T.U.L..I.P. and why I disagree with it

The term "Calvinism" is used by some people who do not hold Calvin's teaching on predestination and do not understand exactly what Calvin taught.

Dr. Loraine Boettner in his book, 'The reformed Doctrine of Predestination', says, "The Calvinistic system especially emphasized five distinct doctrines. These are technically known as 'The Five Points of Calvinism.' And they are the main pillars upon which the superstructure rests."

Dr. Boettner further says, "The five points may be more easily remembered if they are associated with the word T-U-L-I-P

T - Total Inability; U - Unconditional Election; L - Limited Atonement; I - Irresistible (efficacious) Grace; and P - Perseverance of the Saints." These are the five points of Calvinism.

I have heard people say, "I am a one-point Calvinist, a two-point Calvinist" and so on. Look at each one of these views as taught by Calvin and then see what the Bible has to say on each point. As with any Doctrine, it is no stronger than the foundation upon which it is built and it'll either be built upon sand or the Rock!

By total inability Calvin meant that a lost sinner could not repent and come to Jesus Christ and trust Him as Savior, unless he is foreordained to come to Christ. By total inability he meant that no man has the ability to come to Christ. And unless God overpowers him and gives him that ability, he will never come to Christ.

The Bible teaches total depravity. But that simply means that there is nothing good in man to earn or deserve salvation. The Bible says in Jeremiah 17:9,

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." While the Bible teaches the depravity of the human race, it no where teaches total inability. The Bible never hints that people are lost because they have no ability to come to Christ. The language of Jesus was (John 5:40),

"You will not come to me, that you might have life." Notice, it is not a matter of whether or not you CAN come to Christ; it is a matter of whether or not you WILL come to Him.

Jesus looked over Jerusalem and wept and said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem. . how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, AND YE WOULD NOT!" (Matt 23:37).

Here again notice, He did not say, "How often I would have gathered you together, but you COULD not." No. He said, "Ye WOULD not!" It was not a matter of whether they could; it was a matter of whether they would.

Rev. 22:17, the last invitation in the Bible says, "And the Spirit and the bride say, COME. And let him that hearth say, Come. And let him that is thirsty come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."

If it is true that no person has the ability to come to Christ, then why would Jesus say in John 5:40, "Ye will not come to me?" Why didn't He simply say, "You cannot come to me"?

Some Calvinists use John 6:44 in an effort to prove total inability. Here the Bible says, "No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him. . ." But the Bible makes it plain in John 12:32 that Christ will draw all men unto Himself, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth will draw ALL men unto me."

All men are drawn to Christ, but not all men will trust Christ as Savior. Every man will make his own decision to trust Christ or to reject Him. The Bible makes it clear that all men have light. (Jn 1:9) Rom. 1:19, 20 indicates that every sinner has been called through the creation about him. Romans 2:11-16 indicates that sinners are called through their conscience, even when they have not heard the gospel.

So in the final analysis, men GO to Hell, not because of their inability to come to Christ, but because they will not come to Him - "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."

The teaching that men, women and children are totally unable to come to Christ and trust Him as Savior is not a scriptural doctrine. The language itself is not scriptural. The foundation of this doctrine is very shaky when looked at in light of what the Scriptures say and not what some men have said.

By unconditional election Calvin meant that some are elected to go to Heaven, while others are elected to go to Hell, and that this election is unconditional. It is wholly on God's part and without condition. By unconditional election Calvin meant that God has already decided who will be saved and who will be lost, and the individual has absolutely nothing to do with it. He can only hope that God has elected him for Heaven and not for Hell.

This teaching so obviously disagrees with the oft-repeated invitations in the Bible to sinners to come to Christ and be saved that some readers will think that I have overstated the doctrine. So I will quote John Calvin in his "Institutes, Book III, chapter 23,"

"...Not all men are created with similar destiny but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say, he is predestined either to life or to death."

So Calvinism teaches that it is God's own choice that some people are to be damned forever. He never intended to save them. He foreordained them to go to Hell. And when He offers salvation in the Bible, He does not offer it to those who were foreordained to be damned. It is offered only to those who were foreordained to be saved.

This teaching insists that we need not try to win men to the Lord because men cannot be saved unless God has planned for them to be saved. And if God has planned for them to be eternally lost, they will not come to Christ.

There is the Bible doctrine of God's foreknowledge, predestination and election. Most knowledgeable Christians agree that God has His controlling hand on the affairs of men. They agree that according to the Bible, He selects individuals like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David as instruments to do certain things He has planned. Most Christians agree that God may choose a nation - particularly that He did choose Israel, through which He gave the law, the prophets, and eventually through whom the Savior Himself would come - and that there is a Bible doctrine that God foreknows all things.

