AssemblyBoard

I just listened to an interesting sermon by John Piper on Romans 11:7-10 ("The Elect Obtained it, the Rest Were Hardened"). I wonder if some of you would be interested in listening to it and telling me what you think.
(I downloaded the MP3 file, but you can also listen to it online in Quicktime format.) Here is the link:

http://www.biblicalpreaching.info/sermonplay.php?id=78&PHPSESSID=80aafac6caf3a5a197adc07ac3942450

Lord bless!

H

THE MESSAGE OF ROMANS 11:7-10 SAYS

And then what happened? Well, when Israel tried to be right with God on her own, pursuing her own self interest. she didnt succeed. The chosen ones of God were those who let God pursue his interest in them, and as a result received his stamp of legitimacy. The "self-interest Israel" became thick-skinned toward God. Moses and Isaiah both commented on this.
Fed up with their quarrelsome, self-centered ways.
God Blurred their eyes and dulled their ears.
Shut them in on themselves in a hall of mirrors.
and they're there to this day.
David was upset about the same thing.
"I hope they get sick eating self-serving meals.
break a leg walking their self-serving ways.
I hope they go blind staring in their mirrors,
get ulcers from playing at god."

It is interesting to me how proper Biblical exegesis can go a long way toward clarifying many apsects of Biblical teaching which at first glance would appear to be perplexing. I have been reading Kenneth Wuest's exegesis of the first epistle of Peter and he makes some very insightful comments about the text. A. T. Roberston is also a great source of insight.

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

I am curious about two matters.
How many people agree (or disagree) that all three Persons of the Godhead play a distinctive role in the salvation of each soul?
How does this opening salvo by Peter provide exegetical insight into the role each Person executes?
If you have done some study and reflection on first Peter verses one and particularly verse two fire away...!
I will give Ken Wuest's treatment a bit later.
Verne
p.s If any one is interested in the actual Greek text I can post that as well...

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.





Both Wuest and Robertson agree that our understanding of the word foreknowledge has to be constrained by the context of its usage. They give each instance of its NT ocurerence and make a very good case that the meaning is not identical in all instances. Any thoughts?
Verne

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

It would seem that, in the portion of the text of v.2 which deals with eternal matters, chronological order cannot be implied.  That there is an order may only be because the constraints of human language demand it.  An alternative is that the order is one of priorities, i.e., that
- God the Father's foreknowledge of the identities of the elect takes
   precedence,
- whereupon God the Holy Spirit sets them apart for Him,
- to ultimately (in the realm of time) be cleansed with the blood of Jesus
   Christ:  God the Son.

Great point. Arguments about sovereignty versus resposnibility often overlook this.


Again a great point. We know that the reason for time is the unfolding of God's purpose. We cannot help but be constrained by chronology. It is certainly true that so far as the process of salvation is concerned, chronology is unavoidable and is in fact employed in describing the process:

 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world,

Wuest contends that that indeed priority is seen in the salvation process. He points out that the word elect, is a plural adjetive of the Greek verb eklego, which means to "pick out" or "to select from a number". This prerogative He ascribes to the Father and makes the primary and specific cause that any are saved. Thanks Al!
Verne

p.s there is a certain false teacher who shall remain nameless, teaching a doctrine of devils that God elects from among the redeemed, as opposed to humanity at large. Reject it!

The adjectival noun elect, is Scripturally always plural number and this is something I better understood after reading Wuest.
This legitimately raises the question of whether it is proper to talk about election with regard to individuals. (foreknowledge is different as we shall see)
I think I now have a better grasp of why Arminians reject Romans 9 and the example of Jacob and Essau and invoke a national as opposed to individual application.
I must say though that I still disagree with their position.
The Spirit of God cited Jacob and Essau as individuals in giving the example.
The notion that the elect, comprises individuals from the class of those already redeemed is fallacious and betrays a total lack of understanding of what the word of God is saying about this. Of course this is what Georgie boy taught so what would one expect from his confused disciples? Join in folks. We are all in learning mode here are we not?  :)
Verne

I did not want to simply take Ken Wuest's word for it so I got out my Bible and checked each time the word or cognate is used. With the apparent exception of Isaiah 42:1, the context does indeed suggest plurality. It is so without exception in the NT. I am prepared to be corrected on this point if needed.
If God is indeed talking about a set, then the relevant question becomes: how is it comprised? That is, is the set Biblically defined?

One of the best known verses is Ephesians 1:4 where the verb is rendered chosen.

