Deathblow to Arminian "Foreknowledge"

Biblical church discipline (Matt 18; 1 Cor 5) teach that a formal membership is necessary. YOu cannot be disciplined out of something you are a not a part of.

The keeping of lists (e.g. Acts 6; 1 Tim 5; others) teach that there was a formal knowledge of who was a member of the congregation.

The fellowship and accountability taught in the NT in the body passages assume that you are a part of a local body with which to fellowship.

The teaching is pretty clear.

I don't have any scriptures that speak of denominations because in the first century there were none. Denominations have arisen over time because people have differed in what the Bible teaches. That is not God's ideal.

 

Doubting Thomas,

Good post and to the point . . .

If Almighty God wanted to tell us that He Dictatorially predestinated, called, justified and ultimatley will glorify His hand picked few He would have said exactly this. On the other hand, He used all of these, in time events, but added one other. By using the word 'foreknow' He is indicating that He has taken into account human freedom to either accept Christ or to reject Him. In fact, He has always through out eternity past, present and future, known the results of His sovereign decree as to free access and choice of His grace.

 

Ray,

It is amazing how you participate in a conversation you don't read. Everything you have supported here has been refuted from Scripture.. Yet you persist. Why?

Dictatorially is your word not ours and it is wrong. However, he did said that he elected, predestined to adoption, redeemed and gave an inheritance (Eph 1). He did say that he foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified (Rom 8). Take God's word for it Ray. That is what you are supposed to be doing.

But that is not what "foreknow" means. YOu have been shown this as well. When you change the meaning of words to support your preconceived notions, you are not studying the Bible.

 

Ray,

Your sounding like an Oakland Raiders cheerleader. The game's over ya know!

 

Have you never been excluded from participation in informal groups? Membership in a group is not necessary for expulsion from that group. This BBS is a good example. At the whim of the controlling agents, a participant may be ejected from this BBS for any number of causes. Because I participate is no indication that I am a member for If I were a member I would have voting rights to who runs it and how it is run. I have neither.

Neither Acts 6 nor 1 Tim 5 speak anything of lists or the keeping of such.

Seeing as how the church at Galatia was not at the time Paul wrote more than one relatively small body of believers who just happened to live in Galatia, and the same for the bodies of believers who lived in Philippi, Thessonalica, Thyatira, Sardis, Laodocia, Ephesus, etc., and even Rome. These "sister" churches were not even linked "legally speaking" to the impoverished mother church in Jerusalem. The people who gathered themselves together did so because they were like minded, similar to a motorcycle club or a Polo Club, etc. Their commonality being belief in Jesus as their Savior. Except for the church in Jerusalem, the gentile churches had not had a promised messiah, and most of them couldn't spell the word anyway. They did not understand the concept of a Messiah prior to Paul, Silas, Barnabas, etc., missionaries that went to those locations and taught them. They were not a highly organized organization, though some may have had lists of like minded persons that attended community meeting regularly. They may have tithed to the "church", but even non- regulars would tithe to the church, as they do today.

Only in the mind of one who wants the scripture to say so!

Of course the scriptures do not speak of denominations, it only speaks of churches, gatherings of believers, in communities both in Israel and in the central and eastern Mediterranean. It speaks nothing of churches in northern Africa or anywhere else for that matter.

And that is my point! Church "membership" is not necessary for any but "the bean counters"

[ January 27, 2003, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: Yelsew ]

 

According to VINE'S Expository Dictionary:

GINOSKO--"signifies to be taking in knowledge, to come to know, recognize, understand, or to understand completely...In the NT, 'ginosko' frequently indicates a relation between the person knowing and the object known..."

PROGINOSKO--"to KNOW BEFORE"

Here I see no hint of "to CHOOSE" or "to CHOOSE beforehand" as part of the definition. For some curious reason Strong used "foreordain" as an example despite the fact that "ordain" is not etymologically related to "ginosko". (Perhaps Strong was a Calvinist ?)

Even when "foreknow" does indicate "initmate relational knowing" this does not mean it is synonymous with "to choose", and it certainly does not preclude the response of the agent known to the knower from being the content of that foreknowledge.

[ January 27, 2003, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: Doubting Thomas ]

 

Do a word study and see for yourself.

Simple knowledge of something is "eido". ("Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey")

More serious knowledge is "gnosis". ("Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?")

Personal, profound or intimate knowledge is "ginosko". ("Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?", or "And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?") The second "know" is epistamai, which is "I am acquainted with". The evil spirit apparently didn't know Paul, personally.

[ January 27, 2003, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: npetreley ]

 

Greek & Hebrew Transliteration (KJV)

Word or phrase: proginosko

Five instances found in the whole of the bible

(Acts 26:5)
[Acts 26:5] Which knew <proginosko> me from the beginning <anothen>, if <ean>
they would <thelo> testify <martureo>, that after <kata> the most straitest
<akribestatos> sect <hairesis> of our religion <threskeia> I lived <zao> a
Pharisee <Pharisaios>.

(Romans 8:29)
[Rom 8:29] For whom <hos> he did foreknow <proginosko>, he also <kai> did
predestinate <proorizo> to be conformed <summorphos> to the image <eikon> of his
Son <huios>, that he might be the firstborn <prototokos> among <en> many <polus>
brethren <adephos>.

