Foreknowing and foreknowledge

His clay said:
The importance of scripture being our ultimate authority cannot be overstated.
Click to expand...

Funny how the individual you're talking to NEVER provides Scripture for his false claims.

The exchange always goes like this:

AtA: <makes claim [X]>
Theo: Where is that taught in Scripture?
AtA: If anyone would like me to post Scripture to support it, just let me know.
Theo: Me! I just did. What Scripture do you have?
AtA: If any REASONABLE person would like Scripture, please let me know.
 
His clay said:
The importance of scripture being our ultimate authority cannot be overstated. The idea of ultimacy does not rule out lesser authorities, rather, it puts the lesser authorities in their place. People ask for scripture here because our consciences are bound by what God says; we generally do not grant people the same level of authority as divine revelation. In comparison, a person may have good thoughts, but if what they say is not substantiated by scripture, then the obedient Christian must evaluate their words in light of the higher authority of God's word. If there is a conflict between some seemingly good thoughts and God's word, then the answer is obvious. I hope that we can agree on the issue of ultimate authority.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. One of the issues is that people often hold to doctrines that they were taught supposing them to be from scripture, and it is difficult when they realize that what they were taught is not scripture or even in agreement with scripture
 
Kampioen said:
I just want to know from you. Do you know if soft compatibilism means there is a little bit of libertarianism.
Click to expand...

My answer is yes but is a complicated yes.

When it comes to primary cause, I believe Satan is a primary cause in sin and suffering. However I believe you find that even such can ultimately glorify God.

Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

God has something to say/prove to His creation. ALL of His creation. He is altogether lovely in ALL His ways.

Son 5:15 His legs are as pillars of marble, set upon sockets of fine gold: his countenance is as Lebanon, excellent as the cedars.
Son 5:16 His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.

I've asked this before but I'll ask again a different way....

If you have all the liberty you ever could desire and your choices lead to destruction..... wouldn't you still blame God for your condition?
 
christ_undivided said:
All I have asked is that explain the basic framework of how that works.
Click to expand...

Please explain exactly how God created the universe from nothing.

Don't just say "he did it by speaking," I am talking about the exact specifics of how God vocalized the entire universe from a few words.

What principles and mechanisms did God use, what method produced all things from nothing?

Please explain to me exactly how your sins could be transferred to a God who became man.

Don't just say "Well the Bible says he can, and he did it," I want to know the exact mechanism and methods of how those sins were transferred.

edit per mod


God says to believe a thing, not to understand how he does a thing.... where in the Bible does it say the Bible explains God's mechanisms?

In fact, there are many Scriptures which condemn trying to understand God's ways with our limited minds, and indeed, say it is impossible.

You ask of me to find a thing condemned by the Bible within the Bible... edit per mod


And when I cannot comply with something the Bible condemns you say I'm not doing my due diligence in understanding God.


For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts. (Isa. 55:9 NKJ)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
christ_undivided said:
Click to expand...
I can see why the other poster avoided reading it. It is lengthy, scholarly, and at some points potentially difficult to read for the uninitiated. However, that is precisely the type of material I enjoy reading. It looks like the author did his homework, and it looks like I finally found something with a little substance to it. Thanks for posting. I'll be reading it over the next few days.

I'll probably end of disagreeing with it (already have at certain points) to some degree, but I welcome the challenge.
 
Last edited:
Sketo said:
The Grounding Objection:

Is God’s knowledge Grounded in something that occurs after creation?

…or..

Is God’s knowledge Grounded in something that occurred before creation?
Click to expand...
Alexander the adequate said:
As far as I know the does not explain HOW God knows,
Click to expand...

But it does point us in a Logical direction…

Gods knowledge is Grounded in what comes before it, not in what comes after it.

God can Logically know the future, without learning, because God’s knowledge is Grounded in things that come before it.

Do you agree?

…
 
Dizerner said:
God's knowledge is not in any way grounded in creation, Edit per mod
Click to expand...
before creation exists

Sketo just said, "God can Logically know the future, without learning, because God’s knowledge is Grounded in things that come before it.
Do you agree?"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dizerner said:
God's knowledge is not in any way grounded in creation…
Click to expand...

Good, then no thing in the timeline of creation is necessary in order for God to know the future.

What are the only things, that could Logically exist, before creation, that God’s knowledge of the future could be Grounded in?

The “things” that God’s knowledge is Grounded in is the HOW God logically knows the future without learning…

…
 
Dizerner said:
Please explain exactly how God created the universe from nothing.
Click to expand...

I never asked for ALL the information concerning any event. Did you notice that I mentioned a "framework"?

Strawman.....

Dizerner said:
Don't just say "he did it by speaking," I am talking about the exact specifics of how God vocalized the entire universe from a few words.
Click to expand...

Well. I happen to believe that Genesis 1:1 isn't the beginning of all things. It is the beginning of God's purpose in man. I'm not arrogant enough to believe an all powerful God didn't do anything before He decided to take action in man. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that God can't "multi-task" at ANY moment. I believe God's existence if VAST and we are on the "little end" of something BIG.....

Dizerner said:
What principles and mechanisms did God use, what method produced all things from nothing?
Click to expand...

Interesting that you're using a "ex nihilo" argument. Just how did you come up that argument. Did you pull out of thin air at this very moment? Your use of the argument proves that you have a basic framework you're already employing to describe God.

Yet, when I ask for details for THIS CLAIM, you're calling it a mystery. You're hiding in "ambiguity".

Dizerner said:
Please explain to me exactly how your sins could be transferred to a God who became man.
Click to expand...

God is ALL powerful. Remember when I witnessed to the argument that Omnipotence can be the sole focus of all Divine qualities? Our God can do ANYTHING..... The ONLY limiting factor to God's actions is His Character. The Scriptures have plenty to say about God's Character.

The doctrine of the Hypostatic Union and the Holy Trinity go a LONG WAY in expressing the Character and abilities of God. Character that is reflected in our own relationships.

Dizerner said:
Don't just say "Well the Bible says he can, and he did it," I want to know the exact mechanism and methods of how those sins were transferred.
Click to expand...

You're minimizing what we DO know in order to "sell" your argument. Again. I'm asking for a framework. The "framework" I've seen doesn't support your position.

Dizerner said:
God says to believe a thing, not to understand how he does a thing.... where in the Bible does it say the Bible explains God's mechanisms?
Click to expand...

I'll will explain in a moment. I believe you must admit here that you've been a part of the conversation for some time now. Trying to explain how your claims work. When you're faced with the facts that they don't work, you appeal to ambiguity.

If what you say is true, why did you try to explain anything at all? Why not "lead" with "we can't know, you might be right"????

Dizerner said:
In fact, there are many Scriptures which condemn trying to understand God's ways with our limited minds, and indeed, say it is impossible.

You ask of me to find a thing condemned by the Bible within the Bible... edit per mod


And when I cannot comply with something the Bible condemns you say I'm not doing my due diligence in understanding God.


For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts. (Isa. 55:9 NKJ)
Click to expand...

Faith BRINGS revelation.
Romans 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith

Notice the word "revealed". Notice the continuation of faith in knowledge from our fathers of faith. The apostles and others long before us.

2Ti 1:5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.

Also, the words of Paul to a carnal group of believers in Corinth. Verse #9 supports your claim. However, there is contrast presented in verse 10.....

1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

To be clear, I'm not asking for extreme detail. Just a frame work that doesn't create the scenario where God's Divine Character is not predicated upon the actions of men.
 
Theo1689 said:
Rom. 8:29 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.

Rom. 11:2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel?

