Foreknow

[BaptistBob]

Your textual assumption is not accurate.

Peter is not saying that Christ was "the unblemished lamb prior to his entrance in history." Peter uses the unblemished lamb comment at the end of a sentence and it modifies "Christ" in verse 19 and it is intended to speak of the value of His blood being more than that of gold or silver and that's where that though ends.

Verse 20 starts with "he," referring to "Christ, the unblemished lamb." You're attempting to split a hair that isn't there. Who is "he"?

This cannot be grammatically. There is no "inference" between the two verses.

Both grammatically and contextually it is supported. Who is "he"? What have we been told.

There is a clear break between verse 19 and verse 20 (certainly the idea is still flowing, but there is a grammatical break).

Of course.

At verse 20, Peter uses a μεν...δε construction which means something like "First...second" or "On the one hand...on the other hand." So the μεν...δε construction shows that Peter is addressing what comes after the μεν, not what comes before.

Ok, for the sake of those with no training I will refute this comment.

First off, tell me what intro Greek grammar textbook you have on hand so that I can direct you to the page which explains the construction. Perhaps you have Wallace's book, so you could turn to p. 672 and the discussion involving the construction, using the example of Matt. 9.37. Look for "contrast" and the concept of contrasting a great harvest but having few workers. Then look at other examples (found in the indexed pages) for comparisons and contrasts. When making comparisons and contrasts, we are not merely "addressing what comes after."

Anyhow, if you list the books you have, I will be able to direct you to pages that help you, in the future.

The deeper argument present in verse 20 is that Christ was intended to be our substitutionary sacrifice "before the foundation of the world." But, given that truth, the visible outworking of God's plan (the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ) happened in recent history--for the sake of those to whom Peter is writing.

True.

Furthermore, the participle construction of "foreknown" completely eliminates your argument that Christ was "foreknown to be unblemished." The participle shows that it is not something about Christ that was foreknown (again, the improper definition and usage is used in your argument--the idea that it is seeing beforehand). Rather, what this shows is that Christ Himself was foreknown, that is chosen, before the foundation of the world and in the grammatical construction there is no allusion to the reason. Peter is making a simple statement of fact.

Again, you're attempting to split a hair that does not exist. Christ is described as an unblemished sacrifice. The contrast is between time frames, making "foreknown" refer to a time in the past, and contrasted with the fact that only now it has been made manifest.

On the one hand X, on the other hand Y. Then and now.

 

[OldRegular]

So, you may not like it, but Judas was chosen or elected by God to fulfill a specific purpose. When Jesus chose his disciples, he intentionally chose Judas to be among them already knowing he would not believe and would betray him.

So which is it Winman? You say Judas was chosen for a specific purpose. Did Judas betray Jesus Christ of his on free will or was he predestined to betray Jesus Christ?

 

[percho]

Winman you are correct Judas was chosen for a specific purpose and also thoes predestined are predestined for a specific purpose not related to ultimate destination but for a purpose of God in the Kingdom of God.

 

[Winman]

So which is it Winman? You say Judas was chosen for a specific purpose. Did Judas betray Jesus Christ of his on free will or was he predestined to betray Jesus Christ?

Both. God saw beforehand that Judas would betray Jesus, and this was God's purpose. God chose Judas because he would fulfill his purpose.

You Cals and DoGs are always talking about God's sovereingty, but cannot allow yourself to believe that God's foreknowledge can work with his decreed purposes.

If Jesus would have chosen a man who he knew would believe on him as the 12th disciple, then he wouldn't have been betrayed and gone to the cross which was his purpose.

John 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.
19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.

Notice Jesus said he knows whom he had chosen. And in John 6 he said the same when he mentioned Judas.

John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

And Jesus knew from the beginning who would betray him.

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

You guys just can't put it together can you? It is all there in scripture. Jesus knew from the beginning Judas would betray him. And it was Jesus's design and purpose he would be betrayed and go to the cross.

How do I know that? Because the scriptures say so. And I will show you.

1 Cor 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Satan did not know what Jesus was doing and what he planned to accomplish. If he had known and understood, he would not have crucified Jesus. Satan thought he was getting rid of Jesus at the crucifixion. He did not know that Jesus would destroy him at the cross. And so Satan entered Judas and tempted him to betray Jesus for money, that was Judas's lust and sin.

Jesus knew from the beginning of the world that Judas would sell him out for thirty pieces of silver, that is why he chose Judas to be one of the 12 disciples.

And notice back up in John 13:19 that Jesus hadn't actually been betrayed and crucified. It had not yet happened in reality. So this shows God's foreknowledge, because he saw what would happen.

You guys are always accusing us of usurping God's power and sovereignty, yet you limit him by saying he cannot see the future, which the scriptures clearly shows he can. And he can use that knowledge to bring about his purposes.

 

[Winman]

I suspect the same way you know you are saved!:thumbsup::thumbsup:

I don't think so. I have written a post before explaining exactly how I know I am saved. And someone else here did the same and it went right over your head.

Giving little one liners doesn't fool anybody. If you know you are elect, then explain how you know.

 

[OldRegular]

Both. God saw beforehand that Judas would betray Jesus, and this was God's purpose. God chose Judas because he would fulfill his purpose.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[OldRegular]

I don't think so. I have written a post before explaining exactly how I know I am saved. And someone else here did the same and it went right over your head.

Giving little one liners doesn't fool anybody. If you know you are elect, then explain how you know.

I have answered this question a number of times Winman. I know that I am elect because GOD saved me. It is that simple! Sadly I am certain that you cannot understand that truth!

You see I believe that Jesus Christ is the Author and Finisher of my Salvation. You apparently, as a Freewiller, believe that you are the author of your salvation. i don't know about the finisher.

 

[Winman]

I have answered this question a number of times Winman. I know that I am elect because GOD saved me. It is that simple! Sadly I am certain that you cannot understand that truth!

You see I believe that Jesus Christ is the Author and Finisher of my Salvation. You apparently, as a Freewiller, believe that you are the author of your salvation. i don't know about the finisher.

And you do not seem to realize that saying you know Jesus saved you because you know Jesus saved you is circular reasoning.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
I have answered this question a number of times Winman. I know that I am elect because GOD saved me. It is that simple! Sadly I am certain that you cannot understand that truth!

You see I believe that Jesus Christ is the Author and Finisher of my Salvation. You apparently, as a Freewiller, believe that you are the author of your salvation. i don't know about the finisher.

And you do not seem to realize that saying you know Jesus saved you because you know Jesus saved you is circular reasoning.

Your inane response reminds me of the Scripture of Jesus Christ talking to the Apostles:

Matthew 13:14, 15

14. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15. For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

 

[Robert Snow]

You apparently, as a Freewiller, believe that you are the author of your salvation. i don't know about the finisher.

You have persisted in saying this even though you have been told over and over that this is not what we believe. Apparently you have decided to intentionally tell this lie over and over. This is not becoming for one who is a follower of Christ!

 

[The Archangel]

Verse 20 starts with "he," referring to "Christ, the unblemished lamb." You're attempting to split a hair that isn't there. Who is "he"?

Both grammatically and contextually it is supported. Who is "he"? What have we been told.

Of course the "He" is Christ. The participle being genitive masculine corresponds to Christ in verse 19 which is also genitive masculine.

Ok, for the sake of those with no training I will refute this comment.

First off, tell me what intro Greek grammar textbook you have on hand so that I can direct you to the page which explains the construction. Perhaps you have Wallace's book, so you could turn to p. 672 and the discussion involving the construction, using the example of Matt. 9.37. Look for "contrast" and the concept of contrasting a great harvest but having few workers. Then look at other examples (found in the indexed pages) for comparisons and contrasts. When making comparisons and contrasts, we are not merely "addressing what comes after."

Anyhow, if you list the books you have, I will be able to direct you to pages that help you, in the future.

I'm well acquainted with Wallace, though I don't own a copy. I'm sorry you misunderstood what I meant, perhaps I wasn't clear, but I figured you'd understand without me getting into the deep technical side of the argument.

