No it does not say what I have emboldened above, which seems to be a vernacular commonly used in RT apologetics, it talks about foreknowledge, and in this case of His own people who WOULD chose to know Him.
Stan, is Romans 8:29 talking about God knowing the people or their choice? That’s the issue.
You have shifted all the over the place on this question.
You first stated:
StanJ said:
nikolai....
The scriptures show that BEING in Christ is when God predestines us, NOT before. His predestination is about being made Christ like, NOT about being predestined to be saved. His predestinating always comes AFTER His foreknowledge of what people will/would do.
ALL this was decided and planned before day 1 of creation. God is NOT reactive, He is proactive.
Now you are claiming that God knows the people who would choose Him.
Which is it, does Paul mean to tell us that God knows the people or the choices the people will make?
You will later in your post say the following:
StanJ said:
Well yes of course it refers to people, and those and their actions are conveyed in v28, so I don't really understand what your point is here?
My point is Moo’s point.
“ That the verb here contains this peculiarly biblical sense of “know” is suggested by the fact that it has a simple personal object. Paul does not say that God knew anything about us but that he knew us, and this is reminiscent of the OT sense of “know.” (Douglas Moo cited earlier)”
Regarding 1 Peter 1:2 you said:
StanJ said:
Well I guess if you didn't use the KJV you would understand better. It says;
who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father
Foreknowledge is how God made His plan, and ALL aspects of it.
First, I didn’t use the KJV. Second, you are just begging the question. I consider προγνωσις to mean “pre-arrange” (strongs 4268 if you like Strongs) just as I consider προγινωσκω to mean “choose beforehand” or if you like Strongs “4267” ordain beforehand.
StanJ said:
I never said it did. It supports what Paul also writes in Rom 8:28-30.
Yes that is what it says, according to the PURPOSE based on His will. Nowhere does it convey His will is to Sovereignly elect ANYONE.
If God isn’t Sovereign in election, then who is?
StanJ said:
Yes, HIS purpose which 2 Peter 3:9 (NIV) succinctly shows. Obviously, NOT Sovereign Election.
Again, if God isn’t sovereign in election, who is?
Now I ask a very simple Greek question.
Dialogos said:
You are going to have to explain how the tense voice and mood of the verb determines the lexical meaning.
Actually, can you please site us some source that tells us that tense, voice and mood in any way indicate lexical meaning.
And your reply is as follows:
StanJ said:
Stan, nothing about your link to an interlinear answers the question. It gives me the Wescott and Hort text and the NAS translation. Nowhere does it claim that tense, voice and mood determine lexical meaning.
So do you have a source from a recognized Koine Greek grammarian that makes this claim?
Do you even understand the question?
Contrary to your assertion Strong never makes this claim, and neither does Wallace in the following article you cited:
https://bible.org/article/do-all-things-really-work-together-good-romans-828-its-context
But you can easily copy where he did and paste it to prove me wrong.
StanJ said:
What IS used in 1 Peter 1:20 , is NOT translated as "preordained", but the same as it is in all the following translations;
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Peter 1:20&version=MOUNCE;NET;NASB;NIV;ISV
The point is προγινώσκω (proginōskō) is NOT rendered in English as you assert it is, UNLESS you are stuck on the KJV. Are you KJVO?
Stan, are you even looking at the sources you link to?
First of all, Mounce (both Bill and Robert), who you said the following about earlier,:
StanJ said:
I prefer Mounce and Moo given their pre-eminence in this field.
…translates προγινωσκω
exactly as I assert, as “chosen in advance.”
Regarding the participle 1 Peter 1:20 you say:
StanJ said:
and that does NOT convey something different to you, or are you stuck on the KJV English?
Of course its different.
The question is, different how?
It’s a different form because it performs a different grammatical function in the sentence. But participles don’t take on different lexical meanings because they are participles.
Who put this peculiar idea into your head?
Where did you learn Greek?
Furthermore, Moo defines the Aorist, Active, Indicative of προγινωσκω in Romans 8:29
to have the exact same lexical meaning, namely "choose in advance" that Mounce Defines the perfect passive participial form of προγινωσκω in 1 Peter 1:20!
This proves that you are trying to make a distinction based on the form of a word that these two scholars are unwilling to make.
Are you willing to consider that they are right and you are wrong here?
Regarding my quotation of Robert Mounce’s Commentary in the NAC Series you say:
StanJ said:
Robert Mounce.
StanJ said:
I am surprised, as states;
But this would mean that in election God would not be sovereign;
This appears to be a predisposed view that SE is a fact, when he doesn't show it is. I would have to study this in much more depth to see.
Yes, well Robert Mounce sees something in the Greek text of Romans 8 that you don’t, sovereign election.
If you actually want to see how Robert Mounce treats the whole chapter in entirety you can go to pretty much any theologically conservative Seminary library and find Romans in the New American Commentary on the shelf.
StanJ said:
Moo doesn't seem to be convinced of what exactly is being said based on your excerpt, which I also find surprising given his being the head of that translation committee for the NIV.
This is just wishful thinking on your part.
Moo is crystal clear that, in his professional opinion, the notion that you are advancing regarding Romans 8:29 is wrong.
First, he defines προγινωσκω the way I do, as “choose” or “determine” beforehand over and above the way you have arguing to define it in this thread.
Second, he considers your precise interpretation unlikely (his words).
Third, he limits the application of the verb to Christians only whereas your interpretation requires you to apply it to
everyone as your interpretation has God knowing what
everyone will do and then choosing based on that knowledge.
You appear not to see the significance of the third point as you quote Moo saying:
StanJ said:
However he does say;
Moreover, it is only some individuals – those who, having been “foreknown,” were also “predestined,” “called,” “justified,” and “glorified” – who are the objects of this activity and this shows that the action applicable only to Christians must be denoted by the verb.
Exactly, which undermines your conclusion entirely.
If Paul is talking about some individuals and not all, then God isn’t (as you claim) foreknowing the decisions of
all and then choosing the
some who choose Him.
You questions the context of Moos words.
The context is his verse by verse commentary of Romans, the section I cited was specifically regarding verse 29. Again, the NICNT is available at most Seminary Libraries.
