You said: "Please tell me how I can be any more clear..."

I didn't say that you weren't being clear, just that I:

1) Don't see how that foreknow having a meaning beyond it's meaning (?) would change or anull it's primary meaning. Do you know what I mean?

2) Am not trying to set you up or anything, just curious as to how you deal with the elect being known intimately before they were the elect, as per 1 Peter 1:2.

BTW, don't forget that "know" is also used plenty of times without the sence you are giving it. I would say it is used more often to refer to just knowledge or "knowing" a person in the normal sence then the way you are using it.

(Genesis 29:5) And he said unto them, Know ye Laban the son of Nahor? And they said, We know him.

I am no Greek expert, but I think it's worth looking at what Thayer and Strong say about proginōskō (Foreknow- Rom 8:29) and prognōsis (Foreknowledge- 1 Pt 1:2).

proginōskō
Thayer Definition:
1) to have knowledge before hand
2) to foreknow
2a) of those whom God elected to salvation
3) to predestinate
prog-in-oce'-ko (Strong)
From G4253 and G1097; to know beforehand, that is, FORESEE: - foreknow (ordain), know (before).

prognōsis
Thayer Definition:
1) foreknowledge
2) forethought, pre-arrangement
prognōsis (Strong)
prog'-no-sis
From G4267; forethought: - foreknowledge.

So foreknow means "to have KNOWLEDGE before hand" or to "FORESEE"; exactly what you are argueing against.

DJC49 wrote:
Miguel,
Now 2 Cor 11:3 is about the simplicity that is the gospel of Christ ..And it's very evident to me that you did NOT read that [URL=http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/foreseenfaith.html]]]article by John Hendryx[/URL] with any understanding at all. .. But if you had any sense, honesty, and integrity whatsoever, you'd KNOW that every single, individual tenet in the Reformational creeds are cited with an abundance of Scriptural verses and passages.

DJC49,
That 2 Cor.11:3 refers only to the gospel is purely your opinion. Notice the words "in Christ" and then look at what it refers to in other places. You still have not explained how God foreknowing us would not mean that He would foreknow our decisions also and how foreknow came BEFORE predestination and election.

Why do feel the need to talk in such a harsh way to me? Is it because your arguments have little substance? Just because I have a different view then your artice does not mean that I have no sence, am dishonest, and have no integrety as you say.

Also, anyone can tack a few proof verses onto something and misapply a few passages a la JW's. That does not make it Biblical.

God is not the one who makes things complex. Thanks for the article as it helps me to understand your view better, but I see it is also full of its own "theological presuppositions" and "logical inconsistencies". He is confusing God's knowing the future with the future being predetermined, two vastly different ideas. Also, if God foreknows people, as he says, wouldn't their decisions also be included in that? You can't just ignore it, but that is what he seems to be doing.

You're right, I'm not dealing with Catholics, I'm dealing with Reformed Catholics.

I could give you much more then a definition of Fundamentalism, but what would be the point? And, BTW, I think it's good that you can have a certain diversity (within limits) from church to church rather then just a blind adherence to a man made creed.

(Col 2:8) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

As to Fundamentalism, I feel no need to defend it. If you are really interested in knowing more about it I suggest "In Pursuit of Purity" by David Beale. If not, then feel free to continue in your present condition.

To the rest of the TULIP'ers,
I think you guys are clouding the issue. No one here is doubting how profoundly depraved and sinful man is. The issue is:

1) Does that mean that man is UNABLE to come to God.

2) Does spiritually dead mean he is unable to choose to come to Christ.

That is the unbiblical extreme of TULIP that I refered to, not as to how sinful man is. Just look out your window and you can see how sinful we are.

rogerant wrote:
Doesn't it say somewhere that there will curses heaped upon those who ADD to Scripture?
He foreknew "WOULD BELIEVE IN CHRIST"?
"For those He foreknew He also predestined"
I am sorry but you are adding your own bent into the text.
BTW The word "knew" in foreknew is gnosko, not gnosis in the greek. Gnosis means "knowledge of". Gnosko comes from the hebrew word, "yadaw" which means "to know with approbation, intimately" example, Adam "knew" Eve.
You can't force "knowledge of" into the text.

