The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Predestination

(Not sure if this s/b a new thread) I saw this post elsewhere and welcome your comments. Thx, -Kathy
****************************************


Romans 8:29 Begins

• "For whom He did foreknow...
Beginning with the word "for" indicates that Paul is continuing a thought, by way of explanation. Therefore, it is important to back this up a verse.

• And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

• For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

• Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
-Romans 8:30

• We see in verse 28 that Paul is speaking about “them that love God”, and we see that they are called according to His purpose. Moving on to verse 29, Paul says, “For whom He did foreknow…”

Question: Whom did He foreknow?
Answer: “Them that love God.”

Question: What does it mean for Him to “foreknow” them?
Answer: With regard to God “knowing” a person, this cannot be speaking of general knowledge, for as the creator of all, He knows all. However, as pointed out above we do find God saying to some, “I do not know you”.

To know someone is to have an intimate love relationship with them. For God to say to someone, “I never knew you,” He is saying that He never had an intimate relationship with them – He loved them, of course, but they did not love Him. Even among those who profess to love Him, we find some that do not. This is made manifest not by words, but actions. For the Scriptures say, “if you love Me, you will keep my commands.”

Therefore, we can see that “them that love Him” are those that he “foreknew”, or had an intimate relationship with from eternity past.

Question: Did He foreknow them because they had been predestined?
Answer: No, the order is clear that the predestination came because they were foreknown. He predestined those with whom He “knew beforehand” (which is Strong’s primary definition of the Greek term) that He would have an intimate relationship with.

Question: Did He foreknow them because they were the Elect?
Answer: No, the scriptures say that those of the Elect were elected “according to His foreknowledge.”

• Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father… - 1 Peter 1:1-2

Neither should we see this as a strange understanding. We have seen here, Scriptures from St. Peter and St. Paul. One could expect to find their teaching echoed in the words of their disciples; and, in fact, we do. Consider these words from St. Clement – the same Clement that Paul greets in Holy Scripture

• And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.
- Philippians 4:3

St. Clement was a disciple and co-labourer of both Peter and Paul. At the end of a letter he wrote to the Corinthians, he says a prayer in which he says,

• Thou dost multiply nations upon the Earth, and hast chosen from them all those who love Thee, through Jesus Christ Thy beloved Child…”

I am not an Arminian, but foreknowledge being God's knowledge beforehand (as He is outside of time) cannot be denied anymore than predestination. Even St. Augustine, John Calvin's only patristic source for this issue, says the following,

Quote:
God, then, in His foreknowledge, has not chosen the works of any man which He himself would give, but in His foreknowledge, He has chosen faith as He has chosen him whom He foreknew would believe in Him and to whom He would give the Holy Spirit so that, by performing good works, he would obtain eternal life.”
-St. Augustine, "Explanation of Certain Passages from the Epistle of the Apostle to the Romans", Ch.60

Is there a question here or are you just positing a statement about foreknowledge? If a question then articulate it in such a manner that we can see what your asking. If just postulating what foreknowledge of God is then be prepared to defend it.

Kathy,

I'm afraid once again I am going to have to reject what this author wrote in the article. In fact, there are quite a number of errors he has made. However, since as Boanerges pointed out, there really was no question asked by you so I am not going to spend time refuting all the errors that are contained there.

I will point out that the author is laboring under the erroneous presupposition that God loves everyone universally and identically. There are a number of texts which show this to be categorically false, e.g., Ps 5:5; 7:11, Mal 1:3, Rom 9:11-13, et al. The love of God as revealed in Scripture is both particular and discriminatory. It is particular in nearly every instance in that it is salvific. God's love is expressed in His redeeming of the elect in Christ. (Eph 1:4-13)

Secondly, foreknowledge is based upon God's eternal determinate counsel, which the author denies. God "knows" because He has decreed all things. If this were not true, then whatever knowledge God has would have to come for a source outside of Himself, making God dependent upon the creature. One of the best articles ever written on the subject of "foreknowledge" can be found here: The Foreknowledge of God, by A.W. Pink.

Lastly, I simply CANNOT let one other matter slip by and that is the author's incredible twisting of Matt 7:21-23:

Matthew 7:21-23 (ASV) "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

He is correct in saying that the word "knew" here means "loved". The Bible uses this word in that manner in several places, e.g., Adam knew his wife . . . and she bore a son. Obviously, Eve didn't become pregnant simply because Adam was knowledgeable of some facts about her. But the blatant twisting of the text is done when he says it means that those to whom Christ was referring to didn't love Him. A cursory reading of the text clearly shows that it is the Lord Christ who says He didn't know (love) them. Of course, He "knew"; had knowledge about them, for He calls them "workers of iniquity". What the text is saying is that Christ NEVER loved them, i.e., He (Trinity implied) had never set His affections upon them; i.e., there was no intent to save them.

So, if you have any actual questions about predestination (Topic of the thread) or foreknowledge, do ask.

In His grace,

Boanerges,

I am interested in initial comments from this forum on Foreknowledge in context of Predestination in Scripture. My reason is that the doctrine and debates, etc. on Predestination are on my plate... I have been directed to many articles to go through... I am considering different points of view. This point: Foreknowledge and Predestination from scripture. i.e., Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father… - 1 Peter 1:1-2

Pilgrim,

You posted amidst my reply to B. -- I will take a look at the Foreknowledge article and your post. (I'm not convinced on the Calvinist view of Predestination)- obviously... But I am trying to sort this out.

Why don't you take a couple of weeks or more and read through the entire list of articles found here: Predestination.

There are two small paperback books written with the average person in mind on the subject of predestination/election which I can heartily recommend to you:

1) Election: Love Before Time, by Kenneth D. Johns [Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing]

2) Chosen by God, by R.C. Sproul

In His grace,

Thank you for the links... I will have to consider them in light and in spite of my predispostion about Predestination from a TULIP.

"To those He knew beforehand would believe, He predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son" (MTV-Modern Twisted Version) ;-)

As Pilgrim already pointed out, to foreknow in Rom.8:29 & 1Pet.1:2 is to forelove. Such a personal, intimate knowing includes ordaining (see 1Pet.1:20; Acts 2:23).

Notice Rom.8:29 says "those" or "whom" or "those whom" He foreknew... Not "what" or "whether they would believe" etc. The Greek does not allow for the latter.

If we hypothetically say that "foreknow" means God knowing beforehand whether a person will believe, we run into a couple of problems:

1. No one would be predestinated because He would find everyone in unbelief. There are numoerous passages that support this (Eph.2:1-5; Col.2:13; Rom.3:10-12; 1Cor.2:14), but Ps. 14:2-3; 53:2-3 speaks more speficially to this. Look at what God finds when He "looks upon the children of me."

2. Setting aside number 1 for the sake of argument, if God's foreknowing was who would believe and who wouldn't, it is still settled before the foundations of the world. There are still problems with that for sure, as Pilgrim has already pointed out. But nevertheless, in that false understanding, it is still them that God predestinated, called, justified and glorified. Those that He knew wouldn't believe (in that hypothetical yet false view) would not be predestinated, called, justified and glorified.

You also run into problems with the word foreknow meaning God knowing beforehand who would believe and who wouldn't (proginosko and prognosis in the Greek) in Acts 2:23; Rom.11:2; 1Pet.1:20.

About four years ago, I had the priviledge of doing a lecture on "God's forknowing" at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church's ARTS Ministry. If you are interested, you can listen to that lecture from our church website at www.gracefellowshipmh.org.

Thank you, I hope this helps in some way to benefit Kathy and those struggling with this, and brings glory to God.

Bret

Bret,

Thanks for the link and contributions. My jury is deliberating on 'foreknow, foreknew and especially 'foreknowledge'... Also on some (tulip) points that are to you (Calvinists) considered as 'givens'. Frankly.

Doesn't Reformed Theology value tradition... aka Augustine. So where is the tradition of early Church Fathers on specifically this? (I haven't gotten to my reading list)... but Augustine surely did not hold this view... not from the quote presented.

Kathy,

In studying the ECF (Augustine, etc.) or any theologian you will discover that they “mature” through time. Thus, many of their early writings are full of error, but these errors normally reduce over time. However, no theologian is without error of some type. History is but one tool in the investigation of Scripture. In the Reformed tradition (Reformed and Always Reforming) we learn from our historical past, but we attempt to strive always for the Scriptures, over history, et. al.

