What is Wrong with Mine Theology?

[Dima 26]

"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: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Romans 8:29, 30

That He "foreknows" something in us, is that not a clear indication that there is "our part" and "duty" in our salvation? If predestination is to be taken in a fatalistic sense, and unleashed without bounds to render man's will ineffectual towards the things that pertain to his salvation, then foreknowledge is superfluous - being superseded by predestination.

What is wrong with taking the word predestination (as with predetermine and foreordain) in an non-fatalistic sense that keeps our will and duty intact: that us whom He foreknew, were far from what He expected us to be, so that He determined from the foundation of the world to save and perfect us through His Son? This means that the way has been made for us (whom He foreknew and loved, even while yet sinners) to be conformed into the image of His Son, through obeying the gospel. This is also a personal ordainment - for each one his own specific means to be conformed (though all into the same image). This is because all are unique, hence our relationships are also unique with Him, even based on the same foreknowledge of God. Our preordainment does not automatically equate to us fulfilling everything that is His will for us, but is also contingent on our will to take heed to His will; but this also does not undue the fact that God determined for us in advance the way in which we ought to walk and attain to.

Him knowing us in advance is not the same us Him knowing us in real time, for knowledge here is used in the sense of a close relationship, such as a shared unity of spirit between friends (as an imperfect example). Thus, He does not seize to know us after He called us, nor while we walk in the way that He determined for us. Predestination does not supersede foreknowledge, instead, they work together one with another.

In analyzing the Apostles conception of God's salvific power and grace, it may be seen that foreknowledge is the source, calling the means, and predestination the end. Justification is the cause of His grace, and glorification is His reward, by His good pleasure by means of His Son - into Whom we are conformed. The whole of this serves as a source of hope and exhortation to His elect whom He chose in Christ unto the attainment of the glory of God; though I will particularly allude to this (in context of our discussion): that that which we committed unto Him in faith - however small - He will keep and multiply by his grace and power unto the last day.

But because we are taken from the same lump of sinners, one may conclude that the foreknowledge of God is not based on anything in us that answers to His will. To answer this, we need to analysis first the concept of repentance and redemption: for repentance unto life must take place first before one can be redeemed from sin and death. Thus, the righteous before Christ stood in need of redemption, and also to receive the whole counsel of God in Christ (when He came) - the new covenant. But even during Christ's time, all His people (Israelites) were found largely estranged from God, such that they stood in need of John's baptism first, but even more so in the context of the preaching to the gentiles (in this case to the Romans): repentance unto life was entirely fit for this situation. Hence why it can be freely said by Paul, "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" - this holding true for Israelite (himself) and gentile. Therefore, the role foreknowledge takes in the context of all needing repentance is still in view of those whom He knows shall turn unto Him - just as there were those who before the time of Christ turned from their wicked ways unto the ways of life and yet stood in need of the redemption that the Messiah was to bring. In this way, foreknowledge is applicable both to those who were ready to be redeemed and those who still needed to turn first so that they may be redeemed. Accordingly, the whole of the Apostles declaration (as best as I can enumerate it) is spoken of in view of the redemption from all time of His people, beyond just Israel after the flesh - for all that seek not their own righteousness but God's righteousness; that for the sake of the elect whom He foreknew, He saved them by that redemption that is in His Son; that He (that is Jesus) might be the firstborn among many brethren (us).

Behold the wondrous mercy and sweet favor of God: Christ the Firstborn calls us His brethren! And now, what place may fatalism find amongst this grace? For just as the Son freely worked the will of the Father, so are we freed by Him to freely choose the things of God. "We love Him, because He first loved us".

"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." John 15:16

Indeed, we do not choose Him, but rather, through obedience to His calling: we simply become the faithful and elect (chosen). For man could never choose God for what He is; they only "choose Him" in the image they wish to see Him in - after their own hearts. Truly though, all who were ever justified were justified through the knowledge of the Lord - by whatever revelation they had of Him - and being faithful in those things. Far be it for man to be saved through their "false god(s)" and/or through their works (as if themselves gods)! Now the point I'm trying to make with this is that Jesus Christ has manifested the Father wholly unto us: such that all the things by which the Divine Godhead has wished - once and for all - to justify and refine His people with has been freely communicated and given unto us. Man - including His disciples - could never have perceived this, much less choose that which they perceived not. However, He yet judged them faithful in that which is little - even their faith as the mustard seed, so that He could reveal the Fathers name unto them. For otherwise, many would have chosen Christ - even anoint Him King, so long as they could have Him meet their expectations. In fact, after this manner: many did search and find Him - thus "chose Him"; that is of course, until He proved their hearts and works. So it is today: many choose Christ after their own hearts; and since He is not here to prove their works, the tares appear to thrive among the wheat. Nevertheless, the Spirit of Truth yet continues His work of making a difference between the children of promise and the children of the flesh, albeit, because it is of a more subtle nature, many get away with it. Therefore, in these words to the disciples (and us for that matter), there is the reminder of Who is that author and finisher their faith; for we are simply recipients of His salvation - it came not from us but God.

 

[Clare73]

"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: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Romans 8:29, 30

That He "foreknows" something in us, is that not a clear indication that there is "our part" and "duty" in our salvation?

Not quite. . .

Eph 1:4:
He chose us in him. . .
God's choice of only some to receive an eternal inheritance runs throughout the Bible. We first see that choice in
Abraham - and not his family (excluded);
Isaac - and not Ishmael (excluded);
Jacob - and not Esau (excluded);
Israel - and not the other nations (excluded)
to be their God and they his people.
These were types (patterns) of God's election to salvation which was not revealed until the NT.
God chooses to save some, and not others, in accordance with his pleasure and will (Eph 1:5), and for no other reason.

before the creation of the world. . .
that's "foreknowledge," those whom God "foreknew," he chose.
Would that be choosing whom he "foreknew" would believe? Is "foreknew" knowing in advance what man is going to do?
So that God knew in advance who would believe, and chose them? Consider:

FOREKNOWLEDGE:
Ac 2:23: "This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge;
and you, with the help of wicked men (Gentiles), put him to death by nailing him to the cross."
Ac 4:28: "They did what your power and will foreordained (beforehand) should happen."
**In these two verses, who determined the events God foreknew would happen to Jesus, man or God?

Is 48:3 - "I foretold the former things long ago, my mouth announced them, I made them known; then suddenly I acted; and they came to pass."
Is 37:26 - "Have you not heard? Long ago I ordained it. In days of old I planned it; now I have brought it to pass."
**In these two verses, who caused the events that God foreknew and foretold would happen, man or God?

Ac 15:18 - "Known to the Lord from all eternity are his works."
God's foreknowledge concerns events that God causes to happen.
And the elect "according to the foreknowledge of God" are elect because God causes (chooses) them to be so for his own purposes, just as he chose Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
God knows in advance what is going to happen because God has willed that it shall happen.
So in the Bible, God's foreknowledge is about what God is going to do, not about what man is going to do.

So "those whom God foreknew" in the Bible means those of whom God had (in love) determined their saving destiny in advance.

In love - God chose to love us, not because of anything in us, not because we were lovable or worthy, but simply because he chose us (Dt 7:7).
God's love for us is grounded in his goodness, not our goodness. He loves us because he is good, not because we are good.

God's plan, before he ever created anything, was
from the corrupted fallen, hopelessly lost human race, headed for eternal destruction, of which you were a part,
he would save you . .(some, but not all).
So God chose us from all eternity before time ever began.

"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you," (John 15:16).

 

[BobRyan]

"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: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Romans 8:29, 30

That He "foreknows" something in us, is that not a clear indication that there is "our part" and "duty" in our salvation? If predestination is to be taken in a fatalistic sense, and unleashed without bounds to render man's will ineffectual towards the things that pertain to his salvation, then foreknowledge is superfluous - being superseded by predestination.

What is wrong with taking the word predestination (as with predetermine and foreordain) in an non-fatalistic sense that keeps our will and duty intact: that us whom He foreknew, were far from what He expected us to be, so that He determined from the foundation of the world to save and perfect us through His Son? This means that the way has been made for us (whom He foreknew and loved, even while yet sinners) to be conformed into the image of His Son, through obeying the gospel. This is also a personal ordainment - for each one his own specific means to be conformed (though all into the same image). This is because all are unique, hence our relationships are also unique with Him, even based on the same foreknowledge of God. Our preordainment does not automatically equate to us fulfilling everything that is His will for us, but is also contingent on our will to take heed to His will; but this also does not undue the fact that God determined for us in advance the way in which we ought to walk and attain to.

Him knowing us in advance is not the same us Him knowing us in real time, for knowledge here is used in the sense of a close relationship, such as a shared unity of spirit between friends (as an imperfect example). Thus, He does not seize to know us after He called us, nor while we walk in the way that He determined for us. Predestination does not supersede foreknowledge, instead, they work together one with another.

In analyzing the Apostles conception of God's salvific power and grace, it may be seen that foreknowledge is the source, calling the means, and predestination the end. Justification is the cause of His grace, and glorification is His reward, by His good pleasure by means of His Son - into Whom we are conformed. The whole of this serves as a source of hope and exhortation to His elect whom He chose in Christ unto the attainment of the glory of God; though I will particularly allude to this (in context of our discussion): that that which we committed unto Him in faith - however small - He will keep and multiply by his grace and power unto the last day.

But because we are taken from the same lump of sinners, one may conclude that the foreknowledge of God is not based on anything in us that answers to His will. To answer this, we need to analysis first the concept of repentance and redemption: for repentance unto life must take place first before one can be redeemed from sin and death. Thus, the righteous before Christ stood in need of redemption, and also to receive the whole counsel of God in Christ (when He came) - the new covenant. But even during Christ's time, all His people (Israelites) were found largely estranged from God, such that they stood in need of John's baptism first, but even more so in the context of the preaching to the gentiles (in this case to the Romans): repentance unto life was entirely fit for this situation. Hence why it can be freely said by Paul, "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" - this holding true for Israelite (himself) and gentile. Therefore, the role foreknowledge takes in the context of all needing repentance is still in view of those whom He knows shall turn unto Him - just as there were those who before the time of Christ turned from their wicked ways unto the ways of life and yet stood in need of the redemption that the Messiah was to bring. In this way, foreknowledge is applicable both to those who were ready to be redeemed and those who still needed to turn first so that they may be redeemed. Accordingly, the whole of the Apostles declaration (as best as I can enumerate it) is spoken of in view of the redemption from all time of His people, beyond just Israel after the flesh - for all that seek not their own righteousness but God's righteousness; that for the sake of the elect whom He foreknew, He saved them by that redemption that is in His Son; that He (that is Jesus) might be the firstborn among many brethren (us).

Behold the wondrous mercy and sweet favor of God: Christ the Firstborn calls us His brethren! And now, what place may fatalism find amongst this grace? For just as the Son freely worked the will of the Father, so are we freed by Him to freely choose the things of God. "We love Him, because He first loved us".

"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." John 15:16

Indeed, we do not choose Him, but rather, through obedience to His calling: we simply become the faithful and elect (chosen). For man could never choose God for what He is; they only "choose Him" in the image they wish to see Him in - after their own hearts. Truly though, all who were ever justified were justified through the knowledge of the Lord - by whatever revelation they had of Him - and being faithful in those things. Far be it for man to be saved through their "false god(s)" and/or through their works (as if themselves gods)! Now the point I'm trying to make with this is that Jesus Christ has manifested the Father wholly unto us: such that all the things by which the Divine Godhead has wished - once and for all - to justify and refine His people with has been freely communicated and given unto us. Man - including His disciples - could never have perceived this, much less choose that which they perceived not. However, He yet judged them faithful in that which is little - even their faith as the mustard seed, so that He could reveal the Fathers name unto them. For otherwise, many would have chosen Christ - even anoint Him King, so long as they could have Him meet their expectations. In fact, after this manner: many did search and find Him - thus "chose Him"; that is of course, until He proved their hearts and works. So it is today: many choose Christ after their own hearts; and since He is not here to prove their works, the tares appear to thrive among the wheat. Nevertheless, the Spirit of Truth yet continues His work of making a difference between the children of promise and the children of the flesh, albeit, because it is of a more subtle nature, many get away with it. Therefore, in these words to the disciples (and us for that matter), there is the reminder of Who is that author and finisher their faith; for we are simply recipients of His salvation - it came not from us but God1

1 Peter 1:1 "elect according to the foreknowledge of God"

God foreknows everything -- so this appears to fit with your statement above. That foreknowledge foreknows what we will choose.

 

[Dima 26]

Not quite. . .

Eph 1:4:
He chose us in him. . .
God's choice of only some to receive an eternal inheritance runs throughout the Bible. We first see that choice in
Abraham - and not his family (excluded);
Isaac - and not Ishmael (excluded);
Jacob - and not Esau (excluded);
Israel - and not the other nations (excluded)
to be their God and they his people.
These were types (patterns) of God's election to salvation which was not revealed until the NT.
God chooses to save some, and not others, in accordance with his pleasure and will (Eph 1:5), and for no other reason.

before the creation of the world. . .
that's "foreknowledge," those whom God "foreknew," he chose.
Would that be choosing whom he "foreknew" would believe? Is "foreknew" knowing in advance what man is going to do?
So that God knew in advance who would believe, and chose them? Consider:

FOREKNOWLEDGE:
Ac 2:23: "This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge;
and you, with the help of wicked men (Gentiles), put him to death by nailing him to the cross."
Ac 4:28: "They did what your power and will foreordained (beforehand) should happen."
**In these two verses, who determined the events God foreknew would happen to Jesus, man or God?

Is 48:3 - "I foretold the former things long ago, my mouth announced them, I made them known; then suddenly I acted; and they came to pass."
Is 37:26 - "Have you not heard? Long ago I ordained it. In days of old I planned it; now I have brought it to pass."
**In these two verses, who caused the events that God foreknew and foretold would happen, man or God?

Ac 15:18 - "Known to the Lord from all eternity are his works."
God's foreknowledge concerns events that God causes to happen.
And the elect "according to the foreknowledge of God" are elect because God causes (chooses) them to be so for his own purposes, just as he chose Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
God knows in advance what is going to happen because God has willed that it shall happen.
So in the Bible, God's foreknowledge is about what God is going to do, not about what man is going to do.

So "those whom God foreknew" in the Bible means those of whom God had (in love) determined their saving destiny in advance.

In love - God chose to love us, not because of anything in us, not because we were lovable or worthy, but simply because he chose us (Dt 7:7).
God's love for us is grounded in his goodness, not our goodness. He loves us because he is good, not because we are good.

God's plan, before he ever created anything, was
from the corrupted fallen, hopelessly lost human race, headed for eternal destruction, of which you were a part,
he would save you . .(some, but not all).
So God chose us from all eternity before time ever began.

"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you," (John 15:16).

I'll get back to you later, because I'm short on time these next few days.

 

[Dima 26]

Not quite. . .

Eph 1:4:
He chose us in him. . .
God's choice of only some to receive an eternal inheritance runs throughout the Bible. We first see that choice in
Abraham - and not his family (excluded);
Isaac - and not Ishmael (excluded);
Jacob - and not Esau (excluded);
Israel - and not the other nations (excluded)
to be their God and they his people.
These were types (patterns) of God's election to salvation which was not revealed until the NT.
God chooses to save some, and not others, in accordance with his pleasure and will (Eph 1:5), and for no other reason.

before the creation of the world. . .
that's "foreknowledge," those whom God "foreknew," he chose.
Would that be choosing whom he "foreknew" would believe? Is "foreknew" knowing in advance what man is going to do?
So that God knew in advance who would believe, and chose them? Consider:

FOREKNOWLEDGE:
Ac 2:23: "This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge;
and you, with the help of wicked men (Gentiles), put him to death by nailing him to the cross."
Ac 4:28: "They did what your power and will foreordained (beforehand) should happen."
**In these two verses, who determined the events God foreknew would happen to Jesus, man or God?

Is 48:3 - "I foretold the former things long ago, my mouth announced them, I made them known; then suddenly I acted; and they came to pass."
Is 37:26 - "Have you not heard? Long ago I ordained it. In days of old I planned it; now I have brought it to pass."
**In these two verses, who caused the events that God foreknew and foretold would happen, man or God?

Ac 15:18 - "Known to the Lord from all eternity are his works."
God's foreknowledge concerns events that God causes to happen.
And the elect "according to the foreknowledge of God" are elect because God causes (chooses) them to be so for his own purposes, just as he chose Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
God knows in advance what is going to happen because God has willed that it shall happen.
So in the Bible, God's foreknowledge is about what God is going to do, not about what man is going to do.

So "those whom God foreknew" in the Bible means those of whom God had (in love) determined their saving destiny in advance.

In love - God chose to love us, not because of anything in us, not because we were lovable or worthy, but simply because he chose us (Dt 7:7).
God's love for us is grounded in his goodness, not our goodness. He loves us because he is good, not because we are good.

God's plan, before he ever created anything, was
from the corrupted fallen, hopelessly lost human race, headed for eternal destruction, of which you were a part,
he would save you . .(some, but not all).
So God chose us from all eternity before time ever began.

"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you," (John 15:16).

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. There's a lot to dissect here; I'll try to shed light on the more prominent things.

