Sure. But that doesn't tells us in what way He knows beforehand. Or how it is that He has this knowledge. I am not trying to change the meaning of the word.
We must consider all the scripture, not just the texts that support our points of view. We have to understand how texts like Ec. 9:11 fit into the picture. It states, "I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."
By observation and ordination.
I agree that we must take all of scripture into consideration and not just pick those that support our points of view. But we do have to be selective on a forum as we cannot exeget the whole Bible in any post, let alone all of them. So the ones we select must deal directly with the subject at hand or what is being discussed. In this case, and at the moment, it is who God is, and finding from that what foreknew in the Romans passage means. Ec is under the sun. That is man's experience and as seen through man's eyes.
You cannot say that God would have done something if Saul had done something differently. It implies that God is ordaining or governing on contingencies. If He is ordaining all things it went exactly how He intended it to. We of course do not know his hidden reasons. We go by who He is and what He says.
We must stop here because you need to support this point. We can't just take it as fact. What makes you think the under-the-sun disqualifies this text from pointing out that time and chance happen to all? I am not prepared to throw it out without good evidence.
No, it doesn't. God can choose to allow the natural consequences of life to happen if He so chooses.
1 Sam 13:13
He doesn't have to wait and see. He can see all now, but that doesn't mean He ordains all. I do not believe He ordained sin but He foresaw it.
Yes, He foreordained all those whom He foresaw would accept His Grace. Thus His Grace chose them. That is God's perspective. It was not that He ordained a specific set of people to be saved and another set to be damned, no, He foreordained that all who would come to Him and receive Him would be saved. And He just happened to know who they were beforehand.
Which one agrees with who God is?
The scripture: Romans 8:29-30 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those who he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Because of who God is. With man it always appears that time and chance affect us. Well time does---so I don't know what you mean. But if just the passages I quoted of God proclaiming who He is, are true, then there can actually be no such thing as chance. Otherwise God is not sovereign. What to us often looks like chance is providence. And under the sun is earth.
It takes a minute to think about it. Sovereign when it comes to God means that He is King over all creation. Supreme power and governor of all. If He is All in all, then if He did not ordain all things, it would mean there is another equal or greater than Himself.
Defiantly the first one.
God foreknew those who would respond and those he predestined them which means He set the destination for those whom he knew. This is clearly what Paul says. Those he foreknew he did predestine and those he predestined he did glorify.
He doesn’t lose anyone but some sadly leave him like Judas did. There are those who did not accept his call like the rich young ruler. These things must be taken into account and not just brushed aside.
No one can but they can leave if they desire. “Will you leave also?”’He asked His disciples. And one eventually did.
This is a false premise. He can let the natural results of behavior manifest itself. Personally I think that is what the punishment of sin will be in a large part.
False premise that makes no sense. God can and does set up systems that work out natural effects.
Just so we're agreed tan overlap exists and no false dichotomies should be attempted.
That is simply incorrect. Both words can be conjugated passive or active, or both.
Incorrect. The prefix "fore-" has to do with two conditions: prior to creation and history prior to the event's occurrence. The first condition is eternal, the second is temporal. The two are not identical and should not be treated as identical, even where they might overlap. On the eternal side of things foreknowledge is extra-temporal. Using the language of "before" and "after" or "past," "present," and "future," is irrational and wholly unscriptural. Time is a condition, a structure, of creation. It does not exist external to creation. God, as the Creator of creation, does exist outside of creation. The use of "fore" knowledge is a conceit to human existence, not divine. God knows past, present, and future all at once.
Knowledge is not causal.
Really? Demonstrate that for me.
Sorry but words aren’t there for you to define.
What are you talking about?
Which can be to allow circumstances to play out. This is a point that is not denied by the scriptures and indeed mentioned in it in several places including the ones I published here.
Sure.
Nope.
Which is why I asked, "Before what?". When the foreknowledge, when the "hand" in the knowledge beforehand is before time itself was created then that is an entirely different meaning than knowing in time when something is known in time before that things later happens in time. Time is irrelevant to an externally, eternally-existing God.
If that is a confession of a lack of understanding, then that disqualifies you from having anything to contribute to this discussion on foreknowledge.
