Calvin missed this aspect of Foreknowledge

[Alfred Persson.]

Foreknowing led to the decision they be conformed without fail.
This is wrong. Has God not known all things at all moments even before He made? Did God need to look to see who would believe, in order to elect? Hogwash. God knew who would believe because He decreed it that way. Therefore it is election that comes 1st and based on the election God knows. God is NOT controlled by our actions.

That's dogmatic, not exegesis:

29. Did foreknow (proegno). Five times in the New Testament. In all cases it means foreknow. Acts. 26:5; 1 Pet. 1:20; 2 Pet. 3:17; Rom. 11:2. It does not mean foreordain. It signifies prescience, not preëlection.-Vincent, Marvin Richardson: Word Studies in the New Testament. Bellingham, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2002, S. 3:95

The point is "God takes care of His own:"

Romans 8:28-31 28 ¶ And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. 31 ¶ What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

The absence of the unsaved is glaring. Rather than violate Ockham's razor and have Paul reprobating the dammed, just accept what he did, he ignored the unsaved, the non elect, they are irrelevant.

He is talking about those God knows are His, and how everything will work for their good.

But why foreknowing when God already knew.

Because that also will work for their good, it will reveal God's justice and rightness so they have even more reasons to praise God:

Revelation 15:4 4 Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.

 

[Jarthur001]

That's dogmatic, not exegesis:

what is?

29. Did foreknow (proegno). Five times in the New Testament. In all cases it means foreknow. Acts. 26:5; 1 Pet. 1:20; 2 Pet. 3:17; Rom. 11:2. It does not mean foreordain. It signifies prescience, not preëlection.-Vincent, Marvin Richardson: Word Studies in the New Testament. Bellingham, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2002, S. 3:95

I was hoping to do this the easy way...but this does not look like it will work. So, lets do this another way. If this does not help, I will step in and see if I can give answer on my own. You have posted the above rather simple meaning. I want to get to the root, for full understanding. "proginosko" comes from two words. "pro" means before. now you tell us what the other word means. "ginosko" means...__________?

The point is "God takes care of His own:"

Well...God does take care of His own, but that is not the point of this word.

Romans 8:28-31 28 ¶ And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 29 For whom he did foreknow,(you really gotta "know" this word to understand this passage) he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. 31 ¶ What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

The absence of the unsaved is glaring. Rather than violate Ockham's razor and have Paul reprobating the dammed, just accept what he did, he ignored the unsaved, the non elect, they are irrelevant.

This seems like the very words you said before. You must know this, that foreknowing is not the only word to study on this subject. I hope you have gone beyond this one word. Now, you are right in that the unsaved are not in this passage. But they should not be in this passage. And you said Paul reprobating the dammed. That does not make sense. Paul has not the power to reprobate anyone. And...the reprobate are already dammed. The non-elect are not talked about in this passage for good reason. However, this subject is not held to this one passage, nor is it held to this one word. But before we get to another word, we must understand this word first.

He is talking about those God knows are His, and how everything will work for their good.

I can agree with this, but you are missing a very good point. One that carries great meaning and will change your life.

But why foreknowing when God already knew.

indeed.

Because that also will work for their good, it will reveal God's justice and rightness so they have even more reasons to praise God

:
Election has nothing to do with justice. It has everything to do with mercy.

Revelation 15:4 4 Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.

I am so glad you bring in this verse. Most of the time I must bring it in myself. Now in Isa this time of the gathering of the nations is talked about. It also tells is in the same passage of Isa why the elect is chosen and why the gathering other then the judgment.

 

[skypair]

LetsObeyChrist

Very cogent OP and welcome to BB! ":thumbs: I particularly like how God's manifest blessing upon the saved hinges upon their decision rather than some choice by God of a few "fair-haired boys" to salvation. After all, the demonstration is that God was fair in condemning angels who rebelled of their own free will!

