The Foreknowledge of God

[Sean]

Hello NJchosen,
I agree with Homer that Pink simply assumes total depravity to be true and argues from that assumption. I don't believe in total depravity so logically, I don't hold to Calvinism. I would ask, how did man become totally depraved? I believe you said that Adam was not this way. If this is true then who changed man's nature? Did Adam change his own nature? We don't read of God doing it, we only read of God's curses on man, which don't mention total depravity.

I also disagree with Pink's view of God's foreknowledge.

Hello again, alright, I took something from the original post that is a bit smaller in size,

The first occurrence is in Acts 2:23. There we read, "Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." If careful attention is paid to the wording of this verse it will be seen that the apostle was not there speaking of God’s foreknowledge of the act of the crucifixion, but of the Person crucified: "Him (Christ) being delivered by," etc.

I don't disagree with the notion that God's foreknowledge is of people. Read on...

The second occurrence is in 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," etc. Weigh well the pronoun that is 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 here 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, here too the reference is to persons, and not to their foreseen acts.

Are you saying that God foreknew people, but is clueless as to what kind of people? Do you not believe God has the ability to know these things? I don't see how God knowing people would exclude God knowing what kind of people they are. It doesn't make sense to me, anyway. Here is an example why I believe this way:

Matthew 7:22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

Speaking of those who will be cast out, Jesus didn't say it's because they weren't elect or because God passed them over. It's because of the kind of people they are, those who practice lawlessness. This is an example of God's foreknowledge. It refers to people, but not apart from what kind of people. Matthew 25:32-45 is another example of this. So I don't even understand the logic of the argument you (and Pink) are using.


You could read the thread on Romans 9-11, there I show where it seems that Paul argues in Romans 11 that the non-elect, blinded by God can indeed be saved if they are provoked to jealousy by Paul. Interesting that Paul believes the non-elect can make a choice to believe and then be grafted in.

[darinhouston]

The Father draws people to His Son, and the Son raises them up the last day. If the Father does not draw them they cannot come to the Son. "No one can come to Me unless..." and the "unless" tells us something has to happen for someone to come to the Son, and that something is the Father drawing them.

I don't disagree with this -- the limitation or irresistability of that drawing hasn't been shown (see below).

John 6
44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."

The Son raises them who were drawn, He doesn't raises just a few who believed, it doesn't say that, but it does make clear He will raise those who were drawn by the Father.

NJchosen

I believe what it says -- The Son raises them who come according to the Father's drawing.

I don't read the way you do -- the way I read it, the "him" who the Father will raise up on the last day are not those "who were drawn" but those who "come to Me." Note it doesn't say I will raise them up but "him" -- there is a "him" being referred to -- it is he who has "come."

You haven't answered my questions about why some of the points you raise matter to the points in question.

[Pierac]

Although I reject the Calvinistic doctrine, they do have sound biblical support. The only problem is they only know the part, not the whole of God's elect.

Anyway, what do the non-Calvinist think of this verse? We already know what the Calvinist think.

NASB Act 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

CEV Act 13:48 This message made the Gentiles glad, and they praised what they had heard about the Lord. Everyone who had been chosen for eternal life then put their faith in the Lord.

(BBE) And the Gentiles, hearing this, were glad and gave glory to the word of God: and those marked out by God for eternal life had faith.

(English Sinaiticus) And hearing it, the Gentiles rejoiced, and glorified the word of the Lord, and as many as had been ordered for eternal life believed;

(ESV) And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

(KJV) And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

(Geneva) And when the Gentiles heard it, they were glad, and glorified the woorde of the Lorde: and as many as were ordeined vnto eternall life, beleeued.

(Tyndale) The getyls hearde and were glad and glorified the worde of ye Lorde and beleved: eve as many as were ordeyned vnto eternall lyfe.

(Vulgate) audientes autem gentes gavisae sunt et glorificabant verbum Domini et crediderunt quotquot erant praeordinati ad vitam aeternam

I can't read Latin but even I know what praeordinati means.

So what is this verse speaking of, as it appears in context?

Paul

[darinhouston]

Although I reject the Calvinistic doctrine, they do have sound biblical support. The only problem is they only know the part, not the whole of God's elect.

Anyway, what do the non-Calvinist think of this verse? We already know what the Calvinist think.

NASB Act 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

*****

I can't read Latin but even I know what praeordinati means.

So what is this verse speaking of, as it appears in context?

Paul

We had a very extensive discussion of Acts 13:48 (and the periphrastic construction of the greek word commonly translated as "appointed" at the old forum.

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=2460

I haven't found that in the set of posts carried over to this forum, but if I find it, I'll post that link here as well. Paidion and Homer each had some really excellent thoughts on this passage.

