Posted on 02/08/2003 7:43:01 AM PST by Matchett-PI
God and man must both do something before a man can be saved.
Hyper-Calvinism denies the necessity of human action, and Arminianism denies the true nature of the Divine action.
The Bible clearly sets forth both the divine and human as essential in God's plan of salvation.
This is not to say, as Arminianism does, God's part is to freely provide salvation for all men, and man's part is to become willing to accept it.
This is not what we said above, nor is it what the Bible teaches. In order to understand what God's Word really says and to try to answer some "straw dummy" objections, we shall establish the subject one point at a time.
ONE: A man must repent and believe in order to be saved. No one was ever forgiven and made a child of God who did not willingly turn from sin to Christ.
Nowhere does the Bible even hint that men can be saved without repentance and faith, but to the contrary, the Word always states these things are essential before a person can be saved.
The one and only Bible answer to the question "What must I do to be saved?" is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
TWO: Every one who repents and believes the gospel will be saved.
Every soul, without any exception, who answers the gospel command to come to Christ will be received and forgiven by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Philip Bliss put the truth to music when he said, "Whosoever will, forever must endure...
If we can be absolutely certain about anything, we can be sure that Christ will never void His promise to receive "all who come to Him." As old John Bunyan said, "Come and welcome" is the Savior's eternal word to all sinners.
THREE: Repentance and faith are not vicarious but are the free acts of men.
Men, with their own mind, heart, and will must renounce sin and receive Christ. God doesn't repent and believe for us~we repent and believe.
Turning from sin and reaching out in faith to Christ are the acts of man, and every man who so responds to the gospel call does so because he honestly desires to do so.
He wants to be forgiven and he can only be forgiven by repenting and believing.
No one, including God, can turn from sin for us, we must do it.
No one can trust Christ "in our place," we must personally, knowingly, and willingly trust Him in order to be saved.
Now someone may be thinking, "But isn't that what the Arminian teaches?"
My friend, that is what the Bible teaches-and teaches it clearly and dogmatically.
"But don't Calvinists deny all three of those points?"
I am not talking about, or trying to defend, "Calvinists" since they come in a hundred 'varieties.
If you know anyone that denies the above facts, then that person, regardless of what he labels himself, is denying the clear message of the Bible.
I can only speak for myself, and I will not deny what God's Word so plainly teaches.
"But haven't you established the doctrine of free-will and disposed of election if you assent man must repent and believe and it is his own act?"
No, we have neither proven freewill nor disproved election ... since it is impossible to do either.
We have merely stated exactly what the Bible says a man must do in order to be saved.
Let us now look at what the Scripture says a sinner is able to do and what he is not able to do.
FOUR: The same Bible that states man must repent and believe in order to be saved, also emphatically states that man, because of his sinful nature, is totally unable to repent and believe.
All of man's three faculties of mind, heart, and will, which must be receptive to gospel truth, have neither the ability to receive such truth nor even the desire to have such ability.
In fact the exact opposite is true.
Man's total being is not only unable to either come, or want to come, to Christ, but every part of his nature is actively opposed to Christ and truth.
Rejecting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is not a passive "non-action," but a deliberate volitional choice.
It is deliberately choosing to say "no" to Christ and "yes" to self and sin.
No one is "neutral" in respect to God and His authority.
Unbelief is just as much a deliberate act of mind, heart, and will as is faith.
This is what Jesus meant in John 5:40 when He said, "You will (you are deliberately making a choice) not to come to me."
Yes, unbelief is an act of the will. In fact unbelief is active faith, but unfortunately it is faith in myself.
To believe and preach points One, Two, and Three, without also preaching number Four is to grossly misrepresent the gospel of God's grace.
It is to give a totally false picture of the sinner and his true need.
It shows only half of the man's sin.
It misses the most crucial point of a lost man's need, namely, his lack of power or ability to overcome his sinful nature and its effects.
The "gospel" which is concocted out of this view is only a half gospel. It is at this point that modern evangelism so miserably fails.
It confuses man's responsibility with his ability, and falsely assumes that a sinner has the moral ability to perform all that God has commanded.
