The Five Points of Calvinism

[FreeGrace]

Romans 11:29 is about the call of God towards the Jews being irrevocable.

I see. So you're just going to ignore the fact that the gift of God is eternal life. Found in the SAME epistle where Paul says that God's giftS are irrevocable.

Does every Jew have eternal life?

Those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ for eternal life do. And that gift is irrevocable.

What I am going to ignore is every post of yours that does not have scripture in it.

Good to hear. All my posts cite Scripture.

So far you have only stated your opinion, and then tagged it with a scripture reference.

Easy charge, but obviously you are just ignoring what Scripture says, because it refutes your view.

Eternal life is a gift of God. Rom 6:23 SAYS SO.

God's gifts are irrevocable. Rom 11:29 SAYS SO.

Those who choose to present their member as instruments of sin, will reap the wages of sin which is death.

This is conflating Scripture. Rom 6:16 says that those who present their members as intruments of sin are slaves to sin.

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23

wages of sin - Eternal death

Please support your opinion from Scripture. As if you can. The death here is spiritual death, not eternal death. How do I know? Paul wrote to the Ephesian believers in 2:1 that they were "dead in sins" before they believed. That's how ALL human beings are born: physically alive and spiritually dead.

obedience of righteousness - Eternal life

What in the world does "obedience of righteousness" mean? And where in the world do you get that phrase?

How does one obtain eternal life? Through faith in Christ.

John 3:15-16
15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. 16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

John 5:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

John 6:40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

John 6:47 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord

1 Tim 1:16 Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.

Gal 3:22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

I'd love to see your source for your opinion about "obedience of righteousness".

Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? Romans 6:16JLB

I suggest that your understanding of the use of the word "death" is rather limited.

Here, Paul is speaking of loss of fellowship, also referred to as "temporal death". Not physical, not eternal, not spiritual.

Unless one rightly divides the Word of Truth, they cannot understand the Truth.

Your view applies eternal death to verses that do not refer to eternal death.

 

[ezra]

this is a interesting subject. i would like to address my self .when i get in from work today.

 

[JLB]

I see. So you're just going to ignore the fact that the gift of God is eternal life. Found in the SAME epistle where Paul says that God's giftS are irrevocable.

Romans 6 -

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!
Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?
I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness.
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness...For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.


This was written to Christians, who are warned that they having been set free from sin, they are in danger of becoming slaves again to sin, if they present their members as slaves to obey sin... FOR THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH!

ETERNAL DEATH!

The payment that you will receive as a Christian if you present your members, and become a slave of sin, is DEATH.

The contrast of verse 23 is eternal life and eternal death.

Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?


For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Gift - Strong's Number: 5486 - Charisma

• the economy of divine grace, by which the pardon of sin and eternal salvation is appointed to sinners in consideration of the merits of Christ laid hold of by faith

Definition

1. a favour with which one receives without any merit of his own
2. the gift of divine grace
3. the gift of faith, knowledge, holiness, virtue
4. the economy of divine grace, by which the pardon of sin and eternal salvation is appointed to sinners in consideration of the merits of Christ laid hold of by faith
5. grace or gifts denoting extraordinary powers, distinguishing certain Christians and enabling them to serve the church of Christ, the reception of which is due to the power of divine grace operating on their souls by the Holy Spirit

God doesn't take back this gift, a person can choose to obey sin as their master rather than obey Jesus as the Master [Lord], and squander this precious gift of God.

This was given to us by faith. Faith without works is dead.


JLB

 

[JLB]

This is conflating Scripture. Rom 6:16 says that those who present their members as intruments of sin are slaves to sin.

The wages of sin is death.

Eternal Death.


JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"I see. So you're just going to ignore the fact that the gift of God is eternal life. Found in the SAME epistle where Paul says that God's giftS are irrevocable."

Romans 6 -
What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!
Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?
I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness.
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness...For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

None of this addresses what I said. Your response is puzzling.

This was written to Christians, who are warned that they having been set free from sin, they are in danger of becoming slaves again to sin, if they present their members as slaves to obey sin... FOR THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH!

