Ordained to Eternal Life

[The Archangel]

Skypair,

Unfortunately, because of your limited experience with Greek, you are showing that you don't know what you're talking about. I don't mean that to sound harsh.

You Wrote:

First off, we're talking about a Greek word "prognostica" that you are comparing to a Hebrew expression. No. That's patently manufactured out of scraps of "old cloth."

You are incorrect. The word is not prognostica; the word (foreknew) comes is proginosko This is a compound word of the prefix pro meaning before and ginosko meaning to know (and there is nuance in this word) The Strong's number for ginosko is 1097; the Strong's number for the root word you have cited, quite mistakenly (gnosis), is 1108. In short, the two words have different roots. You simply could not be more wrong. Not to mention ginosko is a verb and gnosis is a noun.

Yes, that is the same interpretation I have heard before. The fact that there is a "range of meanings" and you Calvinists happen to pick the one you did is suspicious to say the least. Why not go with "pro" = "fore" and "gnostica" = "know?" O, I know -- that would be exegeting rather than eisogeting! :laugh:

Actually, every word has a range of meaning. For example, in Hebrew, the ayin can mean either "eye" (the eye in your head you use to see) or "well" (where you get water).

But, what you have done here, especially in building your argument on the wrong word, is eisegesis, and there is no way around that. Your presupposition is based on your mistaken understanding of the word and your lack of understanding of the Greek language.

Do you figure maybe He KNEW what He was tallking about before He "declared" it? Makes sense to me. Are you saying He "declares" it without knowing -- like "shooting from the hip?"

Again, we have another example of you playing fast and loose with the text to fit your presuppositions. The passage says nothing about "knowing;" the passage clearly states God "Declares." That you are bringing "knowing" rather than "declaring" into the discussion shows your eisegesis. THe passage simply says, God declared.

See, I'm having a real problem seeing how a Hebrew expression gets into your Greek translation. It's INTERPRETATION you're doing and it is predicated on knowledge collected somewhere else...

Except, I'll bet, the "simple Greek" translation. How does a compound word with one simple meaning for each part of the compound get bivaricated into "a range of meanings" and "a Hebrew expression" like "yada???

Hebraic expressions appear all the time in Greek. There is a simple reason for this--most (certainly not all) of the writers of the New Testament, were native Hebrew speakers. But, the language of the day was Greek. Further, the most commonly quoted Old Testament passages that appear in the New Testament are from the Septuagint--the Greek translation of the Old Testament.

"Bivaricated?" Did you mean "bifurcated", meaning To divide into two parts or branches? Again, each word has a range of meaning, just like English.

Jeremiah 1:5

5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
​

Amos 3:2

2 “You only have I known
of all the families of the earth;
​

Both these passages use a common usage of "know." Certainly, we would never argue God "knew" what Jeremiah would become--a prophet. No, we'd argue God chose Jeremiah to be a prophet.

Similarly, God is not telling Israel, in the Amos passage, that they are the only nation He's heard of. No, God is simply stating that He chose Israel.

OK, so you have "whom He did forechoose, He did forechoose?"

Again, the Greek issue is greatly handicapping you. These two words are totally different. The word foreknew (proginosko) is different from the word predestined (proorizo). Not to mention the word predestined is qualified (we are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ).

The context, along with the grammar and syntax, simply shows that God chooses beforehand and then He predestines us to be conformed to Christ's image. Now, here's some interpretation: This means that the ones chosen will be conformed to Christ's image meaning that God will sanctify whom He has chosen. The string of five verbs in this passage (the so-called golden chain of salvation) is Aorist Active Indicative showing these verbs are viewed as already being accomplished, but that's another discussion.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

TA...why haven't any of the translators used "fore-chosen" instead of "foreknown"?

 

[The Archangel]

TA...why haven't any of the translators used "fore-chosen" instead of "foreknown"?

Webdog,

Excellent question. I don't know, exactly. But, I think most translators try to stay close to the original wording to make a literal translation (in the case of the NASB) or an essentially literal translation in the case of the ESV, my current favorite.

Foreknown is the correct translation, but as is almost always the case with translation, the translation doesn't always capture the original meaning.

For instance, the Hebrew word hesed has been translated as "Loving-kindness" by the NASB. Now, loving-kindness certainly captures one aspect (actually two aspects) of the word but it does not capture all aspects of the word. This word means so much more and it is unfathomably rich, especially because it always refers to God's love of His covenant people--mostly used when they [we] don't deserve anything but His judgment/wrath.

So, it is important to understand both the translation and the original in order to get the intended meaning. This is difficult and there are some words which are much harder to understand than others.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[skypair]

You are incorrect. The word is not prognostica; the word (foreknew) comes is proginosko This is a compound word of the prefix pro meaning before and ginosko meaning to know (and there is nuance in this word) The Strong's number for ginosko is 1097; the Strong's number for the root word you have cited, quite mistakenly (gnosis), is 1108. In short, the two words have different roots. You simply could not be more wrong. Not to mention ginosko is a verb and gnosis is a noun.

OK, I looked up proginosko. The first defintion I find on www.blueletterbible.com is "1) to have knowledge before hand."

I am most disappointed that you MUST accept the "pure Greek" in Acts 13:48 but insist on nuancing Rom 8:29! :tear: You are basically taking what is convenient for your view, aren't you? This is what is so "slippery" about addressing the "letter" rather than the Spirit of the scriptures, AA.

But, what you have done here, especially in building your argument on the wrong word, is eisegesis, and there is no way around that.

Skip the "flamboyance," AA. God makes the wisdom of the wise into foolishness and this is just one example.

The passage says nothing about "knowing;" the passage clearly states God "Declares."

I only brought it in because you said that the word "proginosko" required YOUR definition. On my own, it wouldn't have even been an issue.

There is a simple reason for this--most (certainly not all) of the writers of the New Testament, were native Hebrew speakers. But, the language of the day was Greek.

Build all the rationales you want, AA. Even show me that Paul was writing to the Jews in Rome (NOT). You are a very accomplished Calvinism scholar and I agree that someone like me would not be able to change your mind.

"Bivaricated?" Did you mean "bifurcated", meaning To divide into two parts or branches?

Yeah. I thought about it later and realized why I couldn't find it in the dictionary. Heck, I don't even know English!! What chance do I have here?? :laugh: Again, each word has a range of meaning, just like English.

Jeremiah 1:5

5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you;​

Is this the "yada" thing again? UGH! Look, once we get past this equation where foreknow means having sexual knowledge, I think we can reach some kind of accomodation in all this. :laugh:

Again, the Greek issue is greatly handicapping you.

Apprently not. When the first defintion is "know beforehand" and you would rather go with a lesser used definition, I'm feelin' pretty good!

Now, here's some interpretation: This means that the ones chosen will be conformed to Christ's image meaning that God will sanctify whom He has chosen.

Well, AMEN!! But those are steps #2 and #3 in the process. #1. foreknowledge. #2. Predestined. #3. conformed.

Thank you for the excellent conversation and honesty!

skypair​

 

[The Archangel]

Skypair,

OK, I looked up proginosko. The first defintion I find on www.blueletterbible.com is "1) to have knowledge before hand."

I am most disappointed that you MUST accept the "pure Greek" in Acts 13:48 but insist on nuancing Rom 8:29! :tear: You are basically taking what is convenient for your view, aren't you? This is what is so "slippery" about addressing the "letter" rather than the Spirit of the scriptures, AA.

There you go again (I just like saying that because I'm a Reagan fan). Seriously, you're missing the point.

The letter is vastly important, but it cannot be divorced from the context--the immediate context, the grammatical context, the syntactical context, and the historical context all must be brought to bear.

You accuse me of picking the definition which suits my presuppositions, but you are doing exactly that. You know, because you've looked it up, that it is possible to translate proginosko as 2) to foreknow--a) of those whom God elected to salvation 3) to predestinate. You are discounting these definitions, which are clearly in the scope of possibilities, simply because you don't like where that's going to take you. We all do this, which is why the contextual concerns must be brought to the table.

The Grammatical and Syntactical context shows that this action is something God does. The verb foreknew is an Aorist Active Indicative. This is also the case with the words (all verbs) Predestined, Called, Justified, and Glorified. God is the subject of all these verbs which means God is actively doing these actions. This also implies the receiving the action are being acted upon. It cannot be said the ones being acted upon are acting upon themselves, in any way.

So, if we say God did the predestining, the calling, the justifying, and the glorifying, it must be, then, that he did the foreknowing. Because God is the subject of these verb, He did the actions (and verbs require action).

The Immediate context of the passage is clearly focused on what God does for His children (making all things work together for good for those who are called according to His purpose). In this passage, the focus is not what we do for ourselves. So, because the context of the passage shows what God does and because the Grammar and Syntax show God being the main "actor," not the responder, it must be the case that foreknowing is something God actively does, not something He merely knows or recognizes.

Finally, the Historical context must take into consideration who wrote the letter. Paul, a "Hebrew of Hebrews," certainly knew his Old Testament. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word yada was used for a wide range of meanings including choosing.

It is obvious the euphemism for sexual relations is not in view here. What is in view is the usage of Amos 3:2, for example, that uses ginosko to describe God's choosing of Israel (and it appears in the Aorist Active Indicative, by the way).

So, Paul being a Hebrew, wanting to emphasize God's actions in salvation would use the proginosko which is the Greek equivilent of yada to express God's active role in choosing.

Further, the plain meaning of a verb, again, is to show action. Foreknowing, as you are describing it, does not show an active use, but a passive use. Clearly, the verb "Foreknew" is Active which means someone, namely God, must perform the action. So, this cannot mean that God is merely receiving knowledge of an action of someone else.

Taking all of this into account, it must be that the word simply means to choose.

When the first defintion is "know beforehand" and you would rather go with a lesser used definition, I'm feelin' pretty good!

Foreknew is the best translation because of the component parts of the word, however, that definition does not convey the best meaning, as shown above.

Is this the "yada" thing again? UGH! Look, once we get past this equation where foreknow means having sexual knowledge, I think we can reach some kind of accomodation in all this. :laugh:

I don't know why you can't get over this. Yada does not always mean sexual relations, it is oneof many meanings. This is the verb, in Hebrew, "to know." That it is used in referring to sexual relations is a euphemism (a type of politically-correct way of saying people had sex). Can yada mean sexual relations? Sure. Does it always? No.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[skypair]

You accuse me of picking the definition which suits my presuppositions, [Acts 13:48] but you are doing exactly that [Rom 8:29]

Then let's just go with that, eh? I came off my resistance, not come off yours.

Follow along with what you started. Did God "choose" Jesus in 1Pet 1:20? Or did He "foreknow" Jesus? I mean, choose or initiate would hardly be appropriate to that text, would it?

God is the subject of all these verbs which means God is actively doing these actions. This also implies those receiving the action are being acted upon. It cannot be said the ones being acted upon are acting upon themselves, in any way.

I see the whole thing is what we today would call an "interactive process" with believers, don't you? Think about how we interact with one another.

Your model seems to say God foreknows something at one time, makes one entire plan, there are no variables (like prayer initiated by the believer) that might cause God to "reknow," "redestine," etc. His original actions. But I am claiming with the text that God ACTIVELY does this -- interacts -- even though it is before creation.

Maybe that is where the "rub" is. Do you believe that God interacts with us believers? Deists liked to see God as preplanning the whole creation and then just sitting back and "resting." That seems to be your view. "Foreknowing" was NOT interacting with time but merely total determinism. I believe that is what you limit God to by your paradigm.

The Immediate context of the passage is clearly focused on what God does for His children (making all things work together for good for those who are called according to His purpose).

Yes! Through interaction with us in time. He doesn't always do things we want but He often does.

I know, BTW, the false model you are burdened with. R.C. Sproul says prayer only changes us. God, basically, doesn't intervene in "time" through foreknowledge to change His plans.

YOu basically have a "wooden" model there, AA. And you have it because you won't just take the #1, most common definition of the Greek word.

skypair

 

[The Archangel]

OK!

I'm back from Vacation.

I'll be posting more soon.

The Archangel

 

[skypair]

OK!

I'm back from Vacation.

I'll be posting more soon.

The Archangel

AA,

Hope you had a great time! :wavey:

I guess more than anything it is the notion you present which I do find in scripture that is misapplied here and elsewhere by Calvies. And I will tell you what it is and why it makes a diffference.

The idea of "appointment" or "election" or "chosen" by God can be a red herring if not understood biblically. Israel was an "elect," "chosen," appointed" people yet most of them weren't saved and almost NONE received Christ when He presented Himself! Why? They felt they were already "chosen"/saved.

Now if I grow up in the Reform/Calvinist tradition, I will be told that I am "elect." That church has the same claim to TEMPORAL election as the OT chosen, Israel, and makes the same application of "election" to salvation that Israel made when Christ was presented to them.

Bottom line: It was up to Jews individually to repent and choose Christ in order to enter into SPIRITUAL election. Spiritual election is NOT "given" to you as temporal election is (for instance, where the Bible says that the child of one Christian and one heathen parent is said to be "sanctified" by the believing parent. That's sanctified temporally -- given the knowledge of Christ with which to become spiritually elect. Also see Rom 9:4).

Therefore, I do not believe Reform/Calvinism can preach the true gospel when they say salvation is "given" by God. Spiritual election/salvation MUST be RECEIVED individually by repentance toward Christ before it can be had.

Anyway, welcome back to the fray! :laugh:

skypair