 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Verne

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,


We therefore see that certainly in the NT the teaching of election is generally applied to a group.
In Ephesians four the group is indentified as chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.

This group is elected according to the foreknowledge of the Father.
According is kata and has a root significance of "down", which in turn implies domination. That is to say, the choice of God is dominated by the foreknowledge of God.
The implication here is critical.
One has to rightly understand what the Bible is talking about when it talks about foreknowledge.
Failure to do so generally leads to serious error on the matter of election.
Verne

Verne,

After all is said and done, are you saying that "elect according to the forknowledge of God" means "elect according to something besides the foreknowledge of God"?

Interesting.

You also said:

True enough if you are refering to the time dimension we live in.  However, it seems to me that we can reasonably infer that God acts in his own dimension, or dimensions of time, or their equivalents.  Otherwise the creation would have to be eternal.

Thomas Maddux

Not exactly. I am saying (and I think your question illustrates this) that not everyone that says foreknowledge is talking about the same thing. In fact the case can be made that it does not always have the exact same meaning in Scripture in the various places it occurs.
I will try and show that from both  context and syntax shortly. Your insights are welcome Tom.
I am pretty much thinking out loud here.  :)



Indeed! String theory is now mathematically positing many co-existing dimensions.
Not too long ago this was entirely the realm of science fantasy!
We are limited in assessing God's doings as we cannot do so but from our own space-time constraint. A kind of Heisenberg uncertainty principle eh?
Difficult to see how we could infer provable truth from any other perspective.
Verne
p.s. Hebrews very specifically tells us that our particular space-time fabric is going to be rolled up like a garment. This kind of incredible imagery is repeated in Revelation where the robes of the saints are their righeous acts, viz. that which has been woven, so to speak, in the fabric of space-time. Pretty awseome stuff...!
It makes our day-to-day choices take on a whole different perspective...possibly the very threads of our future spiritual sartorial splendor as it were... :)
I know I am waxing a little poetic here but these are incredible considerations...pardon me while I tingle with excitement... :)

My maternal grandmother was decades ahead of everyone else in this area.  She developed her string theory during the Great Depression:  If you save every piece of string you come across, you'll never want for string...  By the time I was a teen, she had a ball of twine that would choke a T-Rex.  Talk about dimensions!


     "Wax on...  Wax off..."
                   --Mr. Miagi (Pat Morita)
                     The Karate Kid

 ;Dal ;)

Foreknowledge is an interesting word in the Scriptural text. We get our English word prognosticate from it. The English word essentially means to accurately forecast future events or conditions. Many interpret the Scriptural significance to be " having previous knowledge".

The specific word is used only twice in the entire NT. The cognate verb is used five times.

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;
Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

  For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

If you are of the opinion that there is no distinction in the way these NT passages use this term you will have one view of election.
If you draw a distinction based on context and syntax, again, how you view elction will depend on the kind of distinction that you draw, namely, the way you define foreknowledge in those instances.
Alford, Robertson and Wuest all agree that the meaning is not the same in all of these verses. Indeed, even a non-scholar such as myself simply reading the English text could readily arrive at that conslusion, apart from any technical linguistic considerations.
They contend that the nouns in Acts 2:23 and 1 Peter 1:2 and the verbs in Romans 8:29, 11:2 and 1 Peter 1:20 go far beyond the classical meaning of "having previous knowledge", and is in fact defined for us in Scripture itself.
Verne

So far I think we can conclude the following.
Peter is teaching us that all three Persons of the Godhead play a disticnt role in the process of salvation.
From a human chronological perspective, it would seem that God the Father excercised preemptive prerogative in picking out a group from among humanity, the elect, to be thus saved.
He did so on the basis of what the Scripture describes as His foreknowledge.
The word or its cognate appears seven times in the NT.

I am open to correction by one better instructed if any of these conclusions are deemed unsound.
Verne

That the Father exercised prerogative seems unquestionable.  Would you expound upon why you consider it preemptive?  Preemptive of what?  And how so?

Thanks,
al

Lucifer.
Verne

 :DJanuary 30th

What an interesting topic, that have caused debates throughout history on this very subject, and the great minds of the ages up to this present time is still struggling with to come up with a solution.
Maybe some answers will just have to wait until end times. But it doesnt hurt to debate it.

Ten years ago I went through a 3 year study on
"THRU THE BIBLE IN A YEAR'
The Third  was 'GREAT TRUTHS OF THE BIBLE'
48 Principles of the Christian Faith by Alan B. StringFellow.

Topic like: Election and Free Will
Forknowledge and Predestination were among 52 topics, one for each week of the year.

