Predestination

[JonC]

“Foreknown” means to have a relationship before, as in God loved you before you existed (thus the reason for the Predestined, Called, Justified and Glorified). Glorified means to be made perfect and sinless, a promise that is to be fulfilled for the Saints when we leave this mortal body behind. Do you really believe that you were made perfect before God even knew you, let alone before you were Justified in Christ?

I believe it a nonsensical position to take on the passage in Romans and contrary to the plain reading of the so called “golden chain”.

"foreknowledge" means to "know beforehand".

Traditional Calvinism views this as prescience based on God's decree (see Calvin's Institutions). Traditional Arminianism views this as prescience which forms the basis of predestination.

The idea of redefining foreknowledge to be relational (as in "know" being an euphemism for sexual acts) is relatively new. It is just Calvinists trying to "prove" their theories via redefining words.

 

[atpollard]

"foreknowledge" means to "know beforehand"

• [Act 26:5 KJV] 5 Which knew[G4267] me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
• [Rom 8:29 KJV] 29 For whom he did foreknow,[G4267] he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
• [Rom 11:2 KJV] 2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.[G4267] Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
• [1Pe 1:20 KJV] 20 Who verily was foreordained[G4267] before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
• [2Pe 3:17 KJV] 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know [these things] before,[G4267] beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

“factual knowledge” or “experiential knowledge”?
(Who is really redefining the word.)

 

[JonC]

• [Act 26:5 KJV] 5 Which knew[G4267] me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
• [Rom 8:29 KJV] 29 For whom he did foreknow,[G4267] he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
• [Rom 11:2 KJV] 2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.[G4267] Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
• [1Pe 1:20 KJV] 20 Who verily was foreordained[G4267] before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
• [2Pe 3:17 KJV] 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know [these things] before,[G4267] beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

“factual knowledge” or “experiential knowledge”?
(Who is really redefining the word.)

Traditional Calvinism would say "factual knowledge" based on God's decree prior to the foundation of the earth.

2 Peter is factual knowledge.
1 Peter says "foreordain", not "foreknowledge".
Romans 8 is factual knowledge.
Romans 11 is not foreknowledge in an individual sence (it could be either).
Acts 26 is factual knowledge.

The best argument is "I never knew you". But that fails as a proof.

 

[Dave G]

"foreknowledge" means to "know beforehand".

" Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." ( Jeremiah 1:5 ).

" But if any man love God, the same is known of him." ( 1 Corinthians 8:3 ).

" Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity." ( 2 Timothy 2:19 ).

" But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all [ye] workers of iniquity." ( Luke 13:27 ).

" O Lord, thou hast searched me, and known [me]." ( Psalms 139:1 ).

I think it's a little deeper than that, Jon.

Traditional Calvinism views this as prescience based on God's decree (see Calvin's Institutions).

I've never really read it except for the chapter on Predestination once, a very long time ago.
Can you think of a reason I should read anything outside of God's word in order to understand what His word says?

I can't.

 

[Dave G]

Traditional Arminianism views this as prescience which forms the basis of predestination.

Prescience means to know "about" something.
Therefore, the "Arminian" thinks that "foreknowledge" is simply knowing who would believe, as opposed to knowing someone personally, choosing them "in Christ" from the foundation of the world ( Ephesians 1:4-5 ) and arranging for them ( Acts of the Apostles 13:48 ) to believe.

What does Psalms 139 describe, when you look at it?

The idea of redefining foreknowledge to be relational (as in "know" being an euphemism for sexual acts) is relatively new.

To me, the idea of limiting "foreknowledge" to simply knowing about something, doesn't bear up under the context of other passages that clearly demonstrate God's love for a people, even when they were dead in trespasses and sins ( Ephesians 2:1-6 ) and being God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to good works ( Ephesians 2:10 ).

Throw in 1 John 4:19, and I think you might see where I'm going.

It is just Calvinists trying to "prove" their theories via redefining words.

Granted, the word is "foreknowledge" and "foreknow".
The Greek word is "proginosko", which, literally translated, means "before-to-know".

To me, the Greek does not shed enough light to explain the context.

 

[JonC]

" Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." ( Jeremiah 1:5 ).

" But if any man love God, the same is known of him." ( 1 Corinthians 8:3 ).

" Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity." ( 2 Timothy 2:19 ).

" But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all [ye] workers of iniquity." ( Luke 13:27 ).

" O Lord, thou hast searched me, and known [me]." ( Psalms 139:1 ).

I think it's a little deeper than that, Jon.


I've never really read it except for the chapter on Predestination once, a very long time ago.
Can you think of a reason I should read anything outside of God's word in order to understand what His word says?

I can't.

