Regeneration: Begotten By God

[zrs6v4]

1 Peter 1:20-21

"For He (Jesus) was foreknown (proginōskō) before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in the last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God..."

foreknow- proginōskō
1. to have knowledge before hand
2. to foreknow
1. of those whom God elected to salvation
3. to predestinate

1Peter 1:1-2
To those...who are chosen according to the foreknowledge (prognōsis) of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled by His blood."

prognōsis
1. foreknowledge
2. forethought, pre-arrangement

I think both believers and Jesus are chosen in the same way and I dont think Peter means that God merely looks into the future to see who is the wise and understanding. I do think that foreknowledge has to do with God's omniscience but it must have more to do with His choosing people and sovereign reign over all events. I dont think Peter means God looked into future to see if Jesus was going to choose Him in verse 20, but I don't disagree that God knew it all. I am really convinced that Jesus and the elect were all apart of God's plan that He has caused to happen perfectly in this passage I used for the example.

 

[zrs6v4]

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Here is yet another verse showing God's foreknowledge. Jesus knew "from the beginning" who they were that believed not and who should betray him. Therefore he must also know who will believe.

Of course He did. Jesus didnt only know, but knew that He, the sons of perdition, and the elect were a part of God's will from the beginning. I would never deny God's omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, or any attribute God has that He uses in His purposes. It is a deep subject with many questions like:

1. If God knew from all eternity what His plan was then when did He start thinking? or was there a point in eternity that God actually decided to create?

2. What is God's order He uses in His will? Does He first look into what He creates to see how to create and ordain?

3. Does God ordain people before He creates them for a purpose, then sees all events, and then places them in the spot and time He has created them for?

4. Why would God create a person He knew was going to reject Him?

5. Does God have to think something through in sequence like us if He already knows everything?

I can go on sir but I generate my opinion from verses that speak of everything working after the counsel of God's will rather than God working after the counsel of peoples will.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Keep remembering

For-know = intimate relationship of God from eternity past with ones He chose to show grace/love to

For-see = know ahead of time (omniscience) what man is going to do

God didn't save me because He "for-saw" I was going to make the right choice and repent and believe and call on Him. (Of course, I couldn't, so that rules that out)

God saved me because he KNEW me as His beloved. A divine intercourse of love of the Father for Bob. Wow. And sent His son to atone for my sin and sent His spirit to woo me, change me, regenerate me so that then I COULD make the right choice and repent and believe and call on Him.

Boy Howdy. That is 100% grace.

 

[zrs6v4]

For-know = intimate relationship of God from eternity past with ones He chose to show grace/love to
For-see = know ahead of time (omniscience) what man is going to do

I dont disagree but as a side question how do you come up with these words in the greek? I am very new and inexperienced in greek although I realize that words can be combined and made up.


I realize you are simply breaking apart the word by the way.

For- Pre
Knew- to intimately love in relationship through Christ

 

[webdog]

I dont disagree but as a side question how do you come up with these words in the greek? I am very new and inexperienced in greek although I realize that words can be combined and made up.


I realize you are simply breaking apart the word by the way.

For- Pre
Knew- to intimately love in relationship through Christ

You have to come up with them through presupposition. The word simply means to know beforehand. To state this is purely an intimate knowledge has to be read into the text. In keeping true to the definition, I believe God knew beforehand who were His, not because he looks through time, but because He was there and at the moment of faith at the same time, but there is no greek, hebrew or english for this action as we are finite and God is infinite. I believe it is an anthropomorphic from man's view.

 

[Allan]

Knew- to intimately love in relationship through Christ

You might want to check up on that, because you won't find any such defintion ascribed to it. The 'intimately' yes, becuase it refers to the Jewish idiom regarding se*ual relations between a man and a woman, and this word is used even including rape (such a Davids son who 'knew' his sister Tamar / raped her). Thus the implication of love is persuppositionally added when in fact the definition does not bring it into the literal meaning of the word.

 

[zrs6v4]

ginōskō
1. to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel
1. to become known
2. to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of
1. to understand
2. to know
3. Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman
4. to become acquainted with, to know

I was thinking of Mathew 7:23 when He says "I never knew you" speaking of the final judgment. Now He is clear speaking of a relationship Id say. I would also say that it is an intimate relationship.

