Posted on 08/10/2003 2:36:26 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
Conditional Election
Doctrine stated: God wills all men to be saved and He sincerely calls all men for salvation. According to this mode of election, all of the election Scriptures are in harmony; the full counsel of God, His integrity, and His veracity has not been compromised. God looked down the corridor of time and saw who would receive His Son as their Savior and chose them based on their free will choices. Therefore this mode of election is conditional on God's foreknowledge of man's free will choices thus; neither God's sovereignty nor man's free will has been violated. This faith on man's behalf is not a work nor is it meritorious, it is simply accepting the finished work of Christ.
1) God's will to save all men: Isaiah 45:22 "Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth, for I am God, and there is no other." 1 Timothy 2:3-4 "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." 2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
2) God calls all men: Mathew 11:28 Jesus said "Come to me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest." John 7:17 "If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from Myself." John 7:37 "Now on the last day of the great feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying if any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink" John 12:32 Jesus said "And if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Myself." Acts 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now commanding all men everywhere to repent." Revelation 22:17 "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come! And let the one who hears say, Come! And let the one who wishes (wills) take the water of life without cost."
Pivotal scriptures for Conditional Election: 1 Peter 1:1-2 "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure." Romans 8:29 "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren;" These Scriptures are key to understanding the mode of God's election because they clearly teach that His election was based on His foreknowledge and will be shown to be in harmony with the whole tenor of Scripture and supported by the early church.
The election scriptures: (Please refer to pages 12 & 13 ëProof textsí for Scriptural references) Ephesians 1:4-5 is right in that it was according to the kind intention of God's will to save the believers in Ephesus. However, it is also His will that all men be saved, so these scriptures are in harmony with conditional election based on foreknowledge.
Romans 9:11-12, 16: These Scriptures are discussing God's sovereignty; however, the twins are an allegory representing two nations and nothing is mentioned about their eternal destinies. Genesis 25:23 "And the Lord said to her ëTwo nations are in your womb; and two peoples shall be separated from your body; and one people shall be stronger than the other; and the older shall serve the younger." God was, in His sovereignty dealing with His preferential treatment of nations not individuals. Romans 9:13 " Just as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hatedí" It should be understood that the word hate means favored less. Luke 14:26 Jesus said "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." Jesus was saying that anyone who favored his family members more than Him was not worthy of being His disciple.
Romans 9:17-18: These Scriptures are not dealing with Pharaohís salvation nor can it be applied to the salvation of individuals, but rather God's sovereign dealings with Israel and Pharaoh. It should be noted that Pharaoh hardened his own heart five times before God began to harden it and He only hardened his heart four out of the eleven instances. Exodus 7:13, 7:22, 8:15, 8:32, 9:7, 9:12, 9:17, 9:35, 10:20, 10:27, 11:10. This is consistent with Romans 1:24 "Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them." In Exodus 7:3 God was speaking in light of His foreknowledge, that He was going to harden Pharaohís heart. Often God doesnít need to do anything to harden a man's but merely withholds His divine intervention as stated in Romans 1:24. God in His decretive will, shall bring about His purposes. His exalting one nation over another is part of His decretive will and nothing can thwart it. The descendants of Jacob were to rule over the descendants of Esau and nothing could prevent it. God had decreed to set Israel free from the Egyptians and nothing could have stopped it. This does not preclude the fact that Pharaoh could have mitigated his damages by obeying the Lord.
1 Thessalonians 1:4, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, and 2 Timothy 1:9: These are consistent and in harmony with conditional election based on foreknowledge; and Acts 13:48 is an historical account of the Gentiles who were chosen of God based on His foreknowledge and their time of salvation had come to fruition. Jude 23 "save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh." Jude is talking about our responsibility to preach the gospel, thus changing the destiny of some from the fires of hell to eternal life in heaven. If God has already ordained who will go to hell, does this Scripture make any sense?