The word "chosen " refers to God's election of all who accept Christ, and it refers back to the eternal past
Ephesian 1:4
Predestination refers to the inheritance of all who believe and refers to the eternal future Ephesian 1:11
Foreordination refers to our works in Christ Jesus and speaks of the living present Ephesian 2:10
Predestination mans to determine beforehand the eternal destiny of individuals and events
The purpose of God was predetermined. "remember all the prophecies of Jesus in OT"
Predestination deals with our spiritual growth and development of character. It means that we are to be more like Jesus as we mature and in the end to be perfected "for we shall be like him 1 John 3:2
....................................................

I remember a quote from one of our table discussions,
THAT GOD KNOWS THE FUTURE BECAUSE HE IS ALREADY THERE. HE ALREADY KNOW WHAT HAPPENS.
----------------------------------------------------------
Scriptures that went with this topic:
John 1:12-13; 3:14-17;Romans 8:14-39;9:11-21;11:5-6;1Corinthians 2:7; Ephesian 1:3-11; 1 Thessalonians 1:2-5; 11 Timothy 1:9; 1Peter 1:1-21

 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;
Which knew me from the beginning...

Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before,[/i]

In Acts 26:5 and 2 Peter 3:17 the verbal form of foreknowledge is used. Most commentators are of the opinion that there is nothing in the context that warrants other than a classical understanding of the word, namely that those addressed were in possession of information previously. I think they are right.
Having the information in no way implies agency on the part of those said to be in its possession.
Paul is not necessarily saying that the Jews who knew about his manner of life from his youth were in any way responsible for such a life, or had even influenced the course of its development.
They simply were aware of it.
The same consideration with regard to agency applies to what Peter is saying about the things the saints knew previously. Nothing further is implied beyond their being in possesion of the the knowledge. They knew these things.
If this interpretation is applied to the other verses where foreknowledge or its other forms occur, particularly Acts 2:23 and 1 Peter 1:2, the only places in the NT where the noun itself is used, it would mean simply that God Himself was simply aware of the events, conditions, or persons referenced. A strictly classical interpretation would deny any agency on God's part was implied by the use of foreknowledge.
Verne

  touton te horismene boule kai prognosei tou Theou...


The way you interpret Acts 2:23 will have a profound impact on how you view the doctrine of election.
I for example, would always assume that when the verse states that Christ was "delivered up" that it was referring to an act of the Father. Those better instructed than I contend that the word, which implies "betrayal",  refers to what Judas did. I now agree.
Here are some varying translations of Acts 2:23


-- New King James
Acts 2:23  "Him, being delivered by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;


-- Living Bible
Acts 2:23  But God, following his prearranged plan, let you use the Roman government to nail him to the cross and murder him.



-- Revised Standard
Acts 2:23  this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.  

-- New American Standard
Acts 2:23  this {Man,} delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put {Him} to death.

-- New Jerusalem with Apocrypha
Acts 2:23 This man, who was put into your power by the deliberate intention and foreknowledge of God, you took and had crucified and killed by men outside the Law.


- New Living Translation
Acts 2:23  But you followed God's prearranged plan. With the help of lawless Gentiles, you nailed him to the cross and murdered him.

-Moffat Translation
Betrayed in the predestined course of God's deliberate purpose, you got wicked men to nail to the cross and murder...


In my final post, I will look at the words predeterminate, counsel, and foreknowledge in this verse, ( KJV translaton of Greek bold text above)and draw a conclusion which forms the basis for what I believe the Bible teaches about election. God bless.
Verne
p.s. My good friend H, if you are still reading, feel free to comment as you started the thread...

Was the inspiration of Dr. Luke, by the Spirit of God, to choose the Greek word translated foreknowledge in Acts 2:23, intended to teach us only that God has previous passive knowledge of the character and choices of persons before they are displayed in space-time, and particularly with regard to their response to the gospel of Jesus Christ?
This is one view that is held my many, and the exclusive way in which they understand the meaning of foreknowledge.
Acts 2:23 in the KJV says that Christ was delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. This verse teaches first of all the very powerful principle that just because something someone does, or some choice they make is part of God’s plan and purpose, this does not relieve them of moral responsibility for that choice. To think otherwise would be to contend that Acts 2:23 relieves Judas of responsibility for the betrayal of the Son of God. After all he should not be held responsible since it was part of God’s plan and stated purpose.
No Christian believes this. Some argue as if it were true.
Few Arminians would make this argument. Nevertheless, this is the exact same argument implied by many as a reason for rejecting particular election.
Wuest points out that the Greek construction of the sentence indicates that both counsel and foreknowledge are qualified by the Greek word translated as determinate. (Although he does not say this specifically, I think it has to do with the fact that the items qualified are joined by kai). That is to say that Christ was delivered up by both the determinate counsel AND the determinate foreknowledge of the Father. This is momentous and should immediately suggest to us that the word is being specifically qualified in this sense in order to help us in understanding its particular meaning in this context. To properly understand Acts 2:23, it is absolutely necessary to understand what the Spirit of God means by saying that Christ was delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of the Father. It is my own personal belief that this is the foundation upon which a proper appreciation of the doctrine of election rests.


