IS PREDESTINATION BIBLICAL ?

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Stop goading.

Its a legitimate question.

It is clear that you have not.

So, let me take a little time to educate you.

"Predestination" basically means "to set bounds".

Let us look at the definition given in Kittel's dictionary. From Rom. 8:29, we have the word: "prowpisev." From the root word: "proorizw," which means: to limit or mark out beforehand, predestine.

According to the dictionary (Kittel's), K. L. Schmidt comments:

"This comparatively rare and late word is used in the Greek Bible only six times in the NT in the sense "to foreordain" "to predestinate." Since God is eternal and has ordained everything before time, proopizein is a stronger form of opizein (to set bounds to). The synonyms and textual history show that the reference in proginwskien is the same. Rom. 8:29; ouv proginw kai prowpisen summorfouv tnv eikonov tou niou autou, Rom. 8:30; ous...prowpisen (A: proegnw) toutov kai ekalesen. The omniscient God has determined everything in advance, both persons and things in salvation history, with Jesus Christ as the goal. When Herod and Pilate work together with the Gentiles and the mob against Christ, it may be said: "h boulh [sou] prowrisen genesqai," Acts 4:28. Herein lies the hidden wisdom of God in a mystery, "hn prowrisen o qeoV pro twn aiwnwn eiV doxan hmwn," 1 Cor. 2:7, cf. IV, 819. The goal of our predestination is divine sonship through Jesus Christ: "proorisaV hmaV eiV uioqesian dia ihsou cristou ," Eph. 1:5. That we have our inheritance in Christ rests in the fact that we are proopisqentev kata proqesin tou ta panta energountov, Eph. 1:11.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Edited by: Gerhard Kittel, Translated by: Geoffery W. Bromiley, Vol. V, "proopizw", p. 456, K. L. Schmidt.

So there you have it, predestination is the mode by which God used to conform the elect to the image of His Son, by which we (the elect) are appointed to divine sonship.

Furthermore, if you read what scriptures actually say, "predestination" is simple.

Rom. 8:29: predestinated "to be conformed to the image of the Son"

Eph 1:5 Predestinated "unto adoption"

Eph 1:11 Predestinated "according to purpose."

Arminian position on "predestination" is blown away.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That's how I read it. BTW, faith without works is dead. Verse 13 shows they ALSO trusted, thus it wasn't they who were predestined in the previous verses. But, being Calvinist, I doubt you can see it.

13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Trusting and believing are both works.

Here again, read my above post.

Our salvation should result in "good works".

I would suggest you go back and carefully study the "context" of Romans 8:28-29.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Site Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Its a legitimate question.

It is clear that you have not.

So, let me take a little time to educate you.

"Predestination" basically means "to set bounds".

Let us look at the definition given in Kittel's dictionary. From Rom. 8:29, we have the word: "prowpisev." From the root word: "proorizw," which means: to limit or mark out beforehand, predestine.

According to the dictionary (Kittel's), K. L. Schmidt comments:

"This comparatively rare and late word is used in the Greek Bible only six times in the NT in the sense "to foreordain" "to predestinate." Since God is eternal and has ordained everything before time, proopizein is a stronger form of opizein (to set bounds to). The synonyms and textual history show that the reference in proginwskien is the same. Rom. 8:29; ouv proginw kai prowpisen summorfouv tnv eikonov tou niou autou, Rom. 8:30; ous...prowpisen (A: proegnw) toutov kai ekalesen. The omniscient God has determined everything in advance, both persons and things in salvation history, with Jesus Christ as the goal. When Herod and Pilate work together with the Gentiles and the mob against Christ, it may be said: "h boulh [sou] prowrisen genesqai," Acts 4:28. Herein lies the hidden wisdom of God in a mystery, "hn prowrisen o qeoV pro twn aiwnwn eiV doxan hmwn," 1 Cor. 2:7, cf. IV, 819. The goal of our predestination is divine sonship through Jesus Christ: "proorisaV hmaV eiV uioqesian dia ihsou cristou ," Eph. 1:5. That we have our inheritance in Christ rests in the fact that we are proopisqentev kata proqesin tou ta panta energountov, Eph. 1:11.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Edited by: Gerhard Kittel, Translated by: Geoffery W. Bromiley, Vol. V, "proopizw", p. 456, K. L. Schmidt.

So there you have it, predestination is the mode by which God used to conform the elect to the image of His Son, by which we (the elect) are appointed to divine sonship.

Furthermore, if you read what scriptures actually say, "predestination" is simple.

Rom. 8:29: predestinated "to be conformed to the image of the Son"

Eph 1:5 Predestinated "unto adoption"

Eph 1:11 Predestinated "according to purpose."

Arminian position on "predestination" is blown away.

God Bless

Till all are one.

What does foreknowledge mean to you?

29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Calvinists have a warped opinion on this. Tell me if I am wrong. Don't you believe you didn't have a choice whether to come to Christ or not? Don't you believe Jesus didn't die for the whole world, but only the elect? (BTW Jews were called God's elect, but not all Jews got saved.)
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What does foreknowledge mean to you?

29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Calvinists have a warped opinion on this. Tell me if I am wrong. Don't you believe you didn't have a choice whether to come to Christ or not? Don't you believe Jesus didn't die for the whole world, but only the elect? (BTW Jews were called God's elect, but not all Jews got saved.)

Here again, let me educate you.

You guys quote Rom. 8:29, see the word "foreknowledge" and suppose that settles the argument.

Wrong!

"ὅτι οὓς προέγνω, καὶ προώρισεν συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς:" -Rom. 8:29 (GNT)

"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." -Rom. 8:29 (KJV)

It is funny, and I mean really funny, that people take this verse and run with it. Like it is suggested in this thread.

The rules for Greek grammar is nearly 100% identical to English grammar.

A very key word in Romans 8:29 that everybody has overlooked is the Greek word "ὅτι". Here it is translated "for".

Correct, but...as in English and Greek, what part of speech is the Greek/English word "for"?

It is "conjunction". What is a conjunction? It connects words and phrases. And in its use here, "oti/for" is connected directly to the last phrase of verse 28.

To properly understand,

"to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son,"

That answers why God "foreknew". Because He "called" them first!

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: St. Helens
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Site Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Here again, let me educate you.

You guys quote Rom. 8:29, see the word "foreknowledge" and suppose that settles the argument.

Wrong!

"ὅτι οὓς προέγνω, καὶ προώρισεν συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς:" -Rom. 8:29 (GNT)

"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." -Rom. 8:29 (KJV)

It is funny, and I mean really funny, that people take this verse and run with it. Like it is suggested in this thread.

The rules for Greek grammar is nearly 100% identical to English grammar.

A very key word in Romans 8:29 that everybody has overlooked is the Greek word "ὅτι". Here it is translated "for".

Correct, but...as in English and Greek, what part of speech is the Greek/English word "for"?

It is "conjunction". What is a conjunction? It connects words and phrases. And in its use here, "oti/for" is connected directly to the last phrase of verse 28.

To properly understand,

"to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son,"

That answers why God "foreknew". Because He "called" them first!

God Bless

Till all are one.

What does it mean to you that God made man in their image?
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What does it mean to you that God made man in their image?

And what does that have to do with price of eggs in China?

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Its a legitimate question.

It is clear that you have not.

So, let me take a little time to educate you.

"Predestination" basically means "to set bounds".

Let us look at the definition given in Kittel's dictionary. From Rom. 8:29, we have the word: "prowpisev." From the root word: "proorizw," which means: to limit or mark out beforehand, predestine.

According to the dictionary (Kittel's), K. L. Schmidt comments:

"This comparatively rare and late word is used in the Greek Bible only six times in the NT in the sense "to foreordain" "to predestinate." Since God is eternal and has ordained everything before time, proopizein is a stronger form of opizein (to set bounds to). The synonyms and textual history show that the reference in proginwskien is the same. Rom. 8:29; ouv proginw kai prowpisen summorfouv tnv eikonov tou niou autou, Rom. 8:30; ous...prowpisen (A: proegnw) toutov kai ekalesen. The omniscient God has determined everything in advance, both persons and things in salvation history, with Jesus Christ as the goal. When Herod and Pilate work together with the Gentiles and the mob against Christ, it may be said: "h boulh [sou] prowrisen genesqai," Acts 4:28. Herein lies the hidden wisdom of God in a mystery, "hn prowrisen o qeoV pro twn aiwnwn eiV doxan hmwn," 1 Cor. 2:7, cf. IV, 819. The goal of our predestination is divine sonship through Jesus Christ: "proorisaV hmaV eiV uioqesian dia ihsou cristou ," Eph. 1:5. That we have our inheritance in Christ rests in the fact that we are proopisqentev kata proqesin tou ta panta energountov, Eph. 1:11.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Edited by: Gerhard Kittel, Translated by: Geoffery W. Bromiley, Vol. V, "proopizw", p. 456, K. L. Schmidt.

So there you have it, predestination is the mode by which God used to conform the elect to the image of His Son, by which we (the elect) are appointed to divine sonship.

Furthermore, if you read what scriptures actually say, "predestination" is simple.

Rom. 8:29: predestinated "to be conformed to the image of the Son"

Eph 1:5 Predestinated "unto adoption"

Eph 1:11 Predestinated "according to purpose."

Arminian position on "predestination" is blown away.

God Bless

Till all are one.

