How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Clare73]

Without checking any verses a guess of mine is that "known" refers to what God will do and "foreknown" what man will do.

When you check the verses (Ac 2:23, 1Pe 1:2, Ac 4:28, Ac 15:18), you will see that foreknowledge as used in the NT refers to God's actions.
We have no Biblical warrant for ascribing it to man's actions in the NT.

 

[JAL]

So Calvin wasn't all wrong. . .

Calvinism pertains to foreknowledge, predestination, election. Since Scripture uses such terms, it by default lends some support to his position. However, the law of non-contradiction is the exegete's best friend. It simply will not allow a loving God to double predestine from eternity.

Likewise, let's not deny the sovereignty of God in the matters of men to which the Scriptures so amply testify (Da 4:35, Ac 2:23, Ac 4:28, Ac 13:48; Lk 22:22, Ro 8:29-30, Ro 9:14-29, Ro 11:25-34, Eph 1:4-12, 2 Th 2:13, 1Pe 1:2).

And I will remind you again that you have provided no Biblical source for your assertion of these "rights."

Lawlessness is of the devil. Read it in Scripture for yourself.

God operates on laws such as justice. This means that people have a right to life, liberty, and happiness unless they forfeit/lose those rights via criminal behavior.

 

[JAL]

Likewise, let's not deny the sovereignty of God in the matters of men to which the Scriptures so amply testify (Da 4:35, Ac 2:23, Ac 4:28, Ac 13:48; Lk 22:22, Ro 8:29-30, Ro 9:14-29, Ro 11:25-34, Eph 1:4-12, 2 Th 2:13, 1Pe 1:2).

These verses do not warrant your conclusions.

 

[zoidar]

When you check the verses (Ac 2:23, 1Pe 1:2, Ac 4:28, Ac 15:18), you will see that foreknowledge refers to God's actions.

For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.
— Acts 4:27-28

It doesn't mention foreknowledge, just predestination.

NASV
‘After these things I will return,
And I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen,
And I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will restore it,
So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’
Says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago (aiōn).
— Acts 15:16-18

Makes known from long ago? It doesn't sound like "foreknowledge" but to what was known long ago through the prophet. If I'm right this is from Amos 9:11-15 and there is no "long ago" in there. Ok, I'm aware I can be wrong here, just sharing thoughts.

whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time (aiōn).
— Acts 3:21

I don't think foreknowledge refers to God's actions. God's foreknowledge is about God knowing before time about His plans, what will be fulfilled, which is a different thing. How do we know that these plans of God aren't made in coexistence from God knowing ahead of time what man will do? I don't see that as exclusive. Ok, you say (as I take it) we have no warrent for ascribing it to God's knowing of man's actions before hand. I then have to ask you. Do you have warrent to ascribe God's plans being made exclusive of God knowing and planning in accordance of man's actions ahead of time? I don't think you do. The Bible says God predetermines things, not how God does it. You seem to say you know the how, which isn't known to us.

P.s. Sure my guess was off. But like I say, I don't see God's foreknowledge and making of His plans exclusive of man's future actions.

 

[Mark Quayle]

MQ: "Apparently, John and Daniel et al, saw it as God showed them, and could only describe it as past tense(?), I don't know..."

Would that not refer to a vision, before their writing?

Not sure what you are asking here. Are you saying that it only makes sense that they should use past tense since they saw it (in whatever tense) before they wrote about it? I suppose that makes sense. Not sure that is all there is to it though.

MQ: "Hebrews 2: "7 '...You made him a little lower than the angels; You crowned him with glory and honor 8 and placed everything under his feet.' When God subjected all things to him, He left nothing outside of his control. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him." This one even comes right out and describes the principle! (And for anyone reading these, yes, I know there is a lot more to these passages than just the use I have made of them here)."

Would that not refer to giving him the governship/rule of creation which he must then secure according to God's order, beginning with its purchase (redemption, ransom) from condemnation, and then moving on to restoration to what I suspect will be greater than it was in the beginning.

I always assumed this giving to him the governship/rule of creation, since it follows him being made a little lower than the angels (which I take to be referring to him operating as human (having put aside his abilities as God)), is the securing of it, a result of its ransom and restoration. The only reason I see for him to lay it out like he does is to show that what we see is temporal, not the completed work he sees.

