The Freewillers Shell Game part 1.

[James_Newman]

I think the rejection of the plain meaning of "ginosko" in the relevant passages is absurd. You can't change the meaning by saying, "It also means sex, but since it can't mean sex in this context, it must mean 'know what the person is going to do'". That argument makes no sense at all. It changes the true meaning of the word in this context by trying to get the reader outraged at what it doesn't mean. What kind of twisted thinking is that?

Which is pretty much the kind of behavior I predictecd in the first place.

I think the point is to show the absurdity of insisting that this word must have a certain meaning of the OP's choosing. I believe blammo brought up a perfectly good example of the word being used to indicate nothing more personal than observation, which was translated in the King James with the more than appropriate word 'perceive'. Why not let the context of the scripture tell us what the word means, as is obviously the only way to determine what sense the word is meant to be taken?

 

[Brother Bob]

You used when Joseph "knew" Mary and she conceived and bore a son.
That is not "know" it is not "foreknow" it is not "how God loves His children", and even though the word "ginosko has several plain meanings, It is for sure the "plain" meaning in the case you used is "sex". If you want to say it don't along with your cronies go ahead, but it means "sex". You cannot conceive by "foreknowing" someone. You cannot conceive by having "God's Love", You cannot conceive by "know" someone except you use the meaning in the passage "sex". I will leave this subject now for you would argue a black cow is a white one just to be right. I know you did not mean sex when you started the article but you used a passage that did mean sex and that is what started the posting. All you had to do was not pull a "John Kerry", or a "Haggard". Stand up and tell the world that you meant that God has a "special" love for His people and we all agree. If it passage means "sex" and you didn't mean to say "sex" then fix it. jeepers Calvinist!!!!

 

[jne1611]

Hello Brother,



I agree. It seems like you may have read the whole thread. This is what was said in the OP as all



Others have tried to twist a meaning on what was said. This is all they have talk about...like a obsession. Some way they only see love one way. I have said more then once that foreknowledge is more then just knowing of the person like some would have it, but it shows a personal relationship with God. To many, the only thing they post is sex...which says something. I have yet to say this, though the same word is used, for I understand that personal love is greater then just sexual contact. The thread was closed once because of this, yet it keeps on. Some just do not get it...for they only see love one way.

It was posted by another that even SONG tells of this great love. I agree. The SONG is not sex manual, but showing how much God loves His people. To think of love only as sex is once again shows the lack of understanding the Bible. Foreknowledge in street form and left to its own could mean as others have said, but in context it shows a personal love relationship with God, but not in the twisted ways others say. It is GREATER then this lower use.

:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs: Amen!

 

[Brother Bob]

see............

 

[jne1611]

see............

There is only one side on this thread that brought up the word "sex". The word is not in the OP.

 

[Brother Bob]

No, the Scripture of Matt brought it up but your head is so hard you will never admit it.

But, I have learned when you fellows say its all in the "context" you really don't mean that unless if helps your point. If it goes against your point you don't want nothing to do with 'context".

(This is what was used to make the point about "foreknowledge" and if it is what "foreknowledge" is then it puts a whole new light on the scriptures on who God foreknew.)

The Greek word comes from 2 words one being ginosko the same one found in Matt….”And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS”

 

[Blammo]

There is only one side on this thread that brought up the word "sex". The word is not in the OP.

No, the "word" is not in the OP. However, what do you think the "word" in the OP is referring to.

Do you think, when I do good deeds, I am not to allow my left hand to have a "close personal relationship" with what my right hand does? The answer is, I am not to allow my left hand to even "see" or "be aware" of what my right hand does. The point is, I am not to make a show of my good deeds; they are of more value when done in secret.

 

[jne1611]

No, the Scripture of Matt brought it up but your head is so hard you will never admit it.

But, I have learned when you fellows say its all in the "context" you really don't mean that unless if helps your point. If it goes against your point you don't want nothing to do with 'context".

(This is what was used to make the point about "foreknowledge" and if it is what "foreknowledge" is then it puts a whole new light on the scriptures on who God foreknew.)

The Greek word comes from 2 words one being ginosko the same one found in Matt….”And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS”

Totally WRONG. I never said that "sex" was not in the context of the Scripture cited. The OP wanted to make a point using that text with an idea EQUALY given in the context which is a personal relationship & intimate relationship. But for the sake of your argument, you are the one who refuses to admit the truth. This was the sole intention of citing that text. Period. The "sex" issue has not been denied. But that was not the point being made at all! And my friend the GREEK word used is the same as the one used in Rom. 8:29 which adds "Pro" and makes it a prior knowledge of. So if your going to stick to your "sexual" interpretation, then you have to admit that interpretation into Rom. 8:29 as well.
Foreknow - proginṓskō; fut. prognṓsomai, 2d aor. proégnōn, from pró (G4253), before, and ginṓskō (G1097), to know. To perceive or recognize beforehand, know previously, take into account or specially consider beforehand, to grant prior acknowledgement or recognition to someone, to foreknow.