But I'll start off with this first: that mine assertation on foreknowledge still stands, namely, that your view of foreknowledge is such that it's superfluous when set together with predestination. One does not need to know in advance what one is determining or has already determined. If God ordains something to happen at a certain time in the future, He no longer needs to know that it will happen at that specific time in the future; that's simply irrational - it's superfluous. That would be an injury to the almighty power of God - as though He can't remember and bring to pass the counsels of His heart. This only makes sense when His creatures have a real true free will - so that He knows the imaginations of their hearts. And why couldn't we? Can not an all-sovereign God choose to make us such, to His glory?

But a lot of your criticism of mine analysis appeared to consist primarily with your view of me (as you saw it) trying to make us - whom He foreknew - worthy of our salvation. I just want to say from the upfront: that is not what I was saying. I've especially tried to show this in the latter portion of mine post, in answer to John 15:16 (which you site at the end of yours); I was hoping you might have made out mine exposition there. I'll try to reiterate here the same concept in more detail. For one, as we all know, our righteousness can never save us from death and sin. And I say this not only of the unrighteous, but also the righteous - even the best of man for that matter. From this it can be seen that redemption is needed even for those who have been cut out (through repentance) from the one lump of sinners that all partake of. Thus, if the just man dies as the unjust - being both alike guilty for their sin, then it is evident that neither (nor anyone) is worthy of life - and thus salvation. From the Lord's perspective, there is none righteous before Him. Whomever He chooses is not chosen for any reason that could amount to anything of being worthy of eternal life. But this also does not mean that He is not disposed towards those who are of a meek and contrite spirit, and fear Him (Isaiah 66:2). In fact, these are an opposite and a direct remedy to the proudful blindness of our heart, which wishes to see its own works as sufficient. More so, set side by side, the meek and contrite may well be less righteous versus others who trust in their works as can be seen rather clearly from Jesus’s parable of the Pharisee and publican that prayed. But because the one has set his gaze on the righteousness of God, he thenceforth proceeds on towards it; while the other setting his gaze on himself, he therefore shall receive of himself – corruption. And it is certain even from the apostle Paul himself, that God does not choose arbitrary, as he says to the Corinthians, “For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.” In other words, we see a clear pattern of “the choosing of meek things”; and in contrition is repentance (turning), and in turning there is the fear of the Lord – which is also our faith. Thus, all that Jesus requires of man (at the minimum) is faith as a mustard seed, for without this, there is no basis to partake of His grace. And in such things also consists the foreknowledge of God: Who proves the hearts of man so that He may know what substance they are of – whether they seek their glory, or His glory.

With regard to the choosing of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to the exclusion of those of their proximity, there may be a lot said, but I’ll try to be brief. It is indeed evident that the nations that forsook Him could no longer attain unto Him - not without the mercy and calling of God. True, Abram did largely come from a people that knew Him not (as is typically implied), but as was shown earlier: the very nature of His choosing is on the basis of His mercy. In other words, He calls us unto faithfulness – not expects us to already have been faithful. There can no more be any talk of us “needing to have been first faithful” to partake of His mercy since the time that we all sinned in Adam. (Was he not even supposed to die on that day?) All the interactions that God continued to exercise with mankind was on the basis of His mercy through the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Abel understood this at least in part through his sacrifice. And God chose Abram so that in him may all the nations of the earth be blessed: in delivering unto his posterity – through Isaac, and finally Jacob – His oracles through which they may be freed after the same manner of faith. Thus, I consent that we are excluded in our fallen will, however, for this reason does He show us mercy, so that we may be freed unto the liberty of choosing and working good. Just because someone is offered freedom, it does not follow that one may not instead choose the bondage of sin. Consider what Nehemiah says of Abraham: Nehemiah 9:7, 8.

Now to answer some of your verses you sited: with regard to God handing over Christ by His purposes unto the wicked, I should start first with saying that doubtlessly God is great and unfathomable in all His ways and does all things according to His purposes. All that is being contended is a strict fatalistic view of Him: where our interaction with Him largely becomes one-sided (from His point of view) and where we no longer have a true duty separated unto us that we must obey. Now to proceed, I’ll first touch on “judicial hardening”, since that’s what those verses concern. For the world is full of those who want none of God, and whenever God allows such to be exalted, they get further hardened in their unrighteousness. For He – knowing their hearts - knows that their exaltation will serve unto their greater fall, and His calling and revelation will make them less excusable at Judgement Day; but He does it anyway according to His purposes – hence why judicial hardening. There is no safety in unrighteousness, plain and simple. Now with regard to Christ, surely God knew that unless the Son of Man should be given the power of His holy angels, the world could but only slay the Righteous One – should He seek to establish God’s kingdom over this world’s kingdom (John 18:36). But at the same time, we know there were those brighter times when the righteous were exalted among His people, where things would turn out different should He have determined to have it so. Obviously, we can not understand all the ins and outs of His plan, but the point is this: He caused all things to come about in such a way so as to atone for and make us righteous through the suffering and death of His Son, but by no means so as to be the cause of the heart’s depravity. Rather, man must understand that they must begin with their hearts, or else everything else shall either not profit them or harm them – for He looks at the hearts (1 Samuel 16:7, Luke 2:34, 35). Accordingly, I see in all of this both the foreknowledge and determined plan of God: “For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done”, that is, in a general sense of the Messiah suffering under the hands of those whom God set over them, after their own depravity and stubbornness, even though He may well have caused things to turn out different.

I’m aware that you’ve sited other passages - to which I can add others that would benefit your cause - but this is enough for now, since this is a long post anyways that in many ways touches on other relevant statements – should you examine them carefully. On the flipside however, may you answer some of my inquiries? What is our actual duty – and not hypothetical - that we must meet? To what purpose does the Lord test our hearts if He chooses arbitrarily? Is this not entirely at odds with the very nature of the whole of His revelation unto us: that we may learn to mold our will inline to His will?

 

[Clare73]

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. There's a lot to dissect here; I'll try to shed light on the more prominent things.

