Acts 13:48 My Favorite Verse in the Bible

God is Immutable ( does not change)

“That means that what God designs or wills cannot be determined by what he foresees”

This is were we would disagree.

The fact that God does not change to me has no bearing on a-temporal matters. What is it about God that does not change. His Holiness. His Character. Does this mean He can not plan and alter the plan because of his Immutable nature? I don’t see that. God can not escape His foreknowledge and the plan ultimately must include what He sees.

From my side of this if I take this line of reasoning. Christ would not have come as Savior.

To make your case, in my thinking, this is how I see it

God decided to plan
God planned
The plan is finished
So what is the plan?
To create the world and man period

Now because the real issue we are addressing is foresight or foreknowing of an event in the future not yet existing then in my thinking Christ is a-temporal too, not as God but as the Savior. Once we get past the initial creation of the universe including Adam and Eve, that to me would constituted the plan, and all else would be a-temporal, thus not possible according to your plan as I see it. If we make any thing else a part of the plan other than a perfect creation and sinless man then at that point according to your view the tree, Satan, Christ, faith in Christ are a-temporal.

The question I would have to ask is this: In that you take the position that God’s un-changing ness and an event called believing is a-temporal where do you draw the line with respect to the nuts and bolts of the plan. If you can lay it out sequentially, if that is possible, what would be in the plan?

At what point do we decide for God that his plan can not include an a-temporal action, event, addition to the plan.

We are forced to use our terms and we do. So to say God can not determine something on the basis of foresight, foreknowledge, to me makes no sense and I don’t see God’s immutability getting in the way. Again to use immutability as a “block” would mean to me that Christ can not come and die for the sins of the world because it is a matter of foresight / foreknowledge.

For Christ to enter the plan there has to be a reason for it. What purpose is there for Christ apart form the need for a savior in mankind? I can not separated the two. If my believing is as you say then Christ falls into this as well and we are now back in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve and a perfect sinless world with out a tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Addition on the terms will and plan​

Plan 
a specific project or definite purpose: plans for the future

Will
The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action:

Here is how I understand PLAN and WILL

Plan involves a design, a lay out, and all its nuts and bolts so to speak

Will involves the choice to bring it to pass

I plan this and I am willing to do it.

So to me plan and will are not the same.

I don’t know how they could be. If we discuss both words as meaning one thing - that being a Plan or Scheme or Blue print then somehow, someway, a plan without intent/will to do it leave the plan on the table for eternity. A plan with out the will behind it is nothing more than a plan on the shelf.

 

That is an attempt to understand Russel's post as I see or try to explain back how I understand him.

The discussion is centered around God's Plan and the relationship of that plan with respect to God's immutability and
a-temporal events as he defined them

 

While we are on opposite ends it is interesting to try and work out why and how we believe. In the end we would both agree that God gets all the glory.

God has a Plan - I think we both agree on that.

I see Plan and Will separate per the definition of the words.

Do we both agree that a plan is ineffective apart from the will to implement it? Or would you see it differently?

 

I Peter 1: 1 "..................................................................., who are chosen
2. according to the foreknowledge of God the Father............................"

Election on the basis of foreknowledge. This passage means the elect are on the basis of foreknowledge. All the arguments in the world can not change what is said.

 

To my knowledge you won't find a dictionary anywhere that defines foreknew, foreknowledge as you have.

The working definition you give is one that is given it by Calvinism. I understand the reasoning behind Calvinistic definition. If I can re-define "know" then I can have some form of support but the Greek world used will not support a "personal" relationship meaning. The text just will not support it here in Peters statement or in Romans 8.

Here are some definitions

fore·know (fôr-n, fr-) Pronunciation Key
tr.v. fore·knew, (-n, -ny) fore·known, (-nn) fore·know·ing, fore·knows
To have foreknowledge of, especially by supernatural means or through revelation.
From the American Standard Dictionary

foreknowledge 
–noun
knowledge of something before it exists or happens; prescience: Did you have any foreknowledge of the scheme?

The parts of the word "fore" "knowledge"

prep. also 'fore Before.

In Greek it is the preposition “pro” and the meaning of the Greek preposition is “before”

The second half of this compound word from gnosis and the meaning “knowledge”

I don’t know of any place where this word is forced to mean friendship relationship or intimate relationship based upon the pure meaning of “know”

The idea of intimate relationship was taking from the Old Testament expression in English Knew His Wife. That can not be forced on this text.

The verb form is translated “know” The nouns form is translated “knowledge”

weather it is the verb form or noun form the mean is the same. If it were the verb form it would read, "Election is according to what God knows." To make it a very we are force to word it this way. There isn't any way to manipulate these words that Peter use to force it to mean anything personal, intimate, relational etc.

