The Foreknowledge of God

[guuila]

Guess we'll never know.

 

[now faith]

You keep saying go back to #107 where you quote out of a book, apparently because you cannot explain it in your own words and I doubt you understand what you quoted from the book.

Yes, God's decree does indeed include the most minute details and that includes the rape of children by pedophiles even though the act and moral responsibility is on the rapist. Is that emotional argument supposed to carry some weight? Like these women who stick the yellow sign in the car window: "Baby on Board" So? I have my grandmother and myself onboard in my car, so what? You are using nothing but an emotional ploy to contradict the plain statements of Scripture.

Is that victim of pedophile rape of more value than the Son of God? What is said of Him, the moral evil of the crucifixion of Jesus?

"For the Son of Man is going as it has been determined, but woe to that one by whom he is betrayed!" (Luk 22:22 NRSV)

For indeed the Son of Man goes on His way--His pre-destined way; yet alas for that man who is betraying Him!" (Luk 22:22 WNT)

For the Son of Man is going his appointed way; but alas for that man by whom he is betrayed!’ (Luke 22:22, REB)

Maybe if you read it in basic English you can grasp it....

For it will be done to the Son of man after the purpose of God, but unhappy is that man by whom he is given up. (Luk 22:22 BBE)

Oz, you keep referencing a book in #107; and others quote the Scripture to you. Which are you going to believe?

Your distinguishing Jesus as a man only,and are applying a fleshly context.

This view contradicts the deity of Christ,Emanuel God with us.

The cross was a act of love through Gods sacrifice,if you truly discount the cross to a earthly act instead of Gods gift,we do not need discuss this any more.

 

[now faith]

Guess we'll never know.

Here is a quote from Jonathan Edward's.

'Tis represented often in Scripture, that God who made the world for himself, and created it for his pleasure, would infallibly obtain his end in the creation, and in all his works; that as all things are of him, so they would all be to him; and that in the final issue of things, it would appear that he is the first, and the last. Revelation 21:6: "And he said unto me, it is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." But these things are not consistent with God's being so liable to be disappointed in all his works, nor indeed with his failing of his end in anything that he has undertaken, or done.


Mmmm,seems to me he is acknowledging,the sovereignty of God.

After all God having foreknowledge of events,would not necessitate him acting,or not acting on them.

God is only bound by his truth in the words he speaks,God is just.

But that does not remove Gods free will to choose his actions.

Your theology is one dimensional,based on what you can comprehend.

You have placed God in a nice little box to fit in your own head.

 

[now faith]

Well guys its been fun,but I don't want to impose.

This has turned into a congressional debate,time for me to bow out.

God bless.

 

[guuila]

Here is a quote from Jonathan Edward's.

'Tis represented often in Scripture, that God who made the world for himself, and created it for his pleasure, would infallibly obtain his end in the creation, and in all his works; that as all things are of him, so they would all be to him; and that in the final issue of things, it would appear that he is the first, and the last. Revelation 21:6: "And he said unto me, it is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." But these things are not consistent with God's being so liable to be disappointed in all his works, nor indeed with his failing of his end in anything that he has undertaken, or done.


Mmmm,seems to me he is acknowledging,the sovereignty of God.

After all God having foreknowledge of events,would not necessitate him acting,or not acting on them.

God is only bound by his truth in the words he speaks,God is just.

But that does not remove Gods free will to choose his actions.

Your theology is one dimensional,based on what you can comprehend.

You sure do like to make unsubstantiated assertions don't you?

You have placed God in a nice little box to fit in your own head.

Looks to me like you just finished describing your own box.

 

[guuila]

time for me to bow out.

We will see.

 

[ChaseWind]

Your distinguishing Jesus as a man only,and are applying a fleshly context.

It is strange you would say that, because I prefaced my Scripture quotes with these words:

"... the Son of God? What is said of Him, the moral evil of the crucifixion of Jesus?"

That is in accord with:

"But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1Co 2:7-8 NRSV)

 

[Hammster]

Guess we'll never know.

It looks like you are right.

 

[bsd058]

OK since we have multiple concerns,lets try Hebrews first.

You state that my understanding of context is in correct.

Show me the context relating to the law and not of salvation in Christ,and tell me again why this passage is not relevant to the New Testament:

Hebrews 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; 10:21 And having an high priest over the house of God; 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

I can't write a lot. There are a lot of things going on while I move.

Yes, that's right. You're taking the passage out of context.

Read the WHOLE chapter. What the writer is saying is that we have a better covenant in which Christ doesn't need to be re-sacrificed over and over again like the old sacrifices mentioned JUST before in verses 1-11 (which you so conveniently didn't quote). It does pertain to the New Covenant. I'm saying that you're taking the passage out of its context and you're missing what's actually being said.

