Elect according to the foreknowledge of God. 1 Peter 1:2

[throughfaith]

You are correct, for If we were not adopted, why does the Spirit give us utterance to cry ABBA, Father.

Yet, There is also a sense in which the adoption is declared at our resurrection, but yet we are already sons of God. Just as Jesus was God’s Son and yet was declared to be the Son of God in the Resurrection.

( of course, it’s different because Jesus is not adopted, but is Son by nature not adoption)

Yet He was powerfully demonstrated to be the one and only UNiQUE SON by the resurrection. It did not then become fact, it was powerfully declared to be fact with the biggest exclaimation point ever written.

And as adopted sons of God, we have the hope of resurrection, which is the manifestation of the sons of God.

As it is written in Romans, we ourselves groan waiting for the adoption, to wit the redemption of the body.

So we are already sons of God (1John 3:1), but there is a greater realization of that fact in the resurrection of our bodies, when we will bear and wear the image of the heavenly?

Adoption is the future redemption of the body, not conversion. (Rom. 8:23, 15-17; Gal. 4:1-6)

Sinners become sons of God through the new birth, not through adoption. (John 1:12-13)

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You are correct, for If we were not adopted, why does the Spirit give us utterance to cry ABBA, Father.

Yet, There is also a sense in which the adoption is declared at our resurrection, but yet we are already sons of God. Just as Jesus was God’s Son and yet was declared to be the Son of God in the Resurrection. (Romans 1:4) ( of course, it’s different because Jesus is not adopted, but is Son by nature not adoption)

Yet He was powerfully demonstrated to be the one and only UNiQUE SON by the resurrection. It did not then become fact, it was powerfully declared to be fact with the biggest exclaimation point ever written.

And as adopted sons of God, we have the hope of resurrection, which is the manifestation of the sons of God.

As it is written in Romans, we ourselves groan waiting for the adoption, to wit the redemption of the body.

So we are already sons of God (1John 3:1), but there is a greater realization of that fact in the resurrection of our bodies, when we will bear and wear the image of the heavenly?

Amen it is pet if our security in Christ. If we are not adopted. We really have no security

 

[OIC1965]

I definitely do not commit to Calvinism per se.
onergism.......certainly as far as creation goes what other options are available?

Well, actually there is component here in the term foreknowledge, and that component is the human relational element.

Ultimately God is endeavoring to rebuild a shattered relationship. In light of that perspective mere facts become mere trivia.

I freely admit big gaps in my knowledge in these things. Therefore, there are many things l I neither condemn nor affirm, but am waiting for additional light on them from God.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I think that is what Galations
Gal4.9 is personal/ intimate ' known ' . Which is only when a person becomes in Christ.

Yep

And why are we personally known?

Because we are now sons of god.

The problem I think we have is trying to use our human terms to explain God.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Adoption is the future redemption of the body, not conversion. (Rom. 8:23, 15-17; Gal. 4:1-6)

Sinners become sons of God through the new birth, not through adoption. (John 1:12-13)

New birth is based on adoption

 

[cv5]

nothing of value here period. another blatant attack on people who disagree with you,

No offense intended my friend. Certainly not to you personally.
And none taken.

BTW, I am trying to track down the specific title of that heresy of which I was speaking.
If I cross paths with it I will post it.

 

[EleventhHour]

That's where we disagree. I believe that's calvinistic thinking and not biblical.

Exactly ... it is not biblical.

 

[throughfaith]

Yep

And why are we personally known?

Because we are now sons of god.

The problem I think we have is trying to use our human terms to explain God.

The Problem is not there if we just read what it says and not to load philosophical ideas about before we existed ect .
Sinners become sons of God through the new birth, not through adoption. (John 1:12-13)
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[OIC1965]

Adoption is the future redemption of the body, not conversion. (Rom. 8:23, 15-17; Gal. 4:1-6)

Sinners become sons of God through the new birth, not through adoption. (John 1:12-13)

1 Peter 1:3

1 Peter 1:23

We HAVE BEEN born again, not will be.

1 John 3:1. We are sons of God, not will be.

 

[OIC1965]

Exactly ... it is not biblical.

According to Romans 8:29-30, which comes first? Calling, justification or predestination?

 

[throughfaith]

1 Peter 1:3

1 Peter 1:23

We HAVE BEEN born again, not will be.

1 John 3:1. We are sons of God, not will be.

My point is that its through the new birth , not adoption. Thats calvinism. They need to have adoption at conversion to line up with Augustines teachings.

 

[OIC1965]

Amen it is pet if our security in Christ. If we are not adopted. We really have no security

Excellent point. And to say we are not yet born of God, as someone just said, removes in large part the basis of security too.

 

[OIC1965]

My point is that its through the new birth , not adoption. Thats calvinism. They need to have adoption at conversion to line up with Augustines teachings.

But the New Birth occurs at conversion. Peter declares it already done in believers. (1 Peter 1:3 and 1:23).

 

[throughfaith]

But the New Birth occurs at conversion. Peter declares it already done in believers. (1 Peter 1:3 and 1:23).

Yes the new birth happens at conversion . Not the adoption ( Rom 8.23 )

 

[kaylagrl]

I don’t think anyone holds a crystal ball approach. I think one view is that omniscience is an essential attribute of God, therefore He can know all things past present and future simply because He is God.

What I am certain of is this. God determined to allow some things, restrain other things, and directly cause yet other things as He works all things according to the good pleasure of His Will, as He governs His works, and as He guides history providentially towards the fulfillment of His Purpose and His Word.

The Bible says whosoever will may come. Just because God knows who will come doesn't mean He stops anyone from coming to Him. The Bible says "choose you this day". We have a choice to accept Him or reject Him.

 

[OIC1965]

Yep, so is salvation through believing. One must be in Christ in order to be called and justified.

But predestination precedes both. Whom He foreknew He predestinated, called, justified, glorified.

 

[OIC1965]

The Bible says whosoever will may come. Just because God knows who will come doesn't mean He stops anyone from coming to Him. The Bible says "choose you this day". We have a choice to accept Him or reject Him.

I agree!

 

[OIC1965]

The Bible says whosoever will may come. Just because God knows who will come doesn't mean He stops anyone from coming to Him. The Bible says "choose you this day". We have a choice to accept Him or reject Him.

I agree. But when someone rejects Christ, they are acting according to their nature. Left to ourselves, we do not desire or truly seek God.

And when one receives Christ, it is because the Father drew them to Christ.

No one can come unless the Father draws

Now I differ fromCalvinism in that I do not hold to irresistable grace ( among a few other things).

 

[cv5]

Exodus 19:3-6 provides the understanding. The nation of Israel was elected to be God’s holy nation, as peter further elaborate in 1 peter 2.

Hence the elect according to peter, refers to the Jews and not gentiles.

Whether Peter is speaking to the diaspora Jews is definitely debatable.
MacArthur believes for technical reasons that he may be in fact speaking to gentile believers.
I think it's probably both groups. But don't take my word for it.

Also see 1Pet 2:2 & 10

Incidentally, an interesting find here.......
1 Pet 2:8
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.

 

[OIC1965]

Whether Peter is speaking to the diaspora Jews is definitely debatable.
MacArthur believes for technical reasons that he may be in fact speaking to gentile believers.
I think it's probably both groups. But don't take my word for it.

Also see 1Pet 2:2 & 10

Incidentally, an interesting find here.......
1 Pet 2:8
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.

Judicial hardening? Just stating as a possibility, not positively affirming this.