 

[Jarthur001]

What I find sad is no one will take up the logic of the meaning as freewillers use it. No one has address it. They disagree with what we say, but after all we are Calvinist and they will never agree.

The shell game is that they NEVER address their own view, and only attach the "other" view. It is easy to see why, for their understanding of the word does not work.

If God foreknows (as used by freewillers) before God predestined, this is hyper-Calvinism other then God is not in control. In this view, what God sees will happen, God must make happen, or what He saw was not really the end of things. God is limited and controlled by what man does. If God changes things in this view God would be changing what He foreknow would happen. If God did this changing, why did He not know about the change? God must do as He saw “done” in the future, or God did not really see the end.

Its a game. They say..."LOOK....This is what it MEANS!!! Live with it!!" But cannot talk about it. Sad indeed.:tear:

*********

As to the view I posted, it is again sad to see others can not see the real meaning. The context does indeed, always set the real meaning. I, nor any other Calvinist has deny the meaning of the context that speaks of Mary. It was posted to show the word has a deeper meaning then just knowing about something. The Devil knows of God, but does not have a personal relationship. I have friends that say they believe there is a God, but will not worship Him. There is knowing a fact about something which we all can do by just reading the Bible..and then there is KNOWING the person in a deep way.

I have now taken 3 Systematic Theology 1 classes from dif schools. Each time I got so into the study of God that the facts of God replaced my relationship. I knew the facts, but the close feeling and peace God gives you was gone. This happen each time, and I had to back down my studies, for it is the relationship that matters more then only facts.

I have stayed away from pushing WHY it does not work, just to see what the other side would come up with. What they have stated is frankly sad and does not address the problem found in their own view. Now would be a good time to push the point, though I'm sure Calvinist could see this.

This is the point. To say foreknow only means facts about someone is wrong. The meaning is much greater then facts. God has a personal relationship with people. Why would I keep going with this idea? It should be clear. This is the other part of the shell game that freewillers will not address. If it means only knowing facts about someone, this MUST be applied to the non-believe as well. God indeed knows all things...right? So then God foreknows the non-believe and they also are predestined. humm how about that??

Lets look at a verse to show you what I mean.

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.

In this view..."whom he did foreknow"...who does God know facts about??? Well everyone. So we could say...For God forknow everyone and has predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son??????? Forget about it!!!!

You see it does not work...does it? Foreknow means those He knows in a personal way.

But wait...there is more. Hold on to your seats...as we expose the freewill doctrine as the shell game it is.


In Christ...James

 

[jne1611]

What I find sad is no one will take up the logic of the meaning as freewillers use it. No one has address it. They disagree with what we say, but after all we are Calvinist and they will never agree.

The shell game is that they NEVER address their own view, and only attach the "other" view. It is easy to see why, for their understanding of the word does not work.



Its a game. They say..."LOOK....This is what it MEANS!!! Live with it!!" But cannot talk about it. Sad indeed.:tear:

*********

As to the view I posted, it is again sad to see others can not see the real maning. The context does indeed, always set the real meaning. I, nor any other Calvinist has deny the meaning of the context that speaks of Mary. It was posted to show the word has a deeper meaning then just knowing about something. The Devil knows of God, but does not have a personal relationship. I have friends that say they believe there is a God, but will not worship Him. There is knowing a fact about something which we all can do by just reading the Bible.

I have now taken 3 Systematic Theology 1 classes from dif schools. Each time I got so into the study of God that the facts of God replaced my relationship. I knew the facts, but the close feeling and peace God gives you was gone. This happen each time, and I had to back down my studies, for it is the relationship that matters more then only facts.

I have stay away from pushing WHY it does not work, just to see what the other side would come up with. What they have stated is franly sad and does not address the problum found in their own view. Now would be a good time to push the point, though I'm sure Calvinist could see this.

This is the point. To say foreknow only means facts about someone is wrong. The meaning is much greater then facts. God has a personal relationship with people. Why would I keep going with this idea? It should be clear. This is the other part of the shell game that freewillers will not address. If it means only knowing facts about someone, this MUST be applied to the non-believe as well. God indeed knows all things...right? So then God foreknows the non-believe and they also are predestined.