The problem with the Calvinistic view of unconditional election: The doctrine of a divine will and a divine provision of a universal salvation, on the sole condition of faith, is clearly taught in many passages and is Biblical fact. God wills to save all men and has made the provision to do so. The divine exhortations to repentance, and the lament of Christ over the inhabitants of Jerusalem who "would not" come to Him. These exhortations are insincere, meaningless, and make God a mocker of His creatures if He does not want all men to be saved and if men do not have the ability to obey or disobey His voice. It is impossible to restrict these passages to a particular class (the unconditionally elect) without doing violence to the grammar and context. The only way of escape is by the distinction between a revealed or declarative will of God, which declares His willingness to save all men, and a secret or an unsearchable will of God which means to save only some men. He has an effectual call for His elect and a general call or an insincere call for the non-elect. But this distinction overthrows the system, which it is intended to support. A contradiction between intention and expression is fatal to veracity, which is the foundation of human morality, and must be an essential attribute of God. A man who says the reverse of what he means is called a hypocrite and a liar. The qualities of a righteous man as well as a good, righteous, just, holy, and loving God are clearly set forth in the Scriptures and this judgment of character is not of man's wisdom but of God Almighty. Unconditional election also presents some problems in the area of assurance of salvation. If an individualís salvation is based on God's unconditional election, this individual cannot have 100% assurance that he is saved until he faces God on judgement day. On the other hand if one knows that it is God's promise that "whosoever" comes to Him in faith will be saved, this individual can make sure his election and calling and know God's promise is for him.
Testimony of the Early Church Fathers: Hermas 150 AD: "To those whose heart He saw would become pure and obedient to Him, He gave power to repent with the whole heart. But to those whose deceit and wickedness He perceived, and seeing that they intended to repent hypocritically, He did not grant repentance."(7) Justin Martyr is considered the churchís first apologist wrote in 160 AD: "And this prophecy proves that we (Gentiles) will behold this very King with glory For the people foreknown to believe in Him were foreknown to pursue diligently the fear of the Lord."(8) Clement of Alexandria in 195 AD wrote: "Therefore, all having been called, those who are willing to obey have been named ëthe calledí. For there is no unrighteousness with God to these, prophecy says, If you are willing and hear Me, you will eat the good things of the land,í proving that choice or refusal depends on ourselves."(9)
(Excerpt) Read more at biblefragrances.com ...
That statement does radical violence to Romans 8:29. Check the verse...it says 'whom' He foreknew, not 'what.' Neither are there any qualifiers after 'foreknew.' The position of election according to foreseen faith is orphaned without this supposed proof-text.
This ground has already been covered.
Baptists do not see those verses as dealing with salvation, but with sanctification.
Thus, God foreknew (always knew) those who would believe in Christ and be in him.
It is they who are predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ.
God in His foreknowledge knows who the elect are. God's election of individuals for salvation is never apart from their union with Christ and is conditioned on God's foreknowledge of who will place faith (non-meritorious) in His Son. 1 Peter 1:1-2 " Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure." Romans 8:29 "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren;" Ephesians 1:4-5 "just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will," 1 Thessalonians 1:4 "knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you;" 2 Thessalonians 2:13 "But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth." Acts 13:48 "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed."
http://www.biblefragrances.com/studies/predest.html
v. 29 - for whom he foreknew: here is "proginöskö" again, to indicate that before God took specific steps to include "you" in His plan, he foreknew something. Now there is no reason to try to define predestination from this passage, for it doesn't really explain it. We just have a very interesting order of events. And the fact that all these are verbs which occur in the aorist tense, indicates that they must all be viewed as completed steps in the plan of God for man's salvation.
1. He knew something ahead of time.
2. He assigned a destiny based on that knowledge.
3. He invited and accepted into a "called" status because of that destiny.
4. Because of that "called" status, He declared righteous (justified).
5. And because of that justification, He glorified. (which is the end result of God's salvation plan for the human race, glorified in resurrection body and living with God for all eternity.
