Replies

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I apologize for the reduplication of my post,(3X)! My computer is messing up and I hit the send button thinking the first hit did not take.