Biblical Foreknowledge

[ScottA]

Yes...that is the main point Scott, no need to over think it.
In other words..WHOM He did foreknow...are predestined, called, justified,glorified....they call this...the golden chain of redemption.
It is spoken of and only true of believers.
The unsaved ...who remain unsaved...are never justified,or glorified.
Once you see.it, re read the passage a few times and you will get it. There is no other way to see.it.

I do see it, but was hoping to walk out just what it is that you have put your finger on. You see, if events are not the subject of foreknowledge and yet people are, then it is because we share a timelessness with God (the same yesterday, today, and forever). But also by that same realization, time is not only finite, but has no place in the reality of God and the kingdom. Therefore, when we read of the events of men we read of what is finite; but when we read of the would-be events of God, time can as should be removed for clarity on His level. This is the mind of Christ, and rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

So God does not actually define the word?

God defines the word by biblical usage.
Nothing beats that.
I think you do not understand Roman's 8 :29-30.
Give your understanding and show how you differ from Pink...

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

I do see it, but was hoping to walk out just what it is that you have put your finger on. You see, if events are not the subject of foreknowledge and yet people are, then it is because we share a timelessness with God (the same yesterday, today, and forever). But also by that same realization, time is not only finite, but has no place in the reality of God and the kingdom. Therefore, when we read of the events of men we read of what is finite; but when we read of the would-be events of God, time can as should be removed for clarity on His level. This is the mind of Christ, and rightly dividing the word of truth.

Scott,
I am glad we can agree in part on the whom he did foreknow.

I do not do philosophical speculation about time.
God has made time part of what He deals with, at creation we see time keepers put in place.
Jesus came in the fulness of time to accomplish redemption.
Gal4.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

John Calvin died long before the Arminian point of view was articulated.

Calvin was stating that foreknowledge is a pre-knowledge and that based on God's decree. They are linked, as you indicate (to the traditional Calvinist) but Calvin did not redefine the actual word.

Were you speaking of foreknowledge as a doctrine you would be correct (in terms of Calvinism). But in terms of the meaning of a word you are wrong.

The issue comes up in translations (famously with "atonement", "expiation", and "propitiation"). When we ignore the meaning of words and provide interpretation instead we pave the way to error.

There have been Arminians before Jacob Hermanson, as their have been Calvinists before Calvin.
I do not have Calvin in front of me. Most take him out of context. I will check when on my computer.
The 1689 confession of faith mentions the common term free will before it explains mans will is bound.
Wrong uses of the terms are always subjected to biblical correction.

 

[ScottA]

Then throw a wrench into to works, and consider the warning in revelations about names being potentally removed from the book of life. This implies a change in the eternal, Change ostensibly requires time. But all things came into being by God's word, even the eternal, so there it that.

It is indeed a perplexing logic, but time must be removed from any and all matters of God, for He is infinite.

In doing so regarding names being removed from the book of life, it is only God who can put in and take out in the twinkling of an eye the things of many lifetimes. Written there are the comings and goings of men, unpacked and unfolded as a witness, those things we determine(d) in our moment of decision, in that valley and shadow of darkness where time is an illusion.

 

[ScottA]

Scott,
I am glad we can agree in part on the whom he did foreknow.

I do not do philosophical speculation about time.
God has made time part of what He deals with, at creation we see time keepers put in place.
Jesus came in the fulness of time to accomplish redemption.
Gal4.

Indeed, such is the nature of manifestations and revelation. But we are also to press on, to follow, and to escape the trappings of time by the means which Christ has provided. Pressing on reveals that the cross is the mid-point of time, but more importantly the apex to which all things unfold and then refold again. The hourglass has been turned, then comes the end. Which things are philosophical nonsense to those who speculate, but all truth if by the spirit of God to those who do no speculation but receive it at His hand.

 

[John Caldwell]

God defines the word by biblical usage.
Nothing beats that.
I think you do not understand Roman's 8 :29-30.
Give your understanding and show how you differ from Pink...

You have no way of knowing if I understand the passage.

The topic is "foreknowledge" (the word, not a doctrine of foreknowledge).

I agreed with John Calvin's definition of the word.

 

[John Caldwell]

There have been Arminians before Jacob Hermanson, as their have been Calvinists before Calvin.
I do not have Calvin in front of me. Most take him out of context. I will check when on my computer.
The 1689 confession of faith mentions the common term free will before it explains mans will is bound.
Wrong uses of the terms are always subjected to biblical correction.

Here I side with C.H. Spurgeon (I already provided the reference) in holding Calvin developed Calvinism largely from his study of Augustine. But Augustine was not a Calvinist. Go figure.

And, of course, Arminianism is of a Calvinistic trajectory. History is not on your side, bro.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

"John Caldwell,

You have no way of knowing if I understand the passage.

I know exactly that you do not understand it. That time you melted down saying you hated Calvinists showed and confirmed what I knew inside. JonC...it is okay if you do not understand the biblical teaching.
You finally came out of the closet in which you made believe you were "a calvinist":

It is okay that you cannot believe it at this time. Only God can allow such understanding.

The topic is "foreknowledge" (the word, not a doctrine of foreknowledge).

Bible foreknowledge is the title of the thread, that includes the word and the doctrine.
You do not get to change it. The biblical use of the word cannot really be correctly separated from it.

I agreed with John Calvin's definition of the word.[/QUOTE]

I have not read Calvin in context yet. You claim it is a definiton I am not so sure. It is not like you have given me any reason to doubt what you say

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Here I side with C.H. Spurgeon (I already provided the reference) in holding Calvin developed Calvinism largely from his study of Augustine. But Augustine was not a Calvinist. Go figure.

And, of course, Arminianism is of a Calvinistic trajectory. History is not on your side, bro.

Glad you enjoy Spurgeon who declared Calvinism is the Gospel, which strangely you do not believe,lol
I believe all true believers are Calvinists, but at different levels of strength and understanding. Over time i have seen this truth on several boards
Some believe it all, some believe most, but hold out because of pride, or emotional objections. Some have had pastors who falsely resisted the teaching and actively taught against it. in the end, God accomplishes his purpose.

 

[John Caldwell]

Glad you enjoy Spurgeon who declared Calvinism is the Gospel, which strangely you do not believe,lol
I believe all true believers are Calvinists, but at different levels of strength and understanding. Over time i have seen this truth on several boards
Some believe it all, some believe most, but hold out because of pride, or emotional objections. Some have had pastors who falsely resisted the teaching and actively taught against it. in the end, God accomplishes his purpose.

I have always loved Spurgeon's sermons.

Even where Spurgeon declairs that (to him) Calvinism is the gospel (this is one of my favorite references because it is so often taken out of context by hyper-Calvinists. In the same place Spurgeon explains it is his understanding of the gospel which is limited by the "human condition". Calvinism is the gospel to Spurgeon as Arminianism is the gospel to Wesley....and both affirmed the exact same gospel. God is good).

My favorite, however, is "Choice Portions"). You travel - give the audio a try. It's up your alley.

But don't be surprised that I like Spurgeon (a moderate Calvinist) while disagreeing with his doctrine. I am not a disciple of men but of Christ.

I like reading John Gill and he taught Michael and Jesus are one in the same. I disagree with that also.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

I have always loved Spurgeon's sermons.

Even where Spurgeon declairs that (to him) Calvinism is the gospel (this is one of my favorite references because it is so often taken out of context by hyper-Calvinists. In the same place Spurgeon explains it is his understanding of the gospel which is limited by the "human condition". Calvinism is the gospel to Spurgeon as Arminianism is the gospel to Wesley....and both affirmed the exact same gospel. God is good).

My favorite, however, is "Choice Portions"). You travel - give the audio a try. It's up your alley.

But don't be surprised that I like Spurgeon (a moderate Calvinist) while disagreeing with his doctrine. I am not a disciple of men but of Christ.

I like reading John Gill and he taught Michael and Jesus are one in the same. I disagree with that also.

Another falsehood???
I have read the sermon and seen Spurgeon himself explain how it is so,lol
out of context haha

here is some context for you my Calvinist hating friend;


Charles Spurgeon: "What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ--the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor." (C. H. Spurgeon, The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 1, 1856)

 

[John Caldwell]

Another falsehood???
I have read the sermon and seen Spurgeon himself explain how it is so,lol
out of context haha

here is some context for you my Calvinist hating friend;


Charles Spurgeon: "What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ--the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor." (C. H. Spurgeon, The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 1, 1856)

Just because you are ignorant of my reference does not mean it is false. You need to learn not to make assumptions Anthony.

Insofar as Spurgeon alluding to the failure that is human reasoning and stating his view is his understanding reference "God's Will and Man's Will". Reference Spurgeon's notes vol 2 in regard to Calvinism being his understanding.

When you do this there is no need to apologize, just be more careful about making assumptions in the future.

For me the traditional Christian view (the Classic view) is the gospel as it reflects my understanding of the gospel. At one time , like you, sided with the Reformed tradition and their take on the Latin view of the Atonement. I do not now, but I hold to the exact same gospel.

