Biblical Foreknowledge? (Part 1)
June 2nd, 2007
(By Nathan Williams)
There is no doubt that the Bible teaches the doctrine of election. The language of God’s picking and choosing fills the pages of Scripture. For some people this language can be difficult to read and even more difficult to accept. How can a good and gracious God choose people for salvation based on no merit of their own? How can that be fair?
Some have tried to deal with what they see as the thorny doctrine of election by a misunderstanding of the term “foreknowledge.” They have no problem with election because they understand election to mean that God simply looked down the corridors of time and saw who would exercise faith and then elected those people to salvation. This helps to alleviate some of the pressure they feel when talking of “picking” and “choosing.”
But is this the correct understanding of the biblical term foreknowledge? Is God’s election a response to those who will exercise faith in Him? In these couple of posts I hope to shed some light on the biblical term foreknowledge and its relationship to election.
Definitions
There are 2 main explanations of the term “foreknowledge.” One explanation takes “foreknowledge” to be simple prescience. God knows in the sense that he perceives those who will exercise faith in Him. This would be the equivalent of saying that I “know” that my car is an ugly green. I understand the facts of the situation because my senses have supposed them to be true.
The second explanation argues that the term “foreknowledge” means a bit more than simple knowledge. Those holding to this explanation would teach that the term can mean intimate knowledge and not just prescience. The dispute is based on the Greek word proginosko. One Arminian writer ( C. Gordon Olson) says, “The verb simply means, ‘to know beforehand, foreknow’ and the noun, ‘foreknowledge,’ or ‘prescience.’” He claims that Calvinists have made far too much of the supposed “pregnant meaning” in the Greek term proginosko.
The facts show that it is plausible to think that this term connotes more than simple prescience. There are multiple locations throughout the New Testament where the term cannot possibly mean a simple prescience (Mt. 25:12; Jn. 10:14; I Cor. 8:3; 2 Tim. 2:19). In fact, the term can and often does mean much more than natural perception. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament states: “Thus knowledge has an element of acknowledgement. But it also has an element of emotion, or better, of movement of will . . . .” In another place the same dictionary says: “His foreknowledge, however, is an election or foreordination of His people (Rom. 8:29; 11:2) or Christ (I Pet. 1:20).”
With this proper understanding of “foreknowledge” as an intimate knowledge, it helps us to see that God does not simply perceive who will choose Him and then elect them. “Thus, ‘according to the foreknowledge’ suggests ‘according to God’s fatherly care for you before the world was made’” (Wayne Grudem).
Specific Texts
There are several places throughout Scripture where the term “foreknowledge” is used. I would like to look at a few of those and explain how implausible it is that the term means simple prescience. First, in Acts 2:23 the passage says that Jesus was “delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God.” It is interesting to note here that the word by is used of God’s foreknowledge. Would simple knowledge act in this way? Simple foreknowledge would know but would not act.
Romans 8:29 also uses the word “foreknowledge” in reference to our salvation. It is used as the beginning link in a series of words that describe the acts of God in salvation. In this passage the object of the verb “foreknew” is personal, referring to “those whom.” Foreknowledge here means to set a personal love upon. It is very close in meaning to the next word in the chain, predestined, but there is a difference. “Foreknowledge” emphasizes God’s covenantal love for the one He has chosen, while “predestined” emphasizes his electing will.
Three chapters later in Romans 11:2 we have a conclusive example that “foreknowledge” as used in the Bible means “intimate knowledge” and not simply to know beforehand. The verb here cannot mean only knowledge based on what we know of Israel and the surrounding context. Did God see in advance some reason to choose Israel as His special nation? There was nothing worthy about the people of Israel. In fact, it was quite the opposite. They were most unworthy (see v. 3)! Yet, Romans 11:2 says that God foreknew them. Surely, the word used here must mean something more than to look down the corridors of time and see who responds as God desires.
Finally, I Peter 1:1, 2 is the classic text used to teach that God’s election is based on His foreseeing man’s faith. The passage says that we “are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Proponents of Arminianism teach that we should understand this to mean that God’s election is based on His foreknowledge. God only chooses those whom He sees will respond in faith. Even a casual glance at the text will show this is an impossible assumption to take from the text. The verse clearly says “according to” and not “on the basis of.” The preposition translated “according to” in English is kata in Greek. This word can never mean “on the basis of.” It has a variety of definitions, and they all indicate “the harmony of the items mentioned . . . ” (Buswell). Thus, foreknowledge does not provide the basis for election. Rather, it always operates in harmony with His electing will. His knowledge is predicated on His choosing, not on the influence of any outside will. Nothing about this passage suggests that God reacts to human faith.