I see I'm going to have to comment on the whole passage for you.

10 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very a]" class="footnote">[a]form of things, b]" class="footnote">[b]can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? 3 But in c]" class="footnote">[c]those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,
“Sacrifice and offering You have not desired,
But a body You have prepared for Me;
6 In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have taken no pleasure.
7 “Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come
(In the scroll of the book it is written of Me)
To do Your will, O God.’”

In the above passage, the author states that the blood of goats and bulls never satisfied God. Therefore, in the Old Covenant, the sacrifices had to be done over and over.

 

[bsd058]

cont'd...

8 After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second.10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Jesus Christ was finally offered as the perfect sacrifice once and for all. And this satisfied God.

11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. 15 And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them
After those days, says the Lord:
I will put My laws upon their heart,
And on their mind I will write them,”

He then says,
17 “And their sins and their lawless deeds
I will remember no more.”

18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

The high priest's sacrifice never took away sin, but now Jesus' perfect offering did away with any more sacrifices.

19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

We have been made clean by the blood of Christ because his was the sacrifice God desired.

23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; 24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, 25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.

Therefore, we are encouraged to gather together and hold fast to our faith. We have been given confidence that we have our sins taken away.

26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.

Since Jesus' sacrifice was "once for all" and there is no more sacrifice, if we sin and no sacrifice remains, then we will end up under God's wrath. This shows that a continual sacrifice is not needed (as some Jews wanted to revert back to the old ways (see Ch 6:1 about the dead works that lead to death in contrast to the faith that leads to life) of the sacrifices.


There may be an allusion to Christ's prophecy that the temple would be destroyed, too, since I think Hebrews has an early date (prior to 70 AD) based upon the internal evidence of the temple and sacrificial imagery.

28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.”

They trample the blood of Christ by reverting to the the way of doing things, and therefore by implying that the sacrificial system continues.

31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. 32 But remember the former days, i]" class="footnote">[i]when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings, 33 partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated. 34 For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one. 35 Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive j]" class="footnote">[j]what was promised.
37 For yet in a very little while,
He who is coming will come, and will not delay.
38 But My righteous one shall live by faith;
And if he shrinks back, My soul has no pleasure in him.

39 But k]" class="footnote">[k]we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the l]" class="footnote">[l]preserving of the soul.

We are to live by faith, not those dead works. If we shrink back to the old way of animal sacrifices, we trample the blood of Christ and can expect that God will place us under his wrath, since reverting to the old ways implies that the blood of Christ (in the case where you have to return to the old sacrifices and old covenant of works) would not have been sufficient to atone for our sin. Yet, animals didn't atone for our sins, so we would be hopelessly lost if this were the case.

Therefore we cannot go back to the old sacrifices. Only Christ's sacrifice can atone, and it was sufficient.

That is the context of the whole chapter.

This is only a basic outline of it.

 

[guuila]

It looks like you are right.

Yep.

 

[bsd058]

bsd,
I would never build my theology on those who are extremists in the Arminian camp. I hope you don't build your theology on extremists in the Calvinistic camp, such as the many in my part of the world who have become thorough-going liberals, with no time for proclaiming the Scriptures and have a very low regard for the Bible. Extremists should declare that they are extremists and that this is not what the Bible teachers, whether we are talking of Arminians or Calvinists.

That's the thing. I don't think it's extreme Arminianism. It seems to me that it is the logical outcome of the Arminian doctrine. When you have an underlying presupposition that men are inevitably damned to hell or blessed to heaven logically before they were created (not temporaly), you undermine God's omniscience. Let me explain.

Here's how I perceive the open theist to argue:

(1) If God knows the future, then the future is fixed.

Assume, (2) God knows the future. (based on the Christian doctrine of omniscience).

Then (3) The future is fixed. (modus ponens (1) & (2))

Then (4) God knows who will accept or reject his grace. (from (2))

Then (5) God created men in such a way and understood the situations that they would be put in in such a way that he made some men who would inevitably go to heaven and some who would inevitably go to hell. (from (3) & (4))

Then (6) Men are predestined for hell or heaven logically prior to their creation. (from (5), by definition of predestination)

But (6) is the underlying objection to the Calvinist worldview, that God predestines some to heaven and some to hell.

Therefore, (7) either the conditional statement (1) is false (which is impossible since it is so self-evidently true), or assumption (2) must be false. (by reductio ad absurdum)

Since (1) is self-evidently true, (2) must be false. (by disjunctive syllogism)

Therefore, ~(2) and God does not know the future.

Nothing extreme about it really.

