NJchosen wrote:Darinhouston,
Hello again, alright, I took something from the original post that is a bit smaller in size,
The first occurrence is in Acts 2:23. There we read, "Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." If careful attention is paid to the wording of this verse it will be seen that the apostle was not there speaking of God’s foreknowledge of the act of the crucifixion, but of the Person crucified: "Him (Christ) being delivered by," etc.
You may be asking the wrong person, because my view of the foreknowledge of God is a little different than some around here. Personally, I presently believe God sees "what He wants to see" -- that is, He can definitely tell the future, and He foreknows some things, but seemingly shields his knowledge of other things.
That said, I'm not sure what point you're making -- what's the question, exactly, and how does it bear on the present discussion? I understand that the word used for foreknowledge is capable of a number of shades of meaning, including both perception of future events, and understanding and recognizing, etc. sometimes of thoughts, of events, or people, and it is the context that provides this meaning. In this passage, in particular, I'm not sure Pink's point is well taken -- I'll ask you --
(1) how does careful attention to the wording make it seen that he is speaking of the person rather than the act ?
(2) why does it matter ?
NJchosen wrote:
The second occurrence is in Romans 8;29,30. "For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image, of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called," etc. Weigh well the pronoun that is used here. It is not what He did foreknow, but whom He did. It is not the surrendering of their wills nor the believing of their hearts but the persons themselves, which is here in view.
More has been written on this verse (here and elsewhere) than I could possibly add value, but there are a number of ways to read this, including the foreknowledge being the "collective whom" of the church. I might say, "I hear frequently from Calvinists on Theos, whom I think have wrong doctrine...." In that usage, clearly I'm not referring to their doctrine by "whom" -- it is the whole group, collectively, without specific mention of specific people.
But, even if it is the individuals, what about the individuals is he said to have foreknown? Why does the pronoun prevent the nature of their hearts, etc., being in view here?
I believe this verse merely says that God has fixed the eternal destiny of those who would believe and be members of the Church, and that if they were in the Church, their eternal destiny was assured.
NJchosen wrote:
"God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew" (Rom. 11:2). Once more the plain reference is to persons, and to persons only.
I have a word study of "foreknowledge" from the appendix of a book "God's Strategy in Human History" that I highly recommend. It takes each of the verses using the word and exegetes them with the various interpretations. If I can get my scanner's software to work properly, I'll post the section on this word. But, here is this particular passage, as it is fairly short...
This is the first verse we have considered in which the object of the "previous-knowledge" is a personal one. It could mean either of the following:
(1) When God made the promises to israel he knew that most of the nation would fall at the time of Christ. In spite of this knowledge, god made the promises and so will not go back on them now. This would be to interpret knowledge in the sense of (a/6) above i.e., a knowledge of persons that does not necessarily imply a relationship, but an understanding of their thinking and reactions.
(2) God entered into a personal relationship with Israel before their later unbelief to which Paul refers. Thus God "foreknew them" or "knew them of old." This is a possible meaning but we should note three things about it. First, it is not necessarily implied by the fact that the object is personal (see (a/6) above and (5) below). Second, if it is true, it does not mean that God entered in some former time into a relationship with the Israelites of today; it means that he entered a (two-way) relationship with the Israel that existed in early Old Testament times, and he regards the present Israelites as integral with it. Third, there would be no reason to bring in a concept of choice other than that which is an integral part of a special relationship.
NJchosen wrote:
The last mention is in 1 Peter 1:2: "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father." Who are elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father? The previous verse tells us: the reference is to the "strangers scattered" i.e. the Diaspora, the Dispersion, the believing Jews. Thus, here too the reference is to persons, and not to their foreseen acts.
NJchosen
This is a similar response to the Acts passage, I believe.