The Foreknowledge of God

[Homer]

NJchosen,

I agree with Darin. If we are to have a discussion, with need to proceed point by point. Very early on in your post, Pink? said:

the Enemy sends along some man to argue that election is based upon the foreknowledge of God, and this "foreknowledge" is interpreted to mean that God foresaw certain ones would be more pliable than others, that they would respond more readily to the strivings of the Spirit, and that because God knew they would believe, He, accordingly, predestinated them unto salvation. But such a statement is radically wrong. It repudiates the truth of total depravity, for it argues that there is something good in some men.

So those who do not agree with Pink because they do not believe his concept of "total depravity, the "T" in your TULIP, are psuedo teachers. You have posted the accusation. I suggest you give us your biblical proof of total depravity. As you must know. your Calvinist system falls apart if this, and each other of the five points, is not true.

I am not sure how much discussion you will get. I suspect some folks are a tad weary of the Calvinist logomachy.

It is interesting that until Augustine the were no teachers other than Pink's "pseudos".

[darinhouston]

logomachy

I had to look that one up -- nice one...

[NJchosen]

Darinhouston,

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.

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.

NJchosen

[NJchosen]

Homer,

What I gather from scripture concerning man is as follows,

Romans 3
"THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; 11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; 12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." 13 "THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING," "THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS"; 14 "WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS"; 15 "THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD, 16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS, 17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN." 18 "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES."

1 Cor 2:14
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

John 1:5
The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

2 Co 4:4
in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

There is none who seeks for God, there is none who understands, there is none who does good, not even one. Why do you or others believe the natural man can do good? Can seek for God? And can understand? The natural man does not accept or understand the things of God, they are foolishness to him. Why? Because the things of God are understood spiritually. You must be a spiritual man to understand spiritual things. This cannot be said of the natural man. The natural man also loves the darkness, he cannot comprehend the light. Why do some say he can? How do you understand these verses about man? Either the natural man of his own initiative can seek for God or he cannot, either he can understand spiritual things or he cannot. Arminians say, fallen man has the ability to choose God freely of his own will. Choosing God would be a great eternal thing! However the one choosing God had to have been seeking God, comprehend the light, remove the blinders themselves so the things of God no longer were foolishness to him. They would have to somehow become a spiritual man to even understand. This is why I believe man is unable to believe or repent on their own initiative and why it is God and Him alone who saves and transforms a natural man to a spiritual man, making them born again, to where they have the ability to understand, there is no blinders, they now love the light and comprehend it, and they do seek for their God. Why? Because salvation was all of God, God supernaturally changed the heart of the guilty sinner, regenerating them, and only because He chose them, "foreknew" them and as Pink had laid out for us in the first post here, God's foreknowing His elect had nothing to do with something we believed or anything we did, but because of His own purposes.

NJchosen

[steve]

Hi NJ,

I know that the verses you have supplied are not the total case for total depravity, and the inability of the unregenerate man to choose God, but a couple of your verses are among the best for the case. I would suggest, however, that you included some verses which say nothing to your point.

One of those is John 1:5—"The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

You are apparently seeing this as teaching that people who are in darkness are incapable of grasping the light that comes to them. While it is possible for the verb rendered "comprehend" to be taken in the sense of "grasp" or "understand," it is more generally taken to mean "overcome." Thus the statement John is making is that darkness can not overcome, or extinguish, the light. You are also taking "darkness" to mean "people who are in darkness," and therefore you are making the verse speak in some sense of the limitations of unenlightened people. It seems more natural for the word "darkness" to be taken as the simple opposite of "light." Light shines, and darkness cannot defeat it. There is no need to interpret "light" as a reference to individuals who are in the light, nor "darkness" as individuals who are in the darkness. In John's statement, light is a phenomenon. Darkness is the opposite phenomenon, just as in John 3:19-21; 1 John 1:6-7; and similar passages.

I also see no value in appealing to 2 Cor. 4:4 for your point ("in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God"). The passage does indeed speak of people who have been blinded by Satan, but it does not tell us what percentage of the unregenerate population may be blinded in this manner.

