Predestination Makes Void Personal Responsibility

[Atwood]

Koine Greek, not Hebrew.
Proginosko
Pro - before
Ginosko - know
Strong's Greek: 1097. γινώσκω (ginóskó) -- to come to know, recognize, perceive
( use the link, and check it's usages)
It is intimate, not simply foresight.
I'm not interpreting allegory. Words have definitions and connotations.

Greetings Ukorin,

I didn't say you were allegorizing. My comment was keyed off my own experience of having heard foreknow explained from Amos (Hebrew) where Israel was "known" by God. In Amos the connotation is not sexual, which is probably why Amos was used as the example.

In Mat the verb is used for carnal knowledge: " did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS."


My question is whether or not it is legitimate to try to define "foreknowledge" from the figurative (not allegorical) meaning of know. And my illustration is the comparison of trying to define understand from figurative use of "stand."

So the challenge is to find instances where "foreknow" or "foreknowledge" (progi(g)nosko) mean anything besides objective knowledge in advance. If it implies intimacy, don't you need some proof of that, proof not from gi(g)nosko, but from progi(g)nosko?

BTW, I don't have a dogmatic answer in mind nor a theological axe to grind on this one.

 

[Ukorin]

Greetings Ukorin,

I didn't say you were allegorizing. My comment was keyed off my own experience of having heard foreknow explained from Amos (Hebrew) where Israel was "known" by God. In Amos the connotation is not sexual, which is probably why Amos was used as the example.

In Mat the verb is used for carnal knowledge: " did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS."


My question is whether or not it is legitimate to try to define "foreknowledge" from the figurative (not allegorical) meaning of know. And my illustration is the comparison of trying to define understand from figurative use of "stand."

So the challenge is to find instances where "foreknow" or "foreknowledge" (progi(g)nosko) mean anything besides objective knowledge in advance. If it implies intimacy, don't you need some proof of that, proof not from gi(g)nosko, but from progi(g)nosko?

BTW, I don't have a dogmatic answer in mind nor a theological axe to grind on this one.

It has 7 passages where it is used. 5 regard predestination and election. 1 is used as knowing a person directly. 1 is used as receiving previous knowledge of a situation.

Other that the connotation given by the root gnosis/ginosko, there isn't quite enough to go on by itself.
Still, even considering the word used, and it's cross references to being "known before I formed you in the womb", and how the surrounding topic often brings up how we have become sons (Romans 8:29, Eph. 1:4-5), and that ginosko comes up in several election/chosen passages, I stand by the term being intended as relational.

Foresight would make man sovereign. Foreknowledge makes God Sovereign, and loving.

You may not have an axe to grind, but you are sure sharpening some iron here. I thank you for the comments, and appreciate your helpful insightfulness.
*last phrase is a mouth-full*

 

[tribesman]

Originally Posted by p_rehbein

...If one is predestined from the beginning to either eternal life or eternal damnation........then personal responsibility can not be a factor to be judged........after all, for what reason would man have to "give account?"

TRIBESMAN: Noone has a responsibility to contribute to their own salvation, in any way shape or form. It is not God's fault that anyone gets damned in the end, it is the fault of the unbeliever. God is not to be blamed for that. But God alone is to be thanked for each and every sinner He saves out of His tender love and mercies, through His beloved Son Jesus Christ, Amen.

Your comment is self-contradictory.....................IF God predestined a person to eternal damnation, then how exactly is it not God's fault/choice? If a person HAS NO CHOICE in believing in and accepting Jesus Christ, but MUST count on being LUCKY enough to be one of the ones predestined to eternal life, the how is that not God's fault/choice?

Yes, we should sing God's praises from the highest mountains for His loving Grace................but that doesn't have anything to do with the discussion of predestination..............

