Opinions please.

[David777]

Dear Iceman,

You said,

"8:29. The verb progignoskein here, as in 11:2 reflects a Biblical idiom where "fore-kbowledge" connotes "choice" and "election" (cf. Gen 18:19, Jer 1:5, Hos 13:5, Amod 3:2 and 1QH 9:29-30."

The highlighted section is what I am concerned with.

Foreknew in fact does not mean election or choice, please look it up.

I looked up "foreknew" in the Greek and it means "to know before".

This is the precise meaning of the word in Romans 11:2 and Romans 8:29.

It fits the context perfectly. Paul is referring to the Jews.

It definitely is not being used in the context of election regarding Jew and Gentile.

 

[james g]

Romans Verse-by-Verse
William R. Newell
Verse 29: For whom He foreknew He also foreordained conformed to the image of His
Son, that He might be the First-born among many brethren.
For whom He foreknew—This for looks back at the word purpose, and opens out that great
word before us.
And first we have, foreknew. This foreknowledge of God.—what is it? In seeking its meaning
we dare not turn to men’s ideas, but to Scripture only.186 In Amos 1:2 to 2:8, Jehovah gives in detail
His exact knowledge of the sins and of the coming judgments of Syria, the Philistines, Tyre, Edom,
Ammon, Moab; and then also of Israel. But to Israel He says, “You only have I known, of all the
families of the earth.” What did such language mean? That He had acquaintanceship with “the
whole family which He brought up out of the land of Egypt.” Of Israel again—especially the godly
Remnant, He speaks: “God did not cast off His people which He foreknew.” Now, even of Christ
it is written in I Peter 1:20, “He was foreknown indeed before the foundations of the world.” This
is the same Greek word as in Romans 8:29. Now Christ was the Eternal Son of God, the Eternal
Word. But, “The Word become flesh”: that occurred when He came into the world. And as thus
manifested, “He was foreknown.” It was not a mere Divine pre-knowledge that He would be
manifested; but a pre-acquaintanceship before His manifestation,—with Him as such! From which
“foreknowledge,” or pre-acquaintance, flowed the most intimate prophecies of Him, His lowly
coming, His rejection, and the manner of His death. All this is wrapped up in this word
foreknowledge!
He also foreordained—Foreknowledge is first—by the God that “calleth the things not being,
being” (4.17, Gr.). Then, the marking out a destiny befitting such foreknown ones. The words “to
be” need not be here: but we may read, foreordained conformed to the image of His Son. Here
we come to words of plain meaning, but limitless reach! Christ the Son, for whom and by whom
all things were made; Christ the Son, the appointed Heir of all things; Christ the Son—center of
all the Divine counsels! Christ the Son, God’s Son, the Son of His love! Conformed to His
image,—nothing lacking, nothing short: like Christ—conformed to His image: in glory, in love, in
holiness, in beauty, in grace, in humility, in tenderness, in patience! Our very bodies at last alive
unto God! For we know that this also shall be: “When Christ, our life shall be manifested, then
shall ye also with Him be manifested in glory!” And thus to be with Christ, like Him forever and
ever! Only God can show, and only simple faith respond to, grace such as this!
That He might be the First-born among many brethren—In Christ, like Christ, brethren
there with the First-born! This is the highest place, shall we not say, that God could give creatures!
God puts us there: and of Christ it is written, “He is not ashamed to call them brethren”; because
we are “all of one with Christ! (Heb. 2:11). “This, in fact, is the thought of grace, not to bless us
only by Jesus, but to bless us with Him”.
Verse 30: And whom He foreordained, them He also called—Since we are here considering
God’s unfolding of His purpose (of verse 28), we must regard called from God’s side,—who counts
things not being, being. Further, calling is here that determination by God of the sphere and mode
of life those should have whom He foreknew and foreordained. This “calling” belongs to Eternity
past; as “calling,” for example in II Thessalonians 2:14; Gal. 1:6, belongs to experience in present
time.
And whom He called, them He also justified—God does not here speak of that entering upon
justification by faith—of which this Epistle is full. For only believing souls are accounted righteous,
justified, as we well know. Yet in God’s counsels are all His elect already before Him, accounted
righteous—justified. This is wonderful truth: and its power to stay the soul will be seen in the last
part of this great Chapter!
And whom He justified, them He also glorified—This is the necessary end of this amazing
series—glorified! Thus must these foreknown ones be ever, before God, since God foreknew them
in Christ. None has yet been glorified in manifestation. Indeed, Christ Himself has not yet been
“manifested”; although He has entered into His glory. And it is in this glorified Christ that God
chose us long ago,—before the foundation of the world! God, who could thus connect us with
Christ, can also say of us, I have glorified them! And so the saints go on to a glory already true of
them by the word of their God!
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for
us, who is against us? 32 He that even spared not His own
Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not also
with Him freely give us all things? 33 Who shall lay
anything to the charge of God’s elect? [It is] God that
justifieth: who is he that condemneth? 34 Christ Jesus
[God’s own Son] is the one that died,—yea rather, that was
raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who
is also making intercession for us! 35 Who shall separate
us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or anguish, or
persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36
Even as it is written,
On account of thee we are killed all day long:
We were reckoned as sheep for the slaughter.
37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors
through Him that loved us!
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor
angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to
come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other
created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of
God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Concerning this great passage, Bengel says, “We can no farther go, think, wish.” Olshausen
emphasizes “the profound and colossal character of the thought”; and Brown says: “This whole
passage, to verse 34 and even to the end of the chapter, strikes all thoughtful interpreters and readers
as transcending almost everything in language.”
Paul here arrives at the mountain-height of Christian position! And that, so to speak, by way
of experience. He does, indeed, in the word “us” bring all the saints with him. There was first our
state of awful guilt—and Christ’s work for us, and justification thereby. Then came the knowledge
of indwelling sin, and the Spirit’s work within us, and deliverance from sin’s power thereby. Now
he has arrived upon the immovable mountain-top of Divine sovereign election, and he sees God
Himself for us! Not at all meaning, here, God merely on our side in our struggles, but God’s uncaused
unalterable attitude with respect to those in Christ. God is for them: nothing in time or in eternity
to come has anything whatever to do with matters here. Our weak hearts, prone to legality and
unbelief, with great difficulty receive these mighty words: God is for us. Place the emphasis here
where God places it—on this great word “for.” God is for His elect. They have failed, but He is
for them. They are ignorant, but He is for them. They have not yet brought forth much fruit, but
He is for them. If our hearts once surrender to the stupendous fact that there are those whom God
will eternally be for, that there is an electing act and attitude of God, in which He eternally commits
Himself to His elect,—without conditions, without requirements; whose lives do not at all affect
the fact that God is for them—then we shall be ready to magnify the God of all grace!

