The Meaning of 'foreknew' in Romans 8:29

The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented | 1963 | David N. Steele/Curtis C. Thomas

[xzins]

God, whether He inhabits past, present, future or a bunny suit

The point is that the Bible Says that God inhabits eternity.

It doesn't say He inhabits a bunny suit.

(except at easter, of course.) :>)

[Jean Chauvin]

""Before Abraham was, I AM." What does that mean to you? He didn’t say, before Abraham was, I was, too. He used the present tense, signifying that not only was he there, but that he is there."

But this passage does not say, "Before Abraham was I am now".

This passage is not attempting to give us understanding of just how God relates to our experience of Time. It is communicating God's Sovereignty.

You are attempting to utilize a passage in a way that it was never intended to be used. That is not crying "Witch Witch, burn her."

Now, I have a question for you.

Can that which is created (everything except God) exist without the continual proactive sustaining power of the Will of God?

Jean

[xzins]

And so you want the concept of time to bend to your will; to make time mallable in your hands so that God can actually change time and events according to your actions.

Not true.

I'd say for myself that I'm looking for a better explanation of whether prayer changes things or not.

I'm not satisfied with the Calvinist or classical Arminian responses on that. They seem weak to me in that they're static.

The passages on answered prayer seem to be more active. My humble opinion, of course.

[xzins]

The sign-act of Abraham sacricing Isaac on Moriah (Golgotha?) also says that God inhabits eternity.

[xzins]

Again, the classical view is that Jesus gave up independent use of his powers and attributes.

[xzins]

Good.

We agree on all three points.

When do you think God's omniscience began? Was it before or after his omnipotence?

[Jean Chauvin]

Neither does the Bible tell us how God relates to our experience in time -i.e.: that God exists in the past present and future concurrently.

The word "concurrently" inherently is a "time" concept. One can not use time concepts to explain timelessness.

Likewise, "before" is also a "time" concept. The use of this word by definition cannot even begin to communicate God's timelessness because the word itself involves "time".

In reality, we cannot help but utilize "time" concepts when describing God.

If someone can say, "God exists before Abraham now", I can respond by saying "God will exist before Abraham now". Do you see what I mean? That is simply a nonsensical statement if used in an attempt to understand how God relates to time.

Jean

[William Terrell]

Consider, the skein of time and space upon which all human events play out from the beginning to the end, if there is an end, must be seen by God. The omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient Being of God created the material universe, and is "outside" of it with an overall view of it.

This means that even though God sees the entire string already played out by individual choice within the string, which individuals could not see the entirety and thus made choices as in freewill. The choices within the string of events foredestined their salvation. But God sees the end result, so knows how it would play out and thus says "I foreknew".

But, then, who here has discussed this over a beer with the Lord of Hosts?

[xzins]

I understand exactly what you mean.

Some say that God won't put anything in the bible that's difficult to understand.

I disagree.

He wouldn't tell us to study if it didn't require study.

So, the jury's out on any subject until one has done a fair study of it.

The subject now is time. We've done a zillion other subjects. We might as well do time, too.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Consider, the skein of time and space upon which all human events play out from the beginning to the end, if there is an end, must be seen by God.

The All-Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago. Go and hide in a hole if you wish, but you won't live one instant longer. Your fate is fixed; Fear profits a man nothing.

[Jean Chauvin]

I think the real issue here is the comfort the Arminian has with utilizing naturalistic philosophy as a hermeneutical tool.

I've long notice in the absence of any Biblical teaching on "Free-Will" that Arminians simply appeal to a philosophical heremeutic that re-interprets Biblical teachings such that they agree with their philosphical concept of "Free-Will".

We see this with Romans 8:29 where the object of God's foreknowledge is not "people" like the text claims but the "actions" of people -or to interpret "predestination" as simply God's "pre-determination" as to a means of salvation as Gramm's commentary shows. i.e. -if it doesn't fit the "holy grail" of "Free-Will" it must need to be re-interpreted such that it does.

The height of this is found in the desire to be consistent in Arminianism as we see with the "Opennes" theology.

This, I think, explains the comfort and openness of the Arminians here on FR to play around with these philosophical speculations.

xzins did it a while ago with the "openness" issue -something the Calvinists immediately knew stunk to high heaven.

Marlowe tried it with his postulations that since God "forgets" our sins that they never really happened as well as his current speculation on how God's eternal nature works in time.

Calvinists, on the other hand, have never utlized naturalistic philosophy as a hermeneutical tool to interperet the Scriptures.

Sola Scriptura!

Jean

[William Terrell]

What in the world are you talking about? Hide? Fear?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

What in the world are you talking about? Hide? Fear?

Shucks, you missed the reference.

Your post reminded me of one of my all-time favorite movie lines, from The 13th Warrior (an adaptation of Michael Crichton's re-telling of the Beowulf myth in his book Eaters of the Dead).

(Just before the first battle against the cannibalistic Wendol.
Herger the Joyous lays down to catch a few winks.)

Ahmed Ibn Fahdlan: How can you sleep at a time like this?
Herger the Joyous: The All-Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago. Go and hide in a hole if you wish, but you won't live one instant longer. Your fate is fixed; Fear profits a man nothing.

But, then, who here has discussed this over a beer with the Lord of Hosts?

Reminds me of another great line...

(Just before the final climactic war against the Wendol.
Herger offers Ahmed a drink of mead.)

Ahmed Ibn Fahdlan: [ruefully] I cannot... "Taste neither the fermentation of grape, nor of wheat".
(Herger smiles, then chuckles, then starts to outright laugh)
Ahmed Ibn Fahdlan: What? Why do you laugh?
Herger the Joyous: [laughing, and handing over the bottle] HONEY! It's made from honey!!
(Ahmed hesitates, then drinks deeply till it runs down his chin)

Awful reviews from the critics.
OP says go check it out.

