Did God predestine the Fall?

Hammster said:

Did God plan it?

Click to expand...

Yes, from the beginning, as a plan of His salvation. He also underwent it, for our sake. And the plan included the free choices of men, which He foreknew, in order to carry it out.

fhansen said:

Yes, from the beginning, as a plan of His salvation. He also underwent it, for our sake. And the plan included the free choices of men, which He foreknew, in order to carry it out.

Click to expand...

Then God planned an evil act.

John Brown of Haddington, Questions and Answers on the Shorter Catechism, q.4

Q. If God be a spirit, how are eyes, ears, arms, feet, face, fingers, mouth, lips, &c., ascribed to him in scripture? —A. God, in condescension to our weakness, doth by these bodily members point out some property in himself, the work of which in some way resembleth the use of such members in man, Hos. xii.13, and xi. 8.

Q. If God change not, how is he said to repent? —A. His repenting means only a change in his work, but it means no change of his will, Gen. vi. 6, 7.

Q. Why is the change of work called a repenting? —A. In allusion to the case of men, whose change of work shows a change of their will, Acts iii. 19.

Timothy Rogers Trouble of Mind and the Disease of Melancholy, pp.221,222 (of the SDG reprint) [In context he is speaking of grieving the Holy Spirit]

The divine nature indeed is incapable of our passions; it is above our joys and our sorrows.
It is said of those who are upon Mount Olympus that the see the clouds gather below their feet; they see the hail and the thunder disturb and land on the plain, while they rejoice in the pure light of the sun. In such a manner the divine essence sees all the troubles and agitations of the creatures, remaining always in its own peace and tranquility. This expression is borrowed from human affections, and when the Holy Spirit does that in us which our nature does when it is seized with sorrow, then He is said to be grieved.

Fairbairn‘s Opening Scripture: A Hermeneutical Manual Introducing the Exegetical Study of the New Testament
p.90

In this way, Scripture was explained as accommodating itself to men’s infirmities or habits, when it speaks of God as possessing human parts and passions, or uses parables, proverbs, and familiar images, to set forth to our view things spiritual and divine.

pp.95,96

To the first or more general class of accommodations are to be referred the representations given of Divine and spiritual things—things which lie beyond the region of sense, and are not directly cognisable by any faculties we possess. Such things can only be made known to us by an accommodation from the visible to the invisible, from the known to the unknown; and though, in such cases, the form is necessarily imperfect, and conveys an inadequate idea of the reality, it still is the fittest representation of the idea, the nearest to the truth of things, which it is possible for us in present circumstances to attain to. What is said, for example, of God’s anger toward sinners—or of His being revealed (through Christ) in flaming fire for the execution of judgment upon the wicked—or of the possibility of moving Heaven by prayer to depart from some purpose already formed, as if there could be passion or mutability with God—everything of this sort manifestly proceeds upon that necessity, which is inherent in our natures, of thinking and speaking of God in a human manner. It is impossible, otherwise, to gain definite ideas of His perfections and government; and the only way of guarding against the abuse of such representations, is by the employment of counter-representations, which declare God to be in Himself essentially spiritual, unchangeable, and incapable of being carried away by the feelings and impulses of finite beings.

We must, nevertheless, think of Him, and conduct ourselves towards Him, as if the human form of conceptions respecting Him conveyed the exact truth;—He will act toward impenitent sinners precisely as if He were moved to anger by their sins—His appearance for judgment against them will be as if He were encompassed with devouring fire—He will give effect to earnest and believing prayer, as if He could be changed by the entreaties of His people.

p.140 [speaking of the leading principles which can help us determine whether a text is literal or tropical]

The first of these is, that when anything is said, which, if taken according to the letter, would be at variance with the essential nature of the subject spoken of, the language must be regarded as tropical. This principle requires to be little more than enunciated; it carries its own evidence along with it. No single act, no particular attribute can be ascribed by an intelligent writer to a person or an object, which is inconsistent with their proper nature. So that, on the supposition of the nature of that nature being known to us, we can be at no loss to understand in what sense the language should be taken. Thus, it is essential to the nature of God, that He is spirit and not flesh—a Spirit infinite, eternal, and unchangeable; consequently without bodily parts, which are necessarily bounded by space and time; without liability to passionate excitation or erring purposes, which arise from creaturely limitations. Hence all those passages, which represent God as possessed of human powers and organs, as seeing, or hearing, or having experience of such affections as are the result of human weakness and infirmity, must be understood in a figurative sense.

Hodge Systematic Theology, I.5,7

Those passages of Scripture in which God is said to repent, are to be interpreted on the same principle as those in which He is said to ride upon the wings of the wind, or to walk through the earth. These create no difficulty.

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Part One, VI, B.

The immutability of God is a necessary concomitant of His aseity. It is that perfection of God by which He is devoid of all change, not only in His Being, but also in His perfections, and in His purposes and promises. In virtue of this attribute He is exalted above all becoming, and is free from all accession or diminution and from all growth or decay in His Being or perfections. His knowledge and plans, His moral principles and volitions remain forever the same. Even reason teaches us that no change is possible in God, since a change is either for better or for worse. But in God, as the absolute Perfection, improvement and deterioration are both equally impossible. This immutability of God is clearly taught in such passages of Scripture as Ex. 3:14; Ps. 102:26-28; Isa. 41:4; 48:12; Mal. 3:6; Rom. 1:23; Heb. 1:11,12; Jas. 1:17. At the same time there are many passages of Scripture which seem to ascribe change to God. Did not He who dwells in eternity pass on to the creation of the world, become incarnate in Christ, and in the Holy Spirit take up His abode in the Church? Is He not represented as revealing and hiding Himself, as coming and going, as repenting and changing His intention, and as dealing with man differently before and after conversion? Cf. Ex. 32:10-14; Jonah 3:10; Prov. 11:20; 12:22; Ps. 18:26,27. The objection implied here is based to a certain extent on misunderstanding. The divine immutability should not be understood as implying immobility, as if there were no movement in God. It is even customary in theology to speak of God as actus purus, a God who is always in action. The Bible teaches us that God enters into manifold relations with man and, as it were, lives their life with them. There is change round about Him, change in the relations of men to Him, but there is no change in His Being, His attributes, His purpose, His motives of action, or His promises. The purpose to create was eternal with Him, and there was no change in Him when this purpose was realized by a single eternal act of His will. The incarnation brought no change in the Being or perfections of God, nor in His purpose, for it was His eternal good pleasure to send the Son of His love into the world. And if Scripture speaks of His repenting, changing His intention, and altering His relation to sinners when they repent, we should remember that this is only an anthropopathic way of speaking. In reality the change is not in God, but in man and in man’s relations to God. It is important to maintain the immutability of God over against the Pelagian and Arminian doctrine that God is subject to change, not indeed in His being, but in His knowledge and will, so that His decisions are to a great extent dependent on the actions of man; over against the pantheistic notion that God is an eternal becoming rather than an absolute Being, and that the unconscious Absolute is gradually developing into conscious personality in man; and over against the present tendency of some to speak of a finite, struggling, and gradually growing God.

Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius De Trinitate, ch. V

It cannot therefore be affirmed that predication of relationship by itself adds or takes away or changes anything in the thing of which it is said. It wholly consists not in that which is simply being, but in that which is being in some way in comparison, not always with another thing but sometimes with itself. For suppose a man standing. If I go up to him on the right and stand beside him, he will be left, in comparison with me, not because he is left in himself, but because I have come up to him on the right. Again, if I come up to him on the left, he becomes right, not because he is right in himself, as he may be white or tall, but because he becomes right in virtue of my approach, and what he is depends entirely on me, and not in the least on himself.

John of Damascus, Dogmatic Chapters, Book I, Chapter 11.
CONCERNING WHAT IS AFFIRMED ABOUT GOD AS THOUGH HE HAD BODY

Since we find many terms used symbolically in the Scriptures concerning God which are more applicable to that which has body, we should recognize that it is quite impossible for us men clothed about with this dense covering of flesh to understand or speak of the divine and lofty and immaterial energies of the Godhead, except by the use of images and types and symbols derived from our own life. So then all the statements concerning God, that imply body, are symbols, but have a higher meaning: for the Deity is simple and formless. Hence by God’s eyes and eyelids and sight we are to understand His power of overseeing all things and His knowledge, that nothing can escape: for in the case of us this sense makes our knowledge more complete and more full of certainty. By God’s ears and hearing is meant His readiness to be propitiated and to receive our petitions: for it is this sense that renders us also kind to suppliants, inclining our ear to them more graciously. God’s mouth and speech are His means of indicating His will; for it is by the mouth and speech that we make clear the thoughts that are in the heart: God’s food and drink are our concurrence to His will, for we, too, satisfy the necessities of our natural appetite through the sense of taste. And God’s sense of smell is His appreciation of our thoughts of and good will towards Him, for it is through this sense that we appreciate sweet fragrance. And God’s countenance is the demonstration and manifestation of Himself through His works, for our manifestation is through the countenance. And God’s hands mean the effectual nature of His energy, for it is with our own hands that we accomplish our most useful and valuable work. And His right hand is His aid in prosperity, for it is the right hand that we also use when making anything of beautiful shape or of great value, or where much strength is required. His handling is His power of accurate discrimination and exaction, even in the minutest and most secret details, for those whom we have handled cannot conceal from us aught within themselves. His feet and walk are His advent and presence, either for the purpose of bringing succor to the needy, or vengeance against enemies, or to perform any other action, for it is by using our feet that we come to arrive at any place. His oath is the unchangeableness of His counsel, for it is by oath that we confirm our compacts with one another. His anger and fury are His hatred of and aversion to all wickedness, for we, too, hate that which is contrary to our mind and become enraged thereat. His forgetfulness and sleep and slumbering are His delay in taking vengeance on His enemies and the postponement of the accustomed help to His own. And to put it shortly, all the statements made about God that imply body have some hidden meaning and teach us what is above us by means of something familiar to ourselves, with the exception of any statement concerning the bodily sojourn of the God-Word. For He for our safety took upon Himself the whole nature of man, the thinking spirit, the body, and all the properties of human nature, even the natural and blameless passions.

