Biblical Foreknowledge

[John Caldwell]

Sorry, but that won't fly. The only decree in the act of creation was to be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. But man would be responsible for fulfilling that.

A Royal Decree is a royal decree, and a Divine Decree is a divine decree. It has the force of law. So to claim that God decreed everything which must come to pass means that He ruled that sin and evil would flourish on earth by Divine Decree. So it is far better to say that this whole concept is BOGUS.

The only command was to be fruitful. The concept of "decree" here is theological. The only way God did not "decree" (or determine) in creating that Creation would unfold as God knew it would is to deny divine omniscience (or that omniscience includes the results of free acts and contingent events).

Since I believe God knew before creation all that would occur I have to believe God actually created knowing beginning to end.

 

[Grailhunter]

The only command was to be fruitful. The concept of "decree" here is theological. The only way God did not "decree" (or determine) in creating that Creation would unfold as God knew it would is to deny divine omniscience (or that omniscience includes the results of free acts and contingent events).

Since I believe God knew before creation all that would occur I have to believe God actually created knowing beginning to end.

Hello John Caldwell...hope you are doing well this evening....give your dog a hug from me.
Can you believe, after knowing all of that....he still loved us! lol

 

[John Caldwell]

Hello John Caldwell...hope you are doing well this evening....give your dog a hug from me.
Can you believe, after knowing all of that....he still loved us! lol

I am doing well. I hope all is good with you.

The dog is driving me crazy. Every evening we have to go outside so he can chase a laser around the yard.

 

[Grailhunter]

I am doing well. I hope all is good with you.

The dog is driving me crazy. Every evening we have to go outside so he can chase a laser around the yard.

Yep the dogs are like kids. All good here. Going to post some stuff on Bibles.

 

[farouk]

For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,[1 Timothy 2:5]

εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς,

The Greek word used for mediator is μεσίτης, which is mesites. It means...

one that acts between two parties; a mediator, one who interposes to reconcile two adverse parties, 1 Tim. 2:5; an arbitrator, one who is the medium of communication between two parties, a mid-party, Gal. 3:19, 20; Heb. 8:6; 9:15; 12:24

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Timothy 2 - Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament

This is the Christ in the office of High Priest, as the OT high priest was a mediator between the Jews and God. This office was solely for God's ppl, as the high priest never mediated for the Egyptians, Hivites, Hittites, Jebusites, Assyrians, Syrians, Philistines, Amalekites, Moabites, &c. So, the ones the Christ mediates for are God's chosen ppl. These ppl are the OT Jewish remnant(along with a smattering of Gentiles), and the NT believers, which comprises the elect Jews and Gentiles.

Great passage there in 1 Timothy!

 

[Enoch111]

Since I believe God knew before creation all that would occur I have to believe God actually created knowing beginning to end.

And that is DEFINITELY NOT decreeing everything. Read the Westminster Confession and see that Reformed Theology believes that everything (good and evil) was decreed.

 

[John Caldwell]

And that is DEFINITELY NOT decreeing everything. Read the Westminster Confession and see that Reformed Theology believes that everything (good and evil) was decreed.

This is the reason James Arminius (who was much more a scholar than Gomarus) tried to reform this Calvinistic error. Calvinists often view God as the ultimate "cause" of evil while denying God as the arthor of evil.

Just like "foreknowledge" and "world", some Calvinists redefine terms. They have to.

 

[John Caldwell]

And that is DEFINITELY NOT decreeing everything. Read the Westminster Confession and see that Reformed Theology believes that everything (good and evil) was decreed.

I've noticed that the most vocal in favor of a neo-Calvinistic definition of foreknowledge (@Anthony_D'Arienzo and @SovereignGrace ) are silent. I take it that common sense has prevailed (that we do not have to redefine words to make them "biblical words").

It's good that the nonsense has calmed down a bit. Perhaps now a more mature discussion of predestination can be had.

 

[Mjh29]

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.

So, everyone will be in heaven, then?

 

[John Caldwell]

So, everyone will be in heaven, then?

I've seen this type of response before and it always made me wonder why.

Calvin believed that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the world (all men without exception) without believing all men will be saved.

The Early Church taught that Christ died for the "human family" as a whole, but they did not believe all men would be saved.

Why do you think that Paul's claim that the cross was God reconciling the world to Himself, and his claim that this is a he basis for us to beg others to be reconciled to God, has to mean that all men will go to heaven (I do not see the logic here).

Thanks

 

[Mjh29]

Calvin believed that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the world (all men without exception) without believing all men will be saved.

Actually, Calvin did not hold to this at all as far as I know. I have read through his institutes, and time and again he mentions that the blood of Christ could have been efficacious for all, if Christ had planned for it to be. He does not to my knowledge say that it is efficacious for all.

The Early Church taught that Christ died for the "human family" as a whole, but they did not believe all men would be saved.

The early church taught that Christ died for the Church family, not the entire human race. This mistake is built on false presuppositions and bad Scripture interpretation.

Why do you think that Paul's claim that the cross was God reconciling the world to Himself

Because the word here for world is actually the word for the creation, not the people. He is speaking of redeeming all of creation to Himself; winning it back from the sin which man placed it in.

and his claim that this is a he basis for us to beg others to be reconciled to God, has to mean that all men will go to heaven (I do not see the logic here).

Here is the dilemma:
If the blood of Christ covered all men's sins, then all men will be in heaven. Now you may say "Well, only if I choose to believe." This raises the question; is unbelief a sin?

~ If it is a sin, the Christ's blood covered this sin as well, so all men are saved.

~ If it is not a sin, then there is no penalty for not believing, and all men are saved.

Christ's blood will save all it was meant to save and not a person less.

 

[John Caldwell]

Actually, Calvin did not hold to this at all as far as I know. I have read through his institutes, and time and again he mentions that the blood of Christ could have been efficacious for all, if Christ had planned for it to be. He does not to my knowledge say that it is efficacious for all.



The early church taught that Christ died for the Church family, not the entire human race. This mistake is built on false presuppositions and bad Scripture interpretation.



Because the word here for world is actually the word for the creation, not the people. He is speaking of redeeming all of creation to Himself; winning it back from the sin which man placed it in.



Here is the dilemma:
If the blood of Christ covered all men's sins, then all men will be in heaven. Now you may say "Well, only if I choose to believe." This raises the question; is unbelief a sin?

~ If it is a sin, the Christ's blood covered this sin as well, so all men are saved.

~ If it is not a sin, then there is no penalty for not believing, and all men are saved.

Christ's blood will save all it was meant to save and not a person less.

I have also read his Institutions several times (once as a whole, broken down into daily readings and several times via reference). It is his "masterpiece" BUT the extent of the Atonement was a post-Calvin topic.

We do know that Calvin interpreted 1 Jn 2:2 to mean that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all men indiscriminately. This is (or should be) beyond question as we have Calvin's writings (reference his Johannine commentaries). Calvin was much more than the Institutes (his works on prayer are among the best, as is his pastoral writings).

But the bottom line is Calvin did believe Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all mankind, the Early Church taught Christ died for the sins of the "human family" BUT neither believed all are saved. The logical conclusion is a shortsightedness on your part, not the parts of others.

The "delima" you present is only a delima if one accepts Calvin's presuppositions.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

John Caldwell,

I've noticed that the most vocal in favor of a neo-Calvinistic definition of foreknowledge (@Anthony_D'Arienzo and @SovereignGrace ) are silent.

No one is buying your definitions, "neo calvinism" redefing terms.

People such as yourself do not understand mainstream Calvinism. We have seen how you were less than truthful about being a Calvinist. Your charade about being a Calvinist fooled no one but unsuspecting persons.
You have posted much error here, but we will help to clarify for those who read.
You invoked my name so It looks like you want a response to your many errors.

I take it that common sense has prevailed

That is not what happened, so like your posts you are wrong here also.

(that we do not have to redefine words to make them "biblical words").

No one redefines words. Understanding the biblical words seems as if it is a strange idea for you.

It's good that the nonsense has calmed down a bit. Perhaps now a more mature discussion of predestination can be had

The nonsense and double talk came from your keyboard as we will see shortly.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

John Caldwell,

I think, insofar as the topic of the OP goes, we need to keep in mind that foreknowledge has always meant prescience

This is a complete falsehood. The text stands regardless of who did or did not understand it.This poster claims all manner of things from his own imagination, but at no time does he make a biblical case.

....that is until neo-Calvinists sought to redefine terms in order to exclude other interpretations of the text.

This is a lame attempt to avoid the teaching of the actual texts.

John Calvin defined biblical foreknowledge as prescience. Luther held biblical foreknowledge to be prescience. So did Augustine. So did the Early Church Fathers.

None of these persons are apostles. We do not need to read and search for errors or defects in what was believed.

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.

Here he avoids the idea of actual context of the words...not a redefining but an understanding of the texts themselves.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

John Caldwell,

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.

A person with such confusion cannot understand the gospel correctly.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

I think that God has decreed all to hapoen as He knows it will happen. This goes beyond "ordain" I suppose because God made certain the future woud occur no other way when He created.

I could shoot a watermelon and claim I was not responsible because all I did was pull the trigger knowing what would happen. The propulsion supplied by the power caused the bullet to speed through the air and strike the mellon.

The difference is that men have free will, so we are responsible. But this does not mean that God was not in control (only that God did not author our evil).

Such double talk shows a lack of understanding of the topic in general. Men are responsible and yet their wills are bound by sin.AGAIN when you do not understand the fall, all manner of error follows.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Calvinism tries to explain how and why the gospel is necessary but does not have anything to do with the gospel itself. That's why holding it as a gospel is idolatry. Calvinism us philosophy- addressing predestination in salvation.

This ridiculous statement suggests, Spurgeon, all the reformers, puritans , did not know the gospel as they taught Calvinism properly understood is the gospel. JonC does not understand Calvinism or the gospel to make such a statement.

 

[lforrest]

I don't care what happened over on BB. While here please keep on topic.

 

[John Caldwell]

To reiterate my position –

Neo-Calvinism takes a very hard and narrow stance regarding Calvinism itself. It rewrites history and for a large part cannot distinguish Scripture from theology.

The Calvinism of John Calvin was less narrow than the Calvinism of Beza (the Calvinism that categorizes providence under soteriology). The Calvinism of Beza does not address the scope of the Atonement. It is simply a fact of theological development.

Theology is relevant to the situation in which a church finds itself as it tries to answer the questions being asked at a particular place in time. The Scope of the Atonement is a post-Calvin issue and in many ways a post-Dort issue.

At Dort here there was room for disagreement. Prior to the Synod of Dort the views of James Arminius had been determined orthodox (although extreme) within Calvinism. After Dort it would be excluded. Even here the actual scope of the Atonement (whether the atonement was for all with a potential to be saved or effectual and only offered for the elect) was in question. For one we have Amyraldism. But beyond that the extent of the atonement has always been a debatable point within Calvinism. Men like Graves and Howell tackled what they viewed as hyper-Calvinism. Calvinists wrote of ungodly views within their camp that denied Christ as the Propitiation for all man. And those who held the more narrow view countered back.

We do not need to be dishonest in order to support any view. We can honestly and objectively examine what history has to offer. Much of the writings of the Reformation forward are available, and with technology as it is people can research rather than allow themselves to be indoctrinated.

 

[John Caldwell]

I don't care what happened over on BB. While here please keep on topic.