Matthew Johnson wrote:
> In article ,
lsenders{at}hotmail.com
> says...
> >
> >
> >
> >Matthew Johnson wrote:
> >> In article ,
> >lsenders{at}hotmail.com
> >> says...
> >>
> >>
> >> >To state that He "foreknew" us speaks of relationship,
> >> >not intellectual encompass.
> >>
> >> So YOU say. But Scripture does not.
> >>
> >Elsewhere you have mentioned "foreknew" used in Acts with the
> >suggestion that you have proven my theorem wrong as to not
indicating
> >"fore-knowing" as in prescience, but than foreknowing as in
> >relationship.  I looked it up and it is Peter who is speaking in
Acts
> >2:23.  This, however, isn't the only time Peter mentions it
> >_in_the_same_context.  Check out 1 Pet 1:20.  I'm sorry, but you
have
> >yet to prove me wrong.
>
> 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:
>
>    this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan
>    and foreknowledge of God,

Hmm. Another verse that seems to kill the freewill argument?

((( 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} 2/8/05 6:38:10 PM ---