Posted on 02/08/2003 7:43:01 AM PST by Matchett-PI
A Wesleyan Pastor told me that Foreknowlege = predestination...Ummmmmm
Interesting ~OPINION~ you have there. If "foreknowldge" only means "knowing something before something else", then it seems a bit odd that Acts 2:23 doesn't tell us what was KNOWN before.
So, what to make of "foreknowldge" in Acts 2:23? Well, it seems to me, that since there is no OBJECT of the "foreknowing", then it is a bit premature to suggest that this "pre-knowing" is of something in particular. Rather, we can make better sense of "foreknowldge" by defining it as the EXPERTS (i.e. ~NOT~ you!) do: pre-arrangement.
If "foreknowledge" is to be understood or defined ONLY as "to know something before", then we are left with an INCOMPLETE thought! The passage makes no sense that way. Leave it up to the arminian to add thoughts and words which are foreign to the text! LOL!
No, Acts 2:23 ALREADY has made clear that God has "DETERMINED" Christ's work on the cross to be so. The phrase "determinate counsel" clearly tells us this already. If Christ's task on the cross were ONLY left to the free will actions of men, it would be INCORRECT for the Bible to tell us that God had already DETERMINED what his job would indeed be.
How on earth could ~God~ determine that Christ would indeed die upon the cross by wicked hands if that task was ONLY a result of men's free-will actions??
To insist that ONLY men's free-will actions were responsible for Christ's death on the cross takes all the meaning out of that passage. But it would be consistent with the hyper-dispensationalist arminian position that Jesus' death was an "OOPS".
No, Acts 2:23 flatly REJECTS that Christ's death was an "OOPS". This passage tells us in very EXPLICIT terms that God DETERMINED that Christ would suffer on the cross. To deny this would be to turn the gospel on its head!
"Now, just because the Greek word in 1Pet.1:20 is translated as Foreordain (correctly) does not mean that the Greek word (Proginosko) means foreordain anywhere else!
Context gives meanings to words."
LOL! You are a piece of work. You just get done chastizing me and claim ~MY~ context is mere "opinion", yet ~YOUR~ interpretation of the context is the way it is, I guess, LOL!
"Now, both of the verses have the same Greek word found in 1Pet.1:20, are they to be translated as saying forordained?"
No, they need not both be translated as "foreordained". We already know that "proginosko" (foreknow)~means~ "predestined". The EXERTS (again, ~NOT~ you) have already told us this to be so. So, being intelligent readers, we need not have a word we know to mean "predestined" translated as the synonymous "foreordained".
Jean
~This~ definition of "predestination" completely turns the actual definition on its head. Election isn't "to elect". Predestination is no longer "to predestinate".
These words, in the arminian system, have absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
What comfort! LOL!
Jean
You missed out on a verse
Gen 15:13 And God said to Abram, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years
Four generations = Four hundred years? 100 years for each generation? Really? Do you think, maybe, that God is speaking symbolically here? Just maybe?
So do you ~think~ God had a plan?
An angel of the LORD came down and told Zacharias that he would name his child John (Luke 1:13). The angel Gabriel was sent from God to tell Mary she will bear a son, and she will call Him Jesus (Luke 1:31) These are wholly different situations than someone being born with one name and then somebody else coming along and changing it.
And besides, none of this is dealing with my original question; When God chose Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, at that time did He know that Moses would strike the rock twice and incur the punishment of the LORD and be forsaken to enter Canaan?
Speaking symbolically, Absolutly! I also have these same questions, but just because something is symbolic, does't mean that it is not literal. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but let me give you some of my observations. The 4 generations and the 400 hundred years are both literal with the same endpoint but not the same start point.
The number 4 in scripture speaks of trial, testing, experience, and when applied to man, failure. I am being sketchy here for lack of time, but look at how many four's we have here. The children of Israel, 40 years in the wilderness; Abraham, the fouth day of the second creation; Numbers, the fourth book.(perhaps you have noticed by now, the theme in Numbers, experience wandering 40 years)
There were 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 more from David to the captivity, and 14 more to Christ. All these numbers are significant. The propetic character, eliminates the possibility, of extra generations.
All the details look forward to when, at the end of forty centuries, the trial of man ends, and judgement is carried out at the cross. Let me know if I need to explain further. I did not intend to connect the number 4 to number 14 (which is 2 sevens).
NAS
13 God said to Abram, "Know for certain that (16) your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where (17) they will be enslaved and oppressed (18) four hundred years.
14 "But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out (19) with many possessions.
15 "As for you, (20) you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age.
16 "Then in (21) the fourth generation they will return here, for (22) the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete."
KJV
13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.
15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.
16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
NKJ
13Then He said to Abram: "Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years. 14And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions. 15Now as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age. 16But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." 17And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces.
YLT
13 and He saith to Abram, `knowing -- know that thy seed is a sojourner in a land not theirs, and they have served them, and they have afflicted them four hundred years,
14 and the nation also whom they serve I judge, and after this they go out with great substance;
15 and thou -- thou comest in unto thy fathers in peace; thou art buried in a good old age;
16 and the fourth generation doth turn back hither, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.'
Four generations = Four hundred years? 100 years for each generation? Really? Do you think, maybe, that God is speaking symbolically here? Just maybe?
How old was Abraham when he died? How old was Moses? Your sarcasm only notes your inability to understand what a Generation was in early biblical times
You may want to read what Moses wrote..
My God speaks with authority
Note he said the "time of the Armorite was not yet complete?"
1Ki 21:26 And he did very abominably in following idols, according to all [things] as did the Amorites, whom the LORD cast out before the children of Israel
And did God mean 400 years?
Exd 12:40 Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, [was] four hundred and thirty years
My God speaks truth to His people
Num 23:19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
This is the answer to your question..It is obvious to anyone that reads the word with understanding and discernment that God knew from before the foundation of the earth that a man naned Joshua would lead Hid people into the promised land..I have shown that to you in Gods words..
You show a disregard for of prophecy and typology.
Joshua a type of Christ
Joshua, then, represents Christ, not as coming down in person to take possession of the earth, but as leading His people through the power of the Holy Ghost, who acts and dwells in the midst of this people. Yet in Joshua, as in all other typical persons, those errors and sins are found which betray the weakness of the instrument, and the fragility of the vessel in which, for the time, God has condescended to put His glory.
God knew Joshua before the foundation of the earth and He elected him to lead His people into a land flowing with milk and honey...just as He had foreordained and told us prophetically under the authorship of the Holy Ghost
The text makes perfect sense to anyone who can read English! (Experts-LOL!)
Websters American Dictionary of the English Language states that Foreknowledge means knowledge of a thing before it happens, prescience.
How is that for an expert?
No, Acts 2:23 ALREADY has made clear that God has "DETERMINED" Christ's work on the cross to be so. The phrase "determinate counsel" clearly tells us this already. If Christ's task on the cross were ONLY left to the free will actions of men, it would be INCORRECT for the Bible to tell us that God had already DETERMINED what his job would indeed be.
No, God can factor in man's free will decisions and still accomplish what He wants.
You Calvinists really underestimate God! LOL!
How on earth could ~God~ determine that Christ would indeed die upon the cross by wicked hands if that task was ONLY a result of men's free-will actions??
Note how you twist what I said into what you want me to say to match your system
God did not only used man's free will, He accomplished what He wanted while allowing man choices.
For example, the Jews wanted to stone Christ, but no one could kill Him until He went to the Cross.
The free will of man and the Sovereignty of God are reconciled and man is responsible for the crime of the Cross while God allowed it to accomplish His purpose.
To insist that ONLY men's free-will actions were responsible for Christ's death on the cross takes all the meaning out of that passage.
I never said that man alone was responsible for the Cross.