In our next installment (scheduled for next weekend) I will take a look at some further reasons for denying that “foreknowledge” means simply to know beforehand. In so doing, I hope to show that there are clear biblical reasons to believe that God’s choice of who will be saved is based on His sovereign prerogative alone.
The other day my son applied for work online; a section required that he share what came to mind first after reading. And so I will here.
“’Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus,
And to take Him at His Word;
Just to rest upon His promise,
And to know, “Thus says the Lord!”
I’m grateful.
But this hyper-Calivinist view means that God, who could save everybody if He so chose, simply doesn’t want to. How does this line up with God is love and is not willing that any should perish and His repeated pleas for people to repent?
On the flip side…
How does God in His infinite might and glory, who desperately wants to save everybody, in fact He died for all sins, yet somehow He’s just not good enough to finish the job?
David, I would submit that this view is not hyper-Calvinism. In my understanding the “hyper” comes in (or at least rears its ugly head) in practical terms (aka. not believing in evangelism).
And John is certainly correct… should not an all powerful God be able to save everyone? If His “love” is defined on your terms, why wouldn’t He save everyone regardless?
Here are some shorter answers to your question. Calvanism holds that everyone is affected by sin to the extent that, as Paul says in Ephesians 2, that we are dead. That’s obviously not physical death, but spiritual death (“in our trespasses and sins”). If that is the case, then what potential does a dead person have in making a decision? A dead person can’t do anything but stay dead.
A broader persective would be to see, again as Paul showed throughout Ephesians, that part of God’s purpose in creation, fall, and redemption is to display to angels that which they themselves could not experience. Being in His presence they had no understanding of grace. God therefore puts Himself on display by rightfully and justly condemning those worthy of death (this brings glory to Him as His perfect justice is fulfilled), and by graciously and mercifully saving some who deserve death (this obviously glorifies Him).
Paul in Romans anticipates several reactions:
“What shall we say then, there is no injustice in God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, ‘ I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” (Romans 9:14-16)
“You will say to me then, ‘Why does He find fault? For who resists His will?’ On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded does not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,’ will it?” (Romans 9:19-20)
David, people who have a proper understanding of the “doctrines of Grace” are not impassionate, disconnected theologues who are ready to let the world pass away while we relish in our election. Rather we are brought low by our own unworthiness and inability to come to God apart from His grace. We know that left to ourselves we are enemies of God. In our natural deadness we are only free to choose sin, and totally incapable of choosing God. Furthermore, once God has opening our hearts and brought us to faith in Him, we also know that God has called everyone to preach the Gospel. God saves people, but He uses people who spread the Gospel to do it. We do not know whom He has chosen, so we preach to everyone.
In the end we give absolutely all glory to God for salvation because He began the good work, and He will be faithful to finish it.
Here would be something else to consider, many who disregard election or at least construe it to give ultimate responsibility to man still verbally say that they glorify God for their salvation. They do that because they know they’re supposed to. But it is inconsistent with the belief that they are ultimately responsible. If it was my choice to be saved, then I ought to congratulate myself, not thank God.
Anyway… I hope those thoughts help. I know there are many questions that arise, and certainly many Scriptures that may appear to contradict, but don’t be afraid to bring those up. I assure you that there are answers to them (though the answer to some is, “we don’t know until we meet God face to face”, but such it is with the Trinity).
God bless,
Gabriel
Brothers David and John,
Your words contain evidence of problems that arise when we create a concept of God based on human perception of “fair” or “right” and then extrapolate them to Someone Bigger than us. I appeal to you so support your concept of God from the text of Scripture.
I suggest that even using words like God “who desperately wants to save everybody” but “is not good enough to get the job done” not only misrepresents God, but it also misrepresents the view of Calvinist brethren. God is never desperate nor not good enough, and I don’t know anyone who loves Christ and believes those things. Scripture teaches a universal call to repentance and salvation (Matthew 11:28-30) alongside God’s absolute sovereignty over salvation (John 6:44). Both are true at all times, and the fact I cannot reconcile them (in my finite sin-cursed reasoning) does not diminish either human responsibility or divine sovereignty.
