The Foreknowledge of God

[Pierac]

OK darinhouston,

I read through your link. I did not gain much, as it was mostly one scholar pitted against another in research. Both having equal points in their beliefs. So, who’s right?

I have researched this for the past two years and see good points from both sides. However, both can not be correct, can they?

Let’s start at the O.T…

Pro 16:1 The intentions of the heart1 belong to a man,2 but the answer of the tongue3 comes from4 the LORD.5


Net commentary:
Pro 16:1

1 tn Heb "plans of the heart" (so ASV, NASB, NIV). The phrase מַעַרְכֵי־לֵב (ma'arkhelev) means "the arrangements of the mind."

sn Humans may set things in order, plan out what they are going to say, but God sovereignly enables them to put their thoughts into words.

Now just what does this mean?


2 tn Heb "[are] to a man."

3 tn Here "the tongue" is a metonymy of cause in which the instrument of speech is put for what is said: the answer expressed.

4 sn The contrasting prepositions enhance the contrasting ideas — the ideas belong to people, but the words come from the LORD.

Again, a repeat of the same question… Just what does this mean?

5 sn There are two ways this statement can be taken: (1) what one intends to say and what one actually says are the same, or (2) what one actually says differs from what the person intended to say. The second view fits the contrast better. The proverb then is giving a glimpse of how God even confounds the wise. When someone is trying to speak ["answer" in the book seems to refer to a verbal answer] before others, the LORD directs the words according to his sovereign will.

What???

Pro 20:24 The steps of a person73 are ordained by74 the LORD — so how can anyone75 understand his own76 way?

Net Commentary:
Pro 20:24

73 tn Heb "the steps of a man"; but "man" is the noun גֶּבֶר (gever, in pause), indicating an important, powerful person. BDB 149-50 s.v. suggests it is used of men in their role of defending women and children; if that can be validated, then a translation of "man" would be appropriate here. But the line seems to have a wider, more general application. The "steps" represent (by implied comparison) the course of life (cf. NLT "the road we travel").

74 tn Heb "from the LORD"; NRSV "ordered by the Lord"; NIV "directed by the Lord."

sn To say that one's steps are ordained by the LORD means that one's course of actions, one's whole life, is divinely prepared and sovereignly superintended (e.g., Gen_50:26; Pro_3:6). Ironically, man is not actually in control of his own steps.

What do you mean, man is not in control of his own steps?

75 tn The verse uses an independent nominative absolute to point up the contrast between the mortal and the immortal: "and man, how can he understand his way?" The verb in the sentence would then be classified as a potential imperfect; and the whole question rhetorical. It is affirming that humans cannot understand very much at all about their lives.

76 tn Heb "his way." The referent of the third masculine singular pronoun is unclear, so the word "own" was supplied in the translation to clarify that the referent is the human individual, not the Lord.


Let’s just stop here! From my limited study, the Net Bible is not from any Calvinistic group, but independent scholars. Is this correct? Because this is some weird stuff!

Paul

[Pierac]

Now let’s go back to Acts and compare it to similar scripture…

Act 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.


Joh 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Net Commentary:

tn Or "attracts him," or "pulls him." The word is used of pulling or dragging, often by force. It is even used once of magnetic attraction (A. Oepke, TDNT 2:503).

sn The Father who sent me draws him. The author never specifically explains what this "drawing" consists of. It is evidently some kind of attraction; whether it is binding and irresistible or not is not mentioned. But there does seem to be a parallel with Joh_6:65, where Jesus says that no one is able to come to him unless the Father has allowed it. This apparently parallels the use of Isaiah by John to reflect the spiritual blindness of the Jewish leaders (see the quotations from Isaiah in Joh_9:41 and Joh_12:39-40).

Joh 6:65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

Net Commentary:

tn Grk "And he said"; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

tn Grk "unless it has been permitted to him by the Father."

Both verses appear to give the Father the choice, not the follower?


Tit 1:1 Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness,

Who get’s to choose here?


