Foreknowledge: Foreordination is "According to Foreknowledge"

[Butch5]

Atwood asked from proof relating God's knowing Abe to the election which followed.

Originally Posted by Atwood

Proof?

What does God's knowing Abe have to do with Jews being elect becs Abe obeyed God? Proof for that one?



Butch, if those verses mentioned "God knowing Abe," I missed it. The verses do address Abe's obedience to God.

That is the point of my post. Proginosko means to know before, ie. in the past. God proginosko (before knew) Abraham and made promises to him. He made promises to Abraham and his seed.
. . .
37 "And because He loved your fathers, therefore He chose their descendants after them; and He brought you out of Egypt with His Presence, with His mighty power, . . .
(Deu 4:35-39 NKJ)

Here it is implied that chose was because by prior-love, but not for the persons chosen.



But the text doesn't refer to God having known Abe; it does speak of God having loved Abe.

Your passages are indeed interesting, but they are not quote on point. What is wanted is an explanation of how foreknowing person X leads to person X being chosen; not how person X being loved leads to person Y being chosen.

---------------------------

My point is that that is not how foreknow is being used. If you look at foreknow from a different perspective I think you'll see my point. If we look at foreknow as not pertaining to a knowledge of someone before the world began but rather to knowing someone in the past the word takes on a different perspective. I think many see 1 Peter and understand it as God choosing someone to be saved according to a foreknowledge He had of these people. I think many then conflate that with Eph 1 and place this foreknowledge before the foundation of the world. That is one reason I pointed out that the word order in the English Bibles has been changed and that in the Greek text it says to the elect sojourners, not elect according to the foreknowledge of God. Peter says to the elect sojourners of the dispersion. The dispersion was the Jews who were living among the Gentiles. The Jews were the elect of God because of Abraham's faith.

You fail to give any proof that only Jewish believers are addressed. Inasmuch as the Church had begun, and inasmuch as in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek (etc.), it is unlikely that Peter restricts a message to Jews. And all believers are seed of Abe because they are in Christ.

The dispersion or the "Diaspora" was a term used of the Jews who were living among the other nations.

To what will you connect κατὰ πρόγνωσιν? It has to go with ἐκλεκτοῖς.
Peter writes to the elect (who are sojourners) -- they are elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father in sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Christ Jesus.
"According to Foreknowledge" has to go with elect, just as "in sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience must. It would not fit to say that they are sojourners according to foreknowledge in sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience.
I makes sense that they are 1) elect according to foreknowledge, 2) elect in sanctification of the Spirit, and 3) elect unto obedience. It makes unlikely sense to say they are sojourners in sanctification and sojourners unto obedience.

If you break down the clauses, three are dependent clauses, these three are dependent clauses.

according to a foreknowledge of God the Father,

in sanctification of the Spirit,

to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:

alone these clauses don't make a sentence, they are simply describing the sojourners. The independent clause is,

Grace to you and peace be multiplied!

This is what Peter is saying to the sojourners, here is the sentence.

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the choice sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Grace to you and peace be multiplied!(1Pe 1:1-2 YLT)

The three dependent clauses explain why Peter is expects that grace to multiplied. It is according to the God foreknowing them as a people, and it's in sanctification of the Spirit, and to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:

And the passage is parallel to Romans 8 where everyone who is foreknown is foreordained. Rom 8 hardly says that everyone who is a sojourner is foreordained.

Romans 8:28-30 is being addressed to Jews and is also speaking of Jews. Paul begins to address the Jewish believers in the church at Rome in chapter 2 verse 17. He continues this discourse through to chapter 13 verse 11. In chapter 8 those who are foreknown in verse 29 are those who love God in verse 28.

28 And we have known that to those loving God all things do work together for good, to those who are called according to purpose;
29 because whom He did foreknow, He also did fore-appoint, conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be first-born among many brethren;
30 and whom He did fore-appoint, these also He did call; and whom He did call, these also He declared righteous; and whom He declared righteous, these also He did glorify. (Rom 8:28-30 YLT)


He says 'we have known,' the Greek word is "oidamen" and carries the idea of knowing something from having seen or perceived it. It's in the perfect tense which means that him and his readers had know this from some point in the past. Since all of the verbs in verses 29 and 30 are all in the past tense it's something that happened in the past. It's something that happened to "those loving God." Paul and his readers would have known this from their history. They know how God had dealt with those who had loved Him. He called them, He called Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. He predestined them, He justified them, and He glorified them.

