Biblical Foreknowledge

[John Caldwell]

Your lack of biblical understanding does not alter the passage at all.

from precept austin;
Romans 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; (NASB: Lockman)

Greek: hoti ous proegno, (3SAAI) kai proorisen (3SAAI) summorphous tes eikonos tou huiou autou, eis to einai (PAN) auton prototokon en pollois adelphois

Amplified: For those whom He foreknew [of whom He was aware and loved beforehand], He also destined from the beginning [foreordaining them] to be molded into the image of His Son [and share inwardly His likeness], that He might become the firstborn among many brethren. (Amplified Bible - Lockman)

NLT: For God knew his people in advance, and he chose them to become like his Son, so that his Son would be the firstborn, with many brothers and sisters. (NLT - Tyndale House)

Phillips: God, in his foreknowledge, chose them to bear the family likeness of his Son, that he might be the eldest of a family of many brothers. (Phillips: Touchstone)

Wuest: Because, those whom He foreordained He also marked out beforehand as those who were to be conformed to the derived image of His Son, with the result that He is firstborn among many brethren.

Young's Literal: For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren;

Nor does your interpretation of Scripture alter its text. That is my point. You and I can both make mistakes in interpretation because we are human. That is why I prefer the literal method ("literal" being according to the plain meaning conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context) rather than liberal hermenutics.

Suppose you or I (or W.R. Dowining) are less than absolutely perfect in our understanding of God. If I employ your liberal method to hermenutics and ascribe to a word a "biblical meaning" then I would introduce error into the text via this "double speak". This is exactly what the liberal theologians did decades ago in the SBC. The difference, of course, is that you do not hold a liberal view of Scripture or ascribe to liberal theology. You just have adopted liberal hermenutics (I believe to guard against liberal theology, which is commendable, but the liberty taken with the text of Scripture is just as problematic).

 

[Jay Ross]

The achieving of accurate communication between two parties is hardest and slowest when that communication is conducted in the written format of communication when compared with face to face spoken communication, where corrections and misunderstandings of the recipient can be quickly undertaken by the speaker if the speaker is willing to learn from the "active" "non verbal communications" during their verbal face to face spoken interactions.

It seems to me that the two participant in the original communication did not take the time to learn from the other if what they had communicated in the written medium had been transferred to the respective participant such that the respective participants had come to the same understand as the other had intended the message to be understood.

Good communication only occurs when the recipient is able to come to the same understanding as the provider of the communication source such that they have the same understanding of each others words.

It seems that in the posting communications form employed previously in their interactions with each other, that they both failed to ensure that the reader had come to the same understanding of the intent of the post as the person had who made the post. With that being said, if the parties do not ask the right questions during their interactions but instead, fire up, so to speak, because of their inability to perceive what the other may have omitted because of the space limitations of the posting forum, then misunderstanding will only occur and the posting conversation will degenerate and spiral downwards.

The sign of the greater man in this posting communication can be observed in how they are able to defuse the situation even if they "lose face" so to speak. It seems to me that both parties did not want to back down but they only wanted to come out on top.

From what I have briefly read of the communications record, as presented on this forum, both parties are being as pig headed as the other.

Shalom

PS: - It seems the above couple of posts from the respective participants prove my point.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Your summary was incomplete then.

yes.. I was not doing the whole chapter.

 

[John Caldwell]

The achieving of accurate communication between two parties is hardest and slowest when that communication is conducted in the written format of communication when compared with face to face spoken communication, where corrections and misunderstandings of the recipient can be quickly undertaken by the speaker if the speaker is willing to learn from the "active" "non verbal communications" during their verbal face to face spoken interactions.

It seems to me that the two participant in the original communication did not take the time to learn from the other if what they had communicated in the written medium had been transferred to the respective participant such that the respective participants had come to the same understand as the other had intended the message to be understood.

Good communication only occurs when the recipient is able to come to the same understanding as the provider of the communication source such that they have the same understanding of each others words.

It seems that in the posting communications form employed previously in their interactions with each other, that they both failed to ensure that the reader had come to the same understanding of the intent of the post as the person had who made the post. With that being said, if the parties do not ask the right questions during their interactions but instead, fire up, so to speak, because of their inability to perceive what the other may have omitted because of the space limitations of the posting forum, then misunderstanding will only occur and the posting conversation will degenerate and spiral downwards.

The sign of the greater man in this posting communication can be observed in how they are able to defuse the situation even if they "lose face" so to speak. It seems to me that both parties did not want to back down but they only wanted to come out on top.

From what I have briefly read of the communications record, as presented on this forum, both parties are being as pig headed as the other.

Shalom

PS: - It seems the above couple of posts from the respective participants prove my point.

I agree that written communication has its problems. But it also has advantages. In written communication one can examine the other's words and respond for clarity or to make sure the intended communication has been correctly understood ("you say this-----. which I understand to mean -----, is that correct?).

Another advantage is it is recorded. For example, my post (before yours) speaks of the imperfection of human understanding. If we assign "biblical" meanings for a word then we (IMHO) also introduce a greater possibility for error than is necessary. In written conversation we can return to the "scene" and reevaluate what was said. It is never too late to rewind and go forward with "oh, my bad". Losing face should never be a factor in that type of conversation.

My preference in a debate is via email. I've had to debate in college and seminary. In an active debate most often the "winner" is the one who best articulates his or her position or has the best argument for the moment rather than the one who may actually hold the more correct position. Email is the only way that I'll actually debate. Online forums are more of a discussion (often brainstorming).

Anyway, good insights.

John

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

John Caldwell, .

You and I can both make mistakes in interpretation because we are human. That is why I prefer the literal method ("literal" being according to the plain meaning conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context) rather than liberal hermenutics.

I do not use any liberal hermenutic

Suppose you or I (or W.R. Dowining) are less than absolutely perfect in our understanding of God. If I employ your liberal method to hermenutics and ascribe to a word a "biblical meaning" then I would introduce error into the text via this "double speak". This is exactly what the liberal theologians did decades ago in the SBC. The difference, of course, is that you do not hold a liberal view of Scripture or ascribe to liberal theology. You just have adopted liberal hermenutics (I believe to guard against liberal theology, which is commendable, but the liberty taken with the text of Scripture is just as problematic).[/QUOTE]
Again, I reject what you say is my liberal method. This is the kind of slimy communication you offer.
I believe in a literal interpretation of scripture.
You believe you can project a caricature of what a person believes and keep repeating it so others believe it is so.

 

[Jay Ross]

I agree that written communication has its problems. But it also has advantages. In written communication one can examine the other's words and respond for clarity or to make sure the intended communication has been correctly understood ("you say this-----. which I understand to mean -----, is that correct?).

Another advantage is it is recorded. For example, my post (before yours) speaks of the imperfection of human understanding. If we assign "biblical" meanings for a word then we (IMHO) also introduce a greater possibility for error than is necessary. In written conversation we can return to the "scene" and reevaluate what was said. It is never too late to rewind and go forward with "oh, my bad". Losing face should never be a factor in that type of conversation.

My preference in a debate is via email. I've had to debate in college and seminary. In an active debate most often the "winner" is the one who best articulates his or her position or has the best argument for the moment rather than the one who may actually hold the more correct position. Email is the only way that I'll actually debate. Online forums are more of a discussion (often brainstorming).

Anyway, good insights.

John

John, you like to debate, which reinforces my comment of both parties being pig headed.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

"Jay Ross,

From what I have briefly read of the communications record, as presented on this forum, both parties are being as pig headed as the other.

Shalom

PS: - It seems the above couple of posts from the respective participants prove my point.

hello Jay, take a look here jay.
i posted a thread saying Jesus had given the Apostles the special promise to be guided into ALL TRUTH.
Apostolic Uniqueness ....Guided into All Truth
Watch how the other poster twists and perverts my words completely and has me saying and posting things i never posted!
Iisted many of them in post41.
read through the whole thread if you have time.
Them let me know what you think.

 

[John Caldwell]

John, you like to debate, which reinforces my comment of both parties being pig headed.

I am pig headed. As long as there is room to argue I'm game.

But online forums is more of an issue of trying to understand one another's position than debating the correctness.

With "foreknowledge" simply as a word, it has a meaning. So do words like "propitiate", "ordain', ""book", and "television".

My point is my method of defining the word.

Liberal hermeneutics assigns derived meanings to words. These "biblical" meanings may express the thought of a passage accurately. BUT it is a different way of defining words.

If you are familiar with the SBC's struggle a few decades ago you may know why this concerns me. You and I could use the exact same words to mean very different things.

I do not think it is being stubborn to stand fast on what I believe to be an important point. But I do agree I am stubborn.

As far as @Anthony D'Arienzo 's claim that I posted that I hate Calvinists, I will continue to insist he is lying. Of his abuses that one is really offensive (whether Calvinists, Baptists, Catholics....or whetever). I will not let that one fade because it is objective and simple. Again, yes...I am stubborn. Like @lforrest mentioned, one of us is lying and it is simple to determine the truth.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

I am pig headed. As long as there is room to argue I'm game.

But online forums is more of an issue of trying to understand one another's position than debating the correctness.

With "foreknowledge" simply as a word, it has a meaning. So do words like "propitiate", "ordain', ""book", and "television".

My point is my method of defining the word.

Liberal hermeneutics assigns derived meanings to words. These "biblical" meanings may express the thought of a passage accurately. BUT it is a different way of defining words.

If you are familiar with the SBC's struggle a few decades ago you may know why this concerns me. You and I could use the exact same words to mean very different things.

I do not think it is being stubborn to stand fast on what I believe to be an important point. But I do agree I am stubborn.

As far as @Anthony D'Arienzo 's claim that I posted that I hate Calvinists, I will continue to insist he is lying. Of his abuses that one is really offensive (whether Calvinists, Baptists, Catholics....or whetever). I will not let that one fade because it is objective and simple. Again, yes...I am stubborn. Like @lforrest mentioned, one of us is lying and it is simple to determine the truth.

Yes...restore the deleted post...we can all read it then.After you denied the deleted thread for weeks, you said I made it up,was on drugs,had emotional problems, you banned me saying Martin marprelate requested it be deleted....except he denied your story,lol.

 

[John Caldwell]

Yes...restore the deleted post...we can all read it then.After you denied the deleted thread for weeks, you said I made it up,was on drugs,had emotional problems, you banned me saying Martin marprelate requested it be deleted....except he denied your story,lol.

The post (you said the one with the "green smikey" ) was never deleted. I know the post because you made such a big deal of it on the BB.

Just like @SovereignGrace did yesterday, I posted a comment and thought it was too flamming so I edited my own post (@SovereignGrace deleted his to WillieT). You had a meltdown. So the post was restored to it's original content to pacify you.

Like the Admin team told you - yours was a false accusation. My post was, they decided, pushing things as evidenced by my decision to edit my post. But your charge was proven false. The post is still there.

And in the post I never state that I hate Calvinists.

 

[John Caldwell]

@Anthony D'Arienzo ,

To settle the issue, I have submitted the post to the administration here. As soon as you said "green smiley" I knew which post you were talking about. Now, let's just leave it to the staff here and leave the BB on the BB.

I do not discuss issues on the BB (this was a new years resolution, although I slipped up after 4 months). But as you probably have noticed over the past few months, I have not been entering into many discussions on the forum. That is why I came here - to discuss topics that interest me.

Leave the BB on the BB and respect this forum.

John

 

[bbyrd009]

but they stayed with Moses, knowing they would die in the wilderness. They followed the Pillar too. Why did they do that? So their children could enter?

maybe so as to provide a template for our walk, wherein we as "believers" are, generally speaking, expecting to get rewarded for something we should be doing anyway, right? And in this case my response to "Why did they do that" would be "bc that is exactly what we are going to do, and there is no choice in the matter, ergo 'why' becomes moot."

so, not saying i know this, but it came to me um in the time when my best answers come, when i am asleep lol

 

[John Caldwell]

Again, I reject what you say is my liberal method. This is the kind of slimy communication you offer.
I believe in a literal interpretation of scripture.
You believe you can project a caricature of what a person believes and keep repeating it so others believe it is so.

