Posted on 07/17/2003 9:53:46 AM PDT by Frumanchu
“For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.“ Romans 8:29,30
Broadly speaking there have been two general views as to the meaning and use of the word “foreknew” in Romans 8:29. One class of commentators (the Arminians) maintain that Paul is saying that God predestined to salvation those whom He foreknew would respond to His offer of grace (i.e., those whom He saw would of their own free will repent of their sins and believe the gospel). Godet, in commenting on Romans 8:29, asks the question: “In what respect did
God thus foreknow them?” and answers that they were “foreknown as sure to fulfill the conditions of salvation, viz. faith; so: foreknown as His by faith.” 1 The word “foreknew” is thus understood by Arminians to mean that God knew beforehand which sinners would believe, etc., and on the basis of this knowledge He predestined them unto salvation.
The other class of commentators (the Calvinists) reject the above view on two grounds. First, because the Arminians’ interpretation is not in keeping with the meaning of Paul’s language and second, because it is out of harmony with the system of doctrine taught in the rest of the Scriptures. Calvinists contend that the passage teaches that God set His heart upon (i.e., foreknew) certain individuals; these He predestined or marked out to be saved. Notice that the text does not say that God knew SOMETHING ABOUT particular individuals (that they would do this or that), but it states that God knew the individuals THEMSELVES – those whom He knew He predestined to be made like Christ. The word “foreknew” as used here is thus understood to be equivalent to “foreloved” – those who were the objects of God’s love, He marked out for salvation.
The questions raised by the two opposing interpretations are these: Did God look down through time and see that certain individuals would believe and thus predestine them unto salvation on the basis of this foreseen faith? Or did God set His heart on certain individuals and because of His love for them predestine that they should be called and given faith in Christ by the Holy Spirit and thus be saved? In other words, is the individual’s faith the cause or the result of God’s predestination?
A. The meaning of “foreknew” in Romans 8:29
God has always possessed perfect knowledge of all creatures and of all events. There has never been a time when anything pas, present, or future was not fully known to Him. But it is not His knowledge of future events (of what people would do, etc.) which is referred to in Romans 8:29,30, for Paul clearly states that those whom He foreknew He predestined, He called, He justified, etc. Since all men are not predestined, called, and justified, it follows that all men were not foreknown by God in the sense spoken of in verse 29.
It is for this reason that the Arminians are forced to add some qualifying notion. They read into the passage some idea not contained in the language itself such as those whom He foreknew would believe etc., He predestined, called and justified. But according to the Biblical usage of the words “know,” “knew,” and “foreknew” there is not the least need to make such an addition, and since it is unnecessary, it is improper. When the Bible speaks of God knowing particular individuals, it often means that He has special regard for them, that they are the objects of His affection and concern. For example in Amos 3:2, God, speaking to Israel says, “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” The Lord know about all the families of the earth, but He knew Israel in a special way. They were His chosen people whom He had set His heart upon. See Deuteronomy 7:7,8; 10:15. Because Israel was His
in a special sense He chastised them, cf. Hebrews 12:5,6. God, speaking to Jeremiah, said, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you,” (Jeremiah 1:5). The meaning here is not that God knew about Jeremiah but that He had a special regard for the prophet before He formed him in his mother’s womb. Jesus also used the word “knew” in the sense of personal, intimate awareness. “On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers’ “ (Matt. 7:22,23). Our Lord cannot be understood here as saying, I knew nothing about you, for it is quite evident that He knew all too much about them – their evil character and evil works; hence, His meaning must be, I never knew you intimately nor personally, I never regarded you as the objects of my favor or love. Paul uses the word in the same way in I Corinthians 8:3, “But if one loves God, one is known by him,” and also II Timothy 2:19, “the Lord knows those who are His.” The Lord knows about all men but He only knows those “who love Him, who are called according to His purpose” (Rom 8:28) – those who are His!
Murray’s argument in favor of this meaning of “foreknew” is very good. “It should be observed that the text says ‘whom He foreknew’; whom is the object of the verb and there is no qualifying addition. This, of itself, shows that, unless there is some other compelling reason, the expression ‘whom he foreknew’ contains within itself the differentiation which is presupposed. If the apostle had in mind some ‘qualifying adjunct’ it would have been simple to supply it. Since he adds none we are forced to inquire if the actual terms he uses can express the differentiation implied. The usage of Scripture provides an affirmative answer. Although the term ‘foreknew’ is used seldom in the New Testament, it is altogether indefensible to ignore the meaning so frequently given to the word ‘know’ in the usage of Scripture; ‘foreknow’ merely adds the thought of ‘beforehand’ to the word ‘know’. Many times in Scripture ‘know’ has a pregnant meaning which goes beyond that of mere cognition. It is used in a sense practically synonymous with ‘love’, to set regard upon, to know with peculiar interest, delight, affection, and action (cf. Gen 18:19; Exod. 2:25; Psalm 1:6; 144:3; Jer. 1:5; Amos 3:2;
Hosea 13:5; Matt 7:23; I Cor. 8:3; Gal. 4:9; II Tim. 2:19; I John 3:1). There is no reason why this import of the word ‘know’ should not be applied to ‘foreknow’ in this passage, as also in 11:2 where it also occurs in the same kind of construction and where the thought of election is patently present (cf. 11:5,6). When this import is appreciated, then there is no reason for adding any qualifying notion and ‘whom He foreknew’ is seen to contain within itself the differentiating element required. It means ‘whom he set regard upon’ or ‘whom he knew from eternity with distinguishing affection and delight’ and is virtually equivalent to ‘whom he foreloved’. This interpretation, furthermore, is in agreement with the efficient and determining action which is so conspicuous in every other link of the chain – it is God who predestinates, it is God who calls, it is God who justifies, and it is He who glorifies. Foresight of faith would be out of accord with the determinative action which is predicated of God in these other instances and would constitute a weakening of the total emphasis at the point where we should least expect it….It is not the foresight of difference but the foreknowledge that makes difference to exist, not a foresight that recognizes existence but the foreknowledge that determines existence. It is a sovereign distinguishing love.” 2
Hodge observes that “as to know is often to approve and love, it may express the idea of peculiar affection in this case; or it may mean to select or determine upon….The usage of the word is favourable to either modification of this general idea of preferring. ‘The people which he foreknew,’ i.e., loved or selected, Rom. 11:2; ‘Who verily was foreordained (Gr. foreknown), i.e., fixed upon, chosen before the foundation of the world.’ I Peter 1:20; II Tim. 2:19; John 10:14,15; see also Acts 2:23; I Peter
1:2. The idea, therefore, obviously is, that those whom God peculiarly loved, and by thus loving, distinguished or selected from the rest of mankind; or to express both ideas in one word, those whom he elected he predestined, etc.” 3
Although God knew about all men before the world began, He did not know all men in the sense that the Bible sometimes uses the word “know,” i.e., with intimate personal awareness and love. It is in this latter sense that God foreknew those whom He predestined, called, and justified, as outlinsed in Romans 8:29,30!
B. Romans 8:29 does not refer to the foresight of faith, good works, etc.
As was pointed out above, it is unnecessary and therefore indefensible to add any qualifying notion such as faith to the verb foreknew in Romans 8:29. The Arminians make this addition, not because the language requires it, but because their theological system requires it – they do it to escape the doctrines of unconditional predestination and election. They read the notion of foreseen faith into the verse and then appeal to it in an effort to prove that predestination was based on foreseen events. Thus particular individuals are said to be saved, not because God willed that they should be saved (for He willed the salvation of everyone) but because they themselves willed to be saved. Hence salvation is make to depend ultimately on the individual’s will, not on the sovereign will of Almighty God – faith is understood to be man’s gift to God, not God’s gift to man.
Haldane, comparing Scripture with Scripture, clearly shows that the foreknowledge mentioned in Romans 8:29 cannot have reference to the foreseen faith, good works, or the sinner’s response to God’s call. “Faith cannot be the cause of foreknowledge, because foreknowledge is before predestination, and faith is the effect of predestination. ‘As many as were ordained to eternal life believed,’ Acts 13:48. Neither can it be meant of the foreknowledge of good works, because these are the effects of predestination. ‘We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works; which God hath before ordained (or before prepared) that we should walk in them;’ Eph. 2:10. Neither can it be meant of foreknowledge of our concurrence with the external call, because our effectual calling depends not upon that concurrence, but upon God’s purpose and grace, given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, 2 Tim. 1:9. By this foreknowledge, then, is meant, as has been observed, the love of God towards those whom he predestinates to be saved through Jesus Christ. All the called of God are foreknown by Him, - that is, they are the objects of His eternal love, and their calling comes from this free love. ‘I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore with lovingkindness I have drawn thee,’ Jer. 31:3.” 4
Murray, in rejecting the view that “foreknew” in Romans 8:29 refers to the foresight of faith, is certainly correct in stating that “It needs to be emphasized that the rejection of this interpretation is not dictated by a predestinarian interest. Even if it were granted that ‘foreknew’ means foresight of faith, the biblical doctrine of sovereign election is not thereby eliminated or disproven. For it is certainly true that God foresees faith; he foresees all that comes to pass. The question would then simply be: whence proceeds this faith which God foresees? And the only biblical answer is that the faith which God foresees is the faith he himself creates (cf. John 3:3-8; 6:44;45,65; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; II Pet. 1:2). Hence his eternal foresight
of faith is preconditioned by his decree to generate this faith in those whom he foresees as believing, and we are thrown back upon the differentiation which proceeds from God’s own eternal and sovereign election to faith and its consequents. The interest, therefore, is simply one of interpretation as it should be applied to this passage. On exegetical grounds we shall have to reject the view that ‘foreknew’ refers to the foresight of faith.” 5