 

[Atwood]

My point is that that is not how foreknow is being used. If you look at foreknow from a different perspective I think you'll see my point. If we look at foreknow as not pertaining to a knowledge of someone before the world began but rather to knowing someone in the past the word takes on a different perspective.

We know that election took place before the foundation of the world from Ephesians 1. And we know that election is according to foreknowledge in 1 Peter 1. In Rom 8 foreknowledge precedes the series foreordained-called-glorified.

You don't seem to get the point in 1 Peter 1. Connecting elect to sojourners doesn't solve your problem. You still have to connect "according to foreknowledge" with something. It fits with the elect, not with sojourners.

The dispersion or the "Diaspora" was a term used of the Jews who were living among the other nations.

Probably yes, but to restrict 1 Peter to Jews will not fly, in that Israel had been set aside by then and the Church begun in which there were no longer Jews or Gentile.

2:10 & 4:3, make it clear that Gentiles are included in the recipients of this letter (once were not a people, & "will of the Gentiles").

If you break down the clauses, three are dependent clauses, these three are dependent clauses.
according to a [sic, no word a is in text] foreknowledge of God the Father,
in sanctification of the Spirit,
to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:

The descriptions make little sense as descriptions of sojourners; the descriptions relate to the elect, not to sojourners.

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the choice [sic for elect ] sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Grace to you and peace be multiplied!(1Pe 1:1-2 YLT)

You just cut a lot out of:

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ; Grace to you and peace be multiplied."

three dependent clauses explain why Peter is expects that grace to multiplied. It is according to the God foreknowing them as a people, and it's in sanctification of the Spirit, and to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:

There is no "why" in the passage. Paul wishes them grace, undeserved favor. "Grace to you and peace" is evidently a standard greeting at the start of a Christian letter.

So which is it? You can't have it both ways. First you seem to say that "according to foreknowledge, etc." refers to the sojourners (they are that kind of sojourners, according-to-foreknowledge-sojourners), but then you want to change & try to hook the "according to" string to the grace-wish, Grace to you and peace, as if it were saying, May you have grace according to foreknowledge etc." Surely this latter suggestion is far-fetched.

Romans 8:28-30 is being addressed to Jews and is also speaking of Jews.

The text does not say Jews. It addresses them who love God, hardly Jews; neither does the text say "Jews."

You are inventing things now.

Paul begins to address the Jewish believers in the church at Rome in chapter 2 verse 17. He continues this discourse through to chapter 13 verse 11.

That is simply false. Rom 2 condemns unbelieving Jews -- this does not continue. In Rom 3 the "none doeth good" is not just Jews, nor is "All have sinned and come short." Those who sinned in Adam in Rom 5 are not just Jews, neither those who are righteous because in Christ. Those baptized into Christ in Rom 6 are not just Jews. Those in Christ Jesus in Rom 8 are not just Jews. Rom 9-11 speaks to the issue of the Jews, but it addresses not just Jews. Rom 11 uses a collective thou in addressing Gentiles. Rom 12 in telling believers to be transformed does not just address Jews. Obeying government in Rom 13 is not just for Jews.

28 And we have known [sic! serious mistranslation!]

The verb oida means I know present tense; it does not mean "I have known." The plural form oidamen means "we know," present tense. it does not mean "we have known."

The form oida (plural οἴδαμεν is historically/formally perfect tense; but in its over-literal historical/formal meaning it is "I have seen," not "I have known." Since "I have seen" in the perfect is used for "I know" in the present, the form is considered present tense in this transferred meaning.

He says 'we have known,' the Greek word is "oidamen" and carries the idea of knowing something from having seen or perceived it. It's in the perfect tense which means that him and his readers had know this from some point in the past.

Wrong. This is present tense in the meaning "we know." Its etymology as historically having come from a verb that meant "I see" in the perfect, does not give perfect meaning to present meaning of "we know."

Since all of the verbs in verses 29 and 30 are all in the past tense it's something that happened in the past. It's something that happened to "those loving God."
Paul and his readers would have known this from their history.

You now make up something not implied by the text.

They know how God had dealt with those who had loved [sic! loving is not past tense "had loved" is wrong!] Him. He called them, He called Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. He predestined them, He justified them, and He glorified them.

You are in wonderland here. Abe, Isaac, & Jacob are not mentioned. Those loving God and enjoying all things working together for good are in the present tense. And all things work together for their good in the present. The basis of this is a past election before the creation of the world.