MQ: "Here's a curious one, and maybe it doesn't fit here, but: John 15:3 "You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you." And while I'm working on what may not fit: John 17:16 "They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world."
Ephesians 2: "6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus..."
Ephesians 1: "3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ." (my emphasis)
And even John 3:16 and so many others like it, refer to God giving us eternal life."

Is eternal life not God's life. . .not that I can define that, but may be what Peter is referring to when he states that we "participate in the divine nature." (2Pe 1:4).

Yes, at least that! I'm not sure you meant that to contest what I was saying, but I don't see that it does at all.

 

[The Righterzpen]

@Mark Quayle & @Brother-Mike

Brother Mike just pointed me to this thread from a PM theological yack session we've been having. And for what my "two cents" are worth for how eternity interjects His presence into time (in the past tense to boot)?

I tend to look at it this way:

Time is a sphere operating within the reality of "eternity". God is obviously omnipresent; so thus He is capable of inserting Self anywhere He so desires into the temporal time related cosmos. And maybe that's an overly simplistic way of looking at it; but it's the most reasonable conceptualization of omnipresence related to time that I can conger at current.

Another irony of the book of Revelation being written in "past tense" is that when Daniel was told to "seal up the prophecy" there's a perception here too that Daniel also witnessed this of Revelation.

Now obviously of the human "scientific" understanding of time; it only goes in one direction. (Which is true; A temporal time traveler would not be able to travel backwards from point D to point A because we lack the omnipotence to be able to reverse entropy. Thus time travel theory is categorically impossible for humanity.

Yet of the stretch of our brains to understand the reality that God is capable of being all places all the time, is a bit bigger than we can hold in one thought. Thus I can't say that I know for sure my "sphere within a sphere" explanation is true; but (at least to self) it's the simplest answer that makes the most logical sense!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Can we try being rational for a nanosecond? Let's suppose the New Earth is atemporal - coexisting in the past, present, and future. That would mean, wouldn't it, that past, present, and future ALL continually exist - and thus are all three atemporal, right? So, then, the New Earth would be temporally identical to the current earth. Atemporality is incoherent drivel.

Since you are the rational, coherent, one here among us, maybe you can fill in the logical steps you apparently assumed we could fill in for ourselves, between "atemporal" = "coexisting in the past, present, and future"; and maybe you can do the same for the notion that "past, present, and future ALL continually exist" = "all three are atemporal" I could just as easily as you think you have shown that atemporality is incoherent drivel, use your own argument to demonstrate mathematically that atemporality is a valid concept!

I have no idea what you just said. Yes, I believe it is incoherent to posit a co-existence of past, present, and future. Example of the incoherence is the apparent violation of non-contradiction. After all, coexistence means simultaneity. Visualize:
....(1) That guy is 25 years old.
....(2) His future already exists. Simultaneously he is 100 years old, dead, and gone.

Huh? My earlier argument was a reaction to the proposal that:
....(1) The New Earth is atemporal.
....(2) The current earth is temporal.

Why would there be any difference? Again, if the New Earth is simultaneous with the current earth, both are therefore atemporal.

You have failed to show that 'atemporal' means "coexisting in the past, present, and future". You assumed it; you hardly even asserted it. Yet you use it in your attempt to show that 'atemporal' is incoherent drivel.

I think you need to look past the chatter in your mind, perhaps to "real" vs "temporal" or some other such construction. You are letting words drive you around.

This way of yours to trust human words to accurately guide us through spiritual concepts may have something to do with why you think it is the only logically coherent theological system (though, according to you, as far as you know, you are the only one to come up with this obvious fact) in which God is growing and improving.

You want to trust non-human words? You're not making any sense here.

Here's my advice to everyone: if your proposed doctrine is something that humans cannot understand, then remain silent! What value is gibberish? OR, at minimum, at least preface it with the disclaimer that it is pure gibberish and, as such, of dubious epistemological value.

Accepting gibberish entraps us within a false sense of security because we gratuitously tell ourselves, "I already have the correct answers, there is no need to further reform my theology."

As I once told my wife, "Try saying, 'You aren't making any sense to me, here.'"

Where did I say anything about non-human words, or implying such a thing? My intent, which I assumed was rather obvious, is that our words are merely HUMAN, not divine, and certainly they are words we posit without understanding.

Here's a quote from CS Lewis' "Till We Have Faces - (A Fable Retold)" that I hope you can take without too much indigestion (Lewis is not saying there are gods (plural).)

