Interpretation Methods

[John Caldwell]

Concentrating on those kind of phrases like "so" compared to the meat of that verse reveals the difference between what we're saying. I don't focus on "so", but on the fact that God's love is shown by sending His Son to die on the cross for those who believe.

The difference is not concentrating on "so" but receiving what the verse communicates (how God loved the world).

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

John Caldwell,

Foreknow means prescience. It is a "pre-knowledge".

JonC repeats his error, over and over. Lets see how others [anyone who is not JonC ]view this:
The Attributes of God - Part 1a | Precept Austin

In here we find this;

Thomas Constable commenting on God's foreknowledge in 1Peter 1:2 (see notes) writes that

God’s foreknowledge has an element of determinism in it because whatever really happens that God knows beforehand exists or takes place because of His sovereign will. Therefore when Peter wrote that God chose according to His foreknowledge he did not mean that God chose the elect because He knew beforehand they would believe the gospel (the Arminian position). God chose them because He determined beforehand that they would believe the gospel (the Calvinist position; cf Ro 8:29, 30-see notes Ro 8:29; 30; Ep 1:3, 4, 5, 6 -notes Ep 1:3; 1:4; 1:5; 1:6; 1Th 1:4-note; 1Pe 5:13-note).

The truth is that the salvation of every believer is known and determined in the mind of God before its realization in time.

The ultimate cause of Jesus’ death was God’s plan and foreknowledge.

1Peter 1:20 (see notes) teaches that Christ, the Lamb, was

was foreknown before (proginosko) the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you"

Christ was foreknown because God had planned and determined in His eternal counsel to provide His Son as a sacrifice for His people. The point is God's foreknowledge means more than that God knew ahead of time that Christ would come and die. God’s foreknowledge is the cause for His Son’s sacrifice–because He planned and decreed it.

In other words…

In His omniscience God knows what the future holds both for individuals and for nations. He knows and sees everything in advance and his will is carried out in accord with his plans and purposes… Foreknowledge is closely connected to election and predestination and to God's Sovereign rule of His universe. (Foreknowledge in Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. See also Elect, Election; God; Predestination)

God’s foreknowledge is much more than foresight. God does not know future events and human actions because He foresees them but He knows them because He wills them to happen.

You can work through the article and look up the verses to gain more understanding.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

John Caldwell,

To clarify, I am not saying @Anthony D'Arienzo has a "liberal view of Scripture" or that he holds to liberal theology. This is something he inferred from or perhaps misread in my posts.

This thread is about biblical foreknowledge, not Anthony D'Arienzo. That is a public service announcement for those who are not stalkers.

I do not understand why he is so abusive.

I asked him! He said he is not abusive at all, but he does not encourage online stalking.

What I am saying is that @Anthony D'Arienzo employs a liberal hermeneutical method

,

This is not the topic of the op.

whitch is miles apart from the false accusation he levied against me.

no false accusations. people can read what you are doing.

And this goes to prove my point. Suppose @Anthony D'Arienzo is as careless with Scripture as he is with my posts.

I asked him that question also. He says unlike you he is very careful to consider scripture.

From there he could come up with any definition and claim it the "biblical meaning". But words HAVE meaning. They are not subjective to the listener but chosen by the author to convey meaning.

You have made no attempt to answer the scripture. Your posts are off-topic and pointless.

If one cannot be trusted with the little things one cannot be trusted with the larger things.

Another personal attack from this poster, what a surprise

 

[John Caldwell]

God’s foreknowledge is much more than foresight. God does not know future events and human actions because He foresees them but He knows them because He wills them to happen.

You can work through the article and look up the verses to gain more understanding.

Anthony,

You have failed to grasp what I've (and other's, to include John Calvin) have said.

Foreknowledge is not more than pre-knowledge (literally, it means to possess knowledge prior to an event) - BUT according to Calvinism it IS based on God's will and decree. This does not change the actual meaning of the word "foreknowledge".

Calvin summed up the Calvinistic position (the traditional Calvinistic position) when he said that foreknowledge IS prescience, known by God beforehand BECAUSE God decreed those things to occur.

 

[marks]

The word *impute* means far more than *think*

Well of course! Did I say it only meant that??

 

[marks]

Is God imaginary to you? God does have His time. And we are to wait on the Lord for His time in all things.

Come on, is that what he said? That God was imaginary? Of course not. So why would you act as though it was?

?

 

[marks]

But words HAVE meaning. They are not subjective to the listener but chosen by the author to convey meaning.

Amen!

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

You are wrong, Anthony. Reference John Calvin, Instituted, on Grace. Reference the Canons of Dort on reprobation

JonC
You are free to do and believe how and what you want.
Unlike you I do not believe in censorship. You can post what you want, and stand by what you believe.
I will not delete or ban you. There was no reason for you to delete my post except your own wickedness.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

In one sentence, state your idea of the biblical meaning of "foreknow", and I will address it directly (probably in one sentence).

Scott,
Some topics do not lend themselves to one-sentence answers.

Take the op and work through one sentence at a time...say if you agree or do not agree.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Anthony,

You have failed to grasp what I've (and other's, to include John Calvin) have said.

Foreknowledge is not more than pre-knowledge (literally, it means to possess knowledge prior to an event) - BUT according to Calvinism it IS based on God's will and decree. This does not change the actual meaning of the word "foreknowledge".

Calvin summed up the Calvinistic position (the traditional Calvinistic position) when he said that foreknowledge IS prescience, known by God beforehand BECAUSE God decreed those things to occur.

You have failed to grasp the discussion of rom 8:29.

In like manner, the word “know” is frequently used in the New Testament, in the same sense as in the Old Testament. “Then will I profess unto them, I never knew you” ( Matt. 7:23). “I am the good shepherd and know My sheep and am known of Mine” ( John 10:14). “If any man love God, the same is known of Him” ( 1 Cor. 8:3). “The Lord knoweth them that are His” ( 2 Tim. 2:19).

Now the word “foreknowledge” as it is used in the New Testament is less ambiguous than in its simple form “to know.” If every passage in which it occurs is carefully studied, it will be discovered that it is a moot point whether it ever has reference to the mere perception of events which are yet to take place. The fact is that “foreknowledge” is never used in Scripture in connection with events or actions; instead, it always has reference to persons . It is persons God is said to “foreknow,” not the actions of those persons. In proof of this we shall now quote each passage where this expression is found.

 

[John Caldwell]

JonC
You are free to do and believe how and what you want.
Unlike you I do not believe in censorship. You can post what you want, and stand by what you believe.
I will not delete or ban you. There was no reason for you to delete my post except your own wickedness.

I think only staff members can delete other people's posts.

I do not care if you ban me or edit my posts. I am not responsible for the actions of other people.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

I think you may be confused.

I think only staff members can delete other people's posts.

Yes they can, so why did you do both once again, when in fact no violation took place

 

[John Caldwell]

Yes they can, so why did you do both once again, when in fact no violation took place

I do not know what you are talking about.

I am not a staff member here. I do not even know what posts of yours have been deleted.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Again, I think you may be confused.

I do not know what you are talking about.

I am not a staff member here. I do not even know what posts of yours have been deleted.

I am sure of that,lol
Maybe it was when you offered this sincere post,lol
I addressed the post a member made that proved false by providing a screen shot of his request that the post in question be censored.

I wrestled with the decision because I didn’t want to add to the member’s warning points (he has already been banned several times for inappropriate behavior). But in hindsight my posting of his report could damage the reporting process. While I abhor dishonesty I also do not want people to be hesitant to report what they believe is a genuine violation of policy.

You have my apology for posting the report of another member. The post has been deleted and the member warned about false accusations.

 

[Ezra]

so who holds the correct interpretation ?

 

[John Caldwell]

I am sure of that,lol

Only staff members can edit and delete other people's posts. I can only edit and delete my own.

 

[John Caldwell]

so who holds the correct interpretation ?

I do

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Are you OK, Anthony? You are not making sense.

Only staff members can edit and delete other people's posts. I can only edit and delete my own.

For the forum : These are false accusations and ideas. I cannot delete his posts here because I am not a staff member.

Yet I know Anthony will keep on.

No they are true.
Remember I said I was not speaking of anyones post in particular?
I just said I do not believe in censorship?
It was not you who wrote that?

 

[CharismaticLady]

so who holds the correct interpretation ?

The Author!

Lord Byron, romantic poet of the early 1800’s, walked into a pub and sat down at a table by the fire. Sitting at the table next to him he overheard the heated conversation of two gentlemen discussing the meaning of a poem – one written by the poet himself. He listened with amusement as they debated over the meaning of the poem, both completely missing the point. Finally, he chimed in with the true meaning of the poem, introducing himself as the author. Even so they stood their ground preferring their own interpretations, and both argued with Lord Byron over the meaning of the poem.

James 1:5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. 6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

 

[John Caldwell]

No they are true.
Remember I said I was not speaking of anyones post in particular?
I just said I do not believe in censorship?
It was not you who wrote that?

I am honoring our word to @lforrest. If you have an issue with the Baptist Board then get with me on the Baptist Board - NOT here.