(Romans 11:2)
[Rom 11:2] God <theos> hath not cast <apotheomai> away <apotheomai> his people
<laos> which <hos> he foreknew <proginosko>. Wot <eido> ye not what <tis> the
scripture <graphe> saith <lego> of Elias <Helias>? how <hos> he maketh
<entugchano> intercession <entugchano> to God <theos> against <kata> Israel
<Israel>, saying <lego>,

(1 Peter 1:20)
[1 Pet 1:20] Who verily <men> was foreordained <proginosko> before <pro> the
foundation <katabole> of the world <kosmos>, but was manifest <phaneroo> in
these <ho> last <eschatos> times <chronos> for you,

(2 Peter 3:17)
[2 Pet 3:17] Ye therefore <oun>, beloved <agapetos>, seeing ye know <proginosko>
these things before <proginosko>, beware <phulasso> lest <hina - me> ye also
<sunapago>, being led <sunapago> away <sunapago> with the error <plane> of the
wicked <athesmos>, fall <ekpipto> from your <ho> own <idios> stedfastness
<sterigmos>.

 

Very good! Now look for ginosko, gnosis, epistamai and eido.

 

Ginosko appears 209 times and in those 209 appearances it is translated to english as Knew, Know, To Know, and known.

 

Duh. Context.

 

Never have been. How can you expel someone who is not a member? What authority over them do you have? The BBS is not a church and is not run by the congregation.

Sure it does. In Acts 6 there is a list of widows that are being served and some are being omitted. If there is no list, then how do they know who is being omitted from help? 1 Tim 5 speaks of adding a widow to the list, referring to her place in the church first and then to her place on a list of help.

I don't think you can say this at all about the size. As for "legal links" it was a NT church; they were autonomous. But none of what you have said here (doctrinal and theological issues aside) addresses the nature of fellwoship in the NT church. The word for fellowship is koinonia meaning participation, sharing, commonality, etc. It was a membership.

Not really.

This is simply not true. It is necessary for those who want to be in obedience to God.

 

Then if it is a command of God, where is it stated that church membership or congregation membership or membership of any kind is manditory?

Unless you can cite clear instructions to "join a church", I have to think the bible is silent on the matter. If you can even cite a situation where church membership, as we know membership today, is expected, I am under no biblical instruction to "join" a church, or affiliate with a denomination.

 

Why is this hard?? It is the clear pattern of the NT church. The command of assembling, fellowshipping, ministering, and disciplining is a command regarding church membership. Show me one person in the NT who was not a member of a local church. Show me one person who is not expected to be involved in the ministry of the local church. I have given you biblical references and biblical teaching. This is so basic ...

 

I think what Yelsew is getting at is "the Church" as a "highly structured" (see in one of his earlier posts) corporate/legal organization, (501c3) with "hired" paid professional leaders. In an informal, non corporate (in the legal sense, though it is still a "body") fellowship, you could still have "membership" and "accountability". This of course, was what the NT Church was, as it was obviously not legally recognized by the Roman Empire.
I too agree with that simple pattern, but I'm for now going to a regular organized church because I have not found a stable informal church. I guess we are all used to paying someone to lead us in a building run by a board and non-profit corporation, that it is really hard to break out of that, and we have come to believe that there is no church without it; as if the organization IS itself "the Church".

 

I see no "membership" in the scriptures as it is applied, and inforced today. What I do see is activity among like minded persons, who gather to worship and learn...the "ducks of a feather" thing. I do what the first century churches did, I attend meetings to worship, praise, and learn. I simply do not put my name on the "official" church roll book.

 

Then open your eyes. The formal structure of the church with leaders (pastors) and servants (deacons) teaching the members to minister is the NT pattern. To blame it on teh "corporate nature" of the church is simply an inadequate way to deal with the nature of the NT teaching. There is too often such an individual nature today that the NT church knew nothing about. They were a body of people united, not a group of individuals gathering as they wish. There was accountability, mutual discipleship, learning, meeting, praying ... a koinonia that is missing in many of today's churches and that cannot be had without membership in the NT church. You cannot minister in a church that you are not a part of. You cannot properly serve the body until you are a part of the body. Failure to do so is failure to carry out the NT mandate.

However, we are off topic here. Let's get back to it.

 

Good word study, Npetreley.
However, even in the sense of "intimate knowledge", one cannot reduce "proginosko" (or "ginosko") to "foreordain" (or "ordain"). Such a redefinition is neither linguistically justified nor logically required.
Peace.

 

PROGINOSKO is transliterated FOREORDAINED in 1 Peter 1:20 according the Greek & Hebrew Transliteration (KJV)

Word or phrase: proginosko

[1 Pet 1:20] Who verily <men> was foreordained <proginosko> before <pro> the
foundation <katabole> of the world <kosmos>, but was manifest <phaneroo> in
these <ho> last <eschatos> times <chronos> for you,

 

Yelsew,

In the NASB, the LITERAL meaning of "proginosko" is what is rendered in 1 Peter 1:20: "For He was FOREKNOWN before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you."

That the KJV translates (or "transliterates") it as "foreordain" doesn't prove anything...unless one is KJV-Only What matters is whether the TRANSLATION is justified by the meaning of the Greek.

Peace.