 (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;)

I had to split my final post into two parts. Final post in a few…

Verne

What does it  mean that Christ was delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God?
One principle that this verse firmly establishes is the distinction between God’s sovereignty and the creature’s culpability. Many a would-be theologian has stumbled badly on this point.
Did God plan and design the betrayal and crucifixion of Christ? Yes.
Will Judas be held accountable for this act? Yes.
This same principle applies to God’s plan of salvation, and a failure to understand it frequently issues in strenuous objection to the doctrine  of particular atonement, namely election. Some mistakenly assume that ascribing to God absolute sovereignty makes him the author of evil. Acts 2:23 puts the lie to this false notion.
The NT uses the word translated determinate in the following instances:

And truly the Son of Man goeth as it, as it was determined, but woe into that man by whom He is betrayed. Luke 22:22

And He commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is He which was ordained of God to be judge of quick and dead. Acts 10:42

Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea. Acts 11:29

And hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation. Acts 17:26

Because He hath appointed a day, in which He will judge the world in righteousness,  by that man whom He hath ordained…. Acts 17:31

And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.  Romans  1::4

Again, He limiteth a certain day…Heb 4:7

Having seen the contextual Scriptural use of the word, one is in a better position to appreciate Wuest’s formal definition of its specific use in Acts 2:23
Before defining determinate, consider counsel.
This means “an interchange of opinions”, “mutual advising”, “the exchange of deliberate judgment”.

Wuest defines determinate as:

A perfect participle which refers to the past act of putting limits upon something, with the present result that some certain thing has been appointed or decreed.

Since “counsel” and “foreknowledge” refer to the same act in this verse, the meaning of “foreknowledge” here and in similar contexts cannot be merely “previous knowledge”.
Rather, it means:

 “That counsel of God in which, after deliberative judgment, the Lord Jesus was to be delivered into human hands to be crucified”.

Looking at the other specific cases previously cited, and in which Wuest contends that “foreknowledge” means more than “previous knowledge”, he defines its meaning thusly:

'That counsel of God in which after deliberative judgment, certain from among mankind were designated to a certain position, that position being defined by the context.'


The doctrine of election is one that is troubling to many, even believers, and that is surprising.
For the Christian, whatever view he takes of this doctrine, the implications are non-existent, for the point is clearly moot.
For the non-Christian, the stakes are unimaginably high, and he may seemingly legitimately ask:

“How do I know if I am elected?”

That is the wrong question and should never be entertained by any instructed believer sharing the gospel message.
The proper question for the unsaved is:

“Have you come to Christ?”

What the Bible teaches about salvation demolishes completely, any defence any unbeliever can marshal to indict God for his lost condition.
Why?
Because the Bible clearly teaches that God rejects NO ONE who comes to Christ.
So again the proper question for the unbeliever is:

“Have you come to Christ?”

The answer clearly cannot be that I have not, because I have not been elected.
God promises if you come to Christ He will indeed receive you.

It then becomes, as a matter of indisputable space-time culpability, that you remain lost, because you have refused to come to the Saviour, not because God rejected you!

The doctrine of election is not a tool for proclamation of the gospel.
It is a precious glimpse into the wondrous counsels of God, that should awaken in the heart of every Christian, trembling wonderment at the unfathomable love of God that found them personally.

Goodbye, and God bless...
Verne

You're leaving the BB??

Well, thanks for your contributions, your challenges to think about some issues in a different light, and the research you've done on those issues.

Moonflower

Verne,

As I surmised when you first introduced this consideration. what you have done is to labor in the context of the seemingly endless Calvinist project of trying to bring every verse of the Bible into harmony with their understanding of the sovereignty of God.

What you seem to have come up with is that "elect according to the foreknowledge of God" really means "foreknown according to the election of God".

This is the sort of thing one must do to try to bring a being who's thoughts and ways are frequently incomprehensible to us into harmony with our limited understanding.

