Biblical Foreknowledge

GodsGrace said:

If it takes an act of God to come to repentance...
why did the jailer say:
BELIEVE AND YOU WILL BE SAVED

According to you he should have said
BE SAVED AND THEN YOU WILL BELIEVE.

Click to expand...

Nope. He said believe and you will be saved because Paul [not the jailer] knew that if a man does believe it is only because God has given him this faith. He said "Believe"; this does not instantly mean that the faith required to believe is of him. This is your premise:

1.) Paul told the jailer to believe
2.) All faith must come only from the individual commanded to have faith
3.) Therefore all men must have the ability to be saved.

The problem is #2; this is only implied by you; that all faith can only come from within the individual commanded to have it, when in fact this faith, this belief, comes only from God. If the jailer believed, Paul knew it was only because God had given him the faith necessary.

GodsGrace said:

If GOD CHOOSES US
why did Jesus tell us NOT TO LOOK BACK IF we wish to follow Him.
Why did He say that we should COUNT THE COST?

Click to expand...

Simple. To weed out those who the Father had given faith from the people who claimed to have faith but didn't. The Faith given by the Father could stand up to the tests of Christ; the "faith" produced by men could not. So when He tells them to "count the cost", Christ knows that when they do those whose faith is not of the Father will be weeded out and exposed. When Christ said not to look back, He knew that only those with the divine Faith given by the Father would actually be able to live out this command; those who did not have the heavenly faith would inevitably fall away.

GodsGrace said:

What's the use of counting the cost if God chooses us?
Common sense would suffice...but you have learned to follow MEN
instead of listening to Jesus and following what Jesus taught.
NO MAN COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Yet you quote this verse and then turn around and say the opposite; That man can only go to the Father of himself, which is exactly contradictory to the verse you just quoted. Common sense also suffices to see this contradiction with Scripture.

GodsGrace said:

Does that sound to you like JESUS PICKED YOU?
IF you go through JESUS...you will get to the Father.

Click to expand...

On the surface, taking only that one verse into account, no. But let's look at the whole of Scripture, and see what it says about being chosen:

Verses on God's Chosen People:

~ Psalm 33:12
~ Psalm 65:4
~ Haggai 2:23
~ Matthew 11:27
~ Matthew 24:22
~ Matthew 24:24
~ Matthew 24:31
~ Luke 18:7
~ Romans 8:28-30
~ Romans 8:33
~ Romans 11:28
~ Colossians 3:12
~ 1 Peter 2:8-9
~ 1 Thessalonians 5:9

Now, having taken into consideration the rest of Scripture, let's look at the verse again:

"No man cometh unto the Father, but by Me." No man can go to the Father, except that Christ gives them the ability, the Faith. So yes; that verse not only Sounds like it is saying Jesus picked me; it is saying that Jesus chose me, and every other believer.

GodsGrace said:

And the Father DRAWS everyone to His son.
As He has from the beginning of the creation.
Romans 1:19-20 should suffice to convince anyone with common sense.

Click to expand...

And Romans 1:21, which was so conveniently left out, answers your question:

Romans 1:21-25:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Men did not want this knowledge and rejected it. This is why only Christ can give faith; left to themselves, men will reject the very wisdom of God, refusing to believe.

Friend, all that has been shown is a lack of care for the Scriptures, and a total obsession with man's own ability. These kinds of arguments have been used for centuries, and been decimated for centuries.

There are several issues that can change how we view this issue.

First (and perhaps foremost) is how we view salvation itself.

Sometimes Calvinism looks to the cross as effecting salvation by settling a “sin debt” in order to satisfy divine justice. The problem, of course, is that this is not only not in the Bible but it is problematic with several passages that we do have.

Scripture does point to the cross and the blood of Christ, but as the rendered payment for mankind. Salvation as a state of having been saved is in the future. We are saved (past) in the sense that we have believed. We are being saved as evidenced by the transformed life which evidences this final state of having been saved.

In other words, our life in Christ now (being saved) is evidence of the hope we have in Christ (will be saved) because we have believed. If we ever change and no longer believe we evidence that we will not be saved. Calvinism has made a mess of Scripture in this regard.

Of course, Calvinism was never exactly designed to be applied as so many "Calvinists" apply it today so I am not certain that we can fault the tradition. If Penal Substitution Theory is correct then I see no logical solution but Calvinism.

John Caldwell said:

Sometimes Calvinism looks to the cross as effecting salvation by settling a “sin debt” in order to satisfy divine justice. The problem, of course, is that this is not only not in the Bible but it is problematic with several passages that we do have.

Click to expand...

If the point of the cross was not to settle man's debt of sin, what was the point of the cross? The Scriptures are littered with references to the Cross being for the payment of sin.

John Caldwell said:

Scripture does point to the cross and the blood of Christ, but as the rendered payment for mankind. Salvation as a state of having been saved is in the future. We are saved (past) in the sense that we have believed. We are being saved as evidenced by the transformed life which evidences this final state of having been saved.

Click to expand...

This would be work's righteousness, stating that you are saved based on the actions you take. We are saved only by the blood of Christ; nothing more. And Christ handles the entire operation; he leaves nothing to the folly of men.

I think, insofar as the topic of the OP goes, we need to keep in mind that foreknowledge has always meant prescience....that is until neo-Calvinists sought to redefine terms in order to exclude other interpretations of the text. John Calvin defined biblical foreknowledge as prescience. Luther held biblical foreknowledge to be prescience. So did Augustine. So did the Early Church Fathers.

But just like with the word "world", if a few less than honest (to the actual text of Scripture) Calvinists can establish new meanings for these words then there can be no argument. The problem is that these meanings are new and foreign to the first two thousand years of the Church.

Mjh29 said:

If the point of the cross was not to settle man's debt of sin, what was the point of the cross? The Scriptures are littered with references to the Cross being for the payment of sin.



This would be work's righteousness, stating that you are saved based on the actions you take. We are saved only by the blood of Christ; nothing more. And Christ handles the entire operation; he leaves nothing to the folly of men.

Click to expand...

I believe the point of the cross was to reconcile mankind to God by Christ being the Firstborn of many brethern (the "second" Adam, so to speak).

John Caldwell said:

I believe the point of the cross was to reconcile mankind to God by Christ being the Firstborn of many brethern (the "second" Adam, so to speak).

Click to expand...

How can sin-filled mankind be reconciled when his sin is not taken care of in the eyes of the just God? God made it clear; sin and sinners cannot dwell in His presence.

Mjh29 said:

How can sin-filled mankind be reconciled when his sin is not taken care of in the eyes of the just God? God made it clear; sin and sinners cannot dwell in His presence.

Click to expand...

By being reborn and made a new creation in Christ. Still, man pays the penalty of sin (which is a physical death as men are not reborn "of the Spirit" to "die spiritually").

We need to try to be mindful of what Scripture actually says and what is developed from human theories.

Scripture never says that men will "spiritually die". Scripture speaks of unsaved men as being spiritually dead (not spiritually alive), NOT of having died spiritually.

The "second death" is not dying spiritually (those who perish are redurrected to condemnation - not made spiritually alive so they can die). The "second death" is when death and hades is cast into the Lake of Fire.

Scripture never speaks of Jesus paying a "sin debt". The wages of sin is death, and this is a debt we will pay. Christ frees us from the bondage of sin and death.

Christ had to die because otherwise he would not have victory over sin and death.

Nowhere does Scripture actually state that God was wrathful to Christ or that Christ drank the cup of divine wrath towards Him. Calvinists sometime insist the "cup" always points to God's wrath but we know this to be a false claim (in the passage Christ speaks of "the cup" He also tells Peter he will drink from the same cup).

Scripture never places righteousness as being fulfilled through the law (Scripture states the opposite - that redemption is God's righteoysness apart from the law).

Scripture never describes divine justice as retributive justice. This type of justice belongs to man and ultimately condemns.

Scripture never states divine justice must be satisfied before God can forgive. God is just and the justifier of sinners (men are redeemed, not spared death but given spiritual life).

Mjh29 said:

How can sin-filled mankind be reconciled when his sin is not taken care of in the eyes of the just God? God made it clear; sin and sinners cannot dwell in His presence.

Click to expand...

Men die. Those saved die to sin. These men are "born again" and made new creations.

John Caldwell said:

I think, insofar as the topic of the OP goes, we need to keep in mind that foreknowledge has always meant prescience....that is until neo-Calvinists sought to redefine terms in order to exclude other interpretations of the text. John Calvin defined biblical foreknowledge as prescience. Luther held biblical foreknowledge to be prescience. So did Augustine. So did the Early Church Fathers.

But just like with the word "world", if a few less than honest (to the actual text of Scripture) Calvinists can establish new meanings for these words then there can be no argument. The problem is that these meanings are new and foreign to the first two thousand years of the Church.

Click to expand...

It's very late h ere and this has to wait till tomorrow,,,
but could you please explain to me what prescience is?
I don't like to learn anything from google, except if I already know what I'm reading is correct.
IOW, what's the difference between prescience and foreknowledge. (I know what foreknowledge is)


This is the dictionary explanation which means little in matters of the bible (most times).

prescience
/ˈprɛsɪəns/

noun

1. the fact of knowing something in advance; foreknowledge.
   "with extraordinary prescience, Jung actually predicted the Nazi eruption"
   sinonimi: far-sightedness, foresight, foreknowledge;

John Caldwell said:

By being reborn and made a new creation in Christ. Still, man pays the penalty of sin (which is a physical death as men are not reborn "of the Spirit" to "die spiritually").

Click to expand...

So... in essence what you are saying is that man pays for his own sins and is his own savior. There is only one Savior and one mediator. Man's physical death is not enough to satisfy God's wrath against sin. To say this is to say that every person who dies will be in Heaven.

John Caldwell said:

Scripture never says that men will "spiritually die".

Click to expand...

God told Adam that the very day he ate of the fruit, he would die. He died spiritually that day; so yes the Scriptures DO say that men will Spiritually die. They die to the things of the Spirit the minute they are conceived.

John Caldwell said:

Scripture never speaks of Jesus paying a "sin debt". The wages of sin is death, and this is a debt we will pay. Christ frees us from the bondage of sin and death.

Click to expand...

~ 1 Peter 3:18
~ 1 Corinthians 15:3
~ 1 Thessalonians 5:10

These verses would all disagree. He paid the debt for sin; a debt you and I never could. Again, there is one mediator between God and man. And this mediator cannot have sin on his own hands.

John Caldwell said:

Scripture never places righteousness as being fulfilled through the law (Scripture states the opposite - that redemption is God's righteoysness apart from the law).

Click to expand...

~ Romans 3:31

We establish the Law; it is what Christ had to keep in our stead; the Law is not the problem; WE are the problem.

John Caldwell said:

Scripture never describes divine justice as retributive justice. This type of justice belongs to man and ultimately condemns.

Click to expand...

~ Deuteronomy 32:25
~ 2 Chronicles 6:23
~ Isaiah 66:6
~ Jeremiah 5:9
~ Jeremiah 51:56

Oh yes; it most certainly DOES speak of His justice in this way.

John Caldwell said:

Men die. Those saved die to sin. These men are "born again" and made new creations.

Click to expand...

Man's death is not enough, because that death is not a perfect death; it does not correct anything. It was the punishment, not the solution

GodsGrace said:

It's very late h ere and this has to wait till tomorrow,,,
but could you please explain to me what prescience is?
I don't like to learn anything from google, except if I already know what I'm reading is correct.
IOW, what's the difference between prescience and foreknowledge. (I know what foreknowledge is)


This is the dictionary explanation which means little in matters of the bible (most times).

prescience
/ˈprɛsɪəns/

noun

1. the fact of knowing something in advance; foreknowledge.
   "with extraordinary prescience, Jung actually predicted the Nazi eruption"
   sinonimi: far-sightedness, foresight, foreknowledge;

Click to expand...

The dictionary definition is what the word means in the Bible (a pre-knowledge of future events). At one time words were words (they had meaning). What was argued was what English word correctly or most correctly conveys the meaning of the ancient word being examined (e.g., propitiation vs. expiation). Unfortunately within the past century there has been a push to redefine words so that they have a meaning and a "biblical meaning".

The word "foreknowledge" was never questioned as meaning anything but prescience or a pre-knowledge until fairly recently. For Calvin, Beza, and Arminius the word meant pre-knowledge. The issue was why God had this foreknowledge - did God look through time, did God just "know", or did God (as Calvin believed and Calvinism held for centuries) foreknow all things because God decreed all things.

The only reason to redefine foreknowledge is to exclude legitimate interpretations of the actual text. The real meaning of the word does not deny Calvinism but it also does not deny other views. So some Calvinists have created a mystic definition for the word as it's "biblical" meaning.

Mjh29 said:

Man's death is not enough, because that death is not a perfect death; it does not correct anything. It was the punishment, not the solution

Click to expand...

Man's death is not enough for what?

I know what you believe, Mjh29. And I do not hold your views against you (although we do disagree). For most of my life I held firmly to Penal Substitution Theory (and it's logical conclusion...Calvinism). I preached it and taught it.

There came a time I realized I could not justify the view via Scripture. When I read of God punishing Jesus I was not dealing with the text of Scripture but my theology. I do not believe Penal Substitution Theory to be true because it is such a foundational doctrine not to actually be stated in the text of Scripture. But that's me.

I think that you would do well to write down what you believe about the issue and the corresponding verses. If your belief is not actually stated (e.g. if Scripture never actually states that God punished Christ) then highlight that belief. At the end, weigh your view with Scripture and decide to hold on to it or discard it. That's your "dog" to hunt, not mine (I already did this).

Mjh29 said:

So... in essence what you are saying is that man pays for his own sins and is his own savior. There is only one Savior and one mediator. Man's physical death is not enough to satisfy God's wrath against sin. To say this is to say that every person who dies will be in Heaven.



God told Adam that the very day he ate of the fruit, he would die. He died spiritually that day; so yes the Scriptures DO say that men will Spiritually die. They die to the things of the Spirit the minute they are conceived.



~ 1 Peter 3:18
~ 1 Corinthians 15:3
~ 1 Thessalonians 5:10

These verses would all disagree. He paid the debt for sin; a debt you and I never could. Again, there is one mediator between God and man. And this mediator cannot have sin on his own hands.



~ Romans 3:31

We establish the Law; it is what Christ had to keep in our stead; the Law is not the problem; WE are the problem.



~ Deuteronomy 32:25
~ 2 Chronicles 6:23
~ Isaiah 66:6
~ Jeremiah 5:9
~ Jeremiah 51:56

Oh yes; it most certainly DOES speak of His justice in this way.

Click to expand...

Scripture does not say that Adam would die on that day. What Scripture says is "die" twice, which is an emphatic (death would be a certainty). This is used when we see "Truly Truly" or "Verily Verily" or "Very truly" as well. The actual words are "amen amen". It is emphatic.

What is interesting to me is that none of the verses you provide actually state that God punished Christ, that God was wrathful to Christ, or that Christ paid our "sin debt" in the context that Christ suffered the punishment reserved for our sins.

I don't know if you read my comment on the other thread (I don't even remember the thread). After a sermon I delivered was convicted about this topic. I leaned hard on Penal Substitution Theory. What I did was purchase two dry erase boards and put them up in my office. I wrote down Penal Substitution Theory and every passage directly dealing with the topic. I erased each point of Penal Substitution Theory that was not stated in the text (I realize verses can be used to support the theory, but I'm talking about Scripture actually stating the points). When I was done so was Penal Substitution Theory. It took me about two months, but that was the easy part. The hard part was going back through Scripture and reading it without my Penal Substitution Theory lenses. I often had to read what the Early Church Fathers wrote just to get an idea of how the text itself had meaning.

Anyway, that's my experience and I'm not advocating it for you. I'm suggesting that you may want to reexamine the Theory against Scripture. None of the verses you have provided actually necessitate the conclusion you are advocating.

John Caldwell said:

The dictionary definition is what the word means in the Bible (a pre-knowledge of future events). At one time words were words (they had meaning). What was argued was what English word correctly or most correctly conveys the meaning of the ancient word being examined (e.g., propitiation vs. expiation). Unfortunately within the past century there has been a push to redefine words so that they have a meaning and a "biblical meaning".

The word "foreknowledge" was never questioned as meaning anything but prescience or a pre-knowledge until fairly recently. For Calvin, Beza, and Arminius the word meant pre-knowledge. The issue was why God had this foreknowledge - did God look through time, did God just "know", or did God (as Calvin believed and Calvinism held for centuries) foreknow all things because God decreed all things.

The only reason to redefine foreknowledge is to exclude legitimate interpretations of the actual text. The real meaning of the word does not deny Calvinism but it also does not deny other views. So some Calvinists have created a mystic definition for the word as it's "biblical" meaning.

Click to expand...

Understood.
Please just confirm the following with a like....

In calvinist theology:
Foreknowledge means God knew what would happen before it happened.
Prescience means God foreknew what would happen because he DECREED it.

Thanks.

GodsGrace said:

Understood.
Please just confirm the following with a like....

In calvinist theology:
Foreknowledge means God knew what would happen before it happened.
Prescience means God foreknew what would happen because he DECREED it.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

In Calvinism foreknowledge and prescience mean tbe same thing - knowing beforehand. The debate within Calvinism was about predestination, not foreknowledge.

Arminianism views foreknowledge as an ontological attrubute (based on omniscience). Calvinism bases foreknowkedge on preordination (God knows the future because God determined the future).

In neo-Calvinism the word "foreknowledge" is redefined to mean more than the biblical definition of the word. It is defined as s mystical relationship God had with the elect and is nothing but a dishonest attempt to render opposing positions obsolete.

People like Anthony are neo-Calvinistic and fairly new to the theological landscape. So there is a distinction that has to be made regarding how Calvinists view the definition.

John Caldwell said:

In Calvinism foreknowledge and prescience mean tbe same thing - knowing beforehand. The debate within Calvinism was about predestination, not foreknowledge.

Arminianism views foreknowledge as an ontological attrubute (based on omniscience). Calvinism bases foreknowkedge on preordination (God knows the future because God determined the future).

In neo-Calvinism the word "foreknowledge" is redefined to mean more than the biblical definition of the word. It is defined as s mystical relationship God had with the elect and is nothing but a dishonest attempt to render opposing positions obsolete.

People like Anthony are neo-Calvinistic and fairly new to the theological landscape. So there is a distinction that has to be made regarding how Calvinists view the definition.

Click to expand...

I've noticed that there's always a lot of talk about persons in calvinist discussions.
For instance, I know who Arminius was, but I don't really know too much about him or what he taught. Then I hear about Pelagius...ditto. I know more about Augustine because he was catholic and so was I, but I don't care for him and I do believe the catholic church is beginning to lose some respect for him.....at least I BELIEVE so....not sure about this. He just isn't as respected as he used to be....I say this from writings about him. (current writings).

OK. I do understand the difference, however.
The question becomes...did God decree everything that happens.

IF He did,,,then He also decreed everything evil that happens.
I find this is a big problem in calvinist theology.

It is also a big problem in Christian theology (outside of calvinism) but at least Christianity states that God ALLOWS evil, but does not create it.

Then there are those that believe that because God KNOWS something, He causes it to happen.

All these ideas are only proof to me that we do not know God fully as we might think we do,,,
but we can only now that little that He allowed us to now about Him through Jesus.

This is why I depend heavily on what Jesus taught and what the Early Fathers taught...the ones that learned from the Apostles.

Mjh29 said:

How can sin-filled mankind be reconciled when his sin is not taken care of in the eyes of the just God? God made it clear; sin and sinners cannot dwell in His presence.

Click to expand...

And that is exactly why Christ was made SIN for us. God was in Christ RECONCILING THE WORLD UNTO HIMSELF (2 Cor 5:19). But you don't even believe this although God has said it.

Calvinism essentially makes God a liar.

GodsGrace said:

I've noticed that there's always a lot of talk about persons in calvinist discussions.
For instance, I know who Arminius was, but I don't really know too much about him or what he taught. Then I hear about Pelagius...ditto. I know more about Augustine because he was catholic and so was I, but I don't care for him and I do believe the catholic church is beginning to lose some respect for him.....at least I BELIEVE so....not sure about this. He just isn't as respected as he used to be....I say this from writings about him. (current writings).

OK. I do understand the difference, however.
The question becomes...did God decree everything that happens.

IF He did,,,then He also decreed everything evil that happens.
I find this is a big problem in calvinist theology.

It is also a big problem in Christian theology (outside of calvinism) but at least Christianity states that God ALLOWS evil, but does not create it.

Then there are those that believe that because God KNOWS something, He causes it to happen.

All these ideas are only proof to me that we do not know God fully as we might think we do,,,
but we can only now that little that He allowed us to now about Him through Jesus.

This is why I depend heavily on what Jesus taught and what the Early Fathers taught...the ones that learned from the Apostles.

Click to expand...

I believe it can be said God decreed everything that occurs because knowing what would occur God created.

This does not mean that God authors evil, but that God works everything for the good and this not in the sense of reaction.

And this is a philosophical answer to a philosophical question.

I stick to Scripture as well. I believe that everything holds together in Christ, that God knows even the numbers of hairs on my head, that God feeds the sparrows and clothes the flowers. Man makes his plans but God controls his steps. Nothing happens that has not been ordained to occur by God. Nothing.

At the same time we act freely and our plans are ours. We make our own choices. God does not force unwilling people to belief or disbelief.

I do not have to understand how these things fit together. I only have to believe both are true - we do not allow our "yes" to Scripture become a "no" to other passages.

John Caldwell said:

I believe it can be said God decreed everything that occurs because knowing what would occur God created.

This does not mean that God authors evil, but that God works everything for the good and this not in the sense of reaction.

And this is a philosophical answer to a philosophical question.

I stick to Scripture as well. I believe that everything holds together in Christ, that God knows even the numbers of hairs on my head, that God feeds the sparrows and clothes the flowers. Man makes his plans but God controls his steps. Nothing happens that has not been ordained to occur by God. Nothing.

At the same time we act freely and our plans are ours. We make our own choices. God does not force unwilling people to belief or disbelief.

I do not have to understand how these things fit together. I only have to believe both are true - we do not allow our "yes" to Scripture become a "no" to other passages.

Click to expand...

John 6 is a good guide to the balance of Divine Sovereignty with human responsibility; it's even in one verse:

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." (John 6.37)