Question for Arminians and Calvinists on foreknowledge

[makesends]

Which verse(s) or passages destroy the Arminian understanding of "foreknowledge?" Which is that God looked through the corridors of time and saw who would believe and these He elected.

They are there.

As far as I'm concerned, Genesis 1:1, John 1:1-18 and Colossians 1:16 do, logically. God is, by those, very obviously first cause.

Arminians seem to assume that time, not to mention human choice, happens TO God, instead of God causing them.

God created with intent, omniscient and omnipotent. The obvious implications are overwhelming.

And any other god than that, is not God.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Which verse(s) or passages destroy the Arminian understanding of "foreknowledge?"

Acts 13:48, "... and all who had been appointed for eternal life believed."

First is the divine "appointed," which is followed by the human "believed."

 

[civic]

@Eleanor made a good point. Two of your posts seem to contradict each other.
Post #340 His Person is Divine, not human.
Post #422 The Person of Jesus will always be both Divine and human

Now, could be a typo or semantics or definitional issue ...but something seems amiss.

Not at all the Person ( singular ) not Persons( plural ) will always be both Divine and human . It’s spelled out throughout the H.U. which goes into great detail. This is what happens when a sentence is removed from its context which explains what is meant by the sentence in question . It’s not contradicting anything in that entire post 422.

Jesus the Person of the Person Jesus will always be both human and Divine or Divine and human . ie having 2 natures the human and Divine.

Since I had already made the point several times Jesus is a Divine Person I should not have to repeat that every time I mention Jesus is a Person. It’s assumed I mean Divine Person. Just like if I mention Trinity , it’s assumed it’s 3 Divine Persons.

hope this helps !!!

 

[ReverendRV]

Not at all the Person ( singular ) not Persons( plural ) will always be both Divine and human . It’s spelled out throughout the H.U. which goes into great detail. This is what happens when a sentence is removed from its context which explains what is meant by the sentence in question . It’s not contradicting anything in that entire post 422.

Jesus the Person of the Person Jesus will always be both human and Divine or Divine and human . ie having 2 natures the human and Divine.

Since I had already made the point several times Jesus is a Divine Person I should not have to repeat that every time I mention Jesus is a Person. It’s assumed I mean Divine Person. Just like if I mention Trinity , it’s assumed it’s 3 Divine Persons.

hope this helps !!!

Naturally, it's a hard thing to digest; it's something Spiritually Discerned in the Spirit's timing. You do a good job of having to say it over and over again

 

[David1701]

Eleanor,

I disagree, and having been discussing this type of thing for many years with the various people in this forum, I have come to the place that I have no desire to do anything beyond expressing why I believe what I do on any particular question or topic. We all have to decide for ourselves what makes sense in these issues, and none of them amount to a hill of beans in the long run. We are all, in my estimation, brothers and sisters in Christ, and in the end, we will all be around the throne of God in white robes and these arguments will all be moot, for we will know the answers to these questions. You asked me about Rom 9:10-13 and I responded openly and honestly. That is what this forum is here for, and that is what I have tried to do over the years.

Doug

We all have to decide for ourselves what makes sense in these issues, and none of them amount to a hill of beans in the long run.

This is a disgraceful attitude! I dare you to stand before the Lord and tell him that the truth about the way of salvation does not "amount to a hill of beans in the long run".

On second thoughts, don't.

 

[TibiasDad]

This is a disgraceful attitude! I dare you to stand before the Lord and tell him that the truth about the way of salvation does not "amount to a hill of beans in the long run".

On second thoughts, don't.

David, my brother, I am not the enemy; the order of salvation does not ultimately matter. The only thing that matters is that we are saved through the blood and resurrection of Christ by faith and the grace of God- for nothing is possible without the Grace of God!

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Yes, the true ways of the LORD are according to His counsel, purpose, grace, and will. I won't attempt to diminish their eternal significance.

I wouldn’t either, and don’t in any way!

Doug

 

[David1701]

David, my brother, I am not the enemy; the order of salvation does not ultimately matter. The only thing that matters is that we are saved through the blood and resurrection of Christ by faith and the grace of God- for nothing is possible without the Grace of God!

Doug

The truth about the way of salvation matters to the Lord, so it should matter to us as well. It's not just that we are saved (true, but a selfish focus), but that we love the truth. A couldn't-care-less attitude towards the way salvation works is not from God.

 

[Synergy]

Which verse(s) or passages destroy the Arminian understanding of "foreknowledge?" Which is that God looked through the corridors of time and saw who would believe and these He elected.

They are there.

I suggest that everyone understands the word "know", as used in Koine Greek, and how Matt 7:23 factors into what God knows before we fly off into all directions concerning foreknowledge.

 

[KatarinaVonBora]

Acts 13:48, "... and all who had been appointed for eternal life believed."

First is the divine "appointed," which is followed by the human "believed."

