Another Question for the Arminian

[XrzrX]

If you can show how omnipotent omniscient God can logically know all things before creating whatever brought those things about, without meaning to, INTENTIONALLY, please! have at it.

If God knew ahead or not, he intended it, and did what it took to accomplish it. Therefore, what he knew, he purposely caused. Whatever God does, he KNOWS intimately in every detail WITH INTENTION. You complain that in 11:2 the same word means something else. What makes you think it means something else? God intended them to do what he caused them to do, if in no other way, by creating the world, did he not? Why not?

Demonstrate how God can make something he did not intend. Or demonstrate that what comes to pass does so by other means, either by "plain reading" of Scripture without bias, or by logic.

Do me a favor, tell me how God can have "always been". How can anything, or anyone not have a beginning?

 

[Carbon]

Do me a favor, tell me how God can have "always been". How can anything, or anyone not have a beginning?

What a silly question.

 

[XrzrX]

What a silly question.

I know, isn't it!? *Out of curiosity, can you answer it?

 

[Arial]

Chat gpt? You know it's logo is the 'star of David' split and one side reversed? Just an interesting tidbit, but yeah, that's "a" interpretation of proginosko.. yet, he uses the same exact word in 11:2 to simply mean 'those He knew before". You guys handle this word like Dispys handle "pleroma" in the same chapters.. where it has consistent meaning all through the book, and somehow one instance 'miraculously' has a different definition to fit a doctrine. Doesn't fly for me, regardless of what 'Chat gtp' thinks.. or um, doesn't "think".. wait, does it think?!

Where would you get your information from if you wanted to check the contextual meanings of the Greek words that were used? Do you ever get information about anything from using search engines on the internet? Why people do that themselves and then undermine an entire post and/or doctrine because the information was copy/pasted from ChatGPT or somewhere else is frankly lame.

But hey, you can look it up yourself in Strongs. It will say the same thing. ChatGPT is not thinking and manufacturing answers on its own. It is accessing billions of resources in a matter of seconds and compiling an answer.

In this session with Chat I simply started by asking them to give me the grammatical breakdown of the Greek in that passage. What I posted is what they gave. It went on to say this:

• All verbs are aorist active indicative, 3rd person singular — indicating completed, decisive acts by God.
• The structure is deliberately parallel and emphasizes divine initiative: each group referred to is carried into the next by God's action.
• οὓς…τούτους: This structure (relative + demonstrative pronoun) creates a tightly linked logical sequence — none are lost in transition.

• Not simply foreseeing faith or human decisions.
• The verb προγινώσκω is understood as relational and elective — "those whom He foreknew" = those He set His love on beforehand.
• Supported by the use of γινώσκω in both OT and NT for covenantal
• the effectual call — the internal work of the Spirit drawing the elect to faith.
• Everyone predestined is called effectually — no drop-off occurs in the sequence.
• knowledge (cf. Amos 3:2; John 10:14).

Then I asked it to give me the Arminian view of foreknowledge. Which it did.

Then I asked ifπρογινώσκω (foreknew) is ever used in Scripture in the way Arminanists use it? The answer:


The Arminian interpretation of προγινώσκω (to foreknow) as mere foresight of future choices — particularly of human faith — is not directly supported by how the word is used elsewhere in Scripture. Let's examine the biblical data:

“God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew (προέγνω).”

• Here, Paul refers to Israel, God's covenant people.
• Most interpreters, including many Arminians, acknowledge that this is not foresight of faith, but rather God’s prior choosing or relati
• Parallels with Amos 3:2
  
  

  “You only have I known of all the families of the earth…”
  This kind of “knowing” is covenantal and relational, not informational.

• This kind of "knowing" is covenantal and relational, not informational.

1 Peter 1:20​

“He (Christ) was foreknown (προεγνωσμένου) before the foundation of the world…”

• Refers to Jesus Christ, not human choices.
• It cannot mean “God foresaw what Jesus would do,” but rather, Jesus was appointed or foreordained in God's eternal plan.
• Clearly shows προγινώσκω involving purposeful intention, not just passive knowledge.

3. Acts 26:5​

“They have known (προγινώσκοντές) me for a long time…”

• One of the rare cases where it does simply mean foreknowledge in time, but it is humans speaking of other humans, not God of people.
• This is not theological or salvific context.