The subject of the crucifixion brings up an interesting question: who killed Jesus Christ?....There rests a five-fold responsiblity for the crucifixion:
Judically: The Romans (1Cor.2:8)
Nationally: The Jews (Matt.27:25)
Physically: Jesus Christ (John 10:18)
Theologically: God the Father (Isa.53:10
Practically: mankind (2Cor.5:21)
But it would be consistent with the hyper-dispensationalist arminian position that Jesus' death was an "OOPS".
No 'oops' involved, just typical Calvinist strawman arguments that cannot handle what the Arminians/Wesleyians/Baptists are saying about man having a choice to make and that God, either for or against God
God's absolute omniscience provides the only key to the reconcilation of God's 'sovereignty' and human freedom. If God knows with geniune certanity what any man could and would do in any situation, then he can bring about his purposes by ordering the appropriate situations without violating man's freedom (Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism, p.392)
If the question be asked whether the moral agent has freedom to act otherwise as God forsees he will act, it may be replied that the human will because of its inherent freedom of choice is capable of electing the opposite course to that divinely foreknown; but he will not do so. If he did so, that would be the thing which God foreknew. The divine foreknowledge does not coerce, it merely knows what the human choice will be....The men who crucified Christ did precisely what a thousand years before had been predicted and therefore determined they would do,even to saying, 'he trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him, let him deliver him seeing he delighted in him (Psa.22:8 cf Matt.27:43).(Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol1, p.196)
No, Acts 2:23 flatly REJECTS that Christ's death was an "OOPS". This passage tells us in very EXPLICIT terms that God DETERMINED that Christ would suffer on the cross. To deny this would be to turn the gospel on its head!
Yes, as 1Pet.1:20 states, thus the word Forordained used.
God foreknew all events that would occur and how it would end with Christ's death. Christ said as much to the disciples and rebuked them for not understanding the prophecies relating to His death (Isa.53, Psa.22).
"Now, just because the Greek word in 1Pet.1:20 is translated as Foreordain (correctly) does not mean that the Greek word (Proginosko) means foreordain anywhere else! Context gives meanings to words." LOL! You are a piece of work. You just get done chastizing me and claim ~MY~ context is mere "opinion", yet ~YOUR~ interpretation of the context is the way it is, I guess, LOL! "Now, both of the verses have the same Greek word found in 1Pet.1:20, are they to be translated as saying forordained?" No, they need not both be translated as "foreordained". We already know that "proginosko" (foreknow)~means~ "predestined". The EXERTS (again, ~NOT~ you) have already told us this to be so. So, being intelligent readers, we need not have a word we know to mean "predestined" translated as the synonymous "foreordained".
LOL! so the Greek word proginosko in those verses that I gave you (Acts.26:5,2Pet.3:17) mean Predestinated!
Try inserting that word in them and see what sense they make! LOL!
(Acts.26:5) Lets see, Paul states that the Jews knew his manner of life from the beginning so that must mean they either Forordained him or they predestinated him!
Note how Wesley states that God did know what would happen.
The current view of open theology was not that of Arminius or Wesley.
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God - The apostle here anticipates an objection, Why did God suffer such a person to be so treated? Did he not know what wicked men intended to do? And had he not power to prevent it? Yea. He knew all that those wicked men intended to do. And he had power to blast all their designs in a moment. But he did not exert that power, because he so loved the world! Because it was the determined counsel of his love, to redeem mankind from eternal death, by the death of his only - begotten Son.
Agreed.
There is a predestination to be conformed to the image of Christ and thus, eternal security for Church age believers (Rom.8)
But at least Wesley understood that God'cannot and would not pick some and condemn others when He could save all if He so chose. (1Tim.2:4, 2Pet.3:9)
Just because I cite someone doesn't mean I agree with everything they say.
The point that Wesley was making was that God is not arbitrary and cannot be unfair.
Choosing some and damning others based on His own choice, for no objective reason would be so.