 

[Iceman]

Dear Davidsevensevenseven.

You said,

"8:29. The verb progignoskein here, as in 11:2 reflects a Biblical idiom where "fore-kbowledge" connotes "choice" and "election" (cf. Gen 18:19, Jer 1:5, Hos 13:5, Amod 3:2 and 1QH 9:29-30."

The highlighted section is what I am concerned with.

Foreknew in fact does not mean election or choice, please look it up.

I looked up "foreknew" in the Greek and it means "to know before".

This is the precise meaning of the word in Romans 11:2 and Romans 8:29.

It fits the context perfectly. Paul is referring to the Jews.

It definitely is not being used in the context of election regarding Jew and Gentile.

I must say I find this more than a little insulting.

You're dismissing my opinion by, what appears to be, a presumption you can speak Greek by looking up a lectionary (pro tip. You can't). I have done my time with my nose buried in Greek text books, I do know there are better ways of arguing about what a word means than "Go check a lectionary". Of course, you're also presuming I didn't take the time to check what I was writing first. I did. I check both lectionaries and commentaries. Because I'm anal like that.

Being able to "look up" words in a lectionary does not mean you actually know what the Greek says, after all, words in a Greek sentence get their meaning from how the function just as much as the actual word itself.

Unless you're willing to actually engage in a Greek hermaneutic, I would suggest don't go looking things up in a lectionary. It doesn't actually help you unless you know your Greek to begin with.

I stand by what I said. Perhaps you can put in the effort to come up with a viable and sound argument other than "Go look it up."

You are wrong about the context of Romans being for the Jews. I don't know of any credible scholars that actually support that claim. Maybe you could name a few. Please give reasons for context other than "This is my own personal opinion, therefore I'm right." Perhaps you could look at historical critical commentaries or literary critical commentaries first.

You may also want to ensure that your argument is support by the corpus of Pauline work, before suggesting something aberrant to the entire work of the Apostle to the Gentiles.

 

[David777]

Dear Iceman.

You stated,

I must say I find this more than a little insulting.

"You're dismissing my opinion by, what appears to be, a presumption you can speak Greek by looking up a lectionary (pro tip. You can't). I have done my time with my nose buried in Greek text books, I do know there are better ways of arguing about what a word means than "Go check a lectionary". Of course, you're also presuming I didn't take the time to check what I was writing first. I did. I check both lectionaries and commentaries. Because I'm anal like that."

Why do you feel insulted my friend, there is no need to take a different opinion, personally. Forgive your brother in Christ how many times Mr Iceman. Relax, others will differ in how they comprehend the text.

I will not retract, Romans is very clear regarding "For those whom He foreknew, He also... "

I will not subscribe to a traditional theological treatment of this passage. The traditional rendering of this passage is incorrect.

The meaning of Paul's use of foreknew

 

[Iceman]

You stated,
Why do you feel insulted my friend, there is no need to take a different opinion, personally. Forgive your brother in Christ how many times Mr Iceman. Relax, others will differ in how they comprehend the text.

I will not retract, Romans is very clear regarding "For those whom He foreknew, He also... "

I will not subscribe to a traditional theological treatment of this passage. The traditional rendering of this passage is incorrect.

The meaning of Paul's use of foreknew

You are entitled to your opinion by all means. But you cannot dismiss the opinion of others with the premise "I am right, therefore they are wrong" If you do not wish to engage in the debate properly, then there is no need to try and challenge the views of anyone. I am happy to explain my point of view soundly and viably, but as you have already decided, then I believe there is no room in your mind for debate.

I am happy to agree to disagree of course, but please do not be so dismissive when you are not ready to engage with the discussion.

 

[jiggyfly]

You are entitled to your opinion by all means. But you cannot dismiss the opinion of others with the premise "I am right, therefore they are wrong" If you do not wish to engage in the debate properly, then there is no need to try and challenge the views of anyone. I am happy to explain my point of view soundly and viably, but as you have already decided, then I believe there is no room in your mind for debate.

I am happy to agree to disagree of course, but please do not be so dismissive when you are not ready to engage with the discussion.

I stand by what I said. Perhaps you can put in the effort to come up with a viable and sound argument other than "Go look it up."

You are wrong about the context of Romans being for the Jews. I don't know of any credible scholars that actually support that claim. Maybe you could name a few. Please give reasons for context other than "This is my own personal opinion, therefore I'm right." Perhaps you could look at historical critical commentaries or literary critical commentaries first.

Not sure what your upset about Iceman can you elaborate.

 

[Iceman]

Not sure what your upset about Iceman can you elaborate.

I can, but I would hazard the suggestion that annoyed would be a more appropriate word.

The initial post requests

Interested in the way anyone else could read this passage concious of context?

This I did, concious of mainsteam scholarship, and language. The response to this was a dismissive "You are wrong, go look it up" Paraphrasing of course, it actually reads

Foreknew in fact does not mean election or choice, please look it up.

This of course is annoying, as it is at the very least presumptuous, but in my honest interpretation was also quite condescending. Never the less, I continued to try and engage with the initial question concerning context the response of course being

I will not subscribe to a traditional theological treatment of this passage. The traditional rendering of this passage is incorrect.

There is no argument here. David777 has presented no reason for his claim, no actual attempt to find context, but has instead decided what the context is and is not willing to actually enter into a debate on it. Instead his manner is dismissive and uncooperative. Now I simply presume it is because he is unable to enter into the debate, after all, what other conclusion could be drawn from such responses?

My main annoyance however is that anyone familiar with logic and arguments will tell you that's not any form of engagement with the question. If unwilling to enter into discussion, then it begs the question why post on a forum at all? I'll leave it to the discretion of others to come up with an answer to that, I have my own. But perhaps the initial post should have read "This is what I think, I don't actually care what other people think. I'm just gonna post it here for people to read."

 

[Christ4Ever]

"This is what I think, I don't actually care what other people think. I'm just gonna post it here for people to read."

LOL
This does have a tendency to happen. Praying that you studies continue to be fruitful! YBIC

 

[David777]

I apologise.

I am indeed sorry Mr Iceman.
I was discussing a point regarding apostasy with Mr Rojocolo.
It was during this discussion that the light turned on.

I had previously thought that Calvinism did not seem to interpret
certain passages the way they were written. I obviously thought that Calvinism was flawed. It appeared initially that Calvin had misunderstood the few verses that concerned election.

Then I became aware that Calvinism interpreted all scripture from a single presumption.That presumption was the will of God. All scripture
from this viewpoint then conforms of course.

Example, looking at apostasy. For a Calvinist there is no such thing as apostasy. How could there be, they were not chosen in the first place. If they came to Jesus, Jesus would ensure that they could never fall away.

I of course could never say that Calvinism was erroneous. Only that i
disagreed with the treatment of particular verses by Calvinists.

If you want to hold to the Calvinist position that's your choice. Or should I say the will of God. I can no longer find fault with this.

 

[Iceman]

I am indeed sorry Mr Iceman.
I was discussing a point regarding apostasy with Mr Rojocolo.
It was during this discussion that the light turned on.

I had previously thought that Calvinism did not seem to interpret
certain passages the way they were written. I obviously thought that Calvinism was flawed. It appeared initially that Calvin had misunderstood the few verses that concerned election.

Then I became aware that Calvinism interpreted all scripture from a single presumption.That presumption was the will of God. All scripture
from this viewpoint then conforms of course.

Example, looking at apostasy. For a Calvinist there is no such thing as apostasy. How could there be, they were not chosen in the first place. If they came to Jesus, Jesus would ensure that they could never fall away.

I of course could never say that Calvinism was erroneous. Only that i
disagreed with the treatment of particular verses by Calvinists.

If you want to hold to the Calvinist position that's your choice. Or should I say the will of God. I can no longer find fault with this.

Apology accepted brother and I pray God bless you. I think I shall step out of this thread now, and I pray you find good and fruitful discussion within it. Although one final point I feel obliged to mention. I am not a Calvanist and was not supporting a Calvanist reading of the text.

 

[SpiritLedEd]

If salvation is predetermined for only some does that mean the rest are already foreordained by God to eternal condemnation having been doomed to a hopeless fate before even coming into existence

There is, as I see it, a significant difference between predetermined and foreknown. To pre-determine seems to refer to God making an authoritative selection as to whom the gift of salvation is offered, which I do not believe is what happens. I believe that God offers salvation to all, but, He knew from the beginning of creation who would freely (as a personal choice) decide to receive Christ and who would choose to reject Him. Those who choose to reject Him are condemned because of their choice.

"He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Pet 3:9 NIV)



SLE

 

[David777]

Cannot disagree.

Yes SpiritLed we almost totally agree.

The only difference being that the predetermined is only ever in Christ. The generalisation Jew or Gentile are those foreknown.

I cannot see individual election, only a general election in Christ.

Jew and Gentile as a group is the subject of Paul's revelation.

Now SpiritLed you know that this provokes some on this website.

You forced this out of me SpiritLed. You know my weakness.

 

[rojoloco]

There is, as I see it, a significant difference between predetermined and foreknown. To pre-determine seems to refer to God making an authoritative selection as to whom the gift of salvation is offered, which I do not believe is what happens. I believe that God offers salvation to all, but, He knew from the beginning of creation who would freely (as a personal choice) decide to receive Christ and who would choose to reject Him. Those who choose to reject Him are condemned because of their choice.

"He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Pet 3:9 NIV)



SLE

Please provide the Scripture for your stance. I don't mean just random verses that contain the word foreknew. I mean verses that will actually say what you just said without there being any conflicting verses. This is the only way to get a true interpretation. I might suggest beginning with a word study on "foreknew." Take note at exactly what is being foreknown as well.

 

[SpiritLedEd]

Please provide the Scripture for your stance. I don't mean just random verses that contain the word foreknew. I mean verses that will actually say what you just said without there being any conflicting verses. This is the only way to get a true interpretation. I might suggest beginning with a word study on "foreknew." Take note at exactly what is being foreknown as well.

Regarding God offering salvation to all people, how about the 2 Pet 3:9 verse I posted?

SLE

 

[rojoloco]

Regarding God offering salvation to all people, how about the 2 Pet 3:9 verse I posted?

SLE

Except the Greek word boulomai does not allow for this theory. It literally means a deliberate act or decree. The grammar of the verse (in Greek) speaks of God purposefully decreeing that none should perish. Some have tried to say that God simply did not will any to perish but they will do it anyway. The problem is that this is not really based on any grammatical structure and is, more or less, a weak attempt to twist what Peter was actually saying.

A proper understanding of the word coupled with a proper understanding of the grammatical structure of the verse shows that God decreed that none of the "any" should perish. The "any" is the subject. Due to deductive logic and reasoning, we know that the "any" is, by necessity, a limited group. It cannot possibly consist of every man and woman otherwise every man and woman would escape Hell in accordance with God's purposeful decree. Since this is not the case, we know it is a numbered group. The "any" refers to those chosen by God; His Elect.