It is contended by some that the word foreknow has the same connotation as "determine." But such an assumption not only violates the natural and secular meaning of proginöskö, but also violates the very clear context of both Acts 2:23 and Romans 8:29. That violation being: there is absolutely no logical reason for using both "foreknow" and "predetermine" at Romans8:29 nor for using "foreknowledge" and "predetermined plan" at Acts 2:23 if they are to be viewed as synonymous. Thus as is clearly the implication, they are to be viewed as two different ideas.
Since this distinction between these two words is of the utmost importance, I shall quote here from WORD MEANINGS IN THE NT, by Ralph Earle, page 182.
"The latest and best one-volume Greek-English lexicon of the NT is that by Arndt and Gingrich (1957) For this passage they suggest the translation 'choose beforehand' (p.710). Wuest agrees with this. He argues that in Acts 2:23 'counsel' and 'foreknowledge' (prognösis) mean the same thing. Also n 1 Pet. 1:20, KJV translates proginöskö as 'foreordain.'
Wuest adds: 'The word should also be so translated in Rom. 8.29' (p.144).
However, in 1 Pet. 1:20 the ERV and the ASV have foreknow, although the RSV has 'destined.' Calvin, as might be expected, makes proginöskö here in Rom. 8:29 refer to our adoption (p.227)
But this theological connotation is unsupported by the majority of the best authorities. Lidell and Scott in their monumental Greek-English Lexicon give no such meaning for the term. Abbott-Smith has simply 'know beforehand, foreknow.'
Thayer agrees and interprets 1 Pet. 1:20 as: 'foreknown by God, although not yet made manifest to men' (page 538).
Cremer seems to fall somewhere between. He writes: 'proginöskö, however, essentially includes a self-determining on God's part to this fellowship (Rom. 8:29, whom God had beforehand entered into fellowship with')
Alfred, pioneer of the modern grammatico-historical method of interpretation, notes Calvin's rendering here ('elected, adopted as His sons'). Then he adds: 'But I prefer taking the word in the ordinary sense of foreknew.'
Meyer points out that the Early Church fathers (e.g., Origen, chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome) interpreted the term as signifying foreknowledge rather than fore ordination. He declares that the meaning is not 'to be decided by dogmatic suppositions, but simply by the usage of the language, in accordance with which proginosko never in the NT (not even in Rom. 11:2 and 1 Per. 1:20) means anything else than to know beforehand - - - that in classic usage it ever means anything else, cannot be at all proved. (p.335)
It is being increasingly recognized that one of the most important backgrounds for the use of words in the NT is the LXX (Greek OT) this was the bible of the earliest Christians.
It is in this vein that Sanday and Headlam write: 'The meaning of this phrase must be determined by the biblical use of the word 'know,' which is very marked and clear - - in all these places the word means 'to take note of,' 'to fix the regard upon,' as a preliminary to selection for some especial purpose' (p.217).
Denny takes a similar view. He says: 'Yet we may be sure that proginosko has the pregnant sense that ginosko often has in scripture - - hence we may render, 'those of whom God took knowledge from eternity' (Eph. 1.4) .
The ANT reads: 'For those whom He foreknew--of whom He was aware (in the divine plan).'
Charles Williams makes it a little stronger in his translation: 'on whom He set His heart beforehand.' In a footnote he asserts that this usage is found in the LXX.
Vincent speaks vigorously on the subject. He declares of proginöskö: 'it does not mean foreordain. It signifies prescience, not preelection,' In a footnote he adds: 'this is the simple, common-sense meaning. The attempt to attach to it the sense of preelection, to make it include the divine decree, has grown out of dogmatic considerations in the interest of a rigid predestinarianism. the scope of this work does not admit a discussion of the infinitesimal hair-splitting which has been applied to this passage, and which is as profitless as it is unsatisfactory.
The relation of this term to its context is correctly stated by Vine when he writes: 'The foreknowledge of God is the basis of His foreordaining counsels.'
