What do you believe in?

[Jake255]

Problem is, your definition of predestination is wrong. What you believe in is free will, but you've changed what predestination is to fit your beliefs.

Predestination means that we were elected, according to God's own will, not ours. It's not a reaction to the faith God foreknew we would conjure up ourselves: that would be acknowledgement, not election.

If you believe that we have a choice in the matter, then you believe in free will, which is incompatible with predestination, which claims that we don't.

Problem is, your entire understanding of God's mercy for all men is wrong.

What you believe is simply part of the Bible, and not taking it's entire council, you have rejected "some" and kept "some", which is throwing God's Word into the garbage - at least that is something you have done.

There are words such as accept, receive, repent, be baptize, abide in, and there are many, many "if" statements that are conditional for ALL of our salvation.

We are not robots, God wants us to actively seek His face, that is something we do.

We do, do something.

 

[DeaconDean]

Once again, everything God does is according to His foreknowledge. God knew who would come to His Son, and He chose to save us.

If this statement is true, then Jesus died in vain.

Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Christo are meaningless terms.

For, we have done something that merited God chosing us for salvation i.e.: "God knew who would come to His Son, and He chose to save us."

This also makes Paul, Peter, and the scriptures liars. (cf. Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Eph. 2:8-9)

If God uses "foreknowledge" of who would accept and believe and therefore "elected" us on that basis, we have bragging rights in heaven for we have done, rather will have done something which merited God's favor.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Here is another exerpt from my article: "Predestination, Foreknowledge and Free Will, What do they have to do with each other?":

Arthur W. Pink wrote a series of articles and works that were published between 1922 and 1952 in a monthly publication called “Studies in the Scriptures.” One such work he labored to produce was entitled: “The Attributes of God.” In this work, he listed seventeen attributes attributed to God. Attributes three and four, are the ones that sound alike but have different meanings “The Knowledge of God,” and “The Foreknowledge of God.” In “The Foreknowledge of God” he makes one statement which will show that the so-called “foreknowledge,” “foreseen,” “foresaw,” foreordination,” does not precede predestination, in fact, the opposite is established:

“…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 God knew they would believe, He, accordingly, predestinated them unto salvation…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.”[1]

What is being said is that God foreseen certain people would be receptive to the word and the workings of the Spirit, and would respond and believe. For these reasons, God predestinated them to eternal life. This is the theology held mostly by Arminianism. Lets examine the word used here for “foreknowledge.”

In the Greek, the word used by Paul is “proginwskien.” We have already given the definition for this word, so we will forgo repeating it here. But what we do want to look at, is the scripture references that were given along with the definition. Perhaps we are wrong and it is “foreknowledge” of foreseen acts that God predestines the elect to eternal life.

Turning to Acts 26:5, we read:
“Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.”

-Acts 26:5 (KJV)​

In the Greek text, we read:
“isaoi pantev oi 'Ioudaioi proginwskontev me anwqoen ean qelwsi
marturein oti kata thn akribesta thn airesin thv hmeterav qrhskeisv
ezjsa farisaiov”

-Acts 26:5 (GNT)​

Here we want to pull out this part of the sentence:
“isaoi pantev oi 'Ioudaioi proginwskontev meanwqoen"

This part of the Greek is roughly translated as: “know all the Jews, before knowing me.” Paul here has been brought before Agrippa, being accused by the Jews and in the context of Acts 26, also uses the Greek word “anwqoen” (anothen-“from the first”). When looking at this sentence, the first thing to do is to find the nominative (subject). And here it is “proginwskontev” because according to The New Analytical Greek Lexicon” by Wesley J. Perschbacker, editor, this word is listed as nominative, plural, masculine, and it is in the present active indicative.[2] Now we must ask the question, when is it being known? “anwqoen,” “from the first. “anwqoen” is an adverb and the verb form of know is in the nominative of “proginwskontev,” it modifies this word telling us when it is being made known, “from the first.” The next question to ask is who is being known from the first? “me” me (Paul). “me” is in the accusative case making it the direct object of the adverb.[3]