You claim that anyone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant is clearly an ad hominem attack.

The position one takes on foreknowledge and predestination doesn't have to do with the word definition of predestination. That is uncontroversial!

It has to do with how God uses his foreknowledge to predestinate.

If his knowledge of how people would accept the gospel is what causes his predestination, then Arminians and Molinists alike can support a freewill argument.

If God doesn't use knowledge of what free agents would or will do but creates men fatalistically locked into damnation or salvation, then the Calvinist position is true.

All positions beleive in predestination so it seems curious to belabor a point about predestination.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You claim that anyone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant is clearly an ad hominem attack.

The position one takes on foreknowledge and predestination doesn't have to do with the word definition of predestination. That is uncontroversial!

It has to do with how God uses his foreknowledge to predestinate.

If his knowledge of how people would accept the gospel is what causes his predestination, then Arminians and Molinists alike can support a freewill argument.

If God doesn't use knowledge of what free agents would or will do but creates men fatalistically locked into damnation or salvation, then the Calvinist position is true.

All positions beleive in predestination so it seems curious to belabor a point about predestination.

Oh my goodness, you are so funny.

You ignore sound doctrine based on study in the Greek scriptures.

It has to do with how God uses his foreknowledge to predestinate

Here again, that sentence alone mocks salvation by grace.

I quote:

"When the blessed subject of divine foreordination is expounded, when God’s eternal choice of certain ones to be conformed to the image of His Son is set forth, the enemy sends along someone to argue that election is based upon the foreknowledge of God. This foreknowledge is interpreted to mean that God foresaw certain ones who would be more pliable than others and they would respond more readily to the strivings of the Spirit. So, because God knew they would believe, He predestinated them unto salvation. But such logic is radically wrong. It repudiates the truth of total depravity, for it argues that there is something good in some men. It takes away the independency of God, for it makes His decrees rest upon what He discovers in the creature.

It completely turns things upside down, for in saying God foresaw certain sinners who would believe in Christ, and because of this He predestinated them unto salvation, is the very reverse of the truth. Scripture affirms that God, in His sovereignty, singled out certain ones to be recipients of His distinguishing favors (Acts 13:48); therefore He determined to bestow upon them the gift of faith. False theology makes God’s foreknowledge of our believing the cause of His election to salvation. However, God’s election is the cause, and our believing in Christ the effect.

Now the word "foreknowledge" as it is used in the New Testament is less ambiguous than in its simple form "to know." If you carefully study every passage in which it occurs, you will discover that it is a moot point whether it ever has reference to the mere perception of events yet to take place. The fact is that foreknowledge is never used in Scripture in connection with events or actions; instead, it always refers to persons. It is persons God is said to "foreknow," not the actions of those persons. To prove this we will quote each passage where this expression is found.

The first occurs in 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." Careful attention to the wording of this verse shows that the apostle was not speaking of God’s foreknowledge of the act of the crucifixion, but of the Person crucified: "Him (Christ) being delivered by."

The second is Romans 8:29-30: "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called." Weigh well the pronoun used here. It is not what He did foreknow, but whom He did. It is not the surrendering of their wills nor the believing of their hearts, but the persons themselves, which is in view.

"God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew" (Rom. 11:2). Once more the plain reference is to persons, and to persons only.

The last mention is in 1 Peter 1:2: "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father." Who are "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father?" The previous verse tells us the reference is to the "strangers scattered," i.e., the diaspora, the dispersion, the believing Jews. Thus, the reference is to persons, and not to their foreseen acts.

Now in view of these passages (and there are no more) what scriptural ground is there for anyone to say God "foreknew" the acts of certain ones, i.e., their "repenting and believing," and that because of those acts He elected them unto salvation? The answer is, None whatever. Scripture never speaks of repentance and faith as being foreseen or foreknown by God. Truly, He did know from all eternity that certain ones would repent and believe, yet this is not what Scripture refers to as the object of God’s foreknowledge. The word uniformly refers to God’s foreknowing persons; then let us "hold fast the form of sound words" (2 Tim. 1:13).

Another thing we want to call particular attention to is that the first two passages quoted above show plainly and teach implicitly that God’s foreknowledge is not causative, that instead, something else lies behind, precedes it—something that is His own sovereign decree. Christ was "delivered by the (1) determinate counsel and (2) foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23). His counsel or decree was the ground of His foreknowledge. So again in Romans 8:29. That verse opens with the word "for," which tells us to look back to what immediately precedes. What, then, does the previous verse say? This, "all things work together for good to them . . . who are the called according to His purpose." Thus God’s "foreknowledge" is based upon His "purpose" or decree (see Psalm 2:7)."

Arthur W. Pink, The Attributes of God, Chapter 4. The Foreknowledge of God

Everything I said is biblical and scriptural.

