your theological construct.

In followup you wrote:

Do you read much besides your own?

Besides my own what??

There's theological explanation for this at your fingertips, should be easy to find.

Noted and filed!

The atonement is available to all and to those who don't believe, not putting their trust in Christ, the blood will not go to waste. It will indeed be a testimony against them for had the provision not been made then there would be no reason for them to come to Him.

Given your theological aptitude can you support the above with Scripture?

Your claim is like me saying that your voicing to people everywhere should be, "Come to Jesus, while the odds are against it, perhaps there is atonement for you!"

I ask you, if Jesus Christ "tasted death for every man", if He "takes away the sins of the world" then how can that be so?

Your last two sentences are contradictory. Apparently you are chasing your tail. Of course perhaps the statement of Festus to the Apostle Paul is also applicable to you.

Acts 26:24. Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.

 

[Greektim]

I see we are on page eight and no discussion of the topic, the meaning of foreknow and foreknowledge is occurring because once again the Calvinists are talking about everything and anything except the scriptures using those two words.

If Calvinism could be defended from scripture, they would post scripture, but instead we have one assertion after another.

I posted a couple times comments about faulty views of foreknowledge and no one responded (on my own thread no less!!!). I'll try one more time.

Winman said:

I believe God can foresee the future and infallibly predict what will happen.

My response:

Logically, God is infallible. He knows the future (although you used the term foresee as if he views time linearly). Since God is infallible, then what he knows beforehand cannot be wrong and thus cannot occur any other way than the way he knew would happen. Therefore, even the events he "infallibly predict" are predetermined/predetermining since God cannot be wrong.

So your view of foreknowledge is paradoxical. You argue for a view that means God's predetermined decrees are based on his foreknowledge only to result w/ his foreknowledge becoming a predetermining decree in themselves (assuming your definition of foreknowledge).