[Desert Reign]

Originally Posted by Angel4Truth

What He was foreordained for, is the issue. And it all happened before creation.

Firstly, the text says 'foreknew' not 'foreordained.' The only issue is did God foreordain him before he knew that man would sin.

Personally, I don't think you will find the answer in the New Testament but by an analysis of the meaning of the allegories which make up the fall narratives and indeed all the way through to Abraham. It's all part of a whole.

For my money, I'm not fussed either way - what is important is not whether God knew that man would eventually sin but whether he knew that individual men would and whether he knew which ones would turn to Christ. Clearly, the passages we discussed in Revelation support the view that no individual pre-selection or foreknowledge exists. In terms of mankind as a whole, I am quite comfortable with the view that God predicted man (as a whole) would sin because this was the inevitable consequence of an open world - an inevitable consequence of his love for us. This does not in any way compromise the openness of the future and it does not in any compromise God experiencing those emotions of regret and anger, etc. when man did eventually sin. Rather it enhances them.

Does your silence indicate you have now come to terms with the fact that Revelation speaks of individuals being added to the Lamb's book of life as and when they put their trust in him?

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by Angel4Truth

1 peter 1:20 20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you

20.
|1096| having been
|4267| foreknown
|4253| before
|2602| {the} foundation
|2889| of {the} world,
|5319| revealed
|1722| in
|2078| {the} last
|3588| of the
|5550| times
|1223| because
|5209| of you,

Strong's Ref. # 4253

Romanized pro
Pronounced pro

a primary preposition; "fore", i.e. in front of, prior (figuratively, superior) to: KJV--above, ago, before, or ever. In comparison it retains the same significations.

As far as your verses, apo also means before - sorry you missed that:



Apo

Strong's Number: 575

apo'
Definition

of separation
of local separation, after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing, ...
of separation of a part from the whole
where of a whole some part is taken
of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed
of a state of separation, that is of distance
physical, of distance of place
temporal, of distance of time
of origin
of the place whence anything is, comes, befalls, is taken
of origin of a cause



after 1, against 4, ago 2, alike* 1, among 2, away 3, away* 1, because 9, before* 1, belonged 1, deserting* 1, distance 1, hereafter* 1, initiative 1, left 1, off 1, once* 1, since 11, since* 3, some 1, way 1

DR already answered this.

Also, that's not the word used in 1 Peter 1:20 anyway. That would be pro. So as you stated in a later post, the issue is for what was Christ foreordained? Because until this is answered it does you no good to use this verse.

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

A4T.

This is quite out of context and a very wrong use of reference material.

The word 'apo' is used approximately 670 times in the NT.

In your rather selective quotation from some online reference (possibly this) you forgot to include the actual definition

Definition: from, away from

You also did not mention that the vast majority of times, that word is translated as from, away from or since. The numbers after the words where you highlighted the supposed meaning 'before' are the number of occurrences of the translated word in the NASB translation. So the number of times in the whole NT that this word was translated 'before' is the grand total of 1 out of 670.

Now, understand this: that one place is the following:

Acts 7:45

"And having received it in their turn, our fathers brought it in with Joshua upon dispossessing the nations whom God drove out before our fathers, until the time of David."

and there it is actually a translation of a combined preposition in Greek meaning 'from before the face of'. In other words it has nothing to do with time at all.

Case dismissed. I would respectfully also suggest, that if you want to learn the truth, you need to come to terms with what the texts in Revelation mean: the Lamb's book of life of all those written into it from the foundation of the world. I implore you to listen to what the text actually says. The definition from Strongs which you yourself highlighted is what you need to consider:

In other words: 'after' NOT 'before'.

This.

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

A4T:

The other text you quoted was 1 Peter 1:20.

This indicates that God knew Jesus before the foundation of the world. I don't see how that would be noteworthy in this discussion since we all (probably) accept that Jesus existed before the foundation of the world and it would be only natural to use 'before' in this context.

Quite possibly.

Originally Posted by Angel4Truth

What He was foreordained for, is the issue. And it all happened before creation.

Well, the word translated as foreordained in this verse is Proginosko.

Now, does this mean Christ was known beforehand, or predestined, and if the latter for what? If the former, then DR's explanation stands.

And seeing as how the version considered to be the most properly translated, the NASB, uses "foreknown" I'm going to accept DR's explanation:

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

Firstly, the text says 'foreknew' not 'foreordained.' The only issue is did God foreordain him before he knew that man would sin.

[Desert Reign]

I see that my post 127 has gone unanswered by Shasta. I'd like to say that I have not yet met any Arminian (or who believes in exhaustive foreknowledge) who has given any coherent explanation as to how it is that God foreknows everything. AndyC once tried to say that because wormholes have been declared to be a theoretical possibility then this means that there might be some method by which God can know the future before it happens. (Along of course with the outrageous implication that if there's a tiny remote theoretical possibility of it then it must be absolutely true.) Well, at least it was an attempt at suggesting a method.

Openists have a simple, clear and coherent explanation of how God knows the future: namely that God announces what he intends to make happen. Prophecy is simply an announcement of God's intentions. All, I'm asking is some equally simple competing explanation as to how God knows the future absolutely (assuming of course he does). Surely it's not too much to ask is it? It's only the most natural of questions anyone would ask to the average Arminian. It's the failure of the Arminians to answer such a basic and obvious question that is the cause of their relative unpopularity. Personally, I find it logically safe to conclude, based on that failure, that exhaustive divine foreknowledge is false.

[surrender]

Originally Posted by Shasta

This contradicts Open Theism's claim that God did not know man would sin and thus could not have made a steadfast plan of redemption until the "Open" future had become "real." If God foreknew what Adam would do Adam would not possess a truly free will, at least this is the argument made against the doctrine of foreknowledge.

God knew as a certainty that given every single circumstance Adam or man would find himself in (a finite number of circumstances, mind you), he’d eventually sin. That doesn’t take freewill away from man. And that doesn’t mean God has exhaustive definitive foreknowledge.