The Foreknowledge of God

[NJchosen]

Homer,

Yes, the post is from "The Attributes of God" chapter 4. Its about a 10 minute read. Sorry it made you gage, to much light for one sitting? Take small bites.

NJchosen

[darinhouston]

Homer,

Yes, the post is from "The Attributes of God" chapter 4. Its about a 10 minute read. Sorry it made you gage, to much light for one sitting? Take small bites.

NJchosen

I think you missed his point -- though we don't object to lengthy excerpts or even whole passages, it would be nice to do more than post a copy/paste and "what do you say to THAT" around here.

I think Homer's point was that it wasn't the length or difficulty of the post that made him gag, but the weakness in its premise that made the following somewhat irrelevant.

[seer]

Seer,

I'm new to the board and have read only some of your replies to others. Do you hold to 5 points of Calvinism also? I read your last post in this discussion and wanted to add something along with your post.

Hey NJ, let's just say I lean strongly towards the 5 point position. There are a lot of texts that I have a problem reconciling with Calvinism, especially the high view of sovereignty. I have been at this for about 20 years, looking at both sides - and I'm not sure if I will resolve it in my mind this side of glory...

[NJchosen]

Hi

I didn't come with an attitude to post a classic works and say almost rhetorical, 'What do you say to that." though I guess it has been taken that way. I've been reading through it, and have found it to be an excellent short study, and edifying. Most of today's Christian book writers do not write like they did back then with classics from the Puritans, John Owen, John Gill, Spurgeon, Luther, Calvin and more.

Please don't take what I said to Homer as anything, I understood him fine.

But thus far I feel I have wasted time in posting, I hope the next few days will be better. For not one person has read through it and dialoged with me/us about the content of the post. Posting is sometimes simply a waste of time because of the bullet posts, no real dialog or addressing everything else but what was originally posted (topic escapees).

NJchosen

[Michelle]

Hi

I didn't come with an attitude to post a classic works and say almost rhetorical, 'What do you say to that." though I guess it has been taken that way. I've been reading through it, and have found it to be an excellent short study, and edifying. Most of today's Christian book writers do not write like they did back then with classics from the Puritans, John Owen, John Gill, Spurgeon, Luther, Calvin and more.

Please don't take what I said to Homer as anything, I understood him fine.

But thus far I feel I have wasted time in posting, I hope the next few days will be better. For not one person has read through it and dialoged with me/us about the content of the post. Posting is sometimes simply a waste of time because of the bullet posts, no real dialog or addressing everything else but what was originally posted (topic escapees).

NJchosen

So...you came here to criticize our style of discourse?

[darinhouston]

I think you'll find quite the opposite around here, particularly on this particular issue. This does appear to be a quiet time -- I'm not sure why other than for myself I can say I'm just really busy getting through the end of the year at work and with a newborn baby who has been sick (2 month old in the emergency room last weekend with RSV virus -- pretty scary). I suspect it's the same for others who have normally engaged these C-ism topics throughly. I have some things to share, but haven't had time to engage it, and also (like others I'm sure), you'll find this topic has been very heavily discussed here in the months following the Gregg/White debate, and I'm sure some have just taken a break from the topic. You may find existing threads to engage where folks would re-engage more readily than a tired chapter from Pink.

I, too, love the way Pink, Chesterton, Oswald Chambers, some of the Puritans and others write -- their rhetoric is outstanding and they write in soaring terms of the sovereignty of God, and I spent a year or two just enthralled with the discovery of some of these writers and also some of the earliest Christian writings. They have a rhetoric and logical approach that is quite different than the thin modern fluff we read today. When I first started reading them, I felt as if I had discovered a treasure trove of forgotten jewels -- their rhetoric gave them an air of authority that I was seeking, and I discovered that brilliant people had thought the same thoughts about God I thought were novel -- it was enlivening. But, the more I read them and the more I read my bible, the bloom fell off the rose as the air of authority faded and I began to realize that even they were not speaking novel thoughts, but brilliant men before them spoke with the same air of authority with both their own and even opposite positions. I came to realize these "truths" were less clear than the authors proposed, and that brilliant men with soaring rhetoric can be even more wrong than me. I began also to notice flawed logic in what before had seemed to be quite logical considering my then-shared presuppositions.

I now find even modern thinkers/authors such as NT Wright to be equally compelling in rhetoric and depth, and think we should take all of them (even Steve) with a huge dose of salt and critical thinking. I think it was CS Lewis who said that we should read things written in all times by all kinds of authors (and take a break at times from a given style/period) -- we all have our tendencies to error, and in a particular generation we tend not recognize our own. But, we can often glean clarity in reading authors from another generation who had a tendency to a different sort of error which are obvious to us.

Calvinists don't seem to read a lot of things by non-Calvinist writers beyond modern fluff or extreme Pelagians/Arminians. You can tell this from the caricatures they present of the non-Calvinist doctrine. What seems ironic to me is I read a lot of Calvinist writers before I knew any Arminians existed, and when Calvinists complain that an Arminian is caricaturing their position, it seems to me that the Arminian is fairly characterizing the classical Calvinist (ala Augustine and Calvin etc.) but it is the Calvinist who makes the complaint who has a modern twist with a slightly non-Calvinist position, so it's not really a caricature. To the contrary, when a Calvinist caricatures the non-Calvinist position, they seem to fairly describe some modern (or Pelagian) fringe extreme position and not the classical non-Calvinist approach of most so-called "Arminians" I know.

[darinhouston]

Another thought strikes me - if you have a specific question or point to discuss rather than the entirety of the article, you might just find "smaller chunks" (as you said) can be easier and more likely to be engaged.

[Paidion]

How often I have heard the cry of the "free will" of man.

Then hear it once again! Man has been created in the image of God. God has a free will, and therefore man having been created in His image, also has a free will..

As if man though bent toward evil, which is man's nature, can desire or will in choosing God.

Can a person not desire that which is against his nature? It is the nature of a heroin addict to desire heroin. But does he not sometimes desire to be free of the habit, even though he might not have the ability in himself to be free?

But as John has said, "who were born, not... of the will of the flesh (or) man, but of God."

How does our having been begotten of God negate our free will?

God is the one who is Sovereign, who does all His own good pleasure, whom scripture says is free to do as He desires,...

God's sovereignty does not imply that He does everything He wishes to do. He is not willing that any should perish, but that all might come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9 ), but He doesn't force all to come to repentance even though that is "His own good pleasure". He acts in response to the choices of man.

...this cannot be said of man. The idea that man can desire God, that it is their will to choose God is contrary to 1:12-13.

In what way is it contrary?

[NJchosen]

darinhouston,

Simply, I wanted to to hear from others on the Foreknowledge of God and what Pink had written, and dialog on it.

NJchosen

[NJchosen]

Paidion,

I would disagree with you on several things you have said. For example, "Man has been created in the image of God. God has free will, and therefore man having been created in His image, also has free will...". This sounds more like human reasoning to me. Where will this idea end? Pick something else about God, since we were made in His image, it also applies to us? Also, "...a heroin addict.... sometimes desire(s) to be free of the habit..." so this means man has the ability to chose something contrary to his nature. Or, maybe they fear death more and the desire for life that has been implanted in them by God is greater, stronger, then the desire for the drugs.

"But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Cor 2:14). How do you understand this text when a man who is dead in trespasses and sins, who is considered a natural man, not a spiritual man, does not accept the things of God. The things of God are foolishness to him, he cannot understand them. Try explaining to a 2 year old about the Old Testament ceremonial laws and as hard as you try they will never understand. The natural man simply "cannot understand". The things of the Spirit of God are understood spiritually, we must be spiritually born again (Jn 3:3), and this is a supernatural work of God. "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words" (1 Cor 2:12-13). It is because man has the Spirit who is from God that we can know and understand the things freely given to us by God.

Next, concerning John 1:12-13, I don't believe man has a free will. Adam, I believe did, but since the fall I find from scripture that man has a will, just not a free will as the Arminians convey. John has said, concerning our begotten-ness that it was not the will of the flesh or of man that we are begotten. Our will and flesh, our desire or beliefs didn't account for anything in us becoming begotten.

Last, 2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance."

As I begin, I look at what is being said and to whom. This letter was written to the "beloved" v.1. Its the second letter written to these beloved, also called the "elect" in 1 Pet 1:1. Paul is warning the beloved that there will be "scoffers... following their own sinful desires", and verses 3 through 7 speak about them further. Also 2:3, 3:7 and Romans 9:22 speak of them and they are condemned and face destruction. It is these unbelievers, these condemned ones who are contrasted with the beloved. Paul has spoken of the scoffers, those condemned, in vv.3-7 and now turns to the beloved in vv.8 and onward. "But do not overlook this one fact, beloved...." simply, the Day of the Lord will come (v.10)! Don't give up hope! A day with the Lord is as a thousand years to us, but the "Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise... but is patient toward you". The "you" here is the beloved, who is as I shown earlier, the elect. It then follows that God is "not wishing that any should perish, but should reach repentance" is none other then the i.e. elect; beloved, you. The "all" is God's elect, His beloved, and it is them who will not perish.

If this meant God was not willing for anyone universally to perish, then He could and would save us all, universal salvation. If you reject the universal salvation idea as I do, but also reject that God saves His elect and human free will had nothing to do with it, then I submit to you that you have a God who desires all people to be saved, but cannot save them. Why? Because when the will of God goes head to head with the will of Man, it is always the will of Man who overcomes the will of God, in that theology. If man has free will, then if he rejects God, man's will overcomes God's will. You then have a God who desires to save all, but can't. You also have a difference in one who believes versus someone who does not. There must be a difference between them, some quality that causes them to believe over one who does not.

But concerning 2 Peter 3:9, the "all" as shown is speaking of the beloved, the elect. But I am sure this is not new news to you being a Christian for a long time.

NJchosen