Well, that is the million dollar question isn't it?
The Bible never states what Foreknowledge is speaking of.
Thus, the need to deal with the results of making it the same as foreordination in the case of evil.
That would make God the author of evil, which if you are willing to go that route (as did Pink) then you just have to reject the clear scriptures that state that God hates evil (thus having God responsible for the very thing He hates)
The text simply does not say "men's free-will decisions". How ~convenient~ of you to add that into the text. I would have just as much legitimacy to insist that Christ's task was based on God's foreknowledge that a Dutch Belted Cow has a big black band of fur around it's midsection as you have insisting that Christ's task was based on God's foreknowledge of men's free-will decisions. No, your insistance on adding "of men's free-will actions" to "foreknowledge" is based on your inability to philisophically reconcile that men are responsible for their free-will actions while God ordains all events to occur. That is the clear declaration of Acts 2:23! Yet, you deny it! But, let's see how experts (i.e. certainly ~not~ you!) define "foreknowledge" and "foreknow": According to Crosswalk.Com: Foreknowledge (prognosis) means: 1. foreknowledge 2. forethought, pre-arrangement Since there is no object of "foreknowledge" in the Acts 2:23 text, I would think the context would dictate that "foreknowledge" means "pre-arrangement". I do know for certain that it does NOT mean "to pre-know men's free-will actions or decisions." Why? Because it simply doesn't say that! You are adding that to the text because you don't like the ramifications of the only alternative.
You think the context would dicate 'pre-arrangement!
Your opinion of the context has nothing to do with what is being said in that passage.
Thus, my opinion is as good as yours, since the passage only states that through God's Foreknowledge something was determined.
Now, that means for your view to be correct, that God would be the author of sin since He is responsible for the acts of those who put Christ on the Cross.
My view removes God from being responsible for that crime.
Foreknow (proginosko) means: 1. to have knowledge before hand 2. to foreknow a. of those whom God elected to salvation 3. to predestinate Again, in the 1 Peter 1:20 passage, there is no object of "proginosko", therefore, the context would seem to indicate that definition 3 is the proper translation. And thus the KJV translators correctly translate "forordained" in this passage However, if we go to 2 Peter 3:17, we see another use of "proginosko". But we note that there is an object of the "pre-knowing": "these things" Therefore, the context indicates that this "proginosko" is simply to "to have knowledge before hand" or to "know before" as the KJV translators correctly translated.
.
Yes, they did correctly translate it 'foreordain' since in the case of Christ going to the Cross, what was Foreknown was what God would do with no contingency in it. (Heb.10:7, Psa.40:7).
In the case of what man would do to Christ, there was a contingency involved, man did not have to crucify Christ, Pilate could have let Him go, Judas did not have to betray him, etc.
That they would choose to crucify Him was Foreknown and then Decreed as being certain.
Your argument had little to do with actual Scripture and more to do with a philisophical understanding. You are dealing, not with what Scripture declares, but with hypotheticals.
I'll stick with what the scripture clearly declares!
Jean
Your argument had little to do with actual Scripture and more to do with a philisophical understanding. You are dealing, not with what Scripture declares, but with hypotheticals.
I'll stick with what the scripture clearly declares!
Jean