Is John 3:16 actually an invitation open to all?

[HOGCALLER]

Is the invitation implied at John 3:16 actually an invitation open to all?

For the purposes of this thread let's not get into the qualifier and the meaning of the qualifier (compare James 2:19), the question I am asking is this: is the prospect of eternal life, of believing, a real prospect open to everybody, all inclusive, or was eternal life a real possibility only for some but not all?

[Alpha]

Eternal life is open to everyone. In passages where it says Christ died for the world and things like that, it simply means that His followers will not be strictly limited to a certain race (ex: Jews), but there will be believers/followers from all over the world. Passages saying that Christ died for the world does not imply that everyone in automatically saved.

Let's combine the passage you linked from James to this next passage so we can see the context and get the truth:

1 Timothy 4:10 > For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

From this we see that "all men" does not literally mean that everyone will be saved. Also, when we take the James 2:19 passage, we know that "believeing" does not mean just believing He exists, but following Him.

[HOGCALLER]

Alpha,

I too do not believe in a total world conversion, so from that standpoint we are in agreement. However, my question deals with before belief and conversion.

Is it truly possible, is it actually the case that John 3:16 is open to any and every one, is an actual opportunity to be taken advantage of without any restrictions other than those imposed by the individual himself (example: refusal to believe and convert)?

[beads]

Hogcaller, your question seems to beat around the bushes of election, predestination, and the like, am I correct?

Let me say that, as a believer in election, I also beleive that John 3:16 is an open call to everyone - the ideas do not need to be mutually exclusive. Believing in election, however, means that I also believe that, though God has called everyone, He has chosen to draw only some to Himself.

[HOGCALLER]

beads,

I think I know what you mean when you say “election” but I have heard more than one explanation. So please define, a little more, what you mean when you say “election” so that I don’t misunderstand you.

You state: “Believing in election, however, means that I also believe that, though God has called everyone, He has chosen to draw only some to Himself.”

So does that mean that ones that carry big signs to public events are wasting their time and effort? Does that mean it doesn’t matter what choices I make? And if it doesn’t matter what choices I make, why bother inviting me in the first place and why bother with big signs?

[VSteven509]

Do ya wanna be saved or are you waiting til somebody on a Donkey comes and delivers you a Bible? lol

Jews, Gentiles, who cares? Not Jesus! Even though, from what I read, Gentiles are not from Gods family, Gentiles like me can still be saved.

It totaly does'nt matter who you are, if you want to be saved, read the Bible, especialy the books John, Mark, and Luke. If you read them, and follow them like i'm trying to, you shall be saved, no matter who you are, or what gender.

I'm not perfict, but i'm in the process of Change, because I accept Christ into my heart, and I want to give my life to him.

[mark]

Howdy mate...

John 3:16... yes.. it is indeed an open invitation to all who would choose
to believe..

mark

[On My Way]

Is the invitation implied at John 3:16 actually an invitation open to all?

I would have to say yes. Yes to all who believe in Jesus

[beads]

So please define, a little more, what you mean when you say “election” so that I don’t misunderstand you.

Well, without going into a dissertation on the topic (which, believe me, I'm not at all qualified to do anyway!), election basically entails the idea that God has determined before the foundation of the world whom He will draw to Himself and whom He will not. Added to that this verse:

John 6:44 - No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

we can come to the conclusion that the only people who will be saved are those that the Father has chosen (or elected) to draw to Himself. Those whom the Father has not chosen cannot be saved because, as this verse says, only those that are drawn by God can be saved.

So does that mean that ones that carry big signs to public events are wasting their time and effort?

I can see how you might come to that conclusion, and in fact, there are many people who hold to Calvinistic teachings that do not do any kind of evangelizing for the very reason that you are thinking: Why "waste" our time evangelizing if they are either guaranteed to be saved eventually or they have no chance of being saved anyway? Well, I think the answer to that is pretty easy.

First of all, we don't know who the elect are - only God knows. So we have to evangelize everyone, knowing that some are not elect and will not be saved, but also knowing that some are elect and that we might have the privilege of being the one that God uses in that person's life to bring them to Himself.

Secondly, God's method for getting people saved nowadays is people. So, if nobody evangelized, nobody would get saved. Before everyone jumps on me, let me clarify. I know that salvation is the work solely of the Holy Spirit - that's not what I'm saying here. I'm saying that people do not get saved unless there is some sort of preaching that they hear. I'm basically echoing Romans 10:14 - "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? "

Thirdly, election does not nullify the Great Commission. Even if I did think that evangelism was completely worthless, I've still been commanded by God to evangelize, so I need to do it regardless of what I think about it.

Hope that answers some of your question!

[Aineo]

2 Peter 3:9
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. NAS

If salvation is only for the "elect" chosen before the foundation of the earth then why did Peter write the above?

[beads]

Because God doesn't want anyone to perish, but He must punish sin.

[tuppence]

As a non-Calvinist, I was challenged on the meaning of 'the elect' earlier this year and ended up doing a rather intensive study on the use of the word in the New Testament. My husband put it up on his website, here:
http://www.setterfield.org/elect.htm

Now, is John 3:16 for real? Yes, it is.

God calls all those who respond to the truth (see Romans 1), and leads them to Christ. That is the part that the Calvinists seem to ignore. Christ came for us all. Our response to Him is everything in terms of our eternal destiny, and our response is our free choice.

You will note that the times 'predestined' is used in the New Testement, it is used in reference to the fact that the final goal for believers is predestined, but not who those believers will be. Did God always know? Yes, He always knew. Our decisions do not surprise Him any more than a toddler's decision to have a candy cane rather than vegetables surprises a mother -- but in both cases the decision is free and not programmed in or coerced.

Why free will? Because without it we cannot love, and the entire purpose of our lives is love: to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves. As Jesus said, on this hangs ALL the law and the prophets. In other words, love is the reason we were created and love is the reason we were saved. We cannot call it love if it is programmed into us. Love involves the choice to not love, or to choose the object of love. All of our creation is nonsense if Calvinism is true.

We each have a choice. And God presents each of us with enough truth to follow so that we have a choice about following it. And if we want the truth, God will lead us to Jesus, and Jesus will never turn us away.

John 3:16 is for real. It is also followed by John 3:17 and on, which states that the reason for condemnation is NOT sin, but rather refusal to believe in Christ. This again speaks of our freedom to respond to Christ or not. Sin was punished on the Cross -- all sin for all time. Jesus completed what justice demanded. It is for unbelief that we are condemned, if unbelief is our choice.

But God does not desire that anyone should perish. That's in 2 Peter 3:9.

We'll be gone for few days; back next week.

[HOGCALLER]

OK, finally I am prepared enough to proceed.

First, I should say that the subject of this thread is a question that resulted from my reading, studying and preparing the material I will post in the future in a thread entitled “Why was imperfection allowed?” The two subjects are inseparable and the truths revealed by the Bible about the one subject helps to understand the other.

Second, I read the information to which you all referred me, well at least most of it, certainly enough to recognize the ideas and beliefs even if I did not recognize the terminology, at first. I also went to several other sites, pro and con, and read until I got dizzy from going around in circles. I have no idea what everyone’s beliefs might be and how those beliefs might compare to the very wide and contradictory spectrum of beliefs I found. That variety of beliefs certainly did not surprise me, but I normally would consider it a handicap to not know what a persons personal beliefs are and it also does make it a little hard to decide exactly where to start. That is why I normally try to pick out one or two persons to talk to and I try to determine what they believe then based on that decide how to proceed. But this time rather than worry about what you all may believe (heck, some of you possibly might not even know for sure) and taking a lot of time and effort to establish some common definitions and common ground, let me just lay out why I reject the vast majority of what I read on most all the sites I visited. That is to say that, this time I think I will try something different for me and I am going to answer my own question: “Is the invitation implied at John 3:16 actually an invitation open to all?” and see if anyone can show me where I got it wrong. Hopefully this will save us all much time and effort. If it does not work I can always go back to my old ways.

OK, now let’s breakdown the scripture and see what we learn:

The first thing and, to me, the most important thing we learn is of God’s love. Everything else in this scripture is based on or comes about because of that ultimate act of love. So if there is an “invitation implied” it is because of that love and understanding that love is what will cause us to understand the invitation and whether or not it is truly an “open” invitation. Whatever “God’s love” is that “implied invitation” is also. If that is not true then I submit that we will find God to be, at the very least, inconsistent and possibly even contradictory and I do not for one instant believe that God is either of those things.

Interestingly, when it comes to God the Bible does not spell out an exact definition of what God’s love is or is not such as it does for man’s love (one example is at 1 Corinthians chapter 13). God’s love is always defined by and associated with his actions or demonstrations of that love. Even Jesus, within his parables and within his ‘discussions or definitions’ of God’s love, always seems to connect God’s love to actions that “show” what love is rather than by defining it with words. Another way of knowing about God’s love is by considering Jesus’ example. The last way to come to know about God’s love is by considering how we are instructed to show love. However, even after all that being said, for the purposes of this discussion (in an effort to make this reasonably brief) I must resort to and rely on word definitions.

One very popular qualifier, description or definition of God’s love is “unconditional.” Let me ask you, does “unconditional” love have any, what so ever, preconditions? At John 3:16 John tells us of the prime or ultimate example of this “unconditional” love, correct? For that to be so, does it not require that everything to do with that act of love must also be “unconditional” and without any, what so ever, preconditions? Therefore, I submit to you that the invitation implied at John 3:16 is “unconditional” and is without any, what so ever, preconditions. That means that the prime or ultimate example of God’s love was, in fact, just exactly that “unconditional” and can be, no, more than that, must be judged to be so in accordance with all God’s own standards; otherwise God becomes, at the very least, inconsistent and possibly even contradictory.

To show you what I mean let’s consider some of God’s stated “standards” that must consistently apply to this act of love and the invitation that is implicit within it. First, Matthew 5:43-48: “YOU heard that it was said, ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ However, I say to YOU: Continue to love YOUR enemies and to pray for those persecuting YOU; that YOU may prove yourselves sons of YOUR Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous. For if YOU love those loving YOU, what reward do YOU have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing? And if YOU greet YOUR brothers only, what extraordinary thing are YOU doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing? YOU must accordingly be perfect, as YOUR heavenly Father is perfect.”

Second, Luke’s parallel account at Luke 6:27-36: “But I say to YOU who are listening, Continue to love YOUR enemies, to do good to those hating YOU, to bless those cursing YOU, to pray for those who are insulting YOU. To him that strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also; and from him that takes away your outer garment, do not withhold even the undergarment. Give to everyone asking you, and from the one taking your things away do not ask [them] back.
“Also, just as YOU want men to do to YOU, do the same way to them.
“And if YOU love those loving YOU, of what credit is it to YOU? For even the sinners love those loving them. And if YOU do good to those doing good to YOU, really of what credit is it to YOU? Even the sinners do the same. Also, if YOU lend [without interest] to those from whom YOU hope to receive, of what credit is it to YOU? Even sinners lend [without interest] to sinners that they may get back as much. To the contrary, continue to love YOUR enemies and to do good and to lend [without interest], not hoping for anything back; and YOUR reward will be great, and YOU will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind toward the unthankful and wicked. Continue becoming merciful, just as YOUR Father is merciful.” In line with all the principles stated there this ultimate act of love MUST BE “unconditional.”

Let me use an illustration to drive the point home. As a loving parent you want to give something of great value to your child to demonstrate your love. So you decide to buy him Babe Ruth’s ‘Louisville Slugger’ bat and the baseball that Hank Aaron hit to set the all-time homerun record. You bring them home and place them in his lap and tell him, “Now run along and play ball with all your little friends.” Oh! I left out one little detail. Your child is a quadriplegic in a wheelchair. Is that “perfect” or “kind” or “merciful” of you? The same would be true of God if he extended the invitation of John 3:16 knowing all the while that you can not possibly take advantage of it because you had not been pre-selected or pre-elected or pre-chosen by him. That is not the God I love and worship.

Therefore, the invitation implied at John 3:16 is “unconditionally” open to all without any, what so ever, preconditions—including God’s foreknowledge and (s)election.


.

[burwelm]

Romans 1:18-22 says- For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and God-head; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

This is saying that everyone knows there is a God naturally and what He expects. I think that, however, some people are bored with living by faith and decide to "challenge themselves" or entertain their curiosity and try to make a name for themself by being different- They do it and once they have made the choice it is very hard to go back. However, they don't want to admit that they were wrong because now the choice is a part of their identity and they decide that they are okay and although they know they have problems from how they feel inside- they just go on and pretend that things couldn't be better for them because they believe that their choice was wrong but they don't know how to fix it and they get around others who have made these same mistakes and they all stick up for each others' mistakes for survivals' sake- but this whole time they keep getting farther away from God but they can't admit to themselves that they are wrong because then they couldn't live with themself. Since so many people make terrible mistakes- the younger generation sees people making unnatural choices but seemingly suffering no consequences, then the younger make the same mistakes but they base the choice on the older generation and not on their own choices whch further complicates everything.

Jesus came to help people live by faith and give them inspiration and a reason to do so- because people want to know why they do the things they do- If God is the reason then they are saved- also if a person is saved and living for God they will take great pleasure in what they do and will enjoy all the gifts of life- they will love people and people who love life will love them. The knowlege of Jesus allows this to take place.

Every person is different- . No one can be lupped in a category. It is all about a person's heart and whether they are open to what they see of Jesus in themself and others.

[HOGCALLER]

burwelm,

You say: “This is saying that everyone knows there is a God naturally and what He expects.”

I say: If, when you say “this,” you mean that the verses that you quote are saying: “everyone knows there is a God naturally and what He expects,” I disagree and the reality of what surrounds us now and that we have seen down through history argues against your assertion. Many (perhaps most) renderings of those verses do not support the understanding to which you have come also believing that way requires that we ignore a number of other verses that do, for a fact, say something very different. However, I will acknowledge that such notions of God and of how to worship him are very popular nowadays but being popular does not make them correct or acceptable to God (especially when compared to ALL that God has provided for us in the Bible). In fact if you make an examination of the Bible record you will find that “true worshippers” (John 4:23) have always been unpopular, considered “different” and in the minority. When I say that please do not misunderstand that I think that being “different” and part of an unpopular minority is all that God requires; that is not what I am saying but those certainly are not disqualifiers.

You say: “Jesus came to help people live by faith and give them inspiration and a reason to do so- because people want to know why they do the things they do- If God is the reason then they are saved- also if a person is saved and living for God they will take great pleasure in what they do and will enjoy all the gifts of life- they will love people and people who love life will love them.”

I say: Is one’s sincere belief that he is “right” with God all that is required to please God and thus to be “saved?” Please explain further or define what you mean when you say: “live by faith” and also “If God is the reason then they are saved.”


.

[beads]

Let me use an illustration to drive the point home. As a loving parent you want to give something of great value to your child to demonstrate your love. So you decide to buy him Babe Ruth’s ‘Louisville Slugger’ bat and the baseball that Hank Aaron hit to set the all-time homerun record. You bring them home and place them in his lap and tell him, “Now run along and play ball with all your little friends.” Oh! I left out one little detail. Your child is a quadriplegic in a wheelchair. Is that “perfect” or “kind” or “merciful” of you? The same would be true of God if he extended the invitation of John 3:16 knowing all the while that you can not possibly take advantage of it because you had not been pre-selected or pre-elected or pre-chosen by him. That is not the God I love and worship.

God's foreknowledge is not based on whom He has elected, nor is His election based on His foreknowledge. It is a difficult concept to understand given our finite minds, especially when you throw free will into the mix. But we must remember that God's ways are higher than ours, so just because we don't understand it doens't mean it's not true.

You saying "knowing all the while that you can not possibly take advantage of it" is not an accurate statement. The fact is that everyone has the possibility of accepting it, but God knows who will and who won't. This doesn't make Him cruel for offering it, rather, it should solidify His love in your mind - He knows they will reject Him, yet He offers it anyway. You seem to be saying that God doesn't know who will accept Him, so that's why He offers it to everyone. You would would turn your back on a God who has the prerogative to chose some men for Himself, yet you would worship a God who is not omniscient?

[HOGCALLER]

beads,

Maybe it is just me, but you seem to be contradicting yourself and are definitely confusing me.

You say: “we must remember that God's ways are higher than ours, so just because we don't understand it doens't mean it's not true.”

I say: I do not know whether to be insulted by what you are implying about my ability to understand or to be disappointed that God requires me to believe just based on the old parental cop out—“because I said so.” I am teasing about being insulted but any ‘belief’ or “concept” that is based on a lack of ‘understanding’ or that is ‘beyond’ explanation is very suspicious, wouldn’t you agree?

You say: “nor is His election based on His foreknowledge” then you make the statement: “but God knows who will and who won't.”

I say: If as you say “God knows” but not “based on His foreknowledge” then that means that “God knows” but without knowing, knowledge or foreknowledge. Isn’t that contradictory? If not, how can that be?

You say: “God knows who will and who won't” yet “everyone has the possibility of accepting it.”

I say: So you are saying that God’s knowledge of “who will and won’t” “has the possibility” of being in error when someone exercises their free will and decides to go ahead and ‘accept it’ even after God, who some how or other “knows who will or won’t,” and had “known” that they wouldn’t. That must be what you are saying! For God’s ‘knowing’ to be without possibility of error then what he ‘knows’ must be absolutely correct and that necessarily removes free will, right? Yet you say: “especially when you throw free will into the mix?” Isn’t that confusing and contradictory?

You say: “You seem to be saying that God doesn't know who will accept Him, so that's why He offers it to everyone.”

I say: How else can the love and the invitation be “unconditional?”

You say: “You would would turn your back on a God . . .”

I say: Please show me where I ‘turn my back on God.’

You say: “yet you would worship a God who is not omniscient?”

I say: I worship the God I find revealed in the Bible! Please show me “omniscient” in the Bible.

Please do not confuse what God CAN DO with what he actually DOES DO. Let me explain what I mean: the Bible reveals that God is Almighty; however, I submit to you that even though God has the capability to act in an all-powerful way he has not yet done so! Even the power used in the act of creation was just a drop in the unlimited ocean of God’s capacity of power. Imagine for a moment that you are the strongest man in the world. Would you feel compelled to hug a newborn baby with all your strength? Or, if you were allowed to hold a Faberge egg, would you want to grip it with all your might? God has self-control does he not? Therefore any of and all of God’s qualities, attributes and capabilities are never exercised without self-control and in disharmony with or uninfluenced by all his other qualities, attributes and capabilities and certainly not in disregard for the consequences of such exercise. Again, what he CAN DO should not be confused with what he DOES DO (please follow this link). Men, not God, have concocted several “omni” words to describe some of God’s qualities and have also concocted definitions to go with their words. I submit to you that what the Bible reveals about God does not agree with all the man-made definitions and ideas of “omniscience.”

[beads]

any ‘belief’ or “concept” that is based on a lack of ‘understanding’ or that is ‘beyond’ explanation is very suspicious, wouldn’t you agree?

Nope. You see, I believe that God's a little bit smarter than I am. I don't try to pretend in any way that I can know that mind of God. He could explain everything in the world to me, but I'm sure I still wouldn't understand it, because I'm not God and I don't have the mind to be able to comprehend His depths.

The phrase "walk by faith, not by sight" is very applicable to this point. I don't need to be able to see, or understand, everything. I have faith in it because God said so - that's good enough for me. Who am I to say that God has any obligation to explain it to me? When parents use the phrase "because I said so", it indeed may be a copout (although it not always is), but when God says it, it's not a copout, because God has the right to do and say whatever He wants because He is God. And if you can't come to terms with that, then I would submit to you that you need to check your pride at the door and realize who you are in the sight of a holy God. It seems very prideful and presumptuous for you to think that you can know everything that God does and that you can understand His reasoning behind everything He does.

If as you say “God knows” but not “based on His foreknowledge” then that means that “God knows” but without knowing, knowledge or foreknowledge. Isn’t that contradictory? If not, how can that be?

God exists outside of time. His knowledge of what is going to happen is not based on Him being able to tell the future. It is based on the fact that everything that happens, happens for Him in the present. He knows "beforehand" what is going to happen, because it is happening in the present to Him.

Not sure if that answers your question, but perhaps it might help to shed some light on where I'm coming from.

So you are saying that God’s knowledge of “who will and won’t” “has the possibility” of being in error when someone exercises their free will and decides to go ahead and ‘accept it’ even after God, who some how or other “knows who will or won’t,” and had “known” that they wouldn’t. That must be what you are saying!

No, not really. As I said, God sees everyone's decision for Him in the present, so it's not so much that He knows ahead of time that they will reject Him as it is that He sees them in the very act of rejecting Him.

Foreknowledge is really only a term that has any meaning to you and me because we are creatures bound to time. God doesn't really have foreknowledge in the sense that we understand the word (knowing something before it happens), because God is not bound by time.

For God’s ‘knowing’ to be without possibility of error then what he ‘knows’ must be absolutely correct and that necessarily removes free will, right?

No, because God does not make us do anything. He gives us the freedom to choose what we will. But a decision that is in the future for us, is in the present for God, so He already knows what we will choose.

Isn’t that confusing and contradictory?

Confusing, yes. Contradictory, no.

Please show me where I ‘turn my back on God.’

I didn't say that you had. I said that you would. The implication is that if I could prove to you election, foreknowledge, etc., then you would not love that God because, in your own words:

"The same would be true of God if he extended the invitation of John 3:16 knowing all the while that you can not possibly take advantage of it because you had not been pre-selected or pre-elected or pre-chosen by him. That is not the God I love and worship."

Please show me “omniscient” in the Bible.

Why don't you show me "unconditional" in the Bible.

There's alot of words that are used in Christianity that are not used in the Bible. The fact that I can't show the word "omniscient" to you means nothing.

You believe that the call to be saved is unconditional because you understand that the character of God demands that that call be unconditional.

I believe that God is omniscient because I understand that the character of God demands that He know all things. God's not much of a god if He doesn't know everything. Indeed, He declares in Isaiah 46:9-10: "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:" These verses are a pretty good indication that He knows everything. And they also speak to the fact that He knows the end of things from the beginning. Is that not foreknowledge?

Please do not confuse what God CAN DO with what he actually DOES DO. Let me explain what I mean: the Bible reveals that God is Almighty; however, I submit to you that even though God has the capability to act in an all-powerful way he has not yet done so! Even the power used in the act of creation was just a drop in the unlimited ocean of God’s capacity of power. Imagine for a moment that you are the strongest man in the world. Would you feel compelled to hug a newborn baby with all your strength? Or, if you were allowed to hold a Faberge egg, would you want to grip it with all your might? God has self-control does he not? Therefore any of and all of God’s qualities, attributes and capabilities are never exercised without self-control and in disharmony with or uninfluenced by all his other qualities, attributes and capabilities and certainly not in disregard for the consequences of such exercise. Again, what he CAN DO should not be confused with what he DOES DO.