Fifth Theological Oration: On the Holy Spirit, Gregory of Nazianzus

According to Scripture God sleeps and is awake, is angry, walks, has the Cherubim for His Throne. And yet when did He become liable to passion, and have you ever heard that God has a body? This then is, though not really fact, a figure of speech. For we have given names according to our own comprehension from our own attributes to those of God. His remaining silent apart from us, and as it were not caring for us, for reasons known to Himself, is what we call His sleeping; for our own sleep is such a state of inactivity. And again, His sudden turning to do us good is the waking up; for waking is the dissolution of sleep, as visitation is of turning away. And when He punishes, we say He is angry; for so it is with us, punishment is the result of anger. And His working, now here now there, we call walking; for walking is change from one place to another. His resting among the Holy Hosts, and as it were loving to dwell among them, is His sitting and being enthroned; this, too, from ourselves, for God resteth nowhere as He doth upon the Saints. His swiftness of moving is called flying, and His watchful care is called His Face, and his giving and bestowing is His hand; and, in a word, every other of the powers or activities of God has depicted for us some other corporeal one.

Hammster said:

Then God planned an evil act.

Click to expand...

As with other evil in this world, God foreknew it planned to bring and even greater good out of it, knowing the beginning from the end. Hypothetically, even if God didn't exist outside of time, even if for some reason He couldn't foresee man's future actions, He knows man's heart so well that He'd presumably still be able to predict what would happen if He were to arrive here in human flesh, as He did.

fhansen said:

As with other evil in this world, God foreknew it planned to bring and even greater good out of it, knowing the beginning from the end. And hypothetically, even if God didn't exist outside of time, even if for some reason He couldn't foresee man's actions, He knows man's heart so well that He'd presumably still be able to predict what would happen if He were to arrive here in human flesh, as He did.

Click to expand...

Let me assure you God's love endures, it's forever. That is how the New Covenant revealed in Jer. 31 explains it.

A. W. Pink explains foreknowledge:

What Controversies have been engendered by this subject in the past! But what truth of Holy Scripture is there which has not been the occasion of theological and ecclesiastical battles? The deity of Christ, His virgin birth, His atoning death, His second advent; the believer’s justification, sanctification, security; the church, its organization, officers, discipline; baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and a score of other precious truths might be mentioned. Yet, the controversies which have been waged over them did not close the mouths of God’s faithful servants. Why, then, should we avoid the vexing question of God’s foreknowledge, because some will charge us with fomenting strife? Let others contend if they will, our duty is to bear witness according to the light given us.

There are two things concerning the foreknowledge of God about which many are in ignorance: the meaning of the term, and its Scriptural scope. Because this ignorance is so widespread, it is easy for preachers and teachers to palm off perversions of this subject, even upon the people of God. There is only one safeguard against error, that is to be established in the faith. For that there has to be prayerful, diligent study, and a receiving with meekness the engrafted Word of God. Only then are we fortified against the attacks of those who assail us. There are those who misuse this very truth to discredit and deny the absolute sovereignty of God in the salvation of sinners. Just as higher critics repudiate the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, and evolutionists, the work of God in creation, so some pseudo Bible teachers pervert His foreknowledge to set aside His unconditional election unto eternal life.

When the blessed subject of divine foreordination is expounded, when God’s eternal choice of certain ones to be conformed to the image of His Son is set forth, the enemy sends along someone to argue that election is based upon the foreknowledge of God. This foreknowledge is interpreted to mean that God foresaw certain ones who would be more pliable than others and they would respond more readily to the strivings of the Spirit. So, because God knew they would believe, He predestinated them unto salvation. But such logic is radically wrong. It repudiates the truth of total depravity, for it argues that there is something good in some men. It takes away the independency of God, for it makes His decrees rest upon what He discovers in the creature.