“I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer... Why should they hear the babble that we think we mean? How can they meet us face to face till we have faces?”

 

[Mark Quayle]

@Mark Quayle & @Brother-Mike

Brother Mike just pointed me to this thread from a PM theological yack session we've been having. And for what my "two cents" are worth for how eternity interjects His presence into time (in the past tense to boot)?

I tend to look at it this way:

Time is a sphere operating within the reality of "eternity". God is obviously omnipresent; so thus He is capable of inserting Self anywhere He so desires into the temporal time related cosmos. And maybe that's an overly simplistic way of looking at it; but it's the most reasonable conceptualization of omnipresence related to time that I can conger at current.

Another irony of the book of Revelation being written in "past tense" is that when Daniel was told to "seal up the prophecy" there's a perception here too that Daniel also witnessed this of Revelation.

Now obviously of the human "scientific" understanding of time; it only goes in one direction. (Which is true; A temporal time traveler would not be able to travel backwards from point D to point A because we lack the omnipotence to be able to reverse entropy. Thus time travel theory is categorically impossible for humanity.

Yet of the stretch of our brains to understand the reality that God is capable of being all places all the time, is a bit bigger than we can hold in one thought. Thus I can't say that I know for sure my "sphere within a sphere" explanation is true; but (at least to self) it's the simplest answer that makes the most logical sense!

"it's the simplest answer that makes the most logical sense!" Or, at least, the one that makes the most sense to God is the simplest, to God.

I like your way of looking at this. I use "subset within a set", yet somehow the notion that the real, i.e. God's economy, can be called a set, just doesn't 'set' right with me. Maybe your "sphere" is better. I know that the reality of himself is the default fact, and everything else is outside that, in some way. Yet it all came from him, so... In the end, I have to conclude, at least, that Simplicity is the beginning. The complications come with our need to arrange thought, I think. Consider the notion, for example that God needn't consider whether something he is going to do is good or not; he is good, and he just does it. The definition of the term, "brute fact", feels good to us; it refers to something solid that doesn't move around on us, but just simply 'is'. But in the strictest sense, God is the only "brute fact". He is the only necessary truth.

One of my favorite quotes I posted below in an answer to JAL, #1,927 deals with this, our inability to approach full knowledge of God during this temporal dependence. We are simply ignorant, presumptuous, like children full of noise and emotion in an adult world, thinking life is about us. Worse, actually.

Here's a quote from CS Lewis' "Till We Have Faces - (A Fable Retold)" that I hope you can take without too much indigestion (Lewis is not saying there are gods (plural).)

“I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer... Why should they hear the babble that we think we mean? How can they meet us face to face till we have faces?”

 

[John Mullally]

Previously addressed. . .failed try at confuscation. . .did not say that God's foreknowledge is not referring to man's actions.
It's not about to what foreknowledge is referring, it's about what is foreknowlege's cause.

You base God's foreknowledge in man's actions.
Scripture bases God's foreknowledge in his own actions (decrees).

God knows beforehand because he has decreed that it shall occur, not because man has or will decide anything.

God's own fore-ordination (decree) is God's fore-knowledge, and it is not based in/on anything else, including what anyone does.

"Known to the Lord for ages (fore-knowledge) is his work." (Ac 15:18)

They did what your power and will had decided beforehand (fore-ordained) should happen." (Ac 4:28)

Acts 4:28 is talking about God planning of the events that led to Christ's crucifixion - its quite the stretch (i.e. sketchy inductive reasoning) to stretch that into saying God plans all events whatsoever. All I need to prove that wrong is to find one counter-example from scripture - and that scripture is Jeremiah 32:35.

 

[Brother-Mike]

Thanks for the reply and the scriptural references Mark - appreciated and broadly agreed on all points.

Some thoughts:

it seems only logical to me, and Biblical, though not exactly drawn from Scripture, specially since God's 'mode of existence' is not something our brains are currently built to handle.

Anyhow, we can't help but use human language and concepts to think, and even this notion of God's timelessness is a humanly posited notion, and probably in some ways misleading to us.

Isn't it remarkable - and maybe reflective of the ancient mind's difference than our materialistic and mechanistic thinking - that in fact the Bible is a decidedly non-systematic text. With some notable exceptions (e.g. lists, the Golden Chain, etc) most doctrinally important information is spread across both Testaments, and sometimes with slight difference or apparent contradiction. And the doctrinal details that are provided seem to only point to mere glimpses of the true nature rather than exhaustive description. For example, the doctrine of Hell takes piecing together from numerous sources, and even then the assembled picture is something like the heat-shimmer around a Sword of Flame, preventing any deeper objective analysis without veering into pure conjecture.

So agreed that the mode of God's existence, or just what "timelessness" means, are beyond the shimmer, despite the fun to be had probing into the hypothetical.

But I think it could be both: one from a temporal point of view of something yet to happen, and the other from God's point of view, having 'already happened' (as we would describe it --past tense)

Right. And that brings me back to that same question of how a timeless God interacts with "Creation On a Clock". And here too I think the only honest answer is to admit that anything beyond our superficial information at hand is at best a guess [and I'd say thus highly susceptible to the eisegetical impulse].

 

[Mark Quayle]

Acts 4:28 is talking about God planning of the events that led to Christ's crucifixion - its quite the stretch (i.e. sketchy inductive reasoning) to stretch that into saying God plans all events whatsoever. All I need to prove that wrong is to find one counter-example from scripture - and that scripture is Jeremiah 32:35.

I thought you had been told before this, that Jeremiah 32:35, in context, is pretty obviously saying that it never entered his mind to command that they should do it. Are you going to show exegesis to prove that wrong, or just plow on ahead and ignore this?

 

[JAL]

You have failed to show that 'atemporal' means "coexisting in the past, present, and future". You assumed it; you hardly even asserted it. Yet you use it in your attempt to show that 'atemporal' is incoherent drivel.

What difference does it make? The 2nd possibility is equally incoherent, namely that atemporal means a timeless existence, as this stands in contradiction to two inescapable definitions:

Consciousness is an ongoing sequence of sensations more or less distinct (loud and clear).

Fellowship between to two parties is an ongoing exchange of sensations more or less distinct (loud and clear).

Both definitions involve time, and trying to escape them culminates in incoherence. For example the moment that sensations come to a halt for me, I am no longer conscious.

I think you need to look past the chatter in your mind, perhaps to "real" vs "temporal" or some other such construction. You are letting words drive you around.

Pure ad hominem. Why is this assessment any more true of me than of you and everyone else on this forum?

Where did I say anything about non-human words, or implying such a thing? My intent, which I assumed was rather obvious, is that our words are merely HUMAN, not divine, and certainly they are words we posit without understanding.

And my response, which I assumed was rather obvious, is that a human intent on speaking words incomprehensible to humans (gibberish) should probably remain silent. Ironically, this is precisely what Paul contended with at 1 Cor 14 where the Corinthians were speaking unknown tongues - pure gibberish - to their comrades.

 

[JAL]

@Mark Quayle,

Here's a third temporal definition:

Merit is a status attained by freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause over an extended period of time.

The cross is a great example. Here's a fourth:

Free will is a moment of deliberation - a moment of indecision - during which the various options are weighed in transition to a resolute decision.


Life simply DOESN'T MAKE SENSE without time.

 

[JAL]

Here's a quote from CS Lewis' "Till We Have Faces - (A Fable Retold)" that I hope you can take without too much indigestion (Lewis is not saying there are gods (plural).)

“I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer... Why should they hear the babble that we think we mean? How can they meet us face to face till we have faces?”

I have little use for such unclear citations. The citations themselves sound like empty babbling. Please oblige me with clear definitions. If you're not sure how to do that, please see my last couple of posts for examples of what a clear definition looks like.

 

[John Mullally]

I thought you had been told before this, that Jeremiah 32:35, in context, is pretty obviously saying that it never entered his mind to command that they should do it. Are you going to show exegesis to prove that wrong, or just plow on ahead and ignore this?

Yes we have gone over this before and I strongly disagreed with you - I don't care if "you have been told before this" - I don't accept your interpretation (did I burst your bubble?) -try to add more than a "How dare you" or "show exegesis" idiocy. Although the text in Jeremiah 32:35 says that God never commanded the sin, the passage was extended in support to say God never even thought of it - therefore God never even thought of it. Saddly you do not accept Jeremiah 32:35 as it upsets your Calvinist theology as that paints God as evil (who John calls a God of love) - the Calvinist God has him assigning many from before birth to eternal torment for the purpose that the Calvin acclaims as being for God's glory! The text in 1 Timothy 2:4 from Paul is very clear. Your "show exegesis" is a non-specific - please try to be specific in your ask! Trumpeting exegesis does not mean you practice it - again be specific in your ask! A high school student without any religious training (and no preconception) could explain those simple verses (Jermiah 32:35 and 1 Timothy 2:4) to you - it is beneficial to look at scripture without preconception.