Lets look at a verse to show you what I mean.



In this view..."whom he did foreknow"...who does God know facts about??? Well everyone. So we could say...For God forknow everyone and has predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son??????? Forget about it!!!!

You see it does not work...does it? Foreknow means those He knows in a personal way.

But wait...there is more. Hold on to your seats...as we expose the freewill doctrine as the shell game it is.


In Christ...James

I agree Bro. James. It never said God foreknew what we would do or not do. It says He foreknew us.

 

[Brother Bob]

Totally WRONG. I never said that "sex" was not in the context of the Scripture cited. The OP wanted to make a point using that text with an idea EQUALY given in the context which is a personal relationship & intimate relationship. But for the sake of your argument, you are the one who refuses to admit the truth. This was the sole intention of citing that text. Period. The "sex" issue has not been denied. But that was not the point being made at all! And my friend the GREEK word used is the same as the one used in Rom. 8:29 which adds "Pro" and makes it a prior knowledge of. So if your going to stick to your "sexual" interpretation, then you have to admit that interpretation into Rom. 8:29 as well.

I told you "context" was everything and the "context" in Matt is not the same as the "context" in Romans and you know it. You don't believe in context you just say you do. Practice what you preach.

I agree Bro. James. It never said God foreknew what we would do or not do. It says He foreknew us.

How in the world could He "foreknew" us without knowing about "us".

If God "foreknew us" that would inply that He knew we were going to be believers don't you think?

 

[jne1611]

I told you "context" was everything and the "context" in Matt is not the same as the "context" in Romans and you know it. You don't believe in context you just say you do. Practice what you preach.


How in the world could He "foreknew" us without knowing about "us". silly,

Obviously you cant comprehend what I am saying at all, so I'll drop it.
Just exactly what do you think He knew about us that made Him want us? I know, let me guess, "That we would produce belief in Him" Right?
But Bob, considering the fact, that God gives us the faith to believe, that argument goes nowhere. I mean, to say God foreknew we would believe, when in reality, He gave us the faith, what does that prove for your case?
And lest you quote Rom. 12 as a defence that God has given faith to all men. I believe you are competent enough to know that that text is talking about believers.

 

[Brother Bob]

If God "foreknew us" that would imply that He knew all about us and that we would be believers right. Or did it mean He just knew we were out there and knew absolutely nothing about us?

 

[jne1611]

If God "foreknew us" that would imply that He knew all about us and that we would be believers right. Or did it mean He just knew we were out there and knew absolutely nothing about us?

I know & believe as you do, that God knew we would believe. No argument there. But I believe He gave us faith. I think you believe this, do you not?
If so. Then God knew we would believe when He gave us faith. So what does this prove, but that God knew the results of what He would do?

 

[Brother Bob]

It proves that if God "foreknew us" and all about us that who would believe then He also "foreknew" who to predestinate.

When did God give us that faith?

 

[jne1611]

It proves that if God "foreknew us" and all about us that who would believe then He also "foreknew" who to predestinate.

It proves the case that:

1. God foreknew who would believe because He would give them the faith.
2. God predestined who He gave faith to to believe in Christ.

 

[jne1611]

It proves that if God "foreknew us" and all about us that who would believe then He also "foreknew" who to predestinate.

When did God give us that faith?

When we received Christ or Believed on him.

 

[av1611jim]

It was once said that when we get to heaven's door the words above it will say "Whosoever will may come" but as we pass through it the other side will say "predestined before the foundation of the world".

When you all get God's ways completely figured out you will have created a god after your own image.

I know I am saved andwill leave the rest in His hands. Amen?

 

[jne1611]

It was once said that when we get to heaven's door the words above it will say "Whosoever will may come" but as we pass through it the other side will say "predestined before the foundation of the world".

When you all get God's ways completely figured out you will have created a god after your own image.

I know I am saved andwill leave the rest in His hands. Amen?

This is a classic smokescreen for: "Just leave those Scriptures alone" "You just cant know the truth about predestination"
This a forum for those who like to consider what Scripture says. I don't know why people come in on this if they do not want to contribute.

 

[Brother Bob]

Originally Posted by Brother Bob
It proves that if God "foreknew us" and all about us that who would believe then He also "foreknew" who to predestinate.

When did God give us that faith?
When we received Christ or Believed on him.

So, you are telling me that God "foreknew us" and "predestinated us" before the foundation of the world but gave us faith when we believed. In other words we were already "intimitate with God" , already predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son without any faith?

So, I ask you. What is the purpose of faith or Grace?