NASB Rom 9:15 For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

Contemporary English Version: Rom 9:15 The Lord told Moses that he has pity and mercy on anyone he wants to. 16 Everything then depends on God's mercy and not on what people want or do. 17 In the Scriptures the Lord says to Pharaoh of Egypt, "I let you become king, so that I could show you my power and be praised by all people on earth." 18 Everything depends on what God decides to do, and he can either have pity on people or make them stubborn. 19 Someone may ask, "How can God blame us, if he makes us behave in the way he wants us to?"

Depends not on mans will ? And "how can God blame us if he makes us behave in the way he wants us to?"

Are these translations serious?

Paul

[Troy]

Pierac, why are you asking us what the NET commentary means? Find the scholars who wrote it and ask them. Yet if you would you like to know what we think of these passages, simply ask us.

[Pierac]

Pierac, why are you asking us what the NET commentary means? Find the scholars who wrote it and ask them. Yet if you would you like to know what we think of these passages, simply ask us.

I was hoping you would figure it out and answer.

[Troy]

Well Pierac, I would like you to first grant that John 1:13 doesn't support total depravity or irresistible grace (regeneration prior to faith) as is demonstrated in my recent post in this discussion. Once you grant that, we can move on to other texts that may or may not support the notions of Calvinism.

[darinhouston]

With respect to the question of Jn 6:44, here is something I sent a friend recently... Just looking at John's other uses of the term (for example, Jn 12) is revealing. I think the NET bible (and Macarthur) just have it wrong here.

Since the ladies are doing Ephesians, I was looking at Macarthur's Ephesians commentary on Ephesians 1 the other day -- this is the type of discourse I find when I read or listen to Sproul or Piper or Macarthur today. They write beautifully on other points, but this is just a weak spot for them in my opinion. There are some difficult texts for the Arminian, but many of these foundational concepts and presuppositions are just quite easily dismissed.

Consider just the following point from Macarthur on God's "drawing"... and my response.

[from Macarthur] The third kind of election is salvational, the kind of which Paul is speaking in our present text. “No one can come to Me,” Jesus said, “unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44). Helkuō (draws) carries the idea of an irresistible force and was used in ancient Greek literature of a desperately hungry man being drawn to food and of demonic forces being drawn to animals when they were not able to possess men. Salvage yards use giant electromagnets to lift and partially sort scrap metal. When the magnet is turned on, a tremendous magnetic force draws all the ferrous metals that are near it, but has no effect on other metals such as aluminum and brass. In a similar way, God’s elective will irresistibly draws to Himself those whom He has predetermined to love and forgive, while having no effect on those whom He has not.

[my response] This does not speak to whether the converse is true -- i.e., whether there are those who are "called" or "drawn" who do not come to Christ. That must be found elsewhere if at all. His definition of "drawn" to connote "irresistibility" seems flawed or overly relied upon and, most importantly, doesn't appear to be derived from Scripture or the context of the surrounding text. Basically, I think there's too much emphasis being put on this definition of drawn. From even a very quick word study of actual Scriptural usage of the term, it is clear that the term is used most commonly in its general sense. Actually letting Scripture inform Scripture, the same word "Helkuo" is used in John 12:32, for example, in this very context is used with respect to all men:

Jn 12:32 "And I 2504, if 1437 I be lifted up 5312 from 1537 the earth 1093, will draw 1670 all 3956 [men] unto 4314 me 1683."

He clearly was lifted up. He does draw all men to Himself -- not all respond because "draw" doesn't mean the irresistible force he suggests it does.

[Pierac]

Well Pierac, I would like you to first grant that John 1:13 doesn't support total depravity or irresistible grace (regeneration prior to faith) as is demonstrated in my recent post in this discussion. Once you grant that, we can move on to other texts that may or may not support the notions of Calvinism.

Joh 1:12 But to all who have received him — those who believe in his name — he has given the right to become God's children 13 — children not born29 by human parents30 or by human desire31 or a husband's32 decision,33 but by God.

Net Bible:

29 tn The Greek term translated "born" here also involves conception.