 

[Hoffco]

The TRINITY ,the GODHOOD, is a LOVE triangle. So is God's foreknowledge of us, "those called according to His PURPOSE", GOD'S purposes is all planned in LOVE or WRATH. Love to all, Hoffco We just spent a beautiful day working on our little cabin in New Bataan, Now we are back in Davao City for Church today, Pray for our ministry and pray about visiting us some time. I joke to people here, This is paradise, but never the New Jerusalem. These people love to hear The Americano,me, preach.

 

[Hoffco]

To Butch, Rom.8:28-30 is a universal truth, good for all time and eternity. Love Hoffco

 

[Elin]

In another thread the issue of foreknowledge came up as God's choosing or foreordination is said in scripture to be kata (according to) foreknowledge.

The two Greek words are prognōosis and progi(g)nōskō.
(In a classical Greek lexicon there will be the 2nd gamma [g], but not in a NT lexicon.

Prognōsis occurs twice:

acts 2:23
Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know; him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay.

1Pe 1:20:
"Christ: who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of the times for your sake, who through him are believers in God,"

I think 1Pe 1:20 shows that Christ was fore-ordained/pre-determined to be Savior.

I think Rom 8:28
"For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained . . . ."
inseparably links foreknowledge and pre-determine/fore-ordain (proorizo).
You don't have one without the other.

So I think Ac 4:28
"They did what your power and will decided before hand would happen."
perfectly expresses the Biblical meaning of foreknowledge (proginosko),
since Scripture links it always with foreordain (Ro 8:28).

God knows in advance (foreknowledge) what is going to happen because
he has decreed that it shall happen.

 

[Hoffco]

Acts 4:28 ,foreknowledge is what God has pre-determined to happen. Plain, old, common, Foreknoeledge did not, does not determine God's plans. God's plans are determined by His LOVE or WRATH, (fore LOVE, fore WRATH). Love to all, Hoffco

 

[Elin]

My point is that that is not how foreknow is being used. If you look at foreknow from a different perspective I think you'll see my point.
If we look at foreknow as not pertaining to a knowledge of someone before the world began but rather to
knowing someone in the past the word takes on a different perspective.

Knowing someone in the past suggests their past existence.

But "fore" is not their past existence, it is before their existence.

Words have specific meanings.

Altering them makes impossible accurate communication using them.

It is how the Lie will begin.

I think many see 1 Peter and understand it as God choosing someone to be saved according to a foreknowledge He had of these people. I think many then conflate that with Eph 1 and place this foreknowledge before the foundation of the world. That is one reason I pointed out that the word order in the English Bibles has been changed and that
in the Greek text it says to the elect sojourners, not elect according to the foreknowledge of God.

In 1Pe 1:1-2, my Bible says "to God's elect, sojourners (of the dispersion). . .chosen according to the foreknowledge of God," which is exactly what the Greek states.

Peter says to the elect sojourners of the dispersion.
The dispersion was the Jews who were living among the Gentiles.
The Jews were the elect of God because of Abraham's faith.

Who-o-a there, pod'na!

Peter says "to the elect sojourners of the dispersion, who have been chosen
for obedience to Christ and the sprinkling of his blood."

That is not all the Jews of the dispersion, elect because of Abraham's faith,
that is only believers in Jesus Christ, elect because of their own faith.

You've really screwed that up!
What is your agenda?

The dispersion or the "Diaspora" was a term used of the Jews who were living among the other nations.

If you break down the clauses, three are dependent clauses, these three are dependent clauses.

according to a foreknowledge of God the Father,

in sanctification of the Spirit,

to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:

Yes, the first part of the letter down to this point is simply the

From:
To:

part of the letter.

The greeting/salutation then follows:
Grace to you and peace be multiplied!

This is what Peter is saying to the sojourners, here is the sentence.

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the choice sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Grace to you and peace be multiplied!(1Pe 1:1-2 YLT)

And here is the rest of the sentence:

"who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,
through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit,
for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood."

Peter is addressing elect NT believers in Christ,
not OT elect because of the faith of Abraham.

The three dependent clauses explain why Peter is expects that grace to multiplied.
It is according to the God foreknowing them as a people
and it's in sanctification of the Spirit, and to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:

That is one royal screw-up and misrepresentation of the NT Word of God.

The three "dependent clauses" are simply the "To:" of the letter, nothing more and nothing less.

And it is according to God foreknowing their faith in Jesus Christ,
not because of Abraham's faith.

Romans 8:28-30 is being addressed to Jews and is also speaking of Jews.

The church at Rome was predominantly Gentile, and also included Jews.
The epistle to the Romans is to all believers in the church of Rome.