You assume that belief in predestination, which is clearly biblical, must by necessity mean belief in double predestination, i.e. some are not only predestined for salvation but some are also predestined to damnation. Why so? And even if there should be something, somehow, as men could call predestination for damnation, then how can God be blamed for that? Does God owe any man anything? Is there something in fallen man that is any reason for God to save him at all? Belief to salvation is not a lucky strike...it is simply trusting in what God has done for us through His Son, Jesus Christ. A faith that comes not from our selves. Neither depends upon us.

 

[p_rehbein]

TO TRIBESMAN:

I'm not "assuming" anything. You are aware that we are discussing the teachings of Calvin? You are aware of what Calvin taught concerning predestination? You seem to have entered late into the discussion and are not fully aware of the various theologies being discussed..........just saying.......Now, target me if you wish, but please do so in context with the discussion, and not with your misunderstandings please? Thanks.......

And, again, your comments are self-contradictory: YOU SAID:

And even if there should be something, somehow, as men could call predestination for damnation, then how can God be blamed for that? Does God owe any man anything? Is there something in fallen man that is any reason for God to save him at all? Belief to salvation is not a lucky strike...it is simply trusting in what God has done for us through His Son, Jesus Christ. A faith that comes not from our selves. Neither depends upon us.

All I can take from this is that you do not fully understand the teachings of John Calvin.........or the full implications of his Predestination Theology.

 

[p_rehbein]

QUOTE FROM CROSS..........NOTE

So God is passive in His foreknowledge, i.e. simply a 'knower beforehand'? Then after he has foreseen what we would do, He goes to town predestinating??

END QUOTE......

(pot stirring are we? )

 

[Skinski7]

A Calvinist has to through reason out the window.

On the one hand they teach that men are born Totally Depraved and thus sin by necessity because it is the very nature of man (ie. thus men choose to sin by necessity). Yet at the same time they will claim it is the fault of men for rejecting God.

Basically peel all their rhetorical fluff away and they believe and teach that human beings are born "sin robots" which are programmed to sin. Thus the "sin robot" is simply doing what is natural. God then apparently chooses some of these sin robots and reprograms the selected few in order to demonstrate His glory and leaves the rest, which were not selected, to follow their internal program to their doom.

Really? Can someone actually be so stupid to believe such logic? Yes they can.

Not only do they believe that God reprograms some of the "sin robots" but they also believe that the new program is not really complete and that the "sin robots" still follow their old program. Thus they teach that God sent a "perfect robot" named Jesus, who was not programmed to sin, and that when God looks at His selected "sin robots" he pretends that they are the "perfect robot."

Really? Well if one can convince themselves of nonsense in one area then I suppose one can easily convince themselves of nonsense in another.

How do they prove this nonsense? Well they simply snip verses out of their context in the Bible and ignore the information that surrounds those snippets. They even go to special schools and get brainwashed with this snippet premised nonsense and after having invested so much of their time into it find themselves emotionally attached. Therefore when presented with the sheer lunacy of what they believe they will simply ignore the obvious and divert the subject to something else.

This is why you can ask any Calvinist about genuine heart purity in salvation and they cannot directly address the subject. Their theology is totally opposed to the heart of a man actually being transformed from that of a self seeking sinner to a benevolent lover of their neighbour. Such a thing is impossible in their mind because they believe that somehow being in a flesh body necessitates inward depravity.

Their whole Gospel message is thus a cloak for ongoing inward depravity. They have the obedience track record of Jesus transferred to the believer (who is manifestly still depraved) whereby God pretends that they are no longer depraved. God forbid anyone teach that a manifest transformation of the heart actually take place whereby a Saint is not depraved, they'll attribute such a teaching to Satan. They call good evil and evil good. Everything has been turned upon its head.

 

[Skinski7]

You assume that belief in predestination, which is clearly biblical, must by necessity mean belief in double predestination, i.e. some are not only predestined for salvation but some are also predestined to damnation. Why so? And even if there should be something, somehow, as men could call predestination for damnation, then how can God be blamed for that? Does God owe any man anything? Is there something in fallen man that is any reason for God to save him at all? Belief to salvation is not a lucky strike...it is simply trusting in what God has done for us through His Son, Jesus Christ. A faith that comes not from our selves. Neither depends upon us.

