Two Ways of thinking about OSAS

[OzSpen]

I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I only said to read the posts and you will see the opinions. Is it not true?

Please provide links to the posts to which you refer. You shouldn't expect anyone 'to read the posts' when you don't provide a link to the ones you want us to read.

 

[StanJ]

Well here's the thing: Based on what I've read on this forum there is a strong correlation.
H. Richard made a blanket statement. But it fits. One only needs to read the posts to understand and see that folks who don't subscribe to OSAS are also pushing works being needed for salvation.

Actually it doesn't fit and I addressed that, and to be quite honest OSAS does come up a lot but it is severely lacking in support by scripture and cooperation by all those that push it. A lot of rhetoric on the pro side, but not much exegesis.

 

[justaname]

FH,

In my post I gave you this verse in support of predestination/election: 1 Peter 1:1 (ESV)

What does this verse teach about predestination/election?

Oz

② predetermination, of God’s omniscient wisdom and intention (so Alex. Aphr., Fat. 30 p. 200, 31 Br.; Proverbia Aesopi 131 P.; Jdth 9:6; Just., D. 92, 5 πρόγνωσιν ἔχων) w. βουλή Ac 2:23. κατὰ πρόγνωσιν θεοῦ πατρός destined by God the Father (NRSV) 1 Pt 1:2 (Just., D. 134, 4; s. WArndt, CTM 9, 1929, 41–43).—DELG s.v. γιγνώσκω. M-M. TW.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 867). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.


The answer to your question hinges on the definition of πρόγνωσις.

According to BDAG the proper translation is predetermination.

Here is the same word used within context from the LXX (english translated)

5 “For you have done these things and those that went before and those that followed. You have designed the things that are now, and those that are to come. What you had in mind has happened; 6 the things you decided on presented themselves and said, ‘Here we are!’ For all your ways are prepared in advance, and your judgment is with foreknowledge.
The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. (1989). (Jdt 9:5–6). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

TDNT has this to say (amongst a whole lot more):

The corresponding use for knowledge on God’s part in the sense of election, which is so characteristic of the OT, is occasionally found, most dearly at 2 Tm. 2:19: ἔγνω κύριος τοὺς ὄντας αὐτους (== Nu. 16:5; cf. also Mt. 7:23), but also 1 C. 8:3; 13:12; Gl. 4:9 (→ infra). This usage is the furthest from ordinary Greek and was later abandoned.
Kittel, G., Bromiley, G. W., & Friedrich, G. (Eds.). (1964–). Theological dictionary of the New Testament (electronic ed., Vol. 1, p. 706). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

This gives a little insight:
Peter elaborated on the descriptive term “God’s elect” (cf. 2:9) who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God. God’s choice is part of His predetermined plan, and is not based on any merit in those who are elected, but solely on His grace and love for them before their creation.
As the Williams translation puts it, God’s choosing is “in accordance with” (kata) or in keeping with His foreknowledge. This seems preferable to the view that election follows or is based on foreknowledge. Moreover the word for foreknowledge (prognōsin) means more than a passive foresight; it contains the idea of “having regard for” or “centering one’s attention on” (cf. Kenneth S. Wuest, First Peter in the Greek New Testament for the English Reader, p. 15). The same word is used in 1:20 of Christ who was “chosen” by the Father before Creation. The Father did more than merely know about His Son ahead of time; He knew Him completely. Thus God chose all those on whom He focused His attention (by His grace, not because of their merit).

Raymer, R. M. (1985). 1 Peter. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 2, p. 840). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

Similar is this verse:

23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. (1995). (Ac 2:23). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

 

[justaname]

Lets be constructive in our posts...keep it on target please.

 

[FHII]

Lets be constructive in our posts...keep it on target please.

Sorry justaname. You are right. But when someone asks me a question and then dismisses my answer with a bunch of ivory tower mumbo jumbo it irks me.

Folks, do us both a favor... Don't ask me a question if you won't like the way i answer.

 

[OzSpen]

② predetermination, of God’s omniscient wisdom and intention (so Alex. Aphr., Fat. 30 p. 200, 31 Br.; Proverbia Aesopi 131 P.; Jdth 9:6; Just., D. 92, 5 πρόγνωσιν ἔχων) w. βουλή Ac 2:23. κατὰ πρόγνωσιν θεοῦ πατρός destined by God the Father (NRSV) 1 Pt 1:2 (Just., D. 134, 4; s. WArndt, CTM 9, 1929, 41–43).—DELG s.v. γιγνώσκω. M-M. TW.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 867). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.