1 Frederic Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, p 325. Italics are his.
2 John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, Vol. I, pp. 316-318. Italics are his.
3 Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, pp. 283, 284. Italics are his.
4 Robert Haldane, Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, p. 397.
5 Murray, Romans, Vol. I, p. 316.
Who is the Word? Jesus, the Son of God.
Does anything in that verse address the ability of "whoseover" to believe? No.
Correct so far.
Is the world being saved? the world should be saved through him.
Explain what you mean. Good intentions are useless. "Should" is an abstract. I should watch what I eat. I should get enough sleep. I should look both ways before crossing the street, or pulling out into traffic. Will I, or Do I? Not always.
The alternative has God sitting on His throne at the end of the Judgment, shaking His head, saying, "I don't understand...ALL of the world should have been saved by what you did, Son. Why weren't they? Why didn't they all accept you?" I don't think either of us believes that would be a likely scenario.
Is the term "world" to be understood in an all-inclusive, every-last-man-woman-child sense? The opportunity, the gift, God's grace is sufficient for the salvation of every last man woman and child.
This is where it begins to diverge, just a little. I agree that the value of Christ's sacrifice is of infinite worth. How could it not be? But (and this is a big BUT), the availability is not what is in question, it is the ability of Man to lay hold of what was made available. That is where we differ. That is the key question, for if Man is utterly unable to lay hold of Christ's atoning work for application to himself, then it logically follows that Calvinism is true, and in fact the Gospel defined. To put it another way, Total Depravity is the pivot upon which Calvinism turns. It is the doctrine that holds the rest of Calvinism together, for if Total Depravity is not true, then man can freely choose of his own volition, without God's help, Grace, or input, to repent, believe and receive Christ, and thereby save himself from the wages and just penalty of his sins. If, however, Total Depravity is true, then Salvation is totally the work of God from start to finish, and Man is only the recipient of God's Grace, freely shed upon him, efficaciously bringing him into the Kingdom without fail. If Total Depravity is true, then Man cannot be saved until God has first called him, regenerating his heart, gifting him with Faith to believe, and Grace to repent, so that he may be saved and joined to Christ. It is God's work from start to finish, whatever twisted and stained faith man possesses being wholly insufficient to his salvation. That the Grace of God is only shed upon those whom God has chosen beforehand to save is completely within His right and priviledge as Sovereign over His Creation. His Justice would condemn all to the Lake of Fire, while His Mercy would be extended to those whom He has chosen to bestow it upon, for His own reasons, and by His own Counsel. He is not obligated to give account to Man for His choices, nor is it within Man's right to demand such accounting. It is the height of hubris and arrogance for Man to demand such, or to accuse God of injustice in His choices.
Israel certainly exhibited some of that hubris and arrogance toward God, and His response was "I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." He established two points here: one, their griping and bellyaching were deserving of them being consumed (utterly destroyed), and two, God was not in one whit affected or swayed by their griping and bellyaching.
Is that not obvious? It is not obvious. Christ's work is a total success. The gift is freely given but not all will accept it.
Christ's work is a total success with regard to sin and redemption, but under the Arminian view, it falls short of it's stated (by Arminians) goal of saving the whole world, meaning every man woman and child. It is the Arminians who say that God's Will is that ALL be saved, that ALL come to knowledge of the Truth, that ALL men be born again. The obvious fact is that not all are, in fact saved. You duck the obvious inconsistency in your belief by blaming it on man, saying that man's free will is sufficient to thwart God's stated Will and intent.
