The Foreknowledge of God

[darinhouston]

Calvary Chapel rejects Calvinism, but holds to a "Once-Saved-Always-Saved" position (if they have not changed in the years since I was there). Chuck Smith believes there is an inexplicable mystery involved in harmonizing divine election and human free will. His view would typically be expressed as follows:

"On the outside of the gate of heaven, it says, 'Whosoever will may come.' But on the inside of the gate, it says, 'You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.'"

Like Tozer, who said, "I am a Calvinist when I pray, but an Arminian when I preach," Chuck Smith (whose views define Calvary Chapel orthodoxy) believes (the last I heard) that God sovereignly ordains all things, but somehow, mysteriously, man's will remains free.

My view is different, in that I do not see any logical tension between God's election (which is corporate) and man's free will (which is individual).

Thanks -- it sounds like he has less a "middle" position as a "non" position.

[NJchosen]

Response to
John 1:5

It could be taken as the darkness doesn't "overcome" the light. However it does seem that it should be taken as I had stated. Please correct my reasoning here. Light and darkness seem to be associated with beings, attitudes, actions. Jesus said, "I am the light of the world."
As you mentioned John 3:19-21, men loved darkness rather then the light, their deeds are associated with darkness. Also we, Christ's Church has been the light of the world. Turn to John 1, we have v.3- "He made all things", v.4- "In Him was life, and the life was the light of men", v.5- "the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness didn't comprehend it" (NASB).

Then v.6 onward seems to go over some of what was just said but in more depth. We have John/Baptist bearing witness v.6-8 of the light, the light is Christ, and it tells us that the light is not John/Baptist, so it does refer to an individual, Christ v.10- "the world was made through Him" (as in v.3), v.10- "the world did not know Him" (also v.26), they did not know, perceive or understand Him. The world was made through Him and the same world didn't know Him, v.11- "His own didn't receive Him", they rejected Him. How can anyone be saved if we have all rejected Him? In v.12- "but as many as receive Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God". Was there a quality difference between those who rejected Him versus those who believed? Did they who receive Him, receive Him because they were more spiritually minded? open? Was there something in the person apart from God, that caused them to believe or desire to be saved? Now v.13- "who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." Those who believed, did so, not because of a desire apart from God for it would have been their will, but as it reads, they were born of God or born again and it had nothing to do with their will. A person's will cannot make them born again literally or cause God to make them born again. Those who believed (v.12) were born or born again (v.13), but it says it was not because of the will of the flesh or man. It had nothing to do with an action, physical decent (blood), or desire on the part of man (will).

Sorry it took so long, I've been busy.

NJchosen

[seer]

Good points NJ...

[TK]

steve wrote:

Like Tozer, who said, "I am a Calvinist when I pray, but an Arminian when I preach," Chuck Smith (whose views define Calvary Chapel orthodoxy) believes (the last I heard) that God sovereignly ordains all things, but somehow, mysteriously, man's will remains free.

I happened to hear John MacArthur a couple of weeks ago (apparently he has been going through Ephesians) say something similar to the underlined portion above.

I remember him telling his listeners not to "fight the tension" that is created by the early verses of Ephesians and man's free will. God pre-ordains everything, yet man is still truly free. I used to think this way but interaction on this forum has pretty much cured me of that.

TK

[NJchosen]

I'll respond to the rest of your post Steve. Thank you for responding.

That aside, I have been thinking about something, does the Bible ever teach why it is that man responds to the Gospel? Is it because man apart from God chooses Him? Man's reasoning? Intellect? Or, does the Bible teach that God is the cause, the reason, why someone repents and believes? I do read a lot of passages where man believes or disbelieves, but many times it doesn't mention the cause.

For example: John 6 "no man can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws Him, and I will raise him up the last day". The reason why men come to God is because the Father has drawn them to the Son.

John 1:13 man doesn't come to God because of their own will.

What other passages teach why man comes to God? This is just a thought.

NJchosen

[darinhouston]

I'll respond to the rest of your post Steve. Thank you for responding.

That aside, I have been thinking about something, does the Bible ever teach why it is that man responds to the Gospel? Is it because man apart from God chooses Him? Man's reasoning? Intellect? Or, does the Bible teach that God is the cause, the reason, why someone repents and believes? I do read a lot of passages where man believes or disbelieves, but many times it doesn't mention the cause.

For example: John 6 "no man can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws Him, and I will raise him up the last day". The reason why men come to God is because the Father has drawn them to the Son.

John 1:13 man doesn't come to God because of their own will.

What other passages teach why man comes to God? This is just a thought.

