Acts 13:48 My Favorite Verse in the Bible

[GordonSlocum]

That God is immutable also means that any information flow has to be from God's mind outward to his creation rather than the other way around. That means that what God designs or wills cannot be determined by what he foresees (or knows a-temporally) will happen in his creation; but rather, his design or will must determine what he foresees (or knows a-temporally) will happen in creation.[/

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.

 

[npetreley]

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

How you see it and what the Bible says do not match.

 

[GordonSlocum]

How you see it and what the Bible says do not match.

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

 

[russell55]

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.

I agree that God's character doesn't change. That's the basis for the statement that his plan doesn't change. What would cause him to change his plans? He always knows everything, so there's nothing unexpected that pops up that causes him to change his plan. He's all-powerful, so his plan always works to accomplish what he wills. There are no last-minute adjustments to his plan because God can't do things the way he planned. The other aspects of his character stay the same, so he never changes his plan because he wants something different in one moment that he didn't want previously. That's the logical rationale for saying that God's plan doesn't change.

God can not escape His foreknowledge and the plan ultimately must include what He sees.

Yes, God always knows what he knows. But what he knows outside of time and creation doesn't flow from time and creation to God's mind, but rather from God's mind to time and creation. Otherwise, God would not be immutable, because he would be taking in knowledge from creation. He knows, always, what will happen in creation, but what will happen in creation originates (logically, not temporally) in God's plan, rather than what God puts in his plan originating from his knowledge. It has to be that way, because you can't have God taking in info from his own creation. This is not to say that he doesn't always know everything about his creation, just that he doesn't take in info about it.

I'll replay to the rest later, but I must go now.

 

[GordonSlocum]

I agree that God's character doesn't change. That's the basis for the statement that his plan doesn't change. What would cause him to change his plans? He always knows everything, so there's nothing unexpected that pops up that causes him to change his plan. He's all-powerful, so his plan always works to accomplish what he wills. There are no last-minute adjustments to his plan because God can't do things the way he planned. The other aspects of his character stay the same, so he never changes his plan because he wants something different in one moment that he didn't want previously. That's the logical rationale for saying that God's plan doesn't change.



Yes, God always knows what he knows. But what he knows outside of time and creation doesn't flow from time and creation to God's mind, but rather from God's mind to time and creation. Otherwise, God would not be immutable, because he would be taking in knowledge from creation. He knows, always, what will happen in creation, but what will happen in creation originates (logically, not temporally) in God's plan, rather than what God puts in his plan originating from his knowledge. It has to be that way, because you can't have God taking in info from his own creation. This is not to say that he doesn't always know everything about his creation, just that he doesn't take in info about it.

I'll replay to the rest later, but I must go now.

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?

 

[whatever]

The election is on the basis of foreknowledge - so on that basis God elects or appoints and when they are born and at the time they hear the Gospel the first time or the 1000 time - whenever they believe they are saved.
That simple - That easy - That Biblical.

Don't you just love the Sovereign Grace of God. To God be the Glory.
Acts 13:48 in one of my favorite verses in the Bible. Eternal Security 100 percent​

I challenge you to prove that election is based on foreknowledge. This is tantamount to saying that God decreed that what was going to happen was going to happen. How is this not tautological?

 

[GordonSlocum]

I challenge you to prove that election is based on foreknowledge. This is tantamount to saying that God decreed that what was going to happen was going to happen. How is this not tautological?

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.

 

[npetreley]

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.

The operative words are "according to". The order is given in Romans 8.

Those He foreknew (knew personally) -> predestined -> called -> justified -> glorified

Aside from the fact that "foreknew" means "to know intimately" not "to know what they'll do", you can't interpret this to mean He foreknew they would believe. Well, I suppose you could, if you want to say "I know in advance that if I predestine and call this person, he will believe, therefore I will predestine and call this person". But that seems quite silly to me, because predestining something guarantees it will happen before foreknowledge of the event can occur.

 

[GordonSlocum]

The operative words are "according to". The order is given in Romans 8.

Those He foreknew (knew personally) -> predestined -> called -> justified -> glorified

Aside from the fact that "foreknew" means "to know intimately" not "to know what they'll do", you can't interpret this to mean He foreknew they would believe. Well, I suppose you could, if you want to say "I know in advance that if I predestine and call this person, he will believe, therefore I will predestine and call this person". But that seems quite silly to me, because predestining something guarantees it will happen before foreknowledge of the event can occur.

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.

 

[GordonSlocum]

The operative words are "according to". The order is given in Romans 8.