Instead of making a word mean what it is not intended to mean - lets just accept it as it is intended to mean.

Somewhere along the line Calvinist have changed the meaning of the word. I can't do that. I don't know who actually started this form of argument. You many know the history of the beginning of using this word to mean (intimately or personal relationship)

The word in this passage used the preposition “pro meaning before” and the noun “gnosis meaning knowledge” So the pure meaning is pre-knowledge. Knowledge before hand.

Here is the verse again:

who are chosen
2. according to the foreknowledge (pre-knowledge) of God the Father

Who are chosen according to “what is known” of God the Father.

Knowledge of “something” is the basis of Election. The argument of intimacy does not fit in the meaning of the word. There is no way to make that work.

The normal understood use of these words in Greek and English will not support an “intimacy” definition.

The discussion points I have set forth are supported by this normal straight forward truth here in these two passages.

 

Here are more of my thoughts

29. For those whom He foreknew,

Foreknew (pre-science of) what or who “those” Who are those? See verse

“those who love God” So God knows / God speaking here, Hi folks I know everyone that loves me - John, Joe, Jack, Jane, Judy, etc.

The word “foreknew” in Romans 8:9 is (Verb-indicative aorist active third person plural)

Peter uses the noun in his statement and here in R8:9 Paul used the verb form of “ginosco”

Here are the ways it is used as verb
(1) know (come to know something)
(2) ascertain, find out
(3) understand, comprehend
(4) perceive, realize
(5) sexually (euphemistic use)
(6) come to know
(7) acknowledge

What exactly is it that God foreknows in verse 29 ? We know that it is referring to “those” But does He know them euphemistically (sexually) or factually. What is it about these “those” that God knows. Look at verse 28. 28. And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to {His} purpose.

God fore knows (foreknew verb form) Those (1) those that are loving Him and (2) are called. These are facts not euphemistic expression indicating a sexual relationship. Again what is it that God knows? He simply know who all the people are- that are loving Him and that are called according to His purpose.

Now if we take it back further in the more distance context - back a few more verses we have this interesting statement.

Notice verse 24. For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he {already} sees? 25. But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.

For me verse 29 tells me that God (not euphemistically knew -sexually) but foreknew “something” of the someone. Because it can not be euphemistically used for it would mean sexual use then it has to be something else. We can not force a sexual meaning on a none euphemistically use of the word. I know this is the meaning that is used to protect the doctrine that Calvinist hold to. But for me I prefer the normal use of the word as I believe is being used here.

We are dealing with facts of the “Those” not intimate relationship. The facts are (1) some one out there “the those” fact one “are loving God” and fact two “are called according to purpose” These are facts not intimate euphemistic relations.

So here we are at your view and my view.

My view of course make sense to me so here is what happens.

God foreknew something of those that are loving him and are called according to purpose. What is it God knows?

It has to be something.

First those He foreknew God also has
He predetermined that they would be conformed to Christ.
He called them
He justified
He glorified

If we see it as speaking to us only and in a sense that s absolutely true.

I have not been glorified yet actually but in the foreknowledge of God I have. His foreknowledge of me coming to faith where by I am elected (election based on foreknowledge) I am also all the rest.

He also predestined {to become} conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
30. and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

 

I do appreciate your answer. I would not understand it that way The foreordained counsel of God whereby Christ comes, lives, suffers, dies and then is taken back to heaven is a great truth and greatly to be praised. It gives me a very secure feeling to know when God decides to do something nothing can stop it. I love my Lord and God's determined counsel made it possible for me to be saved.

Here is how I would deal with that. God's Plan in eternity past is complete. Everything it consist of is ready to go. God speaks it into existence and everything is headed now toward it conclusion. Nothing is a surprise to God because He knows all. For me everything in God's plan is foreordained. Where we separate in view as I see it is that I see within God's foreordained plan that it contains freewill to accept Christ. This he foreknows. In other words God foresees, knows etc. that I did believe on Sept 20 1970 freely. This while before then and even in eternity was foreordained.

The end result is the same.

The two views perhaps in a nut shell

I am elect because I believed and I was appointed to eternal life in eternity past because God knew before and so ordained what He foreknew which was a part of the Plan that was foreordained.

You believed because you are elect. Is that correct.

 

Now it sounds much better.

 

I would not expect anything less from a Calvinist. :flower: Just pretend it is a tulip


I am being true to my Non-Calvinist / Non-Arminian way.:godisgood:

 

Who wrote it?