ECT What is Predestination?

[StanJ]

Stan, is Romans 8:29 talking about God knowing the people or their choice?

Why does it take you so long to respond? Is it hard or taxing to answer?
I can't help it if you have a hard time maintaining focus or understanding here. I said God knows their choices, that they WILL choose Christ as their savior. I haven't said anything but, despite your attempt to equivocate.

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)”​

​

Still not clear as to what you are trying to convey or even what Moo is, given the way you paraphrase this. Adam KNEW Eve in the biblical sense, so I'm sure that wasn't the connotation. The word here is FOREKNEW, and that word connotes a knowledge of what the person will do. If the Greek doesn't mean that then you're saying they all translated it wrongly? I don't think so. I have corresponded with Dr. Moo in the past and don't get the feeling that he is that lax when it comes to the Greek. If the Greek meant to understand or experience a person before they were that person then that makes NO sense. I'll stick with the common understanding of "foreknew" as we know it today, to refer to knowing a person's action in their future.

Regarding 1 Peter 1:2 you said:
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.

and you would be wrong. Why would God need foreknowledge to choose unless it meant those who would choose Him first? It would just say choose. It doesn't. It says; "Who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God"
This is the same "foreknowledge" that God used in Acts 2:23, so how does your take on the connotation fit there, as it refers basically to Himself?

If God isn’t Sovereign in election, then who is?

Nice try, but there is no such thing as Sovereign Election in the way you imply or the way RT defines it. We are NOT preselected to be saved. We are only predestined to be conformed to Jesus as a son or daughter of God.

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?

I used Studylight.org on this and the NA Greek in the NASB translation. It shows both Strong's and Thayer's. You will need to pull up the verse in the NA and click on the Strong's number in the Greek. Did you even try?

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.

It's not up to me to learn for you, you seem smart enough to learn it yourself. Wallace was dealing with v28, and only used v29 to reference what "all things work together" means, NOT Sovereign Election.

First of all, Mounce (both Bill and Robert), who you said the following about earlier,:
…translates προγινωσκω exactly as I assert, as “chosen in advance.”
Regarding the participle 1 Peter 1:20 you say:
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.

I gave you the link and the translations, INCLUDING MOUNCE. Foreordained is NOT the rendering.

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.

This is now becoming too onerous for me to maintain focus on except to say that you have gone from foreordained to chosen in advance, which is NOT the same or it would say so, AND foreknowledge is still the prerequisite. I don't have a problem with the translations as rendered, but apparently you do. There is NOTHING in Rom 8:29 that supports predestination as being for salvation, ONLY for conformance to the image of Jesus, God's Son.

 

[Totton Linnet]

It is true we were preselected to be conformed to the Beloved, and that does not preclude others from being saved.

But IF we were preselected to be conformed, then that certainly demands that we were preselected to be saved first.

 

[nikolai_42]

[/INDENT]Still not clear as to what you are trying to convey or even what Moo is, given the way you paraphrase this. Adam KNEW Eve in the biblical sense, so I'm sure that wasn't the connotation. The word here is FOREKNEW, and that word connotes a knowledge of what the person will do. If the Greek doesn't mean that then you're saying they all translated it wrongly? I don't think so. I have corresponded with Dr. Moo in the past and don't get the feeling that he is that lax when it comes to the Greek. If the Greek meant to understand or experience a person before they were that person then that makes NO sense. I'll stick with the common understanding of "foreknew" as we know it today, to refer to knowing a person's action in their future.

Just jumping in here....

When you are talking about the Creator of all things, how is it nonsensical to say He experiences us before we actually are? Doesn't He call things that are not as though they are? But more important, I think, is the earlier statement you make that God's "knowing" us can only be knowing what we will do. God's knowledge of us is based on firsthand understanding and (of necessity) awareness of what HE will do. Witness Jeremiah :

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Jeremiah 1:5

If we accept the premise that God knows simply what Jeremiah will do, then we have to ask "How?" - given the fact that He knew this even before Jeremiah was formed. The only way God can know what Jeremiah would do is if He knows his makeup. The only way He knows his makeup is if He is the maker and actually and intimately knows the man he will create.

It seems silly to me for one to say God knows what we will do but doesn't intimately know us - the creation made in His image.

EDIT : Does an artist (taking some loose analogy) not already have his creation formed and known in his mind before he sets it to whatever medium he uses? If it is really HIS creation, doesn't he (of necessity) intimately "know" it?

 

[rainee]

Just jumping in here....

When you are talking about the Creator of all things, how is it nonsensical to say He experiences us before we actually are? Doesn't He call things that are not as though they are? But more important, I think, is the earlier statement you make that God's "knowing" us can only be knowing what we will do. God's knowledge of us is based on firsthand understanding and (of necessity) awareness of what HE will do. Witness Jeremiah :

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Jeremiah 1:5

If we accept the premise that God knows simply what Jeremiah will do, then we have to ask "How?" - given the fact that He knew this even before Jeremiah was formed. The only way God can know what Jeremiah would do is if He knows his makeup. The only way He knows his makeup is if He is the maker and actually and intimately knows the man he will create.

