ECT What is Predestination?

[Dialogos]

See Next Post

 

[Dialogos]

I guess that depends on whether you read the whole thing IN context or not. How does one LOVE God? You can't be called unless you are one of His. God foreknew who would be one of His, not by preordaining them to be, but by their action of loving Him as expressed through accepting His Son as their savior. There is NOTHING to import, it is already there.

You make the mistake of making our love for God the basis of God's election for us. This can be cleared up by appealing to 1 John 4:10-19.

God's love come first.

I just did that above, and I would be careful of asking for EXACT wording given your own apparent POV in this case.
Try Rom 11:2 (NIV), 1 Peter 1:2 (NIV), Eph 1:11 (NIV) and Acts 2:23 (NIV) to name a few.

Stan,

These scriptures don't buttress your argument, they defeat it.

Romans 11:2 is clearly not talking about God looking down the corridor of time and selecting the nation that would love him and obey him. It is about God's choosing Israel and being faithful to Israel in spite of the fact that they haven't!

1 Peter 1:2 doesn't help you either. 1 Peter 1:2 doesn't say that they are elect because of their obedience to Jesus Christ, it says that they are elected unto obedience to Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 1:11 doesn't even mention προγινωσκω, what are you talking about here?

It does point out rather clearly that God predestines according to his purpose and not our response which illumines Romans 8:28 quite a bit.

Ephesians 1:11(Ephesians 1:11 ESV) In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,

Romans 8:28 (Romans 8:28 ESV) And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

Acts 2:23 doesn't help you either because Peter is using προγινωσκω in the sense of God's predetermination and we know that because Peter mentions that in the context of God's plan.

(Acts 2:23 ESV) this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

The tense, voice and mood of the VERB proginṓskō, conveys exactly that.

WHAT???

You are going to have to explain how the tense voice and mood of the verb determines the lexical meaning.

Actually, can you please site us some source that tells us that tense, voice and mood in any way indicate lexical meaning.

The tense is the Aorist tense, which presents the action in summary usually in the past, the voice is the active voice which means the God is the one performing the action of the verb rather than receiving the action of the verb and the mood is in the indicative which indicates the reality of the action per the perspective of the speaker.

None of this proves your claim that it means...

To KNOW what WILL happens given a particular scenario, which in this case is those that love and accept God.

Please, stop making up Greek grammar rules.

Actually, you were, by saying it comes after predestination,

Wrong.

If it did convey a type of choosing or ordination, the word Paul would have used is ὁρίζω (horizō), however he didn't.

No, he used the same word that Peter used in 1 Peter 1:20 when speaking of God's choosing Christ beforehand to accomplish the work of redemption which is how the NIV translates the participial form of προγινωσκω in 1 Peter 1:20.

Can you explain why Peter didn't use οριζω in 1 Peter 1:20?

Asserting this doesn't MAKE it so. You have NOT shown that to be the case.

It absolutely is the case as ους refers to people not their actions in this passage, it refers to those who love God and are called according to His purpose.

If you want to make ους out to refer to actions then you must remain consistent and say that God foreknew the actions, predestined the actions, called the actions, justified the actions and glorified the actions.

Is that what you would have us all believe is the best translation of that passage?

It shows us whom God "foreknew", He predestined, to be conformed to the image of His Son, not to love Him or be saved. Sadly you use eisegesis to convey an inappropriate meaning to this scripture.

Wait, You just told us that what God foreknew were the action of people, now you are telling us that God foreknew the people themselves, which is it?

As I have already shown above, the tense, voice, and mood,

No you didn't.

:nono:

You just appealed to made up rules of Greek Grammar and I am calling your bluff on it. Tell us how the tense, voice and mood of the verb determine its lexical meaning.

Actually, quote for us a single biblical scholar that says that tense, voice and mood dictate lexical meaning of any verb.

I prefer Mounce and Moo given their pre-eminence in this field. Saying "it is possible" is simply equivocal and not direct, nor does it answer the issue.

Do ya now?

Because both of these scholars flatly deny the validity of your interpretation.

These verses contain a series of five verbs (all in the aorist tense) describing how God has carried out his saving. purpose. The first two are foreknowledge and predestination. We know that God is at work for us in the circumstances of life (v. 28) because we have been predestined to "share in the likeness of his Son (Weymouth). As Jesus "learned obedience from what he suffered" (Heb 5:8), we too should expect our share of difficulties in the process of being conformed to his image. Verse 29 is sometimes interpreted to mean that God predestines on the basis of his prior knowledge about how each of us will in fact respond. But this would mean that in election God would not be sovereign; he would be dependent upon what he would see happening in the future. Theologians rightly point out that prior knowledge must be divine decree. Unless God determines in some sense that something will happen, he cannot "know" that it will. For God to foreknow requires an earlier decree. The etymology of the Greek verb translated "predestine" suggests marking out a boundary beforehand. (Highlight added)

Moo doesn't agree with you either.

The first of the verbs is the most controversial. "Foreknow" as its etymology in both Greek and English suggests, usually means "to know ahead of time." See Acts 26:5, where Paul says that the Jews "knew before now, for a long time, if they wished to testify, that I have lived according to the strictest party of our religion." This being the commonest meaning of the verb, it is not surprising that many interpreters think it must mean this here also. Since, however it would be a needless truism to say that God "knows" (about) Christians ahead of time, the verb would have to suggest that God "foresees" something peculiar to believers - perhaps their moral fitness (so many patristic theologians) or (which is far more likely, if this is what the verb means) their faith. In this manner the human response of faith is made the object of God's "foreknowledge"; and this foreknowledge, in turn, is the basis for predestination: for "whom he foreknew, he predestined."

But I consider it unlikely that this the correct interpretation. (1) The NT usage of the verb and its cognate noun does not conform to the general pattern of usage. IN the six occurances of these words in the NT, only two mean “know beforehand” (Acts 26:5 cited above, and 2 Peter 3:17); the three others besides the occurrence in this text, and all of which have God as their subject, mean not “know before” – in the sense of intellectual knowledge, or congnition – but to “enter into relationship with before” or “choose” or “determine, before” (Romans 11:2, 1 Peter 1:20; Acts 2:23; 1 Pet. 1:2). (2) That the verb here contains this peculiarly biblical sense of “know” is suggested by the fact that it has a simple personal object. Paul does not say that God knew anything about us but that he knew us, and this is reminiscent of the OT sense of “know.” (3) Moreover, it is only some individuals – those who, having been “foreknown,” were also “predestined,” “called,” “justified,” and “glorified” – who are the objects of this activity and this shows that the action applicable only to Christians must be denoted by the verb.

So….. concerning Moo and Mounce…..


How do you like ‘em now?

This is the problem when those who really don't understand Greek, try and make ONE connotation fit ALL uses.

Well, maybe those who have superior Greek understanding (presumably you) can tell the rest of us how Tense, Voice and Mood determine the lexical meaning of a verb which you claimed earlier. Please cite your source, then we’ll determine who really understands Greek and who doesn’t.

Secondly, Mr. Pot, please stop calling the Kettle black as you have been the one arguing that προγινωσκω has ONE connotation that fits all uses by denying that it means what Moo suggests in Romans 8:29.

Regarding 1 Peter 1:20 you say:

The Greek word used here is προεγνωσμένου, ..

Please tell me that you can see that this is the perfect passive participial form of προγινωσκω. Its not a different word, just a participial form of the word.

..and the tense, voice and mood is NOT the same as Rom 8:28.

Of course it isn’t.

So what?

You have yet to prove to us that tense, voice and mood determine the lexical meaning of verbs. Again, please cite your source.

Regardless, it is NOT causative here either.

The participle refers to God’s “foreknowledge” of Jesus, and as such it isn’t in the active voice.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

This is the great fallacy of all freewillery


"all have the opportunity" really? is that really true? have there not come and gone BILLIONS who never did hear the true message of the cross?

Better yet, let him tell us why he believes.:chew:

 

[StanJ]

This is the great fallacy of all freewillery
"all have the opportunity" really? is that really true? have there not come and gone BILLIONS who never did hear the true message of the cross?

Paul addresses this in Romans 1

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Paul addresses this in Romans 1

You might wanna read it again and not leave out verse 19.:chew:


Romans 1:19 KJV


19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.



