Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2022 13:21:08 GMT -8
Relevance? I am happy to have you prove that but you're going about it in a misguided manner. First, asking about when Abraham was circumcised completely ignores everything already posted about Abraham that preceded his circumcision. The question gives the appearance of " I don't care what was poste beforehand and I am going to deliberately ignore it all because I want to ask about something completely different (like circumcision)." Second, the matter of " God's work in humanity" is ALWAYS couched in God being the first cause and the independent cause and never solely a subsequent cause or a dependent cause. Lastly, there is no " middle between monergism and synergism," because synergism covers the middle ground. That was just a bad statement that indicates either a lack of thought or a lack of knowledge. Synergism is the middle ground between the monergism of God converting man versus man converting himself. The ONLY correct response to what I just said is, " Yes, my bad. Of course. That is correct." Any other response will incline me to believe you don't have much of a clue about any of this and a conversation attempting to correct these errors would be a waste of both our time. So, start over. Your evaluation of my "manner" means nothing to anyone. 1. I know the Calvinist arguments well.... That is nowhere in evidence. The lack of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom is apparent and undeniable in the statement about the " middle between monergism and synergism." The ONLY correct response is, " Yes, of course, I misspoke." Anyone who legitimately knows the Calvinist arguments well knows synergism is the "between" position and not the pole. More importantly, I offered the opportunity to start over and an invitation to engage what has already been posted and both were ignored. I'll extend the offer again: don't bring something that occurs long after the covenant is established into the conversation until what's already been posted has been engaged and addressed. Don't try to hijack the thread with your own agenda. This op is specifically about God's foreknowledge and our salvation/calling/election/predestination, and ALL of those things ALWAYS occurs in the context of a God-initiated covenant and not once does God ask anyone if they want to be chosen, want to be called, or want to be obedient until after the covenant has been established. Prove that wrong. Otherwise, embrace the foreknowing and predestining aspects of the monergistically God-initiated covenant. |
|
|
|
Post by praiseyeshua on Oct 1, 2022 7:58:13 GMT -8
Your evaluation of my "manner" means nothing to anyone. 1. I know the Calvinist arguments well.... That is nowhere in evidence. The lack of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom is apparent and undeniable in the statement about the " middle between monergism and synergism." The ONLY correct response is, " Yes, of course, I misspoke." Anyone who legitimately knows the Calvinist arguments well knows synergism is the "between" position and not the pole. More importantly, I offered the opportunity to start over and an invitation to engage what has already been posted and both were ignored. I'll extend the offer again: don't bring something that occurs long after the covenant is established into the conversation until what's already been posted has been engaged and addressed. Don't try to hijack the thread with your own agenda. This op is specifically about God's foreknowledge and our salvation/calling/election/predestination, and ALL of those things ALWAYS occurs in the context of a God-initiated covenant and not once does God ask anyone if they want to be chosen, want to be called, or want to be obedient until after the covenant has been established. Prove that wrong. Otherwise, embrace the foreknowing and predestining aspects of the monergistically God-initiated covenant. Restating what you already said doesn't do anything to correct you error. Do you enjoy repeating yourself? The covenants have already been established. Are you saying you have your own covenant with God? How special....... Which is a failing with Hyper-Calvinists. Hyper-Calvinists such as yourself desire others believe that they are the humblest people on earth. Yet they continually claim special privileges that not everyone can not obtain. How special you are? There is covenant with Jesus Christ. Not you. You're ignoring the false dilemma you're creating by only claiming there are "two choices". That is your lie. A lie you prefer because it enable you to claim its benefits your position. It is self serving nonsense. There are facts of Monergism that are true and there are facts within Synergism. I mentioned primary and secondary causes and you ignored this. I'm not going to let you do this. You know if you get into the details of this your errors are going to "come to light". God is the Primary cause of all things good. Jas 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Satan is the primary cause of all BAD things in this life. Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. Where secondary cause exist, there is influence upon the result. You can't deny this. No one can. So go ahead. Try. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2022 8:51:07 GMT -8
That is nowhere in evidence. The lack of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom is apparent and undeniable in the statement about the " middle between monergism and synergism." The ONLY correct response is, " Yes, of course, I misspoke." Anyone who legitimately knows the Calvinist arguments well knows synergism is the "between" position and not the pole. More importantly, I offered the opportunity to start over and an invitation to engage what has already been posted and both were ignored. I'll extend the offer again: don't bring something that occurs long after the covenant is established into the conversation until what's already been posted has been engaged and addressed. Don't try to hijack the thread with your own agenda. This op is specifically about God's foreknowledge and our salvation/calling/election/predestination, and ALL of those things ALWAYS occurs in the context of a God-initiated covenant and not once does God ask anyone if they want to be chosen, want to be called, or want to be obedient until after the covenant has been established. Prove that wrong. Otherwise, embrace the foreknowing and predestining aspects of the monergistically God-initiated covenant. The covenants have already been established. Yep. That is a fact of scripture. One that is commonly ignored in most discussion about salvation. God is the sole initiator of His covenants. He initiates them monergistically, He chooses those He includes in His covenants monergistically, He calls who He calls those He chooses monergistically. No one is given a choice until after God has done these things (and more). The matter of circumcision was introduced, but it was introduced in complete neglect of both the thread's prior content already addressing the matter AND in complete neglect of the fact the establishment of the covenant with the sign of circumcision occurred long after God had monergistically initiated the covenant with Abraham. I asked this be addressed twice and twice it's been ignored. Never said anything of the sort. Did, in fact, clearly and demonstrably state the exact opposite. Thank you for your time and effort, but I don't collaborate with that kind of content. I'll check back in on the thread as my notifications prompt me, and will reconsider my participation if an when I read some evidence of manners, respect, and reason. |
|
|
|
Post by praiseyeshua on Oct 3, 2022 12:06:44 GMT -8
The covenants have already been established. Yep. That is a fact of scripture. One that is commonly ignored in most discussion about salvation. God is the sole initiator of His covenants. He initiates them monergistically, He chooses those He includes in His covenants monergistically, He calls who He calls those He chooses monergistically. No one is given a choice until after God has done these things (and more). The matter of circumcision was introduced, but it was introduced in complete neglect of both the thread's prior content already addressing the matter AND in complete neglect of the fact the establishment of the covenant with the sign of circumcision occurred long after God had monergistically initiated the covenant with Abraham. I asked this be addressed twice and twice it's been ignored. Never said anything of the sort. Did, in fact, clearly and demonstrably state the exact opposite. Thank you for your time and effort, but I don't collaborate with that kind of content. I'll check back in on the thread as my notifications prompt me, and will reconsider my participation if an when I read some evidence of manners, respect, and reason. God choose Jesus Christ. Not you. The covenant is with Jesus Christ. There is a secondary cause for those in Jesus Christ. Blessed.... WITH Jesus Christ. I haven't ignored anything. I've asked for you deal with my comments and you're doing not but building "strawmans"..... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2022 16:15:17 GMT -8
Yep. That is a fact of scripture. One that is commonly ignored in most discussion about salvation. God is the sole initiator of His covenants. He initiates them monergistically, He chooses those He includes in His covenants monergistically, He calls who He calls those He chooses monergistically. No one is given a choice until after God has done these things (and more). The matter of circumcision was introduced, but it was introduced in complete neglect of both the thread's prior content already addressing the matter AND in complete neglect of the fact the establishment of the covenant with the sign of circumcision occurred long after God had monergistically initiated the covenant with Abraham. I asked this be addressed twice and twice it's been ignored. Never said anything of the sort. Did, in fact, clearly and demonstrably state the exact opposite. Thank you for your time and effort, but I don't collaborate with that kind of content. I'll check back in on the thread as my notifications prompt me, and will reconsider my participation if an when I read some evidence of manners, respect, and reason. God choose Jesus Christ. Not you. The covenant is with Jesus Christ. There is a secondary cause for those in Jesus Christ. Blessed.... WITH Jesus Christ. I haven't ignored anything. I've asked for you deal with my comments and you're doing not but building "strawmans"..... I completely agree. Yes, and that "secondary cause" follows the first monergistic cause, and it follows the monergistic cause monergistically. Monergism does not dispute the existence nor the contingencies of secondary causes. Monergism ASSERTS them!!! Neither does monergism deny or dispute the existence of creaturely volition or it agnecy within the limits of God's design. Monergism asserts these things! This is plainly stated in WCF 3.1. What God ordained He ordained from eternity and he did so without being the authorf sin, without causing violence to the human will, and without doing violence to the contingency of secondary causes. So until you start addressing the monergistic roots of circumcision as have already been posted in this thread there's no basis for addressing circumcision as something unrelated to God's foreknowledge, calling, election, and/or predestination. Until the monergistic aspects of the covenant are addressed the appeal to circumcision (which comes long after the covenant - the secondary covenant between God and Abraham - is initiated) that appeal is a red herring. Everything the sinner does when God saves him occurs always, everywhere, and inescapably within the context of God being the initiator of His covenant and it is only after God has brought that sinner into the covenant - always unawares and often times against his will - that God ever offers any of them a choice. |
|
|
|
Post by praiseyeshua on Oct 4, 2022 4:48:34 GMT -8
Monergism does not dispute the existence nor the contingencies of secondary causes. Monergism ASSERTS them!!! Neither does monergism deny or dispute the existence of creaturely volition or it agnecy within the limits of God's design. Monergism asserts these things! This is plainly stated in WCF 3.1. What God ordained He ordained from eternity and he did so without being the authorf sin, without causing violence to the human will, and without doing violence to the contingency of secondary causes. There isn't a distinct teaching to be extrapolated from WCF 3.1. Secondary cause is mentioned and not defended. It is an empty claim. You/they can "read" this "into" the narrative but the WCF is vague and inadequate to deal with secondary causation. Remember when you referenced "clear" passages? Many Calvinists treat secondary causation as if it doesn't exist. Can you give a details concerning "secondary causation" from the WCF? I'd like to see one. I have never seen one on my entire life. Maybe from the Synod of Dort? Not that they are identical in what they teach. They're not. So until you start addressing the monergistic roots of circumcision as have already been posted in this thread there's no basis for addressing circumcision as something unrelated to God's foreknowledge, calling, election, and/or predestination. Until the monergistic aspects of the covenant are addressed the appeal to circumcision (which comes long after the covenant - the secondary covenant between God and Abraham - is initiated) that appeal is a red herring. What details might that be? That "God" fore-ordained circumcision? Abraham wasn't accepted to share in the blessings of Jesus Christ until he was circumcised. There are those who express faith. Those that believe God and are never changed. Never sealed with the Spirit of God. Do I need to reference to Judas? Jesus sought Judas. Jesus called Judas. Judas expressed faith in Jesus Christ but Judas was never converted before he betrayed Jesus Christ. Who knows if he was afterwards. It isn't "clear"..... *** notice how I'm not making claims that are not "clear" from the Scriptures *** There is always "much" bluster that comes from your average Calvinist. They will write 100 thousands words to say "nothing" of substance. Nothing more than "Word Salad". Everything the sinner does when God saves him occurs always, everywhere, and inescapably within the context of God being the initiator of His covenant and it is only after God has brought that sinner into the covenant - always unawares and often times against his will - that God ever offers any of them a choice. There you go again... giving yourself preferential treatment. The establishment of the covenant was God swearing by Himself. Do you remember those words. Not swearing by YOU. By Himself in Jesus Christ. Here you are "READING YOURSELF" in that covenant. The primary monergistic appeal is found in the covenant of God in Jesus Christ. The secondary cause is synergic. This nonsensical rubbish you've built where there really isn't any secondary causation is self defeating. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2022 15:26:35 GMT -8
Monergism does not dispute the existence nor the contingencies of secondary causes. Monergism ASSERTS them!!! Neither does monergism deny or dispute the existence of creaturely volition or it agnecy within the limits of God's design. Monergism asserts these things! This is plainly stated in WCF 3.1. What God ordained He ordained from eternity and he did so without being the authorf sin, without causing violence to the human will, and without doing violence to the contingency of secondary causes. There isn't a distinct teaching to be extrapolated from WCF 3.1. Irrelevant. The points being made have to do with specific claims made in the prior posts. Whether a "distinct teaching" can be "extrapolated" or not, the artcile refutes the claims made. Thank you for your time. |
|
|
|
Post by praiseyeshua on Oct 5, 2022 4:23:21 GMT -8
There isn't a distinct teaching to be extrapolated from WCF 3.1. Irrelevant. The points being made have to do with specific claims made in the prior posts. Whether a "distinct teaching" can be "extrapolated" or not, the artcile refutes the claims made. Thank you for your time. Okay. We both went at each other in these posts. I hope you can see that. "Rubbish" was a poor choice of words on my part. My apologizes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2022 5:37:26 GMT -8
Irrelevant. The points being made have to do with specific claims made in the prior posts. Whether a "distinct teaching" can be "extrapolated" or not, the artcile refutes the claims made. Thank you for your time. Okay. We both went at each other in these posts. I hope you can see that. "Rubbish" was a poor choice of words on my part. My apologizes. No, we did not, and even if that were the case tu quoque is a lame, fleshly, thoroughly ungodly response. So too are apologies. Yep. Look it up. Get out a Bible and try to find the word " apology" or " apologize" in the New Testament. The only time any of us will find a report of apology is when pagans apologize to Christians for abusing them. The scriptural standard is confession, repentance, restitution, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Confess any errors and do it without tu quoque. Repent. STOP posting that way and make a conscious, observable effort NEVER to speak to ANY monergist like that ever again. Provide amends: Apply Ephesians 4:29, Philippians 2:3, or even Colossians 4:5-6 instead. Discourse improves markedly when that is done, and God blesses the obedience. If a greater understanding of the process I just outlined is desired, let me know. The larger truth is you don't like Calvinism, have historically had a hard time separating the doctrine from the people, and purposed to criticize both in every forum ever joined. This is not the first time we've had this kind of exchange. The founders of this forum founded BAM with the express intent not to be like other forums in this regard, and not allow this sort of thing. Rise to that standard. Read the Rules and work hard not to break 1c. Attacking Calvinists for their Calvinism is prohibited. |
|
|
|
Post by praiseyeshua on Oct 5, 2022 8:07:17 GMT -8
Okay. We both went at each other in these posts. I hope you can see that. "Rubbish" was a poor choice of words on my part. My apologizes. No, we did not, and even if that were the case tu quoque is a lame, fleshly, thoroughly ungodly response. So too are apologies. Yep. Look it up. Get out a Bible and try to find the word " apology" or " apologize" in the New Testament. The only time any of us will find a report of apology is when pagans apologize to Christians for abusing them. The scriptural standard is confession, repentance, restitution, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Confess any errors and do it without tu quoque. Repent. STOP posting that way and make a conscious, observable effort NEVER to speak to ANY monergist like that ever again. Provide amends: Apply Ephesians 4:29, Philippians 2:3, or even Colossians 4:5-6 instead. Discourse improves markedly when that is done, and God blesses the obedience. If a greater understanding of the process I just outlined is desired, let me know. The larger truth is you don't like Calvinism, have historically had a hard time separating the doctrine from the people, and purposed to criticize both in every forum ever joined. This is not the first time we've had this kind of exchange. The founders of this forum founded BAM with the express intent not to be like other forums in this regard, and not allow this sort of thing. Rise to that standard. Read the Rules and work hard not to break 1c. Attacking Calvinists for their Calvinism is prohibited. How gracious of you. I wasn't expressing "repentance". I offered an "olive branch" and you obviously want "groveling". This is just another incident of you expressing your self worth and feeling of superiority. I grovel to Jesus... not you. "Apology" is a compound word. Think.... apologetics and it most definitely has its origins in Greek. "Apologia" is found many times through the NT. Pay attention to 1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer........... I gave an reasoned "olive branch" answer to your complaints. I'm not guilt of abusing you nor anyone else. The word "Rubbish" isn't corrupt nor poor communications. You're being overly sensitive. A drama "queen". Your response proves it. "Abused"...... yeah. Right. You're wrong about many things you claim. BTW.....You might want to read.... Act 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. Act 23:7 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. Act 23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both. Act 23:9 And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God. Act 23:10 And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle. There are some similarities here. You don't really speak for "all monergists"..... I see that you desire to. You have too high an opinion of yourself. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2022 9:04:41 GMT -8
No, we did not, and even if that were the case tu quoque is a lame, fleshly, thoroughly ungodly response. So too are apologies. Yep. Look it up. Get out a Bible and try to find the word " apology" or " apologize" in the New Testament. The only time any of us will find a report of apology is when pagans apologize to Christians for abusing them. The scriptural standard is confession, repentance, restitution, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Confess any errors and do it without tu quoque. Repent. STOP posting that way and make a conscious, observable effort NEVER to speak to ANY monergist like that ever again. Provide amends: Apply Ephesians 4:29, Philippians 2:3, or even Colossians 4:5-6 instead. Discourse improves markedly when that is done, and God blesses the obedience. If a greater understanding of the process I just outlined is desired, let me know. The larger truth is you don't like Calvinism, have historically had a hard time separating the doctrine from the people, and purposed to criticize both in every forum ever joined. This is not the first time we've had this kind of exchange. The founders of this forum founded BAM with the express intent not to be like other forums in this regard, and not allow this sort of thing. Rise to that standard. Read the Rules and work hard not to break 1c. Attacking Calvinists for their Calvinism is prohibited. The word "Rubbish" isn't corrupt nor poor communications. Yes, it is. It's called an appeal to ridicule. An apology was just posted for the very behavior now being defended. It is in fact " poor communications." Also does not have anything to do with this op. No groveling wanted, needed, expected, or requested. Jusr follow the forum's rules and stop posting contempt for others and their views. That has yet to be proven, AND that comment is another rule violation. See Rules 1b and 1d. Keep the posts about the posts, not the posters. Try these three recommendations: 1) Try not to use the word, " you." Seriously. Try writing the next ten posts without using the word, " you". It's challenging, but it will help form topical content and reduce the tendency to make things personal. 2) Go through your posts in this thread and count the number of time the word, "you" occurs and HOW it was used. Was it used with edification, criticism, or derision? Was it used truthfully, or was it used to assign negative attributes that are assumed and not evidenced? 3) Go through my posts and count the number of times I used the word, " you," and see how I used it. Did I use the term with edification, criticism, or derision? Did I use the word truthfully, or was there no actual basis in the posts for my doing so? Did I practice what I preach? If we both keep the posts about the posts (and not the posters) AND follow the forum's rules, then the problem will be solved. Try it. Got anything op-relevant to post? If so then post it and post in a manner consistent with the forum's rules, the correction just provided by the mods, and the apology previously expressed. Otherwise, thank you for your time. |
|
|
|
Post by praiseyeshua on Oct 5, 2022 9:39:45 GMT -8
The word "Rubbish" isn't corrupt nor poor communications. Yes, it is. It's called an appeal to ridicule. An apology was just posted for the very behavior now being defended. It is in fact " poor communications." Also does not have anything to do with this op. No groveling wanted, needed, expected, or requested. Jusr follow the forum's rules and stop posting contempt for others and their views. That has yet to be proven, AND that comment is another rule violation. See Rules 1b and 1d. Keep the posts about the posts, not the posters. Try these three recommendations: 1) Try not to use the word, " you." Seriously. Try writing the next ten posts without using the word, " you". It's challenging, but it will help form topical content and reduce the tendency to make things personal. 2) Go through your posts in this thread and count the number of time the word, "you" occurs and HOW it was used. Was it used with edification, criticism, or derision? Was it used truthfully, or was it used to assign negative attributes that are assumed and not evidenced? 3) Go through my posts and count the number of times I used the word, " you," and see how I used it. Did I use the term with edification, criticism, or derision? Did I use the word truthfully, or was there no actual basis in the posts for my doing so? Did I practice what I preach? If we both keep the posts about the posts (and not the posters) AND follow the forum's rules, then the problem will be solved. Try it. Got anything op-relevant to post? If so then post it and post in a manner consistent with the forum's rules, the correction just provided by the mods, and the apology previously expressed. Otherwise, thank you for your time. What correction by the mods? I don't see one. I see YOU trying to correct me with YOUR interpretation of the rules. Which, itself, should be against the rules. You're trying to control me and this conversation. That is how people like YOU... operate. I'll pass on all your suggestions. "YOU" are the problem. Not me. If the mods have something to say about our exchange, they know how to contact me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2022 9:51:53 GMT -8
..........If we both keep the posts about the posts (and not the posters) AND follow the forum's rules, then the problem will be solved. Try it. Got anything op-relevant to post? If so, then post it and post in a manner consistent with the forum's rules, the correction just provided by the mods, and the apology previously expressed. Otherwise, thank you for your time. What correction by the mods? I don't see one. I stand corrected. I took the reiteration of an apology as an indication someone had intervened on our behalf to improve the exchange. Because.... .....is the problem to be solved. Thank you for your time. If and when I read something op-relevant I'll reconsider enjoining the exchange. |
|
|
|
Post by synergy on Dec 22, 2022 21:26:37 GMT -8
I am finally coming to some form of understanding concerning God's foreknowledge and its relationship to our salvation/calling/election/predestination. It's late in the night so excuse me for not reading the previous set of posts. I will do that, giving each one its proper time as soon as I can. In Rom 8:29, God foreknew (from His perspective, προέγνω) or foreknows (from our perspective) that believers (Paul's audience) are predestined to be conformed to the Image of Christ. A critical factor to note is that one is known (γνωσθέντες) by God only after one comes out of his former ways (Gal 4:9). That does not detract from God's omniscience. It means that we are now relationally known by God now that we are His adopted sons through Christ. A side note of this is that this clearly shows that Rom 8:28-30 is about the guaranteed future of the believer ONLY, not about lost people being elected to glorification. It's very interesting that all variations of the term foreknow have to do with a close relationship with God. Whether it's Christ, sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, or His elect Israel, it is always those who are in a relationship with Him through Christ. Acts 2:23 this One given to you by the before-determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken and by lawless hands, crucifying Him, you put Him to death; Rom 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him to be the First-born among many brothers. Rom 11:2 God did not thrust out His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture said in Elijah, how he pleaded with God against Israel, saying, 1Pet 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. May grace and peace be multiplied to you. 1Pet 1:20 indeed having been foreknown before the foundation of the world, but revealed in the last times for you, It also shines a light on the person who was manifesting many "works" through Christ's name and yet he was told that Christ never knew him. But doesn't God have omniscience? Yes, but for God to know someone he must be "in Christ" for him to be known or foreknown by God. Matt 7:23 And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness!
Another fascinating note is that Christ knows His sheep. That means those sheep are already in a deep relationship with Him, they are already "in Christ" because they already believe "in Christ". In other words, they are not an arbitrary set of elected individuals independent of whether or not they believe"in Christ". They are believers positioned already "in Christ".
One verse I need to reconcile with all this is Jer 1:5 but Jer 1:5 is not using the same Koine Greek word that Gal 4:9 is using. Gal 4:9 uses γνωσθέντες (derivative of γινώσκω) and Rom 8:29 uses προέγνω (derivative of προγινώσκω). Notice the relationship there. Instead, Jer 1:5 uses ἐπίσταμαί. What I've unearthed so far is that ἐπίσταμαί is used more in terms of a superior/superintendent knowing his subject as opposed to the deep relationship of γινώσκω or προγινώσκω. ἐπίσταμαί is unidirectional as opposed to a bidirectional relationship which is what γινώσκω is about. ἐπίσταμαί is therefore more of a vocational election rather than to be salvifically known by God through Christ.
The bottom line, and what Calvinists fail to realize, is that it's through and in Christ that we are known, foreknown, predestined, chosen by God "in Him" before the foundation of the world, and elected unto salvation. Fundamentally, Calvinism and Christology are enemies at each other's throats. Calvinists will give Christ lip service but when push comes to shove concerning our predestination, our election, God's foreknowing of us, Christ is just an afterthought for Calvinists.
Well, that's a start. Please feel free to add to this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Dec 23, 2022 2:42:33 GMT -8
I am finally coming to some form of understanding concerning God's foreknowledge and its relationship to our salvation/calling/election/predestination. It's late in the night so excuse me for not reading the previous set of posts. I will do that, giving each one its proper time as soon as I can. In Rom 8:29, God foreknew (from His perspective, προέγνω) or foreknows (from our perspective) that believers (Paul's audience) are predestined to be conformed to the Image of Christ. A critical factor to note is that one is known (γνωσθέντες) by God only after one comes out of his former ways (Gal 4:9). That does not detract from God's omniscience. It means that we are now relationally known by God now that we are His adopted sons through Christ. A side note of this is that this clearly shows that Rom 8:28-30 is about the guaranteed future of the believer ONLY, not about lost people being elected to glorification. It's very interesting that all variations of the term foreknow have to do with a close relationship with God. Whether it's Christ, sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, or His elect Israel, it is always those who are in a relationship with Him through Christ. Acts 2:23 this One given to you by the before-determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken and by lawless hands, crucifying Him, you put Him to death; Rom 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, for Him to be the First-born among many brothers. Rom 11:2 God did not thrust out His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture said in Elijah, how he pleaded with God against Israel, saying, 1Pet 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. May grace and peace be multiplied to you. 1Pet 1:20 indeed having been foreknown before the foundation of the world, but revealed in the last times for you, It also shines a light on the person who was manifesting many "works" through Christ's name and yet he was told that Christ never knew him. But doesn't God have omniscience? Yes, but for God to know someone he must be "in Christ" for him to be known or foreknown by God. Matt 7:23 And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness!
Another fascinating note is that Christ knows His sheep. That means those sheep are already in a deep relationship with Him, they are already "in Christ" because they already believe "in Christ". In other words, they are not an arbitrary set of elected individuals independent of whether or not they believe"in Christ". They are believers positioned already "in Christ".
One verse I need to reconcile with all this is Jer 1:5 but Jer 1:5 is not using the same Koine Greek word that Gal 4:9 is using. Gal 4:9 uses γνωσθέντες (derivative of γινώσκω) and Rom 8:29 uses προέγνω (derivative of προγινώσκω). Notice the relationship there. Instead, Jer 1:5 uses ἐπίσταμαί. What I've unearthed so far is that ἐπίσταμαί is used more in terms of a superior/superintendent knowing his subject as opposed to the deep relationship of γινώσκω or προγινώσκω. ἐπίσταμαί is unidirectional as opposed to a bidirectional relationship which is what γινώσκω is about. ἐπίσταμαί is therefore more of a vocational election rather than to be salvifically known by God through Christ.
The bottom line, and what Calvinists fail to realize, is that it's through and in Christ that we are known, foreknown, predestined, chosen by God "in Him" before the foundation of the world, and elected unto salvation. Fundamentally, Calvinism and Christology are enemies at each other's throats. Calvinists will give Christ lip service but when push comes to shove concerning our predestination, our election, God's foreknowing of us, Christ is just an afterthought for Calvinists.
Well, that's a start. Please feel free to add to this thread. Good post and much food for thought |
|
