Romans 9 from a free will prespective

[Carbon]

Yeah, I know that wasn't really the world, that was just the elect.

Yes, you’re right about that. But the Arminian text that interprets all the Bible John 3:16 just don’t work. Why? Because it does not interpret all scripture. Sorry

Are you semi-Pelagian?
Just curious, you don’t have to answer, it will come out.

 

[Foghorn]

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Foreknowledge is not predestination. Foreknowledge is knowledge of what they were going to do.

Knowledge of what they were “going to do”?

Almighty man

I seen enough of this throughout the years.

 

[ReverendRV]

Knowledge of what they were “going to do”?

Almighty man !

I seen enough of this throughout the years.

Foghorn!

 

[Foghorn]

That the reformed view that foreknowledge and predestination are the same thing? Talk about the silliest argument ever.

"Jim, I say Jim, pay close attention to me, "cause you're a burrito short of a combination plate."

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

When they encounter a Fundamental they shouldn't ignore, but keep on ignoring it; that's Cognitive Dissonance...

Or worse...

For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was.
II Timothy 3:6‭-‬9 NKJV

II Timothy 3:6-9 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of th | New King James Version (NKJV)

For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of th

bible.com

Let the likes of Civic and JIM be here; the Bible says their Folly will be manifest to All. People who recognize they can't overturn your point, but keep on with their Error; are always learning but never coming to the Knowledge of the Truth. These people take Captives from the gullible. This HAS to be true; when you keep teaching a Lie, what else can it be? I would encourage JIM to embrace every truth of the Bible. I would encourage every Lurker to double check what he says...

Be a Berean...

2 Timothy chapter 2 KJV (King James Version)

2 Timothy chapter 2 KJV (King James Version)

www.kingjamesbibleonline.org

and

Genesis 1 | KJV Bible | YouVersion

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. An

www.bible.com

Who are you? Cognitive dissonance yes.

 

[Arial]

That the reformed view that foreknowledge and predestination are the same thing? Talk about the silliest argument ever.

Reformed doesn't actually say foreknowledge and predestination are the same thing so-----silly non argument. Foreknowledge states that they are people God knew (with a special covenantal love) and He predestined those ones unto salvation. He gave them to the Son iow.

 

[Arial]

Chapter 9 is about who God used to bring the message and the plan of salvation to us. Paul's message is the rebuttal to the Jews thinking that God must save them because Israel was His chosen nation.

Widen the lens a bit bud.

 

[ReverendRV]

2 Timothy chapter 2 KJV (King James Version)

2 Timothy chapter 2 KJV (King James Version)

www.kingjamesbibleonline.org

and

Genesis 1 | KJV Bible | YouVersion

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. An

www.bible.com

Who are you? Cognitive dissonance yes.

My name is Charlie...

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I didn't say anything about God's purpose.

No, you have not yet said anything about God's purpose—in part because you are evading the question. (Answer the question and you will have said something about it.) Since the Bible talks about God's purpose, we are curious, myself and some others, about what your take is.

Let's try it this way: The Bible says that no purpose of God's can be thwarted (Job 42:2). Do you accept this at face value? The answer is either yes or no (followed by an explanation, if needed).

And I can take my own medicine: My answer is unequivocal, "Yes. On my view, no purpose of God's can be thwarted."

[On a Reformed theology], is it possible that an elect will not be saved?

No.

If an elect cannot be lost, then the statement that [God does not wish any to perish] but that all should come to repentance is more than a little strange.

It is strange only to those who do not sufficiently comprehend Reformed theology (i.e., if you understand Reformed theology, this verse is not the least bit strange.)

You said that 2 Peter 3:9 "clearly implies that some could perish and that not all will come to repentance" (here). Now, you were probably just handling the word of God in a sloppy manner because I think we both know that's not what it says. For everyone's sake, let's quote what the passage says: "The Lord ... does not wish for any to perish but for all to come to repentance."

And your argument is this: "If this verse is about the elect, then it's implying that the elect can be lost." My answer to you would be, "Sort of." What it's saying is that God has set a time for the fulfillment of his promise, a time which will allow for the full number of his elect to be saved. Any sooner, and a number of the elect would be lost (e.g., some will not have yet come to repentance; indeed, some will not have yet been born). Contrast this with Matthew 24:22, where Jesus said, "If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened." Again, God is working in human history for the sake of his elect and their full number.