1Pet. 1:20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you


Noun vs. Verb

We must understand that there are two forms of this word, the verb form, "foreknow" ("proginosko"), and the noun form, "foreknowledge" ("prognosis"). And these two terms are not interchangeable. The verbal form is an ACTION taken by God, it is not simply describing the presence of knowledge in advance. When God "foreknows", He is DOING something. Unfortunately, anti-Calvinists like to change discussion of "foreknowing" to God's "foreknowledge", so that they can ignore the fact that God is DOING something when He foreknows.


"Who" vs. "What"

Anolther important consideration that critics ignore is that the object of God's "foreknowing" is PEOPLE, not things or actions. As the bolded text above shows, those passages speak of those "WHOM" He foreknew, not "what" He foreknew about people.


Greek vs. English

One of the reasons they change God's act of "foreknowing" to "foreknoweldge", is so that they can appeal to English definitions, even though we're talking about a Greek word. But the meaning of a Greek word from 2000 years ago is not the same as the meaning of an English word in modern day. The presence of translations gives us the false security that we can trust the English glosses, but we still need to be very familiar with the Bible overall, as well as do word studies.


Lexicons

A lexicon is different from a dictionary. A dictionary defines words in the same language the word comes from. A lexicon defines words in one language to a meaning in a different language. But Not all lexicons are created equally. Some are concise, and others are comprehensive. Some only offer a simple gloss, others offer multiple meanings and connotations, often identifying which verses contain which meaning. Some lexicons are modern and up-to-date, others are old and dated, notn being informed by the scholarship which has come afterward.

One of my favourite lexicons is Souter's. It's literally a pocket lexicon, published in 1917. I bought it used, hard cover. it is hardly the "ideal" lexicon, as it only gives a gloss for each Greek word. A gloss is simply a basic, one-word translational equivalent, and doesn't even try to go into the nuances of multiple definitions and connotations. But for general translating, and getting the overall idea of a verse, it's adequate. If one is doing an intense study of a verse of passage, one would prefer a more comprehensive lexicon such as BDAG, which gives multiple meanings (often 115-20 or more), and which instances convey which meaning.


Strong's Dictionary

Many people depend on Strong's, and for many reasons. Strong's is a well-known name, and many were familiar with his concordance, which lists all (or many) verses a particular Greek word is found, which is helpful for word studies. It's public domain (due to its age), and readily avaible in bookstores and on the web. And it only gives short glosses, leaving the user open to appeal to English dictionaries rather than more comprehensive Greek lexicons. His concordance was published in 1890. He added a Hebrew/Chaldee dictionary and a Greek dictionary, but like Souter's, it is overly simplified, and out-of-date.

This entry from Wikipedia is very telling:

"Strong explains that these are "brief and simple" dictionaries, not meant to replace reference to "a more copious and elaborate Lexicon." He mentions Gesenius and Fürst as examples of the lexicons that Strong's is drawn from. His dictionaries were meant to give students a quick and simple way to look up words and have a general idea of their meaning."

"The work is intended to represent the best of 19th century scholarship, and both a simplification of it and an improvement on it."

So when critics appeal to Stong's as the final or definitional authority, and ignore more modern and comprehensive lexicons, they are actually going AGAINST Strong's intention for his dictionary.

So let's see how more comprehensive lexicons define these terms:


BDAG:

προγινώσκω
1. to know beforehand or in advance, have foreknowledge (of) τί someth. Closely connected is the idea of choice that suggests foreknowledge
2. choose beforehand τινά someone Ro 8:29. τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ 11:2 , 1 Pt 1:20.

This is comprehensive, but very straightforward. When the object of the foreknowing is a thing, it means "know beforehand". But when the object is a person, its meaning is "choose beforehand".

πρόγνωσις, εως, ἡ
1. foreknowledge πρ. λαμβάνειν τελείαν receive complete foreknowledge 1 Cl 44:2.
2. predetermination, of God’s omniscient wisdom and intention



Mounce Greek Dictionary:

προγινώσκω proginōskō 5x
to know beforehand, to be previously acquainted with, Acts 26:5; 2 Pet. 3:17; to determine on beforehand, to foreordain, 1 Pet. 1:20; in NT, from the Hebrew, to foreknow, to appoint as the subject of future privileges, Rom. 8:29; 11:2* → foreknow, foreknowledge.

πρόγνωσις prognōsis 2x
foreknowledge; in NT previous determination, purpose, Acts 2:23; 1 Pet. 1:2* → foreknow, foreknowledge.



UBS Lexicon:

προγινώσκω (aor. προέγνων) know already, know beforehand; choose from the beginning, choose beforehand

πρόγνωσις, εως f foreknowledge, purpose



Conclusion

So the most comprehensive and up-to-date lexicons are agreed that the verbal form means to "choose in advance" when the object of God's foreknowing is a person, and even the noun form ("foreknowledge) contains connotations of choice, intention, and purpose as well.
Click to expand...
This is a great post. I wanted to ask if you've done a similar study on the Hebrew "yada" (to know). The reason I ask is because I'd like to know if there are any conceptual links between the two that Paul (in particular) may have understood when he (or the others) used the Greek (pro)-gnosis/gnosko. In short I'd like to find out if the apostles would have understood the two the same way.
 
CookedGoose said:
This is a great post. I wanted to ask if you've done a similar study on the Hebrew "yada" (to know). The reason I ask is because I'd like to know if there are any conceptual links between the two that Paul (in particular) may have understood when he (or the others) used the Greek (pro)-gnosis/gnosko. In short I'd like to find out if the apostles would have understood the two the same way.
Click to expand...

I have a more detailed study that begins with the connotations of "know" (ie. sexual relations, non-sexual relationship, factual knowledge), and then applying the "fore-" prefix to each of those terms.

I'm not very fluent in Hebrew, but I found the following in the HALOT lexicon for "yd":

