God's election

Hello Arch :wavey:

I am sure that you know as well or better than I do brother that the majority Greek scholars do not agree with you on that. However the handful or so that do are all of Reformed but even then not all reformed Greek scholars agree with it either.

The simple fact is brother you can not find one lexicon that gives your rendition of the meaning to 'γινώσκω' even when corrisponding it the Hebrew word 'yada'.

 

Hi Allan! Good to hear from you. I guess you've got cold weather and perhaps snow in the almost-great-white north?

Actually, there are several lexicons that do, in fact, list προγινώσκω as to choose before hand. The Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon is only one such example. They define the word as "to select in advance." The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Kittel has a rather lengthy and arduous discussion but it all comes back to the nuance of the Greek, how it relates to the Hebrew (especially in the Septuagint), and how it is used by the New Testament authors.

An interesting note about προγινώσκω is that it is used in the apocryphal book of Judith to express exactly what I claim Paul is expressing. The nuance of the Judith passage refers to a predeterminative knowledge of God.

If προγινώσκω appeared without God Himself as the object or if it appeared in the passive I might be inclined to agree with you (?) and the others that claim it means to see before hand. However, especially because God is the object of the verb, it is best understand as God actually doing something, not witnessing or "understanding" something that will happen. It is best to see God actively doing something, because of all the usage, the Greek, and the Hebrew idiomatic ideas.

Many Blessings to you!

The Archangel

 

This is a classical logical fallacy. You can always find someone that supports a particular doctrine, but disagrees that a specific text is teaching it.

By contrast it is impossible in the area of Biblical studies (for those who believe in innerancy) to find a person who opposes a doctrine, but believes a specific text is teaching it: because they would no longer oppose it.

So the "Everyone that supports it is reformed, and some reformed don't support it" argument, is actually completely bogus.

 

Why is it that some believe that forms of ginwskw in Romans 8:29, Romans 11:2, and I Peter 1:2 have to mean that God "foresaw" autonomous actions, when other instances of ginwskw in the New Testament demonstrate personal relationship?

Many occurrences of forms of these words demonstrate personal relationship:

Did Joseph not know who Mary was, or did he not have a "relationship" with her?

Was Jesus not aware of their existence, or did He not have a relationship with them? Is not God omniscient?

Being espoused to Joseph, she obviously knew who he was. Could it be that she was referring to a personal "relationship"?

Does the Good Shepherd and His sheep simply know who each other are, or do they have a personal relationship?

Do the Father and the Son simply know who each other are, or do they have a personal relationship?

Should Philip after all this time simply known of His existence or known about Him, or should he have had a personal relationship?

Did the disciples simply know facts about the Holy Spirit, or did they have a personal relationship with Him?

Will people persecute the disciples because they do not know facts or the existence or concept of the Father and Jesus, or because they do not have a personal relationship with them?

Do the recipients of eternal life simply know about the Father and Jesus Christ, or do they have a personal relationship?

I would submit that when the Scriptures refer to someone knowing someone else (just as we would today in English), it refers to a "knowledge" more than one of existence or facts: one of personal knowledge through a familiarity, relationship, or experience. When Romans 8:29, Romans 11:2, and I Peter 1:2 speak of God foreknowing people (not foreknowing about people), it implies the same thing that we mean when we say that we know someone. Most of us know who the President of the U.S. is, but we do not know him. When God foreknew people, He chose outside time ("before the foundation of the world") to have a personal relationship with these people. In the "golden chain of redemption" in Romans 8, the ones that God foreknew (chose afore to enter into a relationship with), He predestined to sanctify, called, justified, and glorified.

 

Ok, I only skimmed over your earlier post and saw it speaking about 'know' and some other things. I 'assumed' your were speaking about it means to 'fore-love' and I was incorrect in that. I should have read more than just a quick skim. My appologies

However I am work and the best I can get from Louw-Nida is from the internet, as my home computer has all my reference books, but it still shows that 'foreknowledge' means:

The 27.8 and others at the end of the words refers to sections and subsections on the internet site for the different renderings of the word προγινώσκω.

I still don't see it stating to 'choose before hand' not that it doesn't but I just can't find it online.
Personally I have no issue with this rendering since it still conveys and maintains the context of the passage in question. It is the trying to make προγινώσκω mean forelove that is unaccaptable.

No doubt.

See, that is something I don't get either .. to 'see', as in having to look down time to find something.