ETERNAL DEATH!

Again, your limited view of the word "death" and how it is used in Scripture prevents your full understanding of what Scripture teaches.

The payment that you will receive as a Christian if you present your members, and become a slave of sin, is DEATH.

That extreme statement negates the word of Christ on the cross when He died for ALL SIN. Sin cannot be the issue in whether receiving or not receiving eternal life.

The contrast of verse 23 is eternal life and eternal death.

No, the contrast is that all members of the human race are already dead spiritually, but not eternally. But those who believe in Jesus Christ HAVE the irrevocable gift of eternal life.

Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?

When rightly dividing the Word of Truth, this verse teaches that believers who present themselves to sin are slaves to sin, which leads to loss of fellowship, whereas those believers who present themselves to obedience to God's commands are slaves of righteousness. Paul was addressing the contrast between carnal and spiritual believers.

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Gift - Strong's Number: 5486 - Charisma

I'm glad to see that you know the Greek word for 'gift' in Rom 6:23. Guess what Greek word Paul used in Rom 11:29 for "gifts"? Charisma. SAME WORD.

• the economy of divine grace, by which the pardon of sin and eternal salvation is appointed to sinners in consideration of the merits of Christ laid hold of by faith

• Yes. And this gift is irrevocable, as Paul clearly SAID in Rom 11:29.

Definition

1. a favour with which one receives without any merit of his own
2. the gift of divine grace
3. the gift of faith, knowledge, holiness, virtue
4. the economy of divine grace, by which the pardon of sin and eternal salvation is appointed to sinners in consideration of the merits of Christ laid hold of by faith
5. grace or gifts denoting extraordinary powers, distinguishing certain Christians and enabling them to serve the church of Christ, the reception of which is due to the power of divine grace operating on their souls by the Holy Spirit

And this gift is irrevocable.

God doesn't take back this gift, a person can choose to obey sin as their master rather than obey Jesus as the Master [Lord], and squander this precious gift of God.

What verse backs up your opinion here?

Here is a bit of logic for you to consider:

If A = B, and B = C, then A = C

We can apply this to Scripture.

If A = eternal life, and B = gift which IS true per Rom 6:23, THEN A (eternal life) = C (irrevocable) per Rom 11:29.

Truth cannot be refuted.

 

[JLB]

I said this:
"I see. So you're just going to ignore the fact that the gift of God is eternal life. Found in the SAME epistle where Paul says that God's giftS are irrevocable."

None of this addresses what I said. Your response is puzzling.


Again, your limited view of the word "death" and how it is used in Scripture prevents your full understanding of what Scripture teaches.


That extreme statement negates the word of Christ on the cross when He died for ALL SIN. Sin cannot be the issue in whether receiving or not receiving eternal life.


No, the contrast is that all members of the human race are already dead spiritually, but not eternally. But those who believe in Jesus Christ HAVE the irrevocable gift of eternal life.


When rightly dividing the Word of Truth, this verse teaches that believers who present themselves to sin are slaves to sin, which leads to loss of fellowship, whereas those believers who present themselves to obedience to God's commands are slaves of righteousness. Paul was addressing the contrast between carnal and spiritual believers.

I'm glad to see that you know the Greek word for 'gift' in Rom 6:23. Guess what Greek word Paul used in Rom 11:29 for "gifts"? Charisma. SAME WORD.

• Yes. And this gift is irrevocable, as Paul clearly SAID in Rom 11:29.

And this gift is irrevocable.


What verse backs up your opinion here?

Here is a bit of logic for you to consider:

If A = B, and B = C, then A = C

We can apply this to Scripture.

If A = eternal life, and B = gift which IS true per Rom 6:23, THEN A (eternal life) = C (irrevocable) per Rom 11:29.

Truth cannot be refuted.

You have left the truth of scripture and have entertained human logic as your source of knowledge.

Thanks for your time, I won't be discussing this anymore with you.

God Bless.


JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

The wages of sin is death.
Eternal Death.JLB

You haven't proven that "death" in Rom 6:23 is eternal. In fact, your opinion can easily be refuted. In front of Festus, Paul said this: "“If, then, I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar.”
Acts 25:11 Obviously referring to physical death.

Or what the writer of Hebrews said about Abraham at age 100: "Therefore there was born even of one man, and him as good as dead at that, as many descendants as the stars of heaven in number, and innumerable as the sand which is by the seashore." Heb 11:12. Obviously referring to impotence, or sexual death.

Or 1 Tim 5:8 - "But she who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives." While you'll probably argue that this refers to eternal death, it doesn't. Such a widow is out of fellowship. Not eternally dead.

Your view of sin leading to eternal death negates Christ's work on the cross. He paid for ALL SIN. Therefore, sin is not an issue.

So, why do people get cast into the second death, the lake of fire? They don't have eternal life, which comes by faith, and is a gift of God that is irrevocable.

You've done nothing to refute anything I've posted, but the opposite is quite true.

 

[JLB]

You haven't proven that "death" in Rom 6:23 is eternal.

Oh, I see.

You have come to the conclusion that eternal life is being contrasted with "physical" death of the body?

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The context dictates what is being contrasted.

Unless you think Paul is exhorting us to turn away from sin, so that we will never die a physical death?



JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

Oh, I see.

You have come to the conclusion that eternal life is being contrasted with "physical" death of the body?

I suggest you read Gen 2:17 - "but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

Did Adam drop dead immediately? No, of course not. But God did say "for in the day", obviously indicating that same day. So, what died on that day? His human spirit, and he became spiritually separated from God, which is called spiritual death. Not eternal death. Every Biblical scholar knows that Adam did believe God's promise of Gen 3:15 and was saved. So his death was NOT eternal.

However, the Hebrew literally says, "for in the day that you eat of it, dying, you will surely die". Death is mentioned twice; the immediate death was spiritual, and the second "dying" refers to his physical death over time.

So your view of Rom 6:23 is wrong. It cannot mean eternal death. Or all humans would die eternally, since Rom 3:23 says "for ALL have sinned".

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

And since ALL have sinned, your view would conclude that all humans will experience eternal death. Which is preposterous.

The context dictates what is being contrasted.

You have no idea.

Unless you think Paul is exhorting us to turn away from sin, so that we will never die a physical death?

Yes, Paul is exhorting believers to turn away from sin, but not for avoiding physical death. That would conflict with this verse: Heb 9:27 - And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment

I noticed that you have ignored the logic I presented.

Eternal life is a gift of God. Rom 6:23
God's gifts are irrevocable. Rom 11:29
Therefore, eternal life is irrevocable. This is irrefutable.

You've not proven otherwise.

 

[chessman]

It specifically says that we (believers) are chosen according tot he (sic) foreknowledge of God.

Right.

The word "elect" here is in reference to Jewish believers, not the "chosen Israelites" of the OT.

Right. The first Christians were, you guessed it, Jews who believed in Jesus Christ.

That's how the Reformers translated it, that's not what the Greek says…
I submit that foreknowledge doesn't man (sic) God knowing the future but rather God having known them (Jews) in the past.

Yes, foreknowledge does mean God knowing the future. “foreknowledge” meant the same thing then that it does now. "knowledge of something before it exists or happens"

JUSTIN MARTYR in THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN [150-160 A.D.] Writing in Greek says:
CHAPTER XXVIII -- GOD'S CARE FOR MEN.
… For the reason why God has delayed to do this, is His regard for the human race. For He fore-knows that some are to be saved by repentance, some even that are perhaps not yet born. In the beginning He made the human race with the power of thought and of choosing the truth and doing right, so that all men are without excuse before God; for they have been born rational and contemplative. And if any one disbelieves that God cares for these things, he will thereby either insinuate that God does not exist, or he will assert that though He exists He delights in vice, or exists like a stone, and that neither virtue nor vice are anything, but only in the opinion of men these things are reckoned good or evil. And this is the greatest profanity and wickedness.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html​

If God created the wicked and ordained them to be that way, then God would be the author of the wickedness that they do because they would have no choice. Calvin's predestined is a double predestination

Deborah, notice that Justin thought; “He [God] made the human race with the power of thought and of choosing the truth and doing right…” yet thought God fore-knows some are yet to be born that will use their God given rational choosing, to do just that. Choose Him. There’s not conflict between man’s ability to choose versus God’s ability to know how/when they will or will not choose Him.
If there were a conflict between these things, it would be like a conflict between Black and the number 6. These are two different subjects. Related, I suppose, but different none the less. One’s about colors of the spectrum yet the other’s about #s. One’s about God’s attribute of possessing foreknowledge (which is clearly the Biblical case and has an antonym, not a synonym, of hindsight) yet the other’s about man’s ability to choose God.

Also, does your church/elders "ordain" ministers? If so, do you think the church elders are held responsible for that minister's future actions (good or bad)? What definition of "ordained" are you using to imply God can be held responsible for "ordaining" things to come?

. I don't think it's talking about God know future events, I think it's talking about God knowing in past (before).

I'm still trying to get my head around that.

Deborah, It might be helpful to twist your head in a counter-clockwise direction if you’re trying to get your head around foreknowledge being hindsight. They are literally antonyms. Also, the idea that God’s foreknowledge infiltrated into Christianity during the reformation is just flat out wrong, per Justin Martyr’s 2nd Century description above. Not to mention God’s foreknowledge displayed in Gen 3:14-16.

 

[Deborah13]

Right.
Right. The first Christians were, you guessed it, Jews who believed in Jesus Christ.

Yes, foreknowledge does mean God knowing the future. “foreknowledge” meant the same thing then that it does now. "knowledge of something before it exists or happens"

JUSTIN MARTYR in THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN [150-160 A.D.] Writing in Greek says:
CHAPTER XXVIII -- GOD'S CARE FOR MEN.
… For the reason why God has delayed to do this, is His regard for the human race. For He fore-knows that some are to be saved by repentance, some even that are perhaps not yet born. In the beginning He made the human race with the power of thought and of choosing the truth and doing right, so that all men are without excuse before God; for they have been born rational and contemplative. And if any one disbelieves that God cares for these things, he will thereby either insinuate that God does not exist, or he will assert that though He exists He delights in vice, or exists like a stone, and that neither virtue nor vice are anything, but only in the opinion of men these things are reckoned good or evil. And this is the greatest profanity and wickedness.
​

Deborah, notice that Justin thought; “He [God] made the human race with the power of thought and of choosing the truth and doing right…” yet thought God fore-knows some are yet to be born that will use their God given rational choosing, to do just that. Choose Him. There’s not conflict between man’s ability to choose versus God’s ability to know how/when they will or will not choose Him.

With all due respect to you, this thread is not about what Justin Martyr said. It is about T.U.L.I.P. which is based the teaching of Calvin not Justin Martyr. Clearly Calvin did not agree with Justin Martyr.

If there were a conflict between these things, it would be like a conflict between Black and the number 6. These are two different subjects. Related, I suppose, but different none the less. One’s about colors of the spectrum yet the other’s about #s. One’s about God’s attribute of possessing foreknowledge (which is clearly the Biblical case and has an antonym, not a synonym, of hindsight) yet the other’s about man’s ability to choose God.

Also, does your church/elders "ordain" ministers? If so, do you think the church elders are held responsible for that minister's future actions (good or bad)? What definition of "ordained" are you using to imply God can be held responsible for "ordaining" things to come?

I don't say that Calvin does. Those were his words that I posted. He said God ordained the wicked, not me.

Deborah, It might be helpful to twist your head in a counter-clockwise direction if you’re trying to get your head around foreknowledge being hindsight. They are literally antonyms. Also, the idea that God’s foreknowledge infiltrated into Christianity during the reformation is just flat out wrong, per Justin Martyr’s 2nd Century description above. Not to mention God’s foreknowledge displayed in Gen 3:14-16.

I'm only trying to understand what Butch was saying about that one specific scripture in Peter.