Specifically, Augustine's own early writings clearly affirmed that God's predestinating grace was granted on the basis of his foreknowledge of the human desire to pursue salvation. After c. 396, however, his understanding began to turn increasingly toward the necessity of God granting this grace in order for the desire for salvation to be awakened.

Here are some of his later quotes (A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, AD. 428/9);

There are many things of Augustine that those of the Reformed tradition disagree with. However, we also disagree about some of the things Calvin himself said as well.

Sola Scriptura!

J. Edwards,

It makes sense that individuals mature in their writings. There is much divergence obviously among theologians. ... and transpiring while the Church(es) use the term 'development of doctrine' (over hundreds of years)... including Catholicism (RCC). Augustine wisely said, for instance, concerning his own development on the subject of persecution:

...but, moreover, from being a persecutor, he suffered persecution in defence of that faith which he persecuted. Because it was given him by Christ “not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake.”

-- and I have to also wonder about Calvin, who did not seem to get this in his maturity... and I know that there are different sources saying different things about this topic... I do not believe anyone can prove the truth of the matter... but I think it matters... very much.

Thank you for your input.

On the status of my search for the truth on the Reformed view of Predestination... includes the whole assortment of free-will / total depravity.... I am aware that many many people have already been down this highway... some of you. And for that reason I feel the need to communicate my stumbling blocks.

I do believe God is sovereign and holy... and if at the end of the road the answer, is incomprehensibly to man “Because” concerning the ‘why’... I am not one to ask. I understand (not)... but will believe so.

At various points, I have been told that God is logical... For instance, concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. Concerning understanding any doctrine... from Scripture. Yet, concerning what are the hard points of the Reformed understanding of Predestination... is that it fights with logic... man’s logic... Our understanding of fair, just... I also know that God’s ways are not our ways... (So maybe God is not logical).

To date... I am considering scripture verses on both sides of this doctrine. An issue I have was exemplified in Beloved57’s thread... and maybe the answer I can ‘go with’ is one of proper emphasis of this doctrine.

Calvin himself as I know you know described some of his conclusions concerning Predestination from Scripture “A horrible decree”... and I am sure that Arminians would agree.

A big gray area for me.. of course, has to do with ‘free-will’ or not... Is responding, hearing... is that something that is argued to be ‘boasting’ in the context of responding to grace... thus considered a ‘work’? I DO understand that Grace is a mystery. God is the Giver... and we are the receivers... or not. If we are... it is by Grace.

Tts 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Doesn’t the above refute the notion of (if I’m understanding the arguments) Common grace vs. Salvatory grace? I know you will have an answer that basically says “Don’t get your hopes up.”

I found this quote from a Calvinistic supporter refuting David Hunt’s “What God is This?” (which -no surprise- attacked the Calvinistic view)

"Hunt says that Calvinism limits God’s saving grace to a select few, leaving the majority of mankind without hope or possibility of salvation (p. 78). The offer of salvation is extended only to the elect (p. 103). The truth is, Calvinists believe that God’s saving grace is freely offered to the whole world, and that there will be an innumerable company in heaven from every tribe on earth, purchased by Jesus’ blood (Rev. 5:9-12).

Will any here comment as to what this (Pro-Calvin) author is saying ?

Thank you,
-Kathy

The Reformed believes that God's call comes in two forms. One is the 'general' call when the Gospel goes forth into the world. This call is the Gospel. Everyone who hears the gospel receives this calling (and is free to act upon it). Man can resist this call. The other call is the 'effectual call' whereby the Holy Spirit regenerates those who will respond to the call. It is called effectual in that it is effectual. Man cannot resist this call.

Hunt's fallacy and misrepresenting Calvinists is the belief that all is not called. Instead of limiting those who receive salvation as Hunt postulates, the Reformed believes that no one will respond to the call through his/hers own effort. So, if there was not the effectual call then no one will be saved. We are free but we are bound (slave) to our nature. Our pre-Christian nature is totally depraved, so we will never choose God on our own accord. The Holy Spirit through regeneration gives us a new nature whereby we can accept this calling. Therefore, man is without excuse. They heard the offer of the Gospel.

It would appear that you are confusing "logic" with "fairness", which are two entirely different things. "Logic" you can view as being "cogent", i.e., it isn't contradictory. "Fairness" deals with the aspect of the judicial, e.g., rendering judgments of law. So, God's truth is both logically and His dealing with men is fair (just).

The crux of the issue in this matter of the freedom of the will is the source of the will's ability to choose those things which pertain to God and salvation. It is a moral depravity which the Scriptures teach and which Calvinism simply echoes. The doctrine is sometimes and rightly referred to as "Total Inability" rather than "Total Depravity", which is often wrongly understood to mean that the image of God with which man was originally created in was totally lost in the Fall. If that were the case, the doctrine would then be called, "Utter Depravity". But in truth, man is more than capable of deprovement. What the "total" means is that the depravity which man was cursed with as punishment of the Fall encompasses all of his being, mind, emotions and will. Therefore, man is totally incapable of even desiring God and thus man will not (cannot) will those things which are required of him in the matter of salvation.

Returning to the matter of "hearing, responding, etc." to the Gospel and the source of the ability to do so, Calvinism is the only system which accredits fallen man's ability to hear and respond to the Gospel to God alone. If man is as spiritual dead (aka: incapable) of inclining himself to the things of God, then it is logically impossible that he could be capable of willing to respond to God. The Scriptures teach that man is dead in sin and trespasses, hating God and all that is good from conception. And therefore, it takes a supernatural sovereign act of God to "recreate" the soul; regenerate, make alive, effect new birth, etc., which is a radical change of the sinner's very nature. In regeneration, one's inclination is changed from hating God to loving God, from loving sin to hating sin, from being boastful and proud to being humbled and cognizant of his/her total helplessness. In the end, the Scripture says and Calvinism again echoes, the secret and sovereign work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration creates the ability of man to respond and infallibly so.

Said with extreme brevity, "Common Grace" has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation. It is the benevolence of God toward all men in His providence where He sustains life through various means and gifts men with finite "reflections" of His own attributes, e.g., in the area of intelligence, artistry, etc. Titus 2:11 is speaking specifically of salvific grace, i.e., the grace that redeems men from judgment, from darkness to light, from death to life. The CONTEXT provides the answer and the passage is speaking of the appearance of the Lord Christ (aka: salvation in Him) which was made apparent to all men in His physical appearance and in the Gospel. Thus, there is a universal aspect to this salvation in that it is not restricted to any particular race, color, gender, etc. But it also has a very limited focus as can be seen from the "we" in the next verse (see v.12).

For a thorough dealing with this text see here: An Exegetical Study of Titus 2:11 by Dr. Gary Long.

I found this quote from a Calvinistic supporter refuting David Hunt’s “What God is This?” (which -no surprise- attacked the Calvinistic view)

The Gospel (offer), i.e., the call for all men to repent of their sins and cast themselves wholly upon Christ and His saving work is universal. The "message" is to be proclaimed to every man, woman and child on every corner of the earth. For among those sinful inhabitants of the earth are those whom God has eternally predestinated to salvation and elected them to be reconciled to Him in His Son. It is not for us to know for God has not revealed the details of His decree to save in regard to who those individuals are. What we do know is that ALL men are sinners and by nature under the just wrath and condemnation of God. And, it is only through belief in His Son that any are to be saved. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God [preached/read]". The preaching of the Gospel is the means by which God has also decreed that men are to be saved. That is a point you would do well to always remember! God not only decrees the end but also the means to accomplish that end. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

PS. We don't choose an understanding of a biblical doctrine according to which one makes us feel "comfortable". We embrace the truth as it appears in God's infallible Word and then conform every part of our being to it regardless of how abrasive or obnoxious it might seem to us and our own predispositions. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Let me also add this for you: What Love is This? a review of David Hunt's book by Pastor Steven J. Cole. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

Dear John,

Here is where I am in response then...

The Gospel.... the General Call... the Good News:

“Everyone who hears the gospel receives this calling” ...and is “free to act upon it”... “man can resist this call” Free will?


The Effectual Call... Regenerative Grace
... the ongoing Grace given to those who respond.

I understand this... but I didn’t think this is what Calvinism is saying at all.

Further... in my own understanding (to date)... which does disagree with what (I think) Calvin-ism says relating to the heart of this discussion in entirity... below:

GRACE... can be frustrated.