Biblical Foreknowledge

[Iconoclast]

Apologies, but I do not understand what you are trying to say.

When a person departs from a scriptural foundation, and drift into carnal philosophy such confusion results. Such people are often times sincere and will get worked up in an emotional frenzy, which is hard to sort out.

 

[Iconoclast]

Wow, its been a long time since I have studied this.

I need to do a refresher.

Thank you.

Here you go:https://bibleinteraction.freeforums.net/thread/198/infralapsarian-supralapsarian

 

[electedbyhim]

Here you go:https://bibleinteraction.freeforums.net/thread/198/infralapsarian-supralapsarian

Thank you for this.

 

[Iconoclast]

Thank you for this.

I added a few more to it. I am still developing more information for people to learn from.Most on this board will not take the time to read anything more than a short paragraph, or a bumper sticker. That is why they argue

 

[electedbyhim]

I added a few more to it. I am still developing more information for people to learn from.Most on this board will not take the time to read anything more than a short paragraph, or a bumper sticker. That is why they argue

Agreed.

I like to associate with like minded people, unfortunately it is hard to fine.

2 Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

 

[Alfred Persson]

This foolish speculation and fairytale is not what we derive doctrine from. Is starts on a foundation of sand.
God was not concerned about being alone,lol
Free will does not exist
God was not worried about violating the imaginary"free will" idol
Calvary chapel pastors are on the fringe edge of the camp
Everyone does not have every opportunity "to join the elect"
This heretical idea has no basis in scripture at all.
Those who are elected by God are not some sort of club, that you join.
The unscriptural altar call, this is full of error.
If this is what you or anyone else uses as a main source of teaching, it is no wonder you do not understand the historic faith.

It is inconsistent with your claim to follow scripture, that you never cite it for the above beliefs. You cite men, people who lived before the invention of the zipper.

This is how a Bible believer proves his claims, he cites scripture:

Its a simple question we ask of Calvinists, "why do they contradict scripture? God foreknew and elected before the foundation of the world, before people were born or did good or bad. He foreknew them as "unfallen", with full intellectual capacity and free will. He knew them perfectly, and those who responded to His love, with love, He elected onto salvation. So why don't Calvinists believe the Holy Scripture?"

Calvin's eisegesis rests upon God foreknowing sinners after the Fall, rather than people before the foundation of the world---before they were born or had done good or bad.

Scripture contradicts Calvin and his followers:

(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), (Rom. 9:11 NKJ)

just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, (Eph. 1:4 NKJ)

God ordained all things work for the good of them that love Him:

28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.
29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?
33 Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. (Rom. 8:28-33 NKJ)

9 But as it is written: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him." (1 Cor. 2:9 NKJ)

It was God's good pleasure and will to save those who loved Him in His foreknowledge, that not one of them be lost to death or Satan:

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,
5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,
6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved.
7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace (Eph. 1:3-7 NKJ)

27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
28 "And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.
29 "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. (Jn. 10:27-29 NKJ)

As for Calvin's idea the non-elect cannot be saved, limited atonement Scripture says different:

34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.
35 "But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. (Acts 10:34-35 NKJ)

For there is no partiality with God. (Rom. 2:11 NKJ)

We see that principle taught in Genesis:

6 So the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen?
7 "If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it." (Gen. 4:6-7 NKJ)

The principle is clearly stated in John's Gospel, "limited atonement" is a fiction. Whoever believes can be saved:

14 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
15 "that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.
16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
17 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (Jn. 3:14-18 NKJ)

Calvin should have read his bible a bit more carefully.

 

[electedbyhim]

It is inconsistent with your claim to follow scripture, that you never cite it for the above beliefs. You cite men, people who lived before the invention of the zipper.

This is how a Bible believer proves his claims, he cites scripture:

Its a simple question we ask of Calvinists, "why do they contradict scripture? God foreknew and elected before the foundation of the world, before people were born or did good or bad. He foreknew them as "unfallen", with full intellectual capacity and free will. He knew them perfectly, and those who responded to His love, with love, He elected onto salvation. So why don't Calvinists believe the Holy Scripture?"

Calvin's eisegesis rests upon God foreknowing sinners after the Fall, rather than people before the foundation of the world---before they were born or had done good or bad.

Scripture contradicts Calvin and his followers:

(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), (Rom. 9:11 NKJ)

just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, (Eph. 1:4 NKJ)

God ordained all things work for the good of them that love Him:

28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.
29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?
33 Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. (Rom. 8:28-33 NKJ)

9 But as it is written: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him." (1 Cor. 2:9 NKJ)

The elect could only love God, because He first loved us.