And more importantly, I have proven you wrong.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Furthermore, I cite:

"
THE MEANING OF “FOREKNEW” IN ROMANS 8:29


"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified." Romans 8:29,30

Broadly speaking there have been two general views as to the meaning and use of the word “foreknew” in Romans 8:29. One class of commentators (the Arminians) maintain that Paul is saying that God predestined to salvation those whom He foreknew would respond to His offer of grace (i.e., those whom He saw would of their own free will repent of their sins and believe the gospel). Godet, in commenting on Romans 8:29, asks the question: “In what respect did God thus foreknow them?” and answers that they were “foreknown as sure to fulfill the conditions of salvation, viz. faith; so: foreknown as His by faith.” 1 The word "foreknew” is thus understood by Arminians to mean that God knew beforehand which sinners would believe, etc., and on the basis of this knowledge He predestined them unto salvation.

The other class of commentators (the Calvinists) reject the above view on two grounds. First, because the Arminians’ interpretation is not in keeping with the meaning of Paul’s language and second, because it is out of harmony with the system of doctrine taught in the rest of the Scriptures. Calvinists contend that the passage teaches that God set His heart upon (i.e., foreknew) certain individuals; these He predestined or marked out to be saved. Notice that the text does not say that God knew SOMETHING ABOUT particular individuals (that they would do this or that), but it states that God knew the individuals THEMSELVES – those whom He knew He predestined to be made like Christ. The word “foreknew” as used here is thus understood to be equivalent to “foreloved” – those who were the objects of God’s love, He marked out for salvation.

The questions raised by the two opposing interpretations are these: Did God look down through time and see that certain individuals would believe and thus predestine them unto salvation on the basis of this foreseen faith? Or did God set His heart on certain individuals and because of His love for them predestine that they should be called and given faith in Christ by the Holy Spirit and thus be saved? In other words, is the individual’s faith the cause or the result of God’s predestination?



A. The meaning of “foreknew” in Romans 8:29

God has always possessed perfect knowledge of all creatures and of all events. There has never been a time when anything past, present, or future was not fully known to Him.* But it is not His knowledge of future events (of what people would do, etc.) which is referred to in Romans 8:29,30, for Paul clearly states that those whom He foreknew He predestined, He called, He justified, etc. Since all men are not predestined, called, and justified, it follows that all men were not foreknown by God in the sense spoken of in verse 29.


It is for this reason that the Arminians are forced to add some qualifying notion. They read into the passage some idea not contained in the language itself such as those whom He foreknew would believe etc., He predestined, called and justified. But according to the Biblical usage of the words “know,” “knew,” and “foreknew” there is not the least need to make such an addition, and since it is unnecessary, it is improper. When the Bible speaks of God knowing particular individuals, it often means that He has special regard for them, that they are the objects of His affection and concern. For example in Amos 3:2, God, speaking to Israel says,“You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” The Lord knows about all the families of the earth, but He knew Israel in a special way.* They were His chosen people whom He had set His heart upon. See Deuteronomy 7:7,8; 10:15. Because Israel was His in a special sense He chastised them, cf. Hebrews 12:5,6.*God, speaking to Jeremiah, said, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you,” (Jeremiah 1:5). The meaning here is not that God knew about Jeremiah but that He had a special regard for the prophet before He formed him in his mother’s womb. Jesus also used the word “knew” in the sense of personal, intimate awareness. “On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers’ “ (Matt. 7:22,23). Our Lord cannot be understood here as saying, I knew nothing about you, for it is quite evident that He knew all too much about them – their evil character and evil works; hence, His meaning must be, I never knew you intimately nor personally, I never regarded you as the objects of my favor or love. Paul uses the word in the same way in I Corinthians 8:3, “But if one loves God, one is known by him,” and also II Timothy 2:19, “the Lord knows those who are His.” The Lord knows about all men but He only knows those “who love Him, who are called according to His purpose” (Rom 8:28) – those who are His!


Murray’s argument in favor of this meaning of “foreknew” is very good.*“It should be observed that the text says ‘whom He foreknew’; whom is the object of the verb and there is no qualifying addition.* This, of itself, shows that, unless there is some other compelling reason, the expression ‘whom he foreknew’ contains within itself the differentiation which is presupposed. If the apostle had in mind some ‘qualifying adjunct’ it would have been simple to supply it. Since he adds none we are forced to inquire if the actual terms he uses can express the differentiation implied. The usage of Scripture provides an affirmative answer. Although the term ‘foreknew’ is used seldom in the New Testament, it is altogether indefensible to ignore the meaning so frequently given to the word ‘know’ in the usage of Scripture; ‘foreknow’ merely adds the thought of ‘beforehand’ to the word ‘know’. Many times in Scripture ‘know’ has a pregnant meaning which goes beyond that of mere cognition. It is used in a sense practically synonymous with ‘love’, to set regard upon, to know with peculiar interest, delight, affection, and action (cf. Gen 18:19; Exod. 2:25; Psalm 1:6; 144:3; Jer. 1:5; Amos 3:2; Hosea 13:5; Matt 7:23; I Cor. 8:3; Gal. 4:9; II Tim. 2:19; I John 3:1).* There is no reason why this import of the word ‘know’ should not be applied to ‘foreknow’ in this passage, as also in 11:2 where it also occurs in the same kind of construction and where the thought of election is patently present (cf. 11:5,6). When this import is appreciated, then there is no reason for adding any qualifying notion and ‘whom He foreknew’ is seen to contain within itself the differentiating element required. It means ‘whom he set regard upon’ or ‘whom he knew from eternity with distinguishing affection and delight’ and is virtually equivalent to ‘whom he foreloved’. This interpretation, furthermore, is in agreement with the efficient and determining action which is so conspicuous in every other link of the chain – it is God who predestinates, it is God who calls, it is God who justifies, and it is He who glorifies. Foresight of faith would be out of accord with the determinative action which is predicated of God in these other instances and would constitute a weakening of the total emphasis at the point where we should least expect it….It is not the foresight of difference but the foreknowledge that makes difference to exist, not a foresight that recognizes existence but the foreknowledge that determines existence. It is a sovereign distinguishing love.” 2


Hodge observes that “as to know is often to approve and love, it may express the idea of peculiar affection in this case; or it may mean to select or determine upon….The usage of the word is favourable to either modification of this general idea of preferring. ‘The people which he foreknew,’ i.e., loved or selected, Rom. 11:2; ‘Who verily was foreordained (Gr. foreknown), i.e., fixed upon, chosen before the foundation of the world.’ I Peter 1:20; II Tim. 2:19; John 10:14,15; see also Acts 2:23; I Peter 1:2. The idea, therefore, obviously is, that those whom God peculiarly loved, and by thus loving, distinguished or selected from the rest of mankind; or to express both ideas in one word, those whom he elected he predestined, etc.” 3


Although God knew about all men before the world began, He did not know all men in the sense that the Bible sometimes uses the word “know,” i.e., with intimate personal awareness and love. It is in this latter sense that God** foreknew* those whom He predestined, called, and justified, as outlined in Romans 8:29,30!


B. Romans 8:29 does not refer to the foresight of faith, good works, etc.

As was pointed out above, it is unnecessary and therefore indefensible to add any qualifying notion such as faith to the verb foreknew in Romans 8:29. The Arminians make this addition, not because the language requires it, but because their theological system requires it – they do it to escape the doctrines of unconditional predestination and election. They read the notion of foreseen faith into the verse and then appeal to it in an effort to prove that predestination was based on foreseen events. Thus particular individuals are said to be saved, not because God willed that they should be saved (for He willed the salvation of everyone) but because they themselves willed to be saved. Hence salvation is make to depend ultimately on the individual’s will, not on the sovereign will of Almighty God – faith is understood to be man’s gift to God, not God’s gift to man.


Haldane, comparing Scripture with Scripture, clearly shows that the foreknowledge mentioned in Romans 8:29 cannot have reference to the foreseen faith, good works, or the sinner’s response to God’s call. “Faith cannot be the cause of foreknowledge, because foreknowledge is before predestination, and faith is the effect of predestination. ‘As many as were ordained to eternal life believed,’ Acts 13:48.* Neither can it be meant of the foreknowledge of good works, because these are the effects of predestination. ‘We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works; which God hath before ordained (or before prepared) that we should walk in them;’ Eph. 2:10. Neither can it be meant of foreknowledge of our concurrence with the external call, because our effectual calling depends not upon that concurrence, but upon God’s purpose and grace, given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, 2 Tim. 1:9. By this foreknowledge, then, is meant, as has been observed, the love of God towards those whom he predestinates to be saved through Jesus Christ. All the called of God are foreknown by Him, - that is, they are the objects of His eternal love, and their calling comes from this free love. ‘I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore with lovingkindness I have drawn thee,’ Jer. 31:3.” 4


Murray, in rejecting the view that “foreknew” in Romans 8:29 refers to the foresight of faith, is certainly correct in stating that “It needs to be emphasized that the rejection of this interpretation is not dictated by a predestinarian interest. Even if it were granted that ‘foreknew’ means foresight of faith, the biblical doctrine of sovereign election is not thereby eliminated or disproven. For it is certainly true that God foresees faith;* he foresees all that comes to pass.* The question would then simply be: whence proceeds this faith which God foresees? And the only biblical answer is that the faith which God foresees is the faith he himself creates (cf. John 3:3-8; 6:44;45,65; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; II Pet. 1:2). Hence his eternal foresight of faith is preconditioned by his decree to generate this faith in those whom he foresees as believing, and we are thrown back upon the differentiation which proceeds from God’s own eternal and sovereign election to faith and its consequents. The interest, therefore, is simply one of interpretation as it should be applied to this passage.* On exegetical grounds we shall have to reject the view that ‘foreknew’ refers to the foresight of faith.” 5



1 Frederic Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, p 325.* Italics are his.

2 John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, Vol. I, pp. 316-318.* Italics are his.

3 Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, pp. 283, 284. Italics are his.

4 Robert Haldane, Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, p. 397.

5 Murray, Romans, Vol. I, p. 316.

The Meaning of FOREKNOW in Romans 8:29, By: David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Oh my goodness, you are so funny.

You ignore sound doctrine based on study in the Greek scriptures.



Here again, that sentence alone mocks salvation by grace.

I quote:

"When the blessed subject of divine foreordination is expounded, when God’s eternal choice of certain ones to be conformed to the image of His Son is set forth, the enemy sends along someone to argue that election is based upon the foreknowledge of God. This foreknowledge is interpreted to mean that God foresaw certain ones who would be more pliable than others and they would respond more readily to the strivings of the Spirit. So, because God knew they would believe, He predestinated them unto salvation. But such logic is radically wrong. It repudiates the truth of total depravity, for it argues that there is something good in some men. It takes away the independency of God, for it makes His decrees rest upon what He discovers in the creature.

It completely turns things upside down, for in saying God foresaw certain sinners who would believe in Christ, and because of this He predestinated them unto salvation, is the very reverse of the truth. Scripture affirms that God, in His sovereignty, singled out certain ones to be recipients of His distinguishing favors (Acts 13:48); therefore He determined to bestow upon them the gift of faith. False theology makes God’s foreknowledge of our believing the cause of His election to salvation. However, God’s election is the cause, and our believing in Christ the effect.

Now the word "foreknowledge" as it is used in the New Testament is less ambiguous than in its simple form "to know." If you carefully study every passage in which it occurs, you will discover that it is a moot point whether it ever has reference to the mere perception of events yet to take place. The fact is that foreknowledge is never used in Scripture in connection with events or actions; instead, it always refers to persons. It is persons God is said to "foreknow," not the actions of those persons. To prove this we will quote each passage where this expression is found.

The first occurs in 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." Careful attention to the wording of this verse shows that the apostle was not speaking of God’s foreknowledge of the act of the crucifixion, but of the Person crucified: "Him (Christ) being delivered by."

The second is Romans 8:29-30: "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called." Weigh well the pronoun used here. It is not what He did foreknow, but whom He did. It is not the surrendering of their wills nor the believing of their hearts, but the persons themselves, which is in view.

"God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew" (Rom. 11:2). Once more the plain reference is to persons, and to persons only.

The last mention is in 1 Peter 1:2: "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father." Who are "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father?" The previous verse tells us the reference is to the "strangers scattered," i.e., the diaspora, the dispersion, the believing Jews. Thus, the reference is to persons, and not to their foreseen acts.

Now in view of these passages (and there are no more) what scriptural ground is there for anyone to say God "foreknew" the acts of certain ones, i.e., their "repenting and believing," and that because of those acts He elected them unto salvation? The answer is, None whatever. Scripture never speaks of repentance and faith as being foreseen or foreknown by God. Truly, He did know from all eternity that certain ones would repent and believe, yet this is not what Scripture refers to as the object of God’s foreknowledge. The word uniformly refers to God’s foreknowing persons; then let us "hold fast the form of sound words" (2 Tim. 1:13).

Another thing we want to call particular attention to is that the first two passages quoted above show plainly and teach implicitly that God’s foreknowledge is not causative, that instead, something else lies behind, precedes it—something that is His own sovereign decree. Christ was "delivered by the (1) determinate counsel and (2) foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23). His counsel or decree was the ground of His foreknowledge. So again in Romans 8:29. That verse opens with the word "for," which tells us to look back to what immediately precedes. What, then, does the previous verse say? This, "all things work together for good to them . . . who are the called according to His purpose." Thus God’s "foreknowledge" is based upon His "purpose" or decree (see Psalm 2:7)."

Arthur W. Pink, The Attributes of God, Chapter 4. The Foreknowledge of God

Everything I said is biblical and scriptural.

And more importantly, I have proven you wrong.

God Bless

Till all are one.
Instead of engaging my points you ignore, mock them as funny, and cut and paste out of commentary as if it were scripture.

This is not persuasive.

This is not respectful.

Again you claim if someone doesn't agree with you then they are guilty of unsound doctrine (name calling yet again).

No recognition of the fact that all views agree on the definition of predestination. Instead you respond "funny."

No recognition of the fact that the foreknowledge passages are the ones in favor of Molinism and Arminianism. God foreknows who will respond and based on that knowledge creates the world. From then on all is predestined just as henforeknew it but not based on his choice but our free acceptance.

How does God predestine?

What does he need foreknowledge for on Calvinism?

If God's foreknowledge is of men's free actions the your foreknowledge verse support molinism and Arminianism!

It is again inconceivable why someone with knowledge of this topic would keep representing evidence that does not exclude the non-Calvinistic views.

I think the other members in this discussion have already figured out the intractability of your position and your approach. Now that I have enough data on same, you've become the fourth person in three years of posting to make it to my "Ignored" list, congrats on lowering the emotional maturity bar. Atheist on this site are more open to discussion.

And I almost forgot,

God Bless!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Now that I'm no longer encumbered by someone faking knowledge about how God "predestines" as a function of foreknowledge I highly recommend the following video featuring a cogent and respectful (as opposed to what we have seen recently out here) discussion about two inferences; Molinism vs. Calvinism:
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Instead of engaging my points you ignore, mock them as funny, and cut and paste out of commentary as if it were scripture.

This is not persuasive.

This is not respectful.

Again you claim if someone doesn't agree with you then they are guilty of unsound doctrine (name calling yet again).

No recognition of the fact that all views agree on the definition of predestination. Instead you respond "funny."

No recognition of the fact that the foreknowledge passages are the ones in favor of Molinism and Arminianism. God foreknows who will respond and based on that knowledge creates the world. From then on all is predestined just as henforeknew it but not based on his choice but our free acceptance.

How does God predestine?

What does he need foreknowledge for on Calvinism?

If God's foreknowledge is of men's free actions the your foreknowledge verse support molinism and Arminianism!

It is again inconceivable why someone with knowledge of this topic would keep representing evidence that does not exclude the non-Calvinistic views.

I think the other members in this discussion have already figured out the intractability of your position and your approach. Now that I have enough data on same, you become the fourth person in three years of posting to make it to my "Ignored" list.

And I almost forgot,

God Bless!

One final time, predestination sets the goal.

And, you have been proven wrong. God's "foreknowledge" is never ever used in scripture of the actions of people.

The Actual definition for the Greek word rendered "foreknow) (cf Rom. 8:29) is:

"In the NT, proginwskein is referred to God. His foreknowledge, however, is an election or foreordination of His people (Rom. 8:29; 11:2) or Christ (1 Pet. 1:20) (> ginwskw, 698, 706). In Pastor Hermae, mandata, 4, 3, 4 it simply means
God's foreknowledge (cf. prognwstv in 2 Cl. 9:9). On the basis of prophecy the word proginwskein can be used of believers in 2 Pet. 3:17, also as Pastor Hermae, similitudines, 7,5 > eklegw. Another possible meaning in Greek is that of knowing earlier, i.e., than the time speaking (cf. Demosthenes of Athens, 29, 58; Aristotle, Rhetorica, II, 21, p. 1394b, 11; Josephus, Bella Judiacum, 6,8). This is found in Acts 26:5, where the meaning is strengthened by the addition of anwqen. In Justin God's proginwskein is Hid foreknowledge (Apol. I, 28, 2 etc.) and the proegnwsmenoi are believers (Apol. I, 45, 1 etc.). The polemic against determinism, however, shows that the OT view has been abandoned (Dial., 140, 4). As One who simply knows beforehand, God is called prognwstv in Apol., I, 44, 11 etc. as is also Christ in Dial., 35, 7; 82, 1. There is also reference to prophetic foreknowledge in Apol., I, 43, 1; 49, 6 etc. Tatian, of Syria, in Oratio ad Graecos, 19, 3, speaks of Apollo in the same terms, so that what we have here is the Greek understanding."

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Edited by: Gerhard Kittel, Translated by: Geoffery W. Bromiley, Vol. V, prognwskein, p. 457, Rudolph Bultmann commenting.

Instead of engaging my points you ignore, mock them as funny, and cut and paste out of commentary as if it were scripture.

What's funny? You have offered your "opinion", that's all. No scripture, no commentary, nothing from the original language of the scriptures to back anything of what you have said. I have!

You have received sound biblical exegesis.

"Exegesis (/ˌɛksɪˈdʒiːsɪs/; from the Greek ἐξήγησις from ἐξηγεῖσθαι, "to lead out") is a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, particularly a religious text. Traditionally the term was used primarily for work with the Bible; however, in modern usage "biblical exegesis" is used for greater specificity to distinguish it from any other broader critical text explanation."

Source

You have been proven wrong. And ignoring basic Greek defintions of words is sad.

Period.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,972
2,886
66
Denver CO
✟203,538.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Here is a helpful book that examines four different views:

https://www.amazon.com/Predestination-Free-Will-Sovereignty-Freedom/dp/0877845670

The Bible is filled with passages that require free will on the part of the audience.

Secondly the determinism required by Calvinism seems to make no account of the 1000s of accounts of free will. Thirdly, although it can state that "God is not the author of sin, on Calvinism it is hard to how see how God's sovereignty as a function of his might and control can allow for sin. Either it is God's will or it is not. We see a world filled with things that God abhors, so both inductively and abductively we find strong determinism found in Calvin to be incoherent.

Molinism seems to explain how God could create a world with free agents and also know that that world would result in accomplishing God's plan.

Predestination is a function of human free will accepting the truth of the gospel and freely choosing to follow the influence of the Holy Spirit. But God predestines worlds on this view. Once God actualizes (creates) a world then everything he's a free agents do will come to pass.

God's knowledge is prior to the events as a function of his omniscience but logically caused by the free choices of humans.
I believe that we mostly end up discussing semantics because the term "free" is both subjective and relative. When it's meaning is unclear and unsubstantiated it usually becomes an equivocation in the moral/immoral purview. Moreover, objectively speaking, it must be interpreted as a descriptive adjective since as a noun the term freewill would simply assert a premise of being free from something without any actual qualification as to what it is free from.

I personally believe that in the moral/immoral purview, the will is better described as subject to ignorance and knowledge of the Truth, which is why I do not find the term free agent a practical application as pertains to the moral/immoral dichotomy. For example it would be antithetical to assert that we are free agents while Christ is stating that the Truth will set you free. The non-committal posture of a free agent actually describes a state of duplicity between two Masters rather than any true form of freedom. This necessarily means that according to such a description, a free will could not be Eternal nor Godly and therefore only vanity, since the term "free" is actually an equivocation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I believe that we mostly end up discussing semantics because the term "free" is both subjective and relative. When it's meaning is unclear and unsubstantiated it usually becomes an equivocation in the moral/immoral purview. Moreover, objectively speaking, it must be interpreted as a descriptive adjective since as a noun the term freewill would simply assert a premise of being free from something without any actual qualification as to what it is free from.

I personally believe that in the moral/immoral purview, the will is better described as subject to ignorance and knowledge of the Truth, which is why I do not find the term free agent a practical application as pertains to the moral/immoral dichotomy. For example it would be antithetical to assert that we are free agents while Christ is stating that the Truth will set you free. The non-committal posture of a free agent actually describes a state of duplicity between two Masters rather than any true form of freedom. This necessarily means that according to such a description, a free will could not be Eternal nor Godly and therefore only vanity, since the term "free" is actually an equivocation.
This is not an argument used by any of the scholars.

Free agent means just what everyone takes it to mean.

The equivocation occurs when one uses the Calvinist definition "free," means, "under complete control of another person."

Now that is about as equivocal as one can get. And also means we now have to explain hundreds and even thousands of verses that imply freedom where God warns us to choose correctly or wisely, and to choose wisdom over folly.

On Arminianism and molinism we have to explain a few verses, on Open theism we have to explain a hundred, on Calvinism, thousands.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,972
2,886
66
Denver CO
✟203,538.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Free agent means just what everyone takes it to mean.
I'm not sure what you think free agent means to most people, but here is a common definition:
free a·gent
[frē ˈājənt]
NOUN
  1. a person who does not have any commitments that restrict their actions

Now here is the definition of equivocation:
e·quiv·o·ca·tion
[iˌkwivəˈkāSH(ə)n]
NOUN
  1. the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.
    "I say this without equivocation"
    synonyms: prevarication · vagueness · qualification · ambiguity · uncertainty · ambivalence ·
I said this in my prior post: I believe that we mostly end up discussing semantics because the term "free" is both subjective and relative. When it's meaning is unclear and unsubstantiated it usually becomes an equivocation in the moral/immoral purview.

So I notice you said this: And also means we now have to explain hundreds and even thousands of verses that imply freedom where God warns us to choose correctly or wisely, and to choose wisdom over folly.

We will find no scripture that says to choose wisdom over folly since a fool cannot conceivably choose or freely will himself to be wise. But when we view choices in the moral/immoral purview we are describing a choice between right and wrong. You probably should have said that God instructs us to choose Life by doing the law.

If you had said this, I would have pointed out that such a free will is an Old Testament form of righteousness, which according to the New Testament has revealed all men as corrupted with sin and unable to perform the law despite our sincere desire to do good and choose life. Hence Paul says:
Romans 7:23
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Above the term captivity is used which cannot denote freedom in the moral/immoral purview. Hence free will becomes an equivocation.
 
Upvote 0