Re: For Arminians and Calvinists.....

"Ethan Metsger" <me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:B059EE73-C150-8953-6057-E4DC989AE166@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:07:52 -0400, gary <biblicist@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Further, the abominable abuse that Calvinists and Reformed Theology
have
>> done
>> to the word "foreknow," is beyond contempt. To understand this read the
>> following
>> if you've not already done so:
>
>> http://www.chafer.edu/journal/back_issues/Vol%209-1%20ar3.pdf
>
> This is an interesting paper.  His argumentation is fairly well
developed,
> but I find it unconvincing on several counts.
>
> First:
>
> I would take issue with the following:
>
>> It is erroneous to say, as Baugh does, that we can
legitimatelyinterpret
>> proginwskw by "studying the verb without the prefix pro-('fore-')."[60]
>> It is not true that one should study a word withoutits prefix. For
>> comparison in English, one cannot interpret "uneasy"by studying the
word
>> "easy" and ignoring or dismissing the prefix, "un."
>
>> [60] Baugh, "Foreknowledge," 192, who also states that the prefix only
>> indicates tem****al priority.
>
> (p63, num 21)
>
>
> While I certainly agree that prefixes change the meaning of a word, it
is
> very rare in my experience (i.e., I cannot think of an example off the
top
> of my head) that a prefix would generalize the meaning.  It rather
> specifies it, and each of Edgar's examples go to the point.  "Uneasy" is
> not the same as "easy," and in fact means the opposite; but while the
> prefix negates the meaning, it does not generalize it at all.
> "Forestall," we agree, does not mean the same thing as "stall"; but it
> again does not generalize meaning.
>
> Should GINWSKW in some context imply a knowledge of acquaintance, we
> should not expect the prefix PRO to somehow generalize that meaning to
> include knowledge of fact (especially knowledge of fact *instead of*
> acquaintance).  PROGINWSKW should have a different (i.e., more specific)
> meaning than GINWSKW, but it seems a bit disingenuous for him to say,
"the
> Greek word ginwskw is not proginwskw. Thus, it does not reveal the
meaning
> for proginwskw" (p64, num 22).
>
> By his examples, we may say, "The English word 'uneasy' is not 'easy'.
> Thus it does not reveal the meaning for 'easy'."  It is perfectly clear
to
> anyone that without first understanding what "easy" means, the
derivative
> "uneasy" is meaningless.  The same holds true for "stall" and
"forestall,"
> even though the common use of the verb "to stall" is intransitive (has
no
> object) and the common use of "forestall" is transitive (has an object).
>
>
> Second:
>
> There are two words for "to know" in Greek, and the author treats only
one
> (and that a specialized case of its use).  There are cases in which the
> words might be interchanged, but certainly there are cases in which they
> may not be.  It is generally agreed (in my experience) that GINWSKW
> connotes experiential knowledge and OIDA factual knowledge (some of the
> B-Greek references below contest this understanding, drawing no
> distinction between the terms, but the position is not universal and
does
> not, I think, reflect the majority of current translators).
>
> This sort of thing happens in other languages; if Helmet has been
> unfortunate enough to have read this thread, he might be able to comment
> more knowledgably about the uses of kennen and wissen in German than I.
> The former is used as a knowledge of acquaintance (as in, "I know that
> person," or "I know that word") and the latter as knowledge of data ("I
> know the answer").
>
> While it is undoubtedly true that some theologians and translators,
> including those specifically mentioned in the article, have lent overdue
> weight to the distinction of GINWSKW and OIDA, it is equally true that
Mr
> Edgar here has obscured them.  He argues agains the use of antonyms as a
> means of understanding words (p 67, numbered 25), but omits synonyms
> entirely from consideration.
>
>
> An accessible discussion of the words with references is at
>
>    http://www.stempubli****ng.com/authors/trench/jat311.html
>
> B-Greek has also discussed the words at some length (usually a bit more
> technical, but I think also more precise and with greater depth and
> attention):
>
>    http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/1998-November/002880.html
>
>    http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2000-March/010407.html
>
>    http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2005-June/034763.html
>
>    http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-3/msg00650.html
>
> The last is rather lengthy but contains information about how often the
> words were used, in what form, and treats specifically occurrences of
the
> words.  The first, I think, treats how the Greek conjunction hOTI might
> influence our understanding of the relation****p between the knower and
the
> known.
>
>> An entire hoax has been perpetrated on the meaning of this word, and
has
>> penetrated
>> even to the lexicons and dictionaries.
>
> Do you have other sources that might suggest this?
>
>
> Best,
>
> Ethan

Ethan, unlike you, I was convinced by his paper.

What he presented seems very correct to me.

D. Carson, in his book, Exegetical Fallacies, names the fallacy
used by Calvinists to reject the real meaning of foreknow,
foreknowledge, and foreknown. (Of course, what is really
hillarious is that Carson  himself commits many of the
fallacies in his own theology that he writes about in his book!)

To me I Peter. 1:2 clinches the argument. Calvinism claims that
election is not according to foreknowledge, the Apostle Peter
states that it is.

Gary






((( 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. 
 )))