 

[Alfred Persson]

The elect could only love God, because He first loved us.

Finally you state something scriptural. Yes, God loved us first.

We love Him because He first loved us. (1 Jn. 4:19 NKJ)

But that isn't the point you are making. What are you really trying to say?

 

[Alfred Persson]

Agreed.

I like to associate with like minded people, unfortunately it is hard to fine.

2 Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

Finally a scripture quote. But not about Calvinism. Why is that. Why can't you prove limited atonement, Reprobation, from the scriptures?

 

[electedbyhim]

Finally you state something scriptural. Yes, God loved us first.

We love Him because He first loved us. (1 Jn. 4:19 NKJ)

But that isn't the point you are making. What are you really trying to say?

I have posted many scriptures.

I have also posted commentaries, by very well known Theologians and Pastors.

What are you going on about now?

Apologies for saying that you come off as someone quite confused and not stable in what you believe.

 

[Alfred Persson]

I have posted many scriptures.

I have also posted commentaries, by very well known Theologians and Pastors.

What are you going on about now?

Apologies for saying that you come off as someone quite confused and not stable in what you believe.

I don't recall you proving anything by the scripture. Citing the words in a verse that agree with you. I only recall you making claims how right you are, and wrong I am.

I've asked you to prove a point citing the scripture. I did that for my claims. Why don't you?

Referring me to a book or commentary or link, is not proving you know the scripture and what it says.

 

[Iconoclast]

It is inconsistent with your claim to follow scripture, that you never cite it for the above beliefs. You cite men, people who lived before the invention of the zipper.

You put up the link, not me. Calvary Chapel would not know truth if someone dropped it on their head. There is nothing scriptural to respond to. Thanks for sharing your source however. I understand why you post what you do.

This is how a Bible believer proves his claims, he cites scripture:

The Reformed confessional Christians use scripture for all things.

Its a simple question we ask of Calvinists, "why do they contradict scripture?

As you ask this question of Calvinists ,they are scratching their headsKnowing the person asking the question has no idea what they are saying, as Calvinists are all about scripture.

God foreknew and elected before the foundation of the world, before people were born or did good or bad. He foreknew them as "unfallen"

You keep quoting this, but they were there in the womb, fallen IN Adam. So you can misquote that all day, but it has nothing to do with what happened before the world was.

, with full intellectual capacity and free will.

not taught anywhere. Contrary to scripture.

Stay tuned for pt.2

 

[electedbyhim]

I don't recall you proving anything by the scripture. Citing the words in a verse that agree with you. I only recall you making claims how right you are, and wrong I am.

I've asked you to prove a point citing the scripture. I did that for my claims. Why don't you?

Referring me to a book or commentary or link, is not proving you know the scripture and what it says.

It is proof, proof that I believe. These commentaries offer insight that you do not have. These men are well established in the written word. These men are well known and grounded in these doctrines. Who are you that says any different?

Do I need to prove that I know Scripture to you? No, I do not. My conscience is clear, the only one I need to prove myself is the Lord.

Did you not quote unbelievers early on that you believe. Darwin if I remembered correctly.

Also this thread is about foreknowledge, that you have taken and went in all kinds of directions.

If you do not agree, you do not agree.

 

[Alfred Persson]

You put up the link, not me. Calvary Chapel would not know truth if someone dropped it on their head. There is nothing scriptural to respond to. Thanks for sharing your source however. I understand why you post what you do.

The Reformed confessional Christians use scripture for all things.

As you ask this question of Calvinists ,they are scratching their headsKnowing the person asking the question has no idea what they are saying, as Calvinists are all about scripture.



You keep quoting this, but they were there in the womb, fallen IN Adam. So you can misquote that all day, but it has nothing to do with what happened before the world was.

not taught anywhere. Contrary to scripture.

Stay tuned for pt.2

I have no association with Calvary Chapel.

Not all reformed are Calvinists.

Calvinists are about scripture, almost there but not quite.

How could they be in the womb, fallen in Adam, before the foundation of the world, before creation?

just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, (Eph. 1:4 NKJ)

I cited scripture for everything, its there explicit or implicit. You never concerned yourself with scripture, you delete the scripture I cite in your replies. It clearly is irrelevant to you what scripture says.

Stay tuned for more baseless claims?

 

[Alfred Persson]

It is proof, proof that I believe. These commentaries offer insight that you do not have. These men are well established in the written word. These men are well known and grounded in these doctrines. Who are you that says any different?

Do I need to prove that I know Scripture to you? No, I do not. My conscience is clear, the only one I need to prove myself is the Lord.

Did you not quote unbelievers early on that you believe. Darwin if I remembered correctly.

Also this thread is about foreknowledge, that you have taken and went in all kinds of directions.

If you do not agree, you do not agree.

I proved Calvin wrong, and he did author a commentary on scripture.

Only Bible believers prove what they believe, is taught in scripture.

I have focused on the fundamental disagreement I have with Calvinism. To no avail. All I get in reply are claims with no scripture exegesis.

Calvin would at least try to prove what he believed from the scriptures. Evidently, that feature is lacking in his followers today.

 

[electedbyhim]

I proved Calvin wrong, and he did author a commentary on scripture.

Only Bible believers prove what they believe, is taught in scripture.

I have focused on the fundamental disagreement I have with Calvinism. To no avail. All I get in reply are claims with no scripture exegesis.

Calvin would at least try to prove what he believed from the scriptures. Evidently, that feature is lacking in his followers today.

Disagreeing is not proving Calvinism wrong.

Where do you stand, Arminian?

 

[Alfred Persson]

Disagreeing is not proving Calvinism wrong.

Where do you stand, Arminian?

I've authored posts whose title says both Calvin and Arminius are wrong

Was Divine Election Conditional, Unconditional or Both? Perhaps Jacob Arminius and John Calvin are wrong

Calvinists believe in total depravity, and claim free will is too diminished to choose to live with God. I find that absurd. Everywhere God commands we use our free will to choose life. He wouldn't do that if Calvinists were right. When I think of free will, I think of being able to choose God...

christianforums.net

You have claimed to be confused, but surely a title that claims both Calvin and Arminius are wrong, didn't befuddle?

So why do you say I'm Arminian? Haven't you read any of my replies?

 

[Iconoclast]

He knew them perfectly, and those who responded to His love, with love, He elected onto salvation. So why don't Calvinists believe the Holy Scripture?"

Where do you think you see this in scripture? Where does it say that people before the world was responded to His love? Then where does it say, God reacted to these mythical people then elected them.

So why don't Calvinists believe the Holy Scripture?"

This claim is beyond foolish, it is trolling, and flaming, but I do not believe people should be censored. so I just call it like I see it. At this point, those who are like you meltdown, and say such things. Such a meltdown leaves all the issues unsettled.

Calvin's eisegesis rests upon God foreknowing sinners after the Fall,

Where did Calvin teach on this? Could you quote a source? A direct quote.

rather than people before the foundation of the world---before they were born or had done good or bad.

This verse in Rom 9 spoke of the Twins in the womb in time.

Scripture contradicts Calvin and his followers:

(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), (Rom. 9:11 NKJ)

You are wrong again on this verse.

It was God's good pleasure and will to save those who loved Him in His foreknowledge,

You have been shown to be guilty of not using foreknowledge in a biblical way, You repeat the error once again. Any reader can read through the links on foreknowledge and Alfreds error will be seen right away.

As for Calvin's idea the non-elect cannot be saved, limited atonement Scripture says different:

34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.
35 "But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. (Acts 10:34-35 NKJ)

For there is no partiality with God. (Rom. 2:11 NKJ)

We see that principle taught in Genesis:

6 So the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen?
7 "If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it." (Gen. 4:6-7 NKJ)

The principle is clearly stated in John's Gospel, "limited atonement" is a fiction. Whoever believes can be saved:

You have so many errors here, perhaps you should start a thread on your ideas. You mention Calvin again without a quote. I believe you have no idea, without any direct quote what Calvin thought.
Stop mentioning Calvin unless you quote him directly.

14 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
15 "that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.
16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
17 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (Jn. 3:14-18 NKJ)

Calvin should have read his bible a bit more carefully.

 

[electedbyhim]

I've authored posts whose title says both Calvin and Arminius are wrong

Was Divine Election Conditional, Unconditional or Both? Perhaps Jacob Arminius and John Calvin are wrong

Calvinists believe in total depravity, and claim free will is too diminished to choose to live with God. I find that absurd. Everywhere God commands we use our free will to choose life. He wouldn't do that if Calvinists were right. When I think of free will, I think of being able to choose God...

christianforums.net

You have claimed to be confused, but surely a title that claims both Calvin and Arminius are wrong, didn't befuddle?

So why do you say I'm Arminian? Haven't you read any of my replies?

Your posts are confusing to read.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Your posts are confusing to read.

Only to you. Focus Factor. Great for someone always confused.


There are three kinds of people: those who make things happen, those who watch things happen---and those confused about what happened.