ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Lon]

After all this time debating Open Theology, you can't come up with anything better than that God will lose all His power and self-respect if He isn't stuck in an unchangeable future because He can't avoid seeing what hasn't happened yet?

Look:

...the OV...[proponent] portray as arrogant and God needing to bow to men in order to support their theology, rather than us bowing before Him and not going beyond what is written, especially concerning what God can and cannot do.
....
Such is self-defeating, when the only reason for the assertion is to convince other's against their own understanding of scripture.
Frankly, it isn't enough and those who tote that line appear more devoted to a theological idea.

-Lon

See, the only reason to assert such a thing is if one is OV already. Such an argument is only going to be of import to an OVer.

My main point is that such diverse doctrine is built off of what the rest of us see as an assumption regarding what God can and cannot do.
I don't assert anything regarding what God cannot do. Any question concerning this is built off of faulty premises 1) that God fits into any of our self-introduced expectations or assertions 2) that we can go beyond what God has revealed clearly in specifics about Himself that it could be logically/tenuably objectified (simply believed as far as the revelation is meant to go, we are not the objectifiers/ratifiers of truth, He is) 3) that man was given the tools and parameters to even think of achieving #1 or 2.

#1 is the basis for every deviation, that man can say something true about God without implicit explanation or permission from Him. Yes, we are given logical parameters but must recognize our finiteness against audacity to qualify or quantify Him. We know where such has led. As a safeguard, there are checks in place for the OV, but I believe it is still on a road it isn't supposed to be travelling: Speculation about the actions and nature of God with man-qualified parameters.

#2 is subject to ridicule by God Himself "who will you liken Me to?" In Genesis, Exodus, Job, Isaiah, and etc., God corrects His people for going beyond His description of Himself in extrapolations. His clear indication to us is to listen to Him tell about Himself and leave guess-work for bushels and cubits.

#3 Yes, we are given logic and tools, but not for the job/task that is beyond us. When man, in mere concern for his own divine will, proceeds to build a doctrine of that which God cannot do, for the only and express reason of reconciling that freewill, he/she has traded revelation and God's sovereignty to salvage/ensure his/her own autonomy. Such egocentric posturing remains suspect of integrity for Him and His Word.

This, in my estimation, is the driving force behind the anthropology (rather than theology). It seems to me, it is 'me' centered rather than God-centered in concern and is the last place we would begin to build theology and doctrine.
Man, without God, has warped senses of propriety and starting there for understanding his/her relationship to God is not going to come to fruition.
We rather, read His Word, wrestle with the divine perspective, and reconcile our actions, thoughts, and will accordingly, not the other way around.

As I have read Boyd and Sanders, it seems they are most concerned with establishing their freewill, rather than God's sovereignty or character. Further, that they are secondarily concerned with God's loving relationship to man particularly and sadly, in so much as it relates to man's freedom, rather than man's desperate need.
At this point, I don't believe it purposeful in neglect, but see it as an egocentrically driven obstruction against divine objectivity, none-the-less.

-Lon

 

[genuineoriginal]

Look:

See, the only reason to assert such a thing is if one is OV already. Such an argument is only going to be of import to an OVer.

I looked, and see no Open Theist promoting that God becomes subservient to man unless the future is unchangeable, but I see opponents of Open Theism making that claim quite often.

My main point is that such diverse doctrine is built off of what the rest of us see as an assumption regarding what God can and cannot do.

If you think that is the basis for Open Theism, then you missed the point.

We rather, read His Word, wrestle with the divine perspective, and reconcile our actions, thoughts, and will accordingly, not the other way around.

And that is exactly what Open Theists do as well, which is how most Open Theists found a reason to believe in Open Theism.

So far, the only real argument against Open Theism amounts to nothing more than God HAS to know every detail about the future in order to be God, and all the rest of the arguments are straw men created to distort what Open Theists believe and proof texts used outside of the scope of what they were intended to describe.

Since I learned about the nature of God from what He revealed about Himself in the Bible (not by studying the doctrines of men) I have no vested interest in thinking that God HAS to know every detail about the future in order to be God.
I can believe in God as He revealed Himself to mankind in His Word.
In fact, the only way for the Words that God speaks in the Bible to make any sense is if the future is changeable based on the choices and actions of men. Open Theism is the only way to adequately explain the rebellion of the angels lead by the adversary and the Judgment to come.

As I have read Boyd and Sanders, it seems they are most concerned with establishing their freewill, rather than God's sovereignty or character. Further, that they are secondarily concerned with God's loving relationship to man particularly and sadly, in so much as it relates to man's freedom, rather than man's desperate need.

If the future is unchangeable, then "man's desperate need" doesn't exist, since no savior can save him.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Your verse does not say what you say it does.

It is a simple matter to say what a verse does not mean but if it doersn't mean what I said then it must have another meaning. And you failed to provide your interpretation of it:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

It is only "individuals" who are saved so therefore the verse is saying that in past times God chose individuals for salvation and his choice is based on the fact that He knows who in the future will believe the truth.

 

[Nang]

It is a simple matter to say what a verse does not mean but if it doersn't mean what I said then it must have another meaning. And you failed to provide your interpretation of it:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

It is only "individuals" who are saved so therefore the verse is saying that in past times God chose individuals for salvation and his choice is based on the fact that He knows who in the future will believe the truth.

God knows who will believe, because He " . . .hath from the beginning chosen (them) to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit . . ."

Regeneration always precedes faith, as revealed in the Scripture you quote.

Nang

 

[Lighthouse]

I can't understand how God being sovereign can only be if He isn't free.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes, I know, Dave.

Which is why your game analogies humored me (I do think, even if you aren't very good, that you could beat me at basketball).
At any rate, I answered this (remember analogies?). I said it was to be thought of the same way that you might interact with your fish. You can get wet, no question, but there is no constraint to that wetness.
My main points were:
1) time is a concept and measurement that is part of our physical reality.
When we are isolated from the world's indicators, we have little appreciation for time. It certainly is correct, that time passes, whether we are aware of it or not, but I maintain that this is a created element to our existence. If we could obliterate all our measurements for time, it would become a very vague concept to us and unimportant. I think of people I knew in Alaska, when I lived there. They really didn't pay much attention to time passing as the rest of the industrial world tends to.

2) We have both agreed here, but as you observed 'for differing reasons' that God is unconstrained by time. I would suggest, such an agreement puts you at odds with your other open theists on here. So, to me, this actually is more meaningful between you and I in this conversation, than it is for the general open theist populace. Perhaps I should have asked "in what way, different than my answer, is God unconstrained by time?"

3) and finally, that any agreement, whether my reading comprehension is good or poor, lessens significantly the impact of your contention that there is a logical incongruity.

4) though not a point made prior: I apologize for anything said that set you off or talked down at or to you. I perceived you as disengaging a few pages back and did not intend for my comments to be uncongenial, but good-natured teasing in response to some of your jibes. I will state, even though we often disagree, that the Dave I've gotten to know on TOL, I enjoy and like. Forgive any slights that may have conveyed otherwise. I embrace the TOL idea of speaking truth and standing for it, but I also want to be sure that any contention isn't lame character assassination. In other words, I want to combat your ideas without any purposeful maliciousness. Our disagreements are genuine and need to be aired as such, but it has not been my intention but to address and debate the points. If you would be so kind as to forgive any personal slights as applicable.

In Him
-Lon

I'm not, or have been, mad at you in the least. Nor do I really think you don't understand what I'm saying--I have a sense of humor too. But I do think that you are avoiding what is wrong with your propostion, your fish tank analogy does not support your case. I agree with you that God is "unrestrained" when he puts his hand into the "fish tank" of the world--interacts with it, but where I disagree with you is that God is still "outside of time" while acting in time, at the same time.

Me interacting with fish with my hand in a fish tank is not the samething as God interacting with us. Sure, my hand in the water, as time, and the rest of me outside of the water, outside of time, makes a degree of sense, but with my hand in the water it cannot be said that I am still outside the water. I don't have to be entirely in the water to be in the water. If I wanted to talk to the fish I would have to put my head in the water, and then certainly it could not be said I was still outside of the water at the same time.

When you say God is outside of time I would suppose you would include space, correct me if I am wrong. But if you propose that God is outside of space and time but can interact within it, but yet not be in it, then where is God? He can't be everywhere because that would include space and time, and my fish tank.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

It is a simple matter to say what a verse does not mean but if it doersn't mean what I said then it must have another meaning. And you failed to provide your interpretation of it:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

It is only "individuals" who are saved so therefore the verse is saying that in past times God chose individuals for salvation and his choice is based on the fact that He knows who in the future will believe the truth.

The Greek word for chose is in the "middle voice", God chose for himself in the beginning, you to salvation....

God chose "for himself" because we were not there in the beginning. If we were in the beginning with God, chose would be in the "active voice"--God chose you in the beginning to salvation.

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The Greek word for chose is in the "middle voice", God chose for himself in the beginning[/B], you to salvation....

Nothing you say there helps you in any way. Let us put in your interpretation and then complete what is said:

"God chose for himself in the beginning you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

The "object" of the choosing is "you" and that happened in the beginning. Since no one existed then it is evident that at the very least God looked into the future and saw those who would believe.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Nothing you say there helps you in any way. Let us put in your interpretation and then complete what is said:

"God chose for himself in the beginning you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

The "object" of the choosing is "you" and that happened in the beginning. Since no one existed then it is evident that at the very least God looked into the future and saw those who would believe.

It is not evident at all that God looked into the future.

Paul is making a comparison between those who have pleasure in unrighteousness and those who love the truth.
He is saying that God chose from the beginning that those who love the truth and believe the truth will gain salvation, but those who do not believe the truth but have pleasure in unrighteousness will be damned.
Paul is including the assembly in Thessalonia in the group of people that love the truth and believe the truth. He is not saying that God saw them when He looked into the future.

2 Thessalonians 2:10-15 10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 13But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 14Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.​

Paul concludes by telling the assembly in Thessalonia to stand fast and hold the traditions, implying that if they do not do so then they may fall from the truth and be damned. In order to be saved, they must believe the truth and be sanctified.

"God chose from the beginning you [who love the truth] to salvation through santification by the Spirit and believing the truth, so He called you [who love the truth] by the gospel."

 

[Jerry Shugart]

He is saying that God chose from the beginning that those who love the truth and believe the truth will gain salvation, but those who do not believe the truth but have pleasure in unrighteousness will be damned.

It does not say that "God chose from the beginning THAT..." Instead he said that "God chose from the beginning YOU":

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

The "you" must refer to individuals because the choosing was by "belief of the truth." God certainly did not choose groups of people for salvation based on a collective belief in the truth.

It is also a fact that the choosing is not something which is said to be in the future but instead something that happened in the beginning. And the object of that choosing is "you" so the verse is saying that individuals were chosen from the beginning for salvation by belief in the truth.

At the very least it means that God looken into the future and chose individuals who believe.

This in itself proves that the "settled" view of the Calvinists is in error because no one is chosen in "time"until they believe the truth.

 

[genuineoriginal]

It does not say that "God chose from the beginning THAT..." Instead he said that "God chose from the beginning YOU":

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

The "you" must refer to individuals because the choosing was by "belief of the truth." God certainly did not choose groups of people for salvation based on a collective belief in the truth.

You are saying God never chose the children of Israel to be His people, but only chooses individuals? Have you ever read the Old Testament?

It is also a fact that the choosing is not something which is said to be in the future but instead something that happened in the beginning. And the object of that choosing is "you" so the verse is saying that individuals were chosen from the beginning for salvation by belief in the truth.

At the very least it means that God looken into the future and chose individuals who believe.

This in itself proves that the "settled" view of the Calvinists is in error because no one is chosen in "time"until they believe the truth.

Paul uses a long rambling style when trying to make a point, and taking any verse out of context is always a mistake.

What makes you think Paul is talking abut a time before anybody existed?

Is Paul talking about a time before the creation of the world in this verse?

Acts 26:5 Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.​

Or in this verse?

Philippians 4:15 Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.​

The truth is much simpler than you are making it.
God has the ability to see into the hearts of men in the present. Paul is talking about God choosing from the beginning of the gospel to send Paul to the Thessalonians in order to reach those who would believe the truth when they heard it. There is no need to twist the verse into God seeing the future.

2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 13But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 14Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.​

1 Thessalonians 1:5-6 5For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake. 6And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost.​

Paul makes a big deal in 2 Thessalonians about the difference between those who believed the gospel and those that don't. In Thessalonica, most of the believers were Gentiles, which is one reason for Paul to reaffirm that God had chosen them from the beginning of the gospel since they believed rather than the Jews (that God had previously chosen as His people) who did not believe.

Acts 17 1Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 3Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. 4And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few. 5But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You are saying God never chose the children of Israel to be His people, but only chooses individuals? Have you ever read the Old Testament?

The subject is "salvation." Are you saying that God chose all of the children of Israel collectively for salvation based on a collective faith?

What makes you think Paul is talking abut a time before anybody existed?

Is Paul talking about a time before the creation of the world in this verse?

Here we see another verses that speaks of the same thing:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

This choosing is said to be "before the foundation of the world." Also, notice that Paul says, "chosen us 'in Him'."

That is exactly what Paul is referring to here:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "sanctification" is "consecration" and that word means "to separate from things profane and dedicate to God" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

The following verse describes this consecration when believers are separated from things profane and dedicated to God:

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body...the Body of Christ" (1 Cor.12:13,27).

 

[DFT_Dave]

Nothing you say there helps you in any way. Let us put in your interpretation and then complete what is said:

"God chose for himself in the beginning you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

The "object" of the choosing is "you" and that happened in the beginning. Since no one existed then it is evident that at the very least God looked into the future and saw those who would believe.

The word "you" is plural, meaning "you all" who have believed the gospel, God chose your salvation through...

There is no need for God to see the future in order to intend this for us and there is nothing in the verse that says he did.

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

Again we see God's intent that those "in him" be holy and blameless. God's does not have to see the future in order to have this intent and that he did this "before the foundation of the world" does not mean he sees the future. As I said before I don't think that, "katabole" means foundation, it means "fallen" world. We are to be holy before/in the presence of an unholy/fallen world.

--Dave

 

[genuineoriginal]

The subject is "salvation." Are you saying that God chose all of the children of Israel collectively for salvation based on a collective faith?

God chose all the children of Israel collectively to be saved with an everlasting salvation based on genetic heritage.

Isaiah 45:17 But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.​

Yet God also said He would move the children of Israel to jealousy with those which are not a people. We are in that group that are chosen not based on genetic heritage but based on the faith of the indivuals, and we are to move the children of Israel to jealousy by showing our faith.

Deuteronomy 32:21 They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.​

Here we see another verses that speaks of the same thing:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

Once again you ignore the long rambling style of Paul and miss the message in order to find a proof text that can be used out of context.
Paul is talking about the mystery of the Gentiles being chosen by God as part of God's plan from the beginning.

Ephesians 3:4-6,9-11 4Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: 9And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:​

God has chosen "us in Him" as His plan since before the foundation of the world. This is a message found in other writings in the New Testament as well, and the "us" refers to any who believe, not to specific people being chosen before their ancestors were created.

1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The word "you" is plural, meaning "you all" who have believed the gospel, God chose your salvation through...

Yes, Paul was addressing many believers and not just one. And the fact is that he told them for salvation from the beginning.

There is no need for God to see the future in order to intend this for us and there is nothing in the verse that says he did.

Let us look at the following verse which speaks of the "foreknowledge" of God:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).

One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "according" at 1 Peter 1:2 is "in consequence of" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

So the saved are described as "elect" and their election is "in consequence of" God's foreknowledge. And notice the "bold" in the following two verses:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "sanctification" is "consecration" and that word means "to separate from things profane and dedicate to God" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

The following verse describes this consecration when believers are separated from things profane and dedicated to God:

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body...the Body of Christ" (1 Cor.12:13,27).

It is only "individuals" who are baptized into the Body of Christ so the words "sanctification of the Spirit" are speaking of "individuals" being saved by the Spirit baptizing them into the Body of Christ.

 

[Lon]

I looked, and see no Open Theist promoting that God becomes subservient to man unless the future is unchangeable, but I see opponents of Open Theism making that claim quite often.

Agree. Why do you suppose? Reread my post. I chalked if full of reasons but primarily, it is because the primacy of the OV is to uphold freewill at all costs. This necessarily has God in the subservient position in deference to open theisms primary concern.

If you think that is the basis for Open Theism, then you missed the point.

I'll ask again then, why be an open theist, then? From my observations, it is all about man's freewill imperialized over anything else. Every proof text for the OVer is from narrative passages where the paradigms are built off of assumptions.
The secondary ov paradigm, is cloak and dagger, from my perspective at least, to attribute traditional theological views to ancient philosophy rather than the scriptures.

And that is exactly what Open Theists do as well, which is how most Open Theists found a reason to believe in Open Theism.

I disagreed. I believe the OV primacy is freewill, regardless of anything else.

So far, the only real argument against Open Theism amounts to nothing more than God HAS to know every detail about the future in order to be God, and all the rest of the arguments are straw men created to distort what Open Theists believe and proof texts used outside of the scope of what they were intended to describe.

These were genuine concerns of mine. Everytime I get to the bottom of the OV stance, in my estimation, it has always been man-centered freewill.

]
Since I learned about the nature of God from what He revealed about Himself in the Bible (not by studying the doctrines of men) I have no vested interest in thinking that God HAS to know every detail about the future in order to be God.
I can believe in God as He revealed Himself to mankind in His Word.
In fact, the only way for the Words that God speaks in the Bible to make any sense is if the future is changeable based on the choices and actions of men. Open Theism is the only way to adequately explain the rebellion of the angels lead by the adversary and the Judgment to come.

