It has been stated here on the BB:
"For-know = intimate relationship of God from eternity past with ones He chose to show grace/love to"
Yet there is no proof even though this has been questioned by many.
How do you Calvinists know that this is not referring to the ones who will exercise their freewill and accept Christ?
Considering your rather snotty and unbecoming response to me yesterday, I considered not responding to your question. However, I recently replied to someone on another thread and that answer would be perfect here.
Your above question, however, does deal with an inaccurate caricature of Calvinism. We do, without a doubt, claim that man must freely accept Christ. We believe God makes us free (through regeneration) to choose Him. We believe that God does not drag the unwilling into faith. Rather, God makes the unwilling willing and they freely and eagerly flee towards Him.
Here's my answer to your question re-posted from
here
The meaning of the word is not finally determined by the lexicon. Rather, the lexicon helps us see what the author had in mind but context is the ultimate determiner of meaning.
For example: I can say the word "
Run" and ask you what I am meaning. You might guess that I'm thinking of
running for exercise,
running to the store to get dinner, scoring a
run in a game of baseball, etc. However when I use the word
run in a sentence you will know what I am intending to say: On the way to church Sunday, my wife got a
run in her stockings.
Greek (or any language, for that matter) is the same--how the author uses a word gives us the greatest clue to what he is intending to convey to us the reader.
In the case of "foreknew," the Apostle Paul uses it in two passages in Romans
Romans 8:29-30--29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Romans 11:2--God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.
In both of these cases, Paul uses the same exact word in the same exact construction. In Romans 11:2 it is obvious that "foreknew" is an antonym to "rejected." Paul is using these words as opposite. After all, it makes absolutely no sense to say "God has not rejected his people who He saw would believe." If God saw they would believe, there would be no need to discuss a possible charge of rejection. To take Paul's use of "foreknew" in Romans 11 as "to see who would believe" is to create a
non-sequitur in his line of argumentation. So, Paul's usage of this word means "choose."
When we get to Romans 8:29-30 we have to employ Paul's same meaning--the word, again, means choose. Furthermore, the grammar of the passage speaks of people, not their actions. For example: The word can't mean "God saw their belief" or some other variation. Why? Because God is the subject (which isn't a problem) who acts on believers (which also isn't a problem). The problem comes with the 5 verbs--foreknew, predestined, called, justified, glorified. These verbs are the actions God does to us and these verbs are all Aorist (which is giving a "snapshot" of God's activity).
It makes no sense to define foreknew as "seeing who would believe," because it is based on our actions, not God's and that goes against the simple grammar of the passage. Furthermore, those who hold that "foreknew" means "to see who would believe" cannot apply that type of passive action to God in the verbs predestine, called, justified, glorified. The action in the verbs predestine, called, justified, and glorified is active and it is God who is doing the action. Who is it that predestines, calls, justifies, and glorifies? It is God and He does so actively, which is to say He justifies the ungodly...He doesn't merely see that they would someday be justified.
What is more, all of these verbs--along with God being the subject and acting on believers--show an action on persons, not mere knowledge of their actions. In other words, Paul is not saying that God saw that people's actions were predestined, called, justified, or glorified. Rather, Paul is saying that
people themselves are predestined, called, justified, and glorified. So it must be the case, then, that
people are "foreknown," not their future believing actions. Therefore, it must be that the word cannot mean simply "knew beforehand."
It is uninformed at best and disingenuous at worst to suggest that this word means "know beforehand" because those who hold to that definition would not apply the same passive meaning to the remaining verbs in Romans 8:29-30. Therefore, it is those who take the word to mean "know beforehand" who are actually reading their presuppositions into the passage. The text is clear and the word means "choose."
Blessings,
The Archangel