Look at this nonsense quoted above.

Did Noah have to build the Ark?

The faith of Noah is used as an example of faith in the Book of Hebrews. The Calvinist above would have to believe that it was God who "made" Noah build the Ark and that building the Ark didn't depend on Noah at all. He would believe that Noah was born a "sin robot" and could do nothing except sin but then for some reason God reprogrammed Noah to be an "Ark Building Robot" and therefore Noah was just following the new internal program. Free will is thrown out the window with these people.

If human being do not have a free and independent will whereby they can exercise free moral agency (either do that which is right or do that which is evil) then human beings are not responsible for their sin. The Predestination teaching of the Calvinists does indeed throw all human responsibility out the window because it utterly denies "human ability to obey God" (ie. humans are Sin Robots or using the theological term, humans are Totally Depraved).

Again look at the above quotes post...

"Is there something in fallen man that is any reason for God to save him..." What does this guy mean by "fallen man"? Well he is referring to man being "born a sin robot." Thus he believes that God looks at the "sin robots" and sees no good in them and that there is no moral requirement for God to reprogram an already doomed "sin robot." How can God be blamed for that he asks? Well the "sin robot" cannot be blamed anymore than a blind baby be blamed for their blindness or a Caucasian be blamed for the pigmentation in their skin.

What's this guys solution to the "sin robot" problem? Just "trust in Jesus" by which he means that magic transfer of righteousness. The magic transfer where God pretends that still totally depraved individual is actually righteous. I mean honestly ask yourself if that is the best God can do in salvation? God's solution to sin is to put on Jesus glasses and pretend an ugly sinner looks like Jesus. This stuff is blasphemy and an utter mockery of the real truths found in Scripture.

Jesus came to set people free from ALL INIQUITY and to MAKE THEM PURE whereby they would be ZEALOUS DOERS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. How does God do that? Through the Spirit of life IN Jesus Christ whereby we become partakers in the very nature of Jesus Christ having forsaken our old self serving nature in a genuine repentance. We die WITH Christ and are raised WITH Christ to newness of life and we therefore abide by FAITH in His Spirit. God then reckons our faith (yielding to God from the heart) as righteousness. There is no magic transfer, there is no pretense. There is a REAL MANIFEST TRANSFORMATION out of which flows outward virtue.

God offers sinners a fresh start if they repent and forsake their rebellion and yield to His instruction. His instruction flows through His Spirit. We no longer belong to ourselves but instead belong to Jesus Christ whereby we are servants of righteousness. We have been purified inwardly and are thus able to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ whereby we learn more and more how to work righteousness. The rebellion to God has ceased permanently. This is not what many believe today unfortunately.

 

[Grandpa]

Look at this nonsense quoted above.

Did Noah have to build the Ark?

The faith of Noah is used as an example of faith in the Book of Hebrews. The Calvinist above would have to believe that it was God who "made" Noah build the Ark and that building the Ark didn't depend on Noah at all. He would believe that Noah was born a "sin robot" and could do nothing except sin but then for some reason God reprogrammed Noah to be an "Ark Building Robot" and therefore Noah was just following the new internal program. Free will is thrown out the window with these people.

If human being do not have a free and independent will whereby they can exercise free moral agency (either do that which is right or do that which is evil) then human beings are not responsible for their sin. The Predestination teaching of the Calvinists does indeed throw all human responsibility out the window because it utterly denies "human ability to obey God" (ie. humans are Sin Robots or using the theological term, humans are Totally Depraved).

Again look at the above quotes post...

"Is there something in fallen man that is any reason for God to save him..." What does this guy mean by "fallen man"? Well he is referring to man being "born a sin robot." Thus he believes that God looks at the "sin robots" and sees no good in them and that there is no moral requirement for God to reprogram an already doomed "sin robot." How can God be blamed for that he asks? Well the "sin robot" cannot be blamed anymore than a blind baby be blamed for their blindness or a Caucasian be blamed for the pigmentation in their skin.

