"The Elect Obtained it, the Rest Were Hardened"

[vernecarty]

   ...it would seem that God the Father excercised preemptive prerogative in picking out a group from among humanity, the elect, to be thus saved.

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

[lenore]

 :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

[vernecarty]

 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

[vernecarty]

  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...

[vernecarty]

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

[vernecarty]

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

[moonflower2]

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

[Oscar]

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

[Joe Sperling]

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

[vernecarty]

  Words that describe his thoughts and acts in terms of time are analogies.  They are not ontologically descriptive.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

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

[Oscar]

  Words that describe his thoughts and acts in terms of time are analogies.  They are not ontologically descriptive.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

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

[moonflower2]

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?

[Oscar]

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

[vernecarty]

  Words that describe his thoughts and acts in terms of time are analogies.  They are not ontologically descriptive.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

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

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

[outdeep]

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.