A Brief Debate About the Definition of Foreknowledge in 1 Peter 1:2

  While researching divine foreknowledge online one day, I came across a blogspot called "A Form of Sound Words." Immediately spotting the old "foreknowledge = predestination" error, along with the glaring mistake that "'foreknowledge' and 'foreordained' are from the exact same Greek word" that Calvinists are apt to employ, plus the most oversimplistic and ill-informed arguments against the actual use of the word in its context, I had to drop a comment. (my commentary here is of course in green)

  Dear Rand, your reasoning about God's foreknowledge is flawed. Election according to foreknowledge does not require that anything be 'news' or a surprise to God. He did not foreknow the elect because He foreordained them, that would be foreknowledge according to election, the opposite of what 1 Peter 1:2 states. How this could be an attack on God's omniscience you really have yet to explain.

As far as your objection to the meaning of Romans 8:29-30, God did not "foresee saving faith" as states the straw-man Calvinists so love to burn, but foreknew how each of us would react to the grace He would offer. In other words, it is foreknowledge in the context of His grace, not what we would have done without it.

Lastly, the words for 'foreknowledge,' and 'foreknown' (foreordained) in 1 Peter 1:2 and 20 respectively are not the same word, 'foreknowledge' is 'prognosis' and 'foreknown' is 'proginosko.' While the latter may mean foreordination in this context (ginosko also carries a variety of meanings), prognosis consistently refers to foreknowledge, just as gnosis consistently refers to knowledge.

In Christ,
[J.C. Thibodaux]


The response was swift and underwhelming.

J.C.,

"He did not foreknow the elect because He foreordained them, that would be foreknowledge according to election, the opposite of what 1 Peter 1:2 states."

Check the definition of "prognosis". It means foreknowledge or pre-arrangement. God's people are elect because God foreknew and pre-arranged (for-ordination) all things.

"God did not "foresee saving faith" as states the straw-man Calvinists so love to burn, but foreknew how each of us would react to the grace He would offer.

Nonsense babbling, and same difference. God's grace is irresistible to His elect ( Romans 9:18 ). God doesn't give a teaspoon of grace and then waits to see what we are going to do. God's grace to His elect is saving, and saving to the uttermost. Ephesians 1:3-6 makes this all too evident (you'll notice that there is nothing said in this passage of a necessary responce on the part of the elect):

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved."

Your last paragraph doesn't go anywhere, Josh, so I'm really not sure how to respond to it. I didn't say that "prognosis" and "proginosko" were the same word. I said they were from the same root, check Strong's concordance. He mentioned nothing about root words in his post, he said that 'foreknow' and 'foreknowledge' were from the exact same Greek word.

Reconsider, my friend, for you err.


Errr...no. I persisted.

Hello again brother,

Well for starters, Romans 9:18 says nothing about God's grace being irresistable, simply that God will show mercy and harden whoever He wishes to, with no conditionality or lack thereof being implied. You are correct in that God does not give a small amount of His grace and just wait to see what happens. Perfect foreknowledge of how each will receive or reject it makes such a thing unnecessary -- starkly different from 'foreseeing faith inherent in the sinner' despite all objections to the contrary.

My last paragraph addressed your sentence, "see 1 Peter 1:2 and 1 Peter 1:20, foreknowledge" and "foreordained" are from the exact same Greek word." They are not from the exact same Greek word (unless you are referring to the word 'pro'). Ginosko and gnosis are different words that have different connotations, which I've already pointed out.

"Check the definition of "prognosis". It means foreknowledge or pre-arrangement. God's people are elect because God foreknew and pre-arranged (for-ordination) all things."

'Foreknowledge' as it is used in Acts 2:23 could imply some level of pre-arrangement, but the derivation of that meaning is contextually based. Foreknowledge/foreknowing in the context of salvation cannot mean strictly 'pre-arrangement,' else Romans 8:29 would say, "Whom he did foreordain he did pre-destinate...," an error of redundancy. The idea that God's foreknowledge in relation to salvation refers to prescience (from Romans 8 and 1 Peter 1) is historically recognized by early writers in the church who were fluent in the language that the New Testament was written in.

