Posted on 02/08/2003 7:43:01 AM PST by Matchett-PI
Yes, but doesn't the figure of 40 years simply come from the LORD punishing the Israelites by assigning one year for each day the spies were in Canaan (40 days [Num. 13:25] becomes 40 years [Num. 14:3]). I agree wholeheartily about that fact that something that is symbolic can also be literal, but I am just concerned about reading too much into the text.
There were 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 more from David to the captivity, and 14 more to Christ. All these numbers are significant. The propetic character, eliminates the possibility, of extra generations. All the details look forward to when, at the end of forty centuries, the trial of man ends, and judgement is carried out at the cross.
Again, this doesn't adress my question of when that specific generation left Egypt, could they have entered the land of Canaan? Would that have had such a detramental impact on the number of generations that God had planned on from Abraham to David?
So, again, did God have it in for that generation at the outset, or were they free to enter Canaan if they chose to be obidient to God, and they chose not to, thus incurring God's judgement on them?
I guess I am just struggling with (as many over the centuries have) the difference with what God has foreknown and what God has foreordained.
You are absolutely right, there is no prophecy that says Moses would lead the Israelites into Canaan. But, there is no prophecy that said he would not, either, right?
So, all I am asking is that, when Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, was God rooting for him to successfully lead them into Canaan or was God waiting for him to fail? The same question for that generation; when they left Egypt did the LORD make a way for that generation to enter Canaan (Num. 14:9 sure makes it sound like a way was prepared) or was the LORD merely waiting for that whole generation to fail?
I have really enjoyed our exchange pony
I am currently taking an Inductive Bible study on Genesis...so you have made me pay attention to it:>)
But, there is no prophecy that said he would not, either, right?
I think there is a biblical interpretive principle principle that you do not build doctrine on what is NOT said.
So what we do know is that God did not promise Moses that He would go INTO the promised land...we also know that the only two people that came out of Egypt that entered that promised land were Joshua and Caleb...So I ~think~ even if we do not agree on predestination at the very least God knew what would happen in that desert beause of His carefully worded prophecy on it on it
I happen to belive that there was forordination in the events of the exodus.
So, all I am asking is that, when Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, was God rooting for him to successfully lead them into Canaan or was God waiting for him to fail?
I ~think~ If we put God in the position of helpless and unknowing We becosme rather like diests..and we have an uninvolved and powerless God...BUT if we take a positive position on God foreknowing it (even if he did not forordain it) we have a God intouch with men and active in their lives..
As I mentioned earlier my son gave me a book by a Jewish scholar and in it he says that many jews believe God did not want that generation of exslaves to govern that land ..
I beleieve that foreknowlegbe is at the least a type of forordination how do you see it as different?
Heb 3:19 "So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief."
It was their unbelief that kept them from receiving the promise. The failure was on the part of that generation, not God. If they had believed, they could have entered in. I don't know that I can address your question as other possibilities, but as to whether God had it in for them; why were they special?
Notice, Genesis, which traces the history of the first man Adam. It ends up in a coffin in Egypt. Then the Children of Israel wind up in bondage, many died there. Then they were delivered by Moses, many more died. More under Joshua and the Judges. On and on it went, to this day they have not learned, they are still in unbelief. I'm glad we are not like that. Your not like that are you?
Far from God trying to get even with them, this illustrates the power of sin and the patience of God. He is still working on Israel. He will finish what he started.
Heb 11:39 "And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:"
You are limiting God's love (1Jn.4:8-9) and grace which is giving something that doesn't have to be given to anyone.
Morevover, do not forget how man (according to Calvinism) gets into the sin state in the first place (Adam) through God putting him there through His sovereign will.
That is why Bible believers do not follow men!
We follow what the Bible says.
When Calvin follows the Bible, he is correct.
When Arminus does, he is!
The same with Whitefield and Wesley etc.
Let God be true and every man a liar (Rom.3:4)
It would seem that Arminus and Wesley also disagreed on the issue of Predestination.