It completely turns things upside down, for in saying God foresaw certain sinners who would believe in Christ, and because of this He predestinated them unto salvation, is the very reverse of the truth. Scripture affirms that God, in His sovereignty, singled out certain ones to be recipients of His distinguishing favors (Acts 13:48); therefore He determined to bestow upon them the gift of faith. False theology makes God’s foreknowledge of our believing the cause of His election to salvation. However, God’s election is the cause, and our believing in Christ the effect.

Before we proceed further with this much misunderstood theme, let us define our terms. What is meant by “foreknowledge”? “To know beforehand” is the ready reply of many. But we must not jump to conclusions, nor must we turn to Webster’s dictionary as the final court of appeal, for it is not a matter of the etymology of the term employed. What we need is to find out how the word is used in Scripture. The Holy Spirit’s usage of an expression always defines its meaning and scope. Failure to apply this simple rule is responsible for so much confusion and error. So many people assume they already know the significance of a certain word used in Scripture, then they are too dilatory to test their assumptions with a concordance. Let us amplify.

Take the word “flesh.” Its meaning appears so obvious that many would regard it as a waste of time to look up its various connections in Scripture. It is hastily assumed that the word is synonymous with the physical body, so no inquiry is made. But, in fact, flesh in Scripture frequently includes far more than what is corporeal; all that is embraced by the term can only be ascertained by a diligent comparison of every occurrence of it and by a study of each separate context.

Take the word “world.” The average Bible reader imagines this word is the equivalent for the human race, and consequently, many passages where the term is found are wrongly interpreted. Take the word “immortality.” Surely it requires no study! Obviously it has reference to the indestructibility of the soul. Ah, but it is wrong to assume anything where the Word of God is concerned. If the reader will take the trouble to carefully examine each passage where “mortal” and “immortal” are found, it will be seen these words are never applied to the soul, but always to the body.

Now what has just been said on “flesh,” the “world,” “immortality,” applies with equal force to the terms “know” and “foreknow.” Instead of imagining that these words signify no more than a simple cognition, carefully weigh the different passages in which they occur. The word “foreknowledge” is not found in the Old Testament. But “know” occurs there frequently. When that term is used in connection with God, it often signifies to regard with favor, denoting not mere cognition but an affection for the object in view. “I know thee by name” (Ex. 33:17). “Ye have been rebellious against the LORD from the day that I knew you” (Deut. 9:24). “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee” (Jer. 1:5). “They have made princes, and I knew not” (Hosea 8:4). “You only have I known of all the families of the earth” (Amos 3:2). In these passages “knew” signifies either “loved” or “appointed.”

In like manner, the word “know” is frequently used in the New Testament, in the same sense as in the Old. “Then will I profess unto them, I never knew you” (Matthew 7:23). “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine” (John 10:14). “If any man love God, the same is known of him” (1 Cor. 8:3). “The Lord knoweth them that are his” (2 Tim. 2:19).

Now the word “foreknowledge” as it is used in the New Testament is less ambiguous than in its simple form “to know.” If you carefully study every passage in which it occurs, you will discover that it is a moot point whether it ever has reference to the mere perception of events yet to take place. The fact is that foreknowledge is never used in Scripture in connection with events or actions; instead, it always refers to persons. It is persons God is said to “foreknow,” not the actions of those persons. To prove this we will quote each passage where this expression is found. The first occurs in Acts 2:23: “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” Careful attention to the wording of this verse shows that the apostle was not speaking of God’s foreknowledge of the act of the crucifixion, but of the Person crucified: “Him (Christ) being delivered by.”

The second is Romans 8:29-30: “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.” Weigh well the pronoun used here. It is not what He did foreknow, but whom He did. It is not the surrendering of their wills nor the believing of their hearts, but the persons themselves, which is in view.

“God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew” (Rom. 11:2). Once more the plain reference is to persons, and to persons only. The last mention is in 1 Peter 1:2: “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Who are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father?” The previous verse tells us the reference is to the “strangers scattered,” i.e., the diaspora, the dispersion, the believing Jews. Thus, the reference is to persons, and not to their foreseen acts. Now in view of these passages (and there are no more) what scriptural ground is there for anyone to say God “foreknew” the acts of certain ones, i.e., their “repenting and believing,” and that because of those acts He elected them unto salvation? The answer is, None whatever. Scripture never speaks of repentance and faith as being foreseen or foreknown by God. Truly, He did know from all eternity that certain ones would repent and believe, yet this is not what Scripture refers to as the object of God’s foreknowledge. The word uniformly refers to God’s foreknowing persons; then let us “hold fast the form of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13).

Another thing we want to call particular attention to is that the first two passages quoted above show plainly and teach implicitly that God’s foreknowledge is not causative, that instead, something else lies behind, precedes it—something that is His own sovereign decree. Christ was “delivered by the (1) determinate counsel and (2) foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). His counsel or decree was the ground of His foreknowledge. So again in Romans 8:29. That verse opens with the word “for,” which tells us to look back to what immediately precedes. What, then, does the previous verse say? This, “all things work together for good to them . . . who are the called according to His purpose.” Thus God’s “foreknowledge” is based upon His “purpose” or decree (see Psalm 2:7).
God foreknows what will be because He has decreed it. It is therefore a reverse order of Scripture, putting the cart before the horse, to affirm that God elects because He foreknows people. The truth is, He foreknows because He has elected. This removes the cause of election from outside the creature, and places it in God’s own sovereign will. God purposed in Himself to elect a certain people, not because of anything good in them or from them, either actual or foreseen, but solely out of His own pleasure.

Why He chose the ones He did, we do not know. We can only say, “Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight.” The plain truth of Romans 8:29 is that God, before the foundation of the world, singled out certain sinners and appointed them unto salvation (2 Thess. 2:13). This is clear from the concluding words of the verse: “Predestinated to be conformed to the image of His son.” God did not predestinate those whom He foreknew were conformed. On the contrary, those whom He foreknew (i.e., loved and elected) He predestinated “to be conformed.” Their conformity to Christ is not the cause, but the effect of God’s foreknowledge and predestination.

God did not elect any sinner because He foresaw that he would believe, for the simple but sufficient reason that no sinner ever believes until God gives him faith; just as no man sees until God gives him sight. Sight is God’s gift, seeing is the consequence of my using His gift. So faith is God’s gift (Eph. 2:8-9), believing is the consequence of my using His gift. If it were true that God had elected certain ones to be saved because in due time they would believe, then that would make believing a meritorious act. In that event the saved sinner would have ground for “boasting,” which Scripture emphatically denies (Eph. 2:9).

Surely God’s Word is plain enough in teaching that believing is not a meritorious act. It affirms that Christians are a people “which had believed through grace” (Acts 18:27). If, then, they have believed “through grace,” there is absolutely nothing meritorious about believing; if nothing meritorious, it could not be the ground or cause which moved God to choose them. No! God’s choice proceeds not from anything in us, or anything from us, but solely from His own sovereign pleasure. Once more, we read of “a remnant according to the election of grace” (Rom. 11:5). There it is, plain enough; election itself is of grace, and grace is unmerited favor, something for which we had no claim upon God whatsoever.

It is highly important for us to have clear and scriptural views of the foreknowledge of God. Erroneous conceptions about it lead inevitably to thoughts most dishonoring to Him. The popular idea of divine foreknowledge is altogether inadequate. God not only knew the end from the beginning, but also He planned, fixed, predestinated everything from the beginning. And, as cause stands to effect, so God’s purpose is the ground of His prescience. If then the reader is a real Christian, he is so because God chose him in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4); and chose not because He foresaw you would believe, but simply because it pleased Him to choose; chose you notwithstanding your natural unbelief. This being so, all glory and praise belongs alone to Him. You have no ground for taking any credit to yourself. You have “believed through grace” (Acts 18:27), and that, because your very election was “of grace” (Rom. 11:5).

Monergism :: Foreknowledge of God

David Cabrera said:

For those who believe in God predestine events, was the Fall one of them?

Click to expand...

By predestined do you mean orchestrated or according to His plan? There’s a difference. God did not orchestrate it God is not the author of sin. Because the fall did happen it is no doubt according to His plan.

JM said:

Let me assure you God's love endures, it's forever. That is how the New Covenant revealed in Jer. 31 explains it.

A. W. Pink explains foreknowledge:

What Controversies have been engendered by this subject in the past! But what truth of Holy Scripture is there which has not been the occasion of theological and ecclesiastical battles? The deity of Christ, His virgin birth, His atoning death, His second advent; the believer’s justification, sanctification, security; the church, its organization, officers, discipline; baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and a score of other precious truths might be mentioned. Yet, the controversies which have been waged over them did not close the mouths of God’s faithful servants. Why, then, should we avoid the vexing question of God’s foreknowledge, because some will charge us with fomenting strife? Let others contend if they will, our duty is to bear witness according to the light given us.

