The Definition Of “Foreknowledge”

[Baptizo]

If you think the insight concerning the meaning of "prognosis" was copied from Strong's, you are wrong. It came from study of the topic.

Try it, you might like it.;

That must be what the problem is. Please direct me to where I can purchase a copy of the VSB (Van’s Standard Bible) translation so that I may start to correct the error of my ways. Money is no object.

I’d prefer mine in calfskin with thumb indexing please, thanks.

 

[Zaatar71]

That must be what the problem is. Please direct me to where I can purchase a copy of the VSB (Van’s Standard Bible) translation so that I may start to correct the error of my ways. Money is no object.

I’d prefer mine in calfskin with thumb indexing please, thanks.

 

[Reynolds]

Beca

1 Peter 1:1-2 - Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Foreknowledge - To have awareness of something before it happens or exists.

Why do some change the definition to mean that something is determined to happen or exist?

Because the word is πρόγνωσις. It can meanforeknowledge, forethought, pre-arrangement.

 

[Ben1445]

Romans 8:29 is most often used...for Whom He did Foreknow-

So don’t avoid Romans 1:21.
I am questioning your definition of know in the book of Romans. Explain how the unrighteous have a relationship with God.

 

[Ben1445]

I think the verses you use here show a connection, or indeed the link you look for. There are five actions linked together. you can number them;
1] whom He foreknew
2] He also did Predestinate
3] them He also called
4] the called are justified
5] the justified are then glorified

Those who hold this link or chain so, no, that the foreknowledge of the persons, leads to a calling to come to Jesus. That then leads to predestination to be conformed to the image of Jesus. That is a good thing, right?

The knowledge of the biblical term foreknowledge used in the way the quote from Aw.Pink was linked , does not mean that we know for sure who are those people who benefit from this chain of positive results. It would still be the every believing one of Jn3:15, 16 , don't you think that is so?

Linked doesn’t mean equally dependent on every other.
It’s definitely the believing. Scripture is clear that the unbelievers are not saved. This doesn’t also explain how knowing something before it happens makes you responsible for it.
To say that only saved people are allowed in heaven and that shows Calvinism is missing the point. I assume you meant to say more than that. I must have missed your point.

 

[Van]

That must be what the problem is. Please direct me to where I can purchase a copy of the VSB (Van’s Standard Bible) translation so that I may start to correct the error of my ways. Money is no object.

I’d prefer mine in calfskin with thumb indexing please, thanks.

I use the NASB, and compare the verse with other versions, such as the NET (with its footnotes) the NKJV, and the WEB (World English Bible).
When determining how a particular word is used in scripture, I look at the other verses where the same Greek word appears in the NT, or as used by the writer or as used in the book containing the verse, if the number (more than say 25) is too large.

And yes, I have several leather bound versions of the NASB, such as life Zondervan and Ryrie for the study bible footnotes.

I think the verses you use here show a connection, or indeed the link you look for. There are five actions linked together. you can number them;
1] whom He foreknew
2] He also did Predestinate
3] them He also called
4] the called are justified
5] the justified are then glorified

Those who hold this link or chain so, no, that the foreknowledge of the persons, leads to a calling to come to Jesus. That then leads to predestination to be conformed to the image of Jesus. That is a good thing, right?

The knowledge of the biblical term foreknowledge used in the way the quote from Aw.Pink was linked , does not mean that we know for sure who are those people who benefit from this chain of positive results. It would still be the every believing one of Jn3:15, 16 , don't you think that is so?

Your premise seems based on redefining a poor translation choice to support crystal ball knowledge of the future. Not how God declares the end from the beginning. Study the topic such as how does God fulfill His prophecies.

 

[Zaatar71]

So don’t avoid Romans 1:21.
I am questioning your definition of know in the book of Romans. Explain how the unrighteous have a relationship with God.

This verse seems to be describing men turning from a true knowledge of God to idols . That is more the context it seems. God gives them over to a reprobate mind. They were never foreknown in the way romans 8 uses the term.

 

[Zaatar71]

I use the NASB, and compare the verse with other versions, such as the NET (with its footnotes) the NKJV, and the WEB (World English Bible).
When determining how a particular word is used in scripture, I look at the other verses where the same Greek word appears in the NT, or as used by the writer or as used in the book containing the verse, if the number (more than say 25) is too large.

And yes, I have several leather bound versions of the NASB, such as life Zondervan and Ryrie for the study bible footnotes.

Your premise seems based on redefining a poor translation choice to support crystal ball knowledge of the future. Not how God declares the end from the beginning. Study the topic such as how does God fulfill His prophecies.

Do you mean that God has no idea what is going to happen. is that what you are saying about crystal ball knowledge? I am not sure what you are saying.

 

[Ben1445]

This verse seems to be describing men turning from a true knowledge of God to idols . That is more the context it seems. God gives them over to a reprobate mind. They were never foreknown in the way romans 8 uses the term.

They were never foreknown the way reformed theology uses the word in chapter 8.
I am contesting your usage in chapter 8.
You cannot use your preferred usage to explain yourself.
That is akin to using the word in the definition that you are trying to define.
Please try again.
It can’t be a relationship when it’s convenient for your doctrine and information when it’s inconvenient.

 

[atpollard]

1 Peter 1:1-2 - Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Foreknowledge - To have awareness of something before it happens or exists.

Why do some change the definition to mean that something is determined to happen or exist?

How do you reconcile THIS part of the verse you selected with “foreknowledge” (awareness of something before it happens) and NOT land on “determined” to happen?

1 Peter 1:1-2 - Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

If GOD is responsible for “elect” (choosing), “sanctification of the Spirit” (being set apart and made more Chris-like) and “obedience”, then WHAT did God “foreknow” (have prior awareness of) that originated in man rather than being “determined” by God?

 

[Ben1445]

It means that they are elect because God has foreknowledge of who believes. It isn’t foreknowledge according to what God elected. It says the exact opposite of Calvinism.

 

[Reynolds]

It means that they are elect because God has foreknowledge of who believes. It isn’t foreknowledge according to what God elected. It says the exact opposite of Calvinism.

You realize you are hinging your philosophy on an English translation of a word that had dual meanings in original text. You have to let context interpret the verse for you.

 

[Ben1445]

You realize you are hinging your philosophy on an English translation of a word that had dual meanings in original text. You have to let context interpret the verse for you.

Explain to me why you know that they are dual meanings.
Do you realize the statement that you made is the one that I am questioning you about.
I have yet to get an explanation that does justice to the subject.
The context of Romans is information based on Romans 1 on.
Show me that it isn’t.

 

[Reynolds]

Explain to me why you know that they are dual meanings.
Do you realize the statement that you made is the one that I am questioning you about.
I have yet to get an explanation that does justice to the subject.
The context of Romans is information based on Romans 1 on.
Show me that it isn’t.

Research the original language. The dual usage will immediately become obvious. The same word is translated "chosen" in verse 20.

 

[JonC]

I agree for sure, but marital relations are a large part of intimate relations, the close bond and communion of a marriage is what they stress. I am not sure if it misuses the word knowledge at all in that it is repeated with Adam and Eve. Adam "knew" his wife again, and she conceived. To know was used as you say as a euphemism, but it was not used as we use the word knowledge about scir=ence. In other words, did he forget who Eve was? Did he come to know her, or figure out who she was once again? that kind of use of the word knowledge does not seem to be in play does it? Did Joseph forget who Mary was when she conceived the Lord Jesus? Again, it was used rather as you say as a euphemism.

Agreed once again...Certainly our all Knowing God "knew" who the men were who are cast into second death, but He did not have that "intimate knowledge of them, obviously not as a sexual euphemism, but rather the idea of a Covenant bond here.

Agreed.

It was just an euphemism, but you are right that it was used for having sex.
The reason I don't believe it can relate to foreknowledge is it is specifically an activity (one cannot have sex with another person beforehand). In that usage it was not describing a relationship but an act.

This is why I believe Matthew is the best defence for knowing as a type of relationship.

 

[Silverhair]

How do you reconcile THIS part of the verse you selected with “foreknowledge” (awareness of something before it happens) and NOT land on “determined” to happen?

1 Peter 1:1-2 - Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

If GOD is responsible for “elect” (choosing), “sanctification of the Spirit” (being set apart and made more Chris-like) and “obedience”, then WHAT did God “foreknow” (have prior awareness of) that originated in man rather than being “determined” by God?

Based on God’s omniscience [He’s all knowing] and His omnipresence [He’s outside of our time dimension and is everywhere at all times] God knows who will repent and trust in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. Therefore He elects [chooses] in His foreknowledge. G4268
Man has a free-will choice to respond to God’s provision for the forgiveness of sin, this definition of the Doctrine of Election is also called conditional election.
He called them elect [or chosen] sojourners. Though many versions translate 1Pe_1:2 as “elect according to foreknowledge,” the word elect [eklektos G1588] actually occurs in verse 1 immediately before sojourners.

{ἐκλεκτοῖς To The Elect G1588 A-DPM παρεπιδήμοις Sojourners G3927 A-DPM διασπορᾶς Of The Dispersion G1290 N-GSF} Tri+ & BSBr

The word {chosen} should be properly understood as applied to the act of choosing them, {because of their faith} not to the purpose to choose them {so they would believe}; the fact of his selecting them to be His, not the doctrine that he would choose them. Barnes

 

[Zaatar71]

They were never foreknown the way reformed theology uses the word in chapter 8.
I am contesting your usage in chapter 8.
You cannot use your preferred usage to explain yourself.
That is akin to using the word in the definition that you are trying to define.
Please try again.
It can’t be a relationship when it’s convenient for your doctrine and information when it’s inconvenient.

Ben, Do you think context can affect the meaning and use of a word, God so loved the world..God destroyed the world of the ungodly in Noah;s day. Same word different context. Can you find the word foreknowledge used more of events , rather than persons?

 

[Silverhair]

Explain to me why you know that they are dual meanings.
Do you realize the statement that you made is the one that I am questioning you about.
I have yet to get an explanation that does justice to the subject.
The context of Romans is information based on Romans 1 on.
Show me that it isn’t.

@Ben1445 this seems to be the normal response that you get from those of the C/R side. They will tell you that you are wrong but when pressed will not provide biblical support for their claim.

 

[Zaatar71]

It means that they are elect because God has foreknowledge of who believes. It isn’t foreknowledge according to what God elected. It says the exact opposite of Calvinism.

So Ben, are you saying for what God did foreknow, rather than whom He did foreknow? Are you sure you are reading this carefully?

 

[Silverhair]

So Ben, are you saying for what God did foreknow, rather than whom He did foreknow? Are you sure you are reading this carefully?

God’s foreknowledge, insofar as we can understand it, means that God knows who will accept the offer of salvation. The plan of predestination begins when we trust Christ and comes to its conclusion when we become fully like Him.
The ones God knew in advance are the ones He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. In other words, God’s predestining is based on His foreknowledge, not His random selection
To explain foreknowledge and predestination in any way that implies that every action and choice we make has been not only preknown, but even predetermined, seems to contradict those Scriptures that declare that our choices are real, that they matter, and that there are consequences to the choices we make.

Taken together Rom_8:28-29 show us that the elect would be conformed to the image of Christ. God’s pre-determined plan is that those who are in Christ Eph_1:4 would become like him. Predestination in this passage is very narrowly defined. Not as relating to all my choices or actions. Nor even who would be saved. But that the saved would become like Christ.
Rom_8:29, goes on to say that those who were predestined would be called, the called would be justified, and the justified would be glorified. So, the sequence is foreknown —predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ — called — justified — glorified.
We are not called, justified, and glorified because we have been predestined. Rather, we are predestined, called, justified, and glorified because we are foreknown by God.