Discussion of Foreknown/Foreknew

[BBAS 64]

Are you referring to Romans 8:29? I am not a scholar of the Greek. But In Romans 8:29, the word “foreknew” is a verb. It comes from the Greek term “προγινώσκω” (proginóskó), which means “to know beforehand” or “foresee.” Specifically, it refers to God’s knowledge of people or relationships before they come into existence. So, when the verse says, “For those whom He foreknew,” it emphasizes that God knew in advance those who would accept His Son and be conformed to His image.

I still see that as consistent with my rendering that God actively knew there would be people who believed in His son. In His mind He was actively aware that people would believe.

Good day,

God foreknew (verb) people not things about people ( noun).

Those (people) he foreknew... not something about them. The verb carriers the idea of a intimate relationship.

That is why Jesus says he never knew them... because the did not choose enter into a relationship with him.

In HIm,

Bill

 

[KevinT]

No. . . ... That which "is according to the fore-knowledge of God" is that which is according to what God is going to do, not what man is going to do.

So do you believe that God was behind the sin of Adam and Eve? Was there ever a chance that they would not fall?

KT

 

[Josheb]

Were speaking about the verses:

Job 36:10-12 He also opens their ear to instruction, And commands that they turn from iniquity. If they obey and serve Him, They shall spend their days in prosperity, And their years in pleasures. But if they do not obey, They shall perish by the sword, And they shall die without knowledge.



It really does not matter whether you believe in original sin making them unable to choose, or whether there is still a measure of freedom in choosing; the fact remains that the person depicted in this verse has a choice to make. Note they can 1) obey and live, 2) disobey and die without knowledge.



You say the bible never mentions free choice. But here in the verse above is one clear example.

1) God gives His word
2) If the person responds to it they will live
3) If the person does not respond they will die

The person's ability to respond does not mean s/he was free. It just means some volitional agency exists. The problem is you've chosen people are already saved, not atheists. No one disputes the volitional agency of the redeemed, regenerate, already-saved believer. It's the God-denying, Christ-denying sinner that has the compromised will. The only scriptures YOU can use are those written about non-believers!!! You do not get to use verses written about people who already believe in God, already believe God, already live in a covenant relationship God initiated monergistically, or those scripture tells us were already saved.

You've got a broken hermeneutic.

The doctrine of Calvinism, your doctrine, states that such a choice is never made.

One, that is incorrect, and 2) I have showed you how you're wrong and asked you not to repeat your mistake. You don't get to tell anyone what Calvinism teaches because you do not know what it teaches. You were either taught badly, or you invent criticisms that have no basis in reality.

The Elect will always respond "Yes" yet this verse makes it clear that a person can respond in either way.

That does not mean humans lack volitional agency.

Which is similar to how salvation occurs.

Joh 14:21-24 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

1) God gives HIs word
2) If we keep it the Father will love us
3) If we despise His word no manifestation occurs

Jesus predicated his words on the person loving him and keeping his commands. God deniers do not do that. Jesus deniers do not do that. Atheists do not do that. You cannot take those words and apply them to atheists. You commit a false equivalence every single time you do so, and it necessarily, inescapably leads to a bad soteriology.

A list for you and I to work through has been provided:

• Stop making the Creator dependent on the creature.
• Stop using scripture selectively.
• Stop adding to and subtracting from what is stated.
• Accept and believe what is explicitly states exactly as written.
• Don't pit one verse against another, or otherwise ignore the whole of scripture.
• Don't ignore the surrounding text or the inherent contexts, especially not those of audience affiliation.
• Don't misuse any ECF.
• Don't misrepresent Calvinism.
• Stop suggesting the only alternative to your views is a despotic God.
• Don't misrepresent my posts.

Start addressing the problems I have cited. Pick one and let's work through it and let's let the whole of scripture measure both our posts.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

I like your username. It is a good reminder.
I suppose you chose it for that reason.

Just wanted to ask a question.
I agree with you that God's purpose includes persons who would be heirs with Christ in the kingdom.
However, does this mean that God knows those persons who will be heirs, or does it simply mean that God foreordained those who choose to accept the calling?
In other words, those who fit into God's purpose were not foreknown individually, but collectively?

Hope you understand.
Forming the question is a bit complicated.

My personal view, is that "that God foreordained those who choose to accept the calling", but I could be wrong, people like Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202] although believing 100% in free will in man, and man's choice being needful for salvation, seem to believe that God has a kind of Foreknowledge that involves a knowledge of the future. Why I believe God foreordained those who would accept the calling, is due to the fact Genisis states He [God] was surprised at how bad man had become, if God had genuine foreknowledge he would not have been surprised, he would have said "they are just doing what I expected".

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” (NKJV, Genesis 6:5-7)​

I have written fully what I think at The Way and Free Will

 

[FutureAndAHope]

The person's ability to respond does not mean s/he was free. It just means some volitional agency exists. The problem is you've chosen people are already saved, not atheists. No one disputes the volitional agency of the redeemed, regenerate, already-saved believer. It's the God-denying, Christ-denying sinner that has the compromised will. The only scriptures YOU can use are those written about non-believers!!! You do not get to use verses written about people who already believe in God, already believe God, already live in a covenant relationship God initiated monergistically, or those scripture tells us were already saved.

You've got a broken hermeneutic.

One, that is incorrect, and 2) I have showed you how you're wrong and asked you not to repeat your mistake. You don't get to tell anyone what Calvinism teaches because you do not know what it teaches. You were either taught badly, or you invent criticisms that have no basis in reality.

That does not mean humans lack volitional agency.

Calvinism teaches that the Elect of God can not be damned. So why in Job does it say they can "die without knowledge". This shows that Calvinism is incorrect.

Jesus predicated his words on the person loving him and keeping his commands. God deniers do not do that. Jesus deniers do not do that. Atheists do not do that. You cannot take those words and apply them to atheists. You commit a false equivalence every single time you do so, and it necessarily, inescapably leads to a bad soteriology.

But where does the love of the Father begin? Before or after obedience? Just answer before, or after?

Joh 14:21-24 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

 

[Josheb]

Calvinism teaches that the Elect of God can not be damned. So why in Job does it say they can "die without knowledge". This shows that Calvinism is incorrect.

I am going to ignore your comments on Calvinsims because you do not have Calvinism correct and the attempts divert you from your own op. This op stands or falls on its own merits and you are not proving it correct.

But where does the love of the Father begin? Before or after obedience? Just answer before, or after?

Before. It begins in eternity. How do you not know that.

Joh 14:21-24 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

Not a single mention of the sinner's will. You've, once again, cited a passage that has nothing to do with how an unbeliever gets saved. The entire John 14 text (the entire chapter!) is said to those Jesus had chosen, those God had given to His Son without ever telling any of those men they'd been chosen, without ever asking a single one of them if they wanted to be chosen or called, and every single one of them was commanded, "Come, follow me," with any discussion or debate on the matter. They were chosen and called without being asked and commanded with an expectation of obedience. Every single one of them was born into a covenant relationship initiated by God monergistically centuries before any of them had been conceived.

Not a single word of it applies to the atheist and not a single word of it mentions the sinner's will. You have abjectly failed in both rendering scripture accurately and proving this op correct. You've also refused to take any one point and discuss it.


Let's start with something simple that every single Christian should be able to instantly, readily, and easily answer: Since every single one of the twelve apostles was Jewish, believed in God and hoped for the promised Messiah to come.... did they have a covenant relationship with God through Abraham, or not?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

I am going to ignore your comments on Calvinsims because you do not have Calvinism correct and the attempts divert you from your own op. This op stands or falls on its own merits and you are not proving it correct.

I am not going to let you get away with this. You cover it up as though it does not exist. But it is the elephant in the room. How do you explain the damnation of a man, who you say is righteous in the following, surely it disagrees with Calvinism, it is man's choice, not God's.

Job 36:10-12 He also opens their ear to instruction, And commands that they turn from iniquity. If they obey and serve Him, They shall spend their days in prosperity, And their years in pleasures. But if they do not obey, They shall perish by the sword, And they shall die without knowledge.​

There are two pathways based upon man's choice, life or death.

Deu 30:15-19 "See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the LORD your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. But if your heart turns away so that you do not hear, and are drawn away, and worship other gods and serve them, I announce to you today that you shall surely perish; you shall not prolong your days in the land which you cross over the Jordan to go in and possess. I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;​

 

[Josheb]

I am not going to let you get away with this.

And I am not going to let you change the subject. The opening post does not make any mention of Calvin or Calvinism. You added that in Post 16 in an effort to deflect attention from this op's problems.

You cover it up as though it does not exist.

Never happened. No "cover up" occurred. Evidence from the preeminent Calvinist authoritative document was provided to prove your claims wrong and the false witness a red herring.

But it is the elephant in the room.

No, it's not. The elephant in the room is your failure to prove your own op on its own merits without resorting to scapegoating.

How do you explain the damnation of a man, who you say is righteous in the following, surely it disagrees with Calvinism, it is man's choice, not God's.

????? I never said the damned man is righteous. Not once. You are again bearing false witness and avoidng the problems in herent in this opening post.

Job 36:10-12 He also opens their ear to instruction, And commands that they turn from iniquity. If they obey and serve Him, They shall spend their days in prosperity, And their years in pleasures. But if they do not obey, They shall perish by the sword, And they shall die without knowledge.​

Yes, when people who already believe in God and live in a God-initiated covenant relationship with Him open their ears to instruction and follow His commands by turning from their iniquity they will live in prosperity.

They will not be saved from sin, but they will live in prosperity.

There are two pathways based upon man's choice, life or death.

There are no pathways based on any choice of the unbelieving sinful unregenerate man. You have failed to quote a single verse that mentions the will of the sinner. You have failed to do so even after multiple requests to do so. You have eisegetically assume human volition is implied when it is nowhere stated. Every single example is read as human-centric, not God-centric, and the end result is the subjugation of the righteous almighty Creator to the sinful creature.

Deu 30:15-19 "See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the LORD your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. But if your heart turns away so that you do not hear, and are drawn away, and worship other gods and serve them, I announce to you today that you shall surely perish; you shall not prolong your days in the land which you cross over the Jordan to go in and possess. I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;​

One of my favorite texts.

This choice is given to the people in attendance only AFTER they have been released from captivity, not beforehand. God had chosen them long before any of them were conceived. He chose them and called them out of Egypt without ever asking them if they wanted to be freed. They did eventually pray for release, but those prayers came long after God had already decided the matter back in Genesis 15! In other words, by citing Deuteronomy 30 without including its inherent history that dates back centuries, you've demonstrated, once again, the recurring problem of selective scripture use and failure to consider whole scripture.

Those people were chosen by God before any of them were born. Not a single one of them was asked if they wanted to be born, wanted to be enslaved, or wanted to be freed, or wanted to be included in a covenant relationship. NONE OF THEM WERE GIVEN A CHOCE ABOUT ANY OF IT! Every single one of those people was selected (elected) by God to be the ones reaching the promised land and not only did God never given them a choice beforehand..... every single one of them repeatedly disobeyed God and did NOT keep His commands! It was only AFTER they'd been included in the covenant relationship, chosen by God, and been brought in disobedience to the land of promise that the choice in Deuteronomy 30 was given.

And nowhere in that passage does the text say the human will is free, that any of those people did not believe in God, or state the choice of the sinful God-denier saves him from sin.

The entire text is about God believers who are already living in a covenant relationship with God. Robert Palmer failed to consider that. So too do Leighton Flowers, Roger Olsen, and every other leading synergist. None of them can be relied upon to properly render God's word because they ALL neglect the inherent existence of an inherent covenant relationship that runs throughout scripture from beginning to end!

Very, very little is written in scripture about the man who denies God's existence. The Bible calls them fools, and it has many unkind things to say about fools. Ontologically speaking, a non-believer is, by definition, not a believer. Since all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory and thereby become dead in and enslaved by sin, all they have is their sin-corrupted flesh with which to believe. Scripture explicitly and unequivocally states the mind of flesh is hostile to God and it does not and cannot please God (Rom. 8:6). That verse was written to saved believers about saved believers who also have the Spirit within them.

The dead-in-sin sinner does not have the Spirit.

There is not one verse in the entire Bible explicitly states salvation can be attributed to the will of the sinful flesh, and all you have to do to prove me wrong is quote that verse. Don't quote any more verses that don't explicitly mention human choice. quote the verse that explicitly states the sinner's salvation can be attributed to the will of his sinful flesh.

Do it now, please.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

And I am not going to let you change the subject. The opening post does not make any mention of Calvin or Calvinism. You added that in Post 16 in an effort to deflect attention from this op's problems.

Never happened. No "cover up" occurred. Evidence from the preeminent Calvinist authoritative document was provided to prove your claims wrong and the false witness a red herring.

No, it's not. The elephant in the room is your failure to prove your own op on its own merits without resorting to scapegoating.

????? I never said the damned man is righteous. Not once. You are again bearing false witness and avoidng the problems in herent in this opening post.

Yes, when people who already believe in God and live in a God-initiated covenant relationship with Him open their ears to instruction and follow His commands by turning from their iniquity they will live in prosperity.

They will not be saved from sin, but they will live in prosperity.

There are no pathways based on any choice of the unbelieving sinful unregenerate man. You have failed to quote a single verse that mentions the will of the sinner. You have failed to do so even after multiple requests to do so. You have eisegetically assume human volition is implied when it is nowhere stated. Every single example is read as human-centric, not God-centric, and the end result is the subjugation of the righteous almighty Creator to the sinful creature.

One of my favorite texts.

This choice is given to the people in attendance only AFTER they have been released from captivity, not beforehand. God had chosen them long before any of them were conceived. He chose them and called them out of Egypt without ever asking them if they wanted to be freed. They did eventually pray for release, but those prayers came long after God had already decided the matter back in Genesis 15! In other words, by citing Deuteronomy 30 without including its inherent history that dates back centuries, you've demonstrated, once again, the recurring problem of selective scripture use and failure to consider whole scripture.

Those people were chosen by God before any of them were born. Not a single one of them was asked if they wanted to be born, wanted to be enslaved, or wanted to be freed, or wanted to be included in a covenant relationship. NONE OF THEM WERE GIVEN A CHOCE ABOUT ANY OF IT! Every single one of those people was selected (elected) by God to be the ones reaching the promised land and not only did God never given them a choice beforehand..... every single one of them repeatedly disobeyed God and did NOT keep His commands! It was only AFTER they'd been included in the covenant relationship, chosen by God, and been brought in disobedience to the land of promise that the choice in Deuteronomy 30 was given.

And nowhere in that passage does the text say the human will is free, that any of those people did not believe in God, or state the choice of the sinful God-denier saves him from sin.

The entire text is about God believers who are already living in a covenant relationship with God. Robert Palmer failed to consider that. So too do Leighton Flowers, Roger Olsen, and every other leading synergist. None of them can be relied upon to properly render God's word because they ALL neglect the inherent existence of an inherent covenant relationship that runs throughout scripture from beginning to end!

Very, very little is written in scripture about the man who denies God's existence. The Bible calls them fools, and it has many unkind things to say about fools. Ontologically speaking, a non-believer is, by definition, not a believer. Since all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory and thereby become dead in and enslaved by sin, all they have is their sin-corrupted flesh with which to believe. Scripture explicitly and unequivocally states the mind of flesh is hostile to God and it does not and cannot please God (Rom. 8:6). That verse was written to saved believers about saved believers who also have the Spirit within them.

The dead-in-sin sinner does not have the Spirit.

