Greetings again Michael,
I only briefly read over the other posts that were posted since your last one to me. I hope not to repeat anything already addressed by someone else, so I apologize if there is some overlap.

Quote
The Greek for "foreknowledge" is "prognosis", and unless I'm mistaken it has never been translated as "ordained purposes". Only in 1 Peter 1:20 has "proginosko" been translated as "foreordained" in the King James Version.

(Fred) In my original point, I was stating that "foreknowledge" can be a synonym for "ordained purposes." The 1 Peter 1:20 verse is a prime example. If God's foreknowledge is mere prescience, as your system seems to advocate, then that means that God had to look ahead in time to see what Christ would do and then ordain his plan of salvation accordingly. However, such a scenerio would introduce a division between the members of the Godhead that the Bible clearly states cannot exist. The Father was unaware of what the son would do UNTIL he gathered the appropriate information and then determined what would happen.

Quote
In Acts 2:23 I believe that there is a distinction between "determinate purpose" (Gk. horizo boule) and "foreknowledge" (Gk. prognosis), although they are closely related to each other.

(Fred) There is a slight distinction, but the grammar of the text implies a unique connection that cannot be ignored. Daniel Wallace writes about this verse under his section on the article with multiple substantives:

Quote
If foreknowledge defines predetermination, this opens the door that (according to one definition of prognosis) God's decree is dependent on his omniscience. But if the terms are distinguishable, the relationship may be reversed, vis., omniscience is dependent on the eternal decree (...) The relationship between the two terms here may be one of distinctness or the subsumption of one under the other. In the context of Acts 2 and in light of Luke's christological argument "from prophecy to pattern," the most likely option is that prognosis is grounded in the horizen boule (thus foreknowledge is a part of the predetermined plan), for one of the foci of the chapter is on the divine plan in relation to the Messiah's death and resurrection. Thus God's decrees are not based on him simply foreknowing what human beings will do; rather, humanity's actions are based on God's foreknowledge and predetermined plan. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics p. 288


Quote
My definition of foreknowledge is simply a dictionary-definition: Knowledge of something before it occurs.

(fred) It is dangerous to pick out simple dictionary definitions for words in a totally different language, especially non-biblical definitions. My question could be more specifically, "How does the Bible define foreknowledge, and does it comport with your understanding of prescience? I would say no, because as I have already established, a God that knows all things exhaustively (because he created everything to begin with) cannot gather information on which to base his decrees. Such a notion is contradictory to his nature.


Quote
Yes, Acts 4:28 speaks of God's predetermined purposes (Gk. "proorizo boule"). But it doesn't mention anything about an unconditional determinative decree which is not based on foreknowledge.

(Fred) Does the fulfillment of prophecy fall into the category of an unconditional determinative decree? Why or why not?


Quote
But I believe that God foreordains certain events on the basis of his foreknowledge of future volitions (even sinful ones).

And in reply to what I wrote:

It is as if we have God sitting in heaven sighing to himself and saying, "Well, this is not the way I would have preserved my people, but I can't override the freewills of Joseph's brothers, let me see how I can make lemonaide out this big mess of lemons." It implies that God was surprised by what happened and had to move to plan "B.""

Not at all, but again, I deal with this false assertion - Boettner also argued this way - in my paper (see p. 25, esp. the quote from Clines).

(Fred) I haven't read through your paper just yet; I am eager to do so. However, I am rather stunned to how a theological myopia has clouded your vision to the problems inherent with your position. You affirm God has exhaustive knowledge of all future events and I would heartily pat you on the back for thinking correct about this. But you seem to suggest in some of your reponses to other folks in this discussion thread that God does not have exhaustive knowledge. If God has to gain any information about the future to establish his decrees then there are only two possible conclusions about God: Either A). God is ignorant of something until he sees what will happen and then determines a course of action based upon that information, or B) God willingly chooses to be ignorant of something so as to see what his creatures will decide and then move in alternate plans to move history and reality down the path to his ultimate goal. Regardless how much a person may wish to call this a false assertion (and I will see how Clines attempts to wiggle out from this problem with out altering the scriptural revelation of God's nature), there is some serious incompatibility with affirming this notion of God's decrees and affirming a God with exhaustive forknowledge. In all honesty, I do not believe you have given a satisfactory answer to this foundational problem inherent to your system. I couldn't get Picirilli to answer this either and have yet to find any Arminian theologian try to answer this dilemma while at the same time staying with in the bounds of the exegesis of the scriptural record.

Now, one last point that deals with your comments about Jeremiah 7:31, Bruce Ware has responded to this in his book "God's Lesser Glory:"

Quote
An intriguing line of defense for the openness position comes from a handful of texts (e.g., Jer. 7:31; 19:5; 32:35) in which God says that it has never entered his mind that Israel would act as they have. Here, it appears, God is totally ignorant of some particular kind of behavior until it occurs. When Israel performs this behavior, then, presumably, knowledge of the behavior "enters" God's mind. [...] The specific "ungodly behavior" that Jeremiah points to is the horrible act of Israel burning their sons and daughters on the altars of the high places. Since this is the sin the prophet has in mind, it is especially important to note that God warned Israel against committing this specific evil act hundreds of years earlier. Deuteronomy 18:10 warns, "There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or daughter pass through the fire..."[/i] And in light of the reference to Molech in Jeremiah 32:35, it is especially noteworthy that Leviticus 18:21 says, "You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech..." Can we rightly take these statements in Jeremiah as indicating that God had not thought about or known in advance about this kind of horrible behavior? Clearly not, since he several times warned them against committing this specific sin. Or can we even take these statements to mean that he had never conceived of Israel performing such actions? This also cannot be, since the warnings were given to Israel. Clearly neither of this interpretations is possible in light of the texts we have seen from Deuteronomy and Leviticus. God not only had known of this kind of behavior far in advanced, he had furthermore warned Israel herself not to enter into such behavior. [...] Apparently we are to understand by these phrases the extreme disapproval God has for his people in this vile activity: God expresses his disapproval by saying that it is a kind of behavior so vile, so wicked, so detestable that he does not want even to consider such a thing as happening. pp. 77-78

You asked the specific question of this passage: Did God foreordain (not foreknow) that they should sacrifice their children to idols? Was it part of his divine decree, not based on his foreknowledge? Was it God's will that they should do such a thing? Well, knowing what we do about God's nature, that he has full omniscience and has exhaustive foreknowledge and that his foreknowledge cannot exist without his ordaining purposes, then yes, in God's purposes, it was his decreetive will for these things to happen. There is no way to escape this fact if we are going to stay true to scripture and allow it to inform our overall, final understanding of God, his nature and decrees. Now the question can be asked, why did he do this? All I can answer is that is for God to know at the moment and for us to accept. This was Paul's answer to his objector in Romans 9. There is no need to circumvent the clear teaching of the Bible just because what it states cuts against our sinful human sensibilities.

Fred

"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns