Okay so I want to know your thoughts on something I was pondering today...
In the passages in Acts, Romans, Ephesians and the like that use words like "chosen", "predestined", "elect", and "appointed", does it make sense to say that the choosing or whatnot is according to a foreseen action?
Here's my opinion:
Linguistically speaking, the terms "choose", "appoint", and "elect" have no sensible meaning if they refer to just SEEING something beforehand (the Arminian view). If I took a time machine to the future, saw that Annette would love me, and then declared "I have appointed Annette unto romance with myself", would that make any sense? Or if I looked into a Palantir (LOTR reference, go watch it ; P) and foresaw that my Dad would whack me in the head with a sharp back-hand, would it make sense for me to then say "I have predestined my dad unto head whacking"? I don't think so. Appointment doesn't connotate any sort of knowledge, even foreknowledge, it connotates a choosing.
Some say that the predestination has to do with what Christians, after accepting Jesus, will become (sanctified, glorified, or whatever). So it's a predestination to certain events and changes, but not a predestination of specific people to which things like glorification and the like will come to pass. But this explanation makes no sense to me either, because many times Paul isn't referring to any part of the salvific process, but to PERSONS. This definitely couldn't be argued in a passage like the one in Acts (a Lukean text) which says "...and all who were appointed unto eternal life believed".
There's my two cents and thoughts as of now. Shoot!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment