Foreknowledge once again

[mannysee]

I was reading a short article on predestination by a bible teacher and he brought up his understanding of foreknowledge which was basically, "God knew beforehand who would respond (to the gospel) therefore he predestined you..."

When I think about this argument, it seems to be some kind of circular time? argument which doesn't make any sense.

I have read many (reformed) articles on foreknowledge over the last couple of years and in my own convictions the 'knowledge' part is similar to other uses of the word 'know', where the knowing contextually refers to some kind of favourable disposition toward that person/group (no need to reply with scripture as I am familiar with the arguments).

I am thinking about opening a discussion with someone who is associated with this teacher, and explaining to them what foreknowledge actually means.

My question is, is what I am assuming to be correct about the meaning of foreknowledge a water-tight argument?
i.e. what are the best arguments online from teachers who believe in the "God knew beforehand what would happen, therefore" understanding.

As this is a reformed forum I might expect a reply along the lines of "there are no best arguments for that position, they are wrong."

 

[heymikey80]

This is from someone who considers the personal "know" the most plausible answer.

I'd advise not arguing directly from this position. The reason for concluding this must be what Paul means is really by excluding the other arguments as inconsistent. The problem here is that there's precious little evidence about the particular term "foreknew" used in this sense.

Virtually every analysis I've seen expands the term's usage study to include "foreknew [event|that an event would occur]". The problem is very likely that there are little to no examples of using the term in the Scripturaal sense, "foreknew [person]". You'd just get into a shouting match with the person over what the word really means when used this way.

There are scholarly articles that are listed in better lexicons that this term must be equivalent to "chose" or "elected". I haven't tracked them down (not that I don't want to!). But if they're as convincing as they seem to be to the editors of say Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich, I'd be pretty skeptical of someone contradicting that view.

Lately my position has been arguing that Paul's words starting 22 verses later, simply stops the idea that "God knew beforehand who would respond (to the gospel) therefore he predestined you..." If God knew beforehand, Paul couldn't at all say, "It wasn't because of what you did." (Rom 9:11,16) Because if "foreknew" really meant looking at what you were going to do, then it really would be because of what you did.

Instead, it was due to God's promise and mercy on people, not individual actions and will. To demand that Paul's saying "It's because of your will" in Romans 8:28, and then reject that in Romans 9:16, is inconsistent.

There's also a philosophical argument, that it makes no sense for God to say He could predict people who would believe in Him, when you're also saying the conditions people are put in will influence whether they believe or not. Holding to both ideas would again be self-contradictory -- or would make God into a self-fulfilling prophet when using this idea.

 

[mlqurgw]

I was reading a short article on predestination by a bible teacher and he brought up his understanding of foreknowledge which was basically, "God knew beforehand who would respond (to the gospel) therefore he predestined you..."

When I think about this argument, it seems to be some kind of circular time? argument which doesn't make any sense.

I have read many (reformed) articles on foreknowledge over the last couple of years and in my own convictions the 'knowledge' part is similar to other uses of the word 'know', where the knowing contextually refers to some kind of favourable disposition toward that person/group (no need to reply with scripture as I am familiar with the arguments).

I am thinking about opening a discussion with someone who is associated with this teacher, and explaining to them what foreknowledge actually means.

My question is, is what I am assuming to be correct about the meaning of foreknowledge a water-tight argument?
i.e. what are the best arguments online from teachers who believe in the "God knew beforehand what would happen, therefore" understanding.

As this is a reformed forum I might expect a reply along the lines of "there are no best arguments for that position, they are wrong."

The thing that always seals the argument for me is that the word is never used in the context or in connection to things but to people. It doesn't say what He foreknew but whom He foreknew. If He foreknew what people would do it would say what He foreknew. Instead it says whom to show that it has nothing to do with prescience. I think there is a different Greek word for prescience rather than proginosko. While I have no problem with the use of the word predestinate or predestiantion as it relates to things it is not used in the Scriptures in that context. It is always used in connection with people. Theologians have used it in connection with things and it is true in a sense. Still when you connect the two words and see that they refer to people not things it makes a very difficult argument to refute. God not only foreknows people but predetermines their destiny. He doesn't foreknow things and predertermines the destiny of people.

 

[mannysee]

Thankyou for your replies.

I read once again this teachers explanation of foreknowledge, and saw that he had written (quoting from Romans) "Whom he foreknew, he then predestined..."
I think that adding "then" is inserting into the text what is not there?

It would be odd to have God looking down the corridor of time to see what you would do (a choice by that person, or "will" as Mikey mentioned) when it is His own power at work in you which causes you to trust in Christ at that time e.g. faith to trust, itself being a gift of God.

Not to mention one passage I read in Ephesians last night talking about the great love with which He loved us even when we were dead in trespasses and sins.

 

[heymikey80]

It's pretty reasonable to understand this as sequential -- that God foreknew us and then predestined us. Because everything else in that line is sequential in time.

Consider it with the equivalent "chose". God chose us -- then He predestined us. He wouldn't have predestined us before He had chosen us.

The real problem is trying to assert that God chose us because we loved him, or believed Him, and not vice versa. Because Romans 9 just destroys that attempt. Once it's accepted that foreknowledge is equivalent to election, Romans 9 just rips the idea of any "knowledge about what they're gonna do" involved to shreds.

 

[mannysee]

"The real problem is trying to assert that God chose us because we..."

Yes, I read an earlier passage while at church this morning in Romans? which said "He chose us according to his own purpose and will".

 

[light_eclipseca]

I use deduction and the Golden Chain of Redemption found in Romans 8.

Romans 8:29-30 - For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

If foreknew meant scientific knowledge, then everyone would be glorified eventually, as God would technically foreknow everyone. The verse would then imply universalism. We know that it does not however.

To foreknow in this passage must mean to know in the salvific intimate sense. Like a husband and wife. This seems to be (in my opinion) the only plausible explanation.

 

[DeaconDean]

I was reading a short article on predestination by a bible teacher and he brought up his understanding of foreknowledge which was basically, "God knew beforehand who would respond (to the gospel) therefore he predestined you..."

When I think about this argument, it seems to be some kind of circular time? argument which doesn't make any sense.

I have read many (reformed) articles on foreknowledge over the last couple of years and in my own convictions the 'knowledge' part is similar to other uses of the word 'know', where the knowing contextually refers to some kind of favourable disposition toward that person/group (no need to reply with scripture as I am familiar with the arguments).

I am thinking about opening a discussion with someone who is associated with this teacher, and explaining to them what foreknowledge actually means.

My question is, is what I am assuming to be correct about the meaning of foreknowledge a water-tight argument?
i.e. what are the best arguments online from teachers who believe in the "God knew beforehand what would happen, therefore" understanding.

As this is a reformed forum I might expect a reply along the lines of "there are no best arguments for that position, they are wrong."

Oh God, this has been debated to death in another area.

There is a thread entitled "Rom.8:29 meaning of foreknew" in the Soteriology area that goes some 300 posts or more into just this very subject.

Many who post in this area, posted in that thread. And if you will read carefully, "foreknow" as used in the sense of "to know beforehand", "God looked foreward in time and saw", "foreknowledge" as to who would and would not accept the Gospel, simply cannot be the infered meaning.

Give this a look: Link

It may give you some valuable information.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Terrence_Theodore]

Hi Mannysee -

I am a Christian with a reformed view of scripture, and I was hoping that I might give my understanding of the "foreknow" scriptures. My aim is simply to dialogue with other believers, and to find out what they believe, while giving my own opinion.