[NJchosen]

In Acts 13:48 we have a "periphrastic" construction. Grammatically, a periphrastic (to be + particle) is to be taken as a single unit.

ἦσαν = εἰμί (eimi) - “to be” -3rd person, imperfect, active, indicative, plural.

τεταγμένοι = τάσσω (tassw) - “To bring about an order of things by arranging; to determine, appoint, etc.” - Perfect, Passive, Participle, Nominative, Masculine, Plural

τεταγμένοι, is a form of the word τάσσω. It is in the “perfect” tense, which means that it is a completed past action that has ongoing significance. The word τάσσω is at the center of the debate- it is said that it should be translated as “disposition” instead of “appointed.” However, there are some problems with this rendering;

The verb is passive, which means that the subject is being acted upon. Even if we should take it as “disposed,” that would mean that the subject (the Gentiles) were being made disposed to accepting the Gospel- not disposing themselves as arminian theologians would take it. There is a possibility that the verb is instead a “middle” tensed verb, which would have the subject acting on itself- but this use of the middle tense is rare in the NT. Most middle tense verbs simply draw attention to the subject.

As a logical outcome, if we were to take the verb as “dispose,” that doesn’t solve the problem, it only adds an extra step to solve. For example, since the verb is passive, we must ask ourselves then, “who is making them disposed?” that is, “who is making them so inclined to believe?” Which takes us back to the original issue.

It seems much more likely that we should understand this phrase in terms of being appointed. In fact, this is exactly how the vast majority of translations take it- the only translation that I’m aware of that translates it as “disposed” is the New World Translation, which is the Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible.

The word “appointed” is in the perfect tense. This means that the action of appointing was completed in the past, but has on-going significance. What on-going significance you might ask? The most obvious significance is the belief exhibited by the Gentiles. It is not an appointment in the abstract, but concrete. In other words, the appointing has an object or goal. They were appointed “to believe.”

The reformed doctrine of election does not destroy human responsibility or action. Also election is not actualized salvation, but election to salvation. They were appointed to believe. The result is that they did believe - human action. Some people think that election means that if we are “on the list” we are in- whether we believe or not. They ask, “what is the point of evangelism?” Acts 13.48 is a clear picture of how election, evangelism, and human responsibility play out. God has appointed them to believe. A necessary condition for belief is hearing the Gospel (Romans 10.14-15). They heard the Gospel, and believed.

There is also an implied question that can be asked of this text. If those who were appointed believed, why didn’t the others believe? The implied answer is that they were not appointed.

[darinhouston]

Jarrod found the old posts on this site (I think they're all here -- some of them were missing on the wvss site.)

http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=2172

Again, this topic is discussed there at great length. I recommend anyone vaguely interested in NJChosen's last post to review that entire exchange.

[Pierac]

Jarrod found the old posts on this site (I think they're all here -- some of them were missing on the wvss site.)

http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=2172

Again, this topic is discussed there at great length. I recommend anyone vaguely interested in NJChosen's last post to review that entire exchange.

Thanks for the information from all, and the link darinhouston. I will review to make sure, I don't raise the dead.

Paul

[NJchosen]

Sean,

I agree, Pink does assume total depravity. However the book is called "the Attributes of God", so it didn't get into total depravity. Also I did say Adam had free will, before the fall. Adam was made good, and with the ability to choose right from wrong because he was lacking a sin nature before his fall. He was also a type of Christ. Concerning Adam's nature, I do believe he corrupted his own nature, and that he had a freedom prior to the fall that the sinful unregenerate man does not have. What lead me to this conclusion was the many passages that speak of the natural man and his state. The New Testament reveals the Old Testament and the Old veils the New, so in many cases revelation was revealed further in the N.T., about God, Messiah, salvation and more.

What was it that you disagreed with on Pink's view of God's foreknowledge? And those passages that speak of God's foreknowledge, where do you see it was based on the action or belief of the individual, and that is the reason God foreknew them? Does God foreknowing them mean God looks into the future to see what they would believe?

Next, I do believe God knows all things, past, present and future. I don't believe as you asked, "is (God) clueless..." about something? God has all knowledge, so He would know what we would do in word, thought and deed throughout our lives. He knows what every individual would do before they ever existed. It wouldn't have made sense to me either if I continued to look through Arminian glasses. The scripture teaches that when God "knows" someone, it had nothing to do with their actions or will. If you want to believe it does mean God foreknew someone's will or actions, then you must admit that God had elected them because of something in the person that caused Him to choose them over another. There must have been a particular quality in one person over another. I would reject that idea though, for we are all under sin, none of us are righteous, nor better then another for we all are deserving of the pit of hell.