So is there any case where it means what Arminians claim?​

No.
There is no unambiguous case where when God is the subject, clearly means foresight of human faith or decisions.

• Arminians assume that’s the meaning in Romans 8:29, but it's not derived from the way the word is used elsewhere.
• The Reformed argument is that the grammar and biblical usage overwhelmingly suggest foreloving or choosing in advance, not passive observation. (End of ChatGPT)

---

So, don't be so dismissive. Instead show where προγινώσκω, is used as foreseeing one's choices when it is in relation to God in the Scripture.

 

[XrzrX]

Where would you get your information from if you wanted to check the contextual meanings of the Greek words that were used? Do you ever get information about anything from using search engines on the internet? Why people do that themselves and then undermine an entire post and/or doctrine because the information was copy/pasted from ChatGPT or somewhere else is frankly lame.

But hey, you can look it up yourself in Strongs. It will say the same thing. ChatGPT is not thinking and manufacturing answers on its own. It is accessing billions of resources in a matter of seconds and compiling an answer.

In this session with Chat I simply started by asking them to give me the grammatical breakdown of the Greek in that passage. What I posted is what they gave. It went on to say this:

• All verbs are aorist active indicative, 3rd person singular — indicating completed, decisive acts by God.
• The structure is deliberately parallel and emphasizes divine initiative: each group referred to is carried into the next by God's action.
• οὓς…τούτους: This structure (relative + demonstrative pronoun) creates a tightly linked logical sequence — none are lost in transition.
• Not simply foreseeing faith or human decisions.
• The verb προγινώσκω is understood as relational and elective — "those whom He foreknew" = those He set His love on beforehand.
• Supported by the use of γινώσκω in both OT and NT for covenantal
• the effectual call — the internal work of the Spirit drawing the elect to faith.
• Everyone predestined is called effectually — no drop-off occurs in the sequence.
• knowledge (cf. Amos 3:2; John 10:14).

Then I asked it to give me the Arminian view of foreknowledge. Which it did.

Then I asked ifπρογινώσκω (foreknew) is ever used in Scripture in the way Arminanists use it? The answer:


The Arminian interpretation of προγινώσκω (to foreknow) as mere foresight of future choices — particularly of human faith — is not directly supported by how the word is used elsewhere in Scripture. Let's examine the biblical data:

• Here, Paul refers to Israel, God's covenant people.
• Most interpreters, including many Arminians, acknowledge that this is not foresight of faith, but rather God’s prior choosing or relati
• Parallels with Amos 3:2
  
  

1 Peter 1:20​

• Refers to Jesus Christ, not human choices.
• It cannot mean “God foresaw what Jesus would do,” but rather, Jesus was appointed or foreordained in God's eternal plan.
• Clearly shows προγινώσκω involving purposeful intention, not just passive knowledge.

3. Acts 26:5​

• One of the rare cases where it does simply mean foreknowledge in time, but it is humans speaking of other humans, not God of people.
• This is not theological or salvific context.

So is there any case where it means what Arminians claim?​

No.
There is no unambiguous case where when God is the subject, clearly means foresight of human faith or decisions.

• Arminians assume that’s the meaning in Romans 8:29, but it's not derived from the way the word is used elsewhere.
• The Reformed argument is that the grammar and biblical usage overwhelmingly suggest foreloving or choosing in advance, not passive observation. (End of ChatGPT)

---

So, don't be so dismissive. Instead show where προγινώσκω, is used as foreseeing one's choices when it is in relation to God in the Scripture.

Not being completely dismissive, just wary. I've never used Chat gtp once ever.. and yes, I look up things myself (not Strongs if it can be helped) but yeah, I'm not aware of an implication of "choosing" in that verse, but agree it's "people He knew before". Whether you apply 'foresight' to the passage or not, the root of the debate does center on 'foresight', and an implied culpability of "evil". And the deflection is telling because when backed into a corner, every Calvinist finally breaks down and admits to the logical conclusion of 'meticulous determinism'. And again, they are the Exact arguments atheists use.. which is so bizarre, and frankly suspicious. It always makes you wonder, "is this person like an undercover atheist?" because the symmetry is beyond 'coincidental'. THAT alone, should be a red flag. When your philosophical defenses and challenges literally mirror the enemies of God.. something is awry.

