Question for Arminians and Calvinists on foreknowledge

[David1701]

My mistake. I meant:

The NT does not use prognosis (which relates only to God) in that way; i.e., knowing in advance what men are going to do and basing his decisions thereon.

I agree.

 

[Ritajanice]

And don't think any believer would argue against that premise. No one has their theology 100 % correct.

Amen! 100% to that...well said!

 

[Eleanor]

Amen! 100% to that...well said!

Nice avatar!

 

[TibiasDad]

What do you make of Ro 9:10-13?

Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

The object of these verses is the sovereign choices of God. God does not follow our human protocols, like primogeniture, but works according to his own purposes and desires. God wanted the story of his plan to unfold through the younger bother, not the firstborn, and revealed to Rebekah what would happen.

This has nothing to do with election to salvation “salvation” as Calvinists interpret it. This was about which brother would be the direct father of the children of Israel. Arminians have no issue with this at all.

”But what about, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”?” You might ask! This is referring to the generations that followed, not the brothers themselves. Jesus used a similar expression when he said, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26) Does “hate” mean literal hate for our families? No, of course not. What is means is that the difference between our love for Jesus and the realm of our earthly life is so distinct that it would be like hating our family! God did not hate Esau but he loved and chose Jacob to fulfill his plans.

The rest of Rom 10-11 follows this same principle. The descendants of Israel, the chosen children of God, had rejected the call of the gospel, so God removed them from the olive tree and grafted in the wild olive branches, those who believed the gospel; not to the total exclusion of Israel, but that Gods plan would be fulfilled. If Israel would believe, they would be grafted back in again, and if the gentiles who came to Christ and were grafted in stopped believing, they too could be cut off again.

Doug

 

[Eleanor]

Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
The object of these verses is the sovereign choices of God. God does not follow our human protocols, like primogeniture, but works according to his own purposes and desires. God wanted the story of his plan to unfold through the younger bother, not the firstborn, and revealed to Rebekah what would happen.
This has nothing to do with election to salvation “salvation” as Calvinists interpret it. This was about which brother would be the direct father of the children of Israel. Arminians have no issue with this at all.

Au contraire. . .

The sovereign choices of God include the
1) election of Isaac to the people of God (Ro 9:6-9),
2) election of Jacob to the people of God (Ro 9:10-13),
3) election of Pharaoh to destruction (Ro 9:14-17),
4) the sovereignty of the Potter to make from the same lump of clay vessels for noble use as well as vessels for common use (human waste),
5) where the vessels didn't choose their destiny, it was assigned to them for the Potters' purposes (Ro 9:18-21),
6) which the apostle then applies to condemnation (Ro 9:22) and salvation (Ro 9:23-24).

Letting the text say what it says without altering it, the NT presents the sovereignty of the Potter
to create, from the same lump of clay, vessels for the purpose of destruction and vessels for the purpose of salvation (Ro 9:22-24).

It couldn't be any clearer, particularly with Pharaoh (Ro 9:14-18), Isaac/Ishmael (Ro 9:6-9) and Jacob/Esau (Ro 9:10-13) as specified examples,
that God sovereignly has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he sovereignly hardens whom he wants to harden (Ro 9:18),
all claims of injustice, to the contrary (Ro 9:14) and that
no one can say that God is unjust in dealing with Ishmael and Esau (Ro 9:14).

”But what about, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”?” You might ask! This is referring to the generations that followed, not the brothers themselves.

Nope.

No trimming the sail of the plain doctrine of the sovereignty of God in election and salvation (Ro 9:6-24) with the jib of one's personal doctrine.

Jesus used a similar expression when he said, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26) Does “hate” mean literal hate for our families?

Jacob/Esau is not about "hate," any more than Isaac/Ishmael were about hate, it's about sovereign preference (as unaccountable as the wind, Jn 3:3-8) in both cases.

No, of course not. What is means is that the difference between our love for Jesus and the realm of our earthly life is so distinct that it would be like hating our family! God did not hate Esau but he loved and chose Jacob to fulfill his plans.

Precisely!

And that is how election to salvation works (Ro 9:22-24).
It's not about "hate," it's about God's purpose and plan for the individual as the body of Christ, the church, the one olive tree of God's people including both OT and NT saints (Heb 11:40, 12:22-23), his bride/spouse (Eph 5:30-33), therefore, electing them out of the destruction to which they were born because of their condemnation by the sin of Adam (Ro 51:8).

The rest of Rom 10-11 follows this same principle.

No, the principle is not the same in the election of Isaac and Jacob and the rejection of Israel.
The election of Isaac and Jacob was without cause, it was based simply in God's sovereign choice and purpose.
The rejection of Israel was for cause; i.e., unbelief.

The descendants of Israel, the chosen children of God, had rejected the call of the gospel, so God removed them from the olive tree and grafted in the wild olive branches, those who believed the gospel; not to the total exclusion of Israel, but that Gods plan would be fulfilled. If Israel would believe, they would be grafted back in again, and if the gentiles who came to Christ and were grafted in stopped believing, they too could be cut off again.

 

[His clay]

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 think that is a great question. It seems like the first step would be to properly define an Arminian understanding of foreknowledge. The opening post states that the Arminian view is the corridor of time view of foreknowledge. However, I think that there may be more than one. For this reason, I'm going to spend a little time in a book I own dealing with multiple views of foreknowledge. Hopefully, I'll get back to this post after spending some time in the book.

 

[Carbon]

I think that is a great question. It seems like the first step would be to properly define an Arminian understanding of foreknowledge. The opening post states that the Arminian view is the corridor of time view of foreknowledge. However, I think that there may be more than one. For this reason, I'm going to spend a little time in a book I own dealing with multiple views of foreknowledge. Hopefully, I'll get back to this post after spending some time in the book.

Looking forward to hearing about it.

 

[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.

Besides being poetic-sounding prose, when you add the two notions together they make no sense. God looked into the future to see who would choose him, and so he chose them??? Why bother? How is that even him choosing?

 

[Carbon]

Besides being poetic-sounding prose, when you add the two notions together they make no sense. God looked into the future to see who would choose him, and so he chose them??? Why bother? How is that even him choosing?

I agree.

 

[Carbon]

Besides being poetic-sounding prose, when you add the two notions together they make no sense. God looked into the future to see who would choose him, and so he chose them??? Why bother? How is that even him choosing?

It's like Biden electing himself, and since he did, America said, "he is our president." But Arms' don't see the silliness in that.

 

[Carbon]

That would be merited grace and election unto salvation. Those who teach it deny this, yet it is exactly what it is.

Exactly.

John 1:13 & Romans 9:11ff concisely refute that teaching.

I believe this ideology is drawn from mans finite criteria placed upon God that He must be "fair" so therefore it is only fair if it is left up to us and not to Him.

That's the bottom line, isn't it? If He chooses by His Sovereign purpose in election, it (HE!) isn't "fair." If left up to us, then it is fair. God cannot be trusted but man can be.

Just think about the lack of faith in God that teaching projects.

 

[fastfredy0]

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.

God could not foreknow that things would be, unless he had decreed they should be. He cannot “look into the future”, so to speak, to find out what will happen for that would be knowledge acquired from learning; God is immutable and omniscient and therefore cannot learn. Furthermore, from nothing nothing comes and since before creation nothing existed, all knowledge must come from God and the source of His knowledge is His wisdom and ability to cause all things. If God's knowledge of his creatures were derived from the creatures by the impression of anything upon him, as there is upon us, he could not know from eternity, because from eternity there was no actual existence of anything but himself; and therefore there could not be any images shot out from anything, because there was not anything in being but God. Stephen Charnock

 

[makesends]

That would be merited grace and election unto salvation. Those who teach it deny this, yet it is exactly what it is.

John 1:13 & Romans 9:11ff concisely refute that teaching.

I believe this ideology is drawn from mans finite criteria placed upon God that He must be "fair" so therefore it is only fair if it is left up to us and not to Him.

That's the bottom line, isn't it? If He chooses by His Sovereign purpose in election, it (HE!) isn't "fair." If left up to us, then it is fair. God cannot be trusted but man can be.

Just think about the lack of faith in God that teaching projects.

Well put, brother!

 

[fastfredy0]

The reasons why the Divine decree [foreknowledge] is independent of everything finite are the following:

1. It is eternal, and therefore cannot depend upon anything in time; but everything finite is in time,
2. The decree depends upon God's good pleasure, Matthew 11:26; Ephesians 1:5; Romans 9:11. Therefore it does not depend upon the creature's good pleasure,
3. The Divine decree is immutable, Isaiah 46:10; Romans 9:11. But a decree conditioned upon the decision of the finite will must be mutable, because the finite will is mutable,
4. A conditional decree is incompatible with the Divine foreknowledge. God cannot foreknow an event unless it is certain, and it cannot be certain if it ultimately depends upon finite will.

William G.T. Shedd. Dogmatic Theology: Volume 1 (Kindle Locations 5427-5432). Kindle Edition.

 

[TibiasDad]

Au contraire. . .

The sovereign choices of God include the
1) election of Isaac to the people of God (Ro 9:6-9),
2) election of Jacob to the people of God (Ro 9:10-13),
3) election of Pharaoh to destruction (Ro 9:14-17),
4) the sovereignty of the Potter to make from the same lump of clay vessels for noble use as well as vessels for common use (human waste),
5) where the vessels didn't choose their destiny, it was assigned to them for the Potters' purposes (Ro 9:18-21),
6) which the apostle then applies to condemnation (Ro 9:22) and salvation (Ro 9:23-24).

Letting the text say what it says without altering it, the NT presents the sovereignty of the Potter
to create, from the same lump of clay, vessels for the purpose of destruction and vessels for the purpose of salvation (Ro 9:22-24).

It couldn't be any clearer, particularly with Pharaoh (Ro 9:14-18), Isaac/Ishmael (Ro 9:6-9) and Jacob/Esau (Ro 9:10-13) as specified examples,
that God sovereignly has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he sovereignly hardens whom he wants to harden (Ro 9:18),
all claims of injustice, to the contrary (Ro 9:14) and that
no one can say that God is unjust in dealing with Ishmael and Esau (Ro 9:14).

Nope.

No trimming the sail of the plain doctrine of the sovereignty of God in election and salvation (Ro 9:6-24) with the jib of one's personal doctrine.

Jacob/Esau is not about "hate," any more than Isaac/Ishmael were about hate, it's about sovereign preference (as unaccountable as the wind, Jn 3:3-8) in both cases.

Precisely!

And that is how election to salvation works (Ro 9:22-24).
It's not about "hate," it's about God's purpose and plan for the individual as the body of Christ, the church, the one olive tree of God's people including both OT and NT saints (Heb 11:40, 12:22-23), his bride/spouse (Eph 5:30-33), therefore, electing them out of the destruction to which they were born because of their condemnation by the sin of Adam (Ro 51:8).

No, the principle is not the same in the election of Isaac and Jacob and the rejection of Israel.
The election of Isaac and Jacob was without cause, it was based simply in God's sovereign choice and purpose.
The rejection of Israel was for cause; i.e., unbelief.

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

 

[makesends]

The reasons why the Divine decree [foreknowledge] is independent of everything finite are the following:

1. It is eternal, and therefore cannot depend upon anything in time; but everything finite is in time,
2. The decree depends upon God's good pleasure, Matthew 11:26; Ephesians 1:5; Romans 9:11. Therefore it does not depend upon the creature's good pleasure,
3. The Divine decree is immutable, Isaiah 46:10; Romans 9:11. But a decree conditioned upon the decision of the finite will must be mutable, because the finite will is mutable,
4. A conditional decree is incompatible with the Divine foreknowledge. God cannot foreknow an event unless it is certain, and it cannot be certain if it ultimately depends upon finite will.

William G.T. Shedd. Dogmatic Theology: Volume 1 (Kindle Locations 5427-5432). Kindle Edition.

Not that I disagree with him, but got a problem with the logic of #1: "but everything finite is in time," This assumes angels, created beings, are necessarily temporally bound. We don't know that.

 

[Eleanor]

The NT ALWAYS uses "foreknowledge" in that way, when referring to people. God's foreknowledge of people is his fore-choosing of them.

The reasons why the Divine decree [foreknowledge] is independent of everything finite are the following:

1. It is eternal, and therefore cannot depend upon anything in time; but everything finite is in time,
2. The decree depends upon God's good pleasure, Matthew 11:26; Ephesians 1:5; Romans 9:11. Therefore it does not depend upon the creature's good pleasure,
3. The Divine decree is immutable, Isaiah 46:10; Romans 9:11. But a decree conditioned upon the decision of the finite will must be mutable, because the finite will is mutable,
4. A conditional decree is incompatible with the Divine foreknowledge. God cannot foreknow an event unless it is certain, and it cannot be certain if it ultimately depends upon finite will.

William G.T. Shedd. Dogmatic Theology: Volume 1 (Kindle Locations 5427-5432). Kindle Edition.

God's foreknowledge is of his own decrees and actions which determine all things.

 

[fastfredy0]

Not that I disagree with him, but got a problem with the logic of #1: "but everything finite is in time," This assumes angels, created beings, are necessarily temporally bound. We don't know that.

Hmmm ... I suppose in theory we might not be temporally bound .... but all the information we have to date has never shown we are not temporally bound ... so, seems the theory to go with until proven otherwise I suppose. Something like gravity ... go with the assumption.

Now, if God wanted to give us a time machine, I'm betting that's possible. Gee, if we assume too many possible realities .... well gee, I'm still trying to figure this one out.

 

[Eleanor]

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

Interesting. . .

 

[makesends]

Hmmm ... I suppose in theory we might not be temporally bound .... but all the information we have to date has never shown we are not temporally bound ... so, seems the theory to go with until proven otherwise I suppose. Something like gravity ... go with the assumption.

Now, if God wanted to give us a time machine, I'm betting that's possible. Gee, if we assume too many possible realities .... well gee, I'm still trying to figure this one out.

I assume that when I am in Heaven, I will still be a created being. In fact, the whole community of the redeemed, the Bride of Christ, is still, created. But I don't have any reason to believe time won't be "a thing of the past" (haha!).