Now having shown this, from what has been given, this sentence so far can be rendered three different ways, but they will still mean the same: “from the first, being previously acquainted with me,” or “having known me from the first,” or “in the beginning, having known me.” Any one of these would be correct. And this leads us to this question, who has the foreknowledge of Paul from the first that he is telling Agrippa of? In the previous four verses, there is no mention of God in any form. God is mentioned in verse six, but in verse six, the time, tense, changes from past to present with the words: “kai nun” and now. So the answer cannot come from verse six, it must be found in something said from the past. So who form the first, was previously acquainted with Paul? The Jews, who are bringing Paul before Agrippa, “hIoudaioi” –a Jew. This word is in the nominative case, it is plural, masculine, and it is used as an adjective.[4] So now we know that Paul, who was a Jew, having been known from the first by the Jews, have foreknowledge of Paul. Therefore, it is not God who has foreknowledge of Paul, but rather it is the Jews. So how did the Jews have previous knowledge of, or were previously acquainted with Paul. Before Paul met the Lord on the Damascus road, he was known as Saul. (Acts 9) He was of the sect known as the Pharisees. (Acts 22:3; 26:5) He was taught at the feet of Gamaliel. (Acts 22:3) He was know as a zealous Pharisee. (Acts 23:6; 26:5; 2 Cor. 11:22; Gal. 1:14; Phil. 3:5) And he was well known for his zealous persecution of Christians and was present at the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58; 8:1, 3; 9:1; 22:4) So it would seem highly improbable that the Jews could not have foreknowledge of “Saul of Tarsus” or what he did.

So from what we find is the “foreknowledge” or “being previously acquainted with” that is shown in Acts 26:5 is that of knowing earlier, i.e., than the time speaking of. The “foreknowledge that is inferred by Paul of the Jews, is in his past history. But just to be on the safe side, let us examine the other passage of scripture that was also spoken of. In another section we will give a complete definition of “proginwskien.” Rudolf Bultmann comments on this and gives 1 Pet. 1:20 as another passage about “foreknowledge.”

In the Greek we read:
“proegnosmenou men apo kataboljv kosmou pjanerotjentov de ep
escaton ton cponon di umav”

-1 Pet. 1:20 (GNT)​

Roughly translated as:
“having known before of (the) foundation world was manifested in the last (the) times for thou/you.”[5]


Let us proceed to go through 1 Peter 1:20 and identify each part of the sentence from the part of Greek grammar. For those who are versed in Greek, 1 Pet. 1:20 will be posted again with Strong’s numbers for reference:
“proegnosmenou (4267) men (3303) apo (4253) kataboljv (2602)
kosmou (2889) pjanerotjentov (5319) de ep (1909) escaton (2078)
twn cponon (5550) di (1223) umav 95209)”

The following list of definitions for the Greek words, come out of The New Analytical Greek Lexicon:
1. 3303 – part. Used to indicate a term or clause that is distinguished from another; i.e., this that; the one-the other; one-another; some-others; here there; partly-partly. Usage depends on the sequential phrase or clause or term. (p. 270)
2. 4253 – prep. With a genitive meaning “before, in front of; in advance of.” (p. 344)
3. 2602 – properly- a casting down; laying a foundation; foundation; beginning; commencement; –Gen. Sg. M. N. (p. 199)
4. 2289 – properly- order, regular disposition; ornament; decoration; embellishment; the world; the material universe; -Gen. Sg. M. N. (p. 425)
5. 5319 – to bring to light; to set in a clear light; to manifest, display; spec. Of Christ, to be personally manifested. –Gen. Sg. M. Aor. Pass. Part. (p. 452)
6. 1909 – in this usage, “de ep” the de serves to mark the resumption of an interrupted discourse, and ep since it is followed by an apostrophe, is a conjunctive form of epi which makes it a preposition with a genitive meaning “upon; on; in; near upon; by; at et. al.” (p. 159)
7. 2078 – Nom. Sg. M. adj. – meaning “farthest; last; lowest; in the lowest plight.” (p. 176)
8. 5550 – Nom. Sg. M. N. – meaning “time; whether in respect of duration or a definite point of it’s lapse; an epoch; era; marked duration.” (p. 441)
9. 1223 – prep. With a genitive meaning: “through; during; in the course of; by; by means of, with; in a state of; when used with an accusative it is used of causation which is not direct and immediate in the production of a result: “on the account of; because of; for the sake of; with a view to; and in a rare use in the NT, it can mean: “while subject to a state of untoward circumstances” as in Gal. 4:13. (p. 90)
10. 5209 – Accusative, pl. 2 pers. Pers. Pro. Of 4771. “thou” (p.416)[6]