Prescience means to know about something.
Therefore, the "Arminian" thinks that "foreknowledge" is simply knowing who would believe, as opposed to knowing someone personally, and arranging for them to believe.

What does Psalms 139 describe, when you look at it?

To me, the idea of limiting "foreknowledge" to simply knowing about something, doesn't bear up under the context of other passages that clearly demonstrate God's love for a people, even when they were dead in trespasses and sins ( Ephesians 2:1-6 ) and being God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to good works.


Granted, the word is "foreknowledge" and "foreknow".
The Greek word is "proginosko", which, literally translated, means "before-to-know".

To me, the Greek does not shed enough light to explain the context.

I do think we should read outside of the Bible. I highly recommend Calvin (his pastoral works are especially good).

The question here is if "know" in foreknown can mean "know" relationally. I personally believe so, but not in the normal case (there has to be a contextual reason other than the theology we may hold).

 

[Dave G]

I do think we should read outside of the Bible. I highly recommend Calvin (his pastoral works are especially good).

My stance on reading outsde the Bible has changed over the years.

I no longer read much outside of His word, as nothing else really helps to explain His word for me, better than His word.

The question here is if "know" in foreknown can mean "know" relationally.

I have no problem looking at it like that.
However, I cannot mandate that everyone who professes Christ must look at it that way.

I say, "let the reader decide".

I personally believe so, but not in the normal case (there has to be a contextual reason other than the theology we may hold).

I commend you for it, but I also understand that not everyone may see it that way.

See my above.

 

[JonC]

Prescience means to know "about" something.
Therefore, the "Arminian" thinks that "foreknowledge" is simply knowing who would believe, as opposed to knowing someone personally, choosing them "in Christ" from the foundation of the world ( Ephesians 1:4-5 ) and arranging for them ( Acts of the Apostles 13:48 ) to believe.

What does Psalms 139 describe, when you look at it?

To me, the idea of limiting "foreknowledge" to simply knowing about something, doesn't bear up under the context of other passages that clearly demonstrate God's love for a people, even when they were dead in trespasses and sins ( Ephesians 2:1-6 ) and being God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to good works ( Ephesians 2:10 ).

Throw in 1 John 4:19, and I think you might see where I'm going.

Granted, the word is "foreknowledge" and "foreknow".
The Greek word is "proginosko", which, literally translated, means "before-to-know".

To me, the Greek does not shed enough light to explain the context.

I would not use the word "prescience". That is traditional Calvinism (prescience based on divine decree). Foreknowledge should not be limited. I think in Romans Paul demonstrates this.

 

[JonC]

I'm sorry to hear that, as I've never taken comfort in anything other than God's word.
I've also never felt the need to consult commentaries, although they can shed some light on what other people have seen when they read it for themselves.

I have no problem looking at it like that.
However, I cannot mandate that everyone who professes Christ must look at it that way.

I say, "let the reader decide".

I commend you for it, but I also understand that not everyone may see it that way.

See my above.

Don't be sorry. I have listened to my pastor (and other preachers). John Piper has been influential to me. But Scripture is the test of doctrines.

I also listen to (and read) hymns. They do give me comfort.

I enjoy reading Spurgeon's sermons. A friend gave me a collection of his notes and I have learned from his works.

I do not believe a Christian and a Bible is enough. We are members of a greater body and benefit from one another.

 

[Dave G]

Don't be sorry. I have listened to my pastor (and other preachers). John Piper has been influential to me. But Scripture is the test of doctrines.

Please re-read my post, I've edited post # 47 to correct for emotional response.

 

[Dave G]

I do not believe a Christian and a Bible is enough.

As far as understanding God's word for ourselves, I have to disagree.

I see 1 John 2:20-27 telling us otherwise.

We are members of a greater body and benefit from one another.

Agreed.

That's why I hope, one day, to be part of such a thing again.
However, given the current state of the Baptist churches in my area, I'd say that that possibility is slim to none, at least for the foreseeable future.

Good evening to you, sir.

 

[JonC]

Please re-read my post, I've edited post # 47 to correct for emotional response.

OK. Thanks. I didn't see it as wrong, just not how I view extra-biblical teachings. That said, we all have our experiences.

I have found value in reading others interpretations. Sometimes it helps me to understand where others are coming from. Sometimes it shows me an error in my own view (something I may not have considered).

Here is another example. I do not agree with @Martin Marprelate on many issues. But I have enjoyed both his blog and his sermons. He is a very articulate and godly man. I disagree with him, but his works help me understand his views and have solidified my own positions.

 

[JonC]

As far as understanding God's word for ourselves, I have to disagree.

I see 1 John 2:20-27 telling us otherwise.

Agreed.

That's why I hope, one day, to be part of such a thing again.
However, given the current state of the Baptist churches in my area, I'd say that that possibility is slim to none, at least for the foreseeable future.