It’s also not useful to attach the prefix “hyper” to views with which you disagree. Let’s deal with the actual words of Scripture (mostly missing from your challenges) and eschew name-calling. Please present biblical substance to support your statements about God’s character.
What God does is good and righteous, by definition. If it does not match my flawed human perception of goodness, the problem is with me, not with God. I would like to hear your exegesis of the texts used in the article rather than ad hominem attacks or appeals to a doctrine of God you have not supported from Scripture.
Thank you Gabriel, for citing Romans 9. Every question which begins with “Why . . .” which is not directly answered by the text of God’s word must ultimately be left unanswered, and “I reject that verse because I don’t like it” is not an option available to us.
Romans 8:29-30,
Jim
“I would like to hear your exegesis of the texts used in the article rather than ad hominem attacks or appeals to a doctrine of God you have not supported from Scripture.”
@ Jim Harris
Sorry, to make it seem like an ad hominem attack, I just wanted brother David Moore to see that by using “easy logic” one can deduce the complete opposite statement.
You’re totally right in what you said and hey I believe in limited atonement and do not agree with the statement that “God is desperate…” ie I don’t agree with the statement I made – just throwing out food for thought.
Once again, I was simply making a fast statement to counter David Moore’s. I really wish I had time to make a good exegesis, but I knew somebody else would (and did).
edit: I certainly wasn’t trying to represent Calvinist views in my initial statement, but was working under the Arminian paradigm to show its flaws.
While I would never suggest the absurd notion that our neighbor’s salvation is dependent on us (a la the Jack T. Chick model that has everyone just dying to jump into Jesus arms but we don’t present Him, therefore they are damned for eternity) I DO believe from scripture that man’s REJECTION of natural revelation (Romans 1) or the gospel proper is the cause of his banishment from the presence of God. “Chose you this day” “Come now, let us reason together” “Turn to me, all you ends of the earth and live! Why would you die?” What, He doesn’t mean those things?
I know fallen man isn’t walking down the street admiring nature and deciding to himself, “Hey, this God fella’s pretty neat. I’d like to get to know him”. I realize that “none seeks after God”. Buut..when we find “He first loved us” man can respond. some “did not like to retain the knowledge of God ” and “had pleasure in unrighteousness” and therein, I think lies the choice.
Anyway.. no time, busy at work, I’m just babbling but I don’t think I’ll ever accept that God doesn’t extend the offer of salvation to all. We reject Him.
David,
“I don’t think I’ll ever accept that God doesn’t extend the offer of salvation to all. We reject Him.”
I would submit that God does extend the offer to all by means of men and women who spread the gospel. The doctrine of election is not who gets to hear the gospel, but only that no one–apart from God’s grace–will accept what they hear, as I said because we are spiritually dead and are incapable of making such a decision.
The appeals you quoted are necessary because we as the proclaimers don’t know whom God enabled to respond, so we plead to everyone and allow God to do the saving.
If God is not willing that any should perish, how come so many are perishing in their sins? And if Christ’s propitiation on Calvary is for the whole world, then how come the whole world is not saved?
Also, how can a dead man choose for himself what he wants?
This is why I love Arthur Pink’s book…….”The Sovereignty of God” and this is why I love scripture because scripture gives a very balanced approach toward this issue and in my finite understanding, there is much that I will never be able to reconcile. so I have always seen it as God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility woven together and where they meet, I can not see, but nevertheless they work together, otherwise how else will God hold man responsible (Romans 1)?
Thanks, Gabriel, it’s been a pleasure hearing from you. You said “allow God to do the saving”. My point exactly, they must allow it. I believe in Calvin’s limited atonement but not irresistible grace.
God prevents some from believing and makes others believe?
Sounds like a puppet show conducted by a capricious tyrant to me. If I ever start believing this I’ll spend the rest of my life in misery and fear. And isn’t a litle wickedly selfish to have joy that we won the spiritual eeny-meeny-miney-moe and saying, in effect, too bad to the poor schlubs who weren’t programmed to respond? Where is free will in all this?
Gabriel, you said…If it was my choice to be saved, then I ought to congratulate myself, not thank God.
Not at all! If a fireman extends you a ladder just before the flames consume you, powerless though you wre, would you not thank him?
Nathan,
I realize you’re writing on “foreknowledge” but I would submit that you forgot to mention one alternative relative to the referent of foreknowledge and predestination. You said:
Some have tried to deal with what they see as the thorny doctrine of election by a misunderstanding of the term “foreknowledge.” They have no problem with election because they understand election to mean that God simply looked down the corridors of time and saw who would exercise faith and then elected those people to salvation. This helps to alleviate some of the pressure they feel when talking of “picking” and “choosing.”