There are two things concerning the foreknowledge of God about which many are in ignorance: the meaning of the term, and its Scriptural scope. Because this ignorance is so widespread, it is easy for preachers and teachers to palm off perversions of this subject, even upon the people of God. There is only one safeguard against error, that is to be established in the faith. For that there has to be prayerful, diligent study, and a receiving with meekness the engrafted Word of God. Only then are we fortified against the attacks of those who assail us. There are those who misuse this very truth to discredit and deny the absolute sovereignty of God in the salvation of sinners. Just as higher critics repudiate the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, and evolutionists, the work of God in creation, so some pseudo Bible teachers pervert His foreknowledge to set aside His unconditional election unto eternal life.

When the blessed subject of divine foreordination is expounded, when God’s eternal choice of certain ones to be conformed to the image of His Son is set forth, the enemy sends along someone to argue that election is based upon the foreknowledge of God. This foreknowledge is interpreted to mean that God foresaw certain ones who would be more pliable than others and they would respond more readily to the strivings of the Spirit. So, because God knew they would believe, He predestinated them unto salvation. But such logic is radically wrong. It repudiates the truth of total depravity, for it argues that there is something good in some men. It takes away the independency of God, for it makes His decrees rest upon what He discovers in the creature.

It completely turns things upside down, for in saying God foresaw certain sinners who would believe in Christ, and because of this He predestinated them unto salvation, is the very reverse of the truth. Scripture affirms that God, in His sovereignty, singled out certain ones to be recipients of His distinguishing favors (Acts 13:48); therefore He determined to bestow upon them the gift of faith. False theology makes God’s foreknowledge of our believing the cause of His election to salvation. However, God’s election is the cause, and our believing in Christ the effect.

Before we proceed further with this much misunderstood theme, let us define our terms. What is meant by “foreknowledge”? “To know beforehand” is the ready reply of many. But we must not jump to conclusions, nor must we turn to Webster’s dictionary as the final court of appeal, for it is not a matter of the etymology of the term employed. What we need is to find out how the word is used in Scripture. The Holy Spirit’s usage of an expression always defines its meaning and scope. Failure to apply this simple rule is responsible for so much confusion and error. So many people assume they already know the significance of a certain word used in Scripture, then they are too dilatory to test their assumptions with a concordance. Let us amplify.

Take the word “flesh.” Its meaning appears so obvious that many would regard it as a waste of time to look up its various connections in Scripture. It is hastily assumed that the word is synonymous with the physical body, so no inquiry is made. But, in fact, flesh in Scripture frequently includes far more than what is corporeal; all that is embraced by the term can only be ascertained by a diligent comparison of every occurrence of it and by a study of each separate context.

Take the word “world.” The average Bible reader imagines this word is the equivalent for the human race, and consequently, many passages where the term is found are wrongly interpreted. Take the word “immortality.” Surely it requires no study! Obviously it has reference to the indestructibility of the soul. Ah, but it is wrong to assume anything where the Word of God is concerned. If the reader will take the trouble to carefully examine each passage where “mortal” and “immortal” are found, it will be seen these words are never applied to the soul, but always to the body.

Now what has just been said on “flesh,” the “world,” “immortality,” applies with equal force to the terms “know” and “foreknow.” Instead of imagining that these words signify no more than a simple cognition, carefully weigh the different passages in which they occur. The word “foreknowledge” is not found in the Old Testament. But “know” occurs there frequently. When that term is used in connection with God, it often signifies to regard with favor, denoting not mere cognition but an affection for the object in view. “I know thee by name” (Ex. 33:17). “Ye have been rebellious against the LORD from the day that I knew you” (Deut. 9:24). “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee” (Jer. 1:5). “They have made princes, and I knew not” (Hosea 8:4). “You only have I known of all the families of the earth” (Amos 3:2). In these passages “knew” signifies either “loved” or “appointed.”

In like manner, the word “know” is frequently used in the New Testament, in the same sense as in the Old. “Then will I profess unto them, I never knew you” (Matthew 7:23). “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine” (John 10:14). “If any man love God, the same is known of him” (1 Cor. 8:3). “The Lord knoweth them that are his” (2 Tim. 2:19).

Now the word “foreknowledge” as it is used in the New Testament is less ambiguous than in its simple form “to know.” If you carefully study every passage in which it occurs, you will discover that it is a moot point whether it ever has reference to the mere perception of events yet to take place. The fact is that foreknowledge is never used in Scripture in connection with events or actions; instead, it always refers to persons. It is persons God is said to “foreknow,” not the actions of those persons. To prove this we will quote each passage where this expression is found. The first occurs in Acts 2:23: “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” Careful attention to the wording of this verse shows that the apostle was not speaking of God’s foreknowledge of the act of the crucifixion, but of the Person crucified: “Him (Christ) being delivered by.”