I agree 100%! We just seem to be in disagreement on what He actually does do.

Men, not God, have concocted several “omni” words to describe some of God’s qualities and have also concocted definitions to go with their words.

And the reason that they have concocted these words is because the principles of the character of God that we see in the Bible lead us to recognize that they are applicable. Men "created" the word "omniscient" because as we read about God, we find that He knows everything..... and it flows easier to say "omniscient" (3 syllables) than it is to say "He knows everything" (5 syllables).

I submit to you that what the Bible reveals about God does not agree with all the man-made definitions and ideas of “omniscience.”

From I hear you saying, you believe that God does not know everything. I would certainly like to see the Scriptural evidence for that.

[HOGCALLER]

beads,

Oh paaleeeasse! Nowhere in this thread have I, nor any one else for that matter (other than you), been talking about being able to “know everything that God does.” To me your implications and accusations that I am claiming such a thing seem to be a dishonest subterfuge used in an effort to change the subject and thus not have to answer my questions concerning your beliefs. Now, it very well may be that I am just as wrong in saying that about you as you are when you say: “you need to check your pride at the door and realize who you are in the sight of a holy God. It seems very prideful and presumptuous for you to think that you can know everything that God does and that you can understand His reasoning behind everything He does.” Perhaps we both should forego the personal attacks and the efforts to put words into the other’s mouth and to ascribe improper motives to each other and we should deal only with the subject at hand and only with things that have actually been said. That is what I prefer to do. Is that agreeable to you too?

You say: “I don't try to pretend in any way that I can know that mind of God. He could explain everything in the world to me, but I'm sure I still wouldn't understand it, because I'm not God and I don't have the mind to be able to comprehend His depths.”

I say: When you make the above statement are you saying and meaning that because we limited humans cannot “comprehend his depths” that it is proper and correct for us to view the Bible (God’s mind and thoughts revealed in written form) as incomprehensible and thus our beliefs, based on the Bible, can also be incomprehensible and because of that incomprehensibility it is proper and correct for us to answer questions about our beliefs by saying: “because God said so”? If that is not what you mean, then please explain what point you are trying to make when you say, in effect, ‘God himself could explain it to me and I still wouldn’t understand.’ OR, let me say it the way I did before: “any ‘belief’ or “concept” that is based on a lack of ‘understanding’ or that is ‘beyond’ explanation is very suspicious, wouldn’t you agree?”

No doubt you are aware that some “Christians” still claim that the earth is flat. They even quote many scriptures in support of their claim but when backed into a “corner” about their beliefs they declare “God said it; so I believe it and that is that!” beads, in your view, is that proper and correct? Are they “accurately handling [rightly dividing] the word of truth” or “imparting the word of truth without deviation” (2 Timothy 2:15)? Shouldn’t we be suspicious of such beliefs and those that advocate them? Please explain how that is any different from what you started out saying is the case with the subject at hand.

You say: “God exists outside of time. His knowledge of what is going to happen is not based on Him being able to tell the future. It is based on the fact that everything that happens, happens for Him in the present. He knows "beforehand" what is going to happen, because it is happening in the present to Him.”

I say: Really! What scripture(s) reveals these astonishing “statements of fact” about God? beads I appreciate ‘knowing where you are coming from’ but to me your saying something is so does not make it so! Please pretend that I am from Missouri and “show me,” otherwise I must become even more suspicious of you and what you say.

When you say, “God exists outside of time.” Do you mean that there was no “time” and therefore that no “time” had passed before the creation of the physical universe? Do you mean that there was no “time” before God’s decision to create the physical universe and that no “time” passed between that decision and the actual act of physical creation? Do angels also “exist outside of time”? You say that there is no past or future with God only present correct? So does God count or mark time? If there is only now or the present (this very instant or moment in time) and no passing of time from the future into the past why would God count or mark time? If there is no past or future with God, why did he mislead or at least misrepresent himself to men by having so many descriptions recorded that include such ideas as past and future and all tenses and not just present tense? Isn’t it a fact the he chose those words and tenses and descriptions in order to convey ideas of him to our minds and now it seems you are saying that for all this time those words conveyed the wrong ideas, how can that be?

You say: “God doesn't really have foreknowledge in the sense that we understand the word (knowing something before it happens).”

I say: Again, simply stating that something is such and so without Scriptural support does not cut it with me. What scripture(s) is it that says, “God doesn't really have foreknowledge . . .”? The only scripture you use, Isaiah 46:9-10, certainly makes it sound like God knows things before they happen. In fact you even ask the question: “Is that not foreknowledge?” Why, yes it is! beads please excuse me for being confused by the fact that you are talking in contradictions or at least circles.

You say: “so He already knows what we will choose.” And you also say: “He knows the end of things from the beginning.”

I say: When did he come to have this knowledge that you say he “already knows?” Is it possible for God to be mistaken in what he “knows?”

Again I repeat what I said before: “For God’s ‘knowing’ to be without possibility of error then what he ‘knows’ must be absolutely correct and that necessarily removes free will, right?

You say: “I didn't say that you had. I said that you would.”

I say: I stand corrected.

You say: “The implication is that if I could prove to you election, foreknowledge, etc., then you would not love that God because, in your own words:"The same would be true of God if he extended the invitation of John 3:16 knowing all the while that you can not possibly take advantage of it because you had not been pre-selected or pre-elected or pre-chosen by him. That is not the God I love and worship."”

I say: Does your taking exception to what I said in the above quote mean that you do in fact believe that God extends "the invitation of John 3:16 knowing all the while that [an individual] can not possibly take advantage of it because [that individual] had/has not been pre-selected or pre-elected or pre-chosen by him?” That is the God some, perhaps even most, worship but “that is not the God I love and worship.”

Again repeating, you say: “You seem to be saying that God doesn't know who will accept Him, so that's why He offers it to everyone.”
Again repeating, I say: How else can the love and the invitation be “unconditional?”

I AM STILL WAITING FOR ANSWERS AND SCRIPTURAL EXPLANATIONS.

You say: “Why don't you show me "unconditional" in the Bible.”

I say: I will as it becomes necessary. It is the true nature of God’s love that is the foundation or basis for everything that God DOES DO. Therefore we will have to go into it in order to get a proper and correct understanding of this subject (I was trying to be brief in that post). As for “omniscience” and “omniscient” I will be happy if you will provide me with a Scripture based definition that does not conflict with the true nature of God’s love, fair enough?

You say: “You believe that the call to be saved is unconditional because you understand that the character of God demands that that call be unconditional.”

I say: Absolutely, don’t you?

You say: “From [what] I hear you saying, you believe that God does not know everything. I would certainly like to see the Scriptural evidence for that.”

I say: Ask and you shall receive. The answer will follow shortly in a separate reply. This reply is already too long and what you are requesting requires that explanation be provided along with the scriptures.

But first, as you also said in your post: “perhaps it might help to shed some light on where I'm coming from.” Something just dawned on me that might help clarify my position for you and that I need to know about your position to help clarify your statements. All my argumentation is premised on or is from the viewpoint of how all this applies to an individual rather than to a group or class. The reason I ask is that some of what you say is correct if it is applied to a group or class of persons rather than to an individual. You have provided almost no scripture references so I have not been able to discern for sure which you mean, so which is it? Do all your statements apply to an individual or not? Just as the flat-earth folks reach wrong conclusions because of failing to recognize the symbolic or metaphoric nature of statements made in some scriptures we can misunderstand this subject by failing to recognize when a group is being discussed rather than an individual.

.

[HOGCALLER]

beads,

Because I know that we will eventually deal with all of this and I prefer to do so in this more complete and organized fashion, I have included more information than requested.

1. To correctly understand foreknowledge and foreordination, as relating to God, there are three primary factors that necessarily must be recognized and considered:

2. First, God’s ability to foreknow and foreordain is clearly stated in the Bible. (Acts 2:23; 1Peter 1:2) God himself sets forth as proof of his Godship this ability to foreknow and foreordain events of salvation and deliverance, as well as acts of judgment and punishment, and then to bring such events to fulfillment. His chosen people are witnesses of these facts. (Isaiah 44:6-9; 48:3-8)

3. A second factor to be considered is the free will of God’s intelligent creatures. The Scriptures show that God extends to such creatures the privilege and responsibility of free choice, of exercising free moral agency (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20; Joshua 24:15), thereby making them accountable for their acts. (Genesis 2:16, 17; 3:11-19; Romans 14:10-12; Hebrews 4:13) They are thus not mere robots, or automatons. Man could not truly have been created in “God’s image” if he were not a free moral agent. Logically then, there should be no conflict between God’s foreknowledge (as well as his foreordaining) and the free moral agency of his intelligent creatures.

4. A third factor that must be considered, one sometimes overlooked, is that of God’s moral standards and qualities, including his love, wisdom, justice, honesty, impartiality, mercy, kindness and self-control. Any understanding of God’s use of any of his ‘omni’ qualities but especially of foreknowledge and foreordination must therefore harmonize with not only some of these factors but with all of them. Clearly, whatever God foreknows must inevitably come to pass, so that God is able to call “things that are not as though they were.” (Romans 4:17)

5. God has four cardinal or main qualities: love, wisdom, justice and power. Just as an artist mixes and blends primary colors to produce many shades and hues of color, God’s qualities can be mixed and blended by him with differing results. For example: love + wisdom + justice = mercy and mixed in different proportions love + wisdom + justice = jealousy. Another mixture produces God’s quality of “long-suffering” and on and on it goes. There are those who insist that everything about God is always to an absolute or infinite degree and without any limitations what so ever. They even go so far as to claim that if that is not so it would indicate imperfection or a deficiency on God's part. To easily express those ideas men also have formed words to go along with them such as: omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and several others also.

6. God is the Supreme Being of the universe and as such we speak of him as being infinitely powerful or "all-powerful" and infinitely wise or "all-wise" and so on. And yet, even though he is "all-powerful", he has not yet acted in an all-powerful way, that is in such a way that it required the use of all his power! Obviously to mere humans the creation of the physical universe seems to be an all-powerful act but I submit to you that it was a drop out of the ocean that is his potential power. Consider also that each and every exercise of God's power to enforce judgment and punishment has not resulted in the utter destruction of everything. That is because his exercise of power is blended with or offset by his love, wisdom and justice so that the result is just right and does not violate his other qualities and attributes, including self-control (Galatians 5:22,23), or produce any undesired consequences. Again, God’s almightiness is undeniably perfect and is infinite in capacity. (1 Chronicles 29:11, 12; Job 36:22; 37:23) Yet his perfection in strength does not require him to use his power to the full extent of his omnipotence in any or in all cases. Clearly he has not done so; if he had, not merely certain ancient cities and some nations would have been destroyed, but the entire universe would have been obliterated long ago by God’s executions of judgment, accompanied by mighty expressions of disapproval and wrath, such as at Sodom and Gomorrah and on other occasions. (Genesis 19:23-25, 29; compare Exodus 9:13-16; Jeremiah 30:23, 24) God’s exercise of his might is therefore not simply an unleashing of infinite, limitless power but is constantly governed and controlled by his purpose and, where merited, tempered by his mercy. (Nehemiah 9:31; Psalm 78:38, 39; Jeremiah 30:11; Lamentations 3:22; Ezekiel 20:17)

7. In contradiction of the beliefs held by some men, God exercises each of his qualities perfectly, but none absolutely. Even though God has the capability to carry any of his qualities out to an “absolute” or infinite or unlimited degree he always chooses not to do so. For example: God has shown himself to be perfect in long-suffering (Definition: the patient endurance of wrong or provocation, combined with a refusal to give up hope for improvement in the disturbed relationship.) and, as a result, it can rightly be said that he is the “absolute” embodiment of that quality. Yet God’s exercise of long-suffering shows that he has imposed limitations upon it, as he has repeatedly demonstrated by means of his acts of judgment and punishment, therefore, it is not “unlimited.” Yes, God's patience and long-suffering are “perfect” but there are limits to them. Why? It is because his other qualities of justice, wisdom and love require it. In other words, being limited does not equate to imperfection or deficiency. At the same time, being without limits does not equate to being perfect.

8. Perhaps it will be that you do not like my choice of long-suffering as an example. So let me provide you with another example of what I mean. Man’s free moral agency stems, in part, from the “absolute” quality of freedom possessed by God. Even though the term and idea is man-made, God, and God alone, is capable of “absolute freedom.” Although capable of “absolute freedom,” is that how God conducts himself? Absolutely not! In the Bible God has revealed himself to be not just the Law-Giver but also as the Law-Keeper. That means that he does not operate outside his stated laws, standards and principles. Therefore even though “with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26; Mark 14:36), God’s perfection causes him to put limitations on himself so that “God cannot lie” and “it is impossible for God to lie.” (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18) So it becomes obvious that God’s perfection arises, in many ways, from his self-controlled, self-imposed limitation of his absolute, infinite characteristics and qualities. Again, being limited does not equate to imperfection or deficiency. At the same time, being without limits does not equate to being perfect regardless of the beliefs of some to the contrary. Consider this question: between the equally true statements “with God all things are possible” and “it is impossible for God to lie,” which reveals more of God’s true nature, personality and is closer to what God actually DOES DO?

9. At this point we can start to deal with these questions: Does God know everything? Or, Is God omniscient? Does God know in advance everything that people will do? Is his exercise of foreknowledge infinite, without limit or control? (Exercise should not to be confused with his ability or capacity to foreknow.) Does he foresee and foreknow all future actions of all his creatures, spirit and human? And does he foreordain such actions or even predestinate what shall be the final destiny of all his creatures, even doing so before they have come into existence?

10. Or, is God’s exercise of foreknowledge, just like his exercise of all his other infinite qualities, selective, discretionary and self-controlled, so that whatever he chooses to foresee and foreknow, he does, but what he does not choose to foresee or foreknow, he does not? And, instead of preceding their existence, does God’s determination of his creatures’ eternal destiny await his judgment of their course of life and of their proved attitude under test? The answers to these questions must necessarily come from the Scriptures themselves and the information they provide concerning God’s actions and dealings with his creatures, including what has been revealed through his Son, Christ Jesus. (1 Corinthians 2:16)

11. God answers for himself at Genesis 11:5-8 where he describes himself as directing his attention earthward, surveying the situation at Babel, and then, at that time, determining the action to be taken to break up the unrighteous project there. Similarly, only after wickedness developed at Sodom and Gomorrah, did God advised Abraham of his decision to investigate (by means of his angels) to “see whether they act altogether according to the outcry over it that has come to me, and, if not, I can get to know it.” (Genesis 18:20-22; 19:1) Please note that the reason for the investigation was not prior knowledge but rather in response “to the outcry over it that has come to me.” When God said “if not, I can get to know it,” or “If they aren't, I want to know about it," or “I am going down to see whether or not these reports are true. Then I will know” did God lie or at least misrepresent himself to Abraham? If God already “knows” as you claim, then God is a Deceiver and this whole account, including God’s promises to show mercy, is a Sham, a Deception. On other occasions God spoke of ‘becoming acquainted with Abraham,’ or ‘I have become his intimate friend,’ and after Abraham went to the point of attempting to sacrifice Isaac, God said, “For now I do know that you are God-fearing in that you have not withheld your son, your only one, from me.” (Genesis 22:11, 12; compare Galatians 4:9) KJV + Strong’s: for (3588) now (6258) I know (3045) that (3588) thou (859) fearest (3373) God. Strong’s H6258: at-taw', From H6256; at this time, . . . now. Strong’s H3045: yaw-dah', A primitive root; to know (properly to ascertain by seeing); . . . for a certainty, comprehend, . . . understand, have [understanding]. In other words God tells Abraham and us: I understand or have understanding to comprehend for a certainty ascertained by seeing at this time. That is not what I ‘hear’ you claiming is the case but it is what that scripture says.

12. There are many other examples that I could cite but these are enough for us to understand that God obviously chooses not to foreknow “everything” regardless of the fact that he has the ability to do so. The point is that God's perfection means that he has perfect self-control and can exercise his foreknowledge at his discretion and without interfering with the free will of his creatures. God is omnipotent yet he does not exercise omnipotence. God is “all-patient” yet his exercise of patience has limits. God is “all-possible” yet he says there are things impossible for him. In other words, when he wants to foreknow something he can and does, but that does not mean that he cannot control himself and therefore MUST and DOES foreknow “everything.”

13. Again, the fact that God can foreknow events is clearly stated in the Bible. (Isaiah 46:9-10; Romans 4:17) However, it is illogical and unscriptural to think that he cannot control his ability to know the future or that he is responsible for every outcome by means of his inerrant, unlimited foreknowledge. To illustrate: suppose you had very great physical strength, in fact, that you were the most powerful human on earth. Would that make you feel inclined to hug a newborn baby with all your strength? Of course not! Likewise, having the ability to know the future does not compel God to foreordain or even to simply foreknow everything. His use of foreknowledge is selective and discretionary and just as you would not want to harm the newborn baby he does not want to infringe upon the free will of his children by the uncontrolled exercise of foreknowledge.

14. The view I ‘hear’ being expressed most often is that God’s exercise of his foreknowledge is infinite and also that he does foreordain the course and destiny of all individuals and that view is known as predestinarianism and comes in innumerable variations. Its advocates reason (erroneously as shown above) that God’s divinity and perfection require that he be omniscient (infinitely all-knowing), not only respecting the past and present but also regarding the future. According to this concept, for him not to foreknow all matters in their minutest detail would evidence imperfection or deficiency. Examples such as the case of Isaac’s twin sons, Esau and Jacob, are presented as evidence of God’s foreordaining creatures before their birth (Romans 9:10-13); and texts such as Ephesians 1:4, 5 are cited as evidence that God foreknew and foreordained the future of all his creatures even before the start of creation.
15. To be correct, those beliefs would, of course, have to harmonize with all the factors previously mentioned, including the Scriptural presentation of God’s qualities, standards, and purposes, as well as his righteous ways in dealing with his creatures. That being understood, we now can properly consider the implications of such predestinarian views. Obviously the self-descriptions God provided us in the scriptures discussed above preclude predestination and any other man-made belief that God “foreknows everything” without limit! Predestination and all such beliefs are not truly based on the Bible and are teachings that slander God. (No wonder atheism is one of the world’s fastest growing religions.)

16. The first and most glaringly insurmountable problem with this concept is that it would mean that, prior to creating angels or mankind, God exercised his powers of foreknowledge and foresaw and foreknew all that would result from such creation, including the rebellion of one of his spirit sons, the subsequent rebellion of the first human pair in Eden, and all the bad consequences of such rebellion down to and beyond this present day. This would necessarily mean that all the wickedness that history has recorded (the crime and immorality, oppression and resultant suffering, lying and hypocrisy, false worship and idolatry) once existed, before creation’s beginning, only in the mind of God, in the form of his foreknowledge of the future in all of its minutest details. (That may be true of the God you worship but it is not true of the God I worship and that I find revealed in the Bible.)

17. If the Creator of mankind had in fact exercised his power to foreknow all that history has seen since man’s creation, then the full weight of (full responsibility for, knowledge carries with it responsibility) all the wickedness resulting thereafter was deliberately set in motion by God when he spoke the words: “Let us make man.” (Genesis 1:26) These facts bring into question the reasonableness and consistency of the predestinarian concept; particularly so, since the Bible clearly shows that disorder and other vile things do not originate from God’s heavenly presence but are “earthly, animal, demonic” in source. (1Corinthians 14:33; James 3:14-18)

18. The argument that God’s not foreknowing all future events and circumstances in full detail would evidence imperfection or a deficiency on his part is, in reality, an arbitrary view of perfection. Perfection, correctly defined, does not demand such an absolute, all-embracing extension, inasmuch as the perfection of anything actually depends upon its measuring up completely to the standards of excellence set by one qualified to judge its merits. Ultimately, God’s own will and good pleasure, not human opinions or concepts, are the deciding factors as to whether anything is perfect. (Deuteronomy 32:4; 2 Samuel 22:31; Isaiah 46:10)

19. Similarly, if, in certain respects, God chooses to exercise his infinite ability of foreknowledge in a selective way and to the degree that pleases him, then assuredly no human or angel can rightly say: “What are you doing?” (Job 9:12; Isaiah 45:9; Daniel 4:35) It is therefore not a question of ability, what God can foresee, foreknow, and foreordain, for “with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26) The question is what God sees fit to foresee, foreknow, and foreordain, for “everything that he delighted to do he has done.” (Psalm 115:3)

20. In contradiction to the theory of predestinarianism, a number of texts point to an examination by God of a situation then current followed by a decision made on the basis of such examination. Also selective foreknowledge means that God could choose not to foreknow indiscriminately all the future acts of his creatures. This would mean that, rather than all history from creation onward being a mere rerun of what had already been foreseen and foreordained, God could with all sincerity set before the first human pair the prospect of everlasting life in an earth free from wickedness. His instructions to his first human son and daughter to act as his perfect and sinless agents in filling the earth with their offspring and making it a paradise, as well as exercising control over the animal creation, could thus be expressed as the grant of a truly loving privilege and as his genuine desire toward them—not merely as the giving of a commission that, on their part, was foredoomed, by God’s prior knowing or knowledge, to failure. God’s arranging for a test by means of “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad” and his creation of “the tree of life” in the garden of Eden also would not be meaningless or cynical acts, made so by his foreknowing that the human pair would sin and never be able to eat of “the tree of life.”

21. To offer something very desirable to another person on conditions known beforehand to be unreachable is recognized as both hypocritical and cruel. The prospect of everlasting life is presented in God’s Word as a goal for all persons, one possible to attain. After urging his listeners to ‘keep on asking and seeking’ good things from God, Jesus pointed out that a father does not give a stone or a serpent to his child that asks for bread or a fish. Showing his Father’s view of disappointing the legitimate hopes of a person, Jesus then said: “Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will your Father who is in the heavens give good things to those asking him?” (Matthew 7:7-11). In view of that the case must be that John 3:16 is a truly unconditional invitation, that is, open to any and all and also that means that God has not individually pre-determined who will or can respond to the invitation.

22. Thus, the invitations and opportunities to receive benefits and everlasting blessings set before all men by God are bona fide. (Matthew 21:22; James 1:5-6) He can in all sincerity urge men to ‘turn back from transgression and keep living,’ as he did with the people of Israel. (Ezekiel 18:23, 30-32; compare Jeremiah 29:11, 12) Logically, he could not do this, in true sincerity, if he foreknew that they were individually destined to die in wickedness. (Compare Acts 17:30, 31; 1 Timothy 2:3, 4) As God told Israel: “Look to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.” (Isaiah 45:19-22)

23. In a similar vein, the apostle Peter writes: “The Lord is not slow about keeping His promise, like some people are, but is [simply] being patient with you, since He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but He wants everyone to repent [i.e., change their hearts and lives]” (2Peter 3:9, AUV-NT) If God already foreknew and foreordained millenniums in advance precisely which individuals would receive eternal salvation and which individuals would receive eternal destruction, it may well be asked how meaningful such ‘long-suffering (extraordinarily patient)’ (per the rendering of Amplified Bible) of God could be and how genuine his desire could be that “He wants everyone to repent.” The inspired apostle John wrote that “God is love,” and the apostle Paul states that love “hopes all things.” ([urlhttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1John%204:8;%201Corinthians%2013:4-7;&version=45;49;73;]1John 4:8; 1Corinthians 13:4, 7[/url]) It is in harmony with this outstanding, divine quality that God should exercise a genuinely open, kindly attitude toward all persons, he being desirous of their gaining salvation, until they prove themselves unworthy, beyond hope (compare 2Peter 3:9 and Heb 6:4-12). Thus, the apostle Paul speaks of “the kindly quality of God [that] is trying to lead you to repentance” (Romans 2:4-6).

24. Finally if, by God’s foreknowledge, the opportunity to receive the benefits of Christ Jesus’ ransom sacrifice were already irrevocably sealed off from some, perhaps for millions of individuals, even before their birth, so that such ones could never prove worthy, it could not truly be said that the ransom was made available to ALL men (2Corinthians 5:14-15; 1Timothy 2:5-6; Hebrews 2:9). The impartiality of God is clearly no mere figure of speech. “In every nation the man that fears [God] and works righteousness is acceptable to him.” (Acts 10:34-35; Deuteronomy 10:17; Romans 2:11) The option is actually and genuinely open to all men “to seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us” (Acts 17:26-27). Therefore there is no empty hope or conditional promise set forth in the divine exhortation at the end of the book of Revelation inviting: “Let anyone hearing say: ‘Come!’ And let anyone thirsting come; let anyone that wishes take life’s water free.” (Revelation 22:17).

25. Are there other ‘alternatives’ to predestination or to actual exercise of foreknowledge that could account for what, at first glance, seem to be acts of such? Consider: If you are married have you ever “known” what your mate was about to do or say before they actually did or said it? If you are a parent do you know what your children will say or how they will act and can you not ‘foresee’ problems before they arise? How is that so? It certainly does not have anything to do with an exercise of foreknowledge or an act of predestination. God’s wisdom and abilities to read minds, hearts and DNA (follow this link and especially note the last paragraph on page 1) greatly enhance his capabilities to ‘know’ such things so far beyond our own abilities to do so that some may have mistakenly attributed this ‘knowledge’ to an exercise of his foreknowledge and have misunderstood the result as an act of predestination. Now, consider this: if you had definite knowledge that your child was going to break the law and that an innocent person would suffer and die, in the eyes of the law, what would be your responsibility? Think about Terry Nichols. Remember God is not only the Supreme Law-Giver but also the Supreme Law-Keeper. Be very careful of what you attribute to God. Indiscriminate, unselective foreknowledge carries with it inescapable responsibility.

26. Throughout the Bible record, God’s exercise of foreknowledge and foreordination is consistently tied in with his own purposes and will and primarily to the outworking of such. “To purpose” means to set something before oneself as an aim or an object to be attained. (The Greek word pro´the·sis, translated “purpose,” means, literally, “something placed or set forth before.”) Since God’s purposes are certain of accomplishment, he can foreknow the results, the ultimate realization of his purposes, and can foreordain them as well as the steps he may see fit to take to accomplish them. (Isaiah 14:24-27) Thus, God is spoken of as ‘forming’ or ‘fashioning’ (from the Hebrew ya·tsar´, related to the word for “potter” used at Jeremiah 18:4) his purpose concerning future events or actions (2Kings 19:25; Isaiah 46:11; compare Isaiah 45:9-18). As the Great Potter, God “works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will” (Ephesians 1:11), and ‘makes all his works cooperate together’ for the good of those loving him. (Romans 8:28) It is, therefore, specifically in connection with his own foreordained purposes that God is “Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done,” (Isaiah 46:9-10).

27. When God created the first human pair they were perfect, and God could look upon the result of all his creative work and honestly declare it “very good” in every sense of the words (Genesis 1:31; Deuteronomy 32:4). Instead of distrustfully, unfaithfully concerning himself with what the human pair’s future actions would be, the record says that he “rested” (Genesis 2:2). He could do so since, by virtue of his almightiness and his supreme wisdom, no future action, circumstance, or contingency could possibly present an insurmountable obstacle or an irremediable problem to block the realization of his sovereign purpose (Daniel 4:35). There is, therefore, no Scriptural basis for the argument of predestinarianism that for God to refrain from exercising his powers of foreknowledge in that total and unselective way would jeopardize God’s purposes, making them “always liable to be broken through want of foresight, and [that] he must be continually putting his system to rights, as it gets out of order, through the contingence of the actions of moral agents.” Nor would selective exercise of foresight give his creatures the power to “break [God’s] measures, make him continually to change his mind, subject him to vexation, and bring him into confusion,” as predestinarians claim. (M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia, 1894, Vol. VIII, p. 556) What example does God set? Does he, in effect, say: “Do as I say not as I do.” Or, is it the case that he is the Supreme Example of how to act and to think? Please consider: if God’s earthly servants have no real need to be “anxious about tomorrow,” it follows that their Creator, to whom mighty nations are as “a drop from a bucket,” neither had nor has such anxiety (Matthew 6:34; Isaiah 40:15) and, in response to that anxiety, require that he ‘tip the scales’ in his favor by exercising his foreknowledge in every and all cases.

28. Unless you contend that God is an aberrant despot who acts hypocritically or worse (as we will shortly see) and that there are actually dual standards, one for God and one for his creatures (a position held by many advocates of predestinarianism) then God must obey his own laws and must abide by the precepts and principles that we find in the Bible and that apply also to his creatures. That means that we must be very careful of what we attribute to God in this area. I submit to you that regardless of the fact that advocates of predestinarianism claim to worship the God of the Bible the fact is that they do not worship the same God that I worship. I further submit that this does matter to God and does have an effect on our standing before God.

29. In the Bible cases are presented in which God did foreknow the course that certain groups, nations, or the majority of mankind would take, and thus he foretold the basic course of their future actions and foreordained what corresponding action he would take regarding them. However, such foreknowledge or foreordination does not deprive the individuals within such collective groups or divisions of mankind of exercising free choice as to the particular course they will follow. This can be seen from the following examples:

30. Prior to the Flood of Noah’s day, God announced his purpose to bring about this act of destruction. The Biblical account shows, however, that such divine determination was made after the conditions developed that called for such action, including violence and other badness. Additionally, God, who is able to “know the heart of the sons of mankind,” made examination and found that “every inclination of the thoughts of [mankind’s] heart was only bad all the time.” (2Chronicles 6:30; Genesis 6:5) Yet individuals, Noah and his family, gained God’s favor and escaped destruction (Genesis 6:7-8; 7:1).

31. Similarly, although God gave the nation of Israel the opportunity to become “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” by keeping his covenant, yet some 40 years later, when the nation was at the borders of the Promised Land, God foretold that they would break his covenant and, as a nation, would be forsaken by him. This foreknowledge was not without prior basis, however, as national insubordination and rebellion already had been revealed. Hence, God said: “For I well know their inclination that they are developing today before I bring them into the land about which I have sworn.” (Exodus 19:6; Deuteronomy 31:16-18, 21; Psalms 81:10-13) The results to which such clearly demonstrated inclination would now lead in the way of increased wickedness could be foreknown by God without its making him responsible for such conditions, even as one’s foreknowing that a certain structure built of inferior materials and with shoddy workmanship will deteriorate does not make that one responsible for such deterioration. The divine rule governs that ‘what is sown is what will be reaped’ (Galatians 6:7-9 compare Hosea 10:12-13). Certain prophets delivered prophetic warnings of God’s foreordained expressions of judgment, all of which had basis in already existing conditions and heart attitudes. (Psalms 7:8-9; Proverbs 11:19; Jeremiah 11:20) Here again, however, individuals could and did respond to God’s counsel, reproof, and warnings and so merited his favor (Jeremiah 21:8-9; Ezekiel 33:1-20).

32. In addition to foreknowledge concerning classes, certain individuals are specifically involved in divine forecasts. These include Esau and Jacob (mentioned earlier), the Pharaoh of the Exodus, Samson, Solomon, Josiah, Jeremiah, Cyrus, John the Baptizer, Judas Iscariot, and God’s own Son Jesus.

33. In the cases of Samson, Jeremiah, and John the Baptizer, God exercised foreknowledge prior to their birth. This foreknowledge, however, did not specify what their final destiny would be. Rather, on the basis of such foreknowledge, Jehovah foreordained that Samson should live according to the Nazirite vow and should initiate the deliverance of Israel from the Philistines, that Jeremiah should serve as a prophet, and that John the Baptizer should do a preparatory work as a forerunner of the Messiah. (Judges 13:3-5; Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:13-17) While highly favored by such privileges, this did not guarantee their gaining eternal salvation or even that they would remain faithful until death (although those three did). God also foretold that one of David’s many sons would be named Solomon and he foreordained that Solomon would be used to build the temple (2Samuel 7:12-13; 1Kings 6:12; 1Chronicles 22:6-19). However, though favored in this way and even privileged to write certain books of the Holy Scriptures, Solomon nevertheless fell into apostasy in his later years (1Kings 11:9-11).

34. Likewise with Esau and Jacob, God’s foreknowledge did not fix their eternal destinies but, rather, determined, or foreordained, which of the national groups descending from the two sons would gain a dominant position over the other ([urlhttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2025:23-26;&version=45;49;8;]Genesis 25:23-26[/url]). This foreseen dominance also pointed to the gaining of the right of the firstborn by Jacob, a right that brought along with it the privilege of being in the line of descent through which the Abrahamic “seed” would come (Genesis 27:29; 28:13-14). By this means God made clear that his choice of individuals for certain uses is not bound by the usual customs or procedures conforming to men’s expectations. Nor are divinely assigned privileges to be dispensed solely on the basis of works, which might allow a person to feel he has ‘earned the right’ to such privileges and that they are ‘owed to him.’ The apostle Paul stressed this point in showing why God, by undeserved kindness, could grant to the Gentile nations privileges once seemingly reserved for Israel (Romans 9:1-6, 10-13, 30-32).

35. Paul’s quotations concerning God’s ‘love for Jacob [Israel] and his hatred for Esau [Edom]’ comes from Malachi 1:2-3, written long after Jacob and Esau’s time. So the Bible does not necessarily say that God held such opinion of the twins before their birth. It is a scientifically established fact that much of a child’s general disposition and temperament is determined at the time of conception because of the genetic factors contributed by each parent (follow this link and especially note the last paragraph on page 1). That God can see such factors is self-evident. To what extent such divine insight affected God’s foreordination concerning the two boys cannot be said, but at any rate, his choice of Jacob over Esau did not of itself doom Esau or his descendants, the Edomites, to destruction. Even individuals from among the accursed Canaanites gained the privilege of association with God’s covenant people and received blessings. (Genesis 9:25-27; Joshua 9:27)

36. Similarly, God foretold nearly two centuries beforehand that he would use a conqueror named Cyrus to effect the release of the Jews from Babylon. (Isaiah 44:24-45:6) But the Persian to whom that name eventually was given in fulfillment of divine prophecy is not stated in the Bible to have become a genuine worshiper of Jehovah the God of the Jews, and secular history shows him continuing his worship of false gods.

37. On the whole these cases of foreknowledge prior to the individual’s birth are very rare and also, as shown above, cannot and do not conflict with God’s revealed qualities, attributes and announced standards. Nor is there any indication that God coerced the individuals to act against their own will. In the cases of Pharaoh, Judas Iscariot, and God’s own Son, there is no evidence that God’s foreknowledge was exercised prior to the person’s coming into existence. Within these individual cases certain principles are illustrated, bearing on God’s use of foreknowledge and foreordination.

38. One such principle is God’s testing of individuals by causing or allowing certain circumstances or events, or by causing such individuals to hear his inspired messages, the result being that they are obliged to exercise their free choice to make a decision and thus reveal a definite heart attitude, read by God. (Proverbs 15:11; 1Peter 1:6-7; Hebrews 4:12-13) According to the way the individuals respond, God can also mold them in the course they have selected of their own volition. (1Chronicles 28:9; Psalms 33:13-15; 139:1-4, 23-24) Thus, “the heart of earthling man” first inclines toward a certain way before God does the directing of the steps of such a one. (Proverbs 16:9; Psalms 51:10) Under testing, one’s heart condition can become fixed, either hardened in unrighteousness and rebellion or made firm in unbreakable devotion to God and the doing of his will. (Job 2:3-10; Jeremiah 18:11-12; Romans 2:4-11; Hebrews 3:7-15) Having reached such a point of his own choice, the end result of the individual’s course can now be foreknown and foretold with no injustice and no violation of man’s free moral agency (compare Job 34:10-12).

39. The case of faithful Abraham, already discussed above, illustrates these principles. A contrasting case is that of the unresponsive Pharaoh of the Exodus. God foreknew that Pharaoh would refuse permission for the Israelites to leave “except by a strong hand” (Exodus 3:19-20), and he foreordained the plague resulting in the death of the firstborn (Exodus 4:22-23). The apostle Paul’s discussion of God’s dealings with Pharaoh is often incorrectly understood to mean that God arbitrarily hardens the heart of individuals according to his foreordained purpose, without regard for the individual’s prior inclination, or heart attitude (Romans 9:14-18 is an example of where this misunderstanding is reflected in the renderings of almost all Bibles). Likewise, according to most translations, God advised Moses that he would “harden [Pharaoh’s] heart” (Exodus 4:21 compare Exodus 9:12; 10:1, 27). However, a few translations render the Hebrew account to read similar to Rotherham’s rendering, “let [Pharaoh’s] heart wax bold.” In support of such rendering, the appendix to Rotherham’s translation shows that in Hebrew the occasion or permission of an event is often presented as if it were the cause of the event, and that “even positive commands are occasionally to be accepted as meaning no more than permission.” Thus at Exodus 1:17 the original Hebrew text literally says that the midwives “caused the male children to live,” whereas in reality they only permitted them to live by refraining from putting them to death. After quoting Hebrew scholars M. M. Kalisch, H. F. W. Gesenius, and B. Davies in support, Rotherham states that the Hebrew sense of the texts involving Pharaoh is that “God permitted Pharaoh to harden his own heart—spared him—gave him the opportunity, the occasion, of working out the wickedness that was in him. That is all.”—The Emphasised Bible, appendix, p. 919.

40. Corroborating this understanding is the fact that the record definitely shows that Pharaoh himself “hardened his heart” (Exodus 8:15, 32). He thus exercised his own will and followed his own stubborn inclination, the results of which inclination God accurately foresaw and predicted. The repeated opportunities given him by God obliged Pharaoh to make decisions, and in doing so he became hardened in his attitude (compare Ecclesiastes 8:11-12). As the apostle Paul shows by quoting Exodus 9:16, God allowed the matter to develop in this way to the full length of ten plagues in order to make manifest his own power and cause his name to be made known earth wide (Romans 9:17-18). In his commentary on Exodus 9:16 Adam Clarke, in part, states: “Neither the Hebrew, . . . I have caused thee to stand; nor the apostle’s translation of it, Rom 9:17, . . . I have raised thee; nor that of the Septuagint, . . . on this account art thou preserved, viz., in the past plagues; can countenance that most exceptionable meaning put on the words by certain commentators, viz., “That God ordained or appointed Pharaoh from all eternity, by certain means, to this end; that he made him to exist in time; that he raised him to the throne; promoted him to that high honor and dignity; that he preserved him, and did not cut him off as yet; that he strengthened and hardened his heart; irritated, provoked, and stirred him up against his people Israel, and suffered him to go all the lengths he did go in his obstinacy and rebellion; all which was done to show in him his power in destroying him in the Red Sea. The sum of which is, that this man was raised up by God in every sense for God to show his power in his destruction.” So man speaks; thus God hath not spoken. See Henry on the place.” (Italics are mine.)

41. In his commentary on Exodus 4:21 Adam Clarke, in part, states: “Exo 4:21 - But I will harden his heart - The case of Pharaoh has given rise to many fierce controversies, and to several strange and conflicting opinions. . . . All those who have read the Scriptures with care and attention, know well that God is frequently represented in them as doing what he only permits to be done. . . . Let it be observed that there is nothing spoken here of the eternal state of the Egyptian king; nor does anything in the whole of the subsequent account authorize us to believe that God hardened his [Pharaoh’s] heart against the influences of his own grace, that he [God] might occasion him [Pharaoh] so to sin that his [God’s] justice might consign him [Pharaoh] to [adverse judgment]. This would be such an act of flagrant injustice as we could scarcely attribute to the worst of men. He who leads another into an offense that he may have a fairer pretense to punish him for it, or brings him into such circumstances that he cannot avoid committing a capital crime, and then hangs him for it, is surely the most execrable of mortals. What then should we make of the God of justice and mercy should we attribute to him a decree, the date of which is lost in eternity, by which he has determined to cut off from the possibility of salvation millions of millions of unborn souls, and leave them under a necessity of sinning, by actually hardening their hearts against the influences of his own grace and Spirit, that he may, on the pretext of justice, consign them to [adverse judgment]? Whatever may be pretended in behalf of such unqualified opinions, it must be evident to all who are not deeply prejudiced, that neither the justice nor the sovereignty of God can be magnified by them.” If it is unfair for God to predestine Pharaoh or anyone else to an unrighteous course then, by the same standard of fairness, it is also unfair for God to predestine Moses or anyone else to a righteous course! That means that some of the survivors of the Columbine shootings were sadly mistaken when they said, “God has a plan for me.” If God had an individual ‘plan’ for their life then God also had an individual ‘plan’ for Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and God is responsible for imperfection in all its forms!

[beads]

Hogcaller,

Your thesis is very well put together - I applaud the work you have done in putting it together. I do not believe I can refute it.

However, if what are saying is true, can you help me understand some puzzling portions of Scripture?

The Bible seems to indicate in a few places that all those who will become saved have been chosen before the creation of the world.

Eph 1:4
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:

2 Thess 2:13
But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Rev 17:8
The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

How do these verses jive with the idea that God does not know who will be saved? The only way I can reconcile these verses with what you are saying is if the verses are not to be applied individually, i.e. when Paul says "He has chosen us", he doesn't mean "He chose me, and He chose you, and you, and you, ....", but rather that he means He chose the group as a whole, without knowing who would be in that group, and He set them aside for salvation. So before the foundation of the world, God said something like "Alright.... everyone who is going to be saved will be holy and blameless before Me, and they will be saved through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth, and I'm gonna write their names in this book". Would this be a proper interpretation? I'm no Greek scholar, so I don't know if this interpretation would fit in with the original texts.

[beads]

Hogcaller,

How does your view of a "non-omni" God fit in with what we read in Psalm 139?

1 O lord, thou hast searched me, and known me.

2 Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.

3 Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.

4 For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.

5 Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.

6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.

7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;

10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.

11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.

12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.

14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!

18 If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.

19 Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men.

20 For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain.

21 Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?

22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.

23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:

24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

Verses 4, 15, 16, and 18 seem to make a pretty good case for omniscience. And verses 7-12 make a good case for omnipresence.

[HOGCALLER]

beads,

Sorry for the delay in responding. Personal circumstances including the death of my mother on 4-20-05 have interfered with my time and motivation to be involved in deep biblical discussion. In fact today is the first time for a while that I have even desired to read a forum. My concentration, which is poor even at its best, is such that it will take me longer than usual to answer. I will get back to you as soon as I can.

[HOGCALLER]

beads,

You say: “However, if what [you] are saying is true, can you help me understand some puzzling portions of Scripture?”

I say: The ultimate answer to that question is not up to me for what you can or cannot understand regarding the Bible is not in my hands nor dependant upon any of my abilities. What I will gladly do is pray for you to understand just the same as I pray for me to understand and then along with that I will be more than happy to provide further reasoning and expounding on the subject and the scriptures. (Romans 9:1-3; 10:1-2; 1Corinthians 3:5-8; Philippians 1:9)

You say: “The Bible seems to indicate in a few places that all those who will become saved have been chosen before the creation of the world.”

I say: To me the key words in the above statement are “seems to”. The fact is that the Bible does not actually say what your statement says. It “seems to” only because of the past poor and inconsistent translation and rendering of older Bible versions of several different Greek words into only one English word unavoidably leading to much misunderstanding and confusion that has survived till now and because of the bias in favor of those old confusing and contradictory misunderstandings found in the renderings of some newer Bibles.

The statement, “founding of the world,” found in Ephesians 1:4 and Revelation 17:8 is also found at Matthew 13:35; 25:34, Luke 11:50, John 17:24, Hebrews 4:3; 9:26, 1Peter 1:20, and Revelation 13:8. A check of all the different printed Bible versions one may have available along with Bible study software or web sites that allow for many Bible versions to be compared reveals more than enough variation in the renderings of those verses to make one fairly certain that something other than unbiased translation is at work. No wonder you and also many others are puzzled by what the Bible “seems to” say.

My argument has already been made and you have replied, “I do not believe I can refute it.” It would only be time consuming but not at all difficult to prepare just as much information about the phrase “founding of the world” or any other scripture that “seems to” say something other than what I have already proved and presented in this thread. The question is, “What would that accomplish?” At this point there is a real danger of getting lost in all of it and missing the point. For both of our sakes I do not wish that to happen. So I will keep my answer brief and I will continue to reiterate the points already made while trying to reason with you so as to cultivate a receptive, responsive heart in the hope that “God will [not] allow [or have to give you up] to follow false teaching [and to] believe a lie” about Him. (2Thessalonians 2:11, New Life Version, Bible in Basic English)

OK here goes: At Ephesians 1:4 and Revelation 17:8 the phrase “founding of the world” is from the two-word Greek phrase: katabole´ (Strong’s G2602) ko´smos (Strong’s G2889) and literally means “throwing down [seed/semen] of world.” The basic meaning of the Greek ko´smos is “order” or “arrangement.” And to the extent that the concept of beauty is bound up with order and symmetry, ko´smos also conveys that thought and therefore was often used by the Greeks to mean “adornment,” especially as regards women. It is used in that way at 1 Peter 3:3. Hence also the English word “cosmetic.” The related verb kosme´o has the sense of ‘putting in order’ at Matthew 25:7 and that of ‘adorning’ elsewhere. (Matthew 12:44; 23:29; Luke 11:25; 21:5; 1Timothy 2:9; Titus 2:10; 1Peter 3:5; Revelation 21:2, 19) The adjective ko´smios, at 1Timothy 2:9 and 3:2, describes that which is “well-arranged” or “orderly.”