To the Calvinist, Christ's work is a total success not only with regard to sin and redemption, but also with regard to the fact that ALL of the Elect are saved, and none are lost, giving Christ a perfect 1.000 batting average, so to speak. The best that could be said of the Arminian measure would be a batting average of less than .500, a respectable baseball average, but a dismal one for the Son of God. And all because of that pesky free will....
Christ's redemptive work is applied 100% to all whom God has chosen, although in the flow of time, there are those who have already been saved, those who are being saved, and those who have yet to be saved, but ALL of the Elect WILL BE SAVED. It is logical to see that there are those who are Elect by God from before the foundation of the world who are not, as of this moment in time, yet brought in to the Kingdom, but they will be. My point? Calvinism upholds the absolute Sovereignty of God over His Creation, and rightly gives God His due for never failing to fulfill ALL His Will, down to the smallest detail, 100% of the time.
Or are you going to tell me that it is the Christians of the world who are to blame for Christ not being able to save more? The offer stands. The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
The offer does stand, but Man is not able to take hold of it by himself, nor does he want to, given his sinful nature (Romans 1, 2 and 3). The offer is only part of the whole. God not only made it possible for man to be saved, He actually causes it to happen. Salvation is of God. Period. You really need to think about what that means. If Man could do any part of it himself, he would think more highly of himself than he ought, and try to take credit for it. That is inarguable, given man's fallen and depraved nature. Calvinism is true because God gets ALL the Glory, and Man cannot claim any for himself, because he did no part of it by himself, but whatever he did was first given to him by God, and God enabled him to do what he could not do, in order that Man could be what he could not and did not want to be.
I'm going to split my reply to your post into two parts, to avoid getting overly long, and to deal with the issues separately. This is a logical breaking point. More to follow....
If you really, truly believe that, how can you be anything but a Calvinist?
God is the creator of "everything that EVER WOULD BE." All you possess, think, feel, dream and desire is a gift from Him.
"Free will" as commonly understood is an illusion. And that fact is one of God's greatest gifts.
If He is truly Sovereign, He is and I think the doctrines of Calvin agree.
He is Truly Sovereign, no doubt about it.
then He has the right to demand of us that which He requires, He does but now I start to get a bit fuzzy here with Calvin. I don't think demand would be the correct word because it is God who makes or causes us to do that which He requires. We certainly won't do it on our own. Not in our nature.
No, demand is the right word. He is perfectly within His right to demand of us what he Wills, even if we are incapable of meeting those demands. Those demands are not just arbitrary demands, but are designed to do one thing: Teach us that we cannot meet His demands in our own power. Why? So that we will totally depend on Him. Thus, no flesh can glory in His presence.
(Isa 45:5)(Geneva Bible) I am the Lord and there is none other: there is no God besides me: I girded thee though thou hast not known me,
and we have the responsibility to obey, We do but Calvin would say that we can't obey unless God calls us and we can't refuse his calling so saying we have a responsibility is wrong. God has the responsibiblity to make us obey because we can't and wont do it on our own.
Whether or not we have the ability to obey does not negate our responsibility before Him. That is evidenced by the fact that sin passed to all men through the sin of Adam. God held Adam responsible, not only for obedience to that which God had commanded, but also to the consequences of disobedience. God does not have a responsibility to "make us obey", because implicit in that idea is the idea of obligation. To turn the Arminian argument of the nature of God's desire for man's love around, if God is obligated to make us obey, how do we know He truly loves us? No, God is not obligated to make us obey. Our ability to obey has been negated by the sin of our father, Adam. Therefore, we suffer the consequences of disobedience. Our disobedience does not negate or nullify God's right to still demand of us that which he Wills, for He is God.
or suffer the consequences. That is the choice we have but under Calvinism there are no consequnces. Either we are the elect and can not refuse the calling or we are unregenerate and these consequences are really just out fate or our predestination.
How do you say under Calvinism there are no consequences? Of course there are! This is the thing Arminians don't hear, and don't get! Unregenerate man freely chooses what he desires, always. The regenerated man freely chooses that which he desires, always. God is not forcing anyone to do anything. Man freely chooses his desire under both situations. The difference is that the desire changes. God regenerates the heart, and the desires of that heart are for Him. God doesn't have to force anyone to choose Him. He merely changes their hearts, and they freely choose what their old, stony, unregenerate heart rejected. It's so simple! And it does not in any way impinge on man's precious free will, which Arminians will come to blows over, defending against those who they perceive as trying to rob them of it. I will grant free will, and it still does not negate Calvinism, it reinforces it! Man freely chooses his fate, there is no coercion either way!
We do not have the right to pick and choose what parts of His Word we will obey and follow, and to set aside that which we find difficult, inconvenient, or offensive.....
Now THAT is an inarguable Truth. We must follow all of the Word, or none of it!
I would agree but with Calvinism those who are elect would not pick and choose and those unregenerate would never consider spiritual things so His Word and His will are of no import
Again, I believe you have a false view of Calvinism. Calvinists are not robots, only doing what they have been programmed to do. But it is true that the unregenerate will never consider spiritual things, not because they have not been programmed to do so, but because it is not in their nature to do so. Their nature is hostile to the word, and to spiritual things. Sins proceed from the heart. The Lust of the Flesh, the Lust of the Eye, and the Boastful Pride of Life (the sum total of all sin) reside in the heart.
(Jer 17:9)(KJV) The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?
He does not ask anything of us that he will not enable us to obey. Agreed and I believe Calvin would as well.
This is true for the Christian, most definitely.
He has provided not only the map, but the means to follow the map. That map is the ONLY one that will lead Home. All others lead to destruction. Agreed and I believe calvin would as well.
The map is the Word, and the means is Christ.
You responded earlier to a post quoting... "You need to hear the Gospel, realize you're a sinner, repent, and ask Jesus to come into your heart and make you a new creation in Him. Your theology (or lack thereof) marks you as someone who is lost and on his way to Hell unless you repent and receive the Gospel with all your heart."
What post are you referring to? You did not cite it in your reply, and you attribute it to me. It appears that you would attempt to trip me up with my own words, if that is, in fact, what they are. Actually, they are not that much different than Christ's own words, or those of Paul or Peter. It is a laying forth of conditions, the demands, if you will, of God regarding the reception of salvation. To the regenerated heart, a positive response will result, and salvation will ensue. To the unregenerate heart, rejection and hardness of heart will result, and ultimately condemnation. The preaching of the Gospel is unto the Elect a seal of Life, and unto the Lost, a seal of Death.
What good does hearing the Gospel do to the unregenerate?
It is a witness to their wickedness and sinful nature.
What does the realization of one's sinful nature do for the unregenerate?
It is a witness against them, so that they are without excuse.
What does repentance do for the unregenerate?
Not a thing, because there is no true repentance apart from regeneration.
Why would an unregenerate person ask Jesus to come into his heart and make a new creature in him?
An unregenerate man wouldn't. Such an idea would be foolishness to him. The call to do so stands as a witness against him. We see it every day. I once mocked the idea, before God regenerated my heart. I am ashamed of that, but God has forgiven me.
Unless God first regenerates the heart, man not only cannot be saved, he will not be saved, for he cannot do what is required: repent, believe, and receive Christ.
LOL those were the days my friend ...
Those threads were tough and hard hitting tis true..but who ever said spiritual warfare is easy:>)
I would like to add OP to the list of those that wore gloves lined with rocks ..God bless all of them
As my Nazarene pastor once said..foreknowledge=predestination.
Welcome to the swarm :>))
Consider the sacrifice provided by the High Priest when he entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement.
He would place two blood offerings on the Mercy Seat, between the angels of justice and righteousness. In His Holiness, whatever comes short of righteousness demands justice. The first blood offering was for the High Priest insuring he was atoned. The second offering was for the people.
Even when not yet atoned, the High Priest was able to make the atonement offering. He then was able to intercede and make the offering for the rest of the nation.
We are all (the world) able to take hold of the atonement of Christ by first having faith in Him, then that faith which is nonmeritorious in and of itself,..that faith is taken by the Holy Spirit and ALL salvation is made efficacious by God.
The Holy Spirit also makes the meaning of the Gospel clear or perspicuous to us and then it is up to the unregenerate man to consider the Gospel. When the unregenerate man first exercises faith, the Holy Spirit ministers at the moment of salvation and forms a new human spirit, hence regeneration for the purpose of imputing eternal life.
Reconciliation is the work of Christ on the cross which removed the barrier between God and man. Man's present state initially, is still unregenerate, until he steps over the line of faith, is regenerated and receives that same reconciliation.
This is the entire significance of faith. The unregenerate man doesn't yet have salvation, he stands condemned, separated, dead to God in the spirit. The unregenerate man doesn't understand the things of the spirit because the unregenerate man is composed of body and soul, without living spirit. However, within the soul of the unregenerate man, is the ability to think, comprehend and exercise faith.
That faith, when applied to the thoughts of God are then made valid by the Holy Spirit in an efficacious grace for salvation. The Holy Spirit then (simultaneous with that faith) creates the new human spirit in the man,...now the man is regenerate.
I suspect if God regenerated man prior to faith, there would be no significance in faith because belief in Him is more significant after regeneration. Faith may be held by the unregenerate. Then it is made by the Holy Spirit efficacious for salvation,...similar to finding the faith of Abraham before he made his sacrifice as being worthy of divine righteousness.
He will by no means ever permit to be lost,
Correct, once saved, the life is eternal,..we have a royal family and blessings in store for us in heaven,...no matter how heinous we behave after salvation.
But any believer who claims they do not sin after salvation is a liar. The following sin of the believer merely removes him from fellowship with perfect righteousness. Sin scars the soul. We return to Him by confessing those sins to Him as we now are our own priests and confess them in faith through the High Priest, Christ Jesus, and they are forgiven. At that point we have returned in fellowship with Him by His work.
Most Christians have fallen out of fellowship in probably any number of innocuous ways, but until they confess and repent their sins, they leave many blessings unclaimed in heaven or they may be given to others here on earth.
It appears nobdysfool is the type of guy who would hang around a strip joint, getting his glands all excited, realize he was sinning in the flesh and then stand in the doorway and invite God to 'Come on in! Have a good time along with us!'
Inviting Christ into one's heart is blasphemy. Returning to God, repenting (turning away from ) sin, allowing the Holy Spirit to find something worthy or righteousness, namely faith thereby allows His indwelling which provides a Shekinah Glory for the indwelling of Christ.
If somebody desires to be indwelt by Christ, all they need do is return to Him so He may return to them. Not the other way around of inviting Him into our depraved hearts.
What good does hearing the Gospel do to the unregenerate?
I makes the Gospel available to be understood by the unregenerate, setting up conditions for the call by the Father. If the unregenerate display faith in Him, then that faith is the beginning point for the unregenerate to return to God because the penalty of sin has already been paid, but out current state is still unregenerate.
Besides we still are to follow the Great Commission.
What does the realization of one's sinful nature do for the unregenerate?
The unregenerate doesn't have a living spirit, but the unregenerate does have a soul, a consciousness. They behave soulishly. They might become emotional, but emotion isn't what saves. The salvation comes from faith.
What does repentance do for the unregenerate?
When in faith thrugh Christ is begins the walk with Him. All sins in the past are forgiven upon salvation. Post salvation sins must be confessed and forgiven upon returning to fellowship to God whenever we step out of fellowship with Him.
Why would an unregenerate person ask Jesus to come into his heart and make a new creature in him?
Considering such a request is blasphemy, many might be tempted to ask that. Instead, they simply need to exercise faith for salvation provided by God.
If you're going to mention my name, at least have the cajones to ping me to the post.
What a liar you are, Cvengr! What a slanderer you are, impuning my character in such a fashion! You have stepped over the line here. There is no possible way anything I have ever written or said on this or any other forum could be interpreted as support for the veiled accusation you make against me, in the form of an "illustration". I challenge you to find such posts by me. You have constantly thrown subtle little digs at me, implying that my motives and understanding were less than pure, that I am, in your estimation, "out of fellowship" with God. I call others to witness that this is so.
I do not want my name associated with such insinuations, even as illustrations. An apology is in order here.
How can one "return to God" if he was never His in the first place? We're talking about the unsaved, here, Cvengr. Do try to keep up. Allowing the Holy Spirit to find something worthy or righteous in an unregenerate man? In an unregenerate man? In an UNREGENERATE MAN??? Are you serious? There is nothing, NOT ONE THING, of any value or worth, or possessing any righteousness whatsoever in the heart of an unregenerate man. He is depraved, he is a filthy sinner, completely bereft of anything acceptable to God! Even the faith which an unregenerate man possess is not acceptable to God, defiled and tainted as it is by the man's unregenerate nature and condition. Your statement is ludicrous, and a clearly not biblical.
You really do need to learn a few things, Cvengr. You aren't even making sense.
You are forgetting part of the formula: that God could have created the world differently thus "foreknowing" that different people would ultimately repent and believe.
If God could have created the world differently and the result was that he "foreknew" that different people would ultimately repent and believe, then ultimately God has chosen -based on the world he decided to create- who would be and who would not be saved.
God created this world in which he "foreknew" that I, FR's "Jean Chauvin" would repent and believe. However, he could have created the world differently in which he would "foreknow" that I, FR's "Jean Chauvin" would NOT repent and believe.
That "election" was based, not on "foreknowledge" as you contend, but on his good pleasure.
Jean
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.