In the context, Paul applies the description to those from whom the gospel is hidden or veiled (v.3). There is no indication that all unbelievers are in this category, and the implication is otherwise, as in verse 2, Paul mentions that he commends his ministry and message "to every man's conscience." This would suggest that Paul counts upon the consciences of some people to be able to discern that Paul is telling the truth. These are contrasted with others, for whom the gospel is veiled, in the next verse. In Ephesians 4:18-19, Paul also describes those who suffer from "blindness of heart." He does not suggest that this is the condition of all men from birth. In fact, he says that they are "past feeling" (apparently having previously been capable of feeling) and have "given themselves over" to the sins that resulted in their blindness.

Also, Romans 1 (which you did not mention, but I will) describes people who are reprobate, and apparently unable to repent. But Romans 1 does not describe the original condition of these people. Paul says that people come into this condition as a result of God "giving them up to" that state—which is said to be the result of a whole chain of their earlier decisions, which began with their knowing, but suppressing, the truth. Thus Paul sees Gentiles as a pretty rotten lot, many of whom have become totally blind and insensitive to God's message. However, he does not teach that all men (or even any men) were born in this condition, nor that every man has come into this state.

The Romans 3 montage that you cited is one of the top-three Calvinist proof texts for total depravity. But Calvinists fail to take into consideration a) who is comprehended under Paul's (actually David's and Isaiah's) description, and b) the obvious use of hyperbole in the verses Paul is quoting.

As for the first of these, Paul clearly tells us that he is making a case against Jews (who think themsleves morally superior to Gentiles), in verse 19. Paul's point is that these descriptions of sinners, such as most Jews would apply to Gentiles, were actually speaking, in their original contexts in Psalms and Isaiah, of Jewish people. Thus Paul says they apply to "those under the law" (meaning Jews). Of course, Paul is not arguing that Gentiles are innocent, and that none of them could fit these descriptions. However, he is not addressing that subject, and should not be made to do so by people with a point to prove, which Paul was not affirming.

As for the second, it is clear that David's and Isaiah's words (quoted by Paul) were not literally true, even of all the Jews, of whom they were speaking. The passages are poetic, and rife with hyperbole. In saying "there is none that seeks after God," the palmist was not being absolute, as, in the same psalm, he goes on to speak about exceptions to this statement, whom he calls "the generation of the righteous" (Psalm 14:5). The same psalm's statement that the wicked "eat up my people like bread" (v.4) should sufficiently warn us not to take the words more literally than the writers intended.

1 Corinthians 2:14 is another favorite of the Calvinists: "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." In the context, Paul is explaining why he was unable to teach "spiritual things" to the carnal Corinthians—they were not able to receive such things (cf.1 Cor.3:1-2). The "things of the Spirit of God," to which Paul refers, do not include the gospel itself, but "the deep things of God" which must be revealed to spiritual men by the Spirit of God (2:10, 14). Paul only teaches such things to "mature" Christians (v.6). The Corinthians were not mature, but were carnal, just like "natural men" (3:3), and could therefore not be expected to grasp these deeper spiritual truths. Indeed, Paul did not even try to teach them to these people. However, he did preach "Christ, and Him crucified" to them (2:2), because they were obviously able to receive such basic things, even without being spiritual people. Thus the gospel itself ("Christ, and Him crucified") was not among the "things of the Spirit of God" which natural men (like the Corinthians) do not receive, and the verse you cited does not address the question of whether unregenerate men can understand and receive the gospel message.

In discussing matters so central to the issue of God's plan of salvation as the question of whether God judges men for not doing what they are unable to do—which reflects negatively on the justice and character of God—it is important that we make an effort to correctly exegete passages, rather than simply listing them and assuming that they mean something that someone told us they mean.

[darinhouston]

Darinhouston,

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.

You may be asking the wrong person, because my view of the foreknowledge of God is a little different than some around here. Personally, I presently believe God sees "what He wants to see" -- that is, He can definitely tell the future, and He foreknows some things, but seemingly shields his knowledge of other things.

That said, I'm not sure what point you're making -- what's the question, exactly, and how does it bear on the present discussion? I understand that the word used for foreknowledge is capable of a number of shades of meaning, including both perception of future events, and understanding and recognizing, etc. sometimes of thoughts, of events, or people, and it is the context that provides this meaning. In this passage, in particular, I'm not sure Pink's point is well taken -- I'll ask you --

(1) how does careful attention to the wording make it seen that he is speaking of the person rather than the act ?
(2) why does it matter ?