But I'll start off with this first: that mine assertation on foreknowledge still stands, namely, that
your view of foreknowledge is such that it's superfluous when set together with predestination.

Does not address the Biblical view of foreknowledge presented in the Scriptures above (post #2), where God's foreknowledge is of his actions, not man's actions.
God's foreknowledge does not mean an ability to predict the future, it means knowledge of his previous decree for the future.
God knows in advance what is going to happen because he has decreed that it shall happen.

One does not need to know in advance what one is determining or has already determined. If God ordains something to happen at a certain time in the future, He no longer needs to know that it will happen at that specific time in the future; that's simply irrational - it's superfluous. That would be an injury to the almighty power of God - as though He can't remember and bring to pass the counsels of His heart. This only makes sense when His creatures have a real true free will - so that He knows the imaginations of their hearts. And why couldn't we? Can not an all-sovereign God choose to make us such, to His glory?

But a lot of your criticism of mine analysis appeared to consist primarily with your view of me (as you saw it) trying to make us - whom He foreknew - worthy of our salvation. I just want to say from the upfront: that is not what I was saying. I've especially tried to show this in the latter portion of mine post, in answer to John 15:16 (which you site at the end of yours); I was hoping you might have made out mine exposition there. I'll try to reiterate here the same concept in more detail. For one, as we all know, our righteousness can never save us from death and sin. And I say this not only of the unrighteous, but also the righteous - even the best of man for that matter. From this it can be seen that redemption is needed even for those who have been cut out (through repentance) from the one lump of sinners that all partake of. Thus, if the just man dies as the unjust - being both alike guilty for their sin, then it is evident that neither (nor anyone) is worthy of life - and thus salvation. From the Lord's perspective, there is none righteous before Him. Whomever He chooses is not chosen for any reason that could amount to anything of being worthy of eternal life. But this also does not mean that He is not disposed towards those who are of a meek and contrite spirit, and fear Him (Isaiah 66:2). In fact, these are an opposite and a direct remedy to the proudful blindness of our heart, which wishes to see its own works as sufficient. More so, set side by side, the meek and contrite may well be less righteous versus others who trust in their works as can be seen rather clearly from Jesus’s parable of the Pharisee and publican that prayed. But because the one has set his gaze on the righteousness of God, he thenceforth proceeds on towards it; while the other setting his gaze on himself, he therefore shall receive of himself – corruption. And it is certain even from the apostle Paul himself, that God does not choose arbitrary, as he says to the Corinthians, “For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.” In other words, we see a clear pattern of “the choosing of meek things”; and in contrition is repentance (turning), and in turning there is the fear of the Lord – which is also our faith. Thus, all that Jesus requires of man (at the minimum) is faith as a mustard seed, for without this, there is no basis to partake of His grace. And in such things also consists the foreknowledge of God: Who proves the hearts of man so that He may know what substance they are of – whether they seek their glory, or His glory.

With regard to the choosing of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to the exclusion of those of their proximity, there may be a lot said, but I’ll try to be brief. It is indeed evident that the nations that forsook Him could no longer attain unto Him - not without the mercy and calling of God. True, Abram did largely come from a people that knew Him not (as is typically implied), but as was shown earlier: the very nature of His choosing is on the basis of His mercy. In other words, He calls us unto faithfulness – not expects us to already have been faithful. There can no more be any talk of us “needing to have been first faithful” to partake of His mercy since the time that we all sinned in Adam. (Was he not even supposed to die on that day?) All the interactions that God continued to exercise with mankind was on the basis of His mercy through the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Abel understood this at least in part through his sacrifice. And God chose Abram so that in him may all the nations of the earth be blessed: in delivering unto his posterity – through Isaac, and finally Jacob – His oracles through which they may be freed after the same manner of faith. Thus, I consent that we are excluded in our fallen will, however, for this reason does He show us mercy, so that we may be freed unto the liberty of choosing and working good. Just because someone is offered freedom, it does not follow that one may not instead choose the bondage of sin. Consider what Nehemiah says of Abraham: Nehemiah 9:7, 8.

Now to answer some of your verses you sited: with regard to God handing over Christ by His purposes unto the wicked, I should start first with saying that doubtlessly God is great and unfathomable in all His ways and does all things according to His purposes. All that is being contended is a strict fatalistic view of Him: where our interaction with Him largely becomes one-sided (from His point of view) and where we no longer have a true duty separated unto us that we must obey. Now to proceed, I’ll first touch on “judicial hardening”, since that’s what those verses concern. For the world is full of those who want none of God, and whenever God allows such to be exalted, they get further hardened in their unrighteousness. For He – knowing their hearts - knows that their exaltation will serve unto their greater fall, and His calling and revelation will make them less excusable at Judgement Day; but He does it anyway according to His purposes – hence why judicial hardening. There is no safety in unrighteousness, plain and simple. Now with regard to Christ, surely God knew that unless the Son of Man should be given the power of His holy angels, the world could but only slay the Righteous One – should He seek to establish God’s kingdom over this world’s kingdom (John 18:36). But at the same time, we know there were those brighter times when the righteous were exalted among His people, where things would turn out different should He have determined to have it so. Obviously, we can not understand all the ins and outs of His plan, but the point is this: He caused all things to come about in such a way so as to atone for and make us righteous through the suffering and death of His Son, but by no means so as to be the cause of the heart’s depravity. Rather, man must understand that they must begin with their hearts, or else everything else shall either not profit them or harm them – for He looks at the hearts (1 Samuel 16:7, Luke 2:34, 35). Accordingly, I see in all of this both the foreknowledge and determined plan of God: “For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done”, that is, in a general sense of the Messiah suffering under the hands of those whom God set over them, after their own depravity and stubbornness, even though He may well have caused things to turn out different.

I’m aware that you’ve sited other passages - to which I can add others that would benefit your cause - but this is enough for now, since this is a long post anyways that in many ways touches on other relevant statements – should you examine them carefully. On the flipside however, may you answer some of my inquiries? What is our actual duty – and not hypothetical - that we must meet? To what purpose does the Lord test our hearts if He chooses arbitrarily? Is this not entirely at odds with the very nature of the whole of His revelation unto us: that we may learn to mold our will inline to His will?

If your referring to salvation and justification, both through faith only (Eph 2:8-9, Ro 3:27-28), which faith is a gift (Php 1:29, Ac 13:48, 18:27, 2 Pe 1:1, Ro 12:3).

 

[Dima 26]

Does not address the teaching of the Scriptures above where God's foreknowledge is of his actions, not man's actions.

Then what are men's actions as opposed to His actions in context if this discussion?

If your referring to salvation and justification, both through faith only (Eph 2:8-9, Ro 3:27-28), which faith is a gift (Php 1:29, Ac 13:48, 18:27, 2 Pe 1:1, Ro 12:3).

In other words, we have no real duty towards anything pertaining to our salvation? Everything is a gift that excludes our will?

 

[Clare73]

Does not address the teaching of the Scriptures above where God's foreknowledge is of his actions, not man's actions.

If your referring to salvation and justification, both through faith only (Eph 2:8-9, Ro 3:27-28), which faith is a gift (Php 1:29, Ac 13:48, 18:27, 2 Pe 1:1, Ro 12:3).

Then what are men's actions as opposed to His actions in context if this discussion?

The issue in the OP is your disagreement with the plain text of Ro 8:29-30.

In other words, we have no real duty towards anything pertaining to our salvation? Everything is a gift that excludes our will?

The will and mind of fallen man are sinful, hostile to, not willing and unable to submit to God (Ro 8:7-8, 1 Co 2:14).
God must work that submission in man, and give him to be willing.
He does so with the
1) sovereign choice of the Holy Spirit in the free gift of the new birth, which choice is dependent on nothing but his own sovereign choice (Jn 3:3-5), and is as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:6-8),
which new birth changes man's disposition, changes his hostility to submission to God in all things, and gives him to prefer God and submission to him, whereby man then freely desires and chooses, without any external force, what he was unable to choose before; i.e., submission to God; and
2) the free gift of faith (Php 1:29, Ac 13:48, 18:27, 2 Pe 1:1, Ro 12:3) which saves (Eph 2:8-9).

Fallen sinful man is unable to perform any "duty" on his own which will enable his salvation.
Salvation belongs to God alone (Rev 7:10, 1 Co 1:31), he alone gets all the glory, because he shares his glory with no one (Isa 42:8, 48:11), man has nothing of his own to contribute, so that no one can boast (1 Co 1:29, Ro 3:27, 4:2, Eph 2:9).

 

[Dima 26]

The issue in the OP is your disagreement with the plain text of Ro 8:29-30.

Knowledge in its very essence means to "know": to be aware and acquainted with something. If He is the absolute cause of everything - in its immediate and proper sense - so as that nothing comes about from His creatures' will no more, than what does He need to "know"? Your trying to say He needs to remember the things He once decided to happen (as though bound by them - not being able to change His mind), so that they may actually happen? I simply say that God is all-knowing just as He is all-powerful - in bringing about all His will and counsels; just as He willed to create us with an actual will. Therefore I take God's attribute of "knowledge" in its proper sense - in contrast to His power to ordain things; His foreknowledge serves unto His preordainment of all things that He ordains, according to His purposes. Unless mankind seeks the things of God that they are told to seek, they are left outside His purposes, that is of course, His purposes that are for good - for otherwise they shall be employed unto His purposes for evil, all unto His glory.

The will and mind of fallen man are sinful, hostile to, not willing and unable to submit to God (Ro 8:7-8, 1 Co 2:14).
God must work that submission in man, and give him to be willing.
He does so with the
1) sovereign choice of the Holy Spirit in the free gift of the new birth, which choice is dependent on nothing but his own sovereign choice (Jn 3:3-5), and is as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:6-8),
which new birth changes man's disposition, changes his hostility to submission to God in all things, and gives him to prefer God and submission to him, whereby man then freely desires and chooses, without any external force, what he was unable to choose before; i.e., submission to God; and
2) the free gift of faith (Php 1:29, Ac 13:48, 18:27, 2 Pe 1:1, Ro 12:3) which saves (Eph 2:8-9).

Fallen sinful man is unable to perform any "duty" on his own which will enable his salvation.
Salvation belongs to God alone (Rev 7:10, 1 Co 1:31), he alone gets all the glory, because he shares his glory with no one (Isa 42:8, 48:11), man has nothing of his own to contribute, so that no one can boast (1 Co 1:29, Ro 3:27, 4:2, Eph 2:9).

As I've said before, I can agree that we are freed (as a work proceeding from Him alone) by Him so that we may choose the liberty of working good. The problem that I see with your logic is the faulty assumption whereby everything that may testify to our acceptance with Him is exclusive of our will - it only being a human figment, and as far as He commands it: hypothetical. This leads to all kind of unsound analysis of scriptural and divine matters. As pertaining the important tenet of ascribing all glory to God: it's only a shortcut to understanding it. Should one believe fatalism to its greatest extend, this will not translate to him automatically being made perfect in the Lord's glorying: for should he behave as a son of pride, than he shall be a son of pride regardless what he thinks. But on the contrary, should one who believes it is his real duty to be faithful in the things he's called unto (though it be in that which is little), and walks humbly before the Lord, than the Lord shall yet receive glory from such a one. Shortcuts don't work.