1. to notice Lv 53, לֹאֹ יָדַע without being aware Jr 5024 Ps 358 Job 95 and לֹא תֵדַע without you Pr 56 ? also Song 612 (? obj. נַפְשִׁי Pesh.) = unawares (Bea Canticum 53); ‏יָדַע כִּי to realise that Gn 37, with מַה Ex 24 1S 223; יָדַע שְׁלוֹם פְּ׳ to learn how someone is Est 211, to feel, know Is 98 Hos 97 (→ Rudolph 173), Job 2119; to note Ru 34 (מָקוֹם).
—2. to hear of, learn (by notification Lv 51 2S 242, with בְּ, about Jr 3824, with כִּי, that Neh 1310; to learn, meaning to experience Is 478 Qoh 85; with כִּי Job 524.
—3. to know (by observation and reflection) (THAT 1:687): with כִּי Ju 1321, with ‏לְבָֽבְךָ עִם Dt 85, with בְּ Gn 158; to know that I am Y. (Zimmerli Ich bin Jahwe; THAT 1:697f) Ex 67 Ezk 67 (and often); דַּע וּרְאֵה כִּי know and see that 1S 1217 2412 1K 207 2K 57 Jr 219, with מִי Jr 4428, with אִם, whether Jr 51, with acc. 1S 2322, with partitive מִן 2323.
—4. to take care of (THAT 1:690), with acc. Gn 396, with obj. נַפְשִׁי Job 921, with בְּ Ps 318.
—5. to know: a) someone Gn 295 (personally), Ex 18 (historically); something Job 287 Is 478 (to experience); with לֹאֹ not to want to know about Dt 339; with ‏בְּשֵׁם Ex 3312, with פָּנִים אֶל־פָּנִים Dt 3410; God knows Ps 5011 696 Hos 53; b) from there: יֹדְעִים acquaintances, confidants Job 1913; יְדוּעִים (pl.) familiar with (Brockelmann Grundriss 1:358; Pedersen Isr. 1/2:518), informed Dt 113.15 יְדוּעַ חֹֽלִי acquainted with sickness Is 533 (THRobinson ZAW 73:268: 1QIsa יודע).
—6. to know sexually, have intercourse with, copulate (MHeb. JArm. Syr. also חכם, Arb. ʿarafa, Ug. ḫss (Aistleitner 1060) Akk. idū, (Hammurabi Laws §130 of a woman; AHw. 188a), lamādu; γιγνώσκειν, feminae notitiam habere, cognoscere, THAT 1:689, 691) Gn 41 1K 14, paederastic Gn 195, of the woman (cf. Akk. !) 198 Nu 3117.
—7. theologically, to take care of someone (THAT 1:691f): a) God as subj., to look after someone 2S 720 Nah 17 Ps 1443 (parallel with חשׁב), יְמֵי תְמִימִים 3718; to conclude (→ בחר !) Gn 1819 Jr 15 (parallel with הִקְדִּישׁ) Hos 135 Am 32 (Sekine ZAW 75:152f :: KBL); b) God as obj. (Botterweck Gotterkennen; Zimmerli Erkenntnis; Akk. mūdū ilāni AHw. 666b; → דַּעַת 3): Jr 28 422 Hos 222 54 Job 1821; לֹאֹ יָדַע 1S 212 Ex 52 Ps 796.
—8. to understand something (THAT 1:690), → הִכִּיר 5: a) with acc. Pr 3018 Am 516 (נְהִי), ‏שָׂפָה‎ Ps 816, סֵפֶר Is 2911 (→ Lachish 3:8f), בִּינָה 2924, ‏חָכְמָה Pr 12; with ‏צַיִד skilful hunter Gn 2527, with ‏הַיָּם familiar with the sea 1K 927; ‏יָדַע לְ to be good at ? עַל־מִפְלְשֵׂי־עָב Job 3716; b) with inf. to know how to do something, as French savoir 1S 1618 (cf. קרא ספר Lachish 3:9f; Elliger ZDPV 62:67f. :: Donner-R. Inschriften 2:192), with inf. and לְ Jr 422; with impf. Job 3222; with impf. and וְ Job 233; with pt. (Brockelmann Heb. Syn. §103a, → Rudolph) 1S 1616 Neh 1029.
—9. to know; to have experienced (cf. Greek οἶδα, Latin novi, THAT 1:687f): Is 4021, with acc., something 1S 2039 2S 1511, “it” 326, with כִּי, that Gn 1211, with ‏אֲשֶׁר, that Est 411, = with ‏אֵת אֲשֶׁר Dt 2915, with ‏מַה Qoh 87; with ‏טוֹב וָרָע (→ I ‏טוֹב‎ 8c); with inf: to know how to ‏וּבָחוֹר‎ ... ‏מָאוֹס‎ Is 715; ‏לְ‎ … ‏בֵּין‎ … ‏יָדַע to be able to tell the difference (→ hif. 4) 2S 1936 Jon 411; with two acc. 2C 128; מִי יוֹדֵעַ who knows; Bab. minde (vSoden Gramm. §121e): with impf. = perhaps 2S 1222 Jl 214 Jon 39, with אִם, whether Est 414, with ‏אוֹ ... הֲ meaning nobody knows, whether … or Qoh 219.
—10. to know, have understanding:
 
CookedGoose said:
This is a great post. I wanted to ask if you've done a similar study on the Hebrew "yada" (to know). The reason I ask is because I'd like to know if there are any conceptual links between the two that Paul (in particular) may have understood when he (or the others) used the Greek (pro)-gnosis/gnosko. In short I'd like to find out if the apostles would have understood the two the same way.
Click to expand...
Unedited; my brother's Tract...

Yada, Yada, Yada…

Questions about the Bible by Brother Carl D Miller,

Proverbs 28:13 (NLT) People who conceal their sins will not prosper, but if they confess and turn from them, they will receive mercy.

There was once a very popular television sitcom. There is one famous episode about our title. In this episode, the girlfriend was telling a story to one of the main characters. It went something like “we went on a date, had a nice dinner, yada, yada, yada, then we had breakfast”. This set off for the whole episode to have jokes to explore what yada yada yada means. Obviously this is a way to conceal something embarrassing that the teller of the story might not want to say, or to conceal something they might not want the listener to know. They started making jokes about all the kinds of ways that this phrase can be used. Yada, Yada, Yada… I don’t need to describe it more because you probably already know because the episode is famous, you have probably already seen it.