There is not one verse in the entire Bible explicitly states salvation can be attributed to the will of the sinful flesh, and all you have to do to prove me wrong is quote that verse. Don't quote any more verses that don't explicitly mention human choice. quote the verse that explicitly states the sinner's salvation can be attributed to the will of his sinful flesh.

Do it now, please.

I will answer after you show me how the same man can have two outcomes based on his or her choice:

Job 36:10-12 He also opens their ear to instruction, And commands that they turn from iniquity. If they obey and serve Him, They shall spend their days in prosperity, And their years in pleasures. But if they do not obey, They shall perish by the sword, And they shall die without knowledge.

You say there are no choices in the Bible but it is not true.

 

[bling]

Now, I did not do that. God did.

God's word explicitly states none seek Him. None believe. From beginning to end the entirety of scripture juxtaposes multiple dichotomies and this op has ignored them all by treating covenant people and regenerate people identical to atheists.

You are redefining: “Believe” to only mean believe in God is your problem, when people can believe in lots of things.

The soldier who surrenders to his enemy is not in Love with his enemy, but will continue to hate his enemy (not seeking his enemy at all). While hating his enemy the soldier of satan is willing to accept pure undeserved charity from his enemy for purely sinful (selfish) reasons. That “humble willingness” is all God need to shower the soldier of satan with unbelievable wonderful gifts regenerating him.

That's a red herring. God did not limit anyone beyond the way He made creation (and all its creatures). Sin limits people's God-given abilities. The soteriological debate is waged over whether or not sin compromises the will to the point of making someone unable to come to God in their own might with their won sin-adulterated and limited faculties. The Augustinian monergist and Arminian subscribe to the doctrine we now call "Total Depravity," or the position sin has had a compromising effect so thorough that it prevents a sinner from coming to God unaided for salvation. The sinner can choose what color car to buy or which flavor of ice cream s/he prefers because human volition is not dead, but it cannot reach God salvifically. On the more Pelagian end of the spectrum (the Traditionalist and the Provisionist) say sin has not had a thoroughly preventive effect and the sinfully sinful sinner can still choose God with what remains of his/her volitional agency.

They believe that even though scripture never states any such thing.

It is a position that can be formed only by an inferential-only reading of scripture.

What God's word does state is no one seeks Him, No one can come to God unless the Father hauls the sinner to Jesus and gives the sinner to Jesus. God's word says the salvation that is by grace through faith is a gift from God and not of ourselves; we are created in Christ to do good works. The sinner's will is never causally attributed to the sinner's salvation.

I said above and in the last post: The unbelieving sinner cannot do (as you say): anything noble, righteous, honorable, worthy of anything good or holy, but that does not keep the unbelieving sinner from of his own free will choosing to do one sin over another sin. Being selfish is a sin, so being motivated by selfishness is a sin. The soldier who surrenders to his enemy is not in Love with his enemy, but will continue to hate his enemy (not seeking his enemy at all). While hating his enemy the soldier of satan is willing to accept pure undeserved charity from his enemy for purely sinful (selfish) reasons. That “humble willingness” is all God need to shower the soldier of satan with unbelievable wonderful gifts regenerating him.

God does not kidnap some people against their will, but openly accepts all who are willing accept His charity as pure undeserved charity. These become God’s children.

The prodigal son is a parable, not literal teaching. Never subordinate the literal to the figurative, symbolic, or allegorical.

Jesus is using a story to teach us and they are His words and Jesus does not mislead us.

Not ot be saved from his sin. He can go back to his father, but his earthly father cannot save him and, salvifically speaking, none seek the Father. The unstated truth of that parable is that neither son possessed eternal life. Both were prodigal. Both were dead in sin and unable to rid themselves of that condition.

This is a Kingdom Parable, talking about the way things are in the Kingdom to come.

Do you not see the father of the Prodigal son represent God?

How do you understand any parable? Look at the explanation Jesus gives to some of His parables.

You've just taken a passage written by a person who was regenerate and saved, written to people who were already regenerate and saved, and written about people who were already regenerate and saved..... and you've tried to apply it to the unregenerate, unsaved, God-denying, Jesus-denying sinful non-believer.

Every single person in Paul's audience, every single Christian reader in the original audience receiving that letter was once dead in their transgressions and sin and the gratified the cravings of thei flesh. It was God in His mercy that made them alive in Christ, not their will, not the will of the still dead-in-sin, sinfully-enslaved flesh of the non-believing sinner. Nowhere does that text attribute anything to the human will, especially not the sinner's will, but it does explcitly attribute their salvation causally to the mercy of God.

Paul starts out addressing these Christian prior to being Christians “, you were dead in your transgressions and sins,”

All the New Testament is written to Disciples, but that does not mean unbelievers and prior to them believing is not addressed.

God did it = 100%
Sinner's will did it = not even a smidgen of a fraction of a percent .

And we know from Paul's exposition in Romans 9 that God has mercy on whoever He wills, and His mercy does NOT depend on who a (sinful) man wills or how s/he works. It depends on the will and purpose of God. No one can pit Ephesians 2 against Romans 9 and imagine they've formed sound doctrine. No one can take passages written about the already regenerate saved believer and apply them to atheists and think they have formed sound doctrine.

.....which makes the person a sinner. The two are not mutually exclusive conditions. We are saved from sin and wrath, not just one or the other.

This is a huge topic which has lots of verses to which need deep study and not just a reference to. You bring up Romans 9 so we can start there, but all your verses need to be studied.

You really need to put every verse in Ro. 9 in the context of at least all of Ro. 9, ro. 9-11 and all of Romans.

Romans 9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.



The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!



This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).

Some “Christians” do not seem to understand how Paul, uses diatribes and think, since he just showed God being “unjust” and saying God is “not unjust” that God has a special God definition of “just”, making God “just” by His standard and appearing totally unjust by human standards. God is not a hypocrite and does not redefine what He told us to be true.



Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?

Think further about this: The Jews (thinking the gentiles were dogs) would support their distant for the Gentiles by pointing out to them how God: loved Jacob, a Jew, and hated Esau, a gentile, plus Jacob and Ishmael, Moses and Pharoah and with other OT true stories. Those true stories would thus be formular to both Jewish and Gentile Christians, showing the Jews were special and the ZGentiles were just common.



If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common, while others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?



This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.



Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”



The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).



How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.



Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.



Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!



The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.



If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Rm 9:22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction, since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

Just because Paul uses a Potter as being God in his analogy and Jerimiah 18 uses a Potter as being God in his analogy, does not mean the analogies are conveying the exact same analogy. Jerimiah is talking about clay on the potter’s wheel being change while still being malleable clay (which fits the changing of Israel), but Paul is talking about two finished pots (vessels) so they cannot both be Israel, the clay is the same for both and the clay is not changing the outcome of the pot. The two pots (vessels) are completed and a person is asking “Why did you make me like this”, so it is about “how a person is made (born)” and not a nation.

Since Jerimiah talks only about one pot on the wheel changing and Paul is talking about two kinds of completed pots (vessels), who are the two different pots?



Paul is saying in 2 Tim 2: 21 even after leaving the shop the common vessels can cleanse themselves and thus become instruments for a special purpose. So, who is the common vessel and who is the special vessel in this analogy?

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.

 

[Josheb]

I will answer after you show me how the same man can have two outcomes based on his or her choice:

That's just sad. I never said two outcomes were possible. I said exactly the opposite: all the choices those individuals freely made would conspire to see God's purpose manifested.

So, once again, what has been clearly, plainly stated has been misrepresented. There's not a single example in ether of your two recent ops I've enjoined where ANY of the sources you've cited (except yourself) have been accurately portrayed. In every single example, whether it be God, Irenaeus, Calvin, or my posts you've born false witness.

I woke up this morning, had my breakfast and devotion and signed into the forums to greet my siblings and discuss matters of shared interest. Here in this forum, I found six responses from you and not a single one of the posts addresses the concerns I have broached. I have tried to provide direction to our conversation only to be ignored. I have tried to simplify the discussion by providing bullet point so one item at a time can be discussed with focused attention, again, only to have all of it ignored. I have tried to return to the op again and again rather than entertaining no sequiturs and digressive tangents that have nothing to do with the op (God's foreknowledge and predestination can be discussed without ever mentioning any extra-biblical source - including Irenaeus, Calvin, and Palmer) only to have that also ignored. We're two pages worth of posts into this thread and you, @FutureAndAHope, are not discussing this op.

I am, therefore, taking my leave of this thread. I have said my piece and witnessed the op-relevant content ignored and the discussion defensively obfuscated by the op's author. I see no evidence you will ever return to the topic of God's foreknowledge and the fallacy of God forcing people to believe, or that you'll ever treat the whole of God's word as authoritative over your own views. There's certainly no reason for me to repeat myself, and since the posts aren't going anywhere the readers can read who used whole scripture, who used scripture well, who submitted their view of God's foreknowledge and salvation to scripture, who stayed on topic, who practiced sound exegesis best, and who presented the most rational, logical case and decide for themselves. There's not a single post in this thread in which you have even remotely identified what God knows prior to creating creation and despite my bringing to your attention multiple examples of what God knows prior to every verse you quote you ignore the facts of whole scripture as they apply to God's foreknowledge and what he does and does not predestine. You cannot cite one event as if it is isolated in time and has nothing to do with eternity or God's purpose in creating creation. There is always a divine purpose, pre-existing history, and a future destination bearing down on every single episode in scripture.

As always, I encourage you to reflect upon the points I have broached because our paths will cross again and the exact same problems that have always existed in your views will occur unless you correct them.



Every Christian should understand a sound doctrine of salvation MUST address the population of atheists, and how the atheist is saved, not just how those who already believe in God are saved. Non-believers are, by definition, not believers. In addition to the problem of ignoring eternity and what scripture tells us about God's knowledge of creation prior to creating, the reality of disparity between the saved and the unsaved has always been at the foundation of your many problems in soteriology. You cannot take verses written about saved people and apply them to the unsaved. It's bad exegesis and bad logic. It's not personal. No one, no theologian, no pastor, not ordinary believer, not you, and not I can practice bad exegesis and form sound doctrine. If you correct that one mistake enormous change will occur in your thinking, doctrine AND practice. You'll live a life in Christ you did not know was possible.

I'll see you in the next thread.

 

[Josheb]

You are redefining: “Believe” to only mean believe in God is your problem, when people can believe in lots of things.