 

[Chopper]

I agree with your statement in bold . But Calvin did not agree with you. This is Calvin's own words....
.
Calvin's Commentary on Romans Vol 38 (verse 18)
".... Paul teaches us, that the ruin of the wicked is not only foreseen by the Lord, but also ordained by his counsel and his will; and Solomon teaches as the same thing, — that not only the destruction of the wicked is foreknown, but that the wicked themselves have been created for this very end — that they may perish."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc38/cc38012.htm
http://sbctoday.com/why-calvin-was-wrong-about-romans-9/

If God created the wicked and ordained them to be that way, then God would be the author of the wickedness that they do because they would have no choice. Calvin's predestined is a double predestination. Not just for the elect but for the evil.


What does he say that you don't like?

I'de rather not go into why I don't favor John Piper because I would be judging his heart of which I have no authorization to do from the Almighty.

Rom 9:10
And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
Rom 9:11
(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
Rom 9:12
It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Rom 9:13
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Rom 9:14
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Rom 9:15
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Rom 9:16
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Rom 9:17
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Rom 9:18
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:20
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Rom 9:21
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Rom 9:22
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Rom 9:23
And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Rom 9:24
Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
I'm sorry for this Scripture being presented like this. I have had to go to IE because I'm having problems with Fire Fox.
My thinking on this passage of Scripture is as follows: In Adam, the whole world lies in wickedness. You already know this. So lets consider that unless God does something the human race is doomed. In God, we have something called grace. If we look at the human race prior to the flood, we see just how wicked the world was. God destroyed all mankind except Noah and his family. God said that He would not do that again.

Now we have the human race after the flood and it didn't take long for the sin of Adam under the influence of Satan to contaminate all humans again. Now we come to grace. Because of the love of God, He desired to pull out of the wickedness of mankind "some" who would love Him in return. There is no evil or wickedness in our holy God and anything that He does cannot be accounted to Him as wrong, He is always just, always holy, and always righteous.

So, God in His foreknowledge knew all mankind would be wicked. It became His desire to choose out of the wicked human race, "some" who would love Him and obey Him. He started in Abraham to build a Nation of folk who would obey the Law that He set in motion thru Moses. He even set up a "Promised Land" where they could live and appreciate what He had done.

As you already know, many of the Hebrews rebelled against God's Commandments and grieved the heart of God. To remedy this situation, Jesus, His only Son, a part of Himself came and shed His blood as the last sacrifice for sin. The Gospel came to man so that they could be saved. So, before the foundation of the world, God, out of that mass of wicked people He chose men and women, not everyone because of His justice that He laid down after the "fall of mankind" Because of the hard hearts and rebellion of mankind against our Holy God, they did not want anything to do with our God. So, God chose people to respond to His grace and offer of Salvation to be a witness of His love and will.

The following is a statement out of Calvin's "Institute of the Christian Religion" p. 648. "God has no pleasure in the death of a sinner; that the godly may feel confident that whenever they repent God is ready to parden them; and that the wicked may feel that their guilt is doubled, when they respond not to the great mercy and condescension of God. The mercy of God, therefore, will ever be ready to meet the penitent."

I believe, aside from the folk that have been directly chosen by God, the elect, that thru the preaching of the Gospel, anyone, I mean anyone who repents of the wickedness that he/she inherited from Adam, can be saved and become a child of God....We know that a few people were wicked, and would never change their wickedness and because God had a specific purpose in mind, He used them such as Pharaoh and Judas.

 

[chessman]

With all due respect to you, this thread is not about what Justin Martyr said. It is about T.U.L.I.P. which is based the teaching of Calvin not Justin Martyr.

How about what Spurgeon, Law, Whitefield or Wesley had to say about total depravity of men? Is this tread about their comments, in your opinion?

That is exactly what I think about pure Calvinism. Even Charles Spurgeon had trouble with this. He spoke about it in one of his sermons.

This very subject, tore apart a long time friendship of two great Christian men, George Whitefield and John Wesley. However, I have never read anywhere that either man ever called the other a heretic.
Whitefield....
"Mr. Wesley I think is wrong in some things, and Mr. Law wrong also;

My point was merely that Butch5 implied that it was the reformers (like Luther/Calvin) that started an erroneous idea that foreknowledge was God's knowledge of the future (including that knowledge of what men will choose). He implied they even mis-translated the Texts incorrectly to instill their erroneous ideas about what the text said. That's simply and clearly not the case, as my posting of Justin's 2nd Century statement about God's foreknowledge proves.

Plus Justin had something to say, in the same paragraph, about God giving men freewill choice. Just as Spurgeon, Wesley. Law and Whitefield did. It related to your discussion/questions about whether God has created man with freewill choice, given God knows their future. That's all. I made no disrespectful comment or off-topic post to you or Butch, for that matter.

 

[chessman]

I don't say that Calvin does. Those were his words that I posted. He said God ordained the wicked, not me.

I know you didn't say it. My post about it was merely a question; what definition of the word "ordained" are you using? You may be using it differently than Calvin was using it, was my only point there.

When my church "ordains" a minister, that in no way shape or form means my church is responsible for or causes that minister's actions later in his life. Nor do I take what Calvin said about God ordaining the wicked that way.

"ordained" simply means my church has designate that person as a minister. That ordained minister is still responsible for his own actions, (good or bad) just as he was before he was "ordained".

God ordaining the wicked, to me, simply means God has decreed that, .... well the wicked are wicked. He didn't cause them to be wicked. He just decreed that they are.

 

[Butch5]

I'm still trying to get my head around that.

If you look at all of the occurrences of the word, the idea that God knew something or someone before the time of the writer fits the context.

 

[Butch5]

Yes, it is.


So, what, specifically, is "according to foreknowledge"?


We disagree. The phrase "according to foreknowledge" refers to the phrase "to the elect sojourners". The word "elect" here is in reference to Jewish believers, not the "chosen Israelites" of the OT.


I didn't say it was about that. It's about God choosing, or electing, based on foreknowledge.


I'm sure people believe that you incorrectly understand the way the English "foreknowledge" is used in Scripture. The only way to support your view is evidence from Scripture.

[QUTOE] The Greek word literally means to before know.

Actually, it means "to know before".


Are you saying that God doesn't know the future before it happens???


I think I see the problem in your understanding. It's not about "past knowing", but what God has always known in the past about current or even future events. iow, it's a "past knowing" about future things.


But of course the word is about "God knowing in the past". He knew in the past what you do today. That is "past knowing".[/QUOTE]

I don't think you can prove that foreknowledge means God chose people because He know they would choose Christ. I believe that's simply an assumption.

To answer your question, what is according to foreknowledge, before knowing, is "grace to you and peace."

 

[Butch5]

Right.
Right. The first Christians were, you guessed it, Jews who believed in Jesus Christ.

Yes, foreknowledge does mean God knowing the future. “foreknowledge” meant the same thing then that it does now. "knowledge of something before it exists or happens"

JUSTIN MARTYR in THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN [150-160 A.D.] Writing in Greek says:
CHAPTER XXVIII -- GOD'S CARE FOR MEN.
… For the reason why God has delayed to do this, is His regard for the human race. For He fore-knows that some are to be saved by repentance, some even that are perhaps not yet born. In the beginning He made the human race with the power of thought and of choosing the truth and doing right, so that all men are without excuse before God; for they have been born rational and contemplative. And if any one disbelieves that God cares for these things, he will thereby either insinuate that God does not exist, or he will assert that though He exists He delights in vice, or exists like a stone, and that neither virtue nor vice are anything, but only in the opinion of men these things are reckoned good or evil. And this is the greatest profanity and wickedness.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html​

Hi Chessman,
I'm not sure what this statement proves, other than Justin believed God knew future events. Justin's understanding of "foreknowledge" doesn't effect Peter's use of the word. let me ask a question, If Peter meant God foreknowing in this passage, how does it fit what he said?​

Deborah, It might be helpful to twist your head in a counter-clockwise direction if you’re trying to get your head around foreknowledge being hindsight. They are literally antonyms. Also, the idea that God’s foreknowledge infiltrated into Christianity during the reformation is just flat out wrong, per Justin Martyr’s 2nd Century description above. Not to mention God’s foreknowledge displayed in Gen 3:14-16.

Firstly, I never said the idea of foreknowledge infiltrated Christianity during the Reformation. What I said, in regard to 1 Peter, was that it read the way FreeGrace posted it is because the Reformers translated it that way.

 

[Butch5]

How about what Spurgeon, Law, Whitefield or Wesley had to say about total depravity of men? Is this tread about their comments, in your opinion?

​

My point was merely that Butch5 implied that it was the reformers (like Luther/Calvin) that started an erroneous idea that foreknowledge was God's knowledge of the future (including that knowledge of what men will choose). He implied they even mis-translated the Texts incorrectly to instill their erroneous ideas about what the text said. That's simply and clearly not the case, as my posting of Justin's 2nd Century statement about God's foreknowledge proves.

Plus Justin had something to say, in the same paragraph, about God giving men freewill choice. Just as Spurgeon, Wesley. Law and Whitefield did. It related to your discussion/questions about whether God has created man with freewill choice, given God knows their future. That's all. I made no disrespectful comment or off-topic post to you or Butch, for that matter.

I did no such thing. I simply pointed out a translation that came out of the Reformation. Clearly, it is not how the Greek reads.

 

[Deborah13]

I'de rather not go into why I don't favor John Piper because I would be judging his heart of which I have no authorization to do from the Almighty.

I thought that you were referring to his teachings, not the condition of his heart.

The following is a statement out of Calvin's "Institute of the Christian Religion" p. 648. "God has no pleasure in the death of a sinner; that the godly may feel confident that whenever they repent God is ready to parden them; and that the wicked may feel that their guilt is doubled, when they respond not to the great mercy and condescension of God. The mercy of God, therefore, will ever be ready to meet the penitent."

Here is a more complete quote of who Calvin is referring to from the same page and contains what you have posted.

"But experience shows that this will, for the repentance of those whom he invites to himself, is not
such as to make him touch all their hearts. Still, it cannot be said that he acts deceitfully; for though
the external word only renders, those who hear its and do not obey it, inexcusable, it is still truly
regarded as an evidence of the grace by which he reconciles men to himself. Let us therefore hold
the doctrine of the prophet, that God has no pleasure in the death of the sinner; that the godly may
feel confident that whenever they repent God is ready to pardon them; and that the wicked may
feel that their guilt is doubled, when they respond not to the great mercy and condescension of God.
The mercy of God, therefore will ever be ready to meet the penitent; but all the prophets, and
apostles, and Ezekiel himself, clearly tell us who they are to whom repentance is given."

I believe, aside from the folk that have been directly chosen by God, the elect, that thru the preaching of the Gospel, anyone, I mean anyone who repents of the wickedness that he/she inherited from Adam, can be saved and become a child of God....We know that a few people were wicked, and would never change their wickedness and because God had a specific purpose in mind, He used them such as Pharaoh and Judas.

What did Calvin believe? He did not believe that God allowed all men to repent. In fact he believed that God chose some men to be saved and the rest He chose to be wicked. He did not believe what you believe or what I believe.
You asked me to give you a quote from Calvin's own words. I did that. What are your thoughts about that quote?
The Five Points of Calvinism

 

[chessman]

That's how the Reformers translated it, that's not what the Greek says

Butch5 implied that it was the reformers (like Luther/Calvin) that started an erroneous idea that foreknowledge was God's knowledge of the future

I see no significant difference in the above two statements.

I did no such thing. I simply pointed out a translation that came out of the Reformation. Clearly, it is not how the Greek reads.

Clearly it is how the Greek uses the word, else Justin wouldn't have used it that way.

I posted a Greek speaking Bible student (Justin) from the 2nd century, way before the reformers, that does in fact use the word to mean God knows the future. That contradicts your position on what it means in the original Greek. Take it or leave it.