You can assert that, but it looks just the opposite to me. There are tons of threads concerning freewill on this site started by OVers.
I do believe scripture supports the omniscience of God. There are too many of them to relegate them away in deference to the OV, because the only reason to assert God doesn't know the future is an OV paradigm to establish freewill. There is no other reason to be adamant about His foreknowledge than this concern that I can see. As I said, this is then man-centered concern and theology from what I see. The primary concern of the OV is egocentric.

If the future is unchangeable, then "man's desperate need" doesn't exist, since no savior can save him.

See? Tell me, which is this statement primarily concerned with despite your protestation?

If you start with God, man's concerns are secondary. This is not to say they aren't important, but they are to be secondary concerns. Our primary concern should be toward the God we love, yes/no?

-Lon

 

[Lon]

When you say God is outside of time I would suppose you would include space, correct me if I am wrong. But if you propose that God is outside of space and time but can interact within it, but yet not be in it, then where is God? He can't be everywhere because that would include space and time, and my fish tank.

--Dave

To me, it seems you are wrestling with it appropriately, such that we both grasp the gist. You rightly identify the elements of discussion here.

The only point I'd assert here is that you are right concerning this: your hand is in the tank but you are also not wholly in the tank. Remember, God's hand is always with us, so I agree that part of Him is relational to us and time but I've always said that: God is relational to, unconstrained by time.
He can pull His hand out from us anytime He desires, but He doesn't. I agree with that.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Yes, Paul was addressing many believers and not just one. And the fact is that he told them for salvation from the beginning.

Let us look at the following verse which speaks of the "foreknowledge" of God:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).

Try looking at the entire epistle to see if it supports your interpretation of the proof text.

The foreknowledge of God refers to Christ being foreordained before the foundation of the world so that those who believe in God may become the Elect.

1 Peter 1:19-21 19But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 21Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.​

If Peter believed as you do that the Elect were chosen before their ancestors were created, then he would never have written this verse:

2 Peter 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

God chose all the children of Israel collectively to be saved with an everlasting salvation based on genetic heritage.

The Greek word translated "saved" can simply mean "deliverance." And here is a deliverance that is in regard to corporate Israel:

"And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God" (Zech.13:9).

On the other hand, the following verses illustrate the individual salvation in regard to the Israelites:

"And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace" (Lk.7:48-50).

The following verse is speaking about God choosing for salvation those "individuals" who believe:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

Once again you ignore the long rambling style of Paul and miss the message in order to find a proof text that can be used out of context.
Paul is talking about the mystery of the Gentiles being chosen by God as part of God's plan from the beginning.

Anyone with the slightest degree of an understanding of English can see that Paul is saying that it was from the beginning that God chose individuals for salvation and only those whom He foresaw believing were chosen.

God has chosen "us in Him" as His plan since before the foundation of the world. This is a message found in other writings in the New Testament as well, and the "us" refers to any who believe, not to specific people being chosen before their ancestors were created.

It is not just a "plan" but something that has already happened:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).

The foreknowledge of God refers to Christ being foreordained before the foundation of the world so that those who believe in God may become the Elect.

"Foreknowledge" is not the same as "foreordained." What you said answers NOTHING about what I said, that one of the meanings of the Greek word translated "according" at 1 Peter 1:2 is "in consequence of" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

So the saved are described as "elect" and their election is "in consequence of God's foreknowledge.

If Peter believed as you do that the Elect were chosen before their ancestors were created, then he would never have written this verse:

2 Peter 1:10
Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

The word "election" means chosen and the "election" being spoken of there is in regard to this:

"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you" (Jn.15:16).

Fruit bearing is in regard to "service" and not "salvation."

 

[godrulz]

I would not be surprised if a technical understanding of original languages would resolve Jerry's self-made problem. Regardless, the verse must be interpreted in light of many other verses that would not support individual election in eternity past by decree (Calvinism) nor simple foreknowledge leading to choosing of individuals before they exist (Arminianism). I believe Open Theism will stand up to Jerry's dogmatic misinterpretation of this pet verse of his (corporate vs individual election; the group is predestined/FK and the individuals benefit as they believe in real space-time). Jerry still has to deal with the Open Theism verses and principles and defend the problematic ones for Calvinism/Arminianism/Molinism.

The debate simply does not rise or fall on one verse since no one verse contains all truth and there are translation/interpretative issues (hence differing views).