It seems silly to me for one to say God knows what we will do but doesn't intimately know us - the creation made in His image.

EDIT : Does an artist (taking some loose analogy) not already have his creation formed and known in his mind before he sets it to whatever medium he uses? If it is really HIS creation, doesn't he (of necessity) intimately "know" it?

Wow. Speaking of jumping in here....please forgive me.
I'm on a pain med right now but will try not to be too much myself anyway!

Here goes: an artist does have a picture of what he wants ahead of time but does often step back and see his art took on a life so to speak of its own.

I don't think it is like that for The Lord, but Doesn't He seem to experience pleasure or dis- pleasure in us? I mean our actions?

I do not think we can totally understand The Lords Being.
I think He knows us intimately and the future is the same as the past for Him, I think...but He can also live in the here and now?

 

[nikolai_42]

Wow. Speaking of jumping in here....please forgive me.
I'm on a pain med right now but will try not to be too much myself anyway!

Here goes: an artist does have a picture of what he wants ahead of time but does often step back and see his art took on a life so to speak of its own.

I don't think it is like that for The Lord, but Doesn't He seem to experience pleasure or dis- pleasure in us? I mean our actions?

I do not think we can totally understand The Lords Being.
I think He knows us intimately and the future is the same as the past for Him, I think...but He can also live in the here and now?

This may be quibbling, but I don't think He can be confined to the here and now. I really don't believe He limits Himself like that. The only way we can even come close to halfway approximating a barely reasonable facsimile while looking through a glass darkly (and being half blind) is to ask if we can limit ourselves to experiencing what someone who is confined to 2 dimensions (on a flat surface) experiences. We can understand what they experience, but we are not bound by that dimension. So when we "experience" a dog (for example) we see it all at once in its complete, physical (3D) form. When a paper-dweller experiences that same dog, he can only see slices (so to speak) of the dog as it passes through his paper-thin field of vision. We are timebound. God is not. So what He sees (and what He has created) is known ahead of time. Not just because He forsees what we will do, but because He knows us - having created us.

Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Acts 15:18

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I deny it

We are elect to be saved through sanctification of the Spirit. That tells the who the elect, and the means, through sanctification of the Spirit.

WHO He did foreknow He also chose.

Let us look at this verse:

"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).​

CHOSEN in Him! That means that a person is in Him at the time when he is chosen. Once a person is "in Him" or "in Christ" he is saved:

"Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory" (2 Tim.2:10).​

So we can see that being chosen before the foundation of the world is in regard to salvation since the elect are chosen "in Him." In other words, no one is chosen "in Him" unless salvation is secured.

And that is exactly what this verse is speaking about:

"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).​

 

[Dialogos]

Why does it take you so long to respond?

I have a full time job, a wife to love, two kids to raise, a dog to feed, a ministry to run, vacations on the books, a lawn to mow, various and sundry household items to fix....

What's wrong with your ability to maintain focus over a long period of time?

[/INDENT]Still not clear as to what you are trying to convey or even what Moo is, given the way you paraphrase this.

I'm not paraphrasing, I'm quoting Moo word for word.

Adam KNEW Eve in the biblical sense, so I'm sure that wasn't the connotation. The word here is FOREKNEW, and that word connotes a knowledge of what the person will do.

Moo addresses this directly.

"The first of the verbs is the most controversial. "Foreknow" as its etymology in both Greek and English suggests, usually means "to know ahead of time." See Acts 26:5, where Paul says that the Jews "knew before now, for a long time, if they wished to testify, that I had lived according to the strictest part of our religion." This being the commonest meaning of the verb, it is not surprising that many interpreters think it must mean this hear also. Since, however, it would be a needless truism to say that God "knows" (about) Christian ahead of time, the verb would have to suggest that God "foresees" something peculiar to believers - perhaps their moral fitness (so many patristic theologians) or (which is far more likely, if this is what the verb means their faith. In this manner the human response of faith is made the object of God's "foreknowledge"; and this foreknowledge in turn, is the basis for predestination: for "whom he foreknew, he predestined."

But I consider it unlikely that this is the correct interpretation. (1) The NT usage of the verb and its cognate noun does not conform to the general pattern of usage. In the six occurrences of these words in the NT, only two mean "know beforehand" (Acts 26:5, cited above, and 2 Peter 3:17); the three others besides the occurrences in this text. all of which have God as their subject, mean not "know before" - in the sense of intellectual knowledge. or cognition - but "enter into relationship with before" or "choose, or determine before" (Romans 11:2; 1 Peter 1:20; Acts 2:23; 1 Peter 1:20.) (2) 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." (3) 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 an action applicable only to Christians must be denoted by the verb.

(Douglas Moo, Commentary on Romans 8:29, NICNT Commentary Series, page 532)
​

If the Greek doesn't mean that then you're saying they all translated it wrongly?

No, they just refuse to do what you attempted to chastise me for earlier, reducing a Greek word to a single, monolithic meaning regardless of context. "choose beforehand" is a perfectly acceptable meaning for προγινωσκω.

Strong's cites it, BDAG cites it, Moo argues for it in his commentary and the Mounces translate it as such in 1 Peter 1:20.

I don't think so. I have corresponded with Dr. Moo in the past and don't get the feeling that he is that lax when it comes to the Greek.

He isn't lax when it comes to Greek, you are.

If the Greek meant to understand or experience a person before they were that person then that makes NO sense.

What you think makes "NO sense" is exactly what Moo says is true in Romans 8 in his commentary on Romans.

Again, I quote Moo word for word.

"But I consider it unlikely that this is the correct interpretation. (1) The NT usage of the verb and its cognate noun does not conform to the general pattern of usage. In the six occurrences of these words in the NT, only two mean "know beforehand" (Acts 26:5, cited above, and 2 Peter 3:17); the three others besides the occurrences in this text. all of which have God as their subject, mean not "know before" - in the sense of intellectual knowledge. or cognition - but "enter into relationship with before" or "choose, or determine before" (Romans 11:2; 1 Peter 1:20; Acts 2:23; 1 Peter 1:20.) (2) 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." ​

Moo, who you earlier said you prefer because of his preeminence in the field, flatly contradicts your interpretation of Romans 8.

I'll stick with the common understanding of "foreknew" as we know it today, to refer to knowing a person's action in their future.

You mean the common understanding, which Moo says is "unlikely"?

"but I consider it unlikely that this is the correct interpretation..."

So before you preferred Moo and now you are sticking with an understanding that he refutes in his commentary...

I prefer Mounce and Moo given their pre-eminence in this field.

And now you are sticking with an interpretation that Moo considers unlikely to be the correct interpretation...?

:doh:

The reason I suggest you equivocate is because you are and this is a prime example.

Did you even know Moo's position on Romans 8 or were you just throwing his name around hoping to impress somebody?


I suggested that προγινωσκω means "choose beforehand" in 1 Peter 1:2 to which you said:

and you would be wrong. Why would God need foreknowledge to choose unless it meant those who would choose Him first? It would just say choose. It doesn't. It says; "Who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God"

I know what it says. It says that they have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood.

God's choosing wasn't because of their obedience to Christ it was for their obedience to Christ. Obedience to Christ is not the reason for God's choosing it is the result of God's choosing and we know that because εις doesn't mean because of, it means, "for, to, unto."

The word εις tells us about the result of God's choosing not the reason for God's choosing.

That's why the NIV translates the verse as follows.

" who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: (1Pe 1:2 NIV)


God didn't choose because we were obedient, God chose some to be obedient to Jesus Christ.

This is the same "foreknowledge" that God used in Acts 2:23, so how does your take on the connotation fit there, as it refers basically to Himself?

First, foreknowledge in Acts 2:23 doesn't mean that God saw that people would choose to crucify Jesus and then chose to send Jesus to be crucified as a result of that knowledge.

Acts 2:23 says very clearly that God's proginosko was intricately interwoven with Gods plan. And as such it makes much more sense to see this word to mean "choose beforehand" rather than "saw beforhand."

Second, my take is in line with Moo's take.

In the six occurrences of these words in the NT, only two mean "know beforehand" (Acts 26:5, cited above, and 2 Peter 3:17); the three others besides the occurrences in this text. all of which have God as their subject, mean not "know before" - in the sense of intellectual knowledge. or cognition - but "enter into relationship with before" or "choose, or determine before" (Romans 11:2; 1 Peter 1:20; Acts 2:23; 1 Peter 1:2.)​

(Douglas Moo, cited before, highlight added for emphasis.)

Moo, who you said you prefer because of his preeminence in the field, does not agree that either Acts 2:23 or 1 Peter 1:2 means that God knew what they would do beforehand but rather means "choose or determine beforehand."

So, are you willing to repudiate you preference for Moo on this matter or consider that he knows more about this than you do?

Nice try, but there is no such thing as Sovereign Election in the way you imply or the way RT defines it.

So nobody is sovereign in election? You hold to a truly synergistic soteriology then, correct?

God does only part of the work of salvation and mankind does the other part, true?

We are NOT preselected to be saved. We are only predestined to be conformed to Jesus as a son or daughter of God.

And predestined to be called, justified and finally glorified.

Let me ask you, Stan? How many unsaved people does God predestine to be glorified?

I used Studylight.org on this and the NA Greek in the NASB translation. It shows both Strong's and Thayer's. You will need to pull up the verse in the NA and click on the Strong's number in the Greek. Did you even try?

Try to find what isn't there?

Stan, this resource does not say or prove that tense, voice and mood of a Greek verb determines the lexical meaning of the verb!

It doesn't say that because this is a rule of Greek grammar that you invented.

It's not up to me to learn for you, you seem smart enough to learn it yourself.

I have learned, and what I have learned in our conversation is that you are willing to make up Greek rules in order to prop up your understanding of a verse.

If you really had a source that said that tense, voice and mood determine lexical meaning you would cut and paste it. It's not up to me to argue your case for you, you seem capable enough to perform the 6 simple clicks it takes to cut text and paste it.

The fact that you haven't isn't because I haven't learned what you have learned, its because IT ISN'T THERE! YOU ARE DISSEMBLING!

Wallace was dealing with v28, and only used v29 to reference what "all things work together" means, NOT Sovereign Election.

Wallace doesn't address any of the points of contention that you and I have argued in this thread. Wallace's article, while well written and enlightening, has nothing to do with your fallacious claim regarding foreknowledge.

I gave you the link and the translations, INCLUDING MOUNCE. Foreordained is NOT the rendering.

Seriously!??

He was chosen in advance (Proginosko) , before the foundation of the world, but was revealed at the end of the times for you.

Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE)
The Mounce Reverse-Interlinear™ New Testament (MOUNCE) Copyright © 2011 by Robert H. Mounce and William D. Mounce. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.
“Reverse-Interlinear” is a trademark of William D. Mounce.

Just check out the link here.

This is just another example of someone you prefer for their preeminence in the field completely refuting your presuppositions regarding the word proginosko.

This is now becoming too onerous for me to maintain focus on...

Of course it is.

...except to say that you have gone from foreordained to chosen in advance, which is NOT the same...

What???

Foreordaining and choosing in advance are, in fact the same..

...or it would say so, AND foreknowledge is still the prerequisite.

Foreknowledge (proginosko) meaning "to have a relationship beforehand" or "to choose beforehand" as Moo prefers in Romans 8:29 and as Mounce prefers in 1 Peter 1:20, comes logically before God's sovereign act of predestining them to be conformed to the image of His Son. Everyone God chose beforehand (proginosko) He predestines to be imprinted with the image of His One and Only Son. Amen.

I don't have a problem with the translations as rendered, but apparently you do.

You certainly do in 1 Peter 1:20 and in Romans 8:29 you are doing what you chastised us for earlier, you are limiting the scope of meaning of a word to a SINGLE meaning and refusing to allow the context to determine the meaning.

Neither Moo nor myself have a problem with the translation. I do have a problem with your refusal to see that foreknowledge has a nuanced meaning that includes "to choose beforehand."

There is NOTHING in Rom 8:29 that supports predestination as being for salvation, ONLY for conformance to the image of Jesus, God's Son.

And again I ask, how many unsaved people will be conformed to the image of God's Son?

Doesn't being conformed into the image of God's Son very strongly imply that they are saved?

 

[rainee]

This may be quibbling, but I don't think He can be confined to the here and now. I really don't believe He limits Himself like that. The only way we can even come close to halfway approximating a barely reasonable facsimile while looking through a glass darkly (and being half blind) is to ask if we can limit ourselves to experiencing what someone who is confined to 2 dimensions (on a flat surface) experiences. We can understand what they experience, but we are not bound by that dimension. So when we "experience" a dog (for example) we see it all at once in its complete, physical (3D) form. When a paper-dweller experiences that same dog, he can only see slices (so to speak) of the dog as it passes through his paper-thin field of vision. We are timebound. God is not. So what He sees (and what He has created) is known ahead of time. Not just because He forsees what we will do, but because He knows us - having created us.

Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Acts 15:18

Very good and fascinating return post, thanx!
The only thing I have contemplated, mostly blind as you well said, is the time The Lord brought the animals to Adam for Adam to name.
It seems to me The Lord enjoyed seeing Adam do his creative naming thing... So did He not know how that would go? I think so. But did He enjoy the moment? Maybe...?

Other than that I have to agree with all your points, thanx again.

 

[Danoh]

This may be quibbling, but I don't think He can be confined to the here and now. I really don't believe He limits Himself like that. The only way we can even come close to halfway approximating a barely reasonable facsimile while looking through a glass darkly (and being half blind) is to ask if we can limit ourselves to experiencing what someone who is confined to 2 dimensions (on a flat surface) experiences. We can understand what they experience, but we are not bound by that dimension. So when we "experience" a dog (for example) we see it all at once in its complete, physical (3D) form. When a paper-dweller experiences that same dog, he can only see slices (so to speak) of the dog as it passes through his paper-thin field of vision. We are timebound. God is not. So what He sees (and what He has created) is known ahead of time. Not just because He forsees what we will do, but because He knows us - having created us.

Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Acts 15:18

And yet, that passage makes your point better than you did.

In that James had had revelation about things as to "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world," whereas as Paul had been given even more - from "before the world began," 2 Tim. 1:9.

 

[StanJ]

I have a full time job, a wife to love, two kids to raise, a dog to feed, a ministry to run, vacations on the books, a lawn to mow, various and sundry household items to fix....
What's wrong with your ability to maintain focus over a long period of time?

Been there, done that, and now at 61, I don't maintain focus for a number of reasons. I do note you were able to answer much quicker this time.

I'm not paraphrasing, I'm quoting Moo word for word.
Moo addresses this directly.
"The first of the verbs is the most controversial. "Foreknow" as its etymology in both Greek and English suggests, usually means "to know ahead of time." See Acts 26:5, where Paul says that the Jews "knew before now, for a long time, if they wished to testify, that I had lived according to the strictest part of our religion." This being the commonest meaning of the verb, it is not surprising that many interpreters think it must mean this hear also. Since, however, it would be a needless truism to say that God "knows" (about) Christian ahead of time, the verb would have to suggest that God "foresees" something peculiar to believers - perhaps their moral fitness (so many patristic theologians) or (which is far more likely, if this is what the verb means their faith. In this manner the human response of faith is made the object of God's "foreknowledge"; and this foreknowledge in turn, is the basis for predestination: for "whom he foreknew, he predestined."
But I consider it unlikely that this is the correct interpretation. (1) The NT usage of the verb and its cognate noun does not conform to the general pattern of usage. In the six occurrences of these words in the NT, only two mean "know beforehand" (Acts 26:5, cited above, and 2 Peter 3:17); the three others besides the occurrences in this text. all of which have God as their subject, mean not "know before" - in the sense of intellectual knowledge. or cognition - but "enter into relationship with before" or "choose, or determine before" (Romans 11:2; 1 Peter 1:20; Acts 2:23; 1 Peter 1:20.) (2) 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." (3) 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 an action applicable only to Christians must be denoted by the verb.
(Douglas Moo, Commentary on Romans 8:29, NICNT Commentary Series, page 532)

I find this rather contradictory IF he refers to a word not actually used in Acts 26:5 as far as I can tell, but ONLY it's etymological use. It uses the Greek word προγινώσκοντές, and Rom 8:29 uses the Greek wordπροέγνω. Strong's says the Tense, Voice and Mood are different, as it seems also the word itself?
Moo doesn't address or explain this.

I also find his conclusion that the interpretation is "unlikely correct" if he was the ultimate editor of it for CBT?

No, they just refuse to do what you attempted to chastise me for earlier, reducing a Greek word to a single, monolithic meaning regardless of context. "choose beforehand" is a perfectly acceptable meaning for προγινωσκω.
Strong's cites it, BDAG cites it, Moo argues for it in his commentary and the Mounces translate it as such in 1 Peter 1:20.

Who's they...him and his team?

Yes, chose beforehand based on foreknowledge. Both Thayer's and Strong's say to "have knowledge beforehand".
Vine's writes; "to know before" (pro, "before," ginosko, "to know"), is used
of believers, Rom 8:29; "the foreknowledge" of God is the basis of His foreordaining counsels.
4267 proginṓskō (from 4253 /pró, "before" and 1097 /ginṓskō, "to know") – properly, foreknow; used in the NT of "God pre-knowing all choices – and doing so without pre-determining (requiring) them" (G. Archer).

The above makes a lot more sense to me, than what you are insinuating.

So before you preferred Moo and now you are sticking with an understanding that he refutes in his commentary...
And now you are sticking with an interpretation that Moo considers unlikely to be the correct interpretation...?

I said Moo is preeminent in his field of translation, not necessarily exegesis, IF this is indeed what he is saying? My use of the translation is why I labelled him as such and still do, despite what you present. Sadly there IS such a thing as eisegesis, even with scholars. If it really means foreordained, then why doesn't every translators use it as such and why don't all agree on it's connotation?

The reason I suggest you equivocate is because you are and this is a prime example.
Did you even know Moo's position on Romans 8 or were you just throwing his name around hoping to impress somebody?
I suggested that προγινωσκω means "choose beforehand" in 1 Peter 1:2 to which you said:

How so? There is no ambivalence or equivocal wording to what I WROTE.
I did not know what you say Moo wrote and still do not. I see what you write, not what you cite as being factual.

I know what it says. It says that they have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood.
God's choosing wasn't because of their obedience to Christ it was for their obedience to Christ. Obedience to Christ is not the reason for God's choosing it is the result of God's choosing and we know that because εις doesn't mean because of, it means, "for, to, unto."

So you're using 1 Peter 1:2, to tell you what Paul meant in Rom 8:29???

The word εις tells us about the result of God's choosing not the reason for God's choosing.
That's why the NIV translates the verse as follows.
" who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: (1Pe 1:2 NIV)
God didn't choose because we were obedient, God chose some to be obedient to Jesus Christ.

Yes, ACCORDING to the FORKNOWLEDGE, πρόγνωσις (prognosis), NOT predestination or preordination.
Mounce translates this verse as FOR sprinkling and FOR obedience.
That didn't happen in the past, but His foreknowledge did.

First, foreknowledge in Acts 2:23 doesn't mean that God saw that people would choose to crucify Jesus and then chose to send Jesus to be crucified as a result of that knowledge.
Acts 2:23 says very clearly that God's proginosko was intricately interwoven with Gods plan. And as such it makes much more sense to see this word to mean "choose beforehand" rather than "saw beforhand."

So you're saying that God 'chose" to have the Jews kill His Son?
He deliberately planned the execution of His own son?
Mounce translates this as; this Jesus, delivered up according to the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you, at the hands of those outside the law, executed by nailing him to a cross;
That does NOT convey what you assert it does.

Second, my take is in line with Moo's take.
In the six occurrences of these words in the NT, only two mean "know beforehand" (Acts 26:5, cited above, and 2 Peter 3:17); the three others besides the occurrences in this text. all of which have God as their subject, mean not "know before" - in the sense of intellectual knowledge. or cognition - but "enter into relationship with before" or "choose, or determine before" (Romans 11:2; 1 Peter 1:20; Acts 2:23, 1 Peter 1:2.)

Well, IMO meaning/connotation is based on context, and the context does not support YOUR rendering, or Moo's if it is his. See above

Moo, who you said you prefer because of his preeminence in the field, does not agree that either Acts 2:23 or 1 Peter 1:2 means that God knew what they would do beforehand but rather means "choose or determine beforehand."
So, are you willing to repudiate you preference for Moo on this matter or consider that he knows more about this than you do?

His field is translation, NOT exegesis. I never implied he was accurate in that or even in what he said or wrote that you purport he did. To infer anything else in disingenuous to say the least. I wasn't balking at the translation, YOU were.

So nobody is sovereign in election? You hold to a truly synergistic soteriology then, correct?

Sovereign Election, as RT/TULIP defines it, is NOT supported in scripture.
Choice is. ASK, SEEK, KNOCK, are Jesus' commands. Confess is Paul's command. I don't label myself like others attempt to do to fit me in a box they have already defined.

God does only part of the work of salvation and mankind does the other part, true?

God saves, and it is NOT by works, but by grace. You should know that at least. If you don't agree that God's draws us to Jesus and we either accept or reject Him, then support it from scripture, and don't do what Paul tells us not to do in 2 Tim 2:14 (NIV)

And predestined to be called, justified and finally glorified.
Let me ask you, Stan? How many unsaved people does God predestine to be glorified?

God only predestines those that He knows will accept His son as their savior, to be CONFORMED to the image of His son, who is the first of many.
I've already shown the order.
Salvation that God foreknows
Predestined
Called
Justified
Glorified

It all is based on God's foreknowledge, NOT predetermination or foreordination.

Again your onerousness only contributes to your attempt to obfuscate which I have no desire to contribute to. Deal with the point of this OP and NOT try to preach TULIP.

 

[nikolai_42]

God only predestines those that He knows will accept His son as their savior, to be CONFORMED to the image of His son, who is the first of many.
I've already shown the order.
Salvation that God foreknows
Predestined
Called
Justified
Glorified

It all is based on God's foreknowledge, NOT predetermination or foreordination.

Again your onerousness only contributes to your attempt to obfuscate which I have no desire to contribute to. Deal with the point of this OP and NOT try to preach TULIP.

Jumping in again...so if I understand you, you are saying that God predestines us to be conformed to Christ - but only based on whether we choose Him. And He simply knew well in advance if we would choose Him or not. So based on that, he said " {Insert name here} will be conformed to Christ because he will choose to truet in Christ.". Is that correct?

IF that is correct (and I concede I may be missing something critical), on what basis does He know? Our doing? How - if we haven't done anything yet when He foreknew? Or put another way, does the Lord decide to do X based on what we (would) do or do we act based on what He has done? If He is doing the foreknowing, then the basis on which we choose Christ must be in His knowledge (and, conceivably, His ability to at least influence). So if He is reacting to the decisions a man (whom He hasn't yet created) will make, why are those decisions already constrained (i.e. before the man is born)? Doesn't that also violate free will?

 

[StanJ]

Jumping in again...so if I understand you, you are saying that God predestines us to be conformed to Christ - but only based on whether we choose Him. And He simply knew well in advance if we would choose Him or not. So based on that, he said " {Insert name here} will be conformed to Christ because he will choose to truet in Christ.". Is that correct?

IF that is correct (and I concede I may be missing something critical), on what basis does He know? Our doing? How - if we haven't done anything yet when He foreknew? Or put another way, does the Lord decide to do X based on what we (would) do or do we act based on what He has done? If He is doing the foreknowing, then the basis on which we choose Christ must be in His knowledge (and, conceivably, His ability to at least influence). So if He is reacting to the decisions a man (whom He hasn't yet created) will make, why are those decisions already constrained (i.e. before the man is born)? Doesn't that also violate free will?

I'm simply quoting what Paul teaches. If you have to paraphrase it or reword it to help you understand it, so be it. I understand it AS written.

He knows because of His FOREKNOWLEDGE, and in THIS scenario, YES.
If it was meant to convey foreordained, then the Greek would say something like προόρισε (proórise).
If you want to believe that God is a puppet master I will adamantly disagree with you and show you all the scripture that refutes that POV.
If you want to believe God made puppets the why didn't He make Adam and Eve puppets? Why does He tell us to choose who we will follow. Why does He tell us to persevere?

 

[j4jesus09]

I'm simply quoting what Paul teaches. If you have to paraphrase it or reword it to help you understand it, so be it. I understand it AS written.

He knows because of His FOREKNOWLEDGE, and in THIS scenario, YES.
If it was meant to convey foreordained, then the Greek would say something like προόρισε (proórise).
If you want to believe that God is a puppet master I will adamantly disagree with you and show you all the scripture that refutes that POV.
If you want to believe God made puppets the why didn't He make Adam and Eve puppets? Why does He tell us to choose who we will follow. Why does He tell us to persevere?

Puppets are a bad illustration of predestination. A better illustration would be computers and we respond to what's in our hard drive or the way we were hardwired. So, statements from the word of God like perservere or choose are like buttons on a computer. What type of computer you are will respond to the button commands of life and of course in reading the word of God. This is a better illustration. However, the greatness and complexity of God's creation is far beyond total understanding.

Proverbs 16:1
1The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD
and

Proverbs 16:9
A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps

 

[StanJ]

Puppets are a bad illustration of predestination. A better illustration would be computers and we respond to what's in our hard drive or the way we were hardwired. So, statements from the word of God like perservere or choose are like buttons on a computer. What type of computer you are will respond to the button commands of life and of course in reading the word of God. This is a better illustration. However, the greatness and complexity of God's creation is far beyond total understanding.
Proverbs 16:1
1The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD
and
Proverbs 16:9
A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps

Sorry I don't quite get your point here? Are you saying we ARE like computers or we aren't?
Computers can't reason and think on their own and are NOT capable of reasoning, just as puppets are not. Is that what you are alluding to?

 

[nikolai_42]

I'm simply quoting what Paul teaches. If you have to paraphrase it or reword it to help you understand it, so be it. I understand it AS written.

He knows because of His FOREKNOWLEDGE, and in THIS scenario, YES.
If it was meant to convey foreordained, then the Greek would say something like προόρισε (proórise).
If you want to believe that God is a puppet master I will adamantly disagree with you and show you all the scripture that refutes that POV.
If you want to believe God made puppets the why didn't He make Adam and Eve puppets? Why does He tell us to choose who we will follow. Why does He tell us to persevere?

I'm simply trying to follow your reasoning on this. If God simply knows about someone that doesn't even yet exist, how does he know that person's choices (or even life)? Doesn't Jeremiah's testimony imply that God's knowledge is more than just "about"?

Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Jeremiah 1:4-5

Or does God just "know" some people in that way?

 

[j4jesus09]

Sorry I don't quite get your point here? Are you saying we ARE like computers or we aren't?
Computers can't reason and think on their own and are NOT capable of reasoning, just as puppets are not. Is that what you are alluding to?

I'm only trying to use an analogy. I'm not saying computers can reason. I'm saying computers run off of what is downloaded into them. Mankind is similar. Since babies, information has been downloaded into us that we couldn't help. God knows this. That's why he says to raise kids up the right way even better in godly way so you become a godly adult. As an adult you are mostly programmed or hardwired based of of how you were raised your entire life. There are some exceptions of course like with anything. But for the most part this is the way it is. With God knowing how mankind functions this is the importance of God giving us the Holy Spirit so we can better understand how we function and of course the truth. Man is led by evil or God's Holy Spirit and direction. A even better analogy is vessel. That is what Romans 8 speaks on when it says some made for mercy and some for destruction. Mankind are vessels for God's purposes. All good of course. Whatever is in the vessel will determine what a person does. That was my point of relating us to computers. Man is installed with much information from birth to adult which is how we function. There is much going on in a man, thank God for his word!

PROV 20:5 Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water; but a man of understanding will draw it out.


PROV 20:24 Man's goings are of the LORD; how can a man then understand his own way?

 

[Dialogos]

I find this rather contradictory IF he refers to a word not actually used in Acts 26:5 as far as I can tell, but ONLY it's etymological use. It uses the Greek word προγινώσκοντές, and Rom 8:29 uses the Greek wordπροέγνω. Strong's says the Tense, Voice and Mood are different, as it seems also the word itself?
Moo doesn't address or explain this.

What's to explain?

Your objections here are based on your ignorance of biblical Greek.

Its apparent to me now that you don't know the basics of biblical Greek.

If you had even the equivalent of a first semester Greek student you would realize that προγινώσκοντές is the present, active, nom. masc. plural participle of the Greek word προγινωσκω and προέγνω is the aorist, active, indicative 3rd person singular of the same word: προγινωσκω.

When you say, "as it seems also the word itself?" That tells me you don't recognize these as different forms of the same word and therefore I conclude you don't know Greek well enough to make coherent arguments from Greek.

I also find his conclusion that the interpretation is "unlikely correct" if he was the ultimate editor of it for CBT?

I don't know what this means.

If he was the ultimate editor of it (whatever "it" is) then....what?

Who's they...him and his team?

Mounce and Moo. Both define proginosko in a way you don't like and argue is wrong.

Yes, chose beforehand based on foreknowledge. Both Thayer's and Strong's say to "have knowledge beforehand".
Vine's writes; "to know before" (pro, "before," ginosko, "to know"), is used
of believers, Rom 8:29; "the foreknowledge" of God is the basis of His foreordaining counsels.
4267 proginṓskō (from 4253 /pró, "before" and 1097 /ginṓskō, "to know") – properly, foreknow; used in the NT of "God pre-knowing all choices – and doing so without pre-determining (requiring) them" (G. Archer).

Vines also defines proginosko as (forordained) which you conveniently left out and Strongs lists (ordain) as a dimension to the definition as well.

So why are looking at these resources so selectively?

But, a more important question. Why are you so sure that the people you said you prefer because of their preeminence in their field, are totally wrong on the definition of the word?

You said you prefer Mounce and Moo. So I quote both and when you didn't like their definition you retreat to defining the word via Strong and Vines.

It is absolutely clear that you are looking for resources that will back up your theology and looks a lot like eisegesis.

I said Moo is preeminent in his field of translation, not necessarily exegesis,

Moo was a professor of NT at TEDS and now is at Wheaton College. He is probably more pre-eminent in exegesis than he is in translation.

IF this is indeed what he is saying?

I gave you the name of the resource and the page number, if you doubt it, then go to a library and check it out for yourself.

My use of the translation is why I labelled him as such and still do, despite what you present. Sadly there IS such a thing as eisegesis, even with scholars.

There is such a thing as eisegesis and you are doing it.

If it really means foreordained, then why doesn't every translators use it as such and why don't all agree on it's connotation?

Probably because Moo is fine with "foreknow" insofar as the definition of the world has a latitude of meaning that includes "enter into relationship with before" or "choose, or determine before" (Moo, NICNT, page 532).

I did not know what you say Moo wrote and still do not. I see what you write, not what you cite as being factual.

Stan, either you aren't capable of understanding what Moo wrote or you just choose to believe that I am somehow misrepresenting him.

I can't help you with the former. If you believe the later then it is up to you to substantiate your accusation, check out the book from a library, and show where I have misquoted Moo. I have provided the full text and quotation of the portion of the commentary that pertains to our discussion and I have done that twice now.

Your disbelief does not constitute an argument.

So you're using 1 Peter 1:2, to tell you what Paul meant in Rom 8:29???

I'm saying that words need to have more than one meaning as 1 Peter 1:2 demonstrates and that words need to be allowed to have meanings that fit their contexts.

This is Moo's and my approach.

 

[StanJ]

What's to explain?

Plenty, but apparently you can't. Did you say you actually have any credentials?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If God simply knows about someone that doesn't even yet exist, how does he know that person's choices (or even life)?

God, being both infinite and eternal, is not bound by either space or time, as we are. This principle has long been understood within Reformed circles. William Ames (1576-1655) was one of the foremost of Reformed thinkers, often known as "the Learned Doctor Ames" because of his great intellectual stature among Puritans, said the following:

"Thereis properly only one act of the will in God because in Him all things are simultaneous and there is nothing before or after. So there is only decree about the end and means, but for the manner of understanding we say that, so far as intention is concerned, God wills the end before the means" [emphasis mine](William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, translation and introduction by John, Dystra, Eudsen, [Boston: The Pilgrim Press, 1968], 153-154).​

According to Ames all things in the eternal state are "simultaneous and there is nothing before or after."

John Wesley had the same understanding of the eternal state as Ames and he adds a little more which can help us understand what is written in the Bible about the LORD's foreknowledge:

"The sum of all is this: the almighty, all-wise God sees and knows, from everlasting to everlasting, all that is, that was, and that is to come, through one eternal now. With him nothing is either past or future, but all things equally present. He has, therefore, if we speak according to the truth of things, no foreknowledge, no afterknowledge. This would be ill consistent with the Apostle's words, 'With him is no variableness or shadow of turning;' and with the account he gives of himself by the Prophet, 'I the Lord change not'...Not that God has any need of counsel, of purpose, or of planning his work beforehand. Far be it from us to impute these to the Most High; to measure him by ourselves! It is merely in compassion to us that he speaks thus of himself, as foreknowing the things in heaven or earth, and as predestinating or fore-ordaining them. But can we possibly imagine that these expressions are to be taken literally?" [emphasis mine] (John Wesley, Sermons on Several Occasions, 1771, Second Series, "On Predestination," Sermon #58; Christian Classics Ethereal Library).​

 

[Dialogos]

Plenty, but apparently you can't.

I did.

Please pay attention.

If you had even the equivalent of a first semester Greek student you would realize that προγινώσκοντές is the present, active, nom. masc. plural participle of the Greek word προγινωσκω and προέγνω is the aorist, active, indicative 3rd person singular of the same word: προγινωσκω.

What about this explanation don't you understand?
(1) προγινωσκω is the lexical form of the word.
(2) προέγνω is the aorist active indicative (3rd person, plural) of the word προγινωσκω.
(3) προγινώσκοντές is the Present, active, nominative, masculine plural participle of the word προγινωσκω.

Do you understand what 1, 2 and 3 mean?

If not, that's fine. Don't feel bad if you don't know enough about NT Greek to understand. Many don't. But know your own limitations, don't pretend and don't make arguments from Greek if you don't have the basics down.

Did you say you actually have any credentials?

What difference does that make?

I've met self-studied individuals who are just at adept at NT Greek as someone who has studied it for years in seminary.

If it makes a difference, I have a seminary degree with 2 semesters of Greek and 1 semester of Greek exegesis.

I also continued to study Greek after my coursework.

But don't take my word for it, buy a good Greek grammar and study it yourself.