I found it very interesting today as I was looking at the concordance. I was looking something else up, and just under it was the word “know”. I couldn’t help but notice the Hebrew word for this is Yada. It immediately made me think of this episode. It made me wonder if there was a connection, or if this was where the phrase “Yada, Yada, Yada” came from. I started to do some research on it, and as far as I can see, there is not a connection. Although, the similarity to me seems to close to not be. Basically, what people are trying to say when they use the phrase yada yada yada is “weeelll, you knooow…” or, I don’t need to say it because you already know. In my research, here is what I found out about Yada. This form of Know/Yada occurs in the Bible 947 times. It can be used for several different ways such as, to know by seeing with your own eyes, to know by perceiving, to have knowledge and wisdom, you can yada someone because they’re famous, you can yada someone if they’re related to you, or to know intimately. There is all sorts of ways you can Know/Yada someone or something.

Have you ever “gone to the store, and yada yada yada, I look great in these new jeans”? The “yada yada yada” implies that you don’t want me to know how you got those jeans. Or, “I snuck out of the house last night, yada yada yada, my parents don’t know a thing”. The “Yada yada yada” conceals what you did to keep this from your parents. We use this phrase I guess because we think that if we don’t vocalize what we did, we don’t have to be accountable for it, but God already yada’s all about it. Psalms 139:4 (NASB) Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all. You cant hide what you did from God, He knew you was going to do it before you knew. God gave us instructions to live by, which is threw his word in the Bible. We see what we must do in our heading verse, but we continue to cover it up. We know deep down in our heart that our Sin is wrong, that’s why we are tempted to cover it up, we are embarrassed of it.

For God so loved the world, he gave his only son, so that we will not perish but have everlasting life. God knew that we could not keep our covenant with him, that’s why he sent his Son. All Sin deserves Death, God walked on this earth in the form of a man, and paid that penalty for us, so that all we need to do is pick up our Cross daily, and follow him. Then we can receive Mercy that our heading verse is talking about.

Acts 2:23-24 (NASB) 23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. 24 "But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power
 
Paul is very clever with the way he writes. He does a kind of "bait and switch" on words over and over again that's very subtle, but also incredibly insightful if a person cares to pick it apart. I believe he's doing this with "know" (ginosko) in 1Cor13 11-12 which reveals how he's using it. It could also help reveal a deeper understanding of "yada". Keep in mind I"m using Strong's (it's the best I can do)

1Cor13 11-12 "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood(ephronoun) as a child, I thought(elogizomen) as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know(ginosko) in part, but then I shall know(epignosomai) just as I also am known(epegnosthen). And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Strong's definitions of "yada" and "ginosko" are almost identical.
Yada=To know in a great variety of senses, instruct, designate, advise, answer, appoint.
Ginosko= To know in a great variety of applications with many implications. To allow, be aware of, feel, perceive, resolve.

Paul claims to be saved "now" as a man, but in Ephesians claims he was a "child of wrath". When he speaks above of himself thinking and understanding (literally reasoning and concluding according to Strong's) as a child he's not using "ginosko" as the root of his words, but after being a man (and claiming he's saved) he uses ginosko and 2 words which have ginosko as their root. He then goes on describe attributes associated with a relationship (faith hope love)

It could be said that as a child Paul was reasoning, concluding "almost knowing" as a child of wrath, and without ginosko, but instead "logos". Then as a man and "in Christ (presumably) he's still reasoning, concluding "now knowing" but switches the root word he uses to describe it, to ginosko. He then goes on to describe the new attributes of his new "knowing".

The point is he's using "logos" roots as a child of wrath, and using "ginosko" roots to describe almost the same but inside the parameters of a relationship, whereas before there wasn't one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top