Featured Election being according to foreknowledge

Are you being snide and snarky on purpose or does it just come naturally? I said I can offer an answer. If you keep pushing, I'll give you one. I just don't know that I have an adequate answer (i.e. that I could defend it). I have an opinion. It is not locked up water tight in my mind. So I am reserving it for later. If you can't appreciate that, then leave me alone. I didn't ask for your lack of helpful input on this thread.

 

Sorry, but I have a problem w/ letting one verse from a completely different author dictate the syntax of a different author... especially when their styles are so different. This doesn't have to be a contradiction either. Plus, if you do what you are talking about, it is just another form of eisegesis (legit or not). I want to keep Peter in his own context.

I didn't want to push it since I was hoping to make this thread about 1 Peter. But since you keep going, Rom. 9:10 can only be made to be about foreknowledge via inference. More probable is that foreordaining is in view since much has to do not just with actions but that which causes the actions - God. And I don't think that this is a good example of foreknowledge in Rom. 9 since as has been mentioned above, Paul just previously had made the point that God foreknew people not actions or decisions. So I have a hard time going with your assertion.

That said, if what I have written is correct (which I'm sure you'll dispute), then it has no relation on 1 Peter theologically either (even though you seem to think that it affects Peter's syntax).

 

My only burr is the way you have engaged in this thread.

You can't call my argument absurd b/c you can't even engage in it. I'm wondering if you even understand my contention in 1 Peter. But since you are being extremely unhelpful, I will give you my take on foreknowledge. However, I don't want this to be an impetus to rabbit-trail us away from the OP.

My understanding of foreknowledge is that it primarily refers to a relationship that God has with his elect. He knows people not decisions (in this case). He knows them relationally, filially. The "fore" is from a human perspective to a God who exists transcendent of time. As time bound beings, we have a hard time conceiving of God's existence outside of a space/time continuum. But the essence is that God's foreknowledge is his established relationship with us prior to our existence. Thus it is very much similar and synonymous to his preordaining/predetermining.

It can't refer to simply a pre-knowledge of things b/c that in itself is self determining. To say that God knew beforehand who would believe in him and so he chose them is asinine. If God knew beforehand, and God cannot be wrong, then God's knowledge is itself determinative of who would believe.

 

My problem with this is that syntactically, that is a hard pill to swallow. W/ your translation provided, you demonstrate the "elect" is used adjectivally. That really makes it seem unlikely that the prepositional phrase would refer to the adjective, and more likely it should refer to the noun.

 

Are you being ignorant to frustrate me? I just gave you an explanation!!! I told you what I think the word means. But I'm not a dogmatic fundamentalist who is nothing but combative like you. I am willing to say that I am not certain because I can see some holes in my own explanation. I'm not so arrogant; I can admit I don't have all the answers nailed down.

Nevertheless, you are demonstrating that you don't bother to read my posts, you would prefer to be combative, and you really have no idea what this entire thread is about. This is part of the reason why I didn't want to engage in this argument over definition. It detracts from the purpose of the thread. So either contribute to the intended discussion, or leave me alone!