When I said "addressing what comes after," this is what I meant:

In verse 19 we see the parenthetical statement "like that of a lamb without blemish or spot." That parenthesis modifies blood, as does Christ, more on that below (verse 19). Verse 20 begins with "He was foreknown." The particle μεν appears after the word it modifies and can rightly be translated (though it often isn't in this construction) as indeed (with the δε being the adversative "but").

So, what Peter is saying is "Indeed He [Christ] was chosen before the foundation of the world but He was made manifest in recent times"

Now, Peter's use of the μεν...δε certainly carries on his thought--but the μεν...δε clause encapsulates a thought and it is basically its own clause (actually two clauses, but you knew that, I suppose).

What I should have made more clear, again assuming of you on my part, is the participle is not referring to the clause "like that of a lamb without blemish or spot" but to Christ Himself. And, the μεν...δε construction is not in direct reference to "like that of a lamb without blemish or spot."

That's the point I was making.

Again, you're attempting to split a hair that does not exist. Christ is described as an unblemished sacrifice. The contrast is between time frames, making "foreknown" refer to a time in the past, and contrasted with the fact that only now it has been made manifest.

On the one hand X, on the other hand Y. Then and now.

I agree with this. But you wrongly assume that the "he was foreknown" is modifying "lamb without blemish or spot."

"Like that of a lamb without blemish or spot" is a dependent clause and is modifying Christ. "He was foreknown" is an attributive participle acting as the verb of the clause and it includes the subject "He."

Furthermore, "Christ" is the final word of verse 19 and it is, likely, placed there for emphasis. So a wooden translation is: But with the precious blood--like that of a lamb without blemish or spot--of Christ.

So the phrase "like that of a lamb without blemish or spot" modifies "blood," not Christ. Christ also modifies blood.

So your entire argument is false, even without entering the μεν...δε debate because simple Greek sentence structure precludes your idea. He was foreknown does not and cannot refer to "like that of a lamb without blemish or spot." Foreknown refers to "He," Jesus Himself, not things about Him.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[BaptistBob]

Of course the "He" is Christ. The participle being genitive masculine corresponds to Christ in verse 19 which is also genitive masculine.



I'm well acquainted with Wallace, though I don't own a copy. I'm sorry you misunderstood what I meant, perhaps I wasn't clear, but I figured you'd understand without me getting into the deep technical side of the argument.

When I said "addressing what comes after," this is what I meant:

In verse 19 we see the parenthetical statement "like that of a lamb without blemish or spot." That parenthesis modifies blood, as does Christ, more on that below (verse 19). Verse 20 begins with "He was foreknown." The particle μεν appears after the word it modifies and can rightly be translated (though it often isn't in this construction) as indeed (with the δε being the adversative "but").

So, what Peter is saying is "Indeed He [Christ] was chosen before the foundation of the world but He was made manifest in recent times"

Now, Peter's use of the μεν...δε certainly carries on his thought--but the μεν...δε clause encapsulates a thought and it is basically its own clause (actually two clauses, but you knew that, I suppose).

That's the point I was making.



I agree with this. But you wrongly assume that the "he was foreknown" is modifying "lamb without blemish or spot."

"Like that of a lamb without blemish or spot" is a dependent clause and is modifying Christ. "He was foreknown" is an attributive participle acting as the verb of the clause and it includes the subject "He."

Furthermore, "Christ" is the final word of verse 19 and it is, likely, placed there for emphasis. So a wooden translation is: But with the precious blood--like that of a lamb without blemish or spot--of Christ.

So the phrase "like that of a lamb without blemish or spot" modifies "blood," not Christ. Christ also modifies blood.

So your entire argument is false, even without entering the μεν...δε debate because simple Greek sentence structure precludes your idea. He was foreknown does not and cannot refer to "like that of a lamb without blemish or spot." Foreknown refers to "He," Jesus Himself, not things about Him.

