Posted on 08/01/2005 8:16:45 PM PDT by buckeyesrule
No I don't. I place God's decision in Eternity -- outside of any temporal dimension.
(Courtesy Alamo Girl Ping)
Salvation is God's call, not ours.
Indeed it is. And he has chosen to save all those who believe.
Nope. The word is hilasmos, or "propitiation". That is not the same word used in Rom 5:11 as atonement (katallage).
Hilasmos is also a noun in this verse, meaning that it is not something that Jesus did, it is something He IS. He Himself is the satisfaction of God's wrath for sin. As such, forgiveness is found in Him. It points to the infinite value of Christ's work on the Cross, but it does not refer to the application of that work. Even the Arminian is forced to concede that it is not applied to everyone. Calvinists and Arminians disagree about the reason why that is, but the honest Arminian does not disagree that it is limited in actuality.
The rest of your post is fence-straddling at its finest.
Indeed.
And He has foreknown from before creation all who would believe.
Aye!
At this point I am meditating on the excellent Scripture verse you have cited. I am struck by the profundity of living "by the faith of the Son of God". When I contemplate what the faith of the Son of God is... I can't imagine any steps I could make that would approach that faith. It leaves me in awe. Thank you for that citation.
While that statement is true, it does not follow that knowing all who would believe was the basis of His choice of them.
His choice of them was the reason they do believe.
That makes no sense. By that reasoning, He could have chosen NOT to save all those who believe. You separate His choice of them from their choice of Him.
The Truth of scripture is that He chose unto belief those He was pleased to save. Their belief is the result of His choice, not the other way around.
No. And I must point out that number 2 is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You assume that because He is pleased by only those who were believers (which is an incorrect representation of what we said...more on that in a second) then it must be the fact that they were believers which led Him to choose them.
And again, I did not say they pleased Him. I said choosing as He did pleased Him ("IT pleased Him to choose as He did").
That was from Strongs.
Would you say you know more than those men?
Your pride is overwheleming Jude.
Someone that spoke greek told me you would be embarrassed by your post on love someday.
But they do not know you as well as I do
No. I would say, however, that the writers of the Greek reference works (TDNT, BDAG, and L&N), which are the standards, do know more about Greek than the editor's of Strongs.
As regards the issue of pride, well, I do struggle with that - but not here. I have a hard time seeing where pride even entered into my posts here.
A+ Graphic and A+ Comment.
Jesus really does want us to come to Him.
Hi, nbdy.
It is not possible for God to dispense with His knowledge, otherwise, that would be the same as saying that He doesn't know, thereby rendering Him less than God.
Nor do I see how deciding can precede knowing, unless we are willing to state that God (1) makes decisions without information, or (2) God was incapable of acquiring information that did not yet exist.
#1 would mean that God is without knowledge which renders Him less than God.
#2 would mean that God is dependent on contingency which is open theism.
see #354
While it is true that you say that it pleased Him, I have suggested a logical order based on the distinction between knowledge and decision.
This is no different than suggesting logical orders for either infra or supra lapsarianism.
It is simply illogical that God made decisions without knowledge, GIVEN that God is omniscient. IT is not possible that He did not know those who would believe.
Knowing that they believed, it was not possible that He would not accept them according to his decision and promises.
Knowledge will always precede decision. Otherwise there is a period of no knowledge, and therefore, we are contemplating less than an omniscient God.
Indeed he could have. But then John 3:16 would have to be removed from the Bible otherwise God would be a liar.
The Truth of scripture is that He chose unto belief those He was pleased to save. Their belief is the result of His choice, not the other way around.
That is what makes no sense. If God causes the belief, then what is the purpose served in the belief? Belief is then not necessary for salvation and you might as well remove John 3:16 from the Bible anyway.
Salvation is contingent. God made the contingency. You are responsible to comply with it.
Please see #354 & #355
I would agree that the books cited, TDNT+ are more thorough and scholarly than Strongs.
It does not necessarily entail, however, that they knew more about Greek than Strong or the editors of Strongs. The only real way to discover that would be to put them to some kind of test.
I do not think it is possible for God not to have known who would believe. Either omniscience is eternal with God or there is a period in which God was not God.
I agree. Since God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and never wrong...how could it be possible for someone to do anything other than what God knows they will do?
When did God NOT know that which was/would be written in the Bible?
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.