What's this guys solution to the "sin robot" problem? Just "trust in Jesus" by which he means that magic transfer of righteousness. The magic transfer where God pretends that still totally depraved individual is actually righteous. I mean honestly ask yourself if that is the best God can do in salvation? God's solution to sin is to put on Jesus glasses and pretend an ugly sinner looks like Jesus. This stuff is blasphemy and an utter mockery of the real truths found in Scripture.

Jesus came to set people free from ALL INIQUITY and to MAKE THEM PURE whereby they would be ZEALOUS DOERS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. How does God do that? Through the Spirit of life IN Jesus Christ whereby we become partakers in the very nature of Jesus Christ having forsaken our old self serving nature in a genuine repentance. We die WITH Christ and are raised WITH Christ to newness of life and we therefore abide by FAITH in His Spirit. God then reckons our faith (yielding to God from the heart) as righteousness. There is no magic transfer, there is no pretense. There is a REAL MANIFEST TRANSFORMATION out of which flows outward virtue.

God offers sinners a fresh start if they repent and forsake their rebellion and yield to His instruction. His instruction flows through His Spirit. We no longer belong to ourselves but instead belong to Jesus Christ whereby we are servants of righteousness. We have been purified inwardly and are thus able to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ whereby we learn more and more how to work righteousness. The rebellion to God has ceased permanently. This is not what many believe today unfortunately.

You have it all wrong.

Before knowing the Lord, men have the absolute free-will to choose any sin they desire. They have the free-will to choose how dastardly and evil that sin will be.

They just have no choice towards cleansing their own self of this sin. Only those who come to the Lord Jesus Christ are cleansed. And only those who are drawn of God come to the Lord.

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.

Its in the bible. The words of the Lord Jesus Christ.

John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

I will have to take the word of the Lord Jesus above all others. Even if it means no one (hardly) understands it.

 

[Atwood]

It has 7 passages where it is used. 5 regard predestination and election. 1 is used as knowing a person directly. 1 is used as receiving previous knowledge of a situation.

You have one where it is not knowing something (factual) in advance?

Other that the connotation given by the root gnosis/ginosko, there isn't quite enough to go on by itself.

[/quote]Foresight would make man sovereign. Foreknowledge makes God Sovereign, and loving.[/quote]

I am not sure that God's sovereignty and man's ability to make real choices are mutually exclusive truths (assuming both are true).

Here is an interesting article; I post the link:

http://chafer.nextmeta.com/files/v9n1_3the_meaning_of_proginwskw.pdf

 

[tribesman]

TO TRIBESMAN:

I'm not "assuming" anything. You are aware that we are discussing the teachings of Calvin? You are aware of what Calvin taught concerning predestination?

Yes, I know very well what Calvin taught on predestination and its implications. Thing is I do not in all follow 100% what Calvin taught on same. I do admit I find the concept of predestination to damnation or the decretum horribile as something (to say the least) not easy to grasp or either accept nor reject...I guess I am more lutheran in my view of predestination...whose position sometimes is called single predestination. I would focus on the core biblical teaching on the issue, which basically teaches that indeed God predestines some to salvation...as for those not elected for same I am with scripture silent as to whether God is active or passive in His "passing by" of the lost.

You seem to have entered late into the discussion and are not fully aware of the various theologies being discussed..........just saying.......Now, target me if you wish, but please do so in context with the discussion, and not with your misunderstandings please? Thanks.......

Late or not...my posts are on topic but I have not yet read all your posts in this thread...will do now...but I spontaneously wondered if you are aware that there are more views positive on predestination than what Calvin taught.