More to come on your other statements...though it'll be a few days before I write on them. I'm literally leaving right now from Canada to the US. Won't have access to a computer until probably Sunday or Monday.

You are creating your own dilemma here because of your Calvinistic presuppositions regarding free-will. God in his sovereignty has so allowed for free-will decisions to fit in with his plan for all humanity throughout history. You seem to be fixated on God having to so control human beings (not allowing genuine free-will) that you can't see the God who is revealed in Scripture who has given human beings free-will and this fits like a hand in glove with his sovereign purposes.

Only when you rule this out a priori, as you seem to be doing in this post, can you reach your Calvinistic conclusions about the inappropriate nature of my conclusions. When I go to the Scriptures, as expounded in post #107, it is there that I find the God who is contrary to the one you are portraying.

May I say in closing that I am 100% open to consideration of your view. To this point of my Christian journey, I can't accept it as I see so many theological holes and inconsistencies in it. My post at #107 has given brief biblical reasons for not accepting your view that God decrees all moral evil - including the rape of children by paedophiles. Please don't come back and say that this is an emotional response. It is NOT. It shows the direct practical application of your views in the contemporary world.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

bsd,

Your underlying presupposition is still this (as I stated previously): You are creating your own dilemma here because of your Calvinistic presuppositions regarding free-will. God in his sovereignty has so allowed for free-will decisions to fit in with his plan for all humanity throughout history. You seem to be fixated on God having to so control human beings (not allowing genuine free-will) that you can't see the God who is revealed in Scripture who has given human beings free-will and this fits like a hand in glove with his sovereign purposes.

Your philosophical and theological system does not allow for:

• "But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then [you] choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:15 NIV).
• "[You] believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household" (Acts 16:31 NIV).

When you omit a fundamental in your soteriology, no matter how many sylogisms or options you give me, a satisfactory conclusions cannot be reached. When there is a gaping hole in your theology that you don't want to fix, there is no room for further discussion.

My Arminian position, when correctly understood, declares that salvation is is that ‘Arminian theology, when rightly understood, teaches that salvation is monergistic. Wh? Because only God alone can do the saving. It is He who alone regenerates people who are dead in sin. Who forgives, justifies and sanctifies. It is God alone, based on redemption provided through Christ's shed blood. So from my Reformed Arminian perspective, salvation is monergistic -entirely.

It seems that the difference between your Calvinism and my Arminianism is based on whether salvation, based on God's saving work, is unconditional or conditional. My position is that there will be no salvation for anyone until they meet God's ordained condition of faith. For me, as a Reformed Arminian, faith is to be seen as synergistic only from the perspective that God enables human beings to believe, but we decide (conditionally) whether to believe or not.

This is consistent with God's making human beings with free will and the Scriptural exhortations: "[You] choose this day whom you will serve" and "[You] believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved".

This latter emphasis is what I find to be the gap in your theology that makes it inconsistent with the biblical revelation.

For more details, see my article, 'An Arminian view of faith in Christ'.

May your trip to the USA from Canada be successful. I remember how my family and I did that when we lived on the opposite side of your continent in the Fraser Valley of British Columbia and we travelled to Seattle and beyond on many occasions.

Sincerely in Christ, Oz

That's the thing. I don't think it's extreme Arminianism. It seems to me that it is the logical outcome of the Arminian doctrine. When you have an underlying presupposition that men are inevitably damned to hell or blessed to heaven logically before they were created (not temporaly), you undermine God's omniscience. Let me explain.

Here's how I perceive the open theist to argue:

(1) If God knows the future, then the future is fixed.

Assume, (2) God knows the future. (based on the Christian doctrine of omniscience).

Then (3) The future is fixed. (modus ponens (1) & (2))

Then (4) God knows who will accept or reject his grace. (from (2))

Then (5) God created men in such a way and understood the situations that they would be put in in such a way that he made some men who would inevitably go to heaven and some who would inevitably go to hell. (from (3) & (4))

Then (6) Men are predestined for hell or heaven logically prior to their creation. (from (5), by definition of predestination)

But (6) is the underlying objection to the Calvinist worldview, that God predestines some to heaven and some to hell.

Therefore, (7) either the conditional statement (1) is false (which is impossible since it is so self-evidently true), or assumption (2) must be false. (by reductio ad absurdum)

Since (1) is self-evidently true, (2) must be false. (by disjunctive syllogism)

Therefore, ~(2) and God does not know the future.

Nothing extreme about it really.

More to come on your other statements...though it'll be a few days before I write on them. I'm literally leaving right now from Canada to the US. Won't have access to a computer until probably Sunday or Monday.

 

[Hammster]

Oz,

Did God decree the most heinous act in history?

 

[Hammster]

*bump*

 

[savedfromdistruction]

God does not change His mind (1 Sam. 15.29) and since we use scripture to understand scripture, the very obvious to give us a correct understanding of the more difficult, God does not change His mind.

Unless you believe in Open Theism God does not change or learn. God is immutable. What you are noticing in scripture are historical contingencies express in anthropomorphism.

God decrees what He knows and His knowledge is perfect.

From the pen of one of my favorite Baptist writers, A. W. Pink:

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

The bible is clear that God has said one thing would happen and then not allow it to happen. Whether or not one wants to call that God changing His mind is up to each, but we do know that God does allow prayer to change circumstances that He has said would come about.
Perhaps it would be better to say that God will withhold at times what He has stated because of prayer.

 

[ChaseWind]

The bible is clear that God has said one thing would happen and then not allow it to happen. Whether or not one wants to call that God changing His mind is up to each, but we do know that God does allow prayer to change circumstances that He has said would come about.
Perhaps it would be better to say that God will withhold at times what He has stated because of prayer.

You apparently do not know what anthropomorphism is when studying theology. You have made a statement that sounds like man by prayer can have God jump through hoops.

 

[savedfromdistruction]

You apparently do not know what anthropomorphism is when studying theology. You have made a statement that sounds like man by prayer can have God jump through hoops.

No I don't believe that God jumps through hoops, but I do know that he has said certain things are going to happen and they do not because of prayer.
One example is in Deuteronomy 9:13-14
also
"Turn from Thy burning anger and change Thy mind about doing harm to Thy people. 13“Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Thy servants to whom Thou didst swear by Thyself, and didst say to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heavens, and all this land of which I have spoken I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’” 14So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people," (Exodus 32:12-14, NASB).

 

[ChaseWind]

No I don't believe that God jumps through hoops, but I do know that he has said certain things are going to happen and they do not because of prayer.
One example is in Deuteronomy 9:13-14
also
"Turn from Thy burning anger and change Thy mind about doing harm to Thy people. 13“Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Thy servants to whom Thou didst swear by Thyself, and didst say to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heavens, and all this land of which I have spoken I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’” 14So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people," (Exodus 32:12-14, NASB).

It pays to study hermeneutics and understand a little bit about such important matters as you discuss. From Principles of Interpretation by Clinton Lockhart, Revised Edition 1915 -

Anthropomorphism, or more accurately: "Anthropopathy is an ascription of the passions of man to God. An example of this may be found in Job 21:20, 'And let him drink of the wrath of the Almighty.' While we often read in Scriptures of the wrath of God, we cannot understand that He literally exercises this passion of man; but that it is a figure used to represent the necessary attitude of infinite justice toward the disobedient. Another example is in Zech. 8:2, 'Thus said the Lord of hosts, I am jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I am jealous for her with great fury.' Here the passions of jealousy and fury are human, but ascribed to God, not because Hew may be supposed to enter into a rage as a human being, but because the results of His disposition toward Israel in her idolatry are similar to hose of a man acting under these passions."

When Scripture speaks of God repenting, do you actually think God changed his mind like mortal man?

 

[ChaseWind]

14So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people," (Exodus 32:12-14, NASB).

Saved... after logging off, this topic troubled me so I did more research. I came across this discussion on the very event you used as an example. I hope it sheds light on why it is so difficult. It comes from a very long article but this was to the point of our discussion.

"We cannot completely grasp what Scripture means, for example, when it tells us that the eternally unchanged and unchanging God became so angry against Israel at Sinai that He threatened to annihilate the entire nation and essentially void the Abrahamic covenant:

And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? (Exodus 32:10-11).

Two things are perfectly clear from such an account: First, we are not to read this passage and imagine that God is literally subject to fits and temper tantrums. His wrath against sin is surely something more than just a bad mood. We know this passage is not to be interpreted with a wooden literalness.

How can we be so sure? Well, Scripture clearly states that there is no actual variableness in God (cf. James 1:17). He could not have truly and literally been wavering over whether to keep His covenant with Abraham (Deuteronomy 4:31). Moses' intercession in this incident (Exodus 32:12-14) could not literally have provoked a change of mind in God (Numbers 23:19). In other words, a strictly literal interpretation of the anthropopathism in this passage is an impossibility, for it would impugn either the character of God or the trustworthiness of His Word.

Nonetheless, a second truth emerges just as clearly from this vivid account of God's righteousness anger. The passage destroys the notion that God is aloof and uninvolved in relationship with His people. Even though these descriptions of God's anger are not to be taken literally, neither are they to be discarded as meaningless.

In other words, we can begin to make sense of the doctrine of impassibility only after we concede the utter impossibility of comprehending the mind of God."
God Without Mood Swings