Arminus believed it to be foundational to the Gospel.
This is from Arminius works dealing with Predestination.
(Now we Baptists do not believe Predestination refers to salvation at all but Ultimate Sanctification and eternal security)
5. MY OWN SENTIMENTS ON PREDESTINATION.
I have hitherto been stating those opinions concerning the article of Predestination which are inculcated in our Churches and in the University of Leyden, and of which I disapprove. I have at the same time produced my own reasons, why I form such an unfavourable judgment concerning them; and I will now declare my own opinions on this subject, which are of such a description as, according to my views, appear most conformable to the word of God.
I. The first absolute decree of God concerning the salvation of sinful man, is that by which he decreed to appoint his Son, Jesus Christ, for a Mediator, Redeemer, saviour, Priest and King, who might destroy sin by his own death, might by his obedience obtain the salvation which had been lost, and might communicate it by his own virtue.
II. The second precise and absolute decree of God, is that in which he decreed to receive into favour those who repent and believe, and, in Christ, for his sake and through Him, to effect the salvation of such penitents and believers as persevered to the end; but to leave in sin, and under wrath, all impenitent persons and unbelievers, and to damn them as aliens from Christ.
III. The third Divine decree is that by which God decreed to administer in a sufficient and efficacious manner the means which were necessary for repentance and faith; and to have such administration instituted (1.) according to the Divine Wisdom, by which God knows what is proper and becoming both to his mercy and his severity, and (2.) according to Divine Justice, by which He is prepared to adopt whatever his wisdom may prescribe and put it in execution.
IV. To these succeeds the fourth decree, by which God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons. This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere, according to the before described administration of those means which are suitable and proper for conversion and faith; and, by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere.
Predestination, when thus explained, is
1. The foundation of Christianity, and of salvation and its certainty.
2. It is the sum and the matter of the gospel; nay, it is the gospel itself, and on that account necessary to be believed in order to salvation, as far as the two first articles are concerned.
3. It has had no need of being examined or determined by any council, either general or particular, since it is contained in the scriptures clearly and expressly in so many words; and no contradiction has ever yet been offered to it by any orthodox Divine.
4. It has constantly been acknowledged and taught by all Christian teachers who held correct and orthodox sentiments.
5. It agrees with that harmony of all confessions, which has been published by the protestant Churches.
6. It likewise agrees most excellently with the Dutch Confession and Catechism. This concord is such, that if in the Sixteenth article these two expressions "those persons whom" and "others," be explained by the words "believers" and "unbelievers" these opinions of mine on Predestination will be comprehended in that article with the greatest clearness. This is the reason why I directed the thesis to be composed in the very words of the Confession, when, on one occasion, I had to hold a public disputation before my private class in the University. This kind of Predestination also agrees with the reasoning contained in the twentieth and the fifty-fourth question of the Catechism.
7. It is also in excellent accordance with the nature of God -- with his wisdom, goodness, and righteousness; because it contains the principal matter of all of them, and is the clearest demonstration of the Divine wisdom, goodness, and righteousness [or justice]
8. It is agreeable in every point with the nature of man -- in what form soever that nature may be contemplated, whether in the primitive state of creation, in that of the fall, or in that of restoration.
9. It is in complete concert with the act of creation, by affirming that the creation itself is a real communication of good, both from the intention of God, and with regard to the very end or event; that it had its origin in the goodness of God; that whatever has a reference to its continuance and preservation, proceeds from Divine love; and that this act of creation is a perfect and appropriate work of God, in which he is at complaisance with himself, and by which he obtained all things necessary for an unsinning state.
10. It agrees with the nature of life eternal, and with the honourable titles by which that life is designated in the scriptures.
11. It also agrees with the nature of death eternal, and with the names by which that death is distinguished in scripture.
12. It states sin to be a real disobedience, and the meritorious cause of condemnation; and on this account, it is in the most perfect agreement with the fall and with sin.
