In article , lsenders{at}hotmail.com
says...
>

>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >> >To state that He "foreknew" us speaks of
relationship,
>> >> >not intellectual encompass.
>> >>
>SNIP
>
>> Oh, yes I have. For there is NOTHING about 'relationship'
>> in EITHER of these verses. Is that why you didn't dare
>> quote them, Loren? Is that why you had to
>> hide under empty boasts, _claiming_ that it meant 'relationship'?
>>
>> Recall the verses are:(Act 2:23 RSVA)

And why did you _snip_ the citation, Loren? Is it too embarassing for you?

>> Where is the 'relationship' in that verse? 'foreknowledge' is paired
>>with 'definite plan'. The two are nearly synonymous here.
>> No "relationship" needed!
>>
>For sake of argument, I am going to grant that this passage does not
>involve "relationship."

You will? Then finally, you admit the obvious. Finally, you admit that you were
wrong. No wonder you will concede only "for sake of argument".

>  But I would then ask of you to understand the
>distinction between "foreknown" and
"foreknowledge."  It was the former
>which always has a personal pronoun or a personal releationship
>mentioned in the immediate context.

First of all, this is NOT what you claimed. You were wrong, and now you are
trying to cover up your mistake.

But even more importantly, so WHAT if it always has a personal pronoun? It _has_
to because of the _grammatical_ form. But taht has next to NOTHING to do with
"personal relationship".

>This includes the Petrine passage
>I referred to.

Again, so What? This does NOT imply it concerns 'personal relationship'.

>> But still, I can see how one _might_ think that it could
>> be there anyway. But certainly NOT in the very next
>> verse you mention:
>>
>>    He was destined before the foundation of the world but
>>    was made manifest at the end of the times for your
>>    sake. (1Pe 1:20 RSVA)
>>
>1 Pet. 1:20 For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world,
>but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you.  [NASB]
>
>1Pet. 1:20 who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world,
>but was manifested at the end of times for your sake, [ASB]

These translations are slightly more literal than the RSV I used. But this does
not really help you.

>The obvious distinction between foreknowledge and foreordination, or
>predestination, has been the occasion for much discussion, there being
>those who assert that God, by His foreknowledge, discriminated between
>those who by their own choice would accept salvation and those who
>would not and, in consequence, being thus informed, God was able to
>predestinate those He knew would believe. The superficial character of
>this notion is seen:

Already, you seem to have forgotten the topic. Or are you deliberately hiding
under reams of irrelevant wordiness?

The topic was: YOU claimed that references to 'foreknowledge' did not really
mean "cognition before hand", but some touchy-feely nonsense about
'relationship'. You were even so rash and audacious as to claim that if I did a
'word study', I would agree with your nonsense. That is where you fell down
badly.

[snip]


-- 
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/14/05 10:09:16 PM ---