The fact is that all ascriptions of time-boundedness to God, who is either timeless or exists in multiple dimensions of time, (or their equivalents), are actually anthropomorphisms.  The Bible speaks of the hand of God, the eyes of God, and so on.  That doesn't really mean God has hands etc..  It is simply an attempt to describe God in terms we can understand by appealing to analogies.

God is omniscient.  In his knowledge, nothing is prior to anything else.  Words that describe his thoughts and acts in terms of time are analogies.  They are not ontologically descriptive.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Tom---

Thanks for your post. A really good book to read that shows our utter futility in trying to "define" God is Hugh Ross's "Beyond the Cosmos". In that book he shows how hard it would be for a 2 dimensional being to understand or see a 3 dimensional being. We, being 4 dimensional(which includes the dimension of time), are being observed by a God who is in at least 11 dimensions or more.

Our tendency is to try to bring God down to our own understanding, which leads to the Jehovah's Witnesses denial of the Trinity, and that the Holy Spirit is just a "force". I think the doctrine of election and predestination is far more difficult for any of us to understand, as a mind in more than eleven dimensions is communicating a doctrine through the Bible to humans in 3 dimensions(4 if you count time as a dimension). I say eleven dimensions, as Hugh Ross states that scientists believe there are truly eleven dimensions(though most likely far more). "For as the heavens are high above the earth, so are my thoughts higher than your thoughts, and my ways higher than your ways".

--Joe

True only if they are your words or mine, Tom, not so if they are His.
Good luck in your studies and God bless.

Verne

Careful my friend.  This is exactly the same argument the Mormons make in claiming that God has a body!

Thomas Maddux

You are saying then, that Christ, who is the express image of God, was made into an image that we could see, and not necessarily representing what God would look like to a man?

Moon,

Writing nearly 70 years after Jesus ascended, the apostle John wrote, "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.  1:17

Jesus was the Word become flesh.  He was fully God, and and fully man.  But the image of God is not his physical form.  It has to do with his nature.

As Jesus said, "God is spirit" Jn. 4:24.

Thomas Maddux

For a man of your erudition Tom, invoking the ontological argument is most strange. Your reference to what the Mormons believe and teach is even stranger.
It must be quite evident to even you that you do not use that line of reasoning when adressing people of faith.
To talk about ontology in the same breath that you talk about Scripture is akin to questioning God's credibility.
It is one thing to state your disagreement with a person's understanding of what Scripture is saying.
It is another thing completely to make broad and sweeping general statements about whether Scripure does or does not communicate truth about God that can be understood.
l have to leave this debate to others with more time, but I trust someone on the BB will explore it with you.


 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Verne

I may not understand the issue as I am not a theologian.  But isn't the argument this:

Psalm 36:7 says "How priceless is your unfailing love!     Both high and low among men find [a] refuge in the shadow of your wings."  Even though these are the very words of God, we don't surmise that God is a hen or a chicken.  They are words that we can relate to in order to give us a glimps of God's protective care.

Similarly, when we read the word forknowledge, we understand that this is God's word too.  But, do we really interprete this as meaning that God is sitting in a chair planning our lives back in, say, 100,000 BC looking into the future using some divine telescope and saying, "Oh, I see, Dave is going to do this or that"?

Of course not!  God sees every moment of time as the present.  In fact, "past, present, and future" has no meaning in regards to God since it is all the same to Him.  But, this is beyond our ability to relate since we indeed would have to sit in one point in time and use some sort of device or attribute to look into another point in time in the future.

So God uses the word "foreknowlege" in the same way the Psalms uses "shadow of his wing" to use a word or idea that we can understand in order to help describe that which we are not able to fully comprehend.

I know you're not saying that the average reader of the Bible is unable to distinguish a literary device such as a metaphor, from technical and doctrinal terms which are frequently Biblically self-defined...a thought worth developing Dave...
Verne

You are right Verne.  What I said certainly can't be applied in every instances.  I was just taking a shot to see if I understood the question that the discussion was about.

I am glad you did. I hope you continue to discuss it.
For those who have not read it, here is the ontological argument for God's existence as proposed by St Anselm. Archbishop of Canterbury (1033-1109).

[Even a] fool, when he hears of … a being than which nothing greater can be conceived … understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding.… And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.… Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.

My point was simply that the best possible means for us to know who God is, is found not in philosphical sophistication but by understanding the Scriptures. This is His personal testimony, as it were. Granted that not everything there-in is immediately obvious, to argue that the words the Spirit of God choose amount to nothing more than metaphor and analogy is obscurantism.  We do not need ontology to know who God is. The Scriptures tell us.
Verne

Verne,

You said:

I did not in any way refer to the ontological argument. That is an attempt to deduce God's existence that was popularized by Anselm of Canturbury.

What I actually said was:

When I said that such terms are not "ontologically descriptive" I was pointing out that these time referent terms do not actually describe God in his way of perceiving his creation.  Ontology is the branch of metaphysics that deals with being.  

Fact is...we cannot understand how God perceives us, or how he thinks.  Therefore even inspired words can only point out correspondences, ie, analogies.


1. If you are referring to the Ontological Argument, I didn't use it.  I know you believe in God's ontological existence.  ;)

2. Questioning God's credibility???  What about this: "...for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.  Heb 11:6.

That says that we cannot please God unless we believe that he has ontological existence, or stated another way, that he actually exists.


Of course scripture communicates truth about God that can be understood.  Its just that our understanding of God is limited, and therefore must be approached mainly through analogies.

For example, we believe God is "powerful".  However, we have no concept of how powerful, or of the nature of His power.  We have the power to move things, reorganize things and so on...all within certain limits.

God has the power to created a universe!  He "wove" the strands of DNA.  He made the energy loops physicists call "strings" vibrate.  He "wrote" the laws of physics.  On and on.  

What is it like to have God's power, God's wisdom, God's love?  Beats me.  I suspect it beats you too.  We understand these things by analogy with our own experience.  All that means is that we understand in part, know in part.  But we do not have complete understanding.  In describing some aspects of God's being human language simply lacks adequate descriptive terms!  His relationship to time falls into this category.

As a result of this, theological pronouncements that are deductions from assumptions about God's temporality are questionable at best.


Isaiah 55:8-9.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

If God is multi-dimensional - 11 dimensions was suggested earlier, then so was Christ, and Christ was viewable as a man.

God is spirit, but spirits are identifiable, are they not? Angels are also spirits as in, "He has made his angels spirits" and they are identifiable. They are given masculine names, which would indicate a gender. It's possible that angels visited humankind in Genesis before the flood and had offspring. Yet they are referred to as "spirits".

Do you then say that angels do not have a form similar to a man? They seem to, yet they were not made this way to express something to man, but they were created for God, not man.

I'd like to think that God is not only a "Veeger" of Star Trek fantasy (Movie 1), but a personal God who gives us the prospect of seeing His face as in Revelation 22:4 - "They shall see His face..."

And earlier it is said, "...great white throne, and "Him" who sat on it, from whose "face" the earth and the heaven fled away." Rev.20:11.

Moonflower---

What is truly amazing about Jesus Christ being God is how much he limited himself by becoming a man. Imagine if you or I, used to our 3 dimensional life, were to limit ourselves in a 2 dimensional existence? Can you imagine how confined we would feel, having once lived with the dimension of depth, which would now be missing?  Imagine God who lives in 11 or more dimensions confining himself to just 3? And also limiting himself within the 4th dimension of time? Philipians talks about how much the Son of God emptied himself when he became a man--when we look at it in this way it becomes even more amazing.

--Joe

Thank you for the clarifications Tom. I see your point(s).
Verne

Moon,

The 11 dimensions that were discussed in past posts do not describe God.  String Theory, a branch of physics, indicates that our universe has 10 spatial dimensions and one of time.  

The theological significance of this is that God must have have abilities that transcend the limits of such a universe.

As to seeing God, here is a quote from "Systematic Theology" by Wayne Grudem, a Reformed theologian:

"Although Jesus Christ now has a physical body as God-Man, the Father and the Holy Spirit do not, nor did the Son before he was conceived in Mary's womb.  In the Old Testament "theophanies" where God appeared in human form, these human bodies were only temporary appearnaces and did not belong to the person of God."

As to angelic appearances, I think that it is pretty much the same thing.  For example, we are told that Satan is a spirit, yet he, as far as I know, has not been seen since the Eden incident, and then he didn't look like a human.

Angels have appeared in forms so human that we can't tell, (angels unawares), and in forms so shocking that the observer fainted.

But remember, these are all created spirits.  God is eternal and uncreated, ie, not of the same nature as angels.

Thomas Maddux

Since I've got my copy of Grudem's Systematic Theology in front of me, here is something that applies to our discussion:

After listing all the verses about God's mouth, eyes, hand, arm, etc. he says;

"The reason for mentioning this long list is to show that all that we know about God from Scripture comes to us in terms that we understand because they describe events or things common to human experience.  Using a more techinical term, we can say that all that Scripture says about God uses anthropomorphic language-that is, language that speaks of God in human terms.  

Sometimes people have been troubled by the fact that there is anthropomorphic language in Scripture.  But this should not be troubling to us, for, if God  is going to teach us about things we do not know by direct experience, (such as His attributes), he has to teach us in terms of what we do know..."

Interesting what?

Thomas Maddux

Does this mean that God must exist in a form other than what we are able to imagine?
When I've read these passages, I've thought that it was the holiness/brightness of the beings that caused the fainting, as in one of the prophet's admissions of "unclean lips"; that the angels appeared at those specific times and to specific people in their (the angels) true form and holiness.

Moon,

Regarding your question, "Does this mean that God must exist in a form other than what we are able to imagine?"

I would say first that we are incapable of mentally imaging any dimensionality beyond the three we experience directly.  For example, cosmologists tell us that the universe has no center.  But since we imagine it to be spherical, it seems to us that it would have a center, and we cannot create a mental image of what it would look like if seen from outside it.

All our experience of existence involves matter, energy, space and time.  God and the angels all existed before any of these existed.  So what does a being who contains no matter and occupies no space look like?  Or, for that matter, does "look like" even apply?

Look at I Kings 8: 27 for example:  "But will God indeed dwell on the earth?  Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built."

The universe cannot contain God.  Since God doesn't need space in which to dwell, his existence must be independent of space.  So this passage means either that God is REALLY big, or that his mode of existence is totally separate from anything we know.

Theologians speak of God "intersecting" his creation.  That is, he is present in it, but does not actually exist in it.  In our experience, that doesn't make sense.  But a spirit is non-corporeal, unlimited by the things that limit us.

In Ephesians 4:10 it tells us that Jesus ascended far above all the heavens "that he might fill all things."  So the divine nature of Jesus shares the divine attribute of omnipresence.  Seems like his spiritual nature is everywhere while his bodily presence is in one place.  Hard to understand, eh?

 Yet there are many passages that imply this, such as where he talks about himself being "in the Father" and the Father being in him, and both being in us in John 14, 15, and 17.

As to the appearance of angels, don't forget the Cherubim and Seraphim, and how they are described.  They are a whole lot weirder than just very bright.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Theoretically, no, since Jesus is the expression to us of God. It seems that Jesus will always exist and be viewable to us as a man, ie, the Son of God.

But who then is referred to as the "Ancient of Days" who is sitting on the great white throne in Revelation?

Rev 3:5 'He who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father, and before His angels.'

Verses like this would seem to indicate that the elect could lose it too, unless they overcome.  Any thoughts on the matter??

Marcia

Marcia, When you are more then a conqurer through him who loves you.You can thank Him for always giving you the Victory, and always Triumping in Christ. (by Faith of course) Summer.

Summer :), you are so right about faith and rejoicing in His love.   I guess I am interested in the "theological discussion".  Verses like this seem to validate the works based ministry of our assembly days, and I am interested in how the greater evangelical community views it.  It is possible to be entangled again just because "the bible says so" you know.  This verse came up, as an aside, in a Bible Study discussion yesterday.  So if anyone can give me some insight, I will greatly appreciate it.

God bless,
Marcia

Marcia, I know you wer'nt looking for a pat answer. I know very little about the dying church of Sardis, perhaps Verne, Tom, H or Brent knows something to take it to the deeper level of theological discussion. I just happened to be o/l at the time you posted and thought of those verses. I personally don't think the elect can lose their salvation. If your not elect and pretend to be then who you are comes out in the end.(or out in the wash so to speak) Faith working by love is maybe where your confusing working for salvation.  Summer. 

One of the most elementary prinicples of Biblical hermenuetics is found in 1 Peter 2:20. Darby I think has the correct sense that you must allow Scripture to interpret itself. Since Scripture is clearly not self-contradictory, to allow an interpretation in one portion of Scipture, that contradicts what is clearly taught in another portion of Scirpture, is to misinterpret Scripture. This is fundamental Marcia.
Since the security of the believer is so clearly taught in so many places in Scripture, use of any Scriptural passage to contradict that teaching should raise immediate questions in most people's minds.
Keeping this principle in mind, go back and look at the question you posed and tell me what you think.
I will say a bit more about specifics later...
Verne
p.s. Invoking the argument that because the epistle addresses the Church at Sardis, this implies that only believers are being addressesd is not Scripturally conclusive. Anyone who has ever attended a church knows better...the church at Thyatira after all had a Jezebel actually teaching in their midst...

But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour...

Thanks for responding Verne.
My understanding is that only believers names get written in the book of life.  The verse indicates the possiblity of erasure conditional on overcoming.
I cannot remember if we have already discussed this on this forum, so forgive me for re-hashing.

God bless,
Marcia

Most of the NT references (seven of eight) occur in Revelation.
Some theologians do not believe that Christians will be at the great white throne judgment as this is a judgment of life or death, an issue settled on each believers salvation.
Nonetheless, at the great white throne judgment the book of life is to be opened.
Some theologians also assert that none at this judgment will be saved, that is to say, none of their names will be found written in the book of life.
I do not believe that position is warranted by anything given to us in the relevant passages.
By the same token, I see nothing in any reference to the book of life that suggests the names contained therein belong exclusively to believers.
What we are told clearly is that the names there were written before the foundation of the world.
We are also told that names may be blotted out, and that a person may loose their part (for editing God's Word) in the book of life.
For those who take the mark of the beast, we are also told their names were never written there to begin with so their destiny was apparently unalterably the lake of fire...

 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.  Rev. 20:15

Sobering no?
Verne

Just a thought..."and they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb" rev 12.," I am the door: if any man enter in he shall be SAVED, and shall go in and out and find pasture." john10., also" I give them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." Its clear the BLOOD of the Lamb gives full atonement. It's the un-washed masses that need to be worried, Satan already has them. So he's out as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour, as in sending hirelings, wolfs in sheeps clothing, stumblling blocks and the like to trip up the redeemed blood bought purchase of God. Satan knows we cannot be Plucked out of Christs hand, but he can request to harass us (like Job was) or to sift us like wheat, or come as an angel of light. (The spirit I have seen may be  a devil, and the devil hath power to take a pleasing shape...quote unknown) Christs paring words were," be of Good-Cheer I have Over-come the World " john16   Summer. (For a rightous man falls seven times and rises up again. prov24)*

Right on Summer.
It is a powerful and effective lie of the enemy of our souls, that we can somehow add to what Christ has accomplished on our behalf by our own efforts.
The many encouragements in God's word to our own diligence notwithstanding, the minute we take our eyes off the fact that it is a finished work we are headed for trouble.
I was preparing to go on an outreach with a team in Kenya a few years back and the brother I was going with told me not to be suprised if we encountered some real darkness.
I remember making some inane comment about how we need to living a holy life to be effective when dealing with this sort of thing and he interrupted me and said:
"That is exactly what the devil wants you to think. We are not trusting in our own righteousness, but in Christ's."

I remember sitting there in stunned silence as all the lights began to go on.
What a blessed relief issued from that brief comment.
I will never forget it.
There are far too many of us who are not at all trusting in Christ's righteousness, but in our own...
Verne

Does anybody remember this bluegrass treasure?  :)


IS MY NAME WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF LIFE

Is my name written there on those pages bright and fair
Is my name written in the book of life
If you want to be up there then down here you must prepare
And your name must be in the book of life.

Get down on your knees and pray you from sin must turn away
Or your name won't be in the book of life
If you'll turn to Jesus now at His feet just humbly bow
Then your name will be in the book of life.

Don't you know that Christ was sent that from sin you could repent
So your name could be in the book of life
You will have a great surprise if you fail to recognize
That your name must be in the book of life.

Get down on your knees and pray you from sin must turn away
Or your name won't be in the book of life.
Don't be late and don't forget that from sin you must repent
Then your name will be in the book of life.

Is my name written in the book of life?
Verne

Verne, I'm glad your friend set you straight...I would'nt want to walk into darkness in my own rightousness. ouch! Its really a blessing to know Christ paid it all, we really did nothing but recieve the gift(believing). And then of course we make our calling and election sure. I think where most go wrong is the foot of pride, even Paul needed a messenger of satan to buffet him to keep from being exalted. He even said if anyone would have confidence in the flesh it was him re:phil3 a hebrew of hebrews as touching the law a pharisee. So pride walks in and Christ walks out (God resists the proud) and the flesh is at emnity with God so these are our constant battles that wage war against the soul,yet we are always safe in Christ He has Won the War! summer.

I think I remember that Song. Do you remember one that goes something like this..."Swing low,sweet Chariot coming forth to carry me home, swing low, low sweet Chariot comin forth to carry me home....

This is one of the grandest of the grand old negro "spirituals".
Everybody remembers this one...!  :)
Verne