Election being according to foreknowledge

[Greektim]

There is no way you can know since you do not even know what it means.

Are you being snide and snarky on purpose or does it just come naturally? I said I can offer an answer. If you keep pushing, I'll give you one. I just don't know that I have an adequate answer (i.e. that I could defend it). I have an opinion. It is not locked up water tight in my mind. So I am reserving it for later. If you can't appreciate that, then leave me alone. I didn't ask for your lack of helpful input on this thread.

 

[Greektim]

I don't see any of that being different. God's purposes according to election don't change, nor did He inspire different authors to contradict this truth. When you let Bible explain Bible the wide lens begins to come into focus.

Sorry, but I have a problem w/ letting one verse from a completely different author dictate the syntax of a different author... especially when their styles are so different. This doesn't have to be a contradiction either. Plus, if you do what you are talking about, it is just another form of eisegesis (legit or not). I want to keep Peter in his own context.

I didn't want to push it since I was hoping to make this thread about 1 Peter. But since you keep going, Rom. 9:10 can only be made to be about foreknowledge via inference. More probable is that foreordaining is in view since much has to do not just with actions but that which causes the actions - God. And I don't think that this is a good example of foreknowledge in Rom. 9 since as has been mentioned above, Paul just previously had made the point that God foreknew people not actions or decisions. So I have a hard time going with your assertion.

That said, if what I have written is correct (which I'm sure you'll dispute), then it has no relation on 1 Peter theologically either (even though you seem to think that it affects Peter's syntax).

 

[Revmitchell]

Are you being snide and snarky on purpose or does it just come naturally? I said I can offer an answer. If you keep pushing, I'll give you one. I just don't know that I have an adequate answer (i.e. that I could defend it). I have an opinion. It is not locked up water tight in my mind. So I am reserving it for later. If you can't appreciate that, then leave me alone. I didn't ask for your lack of helpful input on this thread.

You have a burr under your saddle over what someone else believes about this verse but you cannot clearly define it yourself. So in order to make your very weak point and try to prove someone else wrong you pull this syntax business.

Your entire position is absurd. And yet you push on ignoring everything else. Its like trying to debate Algebra and you have not learned your time tables yet. You cannot reasonably get to your discussion without first clarifying the meaning in a clear and solid way. And you cannot credibly prove someone lese wrong about what this verse is not if you cannot at least give some kind of idea what this verse is speaking about.

 

[Greektim]

You have a burr under your saddle over what someone else believes about this verse but you cannot clearly define it yourself. So in order to make your very weak point and try to prove someone else wrong you pull this syntax business.

Your entire position is absurd. And yet you push on ignoring everything else. Its like trying to debate Algebra and you have not learned your time tables yet. You cannot reasonably get to your discussion without first clarifying the meaning in a clear and solid way. And you cannot credibly prove someone lese wrong about what this verse is not if you cannot at least give some kind of idea what this verse is speaking about.

My only burr is the way you have engaged in this thread.

You can't call my argument absurd b/c you can't even engage in it. I'm wondering if you even understand my contention in 1 Peter. But since you are being extremely unhelpful, I will give you my take on foreknowledge. However, I don't want this to be an impetus to rabbit-trail us away from the OP.

My understanding of foreknowledge is that it primarily refers to a relationship that God has with his elect. He knows people not decisions (in this case). He knows them relationally, filially. The "fore" is from a human perspective to a God who exists transcendent of time. As time bound beings, we have a hard time conceiving of God's existence outside of a space/time continuum. But the essence is that God's foreknowledge is his established relationship with us prior to our existence. Thus it is very much similar and synonymous to his preordaining/predetermining.

It can't refer to simply a pre-knowledge of things b/c that in itself is self determining. To say that God knew beforehand who would believe in him and so he chose them is asinine. If God knew beforehand, and God cannot be wrong, then God's knowledge is itself determinative of who would believe.

 

[percho]

Assuming this translation is fairly correct.

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the choice sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to a foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied!

The foreknowledge of God the Father was that he would elect from the strangers (sojourners) of the dispersion for the purpose of God some to be set apart by the Spirit. (The firstfruits of the Spirit.)

What dispersion is this speaking of?

IMHO

Amos 9:9 For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations,
Hosea 8:8 Israel is swallowed up: now shall they be among the Gentiles as a vessel wherein no pleasure.
Deut 32:26 I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men: (That is not a prophecy to the house of Judah the Jews. Men has always known who they are and have persecuted them. The Jews, the house of Judah were the own
of Jesus of the, "he came unto his own and his own knew him not." They are the fold of the, "other sheep I have which are not of this fold.)
Acts 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

Does this not solve the question concerning the OP and is it not what the word of God says he would do concerning the whole family he brought up out of Egypt (Sin)? The only families of all the families of the earth that were known (intimate knowledge as a man to his wife) of God. This was said sometime between 700 BC and 721BC.

 

[Greektim]

Assuming this translation is fairly correct.

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the choice sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to a foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied!

The foreknowledge of God the Father was that he would elect from the strangers (sojourners) of the dispersion for the purpose of God some to be set apart by the Spirit. (The firstfruits of the Spirit.)

What dispersion is this speaking of?

IMHO

Amos 9:9 For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations,
Hosea 8:8 Israel is swallowed up: now shall they be among the Gentiles as a vessel wherein no pleasure.
Deut 32:26 I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men: (That is not a prophecy to the house of Judah the Jews. Men has always known who they are and have persecuted them. The Jews, the house of Judah were the own
of Jesus of the, "he came unto his own and his own knew him not." They are the fold of the, "other sheep I have which are not of this fold.)
Acts 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

Does this not solve the question concerning the OP and is it not what the word of God says he would do concerning the whole family he brought up out of Egypt (Sin)? The only families of all the families of the earth that were known (intimate knowledge as a man to his wife) of God. This was said sometime between 700 BC and 721BC.

My problem with this is that syntactically, that is a hard pill to swallow. W/ your translation provided, you demonstrate the "elect" is used adjectivally. That really makes it seem unlikely that the prepositional phrase would refer to the adjective, and more likely it should refer to the noun.

 

[percho]

My problem with this is that syntactically, that is a hard pill to swallow. W/ your translation provided, you demonstrate the "elect" is used adjectivally. That really makes it seem unlikely that the prepositional phrase would refer to the adjective, and more likely it should refer to the noun.

I told all in another thread I would guess most if not all that post, have more education than I and are in all likely hood smarter than I. I had to Google, syntactically.

Are not both, ἐκλεκτοῖς and παρεπιδήμοις adjectives of diaspora (noun) in the named countries?

 

[Revmitchell]

You can't call my argument absurd b/c you can't even engage in it.

You cannot engage or even understand it since you do not know what the meaning of the word is. Neither do you know what it is referring to. You can only reject it because it fits your presupposition which is Calvinism.

 

[Greektim]

You cannot engage or even understand it since you do not know what the meaning of the word is. Neither do you know what it is referring to. You can only reject it because it fits your presupposition which is Calvinism.

Are you being ignorant to frustrate me? I just gave you an explanation!!! I told you what I think the word means. But I'm not a dogmatic fundamentalist who is nothing but combative like you. I am willing to say that I am not certain because I can see some holes in my own explanation. I'm not so arrogant; I can admit I don't have all the answers nailed down.

Nevertheless, you are demonstrating that you don't bother to read my posts, you would prefer to be combative, and you really have no idea what this entire thread is about. This is part of the reason why I didn't want to engage in this argument over definition. It detracts from the purpose of the thread. So either contribute to the intended discussion, or leave me alone!