How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Clare73]

Just because it’s only used twice in the Bible in reference to God doesn’t mean that the word only applies to God. Everyone who reads the prophecies has foreknowledge. The wise men who sought Jesus at His birth were seeking Him according to the foreknowledge God had revealed thru the prophecy in Micah.

Are you suggesting that God doesn’t have foreknowledge of what will take place apart from His own actions? He is omniscient and omnipresent He knows everything that will take place even if it’s not from His own actions.

I am stating that foreknowledge (prognosis) is used only of God in the NT.

 

[Clare73]

Why does she make the point that the term "foreknowledge" in scripture does not refer to God knowing others' actions, but rather knowledge of his own actions? Because you, like so many others here, think that 'foreknowledge' refers to knowledge of what we are going to do, which somehow, rather circularly, you take to imply that he chooses what we are going to do by looking ahead in time to see what we are going to do —for example, to say that he elects us based on our decision and not on his own plans.
I can still do bold and italics, but not underline.

Select the button with the vertical three dots. . .you will get an option for underlining.

 

[Clare73]

She specifically said that He chose us according to His foreknowledge of what He would do not what we would do.

Read it again. . .she said he acts according to his decrees from before the foundations of the world.
In NT usage, foreknowledge (prognosis) is used only of God, knowing of his own actions, which foreknowledge is based in his decrees from before the foundations of the world of what he shall do.

It's not complicated. . .

 

[Clare73]

I'm not implying that she said God doesn't know ahead of time. Of course I didn't mean she meant that. I may have expressed myself clumpsy. I meant:
I don't agree with this... And I like to see proof for that being the case.

Present the case where prognosis is used in the NT of God knowing anything other than his own works.

 

[Clare73]

I disagree. You reference "he did choose us according to his plan from before the foundations of the world to choose us" and then in my rebuttal you say your point is not about predestination but about "grammatical construction". I am not a mind reader of unintelligible comments. When commenting (which you have done in over thousands of posts on this forum concerning a defence of Calvinism) you need to be specific. Even the newbies on this forum are specific - but not you. Its not the time to deflect proclaiming inocent ignorance (i.e my diatribe was about grammatical construction) as you frequently do - its time to say come out (Luke 4:35). Knock, knock.

Previously addressed. . .

 

[zoidar]

Present the case where prognosis is used in the NT of God knowing anything other than his own works.

“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know⁠— this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
— Acts 2:22-23

What was foreknown? I tend to think it was that Christ was delivered over by men. It was the work of men, not God.

 

[Clare73]

“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know⁠— this Man, delivered over
by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
— Acts 2:22-23

What was foreknown?

What God himself predetermined!

I tend to think it was that Christ was delivered over by men. It was the work of men, not God.

Did you miss the text in bolded blue in the first quote above?

It is exactly what I am stating.

This can't be that hard to understand!

 

[BNR32FAN]

Ha! @Clare73 is not responsible to push something through your skull that you could make out easily enough, were you so inclined.
Clare said, "Indeed, he did choose us according to his plan from before the foundations of the world to choose us." Which has been characterized by you and @BNR32FAN as several different things along the lines of circular and ridiculous. If you had been more kindly disposed, you might have understood her to be restating what she has said many times —that God has decreed, and as such, he elected whom he would save. What he is going to do, is what he decreed he would do from the before the world. What is going to happen is what he decreed was going to happen. What he decreed is what will happen. They are one and the same thing.

You and @BNR32FAN want to say that he looks forward in time to see what we are going to do, and uses that to make up his mind what to decree! That's not even a coherent statement! But you make it Bible doctrine. I don't want to call it heresy, but what else can I call it when someone says that God must react to circumstances beyond his control?

He chose us according to His plan to choose us. How is that not exactly what I said?

Her interpretation mandates that they were chosen according to Him choosing them in the future. That means He chose them twice? God says: “I’m going to choose these people in the future so I’ll choose them now”. If He chose them before creation He would have no reason to choose them in the future. How is that not ridiculous?

 

[BNR32FAN]

If you had been more kindly disposed, you might have understood her to be restating what she has said many times —that God has decreed, and as such, he elected whom he would save.

Yeah this statement is just saying that God chose who would be saved, it doesn’t include the use of foreknowledge.

What he is going to do, is what he decreed he would do from the before the world. What is going to happen is what he decreed was going to happen.

Now you have the future events the result of His choice before creation. Chosen according to His foreknowledge means that the foreknowledge was the cause and His choosing before creation was the result. The way you have it here, what will happen is the result of what He decreed would happen before creation. That’s backwards from what Peter stated. Chosen according to what He had foreseen.

What he decreed is what will happen. They are one and the same thing.

Again your still saying that the future events are the result of His decree before creation when Peter said that we are chosen according to His foreknowledge. God’s foreknowledge determined His choice before creation. Your saying exact opposite that His choice before creation determined His foreknowledge. That would mean that His choice was not according to His foreknowledge, it would mean that His foreknowledge was according to His choice before creation. The way you explain it the foreknowledge was completely irrelevant. According to your explanation Peter should’ve not even mentioned foreknowledge at all and simple said God chose us before creation.

 

[John Mullally]

Previously addressed. .

More accurately, you should state previously ignored. You term yourself as a Paulist, but dismiss Paul;s plain truth that he clearly presented to his protege in 1 Timothy 2:1-6 which shows that God desires all men to be saved and that Christ paid the ransom for all men. It should not be considered purely academic to concoct arguments against God's word to support a particular theology.

2 Corinthians 10:5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.​

​

Revelations 22:19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.​

 

[zoidar]

What God himself predetermined!

Did you miss the text in bolded blue in the first quote above?

It is exactly what I am stating.

This can't be that hard to understand!

No, you are saying God's plan was foreknown by Him. God's plan was not foreknown, but man's act to deliver over Christ.

P.s. Please leave out the patronizing part.

 

[Clare73]

No, you are saying God's plan was foreknown by Him. God's plan was not foreknown, but man's act to deliver over Christ.

"They did what your power and will had decided beforehand (preordained) should happen." (Believers' prayer to God, Ac 4:28)

"This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and forenowledge." (Ac 2:23)

P.s. Please leave out the patronizing part.

How would you characterize denial of the above texts?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Select the button with the vertical three dots. . .you will get an option for underlining.

thanks

 

[Mark Quayle]

It’s not circular at all. He foresaw those who would believe and abide in Christ and wrote their names in the book of life. How is that circular?

And now moving the goalposts? Where did you say that foreknowledge is about him writing their names in the book of life?

 

[Mark Quayle]

He chose us according to His plan to choose us. How is that not exactly what I said?

Look at the context to get a better idea of what I, and of what she, meant when we say a thing. But you go so far as to misquote, what she and I said!

I said, "Indeed, he did choose us according to his plan from before the foundations of the world to choose us." And what did you do? You claim it was, "He chose us according to His plan to choose us." Nothing even to indicate words taken out of the sentence. No, it is not the same thing. My sentence indicates causal sequence of purpose. Not even a nod that direction from you.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yeah this statement is just saying that God chose who would be saved, it doesn’t include the use of foreknowledge.

Sounds like you're demanding I accept your notions of the meaning /use of "foreknowledge" in order to argue against it!

At my kindest: you seem to think that even if @Clare73 and I are right about the meaning /use of "foreknowledge" in Scripture, that it still means something separate from what God actually does, and separate from how God chooses, as just a reference point for him. Try to consider that they are all one and the same thing to God. These are Biblical terminology to give us some understanding of God. He need not look into the future to know what he plans. In a certain sense, he need not even "plan", as we think of it. He need only SPEAK, and it is accomplished. It need not be a future act, from his POV. It is only from our POV that time is relevant, and sequence of thought on his part.

Now you have the future events the result of His choice before creation. Chosen according to His foreknowledge means that the foreknowledge was the cause and His choosing before creation was the result. The way you have it here, what will happen is the result of what He decreed would happen before creation. That’s backwards from what Peter stated. Chosen according to what He had foreseen.

His foreknowledge and his decree are one and the same thing to him. How do you not get this?

Does God think like we do? Are we of such huge intellect, knowledge and understanding that we can bring him down to our level? He is not like us!

Again your still saying that the future events are the result of His decree before creation when Peter said that we are chosen according to His foreknowledge. God’s foreknowledge determined His choice before creation. Your saying exact opposite that His choice before creation determined His foreknowledge. That would mean that His choice was not according to His foreknowledge, it would mean that His foreknowledge was according to His choice before creation. The way you explain it the foreknowledge was completely irrelevant. According to your explanation Peter should’ve not even mentioned foreknowledge at all and simple said God chose us before creation.

Again, in God's way of things, (not ours), his foreknowledge, his plan, his decree, his work, his accomplishment, and what he is satisfied in, are all one and the same thing, from his POV. He had a plan — he foreknew. You demand that foreknowledge be treated separately from God's decree. You want me to accept your arrangement of facts in order to argue against them. Get used to disappointment.

 

[zoidar]

"They did what your power and will had decided beforehand (preordained) should happen." (Believers' prayer to God, Ac 4:28)

"This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and forenowledge." (Ac 2:23)

How would you characterize denial of the above texts?

God knows His plans. He doesn't need to foreknow His plans (or His predestination). We are talking about the meaning of the word "prognōsis" not "proorizō" here right?

Even if I'm wrong, I see no need to be rude about it.

 

[John Mullally]

How would you characterize denial of the above texts?

Again, in God's way of things, (not ours), his foreknowledge, his plan, his decree, his work, his accomplishment, and what he is satisfied in, are all one and the same thing, from his POV. He had a plan — he foreknew. You demand that foreknowledge be treated separately from God's decree. You want me to accept your arrangement of facts in order to argue against them. Get used to disappointment.

For your sake, try to accept what Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2:4 which plainly states that God desires all to be saved! In other words stop telling lies about God saying that he plays favorites (which contradicts Romans 2:11-16) and that God somehow receives glory by sending most of humanity to eternal hell for the sakes of increasing His glory! Again re-read 1 Timothty 2 without the Calvinist glasses! Consider the penalty of defying clear statements in the NT!

​

2 Corinthians 10:5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,​

 

[Clare73]

For your sake, try to accept what Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2:4 which plainly states that God desires all to be saved! In other words
stop telling lies about God saying that he has favorites

I'm thinkin' that applies to your statement above.

 

[Clare73]

God knows His plans. He doesn't need to foreknow His plans (or His predestination). We are talking about the meaning of the word "prognōsis" not "proorizō" here right?

Even if I'm wrong, I see no need to be rude about it.

Foreknowledge is of events, not plans.

1) God's foreknowledge (prognosis) as used in the NT refers to (the meaning is) his foreknowledge of what he will do, not what man will do.

2) And in understanding the operation (the how) of his foreknowledge, it's not about some kind of miraculous sight into the future, it is simply God foreknowing events before they happen, because he has decreed they shall happen.

Sorry for the impatience (rudeness). Please forgive me.