Paul begins to address the Jewish believers in the church at Rome in chapter 2 verse 17.

The first three chapters of Romans establishes that all mankind, without exception, are unrighteous.

Chapter 2 is Paul's demonstration that all Jews are unrighteous,
after he establishes in chapter 1 that all Gentiles are unrighteous,
and in chapter 3, concluding with all mankind is unrighteous.

Paul's discourse on the Jews ends with chapter 2.

He continues this discourse through to chapter 13 verse 11.

Paul does not continue the discourse of chapter 2 on the Jews.
He continues his discourse regarding Christians on
justification,
sanctification,
God's rejection of Israel and
the practice of holiness.

In chapter 8 those who are foreknown in verse 29 are those who love God in verse 28.
28 And we have known that to those loving God all things do work together for good, to those who are called according to purpose;
29 because whom He did foreknow, He also did fore-appoint, conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be first-born among many brethren;
30 and whom He did fore-appoint, these also He did call; and whom He did call, these also He declared righteous; and whom He declared righteous, these also He did glorify. (Rom 8:28-30 YLT)

In chapter 8, Paul is discussing the life of the Christian in the power of the Holy Spirit.

He says 'we have known,' the Greek word is "oidamen" and carries the idea of knowing something from having seen or perceived it. It's in the perfect tense which means that him and his readers had know this from some point in the past. Since all of the verbs in verses 29 and 30 are all in the past tense it's something that happened in the past. It's something that happened to "those loving God." Paul and
his readers would have known this from their history.

Paul's readers in Rome were mostly Gentiles.

Both Gentile and Jew would have known simply from their experience with God in, and following, their coming to faith in Jesus Christ.

They know how God had dealt with those who had loved Him. He called them, He called Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. He predestined them, He justified them, and He glorified them.

Paul is talking about NT believers in Jesus Christ, he is not discussing OT believers in Ro 8:29-30.

 

[Kerry]

Before I was formed in the womb you knew me.

 

[Elin]

I am sure a contumlious person will come on saying there never were 200,000,000 Jews.
yes there ws

everyone who accepts Jesus a true crhistian who obeys the word of God is adopted into the Jewish tree of life.
The blood of Jesus is Jewish and davids descendant
The new Jerusalem has twelve Jewish labeled gates.
Which on you going into?

The one whose foundation is John.

 

[Butch5]

We know that election took place before the foundation of the world from Ephesians 1. And we know that election is according to foreknowledge in 1 Peter 1. In Rom 8 foreknowledge precedes the series foreordained-called-glorified.

You don't seem to get the point in 1 Peter 1. Connecting elect to sojourners doesn't solve your problem. You still have to connect "according to foreknowledge" with something. It fits with the elect, not with sojourners.



Probably yes, but to restrict 1 Peter to Jews will not fly, in that Israel had been set aside by then and the Church begun in which there were no longer Jews or Gentile.

2:10 & 4:3, make it clear that Gentiles are included in the recipients of this letter (once were not a people, & "will of the Gentiles").




The descriptions make little sense as descriptions of sojourners; the descriptions relate to the elect, not to sojourners.


You just cut a lot out of:

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ; Grace to you and peace be multiplied."



There is no "why" in the passage. Paul wishes them grace, undeserved favor. "Grace to you and peace" is evidently a standard greeting at the start of a Christian letter.

So which is it? You can't have it both ways. First you seem to say that "according to foreknowledge, etc." refers to the sojourners (they are that kind of sojourners, according-to-foreknowledge-sojourners), but then you want to change & try to hook the "according to" string to the grace-wish, Grace to you and peace, as if it were saying, May you have grace according to foreknowledge etc." Surely this latter suggestion is far-fetched.




The text does not say Jews. It addresses them who love God, hardly Jews; neither does the text say "Jews."

You are inventing things now.




That is simply false. Rom 2 condemns unbelieving Jews -- this does not continue. In Rom 3 the "none doeth good" is not just Jews, nor is "All have sinned and come short." Those who sinned in Adam in Rom 5 are not just Jews, neither those who are righteous because in Christ. Those baptized into Christ in Rom 6 are not just Jews. Those in Christ Jesus in Rom 8 are not just Jews. Rom 9-11 speaks to the issue of the Jews, but it addresses not just Jews. Rom 11 uses a collective thou in addressing Gentiles. Rom 12 in telling believers to be transformed does not just address Jews. Obeying government in Rom 13 is not just for Jews.



The verb oida means I know present tense; it does not mean "I have known." The plural form oidamen means "we know," present tense. it does not mean "we have known."