Evidently because the universe manifests order, Greek philosophers at times applied ko´smos to the entire visible creation. However, there was no real unanimity of thought among them, some restricting it to the celestial bodies only and others using it for the whole universe. The use of ko´smos to describe the material creation as a whole appears in some Apocryphal writings (Wisdom 9:9; 11:17), these being written during the period when Greek philosophy was making inroads in many Jewish areas. But in the inspired writings of the Christian Greek Scriptures this sense is virtually, perhaps entirely, absent. Some texts may appear to use the term in that sense, such as the account of the apostle’s address to the Athenians at the Areopagus. Paul there said: “The God who made the world [form of ko´smos] and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.” (Acts 17:24) Since the use of ko´smos as meaning the universe was current among the Greeks, Paul might have employed the term in that sense. Even here, however, it is entirely possible that he used it as it is most commonly used in the Scriptures—referring to some aspect of the ordering of humans or to the world of mankind.

There is an undeniable connection of the Greek word ko´smos with the world of mankind which, when combined with the use of the word katabole´ instead of the Greek word meaning creation, kti´zo, aids one to come to a proper understanding of what is really meant by the phrase “the founding of the world,” as referred to in the above mentioned texts. These texts speak of certain things as taking place ‘from the founding of the world.’ These include the ‘shedding of the blood of the prophets’ from the time of Abel onward, a ‘kingdom prepared,’ and ‘names being written on the scroll of life.’ (Luke 11:50-51; Matthew 25:34; Revelation 13:8; 17:8; compare Matthew 13:35; Hebrews 9:26.) Such things relate to human life and activity, and hence “the founding of the world” must relate to the beginning of mankind, not to the material universe as a whole. Also, Hebrews 4:3 shows that God’s creative works were, not started but rather, “finished from the founding of the world.” Since Eve was evidently the last of God’s earthly creative works, the world’s founding could not precede her. In addition, further research using concordances, lexicons, dictionaries and other study aids reveal that the use of the English words “creation” or “creating” is, at the very least, “a stretch” that is not supported by the way katabole´ is used in the Scriptures. For example, Vincent’s Word Studies in its comments on the use of katabole´ at Hebrews 11:11 states: “In every other instance in N.T. καταβολή means foundation, and appears in the phrase καταβολὴ κόσμου foundation of the world. Originally it means throwing down; hence, the depositing of the male seed in the womb.” Also, Robertson’s Word Pictures in its comments on the use of katabole´ at Ephesians 1:4 states: “from kataballō, to fling down, used of the deposit of seed, the laying of a foundation.” Let me repeat it: the use of the English words “creation” or “creating” is, at the very minimum, “a stretch” that is not supported by the way katabole´ is used in any of its occurrences in the Scriptures.

Therefore “the founding of the world” need not be taken to mean the beginning of the creation of the material universe, nor does the expression “before the founding of the world” (John 17:5, 24; Ephesians 1:4; 1Peter 1:20) refer to a point of time prior to the creation of the material universe. Rather, these expressions evidently relate to the time when the human race was ‘founded’ through the first human pair, Adam and Eve, who, outside of Eden, began to conceive seed, founding the world of mankind, that could benefit from God’s provisions for deliverance from inherited sin.

Jesus Christ also linked “founding of the world” with that time frame, saying: “That the blood of all the prophets spilled from the founding of the world may be required from this generation, from the blood of Abel down to the blood of Zechariah.” (Luke 11:50, 51) Jesus thus shows that the spilling of the blood of all the prophets from the founding of the world began with Abel and thus speaks of Abel as living at the “founding of the world.” Abel being a son of Adam and Eve, the “founding of the world” manifestly must refer to the time when the first human pair became parents to children, thereby producing a world of mankind. From this world of mankind Jesus Christ could take away the inherited sin by his sacrificial death as the Lamb of God. (Genesis 4:2-11, 25; Matthew 23:35; Hebrews 11:4; 12:24) So it must have been after Adam and Eve sinned and before children were born to them that God purposed to produce a class of persons, the Bride of Christ, to be heavenly co-rulers with his Son. This was about 4,000 years before Paul wrote his letter to Timothy and so could well be spoken of as being “before times long lasting.”

You say: “How do these verses jive with the idea that God does not know who will be saved? The only way I can reconcile these verses with what you are saying is if the verses are not to be applied individually, i.e. when Paul says "He has chosen us", he doesn't mean "He chose me, and He chose you, and you, and you, ....", but rather that he means He chose the group as a whole, without knowing who would be in that group, and He set them aside for salvation. So before the foundation of the world, God said something like "Alright.... everyone who is going to be saved will be holy and blameless before Me, and they will be saved through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth, and I'm gonna write their names in this book". Would this be a proper interpretation? I'm no Greek scholar, so I don't know if this interpretation would fit in with the original texts.”

I say: Your reconciliation is pretty much ‘right on.’ It might be helpful to you to acquire a Bible version that indicates when second person pronouns are plural; not always but sometimes this helps to recognize when it is a group being referred to or addressed. The pronoun, “you,” in 2Thessolonians 2:13 is plural. Additionally, John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes says: “2Th 2:13 - God hath from the beginning - Of your hearing the gospel. Chosen you to salvation - Taken you out of the world, and placed you in the way to glory.”

And so on and so on with every objection or challenge or puzzlement or “seems to” Scripture each having an explanation supported by Scripture along with understandable reasoning.

I have answered your questions and responded to your requests, will you please now respond to the points I have made and to the questions I have asked and the requests I have made of you?

For example (the following are repeated from above):

You say: “God exists outside of time. His knowledge of what is going to happen is not based on Him being able to tell the future. It is based on the fact that everything that happens, happens for Him in the present. He knows "beforehand" what is going to happen, because it is happening in the present to Him.”

I say: Really! What scripture(s) reveals these astonishing “statements of fact” about God?

Again I repeat what I said before: “For God’s ‘knowing’ to be without possibility of error then what he ‘knows’ must be absolutely correct and that necessarily removes free will, right? Will you please answer this simple yes or no question?

You say: “You seem to be saying that God doesn't know who will accept Him, so that's why He offers it to everyone.”

I say: How else can the love and the invitation be “unconditional?”

You say: “You believe that the call to be saved is unconditional because you understand that the character of God demands that that call be unconditional.”

I say: Absolutely, don’t you?

Will you please answer that for me?

Now referring to paragraphs 11 and 12 in the long post above: If I am wrong and you are right about God’s exercise of foreknowledge, will you please provide me a Scriptural explanation of why he misrepresented the “facts” regarding his coming “to know” things.

Finally, is the following statement true or false?

“If it is unfair for God to predestine Pharaoh or anyone else to an unrighteous course then, by the same standard of fairness, it is also unfair for God to predestine Moses or anyone else to a righteous course! That means that some of the survivors of the Columbine shootings were sadly mistaken when they said, “God has a plan for me.” If God had an individual ‘plan’ for their life then God also had an individual ‘plan’ for Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and God is responsible for imperfection in all its forms!”

[beads]

Sorry to hear about the difficulties life has brought to you recently, Hogcaller. You and your family will be in my prayers.

-----------------------------

Therefore "the founding of the world" need not be taken to mean the beginning of the creation of the material universe, nor does the expression "before the founding of the world" (John 17:5, 24; Ephesians 1:4; 1Peter 1:20) refer to a point of time prior to the creation of the material universe. Rather, these expressions evidently relate to the time when the human race was 'founded' through the first human pair, Adam and Eve, who, outside of Eden, began to conceive seed, founding the world of mankind, that could benefit from God’s provisions for deliverance from inherited sin.

So all that to say that "the foundation of the world" doesn’t mean "some time in eternity past" but rather "a certain point of time at the beginning of human history". I guess I don’t have a problem with that. But it still doesn’t address the fact that God has prepared things for a select group before that group made a decision to accept Him. But that has more to do with my next question - what is meant by "you".

I say: Your reconciliation is pretty much 'right on.' It might be helpful to you to acquire a Bible version that indicates when second person pronouns are plural; not always but sometimes this helps to recognize when it is a group being referred to or addressed. The pronoun, "you," in 2Thessolonians 2:13 is plural. Additionally, John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes says: "2Th 2:13 - God hath from the beginning - Of your hearing the gospel. Chosen you to salvation - Taken you out of the world, and placed you in the way to glory."

But does the plurality of the word "you" in those passages necessarily mean that it should be taken as a generality? If I’m speaking to a group of 12 basketball players, and I say "You are basketball players", can that statement not be applied individually to each of those players. So even though "you" is plural, its implication is singular.

You say: "God exists outside of time. His knowledge of what is going to happen is not based on Him being able to tell the future. It is based on the fact that everything that happens, happens for Him in the present. He knows "beforehand" what is going to happen, because it is happening in the present to Him."

I say: Really! What scripture(s) reveals these astonishing "statements of fact" about God?

Is it not an obvious conclusion? Time is an element of creation. God exists outside of, and is not bound by, His creation. Therefore God exist outside of time, and He is not bound by it. How else could He "know the end from the beginning"?

Again I repeat what I said before: For God’s 'knowing' to be without possibility of error then what he 'knows' must be absolutely correct and that necessarily removes free will, right? Will you please answer this simple yes or no question?

No. God knowing what you will choose does not mean that He has removed all options for you to choose from. From your perspective, do you not still have the same options whenever you make a choice to do something?

Here’s an analogy: It’s a sweltering summer day, and you have to drive across town to pick something up. You have 4 choices: ride with the windows down and not use the A/C, ride with the windows down and use the A/C, ride with the windows up and not use the A/C, or ride with the windows up and use the A/C. Two of your choices are silly, but they are available options to you nonetheless. You choose to ride with the windows up and use the A/C. God knew that you would choose that option. Does that mean that the other 3 options were not available to you? Did you not still have to make a choice? Of course you did. Just because God knows what you will choose, it does not mean that you do not have the free will to make a choice. It just means that, whatever you choose, God already knew that that was what you would pick.

I say: How else can the love and the invitation be "unconditional?"

It is unconditional because He has given the option of salvation to everyone. Regardless of who He knows will take that offer, He has still made it a choice for everyone.

You say: "You believe that the call to be saved is unconditional because you understand that the character of God demands that that call be unconditional."

I say: Absolutely, don’t you?

Will you please answer that for me?

Yes, I do. Our only difference is that I believe God can know ahead of time who will accept Him, but that that doesn’t change the fact that we are all responsible to make the right choice.

Now referring to paragraphs 11 and 12 in the long post above: If I am wrong and you are right about God’s exercise of foreknowledge, will you please provide me a Scriptural explanation of why he misrepresented the "facts" regarding his coming "to know" things.

Perhaps it was to put it in terms that man could understand. If God came down and said "I know that in the future, you will sin against me", and then He proceeded to destroy everybody, would that not confirm your thought that an all-knowing God necessitates the removal of free will? But since God put it in such terms, it still seems to us, from our perspective, that our freedom to make choices has resulted in the consequences that follow.

For Abraham, it was a test of his faith. Sure, God knew He would pass, but if He didn’t test him, would that not have undermined the concept of free will. God worded these things the way He did, so that we would know that it is our choices that bring the consequences, not that the consequences are a result of what God has already predetermined.