NJchosen

Steve will no doubt want to respond, but I believe we would all agree that man only responds by the grace of and according to the provision of God. John 1:13 and John 6 do confirm that. However, they do not say whether the Father draws all men or not and whether that "drawing" is resistable.

[auggybendoggy]

steve wrote:

Like Tozer, who said, "I am a Calvinist when I pray, but an Arminian when I preach," Chuck Smith (whose views define Calvary Chapel orthodoxy) believes (the last I heard) that God sovereignly ordains all things, but somehow, mysteriously, man's will remains free.

I happened to hear John MacArthur a couple of weeks ago (apparently he has been going through Ephesians) say something similar to the underlined portion above.

I remember him telling his listeners not to "fight the tension" that is created by the early verses of Ephesians and man's free will. God pre-ordains everything, yet man is still truly free. I used to think this way but interaction on this forum has pretty much cured me of that.

TK

Steve,
I used to go to the Master College and was solicited Limited Atonement by John M. himself. I still don't buy to this day

The compatabilist idea of calvinism is one that appeals to many groups. I know a good number of calvary chapel people (mostly family) and I love them dearly. However it is on these grounds that I seperate with them on the Ideas of soteriology.

Often we want to say they are both true but this is equivalant as one saying, God saves us by grace and not by and deed we do and it is also true we are saved by what we do and not by any grace we may be given.

This is why calvinists stand staunchly against the notions of synergism. To the reformed it is ONLY God who saves and any mention of "save yourselves" is only figurative speech and cannot be taken literally.

Auggy

[NJchosen]

Darinhouston,

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." 41 Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, "I am the bread that came down out of heaven." 42 They were saying, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, `I have come down out of heaven'?" 43 Jesus answered and said to them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."

The Father draws people to His Son, and the Son raises them up the last day. If the Father does not draw them they cannot come to the Son. "No one can come to Me unless..." and the "unless" tells us something has to happen for someone to come to the Son, and that something is the Father drawing them. The Son raises them who were drawn, He doesn't raises just a few who believed, it doesn't say that, but it does make clear He will raise those who were drawn by the Father.

NJchosen

[NJchosen]

This is for all sides.

To accept an idea just because one cannot understand or answer another idea, should not be the reason why one idea is rejected. Human reasoning can have a part in the forming of what we believe. But this should not be! For the Bible is filled with mystery. And as people of faith, we accept things as it has been written in scripture and some of what has been said in the Bible we accept but don't fully understand.

There is the mystery of the Trinity, Christology, the Hypostatic Union and more. I submit that there is an element of mystery here also. I do see from the scriptures that no one comes to Christ unless the Father draws them and it is these drawn who will be raised up the last day. It is mysterious to me why God would have chosen me and not someone else. I'm thankful, grateful, but I still don't understand why me? I know God is Sovereign over His creation, and the Potter has the freedom over the clay.

If there is no mystery element allowed this can lead to a rejection of what scripture says on one plain, though accepting ideas on another. If I said I reject election (in a Calvinist sense) because is downplays on the justice of God, or, hardly anyone would preach the gospel if the ideas that Calvinists hold are scriptural, are we not allowing human reasoning to dictate what we accept from scripture?

NJchosen

[NJchosen]

Response

2 Cor 4
"3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

Steve you said, "The passage does indeed speak of people who have been blinded by Satan, but it does not tell us what percentage of the unregenerate population may be blinded in this manner."

Why do you think its not 100% of the people who are blinded by Satan, whom has a veil over their heart and mind, that they cannot see. Maybe I am looking at this passage to simply? But Paul here does contrast the unbelieving, those who are spiritually blind versus those who do believe. How do you get a third group here?

2 Cor 4:2 "...but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God."

Steve you said, There is no indication that all unbelievers are in this category, and the implication is otherwise, as in verse 2"

Where is the implication? "...to every man's conscience" How do you understand this to be only "some men" and not "every man's conscience? To me this seems to be referring to every man's conscience and the reason why some don't accept the "truth" is because it is veiled. They cannot see because they have a veil over their minds. But for the believing ones it is because God had revealed the truth (v.6)"in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ." This idea follows from 3:14-16. Again, where do you get a third group here who doesn't believe and doesn't have a veil?

Eph 4:18-19

This passage closely resembles the critque of Gentile culture in Romans 1. While the letter to the Romans shows God as giving Gentiles over to a reckless and wanton life (Rom.1:24-31), Eph. presents the same progression from the human side, those who have turned aside "have given themselves up" (v.10). Similarly in Exodus God is said to harden Pharaoh's heart (Ex 4:21, 7:3) but Pharaoh also hardens his own heart (Ex 18:15, 32).

NJchosen