Deathblow to Arminian "Foreknowledge"

[ScottEmerson]

Isn't it interesting how the word proginosko has two different definitions - one when referring to God and one when it refers to man. You think those silly Greeks would have come up with a clearer word for "Foreordain."

[ January 29, 2003, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: ScottEmerson ]

 

[Yelsew]

I understand the Greeks were famous for their adnausium debates too. And this must be a continuation of the debate over "proginosko".

 

[Skandelon]

It only becomes a debate when a group of people want to try to force their views into the text by changing the defination to meet their system of thought. By the way, the greeks do have another word, "foresight", which is the word they would have used if they were Arminians!

Sam

[ January 29, 2003, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: Samuel ]

 

[4study]

In my humble opinion, the Koine Greek is much more distinctive than English (and many other languages). In common Greek, there was less room for confusion about what one was saying. There was a reason for choosing one word over another or placing it in one form instead of another. I'm thankful that God used it. The problem comes in translation. Especially into English. We do the best we can, however, it comes down to CONTEXT. Basing theology on a particular Greek word is not what should be done. A word can have many different meanings. It's the context that narrows things down. Understanding context, however, depends upon one's personal theology. So personal theology doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's just personal and that's it.

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by 4study:
In my humble opinion, the Koine Greek is much more distinctive than English (and many other languages). In common Greek, there was less room for confusion about what one was saying. There was a reason for choosing one word over another or placing it in one form instead of another. I'm thankful that God used it. The problem comes in translation. Especially into English. We do the best we can, however, it comes down to CONTEXT. Basing theology on a particular Greek word is not what should be done. A word can have many different meanings. It's the context that narrows things down. Understanding context, however, depends upon one's personal theology. So personal theology doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's just personal and that's it.

4study,
The Calvinist on this board are the only ones using the context. They are allowing the scripture to interpret itself by using the context of other similar texts. If one greek writer would use the word "foreknew" in regard to men and another greek author uses the same root word in regard to Christ isn't fair to assume the authors mean the same thing, since, in fact, they did use the same word. Therefore, the Calvinists are using the context to help us understand the meaning of both texts, while the Arminians are offering reasons why we should not compare the two contexts. Who is practicing poor hermenutics here?

Sam

 

[4study]

Samuel,

The Calvinist on this board are the only ones using the context. They are allowing the scripture to interpret itself by using the context of other similar texts. If one greek writer would use the word "foreknew" in regard to men and another greek author uses the same root word in regard to Christ isn't fair to assume the authors mean the same thing, since, in fact, they did use the same word.

To be honest, I don't know if that's "safe". It's just an assumption to make. If you like that assumption, good, go with it. To me, context isn't just one verse. It may not even be one chapter. It may be the entire book that has to be considered. For instance, what is Romans about? What is I Peter about? Are they about the same thing? The same subject? These are just some of the questions I think one has to answer when studying.

In this particular case, proginosko in I Peter 1:20 is refereing to Christ while in Romans 8:29, it's refering to "the elect" (whomever we believe that is). Is it wise to assume that "the elect" are "foreknown" in the "same sense" as Christ? I don't think so, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by 4study:
Doubting Thomas,

I think you're making some good points. IMO, the concept of "choose" from proginosko is simply a theolgical choice on one's part and is not necessarily supported or desupported from any lexical aids. Lexicons, just like dictionaries, have many, most, or all possible meanings of a word. The user then must make a choice about which deffinition fits best in the context. And context translation is based upon one's personal theology.

You make an excellent point, 4study. I was able to access Liddell & Scott's AN INTERMEDIATE GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON at http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/tyndale/Perseus/GreekLexiconSGreek.htm

Here's what it said about "proginosko":
I. to know, perceive, learn, or understand before hand. (Hhymn, Plato., etc)
2. to foreknow (NTest)
II. to JUDGE beforehand, (Thuc); to provide (Xen)

Perhaps the "to JUDGE before" definition is the rationale for translating the word as "foreORDAIN" or for defining it as "CHOOSE beforehand" as Pastor Larry maintains.

Of course, "to JUDGE" means to (acc. to Webster)--1: "to FORM an OPINION about through careful WEIGHING of EVIDENCE and TESTING of premises 2: to sit in judgement on : TRY 3: to determine and pronounce AFTER INQUIRY and DELIBERATION 4: govern, rule 5: to form and estimate or evaluation of 6: to hold an opionion

IF "to JUDGE beforehand" is what Peter meant in 1 Peter 1:20 (or what Paul in Rom 8:29), this could generate some interesting discussions. Like how does God "form an opinion"? Or what EVIDENCE does God "weigh" and "test"? Or what RESOURCES does God use for "inquiry and deliberation"? The answer to the third question is obvious: it's His OMNISCIENCE. The answer to the second question: the EVIDENCE is contained in God's PERFECT, INFINITE, and ETERNAL KNOWLEDGE of His creation. This KNOWLEDGE, being what it is, contained everything that is actual or possible and that is necessary or contingent regarding ALL His creation BEFORE He spoke the heavens and earth into existence. Sounds pretty amazing to me! What is even more amazing is that this knowledge has preexisted in God's mind from ETERNITY so in reality He never had to take the TIME to "form an opinion". Perhaps this FOREKNOWLEDGE thing is much bigger and more amazing that anything that can be fit into neat little theologies such as Calvinism or Arminianism.

If you go to www.virtualseminary.net/greeknewtestamentpage.html you can click on an Interlinear text in the left hand column. It translates 1 Peter 1:20 as "foreKNOWN". The interesting thing is that from there one may search for that verse by clicking on different versions. The Versions are split fairly evenly between "foreKNOW", on the one hand, and words like "foreORDAINED", "destined" and "marked" on the other. (It appears that the more LITERAL versions [NAS, LITV, Young, etc] translate it as "foreKNOWN" FWIW).

I guess this proves your point about people bringing their theological viewpoint (or bias) to the translation process.

 

[4study]

Doubting Thomas,

Good information. Thanks.

The Liddel and Scott volume I have at home may be a different version than the online one you reference and I think it offers a few other possible deffinitions (I'm not at home now so I can't confirm). Regardless, I think you're right about Roman numeral two, "to judge beforehand" and it's connection with "foreordain" in some translations. This is why I used the word "establish" in a previous post which carries the idea of "provide".

 

[rufus]

After reading all these posts, I've decided I'm a Paulician. I believe what Paul wrote by God's divine inspiration! lol GD&R

Rufus

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by rufus:
After reading all these posts, I've decided I'm a Paulician. I believe what Paul wrote by God's divine inspiration! lol GD&R

Rufus

Amen Brother!