I agree with you that God is not just 'witnessing' something that will happen but I think an argument can be made for 'understanding' something will happen since it must if it is His will to happen but is most likely in the symantics.

Agreed here, as I said above I 'assumed' incorrectly about your argument and stuck my foot in my mouth

quote]any Blessings to you!

The Archangel[/QUOTE]
And you to brother.

 

What is 'completely bogus' is the above, at least in relation to what 'I' was talking about :laugh:
It is 'not' impossible in the area of Biblical studies for a person to disagree with the rendering of a particular word that is, at times, incorrectly used to bolster a view. IF the meaning is opposed to their own understanding, then yes, they would or at least should change it.

There are many Reformed Greek scholars who state that foreknowledge means forelove and 'that' is not an agreed upon view by 'all' Reformed Greek scholars. That was what I was refering to as not being found in any lexicons.

 

See here is my point being made in spades.

The term 'knew' with respect to most of your quoted passages are between a man and woman and is a s*xual idiom but don't not reflect a 'relationship' in the manner you are presenting it.

Note here refer to the Judah and his sister-in-law:

Does this mean they had a meaningful or personal relationship? Not in the least but refers to the fact that he had s*x with her no more.

Or here:

Does this mean they had a personal relationship with her?

Not to meantion a multitude of others.

 

Allan,

Not to worry about the skimming thing. We all do it. I've had to re-read several posts many, many times before I can get my head around what it is saying...only to find my first reading was incorrect.

Louw-Nida section 30.100 details the definition I gave.

I'll freely admit it can mean to "know beforehand." The issue here is not only the base meaning of the word, it is also context. God never knows anything by experience (as in know beforehand). Again, since God is the object of the verb προγνώσκω in the passage in question and Romans 11:2, there can be no other conclusion that this is dealing with God's sovereign choosing.

As for your comment about "fore-loving." I'm not sure what to make of that. I don't think I'd argue for-loving from this passage. I could make a logical argument for fore-loving because of God freely choosing to set His love on individual (or group) so as to elect them. However, that would be for me (at this point in time) a logical argument.

Also, what do you mean by " to 'see', as in having to look down time to find something?" Do you agree with the "Looking through the corridors of time and electing those who would freely choose to believe" argument? (For the English Nazis out there, I know that should have all been hyphenated...I used the quotes so as not to hit the annoying dash 20 or so times). I'm not sure what you are saying you agree with or disagree with and why.

I hope you and yours are doing well.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

I made sure to quote only passages from the New Testament where the word translated know was a form of ginwskw. My point is that if one uses the word know, whether in English or in Greek, if the direct object is a person, then the connotation is one of personal relationship or intimacy of some kind, not mere cognizance or awareness of existence or facts. When God says "depart from me, for I never knew you" does it mean that God was not aware of the person's existence, or does it mean that He had no relationship with the person.

The same applies to foreknow. If the direct object is an action, then it means to "foresee" that it would occur. If the direct object is a person, then it means to fore-relate, fore-intimate, fore-love, etc. If I say that I know who the President is, then I am expressing cognizance. If I say that I know the President, then I have some kind of relationship.

 

Thanks, I'll look into it when I get home.

I'm not so sure I would agree that God can know nothing beforehand. If we are speaking of God's perfect knowledge, then God can and does know all things of everything both potential and real. I do believer there is a potential of things in the mind or knowledge of God but only before He has decreed. In scripture we have many passages which speak to God promising specific blessing and cursing depending on what the people will do. Both aspects are true, both are literally potential and just because God knows what 'will' happen does not negate the fact of the potential still existing - or IOW it does not mean that God lied concerning the other option not taken.

"I think" where we mess up in our theologies many times over is when we declare to know what God knew and how He knew it, when there in nothing God has given us in the scriptures to make any such ascertion. It is an argument not from scripture but a logical conclusion -based on 'our' theological understandings. It is not and should not be something any view is dogmatic about, but unfortunately isn't. What scripture tells us is 'that' He did know and even 'when' He knew it, but it never reveals 'what' or 'how' He knew it. However all theological systems hypothosize to some degree in this area, I included.

Agreed, but with the stipulation that since it is a logical argument another person can come to a different conclusion based upon their understanding.

I am saying I don't agree with God looking down time to see who will be saved and then electing them to salvation.

