Deathblow to Arminian "Foreknowledge"

Omniscience encompasses foreknowledge, and is the greater knowledge, not the lesser.

 

'Omnscience encompasses foreknowedge and is greater knowledge not the lesser.'

This kind of statement gives me and idea of how little basic Christian theology a person understands. All of the triune God's attributes are infinite and not to be articulated with the mouth as though some are greater than others or as though, for example, that sovereignty supercedes His other glorious attributes, such as justice, mercy and love. All must be kept in balance, otherwise, we portray a distorted view of Almighty God.

 

"Foreknowledge" comes from the Greek word "Prognosis" which is pertaining to what God KNOWS BEFORE we came along, which is EVERYTHING. Certainly this includes how His creatures would use their moral responsible choice (which God SOVEREIGNLY gave them) in response to His Sovereign drawing and convicting work, either in receiving Him or rejecting Him.

"Predestinate" comes from the Greek word "Proorizo" which has the idea of "marking out beforehand" or to "foreordain". Certainly "foreknow" (or "foreknowledge") is NOT a synonym of "predestinate" or else a verse like Romans 8:29 would be a tautology: "For whom God did PREDESITINATE, He did PREDESTINTATE.."

 

You obviously do not understand that Omniscience is all inclusive, and that foreknowledge is included in it, not separate from it.

Which of God's attributes does he give away in the manner one gives away a commodity?

Which of your attributes do you give away in the manner one gives away a commodity

I know of none!

 

HOw do you know what God would do if he wanted to do something? YOU amaze me. You have such inside track to the mind of God but you won't share with us how you got it. The rest of us are just struggling along with his word, thinking all along that he meant what he said.

Seriously Ray, you make so many unbelievable statements it is frustrating. This but another attempt to use "autocratic" a word that Scripture never uses and a word that we never use. You are off base. The last few weeks, I have been preaching a series on Eph 1:3-14 and related themes. Tonight, I Will deal with Rom 8:28-30. IN My study, I have been running the Scripture through the grid of the thoughts that you and others have put forth on here. I have become increasingly disheartened at the utter hopelessness for those who reject the teaching of God's word. I am not implying that you are not saved. I am saying that you have rejected the clear teaching of God's word because of your preconceived notion.

YOU GUys are doing here again with foreknowledge. Study it out and you will find that it deals with the loving choice of God, not with simple prescience. It cannot deal with simple prescience or it would make no sense. God has "prescience" about everyone. There is nothing he does not "know beforehand." Yet in Rom 8:28-30, to reduce foreknowledge to prescience is to make mincement of the text. It just won't work.

 

Pastor Larry,
You stated: "Yet in Rom 8:28-30, to reduce foreknowledge to prescience is to make mincement of the text. It just won't work."

But doesn't changing the definition of FOREKNOW, which means "to know beforehand", to "CHOOSE beforehand" also make "mincement of the text"? Foreknowledge certainly involves MORE than "mere prescience" in THIS passage, but it certainly includes prescience by definition. On the other hand, "proginosko" does NOT mean "fore-choose".

 

Doubting Thomas,

Actually the word proginosko DOES mean to choose beforehand.

This meaning fo the word comes from the usage of the word ginosko as it is used in the LXX to translate a hebrew word which denotes an intimately relational knowing. To enter into relationship with someone before hand in this case is essentially to choose that person as a subject of relationship.

 

Here are the two words from Strong's Greek Dictionary. # 4267 is the word used in Romans 8:29.

4267
proginwskw
proginosko
prog-in-oce'-ko

from pro - pro 4253 and ginwskw - ginosko 1097; to know beforehand, i.e. foresee:--foreknow (ordain), know (before).

4268
prognwsiV
prognosis
prog'-no-sis

from proginwskw - proginosko 4267; forethought:--foreknowledge.

My prognosis, however, is that this won't make a difference in the debate.

 

There is a great difference between what God "wills" (sovereign decree) and what God "wills" (emotional desire) Often, the thing we do as the american church is say that if God is soveriegn than he is emotionally neutered. Like either he is sweet or cold. God is righteous, and he is merciful, He is just and the one who justifies. (See also Romans 3:26) God can soverignly ordain something and yet be emotional over it. He does not delight in the death of the wicked, yet wicked people die. He ordained that Christ would die on the cross to pay for the sins of the elect, yet was moved when it happened. He can ordain those who will be saved and yet the angels in heaven rejoice when one of his children comes to Him. Jesus can wait for Lazarus to die, then weep when he gets there to him. (Must I beat this horse to death?) My point is, that there is a difference between what God wills (decreed) and what he wills (desires). 1 Tim 2:4 when he says "who desires all men to be saved." Could be interpreted that God decreed all men to be saved, but that would prove untrue, because all men are not saved. Or it could be interpreted that he desires all men to be saved, and that lines up with other scriptures. It does not mean that all men will be saved, nor does it mean that God ordained all men to be saved (that is obvious) but that God can ordain for some to be saved and yet greive over the death of the wicked.

 

It indicates an intimacy, which is not just "prognosis" (knowing about something beforehand). This is all so ridiculously obvious that one must apply a good deal of effort to miss it, IMO.

 

Yes, and He cried in spite of the fact that He fully intended to bring Lazarus back to life. IMO that says as much about His compassion for the grief of others who loved Lazarus as for the loss of Lazarus himself. Isn't that fascinating? I think so.

Absolutely. A triple amen to that.

 

That is not "changing the definition." That is what the definition is. Proginosko means to choose, to set special love on, to establish a special relationship with. Perhaps a little later this morning I will post a number of texts that show this to be the case.

 

Yelsew do you always follow your own advice?

I think not.

(Heb 10:25 KJV) Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

 

Hardsheller, if this is a flaw you see in me, it is mis-observed.

No where in any of my posts have I stated that I do not assemble with other believers. I do in fact assemble with others on a regular basis, at least twice a week. What I have stated repeatedly is that I do not join, in the legal sense of the word, any denomination or congregation, and am therefore non-affiliated. There is a significant difference.

Nowhere in scripture does it say or even imply that "legal" membership in a structured organization is required or even desired. I am not compelled by the Holy Spirit to do so, therefore I don't.

 

The clear pattern of Scripture is public and formal affiliation with a local church that is baptistic in doctrine and practice. To say that you are "not compelled by the Holy Spirit to do so" seems rather trite in view of the fact that the Holy Spirit leads us through the word of God to be in obedience.

 

Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

Said another way, "Now that you know Americans, and you are known by Americans, why do you turn back to your communist ways? Same principle as what Paul was saying to the Galations.

 

Excuse me Pastor Larry, but I have found no clear path in scriptures that say what you say.

Perhaps you could post those scriptures that say you must legally join a congregation or hold affiliation with a denomination? In fact you might even post the scriptures that speak of denominations.

 

Yelsew - If you do not join a local congregation in the "legal" sense but claim you affiliate in the "Biblical" sense does this mean that you willingly subject yourself to "Biblical Church Discipline" in the particular local congregation where you attend?