Notice we are 500posts into the thread and no.one has came close to engaging anything Pink.taught.
Biblical Foreknowledge
- Thread starter Anthony D'Arienzo
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why would they bother embarking on a quest destined for failure :):);):cool:
John Caldwell
Well-Known Member
I have been fortunate to have been around many who were hungry for truth and would search it out. They would work through teaching for or against a topic, and once they ruled out error would continue growing in grace and knowledge.
Hard to relate to those who speculate on fluff, and turn away from scripture.
ScottA
Well-Known Member
I am not a student of Calvinism or any other 'ism, but I would describe it thus:
What we experience over a lifetime and the world experiences of history, occurred with God "in the twinkling of an eye" (instantaneously) in what is best described in a manner of before-and-after, which was "written" in eternity, then played out by manifest revelations "created" by God. Which means everything happened "before the foundation of the world", and yet we do not experience it all at once, but by "every word from God" as if once "written" and now read.
For this reason much of the scriptures are in past or present tense, and "today" is always the "the day of salvation."
Some people's only goal is to find ways to make Scripture pat themselves on the back.
ScottA
Well-Known Member
The root of the word "foreknew" is "fore", meaning "before" (a reference to time).
Before what? Before time.
Time, is indeed the topic of Romans 8:29-30...even if you do not recognize it.
ScottA
Well-Known Member
If you mean no one has come close to [embracing] anything Pink taught. That may be true.
But, I have "engaged" it. You just don't embrace it.
No ...you did not address anything he actually said.
You made up an idea that is not found there at all.
John Caldwell
Well-Known Member
I have held a couple of “isms” in my lifetime. The last was Calvinism or the “doctrines of grace”. This is why I use Calvinism as an illustration most often - it is the view I once held (to include a Calvinistic view of the Atonement).
Some hold to Calvinism as their gospel. Calvinism says that men are totally depraved. The Father unconditionally elected people to be saved. The Father sent the Son to save those the Father gives to the Son. All of those the Father has elected will be saved. Those the Father gives are sealed by the Spirit (none will be lost).
What is missing is Christ. D. A. Carson spoke about this some years back. He said that people today, when asked to give the gospel message, can only tell things about the gospel or what the gospel does, or how they believe God worked out the gospel. Me hold a Christ-less gospel.
I think that the reason is these "isms" do not require much, if anything, from us. The "isms" are looking for human wisdom to tell them that they are safe. They are not looking for the gospel of Christ that demands everything.
Some hold to Calvinism as their gospel. Calvinism says that men are totally depraved. The Father unconditionally elected people to be saved. The Father sent the Son to save those the Father gives to the Son. All of those the Father has elected will be saved. Those the Father gives are sealed by the Spirit (none will be lost).
What is missing is Christ. D. A. Carson spoke about this some years back. He said that people today, when asked to give the gospel message, can only tell things about the gospel or what the gospel does, or how they believe God worked out the gospel. Me hold a Christ-less gospel.
I think that the reason is these "isms" do not require much, if anything, from us. The "isms" are looking for human wisdom to tell them that they are safe. They are not looking for the gospel of Christ that demands everything.
Last edited:
This statement... I don't understand this statement coming from a hard-core Calvinist. Seeking and being hungry for truth is only possible if a person has a will and the ability to embrace Christ.
Biblical Calvinism is totally Christ centered.
From start to finish it is all about Jesus.
Some look but cannot welcome those truths.
From start to finish it is all about Jesus.
Some look but cannot welcome those truths.
All people have a will.
Scripture speaks of self will.
The will of Father was what Jesus came to accomplish. In jn 6:37-44...Jesus taught that He came to do the will of the Father...which was to save each and everyone the Father gave to Him.
He is doing that right now, not one elect person will be lost, because Jesus seeks and saves every single individual.
Another statement I don't understand when spoken from a Calvinist POV.
Do you believe a man has the will to seek Christ? How about the will to accept Christ?
Because the idea of someone seeking Christ implies that they have free will, and seems inherently contradictory to Calvinism.
Totally doesn't help.
John Caldwell
Well-Known Member
It depends on what "truth" you are asking about. While both Calvinism and Arminianism are dependent on the philosophies of John Calvin, Calvinism itself did not exist as it does today (neo-Calvinism) during John Calvin's lifetime. It is a building of philosophy on philosophy. Knowing the "truth" becomes less a spiritual understanding towards a Christ-likeness and more of a shoring up and defending of a Christian philosophical system.
I still believe Jonathan Edwards was correct in his assessment of the will, but to the "hard-core" Calvinist Calvinism is actually their gospel - not an understanding of the gospel but the gospel itself.
Since these people believe Calvinism to be the 5 points or the "doctrines of grace" and that their gospel there is an issue because the doctrines of grace only addressed predestination in the context of salvation (a response to the articles). As a gospel it is a Christ-less abomination. As an understandung it is a debatable philosophy.
Similar threads