You mentioned Matt 7:22, God foreknowing His elect was not based on something in man, but something in God. "I never knew you..." doesn't mean God lacked in knowledge, but that God "never knew" them as He does His elect. And since they were not known by God, they remained in their sins, they continued on being lead by their sinful nature practicing lawlessness. For that is what we once did before God called us, we practiced lawlessness. So in the end they get what they deserve, hell. But for God's elect, we receive grace, something we don't deserve. Again, God foreknowing His elect was not based on something in man, but something in God.

As I said elsewhere, there is mystery in salvation. Concerning believers, we have passages that speak of God beginning a good work in us (Phil 1:6), we have the branches being nurtured and bearing fruit in (John 15) because they are a part of the vine. As believers it is God who works in us. However at the same time we are not to sit back and sing "Jesus take the wheel" as if to sing, rather say, Jesus you do it all while I sit here. So believers need to take action in their Christian life. God is working in and through us, yet we also are working.

Lastly, I don't see a people in scripture who were not elected, who can be saved. Paul trying to provoke Jews to jealousy so they to might turn to Christ is another passages I need to go over further. I would be willing to talk further about it later this week or next.

NJchosen

[NJchosen]

As Pink stated and scripture confirms,

(The fact is that "foreknowledge" is never used in Scripture in connection with events or actions; instead, it always has reference to persons. It is persons God is said to "foreknow," not the actions of those persons. In proof of this we shall now quote each passage where this expression is found.

The first occurrence is in Acts 2:23. There we read, "Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." If careful attention is paid to the wording of this verse it will be seen that the apostle was not there speaking of God’s foreknowledge of the act of the crucifixion, but of the Person crucified: "Him (Christ) being delivered by," etc.

The second occurrence is in 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," etc. Weigh well the pronoun that is 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 here in view.)

God who is omniscient, has all knowledge, who knows the beginning from the end, and who knows what is in man, has chosen His own, not based on the actions the man would take or the will of man, but because of His foreknowledge. This foreknowledge was not as Webster's dictionary might define it, but as the scriptures explain it. How is "foreknowledge" used in the scriptures? Read above and weigh the text for yourself.

Christ "being delivered" upon the cross, can we say, was delivered because God the Father "foreknew" Christ's actions, and that is the reason? Does the text say such a thing? The idea is absent from the text. It says Christ Himself was "delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God". It doesn't say anything about Christ's actions, as if that were the reason God foreknew. The same applies to Romans 8. It never says God "foreknew" someone because of their actions. Yes God did know beforehand their actions, but the text doesn't say that is the reason why He foreknew someone.

NJchosen

[Troy]

Now v.13- "who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." Those who believed, did so, not because of a desire apart from God for it would have been their will, but as it reads, they were born of God or born again and it had nothing to do with their will. A person's will cannot make them born again literally or cause God to make them born again. Those who believed (v.12) were born or born again (v.13), but it says it was not because of the will of the flesh or man. It had nothing to do with an action, physical decent (blood), or desire on the part of man (will).

NJ, some time ago, I read an essay by Robert Hamilton that examines the book of John focusing on every passage found in this book that are also on the list of passages Calvinists use. John 1:13 is one verse that is examined, and Hamilton seemed to have a very compelling interpretation for this text. He argued that the three phrases Not of blood, Nor of the will of the flesh, Nor of the will of man are an example of a common literary feature of Hebraism known as "parallelism." By interpreting this text in such a way, Hamilton is saying that "the human decision in verse 13 does not refer to any and all human decisions, but instead should be identified with the immediately following phrase, a husband’s will, which refers specifically to parental volition in bringing about physical conception. Identifying the two phrases in this way accords with the conventions of standard Hebrew parallelism." Hamilton's full essay can be read here.

Now when I first read this, I thought that this may very well be just what John is doing in this verse, but, I was unfamiliar with such a literary feature. However, after taking an Old Testament Survey class taught by Rickie Moore (who is Professor of Old Testament Studies at the Church of God Theological Seminary) at Lee University, I became familiar with Hebraic Parallelism. It was during this time that I re-read Hamilton's interpretation of John 1:13. This time around, I did see how Hamilton could interpret this verse in such a fashion, but, I wanted to get Professor Moore's thoughts on this. In an email, I sent him Hamilton's exegesis of John 1:13, and asked him if he also sees Hebraic Parallelism in John 1:13 as Hamilton does. His reply strengthened the possibility of Hamilton's position. Professor Moore replied:

• Yes, I would agree with Hamilton... that in [John 1:13], the three statements (namely, born not of natural descent/nor of human decision/ or a husband's will) are synonymously parallel, and that these three statements together stand in contrast to being "born of God", which comes through receiving Christ and believing
  in his name.

For more on Parallelism, go here.