Arminians and "Foreseen Faith"

[Apologetic_Warrior]

So today I listened to the late Dr. S. Lewis Johnson again, from his series of systematic theology lectures pertaining to Soteriology. More specifically one of the six part "For Whom Did Christ Die" lectures.

He brought up an issue I had long forgotten, an objection to the Arminian notion of Predestination amounting to God looking into the future beforehand, and basing His election on the foreseen faith of people whom accepted the atonement of Christ for their sins. Please allow me to attempt to unpack the line of thought, and try to be fair to those whom disagree at the same time.

But before I do that, let me preface by saying that I know ALL Christians believe our sovereign God is all-knowing, that God is omniscient (with the exception of the small minority of modern "Open Theists"). I joyfully acknowledge that NO traditional Arminian denies the omniscience of God. We agree on the attributes of our Triune God. With that said, I will move on to next part.

I seriously doubt most Christians of the Arminian variety have given the following much thought, and I must say, when I heard it, I was like "whoa". The logic of the argument is tight, and S. Lewis Johnson explains the issue far better than I can, nevertheless I will try.

So here is the issue, let's assume the commonly believed notion of "foreseen faith" for the sake of the argument. If God had to look into the future to foresee faith by (which is a common Arminians explaination of predestination), then God did not know those "freewill" choices to accept Christ, rather He looked into the future and "learned" who would choose Christ and based His choice on foreknowledge, but it cannot logically be said that God is all-knowing or omniscient certainly in the classical sense of Arminianism, if election is based on foreknowledge of "freewill" choices. This strikes me as a very serious problem for the non-Calvinist, but perhaps the non-Calvinists here can unravel this.

 

[Lee52]

So today I listened to the late Dr. S. Lewis Johnson again, from his series of systematic theology lectures pertaining to Soteriology. More specifically one of the six part "For Whom Did Christ Die" lectures.

He brought up an issue I had long forgotten, an objection to the Arminian notion of Predestination amounting to God looking into the future beforehand, and basing His election on the foreseen faith of people whom accepted the atonement of Christ for their sins. Please allow me to attempt to unpack the line of thought, and try to be fair to those whom disagree at the same time.

But before I do that, let me preface by saying that I know ALL Christians believe our sovereign God is all-knowing, that God is omniscient (with the exception of the small minority of modern "Open Theists"). I joyfully acknowledge that NO traditional Arminian denies the omniscience of God. We agree on the attributes of our Triune God. With that said, I will move on to next part.

I seriously doubt most Christians of the Arminian variety have given the following much thought, and I must say, when I heard it, I was like "whoa". The logic of the argument is tight, and S. Lewis Johnson explains the issue far better than I can, nevertheless I will try.

So here is the issue, let's assume the commonly believed notion of "foreseen faith" for the sake of the argument. If God had to look into the future to foresee faith by (which is a common Arminians explaination of predestination), then God did not know those "freewill" choices to accept Christ, rather He looked into the future and "learned" who would choose Christ and based His choice on foreknowledge, but it cannot logically be said that God is all-knowing or omniscient certainly in the classical sense of Arminianism, if election is based on foreknowledge of "freewill" choices. This strikes me as a very serious problem for the non-Calvinist, but perhaps the non-Calvinists here can unravel this.

I grow tired of posting and reposting Arminian and Wesleyan-Arminian doctrine to read outright, so, I will try one more time to explain it and the misconception by both you and Mr S. Lewis Johnson, who both are looking through tinted lenses and are unable or unwilling to see the obvious.

GOD is not linear. GOD lives outside of time, so He sees all time at the exact same time. Therefore, He sees all people at the same time, those already born and long since departed from the earth, those today, and those tomorrow and up to THAT DAY when He already knows He is going to send Jesus back, and beyond.

Since He sees all time at the same time, Mr S. Lewis Johnson's and your premise falls apart because you limit a limitless GOD to your thought processes. GOD did not have to "learn" anything. He foreknew everything. He knows everything perfect ongoing tense.

I really, sincerely hope and pray that GOD will open your minds so that you can stop locking GOD into things that HE is not locked into, especially when it comes to challenging and arguing against Christian brothers and sisters that have been freed by Jesus' substitutional sacrifice on the cross in our place.

Peace to you,
Lee52

 

[rogueapologist]

So today I listened to the late Dr. S. Lewis Johnson again, from his series of systematic theology lectures pertaining to Soteriology. More specifically one of the six part "For Whom Did Christ Die" lectures.

He brought up an issue I had long forgotten, an objection to the Arminian notion of Predestination amounting to God looking into the future beforehand, and basing His election on the foreseen faith of people whom accepted the atonement of Christ for their sins. Please allow me to attempt to unpack the line of thought, and try to be fair to those whom disagree at the same time.

But before I do that, let me preface by saying that I know ALL Christians believe our sovereign God is all-knowing, that God is omniscient (with the exception of the small minority of modern "Open Theists"). I joyfully acknowledge that NO traditional Arminian denies the omniscience of God. We agree on the attributes of our Triune God. With that said, I will move on to next part.

I seriously doubt most Christians of the Arminian variety have given the following much thought, and I must say, when I heard it, I was like "whoa". The logic of the argument is tight, and S. Lewis Johnson explains the issue far better than I can, nevertheless I will try.

So here is the issue, let's assume the commonly believed notion of "foreseen faith" for the sake of the argument. If God had to look into the future to foresee faith by (which is a common Arminians explaination of predestination), then God did not know those "freewill" choices to accept Christ, rather He looked into the future and "learned" who would choose Christ and based His choice on foreknowledge, but it cannot logically be said that God is all-knowing or omniscient certainly in the classical sense of Arminianism, if election is based on foreknowledge of "freewill" choices. This strikes me as a very serious problem for the non-Calvinist, but perhaps the non-Calvinists here can unravel this.

You mischaracterized Open Theism. Open Theists (of which I count myself a member) most assuredly believe that God is all-knowing, not lacking in any way or part in divine knowledge. The difference in the OT perspective, then, is that the nonsensical notion of foreknowledge is rightfully discarded, and God is understood to know all that there is to know...of which the future is NOT a part. But lest the eager antagonist believes herself to have found an opening, OT maintains that God does not know the future, not because of any inability or lack in God, but rather precisely because the future does not exist to be known. That is, OT's believe that it's quite absurd to speak of God knowing that which doesn't exist...that God knows no-thing.

 

[rogueapologist]

GOD is not linear. GOD lives outside of time, so He sees all time at the exact same time. Therefore, He sees all people at the same time, those already born and long since departed from the earth, those today, and those tomorrow and up to THAT DAY when He already knows He is going to send Jesus back, and beyond.

I'm not sure that that is a consistent view. After all, if god is "outside of time" (whatever that means), how does God see everything at the "same time"? Instantaneous simultaneity presumes a "in-time-liness" about the entity being discussed. And if this view is correct, how can God being spoken of as "going to send Jesus back"? According to your stated premise of God not being linearly related to time, there is no such thing as "did", "is", or "going to" for God, especially as it pertains to the knowledge of God which you have described.

 

[Lee52]

I'm not sure that that is a consistent view. After all, if god is "outside of time" (whatever that means), how does God see everything at the "same time"? Instantaneous simultaneity presumes a "in-time-liness" about the entity being discussed. And if this view is correct, how can God being spoken of as "going to send Jesus back"? According to your stated premise of God not being linearly related to time, there is no such thing as "did", "is", or "going to" for God, especially as it pertains to the knowledge of God which you have described.

I do not want to hijack this thread, so I will keep this short:

Quite simply, a being as powerful as GOD, able to create all things is able to place time in man's comprehension and world. Though He is not bound by, or a part of time, He can readily see the beginning and the end and place events and objects where He choses, within man's comprehension of time. He came into time as Jesus, when He the GODhead decided to do so to work all things for the good of those that love Him. The unlimited set Himself into the limits of time, as His only begotten Son bound in a human, flesh and blood body to accomplish a devine purpose for all time. That is not such a hard concept to grasp if one is willing to unlock GOD from our limits as humans.

We are the created and do not have the same nature as our Creator, even though He did create us in His image, that does not give us His nature. Until we cross over into the spiritual realm where GOD lives eternally, we will not fully comprehend His limitless nature.

Be blessed,
Lee52

 

[AndOne]

GOD is not linear. GOD lives outside of time, so He sees all time at the exact same time. Therefore, He sees all people at the same time, those already born and long since departed from the earth, those today, and those tomorrow and up to THAT DAY when He already knows He is going to send Jesus back, and beyond.

Since He sees all time at the same time, Mr S. Lewis Johnson's and your premise falls apart because you limit a limitless GOD to your thought processes. GOD did not have to "learn" anything. He foreknew everything. He knows everything perfect ongoing tense.

Well think about this for a minute then. Based on your definition here the concept of "foreseen faith" doesn't seem to fit with it. It indicates that God somehow was bound by time in order to know who would have faith and who wouldn't. Its as if you are adding a human concept to a divine trait. To me it doesn't make sense to say "he foreknew everything" and then to say "He knows everything." It's one or the other - but not both.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

GOD is not linear. GOD lives outside of time, so He sees all time at the exact same time. Therefore, He sees all people at the same time, those already born and long since departed from the earth, those today, and those tomorrow and up to THAT DAY when He already knows He is going to send Jesus back, and beyond.

So then you agree that God has always known everyone whom will be in Heaven and everyone whom will be in Hell. So what is the problem with double predestination again?

Since He sees all time at the same time, Mr S. Lewis Johnson's and your premise falls apart because you limit a limitless GOD to your thought processes. GOD did not have to "learn" anything. He foreknew everything. He knows everything perfect ongoing tense.

Every finite mind has limits, so in that sense every finite mind has a limited vision of God. You say that God did not have to learn, and if He did not, on what basis did God elect everyone whom will be in Heaven?

I really, sincerely hope and pray that GOD will open your minds so that you can stop locking GOD into things that HE is not locked into, especially when it comes to challenging and arguing against Christian brothers and sisters that have been freed by Jesus' substitutional sacrifice on the cross in our place.

How can it be that Christ died for everyone (general atonement) and that He died a substitutional sacrifice at the same time, that could only mean that Christ saved everyone, assuming His atonement to be effectual or actually accomplishing anything.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

You mischaracterized Open Theism.

Open Theism is not up for discussion in this section of the forum, I did not attempt to represent OT in the first place. This is about an inconsistency in the classical Arminian view.

 

[Lee52]

Well think about this for a minute then. Based on your definition here the concept of "foreseen faith" doesn't seem to fit with it. It indicates that God somehow was bound by time in order to know who would have faith and who wouldn't. Its as if you are adding a human concept to a divine trait. To me it doesn't make sense to say "he foreknew everything" and then to say "He knows everything." It's one or the other - but not both.

Nice shoe box. Do you ever open it and let GOD have a breather?

 

[Lee52]

So then you agree that God has always known everyone whom will be in Heaven and everyone whom will be in Hell. So what is the problem with double predestination again?



Every finite mind has limits, so in that sense every finite mind has a limited vision of God. You say that God did not have to learn, and if He did not, on what basis did God elect everyone whom will be in Heaven?



How can it be that Christ died for everyone (general atonement) and that He died a substitutional sacrifice at the same time, that could only mean that Christ saved everyone, assuming His atonement to be effectual or actually accomplishing anything.

BIG BIG difference between foreknowledge and orchestrating EVERYTHING.

Based upon those who will believe in His Son Jesus for their salvation.

So, if I understand you, Christ did not die substituionally for you? But that is another thread perhaps.

Jesus died, substitutionally for everyone who will believe in Him and His blood sacrifice. The Bible does not say "everyone" it says everyone who will believe. Again, BIG BIG difference.

 

[rogueapologist]

Open Theism is not up for discussion in this section of the forum, I did not attempt to represent OT in the first place. This is about an inconsistency in the classical Arminian view.

Open Theism is not up for discussion in this section of the forum, I did not attempt to represent OT in the first place. This is about an inconsistency in the classical Arminian view.

But you did represent it. You said that Christians believe that God is omniscient, but further noted that this belief excludes Open Theists (who, by extension, would be those who do not believe in Gods omniscience).

If you don't intend to represent (read misrepresent) Open Theism, why not edit your post to remove the errant representation?

 

[Lee52]

Open Theism is not up for discussion in this section of the forum, I did not attempt to represent OT in the first place. This is about an inconsistency in the classical Arminian view.

You say TOmato, I say toMATo........

You see inconsistencies where I do not.

I see inconsistencies and out and out reach in non-Arminian doctrine.

Theologians much wiser and much more studied than you and I have debated this for centuries now. There will only be an end when Jesus returns. Nobody on this thread is going to solve this dilemma.
The best we can do is "in as much as it is up to you (us) we are to live in peace with one another" in perfect love.

Peace to you,
Lee52

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

BIG BIG difference between foreknowledge and orchestrating EVERYTHING.

BIG BIG difference between compatibilism and hard determinism.

Based upon those who will believe in His Son Jesus for their salvation.

So you base it upon the "foreseen faith" of those who will believe...the objection stands.

So, if I understand you, Christ did not die substituionally for you? But that is another thread perhaps.

Absolutely Christ died for me, but those who reject particular redemption (aka "limited atonement") cannot say the same. You either believe Christ died for you, or that He only made it "possible" for you, and of course it's up to YOU to persevere or you might possibly fall away, there is no security in salvation for the Arminian, the only assurance of it is present sanctification, which is espoused as cooperating with God.

Jesus died, substitutionally for everyone who will believe in Him and His blood sacrifice. The Bible does not say "everyone" it says everyone who will believe. Again, BIG BIG difference.

Oh I agree, but substitutional atonement is not consistant with the notion of "Christ making it possible for anyone to be saved". He either died for you or He did not. Nobody in Hell can say "Christ died for me".

 

[Lee52]

BIG BIG difference between compatibilism and hard determinism.



So you base it upon the "foreseen faith" of those who will believe...the objection stands.



Absolutely Christ died for me, but those who reject particular redemption (aka "limited atonement") cannot say the same. You either believe Christ died for you, or that He only made it "possible" for you, and of course it's up to YOU to persevere or you might possibly fall away, there is no security in salvation for the Arminian, the only assurance of it is present sanctification, which is espoused as cooperating with God.



Oh I agree, but substitutional atonement is not consistant with the notion of "Christ making it possible for anyone to be saved". He either died for you or He did not. Nobody in Hell can say "Christ died for me".

It is very late here and I have to sleep and get up for work, but I want to address some misconceptions here before I sleep.

Your objection is duly noted and rejected as not being a valid argument.

Christ Jesus died for me and He made it possible for me to be saved, by acceptance of His sacrifice on my behalf. He did indeed die for all who will believe and does secure our salvation for eternity for as long as we believe. He even gives us the power of the Holy Spirit to help in our struggles against the flesh and blood still alive in us and fighting against our spirits made alive in Christ. He even goes one step further and begins the process of sanctification as I surrender more and more of myself to Him as our restored relationship takes on more and more of Him and less and less of me.

For my GOD is a GOD of restoration of a broken relationship. He desires me and my life and that I desire a relationship with Him. He does not force me into that relationship, because He has no need of forcing me. He loves me unconditionally and has provided all that I need to believe in Him and His salvation. I merely have to avail myself of that which He graciously provided. Ain't GOD wonderful!! Praise GOD from whom all blessing flow! Our GOD is an Awesome GOD! Hallelujah!

Peace,
Lee52

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

But you did represent it. You said that Christians believe that God is omniscient, but further noted that this belief excludes Open Theists (who, by extension, would be those who do not believe in Gods omniscience).

If you don't intend to represent (read misrepresent) Open Theism, why not edit your post to remove the errant representation?

Always looking for opportunities to espouse your agenda....Please stop arguing with me already, the only reason I even mentioned OT (in parentheses) is because, despite my view that it is heresy, I do believe it is possible for an OT to be saved, to be a Christian (I say that hesitantly). I clearly understand the OT position, there was no need to reiterate it. As the author of the OP, I can say assuredly, it is You whom has misunderstood the intended meaning of the OP, and accuse me of misrepresenting. I have not reported you, but if you continue with this I will not hesitate.

 

[rogueapologist]

Always looking for opportunities to espouse your agenda....Please stop arguing with me already, the only reason I even mentioned OT (in parentheses) is because, despite my view that it is heresy, I do believe it is possible for an OT to be saved, to be a Christian (I say that hesitantly). I clearly understand the OT position, there was no need to reiterate it. As the author of the OP, I can say assuredly, it is You whom has misunderstood the intended meaning of the OP, and accuse me of misrepresenting. I have not reported you, but if you continue with this I will not hesitate.

Nope, not seeking to espouse an agenda, only to correct ignorance and misrepresentations when I come across them.

 

[AndOne]

Nice shoe box. Do you ever open it and let GOD have a breather?

I'm not sure what the point of this comment is - I'm simply trying to have a conversation or respectable debate with you. If you don't want to chat with me - or if you have a problem with me just say so and I will try not interact with you out of respect for your wishes.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Well think about this for a minute then. Based on your definition here the concept of "foreseen faith" doesn't seem to fit with it. It indicates that God somehow was bound by time in order to know who would have faith and who wouldn't. Its as if you are adding a human concept to a divine trait. To me it doesn't make sense to say "he foreknew everything" and then to say "He knows everything." It's one or the other - but not both.

Exactly! Thank you for fleshing out the logic of the argument.

 

[ConsumedByHisCall]

A few points:

1. Few respected non-Calvinistic scholars support the daft 'foresight faith' view which is commonly described in the manner of the OP. I would prefer Calvinism to that view...in fact back when I mistakenly thought the only alternative to Calvinism was this "foresight faith view" I was a Calvinist.

2. Lee has done a good job attempting to broaden the obviously very limited perspective of some on this forum regarding our infinite, omnipotent God.

3. In regard to the OP, don't you Calvinists believe God elected you? How does an omniscient God go about making that choice? Didn't he know he would choose you before making the choice to elect you? You think you can avoid this dilemma? For that matter, how does God ever originate a thought? Hasn't he always known what He will come to think? Such matters make our brains explode. We can't begin to comprehend such matters which is what makes me laugh to see some draw hard and fast conclusions based on their finite logical speculations which appear to view God as some guy with a crystal ball who sees what is going to happen and then decides to ordain what he sees. Lee, I personally think a shoebox is a bit too big for such views.

 

[Skala]

Jesus died, substitutionally for everyone who will believe in Him and His blood sacrifice. The Bible does not say "everyone" it says everyone who will believe. Again, BIG BIG difference.

Whoa, did you just (accidentally perhaps) affirm Limited Atonement?