 

[The Archangel]

I don't disagree but as a side question how do you come up with these words in the Greek? I am very new and inexperienced in Greek although I realize that words can be combined and made up.

I realize you are simply breaking apart the word by the way.

For- Pre
Knew- to intimately love in relationship through Christ

The meaning of the word is not finally determined by the lexicon. Rather, the lexicon helps us see what the author had in mind but context is the ultimate determiner of meaning.

For example: I can say the word "Run" and ask you what I am meaning. You might guess that I'm thinking of running for exercise, running to the store to get dinner, scoring a run in a game of baseball, etc. However when I use the word run in a sentence you will know what I am intending to say: On the way to church Sunday, my wife got a run in her stockings.

Greek (or any language, for that matter) is the same--how the author uses a word gives us the greatest clue to what he is intending to convey to us the reader.

In the case of "foreknew," the Apostle Paul uses it in two passages in Romans

Romans 8:29-30--29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Romans 11:2--God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.

In both of these cases, Paul uses the same exact word in the same exact construction. In Romans 11:2 it is obvious that "foreknew" is an antonym to "rejected." Paul is using these words as opposite. After all, it makes absolutely no sense to say "God has not rejected his people who He saw would believe." If God saw they would believe, there would be no need to discuss a possible charge of rejection. To take Paul's use of "foreknew" in Romans 11 as "to see who would believe" is to create a non-sequitur in his line of argumentation. So, Paul's usage of this word means "choose."

When we get to Romans 8:29-30 we have to employ Paul's same meaning--the word, again, means choose. Furthermore, the grammar of the passage speaks of people, not their actions. For example: The word can't mean "God saw their belief" or some other variation. Why? Because God is the subject (which isn't a problem) who acts on believers (which also isn't a problem). The problem comes with the 5 verbs--foreknew, predestined, called, justified, glorified. These verbs are the actions God does to us and these verbs are all Aorist (which is giving a "snapshot" of God's activity).

It makes no sense to define foreknew as "seeing who would believe," because it is based on our actions, not God's and that goes against the simple grammar of the passage. Furthermore, those who hold that "foreknew" means "to see who would believe" cannot apply that type of passive action to God in the verbs predestine, called, justified, glorified. The action in the verbs predestine, called, justified, and glorified is active and it is God who is doing the action. Who is it that predestines, calls, justifies, and glorifies? It is God and He does so actively, which is to say He justifies the ungodly...He doesn't merely see that they would someday be justified.

What is more, all of these verbs--along with God being the subject and acting on believers--show an action on persons, not mere knowledge of their actions. In other words, Paul is not saying that God saw that people's actions were predestined, called, justified, or glorified. Rather, Paul is saying that people themselves are predestined, called, justified, and glorified. So it must be the case, then, that people are "foreknown," not their future believing actions. Therefore, it must be that the word cannot mean simply "knew beforehand."

It is uninformed at best and disingenuous at worst to suggest that this word means "know beforehand" because those who hold to that definition would not apply the same passive meaning to the remaining verbs in Romans 8:29-30. Therefore, it is those who take the word to mean "know beforehand" who are actually reading their presuppositions into the passage. The text is clear and the word means "choose."

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[OldRegular]

Keep remembering

For-know = intimate relationship of God from eternity past with ones He chose to show grace/love to

For-see = know ahead of time (omniscience) what man is going to do

God didn't save me because He "for-saw" I was going to make the right choice and repent and believe and call on Him. (Of course, I couldn't, so that rules that out)

God saved me because he KNEW me as His beloved. A divine intercourse of love of the Father for Bob. Wow. And sent His son to atone for my sin and sent His spirit to woo me, change me, regenerate me so that then I COULD make the right choice and repent and believe and call on Him.

Boy Howdy. That is 100% grace.

Dr. Bob

You say it well!

Without GOD's choice of some to Salvation in Jesus Christ no one would be saved. The Doctrine of Election magnifies the Grace of God.

 

[Skandelon]

Keep remembering

For-know = intimate relationship of God from eternity past with ones He chose to show grace/love to

For-see = know ahead of time (omniscience) what man is going to do

God didn't save me because He "for-saw" I was going to make the right choice and repent and believe and call on Him. (Of course, I couldn't, so that rules that out)

Even if we accept your definition of foreknowledge as being an "intimate relationship" you still must assume your position that the means through which that relationship is established was done so irresistibly by God and not in cooperation with man's "free" response. In fact, the very use of the word "fore" connotes that this knowledge PRECEDES the actual formation of the relationship, whereas your definition presupposes that the relationship has always existed and has thus been predetermined. That must be read into the text or presupposed on to the text since that formation of the faith based relationship is not discussed in the text itself.

 

[DHK]

Keep remembering

For-know = intimate relationship of God from eternity past with ones He chose to show grace/love to

For-see = know ahead of time (omniscience) what man is going to do

God didn't save me because He "for-saw" I was going to make the right choice and repent and believe and call on Him. (Of course, I couldn't, so that rules that out)

God saved me because he KNEW me as His beloved. A divine intercourse of love of the Father for Bob. Wow. And sent His son to atone for my sin and sent His spirit to woo me, change me, regenerate me so that then I COULD make the right choice and repent and believe and call on Him.

Boy Howdy. That is 100% grace.

I'm not KJVO Bob, and didn't think you were either. But it does seem that you are basing all of your arguments on the English word "foreknew" and its etymology. Wasn't the NT translated from the Greek?

 

[Allan]

ginōskō
1. to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel
1. to become known
2. to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of
1. to understand
2. to know
3. Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman
4. to become acquainted with, to know

I was thinking of Mathew 7:23 when He says "I never knew you" speaking of the final judgment. Now He is clear speaking of a relationship Id say. I would also say that it is an intimate relationship.

Interesting you have your own definition that can not be found in the above.

And just so you know, I do agree in the main with Archangel. Foreknow does not mean to know mans choice before hand. Fore is a refence of time refering to 'before God made His creation' or even 'before time began', thus what is needing to be dealt with is 'know'.

The meaning for Mat 7:23 refers to 'becoming aquainted with' as it stresses the fact they have never even become friends much less become family.


ARCH - I would like comment on your post later tonight not so much with respect to what you said regarding the language and it refers to (I agree, but don't quote me yet ) but more specifically that another perspective is just as applicable as yours in what you give. I have been up for 29 hours now, so I'm going find a nice comfortable hole and die, but don't fret, I will be resurrected again tonight :laugh:

 

[The Archangel]

ARCH - I would like comment on your post later tonight not so much with respect to what you said regarding the language and it refers to (I agree, but don't quote me yet ) but more specifically that another perspective is just as applicable as yours in what you give. I have been up for 29 hours now, so I'm going find a nice comfortable hole and die, but don't fret, I will be resurrected again tonight :laugh:

BY ALL MEANS, MAN, GET SOME SLEEP!!!!!!!!!

Blessings (and pleasant dreams),

The Arcangel

 

[zrs6v4]

Interesting you have your own definition that can not be found in the above.

And just so you know, I do agree in the main with Archangel. Foreknow does not mean to know mans choice before hand. Fore is a refence of time refering to 'before God made His creation' or even 'before time began', thus what is needing to be dealt with is 'know'.

The meaning for Mat 7:23 refers to 'becoming aquainted with' as it stresses the fact they have never even become friends much less become family.


ARCH - I would like comment on your post later tonight not so much with respect to what you said regarding the language and it refers to (I agree, but don't quote me yet ) but more specifically that another perspective is just as applicable as yours in what you give. I have been up for 29 hours now, so I'm going find a nice comfortable hole and die, but don't fret, I will be resurrected again tonight :laugh:

Fair enough, I agree that it is referring to before time. I'll be waiting for your explanation on "know"

 

[Allan]

This will be somewhat lengthy, so condense it as wish

..snip.. Greek (or any language, for that matter) is the same--how the author uses a word gives us the greatest clue to what he is intending to convey to us the reader.

Agreed. However Concordenances are not 'exhaustive' in the meanings they give. The word 'know' is a good example of this as the meaning - to become known - refers to something instant, as in the decision to obtain something (to choose). If we take our theological bias out, then even in stating -to know before hand- is an applicable definition to word as it does not of necessity mean God had to see what was going to happen so that He would better be able to choose. As such to 'have knowledge beforehand' does not of necessarily mean that Gods choice is dependant upon what He sees happening but that Gods choice is made with that knowledge in mind. Thus His choice is dependant upon His desire and plan while

You and I have discussed this before so I will be somewhat brief on this point. If I am to 'know' something in either of the above sense (in relating to choice), it is because I made the decision to set my mind/affection upon it because of my intention not because I wish to become familar with it by observation first. This meaning does not negate any type of knowledge regarding the thing I have chosen, it is just that the choice to 'know'/'choose' isn't derived beause of observation but by intentional decision.

I believe that scripture declares God's knowledge works in conjunction with His decree.

"I think" where we mess up in our theologies many times over is when we declare to know what God knew and how He knew it, when there in nothing God has given us in the scriptures to make any such ascertion. It is an argument not from scripture but a logical conclusion -based on 'our' theological understandings. It is not and should not be something any view is dogmatic about, but unfortunately isn't. What scripture tells us is 'that' He did know and even 'when' He knew it, but it never reveals 'what' or 'how' He knew it. However all theological systems hypothosize to some degree in this area, I included.

In the case of "foreknew," the Apostle Paul uses it in two passages in Romans

Romans 8:29-30--29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Romans 11:2--God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.

In both of these cases, Paul uses the same exact word in the same exact construction. In Romans 11:2 it is obvious that "foreknew" is an antonym to "rejected." Paul is using these words as opposite. After all, it makes absolutely no sense to say "God has not rejected his people who He saw would believe." If God saw they would believe, there would be no need to discuss a possible charge of rejection. To take Paul's use of "foreknew" in Romans 11 as "to see who would believe" is to create a non-sequitur in his line of argumentation. So, Paul's usage of this word means "choose."

Again, I agree.

It is here where we start to find possible 'implications' are either added into the meaning or people make the assumed implication the meaning itself. (example - Foreknew means foreloved). While we can derive 'implication' from the context we should not place potential 'implications' as the principle meaning(s) of a word, especially since implications are subject to being relitive to the person(s) view examining it.

When we get to Romans 8:29-30 we have to employ Paul's same meaning--the word, again, means choose. Furthermore, the grammar of the passage speaks of people, not their actions. For example: The word can't mean "God saw their belief" or some other variation. Why? Because God is the subject (which isn't a problem) who acts on believers (which also isn't a problem). The problem comes with the 5 verbs--foreknew, predestined, called, justified, glorified. These verbs are the actions God does to us and these verbs are all Aorist (which is giving a "snapshot" of God's activity).

Again I agree, yet I would like to ask - can we bibilcially divorce Gods perfect knowledge from His decrees/choices? Is there scripture which states God knows nothing until He has decreed it? Again, I'm not saying God needs to see what is going to happen in order to make the right choices for His plans, however to assume that God can't make His choice/decision knowing all things before it has transpired, IMO, makes less sense than God depending on foreseeing to make the right choices. Again, God's knowledge works in conjunction with His decrees

It makes no sense to define foreknew as "seeing who would believe," because it is based on our actions, not God's and that goes against the simple grammar of the passage. Furthermore, those who hold that "foreknew" means "to see who would believe" cannot apply that type of passive action to God in the verbs predestine, called, justified, glorified. The action in the verbs predestine, called, justified, and glorified is active and it is God who is doing the action. Who is it that predestines, calls, justifies, and glorifies? It is God and He does so actively, which is to say He justifies the ungodly...He doesn't merely see that they would someday be justified.

Here is where I think we might disagree. Not regarding the verbs and they being passive and thus man being the receiver and the active doer. However 'foreknow', as you stated, is about the people but this gives us no insight as to 'what it is' that God knows specifically. The rest, yes it deals as a snapshot of what God has planned to do to bring them into the likeness of His dear Son.

What is more, all of these verbs--along with God being the subject and acting on believers--show an action on persons, not mere knowledge of their actions. In other words, Paul is not saying that God saw that people's actions were predestined, called, justified, or glorified. Rather, Paul is saying that people themselves are predestined, called, justified, and glorified. So it must be the case, then, that people are "foreknown," not their future believing actions. Therefore, it must be that the word cannot mean simply "knew beforehand."

Again, I agree in principle with all but the last sentence In relation to rest - do you believe that God justifying us has nothing to with our willing responce in faith? Does not scripture state that it is by faith you were justified?
Thus I believe you were correct in that this is merely a snapshot of what God is going to do and that for the purpose of bringing us into the likeness of His Son, but it does not go in depth to all that transpires. Again, it is merely a snapshot.

The last sentence is a good argument if one wish to assume God's choice is based on looking into the future to best know how to make His choice. However 'to know beforehand' is still a valid definition based on my above posts. We have no scripture I know of that alludes to or specifically supports the view in which God's knowledge is derived only from what He decrees, or better that God only knows what He decrees first.

But I guess that is going into another subject..

 

[Allan]

I would add to this statement I made however:

However Concordenances are not 'exhaustive' in the meanings they give.

Though they are not exhaustive they are agreed upon as the basic literal defintions in which scripture uses them.

 

[Winman]

From Old Regular's post:

1. Regeneration

The initial event in salvation is regeneration, the theological term synonymous with ‘rebirth’ or ‘being born again’. Regeneration is solely the work of God the Holy Spirit whereby those who are spiritually dead in trespass and sin are made spiritual alive and are brought into union with Jesus Christ; they are saved [[Ephesians 2:1-9]. Whereas the unregenerate person has no disposition, interest, or desire for the things of God the regenerate person is a new creation and is now receptive to the ‘effectual call’ of the Holy Spirit.

Your doctrine begins with error. It is true that regeneration is being born again, it is true it is being saved, we have passed from death to life.

Where it is error is that your doctrine shows a person being regenerated or born again before they hear the gospel and repent/believe on Christ.

The scriptures show regeneration or being saved follows belief.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

These verses clearly show that a person must believe to be saved, your doctrine says a person is already saved before expressing faith in Christ. This is error.

It is also error that it says a person must be regenerated to have a disposition, interest, or desire for the things of God. The scriptures show examples of the unregenerate desiring God. The rich young ruler desired to be saved and was unregenerate. And we know he was unregenerate because he went away unsaved.

Mark 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

This young rich ruler ran to Jesus showing great humility. He showed respect for Jesus and called him Good Master. He asked how he might inherit eternal life. So, this contradicts your doctrine.

Paul said the Jews sought God.

Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Paul says here the Jews have a zeal for God. Yes, they were ignorant and did not submit to God's method of being saved through faith in Christ, but nevertheless they did zealously seek and desire God, unless you believe the apostle Paul did not know what he was talking about.

 

[OldRegular]

From Old Regular's post:
Your doctrine begins with error. It is true that regeneration is being born again, it is true it is being saved, we have passed from death to life.

Thanks Winman! I agree that there is an error in the information I posted but I assumed the reader understood that the initial event in the Salvation of any and all is that they must first be chosen by GOD unto Salvation in Jesus Christ.

Scripture tells it like this in Ephesians 1:3-6:

3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4. According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6. To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

Now you Freewillers can whine all you want about the meaning of foreknew or foreknowledge; you can reject what Jesus Christ says about the NEW BIRTH or REGENERATION; but the Scripture above shows that Salvation is entirely the work of GOD. We read the same truth in Romans 8:28-30

28. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

And again in John 10:24-31:

24. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
25. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.
26. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28. And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.
30. I and my Father are one.
31. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

You should pay particular attention to verses 27 above. Only those who are GOD's sheep hear HIS voice. Rather than figuratively stone HIM with your false doctrine why not give GOD all the Glory for your Salvation.

Perhaps Satan has deluded many into believing that they were the author of their own salvation, contrary to Scripture, but that does not alter the truth. Anyone who is saved is saved solely by the Grace of GOD. Man's part is simply to exercise the faith which GOD gave him upon Regeneration when he hears the Gospel Call.