Believing in omniscience demands a belief in predestination.

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,454
✟84,598.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
You say: “we would not want for the absolutely perfect soul to love… anything else than Himself”, yet the Bible tells us “God Loves us”. Where does it talk about God loving himself (even though God would Love himself because He is totally unselfish and unselfishness is what God esteems in us).
So long as you keep in mind that "in Him we live and move and have our being " and "everything was creted for Him and through Him and in Him everything exists" you won't have any trouble understanding this paradox.
There is no issue with God predestining everything except those areas where Man’s free will is needed to accept or reject God’s charity. These individual areas are actually “predestined” by the individual himself.

Since there is one small area which God does not predestine and man himself does predestine those area, then God does not predestine everything, but does know everything in man’s future.
One of the most univerally accepted scientific formulas is “ex nihilo nihil fit” - out of nothing, nothing comes.

The idea that man himself predestined before the foundation of the world what he would do in the future after he has existence is akin to saying that the universe created itself. It is an oxymoron.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sdowney717
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I do not agree with this explanation:

“God looked forward in time, saw who would or would not accept and believe, then elected and predestinated based upon that knowledge, then you have done something, even if it was as insignificant as accepting and believing, that has merited God's divine favor.”

Yet that is what Arminianism teaches.

God does not have to “looked forward in time”, since God is at the end of time looking back in all of human’s time, knowing what happened and conveying that information back to Himself at the beginning of time.

The highlighted part makes absolutely no sense, and there is no scriptural references for that.

What is taught however, is that God simultaneously sees the beginning, middle, and end.

Remember, there is no "end" for God. He always was, and always will be. Time is for our sakes, not His.

I agree with you: Something we have done, some "work" has "merited" God's "grace" , His divine "favor" for Him to use His foreknowledge to elect and predestinate based on our "accepting and believing". so that is not possible

A point we can agree on.

“work” means you have earned at least something, you deserve something, and a laborer is worthy of his wages, but accepting charity like a beggar is not “work” as defined by scripture.

The priests did lot of hard stuff on a Sabbath day but this was not “work” since it was worship, so you can “do” lot of stuff and it not be work according to scripture.

Just like the prodigal son did lots of stuff in returning to the father he did nothing noble, worthy of anything, and no one would think he earned or deserved what he got from the father in any way.

Our just acceptance of God’s pure charity is not doing anything meritorious, worthy of anything, or deserving of anything.

And again, you missed the whole point.

The point of God using His divine "foreknowledge" of who would or would not "accept and believe" takes the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary out of the equation.

Your "accepting and believing" now is something you have done, ergo-work, grace (so-called) based upon your accepting and believing. You have done something which merits God's divine favor. (Arminianism in a nut-shell)

Its not grace if your "predestinated" based upon the "foreknowledge" of God based on your accepting and believing".

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sdowney717
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,184
1,809
✟803,026.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The point of God using His divine "foreknowledge" of who would or would not "accept and believe" takes the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary out of the equation.

I did not say “God is using His foreknowledge to know who will and won’t accept to do something with that foreknowledge”. Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder was an undeserving gift for me and was given because of the sins I did (this is a huge side subject).

Your "accepting and believing" now is something you have done, ergo-work, grace (so-called) based upon your accepting and believing. You have done something which merits God's divine favor. (Arminianism in a nut-shell)

Again accepting pure charity (something a first century beggar might do) as pure charity was not considered “work”, by a first century definition of work. Does a beggar “merit” anything he got from true begging for pure charity?

Its not grace if your "predestinated" based upon the "foreknowledge" of God based on your accepting and believing".

Anything given and accepted as pure charity is totally gracious on the part of the Giver and no part is “earned” by the receiver.

Salvation is not “predestine” based on “foreknowledge”. All those that would accept God’s charity were predestined “before time began” to be saved, the foreknowledge is of those that accepted God’s charity and thus are saved.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,184
1,809
✟803,026.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So long as you keep in mind that "in Him we live and move and have our being " and "everything was creted for Him and through Him and in Him everything exists" you won't have any trouble understanding this paradox.
You state that God is the most selfish being there is and yet God is the most unselfish being there is seem to be an unresolvable paradox.

The idea that man himself predestined before the foundation of the world what he would do in the future after he has existence is akin to saying that the universe created itself. It is an oxymoron.
I did not say "man predestines thing before the foundation of the world". All man's future has happened already for God and in that future man made some autonomous free will choices which setting that future for himself (or predestining that part of man's future for man).
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,454
✟84,598.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I did not say "man predestines thing before the foundation of the world". All man's future has happened already for God and in that future man made some autonomous free will choices which setting that future for himself (or predestining that part of man's future for man).
That doesn't make a lot of sense as written. But I think I know what you meant to say.

If you meant to say that God knows the future just as clearly as He knows the past and present then I would hardily agree with you.

If you are saying that God does not fully understand time and not function in time then I would hardily disagree with you.

Regardless of your position on what God Himself calls election - people who's names were written in the Lamb's Book of Life from before the world began are, for much of their lives, unjustified before God.

That only changes when they believe on Jesus Christ in the scriptural salvation sense.

Thus it is clearly not true that man's future has already happened for God. One is not saved by being one of the elect. One is saved by believing on the Lord for salvation.

If you mean to say that the choices made by men to believe or not to believe determine what was foreknown and thus predestined to happen by the decree of God then you would be correct.

In that respect you would be in complete agreement with what Calvinists believe and teach both in their confessions and in their evangelical endeavors.
You state that God is the most selfish being there is and yet God is the most unselfish being there is seem to be an unresolvable paradox.
God is love. Saying that is opposite of the way you represent my theology.

Non Trinitarians do indeed find it an unresolved contradiction.

Trinitarians should only find it to be a paradox of the first degree. Most of us find the resolution to the paradox a glorious truth.

I certainly hope you identify yourself as a Trinitarian. But I really don't know. You tell me.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,184
1,809
✟803,026.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That doesn't make a lot of sense as written. But I think I know what you meant to say.

If you meant to say that God knows the future just as clearly as He knows the past and present then I would hardily agree with you.

If you are saying that God does not fully understand time and not function in time then I would hardily disagree with you.

Regardless of your position on what God Himself calls election - people who's names were written in the Lamb's Book of Life from before the world began are, for much of their lives, unjustified before God.

That only changes when they believe on Jesus Christ in the scriptural salvation sense.

Thus it is clearly not true that man's future has already happened for God. One is not saved by being one of the elect. One is saved by believing on the Lord for salvation.

If you mean to say that the choices made by men to believe or not to believe determine what was foreknown and thus predestined to happen by the decree of God then you would be correct.

In that respect you would be in complete agreement with what Calvinists believe and teach both in their confessions and in their evangelical endeavors.

God is love. Saying that is opposite of the way you represent my theology.

Non Trinitarians do indeed find it an unresolved contradiction.

Trinitarians should only find it to be a paradox of the first degree. Most of us find the resolution to the paradox a glorious truth.

I certainly hope you identify yourself as a Trinitarian. But I really don't know. You tell me.

We have been through this before:

I believe in the trinity, but that is not the issue.

God being Love and the epitome of Love; would automatically make God totally unselfish in His relationship with man. That is what we see in all of God’s dealings with man and yet not all humans are “saved”. It is not by design or God’s desire or God’s fault all sinful humans are not saved, since all mature adults are given the most fair/just opportunities to be saved (this requires a very complex precise predestine individual scenario), yet God will not force them to go to heaven if they would not be happy in heaven. Those who in this life repeatedly refuse to humbly accept God’s Love as pure charity to the point they would never accept Godly type Love would not be happy in the Love Feast of heaven.
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,454
✟84,598.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
God being Love and the epitome of Love; would automatically make God totally unselfish in His relationship with man. That is what we see in all of God’s dealings with man
God's glory is the thing He values most.

Making men value God's glory most over all things is what fulfills mankind and makes them all they can be. Thus God works toward the goal of manifesting His glory through the salvation of men.

Of course God loves men and wants them to be like Himself. That is why He wants them to value God's glory first - just as He does.
........God will not force them to go to heaven if they would not be happy in heaven.
What is necessary is a new creation - a creation which wants to go to Heaven - a creation which would be happy in Heaven - the new creation a new nature which can only be obtained by the grace of God.
Those who in this life repeatedly refuse to humbly accept God’s Love as pure charity to the point they would never accept Godly type Love would not be happy in the Love Feast of heaven.
That's every natural fallen man who ever lived on this earth.

"THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD" Romans 3:11

"a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." 1-Corinthians 2:14
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,184
1,809
✟803,026.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
God's glory is the thing He values most.

Deities’ greatest “glory” is seen on the cross, because that is where Deities’ greatest Love is being expressed for man. Look at the glorious father in the prodigal son story and his glory has everything to do with his love for the undeserving son. The Israelites did not bring “glory” to the Father by their actions, but God showed His glory in how He Lovingly treated the undeserving Israelites.