I also do not agree with the logical argument that God knows nothing unless He has decreed it. I believe, and as far as I willing to take it, is that God's knowledge works in conjunction with His decree.

This is from a post in a previous thread a ways back concerning my view of mans election:
1. God determined that salvation was to be by grace through faith. Man didn't get any say.
2. God determimed who would be saved (those of faith) and man didn't get any say.
3. God did not seek man's input (what God should do, where, why, and how).
4. Therefore man contributed nothing TO his election in the above sense.

It was God's choice that He would save and it was God's choice whom He would save. Now the issue of 'how' God determined to bring this into being or work this out, is a different subject

 

Judith is the example that is usually appealed to, but 9:6, merely says "..and thy judgments are in thy foreknowledge." The context of the passage is one of God determining the punishments in advance and them being prepared before they were enacted. But with that in mind, the judgments would certainly, then, be "in thy foreknowledge," because they were already known. BAG also appeals to Judith and then to Justin Martyr. But reference in Justin Martyr is one in which he is actually arguing against the philosophical interpetation that BAG is making. Irony of ironies!

Frankly, I've never seen the yada interpretation as affecting much for the non-Calvinist, being that the antecedent concept is "those who love God" in chapter 8, and unbelieving Israel in 11, both of which were chosen to receive the blessings mentioned in association with who they are. In other words, they are the recipients in association with their identity.

 

I don't see how or why. The word maintians its normal meaning. Are you saying that the word can't be used in association with humans knowing in advance, then? Humans are often the object of the verb, with no special meaning other than the normal one.

Otherwise it seems that you are saying that you simply can't accept the notion. That seems to be Kittel's position, since, after listing examples that are contrary, they simply assert their conclusion.

(Hope my tone does not sound combative. I'm just trying to be factual, not emotional.)

 

Well I am sorry to say but you are still incorrect.

The words definition does not state nor is ever translated as 'a relationship' or 'love'.
When Joseph did not 'know' Mary, that did not mean he did not have a relationship with her. The word is only used as s*xual idiom when speaking of a *relationship* but again, the word is never used or translated as 'a relationship' nor is it translated as 'love'.

What you are doing is trying to 'redefine' the word according to a theological view. What I mean by 'theological view' are those logical arguments that are used at times to illistrate a potentially 'implied' aspect, even though it is not the historical meaning of the words themselves. The problem with your position is that the word is not nor has ever been translated as such because that is not it's defintion.

 

You are misconstruing the inference. The idea of "knowing" in the Hebrew culture, is that of "two becoming one flesh". It is a spiritual union, not a mere physical act, as we mostly see it here in our modern Western culture.

This is exactly why rape is so wrong, and so devastating. If it was just a "punch on the arm", it would be nothing. So yes, when the men took the concubine, they forced an intimate spiritual union of "two becoming one" upon her.

 

Besides, the whole "foreknew" argument means nothing: it only says God knew them. It does not say God based his predestination of them upon some facts about them: it does not even imply it. In fact, the example with Jacob and Esau is meant to specifically exclude this possibility. God hated Esau, and loved Jacob, and not for anything that they later did, including "choosing" to have faith.

Something that would work much better, would be the simple interpretation that God "knew" who he was going to pick.

 

:laugh: Uh.. wrong. Look it up.
I'm not misconstruing anything but it is apparent you wish to add to the definition that which never has been apart of it.

The word as a s*xual idiom is used to refer to a s*xual union/act btween two people. Though it 'could' infer the spiritual aspect, it must be remebered that it is only due to the s*xual act that had been committed. Again remember it was used as s*xaul idiom and not as a spiritual inference. However it is more important to note that it never has historically been used or translated to mean 'love' or even your new defintion of 'spiritual union'.

 

Those arguing for or against election are missing a key component of God's nature. God is not only omniscient and omnipresent, he's also omnitemporal. That is, He exists in all times, and in all places in all times, at once. The concept of "foreknowlege" and "predestination" is alient to the existence of an Almighty God. They exist only to us, who are limited to a linear existence on a timeline.

I'm in the process of writing a paper on this subject, which will likely take years for me to complete.

 

I've argued this same point here over the years, that these phrases preceded by time language are actually anthropomorphic in nature given to finite beings bound by time. I've been called a Methodist There is no "fore" or "pre" with an omnipresent God, but this is how we must view God as we cannot fathom anyone existing in all points in time at the same time.

 

Ding ding! On the money! Good comment, Webdog!