Many people attempt to use this verse to promote universal atonement but this interpretation falls short when taken back to the original language. We can't always stop with the English.

 

[David777]

2Peter 3-9

Hello Mr Rojocolo.

Just one point, you said,

"The "any" is the subject. Due to deductive logic and reasoning, we know that the "any" is, by necessity, a limited group."

Let's look at the quote again.

"The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." 2Peter3-9 (NASB)

In fact I do not agree with "any is the subject".

The Lord is allowing sufficient time for all to come to repentance.

It is not the Lord's will that any perish. See I used "boulomai".

You will be proud of me Mr Rojocolo.

 

[David777]

Random verses.

Further on with foreknown,

"For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you" 1Peter 1:20 (NASB)

See how foreknown is used, the meaning is clear yet again.

Known before, a previous relationship. Definitely not in some future tense.

My friend Mr Rojocolo, wave your Calvinist wand over this use of foreknown.

 

[rojoloco]

Hello Mr Rojocolo.

Just one point, you said,

"The "any" is the subject. Due to deductive logic and reasoning, we know that the "any" is, by necessity, a limited group."

Let's look at the quote again.

"The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." 2Peter3-9 (NASB)

In fact I do not agree with "any is the subject".

The Lord is allowing sufficient time for all to come to repentance.

It is not the Lord's will that any perish. See I used "boulomai".

You will be proud of me Mr Rojocolo.

You must not have really read my post. You are a shining example of the "example" I made in my post. You can use the Greek word however you want but the grammar only supports one interpretation. It isn't that the Lord refuses to Will any to perish (as if setting aside divine Will). The grammar does not allow for it this weak interpretation. It also isn't that the Lord Wills that nobody in existence would perish; i.e., all be saved. The Lord purposefully Wills that none of the "any" should perish, but that all of the "any" would come to repentance. Why? Because He has promised that all whom He has given to Jesus would be lifted up in the last day (John 6:39). He purposefully Wills/decrees that none of His Elect will perish just as He purposefully Wills/decrees that all of His Elect will come to repentance and, eventually, be lifted up.

I let it be known that your interpretation (before you even posted it when I was just speaking in general) is not supported by the grammar. The fact that you pretty much refused to even look into that fact before posting your unfounded opinion basically proves what Iceman said earlier. You have your opinion that is based in what you think makes sense and you don't appear ready to converse with others. I highly suggest looking into context, support, and grammar before relying too heavily on a single word that somebody else has already used. Your quote of, "See I used "boulomai". You will be proud of me Mr Rojocolo." tells me you didn't even bother looking into it and just disregarded it.

 

[rojoloco]

Further on with foreknown,

"For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you" 1Peter 1:20 (NASB)

See how foreknown is used, the meaning is clear yet again.

Known before, a previous relationship. Definitely not in some future tense.

My friend Mr Rojocolo, wave your Calvinist wand over this use of foreknown.

I totally agree that those whom God foreknew before the foundation of the world have a special relationship with Him. The usage of foreknow also carries with it a connotation of intimate relations.

It's funny that you post this verse because, when used with the rest of Scripture, it is a very supporting verse for Election.

Note who it was that was known. It's talking about Jesus. Verse 21 clarifies if there was any doubt. This is telling us that the Father foreknew Jesus in a very intimate and loving way before the foundation of the world. However, the word proginōskō also carries with it, when referring to God, a sense of purpose and ordination.

Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

Here, we see foreknew (in 1 Peter 1:20) carries with it a connotation of love. I think we both agree on this but it is best to see it in the Scripture.

just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before [Him In love

Take note that, not only does He love those whom He foreknew but, He also chose those whom He foreknew.

I am assuming you are going to try to say God foreknew a choice and Elected based on that but, once again, the grammar and context does not allow for this interpretation. Tell me where it says God foreknew a choice, mindset, or decision of another. It simply doesn't. The usage of the word is very personal. It is referring to the person himself. God foreknew His Elect in a very intimate way and chose them before the foundation of the world, not based on anything we ever did or would do but, based on nothing but His own good pleasure. God loved Jesus before the foundation of the world but He also decreed that He would be sent to the cross to die. In the same way, God loved His Elect before the foundation of the world and also decreed that He would bring us unto repentance while not allowing any of us to perish.

 

[jiggyfly]

Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: