Foreknowledge

Yes....Through faith....that we exercise.....our place in the eternal plan and purpose of God becomes manifest, in time and by public profession that we are in saving union.

Where saving faith comes from.....when this election takes place......we might not be on the same page with that at this time.

We can only agree in part unless we can reconcile some of these events....
the covenant, the fall,regeneration/faith.

 

I thought it was worthy to note each of the verses which uses the word foreknew.

Romans 8:28-29:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good,8 for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also kpredestined lto be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be mthe firstborn among many brothers.

The text clearly indicates that the foreknowledge is not foreknowing actions, but the person. If it modified the verb, we would have to reinterpreted it this way, "For whom he foreknew the actions, he predestined the actions to be conformed to the image of God. Yet, the text is clear that what is foreknown is not the verb, but the noun. The individual is what is foreknown.

Romans 11:2:

"God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew."

Again, the instance here is that God foreknew the people, not the actions. .

I Peter 1:2

This is one of the "debatable" verses. However, the word foreknowledge is referring directly to the elect.

Acts 2:23

This verse shows that the act of crucifixion is not referred to here, but the person of Jesus. It was Jesus who was delivered up. The plan was not foreknown, but Jesus was. I think this is supported in the Greek as well. What is unique in this verse, it was this foreknowledge that delivered Jesus, not the delivering that was foreknown.

Thus, foreknowledge is always used as talking about the person, not the verb. Therefore, you cannot say that God foreknows our choice as this is not the context of any of the places this word is used. He foreknew us therefore he predestined us. This is a theologically rich word which we deaden for the sake of avoiding an appearance of Calvinism.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:.................

 

Yes I now you believe that but what about what I asked?

 

Sorry I guessed I missed that part. I really do not know how else to ask it.

 

Some of this will be a slight re-hash of some things already said.

"Foreknew" in Romans 8:29 means "chose." We know this because the exact same word (in the exact same form) is used by Paul in Romans 11:2. In the Romans 11 passage, the word "foreknow" is used as an antonym for "rejected." And, of course, the opposite of "reject" is "choose."

Now, many will object: But the word means "to know beforehand." That is true. But, I will ask: Is that how it is used?

Of course true exegetical work is seen not only in the lexical definition of words but in the usages of those words. Paul uses this very rare word only twice. It is clear in his usage that the word means "chose."

Now, some of you are guilty of what you are accusing us Reformed-types of doing. If, for example, we take the word "Firstborn" and you--the ones insisting that "foreknew" can only mean "know beforehand" based on its lexical definition--you must say that Christ is a created being. If you interpret "foreknew" as "know beforehand" you have no choice but to interpret "firstborn" as "there was a time when Christ was not."

Of course you don't do that (and we Reformed types give thanks that you non-reformed-types do not deny the deity of Christ). No, you apply a proper interpretation to "firstborn" based on the background usage of the word. Of course, to say that Jesus is "firstborn" means that He has the supremely prominent position. But, that is not the simple lexical definition, is it? No. In order to rightly interpret "firstborn" one has to see how it is used. And, thankfully, the right understanding of preeminence, not prior non-existence, is rightly understood.

But, why will you not do this with the word "foreknew?" I suspect it is because you might, for a moment, have to consider that the Calvinists are right and that would just ruin your day.

So, it is not the Calvinist who is performing violent textual interpretation here. Rather, it is the non-Calvinist who is using an inconsistent hermeneutic to suit his or her purposes.

When we study Scripture, we must ask three questions: 1) What does this text say? 2) What does this text mean? and 3) What is this text telling me to do?

Those of you who rightly define "firstborn" and yet wrongly understand "foreknew" are being inconsistent (and probably intentionally so) in your efforts to interpret the text--because you never ask of the Romans 8:29-30 passage "what does this mean?" when you rightly ask "what does this mean?" of the "firstborn" passages.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Jon-Marc,

I would like to talk through your post. While I can see we are on different sides of the theological divide, I think this exercise will prove helpful to all.

No one of the reformed persuasion would disagree. God does, in fact, save those who respond to His call.

However, it is not that simple. We see things in Scripture about the state of man, most notably Genesis 6--man has a heart that desires only evil continually. It is noteworthy that that same sentiment is shared after the flood in Genesis 8. So, the state of man before the flood is the state of man after the flood. In other words, the flood has not fundamentally changed man (which, by the way, tells us that Noah was not different than the men in his day--if the evil of man before the flood is the same as after the flood, then Noah has passed that evil on from himself. It is an inherent condition of mankind).

So, this raises the question "how can someone with a heart that desires only evil continually respond to God."

We, the reformed-types, say that God must do a work to make a person willing to respond. It is still, in our view, a legitimate response, but it is a response based on God's initiation, not ours.

I understand that many hold to this. The grammar of the passage, thought, won't allow for this. The verbs in the Romans 8:29-30 passage (and there are 5) are all in the Aorist tense. In Greek, the Aorist is the "snapshot" of past time. In and of itself, that "foreknew" is Aorist is, likely, no big deal. However, since all 5 verbs--foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified--are all Aorist suggests that the entirety of our salvation is seen, by God, as a done deal. In other words our salvation was initiated by God in the past and that initiation will also, necessarily, include our glorification (which is seen also as a past snapshot).