I suppose a good place to start would be to challenge our Arminian brethren on their understanding of the foreknowledge text. If it is true, as they suppose, that God's election is based on his foreseeing of certain individuals having faith, then scripture must certainly be clear about it. Is this the case, however? Let's consider two scripture they may use as proof texts:

"To those who are elect...according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you." 1 Peter 1:2

"For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." - Romans 8:29

First, Romans 8:29..."For those whom he 'foreknew.'" For the Arminan, the scripture here may as well read..."for those whom he foreknew would believe in Jesus...he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son." The addition noted in red type, exist in the mind of the Arminian because he presupposes that man is able in and of himself, to come to Christ (this is the whole idea behind free will theology). This however, is yet to be proved by scripture. In fact, the opposite appears to be true. We read, for example..."no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44). But I digress; I must stay on topic (and the topic is the meaning of foreknowledge, not man's depravity). Let us now look at 1 Peter 1:2 "...elect according to the 'foreknowledge' of God." Here again the presupposition is that "God looked down the halls of time and saw that some individuals would believe." Let us examine this idea. Consider the following words in the mentioned scripture (especially the ones in bold type):

"... elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood."

First, it may be important to note that the scripture says "for obedience to Christ" and not "because of obedience to Christ." What is the difference? The difference is this: If God elects us "for" obedience, it means that he has done the work. On the other hand, if God elects us "because" of obedience, then it may rightly be argued that we did our part by choosing to believe. In other words, "Gods would have foresaw some having faith." But what does the scripture say? "The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one (Psa 14:2-3). This being the case, ie., none do good, we must not presume that some actually do the highest good - namely please God through faith (since faith is the only thing that pleases God; note Hebrews 11:6).

Second, let us continue on the idea of pleasing and obeying God. Consider the following question: How can a man who is a slave to sin, insomuch that he cannot free himself (John 8:34), who cannot understand spiritual truth, such as the gospel (1 Cor 2:14), who cannot obey God's rules, such as the command to "repent and believe the gospel" (Rom 8:7), choose to do the greatest good, namely "come to Jesus?" Moreover, how is man supposed to do this great thing when we read..."there is none who seeks for God" (Rom 3:11)? I feel the truth, though a "hard saying," is simple. Man cannot come to God in and of his own volition. As it is written..."No man can come to me unless it is the Father draw him." And again..."Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil" (Jer 13:23). Let it be reiterated for the sake of closing the case, as it were "...a diseased tree only bears bad fruit" (Matt 7:17).

Now that I have addressed what I feel to be a bad interpretation for the "foreknow" text by the Arminan, I want to give my own opinion on the matter. If the "foreknow" text does not mean God foreseeing people's actions - such as faith, what does it mean? Here again, I must appeal to scripture. First, notice that in all the "foreknown" text, it is referring to persons and NOT actions. Again, this is important, as we do NOT read..."and those whom he foreknew would believe," but "those whom he foreknew." And again, "elect according to the foreknowledge of God" and NOT "elect according to the foreknowledge of God foreseeing..." Second, notice not only are these text talking about persons, but also talking about knowing persons in an intimate way. Consider 1 Peter 1:20 where we read of Jesus being "foreknown before the foundations of the world." Again - and this is not to be redundant, but to drive home an important and critical point - notice how this is NOT speaking of actions being foreknown or foreseen, but speaking of intimacy between a person. In the same way Jesus was "foreknown" before the foundations of the world (1 Peter 1:20), God "foreknew" believers (Rom 8:29). This is more than a simply "I know what they will do" sort of knowing. Rather, this speaks of intimacy between God and specific persons. If this interpretation does not seem to suffice, let us consider one more scripture:

"You [Israel] only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities" (Amos 2:3).

Notice here that God "only knows Israel" from out of all the families of the earth. What child of God would make the claim that God does not know everyone in the whole world? No one! And yet from this scripture, it is clear that God only knew Israel. Does this speak of God not having a general knowledge of all families? No. This speaks of God's intimate knowledge between he and his people. A knowledge which says of his own... "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" (Jer 1:5), and again "I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you" (Jer 31:3). Contrast this with Jesus' own words..."Depart from me you workers of evil, I never knew you..." and it will be clear to see that God certainly does foreknown some people in a way that he does not know others.

Does this make sense?