God in His foreknowledge knows who will trust Jesus Christ as Savior, and He has predestined to see that they are justified and glorified. He will keep all those who trust Him and see that they are glorified. But the doctrine that God elected some men to Hell, that they were born to be damned by God's own choice, is a radical heresy not taught anywhere in the Bible.

In the booklet entitled TULIP by Vic Lockman, Lockman attempts to prove the five points of Calvinism. Under the point, Unconditional Election, he quotes Ephesians 1:4, but he only quotes the first part of the verse: "He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world." However, that is not the end of the verse. Mr. Lockman, like most Calvinists, stopped in the middle of the verse. The entire verse reads:

"According as he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love." The verse says nothing about being chosen for Heaven or Hell. It says we are chosen that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.

Under the same point, Unconditional Election, Mr. Lockman quotes John 15:16, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." Again, Mr. Lockman, like most Calvinists, stops in the middle of the verse. The entire verse reads: "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."

The verse says nothing about being chosen for Heaven or Hell. It says we are chosen to go and bring forth fruit, which simply means that every Christian is chosen to be a witness for Him and to practice soul winning. Proverbs 11:30 says,

"The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that wins souls is wise." Nowhere does the Bible teach that God wills for some to go to Heaven and wills for others to go to Hell. NO. The Bible teaches that God would have all men to be saved. 2 Pet. 3:9 says that He is

"not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. "I Tim. 2:4 says, "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." Those who teach that God would only have some to be saved, while He would have others to be lost are misrepresenting God and the Bible. Does God really predestinate some people to be saved and predestinate others to go to Hell, so that they have no free choice?

Absolutely not! Nobody is predestined to be saved, except as He chooses of his own free will to come to Christ and trust Him for salvation. And no one is predestined to go to Hell, except as he chooses of his own free will to reject Christ and refuses to trust Him as Savior. John 3:36 says, "He that believes on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on Him."

Nothing could be plainer. The man who goes to Heaven goes because he comes to Jesus Christ and trusts Him as Savior. And the man who goes to Hell does so because he refuses to come to Jesus Christ and will not trust Him as Savior.

By limited atonement, Calvin meant that Christ died only for the elect, for those He planned and ordained to go to Heaven: He did not die for those He planned and ordained to go to Hell. Again I say, such language is not in the Bible, and the doctrine wholly contradicts many, many plain Scriptures.

For instance, the Bible says in I John 2:2, "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

The teaching of Calvinism on Limited Atonement contradicts the express statement of Scripture. First Timothy 2:5-6 says, "The man Christ Jesus; Who gave Himself a ransom for all. . . ." The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Savior of the world. Jn 4:42 says, "and said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world."

Again, I John 4:14, "and we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world." The Scriptures make it plain that Jesus came to save the world. John 3:17 says, "For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved."

No man will ever look at Jesus and say, "You didn't want to be my Savior." No! No! Jesus wants to be the Savior of all men. As a matter of fact, I Timothy 4:10 says, "For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those who believe."

The Bible teaches that Christ bore the sins of all people. Is. 53:6 says, "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.: There are two "ALLS" in this verse. The first "ALL" speaks of the universal fact of sin -

"All we like sheep have gone astray." And the second "ALL" speaks of universal atonement - "and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." The "ALL" in the first part of Isaiah 53:6 covers the same crowd that the "ALL" in the last part of that verse covers. If we all went astray, then the iniquities of all were laid on Christ.

Not only did He bear the sins of us all, but the Bible plainly teaches that He died for the whole world. Look at I John 2:2,

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

If that isn't plain enough, the Bible says His death was for every man; (Hebrews 2:9)

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for EVERY MAN" .

Nothing could be plainer than the fact that Jesus Christ died for every man. First Timothy 2:5-6 says, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all. . . ."

Romans 8:32 states, "He that spared not His own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?"

Look at the statements - statement after statement: "that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man"; "Who gave himself a ransom for all"; "delivered him up for us all." John 3:16 has been called "the heart of the Bible." It has been called "the Bible in miniature." "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Jesus died for the whole world. He suffered Hell for every man who has ever lived or ever will live. And no man will look out of Hell and say, "I wanted to be saved, but Jesus did not die for me.

Some argue that if Jesus died for the whole world, the whole world would be saved. No. The death of Christ on the cross was sufficient for all, but it is efficient only to those who believe. The death of Jesus Christ on the cross made it possible for every man everywhere to be saved. but only those who believe that He died to pay their sin debt and who trust Him completely fro salvation will be saved.

Again I quote John 3:36, "He that believes on the Son hath everlasting life. . . ." Everybody is potentially saved, but everybody is not actually saved until he recognizes that he is a sinner, believes that Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay the sin debt, rose from the grave on the third day, and trust Him completely for salvation.