[1] The Essential Arthur W. Pink Collection, The Attributes of God, Prince Press, Baker Book House Company, Ma., 1975

[2] The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacker, editor, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody Ma., 01961, Ninth Printing, 2006, p. 345

[3] New Testament Greek for Beginners, J. Gresham Machen, D.D., Litt. D., Prentice Hall, Inc. A Simon & Schuster Company, Englewood Cliffs, NJ., 07458, 1922, Chapter IV, The Second Declension, #34, p. 25

[4] The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacker, editor, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody Ma., 01961, Ninth Printing, 2006, p. 209-10

[5] The Interlinear Bible, Hebrew, Greek, English, Jay P. Green, Sr., Editor and translator, Hendrickson, 2006, NT, 1 Pet. 1:20, p. 940

[6] The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacker, editor, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody Ma., 01961, Ninth Printing, 2006, (page numbers listed)

Continued...

 

[DeaconDean]

For reference, the Genitive case expresses: possession.[1] In looking at the words in this verse, we find that the genitive case of the words, that express possession, all point back to Jesus as the subject that possesses everything of verse 20. And in the context of this chapter, Peter is talking about Christ’s knowledge that He ultimately will end up crucified on a cross to save the world. This “foreknowledge” has nothing to do with the predestination or election process. Therefore, in this chapter, 1 Pet. 1:20 is in agreement with the principles set forth in the statement in Acts 26:5. This statement is not about predestination and election, rather it is about Christ’s fulfillment of the Law, reconciliation, salvation, justification, and sanctification that He was to provide for us.
Perhaps the “foreknowledge” of God is found in Acts 2:23 in the word “foreordain.” The Greek word used in Acts 2:23 for “foreordained” is “wrismesj” (– orismenh). It is in the dative case, singular, feminine, and the perfect passive participle of “wraiov.” Meaning “timely; seasonable; in prime; blooming; beautiful. (The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, p. 445)When used in the Aorist tense as it is in Acts 2:23, it carries the “fixed point-in-time” determination. It draws its root meaning from the Greek word: “orizw” (-orixo). Which when used in the Old Testament, dealt with the setting up of boundaries


and placing limits. It is found in Num. 34:6; Jos. 13:27; 15:12; 18:20, and in the Masoretic text it dealt with the fixing of the boundaries on the occupation of Israel.
When it is used in the NT, it is used in the Aorist tense and carries the meaning of fixed determinately. In the context of Acts 2:23, this word carries the whole of the work of Christ as He was appointed to do by God in the work of salvation. In Acts 2:23 we read:
“Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:”

-Acts 2:23 (KJV)​

In Acts 2:23 the phrase “the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” is explained in Kittel’s in this manner:
“According to Acts 13:36 the death of David took place according to God’s boulj. (The context demands that tj tou qeou boulj be related to ekoimjqj, because in contrast to David, Jesus has not seen corruption. It is also easier to understand the first dative idia genea on this view) According to Acts 2:23 Jesus is delivered up tj wrismenj boulj kai prognwsei tou queo. This counsel is predetermined and inflexible. Both phrases emphasize the resolute and inviolable determinations of the decree. Similarly Acts 4:28 treats of the fact that Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles, and Israel all conspired against Jesus to do osa j ceir sou kai j boulj prowrisen genesqai.”[2]

In this context, while God is all knowing, there is nothing in the words which would lead us to believe that God had foreknowledge of any foreseen faith, believing, or works done on their behalf. Rather this verse plainly shows that God had predetermined that Christ had to go to the cross and that it was by His determinate counsel to work within the mob to accomplish His work.

[1] New Testament Greek for Beginners, J. Gresham Machen, D.D., Litt. D., Prentice Hall, Inc. A Simon & Schuster Company, Englewood Cliffs, NJ., 07458, 1922, Chapter IV, The Second Declension, #35, p. 25

[2] Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Edited by: Gerhard Kittel, Translated by: Geoffery W. Bromiley, Vol. I, “boulj”, p. 635, Gottlob Schrenk.

God does not use "foreknowledge" of who would or would not accept and believe as the basis of His election. If he did, then it is not grace, it is merit, merit based somethin we will do in the future which merits His divine favor like chosing to accept and believe.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[GrayAngel]

Wow. Skala is doing such a good job here, I don't even know why you need me anymore. He definitely knows his stuff.

Dean, I've also read your stuff. I don't know if I agree with you on everything, but I do agree on most of what you wrote.

