Featured God's knowledge vs foreknowledge?

Tom posted;

Biblicist,and Reformed....posted solidly. WD offers a valid caution in that God is so beyond us we cannot take it all in....and yet revealed truth is for us.

The inspector did pick up on an inconsistency that in time will go away as you see how the word is used in the bible.....as per Tom.s post....Whom....he did foreknow.....

those who speak of foreseen faith have not studied the issue properly.


http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Attributes/attrib_04.htm

from sermon index;
Grammatical Analysis

The Greek words translated "foreknow" and "foreknowledge" are the verb proginosko and the noun prognosis. The verb has the basic meaning of "to know beforehand", "to know in advance", and the noun simply means "foreknowledge" [Cf. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, A Greek - English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature]

The Septuagint uses the verb proginosko and the noun prognosis apart from any Hebrew equivalent. The verb is attested three times (Wisdom 6:13, 8:8, 18:6), while the noun is used only twice (Judith 9:6, 11:19).

While Septuagint usage does allow for prescience when used of inanimate objects (Wisdom 6:13), when used of God the usage is clearly connected with His decree:

"Yea what things Thou didst determine were ready at hand, and said, Lo we are here: for all Thy ways are prepared, and Thy judgments are in Thy foreknowledge." (Judith 9:6)

Biblical Analysis

The verb proginosko is used five times in the New Testament (Romans 8:29, 11:2; Acts 26:5; 1 Peter 1:20; 2 Peter 3:17), while the noun prognosis is attested twice (Acts 2:23; 1 Peter 1:2).

In Romans 8:29, foreknowledge is explicitly connected with God�s decree:

"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren." (NASB)

Romans 11:2 refers to God�s people Israel whom He "foreknew". It is obvious from the context that this means more than prescience. In Acts 26:5, Paul, in his defense before Festus and Agrippa, discusses his own life and the fact that all the Jews have known (proginosko) him for a long time (i.e., personal knowledge). Acts 2:23 and 1 Peter 1:20 attribute God�s foreknowledge to the mission of Christ. Cook comments:

God not only knew ahead of time that Christ would be the Lamb (a concept that is self-evident and tautological), He determined it. No other interpretation of [foreknowledge] makes sense ...

1 Peter 1:2 relates to God�s election of individual believers "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit". Commenting on this verse, C. Samuel Storms writes:

The first thing that strikes me about the Arminian interpretation of this verse is the utter absence of any reference to faith or free-will as that which God allegedly foreknows or foresees in men.

Storms goes on to say:

Thus to "foreknow" on God�s part means to "forelove". That God foreknew us is another way of saying that He set His gracious and merciful regard upon us, that He knew us from eternity past with a sovereign and distinguishing delight.

The Greek word gnosis (and its cognates) finds its linguistic counterpart in the Hebrew word yada. The Hebrew term refers to knowing with experience or intimacy. For example, it is used of sexual union (Genesis 4:1, 19:8); of personal acquaintance (Genesis 29:5; Exodus 1:8); of knowing good from evil (Genesis 3:5,22); and of knowing the true God (1 Samuel 2:12 - 3:7; Jeremiah 3:22). The Greek noun and verb gnosis and ginosko have meanings that parallel those of the Hebrew yada.

In Matthew 1:25, the statement "he kept her a virgin" is literally "he knew her not" (eginosken). Moreover, in Philippians 3:10, the Apostle states his foremost desire, "that I may know Him" (gnonai). The reference in Romans 11:2 also has the meaning of the Hebrew yada:

"God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?" (NASB)

In this context, "foreknow" is synonymous with "forelove".

The conclusion is, therefore, that the word "foreknow" carries a much broader possibility of meanings than mere omniscience. In those contexts which speak of God�s electing or predestinating, the idea of personal causation out of personal love is present.

Theological Analysis

Reformed scholar Loraine Boettner makes the point that what is foreknown is foreordained:

What God foreknows must, in the very nature of the case, be as fixed and certain as what is foreordained; and if one is inconsistent with the free agency of man, the other is also. Foreordination renders the events certain, while foreknowledge presupposes that they are certain.

Now if future events are foreknown to God, they cannot by any possibility take a turn contrary to His knowledge. If the course of future events is foreknown, history will follow that course as definitely as a locomotive follows the rails from New York to Chicago. The Arminian doctrine, in rejecting foreordination, rejects the theistic basis for foreknowledge. Common sense tells us that no event can be foreknown unless by some means, either physical or mental, it has been predetermined. Our choice as to what determines the certainty of future events narrows down to two alternatives -- the foreordination of the wise and merciful heavenly Father or the working of blind physical fate.