"And in short, sirs," said I, "by enumerating all the other appointments of Moses I can demonstrate that they were types, and symbols, and declarations of those things which would happen to Christ, of those who it was foreknown were to believe in Him..." Justin Martyr, Dialogue of Justin, chapter XLII

"We-who were but lately created by the only best and good Being, by Him also who has the gift of immortality, having been formed after His likeness (predestinated, according to the prescience of the Father, that we, who had as yet no existence, might come into being), and made the first-fruits of creation -have received, in the times known beforehand, [the blessings of salvation] according to the ministration of the Word..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter I

Despite all the doctrinally-driven grammatical gymnastics Calvinists attempt, there is no reason from the grammar, larger context of scripture, or history to force any meaning onto prognosis in 1 Peter 1:2 other than its primary meaning: foreknowledge.


In Christ,
J.C. Thibodaux


Not to be outdone, Rand started to dazzle me with his scholastic aptitude.

Again J.C., you err.

"Perfect foreknowledge of how each will receive or reject it makes such a thing unnecessary"

This argument is foolish. God knew for before He created anything Who He would create, and what that soul would do with the Gospel. In the act of then creating these souls, God, and this is just logic, for-ordained all things. Disputing this is an exercise in futility and folly. Unless of course He chose to give us free will. He was so dazzling that I had trouble even putting this sentence together.

"They are not from the exact same Greek word (unless you are referring to the word 'pro').

Again, these words have the same root. I don't know what you know about the Greek language (Enough to know how prognosis is used), but I do know how well Strong's is:

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/la...267& Version=kjv

http://www.blueletterbible.org/c...2& version=KJV#2

"...is historically recognized by early writers in the church who were fluent in the language that the New Testament was written in.

Frankly, J.C., I couldn't care less what the early writers recognized. Many of the "early writers" hadn't even figured out the doctrine of the Trinity. You've got to be kidding. Most Calvinists I argue with fight tooth and nail for the intellectual high ground, this guy insistently hands it to me. Their words are not God-breathed. God's foreordination and foreknowledge are tied in together and are inseparable. Your view of Romans 8:29 not withstanding.

Finally, J.C., I know you've visited my "Commenting Rules" and I will now insist you obey them. Self-serving rules or no, when you accuse someone of error, you'd best be able to back it up. You are not here to learn, you are here to teach, and I have no time for your error. I know your position, and your sentiment, I once shared them; but the fact of the matter is, it is you who are working "gymnastics" to dodge the Truth of God's foreordination and election. Concerning exactly which amazing acrobatic feats I was performing, he was not forthcoming.

These doctrines are all over the Bible, and you need to bow to them, not fight them (as your site clearly does). I need to not fight them? If what he's saying is correct, then I have no choice as to whether I fight or accept them.

Man is Totally Depraved:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (2 Corinthians 2:14)

God Sovereignly elected and predestinated His people unto life in Christ:

""Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." (Ephesians 1:3-6)

God's people are predestinated and elected in Christ for He bore their sins, and theirs only:

"He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify MANY; for he shall bear THEIR iniquities." (Isaiah 53:11)

God's election is without repentance, His grace is irresistible:

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." (John 6:37-39)

Since salvation is completely wrought of God, God's people are eternally secure in Christ:

"Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:33-39)

I Wonder if he's a five-pointer...

Take Gamaliel's advice, J.C.. Don't fight the Doctrines of Grace, they are of God.


Ah yes, more Calvinist grandstanding. I quickly switched my brain back on and replied:

Dear brother,

For starters, look at the words themselves: 'prognosis' is from 'gnosis' (noun), 'proginosko' is from ginosko (verb), though sharing a root, they are not "from the exact same greek word" as you first asserted, as one is a noun, the other a verb, extremely basic grammar; hence my original point about their uses. (I was going to drop the issue, but if he's going to be condescending enough to drop links to a concordance, then I thought it best to clarify my original point. If he meant they had the same root, fine; but his original statement was misleading)

"God's foreordination and foreknowledge are tied in together and are inseparable."

Inseparable, but not synonymous, otherwise you are still faced with the problem of Romans 8:29: If 'foreknowledge' means 'predestination,' then it effectively says, 'For whom he did predestinate, he also did predestinate' by the logic you are employing.

The crux of my assertions is this: The primary meaning of 'prognosis' is indisputably 'foreknowledge,' and should be interpreted as such unless there is clear contextual evidence to the contrary. The standard definition fits the context of the passage perfectly well, so if you are so sure of this novel interpretation, then on you rests the burden of linguistic evidence for it, other than the fact that it could conceivably be stretched to mean what you say; Ockham's razor inevitably cuts the other way.

"Frankly, J.C., I couldn't care less what the early writers recognized. Many of the 'early writers' hadn't even figured out the doctrine of the Trinity."

Well Justin and Irenaeus were obviously not among those.

"The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 63)

"But the Son, eternally co-existing with the Father, from of old, yea, from the beginning, always reveals the Father to Angels, Archangels, Powers, Virtues..." (Against Heresies, Book II, ch. 30, section 9) Apparently in Rand's estimation, the writers in the early church were a bunch of theologically unevolved neanderthals who could just barely grasp the fact that Christ died to atone for sins, and obviously lacked the Reformation-era theology critically needed to guide their linguistic skills.

For the record, I know they are not inspired, they were just as fallible as than John Calvin and Augustine were; they were just much better at understanding Greek. That had to hurt.

"You are not here to learn, you are here to teach..."

A very good way to learn is to discuss; to hear what others have to say. It helps one learn what can stand up to scrutiny and what cannot. Extremely true in my case. Arguing on a forum was how I learned most of what I know about Calvinism and the reasoning its proponents use.

As far as your points:
Man is Totally Depraved - I agree.

God Sovereignly elected and predestinated His people unto life in Christ - Also agree, He does so on the basis of His foreknowledge.

God's people are predestinated and elected in Christ for He bore their sins, and theirs only - Christ died for the whole world (1 John 2:2), though only the elect will receive remission of sins.

God's election is without repentance, His grace is irresistible - Neither John 6, nor any other passage of scripture implies that God's grace is irresistable.

Since salvation is completely wrought of God, God's people are eternally secure in Christ - Partially agree. We are eternally secure as long as we remain in Christ. Nothing can tear us away from Christ, though I believe it's possible for one to willingly walk away. A clear example of how one may do this is found in Revelation 22:19,

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book." My usual opener, and still undefeated.

If the guaranteed perseverance of the saints is such a vital doctrine of God's grace, then why would He give a warning with a consequence that would utterly negate that? There is simply no way to square this final warning of scripture with Calvinist doctrine without making it void. I therefore cannot accept the idea that a believer can never fall from grace as being scriptural, and therefore cannot accept the doctrines espoused by John Calvin.

I will conclude my posts for now. If you have any linguistic evidence for selectively redefining foreknowledge or wish to discuss Revelation 22 or some other subject, then you are welcome to contact me. As per your rules, please feel free to put in a parting shot about me kicking against the goads/fighting God/etc., such things won't offend me. And despite any minor differences of opinion, may God bless you richly in Christ Jesus.


In Christ,
J.C. Thibodaux


Denotation, check. Context, check. History, check. Linguistic evidence, check. Continuity, check. Parsimony, check. Looks like prognosis apparently indicates knowledge of the future, with only dogmatic bias as a basis for reinterpreting it. I ended my posts, figuring that any other response he could come up with would amount to little more than a verbal slap (his rules do say he gets the last word after all), and was apparently correct in my deduction. Unable to establish his point or present any clear and objective evidence in support of it, and effectively left with nothing more than ad hominem, he took the Dordt approach of attempting to silence all opposition by deleting the last post. Which shows once again that if there is one thing that militant Calvinists cannot stand, it is one who reads his or her Bible disagreeing with them.

Copyright © 2007, InDeathorLife.org
The information on this page may not be reproduced or republished on another website, webpage or other printed media without express permission from the author of this site. Other material(s) referenced on this site are the property of their respective authors or copyright holders, and where applicable are used by permission.