Problem is, your entire understanding of God's mercy for all men is wrong.

What you believe is simply part of the Bible, and not taking it's entire council, you have rejected "some" and kept "some", which is throwing God's Word into the garbage - at least that is something you have done.

There are words such as accept, receive, repent, be baptize, abide in, and there are many, many "if" statements that are conditional for ALL of our salvation.

We are not robots, God wants us to actively seek His face, that is something we do.

We do, do something.

Reflecting my argument back at me won't change the truth. Your definition of predestination is wrong, and it's UNBIBLICAL. Your attempts to resolve predestination and free will are in vain. It is an impossible task. The simple fact is that the Bible teaches predestination, and free will is just another phony idea invented by men.

None of the verses you've provided have proven your point yet. I'm not the one nitpicking through the Bible, ignoring the ones that don't fit my own preconceived notions. I used to believe in free will too, and I used a lot of the same arguments you are using now. But when I let the Bible speak for itself, I saw the truth: God predestines, free will is a myth.

You continually bring up the if/then argument. It is true that IF we believe THEN we will be saved. But the Bible says nothing about free choice in the matter. Your argument is weak and baseless. The if and then are based on our ignorance of the future, not free will.

You're right that we are not robots. We're sinners, who could never do anything to please God, no matter how hard we try. By nature, we are God's enemies. It is ONLY by God's grace that we could be transformed. It is ONLY when He intercedes that faith can grow. Free will has no part in salvation.

 

[Jake255]

Wow. Skala is doing such a good job here, I don't even know why you need me anymore. He definitely knows his stuff.

Dean, I've also read your stuff. I don't know if I agree with you on everything, but I do agree on most of what you wrote.



Reflecting my argument back at me won't change the truth. Your definition of predestination is wrong, and it's UNBIBLICAL. Your attempts to resolve predestination and free will are in vain. It is an impossible task. The simple fact is that the Bible teaches predestination, and free will is just another phony idea invented by men.

None of the verses you've provided have proven your point yet. I'm not the one nitpicking through the Bible, ignoring the ones that don't fit my own preconceived notions. I used to believe in free will too, and I used a lot of the same arguments you are using now. But when I let the Bible speak for itself, I saw the truth: God predestines, free will is a myth.

You continually bring up the if/then argument. It is true that IF we believe THEN we will be saved. But the Bible says nothing about free choice in the matter. Your argument is weak and baseless. The if and then are based on our ignorance of the future, not free will.

You're right that we are not robots. We're sinners, who could never do anything to please God, no matter how hard we try. By nature, we are God's enemies. It is ONLY by God's grace that we could be transformed. It is ONLY when He intercedes that faith can grow. Free will has no part in salvation.

The "IF" is the condition of the covenant we have with God, He is faithful to do His part, but we are not always faithful in our part.

The Bible also teaches we can lose our salvation, but your man-made doctrine throws those verses out, as well.

God is god of mercy, He is not going to send babies to hell, like your man-made doctrine asserts, and just because YOU don't believe in it, doesn't mean that is not what that doctrine teaches, because it does.

There is only One that is chosen and that is Jesus. It has NOTHING to do with you, stop focusing on YOU as "the chosen", you are not, it is only IN Him that any of us have any hope.

This doctrine has not always been around, it is man-made, do a research on how this doctrine came about.

 

[Jake255]

If this statement is true, then Jesus died in vain.

Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Christo are meaningless terms.

For, we have done something that merited God chosing us for salvation i.e.: "God knew who would come to His Son, and He chose to save us."

This also makes Paul, Peter, and the scriptures liars. (cf. Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Eph. 2:8-9)

If God uses "foreknowledge" of who would accept and believe and therefore "elected" us on that basis, we have bragging rights in heaven for we have done, rather will have done something which merited God's favor.

God Bless

Till all are one.

This is EXACTLY what I have been trying to say! Good job!

LET NO MAN BOAST!

 

[DeaconDean]

Dean, I've also read your stuff. I don't know if I agree with you on everything, but I do agree on most of what you wrote.

When I started seminary in 2002, I started reading and studying doctrines.

Foreknowledge, as in God looked forward in time, seen who would and would not accept Jesys, was one of the topics I studied for well over a year.

I spent a year reading and studying the doctrine of election as well as "free-will".