God’s glory is in His humbly, patiently serving undeserving man (His Love). The Bible does not say: “God is doing all these good things for humans to bring Himself ‘glory’”, but it does say God Loves man and does this good stuff for man and thus glorious.


Making men value God's glory most over all things is what fulfills mankind and makes them all they can be. Thus God works toward the goal of manifesting His glory through the salvation of men.

The greatest command is not “value God’s glory”, but it is to Love God with all our heart, soul, mind and energy. The “Love” comes first and we Love Him because He first Loved us. His Love for us is glorious, while our Love for God is out of gratitude.


Of course God loves men and wants them to be like Himself. That is why He wants them to value God's glory first - just as He does.

We value God’s unselfish, unconditional, undeserving, glorious, unbelievable “Love” for us more than anything. God Loves you (do you need anything more?)

What is necessary is a new creation - a creation which wants to go to Heaven - a creation which would be happy in Heaven - the new creation a new nature which can only be obtained by the grace of God.

Yes, but God is not going to force this “new creation” on you if you do not want it and to want it all you have to do is humbly accept it.


That's every natural fallen man who ever lived on this earth.

"THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD" Romans 3:11

"a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." 1-Corinthians 2:14

I am not saying the nonbeliever seeks “Spiritual things” or these things are not foolish to him or he understands or he is seeking God, but the nonbeliever can wimp out, give up, and surrender to God while God is still his enemy and God is not someone the nonbeliever wants to even be around, but the nonbeliever for purely selfish reasons can just be willing to accept charity from even his enemy. The prodigal was not going to the father because he Loved the father, but because he was wanting a job (just some kind of life) and thought the Father charity might be great enough to provide that undeserving job for him.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I did not say “God is using His foreknowledge to know who will and won’t accept to do something with that foreknowledge”. Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder was an undeserving gift for me and was given because of the sins I did (this is a huge side subject).

Again, show me where I said you did say that.

My point was addressing the member who said that God uses His "foreknowledge of who will and will not accept and believe" as the reason why they were predestinated.

Again accepting pure charity (something a first century beggar might do) as pure charity was not considered “work”, by a first century definition of work. Does a beggar “merit” anything he got from true begging for pure charity?

Here's a deal, you were the one who brought "beggars" into this argument. I have shown that while there are some true beggars who actually need what they are asking for, there is a large group of individuals out there that have made begging their "work".

Anything given and accepted as pure charity is totally gracious on the part of the Giver and no part is “earned” by the receiver.

And...what has that to do with the fact that God using His divine foreknowledge of who will or will not accept and believe?

Either way, what Arminianism teaches, what that member said, is not grace by any definition of the word. And it isn't "charity" either!

Salvation is not “predestine” based on “foreknowledge”. All those that would accept God’s charity were predestined “before time began” to be saved, the foreknowledge is of those that accepted God’s charity and thus are saved.[/QUOTE]

I would point out to you that still yet, scripture does not exactly align with that.

"οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν τὸν θεὸν πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθόν, τοῖς κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοῖς οὖσιν. ὅτι οὓς προέγνω, καὶ προώρισεν συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς:" -Rom. 8:28-29 (GNT)

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." -Rom. 8:28-29 (KJV)

  1. Here is a lesson in the Greek. "oti" above, is rendered here "for". It is a conjunction, a conjunction is used to link, words, sentences, and phrases.
  2. Why did God "foreknow" these individuals? "For" in this instance links us back to vs. 28 where linked to "them who were called". God knew these individuals because He called (elected, if you will) first.
  3. You are wrong when you said: "All those that would accept God’s charity were predestined “before time began” to be saved".
  4. I'm not sure you know what "predestinate" means, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. From Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament we learn: "prowpisev" From the root word: proorizw which means: to limit or mark out beforehand, predestine.