Romans one is about how man cannot choose God even when he shows them himself, same as Adam.


God has subjected man to vanity and that not willingly.

As Paul goes on to explain perfectly as his epistle to the Romans continues.




Romans 8:20 KJV



20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,



This is why scripture is good for reproof.

 

[StanJ]

You make the mistake of making our love for God the basis of God's election for us. This can be cleared up by appealing to 1 John 4:10-19. God's love come first.

As I don't believe in RT election, I can't possibly be making that connection. I also don't see what you allude to in 1 John 4, but as I said before it's best if YOU make a point when quoting scriptures you nebulously appeal to.

These scriptures don't buttress your argument, they defeat it.

As far as the rest of your post here is concerned you have deleted the actual reference to whatever post of mine you copied these from, so I cannot see the context or who I was addressing. I suggest you restore the links, as I can't be bothered hunting them down after so long.

 

[StanJ]

You might wanna read it again and not leave out verse 19.
Romans 1:19 KJV
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Romans one is about how man cannot choose God even when he shows them himself, same as Adam.
God has subjected man to vanity and that not willingly.
As Paul goes on to explain perfectly as his epistle to the Romans continues.
Romans 8:20 KJV
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
This is why scripture is good for reproof.

this is the reason I quoted the entire chapter so it could be read IN context.

v18-20;
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

You're now reading scripture through your RT coloured glasses. It says what is says, which is that no man has an excuse to NOT know of God or acknowledge Him.

As you don't appear to understand the message as rendered in the KJV, I suggest you read it in a more modern and accurate English translation as I've shown above.

Yes scripture is good for reproof, IF you understand what it actually says.

 

[Puppet]

You might wanna read it again and not leave out verse 19.:chew:


Romans 1:19 KJV


19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.



Romans one is about how man cannot choose God even when he shows them himself, same as Adam.


God has subjected man to vanity and that not willingly.

As Paul goes on to explain perfectly as his epistle to the Romans continues.




Romans 8:20 KJV



20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,



This is why scripture is good for reproof.

This should apply to Freelight and Caino

 

[Dialogos]

Paul addresses this in Romans 1

No, Paul addressed the fact that mankind, universally, has exchanged the truth of God for a lie and therefore no one has the ability to save themselves.

That's why Romans 2:1 follows Romans 1.

Everyone has been given sufficient information that God exists, that He is holy, just and good.

Everyone has exchanged that truth for a lie, refused to honor God as God and became futile in their thinking.

That's why (Romans 2:1) no one has an excuse. Because every one of us who pass judgment on another end up condemning ourselves.

How come?

Because, according to Paul, we are all in the same boat.

There are not two categories of people, which your soteriology demands, one naturally spiritually receptive and another not spiritually receptive.

There is one category of mankind, spiritually dead in trespasses and sins and in desperate need of grace.

 

[Dialogos]

As far as the rest of your post here is concerned you have deleted the actual reference to whatever post of mine you copied these from, so I cannot see the context or who I was addressing. I suggest you restore the links, as I can't be bothered hunting them down after so long.

Your post is here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4379008&postcount=295

I it has all the context you need since it is your post.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

This should apply to Freelight and Caino

I completely exposed and demolished their theology several months ago and shook the dust off on the urantia thread.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

What God has CHOSEN is how one is saved, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth, not WHO is saved.

Let us look at this verse:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).​

Christians are chosen before the foundation of the world "in Him." Once a person is "in Him" or "in Christ" he is saved:

"Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory" (2 Tim.2:10).​

So we can see that being chosen before the foundation of the world is in regard to salvation since the elect are chosen "in Him." In other words, no one can be chosen "in Him" unless salvation is secured.

And these words of Paul mirror what he wrote at Ephesians 1:4:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

According to your ideas being elected has nothing to do with salvation!

Your ideas match those of the Calvinists!

 

[StanJ]

Let us look at this verse:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).
​

Christians are chosen before the foundation of the world "in Him." Once a person is "in Him" or "in Christ" he is saved:

"Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory" (2 Tim.2:10).
​

So we can see that being chosen before the foundation of the world is in regard to salvation since the elect are chosen "in Him." In other words, no one can be chosen "in Him" unless salvation is secured.

And these words of Paul mirror what he wrote at Ephesians 1:4:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).
​

According to your ideas being elected has nothing to do with salvation!

Your ideas match those of the Calvinists!

Yes Jerry, chosen us IN Him, those God foreknew would be saved and accept His Son, He chose to predestine to be CONFORMED to the image of His Son. Rom 8:28-30
Everything comes AFTER salvation, NOT before.

 

[StanJ]

Your post is here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4379008&postcount=295

I it has all the context you need since it is your post.

Thanks but please leave the links in place in future. I don't have the time to look all over the place for my posts as I do dozens a day in a few different forums.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Yes Jerry, chosen us IN Him, those God foreknew would be saved and accept His Son, He chose to predestine to be CONFORMED to the image of His Son. Rom 8:28-30
Everything comes AFTER salvation, NOT before.

And just what was this crystal ball made of that has such great influence on God's decisions?

Do you even have a clue of the ignorance you spew when you say God looked into a future he could not change and therefore based his decision upon it?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Thanks but please leave the links in place in future. I don't have the time to look all over the place for my posts as I do dozens a day in a few different forums.

It shows.

Now if you would be so kind to answer Diaglos' question 'bout those theologians you supposedly agree with?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yes Jerry, chosen us IN Him, those God foreknew would be saved and accept His Son, He chose to predestine to be CONFORMED to the image of His Son. Rom 8:28-30
Everything comes AFTER salvation, NOT before.

No, the verses says that they were chosen "in Him" beforethe foundation of the world.

No one can be "ïn Him" while being unsaved so the verse is speaking about being chosen for salvation:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

Do you actually think that a person can be "in Him" while being unsaved?

 

[StanJ]

These scriptures don't buttress your argument, they defeat it.
Romans 11:2 is clearly not talking about God looking down the corridor of time and selecting the nation that would love him and obey him. It is about God's choosing Israel and being faithful to Israel in spite of the fact that they haven't!

No it does not say what I have emboldened above, which seems to be a vernacular commonly used in RT apologetics, it talks about foreknowledge, and in this case of His own people who WOULD chose to know Him.

1 Peter 1:2 doesn't help you either. 1 Peter 1:2 doesn't say that they are elect because of their obedience to Jesus Christ, it says that they are elected unto obedience to Jesus Christ.

Well I guess if you didn't use the KJV you would understand better. It says;
who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father
Foreknowledge is how God made His plan, and ALL aspects of it.

Ephesians 1:11 doesn't even mention προγινωσκω, what are you talking about here?
It does point out rather clearly that God predestines according to his purpose and not our response which illumines Romans 8:28 quite a bit.
Ephesians 1:11(Ephesians 1:11 ESV) In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,

I never said it did. It supports what Paul also writes in Rom 8:28-30.
Yes that is what it says, according to the PURPOSE based on His will. Nowhere does it convey His will is to Sovereignly elect ANYONE.

Romans 8:28 (Romans 8:28 ESV) And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

Acts 2:23 doesn't help you either because Peter is using προγινωσκω in the sense of God's predetermination and we know that because Peter mentions that in the context of God's plan.

(Acts 2:23 ESV) this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

Yes, HIS purpose which 2 Peter 3:9 (NIV) succinctly shows. Obviously, NOT Sovereign Election.

WHAT???
You are going to have to explain how the tense voice and mood of the verb determines the lexical meaning.
Actually, can you please site us some source that tells us that tense, voice and mood in any way indicate lexical meaning.

Really? You purport to understand Greek and don't know this? I'm not a Greek teacher, but feel free to study the following;
http://www.studylight.org/desk/interlinear.cgi?search_form_type=interlinear&q1=Romans+8%3A29&ot=bhs&nt=wh&s=0&t3=str_nas&ns=0

No, he used the same word that Peter used in 1 Peter 1:20 when speaking of God's choosing Christ beforehand to accomplish the work of redemption which is how the NIV translates the participial form of προγινωσκω in 1 Peter 1:20.
Can you explain why Peter didn't use οριζω in 1 Peter 1:20?

What IS used in 1 Peter 1:20 , is NOT translated as "preordained", but the same as it is in all the following translations;
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Peter 1:20&version=MOUNCE;NET;NASB;NIV;ISV

The point is προγινώσκω (proginōskō) is NOT rendered in English as you assert it is, UNLESS you are stuck on the KJV. Are you KJVO?

It absolutely is the case as ους refers to people not their actions in this passage, it refers to those who love God and are called according to His purpose.
If you want to make ους out to refer to actions then you must remain consistent and say that God foreknew the actions, predestined the actions, called the actions, justified the actions and glorified the actions.
Is that what you would have us all believe is the best translation of that passage?

Well yes of course it refers to people, and those and their actions are conveyed in v28, so I don't really understand what your point is here?
I'm not the one that is pulling out words over the context of how they are being used. I deal with Greek and you respond in English, and vice versa. Not sure why you can't stick to one or the other? The order is clear in v20 and does NOT depict Sovereign Election.

Wait, You just told us that what God foreknew were the action of people, now you are telling us that God foreknew the people themselves, which is it?

Yes, WHOM God foreknew would chose/love His Son. You seem to really like making me sound equivocal when in fact I am NOT.

No you didn't.
You just appealed to made up rules of Greek Grammar and I am calling your bluff on it. Tell us how the tense, voice and mood of the verb determine its lexical meaning.

I gave you a link above to study it.

Actually, quote for us a single biblical scholar that says that tense, voice and mood dictate lexical meaning of any verb.

Strong

Because both of these scholars flatly deny the validity of your interpretation.

Which Mounce is this? I am surprised, as states;
But this would mean that in election God would not be sovereign;
This appears to be a predisposed view that SE is a fact, when he doesn't show it is. I would have to study this in much more depth to see.

Moo doesn't agree with you either.

Moo doesn't seem to be convinced of what exactly is being said based on your excerpt, which I also find surprising given his being the head of that translation committee for the NIV.
However he does say;
Moreover, it is only some individuals – those who, having been “foreknown,” were also “predestined,” “called,” “justified,” and “glorified” – who are the objects of this activity and this shows that the action applicable only to Christians must be denoted by the verb.

So….. concerning Moo and Mounce…..
How do you like ‘em now?

I have no problem with their work as translators. Whether they ARE RT and whether it affects their exegesis is another matter.

Well, maybe those who have superior Greek understanding (presumably you) can tell the rest of us how Tense, Voice and Mood determine the lexical meaning of a verb which you claimed earlier. Please cite your source, then we’ll determine who really understands Greek and who doesn’t.

You can read the following and refer to the link I posted above.
https://bible.org/article/do-all-things-really-work-together-good-romans-828-its-context

Secondly, Mr. Pot, please stop calling the Kettle black as you have been the one arguing that προγινωσκω has ONE connotation that fits all uses by denying that it means what Moo suggests in Romans 8:29.

Not at all, but it connotation based on it's context is clear...to me anyway.
I'm not debating Moo here, and I have no idea what the contexts of the supposed citations you offer are.

Please tell me that you can see that this is the perfect passive participial form of προγινωσκω. Its not a different word, just a participial form of the word.

and that does NOT convey something different to you, or are you stuck on the KJV English?

Of course it isn’t.
So what?
You have yet to prove to us that tense, voice and mood determine the lexical meaning of verbs. Again, please cite your source.

I feel like I have to respond quack, quack, quack to this, seeing as you're ducking.

The participle refers to God’s “foreknowledge” of Jesus, and as such it isn’t in the active voice.

Well then you and Strong disagree. I'll stick with Strong.

 

[StanJ]

No, the verses says that they were chosen "in Him" beforethe foundation of the world.

No one can be "ïn Him" while being unsaved so the verse is speaking about being chosen for salvation:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).
​

Do you actually think that a person can be "in Him" while being unsaved?

Chosen IN Him connotes God using His foreknowledge, so of course He knows who will be saved, and they are those who are IN Him.

 

[meshak]

God pre-destined the world to be saved by Jesus Christ. And thus doing also requires every living creature to repent and believe in the good news. I believe in predestination to that extent. However God is not a respecter of persons because He is not partial. In that way then, God will rightfully cast the wicked far from him while those who repent will be brought close. Anyone can take advantage of his gift, knowing he rewards those who earnestly desire righteousness

yes.