Foreknowledge and Foreordination

Theo1689

Well-known member
It is within reason to claim that God only meant it to Israel, but that denies that all scripture is profitable.

An empty claim by you, which is false and unsubstantiated.

But it is unreasonable to deny that the verse carries an offer and an invitation to choose.

No, it's not the least bit "unreasonable".
It is unreasonable to CLAIM that it "carries and offer and an invitation to choose", since NEITHER idea is present in the text.
You are simply ASSUMING it.

That is what the verse is about

Um, no it is not.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Yes, I agree, your first sentence presents a picture that is unfair.

Not at all.
Simply CLAIMING something is "unfair", doesn't make it so.

The first step is to trust that God means what He says: He loves the world. He operates with loving kindness.

You seem to be operating under a misunderstanding of what "kosmos" ("world") means.
In Scripture it NEVER means, "every single individual".

You are making conclusions without most of the facts.

Why is it okay for you to do so, but not anyone else?

If you are a Christian, I suggest you seek God about this for an answer that makes sense to you.

We already have.
It's called, "Calvinism".
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
We both agree that the choice will be what God foreknows it will be.

Just a reminder....

But the definition of "proginosko" ("foreknow"), when then object is a person, means to "choose in advance", NOT merely to "attain information in advance".

And Scripture doesn't teach that God merely "foreknows" our "choices".
It teaches that God foreknows (ie. "forechooses") the PEOPLE who make the choices.

We disagree on how God knows this. I doubt in the realm we live in we will ever understand how God foreknows what a man with free will, will do.

That's because Scripture doesn't TEACH that we are "men with free will".
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
It is a misrepresentaion of the word foreknowledge to say it controls our actions.

It's amusing that non-Calvinists constantly feel the need to change the VERB, "foreknow", to a NOUN, "foreknowledge".

Scripture does NOT say that God merely "has foreknowledge" (a static idea).
Scripture teaches that God FOREKNOWS (ie. "forechooses") people (a DYNAMIC action).

That is one of the wonders of God that His foreknowledge allows free will and still knows

Scripture doesn't teach "free will".
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I am sorry, but I cannot read all this, though I will address your opening statement, attributing your faith to God.

Tell me something, Seth....

If someone only reads the first chapter of a novel, do you think they could productively discuss the entire novel?

If not, then why do you think that merely reading someone's "opening statement" allows you to discuss their post?

This is nothing more than my opinion, of course, but I think telling someone they're wrong when you didn't ever bother to read your entire argument is just plain rude. And it is the opposite of having an informed opinion.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
The Bible does not give us a logical/intellectual teaching on how God can condemn someone He loves, but we know it is true.

No, we do NOT "know it is true".
You keep making unsubstantiated assertions with ZERO evidence, yet you expect people to blindly accept everything you say. Why?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Look of the definition of the Greek word. It does not say what you are saying. It is simply define as knowing beforehand. Nothing in the definition says that it is only about people. This is a false definition, devised by calvinist, to cover some of their bad doctrine.

You are rejecting the meaning of Greek words.

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

From BDAG (the most respected and comprehensive Greek lexicon):

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

Very explicitly.... When the object of the "foreknowing" is an object, a "thing" ("ti"), then the meaning is "know in advance".
When the object of the "foreknowing" is a PERSON, ("tina"), then the meaning is CHOOSE beforehand.


But that doesn't match your false theology, so you reject it.


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

Strong's dictionary:

4267. προγινώσκω proginosko, prog-in-oce´-ko; from 4253 and 1097; to know beforehand, i.e. foresee: — foreknow (ordain), know (before).

"Ordain" implies CONTROL over the one "foreknowing".

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


UBS Lexicon:

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

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

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*
---------------------


So I ask you, how many Greek lexicons do I have to quote to you before you will acknowledge that you're wrong?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
We see people here, won over by the apparent brilliance of Calvinism, who then go on to conform the Bible to match what they have embraced,

30 years ago, I was VERY antagonistic against Calvinism, yet the Bible (not any "brilliance of Calvinism") convinced me that it is true.

So much for your self-serving false narrative...
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Tell me something, Seth....

If someone only reads the first chapter of a novel, do you think they could productively discuss the entire novel?

If not, then why do you think that merely reading someone's "opening statement" allows you to discuss their post?

This is nothing more than my opinion, of course, but I think telling someone they're wrong when you didn't ever bother to read your entire argument is just plain rude. And it is the opposite of having an informed opinion.
Thanks for your opinion.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Thanks for your opinion.

Is there a particular reason you chose to run away from my questions?

Here they are again:

If someone only reads the first chapter of a novel, do you think they could productively discuss the entire novel?
[_] Yes
[_] No

If not, then why do you think that merely reading someone's "opening statement" allows you to discuss their post?
[_] Yes
[_] No
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
You are rejecting the meaning of Greek words.

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

From BDAG (the most respected and comprehensive Greek lexicon):

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

Very explicitly.... When the object of the "foreknowing" is an object, a "thing" ("ti"), then the meaning is "know in advance".
When the object of the "foreknowing" is a PERSON, ("tina"), then the meaning is CHOOSE beforehand.


But that doesn't match your false theology, so you reject it.


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

Strong's dictionary:

4267. προγινώσκω proginosko, prog-in-oce´-ko; from 4253 and 1097; to know beforehand, i.e. foresee: — foreknow (ordain), know (before).

"Ordain" implies CONTROL over the one "foreknowing".

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


UBS Lexicon:

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

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

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*
---------------------


So I ask you, how many Greek lexicons do I have to quote to you before you will acknowledge that you're wrong?
My point was that when it is used to mean foreknow it can be anything, you included the word "something" which can be an event, a person, any number of things
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Is there a particular reason you chose to run away from my questions?

Here they are again:

If someone only reads the first chapter of a novel, do you think they could productively discuss the entire novel?
[_] Yes
[_] No

If not, then why do you think that merely reading someone's "opening statement" allows you to discuss their post?
[_] Yes
[_] No
I did not discuss their entire post. Never said I was going to. How did you deduce from my post that i was discussing their entire post, since I explicitly said I was only discussing the opening line,
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
My point was that when it is used to mean foreknow it can be anything, you included the word "something" which can be an event, a person, any number of things

BDAG makes a distinction between IMPERSONAL objects (ie. "things"), and PERSONAL objects, (ie. "people").

All you're doing is making excuses.
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
BDAG makes a distinction between IMPERSONAL objects (ie. "things"), and PERSONAL objects, (ie. "people").

All you're doing is making excuses.
All i am doing with the lexicon is what i do with the Bible, I take it at face value. and try not to impose my own thoughts. the Greek word means to foreknow something. No restrictions given on what that something is
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
All i am doing with the lexicon is what i do with the Bible, I take it at face value. and try not to impose my own thoughts. the Greek word means to foreknow something. No restrictions given on what that something is

BDAG says that when the object of "proginosko" is a person, the MEANING is "choose in advance".

As in:

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. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
 
Top