I don't know where you get that from, but I know it's not from the bible.
What exactly does this say to you?
I hope you're not a teacher. Sorry bud but I don't know what your teaching from.
It says exactly what it says, and it is also where I got that. In the Old Testament, it was not clear how such righteousness could be achieved, but we know where we can obtain such a standard since Christ's death on the cross, by accepting the gift of God.
When one's argument falters, the focus always turns from the argument to the person. You say this type of nonsense because I do not agree with your theological viewpoint? Really?
Yea, your right but my argument isn't faltering. I just tire of the false teachings.
What you tire of is people disagreeing with your particular brand of theology. But instead of looking at it dispassionately and realizing the built-in bias we all have, you declare yourself in the right and all who would disagree in the wrong. That way you can take out the sharpie and write their views off as heresies.
Oh, and you're a mind reader now?
If you are a prophet.
I asked for your definitions of foreknew only, not an interpretation of the entire passage for a reason. I am going through definitions one by one, to see where they stack up against what God says about Himself. Then we can get to interpretation. Don't highlight and respond to this one portion of my post before reading the rest of it, or it will throw what is meant to be a discussion of ideas, right back to debating a person as @Josheb said in another board.
This is a conclusion you already have, but we have not yet established biblically what God meant by foreknew. This is what causes arguments and removes discussion from the exchanges completely.
Yes, but how does He know them? Is it because of who He is? So who is He according to what He tells us in His word? It goes ofcourse to His omniscience and one place from where we get this doctrine of omniscience in Christianity is Is 40:13-14 Who has measured the Spirit of the Lord, or what man shows him his counsel? Whom did he consult, and who made him understand? Who taught him the path of justice, and taught him knowledge, and showed him the way of understanding?
God ordains what He ordains and foreknows what He foreknows. Ordaining is not foreknowing. Ordaining is determining something to be. Foreknowing is knowing what will be. So, they are two separate words that describe separate attributes of God. We have been chosen by God's foreknowledge to be saved, but we have not been ordained to be saved.
Yep.
Not quite correct. God certainly knows what He ordains. To say God ordains without knowing what He ordains is to say God is ignorant of His own mind. Foreknowledge has to do with God's knowledge prior to creation. Anything God ordained prior to creating creation is ALSO things He foreknew. The two, ordaining and foreknowing, are not mutually occurring conditions. They overlap.
I would define those terms differently, but I can work for those definitions (at least until they prove problematic).
Not wholly separate. No one, not even God acts mindlessly or without some degree of forethought and thought. Whatever separateness might exist (and it has yet to be shown these two are separate to the point of never overlapping or being unrelated to one another), it does not preclude their co-occurrence.
Got scripture for that?
I did not say that foreknowing and ordaining were the same thing, though of course God can't ordain what He doesn't know. I suggested that given the scriptures that were presented that show us what God says about Himself, when it is said that God foreknows something, He knows it because He ordained it, rather than because He learned it. Is that possible?
You are jumping ahead to conclusions. I am attempting to keep our definitions inline with who God is. That has to come before we reach a conclusion.
There is no other way to define these terms. Foreknew: to know beforehand
Of course. If God ordains something, He will make it happen; thus, He knows it will happen. But He can just as easily foreknow something without ordaining it because he is omnipotent and lives in all time.
Of course, but that still does not make the words synonymous. One is active, and the other is passive.
Any point from the present to the past.
They are two separate words. Separate words can be connected if you use one as the cause and the other as the effect. For example, "he ran fast therefore he won!" Ran and won are two separate words even though they are connected. "Just like He ordained it therefore He foreknew it."
That is not my position. My biblical position is that God ordained those to be saved whom He foreknew would accept His Grace. He lives in all time; we do not. In other words, He extended the same grace and salvation to all, but He knew which ones Grace would choose because He knew which hearts would respond to His Spirit.
These are examples, not conclusions. Say what you want to say; I promise I won't accuse you of jumping to conclusions.
That would mean that something happens outside the sovereignty of God. And all living things live, and move, and have their being in Him. If something could happen outside His sovereignty, would that mean that He is not God as He reveals Himself---the I AM, LORD?