    According to the dictionary (Kittels), K. L. Schmidt comments:

    This comparatively rare and late word is used in the Greek Bible only six times in the NT in the sense to foreordain, to predestinate. Since God is eternal and has ordained everything before time, proopizein is a stronger form of opizein (to set bounds to). The synonyms and textual history show that the reference in proginwskien is the same. Rom. 8:29; ouv proginw kai prowpisen summorfouv tnv eikonov tou niou autou, Rom. 8:30; ous...prowpisen (A: proegnw) toutov kai ekalesen. The omniscient God has determined everything in advance, both persons and things in salvation history, with Jesus Christ as the goal. When Herod and Pilate work together with the Gentiles and the mob against Christ, it may be said: h boulh [sou] prowrisen genesqai, Acts 4:28. Herein lies the hidden wisdom of God in a mystery, hn prowrisen o qeoV pro twn aiwnwn eiV doxan hmwn, 1 Cor. 2:7, cf. IV, 819. The goal of our predestination is divine sonship through Jesus Christ: proorisaV hmaV eiV uioqesian dia ihsou cristou, Eph. 1:5. That we have our inheritance in Christ rests in the fact that we are proopisqentev kata proqesin tou ta panta energountov, Eph. 1:11.

    Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Edited by: Gerhard Kittel, Translated by: Geoffery W. Bromiley, Vol. V, proopizw, p. 456, K. L. Schmidt.

    So there you have it, predestination is the mode by which God used to conform the elect to the image of His Son, by which we (the elect) are appointed to divine sonship. Romans 8:29 plainly tells us what we are "predestinated" unto.
  5. God predestinated, chose, called the elect before the foundation of the world, then God foreseen, foreordained the means to bring us to where we would be saved and as a consequence, we will ultimately be conformed to the image of His Son.

    Predestination is the results of Gods choosing, calling, electing us to be His before this world came into existence without any foreknowledge or foreseen faith or believing or works done on our part that would merit His grace, or love. Furthermore, because He predestinated us, He also foreordained the means (Jesus Christ) by which the elect came to saving faith and grace without respect as to when in the individuals life that they would come to Him.

    Predestination is God saying your mine, foreordination is God saying I've made the way possible.
God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
When speaking of the "foreknowledge of God, I quote Arthur W. Pink here:

"Now the word "foreknowledge" as it is used in the New Testament is less ambiguous than in its simple form "to know." If every passage in which it occurs is carefully studied, it will be discovered that it is a moot point whether it ever has reference to the mere perception of events which are yet to take place. The fact is that "foreknowledge" is never used in Scripture in connection with events or actions; instead, it always has reference to persons. It is persons God is said to "foreknow," not the actions of those persons. In proof of this we shall now quote each passage where this expression is found.


The first occurrence is in Acts 2:23. There we read, "Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." If careful attention is paid to the wording of this verse it will be seen that the apostle was not there speaking of God’s foreknowledge of the act of the crucifixion, but of the Person crucified: "Him (Christ) being delivered by," etc.


The second occurrence is in Romans 8;29,30. "For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image, of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called," etc. Weigh well the pronoun that is used here. It is not what He did foreknow, but whom He did. It is not the surrendering of their wills nor the believing of their hearts but the persons themselves, which is here in view.


"God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew" (Rom. 11:2). Once more the plain reference is to persons, and to persons only.


The last mention is in 1 Peter 1:2: "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father." Who are elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father? The previous verse tells us: the reference is to the "strangers scattered" i.e. the Diaspora, the Dispersion, the believing Jews. Thus, here too the reference is to persons, and not to their foreseen acts.

Now in view of these passages (and there are no more) what scriptural ground is there for anyone saying God "foreknew" the acts of certain ones, viz., their "repenting and believing," and that because of those acts He elected them unto salvation? The answer is, None whatever. Scripture never speaks of repentance and faith as being foreseen or foreknown by God. Truly, He did know from all eternity that certain ones would repent and believe, yet this is not what Scripture refers to as the object of God’s "foreknowledge." The word uniformly refers to God’s foreknowing persons; then let us "hold fast the form of sound words" (2 Tim. 1:13).


Another thing to which we desire to call particular attention is that the first two passages quoted above show plainly and teach implicitly that God’s "foreknowledge" is not causative, that instead, something else lies behind, precedes it, and that something is His own sovereign decree. Christ was "delivered by the (1) determinate counsel and (2) foreknowledge of God." (Acts 2:23). His "counsel" or decree was the ground of His foreknowledge. So again in Romans 8:29. That verse opens with the word "for," which tells us to look back to what immediately precedes. What, then, does the previous verse say? This, "all things work together for good to them. . . .who are the called according to His purpose." Thus God’s foreknowledge is based upon His purpose or decree (see Ps. 2:7).


God foreknows what will be because He has decreed what shall be. It is therefore a reversing of the order of Scripture, a putting of the cart before the horse, to affirm that God elects because He foreknows people. The truth is, He "foreknows" because He has elected. This removes the ground or cause of election from outside the creature, and places it in God’s own sovereign will. God purposed in Himself to elect a certain people, not because of anything good in them or from them, either actual or foreseen, but solely out of His own mere pleasure. As to why He chose the ones He did, we do not know, and can only say, "Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight." The plain truth of Romans 8:29 is that God, before the foundation of the world, singled out certain sinners and appointed them unto salvation (2 Thess. 2:13). This is clear from the concluding words of the verse: "Predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son," etc. God did not predestinate those whom He foreknew were "conformed," but, on the contrary, those whom He "foreknew" (i.e., loved and elected) He predestinated to be conformed. Their conformity to Christ is not the cause, but the effect of God’s foreknowledge and predestination.


God did not elect any sinner because He foresaw that he would believe, for the simple but sufficient reason that no sinner ever does believe until God gives him faith; just as no man sees until God gives him sight. Sight is God’s gift, seeing is the consequence of my using His gift. So faith is God’s gift (Eph. 1:8,9), believing is the consequence of my using His gift. If it were true that God had elected certain ones to be saved because in due time they would believe, then that would make believing a meritorious act, and in that event the saved sinner would have ground for "boasting," which Scripture emphatically denies: Ephesians 2:9.


Surely God’s Word is plain enough in teaching that believing is not a meritorious act. It affirms that Christians are a people "who have believed through grace" (Acts 18:27). If then, they have believed "through grace," there is absolutely nothing meritorious about "believing," and if nothing meritorious, it could not be the ground or cause which moved God to choose them. No; God’s choice proceeds not from anything in us, or anything from us, but solely from His own sovereign pleasure. Once more, in Romans 11:5, we read of "a remnant according to the election of grace." There it is, plain enough; election itself is of grace, and grace is unmerited favour something for which we had no claim upon God whatsoever.


It thus appears that it is highly important for us to have clear and scriptural views of the "foreknowledge" of God. Erroneous conceptions about it lead inevitably to thoughts most dishonoring to Him. The popular idea of Divine foreknowledge is altogether inadequate. God not only knew the end from the beginning, but He planned, fixed, predestinated everything from the beginning. And, as cause stands to effect, so God’s purpose is the ground of His prescience. If then the reader be a real Christian, he is so because God chose him in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4), and chose not because He foresaw you would believe, but chose simply because it pleased Him to choose: chose you notwithstanding your natural unbelief. This being so, all the glory and praise belongs alone to Him. You have no ground for taking any credit to yourself. You have "believed through grace" (Acts 18:27), and that, because your very election was "of grace" (Rom. 11:5)."

The Attributes of God, Chapter 4 The Foreknowledge of God, Arthur W. Pink

This right here, sums up what I have been saying the whole time.

I want to add:

Donald Grey Barnhouse says the same thing in his commentary in Romans:

"One could argue that it literally means "foreknowledge" as in the sense of to know before-hand, and technically, that would also be correct. But the underlying issue is this, how does God "fore-know" them? Because according to verse 28, they were called or elected first. Why wouldn't the Lord know those whom he called? And it is because they were called first, that He "foreordained" them, and because He "foreordained" them, He predestinated them."

Donald G. Barnhouse, Romans, Vol. III, God's Freedom, Hendrickson Publishing, Grand Rapids, Mi., Copyright 1959, p. 158

If God looked forward in time and seen foreseen faith, works, or anything in me, or done by me to merit being called, elected, that makes God a respecter of persons.

Yes thats right, I said it. If foreknowledge of faith or works done on my part was the basis of my election, then God had respect for me and elected me on that basis. And the next person, well God did not foresee any faith, works, or any thing else that would merit their election, therefore, they were not elected.

Bologna!

If God looked forward, foreseen, and had foreknowledge, of anything we done, then it is not grace. If it is the way some people want to espouse, then foreseen faith, or works, or anything we have done that merits our being called, elected, then we have earned our election because of future work, faith, or something that we will do sometime in the future. And God has respect for that.

I rest my case.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sdowney717
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,184
1,809
✟803,026.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Again, show me where I said you did say that.

My point was addressing the member who said that God uses His "foreknowledge of who will and will not accept and believe" as the reason why they were predestinated.

OK, you were not addressing me.

Here's a deal, you were the one who brought "beggars" into this argument. I have shown that while there are some true beggars who actually need what they are asking for, there is a large group of individuals out there that have made begging their "work".

I am not talking about thieves and crocs, but there being beggars of charity who do not work for what they get.

And...what has that to do with the fact that God using His divine foreknowledge of who will or will not accept and believe?

I am not saying God does uses “foreknowledge” in any way since it is not needed to know who will or won’t since it is who did or didn’t.

Either way, what Arminianism teaches, what that member said, is not grace by any definition of the word. And it isn't "charity" either!

Salvation is not “predestine” based on “foreknowledge”. All those that would accept God’s charity were predestined “before time began” to be saved, the foreknowledge is of those that accepted God’s charity and thus are saved.

I would point out to you that still yet, scripture does not exactly align with that.

"οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν τὸν θεὸν πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθόν, τοῖς κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοῖς οὖσιν. ὅτι οὓς προέγνω, καὶ προώρισεν συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς:" -Rom. 8:28-29 (GNT)

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." -Rom. 8:28-29 (KJV)

  1. Here is a lesson in the Greek. "oti" above, is rendered here "for". It is a conjunction, a conjunction is used to link, words, sentences, and phrases.
  2. Why did God "foreknow" these individuals? "For" in this instance links us back to vs. 28 where linked to "them who were called". God knew these individuals because He called (elected, if you will) first.
  3. You are wrong when you said: "All those that would accept God’s charity were predestined “before time began” to be saved".
  4. I'm not sure you know what "predestinate" means, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. From Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament we learn: "prowpisev" From the root word: proorizw which means: to limit or mark out beforehand, predestine.

    According to the dictionary (Kittels), K. L. Schmidt comments:

    This comparatively rare and late word is used in the Greek Bible only six times in the NT in the sense to foreordain, to predestinate. Since God is eternal and has ordained everything before time, proopizein is a stronger form of opizein (to set bounds to). The synonyms and textual history show that the reference in proginwskien is the same. Rom. 8:29; ouv proginw kai prowpisen summorfouv tnv eikonov tou niou autou, Rom. 8:30; ous...prowpisen (A: proegnw) toutov kai ekalesen. The omniscient God has determined everything in advance, both persons and things in salvation history, with Jesus Christ as the goal. When Herod and Pilate work together with the Gentiles and the mob against Christ, it may be said: h boulh [sou] prowrisen genesqai, Acts 4:28. Herein lies the hidden wisdom of God in a mystery, hn prowrisen o qeoV pro twn aiwnwn eiV doxan hmwn, 1 Cor. 2:7, cf. IV, 819. The goal of our predestination is divine sonship through Jesus Christ: proorisaV hmaV eiV uioqesian dia ihsou cristou, Eph. 1:5. That we have our inheritance in Christ rests in the fact that we are proopisqentev kata proqesin tou ta panta energountov, Eph. 1:11.

    Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Edited by: Gerhard Kittel, Translated by: Geoffery W. Bromiley, Vol. V, proopizw, p. 456, K. L. Schmidt.

    So there you have it, predestination is the mode by which God used to conform the elect to the image of His Son, by which we (the elect) are appointed to divine sonship. Romans 8:29 plainly tells us what we are "predestinated" unto.
  5. God predestinated, chose, called the elect before the foundation of the world, then God foreseen, foreordained the means to bring us to where we would be saved and as a consequence, we will ultimately be conformed to the image of His Son.

    Predestination is the results of Gods choosing, calling, electing us to be His before this world came into existence without any foreknowledge or foreseen faith or believing or works done on our part that would merit His grace, or love. Furthermore, because He predestinated us, He also foreordained the means (Jesus Christ) by which the elect came to saving faith and grace without respect as to when in the individuals life that they would come to Him.

    Predestination is God saying your mine, foreordination is God saying I've made the way possible.

Man has come up with man’s definition of predestine which man wants to use to support man’s doctrine, but the Bible does not define “predestine” (the six times it is used) that specific way and we know definitions can change over time. Trying to base the definition on the little word “for” or "oti" is also very dicey since prepositions and conjunctions change rapidly over time.

Show me where scripture limits the definition of “predestination” to your one concluded definition?

I have no problem with God foreordaining most everything which would be needed to be fair and just to everyone, but where does it say: man’s choice to accept or reject God’s charity is foreordained by God?

Yes, God calls and those that accept that call are the called out (Christians). Those that reject God’s call (charity/Love) are not the called out.

God can have foreknowledge of everything, so it can be recorded in the book of life before time begins, but that does not keep man from making autonomous free will choices.
 
Upvote 0

JamesFW

Active Member
Jun 21, 2017
82
3
43
Nevada
✟2,010.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." -Rom. 8:28-29 (KJV)

  1. Here is a lesson in the Greek. "oti" above, is rendered here "for". It is a conjunction, a conjunction is used to link, words, sentences, and phrases.
  2. Why did God "foreknow" these individuals? "For" in this instance links us back to vs. 28 where linked to "them who were called". God knew these individuals because He called (elected, if you will) first.
  3. You are wrong when you said: "All those that would accept God’s charity were predestined “before time began” to be saved".
  4. I'm not sure you know what "predestinate" means, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. From Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament we learn: "prowpisev" From the root word: proorizw which means: to limit or mark out beforehand, predestine.

    According to the dictionary (Kittels), K. L. Schmidt comments:
Here is a lesson also. 'To them that love God' is as important as any other part of the verse. I see you left that out. To find out who love God, we can look to Jesus and what He said.

John 14:21
Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me.

Surely you believe what Jesus said; I take you do. Now we can read this verse as follows:

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, that is, those who 'have and keep His commands', to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." -Rom. 8:28-29 (KJV)

This is condition that not only was part of the old covenant, but also the new covenant.
 
Upvote 0

JamesFW

Active Member
Jun 21, 2017
82
3
43
Nevada
✟2,010.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
When speaking of the "foreknowledge of God, I quote Arthur W. Pink here:

"Now the word "foreknowledge" as it is used in the New Testament is less ambiguous than in its simple form "to know." If every passage in which it occurs is carefully studied, it will be discovered that it is a moot point whether it ever has reference to the mere perception of events which are yet to take place. The fact is that "foreknowledge" is never used in Scripture in connection with events or actions; instead, it always has reference to persons. It is persons God is said to "foreknow," not the actions of those persons. In proof of this we shall now quote each passage where this expression is found.

Makes one wonder whether God 'foreknew' any actions of man. It is my belief you can't separate man from his actions. If you know Jesus, you know He saves; you can't separate that fact.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Here is a lesson also. 'To them that love God' is as important as any other part of the verse. I see you left that out. To find out who love God, we can look to Jesus and what He said.

John 14:21
Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me.

Surely you believe what Jesus said; I take you do. Now we can read this verse as follows:

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, that is, those who 'have and keep His commands', to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." -Rom. 8:28-29 (KJV)

This is condition that not only was part of the old covenant, but also the new covenant.

Problem is, nobody loves God to begin with.

Problem is that that verse speaks of "after the fact".

Another problem you are making up verses. If you want to insert verses from another book into a verse from another verse, be my guest. You are changing what the Holy Writ says.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sdowney717
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I am not talking about thieves and crocs, but there being beggars of charity who do not work for what they get.

And was pointing out some do.



I am not saying God does uses “foreknowledge” in any way since it is not needed to know who will or won’t since it is who did or didn’t.

I never said you did.

Man has come up with man’s definition of predestine which man wants to use to support man’s doctrine, but the Bible does not define “predestine” (the six times it is used) that specific way and we know definitions can change over time. Trying to base the definition on the little word “for” or "oti" is also very dicey since prepositions and conjunctions change rapidly over time.

Show me where scripture limits the definition of “predestination” to your one concluded definition?

I have no problem with God foreordaining most everything which would be needed to be fair and just to everyone, but where does it say: man’s choice to accept or reject God’s charity is foreordained by God?

Yes, God calls and those that accept that call are the called out (Christians). Those that reject God’s call (charity/Love) are not the called out.

God can have foreknowledge of everything, so it can be recorded in the book of life before time begins, but that does not keep man from making autonomous free will choices.

So now you want to bring "libertarian free will" into this argument.

You know, you won't recognize that some people are authorities on Greek. You remind of the type of person who would go to a college class and argue with the professor because you don't recognize lexicons or the aforementioned work by Gerhard Kittel.

And even my source admits that the word "predestine" is only used 6 times in the scripture. But there is significant usage outside the scriptures to back up what I have said.

Try researching the Attic Greek sometime.

Fact is, Koine Greek came to us by way of the Attic Greek of around 300 BC.

Fact is also that your only here to argue.

I have provided sources to back my points.

You: nothing except your own opinion.

I'm done with you.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JamesFW

Active Member
Jun 21, 2017
82
3
43
Nevada
✟2,010.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Problem is, nobody loves God to begin with.

Really? Then I would say you are 'partiala scriptura'. Loving God is not a problem. Why would it be a problem? Did God not love you first?

Problem is that that verse speaks of "after the fact".

Is that the best excuse you have for not including the part I gave? Either you love God and keep His commandments or you don't. Which is it with you?

Do you think those who don't love God, that is, have and keep His commandments, can claim the rest of what that verse says?

Another problem you are making up verses. If you want to insert verses from another book into a verse from another verse, be my guest. You are changing what the Holy Writ says.

I am making up verses? Let me help you out here. Jesus, I said Jesus, said these words -

John 14:21
Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me.

I didn't make them up. Why would one think I made them up? I don't understand your logic.

Doesn't everyone insert verses into other verses to get the 'whole' meaning? Are you an isolationist?

Why don't you want to believe that loving God is keeping His commandments?
 
Upvote 0

JamesFW

Active Member
Jun 21, 2017
82
3
43
Nevada
✟2,010.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And was pointing out some do.

I never said you did.

So now you want to bring "libertarian free will" into this argument.

You know, you won't recognize that some people are authorities on Greek. You remind of the type of person who would go to a college class and argue with the professor because you don't recognize lexicons or the aforementioned work by Gerhard Kittel.

And even my source admits that the word "predestine" is only used 6 times in the scripture. But there is significant usage outside the scriptures to back up what I have said.

Try researching the Attic Greek sometime.

Fact is, Koine Greek came to us by way of the Attic Greek of around 300 BC.

Fact is also that your only here to argue.

I have provided sources to back my points.

You: nothing except your own opinion.

I'm done with you.

God Bless

Till all are one.

A little edgy there Deacon.
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,454
✟84,598.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Here is a lesson also. 'To them that love God' is as important as any other part of the verse. I see you left that out. To find out who love God, we can look to Jesus and what He said.

John 14:21
Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me.

Surely you believe what Jesus said; I take you do. Now we can read this verse as follows:

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, that is, those who 'have and keep His commands', to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." -Rom. 8:28-29 (KJV)

This is condition that not only was part of the old covenant, but also the new covenant.
Makes one wonder whether God 'foreknew' any actions of man. It is my belief you can't separate man from his actions. If you know Jesus, you know He saves; you can't separate that fact

Really? Then I would say you are 'partiala scriptura'. Loving God is not a problem. Why would it be a problem? Did God not love you first?

Is that the best excuse you have for not including the part I gave? Either you love God and keep His commandments or you don't. Which is it with you?

Do you think those who don't love God, that is, have and keep His commandments, can claim the rest of what that verse says?

I am making up verses? Let me help you out here. Jesus, I said Jesus, said these words -

John 14:21
Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me.

I didn't make them up. Why would one think I made them up? I don't understand your logic.

Doesn't everyone insert verses into other verses to get the 'whole' meaning? Are you an isolationist?

Why don't you want to believe that loving God is keeping His commandments

A little edgy there Deacon
Hello EmSw.
Who do you think you're fooling?

You know - if you believe your salvation depends on obeying Jesus every command - you really should try to let your yes be yes and your no be no. Anything else is of the devil.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Really? Then I would say you are 'partiala scriptura'. Loving God is not a problem. Why would it be a problem? Did God not love you first?

What was it you said:

"To find out who love God, we can look to Jesus and what He said.

John 14:21
Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me."

Its not that God don't love us, scripture says He does.

But the fact remains that prior to salvation, nobody has a heart/love for God.

Is that the best excuse you have for not including the part I gave? Either you love God and keep His commandments or you don't. Which is it with you?

Which commandments are we to keep? The 10? The 610? The two Jesus gave? The ones the First Apostolic Council gave? Or all God and Jesus gave?

Do you think those who don't love God, that is, have and keep His commandments, can claim the rest of what that verse says?

Here again, that verse is about what happens after salvation.

I am making up verses? Let me help you out here. Jesus, I said Jesus, said these words -

John 14:21
Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me.

I didn't make them up. Why would one think I made them up? I don't understand your logic.

Doesn't everyone insert verses into other verses to get the 'whole' meaning? Are you an isolationist?

Why don't you want to believe that loving God is keeping His commandments?

What was it you said:

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, that is, those who 'have and keep His commands', to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." -Rom. 8:28-29 (KJV)

Who is it that is inserting one verse into another?

I have never read in any KJV the verse that says: "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, that is, those who 'have and keep His commands',"

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hello EmSw.
Who do you think you're fooling?

You know - if you believe your salvation depends on obeying Jesus every command - you really should try to let your yes be yes and your no be no. Anything else is of the devil.


Oh, is that who this member changed their name to?

That's good to know.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0