 

[TibiasDad]

The truth about the way of salvation matters to the Lord, so it should matter to us as well. It's not just that we are saved (true, but a selfish focus), but that we love the truth. A couldn't-care-less attitude towards the way salvation works is not from God.

I see, the EDIT BY MOD the Bible, must say “whoever’s name was not found in the Book of Life, like those who do not place regeneration prior to faith, was thrown into the lake of fire.”

Did the thief on the cross have an understanding of the order of salvation? Did that matter when Jesus said, “Today you will be with me in paradise.”?

Does the EDIT have Paul saying “ If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God has raise him from the dead, and that faith is the consequence of regeneration, you shall be saved.”

The question at Judgment will not be “what is the order of salvation”, but rather “what have you done with Jesus?” The order of salvation, or the theory of the Atonement will not be worth a hill of beans on judgment day!

Doug

 

[David1701]

I see, the DVB, the David version of the Bible, must say “whoever’s name was not found in the Book of Life, like those who do not place regeneration prior to faith, was thrown into the lake of fire.”

Did the thief on the cross have an understanding of the order of salvation? Did that matter when Jesus said, “Today you will be with me in paradise.”?

Does the DVB have Paul saying “ If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God has raise him from the dead, and that faith is the consequence of regeneration, you shall be saved.”

The question at Judgment will not be “what is the order of salvation”, but rather “what have you done with Jesus?” The order of salvation, or the theory of the Atonement will not be worth a hill of beans on judgment day!

Doug

I see, the DVB, the David version of the Bible, must say “whoever’s name was not found in the Book of Life, like those who do not place regeneration prior to faith, was thrown into the lake of fire.”

This is a gratuitous and duplicitous insult. I said no such thing and you know it.

Again, you are merely focusing upon the lowest common denominator: i.e. what is necessary to be saved. There are many important doctrines that one does not need to know, in order to be saved; but, that does not give you the right to dismiss them in such a cavalier manner.

Would you stand before the Lord and make such dismissive statements about teaching that he deemed important enough, not only to provide for us, but to explain in considerable detail (e.g. most of the book of Romans)? I certainly hope not.

 

[TibiasDad]

Would you stand before the Lord and make such dismissive statements about teaching that he deemed important enough, not only to provide for us, but to explain in considerable detail (e.g. most of the book of Romans)? I certainly hope not.

Like I said, David, when I stand before the judgement the last thing that I’ll be thinking about is which version of the order of salvation. The differences between Arminian and Calvinistic thought will be irrelevant at that moment!

Doug

 

[Carbon]

The truth about the way of salvation matters to the Lord, so it should matter to us as well. It's not just that we are saved (true, but a selfish focus), but that we love the truth. A couldn't-care-less attitude towards the way salvation works is not from God.

@TibiasDad

I agree David, it should matter.
One reason we have our bible with these doctrines in them is to study because they do matter. Doug, you being a pastor, I think would agree.

 

[TibiasDad]

@TibiasDad

I agree David, it should matter.
One reason we have our bible with these doctrines in them is to study because they do matter. Doug, you being a pastor, I think would agree.

Does it matter for salvation?

Doug

 

[Carbon]

Does it matter for salvation?

Doug

Well, it does not change the way of salvation if that's what you mean.

 

[civic]

David, my brother, I am not the enemy; the order of salvation does not ultimately matter. The only thing that matters is that we are saved through the blood and resurrection of Christ by faith and the grace of God- for nothing is possible without the Grace of God!

Doug

Correct if salvation is of, by, through and for the Lord then the temporal order should not be an issue since God does the saving. There wouldn't even be a debate if there were not arguments on both sides that fall into orthodoxy. Calvinists and Arminians both fall under the umbrella of orthodoxy. Therefor they are not salvific issues to cause division over imho.

 

[ReverendRV]

Correct if salvation is of, by, through and for the Lord then the temporal order should not be an issue since God does the saving. There wouldn't even be a debate if there were not arguments on both sides that fall into orthodoxy. Calvinists and Arminians both fall under the umbrella of orthodoxy. Therefor they are not salvific issues to cause division over imho.

The Pale of Orthodoxy...

If there is such a thing, one belief or the other can't diminish the Truth of the Way of Salvation...

If it does, there is no Pale of Orthodoxy. But there is, right?

 

[David1701]

Like I said, David, when I stand before the judgement the last thing that I’ll be thinking about is which version of the order of salvation. The differences between Arminian and Calvinistic thought will be irrelevant at that moment!

Doug

Still avoiding the issues I brought up I see.

 

[David1701]

There's more to it than that, such as Jude 1:3.

No matter what you say, you most certainly did diminish some very important truths, specifically God's way of salvation, and in your very own words.

You've been denying what you've done ever since.

Doug, to be honest, it is insulting to our intelligence, and somewhat disrespectful. We're not stupid, we can see clearly what took place.

Now, you can be mad about it if you want, just observing and being honest here.

Amen!