God's Foreknowledge versus our Choice

Van · Last edited by Van on Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:49 pm; edited 1 time in total

Calvinists bogus view of the bible says that we are saved or condemned for eternity because we were saved or condemned from eternity.

Tiger75

I know this can be quite a controversial topic but I would suggest that 'Election' is independent of God's foreknowledge. Ie. we are not predestined because God knew one day we would believe.

Romans 8:29/30

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Van

Tiger, thanks. While we may not agree on the mechanism of election, we do agree that God's foreknowledge does not compel our choice.

changeup2010

Van,

You truly have a dizzying intellect in that first post. WOW. I thought my brain was gonna explode after reading the second paragraph. Would not have been pretty.

I think I have posted on this subject before, but I don't remember where. Especially after reading this post, LOL.

My belief on this one is, I look at it as we are all on a boat traveling toward God. Some choose to stay on the boat and yet some choose to jump off. Those that stayed on were the ones He foreknew would stay on. To me this means that God knew people would accept the Word. Once they have accepted the Word they are conformed to be like Christ. To me this means that those he foreknew were "predestined" (conformed to be like Christ). Look at it, the conformation, as a gift. When you accept the Word you receive this gift.

Ultimately you are right. We do "elect" to accept the Word or not.

I hope this makes sense.

Van

Makes sense to me, but candor demands that I acknowledge a widespread belief among scholars that hold a differing view which I think is called Calvinism. In any event, we share the same view.

changeup2010

quote:
Originally posted by Van:
Makes sense to me, but candor demands that I acknowledge a widespread belief among scholars that hold a differing view which I think is called Calvinism. In any event, we share the same view.

I don't know if I'm reading that right. I am not a Calvanist. I am of the Armenian way of thinking. Armenians believe that we must take the step to be saved. Calvanists think that we have nothing to do with being saved, it's God's decision.

I am not meaning to rouse any emotions, just letting you know how I think.

Tiger75

Hi folks,

I think we need to be careful when we start using terms such as Calvanist and Arminian because people have slightly differing definitions. If someone asked me if I was one or the other I would say I was a Calvanist but I don't fully agree with the 'formal' definition of Limited Atonement. Neither did Calvin if you read his exposition of Ezekiel.

Tiger

ps Can explain what I mean by Calvanism if anyone wants me to.

Van

Change-up, sorry I seem to not have been clear. We agree that we made the choice, and some (no matter what we might call them) hold a differing view.

And yes, Tiger, there are different flavors of Calvinism, I just wanted to acknowledge the differing view, not attack a particular flavor.

And Tiger, I would be happy to comment, but not necessarily agree, with your view of the election controversy.

Ryck · Lion King Joined: 05 Dec 2002 Posts: 1094

By Tiger75:

quote:

ps Can explain what I mean by Calvanism if anyone wants me to.

I'm interested in your explaination of Calvanism.

Thanks

Michael D · Goldfish Joined: 01 Nov 2002 Posts: 56 Location: Colorado

On election and free will...

The best summary I've heard is:

No one who finds themselves in Heaven can take an ounce of credit for being there (election), and no one who finds themselves in Hell can blame anyone but themselves for being there (free will). Both statements are true.

What do you think?

Mike

Van

Michael D your statement certainly address some of the issues driving the controversy.
One side trying to avoid the "works" of turning and trusting and the other side trying to avoid the appearance of unjust punishment.

BadgerJohn · Newbie Alert Joined: 22 Jan 2003 Posts: 3

howdy, howdy, everyone.

This is a pretty heady topic to get involved in on my first post, but it's also one that interests me greatly, so, here goes:

Van: First, I would like to agree that your examples do a good job of showing that foreknowledge does not compel outcome, but I'm not sure you're attacking the right question.

The real question is whether God compels outcomes, not whether a particular characteristic of His is solely responsible.

To clarify, while foreknowledge alone doesn't compel outcomes, foreknowledge added to omnipotence does. Your examples are missing that element of omnipotence.

In knowing every choice man would make before He Created the cosmos, and having the power to have altered things as He saw fit, God decided what each of those choices would be.

To extend upon your example of dropping an egg: the knowledge that the egg will break when dropped does not cause it to break, but that knowledge coupled with the actual dropping of the egg, *did* cause it to break.

In light of this, I cannot help but believe in the doctrine of election.

Tiger75

quote:
Originally posted by Ryck:
I'm interested in your explaination of Calvanism.

I'm not normally a cut and paste person but this is a good sum from the website: http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/doctrine.html

CALVINISM - The Five Points were a response to Arminianism. They summarize God's sovereign work of salvation toward people who are completely powerless to turn to God apart from His initiative.

TOTAL DEPRAVITY: Since the Fall, man is totally infected with sin so that he is spiritually dead and unable to make himself right with God or even seek God apart from the Holy Spirit's work of regeneration. Ephesians 2:1-3

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION: Out of His infinite mercy and love, God has chosen certain individuals to salvation, not because of any goodness or merit on their part, but solely because of His own infinite love for them. Romans 9:19-24, Ephesians 1:7-9

PARTICULAR ATONEMENT: The atoning work of Christ on the cross was infinite in power and sufficient for all men to be saved 1 John 2:2; yet it only accomplished and secured salvation for those whom God had chosen. This is the one where there are the most differing of opinions. I believe "Sufficient for all, efficient for many."

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE: Jesus said that all whom the Father called would come to Him (John 6:37). When the Lord draws an individual to Himself, that person comes.

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS: Those who are elected by the Father, redeemed by the Son, and regenerated by the Spirit can never lose or turn from salvation (Philippians 1:6). Nothing will ever separate them from the love of God. Romans 8

(Itallics mine)

I did this quite quickly so this is not a discourse

but a summary.

[This message has been edited by Tiger75 (edited 01-23-2003).]

Van

Thanks Tiger, an excellent summary.

TOTAL DEPRAVITY - We are depraved but the idea of spiritual inability, we are unable to choose Christ because we love darkness is in error.

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION - The question turns of how God chooses us. Does He select us as individuals, or is individual selection for furthering His purpose not the general rule? I think God chose Christ before the foundation of the world, and hence "chose" all those "in Christ".

PARTICULAR ATONEMENT - God's gift of salvation is made to all, and whosoever believes, will be saved by the power of God through the blood of the lamb.

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE - Like Spiritual inability, this idea is in error. We hear the gospel and we choose to accept or reject the gift.

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS - This, in my view, is totally valid, of course using a differing mechanism for election than the one Calvin had in view.

Van · Last edited by Van on Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:53 pm; edited 1 time in total

BadgerJohn, thanks for your observation. I agree that the concept of foreknowledge is only one of several legs that support the idea of individual selection by God as the mechanism of election. But, we disagree that God's power cannot be stayed by his hand such that we can choose God or other stuff.

[This message has been edited by Van (edited 01-23-2003).]