To me, this is the most disturbing part of your post. Let me raise a hypothetical situation with you...What if you're wrong?

First off, let me point out where you are wrong about one thing. You say "I will not believe in a God...[who] won't save someone who sincerely repents...simply because they [are] not one of the 'elect.'"

We, as Calvinists don't believe in this "god" either. I'm afraid you have misunderstood what we have been saying about election.

We do believe that all who sincerely come to Christ in repentance and faith will be saved.

But, we believe that coming to Christ is proof of God's work of election in that person's life, not the cause of it.

Furthermore, in describing a person who "sincerely repents...who is not elect" you have, basically, described a square circle. There is no one with an only-evil-continually heart who will respond to God. Period. God must do something to make the unwilling willing.

Also, the part of your statement I'm most disturbed about is that you seem to question God's justice in such a way that you seem to say (and insist on) that man is morally neutral, neither inherently good or bad. Of course the plain teaching of scripture is that man is inherently bad, not neutral.

In not dealing with ever sentence here, let me say that I think you're referring to Romans 10:13. There is a translation issue. You are trying to read "whosoever" as saying "all those who are in and of themselves willing." The text, though, says nothing of the sort. The text simply states "All who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." The text makes no comment on who the "all" are or how they got to be there.

That's all I have time for now. Perhaps we'll have a profitable back-and-forth.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

That God can foresee the actions of both believers and unbelievers is shown multiple times in scripture.

Mat 26:34 Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

To deny Jesus is a sin, if God caused Peter to deny Jesus, God would be the author of sin.

Jn 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.
19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.

Here Jesus foretold that Judas would betray him. Again, if God caused Judas to betray him, he would be the author of sin. Jesus did know that Judas would betray him and fulfill scripture, and so chose him.

Jn 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Jesus knew exactly who would believe and who would not (Jn 6:64), and who should betray him.

There are many examples in the scriptures where Jesus foretold the actions of men. The scriptures also show Jesus knew from the beginning those who would believe and who would not.

This teaching that God cannot foresee faith and the actions of men is nonsense and easily refuted by many scriptures.

 

Winman,

I think you misunderstand my statement. THe specific term "foreknew" is very specific in what it refers. Specifically, the word foreknew that is used in Romans 8, 11, Acts 2, etc... is never meant to refer to actions but to people.

I have no qualms with saying God knows all. However, to use the specific word "foreknew" in their specific contexts and say it means that God foreknew our actions is redefining that word and the context. Thus, you cannot make the argument in those situations that God foreknew you would turn to him therefore he predestined you. That does not fit the context at all. "Foreknew" is only used of God foreknowing people not actions.

I hope that clarifies this discussion. We are not discounting God's total and complete omniscience. We are saying that redefining "foreknew" is not helpful.

 

I really don't care how you define foreknow, Jesus CHOSE twelve disciples, and knew eleven would believe in him, and that one, Judas, would not believe and would betray him. This is a picture of election according to foreknowledge.

 

Note: None of us is arguing that God "cannot" see the future actions and faith of man. We are saying that Scripture teaches that that forseen faith is not the basis of election or salvation.

You have done nothing more than erect a strawman.

The Archangel

 

When you say "I really don't care how you define foreknow" what you are, in effect saying, is that you will hold to your definition--errant that it is--over and against all evidence to the contrary.

So, in effect, you are defining Scripture according to what you want it to say, not what it actually says.

The Archangel

 

You are doing the same. You deny that God elects according to foreseen faith when it is shown. When Jesus said, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil, it is directly implied that he chose the eleven because he knew they would believe, and chose Judas because Jesus knew FROM THE BEGINNING Judas would not believe and should betray him. This entire passage is speaking of foreseen faith.

It seems to me that Calvinists go to great lengths to explain away scripture. I am not the least bit concerned that what I believe the scriptures say and show does not conform to your doctrine.

 

Perhaps we will all have a better understanding. One day, our shallow minds will ever be amazed at the depths of His great salvation.

 

You could have a better understanding right now if you examine what the scriptures say and show. Jn 6:64 directly says Jesus knew FROM THE BEGINNING who believed not. If Jesus knew who would not believe, then he also knows who will believe, it is a simple process of elimination. Then in vs. 70 he speaks of choosing the twelve. Is not choosing election?

In Jn 1:44-51 the scriptures show Jesus saw Nathanael before he was called (vs. 48) and believed (vs. 50), again a picture of foreseen faith. And we know Nathanael was chosen.

It's there if you are OPEN to it.

Jn 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile!
48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.

Coming to him- coming to Jesus
Israelite indeed- children of promise, not flesh
Whence knowest thou me?- foreknowledge
Before- foreknowledge
Called- those he did foreknow, them he also called
I saw thee- foreknowledge

It's all there.

 

This most certainly should apply to EVERYONE here.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

Again, I am not doubting Jesus is omniscient. I am stating that the verses mentioning foreknew is not talking about this, but is talking about something completely different. I understand what you are saying, but the issue is the theology of "foreknew" and that is why I outlined everywhere it is mentioned in the New Testament. Thus, to get a theology of foreknowledge, we have to deal with the places in Scripture this word is used.

You cannot take another word in another place and input that definition on a different word somewhere else. Rather, we must deal with the word first and foremost where it is taught.