Blessings,

The Archangel

This argument is misdirected, since I never agrued that Christ's attributes were in view apart from him. Rather, my point is that his sacrificial attributes and his role were foreknown in times past and made manifest in the present. Christ's identity includes all that is mentioned in the prior verse. In fact, the prior verse showcases Christ by putting his name at the end of the clause, withholding his actual name a long as possible, while first discussing him.

What I should have made more clear, again assuming of you on my part, is the participle is not referring to the clause "like that of a lamb without blemish or spot" but to Christ Himself. And, the μεν...δε construction is not in direct reference to "like that of a lamb without blemish or spot."

I never argued that it was a reference to the clause "like that of a lamb without blemish or spot." Rather, I argued that the theology of verse 19 is what is "made manifest" in the present time. If, for example, verse 19 had described Christ as a political savior, then he would have been made manifest as such in the present time. Having showcased Christ a the one who shed his blood, like an unblemished lamb, the author says he was made manifest at the present time.

What I should have made more clear, again assuming of you on my part, is the participle is not referring to the clause "like that of a lamb without blemish or spot" but to Christ Himself. And, the μεν...δε construction is not in direct reference to "like that of a lamb without blemish or spot."

And I hope I have made clear that the contrast is between the past and the present. This contrast involves the time past ("foreknown") and the present ("made manifest in the last times").

 

[Allan]

I have been watching this thread with some interest, mostly because I enjoy reading the posts of Archangel and Baptistbob :thumbs:

However I must say the interaction began a little roughly, which I think was due to a misunderstanding. I appreciate the fact that you two gentlemen have come to a place where it is more about the subject matter at hand rather than some of the previous posts. Hey, it happens.

Being on the opposite side of the fence with Archangel, might I say he is a rather humble person so the misunderstanding concerning his post(s) took me a little off guard. Let me state however I also realize different people take things in different ways, so brother Bob please don't take his posts as exaulting his education even if to you it might have seemed such.

I thank you Baptistbob and Archangel for all your input and explanations as you both help illuminate the text for many who know some, little, or none of the original languages. You guys are good brothers whom I wish the best testimony for and hope you maintain your current discussion, putting aside the misunderstanding in good conscience knowing that, not only are we watching, but that we are praying for you both to help us and others know so much more

 

[Rippon]

It is only these that GOD has obligated HIMSELF to save.

As I was saying, He isn't obligated to save those who will not believe even though He has extended that proposition toward all mankind.

The Lord is not obligated to anyone. He owes no one anything.

 

[Winman]

The Lord is not obligated to anyone. He owes no one anything.

The Lord IS obligated to save us if we come to Christ and believe on him because he has given his solemn promise. If the Lord broke his promise he would be a liar.

2 Tim 2:13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

When God makes a promise, he must keep it. He cannot deny himself.

 

[Rippon]

You guys are always accusing us of usurping God's power and sovereignty, yet you limit him by saying he cannot see the future, which the scriptures clearly shows he can. And he can use that knowledge to bring about his purposes.

You reduce the Lord of the Scriptures by saying that God only has advance knowledge -- insider info.

You need to humble yourself and recognize that the Lord of the Word of God ordains,determines, designs, appoints,establishes, decrees. He doesn't merely know ahead of time -- what a denigration of God you teach!

 

[Winman]

You reduce the Lord of the Scriptures by saying that God only has advance knowledge -- insider info.

You need to humble yourself and recognize that the Lord of the Word of God ordains,determines, designs, appoints,establishes, decrees. He doesn't merely know ahead of time -- what a denigration of God you teach!

Absurd. God knew Judas would betray Jesus for thirty pieces of silver, and so Jesus chose Judas as one of the twelve disciples. The Lord said so.

John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Jesus knew Judas would betray him, and specifically chose Judas to bring about his purpose of going to the cross to die for our sins.

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

And Jesus says that Judas was chosen to fulfill scripture.

John 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.

Once again Jesus says he knows who he has chosen, and that scripture be fulfilled Judas who was eating with Jesus at the time would betray him.

If you didn't have your Cal blinders on this would be clear as day to you.

 

[Skandelon]

You reduce the Lord of the Scriptures by saying that God only has advance knowledge -- insider info.