The second is Romans 8:29-30: “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.” Weigh well the pronoun used here. It is not what He did foreknow, but whom He did. It is not the surrendering of their wills nor the believing of their hearts, but the persons themselves, which is in view.

“God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew” (Rom. 11:2). Once more the plain reference is to persons, and to persons only. The last mention is in 1 Peter 1:2: “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Who are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father?” The previous verse tells us the reference is to the “strangers scattered,” i.e., the diaspora, the dispersion, the believing Jews. Thus, the reference is to persons, and not to their foreseen acts. Now in view of these passages (and there are no more) what scriptural ground is there for anyone to say God “foreknew” the acts of certain ones, i.e., their “repenting and believing,” and that because of those acts He elected them unto salvation? The answer is, None whatever. Scripture never speaks of repentance and faith as being foreseen or foreknown by God. Truly, He did know from all eternity that certain ones would repent and believe, yet this is not what Scripture refers to as the object of God’s foreknowledge. The word uniformly refers to God’s foreknowing persons; then let us “hold fast the form of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13).

Another thing we want to call particular attention to is that the first two passages quoted above show plainly and teach implicitly that God’s foreknowledge is not causative, that instead, something else lies behind, precedes it—something that is His own sovereign decree. Christ was “delivered by the (1) determinate counsel and (2) foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). His counsel or decree was the ground of His foreknowledge. So again in Romans 8:29. That verse opens with the word “for,” which tells us to look back to what immediately precedes. What, then, does the previous verse say? This, “all things work together for good to them . . . who are the called according to His purpose.” Thus God’s “foreknowledge” is based upon His “purpose” or decree (see Psalm 2:7).
God foreknows what will be because He has decreed it. It is therefore a reverse order of Scripture, putting the cart before the horse, to affirm that God elects because He foreknows people. The truth is, He foreknows because He has elected. This removes the cause of election from outside the creature, and places it in God’s own sovereign will. God purposed in Himself to elect a certain people, not because of anything good in them or from them, either actual or foreseen, but solely out of His own pleasure.

Why He chose the ones He did, we do not know. We can only say, “Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight.” The plain truth of Romans 8:29 is that God, before the foundation of the world, singled out certain sinners and appointed them unto salvation (2 Thess. 2:13). This is clear from the concluding words of the verse: “Predestinated to be conformed to the image of His son.” God did not predestinate those whom He foreknew were conformed. On the contrary, those whom He foreknew (i.e., loved and elected) He predestinated “to be conformed.” Their conformity to Christ is not the cause, but the effect of God’s foreknowledge and predestination.

God did not elect any sinner because He foresaw that he would believe, for the simple but sufficient reason that no sinner ever believes until God gives him faith; just as no man sees until God gives him sight. Sight is God’s gift, seeing is the consequence of my using His gift. So faith is God’s gift (Eph. 2:8-9), believing is the consequence of my using His gift. If it were true that God had elected certain ones to be saved because in due time they would believe, then that would make believing a meritorious act. In that event the saved sinner would have ground for “boasting,” which Scripture emphatically denies (Eph. 2:9).

Surely God’s Word is plain enough in teaching that believing is not a meritorious act. It affirms that Christians are a people “which had believed through grace” (Acts 18:27). If, then, they have believed “through grace,” there is absolutely nothing meritorious about believing; if nothing meritorious, it could not be the ground or cause which moved God to choose them. No! God’s choice proceeds not from anything in us, or anything from us, but solely from His own sovereign pleasure. Once more, we read of “a remnant according to the election of grace” (Rom. 11:5). There it is, plain enough; election itself is of grace, and grace is unmerited favor, something for which we had no claim upon God whatsoever.

It is highly important for us to have clear and scriptural views of the foreknowledge of God. Erroneous conceptions about it lead inevitably to thoughts most dishonoring to Him. The popular idea of divine foreknowledge is altogether inadequate. God not only knew the end from the beginning, but also He planned, fixed, predestinated everything from the beginning. And, as cause stands to effect, so God’s purpose is the ground of His prescience. If then the reader is a real Christian, he is so because God chose him in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4); and chose not because He foresaw you would believe, but simply because it pleased Him to choose; chose you notwithstanding your natural unbelief. This being so, all glory and praise belongs alone to Him. You have no ground for taking any credit to yourself. You have “believed through grace” (Acts 18:27), and that, because your very election was “of grace” (Rom. 11:5).

Monergism :: Foreknowledge of God

Click to expand...

Couldn't get thru that whole thing-sorry-but I got the gist of it. God predestines no one to hell, and directly causes and commits no evil. If He did, and if man's will has no role whatsoever to play in his salvation, even if only the ability to reject it, then God is worse than satan, and there'd be no guarantee in any case that heaven should be any better than hell.