Even though a lot is attributed to Reformed Theology, these have been beliefs Baptists have held in America from the 1700's upward.

Did God look forward in time and choose the Hebrews because they would do something or because they were the biggest?

Not according to Deut. 7:

"For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt." -Deut. 7:6-8 (KJV)

This is election without foreknowledge.

"(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." -Rom. 9:11-13 (KJV)

This is election without "foreknowledge", "children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth". (vs, 11 and Eph. 1:4-6, 9-11)

I don't speak unless I know, and I know for I have spent the time studying. And I wouldn't say it unless the Word says it, because I will held accountable for what I teach. (cf. Jas. 3:1)

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Predestination. Determinism. Fatalism. All of it.

 

[cubinity]

So...
What I'm getting from all this is that before I even existed, God had chosen me, personally, to inherit eternal life.
There is nothing I have done or will do that can change that.
Nothing I do, ethically or unethically, will have any ramifications on my salvation, in the least.
I'm not implying anything with this. I am genuinely asking. Is that what is being said here?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

So...
What I'm getting from all this is that before I even existed, God had chosen me, personally, to inherit eternal life.
There is nothing I have done or will do that can change that.
Nothing I do, ethically or unethically, will have any ramifications on my salvation, in the least.
I'm not implying anything with this. I am genuinely asking. Is that what is being said here?

Nothing can move God. He is the prime mover.

 

[cubinity]

Nothing can move God. He is the prime mover.

When I get the dirty looks from Christians at the church, I should know they're just being judgmental, and that in spite of what they say, I really am good with God. I like that.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

When I get the dirty looks from Christians at the church, I should know they're just being judgmental, and that in spite of what they say, I really am good with God. I like that.

Usually the ones being judgmental and giving you the dirty looks are hell bound. They are usually the most evil people on the planet.

 

[cubinity]

Usually the ones being judgmental and giving you the dirty looks are hell bound. They are usually the most evil people on the planet.

That's how I was feeling, too. But, you know, you never want it to just be you that feels that way. Thanks for the support!

Wait, isn't that, in its own way, us giving them a dirty look?
Aaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Osage Bluestem]

That's how I was feeling, too. But, you know, you never want it to just be you that feels that way. Thanks for the support!

Wait, isn't that, in its own way, us giving them a dirty look?
Aaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not at all. The word usually is the get out of jail free card. Plus we are supposed to be nice to everyone and not give them dirty looks and be self righteous and legalistic.

 

[GrayAngel]

So...
What I'm getting from all this is that before I even existed, God had chosen me, personally, to inherit eternal life.
There is nothing I have done or will do that can change that.
Nothing I do, ethically or unethically, will have any ramifications on my salvation, in the least.
I'm not implying anything with this. I am genuinely asking. Is that what is being said here?

Our actions still matter. Faith without works is dead. A predestined person wouldn't have dead faith.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Our actions still matter. Faith without works is dead. A predestined person wouldn't have dead faith.

That just means that if someone believes they will live like it. Everyone lives like they want to live.

 

[cubinity]

Our actions still matter. Faith without works is dead. A predestined person wouldn't have dead faith.

According to predestination, a predestined person doesn't necessarily have any faith, dead or living. After all, my faith is irrelevant to God predestining me. Isn't that the point of the whole debate anyway?

I'm not saying the theory is wrong. I'm just saying that it seems like double speak to say faith is not a factor, but that faith is a factor, and that works are not a factor, but faith without works is dead, and a predestined person wouldn't have that, so it really is a factor, etc,etc.

 

[cubinity]

Not at all. The word usually is the get out of jail free card. Plus we are supposed to be nice to everyone and not give them dirty looks and be self righteous and legalistic.

Sounds like an absurd case of my condemning you to hell is not as bad as you simply not liking me. Something about that seems terribly skewed. But, maybe that's just me...

 

[GrayAngel]

According to predestination, a predestined person doesn't necessarily have any faith, dead or living. After all, my faith is irrelevant to God predestining me. Isn't that the point of the whole debate anyway?

I'm not saying the theory is wrong. I'm just saying that it seems like double speak to say faith is not a factor, but that faith is a factor, and that works are not a factor, but faith without works is dead, and a predestined person wouldn't have that, so it really is a factor, etc,etc.

Faith is still a factor, but it's the result, not the cause, of predestination. Those who were predestined were preordained to come into faith. But God did not look into the future, see who would have faith, and then predestine them.