Foreknowledge

Could mean to have known before.

 

You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.

 

God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.

did foreknow.

 

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

 

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

They were lost until they heard his voice. Paul?

 

I would like to say something here.

There is no mention of foreknown belief in this passage. It speaks of God foreknowing people. Not actions. Is is possible that you are transplanting a presupposition onto the text that is simply not there?

 

More than possible. Norm Geisler,Dave Hunt,Ergun Caner,George Bryson and a host of other Arminians do it all the time. But the Scriptures plainly state that the Lord foreknew people,not plans or the eventual free-will decisions of folks.

 

Yes...exactly right...to re-define the word in error is not to have the word at all. Nice posts on this thread, I think it will help any who are seeking.:applause::applause:

 

Oh Ann......you have been reading your bible again....you see what it says and believe it in the correct order. You are going to spoil the fun of those who mis-read it and make up their own version of how they"feel' it should read.

 

Jer 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Hosea 1:6 And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And [God] said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.

1:7 But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.

Hebrews 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah;

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.



From reading Jer. 3:8, Hosea 1:6,7 and Heb. 7:14 who would you say were his own in John 1:11?


And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:

Do you think maybe his own and this fold might be one and the same?

Had he foreknown this own?

Amos 9:9 For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, Deut. 32:26 I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men:

Did or has the remembrance of the Jews, the Judeans, ever ceased to exist?

Did he also foreknow the people of the house of Israel?



Foreknow?

 

Brother Ruiz,

Please do not take this as a "slam" against you, or your beliefs, but I love it how we, more often than not, get these types of responses whenever we disagree with the Calvinists. We can read for oursleves, and need no outside influences to persuade us. I am sure Pink is very knowledgeable, but he isn't infalliable.


Now, I don't agree with Brother Robert's assessment either. God sends the call out, and those who humble themselves under His mighty hand, will be saved.

 

A hearty AMEN from a "nut" in the peanut gallery!!

 

Yes, this story is shown in scripture for a reason. Before Nathanael was called and actually believed on Jesus, Jesus saw Nathanael and knew his heart. He called Nathanael a true Israelite, one of the elect. He knew Nathanael truly believed the word of God and was looking for the promised Christ.

There is very little detail of the other apostles being called compared to this, this story is shown for a reason.

The Calvinists don't want to see it, so they explain it away, they deflect. It would overthrow their doctrine.

 

Pink is not perfect, but on this issue he is very tough to argue against. If you note, I took the scriptures and exegetically showed my point. There is nothing wrong with citing sources or arguments, that is what I did.

What I find most amazing, no one has attempted to argue against those scriptures I did bring up.

On the other end, which is better, citing no one but yourself or citing others who agree with you? I tend to believe that if you will argue against someone for citing a respected scholar then you should argue also against people here who express their opinions. THey are not God nor are they the Bible.

 

Zactly.

I foreknow It's suger snap peas that are going to come up in this row in my garden because, I PLANTED THEM THERE.

 

dems fightin words!

 

I read through this entire thread this morning and Praise God, its civil!! :applause:--and very informative as well, lots of good posts and questions....
Winman, the "calvinist" doctrine, as you call it, gives glory to God [not man] for all things--you are saying that Nathaniel had something [faith]I don't believe he could get if it didn't come from God. Yes, if you could prove that salvation, election is by mans "faith" you could overthrow Calvinist doctrine [and Scripture btw] Keep studying!

 

but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Ro 2:29

The above truth is beautifully illustrated by the incident below:

“Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! ”

God had already wrought within Nathanael, he was already 'doing the truth' [Jn 3:21] PRIOR to coming to Christ; the birth from above had already occurred.

Nathanael was a Jew inwardly, he was circumcised in heart, thus his praise from God in the flesh:

“Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!”