The answer to your question hinges on the definition of πρόγνωσις.

According to BDAG the proper translation is predetermination.

Here is the same word used within context from the LXX (english translated)

5 “For you have done these things and those that went before and those that followed. You have designed the things that are now, and those that are to come. What you had in mind has happened; 6 the things you decided on presented themselves and said, ‘Here we are!’ For all your ways are prepared in advance, and your judgment is with foreknowledge.
The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. (1989). (Jdt 9:5–6). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

TDNT has this to say (amongst a whole lot more):

The corresponding use for knowledge on God’s part in the sense of election, which is so characteristic of the OT, is occasionally found, most dearly at 2 Tm. 2:19: ἔγνω κύριος τοὺς ὄντας αὐτους (== Nu. 16:5; cf. also Mt. 7:23), but also 1 C. 8:3; 13:12; Gl. 4:9 (→ infra). This usage is the furthest from ordinary Greek and was later abandoned.
Kittel, G., Bromiley, G. W., & Friedrich, G. (Eds.). (1964–). Theological dictionary of the New Testament (electronic ed., Vol. 1, p. 706). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

This gives a little insight:
Peter elaborated on the descriptive term “God’s elect” (cf. 2:9) who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God. God’s choice is part of His predetermined plan, and is not based on any merit in those who are elected, but solely on His grace and love for them before their creation.
As the Williams translation puts it, God’s choosing is “in accordance with” (kata) or in keeping with His foreknowledge. This seems preferable to the view that election follows or is based on foreknowledge. Moreover the word for foreknowledge (prognōsin) means more than a passive foresight; it contains the idea of “having regard for” or “centering one’s attention on” (cf. Kenneth S. Wuest, First Peter in the Greek New Testament for the English Reader, p. 15). The same word is used in 1:20 of Christ who was “chosen” by the Father before Creation. The Father did more than merely know about His Son ahead of time; He knew Him completely. Thus God chose all those on whom He focused His attention (by His grace, not because of their merit).

Raymer, R. M. (1985). 1 Peter. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 2, p. 840). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

Similar is this verse:

23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. (1995). (Ac 2:23). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

justaname,

The answer to my question lies in the meaning of:

• ἐκλεκτος (1 Peter 1:1), AND
• πρόγνωσις (1 Peter 1:2)

According to Bauer, Arndt & Gingrich (1957:710), πρόγνωσις means 'foreknowledge ... receive exact foreknowledge ... Of God's omniscient wisdom and intention ... according to the predestination of God the Father 1 Pt 1:2'.

Colin Brown's (ed) Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol 1, states that 'the noun prognwsis denotes in 1 Pet. 1:2 the foreknowledge of God, which is said to be for Christians in the Diaspora the ground of their election' (1978:1.693).

My hard copy of Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT 1964:1.715-716) states that 'His foreknowledge, however, is an election or foreordination of His people (Rom 8:29; 11:2) or Christ (1 Pt 1:20)'. Then the researcher states that 'another possible meaning in Gk. is that of knowing earlier, i.e. than the time of speaking.... This is found in Acts 26:5 where the meaning is strengthened by the addition of ἄνωθεν [from the first]'.

TDNT continues, 'πρόγνωσιν in Greek means "advance knowledge" (a technical term in medicine from the time of Hippocrates)'. Then it gives the examples in the LXX as in the Apocryphal book of Judith 9:6 where it refers 'to the determinative knowledge of God'. However for Justin, 'God's πρόγνωσιs is His foreknowledge (Diag., 92:5; 134:4)', etc.

Therefore, there is no need to define πρόγνωσις in 1 Peter 1:2 according to your view as predetermination. Translating it as God's foreknowledge, meaning God's omniscience in knowing who would be saved is consistent with the Greek etymology of the word 'foreknowledge' as meaning knowledge in advance.

Oz

 

[justaname]

justaname,

The answer to my question lies in the meaning of:

• ἐκλεκτος (1 Peter 1:1), AND
• πρόγνωσις (1 Peter 1:2)

According to Bauer, Arndt & Gingrich (1957:710), πρόγνωσις means 'foreknowledge ... receive exact foreknowledge ... Of God's omniscient wisdom and intention ... according to the predestination of God the Father 1 Pt 1:2'.

Colin Brown's (ed) Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol 1, states that 'the noun prognwsis denotes in 1 Pet. 1:2 the foreknowledge of God, which is said to be for Christians in the Diaspora the ground of their election' (1978:1.693).

My hard copy of Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT 1964:1.715-716) states that 'His foreknowledge, however, is an election or foreordination of His people (Rom 8:29; 11:2) or Christ (1 Pt 1:20)'. Then the researcher states that 'another possible meaning in Gk. is that of knowing earlier, i.e. than the time of speaking.... This is found in Acts 26:5 where the meaning is strengthened by the addition of ἄνωθεν [from the first]'.

TDNT continues, 'πρόγνωσιν in Greek means "advance knowledge" (a technical term in medicine from the time of Hippocrates)'. Then it gives the examples in the LXX as in the Apocryphal book of Judith 9:6 where it refers 'to the determinative knowledge of God'. However for Justin, 'God's πρόγνωσιs is His foreknowledge (Diag., 92:5; 134:4)', etc.

Therefore, there is no need to define πρόγνωσις in 1 Peter 1:2 according to your view as predetermination. Translating it as God's foreknowledge, meaning God's omniscience in knowing who would be saved is consistent with the Greek etymology of the word 'foreknowledge' as meaning knowledge in advance.

Oz

Actually this is the view of BDAG as I stated earlier. I am uncertain your copy, yet I am working from the 3rd edition.

I can agree there is no "need" of this definition (predetermination), yet I question if the thought of foreknowledge carries the weight Peter intended again referencing Peter's usage in 1:20 that Walvoord and Zuck brings to our attention. Also within the Jewish OT to "know" someone often held the idea of intimate (here I am not referring to sexual rather personal or covenantal) knowledge. Contextually Peter is using very strong language directing towards God's activity not man's choice. In fact Peter later says we are a Chosen Race...for God's own possession (2:9) referring again to the sovereign activity of God.

Truly this word viewing through foreordination rather than through God's omniscience regarding our decisions has more contextual weight.

 

[justaname]

Then looking again to Luke's usage we have a strong case for foreordination also, but let us bear in mind this is Peter who is speaking contextually:

this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. (1995). (Ac 2:23). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

The word “foreknowledge” (prognōsis) could simply mean that God foresaw whom would be his elect or chosen. No one doubts, of course, that such an idea is included. The question is whether the term means more than this, whether it also includes the idea that God ordains whom would be elect. We should begin by observing the covenantal dimensions of the word. The word “know” in Hebrew often refers to God’s covenantal love bestowed upon his people (cf. Gen 18:19; Jer 1:5; Amos 3:2).
Schreiner, T. R. (2003). 1, 2 Peter, Jude (Vol. 37, p. 53). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

God foreknew “people,” not objects or things. He has set his love upon them (cf. also 1 Cor 8:3; Gal 4:9). Probably the most important verse for Peter is 1 Pet 1:20, where it says that Christ “was chosen before the creation of the world.” The term translated “chosen” by the NIV is actually “foreknown” (proegnōsmenou). Peter was not merely saying that God foresaw when Christ would come, though that is part of his meaning. He was also saying that God foreordained when Christ would come. Indeed, God had to plan when he would come since Christ was sent by God. Christ’s coming hardly depends on human choices. Therefore, when Peter said that believers are elect “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,” he emphasized God’s sovereignty and initiative in salvation.23 Believers are elect because God the Father has set his covenantal affection upon them. The words “according to” (kata) may designate “result” or “cause.”
Schreiner, T. R. (2003). 1, 2 Peter, Jude (Vol. 37, pp. 53–54). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.


Ver. 2—According to the foreknowledge of God, should be connected with elect: it denotes not mere prescience and precognition, the object of which is indeed not mentioned, but both real distinction and foredecreeing. So ch. 1:20; Acts 2:23. God knew such as are His from before the foundation of the world and ordained them unto salvation, cf. Jno. 10:14; Acts 4:28; Rom. 8:29; [“πρόγνωσις hic non præscientiam, sed antecedens decretum significat ut et Act. 2:23: idem sensus qui, Eph. 1:4.”—Grotius.—M.]
Lange, J. P., Schaff, P., Fronmüller, G. F. C., & Mombert, J. I. (2008). A commentary on the Holy Scriptures: 1 Peter (p. 12). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

 

[StanJ]

The subject matter in 1st Peter 1:2 is different from 1st Peter 1:20. The two different Greek words also translated differently into English with the first being 'foreknowledge' and the second being 'chosen in advance'. The first indicates why God set these elect apart. It was based on his foreknowledge of who they would be in Christ. The second is simply God's choice of who the man Jesus would be in terms of lineage. I really don't understand the use of commentaries to define the Greek that has already been translated into English. Unless one has the credentials to refute existing translations then this exercise is nothing more then seeing who can come up with more support to their point of view. Unless there is ample evidence that the English is erroneous in this regard then I see no reason whatsoever to use commentaries that only indicate the commentators personal view that either supports or contradicts the opinions being posted here.

 

[OzSpen]

Actually this is the view of BDAG as I stated earlier. I am uncertain your copy, yet I am working from the 3rd edition.

I can agree there is no "need" of this definition (predetermination), yet I question if the thought of foreknowledge carries the weight Peter intended again referencing Peter's usage in 1:20 that Walvoord and Zuck brings to our attention. Also within the Jewish OT to "know" someone often held the idea of intimate (here I am not referring to sexual rather personal or covenantal) knowledge. Contextually Peter is using very strong language directing towards God's activity not man's choice. In fact Peter later says we are a Chosen Race...for God's own possession (2:9) referring again to the sovereign activity of God.

Truly this word viewing through foreordination rather than through God's omniscience regarding our decisions has more contextual weight.

Mine is the view of:

Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition licensed to Zondervan Publishing House).

This is the 4th rev & enlarged edition and my reply is based on BAGD.

Oz

 

[justaname]

The subject matter in 1st Peter 1:2 is different from 1st Peter 1:20. The two different Greek words also translated differently into English with the first being 'foreknowledge' and the second being 'chosen in advance'. The first indicates why God set these elect apart. It was based on his foreknowledge of who they would be in Christ. The second is simply God's choice of who the man Jesus would be in terms of lineage. I really don't understand the use of commentaries to define the Greek that has already been translated into English. Unless one has the credentials to refute existing translations then this exercise is nothing more then seeing who can come up with more support to their point of view. Unless there is ample evidence that the English is erroneous in this regard then I see no reason whatsoever to use commentaries that only indicate the commentators personal view that either supports or contradicts the opinions being posted here.

Stan if your interpretation holds true for 1 Peter 1:2, "The first indicates why God set these elect apart. It was based on his foreknowledge of who they would be in Christ.", how does this apply to Peter's statement in Acts? "this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death."

Also the correlation between 1 Peter 1:2 and 1 Peter 1:20 is the context. One word is a noun, the other is a participle, so the usage of the words have much more in common than you want to cut short.

 

[StanJ]

Stan if your interpretation holds true for 1 Peter 1:2, "The first indicates why God set these elect apart. It was based on his foreknowledge of who they would be in Christ.", how does this apply to Peter's statement in Acts? "[/size]this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death."

Also the correlation between 1 Peter 1:2 and 1 Peter 1:20 is the context. One word is a noun, the other is a participle, so the usage of the words have much more in common than you want to cut short. [/size]

Context. It's how one is supposed to read the Bible. Not every word has the same inducation in every setting. Despite that, Peter's statement in Acts is not problematic at all. God had a plan that was proactive and decided before creation and was based on his foreknowledge.

I'm not really sure why you think this is not the case, unless you really believe that God is the Supreme Puppet Master and has programmed every single one of us since time immemorial to do what he wanted us to do?

 

[justaname]

Mine is the view of:

Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition licensed to Zondervan Publishing House).

This is the 4th rev & enlarged edition and my reply is based on BAGD.

Oz

Thanks for the clarification!

Yet there is a section you quoted that seems to differ from what I quoted. I am not sure where the difference comes from. Did you perhaps miss the second definition point that the 1 Peter account falls under?

mine:
② predetermination, of God’s omniscient wisdom and intention...

yours:
πρόγνωσις means 'foreknowledge ... receive exact foreknowledge ... Of God's omniscient wisdom and intention ... according to the predestination of God the Father 1 Pt 1:2'.

 

[justaname]

Context. It's how one is supposed to read the Bible. Not every word has the same inducation in every setting. Despite that, Peter's statement in Acts is not problematic at all. God had a plan that was proactive and decided before creation and was based on his foreknowledge.

I'm not really sure why you think this is not the case, unless you really believe that God is the Supreme Puppet Master and has programmed every single one of us since time immemorial to do what he wanted us to do?

You are creating a false dichotomy with the puppet master statement. And yes I agree context is tantamount in clarifying the meaning of a particular text. You disregard context in your 1 Peter 1:2 interpretation.

Lets though continue to look at the Acts a bit. This is spoken after Peter and John refused to stop speaking of the name of Christ and is referring back to the Acts 2:23 account.