The subject matter of this thread is God's foreknowledge as it applies to salvation. No one can be saved without believing in God. Nowhere have I stated other forms or other objects of belief do not exist.


You've started your dissent with a red herring and a straw man.

And thereby wasted everyone's time, including your own. Fix those two problems and show that you have correctly and accurately understood my reply to this op. Don't waste my time again.

 

[Clare73]

So do you believe that God was behind the sin of Adam and Eve? Was there ever a chance that they would not fall?

KT

My point was regarding definition of the Greek word, prognosis.

That word is not used in relation to the fall of Adam.

But to answer your question: yes, the fall of Adam was part of God's plan to show forth his glory through the glory of his Son.

 

[CoreyD]

My personal view, is that "that God foreordained those who choose to accept the calling", but I could be wrong, people like Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202] although believing 100% in free will in man, and man's choice being needful for salvation, seem to believe that God has a kind of Foreknowledge that involves a knowledge of the future. Why I believe God foreordained those who would accept the calling, is due to the fact Genisis states He [God] was surprised at how bad man had become, if God had genuine foreknowledge he would not have been surprised, he would have said "they are just doing what I expected".

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” (NKJV, Genesis 6:5-7)​

I have written fully what I think at The Way and Free Will

I'm trying to understand you clearly.
I do not want to sit and read a book, thank you. I hope you can appreciate that.

I don't understand if you are saying God knew beforehand each individual by name, who would accept, as if God saw ahead into every detail of events, including what people would choose to do, or not do.
Is that what you are saying, or are you saying that God foreknew that persons would fill the role of heirs (collectively), but not knowing who those persons would be, by name?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

I'm trying to understand you clearly.
I do not want to sit and read a book, thank you. I hope you can appreciate that.

I don't understand if you are saying God knew beforehand each individual by name, who would accept, as if God saw ahead into every detail of events, including what people would choose to do, or not do.
Is that what you are saying, or are you saying that God foreknew that persons would fill the role of heirs (collectively), but not knowing who those persons would be, by name?

I have cut and pasted this, and modified it a little from one of my other posts to give an answer:

To understand how I see foreknowledge you will first need to understand how I see God’s planning:

Firstly, I don’t believe “God knows every little detail about the future” because of scriptures like the following in Genesis where God was surprised at the sinfulness of man. If He had foreknowledge of all events this would not have shocked Him.

Gen 6:5-7 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."​

Also I don’t believe God has an unbending plan that is linear in nature. For He has said:

if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. (NKJV, Jeremiah 18:10)​

​

Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. (NKJV, Jonah 3:10)​

​

So the LORD relented from the harm which He said He would do to His people. (NKJV, Exodus 32:14)​

​

And Samuel said to Saul, “You have done foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of the LORD your God, which He commanded you. For now the LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. (NKJV, 1 Samuel 13:13) ... And Samuel went no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul, and the LORD regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel. (NKJV, 1 Samuel 15:35)​

Even people who say God has foreknown the select individuals He wishes to save say, that God does not violate the general will of man. If it is the case that man has a degree of free will. Then God’s planning cannot be linear.

One event could lead to two, two to three. Things could widely vary in the future if God does not put constraints on what people can do or where they can go. But God has set these boundaries:

And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; (NKJV, Act 17:26-27)​

As an example God does not will for, or plan out man’s sins (James 1:13), it is something the man chooses for him or herself. God would plan for the case where sin occurs, but does not plan for it to happen. As an example, a child born to adultery, or fornication is not planned by God (still loved, however), for a sin caused it. But He in His power can move situations around so that it does not affect His overarching plan.

I believe God has localized and overarching plans, for people. As an example, King David said in the Psalms that God had a plan for him written down before he was born. But we see when David sinned that God initiated a negative plan for David. Jeremiah was also ordained to be a prophet by God’s planning before he was born but even Jeremiah could have lost the call. As we see:

Therefore thus says the LORD: “If you return, Then I will bring you back; You shall stand before Me; If you take out the precious from the vile, You shall be as My mouth. Let them return to you, But you must not return to them. (NKJV, Jeremiah 15:19)​

Jerimiah strayed in his heart, and God told him to return. As for people like Jerimiah, Moses, or other righteous people, they may be given a task by God, but it does not mean that they will always act righteously. Think of the number of pastors who have fallen into sin in ministry. Moses was also not allowed into the Promised Land on account of his anger. I am not saying Moses was not saved, but rather our actions can lead to consequences. We see from scripture that people can lose their salvation after receiving it (Hebrews 6:4-6, 2 Peter 2:20-22, Hebrews 10:26-29).

So from this, I see that there are two kinds of foreknowledge with God.

• A knowledge of people that He will permit to be created. He knows the plans He has for us good not evil. God has a set of good plans for our life, written down for us. But like David, Saul (NKJV, 1 Samuel 15:35), and cities(NKJV, Jonah 3:10) the plan may alter depending upon how we respond or act. I know of a woman who was given access to a room in heaven, after fasting for many days, she saw books that had the good plans God has for us, right down to the last penny, or detail. These books often lie dormant because people are not seeking God to see His plans in their lives. The books alter based upon how we and others act. But God has a plan there. We will ultimately be judged by what is in those books:
  
  And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.(NKJV, Revelation 20:12 )
  
  
• The second kind of foreknowledge that I see is God planned how the cross would occur, and knew in advance that people in the future would believe in Jesus.