We can get past terms, Anthony. I do not mean an insult by refering to your method as liberal hermeneutics. You made the statement that my method subjects God to a dictionary.

In a way I see what you mean. I do believe that God chose, through human writers, words for their already existing meaning.

I understand your use of "biblical meanings" which you described as God defining these words as what is known as liberal hermeneutics (a liberal method) because it does not accept the objectivity of linguistic restraint in favor of providing a word (or certain words) a "biblical meaning" in addition to its normal usages.

The method you employ is not the "literal method". By using the term "liberal hermeneutics" I was referring to your method, which fits the normal and accepted definition of the term. In no way am I suggesting you hold a liberal view of Scripture or that you affirm liberal theology. I know, in fact, that this is not the case.

If you would like to become more familiar with these terms (how I use them, anyway) and biblical interpretation, I highly recommend The Hermenutical Spiral by Grant Osborne, Grasping God's Word by Scott Duvall and Daniel Hayes, and New Testament Exegesis by Gordon Fee.

I think all three, especially the first two, can help you and anyone here grow in their studies as they have helped me.

Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that I did not mean my use of the term to be an insult. I am SBC and that is the term that we used to describe the method you employ. I should have considered that its use may be more specific to a specific category of people and not used broadly.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

@Anthony D'Arienzo ,

To settle the issue, I have submitted the post to the administration here. As soon as you said "green smiley" I knew which post you were talking about. Now, let's just leave it to the staff here and leave the BB on the BB.

I do not discuss issues on the BB (this was a new years resolution, although I slipped up after 4 months). But as you probably have noticed over the past few months, I have not been entering into many discussions on the forum. That is why I came here - to discuss topics that interest me.

Leave the BB on the BB and respect this forum.

John

John, that was the second of 3 deleted posts.
I am talking about the one in the end of January.
You leveled 6 or 7 accusations against the Cals.
You said we were dishonesty , untrustworthy liars, and 4 or 5 other things.
You said you were not going to let us gang up on you.
Then you said more things.
The post and thread got deleted.
That is the one I am looking for.
That is the one I want you to restore.
During the inquiry I asked 5 times for you to post it.
You never did.
Post that, then I believe we can put it in the past.
Like I have told you, what you believe or do not believe is not the point of contention.
If you look at the Apostolic Uniqueness thread,I opened with two or three posts.
You twisted and misrepresented everything I said, if you skip down to post 41 I began to list your lying false witness.
If you did it on purpose it is exceedingly wicked.
If you do not understand what you did you have a mental defect of some kind.
As far as if it happened here or there does not matter. You need to stop doing it.
If I am wrong quote me word for word and offer correction.
In that post by the time you were done you suggested I denied the work of the Spirit.

 

[bbyrd009]

The achieving of accurate communication between two parties is hardest and slowest when

It seems to me that the two participant in the original communication did not take the time to learn

Good communication only occurs

(SiT)
yeh, satan's dialectic is like that i guess
and like this;
and like that and like this
and uh,
i love how doesnt matter how many times you remark upon it,
or how many ppl remark upon it,
they are generally completely immune from these remarks?

we're tired of this manna, give us some meat to eat!
lol

I agree that written communication has its problems. But it also has advantages. In written communication one can examine the other's words and respond for clarity or to make sure the intended communication has been correctly understood ("you say this-----. which I understand to mean -----, is that correct?).

Another advantage is it is recorded. For example, my post (before yours) speaks of the imperfection of human understanding. If we assign "biblical" meanings for a word then we (IMHO) also introduce a greater possibility for error than is necessary. In written conversation we can return to the "scene" and reevaluate what was said. It is never too late to rewind and go forward with "oh, my bad". Losing face should never be a factor in that type of conversation.

My preference in a debate is via email. I've had to debate in college and seminary. In an active debate most often the "winner" is the one who best articulates his or her position or has the best argument for the moment rather than the one who may actually hold the more correct position. Email is the only way that I'll actually debate. Online forums are more of a discussion (often brainstorming).

Anyway, good insights.

John

unfort i doubt any of us share a single common definition for any term,
"that depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"

I do not use any liberal hermenutic

ya, i figgered ol' Hermen was lurking around here somewhere lol.
Bible Scholars are a headache unto themselves, imo

 

[bbyrd009]

beware the thief in the night

take that laterally, if you like.

"to most people, the Bible is lying, right out in the open"
wisdom is hidden from the wise

 

[John Caldwell]

beware the thief in the night

take that laterally, if you like.

"to most people, the Bible is lying, right out in the open"
wisdom is hidden from the wise

Jesus Himself spoke in parables.

Isn't it interesting that we grow up reading those parables as if they should be plain to everyone. They were given out in the open in the language and culture of the first century Jew. But even the Disciples needed an explanation.

I suppose a lot is hindsight and the benefit of the New Testament, but some of the parables (you would think) would have resonated without explanation.

I believe that the larger issue (the reason it was hidden) is that biblical truth is so counter to the way that we would have things (it is not "human wisdom").

 

[bbyrd009]

I suppose a lot is hindsight and the benefit of the New Testament, but some of the parables (you would think) would have resonated without explanation.

the apostles do seem particularly dense at times, huh? Dunno if our hindsight or what? Fishermen were then much as they are today i guess, tho...hmm

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

You know JonC, we at one time spoke on a friendly basis where I treated you as a brother.
In the past few months you have come across as an enemy of the cross....I hope that is not so.
If you can read through your posts on that thread and not see a problem I do not know if I can help you

 

[John Caldwell]

John, that was the second of 3 deleted posts.
I am talking about the one in the end of January.
You leveled 6 or 7 accusations against the Cals.
You said we were dishonesty , untrustworthy liars, and 4 or 5 other things.
You said you were not going to let us gang up on you.
Then you said more things.
The post and thread got deleted.
That is the one I am looking for.
That is the one I want you to restore.
During the inquiry I asked 5 times for you to post it.
You never did.
Post that, then I believe we can put it in the past.
Like I have told you, what you believe or do not believe is not the point of contention.
If you look at the Apostolic Uniqueness thread,I opened with two or three posts.
You twisted and misrepresented everything I said, if you skip down to post 41 I began to list your lying false witness.
If you did it on purpose it is exceedingly wicked.
If you do not understand what you did you have a mental defect of some kind.
As far as if it happened here or there does not matter. You need to stop doing it.
If I am wrong quote me word for word and offer correction.
In that post by the time you were done you suggested I denied the work of the Spirit.

I do not know why you cannot move on. I have already told you the post does not exist. You are making stuff up. You seem to be obsessed with hatred for me, Anthony. This is not good. We are called for better purposes. Personally I believe that your hatred is clouding your mind (sin does that). I believe this because you have moved by degrees (inch by inch) to where you are now. We (Christians) do not keep an account of wrongs (real or imagined). We know that Christ died for us while we were still sinners so we have no grounds to hold grudges against anyone. We know that we are forgiven as we forgive.

You made the claim that I posted that I hate Calvinists. You spoke of 12 people ("disciples"? ) and a "pastor" (a "rabbi"? ) that could confirm this. I said it was a lie. One of us is lying. This is simple. I say I never said that I hate Calvinists (I do not hate Calvinists). You say I posted that I hate Calvinists. You said that you could prove it. And then you hijacked the forum to bring about any instance you thought I spoke poorly to someone else.

Like @lforrest pointed out, that claim is specific and easily proven. It is objective and proves one of us is lying.

I never claimed that I refrained from posting inappropriately. I never claimed that I was innocent of insulting members or becoming too sarcastic in my responses. To my discredit, I've done both. That is why I stopped engaging certain topics on the BB. But I NEVER stated that I hated Calvinists.