What Does "Foreknowledge" Mean In The Bible?

[Anti Federalist]

If what Sola is saying is true, then it confirms my doubtful stance: that God is a kid with an ant farm.

That, unless he decides, through divine touch, to grace a person with the spiritual will to accept salvation, nothing else can be done.

So that means he metes out salvation as heavenly "brass rings" to the select few he sees fit, while the rest are doomed to damnation.

[Natural Citizen]

If what Sola is saying is true, then it confirms my doubtful stance: that God is a kid with an ant farm.

That, unless he decides, through divine touch, to grace a person with the spiritual will to accept salvation, nothing else can be done.

So that means he metes out salvation as heavenly "brass rings" to the select few he sees fit, while the rest are doomed to damnation.

Well, what you're talking about is the Arminian belief on Election. There's no biblical support for foreseen faith in terms of Arminian belief on Election. Not that I know of anyway. Nor does God take any pleasure in damning the non-elect. http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/18-23.htm

That's not exactly what S_F is saying. What S_F is saying is that Man does not have the spiritual nature/ability to find salvation or to even know what it is. S_F is talking about Unconditional Election. Which is biblically proven false as has been shown here by the very fact that S_F cannot produce any biblical record that tells us that God took away Man's ability to receive God as a consequence of Original Sin. God calls for everyone. Post #85



I will say that there is no case to be made for martyrdom in this Fallen world, AF. It's Fallen. Everything is upside down, man.

Hold. That battle's coming. If you choose to be led by false Gospel, then, you will lose. And it will hurt. It will hurt bad and it will hurt long. No mercy. It's a foregone conclusion, my friend.

[pcosmar]

If what Sola is saying is true, then it confirms my doubtful stance: that God is a kid with an ant farm.

That, unless he decides, through divine touch, to grace a person with the spiritual will to accept salvation, nothing else can be done.

So that means he metes out salvation as heavenly "brass rings" to the select few he sees fit, while the rest are doomed to damnation.

And this is where I can not agree,
with Calvinism in general and our friend Sola.

and I think it is in Perception of God.
I don't see or know Him as a tyrant,, but rather as a loving Father.

and I believe that free will is essential to a correct understanding.

That he "sees the end from the beginning", he chose to create us anyway,,, knowing all we would be.

He allows much. and in His infinite Wisdom chose to create us anyway.
in the end we will all see it clearly. (i only got a glimpse,,good enough for me)

[wizardwatson]

You misunderstand I think the subject of that sentence. "This" refers to those things "about" God. Hence the sentence means, "These things are merely facts about God." Meaning, the fact of God being in control of the outcome, does not in any why take away the fact of choice of people. God clearly points out that men have a choice and that if they change, he might choose a different fate for them.

No, the Bible doesn't say that. It says that man can't choose God because he is a slave to sin.

I really whish you'd stop saying "the Bible doesn't say that" instead of asking "where does it say that". When I say "God clearly states" it isn't something I'm reading in the tea leaves.

Jeremiah 18:1-10 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: "Go down to the potter’s house, and there I will give you my message." So I went down to the potter’s house, and I saw him working at the wheel. But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.

Then the word of the Lord came to me. He said, "Can I not do with you, Israel, as this potter does?" declares the Lord. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel. If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it."

Compare that with the cold interpretation Calvinists like to give to Romans 9.

It's not even that I deny what Paul is saying in Romans 9. I just have a different interpretation of election. And the main crux of that interpretation is that there's a lot more going on than just you're elect or you're damned. If there is no one else besides the elect who are the nations around Israel that the prophets spoke of in the millenial kingdom?

Anyone who has encountered Calvinism and is either enamored by it or offended by it should read "The Fire of God's Anger" by Lewis Carter Baker (free on Google Books). It is the antidote for this twisted belief system. It will allow you to repossess and rescue the beautiful words of Paul from the likes of John Calvin and A.W. Pink and there adherents.

Perhaps where we diverge is that I don't assume that a predestined elect somehow negates or renders meaningless man's choices. That God "saves the elect" really has little to do with the elect, as 2 Timothy states. What is God really redeeming when He does redeem? The elect yes, but really only as a byproduct. The elect are glorified for His name's sake not for their own sake. God is redeeming His name and seeking His own glory. What is His "relationship" with the elect of Israel other than their Fathers dragging His name through the mud and having the blood of His Son on their hands?

Man cannot choose God because he is a slave to sin. It's man's fallen nature that negates his own choices.

Do all people even have knowledge of God? God has hidden himself even from His chosen people how much more from people He has not revealed Himself to?

I think you try to extrapolate a very narrow interpretation of election and apply it to all mankind, but election is specifically about Israel. Even Jesus was not sent to the whole world but to the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 15:24) The New Covenant encompassed the whole world, but the sacrifice was for the atonement of Israel. Why? Because it is Israel who is blessed, and through Israel that other nations are blessed. Just like it is Christ that is beloved of God, and through conforming to His image that we are also loved, rather than hated.

Things should be made as simple as possible but not simpler.

Paul points out frequently, "we are under not law, but grace". Who is? Everyone? No. If you aren't under grace you are still under the law. Which would apply to anyone who isn't "saved". Which really is just people who don't believe in Christ. But what if you are under the law, what does that mean? It means you die if you sin. If wicked, you will reap what you sow in hell, if righteous you will enjoy a peaceful sleep. Both sets will be resurrected in the 2nd resurrection.

But this idea that you burn in hell forever even if you are righteous but aren't saved is a ridiculous lie which makes God into some monster who says "I love you so much I won't torture you forever."

You can't condense the Word into a bumper sticker. Things each have separate meaning. Death is not the same as hell, and salvation is not the same as atonement. There are multiple layers and multiple meaning all over the place in the bible, not to mention the overarching fact that the story is not even finished yet. The Two Olive Trees have not even arrived, and there are still many prophecies yet to be fulfilled.

I digressed, but point was that most men don't even think about God these days with a large degree of seriousness and probably a handful really seek Him. So "choosing" Him does not even enter people's minds. Most people think in terms of good and evil. Your focus on election I think causes you to conflate everyday moral choices with salvation. "You cannot choose the good thing."

When really that's ALL that you have. All your plans and schemes and desire to control things are what you don't have power over. Now whether God takes out your heart of stone and gives you a heart of flesh so that you are like His Son is a different thing. And certainly a function of grace. But a wicked man can still make a good choice, and a righteous man an evil one.

[jmdrake]

You are saying what I'm saying means that Jesus died in vein. Can you explain why to me?

There is a fountain filled with blood
Drawn from Emmanuel's veins

[Sola_Fide]

There is a fountain filled with blood
Drawn from Emmanuel's veins

I was quoting what he said...with the misspellings . I didn't have the heart to point it out.

[jmdrake]

I was quoting what he said...with the misspellings . I didn't have the heart to point it out.

LOL. It's cool. I know you know (no?) how to spell. I just couldn't resist the pun in this case.

[Sola_Fide]

LOL. It's cool. I know you know (no?) how to spell. I just couldn't resist the pun in this case.

I no how.

Hey, what do you think of the verses in the OP?

[jmdrake]

I no how.

Hey, what do you think of the verses in the OP?

We've kind of gone over them over and over again over a period of years and I gave you my response in another thread but I will give it again here. Foreknowledge by an all powerful God does not mean a lack of freewill choice by the objects of that foreknowledge. If it does then God's foreknowledge meant that God is the author of Lucifer's original sin and mankind's fall.

[fisharmor]

I've been reading Noah Webster's Bible (1833). Noah could read Greek and Hebrew.

I'm not going to participate in whatever discussion you all are having about this. I only came here to ctrl-F for the word "Greek".
I want to congratulate NC for caring what Sts. Peter and Paul might actually have been thinking when they wrote it.

[jmdrake]

By the way, you're whole premise is flawed Sola_Fide. Let's take one of the verses you are using and interpret it a way that you don't think it can be interpreted and see if it still makes sense:

Romans 8:29

For those God saw as he looked down the corridors of time he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters

Does it still work? Yes. So your interpretation is not the only plausible one. It's merely your opinion.

[Natural Citizen]

I was quoting what he said...with the misspellings . I didn't have the heart to point it out.

Nor did you have the fortitude to admit that no place in the Bible are we told that Man lost his ability to receive God as a consequence to Original Sin. You're entire doctine depends on that lie.

[Sola_Fide]

By the way, you're whole premise is flawed Sola_Fide. Let's take one of the verses you are using and interpret it a way that you don't think it can be interpreted and see if it still makes sense:

Romans 8:29

For those God saw as he looked down the corridors of time he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters

Does it still work? Yes. So your interpretation is not the only plausible one. It's merely your opinion.

No. That makes no sense.

It's not saying that God saw an event where people would make a decision, it says God KNEW individuals before they were born.

[Sola_Fide]

Nor did you have the fortitude to admit that no place in the Bible are we told that Man lost his ability to receive God as a consequence to Original Sin. You're entire doctine depends on that lie.

The ...lie? How can you not read the Bible and see that man has lost the ability to accept the things of God? It's on almost every page.

[Natural Citizen]

I was quoting what he said...with the misspellings . I didn't have the heart to point it out.

Nor did you have the fortitude to admit that no place in the Bible are we told that Man lost his ability to receive God as a consequence to Original Sin. You're entire doctine depends on that lie.

It's on almost every page.

Show us, then. Show us where we are told in the Bible that God took away Man's ability to receive God as a consequence of Original Sin. Show us, S_F. Specifically. Surely any doctrine that forms such a colossal foundation for its very system of belief should have unequivocal proof in the Bible to support itself. Surely, it would be found in Genesis at the very least. Please show us where we are told in the Bible that God took away Man's ability to receive God as a consequence of Original Sin. Show us, specifically, where we are told in the Bible that God imposed Total Inability on Man's nature as a consequence of Original Sin. If you can't, then, ask someone to help you. If you're going to make a claim like that, then, you're going to be expected to support it biblically. Thank You, S_F.

[Sola_Fide]

Show us, then. Show us where we are told in the Bible that God took away Man's ability to receive God as a consequence of Original Sin. Show us, S_F. Specifically. Surely any doctrine that forms such a colossal foundation for its very system of belief should have unequivocal proof in the Bible to support itself. Surely, it would be found in Genesis at the very least. Please show us where we are told in the Bible that God took away Man's ability to receive God as a consequence of Original Sin. Thank You, S_F.

How many do you want?

Romans 3:10

As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

[Natural Citizen]

How many do you want?

Romans 3:10

As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

All that you care to provide. We'll bust every single one of them down if it takes a month.

So let's look at Romans 10:3 correctly, S_F. You don't have the luxury of pulling it from its context and creating a universal meaning out of it. This was in no way establishing a doctrine of human nature. Nor was it a relation to your soteriology.

The point that was being made was clearly set forth in verse 9: Jews and Gentiles alike are "under sin." Sin is not biased to lowly Gentiles. It afflicts the favored Jews as well. He proved his point by quoting Psalm 14, which, from its beginning, tells us that it is talking about "the fool."

Next?

Come on. Let's go. Keep em coming. I know all of the ones you're gonna give me already so I'm ready for you.

[Natural Citizen]

Today, S_F.

You want to do 1 Corinthians 2:14? John 6:44? Ephesians 2:1? What? Talk to me, brother.

[Sola_Fide]

All that you care to provide. We'll bust every single one of them down if it takes a month.

So let's look at Romans 10:3 correctly, S_F. You don't have the luxury of pulling it from its context and creating a universal meaning out of it. This was in no way establishing a doctrine of human nature. Nor was it a relation to your soteriology.

The point that was being made was clearly set forth in verse 9: Jews and Gentiles alike are "under sin." Sin is not biased to lowly Gentiles. It afflicts the favored Jews as well. He proved his point by quoting Psalm 14, which, from its beginning, tells us that it is talking about "the fool."

Next?

Come on. Let's go. Keep em coming. I know all of the ones you're gonna give me already so I'm ready for you.

Right, not only are the Gentiles under the power of sin, but also Jews. All men everywhere are fallen and do not seek God.

[Natural Citizen]

All men everywhere are fallen and do not seek God.

That's not what it says. Neither in text or tenor does it tell us that all men everywhere are fallen and do not seek God nor does it tell us that God took away Man's ability to receive God. Not even close.

Got any more?

[Natural Citizen]

Note to self: start thread on the poetic nature of the Psalmist. Heh.

[Sola_Fide]

That's not what it says. Neither in text or tenor does it tell us that all men everywhere are fallen and do not seek God nor does it tell us that God took away Man's ability to receive God. Not even close.

Got any more?

How many more do you want haha? In just a few sentences later, are you going to say this doesn't mean all men?

Romans 5:12

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

[Natural Citizen]

How many more do you want haha? In just a few sentences later, are you going to say this doesn't mean all men?

My goodness. The arrogance of doctrinal education. Here is yet another scripture where you've removed the text from it's context and tenor in order to create universal meaning to create the illusion of legitimacy to the false doctrine of Total Inability.

Here, scripture is talking about the flesh. The sinful state of Man. All amen are condemned when they commit sin. But all men are saved when they obey Jesus. Please review post #85. God wants us to find Him.

Next?

[wizardwatson]

How many more do you want haha? In just a few sentences later, are you going to say this doesn't mean all men?

Romans 5:12

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

Since you quoted Romans 5, maybe you can comment on verse 18 where it says "all men" are justified by the free gift of Christ?

Is this another incidence where God gives you the gift just not the ability to receive it?

[Sola_Fide]

Romans 5:12

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

Since you quoted Romans 5, maybe you can comment on verse 18 where it says "all men" are justified by the free gift of Christ?

Is this another incidence where God gives you the gift just not the ability to receive it?

It means that "all" the men in Adam are under sin, and "all" the men in Christ are righteous (by virtue of Christ's righteousness).

Men are not naturally born in Christ, they are naturally born in Adam. God must adopt you in order to be His son.

[Sola_Fide]

My goodness. The arrogance of doctrinal education. Here is yet another scripture where you've removed the text from it's context and tenor in order to create universal meaning to create the illusion of legitimacy to the false doctrine of Total Inability.

Here, scripture is talking about the flesh. The sinful state of Man. All amen are condemned when they commit sin. But all men are saved when they obey Jesus. Please review post #85.

Next?

Who hasn't committed sin?

[wizardwatson]

It means that "all" the men in Adam are under sin, and "all" the men in Christ are righteous (by virtue of Christ's righteousness).

Men are not naturally born in Christ, they are naturally born in Adam. God must adopt you in order to be His son.

What if I told God to piss off, and that I didn't want to be His Son? Would he drag me kicking and screaming?

[Natural Citizen]

Who hasn't committed sin?

Certainly all men sin. And, of course, all men will physically die in the flesh as a consequence of Original Sin. Many men will choose to live solely by the works of the flesh. But not all men. And you've yet to demonstrate otherwise that a man cannot.

[Natural Citizen]

Anyway. Whenever you can provide for us a biblical record that Man's spiritual nature was taken away by God as a consequence of Original Sin, let us know, S_F. As it is, you haven't. All you've done is take text from scripture and and tenor and created your own little universal interpretation of it in order to stimulate the illusion of legitimacy to your false doctrine.

[Natural Citizen]

Be careful of Calvinist doctrine, people. It's meant to divide Christians and to create the illusion that some Christians are worthier than others for nothing less than the benefit of a feeling of doctrinal superiority. It promotes false Gospel to create a spirit of division while, as was mentioned, forwarding a good bit of elitism and theological snobbery. Again, the Calvinist doctrine is defined by placing obstacles between believers in an attempt to stimulate the idea of a specific class of Christians within the church as a whole who are supposedly part of some worthier than thou inner circle of arbitrarily established spiritual superiority. But these are things that test the spiritual strength and nature of the Christian.