False. No where do the scriptures say we were chosen "TO BE" in Christ. That is a Reformed invention. The scriptures say we were chosen "in him", meaning a person is chosen when they enter the body of Christ upon faith in their lifetime. You are adding to scripture what it NEVER says.
You are reading into Scripture that being "chosen" happens when one becomes a believer. Both
in Christ and
before the foundation of the world modify
chosen. We are chosen "in Christ" and we are chosen "before the foundation of the world." I would surmise that since these two modifiers are parallel, in Christ happens "before the foundation of the world." Therefore, since God chose us before we chose Him, and He is omniscient and omnipotent, His choice is forward determining rather than backward determining.
Php 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;
It is "given [to us]... to believe on him." This is "in the behalf of Christ." For the sake of Christ and His perfect work on the Cross, the Father gives to the Son those for whom He died. "Before the foundation of the world" we are chosen "in Christ." At a certain point in time in our lives, God effectuates this election by calling us with a holy calling and placing us into the relationship "in Christ."
False. The scriptures show we are not "known" of God until we believe in time.
Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
The
now has to do with the question about turning back to the Law. It does not have to do with knowing or being known. The
now is "after" both the knowing and the known. Both
known and
are known are in the same tense--aorist participle--the first active and the second passive. Both are in effect before the "now." Your attempt to make an argument about God not "knowing" until "now" (i.e. being "in Christ") fails the test of the grammar.
Paul shows here that our personal intimate relationship with God begins when we believe in time (But NOW).
Our side of this relationship obviously does not begin until we are positionally "in Christ," for sure. However, God's side of this relationship is "before the foundation of the world." He
foreknew us. We did not
foreknow Him.
But God in his foreknowledge could foresee this personal relationship before the foundation of the world.
Where is the Scripture to support your argument about God's "foreknowledge" having merely to do with information "foreseeing" our faith? That is not what
foreknowing a person means.
If you "know" someone, you have some form of relationship with that person.
If God "foreknows" someone, He has a form of relationship with the person "beforehand."
This is true in Greek
and in English.
Irrelevant, Joseph's relationship with Mary has nothing to do with election.
It is relevant because it is a form of
ginwskw in which I was demonstrating that when a person is the direct object, it has to do with
relationship, not merely factual information.
You are correct about Jesus saying he never knew unbelievers in a personal intimate way.
:thumbs:
Which is my whole point. If we try to inject your definition of
foreknow (with a person as the object) into these uses of
ginwskw, we end up with rather strange ideas.
And I showed you from scripture that God does not know us in a personal, intimate way until we believe in time.
Answered earlier in this post.
It doesn't have to say that here, it says it elsewhere, such as Gal 4:9 and John 6:64-71. Galatians 4:9 especially shows we are not known of God in a personal way until we believe in time.
Gal 4:9 answered earlier in the post.
As for John 6:64, I said before that the word for
knew here is a form of
eido, which is different from
ginwskw. Also, the direct object of the verb
eisin here is a compound
clause--"who they were that believed not, and who should betray him" (a factual piece of information)--not a person or people.
Who says the word changed? The definition of forknowledge and foreknew are the same, only the tense has changed. Foreknew is past tense.
What I was saying was:
1. to "know" someone is to have a relationship with him
2. to "foreknow" someone is to have a relationship with him "beforehand."
Just because
proginwskw in 1 Peter 1:2 has been nominalized (turned into a noun) to "foreknowledge" does not mean that its definition changes in this verse to prescience of factual information.
That is possible, and it is just as possible that Jesus meant from the beginning of time as he used in MANY scriptures. In fact, when he used this phrase he most often spoke of from the beginning of time.
Sure, I can accept that Jesus (as the Son of God) knew
from the beginning of time this information. I most certainly would not dispute that. I interjected the idea that the
context of this verse has to do with the purpose for why He chose these disciples. Thus, "from the beginning" in context had to do with when He chose them to be disciples.
Jhn 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Of course, the devil committed his sin at "the beginning" [of time].
Either way, Jesus knew who would not believe on him, and who should betray him, speaking of Judas. He said ONE of you is a devil speaking of Judas, showing he knew the other eleven were not. He knew these things before they occurred in time, that is foreknowledge. Foreknowledge can mean to know events before they happen, such as the case of Judas. You try to redefine the word to mean only to foreknow someone in a personal way. This is easily shown false;
Apples and oranges. As I said before,
ginwskw and
eido are different words. You cannot equate these two.
ginwskw with a
person as the direct object, and
eido with a factual piece of information as the direct object
are even more demonstrably different.
Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
The word "foreknowledge" in Acts 2:23 cannot mean to know a person in a personal, intimate way, as Peter was speaking to unbelievers who crucified Jesus. Here Peter is speaking of the event, Jesus being crucified. This refutes your narrow definition of "foreknowledge", and proves foreknowledge can be speaking of a foreknown event.
Sure, I never said that an event cannot be the direct object of
proginwskw. Here
being delivered is being modified by a nominalized
proginwskw. Thus, in Acts 2:23 there is no "intimate relationship" being presented. It is rather of Christ being "pre-chosen" for death.
I don't know Greek, so I cannot debate you on the meaning here.
Neither do I, but I am familiar with grammar and linguistics.
My contention for you is that even
in English, when you use the word
know with a person as a direct object, it implies a personal intimacy.
Again, I do not know Greek, but the scriptures say Jesus knew "from the beginning" who believed not, and who "should" betray him. This is foreknowledge of a future event.
No dispute here.
The problem is when you try to read an "event" or "foreseen faith" into passages that say no such thing. Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:2 say nothing about
faith or
events being "foreknown." These passages have to do with
people being "foreknown." In
English, when you
know a person, you have a relationship with that person.
I don't know how else to explain this if you are not understanding my argument.
If I ask you "Do you
know President Obama?"
You would likely reply "No. I have never even
met him."
Obviously, you
know who he is. You
know some
facts about him, but you would not say that you
know him.
Foreknowledge simply means God can foresee who will believe on Jesus and enter into a personal relationship with him before it actually takes place.
Not in Romans 8:29 or 1 Peter 1:2. You have not proven that. No where have these verses said anything about
facts or
faith being the object of
foreknow. You are just reading this into these verses.
God can foresee his personal relationship with that person.
Of course, but the issue at hand is what the verses actually
mean grammatically.
Gal 4:9 shows we do not enter into a personal relationship with God until we believe in time.
Answered earlier in post.