You seem to frame this discussion by the typical framework of justification; while I would argue that all of the passages that you note, and others not noted, but pertinent to this discussion, are discussing God’s “choosing” and “electing” for “good works” (Eph. 2:10). Also His election of a nation, Israel, as an “instrument” of mediating salvation to the nations. My presupposition is that the New Testament is speaking to people who already have been “justified”; subsequently, references to salvation are informed by features characteristic of issues surrounding sanctification; viz. issues dealing with communion with God, and not ultimately union as the Calv./Arm. dialogue presupposes.
Anyway I thought I would mention this as another alternative to at least mention within the series you’re doing on this issue.
In Christ
David, where is free will? A person “in Adam” rather than “in Christ” does have a sense of free will…but it is free to only act in that nature(that unless made alive spiritually doesn’t and can’t seek or understand the things of God).
If you want to better understand Calvinism(not a new teaching but rather what has always been woven through the pages of the Bible that was again upheld against heresy during the time of the Reformation) with many verses typically questioned(can’t say for certain it is included but there will be similar ~ where the Bible speaks of God not willing that any should perish…who is the “any”? One must examine the context of the particular verse and embrace verses that come before to see who is being spoken to specifically in the chapter and verse and who the “any” is specifically targeting according to God…no preconceived notions or assumptions or interpreting Scripture according to what has been previously heard that may or may not be correct, please.), you might find this DVD for fee set helpful:
Amazing Grace: The History & Theology of Calvinism
http://www.monergismbooks.com/amazinggracedvd.html
For free you might want to read:
Monergism versus Synergism
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/whatismonergism2.html
or maybe this:
The New Birth
http://www.reformed.com/pub/newbirth.htm
Please examine all in light of the Word of God with the Holy Spirit illuminating; hope this has been helpful.
Bobby,
I am trying to understand your position on these passages I have mentioned and on other passages including Ephesians 2:10 which speak of being chosen for good works. Is it fair to say that you would separate justification and sanctification to the point where you would say that the Bible speaks of our election to be sanctified but not our election to be justified?
Nathan Williams
Nathan,
yes. It is an option that I’ve heard some others articulate, and I am considering it for myself.
Essentially this view would forward that “election” in the Bible is referencing issues regarding sanctification. Although one is of course presupposed by the other, i.e. justification is logically prior to sanctification, and they have interpenetrating components–but when I look at passages like Eph. 2 and Rom. 9–11 I don’t see the “dogmatic” categories emphasized that Calvinists see. For example when Eph. 2 speaks of the purpose of our predestination in Christ it is referencing “holy living” which would be a feature of sanctification; i.e. post justification. Similarly with Rom. 8–11, the illustration that Israel provides isn’t Gods’ choice of them for justification, in its original context, but the fact that he chose them to be the mediate nation that would bring His Messiah and salvation to the world.
I’m not completely sold on this trajectory, the one I’ve mentioned, but I think it is an alternative that should be considered from the spectre of biblical theology vs. dogmatic.
In Christ
David, your fireman illustration is a good one, but it still ignores what Paul teaches in Ephesians 2 that prior to salvation we are dead. “And you were dead in your trespasses and sins” he says in verse 1, but it is God that has made us alive by grace (v. 5). A ladder would only be helpful if the fireman came in and picked you up off the floor and carried you out!
RC Sproul once told of a debate between himself and another fellow (I don’t know who) about election. RC brought up John 6:44 as a clear statement of how God “compells” us to salvation (irresistable grace), “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him…” The other guy said how the word for “draws” is used in exra-biblical material in the sense of drawing water from a well. He was making the point that one does not verbally compell water to come up. RC countered in agreement, stating that rather one pulls up the water hand over hand until it reaches the top.
The reality of all this is that there is an abundance of Scripture that teaches election where God is the initiator and executor of salvation. Yet there are also many verses that appear to contradict because they reveal some level of responsibility on the person. Calvanists don’t disregard the person’s responsibility, we merely acknowledge that the Bible teaches both (though many would argue that it emphasizes God’s work more), and we must acknowledge that no one is saved apart from His grace, and be content to say that where the line of responsibility is drawn is a mystery.