And, again, your comments are self-contradictory: YOU SAID:

And even if there should be something, somehow, as men could call predestination for damnation, then how can God be blamed for that? Does God owe any man anything? Is there something in fallen man that is any reason for God to save him at all? Belief to salvation is not a lucky strike...it is simply trusting in what God has done for us through His Son, Jesus Christ. A faith that comes not from our selves. Neither depends upon us.

All I can take from this is that you do not fully understand the teachings of John Calvin.........or the full implications of his Predestination Theology.

Because I am of the reformed conviction...I must personally agree 100% with all things in all writings of Calvin? Or are you another non-calvinist who knows more about calvinism than calvinists themselves? They are many such on these boards.

 

[Atwood]

A Calvinist has to

Skinski,
One thing that a Calvinist has to do is to study all the relevant scripture, analyze & synthesize.
Look back at your long post & note that you quote not one verse.

The entrance of God's Word brings light.

 

[Atwood]

Yes, I know very well what Calvin taught

I think you may realize, as I do, O Tribesman, that this thread is supposed to be about Predestination and personal responsibility, not an exercise in Church History and the biography of Calvin.

 

[Atwood]

Both Predestination & Personal Responsibility Are in Bible

For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

If one is predestined from the beginning to either eternal life or eternal damnation........then personal responsibility can not be a factor to be judged........after all, for what reason would man have to "give account?"

RehBein,

First you quote scripture indicating that man is responsible for his sins. But then you add your own comment for which you have no scripture for proof. Where does scripture say that predestination makes void responsibility?

Your Thread is entitled:

"Predestination Makes Void Personal Responsibility"

How can that be, since both are taught in the Bible? Do you deny that Predestination is taught in the Bible? (Rom 8, etc.)

I myself don't see that predestination and personal responsibility are mutually exclusive concepts. I can't think of any verse that excuses man of sin because of predestination. Both predestination and condemnation of man for his works are in the Bible.

Can you prove that both doctrines are not found in scripture?
Can you prove that they are mutually inconsistent?

Perhaps you should merely confess that you don't understand how they can both be true.

 

[tribesman]

I think you may realize, as I do, O Tribesman, that this thread is supposed to be about Predestination and personal responsibility, not an exercise in Church History and the biography of Calvin.

That's what I realize. My first posts had not a word about Calvin. I was asked and answered. Maybe you read post #64 and understand my quoted reply from there.

 

[Atwood]

TO TRIBESMAN:

I'm not "assuming" anything. You are aware that we are discussing the teachings of Calvin?

The thread is not devoted to a study of Calvin. If this is a Bible Forum, I suggest that we look at scripture. It is amazing to me how some people seem to think that they prove something by repeating Calvin Calvin Calvin Calvin like a mantra.

Astound us by showing that the Bible does not teach one of the alternatives:
1) human responsibility, 2) predestination.

Or astound us by showing how the Bible denies that they can both be true.

 

[crossnote]

QUOTE FROM CROSS..........NOTE

So God is passive in His foreknowledge, i.e. simply a 'knower beforehand'? Then after he has foreseen what we would do, He goes to town predestinating??

END QUOTE......

(pot stirring are we? )

nope it is a bona fide question.
If God merely is a fore 'seer' when it comes to choosing Christ, then swings into action and starts predestininating...how does that work?
'He predestines according to His foreknowledge...''. Does He rewind the script and predestines? LOL

 

[tribesman]

nope it is a bona fide question.
If God merely is a fore 'seer' when it comes to choosing Christ, then swings into action and starts predestininating...how does that work?
'He predestines according to His foreknowledge...''. Does He rewind the script and predestines? LOL

The problem with the "God looked down through the corridors of time..." thingy is that God is not really all-knowing...He has must learn something. Well, that's not the God as portrayed in the Bible.

 

[p_rehbein]

QUOTED:

nope it is a bona fide question.
If God merely is a fore 'seer' when it comes to choosing Christ, then swings into action and starts predestininating...how does that work?
'He predestines according to His foreknowledge...''. Does He rewind the script and predestines?

END QUOTED........

I have no choice but to believe that you are pot stirring if you continue to post comments/answers that are "moot" at best, and/or a misrepresentation of others comments (uh, like, mine) at worst.............

Romans 8:24) For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
25 .) But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
26 .) Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
27 .) And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
28 .) And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 .) For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 .) Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
(excerpt from Article)
"The word 'world' is from the Greek kosmos, an orderly system, hence age, or dispensation. Thus, Christ, as a lamb, was foreknown as such from before the beginning of the age or dispensation. What age? Creation, so some expositors affirm, thus projecting the time when Christ was ordained as a sacrifice into the period before creation of the universe. Though such a view is widely held, and many eminent commentators may be cited in support, the difficulties associated with it are, to this writer, insuperable. It is impossible to distinguish between the foreknowledge of God with reference to such a plan of redemption and the will that originated it. The two are in the nature of the case inseparable. To project a plan of redemption into the period prior to the fall of man raises immediately and inevitably the question of the free agency of Adam and Eve.
If God had already devised a plan for the redemption of man from a sin which was certain to be committed, how could Adam and Eve avoided its commission? If Christ was a lamb for expiation of sin from before creation, how could the transgression have been other than inevitable since not only it, but the consequences therefore had been provided for in the councils of eternity. Since, in such a view of the case, our first parents were but passive actors in a drama written and stereotyped before they had existence, ought they not to be commended for obedience in dutifully furthering a plan ordained for them in eternity and which they could not possibly have altered without falsifying God's foreknowledge? Should they not, we repeat, be commended for obedience, rather than condemned for disobedience? Such must, in consequence, follow, if the popular view be true. The difficulties it entails are insurmountable" (A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles

FOUND HERE:
1. www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR231.htmCached
The Foreknowledge of God . One expression involved in a serious study of the foreknowledge of God is, "from" or "before the foundation of the world."

 

[p_rehbein]

I tell ya, that Paul was something wasn't he..............goodness................See, he knew the truth all along, that God had FROM THE BEGINNING predestined everything...........but he was in a fix, as he had been charged to Preach the Gospel to the Gentiles.

So, what was he to do? He couldn't just come out and speak the truth.........you know........like this.......

"Hey guys, this is Paul, an Apostle of Christ, and I want to let you know how things really are. See, from the beginning, God predestined you guys over there to eternal life, and, well, I'm sorry, because I know it doesn't seem quite fair, but you guys over here have been predestined to eternal damnation......"

Paul knew that wouldn't be received well.......especially by those who were chosen to eternal damnation, so his dilemma was "what do I Preach?" After all, who would "rejoice" in the Good News? Who would praise and worship God once they found out they were predestined to eternal damnation?

Finally, I suppose, he just started trying to make people "believe" that they actually had "hope." And he began to preach stuff like this:

1st Timothy 2:1) 1 .) I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
2 .) For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3 .) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 .) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

What else could he do?

 

[Atwood]

I tell ya, that Paul was something wasn't he..............goodness................See, he knew the truth all along, that God had FROM THE BEGINNING predestined everything...........but he was in a fix, as he had been charged to Preach the Gospel to the Gentiles.

RehBein:

How does it put Paul in a fix? If he knew that some were predestined for salvation, why would that not encourage him to preach the Gospel, realizing that he was going to be successful? And if he believed in predestination, would he not also consider that God ordained the means (Paul's preaching) as well as the end?

I don't see how anyone who reads the Bible could deny either human responsibility or God's predestination. One might affirm that we don't quite understand how God runs the universe and the course of the ages -- no more than my dogs understand 1 percent of what I do. But they do appreciate me.

As touching the gospel, they are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sake. For the gifts and the calling of God are not repented of. For as ye in time past were disobedient to God, but now have obtained mercy by their disobedience, even so have these also now been disobedient, that by the mercy shown to you they also may now obtain mercy. For God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all.


O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and unto him, are all things. To him be the glory for ever. Amen.