Acts 13:48 My Favorite Verse in the Bible

Spurgeon's take

Our text begins by the expression, “Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate,” and many senses have been given to this word “foreknow” though in this case one commends itself beyond every other. Some have thought that it simply, means that God predestinated men whose future history ho foreknow. The text before us cannot be so understood, because the Lord foreknows the history of every man, and angel, and devil. So far as mere prescience goes, every man is foreknown, and yet no one will assert that all men are predestinated to be conformed to the image of the Lord Jesus. But, it is further asserted that the Lord foreknow who would exercise repentance, who would believe in Jesus, and who would persevere in a consistent life to the end. This is readily granted, but a reader must wear very powerful magnifying spectacles before he will be able to discover that sense in the text. Upon looking carefully at my Bible again I do not perceive such a statement. Where are those words which you have added, “Whom he did foreknow to repent, to believe, and to persevere in grace?” I do not find them either in the English version or in the Greek original. If I could so read them the passage would certainly he very easy, and would very greatly alter my doctrinal views; but, as I do not find those words there, begging your pardon, I do not believe in them. However wise and advisable a human interpolation may be, it has no authority with us; we bow to holy Scripture, but not to glosses which theologians may choose to put upon it. No hint is given in the text of foreseen virtue any more than of foreseen sin, and, therefore, we are driven to find another meaning for the word. We find that the word “know” is frequently used in Scripture, not only for knowledge, but also for favor, love, and complacency. Our Lord Jesus Christ will say, in the judgment, concerning certain persons, “I never knew you,” yet in a sense he knew them, for he knows every man; he knows the wicked as well as the righteous; but there the meaning is, “I never knew you in such a respect as to feel any complacency in you or any favor towards you.” See also John 10:14, 15, and 2 Timothy 2:19. In Romans 11:2, we read, “God hath not cast away his people which he foreknow,” where the sense evidently has the idea of fore-love; and it is so to be understood here. Those whom the Lord looked upon with favor as he foresaw them, he has predestinated to he conformed to the image of his Son. They are, as Paul puts it in his letter to the Ephesians, “predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will.”

 

So "according to" means "on the basis of"? Are you sure?

 

If God's mind holds a "picture" of creation as it is (or how it will be) then that "picture" of creation is his plan for creation. It is how he's decided that it will be. He doesn't picture creation as it is, and then plan to make it that way.

First of all, it seems to me that you are mixing up knowledge with intelligence. They are not the same thing. Of course, God's plan is based in his infinite intelligence (or perhaps wisdom is a better word). It is God's infinite wisdom that ensures that his plan is the very best possible plan. But his knowledge of how creation will be is based in his wise plan for creation.

.

Yes, exactly, but by using the word thought you are talking about foreknowledge in the sense of forethought, rather than foreknowledge in the sense of foresight. Forethought is much closer to the Biblical definition of foreknowledge as it refers to God than foresight is. Forethought means "to plan in advance", as opposed to foresight, which means "the act of looking forward." In eternity, in regards to creation, there is nothing for God to look forward to except what he himself has planned, because in eternity, that's the only way creation exists--as God's plan. The plan exists in eternity, but creation doesn't, because creation has a beginning; the plan for creation, since it exists in God's eternal mind, doesn't have a beginning.

Generally, I'd agree with that, except that I'd quibble with a couple of things. I'd say the plan is the same thing as the will, mostly because I define God's will as what God had decided to do, his intent, his purpose (and BTW, I just looked it up, and my dictionary defines it that way, too. I suspect you are using another definition.) I would also say that God accomplishes his plan both by direct action (his power) and purposeful inaction.

The bottom line is that we can't think of God as seeing what will happen in history, and then basing his plan or his choices (same thing, BTW) on that, because what will happen in history only exists, in eternity, as a plan in God's mind.

 

What are you saying foreknowledge means?

 

Isaac Watts

 

Your knowledge is limited, then. Look it up in a Biblical Greek dictionary.

