[jboot]

I am interested in why you did not stress the word foreknew (rather than or in addition to foreordained)

Because it is significant. In the essay above, "foreordained" is made subject to (and inferior to) "forknew". I do not disagree with the role and importance of foreknowledge, yet it does not diminish the fact that our salvation was part and parcel of God's sovereign will, not ours. The names of the believers were already written in the book of life before the foundation of the world. The soul of the one foreknown did not exist when this decision was made, and could have no part in it. The fact that they were foreknown stands, but does not take precedence over their predestination, or in any way detract from the sovereignity of God.

It is rather unique (and slightly amusing) to see someone put an Arminiean spin on Rom. 8:29-30, though.

[ponyespresso]

OK, whatever.

I am interested in why you did not stress the word foreknew (rather than or in addition to foreordained)

Now I'm interested in knowing why you felt you had to change my quote?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Well-said. A joyous bump for God's total and unfettered sovereignty.

[rwfromkansas]

"Foreknow"-- according to multiple non-Reformed Biblical encyclopedias and lexicons, is almost synonymous with "foreordain."

The Arminians weaken God and weaken foreknowledge when they make it into simply "seeing beforehand."

Their contortion of foreknowledge is one way you can prove the Biblical laziness of Arminians/free willers.

They don't even bother to read Scripture to see what it means, but instead opt to use lots of eisegesis and make "foreknow" mean what they think it means at a casual glance.

What theological laziness.