One of the best treatments of this passage is in Godet's commentary on Romans, where he devotes over a page of rather fine print to this one word alone. He writes:
'Some have given to the word foreknow the meaning of elect, choose, destine beforehand - - -Not only is this meaning arbitrary, as being without example in the NT - - - but what is still more decidedly opposed to this meaning is what follows: He also did predestinate.'
After discussion several views held regarding this word, Godet goes on to say (p.325): 'In what respect did God thus foreknow them? - - -there is but one answer: foreknown as sure to fulfill the condition of salvation, viz. faith; so: foreknown as His by faith.'"
In light of this evidence it is most reasonable and consistent with the rest of the Bible to view foreknew and predestined as separate ideas and that foreknowledge comes first.
NO, He knew SOMEONE ahead of time. And that 'knowing' is not in the sense the author is trying to portray it.
Again, we've been over this before. You never responded to the above-mentioned thread. Even a surface acceptance of the 'foreseen faith as basis of election' argument does not stand up to reason once it's probed.
Exactly. The argument falls apart because it reduces to this:
God elected those whom He saw would choose Him.
Therefore, it was their foreseen choice of God that motivated God to choose them.
Hence, it no longer is God's Sovereign Election, but an election based on the choice of the chosen, rather than the Election of the Choser.
This makes God's Election reactionary, rather than pro-active. God's Sovereignty is not reactionary, but pro-active in all things. It is God who is Sovereign, and that absolutely. Nothing happens that is not exactly as He has ordained it. It is He that directs, decrees, and declares, and it is His Creation that obeys. Even the free choices are as He has ordained, and serve to fulfill His Purpose, in all things.
No, it was their foreseen faith that allowed God to do what He wanted, save them. (1Tim.2:4)
God is motivated to save all men (Jn.3:16)
Hence, it no longer is God's Sovereign Election, but an election based on the choice of the chosen, rather than the Election of the Choser.
No, it is a choice in a relationship a giver and a receiver
This makes God's Election reactionary, rather than pro-active. God's Sovereignty is not reactionary, but pro-active in all things. It is God who is Sovereign, and that absolutely. Nothing happens that is not exactly as He has ordained it. It is He that directs, decrees, and declares, and it is His Creation that obeys. Even the free choices are as He has ordained, and serve to fulfill His Purpose, in all things.
Again the old song and dance about God's sovereignty as you define it.
There is no reason why a sovereign God could not choose to allow His rational creatures to make a choice either for or against Him.
That is exactly how Scripture depicts how God is operating and that explains why some are not saved, they choose to reject God despite God's will otherwise.
In your system, God is either a respector of persons (impossible) or arbitrary (also impossible), thus, unconditional election is impossible and a blasphmy against God's very character.
No, it was their foreseen faith that allowed God to do what He wanted, save them. (1Tim.2:4)
God is motivated to save all men (Jn.3:16)
Hence, it no longer is God's Sovereign Election, but an election based on the choice of the chosen, rather than the Election of the Choser.
No, it is a choice in a relationship a giver and a receiver
This makes God's Election reactionary, rather than pro-active. God's Sovereignty is not reactionary, but pro-active in all things. It is God who is Sovereign, and that absolutely. Nothing happens that is not exactly as He has ordained it. It is He that directs, decrees, and declares, and it is His Creation that obeys. Even the free choices are as He has ordained, and serve to fulfill His Purpose, in all things.
Again the old song and dance about God's sovereignty as you define it.
There is no reason why a sovereign God could not choose to allow His rational creatures to make a choice either for or against Him.
That is exactly how Scripture depicts how God is operating and that explains why some are not saved, they choose to reject God despite God's will otherwise.
In your system, God is either a respector of persons (impossible) or arbitrary (also impossible), thus, unconditional election is impossible and a blasphemy against God's very character.
No, it was their foreseen faith that allowed God to do what He wanted, save them. (1Tim.2:4)
God is motivated to save all men (Jn.3:16)
Hence, it no longer is God's Sovereign Election, but an election based on the choice of the chosen, rather than the Election of the Choser.
No, it is a choice in a relationship a giver and a receiver
This makes God's Election reactionary, rather than pro-active. God's Sovereignty is not reactionary, but pro-active in all things. It is God who is Sovereign, and that absolutely. Nothing happens that is not exactly as He has ordained it. It is He that directs, decrees, and declares, and it is His Creation that obeys. Even the free choices are as He has ordained, and serve to fulfill His Purpose, in all things.
Again the old song and dance about God's sovereignty as you define it.
There is no reason why a sovereign God could not choose to allow His rational creatures to make a choice either for or against Him.
That is exactly how Scripture depicts how God is operating and that explains why some are not saved, they choose to reject God despite God's will otherwise.
In your system, God is either a respector of persons (impossible) or arbitrary (also impossible), thus, unconditional election is impossible and a blasphemy against God's very character.
Yes it is.
God knew something about someone 2. He assigned a destiny based on that knowledge.
Thus, foreknown in Rom.8 does have to do with someone (whom) but something (faith in Christ) about that person was known before they were foreknown as being saved and being Predestinated to being conformed to the image of Christ.
Although we are nowhere told what is in the foreknowledge of God that determines His choice, the repeated teachings of scripture that man is responsible for accepting or rejecting salvation necessitates our postulating that it is man's reaction to the revelation God has made of Himself that is the basis for election. May we repeat; since mankind is hopelessly dead in trespasses and sins and can do nothing to obtain salvation, God graciously restores to all men sufficent ability to make a choice in the matter of submission to Him.....In His foreknowledge he preceives what each one will do with this restored ability and elects men to salvation in harmony with His knowledge of their choice of Him....To say that God foreknew all things because He had arbitrarily determined all things, is to ignore the distinction between God's efficent and His permissive decrees.....If then God could foresee that sin would enter the universe without efficiently decreeing that it should enter, then He can also foresee how men will act without efficiently decreeing how they shall act. God is not limited in the carrying out of His plans, except as He has limited Himself by the choices of man (Thiessen, Introductory lectures in Systematic Theology, p.345-46)
Wait...what about the secret counsel of God, Ed? You draw a false conclusion because you limit the possible premises to two at the exclusion of the very one to which the Calvinists hold: that God elected according to His good purpose, the nature of which, while unknown to us, is nevertheless not arbitrary but purposed on something other than a condition which we meet.
There is every reason to believe that He does not. You have yet, Ed, to explain to me why one person believes and another does not. You argue continually for equal opportunity for all men when such a thing CLEARLY DOES NOT EXIST! Men die every day having never heard the Gospel, yet you say they are justly condemned for making a choice they were never presented with in the first place. You believe in a God who is active in the world, yet He could not be for fear of affecting someone's 'free decision' for or against Him. You decry the 'secret will fo God' while proclaiming and praising the secret will of man. You deny the Lord and Creator of All the very autonomy that you grant His creation: the ability to do as He pleases.
If things operate as you say, then Satan will be laughing and bragging all the way to the Lake because he will have shown himself much more attractive and able to garner praise than the Lord Himself.
By that logic, then the relationship precedes both the choice of the giver, and the response of the receiver. How can that be? There is no relationship until the receiver receives what the giver gives! Your logic is falling apart here.
I said: *This makes God's Election reactionary, rather than pro-active. God's Sovereignty is not reactionary, but pro-active in all things. It is God who is Sovereign, and that absolutely. Nothing happens that is not exactly as He has ordained it. It is He that directs, decrees, and declares, and it is His Creation that obeys. Even the free choices are as He has ordained, and serve to fulfill His Purpose, in all things.*
You said: Again the old song and dance about God's sovereignty as you define it.
You really hate the idea of God being Absolute Sovereign, don't you? It really grinds your gears that He is not reactionary, which is what your theology requires. You have God reacting to man's decisions, God expending all this energy to draw men to Himself, to plead with men to come to Him, "wooing" them as a lover woos his beloved, and basically making a fool of Himself for men who will not respond to Him, because they cannot apart from His first regenerating their minds and hearts so they can respond to Him. You won't acknowledge that this must happen, because if you do, then your whole theology tumbles like a house of cards.
I am not redefining God's Sovereignty. I am upholding the logical and biblical definition of Sovereignty. It is you who redefine it so man can have a say, so man can decide his own fate, and so man can have a little bit of the sovereignty for himself. It is a denial of just how far man has fallen, and how utterly helpless he is to save himself.
Most of your protestations to Calvinism are emotionally based at their root. Wesley was very good at stirring up emotional response to how he defined Calvinist teaching. He would appeal to the emotions and foster a response of indignation at the supposed "unfairness" of a God who would choose some and not others. He won converts by appeals to emotion and to feelings, rather than to the Word of God.
There is no reason why a sovereign God could not choose to allow His rational creatures to make a choice either for or against Him.
This is the central linch-pin of your whole theology. You believe God made it that way, and all of your logic flows from the first assumption. That is where you and I differ.
I do not believe this statement of yours. In fact, it is equally valid to say that "There is no reason why a sovereign God would choose to allow His rational creatures to make a choice either for or against Him". The statement, by itself, proves nothing, either way it is stated. It is a personal opinion. There must be corroborating evidence to support the statement.
Quite frankly, I believe that your position is based, at its heart, on certain ideas and beliefs about the Nature of God which are anthropomorphic in content. In other words, you believe that God thinks, feels, and reacts as we humans do, and you project your own values, sense of fairness, and ideas about love onto Him, and ascribe them to Him.
Calvinists, on the other hand, take their cues about God's Nature and Ways from scripture. They observe how he deals with men, they see how His Justice and Judgment are dealt, and they have come to an understanding of His Sovereignty based on the whole of scripture. They take Sola Scriptura seriously. They believe that it is God who defines how things are, and where there seem to be contradictions, or seeming inconsistencies ("unfairness"), it is their understanding which is at fault, not God's nature, and don't go looking for ways to make God conform to their notions, but work to make their notions conform to God.
This is my position. It is God who is Sovereign, and that absolutely. Nothing happens that is not exactly as He has ordained it. It is He that directs, decrees, and declares, and it is His Creation that obeys.
Prove that statement wrong, and we'll proceed from there.
Happens...I've done it a few times myself. With the power situation the past few days, there have been some slow-ups and downright stoppages on the Internet. Don't worry about it...I lost a very long and detailed response to someone else on another thread when the power went off Thursday. I was just about finished with it when it disappeared. By the time I got power back (6 hours later), the thought and impetus was long gone.
You persist in the most blatant case of eisegesis I've ever come across. The object of foreknowledge is a PERSON, NOT AN ACT. It says WHOM He foreknew He predestined. The object is WHOM and there is no qualifyer (such as 'whom He foreknew would believe He predestined) as you maintain. The Scriptural precedent for the use of this word is clear, Ed. The root word ginosko is used not in the sense of passive observance or casual aquantance, but to denote a special, intimate relationship. It's the same word Mary used in Luke 1:34 when she said "How can this be, seeing I know not a man?" Clearly she had casual and observational knowledge of numerous men, but in the context we obviously know she is talking about an intimate relationship.
Although we are nowhere told what is in the foreknowledge of God that determines His choice, the repeated teachings of scripture that man is responsible for accepting or rejecting salvation necessitates our postulating that it is man's reaction to the revelation God has made of Himself that is the basis for election.
That is a logical fallacy. Indeed Scripture does teach repeatedly that man is responsible for accepting or rejecting Christ. Without such responsibility there would be no just condemnation. But the notion that such a responsibility 'necessitates' is false because he already makes assumptions about the natural state of man, and in effect presumes the very conclusion he's trying to draw. Further he presumes a causal relationship that does not exist in the passage...that God's foreknowledge compels Him to predestine them. It does not say this, but merely that those whom He foreknew He predestined. It is in implying a false causal relationship between foreknowledge and predestination by means of assuming that the foreknowledge is not the type of knowledge repeatedly put forth elsewhere in scripture (that of an intimate and special relationship), but rather the foreknowledge of an act of faith by an individual (thus making the knowledge one of observance) that leads to his, and your, error.
May we repeat; since mankind is hopelessly dead in trespasses and sins and can do nothing to obtain salvation, God graciously restores to all men sufficent ability to make a choice in the matter of submission to Him.....In His foreknowledge he preceives what each one will do with this restored ability and elects men to salvation in harmony with His knowledge of their choice of Him
Ahh, yes...universal prevenient grace. If there is any postulate born of necessity in Arminian theology, it's this one. Unfortunately, there is no scriptural support for a universal application of grace to 'suspend' man's sinful nature for the purpose of salvific choice.
To say that God foreknew all things because He had arbitrarily determined all things, is to ignore the distinction between God's efficent and His permissive decrees.....If then God could foresee that sin would enter the universe without efficiently decreeing that it should enter, then He can also foresee how men will act without efficiently decreeing how they shall act.God is not limited in the carrying out of His plans, except as He has limited Himself by the choices of man
Typical to Arminians, Thiessen brings the word 'abritrarily' to the discussion, thus completely and wholly misrepresenting the Calvinist position. There is a very distinct difference between not knowing the reason behing something and assuming there IS no reason behind something. It is indeed the difference between what Calvinism teaches and what Arminians falsely declaring we teach.
In all his talk of God honoring the choices of men, Thiessen ignores that man has already made his choice and continues to do so. By the notion of universal prevenient grace, God is in effect forcing man to make the choice a second time. If there are none who seek after God...if Thiessen is consistent in his belief that 'mankind is hopelessly dead in trespasses and sins' to the point of needing previent grace to change his vote from no to yes, then the notion of God allowing men to simply make the choice without His interference falls apart.
I said the foreknowledge was of a person, but why that person was foreknown is the issue.
Thus, foreknown in Rom.8 does have to do with someone (whom) but something (faith in Christ) about that person was known before they were foreknown as being saved and being Predestinated to being conformed to the image of Christ.
I said that Foreknowledge was referring to a person.
Then I quoted Thiessen who states that the person was foreknown because of something and that something was a preforeseen faith.
What does the fact that it is an intimate relationship have to do with why God was going to have an intimate relationship with that person?
As with the case of Mary, context determines he meaning of 'to know'
For example, Christ stated that he 'knew' all men (ginisko-Jn.2:23-24) does that mean he had a 'personal relationship' with all men?
In Gal. 4:8-9 God states that He does not even know the 'elect' until they are saved!
Although we are nowhere told what is in the foreknowledge of God that determines His choice, the repeated teachings of scripture that man is responsible for accepting or rejecting salvation necessitates our postulating that it is man's reaction to the revelation God has made of Himself that is the basis for election. That is a logical fallacy. Indeed Scripture does teach repeatedly that man is responsible for accepting or rejecting Christ. Without such responsibility there would be no just condemnation. But the notion that such a responsibility 'necessitates' is false because he already makes assumptions about the natural state of man, and in effect presumes the very conclusion he's trying to draw. Further he presumes a causal relationship that does not exist in the passage...that God's foreknowledge compels Him to predestine them. It does not say this, but merely that those whom He foreknew He predestined. It is in implying a false causal relationship between foreknowledge and predestination by means of assuming that the foreknowledge is not the type of knowledge repeatedly put forth elsewhere in scripture (that of an intimate and special relationship), but rather the foreknowledge of an act of faith by an individual (thus making the knowledge one of observance) that leads to his, and your, error.
The question is what is the basis for the pretemporal choice of God, not the state that man finds himself in.
The reason that man is in this state in the first place (according to Calvinism) is because God wanted it that way!
There is nothing 'illogical' about God foreseeing who would believe and who would not and under what circumstances etc.
The Calvinistic alternative is that God did not care who would believe and who would not, but simply chose on no objective standard.
Thus, man is born into sin for the sole purpose of going to hell but is still held responsible for not being saved even though he cannot unless God regenerates Him first!
This type of 'responsibilty' is utter nonsense and makes God a monster not the God of the Bible.
May we repeat; since mankind is hopelessly dead in trespasses and sins and can do nothing to obtain salvation, God graciously restores to all men sufficent ability to make a choice in the matter of submission to Him.....In His foreknowledge he preceives what each one will do with this restored ability and elects men to salvation in harmony with His knowledge of their choice of Him Ahh, yes...universal prevenient grace. If there is any postulate born of necessity in Arminian theology, it's this one. Unfortunately, there is no scriptural support for a universal application of grace to 'suspend' man's sinful nature for the purpose of salvific choice.
There isn't?
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse...And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not convenient (Rom.1:21,28)
Looks like 'light' being rejected there.
In 2Cor.4:4 it is said Satan blinds those who do not believe, showing that it is after man rejects the light (Jn.3) that God turns him over 'to strong delusion' (2Thess.2:11).
But that all men have access to the light of God's mercy and goodness and it is only by rejecting it and the gospel message that they are damned (1Thess.2:13), not because of a eternal predestination either way.
To say that God foreknew all things because He had arbitrarily determined all things, is to ignore the distinction between God's efficent and His permissive decrees.....If then God could foresee that sin would enter the universe without efficiently decreeing that it should enter, then He can also foresee how men will act without efficiently decreeing how they shall act.God is not limited in the carrying out of His plans, except as He has limited Himself by the choices of man Typical to Arminians, Thiessen brings the word 'abritrarily' to the discussion, thus completely and wholly misrepresenting the Calvinist position. There is a very distinct difference between not knowing the reason behing something and assuming there IS no reason behind something. It is indeed the difference between what Calvinism teaches and what Arminians falsely declaring we teach.
Well, what could be this 'reason' why some are saved and others not?
Since you do not have a Biblical reason for this choice, it is at least a mystery even to you is it not?
You might state that it cannot be arbitrary since God is not arbitrary, but I would say that unconditional election cannot be true because God cannot be arbitrary.
You are assuming that there has to be a good reason why some are chosen and some are not, but that is the assumption you have to prove not just assert.
If you cannot prove it then you can only appeal to the Sovereignty of God as you define it and contradict what is revealed about God's attributes in the scriptures.
That is why all your theologicans end up with Rom.9:20 as there final line of defense (see Calvin. BK.3:)
That is not a defense that is simply an appeal to Calvinistic theologians authority and is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
If you cannot prove your system from scripture, then your system falls like a house of cards.
Thus, your final appeal is to that 'mystery' which is the root of your faith.
You have to ignore clear scripture (Jn.3:16) to build an elaborate system of theological jargon and redefinitions (freedom) to hide the fact that your entire system is built on a mystical foundation, not Biblical revealation.
In all his talk of God honoring the choices of men, Thiessen ignores that man has already made his choice and continues to do so.
He has?
If God has pre-elected those who can be saved by His own will, what 'choice' is that?
By the notion of universal prevenient grace, God is in effect forcing man to make the choice a second time.
What?
Forcing man to make a second choice?
How about allowing mankind a first choice, between staying in the line of Adam or getting into the line of Christ (1Cor.15)
If there are none who seek after God...
But God seeks man, just as He did in the Garden (Jn.12:32)
if Thiessen is consistent in his belief that 'mankind is hopelessly dead in trespasses and sins' to the point of needing previent grace to change his vote from no to yes, then the notion of God allowing men to simply make the choice without His interference falls apart.
What you assuming is the definition of depravity matches your total depravity.
The will is still active, as is the intellecut and sensibility, but corrupted.
The 'light' that shines into man now allows man to see what the issue is, that he is a sinner and needs a saviour.
You guys underestimate the Omnipotence of God.
Amen!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.