The atonement is not limited. It is as universal as sin. Romans 5:20 says, "But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Isaiah 53:6 states, "all we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

The fourth point of Calvinism is irresistible grace. By irresistible grace, John Calvin meant that God simply forces people to be saved. God elected some to be saved, and He let Jesus die for that elect group.

And now by irresistible grace, He forces those He elected, and those Jesus Christ died for to be saved.

The truth of the matter is, there is no such thing as irresistible grace. Nowhere in the Bible does the word "irresistible" appear before the word "grace." That terminology is simply not in the Bible. It is the philosophy of John Calvin, not a Bible doctrine. The word "irresistible" doesn't even sound right in front of the word "grace."

Grace means "God's unmerited favor." Grace is an attitude, not a power. If Calvin had talked about the irresistible drawing power of God, it would have made more sense. But instead, he represents grace as the irresistible act of God compelling a man to be saved who does not want to be saved, so that a man has no choice in the matter at all, except as God forcibly puts a choice in his mind. Calvinism teaches that man has no part in salvation, and cannot possibly cooperate with God in the matter. In no sense of the word and at no stage of the work does salvation depend upon the will or work of man or wait for the determination of his will.

Does the Bible say anything about irresistible grace? Absolutely not! The Scriptures show that men do resist and reject God. Prov.29:1 states, "He, that being often reproved hardens his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy." Notice the word "OFTEN" in this verse. If God only gave one opportunity to be saved, then man could not complain. But here the Bible says, "He, that being often reproved. . . ." This means the man was reproved over and over again. Not only was he reproved many times, but he was reproved often.

But the Bible says he "hardens his neck" and "shall suddenly be destroyed, and without remedy." That certainly doesn't sound like irresistible grace. The Bible teaches that a man can be reproved over and over again, and he can harden his neck against God, and as a result will be destroyed without remedy.

Again Proverbs 1:24-26 says, "Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would have none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear comes."

Here the Bible plainly says, "I have called, and ye have refused. . .but ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would have none of my reproof." That doesn't sound like irresistible grace. God calls, and men refuse. Is that irresistible? God stretches out His hand and no man regards it?

Is that irresistible grace? No. The Bible makes it plain that some men do reject Christ, and they refuse His call. John 5:40 says, "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." That verse plainly teaches that men can and do resist God and refuse to come to Him.

In Acts 7, we find Stephen preaching. He says in verse 51, "Ye stiff necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." To these Jewish leaders, Stephen said, "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost." So here were people; some of whom had seen Jesus and heard Him preach; others who had heard Peter at Pentecost; others who had heard Stephen and other Spirit-filled men preaching with great power. And what had they done? They were stiff necked and uncircumcised in their heart and ears. That is, they were stubborn and rebellious against God. The Bible plainly says, "They resisted the holy Ghost."

Notice the words of Stephen in verse 51, "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." Here the Bible teaches that not only were these Jewish leaders resisting the Holy ghost, but that their fathers before them had also resisted the Holy Spirit. Stephen says that all the way from Abraham, through the history of the Jewish nation, down to the time of Christ, unconverted Jews had resisted the Holy Spirit.

God offers salvation to all men. Titus 1:11 says, "For the grace of God that brings salvation hath appeared to all men." But man must make his own choice. He must either receive or reject Christ. John 1:12 says, "But as many as received Him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." When Jesus wept over Jerusalem, he said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

Here again the Bible clearly indicates that God would have gathered them together as a hen gathers her brood, but they would not. That certainly shows that they could reject and resist Christ. "I would, but ye would not" does not fit the teaching of irresistible grace. So people do resist the Holy Spirit. They do refuse to come to Christ. They do harden their necks. They do refuse when God calls.

That means that those who are not saved could have been saved. Those who rejected Christ could have accepted Him. God offers salvation to those who will have it, but does not force it upon anyone who doesn't want it.

The Bible teaches, and I believe in, the eternal security of the born-again believer. The man who has trusted Jesus Christ has ever- lasting life and will never perish. But the eternal security of the believer does not depend upon his perseverance.

I do not know a single Bible verse that says anything about the saints' persevering, but there are several Bible verses that mention the fact that the saints have been preserved. Perseverance is one thing. Preservation is another. No. The saints do not persevere; they are preserved.

The Bible states in Jude 1, "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ. . . ."

First Thessalonians 5:23 says, "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly: and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

The Bible makes it plain that the believer is kept. He does not keep himself. First Peter 1:4-5 states: "To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fades not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

The Bible says in John 10:27-29: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life: and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." Now that doesn't sound like the PERSEVERANCE of the sheep or the saints. Here the sheep are in the Father's hand, and they are safe - not because they persevere, but because they are in the Father's hand.

Charles Spurgeon once said, "I do not believe in the PERSEVERANCE of the saints. I believe in the PERSEVERANCE of the Savior." To be sure, the Bible teaches the eternal security of the believer. But the believer's security has nothing to do with his persevering. We are secure because we are kept by God. We are held in the Father's hand. And according to Ephesians 4:30, we have been sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption.