You need to humble yourself and recognize that the Lord of the Word of God ordains,determines, designs, appoints,establishes, decrees. He doesn't merely know ahead of time -- what a denigration of God you teach!

Are you arguing that God can't just know something ahead of time, but that HE MUST have appointed, established or decreed it?

What about sin? The bible is clear that God doesn't even tempt men to sin, yet would you argue that God goes as far as to "ordain/decree" it? Please explain?

And, if you don't mind, explain to me why God couldn't simply foreknow something? Why must it be more? Is that the one thing our omniscient God is not powerful enough to do?

 

[Robert Snow]

Are you arguing that God can't just know something ahead of time, but that HE MUST have appointed, established or decreed it?

What about sin? The bible is clear that God doesn't even tempt men to sin, yet would you argue that God goes as far as to "ordain/decree" it? Please explain?

And, if you don't mind, explain to me why God couldn't simply foreknow something? Why must it be more? Is that the one thing our omniscient God is not powerful enough to do?

I would think Rippon's belief is more akin to hyper-Calvinism. No insult intended, this just appears to be the case.

 

[The Archangel]

This argument is misdirected, since I never agrued that Christ's attributes were in view apart from him. Rather, my point is that his sacrificial attributes and his role were foreknown in times past and made manifest in the present. Christ's identity includes all that is mentioned in the prior verse. In fact, the prior verse showcases Christ by putting his name at the end of the clause, withholding his actual name a long as possible, while first discussing him. (Emphasis mine)

You argued this here: "The inference, if any, is that God chose Christ because he was foreknown to be unblemished." So, yes, you did argue for that.

Secondly, to the bolded sentence above, the grammar will not allow for that statement. The grammar clearly states that Jesus was foreknown, not His attributes. For emphasis sake the 1 Peter 1:20 can be clarified "He Himself was foreknown..." That is an inescapable fact of the masculine genitive participle.

The previous verses grammatically breakdown this way:

V. 17b "conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile"

Conduct yourselves is the imperative and is, therefore, Peter's main point and call to action

V. 18 a "knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers,"

Knowing is a participle and is how the imperative is to be carried out. How is one to conduct ourselves with fear...? By knowing that we were ransomed..." A clear allusion to the cross.

The following points are built off the finite verb Ransomed

Ransomed:

*not with perishable things such as silver or gold, (v. 18b).

*but with the precious blood of Christ, (v. 19a)
​

Peter answers the question of how we were ransomed with the negative first "not with silver or gold." Peter, then, give the positive--the "how" of our ransom--the blood of Christ

Peter then clarifies "blood" with a parenthetical statement

Blood:

*like that of a lamb without blemish or spot (v. 19b)
​

So, grammatically, "like that of a lamb without blemish or spot" does not refer to Christ, but to blood.

V. 20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you

This is a new grammatical thought (though not unrelated) and is the beginning of a new sentence. V. 19 ends with the word Christ in the genitive singular masculine and it is immediately followed by the participle "he was known" in the genitive singular masculine.

As already stated, the μεν...δε construction shows this to be an encapsulated idea--stating "indeed He [Jesus] was chosen in the past before the foundation of the world, but was made manifest recently."

So, there is no way that your conclusion is accurate, unless of course you believe the reader is the final arbiter of meaning and not the text itself.

I never argued that it was a reference to the clause "like that of a lamb without blemish or spot." Rather, I argued that the theology of verse 19 is what is "made manifest" in the present time. If, for example, verse 19 had described Christ as a political savior, then he would have been made manifest as such in the present time. Having showcased Christ a the one who shed his blood, like an unblemished lamb, the author says he was made manifest at the present time.

Again, that's not what the text says. Jesus Himself was made manifest, not theology.

And I hope I have made clear that the contrast is between the past and the present. This contrast involves the time past ("foreknown") and the present ("made manifest in the last times").

The contrast of the μεν...δε does make a contrast between the past and present, that is true. But it is not connected to the previous verse except to identify Jesus as the One foreknown in the participle.

Blessings,

The Archangel