Surely the answer is not to disregard election completely (as some do), or even explain it away with a prescient view (as Nate wrote about in this article). And most definitely the answer is not to reject it based on emotional appeals of “puppets” and “unfair” and many other reasons people do. In speaking to a friend of mine over the phone she rejected it saying “it just doesn’t feel right… my spirit is telling me its not true.” The reality is that Scripture teaches it and we need to submit ourselves to Scripture even if it just doesn’t make sense.
If you haven’t read any books on the subject I would highly recommend James Boyce’s “Doctrines of Grace”. It is an excellent treatment of the subject. Of course there are other works like Martin Luther’s “Bondage of the Will” and I’m sure other contemporary works. This doctrine, while not a salvatio issue (required to be believe in order to be saved), it is an immensly practical issue. It changes how we evangelize, how we do church, and many other things.
“If I ever start believing this I’ll spend the rest of my life in misery and fear.” Why would this be?
Also, how would you interpret “For the mind of the flesh is death… because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Romans 8:6-8)?
David, I’m quite certain that I will be unable to convince you via this format. But I do hope that you will at the very least recognize that there is enough Biblical evidence that warrants care study of Scripture, which includes reading works from folks on both sides of the isle. If anyone is going to dismiss the doctrine of election, they must deal with a host of Scriptures that are very explicit (as we also deal with passages that appear to contradict our view).
I’m sorry for the long post…
Have a great Lord’s day everyone!
>God, who could save everybody if He so chose, simply >doesn’t want to.
Certainly God could save everybody if He so chose. And yes, there is one sense in which God does want all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4).
But it is also true that ultimately he does not want all men to be saved. We know this because he does not save everyone, even though he could. If he could and he does not, that must mean that he does not want to (in some other, greater sense which trumps 1 Timothy 2:4).
In this greater sense, God does not “want” to save everybody, because there is something greater at stake than the salvation of everybody: His own glory. Somehow, in a way that we cannot necessarily understand, God’s glory is magnified in eternal heaven because there are sinners suffering for their sins in eternal hell (Romans 9:22-23).
God’s mercy to some does not call into question his justice to all. God is just because every sin will be punished, either in hell or on the cross.
There are at least two ways to “question” this. In one case, the sinner can marvel that God would save him, in light of what the sinner deserves. There is certainly nothing wrong with this kind of “questioning”. But in another case, the sinner can question God’s justice, in the sense of doubting that God really is just, and doubting that God really does have the sovereign power to do whatever he pleases (Romans 9:20).
Gary
IMO, this is one of the weaker points of the Calvinist system, in effect removing any meaningful distinction between “predestination” and “foreknowledge.” Arminians believe this is a false imposition, a bit of the theological tail wagging the biblical dog.
There is much more to the concept of “knowing” in the NT than is presented here. The Arminian view does not impose “simple prescience” as the only connotation of foreknowledge. Indeed, it is a much richer concept than this article suggests, but there is one thing that it is not: there is not a single instance where the term as applied to INDIVIDUALS means what Calvinists want it to mean, an act of determinist selection.
An analysis of the NT texts where the words for “know” have persons as their objects, i.e., where the action of knowing is specifically directed toward persons and not facts as such, shows that in such cases these words never have the connotation of “choosing” or “imposing a distinction.” This applies to “ginosko,” “epiginosko,” and “oida.”
The first, and by far the most common, is a form of “recognition,” to know intimately a person.
A second meaning is “acknowledgment,” where “to know” means not only to have a cognitive knowledge of someone’s identity, but also to admit or acknowledge that identity. Again, this acknowledging does NOT impose a particular identity upon anyone, but simply confesses it.
The third and most intimate connotation of “to know” when a person or persons are its object is to know experientially, to experience a relationship with someone. Again, it presupposes cognition but goes beyond it.
But here’s the important thing: In each case the act of knowing does NOT create a person’s identity or his distinction from other people. It does not do what Calvinists want it to do.
The passages cited in the main article, when properly viewed, thus support the Arminian position.
Acts 2:23 does NOT refer to persons, but to an event. This citation is used by the author to show that “foreknowledge” does not mean “simple prescience” all the time, but that’s not the issue. As discussed, that point is not in dispute.
What remains in dispute, and what the verse does not touch upon, is determinism (the ultimate Calvinist belief, no matter what verbiage is used to couch it). It does not teach that God forces saving will upon any person. (A sidenote here is that sometimes a Greek grammar rule known as “Sharp’s Rule” is used incorrectly on this verse.)