Those He foreknew (knew personally) -> predestined -> called -> justified -> glorified

Aside from the fact that "foreknew" means "to know intimately" not "to know what they'll do", you can't interpret this to mean He foreknew they would believe. Well, I suppose you could, if you want to say "I know in advance that if I predestine and call this person, he will believe, therefore I will predestine and call this person". But that seems quite silly to me, because predestining something guarantees it will happen before foreknowledge of the event can occur.

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.

 

[l_PETE_l]

cannot mean a mere prescience

the foreknowledge of God in the sense of prescience is asserted in the New Testament, this is not the meaning of the term when used to translate the Greek words proginoskein and prognosis. These words which are translated in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) by the word “foreknowledge,” and once by the word “foreordain” (1 Pet 1:20 the King James Version), mean much more than mere intellectual foresight or prescience. Both the verb and the noun approach the idea of foreordination and are closely connected with that idea in the passages where these words occur. Thus, in Peter’s speeches in Acts the predestination which finds expression in 4:28 is practically identified with the term prognosis in 2:23. Everything which happened to Jesus took place in accordance with “the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,” so that nothing happened except that which God had foreordained. In this verse the term foreknowledge is an expansion of the idea of God’s “counsel” or plan, regarding it as an intelligent prearrangement, the idea of foreknowledge being assimilated to that of foreordination. The same idea is found in 1 Pet 1:20. Here the apostle speaks of Christ as a lamb “foreordained” by God before the foundation of the world. The Greek verb proegnosmenou, meaning literally, “foreknown” (as in the Revised Version (British and American)) is translated “foreordained” in the King James Version. It is evidently God’s foreordination of Jesus as Saviour which Peter has in mind. Also in 1 Pet 1:2 those to whom the apostle is writing are characterized as “elect according to the foreknowledge (prognosis) of God,” where the election is based on the “foreknowledge.” By the prognosis or foreknowledge, however, far more is meant than prescience. It has the idea of a purpose which determines the course of the Divine procedure. If it meant simply prevision of faith or love or any quality in the objects of the election, Peter would not only flatly contradict Paul (Rom 9:11; Eph 1:3, 4; 2 Tim 1:9); but also such a rendering would conflict with the context of this passage, because the objects of election are chosen “unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of .... Christ,” so that their new obedience and relation to Christ are determined by their election by God, which election springs from a “foreknowledge” which therefore cannot mean a mere prescience.

 

[GordonSlocum]

the foreknowledge of God in the sense of prescience is asserted in the New Testament, this is not the meaning of the term when used to translate the Greek words proginoskein and prognosis. These words which are translated in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) by the word “foreknowledge,” and once by the word “foreordain” (1 Pet 1:20 the King James Version), mean much more than mere intellectual foresight or prescience. Both the verb and the noun approach the idea of foreordination and are closely connected with that idea in the passages where these words occur. Thus, in Peter’s speeches in Acts the predestination which finds expression in 4:28 is practically identified with the term prognosis in 2:23. Everything which happened to Jesus took place in accordance with “the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,” so that nothing happened except that which God had foreordained. In this verse the term foreknowledge is an expansion of the idea of God’s “counsel” or plan, regarding it as an intelligent prearrangement, the idea of foreknowledge being assimilated to that of foreordination. The same idea is found in 1 Pet 1:20. Here the apostle speaks of Christ as a lamb “foreordained” by God before the foundation of the world. The Greek verb proegnosmenou, meaning literally, “foreknown” (as in the Revised Version (British and American)) is translated “foreordained” in the King James Version. It is evidently God’s foreordination of Jesus as Saviour which Peter has in mind. Also in 1 Pet 1:2 those to whom the apostle is writing are characterized as “elect according to the foreknowledge (prognosis) of God,” where the election is based on the “foreknowledge.” By the prognosis or foreknowledge, however, far more is meant than prescience. It has the idea of a purpose which determines the course of the Divine procedure. If it meant simply prevision of faith or love or any quality in the objects of the election, Peter would not only flatly contradict Paul (Rom 9:11; Eph 1:3, 4; 2 Tim 1:9); but also such a rendering would conflict with the context of this passage, because the objects of election are chosen “unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of .... Christ,” so that their new obedience and relation to Christ are determined by their election by God, which election springs from a “foreknowledge” which therefore cannot mean a mere prescience.

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.

 

[reformedbeliever]

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.

Gordon, I know you believe a man has to be born again don't you? Jesus said so. How did He say we are born? Not of flesh or blood or the will of man, but God.
I know that you know mere belief will not save a person. Even demons simply believe. The difference is faith. We have faith because we are born again of God. Not by the will of man (belief first) but of God. Read John 1:12 But to all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave right to become children of God.... Here is the kicker! Who (those who believe) were born, not of blood or flesh or the will of man, but God!