Good evening to you, sir.

I do not understand how 1 John 2:20-27 contradicts reading and considering the interpretations of other Christians.

I hope you do find a church you can be a part of. I am sure it is difficult for you, but I suspect as time goes on it will be increasingly difficult to find faithful churches in the "mainstream".

 

[Dave G]

I do not understand how 1 John 2:20-27 contradicts reading and considering the interpretations of other Christians.

Read it closely.

It says that we have the Holy Spirit as Teacher, and that we do not need men to teach us.
I take this to mean that I do not need men to tell me what God's word means, I have the "translator" already living within me.

 

[JonC]

Read it closely.

It says that we have the Holy Spirit as Teacher, and that we do not need men to teach us.
I take this to mean that I do not need men to tell me what God's word means, I have the "translator" already living within me.

Do you read an English translation? If so you also read human interpretation (all translation involves interpretation).

You could use language tools. But these are also human additions involving interpretive choices.

And Scripture also tells us God has gifted churches teachers. Scripture tells us to heed the words of the elders (those mature in the faith).

For what reason did Paul write that God gives teachers to the church? Why does Scripture teach to evaluate doctrine if we are not to evaluate doctrines?

 

[Barry Johnson]

Huh. It seems you are saying God is ignorant of all humans until humans choose him. Then, and only then does the lightbulb go off in God's mind so that he can know us. Apparently God is not all knowing, all powerful and all seeing. Instead he's entirely blind unti humans make themselves known to him by believing.
Does God where a red suit and say Ho, Ho, Ho? Does he like milk and cookies?

Barry, you entirely misread Galatians and thus you hone in on one phrase and create a doctrine out of it, while ignoring the context of the passage.

Galatians 3:23 - 4:12

The bolded sentences clearly show you that God knew his children far before we ever believed. Therefore, when Paul says "or rather be known by God," Paul is not saying God was ignorant of us until we believe. Paul is saying that when we believed, God saw us in Christ Jesus as sons of God. Before that, God saw us as being captive and in prison.

Please see what God says in context rather than take a phrase out of context and then create an entire false doctrine out of it, like you have done.

My point was ' relational' knowing .The bible clearly says that we are lost , strangers , enemies, without hope and without God UNTIL we are In HIM .

 

[Barry Johnson]

My point was ' relational' knowing .The bible clearly says that we are lost , strangers , enemies, without hope and without God UNTIL we are In HIM We can say God knows all things but that is not the relational ' know' I'm talking about . .

 

[Barry Johnson]

Huh. It seems you are saying God is ignorant of all humans until humans choose him. Then, and only then does the lightbulb go off in God's mind so that he can know us. Apparently God is not all knowing, all powerful and all seeing. Instead he's entirely blind unti humans make themselves known to him by believing.
Does God where a red suit and say Ho, Ho, Ho? Does he like milk and cookies?

Barry, you entirely misread Galatians and thus you hone in on one phrase and create a doctrine out of it, while ignoring the context of the passage.

Galatians 3:23 - 4:12

The bolded sentences clearly show you that God knew his children far before we ever believed. Therefore, when Paul says "or rather be known by God," Paul is not saying God was ignorant of us until we believe. Paul is saying that when we believed, God saw us in Christ Jesus as sons of God. Before that, God saw us as being captive and in prison.

Please see what God says in context rather than take a phrase out of context and then create an entire false doctrine out of it, like you have done.

Of course God was aware of people running around ,breathing and talking and stuff . He was aware of course of those kept under the law of Moses . He was even aware o of the moon landing . But as for God knowing us intimately in His Son . No we are not known in this sense until we are In HIM .

 

[Barry Johnson]

Huh. It seems you are saying God is ignorant of all humans until humans choose him. Then, and only then does the lightbulb go off in God's mind so that he can know us. Apparently God is not all knowing, all powerful and all seeing. Instead he's entirely blind unti humans make themselves known to him by believing.
Does God where a red suit and say Ho, Ho, Ho? Does he like milk and cookies?

Barry, you entirely misread Galatians and thus you hone in on one phrase and create a doctrine out of it, while ignoring the context of the passage.

Galatians 3:23 - 4:12

The bolded sentences clearly show you that God knew his children far before we ever believed. Therefore, when Paul says "or rather be known by God," Paul is not saying God was ignorant of us until we believe. Paul is saying that when we believed, God saw us in Christ Jesus as sons of God. Before that, God saw us as being captive and in prison.

Please see what God says in context rather than take a phrase out of context and then create an entire false doctrine out of it, like you have done.

We are not His Children into after we are Born again . Before we believe we are not ' children of God as you say.

 

[Barry Johnson]

We are not His Children until after we are Born again . Before we believe we are not ' children of God as you say.