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.