So, this is what 1 Peter 3:9 is saying (and it is not the least bit strange): The Lord does not wish for any [of his elect] to perish but for all [his elect] to come to repentance."

"If the elect cannot be lost," you said (here), "then why would God ever say that he is not willing that any elect be lost?" Here is the linch pin required for your understanding of Reformed theology: "All who are regenerate are elect. Not all who are elect are regenerate." The Lord wants the full number of his elect to come to repentance, which happens only with those who are regenerated. In other words, it is entirely possible—and expected!—that any number of his elect are not yet believers. In fact, any number of them are not yet born, for all we know. God chose them before the foundation of the world, but in order to realize their salvation they must first be born, and then be born again and come to repentance.

And he will not return until the full number of his elect have done so. "I shall lose none of all those the Father has given me."

[Re: 1 Peter 1:1-2] Foreknowledge is not predestination.

Calvinists know, being intimately familiar with the Golden Chain of Redemption (Romans 8:28-30), that foreknowledge is not predestination—"those whom he foreknew he also predestined"—the same way that predestination is not regeneration, or that justification is not glorification.

Foreknowledge is knowledge of what they were going to do.

The object of God's foreknowledge is persons, not facts. You need to understand the semantic range of the word knowledge. I am sure that you're familiar with the line, "Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived." Right away we're alerted to the idea that, in scripture, knowing is not impersonal. Jesus said, "I know my own and my own know me —just as the Father knows me and I know the Father" (John 10:14-15; cf. 2 Tim 2: 19). This is intimate knowledge of persons, not impersonal knowledge of facts. Contrast this with Matthew 7:23, where Jesus declares to the ungodly, "I never knew you." Obviously, he knew them in the sense of their thoughts, words, and deeds—facts about them—and yet he can say, "I never knew you."

When scripture speaks of God knowing someone, it's about him entering into personal relationship with that person. This knowing is intimate covenantal language. God says to Moses, "You have found favor in my sight, and I know you by name" (Exo 33:17). In Amos 3:2 we hear God say, "I have chosen you alone from all the clans of the earth." Here, his knowledge is explicitly described in covenantal terms, as the active choice of God to enter into a personal relationship with them. He set his love on them and chose them. This is a covenant relationship (as also indicated in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament).

God's prognósis refers to God’s gracious, merciful, and solely sovereign choice to enter into personal relationship with a person. In the case of Christ, this is referred to his work in providing for salvation; he is "known" as the Redeemer. In reference to the elect, this is referred to God's action in bringing them into relationship with him. As Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says, "In the New Testament, προγινώσκειν is referred to God. His foreknowledge, however, is an election or foreordination of his people ... or Christ" (I:715). The bare concept of simply having knowledge of future events has been seen to be inconsistent with the NT usage, and hence to be rejected.
​

– James R. White, "Foreknowledge – Its New Testament Meaning," Alpha & Omega Ministries, October 2, 1989.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!
Matthew 23:37 NKJV

The GodMan Jesus Christ desired those who would not have him...

And I'm a 5-Point Calvinist...

"How often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would have none of it!"

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

"How often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would have none of it!"

In other words, those who would not have him ("but you") are not those he desired ("your children").

 

[JIM]

The object of God's foreknowledge is persons, not facts.

That is not true at all.. God's foreknowledge is most prevalent in the Bible in the form of prophecy. And much of prophecy is not about persons as themselves, but rather about what persons will do and the results of that. Most of God's foreknowledge as given us in the Bible is about facts.

You need to understand the semantic range of the word knowledge. I am sure that you're familiar with the line, "Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived." Right away we're alerted to the idea that, in scripture, knowing is not impersonal.

Trying to tie God's foreknowledge in with the euphemism for sexual intercourse is about as bad as it gets.

– James R. White, "Foreknowledge – Its New Testament Meaning," Alpha & Omega Ministries, October 2, 1989.

That was an interesting read. So much of it was clearly written with based on the Calvinist definition of election as the premise, not as a logical conclusion.

White introduced that article with 'This incredible passage, known as the “Golden Chain of Redemption”', which he quoted as Romans 8:29-30. He left out the really critical part of that chain, namely verse 28 which establishes the first link in that chain, namely, those who love God.

White's entire approach seems to ignore the reality of the fact that God's foreknowledge is simply a part of God's Omniscience, one of His attributes seen in His relations with His creation. To say that God is omniscient is to say that He is infinite in his knowledge. "The Lord is a God of knowledge" (1 Sam 2:3) is true without limits. He knows everything there is to know, and He is always conscious of all that He knows. His knowledge is total and perfect; He "knows all things' (1 John 3:20). Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite" (Ps 147:5). There is no creaturre hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do" (Heb 4:13). "Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!" (Rom 11:33).

God's omniscience, His knowledge, is total and complete with respect to the past, the present and the future. His omniscience with respect to the future is His foreknowledge. It is just that simple. Trying to redefine it as White has done in tying it strictly with the Calvinist concept of election is bad. It is more than bad; it is deceptive.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

That is not true at all.. God's foreknowledge is most prevalent in the Bible in the form of prophecy. And much of prophecy is not about persons as themselves, but rather about what persons will do and the results of that. Most of God's foreknowledge as given us in the Bible is about facts.

Trying to tie God's foreknowledge in with the euphemism for sexual intercourse is about as bad as it gets.

That was an interesting read. So much of it was clearly written with based on the Calvinist definition of election as the premise, not as a logical conclusion.

White introduced that article with 'This incredible passage, known as the “Golden Chain of Redemption”', which he quoted as Romans 8:29-30. He left out the really critical part of that chain, namely verse 28 which establishes the first link in that chain, namely, those who love God.

White's entire approach seems to ignore the reality of the fact that God's foreknowledge is simply a part of God's Omniscience, one of His attributes seen in His relations with His creation. To say that God is omniscient is to say that He is infinite in his knowledge. "The Lord is a God of knowledge" (1 Sam 2:3) is true without limits. He knows everything there is to know, and He is always conscious of all that He knows. His knowledge is total and perfect; He "knows all things' (1 John 3:20). Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite" (Ps 147:5). There is no creaturre hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do" (Heb 4:13). "Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!" (Rom 11:33).

God's omniscience, His knowledge, is total and complete with respect to the past, the present and the future. His omniscience with respect to the future is His foreknowledge. It is just that simple. Trying to redefine it as White has done in tying it strictly with the Calvinist concept of election is bad. It is more than bad; it is deceptive.

What does the word Predestined mean?

 

[Arial]

That is not true at all.. God's foreknowledge is most prevalent in the Bible in the form of prophecy. And much of prophecy is not about persons as themselves, but rather about what persons will do and the results of that. Most of God's foreknowledge as given us in the Bible is about facts.

Prophecy is not foreknowledge as you describe it. It is decree. Is 55:10-11. A person ought to be able to see that from the evidence within the scriptures and has actual historical support. Those facts you speak of.

“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven
and do not return there but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.
Much of prophecy is about judgement and how it will come. The rest is about comfort and how it will come. And it is never about what God foreknows simply because He is omniscient. It is always about what He will do and how He will do it and sometimes when He will, and why He will.

Trying to tie God's foreknowledge in with the euphemism for sexual intercourse is about as bad as it gets.

You are the one who did that in your own head, while missing @DialecticSkeptic's point that knowing something or someone is not always connected to head knowledge. It also refers to a connected intimacy of love that joins two parties----as is the case with God in the joining of people to Himself with a covenantal love relationship. One on one with persons, not corporate and impersonal. The corporate element, the church or in the OT national Israel, is because it is made up of these persons that God has brought into covenant with Himself.

If that were not the case, and if God did not already love these individuals in this way, predestining them to belong to the Son, we then have only the wisest and best individuals saying in effect, "I will join that covenant!" Which is unbelievably presumptuous, and opposed to all God tells and shows us about His covenants. We once again, as always proves true in the free will arguments, have a man centered paradigm with God. A changing of the scripture, "God first loved us," and that is why we love Him, to "I first loved God and and then He loved me." It becomes man who initiates this love and there becomes nothing of a personal nature of Jesus dying on the cross. It becomes a corporate dying in which only those wise enough to choose Him benefit.

That was an interesting read. So much of it was clearly written with based on the Calvinist definition of election as the premise, not as a logical conclusion.

Still using this non argument as a defense I see. Of course it is based on the Calvinist view of election. White is a Calvinist. But how does that mean it is not a logical conclusion? Where is your logical conclusion? Since what you say certainly is the opposite of a logical conclusion, in a debate or discussion, you would need to flesh that out and give your conclusion and how you arrived at it.

White introduced that article with 'This incredible passage, known as the “Golden Chain of Redemption”', which he quoted as Romans 8:29-30. He left out the really critical part of that chain, namely verse 28 which establishes the first link in that chain, namely, those who love God.

OK. At least you are giving your view, whether it arrives at a conclusion or not remains to be seen as I read through the post.

Those who love God is not the first link in the chain of Redemption. I guess you presume it is because verse 28 comes before 29----which is not logical in this case. Those who love God and the promises of hope and blessings are already identified in verses 1-27. As well Paul states in verse 28 that those in the first verses are "those who are called according to His purpose." Verses 29-30 gives the chronological order of how this calling takes place. To say that "foreknew" here means He looked into the future (which there is no such thing in God's economy, only in ours) and saw who would believe and then predestined them, and then called them, and then justified them, and then will glorify them, takes all relevant meaning out of those words, and makes man who hates God the instigator of everything that came before. That's the point I suppose of changing God's meaning of foreknew in relation to salvation.

White's entire approach seems to ignore the reality of the fact that God's foreknowledge is simply a part of God's Omniscience, one of His attributes seen in His relations with His creation.

He doesn't ignore it. It isn't a reality.

If you are not an Open Theist by confession, you might as well be. God is who God is irregardless of His relations with His Creation. We serve Him. You may not like this and therefore deny it or give only lip service to it, He does not serve us. If omniscience meant what you say, then God could not have a plan of redemption that He was capable of bringing about. He would forever be working according to kazillions of contingencies with the choices of each contingency resulting in a kazillion resulting interconnected contingencies, for all time and all over the world and with every individual and circumstance. In other words, utter, complete, unending chaos. You might want to rethink your concept of God.

To say that God is omniscient is to say that He is infinite in his knowledge. "The Lord is a God of knowledge" (1 Sam 2:3) is true without limits. He knows everything there is to know, and He is always conscious of all that He knows. His knowledge is total and perfect; He "knows all things' (1 John 3:20). Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite" (Ps 147:5). There is no creaturre hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do" (Heb 4:13). "Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!" (Rom 11:33).

Not a wise use of scripture to validate you view that says exactly the opposite of your view.

God's omniscience, His knowledge, is total and complete with respect to the past, the present and the future. His omniscience with respect to the future is His foreknowledge. It is just that simple. Trying to redefine it as White has done in tying it strictly with the Calvinist concept of election is bad. It is more than bad; it is deceptive.

Well no logical conclusion reached.Your conclusion falls back on the premise that because it is Calvinism it is wrong. You left out His sovereignty completely. You give lip service to it with quoted scriptures, and then deny it by coming up with a theory that is so ludicrous when attached to the Almighty Holy God as to utterly defy logic.

Why is it that you have stopped responding to my posts?

Hope that helps.

 

[JIM]

What does the word Predestined mean?

Why do you ask? I didn't address it at all. That is a completely separate topic.

 

[JIM]

Why is it that you have stopped responding to my posts?

Partly because of statements like this.

Well no logical conclusion reached.

Hope that helps.

It helps me understand why so many, including me, reject the many fallacies of Calvinism.

 

[ReverendRV]

Partly because of statements like this.




It helps me understand why so many, including me, reject the many fallacies of Calvinism.

What Fallacies?

 

[JIM]

What Fallacies?

TULIP is as good as a starting lineup as any.

 

[ReverendRV]

TULIP is as good as a starting lineup as any.

Please do more than assert TULIP is a Fallacy; explain yourself...

Just a heads up; I'm the Moderator who makes sure people are debating; not pushing other Posters buttons. Poisoning the Well is not allowed here; we decide if that is happening or not. ~ Debate? Do that as much as you want to...

Iron sharpening Iron, is what we want; not Iron using water to rust Iron. Fallacies are rusty, poisonous Well water...

You may disagree with TULIP, but that doesn't prove it is Fallacious. Show us why; who wants to keep a Fallacy?

 

[Arial]

Partly because of statements like this.




It helps me understand why so many, including me, reject the many fallacies of Calvinism.

Statements like that from others doesn't stop you responding to them. And you are the one that started with the no logic in Calvinist conclusions, which is WHY I said that. So next. Try another one.
Hope that helps.