The form oida (plural οἴδαμεν is historically/formally perfect tense; but in its over-literal historical/formal meaning it is "I have seen," not "I have known." Since "I have seen" in the perfect is used for "I know" in the present, the form is considered present tense in this transferred meaning.



Wrong. This is present tense in the meaning "we know." Its etymology as historically having come from a verb that meant "I see" in the perfect, does not give perfect meaning to present meaning of "we know."



You now make up something not implied by the text.



You are in wonderland here. Abe, Isaac, & Jacob are not mentioned. Those loving God and enjoying all things working together for good are in the present tense. And all things work together for their good in the present. The basis of this is a past election before the creation of the world.

Atwood,

In the OP you said you were considering. Yet here you are arguing for a Reformed position for election. Which is it, are you considering or are you simply looking to debate the issue. What I've presented to you is a way to understand election that fits with "ALL" of the Scriptures. You keep saying "We Know," well what I'm suggest is that what "we know" may not be correct. Instead of engaging my argument you're comparing it to what "we know." I can tell you now that it won't agree with what you already understand about the subject. My argument needs to be considered within it's own framework, then it can be compared to the Scriptures to see if it fits with Scripture, not what you already believe about the topic. If you're interested in discussing the subject great, if not I'll move on.

 

[Elin]

Proof?

What does God's knowing Abe have to do with Jews being elect becs Abe obeyed God? Proof for that one?

But knowledge has content. Of course God is omniscient and has always known all before there were things that creatures might know. The question is
what was it in God's foreknowledge according to which He chose/elected?
I don't think it is revealed.

" 'I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion'. . .
God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy,
and he hardens whom he wants to harden." (Ro 9:15, 18)

God's freely chooses based only in his sovereign totally free will.

"in order that his purpose in election might stand,
not by works
but by him who calls." (Ro 9:11-12)

God chooses for the sake of his purposes only,
and he chooses not because of anything he foreknows about them,
but chooses absolutely freely based on nothing but his free choice (him who calls).

His decision becomes his foreknowledge.

We've got the cart before the horse.

It's totally free choice based on nothing but his purpose,
and not based on a foreknowledge of persons which affect his choice,

and then it's foreknowledge of the accomplishment of his purpose.

It's not foreknowledge of persons first, and then choice based on foreknowledge.
Choice is based on nothing but his absolute freedom to choose how he will accomplish his purposes.

It's about his future purpose for persons, not about his past knowledge of persons.

The order is purpose-->choice = foreknowledge of how purpose is accomplished,
all before the foundations of the world.

 

[Atwood]

I'd suggest that the typical understanding of foreknowledge is not what the Bible teaches. The Jews were the elect people of God because God "knew before" Abraham.

Butch, I am not sure what you mean by God "knew before" Abraham. If you speak of God's knowledge, he is and always has been omniscient. Thus God knew Abe & all persons prior to creation. Ephesians puts election (God's choosing) of all Christians before the foundation of the world. And Rom 8 puts foreknew before foreordination. "Abraham" is never mentioned as the time or the cause of "foreknowledge," and it is not just Israel which is elect.

They were the elect because Abraham obeyed God.

If I were you, I would withdraw that claim until I found a passage to prove it. I searched the ASV and found not one verse that has both "elect" and "Abraham" in it.

I did find this one in Nehemiah 9:

"You are YHWH the God, who chose Abram, and brought him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gave him the name of Abraham, and found his heart faithful before thee, and made a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, and the Perizzite, and the Jebusite, and the Girgashite, to give it to his seed, and have performed your words; for you are righteous."

Note the order how "chose" comes before everything else. This passage has nothing about obedience in it, though we could regard his leaving Ur as obedience; yet the text puts chose before that and instead of saying Abe left, it says that God brought Abe forth.

the word simply means to before know. There is no passage in Scripture that I'm aware of that requires a definition of proginosko meaning God knowing someone's destiny before the foundation of the word

Well, if you say proginosko means simply "to before know," then God knowing destiny before the foundation of the world is proven. For God is and always has been omniscient -- apart from election being before the foundation of the world (Eph 1) and foreknow coming before predestination in Rom 8. Note when the foreknowledge of Christ happened:

1 Peter 1 "Peter, . . . , to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ . . . "Christ: who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world,"

Once you define proginosko as knowing before the argument is over as to when the foreknow took place. For God has always known everything.

OMNISCIENCE


< 1 Jn 3:20
God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.
< Jn 21:17:

Lord, you know everything

Psalm 147:4-5:
“He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name. Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.”