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.

More has been written on this verse (here and elsewhere) than I could possibly add value, but there are a number of ways to read this, including the foreknowledge being the "collective whom" of the church. I might say, "I hear frequently from Calvinists on Theos, whom I think have wrong doctrine...." In that usage, clearly I'm not referring to their doctrine by "whom" -- it is the whole group, collectively, without specific mention of specific people.

But, even if it is the individuals, what about the individuals is he said to have foreknown? Why does the pronoun prevent the nature of their hearts, etc., being in view here?

I believe this verse merely says that God has fixed the eternal destiny of those who would believe and be members of the Church, and that if they were in the Church, their eternal destiny was assured.

"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.

I have a word study of "foreknowledge" from the appendix of a book "God's Strategy in Human History" that I highly recommend. It takes each of the verses using the word and exegetes them with the various interpretations. If I can get my scanner's software to work properly, I'll post the section on this word. But, here is this particular passage, as it is fairly short...

This is the first verse we have considered in which the object of the "previous-knowledge" is a personal one. It could mean either of the following:

(1) When God made the promises to israel he knew that most of the nation would fall at the time of Christ. In spite of this knowledge, god made the promises and so will not go back on them now. This would be to interpret knowledge in the sense of (a/6) above i.e., a knowledge of persons that does not necessarily imply a relationship, but an understanding of their thinking and reactions.
(2) God entered into a personal relationship with Israel before their later unbelief to which Paul refers. Thus God "foreknew them" or "knew them of old." This is a possible meaning but we should note three things about it. First, it is not necessarily implied by the fact that the object is personal (see (a/6) above and (5) below). Second, if it is true, it does not mean that God entered in some former time into a relationship with the Israelites of today; it means that he entered a (two-way) relationship with the Israel that existed in early Old Testament times, and he regards the present Israelites as integral with it. Third, there would be no reason to bring in a concept of choice other than that which is an integral part of a special relationship.

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.

NJchosen

This is a similar response to the Acts passage, I believe.

[NJchosen]

Steve,

Thanx for your reply. I will look over those passages again and respond. You know I grew up in Calvary Chapel and I was taught the middle ground on this issue and I believed what others told me, and it wasn't until years later that these and other scriptures changed my views. Yes, there were possibly two Calvinists who I listened sermons a few times in those years. However back then I didn't even really know what Calvinism was, though I was told it was not true and told others the same. Just like we were taught Dispensationalism and believed it for a time.

NJchosen

[steve]

Yeah, NJ, it does take some sorting out. I do not take the Calvary Chapel middle view. I have had to work through the relevant passages myself over the years. That's what I would recommend everyone do for himself. The main guideline I would suggest is, as you progress toward a conclusion about any doctrine, don't stop and settle for any view that portrays God as less merciful or less loving than Jesus toward sinners.

[darinhouston]

Yeah, NJ, it does take some sorting out. I do not take the Calvary Chapel middle view. I have had to work through the relevant passages myself over the years. That's what I would recommend everyone do for himself. The main guideline I would suggest is, as you progress toward a conclusion about any doctrine, don't stop and settle for any view that portrays God as less merciful or less loving than Jesus toward sinners.

Steve, how would you describe the Calvary Chapel middle view?

[steve]

Calvary Chapel rejects Calvinism, but holds to a "Once-Saved-Always-Saved" position (if they have not changed in the years since I was there). Chuck Smith believes there is an inexplicable mystery involved in harmonizing divine election and human free will. His view would typically be expressed as follows:

"On the outside of the gate of heaven, it says, 'Whosoever will may come.' But on the inside of the gate, it says, 'You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.'"

Like Tozer, who said, "I am a Calvinist when I pray, but an Arminian when I preach," Chuck Smith (whose views define Calvary Chapel orthodoxy) believes (the last I heard) that God sovereignly ordains all things, but somehow, mysteriously, man's will remains free.

My view is different, in that I do not see any logical tension between God's election (which is corporate) and man's free will (which is individual).