Does God Know From All Eternity Who Will Die Having Rejected Sound Doctrine?

First of all, I’m a Christian, not a Calvinist. Secondly, spiritual blessings aren’t chosen; it’s “us.” It’s people who are chosen.

God knows all things from beginning to end. The Book of Revelation makes this very clear. God dwells outside time and is omniscient.

Us are in Christ. Don’t leave out the important word, ”according.” That takes the context back to what was previously said. Calvinists like to add to scripture stating, he chose us to be in him. That’s not Bible.

Us, is not the context. The word”according” takes the context back to what was previously stated.

That translation of the Hebrew is a bit sloppy IMHO. The verb translated In the KJV of Jer. 1:5 as "I formed thee" is actually in a qal imperfect form, as is the Hebrew verb "thou camest forth". conveying uncompleted actions or states, and should be expressed as "Before I was forming you" and "before you were coming forth". There is no "and before "I ordained you".

I would read it as: Before I was forming you ('ATsURK, Qal imperfect) in the belly I had known you (YDa'TiYK, Qal perfect); before you were coming forth (TeTse') out of the womb, I sanctified you (HiQDaShTiYK, Hipj]hil perfect)). I have ordained yoiu (NiTaTiYK: Qal perfect) a prophet to the nations.

The baby does not begin being formed in the womb until the fertilised ovum lodges in the womb. The fertilised ovum contains a complete set of chromosomes that are the blueprint for the full-grown baby. God can read the DNA and conceptualise what the person will look like. IN this manner God is saying "Before I was building you body in the womb based on the zygote's genetic code provided by your parents, I knew what you would look like in your lifetime, based on my reading of your chromosomes. Before you were being birthed I set you apart for a special ministry as an adult. And now it is time to reveal to you what that calling is. I have made/appointed you for these coming days, a prophet to the nations.

I do not see any evidence here that God knew Jeremiah from the foundation of the world.

Acts 9:15-16 can be reasonably interpreted in a similar way, but to be an apostle to the nations/gentile
Please show clearly from Revelation.

The text is clear: He chose us. ‘’According’ does bring the context into perspective but doesn’t remove ‘us’ as the object.

When did you stop reading the plain text?

How about you give some indication of your objections to my points regarding the context in Malachi and "I the LORD change not" before you jump to some other verse? Do you understand how "I the LORD change not" is referring to His changing away from His covenants,? and how Malachi is not a theological treatise on God's absolute immutability?

The order of words in Koine Greek provides for some ambiguity in these verses. The words and phrases can be grouped in different ways to mean at least three different things. The idea that God chose us before the foundation of the world is one of those three possibilities. But the idea of us individually is not obvious from the text or the cultural worldview of the first century which was communal and tribal rather than individualistic.
Had Paul intended to say we were individually chosen before the foundation of the world, he could have included the word "ekastos" somewhere to say "each one of us". But he did not. So the "us" is unlikely to be alluding to each Christian being chosen individually from before the foundation of the world. It is more likely saying that He-chose us-in-Him (i.e. the church) [When did he chose the church?] before-the-foundation-of-the-world, {Why did He choose the church?] the church to-be-holy-and-blameless-before-Him in-love (i.e. a community, a bride without spot or wrinkle].

There is no irrefutable claim in this text that individuals were chosen before the foundation of the world.

According, makes the context the spiritual blessings in the heavenly places. That's what was chosen to give to us in him before the foundation of the world. I would encourage you not to add to the text and make it say, he chose us to be in him. That's not there as the Roman Catholic John Calvin thought it said.

When people approach the scriptures with a preconceived theology, they will always read their theology into the text no matter what the text actually says.

one aspect of the doctrine of Impassibility is God is never less then all of His attributes. e.g., when He deals with humankind in wrath, He doesn't cease to be merciful, just, holy, or loving.

i'm trying to be careful with my words.

it's awkward to me to speak of God's "feelings", because it tends to cause us to think of fallen human emotions. it's difficult to speak of Almighty God with human language at all since it's woefully inadequate to describe Him. yet, it's all we have, but sometimes it may be better to say nothing.

Thanks. I’m not arguing between individuals and corporate church.

Which is what you have done here.

This is hilarious. You are the one adding to the text!

Dino, would the following quote be considered ad hominem?

"That's not there as the Roman Catholic John Calvin thought it said."

God fulfills His covenants. I thought that was universally understood. Who is suggesting that He "changes away from" them? And I was addressing the meaning as speaking more toward corruptibility than that of immutability, unless these terms are otherwise synonymous.

If by claiming that John Calvin were a Roman Catholic, you are entitled to dismiss his statement as invalid, then yes. Normally, an argument is considered to be ‘ad hominem’ if it is about your adversary in the debate rather than about a third party.

Never mind.

you don't acknowledge that "forever, evermore, everlasting, perpetual.." are not descriptions of temporary states?

you understand "everlasting" to mean a finite time?

if there is no concept of infinity outside of Greece, why is it written "from everlasting to everlasting Thou art God"?

the language says God's anger was "against" Moses - in the same way that it's written the ordinances "which were against us" were nailed to the cross.

just as the Law does not say "thou shalt not be Moses" but condemned sin in us, God's anger is "against" Moses because of sin in Moses, in the case of the passage you cited, his unbelief.

also written, God is angry with the wicked every day - why? because of wickedness. not because they are themselves.

humans have capacity to get angry at people and to despise them in a very general sense. but God's anger is not our anger. He hates sin, but so loved us - while we were sinners - that He laid down His life for us. the view you are giving here has no room for that.