convicted1
Guest
Not unless them birds, and/or chickens, dig'em up and eat the seeds before they sprout forth from the ground.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Foreknowledge
- Thread starter Robert Snow
- Start date
Not unless them birds, and/or chickens, dig'em up and eat the seeds before they sprout forth from the ground.
Not unless them birds, and/or chickens, dig'em up and eat the seeds before they sprout forth from the ground.
Oh Willis, a poor tiller of the ground you must be! To let chickens run amok in the garden! Tell me it's not so!
convicted1
Guest
Oh Willis, a poor tiller of the ground you must be! To let chickens run amok in the garden! Tell me it's not so!
That seed was good, but they must have been sown by the way side. That seed is good, but they ate it before it took root......:laugh:
:wavey:convicted1
Guest
Sorry about derailing the thread. Now back to your reguraly scheduled program.
This is the absolute truth and at the time of Jesus was walking the earth the seed of the house of Judah were walking in the land of Judah and some were disbursed in other countries and were known as Jews, keeping the sabbath ect but the seed of the house of Israel were scattered in all countries as lost sheep among the Gentiles (heathen) and it was God that scattered (planted) them and sent Paul to find the ones of whom God was calling.
Did foreknow.
They were still his sheep and didn't become his sheep until after hearing his voice.
He defines foreknow as "chose"...and you say OTHERS redefine words? :laugh:
This is a poor definition of works. God requiring a response from us after providing the means for salvation does not lend to works. That is not a definition found anywhere in scripture.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
You're muddling the issue. Paul, by use, defines "foreknow" as "chose." Your issue is with him.
The Archangel
He does no such thing. Not one translation has translated it as "chose", and given the context (believers being conformed to Christ's image) rightly so.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Sure he does.
Both Romans 8:29 and 11:2 have the same word in the same inflection. In Romans 11:2 it is obviously meant as "chose." Since Paul only uses this word twice (of the, I think, five occurrences in the New Testament) I think he has defined what he means.
Secondly, the choosing and the predestining and the calling and the justifying and the glorifying of Romans 8:29-30 are not done in the here-and-now. The Aorist tense means that these five things were done in the past. The Aorist is not telling how they were done, but that they were done. Again, the Aorist is the "snapshot" view. All of this is, likely, from the God's-eye point of view.
But, what is clear is that the decision to choose and predestine, etc. is not a decision made in the now. It was a decision made in the past (and therefore could not have been made by us).
Furthermore, the passage (Romans 8:29-30) is inextricably linked to Romans 8:28 and the verses that precede it. Paul is answering the unspoken "why" as in "why do all things work together for good for those who love the Lord and are called according to his purpose?" It is because God has chosen them, predestined them, called them, justified them, and glorified them.
None of this is because God simply "saw" something in them.
What is more, as I mentioned earlier, you (and many others) are not consistent in your interpretational schema. You insist that "foreknew" mean "know beforehand" simply because it is the lexical definition. You give no thought to the author's usage, and therefore you give no thought to the author's meaning. Yet, when you run across the word "firstborn" you do not argue that Jesus had to have a point when He began to exist. Why? Because, in the case of "firstborn" you understand the author is talking about Jesus' preeminent role in all creation. You eschew the technical, lexical definition and see the author's meaning. Yet you don't do that here.
The Archangel
To repeat, the Greek word translated "foreknow" refers to using some information obtained or formulated in the past, in the present. This is its only meaning. To claim otherwise is simply redefining the meaning of "before known"
The claim the word is used only of knowing people and not knowing plans or actions is demonstrated false by Acts 2:23. Christ was delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God. The manner of Christ's death had been predetermined, and recorded in scripture such as Isaiah 53, and therefore when this plan was brought about, it was by the foreknowledge of God. Any other view is simply a denial of scripture.
In Acts 26:5, we see the word used to describe knowledge about Paul, he lived as a Pharisee, they did not see into the future, but rather had knowledge beforehand, when Paul was a youth. So two for two.
In 1 Peter 1:2 we see individuals chosen according to the foreknowledge of God. So God had a plan, a redemption plan, formulated in eternity past, and He is now choosing individuals according to that plan. So three for three.
And then in 1 Peter 1:20 we have Christ being foreknown, IN THE Past, as the Lamb of God, and then in the present, according to plan, He has appeared in these last days for your sake. So we have four for four.
Now the last two lets take together because they are parallel. In Romans 11:2 scripture says, “God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.” Now what did God know beforehand? They had been chosen corporately. So five for five where the word is used to describe a present action according to prior knowledge.
In Romans 8:29 scripture say, " For whom He foreknew [proginosko], He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first born of many brethren;" Here again Paul uses the word to describe something about people that was known beforehand, in the past. They had been corporately chosen, Ephesians 1:4) and the redemption plan decreed those chosen would be conformed to the image of His Son. So six for six, the exact same usage of the two Greek words, to know something in the past and use that knowledge, i.e. implement the plan, in the present.
Both Calvinism and Arminianism are based on shoddy bible study and rewriting the meaning of the words to get them to somehow support their invented doctrines.
The claim the word is used only of knowing people and not knowing plans or actions is demonstrated false by Acts 2:23. Christ was delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God. The manner of Christ's death had been predetermined, and recorded in scripture such as Isaiah 53, and therefore when this plan was brought about, it was by the foreknowledge of God. Any other view is simply a denial of scripture.
In Acts 26:5, we see the word used to describe knowledge about Paul, he lived as a Pharisee, they did not see into the future, but rather had knowledge beforehand, when Paul was a youth. So two for two.
In 1 Peter 1:2 we see individuals chosen according to the foreknowledge of God. So God had a plan, a redemption plan, formulated in eternity past, and He is now choosing individuals according to that plan. So three for three.
And then in 1 Peter 1:20 we have Christ being foreknown, IN THE Past, as the Lamb of God, and then in the present, according to plan, He has appeared in these last days for your sake. So we have four for four.
Now the last two lets take together because they are parallel. In Romans 11:2 scripture says, “God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.” Now what did God know beforehand? They had been chosen corporately. So five for five where the word is used to describe a present action according to prior knowledge.
In Romans 8:29 scripture say, " For whom He foreknew [proginosko], He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first born of many brethren;" Here again Paul uses the word to describe something about people that was known beforehand, in the past. They had been corporately chosen, Ephesians 1:4) and the redemption plan decreed those chosen would be conformed to the image of His Son. So six for six, the exact same usage of the two Greek words, to know something in the past and use that knowledge, i.e. implement the plan, in the present.
Both Calvinism and Arminianism are based on shoddy bible study and rewriting the meaning of the words to get them to somehow support their invented doctrines.
Last edited by a moderator:
They were his sheep. Lost sheep. But they did not know they were his sheep nor lost until he called them. They heard him because they were his sheep and believed because they were his sheep.
All others believe not because they are not his sheep.
God chooses and the chosen hear and believe.
Right on percho!
They're 'lost sheep', not goats. 'Lost' implies out of place, not bound for destruction. When the 'lost sheep' are brought into the kingdom through obedience to the gospel, they become 'saved'; not redeemed nor regenerated nor born from above nor acquire eternal life, but 'saved'.
Last edited by a moderator:
The way you are using sheep it would mean the elect were eternally saved and just didn't know it. I don't see Scripture using sheep in the manner presented, nor to describe gentile believers.
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and they shall become one flock, one shepherd. Jn 10:16
11 Wherefore remember, that once ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands;
12 that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition,
15 having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace;
16 and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: Eph 2
But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband. Gal 4:26,27
Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith Jehovah. Isa 54:1
Yes...gentiles who would be saved.
Maybe read Ezk 34.....slowly.....you will see it there:thumbsup: