 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > "To Foreknow" Not What You've Been Taught | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/15/2003 8:09 PM (GMT -6) |   | I have a pseudonym but then I am not the publisher of a website as or friend Pelagius is. Big difference there.
Below is a word study on foreknowledge giving an unbiased and accurate understanding in order that we might be more discerning when coming across websites run by anonymous men. Take note that men's names are mentioned below. No anonymities.
In agreement with Paul, Mr. Pelagius not only parrots Pinnock, but endorses him, and open theism, as well. He provides links to both openthiesm.org and to anti-Calvinist sites.
By the way, the anonymous man's name is Charles Fisher. I'm sure you knew that John seeing as Fisher has a link to "John Earp's site" and calls you "my friend John Earp" on his website. Oh, the things we fail to mention.
FOREKNOWLEDGE (Greek – “proginosko”)
1) On page 693 of The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 1, by Dr. Colin Brown, it states that “foreknow” in Romans 8:29 and 11:2 means “to choose beforehand”.
2) On pages 1025 and 1026 of The New Bible Dictionary by Dr. J.D. Douglas, it states that foreknowledge is equated with fore-ordination (Acts 2:23), and that those people elected by God for salvation can only respond to the gospel because of the saving grace God gives them from eternity past, which is based on God’s choice alone and nothing to do with man or anything about the man.
3) On page 35 of Wuest’s Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Vol. 3, “Vocabulary”, Dr. Kenneth Wuest states that “foreknowledge”, when used of God, signifies more than merely the fact of knowing something beforehand, but of determining the destiny of someone (Acts 2:23; Rom. 8:29; 11:2; 1 Pet. 1:2).
4) On page 345 of The New Analytical Greek Lexicon by Dr. W.J. Perschbacher, it states that “foreknowledge” in Rom. 8:29 and 11:2 means “to appoint as the subjects of future privileges.”
5) On page 538 of Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, it states that “foreknowledge” means “prearrangement”.
6) On page 183 of the Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament by Dr. F. Wilbur Gingrich, it states that “foreknowledge” means to “choose beforehand” (Rom. 8:29; 11:2).
7) On page 342 of The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised by H.K. Moulton, it states that “foreknowledge” in Rom. 8:29 and 11:2 means “to appoint as the subjects of future privileges.”
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/15/2003 8:26 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I have a pseudonym but then I am not the publisher of a website as or friend Pelagius is. Big difference there.
And that difference would be? Setting up a website is only a little bit harder than coming up with a pen name.
Parroting the lexicons of determinists proves that you can parrot.
As far as I can tell, Pelajus remains anonymous on his website by choice. I do know him personally, and respect his wishes that he remain anonymous. I was not being deceptive when I responded to RD to the effect that Pelajus preferred to remain anonymous.
And you still have failed to interact with Pelajus' articles. He shows that the definition of "progninosko" has to do with past knowledge of something, as in, "I have known your pen name since you first posted to this board." It does not mean, "I knew your pen name before you ever even posted here."
Edited by - John Earp on 07/16/2003 02:00:33 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/15/2003 9:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Fleetwood: of course what you quote is unbiased and accurate. It is also the view you believe in. What are the odds there! 
BTW, Fleetwood, choosing to remain anonmamous (misspelled) casts no doubt on the argument itself. Interact with the argument itself instead of these side issues about the author.
Edited by - honorman on 07/16/2003 02:09:32 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/15/2003 9:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Interesting. Fleetwood, in one of his first posts to this site,
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2247
plagiarized from the following, and yet did not include a link:
http://www.carm.org/open/say.htm
Hmmm.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/16/2003 3:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Albert-
I like your suggestion regarding the modifying clause “from the foundation of the world.” Here are a few of the other occurrences of the phrase in the NT:quote:
Mat 25.34 "...the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world"
Lk 11.50 "...the blood of all the prophets that has been shed from the foundation of the world."
Heb 4.3 "and yet God's work has been finished from the foundation of the world."
Heb 9.26 "he would have had to suffer repeatedly from the foundation of the world."
Rev. 13.8 "...all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world"
The Greek word order in 17.8 is: “that were not written the names in the book of life from the foundation of the world.” But word order in Greek, as you know, is seldom important.
Interestingly, there is some dispute in Rev. 13.8 over whether "from the foundation of the world" modifies the verb "written" or verb "slain." Both are possible. But in this case the phrase modifies a verb in both instances, whereas you are suggesting it modify a noun phrase. I couldn’t find an example of it modifying a noun phrase. That’s not to say it’s impossible, but the “feel” of “from the foundation…” suggests that it modifies a verb. But that’s just my sense. Your English example is interesting though.
There’s no real need, I don’t think, to attempt to escape it modifying “written” here. The verse cannot be teaching a form of determinism since Rev. 3.5 informs us that names may be blotted out of the book of life. Hence, we have to come to terms with some meaning for 17.8 other than that which suggested by deterministic approaches. Your's works in English. Others with more expertise in Greek than I have will have to render a judgment on its possibility in Greek.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/16/2003 3:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul,
First, haven't met you yet. I'm Starkman, and it's nice to meet you. Welcome to the board.
Okay, then, moving on ...
quote:
Not quite so fast. The virgin had to meet certain criteria, not just for God to "find a virgin". Since, His linage was to come from His mother, she had to be Jewish, but not just Jewish, she had to be from the tribe of Judah in the linage of David. Then she would have to have a relative named Elizabeth, who would have a son named John that was not named after his father and would function as Elijah and wander in the wilderness and eat honey and locusts. Then there would have to be a census that would take them to Bethlehem from Nazareth so prophecy could be fulfilled, just like fleeing to Egypt was fulfillment of prophecy.
No, if you don't have Ruth or Rahab, you don't have David and you don't have Jesus. There is a genetic composition that has to be for a person to exist, otherwise he/she is someone else.
Not one of these items, Paul, demands any closed future, as John as noted. As you consider the Open View, you'll note that you'll be challenged in just how much you have understood God's omnipotence. Just how powerful do we believe God is WITHOUT the confines of determinism to assist our understanding of God's omnipotence?! Really, it wouldn't be a problem at all for God to manipulate events to accomplish all those items you've noted above. Not at all.
Finally, I say this frequently, because it's important: we are not as free as we think we are.
For God's great ability to control,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/16/2003 7:15 AM (GMT -6) | | John Earp, P.I.
quote:
Interesting. Fleetwood, in one of his first posts to this site,
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2247
plagiarized from the following, and yet did not include a link:
http://www.carm.org/open/say.htm
Hmmm.
ROTFLMAO
Yeah I found the page he ripped off for his current post here:
www.geocities.com/campuschristians_sjc/articles/foreknowledge.html
Shows he doesn't really know what's being talked about, we'll call him a "search engine" theologian.
Hey Fleetwood, have you ever had any original thoughts?
 , P.I.
John Earp and Laika, P.I.
"Call us, we're in the book"
Edited by - Laika on 07/16/2003 12:52:09 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 7/16/2003 11:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman,
Indeed it is a pleasure and I hope things will continue in a civil manner as I am sure is the case concerning you.
Before I start, let me voice a concern. I spent 4 years in the Navy and 3 years in the Army, so there are very few profane words or substitutes that I haven't heard or in past times used. I take this verse very seriously, Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. and as such, I don't really appreciate substitute terms like "friggin'" or abreviations like "ROTFLMAO". I consider that to be corrupt communication and I don't really appreciate some who are bringing things back up that I have put behind me. You, Starkman, know this is not aimed at you, but it is for the benefit of others who will read this post. BTW, I may have "cussed like a sailor", but I didn't "cuss like a soldier" and even so, I was awarded the Battalion Technician of the Month plaque.
Now, to the issue you raised. God has set certain laws into effect while we are resident on this earth. One of those laws concerns genetic composition. That's one of the reasons cloning is possible. Without the specific blend of genetic material represented by those particular individuals in the linage of Jesus, He would have been a different incarnation. Obviously, God could have utilized a completely new creation instead of using a "virgin" as part of the equation, but He didn't and He wrote prophecy about a "virgin" 700+ years before it happened.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/16/2003 11:59 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Obviously, God could have utilized a completely new creation instead of using a "virgin" as part of the equation, but He didn't and He wrote prophecy about a "virgin" 700+ years before it happened.
So ... God decided He'd use a virgin (which He had to do anyway), and ... chose Mary. No problem with me. No problem with the OV either. As I've said, we are not as free as we think we are. He found in Mary someone who was quite willing to forego her will and accept His will. God can do things like that, and there's no injustice done to the person's essence of free will, particularly Mary's, in this case.
Got to run - Bible Study tonight!
For Mary's surrender and faithfulness,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/16/2003 1:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Paul: it seems to me that you are assuming that God had a certain person in mind way back when and this was Mary and therefore God watched over the genetic composition of this line so that Jesus would be that way. I see nothing in scripture that would support such a view. Jesus was a man like any other man, as far as physical composition. God found a person in Mary who would do what he asked. There is nothing that says God had to know who Mary was from the beginning of creation. It could have been that way, but God is smart enough to do it the open way as well.
BTW, my father was retired from the military and he cursed as well as anyone I have ever known, both before and after he became a Christian. I never had a problem with it because I see that verse you quoted as something we each must evaluate for ourselves. I, personally, do not get offended by other's speech because I am not the one speaking it. I answer to God, not for what other's say, but what I say. Plus, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt when using "friggin'" or other such substitutes. Better that than the actual word I always say.
Finally, I would hope that my speech is "pure" enough for you, Paul, but if not, simply don't answer my posts when they offend you. I certainly don't feel the need to change it for anyone *%&$#@$
Edited by - honorman on 07/16/2003 6:46:23 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
geebob
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 94
| Posted 7/16/2003 2:18 PM (GMT -6) | | looks like a great web site. Did he have to go by the name pelajus though?
I will gladly pay you teusday for a hamburger today.
-Wimpy | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 7/16/2003 5:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Honorman,
I think you should consider more than what you have indicated. The "corrupt communications" has a much larger implication than just speech. It also tells something of the company we associate with and their influence on us. 1 Corinthians 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. Many modern translations will state this more like, "Bad company corrupts good morals".
| | Back to Top | | |
|
pelajus
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 7/16/2003 5:24 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Pelajus doesn't seem to very much on top of things and doesn't seem to be much more than a parrot for Pinnock.
Hello. John sent me an email telling me that he had posted links to my webpage, and that my articles had generated discussion.
And in reply, I can't say that I am all that impressed with your attempt at analysis and refutation of my article.
quote:
Why do I say that? Well, consider that there are other words that are closely related to "foreknow/proginosko", like "foreknowledge/prognosis" that were completely ignored. In Acts 2.23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: you will notice "determinate counsel" used in conjunction with "foreknowledge". Do you have any idea when God decided the sacrifice of Jesus was necessary? Would it be in the "past history" or would it have been before the foundation of the world?
Hmmm. What was the name of my article, again?
[checking....checking...]
"Proginosko: A Word Study."
Oh, that might be why I didn't go into other Greek words.
quote:
Consider also that "Instance #4" (I Peter 1.20) doesn't even properly address the object of foreknowledge.
Really? The NIV, in I Pet. 1:20, says “He was chosen before the creation of the world, ....” It seems to me that, as I said, that God the Father is ‘choosing before’/proginosko Jesus. Jesus is the object of this ‘foreknowledge,’ as I clearly point out.
quote:
Recognizing the KJV uses "foreordained" instead of "foreknow" you should get the impression that what was known before and pre-determined was not the person, but the incarnation that was "manifest in these last times for you,".
Sorry, but if you will check out the Translations section of my webpage (http://pelajus.com), you will find that I have little respect for the KJ. Just because the KJ uses the word ‘foreordain’ instead of ‘foreknow’ in this one instance doesn’t mean that it is right. And, as I point out in the whole article, the thrust of the word ‘proginosko,’ which is used only 5 times, does not bear the weight of classical definition of foreknowledge or foreordination.
quote:
I think the NIV and Pelajus have struck out again!
Again, given the usage of the word in these 5 instances, and given your inability to show that they really support classical foreordination/foreknowedge, I don’t think you have even been pitching. I mean, slow-pitch softball don’t cut it in the majors. :)
In Christ,
Bro. Pelajus
Edited by - pelajus on 07/16/2003 11:44:46 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
pelajus
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 7/16/2003 5:39 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I have a pseudonym but then I am not the publisher of a website as or friend Pelagius is. Big difference there.
Not really. You hide behind a name when you post and call people names.
quote:
Below is a word study on foreknowledge giving an unbiased and accurate understanding in order that we might be more discerning when coming across websites run by anonymous men. Take note that men's names are mentioned below. No anonymities.
Ah, well. As someone else noted, these 'unbiased and accurate' studies just happen to be ones you agree with. What are the odd of that happening?
quote:
In agreement with Paul, Mr. Pelagius
That's 'PelaJus,' not PelaGIus. If you had taken the time to read the FAQ on my page, you would have found out why I spell it differently.
quote:
not only parrots Pinnock, but endorses him, and open theism, as well. He provides links to both openthiesm.org and to anti-Calvinist sites.
Sure do. So what's the problem? Whom are you parroting when you post, under your 'nom de plume,' the writings of others?
quote:
By the way, the anonymous man's name is Charles Fisher.
I prefer Chuck. When anyone starts talking about Charles Fisher, I start turning around and looking for my father.
My name has not been all that secret, for anyone who truly wants to find it. When Jon Dutweiller first had the Revival Theololgy Resources website, over 4 years ago, my articles appeared under my name. When Biblical Theology Resources put up the articles, my name went with them. And when someone started putting together articles onto a CD and distributing them, again, my name was on the articles.
Why am I anonymous on my webpage? Not my beliefs on Open Theology. No, rather, it's my beliefs of the Rapture that really upset the people in my denomination. :)
Seems that Post-Tribbers really irk the heck out of those who think that they get to float off to heaven when things get rough. My postings on the Rapture on a denominational board had people clamoring for me to be banned (it happened) and for resolutions to be passed at our denominational assemblies stating that any minister that didn't subscribe to a Pre-trib view should be defrocked (hasn't happened yet.)
But I bet you posted my name out of the goodness and purity of your heart, right?
quote:
I'm sure you knew that John seeing as Fisher has a link to "John Earp's site" and calls you "my friend John Earp" on his website. Oh, the things we fail to mention.
John is a fellow Church of God minister whom I have never met, nor talked with. We have undergone the trials and tribulations of a very vicious denominational message board together, and have become good internet friends.
Do you have a problem with that?
In Christ,
Bro. Pelajus
Edited by - pelajus on 07/16/2003 11:18:11 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 7/16/2003 5:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Pelajus,
Maybe that was the problem, you should have considered all bases before you came to your conclusion. Tunnel vision has bad consequences when you are trying to see the big picture.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
pelajus
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 7/16/2003 5:46 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
looks like a great web site.
Thank you. It was fun to work on and create.
quote:
Did he have to go by the name pelajus though?
No, I guess I didn't but I guess that since I have had the Gadfly Ministry for a long time, I kind of identified with him. And the more I learned about him, the more I came to admire him.