13. In every particular, it harmonizes with the nature of grace, by ascribing to it all those things which agree with it, [or adapted to it,] and by reconciling it most completely to the righteousness of God and to the nature and liberty of the human will.
14. It conduces most conspicuously to declare the glory of God, his justice and his mercy. It also represents God as the cause of all good and of our salvation, and man as the cause of sin and of his own damnation.
15. It contributes to the honour of Jesus Christ, by placing him for the foundation of Predestination and the meritorious as well as communicative cause of salvation.
16. It greatly promotes the salvation of men: It is also the power, and the very means which lead to salvation -- by exciting and creating within the mind of man sorrow on account of sin, a solicitude about his conversion, faith in Jesus Christ, a studious desire to perform good works, and zeal in prayer -- and by causing men to work out their salvation with fear and trembling. It likewise prevents despair, as far as such prevention is necessary.
17. It confirms and establishes that order according to which the gospel ought to be preached, (1.) By requiring repentance and faith -- (2.) And then by promising remission of sins, the grace of the spirit, and life eternal.
18. It strengthens the ministry of the gospel, and renders it profitable with respect to preaching, the administration of the sacraments and public prayers.
19. It is the foundation of the Christian religion; because in it, the two-fold love of God may be united together -- God's love of righteousness [or justice], and his love of men, may, with the greatest consistency, be reconciled to each other.
20. Lastly. This doctrine of Predestination, has always been approved by the great majority of professing Christians, and even now, in these days, it enjoys the same extensive patronage. It cannot afford any person just cause for expressing his aversion to it; nor can it give any pretext for contention in the Christian Church.
It is therefore much to be desired, that men would proceed no further in this matter, and would not attempt to investigate the unsearchable judgments of God -- at least that they would not proceed beyond the point at which those judgments have been clearly revealed in the scriptures.
This, my most potent Lords, is all that I intend now to declare to your mightinesses, respecting the doctrine of Predestination, about which there exists such a great controversy in the Church of Christ. If it would not prove too tedious to your Lordships, I have some other propositions which I could wish to state, because they contribute to a full declaration of my sentiments, and tend to the same purpose as that for which I have been ordered to attend in this place by your mightinesses.
There are certain other articles of the Christian religion, which possess a close affinity to the doctrine of Predestination, and which are in a great measure dependent on it: Of this description are the providence of God, the free- will of man, the perseverance of saints, and the certainty of salvation. On these topics, if not disagreeable to your mightinesses, I will in a brief manner relate my opinion.
If God had wanted that generation to enter He could have seen to it that the spys did not see the "giants" . He knew that they would see them..and because He made them He knew that they would be filled with fear..God was not a hapless bystander or else He never could have made that "promise" could he? He would have had to call it a possibility..
Alright... I may have gone a bit overboard in my prior characterizations of Xzin's position as "an Idol fit for Demons" (Calvinist_Dark_Lord warned me in a Private FreepMail that I was indulging my Temper. I don't know whether or not this is the Exchange of which he was thinking; but if so, he has a Private FReepMail in his box which he may pass on to Xzins with my apologies).
But that said, I really do think that any attempt to bind either God's Will or God's Knowledge is fundamentally Demonic in its origin (which is to say in one way, it's not exactly "our own fault", given that Satan deliberately tempts us to false understandings; but we must nonetheless be on our guard against such falsehoods).
Here's the scoop:
Before Genesis 1:1... or perhaps more correctly, OUTSIDE OF Genesis 1:1... it is only correct to consider the Mind of God (both Will and Knowledge) as being Co-Etaneous in all facets. Immediately Co-Eternal in all respects. Neither Preceding nor Succeeding, but Unitary.
And in deference to xzins own profession, I'll quote Stonewall Jackson's personal Army chaplain, the Calvinist R.L. Dabney, on the matter:
Dabney is here discussion the order of God's Decrees in regard to creation; but I think that his analysis applies equally well to the nature of God's Uncreated Knowledge and Will.
OUTSIDE OF Genesis 1:1, we cannot say "God foreknows what He will do", and thereby bind God's Will with the Chains of a temporal-progressionist view of God's Knowledge.
OUTSIDE OF Genesis 1:1, I think it is only correct to say, "God knows (present tense) what He chooses (present tense)." Neither, "God knows what he has Chosen" (Knowledge subservient to Will); nor "God knows what He will choose" (Will subservient to Knowledge); but only the Co-Etaneous Eternalist Present Tense.
We must, I think, apply the eternalist present tense, lest we either make God's Knowledge subservient to God's Will, or make God's Will subservient to God's Knowledge.
Outside of Genesis 1:1, we must (I believe), apply the Eternalist Present Tense, equally Co-Etaneous in all facets: "God knows what He chooses". And He chooses, what He pleases.
Somehow I missed that.
But it doesn't matter. It is wrong to characterize that I have a position. My questions had to do with the issues you addressed here. (1) Did God eternally have absolute foreknowledge, even of His own mind? (2) Did God's decrees/decisions precede his foreknowing them? (3) Or was their a unity of these things?
I hear you coming down on the "unity" side which is pretty much where I was leaning.
There is a system of knowledge and will at work with our God. There cannot be a separating of one to the exclusion of the other UNLESS scripture reveals that such is the case for specific events.
This affects all our discussions prior to this back over a two year span.
It suggests to me a middle ground that I cannot yet spell out.
xzins, I think I addressed this with you before, and it appears from your post here that you agree, that the very concept of foreknowledge can only apply from our perspective and that God's will, knowledge, and decrees are all unified and not progressive as viewed from His perspective.
Let me pose this question: how does the nature of God speak on the notion that He contemplates a decision instead of just making it. In other words, does God weigh options when making decisions? I'm just curious to see what you all have to say:)
This ties into the Chorazin/Bethsaida passage that OP often posts. (Mt 11?) We were discussing foreknowledge in that context of God's options.
1. God knows all contingencies.
2. Some of those contingencies WERE acceptable to God but were not chosen. (IF they had seen the works in Tyre/Sidon, they WOULD HAVE repented....) This suggests a contingency that the Lord HAD reviewed BUT had not chosen to enact.
3. I believe this is pretty much where we left the discussion. The unsettled issue had to do with unacceptable, acceptable, and perfectly acceptable alternative plans. (I don't remember the thread or I'd go look it up.) Perhaps OP remembers.
Fru, I'm thinking this has to be the case. Otherwise, we do elevate one working of God's mind over another part. This is unadvisable, if for no other reason, because of the paucity of scriptural support for doing so.
REALLY we cannot talk about, for example, the coming of the new heavens and the new earth, with reference only to God's will, or His decisiveness, or His foreknowledge.
There must be an interworking of these that is admitted.
As has been stated over and over and over and over in these threads, the Calvinist position is not one of random choice of who gets saved and who burns. If you can agree that none of us deserve to be saved, why is it you cry foul at any notion that some should be chosen and some not? If we maintain that election is unconditional, how can you cry "no fair!"
If you cannot accept grace or mercy for what they are, you certainly have no right to demand they be fairly distributed. There is no Affirmative Action admissions policy for Heaven.
We struggle to fit God into our lexicon. But in doing so, we make Him out to be like James Earl Jones or Orson Welles, some blustering behemoth, balancing scales, weighing evidence, eternally pondering...
Rubbish. God knew the period at the end of this sentence a billion years ago. He put it there. God's sovereignty is black and white; either/or. He's either God; or He's not.
To debate the degree of sovereignty is to insinuate ourselves into the realm that is God's alone.
By acknowledging God's total control we become stronger Christians, kinder citizens, and eternally comforted human beings.
If you cannot accept grace or mercy for what they are...
Anything short of God's total control implies that grace and mercy, in part, come from something in ourselves as well as from God.
But they are entirely gifts from God.
We are all fallen and none of us is deserving of heaven. As Doc says, we underestimate the vast terribleness of the Fall.
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.