Ps 147:5 ESV
Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.

< Isaiah 57:15:

"the high and lofty One Who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy"

Isaiah 40:28
Have you not known? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable.

Heb 4:13 ESV
And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

< Psalm 139:
O Jehovah, thou hast searched me, and known me.
Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising;
Thou understandest my thought afar off.
Thou searchest out my path and my lying down,
And art acquainted with all my ways.
For there is not a word in my tongue,
But, lo, O Jehovah, thou knowest it altogether.
Thou hast beset me behind and before,
And laid thy hand upon me.
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
It is high, I cannot attain unto it. . . .

If I say, Surely the darkness shall overwhelm me,
And the light about me shall be night;
Even the darkness hideth not from thee,
But the night shineth as the day:
The darkness and the light are both alike to thee. . . .

And in thy book they were all written,
Even the days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was none of them.

“The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good” (Proverbs 15:3).

 

[Atwood]

" 'I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion'. . .
God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy,
and he hardens whom he wants to harden." (Ro 9:15, 18)

God's freely chooses based only in his sovereign totally free will.

"in order that his purpose in election might stand,
not by works
but by him who calls." (Ro 9:11-12)

God chooses for the sake of his purposes only,
and he chooses not because of anything he foreknows about them,
but chooses absolutely freely based on nothing but his free choice (him who calls).

His decision becomes his foreknowledge.

We've got the cart before the horse.

It's totally free choice based on nothing but his purpose,
and not based on a foreknowledge of persons which affect his choice,

and then it's foreknowledge of the accomplishment of his purpose.

It's not foreknowledge of persons first, and then choice based on foreknowledge.
Choice is based on nothing but his absolute freedom to choose how he will accomplish his purposes.

It's about his future purpose for persons, not about his past knowledge of persons.

The order is purpose-->choice = foreknowledge of how purpose is accomplished,
all before the foundations of the world.

Well Elin,
Scripture forces me to the conclusion that prognosis is logically prior to choice/election. (In scripture prognosis precedes foreordination); God chose according to foreknowledge; not God foreknew according to His election.
But then we may also consider how to understand "according to."

Thus we may consider what the prognosis means.
Of course the Lord is sovereign, and has His own purposes. At at that I think you will agree with me that a great deal in the area of "the Lord's purposes" is unrevealed -- we may not even be able to comprehend them.

We can rule out foreknowledge of something good in the man to be chosen.
Men were not elect because God saw something meritorious in them.
I also rule out random: Eenie, meenie, miney, moe; as scripture does not say that either;
it is hard for me to accept that God acts without purpose in choosing Tom, but not Albert.
To be sovereign and to have free will does not necessitate random behavior.

To me the only 2 options for foreknowledge are
1) knowing in advance (and God is omniscient), and
2) entering into an intimate relationship with in advance.

I didn't know that there was a 3rd option, which Butch advanced based on God knowing Abraham; but I find no scripture for that one.

If we go with option 1, the content of the knowledge is not specified.

 

[Atwood]

Atwood,

In the OP you said you were considering. Yet here you are arguing for a Reformed position for election. Which is it, are you considering or are you simply looking to debate the issue. What I've presented to you is a way to understand election that fits with "ALL" of the Scriptures. You keep saying "We Know," well what I'm suggest is that what "we know" may not be correct. Instead of engaging my argument you're comparing it to what "we know." I can tell you now that it won't agree with what you already understand about the subject. My argument needs to be considered within it's own framework, then it can be compared to the Scriptures to see if it fits with Scripture, not what you already believe about the topic. If you're interested in discussing the subject great, if not I'll move on.

Butch, I give you credit for coming up with a hypothesis which I never heard before on Abraham.

No, I am not here on this thread to debate; I am considering the two explanations I know of for foreknowledge: the one being that it is regular knowledge in advance; the other that it is the figurative use of know employed with fore-, that of entering into an intimate relationship with. If someone has a 3rd explanation, I am willing to consider that also, if it has scriptural proof.

I am not likely to take seriously any hypothesis which denies basic obvious truths about God. God is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent; He is a Trinity; Christ is God become man. I didn't start this thread to debate the fundamentals of the faith -- though I found I had to with someone who wanted to deny omniscience or redefine so that it no longer means omniscience.

Speaking of a "Reformed position," promotes a debate and a debate in the wrong direction, IMHO. I don't really consider myself in "the reformed tradition." I do give credit to those who came out of the papal system with having discovered how to be saved for themselves: justification by faith. This is an issue which defines a Christian; it is a fundamental of the faith.

One's explanation of "foreknowledge" is not a fundamental of the faith. Real Christians disagree on it -- but not on the omniscience of God.

 

[Elin]

" 'I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion'. . .
God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy,
and he hardens whom he wants to harden." (Ro 9:15, 18)

God's freely chooses based only in his sovereign totally free will.

"in order that his purpose in election might stand,
not by works
but by him who calls." (Ro 9:11-12)

God chooses for the sake of his purposes only,
and he chooses not because of anything he foreknows about them,
but chooses absolutely freely based on nothing but his free choice (him who calls).

His decision becomes his foreknowledge.

We've got the cart before the horse.

It's totally free choice based on nothing but his purpose,
and not based on a foreknowledge of persons which affect his choice,

and then it's foreknowledge of the accomplishment of his purpose.

It's not foreknowledge of persons first, and then choice based on foreknowledge.
Choice is based on nothing but his absolute freedom to choose how he will accomplish his purposes.

It's about his future purpose for persons, not about his past knowledge of persons.

The order is purpose-->choice = foreknowledge of how purpose is accomplished,
all before the foundations of the world.

Well Elin,
Scripture forces me to the conclusion that prognosis is logically prior to choice/election. (In scripture prognosis precedes foreordination); God chose according to foreknowledge;

According to his foreknowledge of how he would do it.

not God foreknew according to His election.
But then we may also consider how to understand "according to."

Thus we may consider what the prognosis means.
Of course the Lord is sovereign, and has His own purposes. At at that I think you will agree with me that a great deal in the area of "the Lord's purposes" is unrevealed -- we may not even be able to comprehend them.

We can rule out foreknowledge of something good in the man to be chosen.
Men were not elect because God saw something meritorious in them.
I also rule out random: Eenie, meenie, miney, moe; as scripture does not say that either;
it is hard for me to accept that God acts without purpose in choosing Tom, but not Albert.
To be sovereign and to have free will does not necessitate random behavior.

Precisely. . .

Therefore, we can rule out his sovereign and totally free will being random or capricious.

To me the only 2 options for foreknowledge are
1) knowing in advance (and God is omniscient), and
2) entering into an intimate relationship with in advance.

I didn't know that there was a 3rd option, which Butch advanced based on God knowing Abraham; but I find no scripture for that one.

If we go with option 1, the content of the knowledge is not specified.

I think it is specified. . .knowing his purpose in advance (Ro 9:11-12).
He chose according to the foreknowledge of his purpose.

 

[Atwood]

Before I was formed in the womb you knew me.

You refer to Jeremiah:

"Now the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations."

Good vs Kerry. This is an example of how just searching for some word or phrase may miss some of the data on the subject. This passage does not have the word "foreknow" or "foreknowledge" in it; yet surely the concept it there.

I think your verse would be added to the evidence that would be cited for the "intimate relationship" interpretation of foreknowledge.

 

[Butch5]

Butch, I am not sure what you mean by God "knew before" Abraham. If you speak of God's knowledge, he is and always has been omniscient. Thus God knew Abe & all persons prior to creation. Ephesians puts election (God's choosing) of all Christians before the foundation of the world. And Rom 8 puts foreknew before foreordination. "Abraham" is never mentioned as the time or the cause of "foreknowledge," and it is not just Israel which is elect.

It's my contention that "foreknow" means to know before, not to have knowledge of someone who has not even been born.
When Paul says foreknow, he means a person that God knew at a time prior to the time at which Paul was writing. I submit that Paul is using the word in the same way I would says, "I've played baseball before." That statement simply means a point in time prior to my making the statement. I think I've already said in this thread that I don't think there is a single usage of the word proginosko that requires a meaning of knowing before the foundation of the world.

I would also point out that every place the word appears in the NT the persons being addressed are Jews. And Paul tells us plainly in Romans 11 who they are.

I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, {of Elias: Gr. in Elias?}
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. (Rom 11:1-3 KJV)

If I were you, I would withdraw that claim until I found a passage to prove it. I searched the ASV and found not one verse that has both "elect" and "Abraham" in it.

I did find this one in Nehemiah 9:

"You are YHWH the God, who chose Abram, and brought him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gave him the name of Abraham, and found his heart faithful before thee, and made a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, and the Perizzite, and the Jebusite, and the Girgashite, to give it to his seed, and have performed your words; for you are righteous."