Thanks for the blessings!

skypair

 

[skypair]

This thread as the title indicates is a response to Calvin's teaching. Now, I possess his Institiutes but have not read them. I assume that you have in that your writing to correct his teaching. Where did I miss your engagment with his writings? Can you site the pages and books you used from Calvin that your writing against.

Thanks.

Puleease! If you are not going to read "The Institues" and yet will exposite yourself on Calvin, puleease don't expect anyone else to have familiarity that you don't have! And please don't condemn them for knowing what even you admit you haven't looked into!

skypair

 

[skypair]

I was hoping to do this the easy way...but this does not look like it will work. So, lets do this another way. If this does not help, I will step in and see if I can give answer on my own. You have posted the above rather simple meaning. I want to get to the root, for full understanding. "proginosko" comes from two words. "pro" means before. now you tell us what the other word means. "ginosko" means...__________?

I find your tone demeaning. Is you intention to drive someone off the board as soon as they get here in opposition to your dogma? Please address LetsObey as the scholar he/she appears to be.

And Lets is perfectly correct in comparing scripture with scripture and in NOT attempting to subvert us with word studies, (2Tim 2:15 - "...charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.")

"Knowledge beforehand" is the only definition that makes contextual and literal sense here in Rom 8:29.

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I haven't read his commentaries, but I have heard this said:

"The word 'foreknow' in the New Testament usage, as pointed out by Dr. W. G. T. Shedd, is employed in the sense of the Hebrew yada (know) which denotes love and favour. 'Not foreknowledge as bare prescience,' says Calvin, 'but the adoption by which God had always from eternity distinguished His children from the reprobate.' The Scriptures represent election as occurring in the past, irrespective of personal merit. '

The Hebrew word YADA is not being used here, its meaning is irrelevant.

proginosko "Five times in the New Testament. In all cases it means foreknow. Acts. 26:5; 1 Pet. 1:20; 2 Pet. 3:17; Rom. 11:2. It does not mean foreordain. It signifies prescience, not preëlection."-Vincent, Marvin Richardson: Word Studies in the New Testament. Bellingham, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2002, S. 3:95

I shouldn't have mentioned Calvin without also mentioning Arminius, as both are refuted by my exegesis.

The passage is not about election, its about God predestining those He already elected, to being conformed.

It has nothing to do with salvation by grace, God already elected these according to the good pleasure of His will, and that is "not of ourselves, its a gift of God."

I maintain God decided to predicate this conforming upon prescience, for our benefit, that we might know the rightness of God's choice, and not for His benefit at all. He already knows all things.

Actually friend, you should not come out against a man's teaching without reading that man's teaching. You have lost a great deal of credibility. Since you wish to be an opponent of John Calvin's teaching, are you now willing to obtain his writings (they are free on the net) and deal with them? Or are you really trying to deal with something else?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Puleease! If you are not going to read "The Institues" and yet will exposite yourself on Calvin, puleease don't expect anyone else to have familiarity that you don't have! And please don't condemn them for knowing what even you admit you haven't looked into!

skypair

Calm down there sonny. lol First, I don't even know what it means to exposite myself on Calvin. Second, I didn't author a post against (or for) John Calvin, but this author DID.

I absolutely expect someone who writes against a person, as this poster has, to at least have read the man's work! So my criticism of the author's critique of John Calvin's teaching is entirely justified.

You need to rethink this little rebuke of me. Surely our sense of justice exceeds the notion we can critique and/or condemn a man's teaching without first hearing him!!!

 

[skypair]

Actually friend, you should not come out against a man's teaching without reading that man's teaching.

I think he/she has already been driven out of BB. Good job, RB and JArthur. The flames are waiting for your "wood, hay, and stubble."

skypair

 

[skypair]

Calm down there sonny. lol First, I don't even know what it means to exposite myself on Calvin. Second, I didn't author a post against (or for) John Calvin, but this author DID.

I absolutely expect someone who writes against a person, as this poster has, to at least have read the man's work! So my criticism of the author's critique of John Calvin's teaching is entirely justified.

RB, we are not ignorant of Calvin's beliefs. That is merely your "crutch" -- to make us our to be ignorant and thus not to answer our valid assertions.

skypair

 

[Jarthur001]

I find your tone demeaning.

If you measure my demeaner with my tone, you will be waiting a while. My sound card is off. I type words only, and you read tones into my words.

Is you intention to drive someone off the board as soon as they get here in opposition to your dogma?

By asking the meaning of "know"? If this drives them away, please don't blame me.

Please address LetsObey as the scholar he/she appears to be.

Good idea. What is the meaning of "know" as found in the Greek?

And Lets is perfectly correct in comparing scripture with scripture and in NOT attempting to subvert us with word studies, (2Tim 2:15 - "...charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.")

In other words you don't have a answer.

"Knowledge beforehand" is the only definition that makes contextual and literal sense here in Rom 8:29.

That is not what the word means. However, if we were to take your meaning you would have major problems in the end.

 

[Jarthur001]

I think he/she has already been driven out of BB. Good job, RB and JArthur. The flames are waiting for your "wood, hay, and stubble."

skypair

don't worry Sky.....

He will be back...or another one just like him. Do you see me running from your slams? so why would your scholar run from little oh me? Are you saying he SHOULD run because I asked him what the word "know" means??

You can help if you dare. Here is a tip. Foreknown can be replaced with the word "love" without changing the meaning of the text.

So we can read it... 29For whom he did LOVE, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

How about those apples?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

RB, we are not ignorant of Calvin's beliefs. That is merely your "crutch" -- to make us our to be ignorant and thus not to answer our valid assertions.

skypair

Prove it. All I have seen you do is posit strawman after strawman which you have styled and dressed up to be John Calvin or Calvinism. :laugh:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

don't worry Sky.....

He will be back...or another one just like him. Do you see me running from your slams? so why would your scholar run from little oh me? Are you saying he SHOULD run because I asked him what the word "know" means??

You can help if you dare. Here is a tip. Foreknown can be replaced with the word "love" without changing the meaning of the text.

So we can read it... 29For whom he did LOVE, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

How about those apples?

Everyone should run from you Jarthur, you big ole' meanie ole' calvinist you! :laugh: :laugh:

 

[LeBuick]

Oh gee, I reached 17,00 and didn't even know it.
yes, I remember it. It was a welcome post, and I told about my expereince at the board I left to find the bb, very bad expereince, christian board with everyone on it, witches etc. and not moderated well at all, some guy had horrorable things in his signature about Jesus and claimed ot be a christian, and soeone defended him as a christian. horrorable place.
that was my first post on the bb.

I bet you don't remember your 1,532 post...

 

[Jarthur001]

Everyone should run from you Jarthur, you big ole' meanie ole' calvinist you! :laugh: :laugh:

that would be me

 

[skypair]

That is not what the word means. However, if we were to take your meaning ["knowing beforehand"] you would have major problems in the end.

You already have major problems and you can't see them. :BangHead:

skypair

 

[skypair]

You can help if you dare. Here is a tip. Foreknown can be replaced with the word "love" without changing the meaning of the text.

Well, I suppose He would love whom He foreknew -- but that would be adding information not called forth by the context. The ONE piece of information that is cannot be omitted from the text is that He "knows beforehand" --- that His omniscience is applicable to the process of salvation.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Everyone should run from you Jarthur, you big ole' meanie ole' calvinist you! :laugh: :laugh:

I'm gonna say that women can be intimidated and Jarthur was bullying LetsObeyGod. Nuff said.

skypair

 

[Jkdbuck76]

J. Vernon McGee once said that free will was mankind's side of the ledger and predestination was God's side of the ledger and we don't get to see His side of the ledger.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

J. Vernon McGee once said that free will was mankind's side of the ledger and predestination was God's side of the ledger and we don't get to see His side of the ledger.

There's one commentator to avoid. lol