Hammster said:

I’ll try one last time. Does man deserve to be saved? Why or why not?

Click to expand...

Not sure what this has to do with Adam and the garden? We are not saved by our merits, but by His gift.

Hammster said:

How did Jesus know? Judas could have changed his mind at any moment, right?

Click to expand...

Not his heart though. If man rejects Christ, it becomes quite predictable the sorts of things he will do. In this case, God knew the future so no guessing was needed. There is a big difference from knowing the future, and pre arranging the choices of man.

Hammster said:

How does that answer my question. Looks more like a deflection to me.

Click to expand...

His reply seems to address the core of the question about predstination here. Perhaps the deflecting is in question you asked?

fhansen said:

As with other evil in this world, God foreknew it planned to bring and even greater good out of it, knowing the beginning from the end. Hypothetically, even if God didn't exist outside of time, even if for some reason He couldn't foresee man's future actions, He knows man's heart so well that He'd presumably still be able to predict what would happen if He were to arrive here in human flesh, as He did.

Click to expand...

Scripture says He planned it. So there’s that.

dad said:

Not sure what this has to do with Adam and the garden? We are not saved by our merits, but by His gift.

Click to expand...

Okay, I tried and you have now definitely refused to answer. So be it.

dad said:

Not his heart though. If man rejects Christ, it becomes quite predictable the sorts of things he will do. In this case, God knew the future so no guessing was needed. There is a big difference from knowing the future, and pre arranging the choices of man.

Click to expand...

I thought you weren’t answering if it doesn’t have to do with Adam and Eve in the garden.

Hmmm

dad said:

His reply seems to address the core of the question about predstination here. Perhaps the deflecting is in question you asked?

Click to expand...

No, that’s not it.

dad said:

Of course they did. God knew Judas would dip the sop with Him, you thought that meant that He possessed Judas and practiced mind control to make him do it!!? Ha. No. It was probably more like having seen the future.

Click to expand...

That would be Foreknowledge. Please address that the events of Christ’s arrest, conviction and death were predetermined.

David Cabrera said:

Calvinists believe God made man sin and fall, not that God allowed man to choose communion with him or sin.

Click to expand...

Can you show me a quote of a well known Calvinists that says... "God made man sin?"
Maybe you could show me where the Westminster says that? Or the LBC 1689?

dad said:

If you are insinuating that all parties were born with no choice, no way.

Click to expand...

No my continuing point has been we all make choices in accordance with our bonded will.

On the colt?

Very interesting as that is a minute detail that God had all figured out. The pair, the donkey the mother or Jenny was untied and taken along with the colt. Some skeptics scoffed at Matthews Gospel account for even mentioning this.

However, to 1st century farmers and herdsmen this would be understood as it is today with ranchers and farmers with donkeys. The colt (within 6 months of age) will not be handled well without the Jenny nearby.

Even that small but significant detail did not escape Jesus Christ the Divine Logos.

dad said:

I would think in that instance it was mostly John that learned who the rat was. Jesus knew Judas would be the traitor. That does not mean Jesus locked Judas in a barn and water boarded him till he agreed to betray Him!

Click to expand...

It is still escaping your comments that we do in fact make our own decisions but it is colored by the bondage of the will.

fhansen said:

God foreknew the Fall, but did not predestine it, deeming it worthy to create, for His good ultimate purposes, in spite of that fact. He could not have predestined evil, and all the atrocious results that stemmed from that first evil of disobedience. Adam had free will, and was given sufficient knowledge to exercise that will properly. He chose to abuse it instead. IOW, God is not a liar; when He commanded Adam not to eat of the forbidden fruit, He did not want Adam to eat of the forbidden fruit.

Click to expand...

Valid points. We should not read into the text what is not there. We do know the Holy Spirit inspires the Apostle Paul when speaking of God’s plan of Redemption as predetermined before the foundations of the earth (Ephesians 1).

There’s loads in Genesis 2 and 3 we could analyze as you pointed out in another thread. Hopefully we can get to such wonders in the near future instead of “what if” OPs.

bling said:

The moment God decided to make a human (which can be way before the creation of Adam and Eve) that human was born, lived, made free will choices, died and went to heaven or hell. Prior (if there is such a thing) to God not deciding to make a particular human, God knows a lot about what that being would do and all the possible choices he/she could make, but God does not know what exact free will choices this never to be made human “made” since it is not to exist. God knows all that can be known, but not what cannot be known.

Click to expand...

The God of any point in time would know everything that the Gods of each point in time know simultaneously. The God of pre-creation knows what the God of every succeeding moment knows, thus every action of every man in all of time.