Millard Erickson expands upon the idea that what is foreknown is foeordained and relates it to human freedom:

It should be noted that if certainty of outcome is inconsistent with freedom, divine foreknowledge, as the Arminian understands that term, presents as much difficulty for human freedom as does divine foreordination. For if God knows what I will do, it must be certain that I am going to do it. If it were not certain, God could not know it; He might be mistaken (I might act differently from what He expects). But if what I will do is certain, then surely I will do it, whether or not I know what I will do. It will happen! But am I then free? In the view of those whose definition of freedom entails the implication that it cannot be certain that a particular event will occur, presumably I am not free. In their view, divine foreknowledge is just as incompatible with human freedom as is divine foreordination.

This line of theological reasoning can be illustrated in the followng syllogism:

1. What is foreknown is fixed.
2. What is fixed is certain.
3. What is certain is predestined.
4. What is foreknown is predestined.

As was mentioned previously, Christ was crucified according to the foreknowledge of God (1 Peter 1:20; Acts 2:23). Does foreknowledge in this context mean that God had no absolute plan or no causative personal relationship to the mission of the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ? It would be absurd to deny causation here. In the same way, divine foreknowledge as it relates to any element of God�s predetermined purpose, must relate to God�s active involvement in bringing the event to pass.

Applicational Analysis

In the final analysis we ask the question, "What difference does it make?" Is a proper understanding of God�s foreknowledge as it relates to His plan all that important? The following three reasons for answering this question in the affirmative are offered:

God�s foreknowledge demonstrates His love. Just as Jesus Christ was "foreknown" by God (1 Peter 1:20) in the sense that God has eternally set His love upon Him, believers have been foreknown by God in that He has eternally set His love upon them (Romans 8:29).

God�s foreknowledge demonstrates His soverignty. God�s omnipotent sovereignty entails more than His omniscience. God is not "looking ahead" and planning His course accordingly. His plan is unconditional and complete according to His good pleasure (cf. Ephesians 1:2ff.).

God�s foreknowledge demonstrates His personal care. Predestination apart from foreknowledge might imply impersonal fatalism. However, God is not a God of impersonal fatalism but a God who is intimately involved with His creation and in His plans for it.

"For as many as may be the promises of God, in Him they are yes; wherefore also by Him is our Amen to the glory of God through us." (2 Corinthians 1:20)

 

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

This is not correct...see Tom's post......WHOM....not what.

 

Oh yeah, then who is the "whom" in this verse?

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

If foreknowledge must be speaking of a personal knowledge of an individual as Calvinism teaches, then who is this verse speaking about?

No, it is obvious here that foreknowledge is describing an event before it happened. God knew the Jews would come for Jesus in the garden, and Jesus allowed himself to be taken. God did not determine that the Jews would take Jesus and crucify him, as God never tempts any man to sin, but he surely knew they would take him and crucify him.

What was determined was that Jesus would be delivered.

 

Who do you understand by the first word "Him"? Is that a "whom" or a "what"?

 

I hope you are not going to argue that God foreknew Jesus. :laugh:

You Calvinists will go to any extreme to keep from admitting you have been shown wrong.

 

Don't you realize the very definition you are fighting? Apparently not! So let me remind that foreknowledge was being defended as "personal intimate knowledge"! Do you think the Father has personal intimate knowlege with "him" who is his son? Likewise, personal intimate knowledge with the elect "in" His Son.

Don't respond by arguing against what I said, because your previous post was all about denying it can mean personal intimate knowledge or do you remember?

The problem is that you don't care about the truth only about how you can defend your bias no matter what you have to say or do.

 

HIM being delievered...That would be Jesus Winman....

Joseph.....knew not...Mary until after the birth of Jesus..

Winman...do you think joseph did not know who mary was???
Adam knew his wife Eve and she conceived.....see it???

Adam did not know who she was before then???

israel was told ...you only have i known of all the nations....same question....see it yet...?

 

So, you are actually making the argument that God foreknew Jesus in Acts 2:23? You believe that is what this verse is trying to communicate to us?

Baloney, this verse is saying that Jesus WAS DELIVERED by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.

God foreknew that the scribes and priests would conspire to kill Jesus. God knew how Judas would betray him and lead them to Jesus in the garden. That is what is being said.

Mar 10:32 And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus went before them: and they were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid. And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto him,
33 Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles:
34 And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.

What was foreknown is that the priests and scribes would conspire with Judas to betray him, and that they would come for him in the garden. It was determined that Jesus would allow himself to be taken.

God did not determine they would crucify Jesus, as God does not tempt any man to sin. God did know they would crucify him, and he allowed it, but God did not cause it.

There is nothing in Acts 2:23 that has to do with knowing someone in a personal relationship, this verse is saying God foreknew the events that would take place, how the Jews would come for Jesus, and Jesus would allow himself to be taken.