Finally, is the following statement true or false?

"If it is unfair for God to predestine Pharaoh or anyone else to an unrighteous course then, by the same standard of fairness, it is also unfair for God to predestine Moses or anyone else to a righteous course! That means that some of the survivors of the Columbine shootings were sadly mistaken when they said, 'God has a plan for me.'..."

I respond with the following passage:

Romans 9:20-22
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Who are we to say what’s fair or unfair. Doesn’t God have the right to do with us whatever He wants?

"... If God had an individual 'plan' for their life then God also had an individual ‘plan’ for Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and God is responsible for imperfection in all its forms!"

I must watch my step here as I say this, but here goes: Of course God is responsible for imperfection in all its forms. Before you call me a heretic, think about it (and don’t use the old "God is not the author of evil" verse on me – believe me I know that one, and I thought long and hard about it before saying this). Is God not the Creator? Is there anything in all of creation that exists that was not made by God? Does this not include Satan, the father of evil? So if God created Satan, then is He not the creator of the father of evil? I did not say He is the father of evil, or the creator of evil, but He is the creator of the father of evil. All evil/sin in the world is a direct result of the sin of Satan, right? And Satan’s existence is a direct result of God’s creation, right? Do you follow me? I feel like a heretic even saying it, but since sin would not have existed without a creative act by God, then it is correct to say He is ultimately responsible for it. This thought is further solidified in my mind when you consider that the one who is responsible for sin must be the one to deal with it. And God will deal with it at the end when He throws sin and death and hell into the lake of fire.

God creating angels and man with the ability to sin is not a breach of His “not the author of evil” statement, so I think I’m OK in saying what I’ve said. In fact, if God did not give us the ability to chose right or wrong, then what would have been the point of creation? He created us to glorify Himself, and He is most glorified when we make the choice to do right and serve Him. There’s no glory in it if we are doing the only thing we know how to do. So in order for God to get the most glory, He had to give us the ability to sin.

[HOGCALLER]

beads,
Thank you. Your kind thoughts and prayers are appreciated. Again, thank you very much.


beads, from personal experience I know how hard it can be to unlearn something and to change one’s thinking and especially one’s heart. Therefore let me express my appreciation for and applaud your efforts up to this point; however, based on your statements and questions, it appears you yet cling to your old and acknowledged to be untenable positions. Even though you once stated, “I do not believe I can refute it,” you now seem bent on doing exactly that. May I respectfully ask, “Why?” What is really going on here? Have I missed something? Or is it you missing something?

You once said: “From I hear you saying, you believe that God does not know everything. I would certainly like to see the Scriptural evidence for that.”

I say: I have provided “the Scriptural evidence” that directly contradicts your claim that God foreknows everything and yet you refuse to believe it and instead have chosen to ignore it. Do you see the problem with your reaction to “the Scriptural evidence for that?” Even in your latest post you again demonstrate the same tendency to disregard what the Bible very plainly says in favor of your own ideas that are in direct contradiction to very plain statements made by God.

You say: “don’t use the old "God is not the author of evil" verse on me”

I say: It seems that you are saying, “Don’t quote Scripture to me, I don’t want to hear it.” How can I prove to you what the Bible actually says about God when you refuse to “hear” and believe it? beads, unless something changes, I do not see any place to go from here and that truly saddens me.


.

[beads]

Even though you once stated, “I do not believe I can refute it,” you now seem bent on doing exactly that. May I respectfully ask, “Why?” What is really going on here? Have I missed something? Or is it you missing something?

This was obviously a poor choice of words on my part. The point I was trying to make was that you make 2 or 3 very long posts in a row, and for me to try to refute it point by point would make for practically unreadable posts. However, since you seem to want a point-by-point rebuttal, I will see what I can do about taking the time to do that. I'll try to have that done soon, but you'll have to forgive me if it takes a while.

In the mean time, I'll make a few more comments on your most recent post.

I say: I have provided “the Scriptural evidence” that directly contradicts your claim that God foreknows everything and yet you refuse to believe it and instead have chosen to ignore it. Do you see the problem with your reaction to “the Scriptural evidence for that?” Even in your latest post you again demonstrate the same tendency to disregard what the Bible very plainly says in favor of your own ideas that are in direct contradiction to very plain statements made by God.

Again, I'll get back to you with a rebuttal to your "Scriptural evidence".

It seems that you are saying, “Don’t quote Scripture to me, I don’t want to hear it.”

To me the key words in the above statement are "seems that". (is there an echo in here?) The fact is that I did not actually say what you are acusing me of saying. It "seems that" because you apparently failed to read the rest of my post.

If you had read the remainder of those paragraphs, you might have realized that the reason I asked you not to use that verse is because it is not applicable because I did not ever claim that God is the author of evil. I stated that God is the Creator of the author of evil. These are two vastly different statements. Go back and read those paragraphs, this time without your preconceived notion that I want nothing to do with the Bible.

[HOGCALLER]

beads,

You said: “Of course God is responsible for imperfection in all its forms. . . . Is God not the Creator? Is there anything in all of creation that exists that was not made by God? Does this not include Satan, the father of evil? So if God created Satan, then is He not the creator of the father of evil? . . . since sin would not have existed without a creative act by God, then it is correct to say He is ultimately responsible for it.”

I say: How can those statements mean anything else but that you believe God KNOWINGLY, AND THAT MEANS DELIBERATELY, AUTHORED EVIL by creating Satan? Then you turn around and say “don’t use the old "God is not the author of evil" verse on me.” Apparently you know of a scripture that says, "God is not the author of evil" that you don’t want me to discuss or “use.” To me it certainly sounds like you are saying, “Do not quote or discuss or mention or use or whatever that scripture.” If you are not saying “Don’t quote Scripture to me, I don’t want to hear it,” then what are you saying? Do you know? Based on what you have said I certainly do not!

As I have already pointed out, you are missing the point. Your mistaken concept of or beliefs about what God actually DOES DO is forcing you into the above example of double talk. Either God IS NOT the “author of evil” or he IS; which is it? If “God is responsible for imperfection in all its forms” and “is ultimately responsible for it” then he is the “author of evil.” If the scripture is true and God is not the author of evil then he could not have knowingly, deliberately caused or created imperfection and sin and is not responsible for it. It cannot be both even though you certainly seem to be claiming so! So which is true, the scripture or your claim?

You are very much mistaken when you claim that God “created” Satan! Jesus helps us to understand the actual situation at John 8:44 where he explains that Satan was once in the truth, but forsook it. By abandoning the truth and causing the death of his younger siblings that once faithful spirit person began (Greek arche = the active cause, per Vine and others) or caused himself to become a slanderous (Devil) resister (Satan) of God and mankind.

So, from a righteous, perfect start, this spirit person exercised his free will and deviated into sin and degradation. The process bringing this about is described by James when he writes: “Each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn, sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth death.” (James 1:14, 15) In the course that Satan took, there seems to be, in some respects, a parallel with that of the king of Tyre as described in Ezekiel 28:11-19. Also compare Isaiah 14:12-14.

Unless you have the ability to read hearts and minds you should be careful about attributing motives, such as claiming my misunderstanding is a “preconceived notion.” If I have a mistaken “notion” about what you are saying it is based on your confusing and contradictory statements and not on some preconception and all you need do is point out where you did not say what it seems to me you said. I have no problem pointing out the flaws in your arguments, claims, and statements and the fact that you have completely missed the point. I am sorry that my doing so apparently makes you feel personally attacked.


.

[burwelm]

John 3:16 is an open invitation to everyone but not everyone is open to it. Maybe one day everyone will be open to it. Only God knows people's hearts, though. But, God is not willing that any should perrish. The person must chose to listen to God before God can soften their heart. Both God and the person must be willing at the same time and meet up by the person listening to the words of God and wanting to understand them. For salvation to occur, there must be mutual feelings concerning both parties. God is already open to the person, but the person must open up to God. Otherwise it is impossible for the person to know God. Salvation is a relationship with God. It is about knowing God. God has chosen to give people free will and so that means that God cannot save a person through force, which would be spiritual rape. To have a relationship with God, therefore the person must make a conscious effort to try to know God. A person must WANT to know God and through faith communicate with Him. The person must choose to try and communicate with God before the person will be able to begin the personal relationship with God and know god on the intimate level of salvation. Salvation is about spiritual intimacy with God and confiding in God and trusting Him and loving Him because of His love for the person him/herself.

[HOGCALLER]

burwelm,

Thank you for your “two cents,” it is certainly welcome. However you still have not answered my questions asked after your previous post in this thread. Perhaps this time you will reply to those questions as well as to the questions below.

You say: “Maybe one day everyone will be open to it.”

Consider this: If that is a true statement then how can Jesus’ words found at Matthew 7:13-14 (13 “Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it.”) be true?

You say: “The person must chose to listen to God before God can soften their heart.”

Consider this: The above statement is not correct. Yes a person must “[choose] to listen to God” but it is the individual, not God or Satan, that does the ‘softening or hardening’ of one’s own heart; otherwise and the responsibility is removed from the individual. That would allow him to rightly claim before God’s judge: “It is not my fault! Softening of my heart was not done for me!” Or, “It is not my fault! Hardening of my heart was done to me!”

Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but is it not the case that healthy relationships are built only when there is good two-way communication. So please tell me how is it that God speaks to me, you, and everyone else; tell us please, to what do you “listen”?

You say: “Salvation is a relationship with God. It is about knowing God.”

Consider this: Satan has a relationship with God. The demons know God and his son. While those things are involved obviously neither is the key or main factor, so what is? How is it that one avoids being in the group that Jesus addresses at Matthew 7:21-23? Those ones certainly seem to “think” they are “saved” but according to Jesus they are not. According to Jesus’ words what were those ones missing? It can be answered in one word. (Hint: Satan, the demons, Adam and Eve, all those ones _______ God and lost/lose his favor as a result. The opposite of what they did/do is the main or key factor to having God’s favor.)

You say: “To have a relationship with God, therefore the person must make a conscious effort to try to know God.”

Consider this: That statement is true as far as it goes but something more is needed for you are still missing the main factor. Let me ask you, are you saying those ones Jesus speaks to at Matthew 7:21-23 do not “make a conscious effort to try to know God” and that is why he rejects them? What’s the real deal Lucille?

What kind of “knowledge” of God is required? Please read this post: http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic.php?p=58950&highlight=#58950

.

[burwelm]

1 Timothy 2:3-6 says- "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; Who WILL HAVE ALL MEN TO BE SAVED, AND TO COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for ALL, to be testified in due time."

Jesus is going to make sure that everyone eventually understands the truth. When a person finally understand's the truth they will choose to be saved. The invitation is open to all. It is not understood by all but all eventually will understand.

This is what God says to me through the Bible. He may say something different to you. I know there are plenty of things I don't understand in the Bible but this is one concept that I believe that I do understand.

[HOGCALLER]

burwelm,

My use of the word “all” in the question used to introduce the subject of this thread seems to be the connector you have seized on in your effort to introduce a new subject. In saying that I am not being accusatory because I would like to have a discussion of your contention that “all” will be saved (sometimes called “universal salvation”) and it does seem to be a natural extension of this subject yet at the same time it is a big stretch for the subject under discussion in this thread. So even though I look forward to having a discussion with you about that subject let me please ask you not to change the subject of this thread. If you in fact do not want to join into the discussion of this subject and only want to have a discussion about that subject then please join this new thread: http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic.php?t=7142


.