If anyone does not affirm the gospel I hold then they are under condemnation and are lost. They do not have to share my understanding of the gospel, but that is where they must rest nonetheless. I hold the traditional view but my faith is in the gospel of Jesus Christ and in Him, not in my own understanding.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Here is some more Spurgeon;
Election

in this sermon we see this;
I will give you a specimen of what they utter concerning election, so that if you believe them, you cannot avoid receiving election. I will read a portion of the 17th Article upon Predestination and Election:—

"Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hast continually decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity."

I have selected a few texts to read to you. I love to give you a whole volley of texts when I am afraid you will distrust a truth, so that you may be too astonished to doubt, if you do not in reality believe. Just let me run through a catalogue of passages where the people of God are called elect. Of course if the people are called elect, there must be election. If Jesus Christ and his apostles were accustomed to style believers by the title of elect, we must certainly believe that they were so, otherwise the term does not mean anything. Jesus Christ says, "Except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved; but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days." "False Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect." "Then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven" (Mark 13:20,22,27). "Shall not God avenge his own elect, who cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?" (Luke 18:7). Together with many other passages which might be selected, wherein either the word "elect," or "chosen," or "foreordained," or "appointed" is mentioned; or the phrase "my sheep" or some similar designation, showing that Christ's people are distinguished from the rest of mankind.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

No, JonC i gave the correct reference in my post, you are wrong once again...New park street pulpit volume 1, lol

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Just because you are ignorant of my reference does not mean it is false. You need to learn not to make assumptions Anthony.

No, JonC i gave the correct reference in my post, you are wrong once again...New park street pulpit volume 1, lol

 

[John Caldwell]

I know exactly that you do not understand it. That time you melted down saying you hated Calvinists showed and confirmed what I knew inside.

Yet another false accusation. I have no idea where you developed this idea but it has no basis in fact (it is a lie).

Provide the post where I say I hate Calvinists and let's look at it together (unless you were simply being intentionally dishonest).

Have you ever considered your hatred towards me may also be based on fantasy (like your false accusation here) rather than fact?

In his 80's my father-in-law came to believe dwarves were stealing his mail. He had that one delusion for the rest of his life (you cannot do anything about a delusion except reinforce reality). His claim was also baseless, but he believed it nonetheless. Dwarves.

To the Christian Forum - I do not hate and never said that I hate Calvinists, Arminians, or anyone. I have no idea where @Anthony D'Arienzo came up with the absurdity. I suspect he think he knows me (he keeps telling me what I believe, what I understand), but I do not know him and he does not know me. Dwarves.

 

[John Caldwell]

I have read the sermon and seen Spurgeon himself explain how it is so,lol

I have no doubt you believe you have "seen Spurgeon himself explain how it is", but I find your claim a bit dubious.

Perhaps this explains your false accusation about me hating Calvinists. Spurgeon and my non-existent posts are the dwarves stealing your mail. You believe it but it has no basis in reality

Or you could be lying, I suppose....but we'll just go with dwarves. Next time you see Spurgeon tell him hi for me.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Yet another false accusation. I have no idea where you developed this idea but it has no basis in fact (it is a lie).

Provide the post where I say I hate Calvinists and let's look at it together (unless you were simply being intentionally dishonest).

Have you ever considered your hatred towards me may also be based on fantasy (like your false accusation here) rather than fact?

In his 80's my father-in-law came to believe dwarves were stealing his mail. He had that one delusion for the rest of his life (you cannot do anything about a delusion except reinforce reality). His claim was also baseless, but he believed it nonetheless. Dwarves.

To the Christian Forum - I do not hate and never said that I hate Calvinists, Arminians, or anyone. I have no idea where @Anthony D'Arienzo came up with the absurdity. I suspect he think he knows me (he keeps telling me what I believe, what I understand), but I do not know him and he does not know me. Dwarves.

You can pull it up, actually it was you that deleted it. You lied there, you lie now.
These are facts you cannot face. You almost got away with it, but one of the honest pastors had saved it for me. You were not counting on that....what a disgrace
I gave the correct reference on Spurgeon which tells me you did not even read the post,lol.
No wonder your posts are fragmented.
Slowly everyone is seeing these errors being exposed.
The see your slander and dishonest dealings.
MORE importantly God sees.

 

[Giuliano]

Indeed what does the word "know" mean? Perhaps we should look into that before trying to discern what "foreknow" means. What does it mean here:

Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

"Know" does not mean "know about" in that passage. Surely God knows about us all, so it means what the word means in the Old Testament when it says a man and his wife "knew" each other; and "foreknow" means God has an intimate relationship with some people before they were born. No?