 

[Carbon]

I know, isn't it!?

Yes, it is.

 

[XrzrX]

Yes, it is.

The point of it being, although yes, Logic" has a place.. and we certainly aren't called to "be illogical" ("Come, let us reason together" <-- another nugget for Calvinists) it's a stretch to apply 'logic' to the supernatural. The point is, neither you or anyone can "explain" how God has no beginning, you can attempt "no end", it's more approachable.. but "no beginning" isn't even a possibility, literally by Any stretch of the imagination. Yet, the bible says He is.. so He is.

 

[Carbon]

The point of it being, although yes, Logic" has a place.. and we certainly aren't called to "be illogical" ("Come, let us reason together" <-- another nugget for Calvinists) it's a stretch to apply 'logic' to the supernatural. The point is, neither you or anyone can "explain" how God has no beginning, you can attempt "no end", it's more approachable.. but "no beginning" isn't even a possibility, literally by Any stretch of the imagination. Yet, the bible says He is.. so He is.

Now that’s not silly.

 

[John Bauer]

You are trapped in a syllogistic circle.

I know what a syllogism is, and I know what arguing in a circle is, but I don't know what a "syllogistic circle" is supposed to be. That is not a standard term in logic.

If by "syllogistic circle" you mean that my premises and conclusions are locked in a kind of self-reinforcing loop, please demonstrate which one of my premises assumes (directly or indirectly) the very conclusion it's supposed to establish.

In order to help you, I will express my argument in a syllogistic form:

• Only believers are saved. (No one is saved unless they are a believer.)
• Only sheep are believers. (No one is a believer unless they are a sheep.)
∴ Only sheep are saved. (No one is saved unless they are a sheep.)
​

This is a valid hypothetical syllogism (i.e., chain argument) in classical logic:

• S(x) → B(x)
• B(x) → H(x)
∴ S(x) → H(x)
​

So, it's valid by form and it's sound if the premises are true—and they are, as attested by a wealth of scripture.

You have to ignore that people are called to believe.

Incorrect. Neither my position nor my argument ignores that.

In fact, people are not only called to believe but commanded to believe (1 John 3:23).

And who listens and responds to this call with belief? The sheep who belong to God, whom he gives to the Son to receive eternal life.

Why does Paul say that they try to "persuade" men?

He tries to persuade them with what, sir? With eloquent, wise, persuasive words? Or the pure gospel of Christ?

"My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God's power" (1 Cor 2:4-5). "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor 1:17-18).

Paul, like all evangelists, speaks persuasively to everyone, knowing full well that only the sheep will respond.

It's the ol' Calvinist "going through the motions just to 'say we did'.." doctrine.

Which doctrine is that, exactly? Quote and cite your sources, keeping in mind that we don't exactly tolerate people intentionally misrepresenting opponents here.

In the context of John: Yes, not all ethnic Israel are sheep. Not the point.

It is precisely the point. You claimed that "Israel were the Father's flock. ... So, what sheep is [Jesus] talking to? The Father's sheep that were drawn by the Father through Egypt, the desert, etc." You were wrong, being contradicted by Christ himself who said to certain ethnic Israelites before him, "You are not my sheep." Flock and fold are two different things, as my response to you maintained clearly.

The ones that listened and learned from the Father were [his sheep].

—which is exactly what I said.

"Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me."

Exactly. And who is it that listens and responds to God? Those who belong to God. "You don't listen and respond BECAUSE you don't belong to God" (John 8:47; emphasis mine).

Same message as before: "You do not believe BECAUSE you are not my sheep" (John 10:26; emphasis mine).

Again, the same consistent message across the board.

[Jesus] drives home the point that ... if they had listened and learned, they would recognize his voice.

Not quite. What he said is that

• those who belong to God listen and respond.
• his sheep recognize and heed his voice.
• they are not his sheep (which explains why they didn't listen and respond with belief).

 

[makesends]

Do me a favor, tell me how God can have "always been". How can anything, or anyone not have a beginning?

Are you serious??? I would never want to intimate that someone claiming to believe in almighty God doesn't know that God had no beginning.