There is a belief that if one does not teach universal salvation, he must either be a Calvinist or an Arminian. In his book, "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Dr. Loraine Boettner says on page 47, "There are really only three systems which claim to set forth the way of salvation through Christ [And he names them]: "(1) Universalism, that all will be saved. (2) Arminianism, which holds that Christ died equally and indiscriminately for every individual. . ., that saving grace is not necessarily permanent, but those who are loved of God, ransomed by by God, and born of the Holy Spirit may (let God wish and strive ever so much to the contrary) throw away all and perish eternally; and, (3) Calvinism." He continues, "Only two are held by Christians." That is Calvin's position and Arminius' position."

Calvinists would like to make people believe that if one does not teach universal salvation, he must either be a Calvinist or an Arminian. And since the Arminian position does such violence to the grace of God, many preferred to call themselves Calvinists. But a person doesn't have to take either position.

I am neither Arminian nor Calvinist. I believe in salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ. I believe in the eternal security of the believer. I believe that Jesus Christ died for all men, and I believe what the Bible says,

"That whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." But I disagree with all five points of Calvinism as John Calvin taught it. In conclusion, let me say that Calvin and those who followed him claimed to believe and follow the Bible. They claimed to find at least a germ of the Calvinist doctrine in the Scriptures. But a careful student will find that again and again they go beyond the Scripture, and that Calvinism is a philosophy developed by man and depending on fallible logic and frail, human reasoning, with the perversion of some Scriptures, the misuse of others, and the total ignoring of many clear Scriptures. Calvin did teach many wonderful, true doctrines of Scripture.

It is true that God foreknows everything that will happen in the world. It is true that God definitely ordained and determined some events ahead of time and selected some individuals for His purposes.

It is certain that people are saved by grace, and are kept by the power of God. That far Calvinists may well prove their doctrines by Scriptures. but beyond that, Calvinism goes into a realm of human philosophy.

It is not a Bible doctrine, but a system of human philosophy, especially appealing to the scholarly intellect, the self-sufficient and proud mind. Brilliant, philosophical, scholarly preachers are apt to be misled on this matter more than the humble-hearted, Bible-believing Christian.

"First, 'King James Believers' do not run to the Greek and are unconcerned with what it says. We have the English!"

Since when were you concerned with the actuall words in the KJV?

"Second, the word 'foreordained' is right, because context and usage determines a words meaning not etymology."

I didn't know I was trying to show a history of how this word was developed. I was simply trying to give a biblical definition of the word, by showing where else it has been used in scripture as well as where the root words are used in scripture. I personally don't give a rip of its historical developement.

So, are you admitting it that a legitimate definition of the word "foreknow" is "foreordain"??? Are you actually admitting this now????

Oh, and lest I forget, it was you who denied that 1 Peter 1:20 used the word "foreknow" and you accused me of a lie by claiming such. I'm still waitiing for the apologie.

"I guess they should have checked Strongs first!"

That the greek interlinear I am utilizing numerically codes the words to Strong's doesn't mean I'm using Strong's. I just was trying to make it simpler for you to reference the word. I was just being considerate.

Since this definition works perfectly with calvinistic predestination, I would claim these translators are correct. I was simply wondering if you thought the KJV translators goofed since it was you who accused me of a lie when I claimed 1 Peter 1:20 uses the word "foreknew" (proginosko).

"It must be nice to run to Strongs and think you actually know Greek!"

As I aready mentioned, I haven't yet pulled out my Strong's. And I never claimed to be an expert in Greek. That's why we have experts who form Greek/English Interlinears with references, concordances and dictionaries so we can see when "experts" such as yourself are trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

The interesting thing is, FTD. That up until now, you would not grant that "foreknow" in anyway means anything other than 'foreknowing the decisions of others'. But now, here in black and white, your guys translate that very same word as "foreordained". Now that you must admit the possibility that the calvinisist could be correct in their definition, it now comes down to "context" which is precisely what I was trying to show with my word study on "proginosko" and "ginosko".

"We always have a choice to eat or not to eat, even if it means death."

FTD, foreseeing this response, I picked my words very carefully. I never said we didn't have the freedom to choose to eat of not to eat.

"After all, it is necessary to eat. We don't have a choice in the matter, we need nourishment in order to survive. It is not something we can do without and expect to survive."

The issue, as is with the text you used, is nourishment. We have no choice but to eat for nourishment.

"Then why did you make reference to it like it meant something? You went on a long tirade about our 'relationship' of God having to do with 'to know'"

Siggggghhhhh (quite literally, I might add).......again, FTD. The literal definition of "proginosko" is "to know before". Since God "pre-knew" us before the creation, wouldn't it make sense to refer to Scripture where it speaks of God "knowing" us in the present? Wouldn't that help in understanding what "pre-knowing" means?

"See what a liar you are. After telling me about 'pro' and 'ginosko' you start giving me nonsense about 'ginosko'-to know!"

Please re-read this and see how stupid this 'complaint' sounds. Take your time.

"It also states in John 2;23-24 that Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men Did He have a personal relationship with all of them?"

God has a "relationship" with all men. He is a personal and active God. It just so happens that the relationship he has with some is benificial while the relationship he has with others is not.

"The word is still'foreknow'"

Yes, are you trying to tell me that Christ did not "foreknow" these men before creation as he now "knows" them in John 2: 23-24?

"He also 'foreknew' the nation of Israel (Rom.11:1-2) is all of Israel saved or only the remnant? (Rom. 11:5) Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith but as it were by the works of the law..(Rom.9:32)"

I'll let Romans 11:2 answer that:

"God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew"

"The word [love] nevertheless was there."

Siggghhhhh (again, quite literally).....The fact a word is used in no way allows you to use out of context.

"The 'point'is that you are trying to smuggle in the idea that 'to know' means 'to love', hence, who God foreloved He predestinated"

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. My idea is to use the word "to know" as the Bible uses it in John 10:14,15. To accuse me of defining this as mere "love" is a bit elementary. Does it involve love? Of course. But, quite obviously, there is far more to it.

"Not of 'foreknown' you didn't. You showed me some passages that you figured would replace the concept of preknowledge."

Oh yes I did! 1 Peter 1:20...remember? The "inspired" translators of the "perfect" KJV define it as "foreordained", so therefore, that must be a possible definition.

"I do have some 'issues' with those who twist scripture to make it mean what they want it to mean!"

Except, of course, when you do such.

"So what is that 'relationship; that is the same as that between the Son and the Father?"

Perhaps it is easier to define what it is not. It is not a mere knowledge of his activities -the definition you so need "foreknowledge" to mean and only mean.

"Ofcourse, you not saying that God loves us, no Calvinist likes to even mention the word Love with God! They take it to be a vice not a virtue"

Huh????????????

"I do not claim that the 'translators' were inspired, only their work (2Tim.3:16)"

My apologies, I thought that was part of the KJOnly view. I know other KJOnlyists who do indeed believe such.

"Yes, that is right, God had a master plan in which He knew what evil men would do to His sone. That is why both words are mentioned, determinate council (permissive will) and foreknowledge,(knowing what those who would condemn Him would do) Peter is explains that even though the Jews have killed their Messiah, God knew they would do it and still has a plan for them if they would repent (Acts.3:13-19)The word still refers to a PRIOR KNOWLEDGE"

Talk about twisting the words of scripture! The determinate council is now defined as mere "permissive will". I take it, your position is that God only "permitted" the crucifixion of Christ. It was not his direct will that this happen?

Talk about twisting scripture and redefining words!!! My friend, "determined council" is not mere permissive will, but actual direct will. God did not "let" Christ be crucified. God determined that Christ be crucified.

"He foreknows those who would be 'conformed to Image of His Son', but no one is 'foreknown' of God until they first believe

"But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God (Gal.4:9)"

I'm confused here, FTD. I just go blasted by you for talking about "knowing" when the word was "foreknowing". Why do you get to do this, and I don't?????

I didn't ask you to tell me what you think Romans 8:29 is saying. I asked you what does Romans 8:29 say that God "foreknows"? It's not too difficult. Just look at the words and don't add anything to them.

Does Romans 8:29 say that God foreknows men or does God only foreknow "mens actions". If you answer the latter, I will then ask where the word "actions" is found in that text.

I'm confused here. Maybe you can help me out as to your definition of the word "foreknow".

Do you mean, as you have previously posited that "foreknow" means "knowing the choices we freely will make." or does foreknow mean God knows "those who would believe in Christ"

All I am looking for is a simple definition of "foreknow".

Does "foreknow" mean that God, in general, knows all the decisions men make?

Or does "foreknow" mean that God knows only of the decisions of those who would choose him?

"It[definition] was as much in the Bible as yours was! It gave the Greek just like you did! It gave the Scripture references that the word was connected to."

No, you simply quoted what some guy thinks 'foreknow' means. All I did was go to the root words, acknowledge that there are several possible literal definitions of the root words. I then went to where scripture uses these root words in a very similar fashion to the word in question. I then ruled out the possibility that "foreknowledge" is merely God's recognition before hand of men's actions. This is called interpreting scripture with scripture.

"I couldn't find your Strong definition anywhere either in the King James! I read the English, so where did your 'Greek' ginosoko come from? Not the King James English"

Again, I didn't use strong's. The interlinear I used was the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (Baker, Grand Rapids, 1981).

"Yea, and they got it right there and they got it right in Rom.8:29 and 1Pet.1:2 when they translated it as foreknow"

We are getting somewhere, at least you now admit "foreknow" can mean "foreordain".

If you were truly interested in searching what the scriptures say, I would expect you then, to look at the words of Romans 8, as one example (it simply says "For whom he did foreknow" not "For whom he did foreknow would someday choose him.", and try not to add anything as you insist on doing.

As a recap, I'd like an apology for you stating that I lied when I said 1 Peter 1:20 contains the word proginosko/foreknow.

I'd also like you to tell me specifically what Romans 8:29 says God "foreknows" -men's thoughts and actions or simply men.

I'd also like you to give me a literal basic definition of "foreknow/foreknowledge"

Jean

First, let me state at the outset when you post to me you make it a reasonsible length, I do not have all day to run through a single post

First, 'King James Believers' do not run to the Greek and are unconcerned with what it says. We have the English!" Since when were you concerned with the actuall words in the KJV?

Meaning???

"Second, the word 'foreordained' is right, because context and usage determines a words meaning not etymology." I didn't know I was trying to show a history of how this word was developed.

By going to the 'Greek'cognates you were attempting to use the words etymology as the criteria, not the English word itself.

I was simply trying to give a biblical definition of the word, by showing where else it has been used in scripture as well as where the root words are used in scripture. I personally don't give a rip of its historical developement.

After saying that you were not concerned about 'ginosko' you went on a tirade about it! The 'prefix' makes a difference. Morover, even 'knowledge' was not consistency translated they way that you said it was (intimate knowledge)

"Now, the King James is not the only one to translate it that way, so did Tyndale ( a Calvinist) and the (Reformed) Geneva (Ordained). Neither went to your definition. Even the NIV has 'chosen' and the NKJ has 'foreordained'." So, are you admitting it that a legitimate definition of the word "foreknow" is "foreordain"??? Are you actually admitting this now????

What is there to admit, in that passage it is forordain, in the others it is foreknow, whatever the Greek word is makes no difference, in English it is what the passage says! Both Tyndale and Geneva also translated Rom.8:29 as 'Foreknow'.

Oh, and lest I forget, it was you who denied that 1 Peter 1:20 used the word "foreknow" and you accused me of a lie by claiming such. I'm still waitiing for the apologie.

The King James reads 'forordained', what are you talking about?

"I guess they should have checked Strongs first!" That the greek interlinear I am utilizing numerically codes the words to Strong's doesn't mean I'm using Strong's. I just was trying to make it simpler for you to reference the word. I was just being considerate.

I have no idea what you are talking about. If you going to post to me past conversations, please show what I am saying and what you are saying!

"Do you really think you are as smart as you think you sound?. What is is about Calvinists that give them the idea that they actually know something? I have not yet seen it! The KJ only 'goofed' if Tyndale and the Geneva did also!" Since this definition works perfectly with calvinistic predestination, I would claim these translators are correct. I was simply wondering if you thought the KJV translators goofed since it was you who accused me of a lie when I claimed 1 Peter 1:20 uses the word "foreknew" (proginosko).

It didn't use the word 'foreknew' it used the English word Forordain! Just because it is the same Greek word means nothing! That is not what it says in the English, unless you are now making up your own translation?

"It must be nice to run to Strongs and think you actually know Greek!" As I aready mentioned, I haven't yet pulled out my Strong's. And I never claimed to be an expert in Greek. That's why we have experts who form Greek/English Interlinears with references, concordances and dictionaries so we can see when "experts" such as yourself are trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

No, that is why we have a Bible in English You went to the 'Greek' in 1Pet.1:20 claiming it said 'foreknow' it doesn't it says, 'Forordain' in English, no matter what the Greek word is.

That same Greek word is used in Acts.2:23

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowlege of God

Even Calvin recognized that this is referring to prior knowledge-context determines meaning.

The interesting thing is, FTD. That up until now, you would not grant that "foreknow" in anyway means anything other than 'foreknowing the decisions of others'.

Foreknowledge means God knowing everything that is going to happen. Where did I say that it only refers to the actions the decisions of others?!

But now, here in black and white, your guys translate that very same word as "foreordained". Now that you must admit the possibility that the calvinisist could be correct in their definition, it now comes down to "context" which is precisely what I was trying to show with my word study on "proginosko" and "ginosko".

No, I do not grant it, because the English reads 'foreknow' not 'forordained' just as the NAS is wrong for translating 1Pet.1:20 as 'foreknow'!

Since "prginosko" means -literally- "to know before", and since Romans 8:29 testifies that this "foreknowing" takes place before creation, I simply referenced in the Bible where we see God "knowing" us now in the present to let that shed light and context on "foreknowing" in Romans 8:29. "We always have a choice to eat or not to eat, even if it means death." FTD, foreseeing this response, I picked my words very carefully. I never said we didn't have the freedom to choose to eat of not to eat. "After all, it is necessary to eat. We don't have a choice in the matter, we need nourishment in order to survive. It is not something we can do without and expect to survive." The issue, as is with the text you used, is nourishment. We have no choice but to eat for nourishment.

Well, you did not choose your word carefully enough. It is not necessary to eat if one wants to die. You say we need nourishment, not if we wish to die we don't. You say, 'is not something we can do with and expect to survive' what if we do not expect to survive?

"Then why did you make reference to it like it meant something? You went on a long tirade about our 'relationship' of God having to do with 'to know'" Siggggghhhhh (quite literally, I might add).......again, FTD. The literal definition of "proginosko" is "to know before". Since God "pre-knew" us before the creation, wouldn't it make sense to refer to Scripture where it speaks of God "knowing" us in the present? Wouldn't that help in understanding what "pre-knowing" means?

I know what pre-knowing means, it means knowing something before something else!

"See what a liar you are. After telling me about 'pro' and 'ginosko' you start giving me nonsense about 'ginosko'-to know!" Please re-read this and see how stupid this 'complaint' sounds. Take your time.

Well, that took a moment, so lets move on.

"It also states in John 2;23-24 that Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men Did He have a personal relationship with all of them?" God has a "relationship" with all men. He is a personal and active God. It just so happens that the relationship he has with some is benificial while the relationship he has with others is not. "The word is still'foreknow'" Yes, are you trying to tell me that Christ did not "foreknow" these men before creation as he now "knows" them in John 2: 23-24?

He did not have a personal relationship with them as you tried to make the meaning of the word in your first post.

Is everyone in Israel saved? That is speaking of the nation, who is saved in that nation, a remnant (Rom.11:6)

No more really needs to be said. If "his people" are now a remnant of what it was, according to this passage they are still his people. It really makes no differnce as to their number. His sheep are His sheep. "The word [love] nevertheless was there." Siggghhhhh (again, quite literally).....The fact a word is used in no way allows you to use out of context.

I have no idea what you are talking about, so save the Sigggghhhh

"The 'point'is that you are trying to smuggle in the idea that 'to know' means 'to love', hence, who God foreloved He predestinated" Again, you are putting words in my mouth. My idea is to use the word "to know" as the Bible uses it in John 10:14,15. To accuse me of defining this as mere "love" is a bit elementary. Does it involve love? Of course. But, quite obviously, there is far more to it.

I am not putting words in your mouth. You spoke of the intimate relationship that existed between the Father and Son and how that knowledge was the same. Now, what is the basis of that relationship (Jn.17). Moreover, you used the word yourself in one of the passages you cited.

"Not of 'foreknown' you didn't. You showed me some passages that you figured would replace the concept of preknowledge." Oh yes I did! 1 Peter 1:20...remember? The "inspired" translators of the "perfect" KJV define it as "foreordained", so therefore, that must be a possible definition.

Now, we are going in circles. One, save the comments about the inspired translators. Two, the word in that context is forordained. In Acts. 2:23 (according to Calvin himself) it is 'foreknow-to know something before something else!

"I do have some 'issues' with those who twist scripture to make it mean what they want it to mean!" Except, of course, when you do such.

I haven't, I want to stay with what the English says, not what you guys think the Greek says.

"So what is that 'relationship; that is the same as that between the Son and the Father?" Perhaps it is easier to define what it is not.

How, no, you can't do that! I was hammered when I gave an answer and did not say what I stood for as well as against.

It is not a mere knowledge of his activities -the definition you so need "foreknowledge" to mean and only mean.

So, what is it? That says nothing. But then again you guys are good at that.

"Ofcourse, you not saying that God loves us, no Calvinist likes to even mention the word Love with God! They take it to be a vice not a virtue" Huh????????????

No, huh about it. Calvinist avoid associating the word Love with God like it was a vice not a virtue.

"I do not claim that the 'translators' were inspired, only their work (2Tim.3:16)" My apologies, I thought that was part of the KJOnly view. I know other KJOnlyists who do indeed believe such. "Yes, that is right, God had a master plan in which He knew what evil men would do to His sone. That is why both words are mentioned, determinate council (permissive will) and foreknowledge,(knowing what those who would condemn Him would do) Peter is explains that even though the Jews have killed their Messiah, God knew they would do it and still has a plan for them if they would repent (Acts.3:13-19)The word still refers to a PRIOR KNOWLEDGE" Talk about twisting the words of scripture! The determinate council is now defined as mere "permissive will". I take it, your position is that God only "permitted" the crucifixion of Christ. It was not his direct will that this happen?

Ofcourse it was not his direct will! God did not want Lucifer to sin (but he did), God did not want Adam to sin (but he did). None of those things should have happened, they were permitted to happen so God could accomplish His overall Plan. Thus, the Cross was not what God would have had happen had His creatures not rejected Him.

No, it is the Plan that God decided would happen, based on His Foreknowledge of the actions of those involved.

"He foreknows those who would be 'conformed to Image of His Son', but no one is 'foreknown' of God until they first believe "But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God (Gal.4:9)" I'm confused here, FTD. I just go blasted by you for talking about "knowing" when the word was "foreknowing". Why do you get to do this, and I don't?????

This was in answer to the question of what is preknown by God. It is those who have believed and are in Christ.

"God 'foreknows'those who would believe in Christ which results in the believer being predestinated and being chosen in him since the foundation of the world(Eph.1:4) Since it is God's will that all men be saved (1Tim.2:4) it is faith that God sees and thus, to predestinate those who would freely believe the Gospel of salvation." I didn't ask you to tell me what you think Romans 8:29 is saying. I asked you what does Romans 8:29 say that God "foreknows"? It's not too difficult. Just look at the words and don't add anything to them.

Just because you cannot understand them that is not my problem! The believer is not known by God until he is in Christ, then he is 'foreknown' and then predestinated as being part of the Church and co-heir to Christ. Rom 8:29 is not a salvation passage but a election to privlege passage (being conformed to the image of the Son)

Does Romans 8:29 say that God foreknows men or does God only foreknow "mens actions". If you answer the latter, I will then ask where the word "actions" is found in that text.

He foreknows men, who are in Christ These are those (in this Church age) that will be conformed to the image of His Son and are co-heirs with Christ.

I'm confused here. Maybe you can help me out as to your definition of the word "foreknow". Do you mean, as you have previously posited that "foreknow" means "knowing the choices we freely will make." or does foreknow mean God knows "those who would believe in Christ" All I am looking for is a simple definition of "foreknow". Does "foreknow" mean that God, in general, knows all the decisions men make? Or does "foreknow" mean that God knows only of the decisions of those who would choose him? "It[definition] was as much in the Bible as yours was! It gave the Greek just like you did! It gave the Scripture references that the word was connected to." No, you simply quoted what some guy thinks 'foreknow' means. All I did was go to the root words, acknowledge that there are several possible literal definitions of the root words. I then went to where scripture uses these root words in a very similar fashion to the word in question. I then ruled out the possibility that "foreknowledge" is merely God's recognition before hand of men's actions. This is called interpreting scripture with scripture. "I couldn't find your Strong definition anywhere either in the King James! I read the English, so where did your 'Greek' ginosoko come from? Not the King James English" Again, I didn't use strong's. The interlinear I used was the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (Baker, Grand Rapids, 1981).

Who cares what you used, it was not the English!

"Yea, and they got it right there and they got it right in Rom.8:29 and 1Pet.1:2 when they translated it as foreknow" We are getting somewhere, at least you now admit "foreknow" can mean "foreordain".

No, the words are two different words, you know how I can tell, they are spelled differently!

"As for my 'agenda'it is to search what the Scriptures really say about these issues, not accept what Calvinists say, espically those who think they can look at a Strongs, then pretend they know the 'Greek' and can twist a scripture to fit whatever doctrine they want.(2Pet.3:16) But this is a common occurance with the Calvinists on these threads. Ofcourse, Calvin did it, so why not his followers!" If you were truly interested in searching what the scriptures say, I would expect you then, to look at the words of Romans 8, as one example (it simply says "For whom he did foreknow" not "For whom he did foreknow would someday choose him.", and try not to add anything as you insist on doing.

That is right, but no one is foreknown until they are in Christ, and no one gets into Christ until they believe in Christ.

As a recap, I'd like an apology for you stating that I lied when I said 1 Peter 1:20 contains the word proginosko/foreknow.

No, because the word isn't foreknow it is forordination. In fact, I stated that the NAS had translated the word incorrectly 'foreknown'.

I'd also like you to tell me specifically what Romans 8:29 says God "foreknows" -men's thoughts and actions or simply men. I'd also like you to give me a literal basic definition of "foreknow/foreknowledge"

From God's foreknowledge fo a free action, on may infer only that that action will occur, not that it must occur. The agent performing the action has the power to refrain, and were the agent to do so, God's foreknowledge would have been different. Agents cannot bring about both that God foreknows their action and that they do not preform the action, but this no limitiation of their freedom. They are free either to act or to refrain, and whichever they choose, God will have foreknown. For God's knowldge, though chronology prior to the action, is logically posterior to the action and determined by it. Therefore, divine foreknowledge and human freedom are not mutually exclusive (Willaim Land Craig, cited in The Other Side of Calvinism, L.Vance.p.391-2)

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.