The scriptures state very clearly that is not God's nature (1Tim.2:4, 2Pet.3:9, Jn.3:16)
As an Independent Baptist, I believe in eternal security not the perservance of the saints .
So, hopefully, you will not do anything to doubt that you are one of the 'elect' as many Calvinists come to think, not really being sure of their salvation since they can always 'fall away' thus, revealing that they were not really the 'elect' at all!
The scriptures state very clearly that is not God's nature (1Tim.2:4, 2Pet.3:9, Jn.3:16)
Maranatha!
Romans 10:17
Maranatha!
BTTT
My point is if Wesley was so wrong about your salvation and the second blessing and the revolutionary war..just maybe he was wrong about this too.
That implicitly assumes that God owes salvation to any man, or that because He saved you, He must save me as well. But that just isn't the case.
Do you have anywhere else in the Bible where that is so? I noticed you only quoted different translations, not different scritpure verses. If it is a uniform concept that one generation is 100 consistently throughout the Bible, could you please post some other verses to confirm this?
Num 23:19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Do you understand the context of that verse? Balak, the king of Moab, had heard of the victories that the Israelites had won right near Moab (Num. 21:21-34), and was afraid that they would destroy Moad as well, so he sent for Balaam to curse the Israelites. However, the LORD said to Balaam that he would not curse them, for they are blessed (Num. 22:12). Balaam later vows to the LORD to only speak the words that the LORD give him, thus when Balaam is allowed to go to Balak, and Balak thinks that Balaam is going to curse the Israelites, Balaam instead speaks the word of the LORD and blesses them.
That is the context of that verse, simply that the LORD has promised to bless the Israelites and not curse them, and the words He gives to Balaam are faithful to that promise. The specificity that you (and others) want to apply to that specific text just isn't there.
If I promise to give my kids breakfast, I can give them toast and jam, or cereal, or scrambled eggs, or pancakes; but by giving my children any of these, I have fulfilled my promise. That is all that is going on here. Yes, the LORD is faithful to His promises! Amen and Amen!! However, in general, His promises are not as specific as we would like to think they are (which is why any discussion about the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ does not apply here, because those promises were specific, and specifically fulfilled.)
So, in the end, project what you want onto Num. 23:19, but in my opinion you are reading in waaaay too much specificity into that verse.
Yes, but he wasn't named Joshua from birth was he? Not like the way John the Baptist or Jesus was named from birth? So then, couldn't Caleb just as easily had his name changed to Joshua to fit into that event? And, besides, it is not prophesied anywhere in Scripture that "a man named Joshua shall lead the Israelites into Canaan" is it? I mean, if there is, please show me the chapter and verse.
I have shown that to you in Gods words.
You have done nothing of the sort. You have not given me one single Scripture to prove your point, all you have done is misrepresented Num. 23:19 and quoted the exact same verses from many different translations, instead of providing many different verses (from any single translation) to help establish your point.
You show a disregard for of prophecy and typology.
No, I just try not to read into Scripture what is clearly not there is all. If anything, that shows a far higher level of respect than one who tries to project their own worldview all over God's Holy Word.
Might it be that the name change was a part of Gods plan? Don't you think it a bit "odd" that he is considered a "type" of Christ?
He was born "Hoshea" (salvation) but Moses changed his name to "Yehoshua" (Yahweh is salvation)
And, besides, it is not prophesied anywhere in Scripture that "a man named Joshua shall lead the Israelites into Canaan" is it?
Exd 3:10 Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt
Did Moses fulfill this prophecy? Did God ever tell Moses that he would lead them into the promised land..or only that he would lead them out of Egypt?
Do you believe that God has foreknowlege? Do you think He was surprised by Moses disobedience?
No, I just try not to read into Scripture what is clearly not there is all. If anything, that shows a far higher level of respect than one who tries to project their own worldview all over God's Holy Word.
Actually I do not think you read Gods word as written I think you read into it what you want it to say..not what it says..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.