But if you're only leading up to the idea of that "always been" is a self-defeating temporal expression, when applied to God, I agree. It is only a way to put it to human words. But, for as long as there has been time, God has "always been, and before that".

God is entirely unique. I hope you understand the term, "God". This question has me wondering what you think God is —only another resident within the omni? That's only a supernatural god, superhuman, and a figment of self-deterministic imagination—it is not Omnipotent God, the "inventor" of time, and of reality itself and very fact.

 

[XrzrX]

Are you serious??? I would never want to intimate that someone claiming to believe in almighty God doesn't know that God had no beginning.

But if you're only leading up to the idea of that "always been" is a self-defeating temporal expression, when applied to God, I agree. It is only a way to put it to human words. But, for as long as there has been time, God has "always been, and before that".

God is entirely unique. I hope you understand the term, "God". This question has me wondering what you think God is —only another resident within the omni? That's only a supernatural god, superhuman, and a figment of self-deterministic imagination—it is not Omnipotent God, the "inventor" of time, and of reality itself and very fact.

The point wasn't for you to try to answer the question.. it was to highlight the kind of question you were asking me.

 

[makesends]

Not being completely dismissive, just wary. I've never used Chat gtp once ever.. and yes, I look up things myself (not Strongs if it can be helped) but yeah, I'm not aware of an implication of "choosing" in that verse, but agree it's "people He knew before". Whether you apply 'foresight' to the passage or not, the root of the debate does center on 'foresight', and an implied culpability of "evil". And the deflection is telling because when backed into a corner, every Calvinist finally breaks down and admits to the logical conclusion of 'meticulous determinism'. And again, they are the Exact arguments atheists use.. which is so bizarre, and frankly suspicious. It always makes you wonder, "is this person like an undercover atheist?" because the symmetry is beyond 'coincidental'. THAT alone, should be a red flag. When your philosophical defenses and challenges literally mirror the enemies of God.. something is awry.

And there's the problem. Those insisting on self-determinism demand that First Cause be culpable for what comes to pass, or that he not cause it at all, completely isolating sin from the responsible party and transferring it to God who intentionally caused it to come to pass for his own beautiful and holy reasons. By DEFINITION, God is not culpable for sin; therefore, since he did cause that it come to pass, there is a culpable party, but since sin is against God, that party cannot be God. The ungodly notion that God cannot have caused it to come to pass is not only illogical, but is an attempted escape from the realization of the visceral nature of sin, and the infinite power of God over sin.

There is no implied culpability of evil to God, but only to those who actually perform the evil. If someone infers it applies to God, they are misled, at best, and more likely, self-deceived.

The atheists I have argued with who say such things as you describe are very logical. And I know missionary kids and preachers kids that have abandoned the faith for the very reason that the atheists use for disbelieving, that the God that logic demands has indeed caused that evil come to pass, and they will have nothing to do with such a god that their parents taught was illogically an ideal God who answers only to our notions of love. The wimpy, tame, nice 'Father in Heaven' who looks down upon his creatures and hopes all will turn out well is not one to demand their admiration, nor even their attention. And I don't blame them; that is not GOD. The notion of independent free will is simply illogical, even for a believer. I was "almost" (but for God) one of them myself. That "god" makes no sense, nor do I find him in the Bible.

Logically, God's doings are meticulously deterministic. He doesn't rely on us, but uses us. And good for him, because we're pretty useless if he doesn't. And when the gorge rises up in those who demand "God is loving and has nothing to do with evil coming to pass", to the point that they have to invent self-contradictory notions of little first causes running about the planet —well, don't call it implication; call it human invention. It is not biblical.

 

[XrzrX]

I know what a syllogism is, and I know what arguing in a circle is, but I don't know what a "syllogistic circle" is supposed to be. That is not a standard term in logic.

If by "syllogistic circle" you mean that my premises and conclusions are locked in a kind of self-reinforcing loop, please demonstrate which one of my premises assumes (directly or indirectly) the very conclusion it's supposed to establish.

In order to help you, I will express my argument in a syllogistic form:

​

• Only believers are saved. (No one is saved unless they are a believer.)​

• Only sheep are believers. (No one is a believer unless they are a sheep.)​

∴ Only sheep are saved. (No one is saved unless they are a sheep.)​

​

This is a valid hypothetical syllogism (i.e., chain argument) in classical logic:

​

• S(x) → B(x)​

• B(x) → H(x)​

∴ S(x) → H(x)​

​

So, it's valid by form and it's sound if the premises are true—and they are, as attested by a wealth of scripture.




Incorrect. Neither my position nor my argument ignores that.

In fact, people are not only called to believe but commanded to believe (1 John 3:23).

And who listens and responds to this call with belief? The sheep who belong to God, whom he gives to the Son to receive eternal life.




He tries to persuade them with what, sir? With eloquent, wise, persuasive words? Or the pure gospel of Christ?

"My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God's power" (1 Cor 2:4-5). "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor 1:17-18).

Paul, like all evangelists, speaks persuasively to everyone, knowing full well that only the sheep will respond.




Which doctrine is that, exactly? Quote and cite your sources, keeping in mind that we don't exactly tolerate people intentionally misrepresenting opponents here.




It is precisely the point. You claimed that "Israel were the Father's flock. ... So, what sheep is [Jesus] talking to? The Father's sheep that were drawn by the Father through Egypt, the desert, etc." You were wrong, being contradicted by Christ himself who said to certain ethnic Israelites before him, "You are not my sheep." Flock and fold are two different things, as my response to you maintained clearly.




—which is exactly what I said.




Exactly. And who is it that listens and responds to God? Those who belong to God. "You don't listen and respond BECAUSE you don't belong to God" (John 8:47; emphasis mine).

Same message as before: "You do not believe BECAUSE you are not my sheep" (John 10:26; emphasis mine).

Again, the same consistent message across the board.




Not quite. What he said is that

• those who belong to God listen and respond.
• his sheep recognize and heed his voice.
• they are not his sheep (which explains why they didn't listen and respond with belief).

The quote is verbatim "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.", how is it incorrect to say, "If one hears and learns from the Father, they come to Jesus"?

 

[XrzrX]

And there's the problem. Those insisting on self-determinism demand that First Cause be culpable for what comes to pass, or that he not cause it at all, completely isolating sin from the responsible party and transferring it to God who intentionally caused it to come to pass for his own beautiful and holy reasons. By DEFINITION, God is not culpable for sin; therefore, since he did cause that it come to pass, there is a culpable party, but since sin is against God, that party cannot be God. The ungodly notion that God cannot have caused it to come to pass is not only illogical, but is an attempted escape from the realization of the visceral nature of sin, and the infinite power of God over sin.

There is no implied culpability of evil to God, but only to those who actually perform the evil. If someone infers it applies to God, they are misled, at best, and more likely, self-deceived.

The atheists I have argued with who say such things as you describe are very logical. And I know missionary kids and preachers kids that have abandoned the faith for the very reason that the atheists use for disbelieving, that the God that logic demands has indeed caused that evil come to pass, and they will have nothing to do with such a god that their parents taught was illogically an ideal God who answers only to our notions of love. The wimpy, tame, nice 'Father in Heaven' who looks down upon his creatures and hopes all will turn out well is not one to demand their admiration, nor even their attention. And I don't blame them; that is not GOD. The notion of independent free will is simply illogical, even for a believer. I was "almost" (but for God) one of them myself. That "god" makes no sense, nor do I find him in the Bible.

Logically, God's doings are meticulously deterministic. He doesn't rely on us, but uses us. And good for him, because we're pretty useless if he doesn't. And when the gorge rises up in those who demand "God is loving and has nothing to do with evil coming to pass", to the point that they have to invent self-contradictory notions of little first causes running about the planet —well, don't call it implication; call it human invention. It is not biblical.

See, I would be tempted to agree with you.. but, you've split your philosophy into a dichotomous contradiction, and This is what becomes indefensible to the slanderers of God. The terminology of "First Cause" is simply a convolution of what I originally stated, that because a vandal mars a creation, doesn't make the creator the creator of vandalism, simply by creating what was vandalized. But, some on here defended that it does, so consistency of doctrine is one problem and that's where your interpretation comes in.. where you affirm what I said in that regard, but... go on to claim meticulous determinism. Now, "First Cause" doesn't make you the creator of evil.. meticulous determinism does. So, the posit is a contradiction and though I think the intent is well intentioned, it becomes untenable.

 

[XrzrX]

And there's the problem. Those insisting on self-determinism demand that First Cause be culpable for what comes to pass, or that he not cause it at all, completely isolating sin from the responsible party and transferring it to God who intentionally caused it to come to pass for his own beautiful and holy reasons. By DEFINITION, God is not culpable for sin; therefore, since he did cause that it come to pass, there is a culpable party, but since sin is against God, that party cannot be God. The ungodly notion that God cannot have caused it to come to pass is not only illogical, but is an attempted escape from the realization of the visceral nature of sin, and the infinite power of God over sin.

There is no implied culpability of evil to God, but only to those who actually perform the evil. If someone infers it applies to God, they are misled, at best, and more likely, self-deceived.

The atheists I have argued with who say such things as you describe are very logical. And I know missionary kids and preachers kids that have abandoned the faith for the very reason that the atheists use for disbelieving, that the God that logic demands has indeed caused that evil come to pass, and they will have nothing to do with such a god that their parents taught was illogically an ideal God who answers only to our notions of love. The wimpy, tame, nice 'Father in Heaven' who looks down upon his creatures and hopes all will turn out well is not one to demand their admiration, nor even their attention. And I don't blame them; that is not GOD. The notion of independent free will is simply illogical, even for a believer. I was "almost" (but for God) one of them myself. That "god" makes no sense, nor do I find him in the Bible.

Logically, God's doings are meticulously deterministic. He doesn't rely on us, but uses us. And good for him, because we're pretty useless if he doesn't. And when the gorge rises up in those who demand "God is loving and has nothing to do with evil coming to pass", to the point that they have to invent self-contradictory notions of little first causes running about the planet —well, don't call it implication; call it human invention. It is not biblical.

I would like to say though, it's not lost on me the way in which you speak of God, about God.. it's with passion, awe, love and respect, which I absolutely love to hear. It's how I feel also, and one thing that has always bothered me about the "Reformed".. I rarely see it. And I don't say it as slander, or to be overtly offensive, I just don't.. and it bothers me. Dry, clinical.. it just make ye ol' spidey sense tingle. But, with respect I know that doesn't mean they don't.. people are wired differently, but the Spirit does compel me to express to you what He's allowed me to notice, how you present your love for God, and I think it's wonderful.

 

[Rella]

Do me a favor, tell me how God can have "always been". How can anything, or anyone not have a beginning?

Let us assume for a minute that God had a beginning. A long, long, time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

Just humor me and tell me how this could possibly have happened.

Unless you are one of those who does not believe God was behind the creation of everything and there were other forces of work, how could that have happened?

Or perhaps some god like Baal created Him?

I dont think so... but while you are musing on things figure this one out also.

If we are on the right side of things and we die we assume we will go to heaven or somewhere where there is a forward eternity.

How is that possible or will we all just die out sometime in eternity future.

If it has no end, certainly it might have no beginning.

But here is another for your think cap. Do you think we are the only ball of mud that we walk on that God created a lifeforce with a mind and thought pattern.

The only one in all the universes, Solar systems and galaxies out there we are the only life?

With all of the expanse of space that they try to date, but I am sure they are wrong, we are the only life?

Does it never cross anyone's mind to ask why?

 

[makesends]

The point wasn't for you to try to answer the question.. it was to highlight the kind of question you were asking me.

Be a little more specific, then. I don't do hints well. What was wrong with the question I was asking you?

 

[Arial]

I'm not aware of an implication of "choosing" in that verse, but agree it's "people He knew before".

To be clear, the "choosing" you refer to is God's choosing who to give to Christ. In order to retain your definition of "foreknew" you have to have read/ or not read the grammatical structure of the Greek in that passage and ignored it in order to stick to your claim. You also had to ignore the fact that the word translated "foreknew" is never used as God foreseeing things in the Bible, except, according to Arminianists, just that one place. The very thing you accused Calvinists of doing.

Whether you apply 'foresight' to the passage or not, the root of the debate does center on 'foresight', and an implied culpability of "evil".

Only in the minds of those who reject God's electing of those it pleases him to give to Christ. Here is why that happens. And it speaks directly to our fallen nature that we still have, even as those who have been regenerated and placed in Christ. Also to the tendency to accept some passages that speak of God's sovereignty over his creation as comforting and beautiful . These they accept and trust, but when confronted with that same sovereignty in election, not so much.

I did a search on meticulous determinism since I had never heard that term. What I found was an article where the author John Frye, who is promoting Greg Boyds books on spiritual warfare, Boyd attributing to Sproul "everything, down to a single molecule's activity is decreed by God and is so decreed for God;s glory" then when Zosia, an alive young Jewish girl in the Warsaw ghetto, has her eyes gouged out by Nazi soldiers to make two rings---the loving God of the universe decreed this for his matchless glory". The quote is Boyd's.

Quick note here: this is what is usually done as a defense against election and the sovereignty of God over his creation. Pathos driven language is used to evoke moral outrage. Rhetorical tension, emotional imagery, and irony to challenge a view of divine determinism.

What Sproul actually said was, "If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, totally free of God's sovereignty, then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled."

When a person reads something like what Boyd said, they automatically agree with it---I mean who wouldn't?--- and no investigation of what was actually said and within its context, and no study or examination or logic applied to the words thrown around: determinism, meticulous determinism, or even what was in the mind of the person when they said whatever was said about "foreknowledge" in relation to election, or in any of the Doctrines of Grace, or any "ism" or "ology". Those opposed do not even use legitimate logic but "logic" not actually followed through to its conclusion and based solely on emotional reactions. There conclusion iow is based on an emotional reaction, not an examination of anything. Basically they jump from "That makes God decree evil" to "He would never!, so election by his choice, (or determinism or meticulous determinism, or anything else) is not true." The presume the conclusion that what is in their mind, is th sesame thing that is the others mind. And concerning evil and its source ,to God decrees evil actions, as thought that were actually what was being said, instead of he governs/controls/uses them for his purposes since they do take place in a world that is fallen and full of evil and evil people, a world under just judgement.

So where do we bump up against our fallen nature in all of this? It boils down to our desire to be autonomous. Eve was deceived by the same deceptive offer of the serpent. Not to mention that all their Christian life these opponents of God's electing who to give to Christ, have counted on what they were taught (and nothing else was ever taught to them) that they are saved because they made that choice. They have been fed the lie and swallowed it whole. And so they come screaming that God ordained that man would have a free will to choose his own destiny, even though that is nowhere presented as God's will in Scripture and defies his self revealed character. And the cry of the fallen human, regenerated though he may be, is no different than the cry of the atheist. With the exception that it adds to that "My will must be totally free or I have no will at all." A blatant false equivalency.

Let's follow through to a logical conclusion of this sovereignty of God over all his creation, his decrees, and what not, and see if the "free will, free choice" argument has a better conclusion than the one they attach to Reformed theology.

We have a God who these opponents agree is omnipotent; one who is omniscient and omnipresent and sovereign. But one who also has of his own free will, determined that man's will is just as free, and does not wish to violate it, and won't. He sees the above mentioned Jewish girl and what is happening to her. He has the power to keep it from happening. But he values the free will of the perpetrators more than he values the free will of the Jewish girl who certainly does not will that her eyes be gouged out, and stands back and lets it happen. Is that better than the view you have of God if there is not a single molecule that is outside of his control? The difference is, that the above is a real and valid conclusion, while the one attached to Reformed theology is nothing more than a reactive conclusion that bears no resemblance to the actual, fully explored, teachings in it, so the conclusion the opposition reaches is empty of any substance.

How about we Christians just believe God, what he says clearly and plainly in his word, without inserting terms to be endlessly debated, and trust him, like we are meant to. Instead of asking all the "why"s and "hows" that have no answer to be found in our minds because they are beyond us, not opened by God to be peered into, even if our minds were capable of doing such a thing. Just believe what he says instead of trying to change what he says to better suit our idea of him, as though he were a man like us.

 

[makesends]

I would like to say though, it's not lost on me the way in which you speak of God, about God.. it's with passion, awe, love and respect, which I absolutely love to hear. It's how I feel also, and one thing that has always bothered me about the "Reformed".. I rarely see it. And I don't say it as slander, or to be overtly offensive, I just don't.. and it bothers me. Dry, clinical.. it just make ye ol' spidey sense tingle. But, with respect I know that doesn't mean they don't.. people are wired differently, but the Spirit does compel me to express to you what He's allowed me to notice, how you present your love for God, and I think it's wonderful.

Thank you, and I admit to a certain 'visible' desire for God in those who do all they can to defeat what they take to be slanderous against God's holiness, be they Calvinist, Arminian or otherwise. But it seems to me you don't read much of the Puritans and old Reformers, nor of late writers and speakers, nor of those currently alive, if you think they demonstrate little passion, awe, love and respect for God.

Watch some RC Sproul, maybe first on Aseity, or if you can handle long sentences, read John Owen's "The Mortification of Sin". The fact that we try to be careful to be precise is no reason for the accusation of "dry, clinical". The big general sweeping statements of those who want to take God's specific plans as their own, to the neglect of God's general commands, may be poetic and even heart-rending, but it is only that for a time, and doesn't hold one to God's side. There are things that we have discovered that are precious to us, and we don't lightly consider them. That we become adamant about them, and do our best to describe them, has to do with the ultimate majesty of God, and the desire to be with him, which desire is Christ Jesus —beyond our comprehension though we gladly admit to it and claim it greedily to our very being.

Let me try to give you a comparison: I am somewhat of an analytic mind. My wife was not. I have a habit of avoiding jumping to conclusions, even though I love it when 'the pieces fit'. I see patterns and avoid them though I love them. My wife, on the other hand, like her father who could change opinions in mid-paragraph without losing any vehemence, would see something —a pattern, a fit— and jump headlong into the notion, considering it entirely logical, without ever considering the assumptions made nor the worldview involved in getting there. If, to her, it was logical at all, it was entirely logical, and all else (still, 'to her') was a denigration of God's loving goodness.

There are no doubt some of us who love the tenets of Reformed Theology so much that we seem addicted to them. But I can tell you without any sense of doubt in my mind, that the several (none of us think alike) representations here of Reformed thinking none of us consider Theology set in stone, and we all consider it subject to Scripture. It is one of our tenets. But maybe the biggest thing we want to get across is the Theocentric nature of reality, or, at least, of the Universe, and of thought and life. That it all begins from and depends on God in his power of purity, purpose and immanence, is of utmost importance to us, and maybe constitutes our biggest overall complaint against our theological opposition. We try to explain the extreme difference of worldview this makes, but it is hard to do well. Instead we go to Scripture, as our only final reference, only to immediately be aware that the very passages we quote and draw from will be interpreted by others according to THEIR worldview. Well, thanks, but we will keep our own worldview; small though it is, it is huge, compared to Humanocentrism and its insistence of Self-Determination.

 

[makesends]

See, I would be tempted to agree with you.. but, you've split your philosophy into a dichotomous contradiction, and This is what becomes indefensible to the slanderers of God. The terminology of "First Cause" is simply a convolution of what I originally stated, that because a vandal mars a creation, doesn't make the creator the creator of vandalism, simply by creating what was vandalized.

I will allow that you, like I do too often, have stated this wrong. But let me correct a few syntactical errors. When a vandal mars a creation, it is not "simply by [God's] creating what was vandalized." God created the vandal, too! There is no player in this story that God did not create.

But, some on here defended that it does, so consistency of doctrine is one problem and that's where your interpretation comes in.. where you affirm what I said in that regard, but... go on to claim meticulous determinism. Now, "First Cause" doesn't make you the creator of evil.. meticulous determinism does. So, the posit is a contradiction and though I think the intent is well intentioned, it becomes untenable.

I am not representative of Reformed Theology. I have argued at some length with the Reformed, particularly some of them, on this site and others. So don't hold what I say against them in this. To many, I come across as hyper-Calvinist in this regard, that God being Omnipotent "First Cause", by the logic of the law of causation and its completely pervasive implications, logically demands meticulous determinism —at least in what I mean by it. ALL that comes to pass does so, one way or another, by God having knowingly created; thus he has intentionally caused to come to pass. There is no contradiction there, unless only in the mind of those who exalt us to God's level of moral responsibility. He is not just more than us —he is entirely different in his being.