"Gnosis" or "gnosko", either way it does not change what I said about the text. Of course God also knows and even knew us intimately.

DJC49 wrote:
BTW, how did you vote in this particular survey? Perhaps *Biblical Fundamentalism*? ...I mean, what defines a Biblical Fundamentalist anyway? ... other than they "believe the Bible."

As to total depravity, man is without a doubt totaly depraved. But TULIP takes it further to an unbiblical extreme that Paul never taught.

Faithful Remnant wrote:
Yes, but Mike what about Ephesians 2:1..
You hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins. And in Romans 7, Paul says "Sin revived and I died." Evidently it is a fatal sickness.

(Acts 7:51) Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. (The Jews resisted the Holy Spirit. Is He not God?)

(Matthew 23:37) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (Israel resisted God's will.)

I think the only thing "weedy" (?) here is your understanding of Scripture.

You say, "BUT Miguel you deny Christ - In that you say in your book, that this is not true???"

Where? What is not true is the twisted TULIP interpretation of those verses.

The verse you cite about the natural man is refering to understanding the word of God, look at it in it's context. It has nothing to do with what I said a sinner can experience and resist. Don't take my words out of context.

enough already wrote:
Jeremiah 17:9 says,'the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately sick, who can understand it?' In the original language, 'desperately sick' means 'incurable'. We all have an incurable disease, SIN. Our hearts are sinful and wicked, and we are not able to fix them. Our very nature is sinful; it is humanly impossible for vile, wicked sinners to have a 'change of heart' apart from divine intervention.

tulipistheway wrote:
Each of these verses contain a qualifying characteristic.
1] labour/laden.
2[ thirst.
3] draw - see John 6:44.
4] heareth/athirst.
The "dead in sin" - sinners in their natural estate - do not experience these characteristics therefore cannot respond spiritually.
You have ignored these terms in the verse to qualify works based religions.
They who are predestinated, elect and effectually called unto salvation, are so by the work of grace and the Holy Spirit.

Rod - shêbeṭ
From an unused root probably meaning to branch off; a scion, that is, (literally) A STICK (for punishing, writing, fighting, ruling, walking, etc.) or (figuratively) a clan: - X correction, dart, rod, sceptre, staff, tribe.

Considering the Bible's teaching on a parent's responsibility to train up their children, it has to be the parents and their own children. I have no responsibility before God for someone else's children's behavior, so I don't have a responsibility to discipline them either.

Example; God does not discipline the devil's children, only His own (Hebrews 12:5-11).

tulipistheway wrote:
Jesus does not TELL those who are unable to enter in, - to enter.
EG:...

(Matthew 11:28) COME unto me, ALL ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. (Do only the elect labour and feel heavy laden?)

(John 7:37) In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If ANY MAN thirst, let him COME unto me, and drink. (Were all of these people elect for Jesus to say "ANY MAN"?)

(John 12:32) And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL men unto me. (Is elect spelled "all" now?)

DJC49 wrote:
a] Incorrect. Amillennialism was the predominant eschatological system held by nearly ALL in the Church (etc.)

Michael Hranek wrote:
DJC49
Amillenial Theology is so "neat", but how in the World do they explain away the two witnesses of Revelation?

A literal interpretation of the Bible will lead one to a premillennial view.

2) Where in the entire 28th chapter of Isaiah is Egypt, or Babylon, or the captivity of Judah even mentioned? It's not there at all. To the contrary, it speaks of a "consumption...determined upon THE WHOLE EARTH." (vs.22) Sounds like tribulation talk to me.

3) Judah was judged by sword, famine, and pestilence in the case of the captivity (Jer. 14:12). Verse 17 mentions hail and water. There will be judgements involving hail and water in the tribulation.

4) Given Israel's long standing and continuing idolotry and involvement in the occult, is it ant suprise that they will make an agreement with the anti-christ? He will be Jewish after all, an imitator of the real Christ.