 

[l_PETE_l]

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.

Why did you believe?

I believed because He did for me what I could not or would not do for myself

 

[l_PETE_l]

“Why was I made to hear thy voice,
And enter where there’s room
While thousands make a wretched choice,
And rather starve than come?

’Twas the same love that spread the feast,
That sweetly forced me in;
Else I’d still refused to taste,
And perished in my sin.”

I know you like hymns Gordon

 

[GordonSlocum]

“Why was I made to hear thy voice,
And enter where there’s room
While thousands make a wretched choice,
And rather starve than come?

’Twas the same love that spread the feast,
That sweetly Loved me in;
Else I’d still refused to taste,
And perished in my sin.”

I know you like hymns Gordon

Now it sounds much better.

 

[npetreley]

Now it sounds much better.

Yeah, people changed it because they were offended by the original words.

But "forced" is how he wrote it.

 

[GordonSlocum]

Yeah, people changed it because they were offended by the original words.

But "forced" is how he wrote it.

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:

 

[GordonSlocum]

Yeah, people changed it because they were offended by the original words.

But "forced" is how he wrote it.

Who wrote it?

 

[russell55]

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

Except that the Bible and Bible translations use them interchangeably (and purpose or decision, too), because for God they are essentially the same due to who God is. I'll give you examples of the interchangeable usage of these words.

• Ephesians 1:11, ESV

  ...according to the counsel of his will

• Ephesians 1:11, NIV

  ...in conformity with the purpose of his will

• Ephesians 1:11 HCSB

  ...in agreement with the decision of His will

• Ephesians 1:11 NLT

  ...according to his plan.

• Isaiah 46:11, ESV:

  I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.

• Isaiah 46: 11, NIV

  What I have said, that will I bring about;
  what I have planned, that will I do.

What God's will decides, what he purposes, what he plans are all exactly the same thing, since God's will is constant (or consistant), and there is nothing to impede it.

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

Generally speaking that is true, except that for God, his plans are never "apart from the will to implement it". That he plans something means he wills to implement it. The plan is his own plan, (in other words, it's not imposed on him.), and he has the ability to carry it out, and the knowledge to know it's the best way to do things. There is never a flaw in the plan, never something unexpected popping up to thwart the plan, never the inability to implement the plan, and never a waning in the motivation to carry it out, since God is not a wavering (or waning) sort because of the consistancy of his nature. So for God, the distinction you make between planning and willing to implement is a distinction without any real meaning.

It's the same sort of thing with foreknowledge. For us, foreknowledge is simply foresight (or knowledge beforehand) but for God, it is something way more than that: something pretty close (I'd say exactly the same) to foreordaination, or prior chosing, or deciding beforehand. And once again, scripture and our translations acknowledge that.

• Acts 2:23

  . . .delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God

  Here definite plan and foreknowledge are used in a structure that suggests they are close to synonyms.
• 1 Peter 1:20 ESV (Speaking of Christ's role as redeemer)

  He was foreknown before the foundation of the world

  Foreknown is the word that is used here, but of course, it was more than God just foreseeing that Christ would be the redeemer. God knew Christ would be redeemer because God chose him for that role. That God's foreknowledge, in this case, is more of a choosing or ordaining for a particular role is acknowledged by the translational choices of other versions: The NIV uses "chosen" to translate it; the NKJV uses "foreordained"; the HCSB uses "destined", just to give a few examples.
• Romans 11:2 ESV

  God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.

  Were they his people because God knew beforehand that they would be his people, or because God chose them to be his people. The reason they were God's people is because God chose them to be his people, and the reason God foreknew them as his people is because he chose them to be his people. That foreknowing in this case refers to God's choice is the reason some translations translate is as such. The NLT says, "God has not rejected his own people, whom he chose from the very beginning." or the NIrV, "God didn't turn his back on his people. After all, he chose them."

It all has to do, really, with the way God is different than us with his unchanging nature and his self-existence. Everything originates in his choice, his plan; and his choice, his plan for creation is what undergirds his knowledge of creation. Not that he doesn't have foresight into his creation, but his foresight is based in his plan for creation, since creation itself originates in God's plan for it to be.

In other words, creation itself originates in God's plan for creation; therefore, God's knowledge of creation is dependent on his plan for creation rather than his plan for creation being dependent on his knowledge of creation. In order for God's plan for creation to be dependent on his knowledge of creation, creation would have to originate somewhere other than the mind of God.