The "cannot" texts of scripture are either totally ignored or badly twisted by this perversion of the true gospel of God's saving grace.
Please note a few texts of Scripture that dogmatically state some things that a lost man cannot do:
Man cannot see-until he first be born again. (John 3:3)
Man cannot understand-until he first be given a new nature. (I Cor. 2:14)
Man cannot come-until he first be effectually called by the Holy Spirit. (John 6:44-45)
We do not have space to go into all the "cannots," but these three are sufficient to show that a sinner absolutely cannot (notice it is not "will" not) come to Christ until God first does something in that sinner's nature.
That "something" is what the Bible calls regeneration, or the new birth, and it is the exclusive work of God the Holy Spirit.
Man has no part whatever in regeneration.
FIVE: The new birth, or regeneration, is God giving us the spiritual life that enables us to do what we must do (repent and believe), but CANNOT DO because of our bondage to sin.
When the Bible says man is dead in sin, it means that man's mind, heart, and will are all spiritually dead in sin.
When the Bible speaks of our being in "bondage to sin," it means that our entire being, including our will, is under the bondage and power of sin.
We indeed need Christ to die and pay the penalty of our sin, but we just as desperately need the Holy Spirit to give us a new nature in regeneration.
The Son of God frees us legally from the penalty of sin, but only the Holy Spirit can free us from the power and death of our depravity in sin.
We need forgiveness in order to be saved, and Christ provides complete forgiveness and righteousness for us in His death.
However, we also need spiritual life and ability, and the Holy Spirit provides it for us in regeneration.
It is the Holy Spirit's work of regeneration that enables us to savingly receive the atoning work of Christ in true faith.
God is a triune God, and no person can understand His 'so great salvation" until he sees each blessed Person of the Godhead playing a distinct and necessary part in that salvation.
No man can declare the "glorious gospel of grace" and leave out the Father's sovereign electing love and the Holy Spirit's regenerating power as essential parts of God's work in saving sinners.
To speak of "God's part" in salvation as only being one of "providing" forgiveness and man's part as "being willing" to accept it is to ignore both the Father's work of election and the Spirit's work of regeneration.
This not only makes man a full "partner" with God in the work of salvation, it credits man with playing the decisive roll in the deal.
How dreadful, and ridiculous, to give Christ the glory for His work on the cross, and then give sinners the credit for the Father's work in eternity (election) and the Spirit's work in our hearts (regeneration).
It does great dishonor to the Sovereign Spirit to say, "The Holy Spirit will perform His miraculous work of quickening you unto life as soon as you give Him your permission."
That's like standing in a graveyard saying to the dead people, "I will give you life and raise you up from the grave if you will only take the first step of faith and ask me to do it."
What a denial of the sinner's total spiritual inability.
Amazing!
The root error of the Arminian's gospel of freewill is its failure to see that man's part, repentance and faith, are the fruits and effects of God's work and not the essential ingredient's supplied by the sinner as "man's part of the deal."
Every man who turns to Christ does so willingly, but that willingness is a direct result of the Father's election and the Holy Spirit's effectual calling.
To say, "If you will believe, God will answer your faith with the New Birth," is to misunderstand man's true need and misrepresent God's essential work.
SIX: The Scriptures clearly show that faith and repentance are the evidences and not the cause of regeneration.
Suppose a man who had been dead for twenty years greeted you on the street one day.
Would you conclude that the man had gotten tired of being dead and "decided' to ask a great doctor to perform a miracle and give him life?
I'm sure you would instead, exclaim in amazement, "Man what happened to you? Who brought you back to life?"
You would see he was alive because he was walking and breathing, but you would know these were evidences of a miracle having been performed on him from without and not the results of his own power of will.
Just so when a spiritually dead man begins to perform spiritual acts such as repentance and faith-these spiritual "fruits" show that the miracle of the new birth has taken place.
Let me illustrate this with a Biblical example. Acts 16:14 is a clear proof of the above.
By the way, as far as I know, this is the only place in the New Testament that uses the phrase "opened heart," and the Bible gives the whole credit for this "opening" to God's power and not to man's will.
Modern evangelism does the exact opposite and credits the opening of the heart to the power of man's "free will."
Remember that we are not discussing whether man must be willing to open his heart. We settled that under points One, Two, and Three.
We are looking now for the source of power that enabled man to perform that spiritual act.
Arminianism insists that man's free will must furnish the willingness or power, and the Bible says that the Holy Spirit of God furnishes that power or ability in the new birth.
Let us examine the one text in Scripture that uses the phrase "opened heart" and see if it agrees with our previous points:
"And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul." (Acts 16:14)
The NIV says: "The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message."
First of all we note that Lydia did indeed "attend" or listen to the words of Paul.
She gladly heard and willingly believed his message. As we have already shown, she had to do this in order to benefit from the gospel and be saved.
Lydia's attending," or hearing and believing, illustrates points One, Two, and Three above, and refutes hyper-Calvinism, (which says the elect will be saved regardless of whether they hear and believe the gospel or not).
Lydia did choose to believe, and she herself did it only because she wholeheartedly wanted to.
She did not do it "unwillingly" nor did God hear and believe for her.
It was her own response and it was a most willing response.
Next, we notice exactly what God did. We see here demonstrated what God must do before Lydia can be saved.
(1) He provided a salvation of "by grace through faith" that could be preached. Obviously "the things spoken" by Paul were the gospel facts concerning the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and surely this Lamb is God's gracious provision.
(2) God also brought the message of His provision to Lydia. He sent a preacher to tell her about this great plan of salvation.
God went to a lot of trouble to provide such a gospel-He gave His only begotten Son up to death.
He went to great ends to provide such a preacher as Paul-read about it in Paul's testimony in Acts 22.
It is at this point that Arminianism departs from the Bible and proceeds to apply human logic to the above truths.
They tragically fail to look at the rest of the Biblical text and see that God must do something else.
(3) God must open Lydia's heart (or give her spiritual life) so she will be able to believe.
Her natural mind is blind, her natural heart is averse to God, and her will is in bondage to sin and spiritual death.
Only the power of God can free her from this graveyard of spiritual depravity.
The giving of this life and power is solely the work of God.
Notice that the Bible explicitly gives God alone the credit for Lydia's heart being opened.
It is impossible not see that in this text unless you simply refuse to accept what God clearly says.
Look at the words carefully: . . whose heart the LORD OPENED...
Notice also how clearly the Holy Spirit teaches us the relationship between the cause and the effect in the conversion of Lydia.
God was the One Who opened Lydia's heart, that is the cause, and He did so in order that she might be able to attend to the truths that Paul preached, that is the effect.
Now that is what the Word of God says!
Do not bluster about "dead theology" or throw Calvin's name around in derision, just read the words themselves in the Bible.
If you try to deny that the one single reason that Lydia understood and believed the gospel was because God deliberately opened her heart and enabled her to believe, you are fighting God's Word.
If you try to get man's "free will" as the one determining factor into this text, you are consciously corrupting the Word of God.
God's grace not only provides salvation, but His power also gives us the ability to both desire and receive it He works in us "both to will and to do."
His working in us to "will" is the new birth, and, I say again, this work of regeneration (new birth) is totally the work of the Holy Spirit.
The moment we lose sight of this distinction between being "saved by faith" (the act of man) and being "born again by the Holy Spirit" (the act of God), we are heading for confusion and trouble.
We will be convinced that man is able to do what the Bible emphatically states he is unable to do.
The necessity of the Holy Spirit's work being thus theologically denied, it will not be long before it is ignored in actual practice.
This is the plight of modern day evangelism.
Since the evangelists are convinced that the new birth is within the power and ability of man's will, their man made "me theology" has become far more important than the theology of the Bible, and organization and advertising are absolute essentials to success while the necessary work of the Holy Ghost is all but forgotten.
It is true that lip service is given to the need to "Pray for the Holy Spirit's guidance," and cards asking people to "promise to pray every day" are always sent out months in advance of the big campaign.
However, some people are not sure if the promise to pray or the other pledge (to give money) which is always included ( "only your gifts can make this great campaign possible") is the most important to the success of the campaign.
But that's another subject for another day....
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.