Yes it is.
God knew something about someone 2. He assigned a destiny based on that knowledge.
Thus, foreknown in Rom.8 does have to do with someone (whom) but something (faith in Christ) about that person was known before they were foreknown as being saved and being Predestinated to being conformed to the image of Christ.
Although we are nowhere told what is in the foreknowledge of God that determines His choice, the repeated teachings of scripture that man is responsible for accepting or rejecting salvation necessitates our postulating that it is man's reaction to the revelation God has made of Himself that is the basis for election. May we repeat; since mankind is hopelessly dead in trespasses and sins and can do nothing to obtain salvation, God graciously restores to all men sufficent ability to make a choice in the matter of submission to Him.....In His foreknowledge he preceives what each one will do with this restored ability and elects men to salvation in harmony with His knowledge of their choice of Him....To say that God foreknew all things because He had arbitrarily determined all things, is to ignore the distinction between God's efficent and His permissive decrees.....If then God could foresee that sin would enter the universe without efficiently decreeing that it should enter, then He can also foresee how men will act without efficiently decreeing how they shall act. God is not limited in the carrying out of His plans, except as He has limited Himself by the choices of man (Thiessen, Introductory lectures in Systematic Theology, p.345-46)
You persist in the most blatant case of eisegesis I've ever come across. The object of foreknowledge is a PERSON, NOT AN ACT. It says WHOM He foreknew He predestined. The object is WHOM and there is no qualifyer (such as 'whom He foreknew would believe He predestined) as you maintain. The Scriptural precedent for the use of this word is clear, Ed. The root word ginosko is used not in the sense of passive observance or casual aquantance, but to denote a special, intimate relationship. It's the same word Mary used in Luke 1:34 when she said "How can this be, seeing I know not a man?" Clearly she had casual and observational knowledge of numerous men, but in the context we obviously know she is talking about an intimate relationship.
Although we are nowhere told what is in the foreknowledge of God that determines His choice, the repeated teachings of scripture that man is responsible for accepting or rejecting salvation necessitates our postulating that it is man's reaction to the revelation God has made of Himself that is the basis for election.
That is a logical fallacy. Indeed Scripture does teach repeatedly that man is responsible for accepting or rejecting Christ. Without such responsibility there would be no just condemnation. But the notion that such a responsibility 'necessitates' is false because he already makes assumptions about the natural state of man, and in effect presumes the very conclusion he's trying to draw. Further he presumes a causal relationship that does not exist in the passage...that God's foreknowledge compels Him to predestine them. It does not say this, but merely that those whom He foreknew He predestined. It is in implying a false causal relationship between foreknowledge and predestination by means of assuming that the foreknowledge is not the type of knowledge repeatedly put forth elsewhere in scripture (that of an intimate and special relationship), but rather the foreknowledge of an act of faith by an individual (thus making the knowledge one of observance) that leads to his, and your, error.
May we repeat; since mankind is hopelessly dead in trespasses and sins and can do nothing to obtain salvation, God graciously restores to all men sufficent ability to make a choice in the matter of submission to Him.....In His foreknowledge he preceives what each one will do with this restored ability and elects men to salvation in harmony with His knowledge of their choice of Him
Ahh, yes...universal prevenient grace. If there is any postulate born of necessity in Arminian theology, it's this one. Unfortunately, there is no scriptural support for a universal application of grace to 'suspend' man's sinful nature for the purpose of salvific choice.
To say that God foreknew all things because He had arbitrarily determined all things, is to ignore the distinction between God's efficent and His permissive decrees.....If then God could foresee that sin would enter the universe without efficiently decreeing that it should enter, then He can also foresee how men will act without efficiently decreeing how they shall act.God is not limited in the carrying out of His plans, except as He has limited Himself by the choices of man
Typical to Arminians, Thiessen brings the word 'abritrarily' to the discussion, thus completely and wholly misrepresenting the Calvinist position. There is a very distinct difference between not knowing the reason behing something and assuming there IS no reason behind something. It is indeed the difference between what Calvinism teaches and what Arminians falsely declaring we teach.
In all his talk of God honoring the choices of men, Thiessen ignores that man has already made his choice and continues to do so. By the notion of universal prevenient grace, God is in effect forcing man to make the choice a second time. If there are none who seek after God...if Thiessen is consistent in his belief that 'mankind is hopelessly dead in trespasses and sins' to the point of needing previent grace to change his vote from no to yes, then the notion of God allowing men to simply make the choice without His interference falls apart.