Here, from my FAQ, is how the name of Pelajus came about (I'm not parroting myself if I quote from my own webpage, am I, Paul and Fleetwood?):
[quote]Q#2. Where did you get the name Pelajus?
A#2. That was taken as a joke, that kind of back-fired. When I went on-line a few years ago, I chose to take the name of the arch-heretic, Pelagius, but decided to spell it phonetically, to see how many ministers in the CoG would catch on. I am sad to say, that I can count the number of those who did on my fingers.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
pelajus
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 7/16/2003 5:51 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Maybe that was the problem, you should have considered all bases before you came to your conclusion. Tunnel vision has bad consequences when you are trying to see the big picture.
You mean, like when Calvinists dishonestly take "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent..." (Num. 23:19) out of its context to try and prove that it is impossible for God to EVER change His mind? As I clealy pointed out in my article, "Does God Change His Mind," Balaam (now there's someone we really want to use for a strong doctrinal pillar, isn't he) was speaking about a specific instance, in a specific context.
Calvinists miss this 'big picture'/context because their tunnel vision gives them a verse that proof-texts their doctrine.
In Christ,
Bro. Pelajus
Edited by - pelajus on 07/16/2003 11:58:26 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
pelajus
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 7/16/2003 5:53 PM (GMT -6) | | How come my posts are getting cut off? I see that almost all of them have the ends missing.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 7/16/2003 6:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Pelajus,
I had problems accessing the thread a few minutes ago. Go back and try to edit the posts to include the ending.
EDIT: I will wait until your complete post is made before further comments. 
Edited by - Paul5388 on 07/16/2003 11:03:28 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/16/2003 6:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Pelajus, I admire your guts and willingness to question your received beliefs.
I have gotten similar sorts of responses for my questioning of "evangelical" teaching on abortion and their political tactics. Hope you can stay on board with us some!
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
|
pelajus
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 7/16/2003 7:10 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
WHo wrote these articles? I looked in vain to find an author. Just curious.
The author of the article, due to ecclesiastical pressure within his denomination, has chosen to remain anonymous. His pen name is Pelajus. He can be reached directly through his website, which is http://pelajus.com
Having trouble with my website forwarding my mail, so, temporarily, I can receive email at pelajus@yahoo.com
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 7/16/2003 7:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Pelajus,
Just because you have little respect for the KJV I should accept your NIV as being authorative? It might have been helpful if you would have actually checked a Greek text to see what I Peter 1.20 said. The actual word is "proegnosmenou", but when you look at Strong's 4267 you get "proginosko". So, you used a different word, but you reject using "prognosis", because it's different? That's some strange logic or it represents a bias on your part that shows you aren't really looking for the truth.
Edited by - Paul5388 on 07/17/2003 12:17:15 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/16/2003 7:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Paul: how do you know Pelajus has tunnel vision? How do you know he hasn't considered all bases...because he disagrees with the status quo? Or because he disagrees with you? Sounds a little presumptous and judgmental of you to me...
BTW: it's a good thing Jesus didn't associate with all those prostitutes and publicans. Wouldn't want him to to be corrupted, now would we?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/16/2003 7:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Pelajus. You don't believe in the Left Behind Series?! Oh no! That alone should get you into heaven...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/16/2003 8:06 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
It might have been helpful if you would have actually checked a Greek text to see what I Peter 1.20 said. The actual word is "proegnosmenou", but when you look at Strong's 4267 you get "proginosko". So, you used a different word, but you reject using "prognosis", because it's different? That's some strange logic or it represents a bias on your part that shows you aren't really looking for the truth.
Or, it could be he was using Strong's as an accepted authority on the Greek, and simply looked up all references to "proginosko." In fact, I seem to recall that at the beginning of his article, he did cite Strong's.
Your comments, as usual, seem to represent a bias you have against anyone who doesn't agree with you, to the point that you impute motives to them. Doesn't sound like you are really interested in considering anyone's opinions but your own.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
| 150 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:18 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|