Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | response | Rom 1:18 | Reformer Joe | 21852 | ||
You wrote: "I agree 100 percent! I am glad you have come to a common Armenianist assumption: God’s foreknowledge comes before his predetermined path! RC Sproul, however, would string you up and shoot you for conceding that point to an Armenianist in this debate. J RC jumbles this list up and places Predestined as first on the list in the ordered chain, because it is the only way the passage will make sense—In his Theology." 1. R.C. Sproul has not been known to string anyone up. 2. It is not HIS theology. 3. You are 100 percent wrong about R.C. Sproul. Foreknowledge of the elect does indeed precede predestination. Where you err is not having a good understanding of what it means to "foreknow" someone in this sense. You seem to think that this passage implies that God foreknows the CHOICES that everyone will make. That is not what this passage is saying at all. Every verb here applies to one group of people and one group alone. He foreknew the elect, predestined the elect, called the elect, justified the elect, glorified the elect. It ruptures the meaning of this passage to say that it refers to God foreknowing DECISIONS that both the elect and non-elect would make. "Foreknowing" means "fore-loving," knowing in an intimate sense, not in an "I am aware of something" sense. We see the Bible employing the verb "know" in this sense several times in Scripture, where it is clear that it means much more than to simply be aware: "but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him." --1 Corinthians 8:3 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?" --Galatians 4:9 So we see that even Paul uses this verb to describe an intimate knowledge rather than just an intellectual awareness. Note again that the Romans verse does not say that he knows something ABOUT people, but rather that he knows PEOPLE. Furthermore, it simply makes no sense that an omniscient God would simply foreknow one group in an intellectual, perceptive sense and not the rest of humanity. I must say that I am also a little put out by your misrepresentation of Sproul here. It is very sloppy. I suggest that you go pick up a copy of his book _Grace Unknown_ before you start putting words in his mouth. The Reformed view of Romans 8:29 is very well-explained there. --Joe! |
||||||
2 | response | Rom 1:18 | userdoe220 | 21896 | ||
I can tell that you are attempting to drag this discussion down into the ditch so I will discontinue the converstion before one says something they regret. It is amazing how individuals hide behind a forum and say stuff they would NEVER say verbatim to peoples faces. If I am wrong about RC Sproul, just simply say "You know schwatzkm, I am not sure you grasped fully what RC was teaching." Or "Could you tell me where you got that piece of info. from. I have never understood RC to say anything like that." THe way you handled the situation shows your spiritual immaturity. About RC Sproul, I heard him do a full 1/2 hour segment jumbling up the "Godlen chain of redemption." I know what I heard and will search his website in an attempt to purchase his tape. The reason why it stuck out in my mind was the gymnastics he went through to jumble up the passage. |
||||||
3 | response | Rom 1:18 | Reformer Joe | 22028 | ||
My spiritual immaturity? You are the one who micharacterized my argument as an Arminian one, and then proceeded to say that R.C. Sproul would "string me up and shoot me" for what I said, as if he were my lord and savior and inventor of Reformed theology. You then misrepresented his clear teachings in a forum in which he apparently does not participate, and me correcting and rebuking you on this is spiritual immaturity? It is horrible to come out in the public square and make unfounded accusations of another believer in Christ and misrepresent the theology that he holds. If I went onto another bulletin board and said something along the lines of, "You know that old Schwartzkopf denies the Trinity," I hope you would wish someone there to correct me. And you still have not addressed the substance of the content of the post or the other one. I clearly expounded the Reformed understanding of Romans 8. It is the one Sproul holds to as well. What is wrong with it? And you still have ignored the Scripture passages you requested as support of my views. If you see this as me "dragging the discussion down into the ditch," so be it. And I would make precisely the same point I made in person as well. The only difference would be that it would be an interchange of voices rather than a series of written communications, which in itself changes the dynamic of the discussion. If you do indeed find evidence of Sproul "jumbling things up," please cite it verbatim for us so that I can make a full apology to you and the rest of the forum. Until that time, I will stick to what he wrote on p. 145 of his book _Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology_: "Reformed theologians understand the golden chain as follows: From all eternity God foreknew his elect. He had an idea of their identity in mind before he created them. He foreknew them not only in the sense of having a prior idea of their personal identities, but also in the sense of foreloving them. When the Bible speaks of 'knowing,' it often distinguishes between a simple mental awareness of a person and a deep intimate love of a person. The Reformed view teached that all whom God has foreknown, he has also predestined to be inwardly called, justified, and glorified. God sovereignly brings to pass the salvation of his elect and only of his elect." Disagree with Sproul if you want, but understand a view before criticizing it. --Joe! |
||||||
4 | response | Rom 1:18 | Radioman | 22033 | ||
Joe: I have been reading your writings on the forum from the beginning. Your points are always well thought out, well researched and well written. I notice that you do not just write off the top of your head. You are thorough and accurate in every factual matter with which you deal. Any dabbler or babbler who thinks he can just waltz in here and with a few "witty" postings refute your points is very much mistaken. On the forum I've said all along that before one attempts to disprove or refute a position, he had better be very familiar with that position in order to write intelligently about it. Bravado and sophistry are themselves marks of immaturity and are no match for a knowledgeable, articulate believer such as yourself. Keep up the excellent, excellent work. Radioman P.S. To attack the razor sharp mind of R.C. Sproul with a dull butter knife is laughable at best. |
||||||