Romans 8:29 actually teaches the very opposite of what Calvinists want it to mean. Again, “intimate knowledge” is not the issue. The issue is whether God imposes his will upon individuals for salvific choice. This verse does not teach that. It does not conflate “foreknew” with “predestined,” making them the same, and thus destroying the use of distinct language.
In short, no instance of “knowing” or “pre-knowing” individuals by God means an imposition of will or determination of choice. It’s simply not there. For Calvinists, of course, it MUST be there, and this is where the real imposition comes, by theologians upon the text.
I do value my Calvinist brothers and sisters on many things and we share so much in common. Thank you for being a place that takes the Bible seriously and treats it as inerrant.
. “Foreknowledge” emphasizes God’s covenantal love for the one He has chosen, while “predestined” emphasizes his electing will.”
Amen.
“You only have I known of all the families of the earth” Amos 3:2
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” Jer. 1:5
“But when it pleased God, who seperated me from my mother’s womb, AND CALLED ME THROUGH HIS GRACE”. Gal. 1:15
“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!” Matt. 7:23
It’s all about His grace, from the first cry at birth, to our last breath, Jesus commands our destiny.
God knows His own for sure; He is the Eterna, Infinite, All-knowing Lord. And God doesn’t know those who are not His own.
It is an astounishing thought that Christ would give Himself for me, and that He loved me (Gal. 2:20), before the foundations of the world, and that it was very intimate, and personal knowledge.
Beyond comprehension really.
Very good post, and comments on both sides. Look forward to your next lesson and study.
“Foreknowledge” emphasizes God’s covenantal love for the one He has chosen, while “predestined” emphasizes his electing will.”
I agree with all of the Doctrines of Grace. However, there is one issue that I am having difficulty understanding. If God has Foreknown, predestined, chosen, from the beginning of time who would be saved, then should we not also conclude he has done the same for those who are in Hell? (An elect for Heaven and An Elect for Hell)
How do you explain this to those who believe “For God so Loved the World?”
Coram Deo,
Richard
It seems that much of the debate between Calvinism & Arminianism is tied to beliefs in which the Foremost attributes of God are, and what they mean in a practical way.
Arminians, if I understand their position correctly, would particularily celebrate the verse “God is love.” They then extrapolate thier understanding about what Love looks like (including whether you permit someone you love to self-destruct). They apply His love equally to every person. Love is more or less synonomous with Mercy. Thus, it is principally His Love which is rejected by those who see Hell.
Calvinists, if I understand the position correctly, would particularily celebrate “Holy Holy Holy is the Lord God Almighty.” They would indicate that even the angels celebrate His holiness, above His Love. (not to denegrate Love, but the greater emphais would fall on His holiness).
Because we all begin in the fallen state, we all begin as sinful. Sin offends His Holiness, and thus we have emnity with Him. If He did nothing, we would all naturally slide into a much-deserved Hell.
It magnifies His Grace (to His own Glory) that He selects some who hate Him to receive eternal life.
If His wrath was naturally upon each of us while in sin, it changes the emphasis. It is not as the arminian would charge, “God throwing away some people”, as though all humanity were heaven-bound, until he “unselected” some. It is, rather, the rescue of some of the multitude marching into hell.
“If His wrath was naturally upon each of us while in sin, it changes the emphasis. It is not as the arminian would charge, “God throwing away some people”, as though all humanity were heaven-bound, until he “unselected” some. It is, rather, the rescue of some of the multitude marching into hell.”
The Arminian would say the latter amounts to exactly the same thing. It still gives us a God who decides NOT to save some (whose spiritual condition was pre-ordained by Him). Those who end up in Hell are there because of God’s inaction on their behalf. This is why Calvin himself called “reprobation” a “horrible doctrine,” but one he felt bound to believe in scripturally. I differ with him on this point, but not with his characterization of the doctrine itself.
“How do you explain this to those who believe “For God so Loved the World?”
God Gave His Son, and all who come to Him, those whom the Father draws will be saved, for God will have mercy on whom He will, and compassion on whom He will.
All sinners are called to repent, and to believe the good news of the risen Christ.
But only those who have a heart transplant, that is, their heart of rock-hard granite is replace with a heart of flesh; their blind hearts are opened; their callous hearts are softened. This is something that only God can do, and if this happens than that same heart will cry out to Christ for mercy, and will trust in His death and ressurection for eternal life.
[...] Biblical Foreknowledge? (Part 1) [...]