ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Jerry Shugart]

I would not be surprised if a technical understanding of original languages would resolve Jerry's self-made problem. Regardless, the verse must be interpreted in light of many other verses that would not support individual election in eternity past by decree (Calvinism) nor simple foreknowledge leading to choosing of individuals before they exist (Arminianism).

It is not my problem because the verse supports my view. And speaking of whether or not my view is supported by other verses please consider the following one:

Let us look at the following verse which speaks of the "foreknowledge" of God:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).

One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "according" at 1 Peter 1:2 is "in consequence of" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

So the saved are described as "elect" and their election is "in consequence of" God's foreknowledge. It is only "individuals" who can be referred to as "elect" so the verse is speaking about God's "foreknowledge" which leads to anyone being chosen for salvation.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I believe the OV primacy is freewill, regardless of anything else.

The Open View's primary concern is how God interacts with mankind and mankind interacts with God. The Bible shows God interacting with mankind as if the future for each man is changeable based on the actions of that man. Open Theology focuses on trying to reconcile the preponderance of verses in the Bible that talk about man being able to choose to do what is righteous or to do what is wicked and the consequences that follow each choice.

The secondary ov paradigm, is cloak and dagger, from my perspective at least, to attribute traditional theological views to ancient philosophy rather than the scriptures.

The argument that classic theology uses ancient philosophy is not groundless, but it is off-base.
The correct argument is that classic theology begins with assumptions about the nature of God and then uses proof-texts from the scriptures to support those assumptions. There were some Greek philosophers who did not know the God of the Bible that speculated on the nature of an ultimate god and came up with a deistic god that has the same attributes that classical theology applies to the God of the Bible.
Open Theists object to applying attributes to the God of the Bible when those attributes are only supportable by proof-texts and contradict the majority of the message in the Bible.

the primacy of the OV is to uphold freewill at all costs. This necessarily has God in the subservient position in deference to open theisms primary concern.

This is your justification for blaspheming God when addressing Open Theist arguments?:doh:

Saying that Open Theism gives man power over God is nothing more than a straw man argument. It is a deliberate mistatement about the beliefs of Open Theism.

When you reached adulthood, did your earthly father become subservient to you? Mine did not. We have now reached a point where I am no longer subservient to my father, but I don't see any time when he will become subservient to me.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Anyone with the slightest degree of an understanding of English can see that Paul is saying that it was from the beginning that God chose individuals for salvation and only those whom He foresaw believing were chosen.

And anyone with more than just the slightest degree of an understanding of English can see that the rest of the epistle from Paul does not support the idea that God knew who would believe before their ancestors were created.

Try going beyond proof-texts and learn the real message Paul is giving.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

And anyone with more than just the slightest degree of an understanding of English can see that the rest of the epistle from Paul does not support the idea that God knew who would believe before their ancestors were created.

There is nothing said in the "context" which even hints that God did not know who would believe before their ancestors were created.

Try going beyond proof-texts and learn the real message Paul is giving.

Try actually believing what Paul said at 2 Thessalonians 2:13 instead of attempting to put a foreign meaning on it. Besides that, you have not yet given a resonable answer to my points concerning the following verse:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).

One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "according" at 1 Peter 1:2 is "in consequence of" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

So the saved are described as "elect" and their election is "in consequence of" God's foreknowledge. It is only "individuals" who can be referred to as "elect" so the verse is speaking about God's "foreknowledge" which leads to anyone being chosen for salvation.

 

[Lon]

This is your justification for blaspheming God when addressing Open Theist arguments?:doh:

Arguing against open theology is not tantamount to blaspheming God.

Saying that Open Theism gives man power over God is nothing more than a straw man argument. It is a deliberate mistatement about the beliefs of Open Theism.

No, it doesn't give man power over god. The view has man thinking about man-first, God-second because the paradigm difference between Open Theology and traditional theology is the imperialization (regardless of intent) of man's freewill over and above concerns of God's Sovereignty.
Sure the OV is concerned with His sovereignty, but it is a secondary issue when the main concern for building theology and doctrine is God's relationship to man rather than man's relationship to God. It is the quintessential paradigm difference between the two.

When you reached adulthood, did your earthly father become subservient to you? Mine did not. We have now reached a point where I am no longer subservient to my father, but I don't see any time when he will become subservient to me.

Yes, but your analogy displays the concern of your autonomy from him. It reveals, to me, that the OV is primarily concerned with his/her freewill and secondarily God's character and interactions with him. We don't leave subservience to God, unlike the analogy. If we are going to have a proper theology (study and doctrine of God), it must start with consideration of Him, not our egocentric ideas of freewill. This analogy above affirms that the open view has a significant paradigm shift from traditional theology. It is concerned foremost with man's freedoms. In my estimation, this will ever influence your doctrine unless there is a paradigm shift to primacy of God's character and actions. It drives these different scriptural suppositions.

 

[genuineoriginal]

There is nothing said in the "context" which even hints that God did not know who would believe before their ancestors were created.

Let's look at Paul's entire sentence:

Ephesians 1:3-14 3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 4According 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: 5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. 7In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; 8Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; 9Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 10That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 11In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: 12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.​

Now, anyone with more than just the slightest degree of an understanding of English can easily see that the focus of the sentence is not that God knew who would believe before the foundation of the world, but that God's purpose before the foundation of the world was to enable those who believe the word of truth would be gathered together in Christ.

Try actually believing what Paul said at 2 Thessalonians 2:13 instead of attempting to put a foreign meaning on it.

Paul said that all that do not believe the truth are damned and that God chose at the beginning that those who believe the truth will gain salvation.

2 Thessalonians 2 11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 13But 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:​

Besides that, you have not yet given a resonable answer to my points concerning the following verse:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).

One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "according" at 1 Peter 1:2 is "in consequence of" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

So the saved are described as "elect" and their election is "in consequence of" God's foreknowledge. It is only "individuals" who can be referred to as "elect" so the verse is speaking about God's "foreknowledge" which leads to anyone being chosen for salvation.

You haven't given a good explanation for "elect" according to the understanding of the writer.
The Greek word ἐκλεκτός (elect) is used in the Septuagent for the Hebrew word בָּחִיר, which comes from the root בָּחַר.
According to Gesenius's Lexicon, the meaning of בָּחַר is

To PROVE, i. q. TO TRY, TO EXAMINE ... (I place this signification first, although it is the less frequent, and particularly belongs to the later Hebrew[?]; because trial, proof, precedes choice. The primary idea is either that of rubbing on a touchstone...or in dividing in pieces and examining;...)​

God's foreknowledge is of the conditions for proof, not who will meet those conditions.

1 Peter 1:6-7 6Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: 7That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:​

 

[genuineoriginal]

Arguing against open theology is not tantamount to blaspheming God.

Normally not, but you are choosing to blaspheme God as an argument against Open Theology.

No, it doesn't give man power over god. The view has man thinking about man-first, God-second because the paradigm difference between Open Theology and traditional theology is the imperialization (regardless of intent) of man's freewill over and above concerns of God's Sovereignty.
Sure the OV is concerned with His sovereignty, but it is a secondary issue when the main concern for building theology and doctrine is God's relationship to man rather than man's relationship to God. It is the quintessential paradigm difference between the two.

I haven't found a classical theist that doesn't have a profound misunderstanding of sovereignty.

Yes, but your analogy displays the concern of your autonomy from him. It reveals, to me, that the OV is primarily concerned with his/her freewill and secondarily God's character and interactions with him. We don't leave subservience to God, unlike the analogy. If we are going to have a proper theology (study and doctrine of God), it must start with consideration of Him, not our egocentric ideas of freewill. This analogy above affirms that the open view has a significant paradigm shift from traditional theology. It is concerned foremost with man's freedoms. In my estimation, this will ever influence your doctrine unless there is a paradigm shift to primacy of God's character and actions. It drives these different scriptural suppositions.

Classical theology seems to have a problem believing that God created autonomous beings, yet the entire Bible shows God acting as if man is autonomous.
If we are going to have a proper theology (study and doctrine of God), it must start with consideration of God's Word and why we have it.

1 Thessalonians 2 9For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God. 10Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe: 11As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children, 12That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory. 13For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Now, anyone with more than just the slightest degree of an understanding of English can easily see that the focus of the sentence is not that God knew who would believe before the foundation of the world, but that God's purpose before the foundation of the world was to enable those who believe the word of truth would be gathered together in Christ.

Let us look at how earlier you attempt to change what Paul said:

He is saying that God chose from the beginning that those who love the truth and believe the truth will gain salvation, but those who do not believe the truth but have pleasure in unrighteousness will be damned.

Now let us look at the actual verse:

"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).

It does not say that "God chose from the beginning THAT..." Instead he said that "God chose from the beginning YOU."

That is a big difference and your interpretation changes the whole meaning of what Paul said. I will stick with what Paul said.

Paul said that all that do not believe the truth are damned and that God chose at the beginning that those who believe the truth will gain salvation.

There you go again. Paul does not say that "God chose at the beginning THAT..." Instead, he says that "God chose at the beginning YOU for salvation."

You continue to attempt to change the meaning of what Paul said despite my earlier attempt to correct you.

You haven't given a good explanation for "elect" according to the understanding of the writer.

The primary meaning of the Greek word translated "elect" is "picked out, chosen" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).

One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "according" at 1 Peter 1:2 is "in consequence of" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

So the Christian is chosen and his being chosen is "in consequence of" God's foreknowledge. And that is the same thought expressed in the following verse:

"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).

 

[genuineoriginal]

Let us look at how earlier you attempt to change what Paul said:

Now let us look at the actual verse:

"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).

It does not say that "God chose from the beginning THAT..." Instead he said that "God chose from the beginning YOU."

That is a big difference and your interpretation changes the whole meaning of what Paul said. I will stick with what Paul said.

There you go again. Paul does not say that "God chose at the beginning THAT..." Instead, he says that "God chose at the beginning YOU for salvation."

You continue to attempt to change the meaning of what Paul said despite my earlier attempt to correct you.

"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).

So, you are insisting that the verse applies only to the people at Thessolonica that Paul wrote to, yet somehow you believe the verse has universal application?

You might want to rethink your position and get back to me.
:wave2:

 

[Totton Linnet]

I would not be surprised if a technical understanding of original languages would resolve Jerry's self-made problem. Regardless, the verse must be interpreted in light of many other verses that would not support individual election in eternity past by decree (Calvinism) nor simple foreknowledge leading to choosing of individuals before they exist (Arminianism). I believe Open Theism will stand up to Jerry's dogmatic misinterpretation of this pet verse of his (corporate vs individual election; the group is predestined/FK and the individuals benefit as they believe in real space-time). Jerry still has to deal with the Open Theism verses and principles and defend the problematic ones for Calvinism/Arminianism/Molinism.

The debate simply does not rise or fall on one verse since no one verse contains all truth and there are translation/interpretative issues (hence differing views).

God seperated Paul in the womb for the preaching of the gospel, if God so foreplan [and His plan came to pass] 30 years ahead why on earth does it stagger anybody to suppose that He may have foreplanned before the foundation of the world?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So, you are insisting that the verse applies only to the people at Thessolonica that Paul wrote to, yet somehow you believe the verse has universal application?

Do you think that the following applies only to those who belong to the church at Corinth because what is said there is in a letter that was only sent to that church?:

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad" (2 Cor.5:10).

I believe that what is said at 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is also spoken of in the following two verses so I do believe that it has a universal aplication within the Body of Christ:

"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).

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).

 

[genuineoriginal]

Do you think that the following applies only to those who belong to the church at Corinth because what is said there is in a letter that was only sent to that church?:

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad" (2 Cor.5:10).

I believe that what is said at 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is also spoken of in the following two verses so I do believe that it has a universal aplication within the Body of Christ:

"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).

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).

That is a poor attempt at a retraction on your part.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

That is a poor attempt at a retraction on your part.

A retraction? All you are doing is building a straw man so that you can knock it over. It is you who failed to even attempt to address what I said in post #3168:

Let us look at how earlier you attempt to change what Paul said:

He is saying that God chose from the beginning that those who love the truth and believe the truth will gain salvation, but those who do not believe the truth but have pleasure in unrighteousness will be damned.

Now let us look at the actual verse:

"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).

It does not say that "God chose from the beginning THAT..."

Instead he said that "God chose from the beginning YOU."

That is a big difference and your interpretation changes the whole meaning of what Paul said. I will stick with what Paul said.

Paul said that all that do not believe the truth are damned and that God chose at the beginning that those who believe the truth will gain salvation.

There you go again. Paul does not say that "God chose at the beginning THAT..." Instead, he says that "God chose at the beginning YOU for salvation."

You continue to attempt to change the meaning of what Paul said despite my earlier attempt to correct you.

You haven't given a good explanation for "elect" according to the understanding of the writer.

The primary meaning of the Greek word translated "elect" is "picked out, chosen" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).

One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "according" at 1 Peter 1:2 is "in consequence of" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

So the Christian is chosen and his being chosen is "in consequence of" God's foreknowledge. And that is the same thought expressed in the following verse:

"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).

 

[DFT_Dave]

To me, it seems you are wrestling with it appropriately, such that we both grasp the gist. You rightly identify the elements of discussion here.

The only point I'd assert here is that you are right concerning this: your hand is in the tank but you are also not wholly in the tank. Remember, God's hand is always with us, so I agree that part of Him is relational to us and time but I've always said that: God is relational to, unconstrained by time.
He can pull His hand out from us anytime He desires, but He doesn't. I agree with that.

You did not answer my question, where is God, in your thinking? I have an answer, do you?

Is God's hand in time while the rest of him is outside of time? I want to be sure I understand what you are saying.

--Dave

 

[godrulz]

God seperated Paul in the womb for the preaching of the gospel, if God so foreplan [and His plan came to pass] 30 years ahead why on earth does it stagger anybody to suppose that He may have foreplanned before the foundation of the world?

Proximal is more likely than remote, specific vs exhaustive.

God had sovereign intentions for Jeremiah, Paul, etc. This does not mean intentions are irresistible (Lk. 7:30; Matthew 23:37). If Paul died in the womb, did not convert, decided to be a football player vs preacher, etc., then Scripture would have been recorded differently. Since Paul did ultimately walk in the will of God, the intentions were fulfilled vs thwarted. God also intended Lucifer and Adam to remain righteous, yet they fell.

God's will/grace is not irresistible. An exhalation of meticulous control above love, relationship, free will is not necessary nor biblical.

There is more than one way to skin a cat or to interpret a verse (though only one correct way to exegete).

 

[genuineoriginal]

A retraction? All you are doing is building a straw man so that you can knock it over. It is you who failed to even attempt to address what I said in post #3168:

Let us look at how earlier you attempt to change what Paul said:

Now let us look at the actual verse:

"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).

It does not say that "God chose from the beginning THAT..."

Instead he said that "God chose from the beginning YOU."

That is a big difference and your interpretation changes the whole meaning of what Paul said. I will stick with what Paul said.

There you go again. Paul does not say that "God chose at the beginning THAT..." Instead, he says that "God chose at the beginning YOU for salvation."

You continue to attempt to change the meaning of what Paul said despite my earlier attempt to correct you.

The primary meaning of the Greek word translated "elect" is "picked out, chosen" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).

One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "according" at 1 Peter 1:2 is "in consequence of" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

So the Christian is chosen and his being chosen is "in consequence of" God's foreknowledge. And that is the same thought expressed in the following verse:

"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).

You are equivocating.
One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "according" at 1 Peter 1:2 is "the end aimed at; the goal to which anything tends" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

We are "(proven, tried, and examined) [בָּחִיר] or (select, i.e. the best of its kind or class) [ἐκλεκτός] as the goal of [κατά] the forknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ."

 

[Lon]

... the primacy of the OV is to uphold freewill at all costs. This necessarily has God in the subservient position in deference to open theisms primary concern.

This is your justification for blaspheming God when addressing Open Theist arguments?:doh:

Arguing against open theology is not tantamount to blaspheming God.

Normally not, but you are choosing to blaspheme God as an argument against Open Theology.

Then I would give this a long-hard second-look in light of what you present to me below.

I haven't found a classical theist that doesn't have a profound misunderstanding of sovereignty.

Remember you said this...

Classical theology seems to have a problem believing that God created autonomous beings, yet the entire Bible shows God acting as if man is autonomous.
If we are going to have a proper theology (study and doctrine of God), it must start with consideration of God's Word and why we have it.

Without even looking yet at the verse in question, what are you showing you are most concerned with here? No doubt you are looking for scripture to support it, but I'm simply asking you to recognize what that thing is.

1 Thessalonians 2

9For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God.
10Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe:
11As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children,
12That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.

13For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

I'm 'primarily' concerned here with these verses:

1Th 2:12 exhorting and encouraging you and insisting that you live in a way worthy of God who calls you to his own kingdom and his glory.

We are called to His kingdom and glory. It supports the opposite paradigm: His program.

1Th 2:13 And so we too constantly thank God that when you received God's message that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human message, but as it truly is, God's message, which is at work among you who believe.

See here again. It is not a human message nor a human-centered message. It is God's message. It works in us which shows that our egocentric ideas come second or even not at all, including our freedom, to the primary concern of His Word and will.

1Th 2:14 For you became imitators, brothers and sisters,17 of God's churches in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, because you too suffered the same things from your own countrymen

Imitators have to start with God and His primacy first or it is not imitation. It is more of blending to do otherwise. Imitators are primarily concerned with how He does it, then they practice and relearn everything to copy what they've learned, putting it into practice. As I said, the OV is a paradigm shift to what is most important to man rather than a priority of what is most important and true about God.
As a reminder, I am not accussing the OV of not upholding God's character as important, but that its primary concern is to resolve problems and issues with man and his freewill. This is not the primary traditionalist concern. Anthropology is always one of the later chapters in our systematic theology books.​

 

[Lon]

You did not answer my question, where is God, in your thinking? I have an answer, do you?

Is God's hand in time while the rest of him is outside of time? I want to be sure I understand what you are saying.

--Dave

In a figurative sense, yes. That is, God is not physical so His hand with us is metaphorical. The reality is 1 Colossians 1:16-18
Christ sustains all that exists. Do the heavens and earth contain Him? We are going to alternate. When I think of 'contain' then I have to say "no" but His hand is with us. Back to our analogy: Dave is wet. Is all Dave wet? No. Dave cannot fit inside the fishbowl.

"Yes," I agree Dave's hand is Dave so would not quivel over 'Dave being wet.'

As you have agreed with me that God is not constrained by time, I would think your answers, though variant, will come from the same thinking that we both seem to be carrying here.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

We are "(proven, tried, and examined) [בָּחִיר] or (select, i.e. the best of its kind or class) [ἐκλεκτός] as the goal of [κατά] the forknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ."

The following verse is using κατά in the same sense as "the goal to which anything tends":

"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness" (1 Tim.6:3).

As it says in Thayer's, it is the doctrine that is "tending to godliness."

Now let us look at the verse in question again:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father..." (1 Pet.1:2).

If you are right then the verse is saying that we are "proven" or the "best of its kind" and these things are tending to the "foreknowledge of God."

Of course that makes absolutely no sense.

 

[godrulz]

http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/open-theism/responses-to-objections/how-do-you-respond-to-1-peter-11–2/

There are plausible alternatives to a Calvinistic understanding of proof texts.