27 “For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,
28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.

 

[StanJ]

You are creating a false dichotomy with the puppet master statement. And yes I agree context is tantamount in clarifying the meaning of a particular text. You disregard context in your 1 Peter 1:2 interpretation.

Lets though continue to look at the Acts a bit. This is spoken after Peter and John refused to stop speaking of the name of Christ and is referring back to the Acts 2:23 account.

“For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.

I'm pretty sure you can't have a false dichotomy but I do agree it's a dichotomy nonetheless. I'm not disregarding context in 1st Peter 1:2, I'm actually juxtaposing it against the context of 1st Peter 1:20 and showing the difference.

Now you're quoting Acts 4:28 which uses a different Greek word so it seems your purpose is just too muddy up the waters so to speak.

to do as much as your power and your plan had decided beforehand would happen.

Yes the plan that God made was decided beforehand based on His foreknowledge, and I find it disconcerting that you use the word when it benefits you're POV, but ignore it when it doesn't. This is also not the way to read scripture, which I'm sure you well know. New Testament makes it very clear that the Plan of Salvation is based on God's foreknowledge and everything attached to that plan is based on his foreknowledge. The only time predestination comes into play in the New Testament is when it relates to the elect, those who are saved, so that they can become Christ like, conformed to the image of his son.

 

[OzSpen]

Thanks for the clarification!

Yet there is a section you quoted that seems to differ from what I quoted. I am not sure where the difference comes from. Did you perhaps miss the second definition point that the 1 Peter account falls under?

mine:
② predetermination, of God’s omniscient wisdom and intention...

yours:
πρόγνωσις means 'foreknowledge ... receive exact foreknowledge ... Of God's omniscient wisdom and intention ... according to the predestination of God the Father 1 Pt 1:2'.

justaname,

I most certainly did not miss a second definition of the noun, πρόγνωσις. The only things I left out were references to classical sources and sources in Josephus, the Apocrypha and the church fathers. I would not be so dishonest as to leave out a second definition. That second definition was not in my later edition of Arndt & Gingrich, which is later and enlarged from the edition of BAGD that you cited.

Oz

 

[justaname]

justaname,

I most certainly did not miss a second definition of the noun, πρόγνωσις. The only things I left out were references to classical sources and sources in Josephus, the Apocrypha and the church fathers. I would not be so dishonest as to leave out a second definition. That second definition was not in my later edition of Arndt & Gingrich, which is later and enlarged from the edition of BAGD that you cited.

Oz

Oz,

I would not accuse you of anything dishonest, rather question the possibility of human oversight or error. Mine is the digital copy within the Logos software program. I am aware there is a fourth edition, this is why I mentioned mine is 3rd to begin with.

Shalom!

 

[justaname]

I'm pretty sure you can't have a false dichotomy but I do agree it's a dichotomy nonetheless. I'm not disregarding context in 1st Peter 1:2, I'm actually juxtaposing it against the context of 1st Peter 1:20 and showing the difference.

Now you're quoting Acts 4:28 which uses a different Greek word so it seems your purpose is just too muddy up the waters so to speak.

to do as much as your power and your plan had decided beforehand would happen.

Yes the plan that God made was decided beforehand based on His foreknowledge, and I find it disconcerting that you use the word when it benefits you're POV, but ignore it when it doesn't. This is also not the way to read scripture, which I'm sure you well know. New Testament makes it very clear that the Plan of Salvation is based on God's foreknowledge and everything attached to that plan is based on his foreknowledge. The only time predestination comes into play in the New Testament is when it relates to the elect, those who are saved, so that they can become Christ like, conformed to the image of his son.

Stan,

This is the point that the two words are differentiated in only that one is a noun and the other a preposition. The definition of the word we are referring to has a richness and complexity to it that the context conveys, the Jewish mindset perceives and describes throughout the OT, the Greek language allows for, and that you ignore.

What the Acts reference conveys is how Peter used the word in a different setting which shows sovereign choice and action alongside human culpability. The second Acts reference supports this as it is another verbal reference to the occasion where the activity of God's sovereign action took place.

Jesus was sent by God. It was foreordained before the foundation of the world.

God's election is in accordance with His foreknowledge. The Greek kata can mean result or cause. For you to state election is "based on" God foreknowing our decisions is the conclusion of merit. It is then properly understood we are merited salvation "based on" our decision to believe Jesus is the Christ. I refuse this idea based on the whole of scripture. Salvation is not merited. Men are dead in their sins and transgressions. How can a dead man do anything that is pleasing to God, let alone turn to Him? They are dead! Men are in rebellion to God and run from the Light lest their deeds be exposed. How can you say they run to Him? There is none good but God, yet you believe some are good enough to to turn to Him while still in rebellion and dead to Him? None seek God, no not one.

I say they come to the Light because they are foreknown by God. Their names are in the Lamb's book of life from before the foundations of the world. They are quickened by the sovereign activity of God awakening them from their slumber. These are elected towards salvation based on His will and good pleasure.

And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." - John 6:65

 

[H. Richard]

If anyone is teaching obedience to the law then they will certainly not believe in OSAS.

My example is when Moses was leading the Jews out of Egypt they had water before them and the Pharaoh's army behind them. Did God tell the Jews to build rafts or boats so that they could save themselves?

Ex 14:13-14
13 And Moses said to the people,"Do not be afraid. Stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord, which He will accomplish for you today. For the Egyptians whom you see today, you shall see again no more forever.
14 The Lord will fight for you, and you shall hold your peace."
NKJV

The Jesus I have placed my faith in has already saved me and as it was for the Jews He tells me that He has accomplished all that is required for me to be saved. I believe in OSAS because my salvation is not in my hands to lose. It is in Jesus' hands, not mine. Jesus has set me free.

 

[StanJ]

This is the point that the two words are differentiated in only that one is a noun and the other a preposition. The definition of the word we are referring to has a richness and complexity to it that the context conveys, the Jewish mindset perceives and describes throughout the OT, the Greek language allows for, and that you ignore.

Then they are different, despite your willingness to try to minimize them. I'm not quite sure how for knowledge can be a noun but in any event the point is that they are different words and that they can have a different connotations in different settings based on the context of that setting. One really doesn't need to be a Greek scholar to understand this.

What the Acts reference conveys is how Peter used the word in a different setting which shows sovereign choice and action alongside human culpability. The second Acts reference supports this as it is another verbal reference to the occasion where the activity of God's sovereign action took place.
Jesus was sent by God. It was foreordained before the foundation of the world.

No that is not what Peter conveyed, he conveyed exactly what the Bible depicts, as I explained in post 35. The parlance that Peter used in Acts 4 was much better understood by the people of that day than apparently some today. It's also important to note that this was after the baptism of the Holy Spirit so we can quite rightly assume that the Holy Spirit was giving power to his words. The same thing must be a reality today. If the Holy Spirit doesn't bring alive what the word of God says, then the simple human mind will gravitate to whatever it thinks is right. That's human predisposition sadly is always at play in these type of issues. I am much more willing to take the English at face value than I am too get lost in the rhetoric and innuendo regarding the Greek. I for one trust modern biblical translators to get it right.

God's election is in accordance with His foreknowledge. The Greek kata can mean result or cause. For you to state election is "based on" God foreknowing our decisions is the conclusion of merit. It is then properly understood we are merited salvation "based on" our decision to believe Jesus is the Christ. I refuse this idea based on the whole of scripture. Salvation is not merited. Men are dead in their sins and transgressions. How can a dead man do anything that is pleasing to God, let alone turn to Him? They are dead! Men are in rebellion to God and run from the Light lest their deeds be exposed. How can you say they run to Him? There is none good but God, yet you believe some are good enough to to turn to Him while still in rebellion and dead to Him? None seek God, no not one.

Again foreknowledge is what it is. I never said election was based on foreknowledge I said God foreknows who will be the elect. That is not quite the same thing but from your perspective, given your bias, you perceive salvation to be elected salvation where as the Bible explains election or the elected to be the saved. I trust you see the difference?

I say they come to the Light because they are foreknown by God. Their names are in the Lamb's book of life from before the foundations of the world. They are quickened by the sovereign activity of God awakening them from their slumber. These are elected towards salvation based on His will and good pleasure.
And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." - John 6:65

Then you would be wrong because for knowledge does not imply any type of coersion. God draws men to Jesus as Jesus plainly said if he was lifted up he would draw all men to himself. So as both of the things that Jesus said are true then it is up to you to reconcile them, put them together and see what they actually say. It does not convey any predetermination of who will be saved or who will be drawn or who will not be drawn. That is within the human being and not determined by God's decision of who he will or won't draw.
As you should well know given your testimony about your educational qualifications, the Bible does not contradict itself and cherry-picking individual verses does not convey what the New Testament says overall about this or any other issue.