30 tn Grk "of blood(s)." The plural αἱμάτων (haimatōn) has seemed a problem to many interpreters. At least some sources in antiquity imply that blood was thought of as being important in the development of the fetus during its time in the womb: thus Wis_7:1; "in the womb of a mother I was molded into flesh, within the period of 10 months, compacted with blood, from the seed of a man and the pleasure of marriage." In Joh_1:13, the plural αἱμάτων may imply the action of both parents. It may also refer to the "genetic" contribution of both parents, and so be equivalent to "human descent" (see BDAG 26 s.v. αἷμα 1.a). E. C. Hoskyns thinks John could not have used the singular here because Christians are in fact 'begotten' by the blood of Christ (The Fourth Gospel, 143), although the context would seem to make it clear that the blood in question is something other than the blood of Christ.

31 tn Or "of the will of the flesh." The phrase οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκός (oude ek thelēmato sarko) is more clearly a reference to sexual desire, but it should be noted that σάρξ (sarx) in John does not convey the evil sense common in Pauline usage. For John it refers to the physical nature in its weakness rather than in its sinfulness. There is no clearer confirmation of this than the immediately following verse, where the λόγος (logos) became σάρξ.

32 tn Or "man's."

33 tn The third phrase, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρός (oude ek thelēmato andros), means much the same as the second one. The word here (ἀνηρ, anēr) is often used for a husband, resulting in the translation "or a husband's decision," or more generally, "or of any human volition whatsoever." L. Morris may be right when he sees here an emphasis directed at the Jewish pride in race and patriarchal ancestry, although such a specific reference is difficult to prove (John [NICNT], 101).

Troy, I'm not into T.U.L.I.P. However, I do understand as Paul puts it no less than 6 times... All is of God!

Paul

[Troy]

Thank you Pierac, for posting the NET commentary of this verse. It is informative. However, it does not touch my post on John 1:13 in the least. So, my question to you is just how is John 1:13 useful for your position (whatever it may be, you seem to say the same thing Calvinists say while silmutaneously saying you aren't into T.U.L.I.P.) in light of what I have submitted concerning this text?

[Pierac]

Thank you Pierac, for posting the NET commentary of this verse. It is informative. However, it does not touch my post on John 1:13 in the least. So, my question to you is just how is John 1:13 useful for your position (whatever it may be, you seem to say the same thing Calvinists say while silmutaneously saying you aren't into T.U.L.I.P.) in light of what I have submitted concerning this text?

Well, I guess I never really looked at this verse in terms of being supportive of my beliefs. I see it no different than "many are called but few chosen." [Mat 22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen." ]

Troy, I'm not Calvinist. I'm a universalist. I believe God is electing a few to bring about the salvation of all. Jesus is the first fruit of the chosen.

John 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

Read John 3:17 again Troy but now note the facts reguarding this verse. 95% of all humans that have ever lived have not had access to the scriptures you read daily. How can the world be saved through him if they never had a chance of even knowing about him?

1Co 6:2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts?

Troy the Saints will Judge the world with Jesus the head.

Act 17:31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

Isa 26:9 At night my soul longs for You, Indeed, my spirit within me seeks You diligently; For when the earth experiences Your judgments The inhabitants of the world learn righteousness.

We learn righteousness through God's judgments

1Ti 4:10 For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.

Gal 6:10 So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.


Paul

[Troy]

Actually Peirac, one is either a Calvinistic Universalist or an Arminian Universalist (not too far from Paidion's theology). As for John 1:13, I see nothing different in your handling of this text than I have seen with Calvinist's handling of this text. This gives me the impression that you believe this text shows that one must be born again to have faith in God, rather than what the text actually shows, namely, being born of God and becoming children of God comes through faith. I have demonstrated this on my post on this verse, and you have not even began to engage with it. If you not to do so, that is your prerogative but please don't ever attempt to use this verse at this forum to support your view, at least not until you interact with what I have submitted.

Furthermore, please tell me on what basis it is that you say 95% of humans that have ever lived have not had access to the Scriptures I read daily? There is no doubt that this was true before the Scriptures existed (in fact, this would be a no brainer). If you were speaking of the New Testament alone, would you still say it is 95%, and would you say 95% of the world in the last 2000 years have not had access to the Scriptures? If so, what is the grounds for granting as much as 95%? How do you know that it is indeed 95% rather than, say, 60% or 30%? What about today? What is the percentage of the people today?