 

[Clare73]

Knowledge in its very essence means to "know": to be aware and acquainted with something. If He is the absolute cause of everything - in its immediate and proper sense - so as that nothing comes about from His creatures' will no more, than what does He need to "know"? Your trying to say He needs to remember the things He once decided to happen (as though bound by them - not being able to change His mind), so that they may actually happen? I simply say that God is all-knowing just as He is all-powerful - in bringing about all His will and counsels; just as He willed to create us with an actual will. Therefore I take God's attribute of "knowledge" in its proper sense - in contrast to His power to ordain things; His foreknowledge serves unto His preordainment of all things that He ordains, according to His purposes. Unless mankind seeks the things of God that they are told to seek, they are left outside His purposes, that is of course, His purposes that are for good - for otherwise they shall be employed unto His purposes for evil, all unto His glory.

As I've said before, I can agree that we are freed (as a work proceeding from Him alone) by Him so that we may choose the liberty of working good. The problem that I see with your logic is the faulty assumption whereby everything that may testify to our acceptance with Him is exclusive of our will.

Are you paying attention?

See post #8.

 

[Always in His Presence]

What is mine theology? Is it some type of branch of Christianity - or are you speaking in King James English for some unknown reason?

 

[Dima 26]

Are you paying attention?

See post #8.

Sure I am; it's you I'm concerned isn't paying attention since your never able to address any of mine stated propositions. Surely you'll pretend with me that none of what I write makes any "sense". You can have it your way if that's what makes you feel good, but I will answer you still - at least this once. God wishes to save us (and establish a perpetual relationship with us for that matter) through our will submitting to His will. Now you appear to agree to this when you say "whereby man then freely desires and chooses, without any external force, what he was unable to choose before; i.e., submission to God", but this only has a pretense to freewill, because it's offset by so-called "irresistible grace". Tell me, how can one freely choose something without being able to not choose something? Is it your ambiguous statement of "without any external force" that I'm supposed to take for meaning without some "outward compulsion", so that you may not have to openly consent to the human will being a figment, and as far as He commands any duty: hypothetical? Doubtlessly we would not be able to please and obey God without His grace, but this does not equate to us not being able to resist His grace. Remember, all God's interactions with humans since the fall of mankind are based on His mercy through the Lamb of God prepared from the foundation of the world: so that those who are unfaithful in the lesser (common) graces are denied the greater - the Father's drawing, if you will.

What is mine theology? Is it some type of branch of Christianity - or are you speaking in King James English for some unknown reason?

I don't know what interests you have in mind, but I'll pass your insult over this time.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I don't know what interests you have in mind, but I'll pass your insult over this time.

Please excuse my inquiry - I honestly was not sure if it was a type of theology I had never heard of, or if for some reason you were speaking in King James English. Sorry if it offended you.

 

[Clare73]

Knowledge in its very essence means to "know": to be aware and acquainted with something. If He is the absolute cause of everything - in its immediate and proper sense - so as that nothing comes about from His creatures' will no more, than what does He need to "know"? Your trying to say He needs to remember the things He once decided to happen (as though bound by them - not being able to change His mind), so that they may actually happen? I simply say that God is all-knowing just as He is all-powerful - in bringing about all His will and counsels; just as He willed to create us with an actual will. Therefore I take God's attribute of "knowledge" in its proper sense - in contrast to His power to ordain things; His foreknowledge serves unto His preordainment of all things that He ordains, according to His purposes. Unless mankind seeks the things of God that they are told to seek, they are left outside His purposes, that is of course, His purposes that are for good - for otherwise they shall be employed unto His purposes for evil, all unto His glory.

As I've said before, I can agree that we are freed (as a work proceeding from Him alone) by Him so that we may choose the liberty of working good. The problem that I see with your logic is the faulty assumption whereby everything that may testify to our acceptance with Him is exclusive of our will.

So that no one can boast! (Ro 3:27, 4:2, Col 1:9, Eph 2:9) can say that he did anything to save himself.
Salvation is the Lord's! (Rev 7:10). His and his alone! He neither gives nor shares his glory with another (see post #8).

Free will is the power to obey God in all things. We do not have that power. We are slaves to sin (Jn 8:34). Slaves are not free.
God must enable our will by the new birth (Jn 3:3-5) to overcome our sinful nature and even desire/love his will (Php 2:13).

You either don't understand or don't believe:
Ro 8:7 - The sinful mind (fallen nature) is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law (complete submission to him in all things), nor can it do so.
Those controlled by the sinful (fallen) nature (i.e., not born again, Jn 3:3-5) cannot please God." ("Fatalism"?)

Eph 1:4-6 - For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.
In love, he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will--
(the same way we were born again--by his sovereign will, as unaccountable as the wind, Jn 3:6-8)
to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us (we did nothing to merit it) in the One he loves."

- it only being a human figment, and as far as He commands it: hypothetical. This leads to all kind of unsound analysis of scriptural and divine matters. As pertaining the important tenet of ascribing all glory to God: it's only a shortcut to understanding it. Should one believe fatalism to its greatest extend, this will not translate to him automatically being made perfect in the Lord's glorying: for should he behave as a son of pride, than he shall be a son of pride regardless what he thinks. But on the contrary, should one who believes it is his real duty to be faithful in the things he's called unto (though it be in that which is little), and walks humbly before the Lord, than the Lord shall yet receive glory from such a one. Shortcuts don't work.

Your disagreement is with Scripture; e.g., as in the above.

 

[Dima 26]

So that no one can boast! (Ro 3:27, 4:2, Col 1:9, Eph 2:9) can say that he did anything to save himself.
Salvation is the Lord's! (Rev 7:10). His and his alone! He neither gives nor shares his glory with another (see post #8).

Your always trying to make shortcuts: assuming the safest way is to simply make our will a figment, so as to seemingly err on the "Lord's side" on all things. This is not dividing divine matters rightly. So in order for the tenet of "no man may boast" to stand, you posit that obedience and faithfulness (which in their very essence include man's duty) must preclude our duty? Thus, all things that by nature point to man's side of the relationship are made one-sided in your theology. What confusion! Go ahead and view all other matters through the lens' of those few tenets you deemed are the litmus test of all other divine matters. To receive the gift of salvation does not equate to boasting in ones salvation - it came not from us, but Him.

Free will is the power to obey God in all things. We do not have that power. We are slaves to sin (Jn 8:34). Slaves are not free.
God must enable our will by the new birth (Jn 3:3-5) to overcome our sinful nature and even desire/love his will (Php 2:13).

Well what about the first man and women before they fell; could they have obeyed God in the one commandment given them - being more free than anyone might have imagined? Yes or no? Also, even those that are saved often do not completely submit to Him in all things; so how does this affect your argument? Is it to murky the line between man's will and God's will, so that we may be at ease since He "holds the reins" of our will?

The will of God is a fundamental concept in pleasing Him and is paramount to understand and distinguish from His other creatures' will - such as mans will. Our will does not have to match His will (in a literal sense); it only has to conform to His attributes (as is reasonable to expect from those earthbound and their social status) and the things He commands. We were created and placed on the earth to do things that humans ought to do (not angels, not God) and so that He may be glorified in those things; as far as we remain in the bounds of His will and order. When Adam and Eve fell, they did not become "totally deprived"; that's absurd. Total depravity is reached when humans reach the measure of that which constitutes apostacy. The Lord in His mercy calls such to repentance (since all inherit death anyways - including the just) - by means of the gospel to all nations - so that they may like Cain and Abel (signaled out for their state of being right after the fall) exercise their will in submitting to God or heeding their own will (exclusive of His). When it's said, "mans will", this simply means that which excludes God's will: all the means by which He communicates with us. We were never made independent from Him. When you look at all the evil in the world, who's will is that: God's will, or the fallen creatures will (whether human or spiritual)?

You either don't understand or don't believe:

You're right: I certainly don't believe that humans are incapable of submitting their will (that part which He requires) to God's will; much less the whole of it being a figment, and our duty hypothetical.

Eph 1:4-6 - For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.
In love, he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will--
(the same way we were born again--by his sovereign will, as unaccountable as the wind, Jn 3:6-8)
to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us (we did nothing to merit it) in the One he loves."

Yes, I know we do not merit our salvation; to obey the gospel is not to merit the gospel. He owes us nothing at all - we are His creatures, much less so after we fell into sin and death. On the contrary, we owe our submission unto Him. Since the beginning, in all His interactions based of His mercy: He communicated His will unto mankind not in vain - as though unable to bring out a faithful seed unto Himself. Those who resisted the communication of His grace have themselves to blame, but the righteous: His mercy to praise. This is in accordance to His pleasure and will; as with Him determining to make us accepted in His Son (justification unto eternal life) through our sanctification in His righteousness (teaching and example).

As for the new birth, its too complex to get into all the in and outs of it here, but I'll quickly summarize that part which is relevant for this discussion: it's both the power of God and His mercy to effect in repentant sinners (such as gentiles or apostates [in the sense of His people]) a living change unto life by His Spirit (in giving Him) from then on and forwards. While truly higher then man's ways and thoughts, it does not mean that our will is dormant towards the things that lead to repentance.

Your disagreement is with Scripture; e.g., as in the above.

This statement is so ambiguous. You state it in regards to mine text that you've signaled out in your response, even emphasizing: "Should one believe fatalism to its greatest extend". Do you for your part believe in this or not? If you don't understand what I mean, than what do you disagree about?

Now on a different note, as I've said earlier, it's clear we wont agree. I've made clear that mine point of contention lies within the idea that our will is not participant in our salvation (even our relationship with Him for that matter) - as though their isn't a real duty that God separates as mans part (not His) to heed and be faithful in. If it wasn't for you disagreeing with this, than I may have not have an issue with a lot of what you were saying - including the scriptures you cite to bolster it. It's easy to add up such verses to emphasize His glory, power, mercy, and faithfulness against the helpless state of fallen man; indeed, what have I against any of this other than the faulty presupposition that negates our duty in answering Him - Him Who's dealings with us are all based on His grace? But this is the primary thing I really hope you may agree with: it is our genuine faith that effects the fruits of our justification, which promises rest on the foundation of righteousness. In other words, our works testify of our faith, which nourishes in us a righteousness acceptable unto God and perceivable unto man. There are many ways to assert this fundamental truth, and I'm sure you know what I mean. Any so-called theology that makes the prove of righteousness of none effect is but vanity and idle talk that shall never stand before the Lord of Glory.

(By the way: when I say "our", I'm referring to Christians in the general sense.)

 

[Dima 26]

Please excuse my inquiry - I honestly was not sure if it was a type of theology I had never heard of, or if for some reason you were speaking in King James English. Sorry if it offended you.

I prefer (for generic reading) the KJV only because it's proven to be a respected version with time, and cause one needs to choose something anyways. Otherwise, I don't care really what version others use, I myself cross reference others all the time. I never try to "sound like the KJV"; that's absurd. I only care to write formally and properly; I speak nothing but the pure English language. Obviously, speaking on scriptural and divine matters, there may be some things that may sound reminiscent of what you may find in the "KJV".

 

[Clare73]

Your always trying to make shortcuts: assuming the safest way is to simply make our will a figment, so as to seemingly err on the "Lord's side" on all things. This is not dividing divine matters rightly. So in order for the tenet of "no man may boast" to stand, you posit that obedience and faithfulness (which in their very essence include man's duty) must preclude our duty? Thus, all things that by nature point to man's side of the relationship are made one-sided in your theology. What confusion! Go ahead and view all other matters through the lens' of those few tenets you deemed are the litmus test of all other divine matters. To receive the gift of salvation does not equate to boasting in ones salvation - it came not from us, but Him.

Well what about the first man and women before they fell; could they have obeyed God in the one commandment given them - being more free than anyone might have imagined? Yes or no?

Yes, Adam and Eve did have free will, which complete freedom of will they lost in the fall. Man is no longer free to choose to be completely sinless as Adam was able to do. So man's will is not completely free now because of his fallen nature, it is only partially free.