Showing posts with label Doctrine-Foreknowledge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Doctrine-Foreknowledge. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Biblical Foreknowledge? (Part 2)

By Nathan Williams @ http://www.sfpulpit.com

Biblical Foreknowledge (2)Last week we began to look at the Biblical concept of foreknowledge and tried to gain some understanding of what the idea means. We did this by defining the term and by giving specific examples from Scripture that help us in our understanding of the term.

It is important to reemphasize something I said last time but which may have gotten overlooked. One of the negative responses to the proper understanding of the term foreknowledge is that it essentially makes no difference between foreknowledge and predestination. The terms are similar but each has its own emphasis. “Foreknowledge” emphasizes God’s covenantal love for the one He has chosen, while “predestined” emphasizes His electing will. Together, these two concepts make up God’s gracious choice of believers to salvation in eternity past. They are like two sides of the same coin. I believe Wayne Grudem got it right when he said that foreknowledge means “according to God’s fatherly care for you before the world was made.”

My main goal throughout these two articles has been to explain that foreknowledge does not mean only “to know beforehand.” This week I would like to examine some further arguments that will help us to gain a proper understanding of the term “foreknowledge”. These arguments are not always drawn from any one passage in particular, but are taken from the whole of Scriptural teaching.

Theological Arguments

As one examines the passages that deal with God’s “foreknowledge” it becomes evident rather quickly that “foreknowledge” deals with individuals and not facts. The term never deals with God knowing something about someone. It always deals with the fact that God knew the person. Romans 8:29 says that God foreknew certain individuals. It is best to understand this to mean “those whom he long ago thought of in a saving relationship to himself.” (Grudem)

It is also important to recognize where the final authority for salvation rests. If God looks down the corridors of time with no intimate involvement and simply sees who will exercise faith and then chooses those who will choose Him, this leaves the ultimate authority for salvation with man. It makes God react to the decisions of men. This negates all of the Scriptural teaching that election is God’s gracious prerogative.

The Bible is saturated with the language of election, and all of it attributes the decision involved in election to God and not to man. In John 15:16 Jesus says, “You did not choose me, but I chose you. . . .” John 6:44 states that no one is able to respond to God unless the Father draws him to Himself. Scripture does not give final authority and sovereignty to man, but to God (1 Thess 1:4; John 13:18; Rom. 9:11; 15-16; Eph 2:10; Acts 13:48).

Scripture never teaches that our faith was the reason God chose us for salvation. Romans 9:11 says “for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls.” Ephesians 1:5 says that our election was “according to the kind intention of His will”. The idea that our election is based on foreseen faith is strangely absent from Scripture. This is teaching that has been read into multiple passages to make a theological system work.

Next, one cannot come to the Arminian understanding of foreknowledge with a proper concept of faith and how men exercise it. The scriptural teaching concerning the nature of man is that man has fallen into sin and has turned his back on God (Gen. 3). Now, every person is born a sinner (Ps. 51:5). Being born into sin, we have no desire for God. In fact, the natural direction of man is to hate God and oppose everything He stands for (Rom. 3:9-20). Because of this, the Bible describes humans as dead in their sins (Eph. 2:1).

A dead person does not respond, he has no life in him and is not able to move one inch. For the Arminian view of foreknowledge to be correct, the Biblical teaching on the sinfulness of man must be altered. How can man respond in faith to God if he is dead in his sins? The simple answer is that he cannot. Faith is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8-9) and one cannot exercise it unless it has first been graciously given by the Lord.

Finally, let’s assume for a moment that foreknowledge only means prescience and that God really does elect those whom He sees will exercise faith. This means that God, who has a true knowledge of the future, has already seen exactly what will happen to people. This means that what God sees of them is absolutely certain to come to pass. So the destinies of men have already been determined. If they have not been determined by God, by what have they been determined? When we wind up in this position we end up trusting the fate of our lives to something outside of God.

My hope is that these articles have been beneficial to your understanding of the Biblical concept of foreknowledge. The doctrine of election and all the teaching that goes along with it is precious truth. It is vital to understand properly and when it is understood it certainly will incite the believer to praise our sovereign God.

Romans 11:33 “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!”

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

How Much Does God Foreknow?

by Steve Roy @ http://www.adrian.warnock.info

There is little doubt as we continue a short look at the attributes of God, inspired by the Together for the Gospel Statement, that possibly the attribute which currently has the most controversy surrounding it is that of God’s foreknowledge.

For some neoliberals, it is preferable to think of a God who is every bit as surprised by the actions of people as we are. God can — according to some of them — sympathize with people's hurt because He, too, is shocked by how events unfold. He is either powerless to stop certain events or has chosen to limit His power. It is my belief that this view of God strips Him of His dignity and sovereignty and creates a “god” in our own image who no longer deserves the name of the God of the Bible.

Steve Roy’s book, published in 2006, aims to be a comprehensive biblical study on the subject of the foreknowledge of God. I believe he achieves his goal in every way. Roy is not afraid to address the concerns of the “open theists,” and lists their arguments, addressing the Scriptures that they commonly use to support their view of God.

Roy doesn’t merely counter the arguments of the detractors, he restates, explains, and supports from the Bible the traditional Christian view of a God for whom the whole of time is as a twinkle in His eye — who knows the end from the beginning.

I cannot recommend this book strongly enough. It was such a help for me when I was preparing for my talk on
the attributes of God.

Here are just a few quotes from the book:

“God knows the future! His foreknowledge has rightly been prized hy Christians of all generations. Much of the confidence, hope, and joy of the Christian life traditionally has heen based on the conviction that God knows the future . . . Thus throughout the various traditions of the church, Christians have taken great comfort in God's response to their prayers, precisely because He knows all things perfectly, including all of the future. Indeed, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus encourages his disciples to a robust life of prayer precisely because "your heavenly Father knows what you need before you ask" (Matthew 6:8).

“In what ways could God's repentance be different from human repentance? John Calvin is helpful here. He seeks to understand how humans might come to change their minds and then asks whether any or all of those factors might be present in God. Calvin proposes that a change of mind can come in a human being when one is "ignorant of what is going to happen, or cannot escape it, or hastily and rashly rushes into a decision of which he immediately needs to repent.” In other words, human beings might repent if they learn something new that they had been previously ignorant of, or if they realize they do not have the power to do what was originally planned, or if they develop a new perspective in which what was originally thought to be a good plan is now understood to be not so good. Calvin, then, argues that none of these conditions (lack of power, lack of knowledge, lack of a proper perspective) apply to God. "Concerning repentance, we ought so to hold that it is no more chargeable to God than is ignorance, or error, or powerlessness ...”

“So how should we understand the repentance of God if we affirm his foreknowledge of free human decisions? I suggest that divine repentance denotes Gods awareness of a change in the human situation and his resulting change of emotions or actions in light of this changed situation . . . this does not necessarily imply that the changed human circumstances were unforeseen by God and that God has learned something new as a result of these free human decisions.”

The book ends with the following words from Isaiah 46, which seem to me to be pretty conclusive:

“I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose’
...I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
I have purposed, and I will do it.”

Search Christian Sites for More on This Subject