So, the Calvinist attempt to redefine the word foreknowledge completely fails here.

 

The Grandville Sharp Rule represents the grammatical construction here. In simple English it means there are two Greek nouns translated "determinate counsel" and "foreknowledge" separated by the conjunction "kai" or "and" but only the first noun is modified by a definite article ("the"). This kind of construction means that the second noun "foreknowledge" is simply a further clarification of the first noun and means "determinate counsel EVEN forknowledge."

Therefore "foreknowledge" is not merely prescience or awareness of future events, but intimate knowledge of persons and events purposed By God according to His determinate counsel.

So yes, "him" or Christ was intimately known by God in regard to this specific determined purpose to put Christ to death in this precise manner including all these precise details but yet in perfect harmony with man's own responsibility for their hatred in accomplishing God's purpose.

In regard to Salvation you will note that God is said to work all things "according to His Purpose" in Romans 8:28 and thus foreknowlege in verse 29 follows just as a capenter can be intimately aware of all the details of a house BEFORE he builds it because of the BLUE PRINT that has predetermined every aspect before it is built.

 

:wavey::thumbs::applause::wavey:

 

Bible Study

I have not read this thread, so I am sorry if any of this is redundant.

To speak about an attribute of God based on opinion or what makes to us the most sense is pointless. OTOH, how we understand what Scripture says about God takes study. Both knowledge or foreknowledge are translations of one or more Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew words. Foreknowledge in the modern sense refers to knowing the future. But the Greek word translated as foreknowledge simply refers to knowing something from the past or formulated in the past and utilizing it in the present. So if you made a plan in the past and we implementing the plan now, your actions would be according to your foreknowledge.

 

Augustine asserted that to say God did not know, from before the foundation of the world, all things, was impiety. This is slightly off the mark. Rather, to assert that God could not foresee all things is impiety, for with God all things are possible. Alternately, it is also possible that God chose not to foresee all things and not to predestine all things, but to grant uncertainty as to the outcome of the individual choices of men, for all things are possible with God.

To paraphrase Senator Baker of Tennessee, let’s explore “what did He know and when did He know it.” In the New Testament, Peter first mentions God’s foreknowledge (prognosis) in Acts 2:23 which says, “the Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.”

Here we see that God’s foreknowledge was coupled with a predetermined plan that God would bring to fruition by choosing individuals and compelling the events He foretold. So in this case, God’s foreknowledge does not necessarily indicate He is foreseeing future individual selections for salvation; rather it indicates that God knew before the time of Christ that He would bring His plan to fruition. Peter may only be acknowledging that the events of the cross were foretold in Scripture, and therefore foreknown and predestined by God.

In Acts 26:5, Luke uses a similar word (proginosko), translated “known” to indicate that some Jews had previously known Paul, or known before, from the beginning. So here the word means something known before the time being, and is not tied with foretelling or predestining anything. So in this sense, knowledge that God held before the foundation of the world, He foreknew during Biblical times.

Based on these verses, two similar Greek words (transliterated prognosis and proginosko) are translated as foreknowledge and knowledge. Both are based on two root terms, pro meaning before and gnosis meaning knowledge. Ginosko is a form of gnosis and means to acquire or attain knowledge. The key to understanding the terms as used in the Bible is to ask the question “Before what”. The common misconception is to say before means before it happened or in the future. So based on this idea, foreknowledge means knowledge of the future. But this is completely wrong. Before refers to before the present time, in the past. So foreknowledge refers to something know beforehand, some idea or plan or concept learned or formulated in the past that is being used in the present. It has nothing whatsoever to do with foreseeing the future.

 

Just to throw in a little:

I believe my Calvinist brethren are indeed quite correct when they insist that the Bible clearly teaches that God "foreknows" Persons. I believe that is true. Of course, he also foreknows events.........but when he says "depart from me ye workers of iniquity for I never 'knew' you." Than it, in part means that God foreknows PERSONS, as much (and perhaps even more "deeply" <---whatever I mean by that) than simply events .

I do not believe that that brute fact in any way actually "Proves" the Calvinist model to be correct, far from it. I believe that fact is taken too far by them when they engage in their polemic. I believe that it is perfectly consistent with an "Arminian/ non-Cal" Theology....but, I don't think it serves non-Cals to deny that.

God "foreknows"....persons; actual persons. I think it gives us GREATER INSIGHT into the depth of God's foreknowing the saved. Non-Calvinists should (IMO) embrace that fact, and further deepen their understanding. I don't think it NEGATES a non-Calvinist Soteriology at all.

That is part of the reason that I do not subscribe to the "Simple foreknowledge" view....I think it's insufficient to explain the whole of the Bible teaching.

I believe that God "DETERMINED" Christ's crucifiction by the "wicked hands" who took him, not merely his being delivered.....Christ was slain before the foundation of the World. If he didn't use the Jews and Romans to do it...........then He would have chosen someone else. But make no mistake, it was DETERMINED.

Actually, given that.....(to soap-box a little) this pablum of "WE crucified Christ.....WE are responsible"....is a bunch of hooey. We did no such thing. GOD DID!!! It "pleased the Lord to bruise him." God chose to crucify his Son....not us. He poured out HIS WRATH on his Son; I wasn't there, and did no such thing. I don't like that speech; it isn't Scriptural.

Soap-box rescinded.

God can "determine" all things WITHOUT actually interfering with man's libertarian free will. He can do both

In fact, I believe it is his OMNISCIENCE he uses to bring those things to pass......not his "SOVEREIGNTY" per se. My Calvinist brethren will disagree with me on that account, and that's just fine, but it's true that God foreknows persons AND events......and that is perfectly consistent with an Arminian or non-Calvinist Theology.

 

Different thread, same story:

The problem you have “logically” missed is that your philosophical “common sense argument” (clearly different from mine), if true, logically leads you directly into theological fatalism. Greek or otherwise the definition my argument presented of the will is stated to include human freedom, or “man having the conscious ability to choose” or “free” will, not just “a will” like you point to in the Greek without consideration to these human freedoms, but a will of volition. You common try to avoid these problems by fallaciously removing the truth out of terms regarding your systematic rambling when necessary to counter arguments against your system.

My “type of philosophy”, which is based on simple critical thinking skills, demonstrates that if one neglects this simplistic logic of free will as Calvinists/Determinists/Whatever you want to call your yourself do, then they MUST necessarily hold to God determining their will and the human will cannot “logically” consist of a free conscious choice, thereby the P.O.E. rests on your system (God being responsible for evil) and thus theological fatalism logically unavoidably falls on your system.

Obviously the only “argument” you have, besides the smokescreens and rabbit chase fallacies, is to fallaciously attempt to change the definition of the premise in my argument from “free” will (volition) to be “not free” in the sense of the “(A) meaning that man has the ability to consciously choose”. You are merely attempting to redefine “free will” as “determined will” for the premise. Let me break it this down for you in simple terms: one cannot do both, have this ability (A) and not have this ability in any logical sense.

Do you understand that T + F = F is true? That is “my type” of philosophy, what’s yours? T + F = T is true, if so I’m afraid your “type of philosophy” defies basic simple logic truths.

You see, according to my logic which concludes as “true”, “if man's response is determined by causal means to have an irresistible effect on the man then man's volition logically becomes void”.

Sorry, but the logical equation I presented indisputably draws a true conclusion that one can’t have these human freedoms both ways, such as volition and not-volition/a determined will. This is proved through an elementary understanding of logic…

I suggest you study up on your critical thinking skills as well as how Determinism and the Problem of Evil work together to bring about Theological Fatalism. Your constant attempts to force fit strict determinism into God’s divine designs and promises for His creatures are merely self-defeating folly.

I suspect you have a common problem, maybe doing a Google search for, “Simple Logical Principles which apply to the Calvinist Deterministic System for Dummies” will help. Don’t claim ignorance as an excuse. (Rom 1:20) :smilewinkgrin:

 

Benjamin

:sleeping_2:

:sleeping_2:

:sleeping_2:

Biblicist has faithfully done this;
5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ

 

Your definition is irrational nonsense! Read my lips slowly - The will, regardless if it is God's or man's does not exist in a vacuum, it is not an isolated entity, it does not function apart from influence either external or internal, that kind of will does not exist and cannot exist or it would be another creature or being in an of itself.

The two Greek terms only confirm what the entire Scriptures teach and that every choice is determined by how a person thinks or feels. That is why Christians are commanded to "set their affections on things above" because as a man thinketh so is he and so does he choose. That is why we are commanded to bring every thought into obedience to Christ because our thinking determines are choices.

The human will IN THE SAVED has no power to overule the law of sin (Rom. 7:18). Hence, even the saved are without WILL POWER and that is why the power must come from God the Spirit and that is why it is "God that worketh in you BOTH to WILL and to DO of HIS GOOD PLEASURE. How much more in a person totally void of the Spirit whose will is completely under the power of the indwelling law of sin.

This type of thinking is based upon pure intellectual stupidity and total lack of common sense.

Regeneration is the moral change so that "delight in the law of God after the inward man" influences the inclination of the human will so that "to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not" except through submission to the Indwelling Spirit of God.

 

Question, do you believe the sin nature has been eradicated, or a new nature given?