I believe the word of God over a midevil lawyer that worked to have a renouned scientist put to the flame over a theoligcal difference! As you stated, you approve of Calvinism because it affirms your failures in life as not being to your lack of effort - but to God's plan. Ease up we non-Calvinists acknowledge that God is willing to cover our failures if we do not quit! The blood of Jesus covers sin! Rest in that!

 

[JAL]

@Clare73,
@Brother-Mike,
@Mark Quayle,

Scholars seem to find three types of love in the NT:

3 Kinds of Love (Session 8 – 1 Corinthians 13:1-13) - Explore the Bible

Whereas in English we have one word to express all kinds of love, in Greek there are four different words for love. Let’s take a quick look at those words. We’ll combine two of them with related meanings into one category, differentiating three distinct kinds of love. Then we’ll affirm three...

explorethebible.lifeway.com

1. Eros refers to physical or sexual love.
2. Philos means warm affection or friendship.
3. Agapē is the sacrificial, unconditional love of God.

I was taught that Agape love is unselfish love. If so, how well does it gel with double predestination? Meaning, if God places His own self-gratification above the welfare of the damned, isn't He being selfish in that respect?

 

[Clare73]

For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.
— Acts 4:27-28

It doesn't mention foreknowledge, just predestination.

Are you serious?
Because God before the foundations of the world decreed/predestined Jesus death to occur exactly as it did, he necessarily knew after that decree exactly how Jesus was going to die (foreknowledge of Jesus' death) because he had decreed that he shall die that way.

God's foreknowledge is necessarily implied in Ac 4:27-28.

NASV
‘After these things I will return,
And I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen,
And I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will restore it,

So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’
Says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago (aiōn).
— Acts 15:16-18

Makes known from long ago? It doesn't sound like "foreknowledge" but to what was known long ago through the prophet. If I'm right this is from Amos 9:11-15 and there is no "long ago" in there.

"Long ago" is the meaning of aiōn.

Ok, I'm aware I can be wrong here, just sharing thoughts.

If God made them known before they occurred, then God had foreknowledge of them (based on his decree of them to occur).

whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time (aiōn).
— Acts 3:21

I don't think foreknowledge refers to God's actions. God's foreknowledge is about God knowing before time about His plans, what will be fulfilled, which is a different thing.

The Almighty and Sovereign God (Da 4:35) does not need foreknowledge in order to "know" what will be fulfilled.
What he has decreed shall be fulfilled without fail. . .you can take it to the bank.

How do we know that these plans of God aren't made in coexistence from God knowing ahead of time what man will do?

You have bound the Almighty and Sovereign God (Da 4:35) by the will of man. . .that's "a dollar waitin' on a dime."

I don't see that as exclusive. Ok, you say (as I take it) we have no warrent for ascribing it to God's knowing of man's actions before hand. I then have to ask you. Do you have warrent to ascribe God's plans being made exclusive of God knowing and planning in accordance of man's actions ahead of time? I don't think you do.

Yes, it is the meaning of the sovereignty of God, testified to throughout Scripture:
Da 4:35, Ac 2:23, Ac 4:28, Ac 13:48; Lk 22:22, Ro 8:29-30, Ro 9:14-29, Ro 11:25-34, Eph 1:4-12, 2 Th 2:13, 1Pe 1:2.

Your God is too small.

The Bible says God predetermines things, not how God does it. You seem to say you know the how, which isn't known to us.

Their occurrence shows us exactly what and how God predetermined it to occur.

 

[Clare73]

@Clare73,
@Brother-Mike,
@Mark Quayle,
Scholars seem to find three types of love in the NT:

3 Kinds of Love (Session 8 – 1 Corinthians 13:1-13) - Explore the Bible

Whereas in English we have one word to express all kinds of love, in Greek there are four different words for love. Let’s take a quick look at those words. We’ll combine two of them with related meanings into one category, differentiating three distinct kinds of love. Then we’ll affirm three...

explorethebible.lifeway.com

1. Eros refers to physical or sexual love.
2. Philos means warm affection or friendship.
3. Agapē is the sacrificial, unconditional love of God.
I was taught that Agape love is unselfish love. If so, how well does it gel with double predestination?

I don't defend "double predestination," but it seems to me to be a necessary and unavoidable consequence when there are only two options, heaven and hell, and some are predestined for heaven. Does that not necessarily mean that the others are necessarily predestined for hell?
It seems to me predestination necessarily means double predestination in that light, that there is no way it can be avoided.

And that takes me back to predestination, which is NT apostolic teaching (Ro 8:29-30; Eph 1:4), and which I willingly receive and believe.

Meaning, if God places His own self-gratification above the welfare of the damned, isn't He being selfish in that respect?

Not getting the "God's own self-gratification" part. . .unless showing forth the glory of his goodness in the redemption of men is "self-gratification'. . .but that came at an awfully high-price to him, the suffering and death of his one and only Son. . .no one can say he doesn't have skin in this game!

You won't be convincing me that infinite wisdom hasn't chosen the best means to the best end, which includes Ro 8:29-30; Eph 1:4.

 

[JAL]

A Calvinistic interpretation of predestination is one possible reading.

And that takes me back to predestination, which is NT apostolic teaching (Ro 8:29-30; Eph 1:4), and which I willingly receive and believe.

But it's not the only one. Biblical realities seem to involve pieces.
....(1) I must be a piece of Adam since I suffer his consequences.
....(2) The only coherent Incarnation seems to be Christ as a physical piece of the divine Word.
....(3) Justification/regeneration/sanctification MUST be in pieces, because we still sin. You denied this, claiming we have two conflicting natures (holy and depraved), which is a logical contradiction.

If pieces of Adam were predestined, anyone might be saved, because anyone might have at least one elect piece.

Not getting the "God's own self-gratification" part. . .unless showing forth the glory of his goodness in the redemption of men is "self-gratification'. . .

Well what else would it be? It sure as heck won't gratify people foreordained to damnation.

....but that came at an awfully high-price to him, the suffering and death of his one and only Son. . .no one can say he doesn't have skin in this game!

Two wrongs don't make a right. The Holy One is supposed to be above reproach in ALL His deeds. He is not supposed to do something evil now (like foreordain billions to hell) and then make up for it later via a good deed (such as the cross).

You won't be convincing me that infinite wisdom hasn't chosen the best means to the best end, which includes Ro 8:29-30; Eph 1:4.

Of course I can't convince you. Calvinists don't demonstrate rational thinking in these areas.

 

[zoidar]

Are you serious?
Because God before the foundations of the world decreed/predestined Jesus death to occur exactly as it did, he necessarily knew after that decree exactly how Jesus was going to die (foreknowledge of Jesus' death) because he had decreed that he shall die that way.

God's foreknowledge is necessarily implied in Ac 4:27-28.


"Long ago" is the meaning of aiōn.

If God made them known before they occurred, then God had foreknowledge of them (based on his decree of them to occur).

There are no uses of it in Scripture where it does not.
It is man's notion that God's foreknowledge refers to man's actions.

We have the same situation with Paul and the word "spiritual," where Paul never uses the word to mean immaterial, non-physical,
and always uses the word to mean of the realm of the Holy Spirit.
To interpret "spiritual" in the writings of Paul to mean "immaterial" is a misinterpretation of the word as Paul uses it.
It is man's notion that Paul's use of "spiritual" means "immaterial."

Nevertheless, the Almighty and Sovereign God (Da 4:35) does not need foreknowledge in order to "know" what will be fulfilled.
What he has decreed shall be fulfilled without fail. . .you can take it to the bank.

You have bound the Almighty and Sovereign God (Da 4:35) by the will of man. . .that's "a dollar waitin' on a dime."


Yes, it is the meaning of the sovereignty of God, testified to throughout Scripture:
Da 4:35, Ac 2:23, Ac 4:28, Ac 13:48; Lk 22:22, Ro 8:29-30, Ro 9:14-29, Ro 11:25-34, Eph 1:4-12, 2 Th 2:13, 1Pe 1:2.

Your God is too small.

Their occurrence shows us exactly what and how God predetermined it to occur.

I don't know what to say right now, but I hope we serve the same God or we have problem.

In Ac 4:27-28 I mean you can't use it to explain what the word "foreknowledge" means since the word is not used there.