Note the order how "chose" comes before everything else. This passage has nothing about obedience in it, though we could regard his leaving Ur as obedience; yet the text puts chose before that and instead of saying Abe left, it says that God brought Abe forth.

The passage also doesn't say anything about being saved. I've already posted the passage from Gen. 22 where God swore the promises as an oath based on Abraham's obedience.

Well, if you say proginosko means simply "to before know," then God knowing destiny before the foundation of the world is proven. For God is and always has been omniscient -- apart from election being before the foundation of the world (Eph 1) and foreknow coming before predestination in Rom 8. Note when the foreknowledge of Christ happened:

1 Peter 1 "Peter, . . . , to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ . . . "Christ: who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world,"

Once you define proginosko as knowing before the argument is over as to when the foreknow took place. For God has always known everything.

OMNISCIENCE


< 1 Jn 3:20
God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.
< Jn 21:17:

Lord, you know everything

Psalm 147:4-5:
“He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name. Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.”

Ps 147:5 ESV
Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.

< Isaiah 57:15:

"the high and lofty One Who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy"

Isaiah 40:28
Have you not known? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable.

Heb 4:13 ESV
And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

< Psalm 139:
O Jehovah, thou hast searched me, and known me.
Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising;
Thou understandest my thought afar off.
Thou searchest out my path and my lying down,
And art acquainted with all my ways.
For there is not a word in my tongue,
But, lo, O Jehovah, thou knowest it altogether.
Thou hast beset me behind and before,
And laid thy hand upon me.
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
It is high, I cannot attain unto it. . . .

If I say, Surely the darkness shall overwhelm me,
And the light about me shall be night;
Even the darkness hideth not from thee,
But the night shineth as the day:
The darkness and the light are both alike to thee. . . .

And in thy book they were all written,
Even the days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was none of them.

“The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good” (Proverbs 15:3).

Yes, God know all things, however, there is a question as to what are all things? If something doesn't exist how is it a thing? The issue become philosophical, there is nothing in Scripture that says God know of all possible things, in other words there is nothing in Scripture that says God know what a person will do unless He makes them do it. I'm not arguing for either side, I'm simply pointing it out to say that to base doctrine on either side is an assumption.

However, whether or not God does know every person before they are born (not sure how that could be) That doesn't mean that that is what Paul is talking about when he said that God knew someone before. He uses the word in Act 26:5 in reference to the Jews.

3 Especially because I know thee to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently.


4 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;
5 Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. (Act 26:3-5 KJV)

I don't think anyone would suggest that the Jews knew Paul before the foundation of the world. I submit that the way Paul used it here is the way it should be understood in every passage in which it appears.

 

[Elin]

You refer to Jeremiah:

"Now the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee aprophet unto the nations."

Good vs Kerry. This is an example of how just searching for some word or phrase may miss some of the data on the subject. This passage does not have the word "foreknow" or "foreknowledge" in it; yet surely the concept it there.

I think your verse would be added to the evidence that would be cited for the "intimate relationship" interpretation of foreknowledge.

God knew, sanctified and made a prophet of Jeremiah before he was ever conceived.

Foreknowledge here is based in God's purpose of a prophet to the nations, for which he chose and prepared Jeremiah.

 

[Atwood]

I think it is specified. . .knowing his purpose in advance (Ro 9:11-12).
He chose according to the foreknowledge of his purpose.

But Elin, "purpose" is an empty word! The (inscrutable?) content of the purpose is the question. When God chose Tom, but not Dick, assuming it was not to prove that He could arbitrarily make a capricious choice, we still are left scratching the head as to the purpose.

"And not only so; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, even by our father Isaac— for the children [italics! = the nations? -- 2 nations are in thy womb] being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

This election is not about salvation, but privilege in the world. We may also ask if Esau ever served Jacob? Is that in the Bible? If we made this the nation of Esau served the nation of Jacob, that would be easy to prove.

And Rom 9 does not use the word "foreknowledge" there. Instead of elect according to foreknowledge, it is "purpose according to election." I guess you want to make foreknowledge = foreknowledge of a purpose, resulting in a circular statement: purpose according to election according to purpose -- going in a circle!

And we still don't know what the purpose was; and if foreknowledge is knowledge of an unknown purpose, we still are in the dark.

 

[Atwood]

God knew, sanctified and made a prophet of Jeremiah before he was ever conceived.

Foreknowledge here is based in God's purpose of a prophet to the nations, for which he chose and prepared Jeremiah.

But the foreknowledge is not just of his purpose of having a prophet; the foreknowledge is of a specific person, namely Jeremiah.