[William Terrell]

I've seen it twice. Didn't remember the dialogue, though.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I've seen it twice. Didn't remember the dialogue, though.

Blame it on the honey.

;-) best, OP

[Frumanchu]

Awful reviews from the critics. OP says go check it out.

Passed that one up several times. Will have to see it now:)

[P-Marlowe]

In the realm of God, NOW encompasses all of eternity. Therefore NOW to God would be from before the creation through all of eternity. From our perspective the statement "Before Abraham was I AM" makes no sense, so we must rationalize it. But what exactly was Jesus saying. He was stating that he existed before Abraham, but like most scriptures, there are deeper meanings behind every syllable and every jot and every tittle. God's title of "I AM" speaks of his eternal existence without limitation. You yourself have indicated that God is not bound by time. Quantum physics postulates that an object traveling faster than the speed of light would travel backwards through time relative to the rest of the universe. So we are not speaking of nonsense here. We are speaking of the attributes of God and what it means to say he is the I AM.

While it is clearly possible that God knows everything that happens in the future because he has ordered everything to happen exactly as he wants it to and in essence he is the direct cause of all actions including all sins, but that goes against the statements of God that it is not his will that people sin and that people act in rebellion to his will.

God foreknows and thus everything is predestined according to his foreknowledge. I see Calvinists insisting that everything is predestined because God makes everything to happen as it does, including the very sins that God condemns. That is eternally and internally inconsistent. If God says on the one hand that he hates a behaviour, then it cannot be said on the other hand that he has commanded that behaviour to take place. Adam was commanded to NOT eat the fruit. God did not cause him to eat the fruit. If God were being consistent, he did not want Adam to eat the fruit. But he did. God knew he would and both God and Man have dealt with the consequences.

[Jean Chauvin]

"Quantum physics postulates that an object traveling faster than the speed of light would travel backwards through time relative to the rest of the universe. So we are not speaking of nonsense here. We are speaking of the attributes of God and what it means to say he is the I AM."

xcept God is not a particle. The "object" which is traveling faster than a speed of light is part of God's creation -it does not have anything to do with the Creator. God is not subject to "quantum physics".

Marlowe, with all due respect, you are pulling this all out of your butt. You are making it up as you go.

It is pure speculation and you are subjecting Biblical interpretation to your speculative thinking.

"While it is clearly possible that God knows everything that happens in the future because he has ordered everything to happen exactly as he wants it to and in essence he is the direct cause of all actions including all sins, but that goes against the statements of God that it is not his will that people sin and that people act in rebellion to his will"

No, that does not go against his statements. It fits perfectly with Genesis 50:20 and Acts 2:23. On the other hand, it seems that this reality only contradicts your "Free-Will" Philosophical paradigm. I'm not concerned with your naturalistic philosophical speculations which you have yet to support with the Scriptures.

You must think of "both/and" rather than "either/or".

Let the Scriptures speak for themselves. One does not need quantum physics (which obviously do not apply to the creator of quantum physics) in order to understand Scripture -at last that seemed to be the case for 1900 some years.

"I see Calvinists insisting that everything is predestined because God makes everything to happen as it does, including the very sins that God condemns"

Only because that is what the Scriptures seem to be telling us. We need not rely on quantum physics which obviously don't apply to the creator of quantum physics or on philosophical speculation. We need only rest on Scripture.

The prophet Moses has told us with words that were inspired by the Holy Spirit that God proactively decreed/determined/foreordained (and not according to ~your~ re-definitions of those words) and brought to be all the events that brought Joseph into Egypt. And it was for good. AT THE SAME TIME (both/and) Joseph's brothers did evil by selling Joseph into Slavery. Both/And, Marlowe, not either/or.

Also, the apostle Luke has told us with words that were inspired by the Holy Spirit that all the events of Christ's Crucifixion were predetermined/foreordained/ordered/decreed (and not according to ~your~ re-definitions of those words) by God himself. And it was for good. AT THE SAME TIME (both/and) the Jewish leaders did evil by crucifying the Lord Jesus. They murdered him and it was sin which needed forgiveness. Both/And, Marlowe, not either/or.

"That is eternally and internally inconsistent."

It is inconsistent only with our limited naturalistic philosophical understanding. It is entirely consistent with what the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures have declared.

How come you keep wanting to point me in the direction of reason and philosophy and I keep pointing you to Scripture?

You are doing precisely what I have said -utilizing naturalistic philosophical reasoning as a hermeneutical tool.

Futhermore, you cannot say that it is eternally inconsistent because that would be subjecting the Sovereign God to limited philosophical reasoning. (again, we see the need to limit God's sovereignty in order for your speculations to be true).

"If God says on the one hand that he hates a behaviour, then it cannot be said on the other hand that he has commanded that behaviour to take place. Adam was commanded to NOT eat the fruit. God did not cause him to eat the fruit. If God were being consistent, he did not want Adam to eat the fruit. But he did. God knew he would and both God and Man have dealt with the consequences"

Again, all philosophical objections. When we are dealing with a non-created, infinite God, we limit ourselves if we subject him to limited naturalistic philosophical reasoning.

Jean

[P-Marlowe]

The omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence of the eternal GOD all began simultaneously at the precise eternal instant when He began to be the eternal GOD.

Wrong answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There has never been any point in time or eternity when God began to be God. That may be impossible for any of us to comprehend, (just as his existence at all points in all eternity is impossible to comprehend), but to say that God's power began when he became God assumes a point when there was no God. That assumption is incorrect.

Try again.