So in regard to your questions:

I don't understand if you are saying God knew beforehand each individual by name, who would accept, as if God saw ahead into every detail of events, including what people would choose to do, or not do. Is that what you are saying, or are you saying that God foreknew that persons would fill the role of heirs (collectively), but not knowing who those persons would be, by name?

In answer, God does know each of us by name, but He does not know every choice we will make. He just plans for how to best manage those choices. He does not know exactly who will be saved. As with Saul God chose him, but latter regretted the choice. (NKJV, 1 Samuel 15:35). But He knows people will be saved.

 

[CoreyD]

In answer, God does know each of us by name, but He does not know every choice we will make. He just plans for how to best manage those choices. He does not know exactly who will be saved. As with Saul God chose him, but latter regretted the choice. (NKJV, 1 Samuel 15:35). But He knows people will be saved.

Thank you, so God did not foreknow that FutureAndHope would be a part of Christianity today, and he did not know that Phillip would be evangelizing and be a Saint.
He did not foreknow us by name.
That's what I was asking. I agree. Thanks.

 

[KevinT]

But to answer your question: yes, the fall of Adam was part of God's plan to show forth his glory through the glory of his Son.

I understand that you believe this fully, and that you have lots of reasons for why you believe that it is true. But I have to say that if I were an atheist, and someone tried to talk to me about a loving God that ordained all the horror we see in the world around us, I would turn my back and walk away. That is not the God that I see in scriptures.

Can you even see why thinking that way is offensive to someone like me?

Best wishes,

KT

 

[Clare73]

I understand that you believe this fully, and that you have lots of reasons for why you believe that it is true. But I have to say that if I were an atheist, and someone tried to talk to me about a loving God that ordained all the horror we see in the world around us, I would turn my back and walk away. That is not the God that I see in scriptures.

Can you even see why thinking that way is offensive to someone like me?

Yes, and I can see more than that. . .

I can see that man, and what offends him, is not the measure of God's truth.

I can see that "anyone without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit, for they are foolishness to him, and
he cannot understand them," (1 Co 2:14).

So, that it is offensive to anyone, neither surprises me nor alters God's truth.

 

[bling]

The subject matter of this thread is God's foreknowledge as it applies to salvation. No one can be saved without believing in God. Nowhere have I stated other forms or other objects of belief do not exist.


You've started your dissent with a red herring and a straw man.

And thereby wasted everyone's time, including your own. Fix those two problems and show that you have correctly and accurately understood my reply to this op. Don't waste my time again.

In Post 2 you asked: “Who makes sinful Christ-denying people believe?”

That “response” has nothing to do with “God’s foreknowledge of salvation”, but is asking about how sinful man goes from lost to saved.

I have been addressing you question with you.

 

[Josheb]

In Post 2 you asked: “Who makes sinful Christ-denying people believe?”

That “response” has nothing to do with “God’s foreknowledge of salvation”, but is asking about how sinful man goes from lost to saved.

I have been addressing your question with you.

No, you've been attempting to answer asked of the op, presuming to speak for @FutureAndAHope in answer to a question that was never asked you. It was @FutureAndAHope that broached the atter of people being made to believe and it was that statement made by @FutureAndAHope that prompted my inquiry.

I know the answer to my question.

@FutureAndAHope, apparently, does not. Or, rather they have either been unable or unwilling to answer the question asked. Patience, kindness, forbearance, hope, and trust (1 Cor. 13:4-7) was extended to you despite you trying to answer a question than was never asked of you concerning anything you'd posted, and the end result is, "I have been addressing your question with you." No, what you've been doing is interfering with an exchange between to other posters because you think my question has something to do with your views.

It does not.

I do not even know what your particular doctrinal stance might be! And at Post 2 you did not know mine, either. The op is important because @FutureAndAHope's soteriology is fairly Pelagian. They've never acknowledged that in all the years I've traded posts with them, but that is where he's arguments lead.

For those who do not already know...

Our (Christians as a whole) doctrines cover a spectrum of beliefs ranging from the strict determinist on the monergist end to the strict autonomous-volitionalist on the synergist end of these doctrines. Pelagius argued sin did not have a completely depraving effect on humanity, that some semblance of an ability to come to God in one's own still-sinful unregenerate state existed. This was a matter of debate among the earliest ECFs but by the time Augustine and Pelagius lived the matter had become sufficiently divisive that Augustine's peers asked him to address Pelagius' teachings. It was Pelagius' views, not Augustine's that were deemed unorthodox. Sadly, we do not have a record of Pelagius arguments in Pelagius' own words because only Augustine's letters survived the passage of time. Whatever Pelagius argued, it was Augustine who won the debate and Pelagianism was deemed heretical. Several centuries past until the time of the Reformation and Bucer's, Luther's and Calvin's (and others') departure from Catholic soteriology. All three of those men were Roman Catholic (RC). They did not want to leave the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), and if the Reformers hadn't been murderously persecuted, we might all still be RC. Arminius, the first prominent synergist of note was an adherent of Augustinian soteriology, just not of Calvin's Augustinian soteriology. Arminius has been a Calvinist apologist and throughout his entire life Arminius subscribe to the doctrine we now call "Total Depravity." Arminius was NOT Pelagian. A couple of hundred years later John Wesley showed up with his Moravian-influenced emphasis on experientialism and Pietism (not pietism), loosening the historical, orthodox, and mainstream view on the depraving effects of sin. Experientialism eclipsed creedalism among a large portion of Protestantism during the Restoration Movement of the 19th century and Pelagian and semi-Pelagian view returned or became more prominent (they were never fully eradicated). They occur now under the doctrines of Traditionalism (a supposed appeal to the pre-Augustinian ECFs) and Leighton Flowers Provisionism. Unblessedly, many synergists 1) do not know this history, 2) do not know the differences (nuanced or blunt) between these synegristic doctrines, and 3) often conflate them. Many Wesleyans, for example incorrectly think they are Arminian when they are not. So do many Traditionalists and Provisionists.

No one has ever gotten an honest answer out of @FutureAndAHope when asking about this.

One of the things EVERYONE should garner from this thread is that @FutureAndAHope does not like to have his views examined and he will not discuss them with any substance (or anything resembling a logical, focused, topical exchange. He jumps around, creating red herrings, straw men, false equivalences, and other fallacies that the less-practiced poster indulges so the conversation gets far afield of the original claims made by @FutureAndAHope. Look and see. Read the opening post, and then read their last post. They are unrelated except in some vague tangential eisegetic way. I happen to have witnessed this for years, so I'm a little better at catching it when it happens. Another thing that will be noticed (as more than just I observed) is that he does the same thing with outside sources that he does with scripture: He misreads it. He reads it with his own spin in mind. Notice what I just said. It's not Pelagius' spin, or Arminius' or Wesley's or Flowers' spin..... it is his own spin. That's not obvious here but in the other thread where he and I traded posts he linked the thread to a source he later identified as himself. In other words, when he sought to provide an authoritative source outside of scripture (like Irenaeus or Calvin), he used himself and did not tell anyone until he was challenged about that source.

In other words, the ops @FutureAndAHope write are not assertions of classical doctrines. They are asserting their own views and not being forthcoming about their sources. They're not forthcoming about Irenaeus or Calvin. Neither are the forthcoming about using themselves to justify themselves. I speak to these issues because I've been trading posts with this poster for years and have some familiarity with their methodology, not just their content. I lie of omission is still a lie.

Lastly, because these things are not fully disclosed by @FutureAndAHope, otherwise devout and earnest synergists think the conversation is just another classic debate on monergism versus synergism so they get baited into thinking they share common views with @FutureAndAHope when that may not be the case (and is often not the case). It's like trying to have a conversation on eschatology and all the different Dispensationalists wreck the thread supporting one another when the reality is they may hold views completely contrary to their fellow Dispensationalists. Synergism is not monolitihic. Neither is monergism. In other words, @FutureAndAHope's ops mistreat fellows synergists unawares.

So do not be so quick to fasten yourself to @FutureAndAHope's views.

And use some discernment when trying to answer any poster's questions asked of a specific other poster based on some specific statement made by the other. The forum is an open forum and anyone can post anything to anyone as long as they abide by the terms of use. However, while all things may be permitted, they are not all profitable and everyone should avoid the problem of Proverbs 26:17.

No harm, no foul, and I took no offense in your posts (or the stated motive behind it) but you weren't doing what you thought you were doing because you did not read my inquiry correctly .




Now.....

If you'd like to discuss God's foreknowledge and what God foreknew, I'm happy to do that with you - especially if you and I can model a healthy function conversation and set an example for @FutureAndAHope to learn from, and hopefully, one that all the lurkers can likewise learn from and commend. You should start with a summary of your views on God's foreknowledge and what He fore knew as it pertains specifically to Ephesians 1:3-12 and Romans 8:29-30. Anything else is ff-topic from the op and I don't indulge off-topic content beyond a post or three.

You'll also need to ditch the idea you were just trying to address my question .

I'll start with something atypical in the average discussion of divine foreknowledge relevant to the two scripture passages cited: the matter of eternity. Eternity is timeless. Time is a created condition of creation, a measure of cause-and-effect, and God does not exist solely within His creation. Nor is He limited by any of the limitations He designed into creation. God is not limited by time or space (or singularity as the two are more accurately labeled). Therefore, when we read of "fore-" we necessarily know we are reading about something inherently a before and and after occurrence. We also know that language is a reference solely to temporal conditions and not something applicable to eternal conditions where God knows past, present, and future simultaneously because He is the great I AM for whom all of creation is always ever present. God always exist in the now, never the past or the future. Furthermore, the degree knowledge is a function of time, space, and experience, God's knowledge is never before or after or conditioned upon temporal cause-and-effect. He is..... omniscient.

And that is what we should ALWAYS have in mind when reading all of scripture.

God is the Creator, not a creature subject to the limitations of His creation. When we place those limits on God we are 1) anthropomorphizing God and 2) elevating ourselves to an idolatrous position of being arbiters of God's faculties. When the eternal nature of God is applied to the matter of salvation then certain logically necessary conclusions ensue, and they ensue inescapably. This is how Ephesians 1:3-12 and Romans 8:29-30 should be read.

Although the larger truth is Romans 8:29-30 is just two verses in a six-chapter exposition and those two verses should NEVER be removed from all the rest of the exposition states (which is what happened in this op).


Your turn .