Ginosko

1. to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel, to become known
2. to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of, to understand
3. Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman
4. to become acquainted with, to know

The context whom He foreknew makes it clear that it is intimate personal knowledge. Just as the context in the following dictates cases where it means to know as in perceive, or know as in know intimately:

 

Indeed...it is as you said. And this can be seen in many places.

Jer. 13:11
"He will make them cling to him that they might be for him a people, and a name, and a praise, and a glory"

Deut 10
14Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.
15Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day.

Deut 7
6For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
7The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:
8But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

 

Boy, did we ever give this topic a work out. Check out the old thread.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=30988

 

Let's take this little puppy for a walk, shall we??

I will agree that those whom God foreknew, He determinded to be conformed into the likeness of His Son and all that they will be in Him is a completed fact in the mind and intent of God.

But my question(s) to you (specific or general) is:
1. Clear intimate personal knowledge of what?
His plan for those He chose? This obviously isn't what scripture is stating.
Or those 'whom' He chose? If this (which it is ) there "seems" to be an issue as -

There does not need to be any 'intimate' foreknowledge if God choose us out of a group of damned people for no other reason than He wanted to because there was nothing 'intimate' about why He chose you.
This BTW is commonly known as random choosing.

2. Or - did He love you before He choose you out of a people of rebellion?
2 (a) If so, (which I doubt but you never know) Why did He love you when you hated Him and chose to live apart from Him?

3. Or - Did God choose you because He had a purpose in choosing you and therefore loved you?

Now if you will contend that God had a purpose in choosing each person and therein is the intimacy'; then you have now placed some merit upon yourself that God would choose the 'whom' (those elected) over all others (the damned).

3 (a) If He chose you because He has a purpose in choosing you - does God love 'you' or does God love for you come from you fulfilling His purpose and plan? See If purpose comes before His Love then His love for you is tertiary or an accompanyment to His purpose.

Just a question so don't go hostile, Ok?

What I have seen and read thus far in the Calvinist mind set is (and I can be very wrong here) Gods Sovereignty is before Gods Love or righteousness (with regard to His nature and attributes), when in fact they are absolute in equality in God, therefore in His plan and purpose as well. Each one defines and guides the other while being an absolute and inherent part of each action but also they are seperate and distinct attributes of God.
- Just a note - I have been told by staunch Calvinists from two well known website/forums - that Gods Soverienty is Gods greatest attribute and all others are defined by it.

 

I think you're right, Tom. God doesn't change Himself. He changes us.

I heard Adrian Rodgers say that. He was a wonderful preacher. Our loss is heaven's gain.
BTW, that quote originated with God.:thumbs:

 

Hello Allan,

Where you been man????? I guess we all have a life that we deal with aside from the BB.

1st ..it is not a puppy, its more like a lion. Wait...its more like a...aaaaw oh never mind.

Indeed, but please do not limit God to this one thing. Is there a Kingdom? There must be a King. Is there a domain? There must be one the rules the domain. I understand your post for this is used to let the freewill doctrine work. I do not mean to pick on you, or maybe I should say just on you, but this statement used by freewillers does not bring glory to God, it limits God. God is not just the Finisher of our faith, He is the Author of our faith as well...Heb 12..12 something. Author as in writer out the story..controling the outcome. Another word to use here from the greek word, would be captain....which gives you that idea of King over a domain. So...for you to only limit God to the END of His work, is wrong. He determinded it ALL. He is King.

I do not have a lot of time today, my wife has me working. I will not address the 1,2 and 3...but cut to it by saying..2 I mean, if these 3 are the only I can choose from I would have to pick 2. But I do not think this thread has address the idea in the right way. Let me ask it this way. Do I have sound on my TV to watch WVU crush the "other" team, because I have a picture to watch? I would say, no. The cable that runs into my house, brings both the picture and the sound at the same time. This is the same with the attributes of God. The come in a pack, ...this pack is GOD. But there is one thing that binds all of this together.

In Gods Kingdom Gods is Sovereign..to pull from the last of your post. Not sure who said this to you, but they have the right idea. The attributes of God is held together under one controling factor. It is the glue. It is GOD! God reigns!! God is over His domain. Lets look at a attribute to see this clear. Is God love? Yes indeed. God is not just loving, He is the very nature of love from where we get all love. If God was not love, we would not know of love.

Now look at love beside Gods Sovereignty. Gods Sovereignty must be in place in order for God to be God. He is the Great Sovereign. You can use this name (Great Sovereign) in place of God and still have the same idea.

Can the same be said of love? We can remove love as a attribute of God, and we still have a god. Not the God of the Bible, but still we have a god. We cannot do this with Gods reign. If God is not Sovereign then how can we count on Gods love? If God has not the power to rule and control, and give His love, when He wishes, then Gods love is no good to us. Each of Gods attributes are just like this. Sovereign GOD is our Lord!! A Kingdom, with a King.

Ok...I would say it another way...but that works for me.



In Christ.......James

 

Hey James :wavey:
Man have I been busy. I stayed up all night just to try to catch up on somethings AND the BB to see what was on going. Though there seems to have been a intense resurrection of C/A that I only remember on the College Campuses.

If that was limiting God James so does the scripture as I was paraphrasing Rom 8:29-30. Does these verses limit God to only being the finisher of our faith? I didn't think so. Free-will doctrine ?? This is the same verses used by Calvinist to make their doctrine work - we are the inverse and converse of each other but which is which :laugh: I know you purposely pick on me but that is ok cause I have lots friut (or is it fruity - either way God loves me)

Of course, it's the cable company - Duh!! :laugh: :BangHead:

Lets see a being with supernatural power that has no sovereinty, can he be a god. Umm, yes he can. Take for instance the god of this world, Satan. God calls him that, yet he has not soverienty. He is the same with regard to love, since there is none there yet he is still considered or called a god (albeit of this world) according to scripture.

As far as I know an attribute is not the same as His essense but are aspects of His nature or charactor. God is absolute and perfect and therefore even His attributes are such. No where in scripture is there ANY reference to Gods soverienty being His primary attribute or charactoristic. But we do see it as one amoung many of His attributes along with Love, Righteousness, and Holiness. To say any individual charactoristic is greater than any of the other (again there is no scriptue to this) would mean He could also violate any of His other attributes with no impunity. This includes Him Holiness as it is subordinate to His sovereinty nothing He can do is unholy since His greater attribute is the definer the others. So he can order the rape of all women and still be holy unto Himself. He Justice becomes just as meaningless as He can promise anything and lie about without being guilty of anything. We can keep going here but you get the point. ALL His attributes are absolute and equal thus God can not go against His own nature or being.

 

The context permits no debate. It is intimate personal knowledge of whom, a person, as in "God knew me before I was even born" and as opposed to "depart from me you who do iniquity, I never knew you". That latter quote, by the way, is the perfect contrast to the former. Jesus obviously couldn't have meant "I never knew what you were going to do" or "I never knew about my plan for you". He said "He never KNEW them" with "know" being the same thing the saved are those God foreknew.

Those whom he foreknew. Not those whom he forknew some things about. Not those for whom He foreordained a plan (that part is said when the text goes on to say those He foreknew the predestined).

 

Actually it does allow for much debate for it has been going on for 500 years or so and no one hase proved clearly or significantly their VIEW concerning what Gods foreknowledge entails but that He foreknew 'something' about the 'whom'.

You are conflagating two positions of scripture here in your statement which makes it inaccurate. God knowing you before you were born is in regard to God knowing EVERY individual He has created. Do you remember He knows every hair, every sin and even the intent of every heart. That is quite personal AND it is on a whole wide scale of ALL people. The other position you ascribe out of context to this one is Jesus stating I never 'knew' (having a relationship with) you. For you to put the two together being that God had a relationship with you before you were born would equate to you being saved BEFORE and AFTER your physical birth. Yet we know that till we believe we are enimies of Christ and His wrath abides on us.

But you still did not answer my question of What did God foreknow??

Really, If Jesus is God are you saying that He could NOT know what one was going to do?? That aside, I agree and so does Most non-Calvinist that this knowing is the same as the 'know' in fore'know' with regard to a relationship. But as my question stated it is the WHAT did God foreknow that is the issue?
The rest ( beyond knowing that God knows those who will be saved and predestining them or determining what God desires for them) is just added conjecture and speculation on both sides of the issue as NO MAN knows what God Knew at His foreknowing. To try and maintain your view as the truth is plain silliness since both sides have viable ASSUMPTIONS with nothing more that speculative postulations with regard to what God actually foreknew.
God knows everything and everything is known to God.

 

It's the wrong question. This verse says whom, not what. The phrase "whom He foreknew" is not open to be misinterpreted as "what he knew about". You can rewrite it and ask irrelevant questions if you want, but that's what it says - "whom He foreknew".

The context is also limiting. Whom He foreknew, He predstined. Whom He predestined He called. Whom He called He justified.

Now - are you going to say that God has justifed all men? Of course not. Those He justified are those He called, predestined and foreknew (in reverse order).

The same applies to "I never knew you". Obviously God knew ABOUT everyone. But there are only some He foreknew intimately (the subset addressed above as called, justifed and glorified), and there are some He never knew (the ones he told to depart from Him). This demands the interpretation of personal relationship. If it were about knowing ABOUT people, then it could not describe only that subset of people who are predestined, called, justifed and glorified. If "I never knew you" was about never knowing ABOUT people, then it would mean there are things God does not know, which is impossible.

What one has to get past is the notion that just because you know everything about a person, you know them in the same way as is being described in "Those whom He foreknew". This is foreknowledge in the sense of intimate friendship. I can know everything about someone but that doesn't mean he's my friend.

Yes, the debate rages on year after year, but that doesn't make the text any less clear. It just proves that men stick to their guns no matter what the text clearly says.

 

I agree the text is limiting and have stated such. Also the question is not wrong since you answered it. The 'what' IS the 'whom' as the text plainly states. Now with this said, I want to revisit my question and add your peice to it, not to prove what God 'knew' but that there is more to this 'foreknow' than any of us understand or could actually comprehend.

What did God foreknow? It is the whom or those who will be saved. We agree here.

You stated "Those He justified are those He called, predestined and foreknew (in reverse order)"; so I will take a little license here to reverse it, if I may.
So God justifies the whom because He calls them, and they are called because God predetermind to call those whom He foreknew. So God foreknew the whom as in what, existence?? We know God did not from the first create some for Heaven and some for Hell but that man fell. The mere FACT scripture states Gods foreknowledge of the 'whom' implies He knows more than I merely would come to exist.

If God foreknew I would exist and scripture also gives clear rendering (we both agree) He ALSO knew I (and ALL MANKIND) would in Adam Fall AND of ourselves stay fallen without His intervention (thus we have scripture stating Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world). That so far is knowing more than their mere existence but implies their lives for He knew they would Never seek Him in this state. We don't know more (that I can think of right now) than these things about what God foreknew but the implications are that God foreknew more than just we would exist and fall. Especially in light of scripture saying God 'knows' the end from the beginning. So to says God choose to not know more than the fact we exist fall limits Gods since scripture does not state that is all God foreknew of especially in light of His knowledge we would not seek Him but would need a saviour and His intervention. Do you see what I am saying. Gods forknowledge is greater than the Calvinist states (that God knows man would exist and be fallen but nothing more) and still Gods foreknowledge is greater than what the non-calvinist says (God knows man would exist and that without God intervening man would be comdemned).

WE know nothing about the mind or desire of God unless God specifically lays it out for us and even then it is a shadow of the whole of His knowledge and how things are seen by Him IN IT. So I agree the text here limits it to the whom that is apart of Gods forknowledge and not the specific what He or why He knew it. All we know is that the whom (saved) is spoken of here as a part of the whole that He did foreknow.

Here is an excert from Albert Barnes Notes. He was Calvinstic in belief (a 4 pointer). A little history of him:

I bring him up because of his thoughts on this. Though still considered a 4 point Calvinst I like His what he says here with regard to foreknowledge from Barns Notes on the NT: