The topic of this thread is biblical foreknowledge.
It is not random views of church history.
Biblical foreknowledge.
It is not random views of church history.
Biblical foreknowledge.
Biblical Foreknowledge
- Thread starter Anthony D'Arienzo
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
ScottA
Well-Known Member
Biblical foreknowledge is the evidence that what is now manifest was written beforehand (then made manifest by revelations).
John Caldwell
Well-Known Member
John Caldwell
Well-Known Member
Someone (I can't remember who) used the illustration of a sign over the gates of Heaven. On entering are the words "Whosover will, let him come and drink freely". Upon looking back towards the entrance are the words "Beloved from the foundation of the Earth".
The mistake some make in their thinking can be seen in their speech. They speak of sheep and goats; of the election applied to those who currently do not believe; of micro-salvic movements. It is all philosophical as Scripture assumes a different vantage point entirely.
This is where neo-Calvinism fails. It starts not with Scripture but with philosophy.
The mistake some make in their thinking can be seen in their speech. They speak of sheep and goats; of the election applied to those who currently do not believe; of micro-salvic movements. It is all philosophical as Scripture assumes a different vantage point entirely.
This is where neo-Calvinism fails. It starts not with Scripture but with philosophy.
John Caldwell
Well-Known Member
Going back to historical Christianity -
The word "foreknowledge" has always meant a "pre-knowledge". This is what it means in Classical Calvinism. This is what John Calvin stated in the Institutions that it means (the difference not being what "foreknowledge" means but its origin).
Calvinism (classical Calvinism and Beza's Calvinism) presents divine foreknowledge as "divine pre-knowledge". We are foreknown by God as God's children because God has known beforehand that we would be saved. The difference between Calvinism (real Calvinism) and Arminianism is not "foreknowledge" but predestination. Calvinism holds that God foreknows the elect (knows beforehand who will be saved) because God has elected and decreed their salvation. At the base is predestination (especially with Beza).
Neo-Calvinism tries to reach back and present itself as the genuine article, but is often unable to engage those outside of a Calvinistic trajectory. It is a hyper type of Calvinism in that it redefines words by ascribing to pre-existing words a "biblical" meaning (which is often neither biblical nor the meaning of the word in question).
A Calvinist defines foreknowledge as God knowing beforehand what would occur because God has decreed the thing to come to pass.
An Arminianian defines foreknowledge as God pre-ordaining what will occur because God, being omniscient, knows what will come to pass.
A neo-Calvinist defines foreknowledge as indicating a relational aspect (God having a particular relationship with the object foreknown prior to the existence of that object).
We cannot ignore the role that history has to play as Calvinism did not exist for the first 15 centuries of the Church. Theologies were built upon theologies. As C.H. Spurgeon once observed, perhaps Calvin derived Calvinism not from Scripture but mainly from the writings of Augustine. (Spurgeon, Exposition of the Doctrine of Grace). Only neo-Calvinism denies and re-constructs history.
The word "foreknowledge" has always meant a "pre-knowledge". This is what it means in Classical Calvinism. This is what John Calvin stated in the Institutions that it means (the difference not being what "foreknowledge" means but its origin).
Calvinism (classical Calvinism and Beza's Calvinism) presents divine foreknowledge as "divine pre-knowledge". We are foreknown by God as God's children because God has known beforehand that we would be saved. The difference between Calvinism (real Calvinism) and Arminianism is not "foreknowledge" but predestination. Calvinism holds that God foreknows the elect (knows beforehand who will be saved) because God has elected and decreed their salvation. At the base is predestination (especially with Beza).
Neo-Calvinism tries to reach back and present itself as the genuine article, but is often unable to engage those outside of a Calvinistic trajectory. It is a hyper type of Calvinism in that it redefines words by ascribing to pre-existing words a "biblical" meaning (which is often neither biblical nor the meaning of the word in question).
A Calvinist defines foreknowledge as God knowing beforehand what would occur because God has decreed the thing to come to pass.
An Arminianian defines foreknowledge as God pre-ordaining what will occur because God, being omniscient, knows what will come to pass.
A neo-Calvinist defines foreknowledge as indicating a relational aspect (God having a particular relationship with the object foreknown prior to the existence of that object).
We cannot ignore the role that history has to play as Calvinism did not exist for the first 15 centuries of the Church. Theologies were built upon theologies. As C.H. Spurgeon once observed, perhaps Calvin derived Calvinism not from Scripture but mainly from the writings of Augustine. (Spurgeon, Exposition of the Doctrine of Grace). Only neo-Calvinism denies and re-constructs history.
Last edited:
In rom8:29 scripture says for whom God did foreknow.
God knew those sinners He purposed to save
This is the truth. No big song and dance, no questionable history lesson.
God knew the elect before the world was.
They are sinners who are brought into saving union with Jesus.
The thread concerns this.
God knew those sinners He purposed to save
This is the truth. No big song and dance, no questionable history lesson.
God knew the elect before the world was.
They are sinners who are brought into saving union with Jesus.
The thread concerns this.
Last edited:
Scott,
It is God knowing those He intended to save2tim1:9
Another off topic post.
Start your own thread and ramble and tell stories, spread your philosophy.
Do not do it here.
ScottA
Well-Known Member
The struggle here in understanding properly just how all these things, these events and passages align properly, comes from having a world view rather than a godly view. Yet most wanting to put a fix on it all, gravitate to a timeline of events, completely abandoning any idea that God doesn't work that way at all, but is the same yesterday, today, and forever. In other words, any idea that does not mean the same thing is true yesterday, today, and forever--is not of God.
Thus, there is only one way this all works.
John Caldwell
Well-Known Member
AMEN!!!!!
And this is often the problem of it. Men like to think of God the Father as if God the Father were man....only bigger.
ScottA
Well-Known Member
No.
Imagine a fish born in a fishbowl theorizing the great sea and trying to fit it all into the fishbowl. That is what men born in time attempt to do with the things of God whom is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Or, imagine an author writing a story of a fictitious character who would become a real person at the end of the story; and after it is all written, in the midst of the story line the fictitious character tries to define the author by the things he has written into the story.
Can you see how foolish it would be for the fish or the fictitious character to view the bigger picture through the lens of their own little fictitious world and terms?
Well...we are that fictitious character. And if we are ever going to understand the things of the Author of our story, we will have to do it on His terms, not ours.
Okay.
Scott 1 cor 2 says that is why we are given the Spirit so we can an know exactly what God wants us to know.
ScottA
Well-Known Member
Yes, and as the revelation of history (His story) unfolds, knowledge is increased among those of whom it was written before the foundation of the world.
John Caldwell
Well-Known Member
No, it is an extraordinarly on topic post (as was Scott's post).
The word "foreknowledge" has a meaning. The meaning has not changed by its neo-Calvinistic misuse.
Words have meaning. The idea God took Hebrew and Greek words and used them as some sort of hidden code (a "biblical meaning") only to be decoded by a select few is obscene.
You do not understand the nature of revelation or the truth itself,so it is no wonder you make such a foul post.
Biblical teaching is not overthrown by a faulty look at history.
The biblical God and His teaching comes through.
You dislike of it changes nothing.
John Caldwell
Well-Known Member
I do not understand why you think the post "foul". It is basic hermeneutics. Words have meanings. We cannot treat God's Word as if it assigned "biblical meanings" to normal words.
There are two sources that may help understand what I am talking about - 1. Grasping God's Word and 2. The Hermenutical Spiral. I recommended both.
I also do not understand why you think you know what I (or anyone else here) understands or does not understand. For the record, I do not believe in progressive revelation (if you were going to claim God revealed my understanding to you don't bother with that argument).
Last edited:
One of the many things we do not agree on is how you view scripture.
For you to suggest in any way that the biblical usage is to be overthrown by a dictionary suggestion or common usage is defective.
How God uses the words is paramount.
Your post presupposes that you alone have come to truth. Over time many have noticed this.What if you do not have truth?
You are not the only person that has read up on hermenutics.
In post numbers one and two the OP. Is quite clear and after hundreds of posts, no one has refuted it.
John Caldwell
Well-Known Member
It is true that our view of Scripture and the methodologies we employ in interpreting Scripture determines the outcome.
I hold a "literal" position of interpretation. What I mean by this is that I do not believe Scripture itself to be a narrative reflecting a people's understanding of God but a revelation of God by God Himself.
I take a traditional and literal hermenutical approach. Words have meanings and God Himself "breathed" the words through human arthors. In interpretation we need to recognize word choices and what they would mean to the auduence, recognize the differences between "us and them", discern the commonalities, recognize the principles, develop application, and (perhaps above all) understand what is being communicated.
Liberalism (IMHO) has done damage to biblical literacy and church doctrine. The liberal approach introduces subjectivity in excess into interpretation (there is always some subjectivity).
Liberals hold that words are subjective and convey a meaning other than the actual definition of the word or a meaning derived from context. Liberals often engage in what was called "doublespeak" a few decades ago. They ascribe "biblical definitions" to words to bend Scripture to their theologies (or, oglfter, their ideologies).
So yes, you are correct. I do take a traditional view of Scripture and a traditional hermeneutical approach. And this does become a barrier in dealing with people who asdume more liberal methods. I just cannot see how subjectivity in interpretation can lead to anything but error.
I know I have come to the Truth because Christ IS the Truth. Insofar as secondary issues, as C. H. Spurgeon once said of Calvinism - our understanding is subject to the human condition.
My question is how do you know that "foreknowledge" has a "biblical meaning" that differs from its actual meaning? Why did scholors not find this "biblical meaning" until fairly recently as traditional Calvinism (as opposed to contemporary "mainstream" Calvinism) did not discover this "biblical meaning"?
Last edited:
John Caldwell
Well-Known Member
I will add, I am weary of new doctrines. While it is true antiquity does not mean accurate I have a difficult time accepting new interpretations of Scripture.
Part of this is I do not believe in progressive revelation. I believe Scripture to be complete.
@Anthony D'Arienzo 's position is not progressive revelation, per se, only the liberal method of assigning "biblical meanings" to words in place of their actual meaning. I have always viewed this type of subjective interpretation as dangerous.
But I am also influenced by my background. I am Baptist (conservative Baptist at that). I am getting old and I default to traditional methods, interpretations and doctrines.
Perhaps liberal methods have something to offer. I can't see how (again, it is subjective). When we redefine one word to suit our theology what prevents us from redefining other words when one's theology changes.
Part of this is I do not believe in progressive revelation. I believe Scripture to be complete.
@Anthony D'Arienzo 's position is not progressive revelation, per se, only the liberal method of assigning "biblical meanings" to words in place of their actual meaning. I have always viewed this type of subjective interpretation as dangerous.
But I am also influenced by my background. I am Baptist (conservative Baptist at that). I am getting old and I default to traditional methods, interpretations and doctrines.
Perhaps liberal methods have something to offer. I can't see how (again, it is subjective). When we redefine one word to suit our theology what prevents us from redefining other words when one's theology changes.
Last edited:
Similar threads
