Biblical Foreknowledge? (Part 2)
June 9th, 2007
(By Nathan Williams)
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!”
Too many congregations sit under pastors that don’t delve into teachings such as this…or any of the other “-tion” words(or variations) their flocks come across in Bible reading(condemnation, election, adoption, salvation, sanctification, justification, etc. ~ is there a MacArthur title that zones in on these, maybe???). When some do, it is a topical message with verses plucked in isolation to fit the denomination and too little book by book and verse by verse teaching that might speak quite differently. Thanking God for you taking on what He wants us to know.
Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Acts 17: 27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
Jeremiah 29: 13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
Lamentations 3: 25 The LORD is good unto them that wait for him, to the soul that seeketh him.
I think the only these could line up with “there is none that seeketh after God” is that AFTER God calls those He knows will respond, they are responsible to seek Him. They do not initiate, but they respond according to His foreknowledge.
I believe only this is consistent with God’s character.
The point is: One can argue that He punishes the lost for their sins but why does He reward the righteous? For what He made them do in the first place? There has to be respons somewhere in this, it cannot be a one-Man show
David,
He rewards the righteous based on the merits of Christ. Trying to look for a reason to reward us aside from that is inconsistent with grace.
“They do not initiate, but they respond according to His foreknowledge.”
This is a true statement, but is begging the question. The elect do indeed respond according to the foreknowledge of God. God predetermines to foreknow us, by grace are our eyes illuminated to the glory of God, and our hearts respond in faith. None who see such glory can ever do anything but believe it and follow after it, simply beacuse of how absolutely glorious and beautiful and pleasing it is. This is what is commonly called the doctrine of irresistible or effectual grace.
The whole problem with foreknowledge meaning “foreseen faith” is, taken to its logical conclusion, faith becomes a work. You and I were reasonable enough to accept God’s gift, whereas our neighbors weren’t. And so we have something to boast about.
But we’re not saved by works through faith; we’re saved by grace through faith. And we know faith is not a work; rather, it itself is a “gift from God” (Eph 2:8). There’s just no middle ground. “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace” (Rom. 11:6).
I’m not sure why so many people are bothered by “it being a one-Man show,” as you put it. I think the Bible is absolutely besotted with the God-centeredness of God. God does everything He does for His own glory. “The chief end of man is glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” So, I would argue, is the chief end of God. And it is because it is God’s chief end that it is our chief end. It is a one-Man show; His elect just get to enjoy it for no other reason aside from grace.
The statement, “It cannot be a one-Man show,” is the declarative form of the questions in Romans 9:19: “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” It’s basically saying, “How can He do everything according to His will, by Himself, with no one able to resist Him, and then still blame (or in your case, reward) people?” And the answer has been the same since 56 AD: “On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?” Who do we think we are to question God’s grace? Why would you even wanna do that?
) Is it not enough that we are recipients of it? Do we have to try to find some way we deserved it?
Finally, Nathan’s argument about an extraTheos determiner is excellent.
*****
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.
*****
How do you get around that? If God didn’t determine our destiny, who did? Did we? I know I sure didn’t. Did some source outside of God determine it? And if we really think about it, what event in this world — even the most minute detail — could possibly escape the foreordinance of God? In that vein, I strongly recommend this chapter: http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Attributes/attrib_02.htm by Arthur Pink in “The Attributes of God.”
Let me also say that I appreciate your genuineness in asking questions. I hope my comment has been received in the spirit of love and instruction, as I intended.
MIKE
Thanks agaom for the “sharpening iron” food for thought here. I always like the substantial nature of the posts. You wrote:
“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.”
This is a common misunderstanding. Prevenient grace is the Arminian doctrine and deals with the objection here. (A good text to read for clarity is Roger Olson’s new one on Arminian Theology. One doesn’t have to agree with the views therein, but should at least become conversant with what the actual views are.)
I still must conclude that the view of “foreknowledge” presented here makes it functionally equivalent to predestination (the distinction, IOW, is without any real difference in outcome), and therefore grammatically redundant. I don’t think this is what God intended to communicate.
Another common misunderstaning is to call the response of faith a “work”. This is not what the Bible means by “work,” which is an act that “merits” a return. No one believes a response of faith merits anything.
Note also that in Eph. 2:8,9, “faith” in the Greek is feminine and “this” is neuter. Thus, the “this” refers to the entire salvation event. Bruce puts it this way: “It is best to understand ‘and this’ as referring to salvation as a whole.”
Similarly Clarke, who, in magnificent language, gives us the biblical view of grace in miniature:
“The relative “this,” which is in the neuter gender, cannot stand for “faith,” which is the feminine; but it has the whole sentence that goes before for its antecedent.” But it may be asked: Is not faith the gift of God? Yes, as to the grace by which it is produced; but the grace or power to believe, and the act of believing, are two different things. Without the grace or power to believe no man ever did or can believe; but with that power the act of faith is a man’s own. God never believes for any man, no more than he repents for him: the penitent, through this grace enabling him, believes for himself: nor does he believe necessarily, or impulsively when he has that power; the power to believe may be present long before it is exercised, else, why the solemn warnings with which we meet every where in the word of God, and threatenings against those who do not believe? Is not this a proof that such persons have the power but do not use it? They believe not, and therefore are not established. This, therefore, is the true state of the case: God gives the power, man uses the power thus given, and brings glory to God: without the power no man can believe; with it, any man may.”
Amen! “God gives the power, man uses the power thus given, and brings glory to God”
This is why it is false humility for a man to say, after achieving some thing, “God did it, not I”. God, in gifting, basically dumps a load of material on one’s front lawn. Whether a man builds a clapboard outhouse or the Taj Mahal is where his work comes in (we are his c-laborers, the scripture says). God did not write the iconic Ninth Symphony, Beethoven did. Man does things, we must admit, albeit usually evil ones.
If grace were so irresistible, wopuld Cain, after a direct appeal from God, actually have killed Abel? No, I am not saying I saved myself or participated in my salvation in any way EXCEPT by recognizing my own inability to save myself or do any meritorious deed. Hardly something to boast about!
And yes, jsb, it is refreshing to come to this site and enjoy stimulating, intelligent, substantial discussions while so much of the “church” wallows in talk of “prophetic anointings” and (most laughably) “kingdom authority”. Being a mere sheep is fine with me!
Clarke’s quote: …”the penitent, through this grace enabling him, believes for himself: nor does he believe necessarily, or impulsively when he has that power; the power to believe may be present long before it is exercised, else, why the solemn warnings with which we meet every where in the word of God, and threatenings against those who do not believe?”
is v alidated, I think, by the exhortation, “today, if you hear His voice, harden not your heart”. Sounds like an appeal to a free moral agent with the power to choose.
I certainly can’t wrap my brain around “foreknowledge” being “covenantal love.” I believe this is a total stretch. Forknowledge is knowledge. It is soemthing in the way of intelligence. That is how it reads lexiconally as well. Because God is eternal, timeless, and omniscient, He knows ahead of time. I recognize that periodically the word “know” speaks of physical intimacy, but to read that into “foreknowledge” is a major jump that is not justified. It smacks of bad hermenutics.
So if foreknowledge is simply, “He knows ahead of time,” that requires that God looks into the future and sees events that have been determined. I assume we’d all agree on this unless we subscribe to openness theology.
So if God sees the events of a determined future, who determined that future?
“When we wind up in this position we end up trusting the fate of our lives to something outside of God.”
Well, not to be irreverent, but this is a case where I’d actually prefer to make a choice than to have God sovereignly determine that I go to hell!
So your answer to my question is, “I determined that future, Mike.” Do I understand that correctly?
As is the case with all things, good and bad, by God’s permissive will.
So before you were born — indeed, before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4) — YOU, albeit by God’s permissive will, you who didn’t exist, determined the course of events in your own life?
Nate: sorry to get off-topic for a sec but I am wondering when we can expect to see the Sermon Notes for the session you gave at ShepCon07 three months ago. Looking forward to them! Thanks. God bless.
Btw the reason I ask is I’m running into more and more third wave charismatic types and I thought your session was a wonderful job taking a very gentle approach of presenting their contentions and then the Scripture that refutes their claims.
It is a theological and philosophical error to aver that God cannot foresee future events unless they are “determined.” The error has two parts:
“From these remarks it appears, that all the difficulties which the Calvinists have raised, with respect to the consistency of Divine foreknowledge and human free will, arise from two mistakes: the first, of which consists in supposing that the simple, certain knowledge of an event, whether past, present, or future, is necessarily connected with a peculiar influence on that event; and the second consists in measuring God’s foreknowledge by our own, and supposing that because we cannot prophesy with absolute certainty, what free-willing creatures will do to-morrow, therefore God cannot do it. A conclusion this, which is as absurd as the following argument:—”We cannot create a grain of sand, nor comprehend how God could create it, and therefore God could neither create a grain of sand, nor comprehend how it was to be created.” (The Works of Rev. John Fletcher, Vol. 2)
As for the first mistake, I never committed to the position that God has a peculiar influence on the event. I’m still dealing in hypotheticals, because I don’t believe the idea that I’m positing even happens. God does not foresee faith in us and “elect” based on that. But, to determine the validity of the argument, I’m supposing that He did look into the future. But I’m not attaching any influence on His part. David could have just as easily said that fate determined the future. So I don’t believe I’m in violation of mistake 1.
As far as mistake 2, what I understand your position to be, then, is that God wasn’t really certain when he said that He saw that I would respond in faith. The events weren’t really determined, so everything’s a bit fuzzy. Is that where you wanna go?
Mike, you are confusing “certainty” with “necessity.” They are not the same thing. This is the critical error.
Mike,
We get our theology from what God says, not what we think He meant. I made one point and it was about the meaning of the term “foreknowledge.” We have all the forms of “predestinate” (6 times), and that is another subject. We define God’s sovereignty (He is sovereign) by what He said about it, not by what works for our system. We have to hold ourselves to what He said for our theology to be Biblical. Mike, do you think that God decided beforehand that man would sin, determined that man would sin? If so, what passage do you base that on? You say that God does not elect based upon foreknown faith. What do you do with 2 Thessalonians 2:13, which says we are chosen to salvation through belief of the truth? Thanks.
God knew that man would sin and allowed it anyway. God does not make men sin, as He cannot even tempt them to do evil. Certainly God would not make man commit the ultimate sin, unbelief.
Just read Pink’s commentary on foreknowledge and, as always, the objection centers around the understandable aversion to giving man credit for his salvation. As I stated earlier, merely acknowledging one’s own inability to save oneself or do any meritorious deed is hardly something to boast about!
This hardly constitutes a “work”… or if it does it is the type Jesus spoke of: He was asked about the WORKS, plural, of God, but He answered about a single “work”:
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Man frequently boasts about things he ought not, e.g. “I beat cancer” after hours of surgery and months of treatment administered by someone else. Likewise, allowing oneself to be saved is not a “work”.
As for “irresistible grace”, consider Cain in Genesis 4.
After a direct appeal from the Almighty! “If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”.. The next thing we see him doing is murdering his brother. Was that “resistible grace” or “Irresistible Grace, Beta Version”…or did Abel chose his OWN way? Why would God admonish Cain to “rule over it” and then not give him the ability to do so. Obviously he had the ability, but chose not to.
Kent and David,
Thanks for your questions and challenges. I have answers, but am at work and won’t have the opportunity to respond for some time. Please bear with me in my tardiness.
Thanks,
MIKE
Hey,
I’m still crunched for time, but I wanted to answer at least one of the questions. Kent asked what I do with 2 Thess 2:13.
“But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.”
I would simply say that “through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth” doesn’t modify ‘chosen,’ but ’salvation.’ This is not the means of the choice; rather it is the means of salvation. God sovereignly and graciously chooses us for salvation, based on nothing of or in us. And that salvation comes by means of sanctification and faith, neither of which precede being chosen, but are always evidences of being chosen. John Gill writes about this passage, “faith is no cause of election, but the effect of it; it is necessary to salvation, and therefore appointed as a means.”
There is more that could be said, but I believe this to be sufficient. Perhaps I’m wrong, but time won’t permit me to treat it further. I hope I’ve answered your question.
MIKE
Just an addendum, Spurgeon, in a sermon on this same verse, wrote this:
“But,” others say, “God elected them on the foresight of their faith.” Now, God gives faith therefore He could not have elected them on account of faith, which He foresaw. If there were twenty beggars in the street, and I determine to give one of them a dollar, will anyone say that I determined to give that one a dollar, that I elected him to have the dollar, because I foresaw that he would have it? That would be talking nonsense. Likewise, to say that God elected men because He foresaw they would have faith, would be too absurd for us to listen to for a moment. Faith is the gift of God. Every virtue comes from Him. Therefore it cannot have caused Him to elect men, because it is His gift. Election, we are sure, is unconditional, and altogether apart from the virtues which the saints acquire after salvation.
I’ll meet your Spurgeon with a Fletcher:
One of our great objections to Calvinism is, that it so shackles God’s infinite knowledge as to despoil him of the knowledge of future contingencies, or of those events which depend upon man’s unnecessitated choice: absurdly supposing that God knows what he absolutely decrees, and no more. “If events were undecreed,” says Mr. Toplady, in his Hist. Proof, p. 192, “they would be unforeknown; if unforeknown, they could not be infallibly predicted. How came God to foreknow man’s fall,” says Calvin, “but because he had appointed it?” Thus Calvin and Mr. Toplady, in one sense, allow less foreknowledge to God, than to a stable boy; for without decreeing any thing about the matter, a postilion knows that if the horse he curries gets into his master’s garden, some of the beds will be trampled; and that if a thief has an opportunity of taking a guinea without being seen, he will take it.
[The works of Reverend John Fletcher : Volume 2]
It’s absurd to speak about hypotheticals with the mind of God. God has given His decree, and only what He decreed can ever come to pass. To say that we limit God’s foreknowledge only to that which is decreed is to say we limit God’s foreknowledge to the reality He Himself creates.
There cannot be a world which hypothetically exists if God had done this or that differently. The world we live in is not only the best of all possible worlds (see Piper on that), but it is the only possible world. This conclusion is built on the premise that (1) God is infinitely glorious and worthy of utmost glory and esteem; (2) It is idolatry to not give glory and utmost esteem to that which is most worthy of it; (3) God cannot commit idolatry.
There is only one possible way that God could be glorified to the greatest degree, and that is to create the world as He has. He never changes His mind (Acts 15:18, Mal 3:16) and is uninfluenced by nothing but His own counsel (Is 40:13-14, Is. 46:10, Eph 1:11). (This touches upon what my more complete response would have been to Kent’s other question; i.e., God does not elect based on foreseen faith because His decree is uninfluenced by anything aside from His own counsel. Nobody has been His counselor, Is. 40:13-14, and He will do all HIS pleasure, Is. 46:10).
Mike,
I appreciate you dealing with the actual text. That often doesn’t happen in discussions of doctrine. Gill says that belief is the “means” of salvation. The Greek word translated “through” is the preposition en. I believe Gill is reading in the instrumentality based upon his theology. I could not give you any examples of the preposition en showing instrumentality, and when it does, it is only with certain verbs that still show location, like “baptized with (en) fire.” So saying that belief in the truth is the “means” of salvation contradicts the usage of en, so is not good grammar.
You can’t get away from belief connecting with chosen, because chosen and salvation are bound together. The people chosen to salvation are in the sphere of belief in the truth. It is a jump to say that the choosing is causal to the belief. This is not the plain reading of that verse.
OOPS! I accidentally said Abel chose his way instead of Cain.. Should have read:
Man frequently boasts about things he ought not, e.g. “I beat cancer” after hours of surgery and months of treatment administered by someone else. Likewise, allowing oneself to be saved is not a “work”.
As for “irresistible grace”, consider Cain in Genesis 4.
After a direct appeal from the Almighty! “If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”.. The next thing we see him doing is murdering his brother. Was that “resistible grace” or “Irresistible Grace, Beta Version”…or did Cain chose his OWN way? Why would God admonish Cain to “rule over it” and then not give him the ability to do so. Obviously he had the ability, but chose not to.
Hey Kent,
Let me say that I’m enjoying our interaction. I hope you’re not sensing any hostility on my end. Sadly, these things can get like that, and I don’t want you to misunderstand my disagreement with hard feelings. Along the same lines, I’m wondering if our discussion is edifying. My prayer is that those of you who have been disagreeing with me would be enlightened to the glory of God’s grace in salvation, such that His glory is not shortchanged by man’s actions and so that He will be glorified in His grace. If there’s no chance of this happening, it might be best not to continue our discussion… just because we don’t want to approach God’s Truth as a textbook to debate over, or develop intellectual positions from.
On the chance that we’re not just writing for writing’s sake, let me say that I don’t find your original interpretation of 2Th 2:13 to be the plain reading. I found the meaning to be very plain when I read it, and believe that the “through sanctification and faith in the truth” is referring to salvation and not the choosing.
Now, can we separate the choice from the salvation? In one sense, certainly not. For all who are chosen will be saved (John 10:26-30). The election is effectual. And so when you say you can’t separate them, I agree with you on this plane of thought.
However, is the choice salvation? No. And in such a sense they can be separated. When God chose us for salvation before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4) we weren’t saved right then. We were chosen to be saved. Now again, what we’re trying to do here is intermingle the infinite with the temporal, and so one might say we were saved from before the foundation of the world, because God’s election is effectual. But the reality is that when God chose me to be saved, He didn’t save me right then. First of all, I didn’t exist. Secondly, I was not taken from my corrupted flesh into His presence. Thirdly, I lived as an unsaved person for 15 years. My point is illustrated by Romans 8:30, which talks about foreknowing, predestination, calling, justification, and glorification. Unless all of those things happened at once — and we know we’re not justified and glorified at the same time — we can say that salvation is separated from (and preceded by) election.
Also, I appreciate your fervor for the text itself, but we must not forget that the text has implications. I’m a huge huge huge proponent of letting Scripture speak for itself, and I embrace the grammatical-historical, literal hermeneutic. But if you take the Scripture at face value without carrying what it says out to its logical conclusions, you never get to a synthesized theology, and that will lead you to contradictions in Scripture. All this is to say that it is okay to take an idea from Spurgeon, namely: “Faith is the gift of God. Every virtue comes from Him. Therefore it cannot have caused Him to elect men, because it is His gift. Election, we are sure, is unconditional, and altogether apart from the virtues which the saints acquire after salvation,” and deal with that. Unless this is unsound, Scripture should accord with this, right? So if every virtue comes from God Himself, how can man have faith to be foreseen that was not planted there as a gift of God?
As far as faith being the means of salvation, I believe this is the plain meaning of the phrase, “saved by grace through faith.” Our salvation is a gift of God’s grace, totally unmerited, unmotivated, and unwarranted on our part. We procure that grace by faith in Christ. But we know we can’t “take hold of a gift.” It is given or it is not given. It’s not offered and debated upon. So if we believe, it is by grace that we believe (John 6:65, no one can believe unless it is granted [here's the gift] by the Father). God appoints that we be saved before time, and we believe in time as a result of that sovereign, effectual choice (Acts 13:48, as many as were appointed believed).
Sorry that this is so long. I wish we could talk in person or something. It’d be much quicker, and probably much clearer. Don’t really know to end this… cuz I’m tired.
MIKE
“Likewise, allowing oneself to be saved is not a ‘work.’”
David,
We cannot allow ourselves to be saved. The whole idea of being saved is that we were helpless (Rom 5:6, Ezek 16:4-6), dead (Eph 2:4-5, Col 2:13-14); we didn’t even exist (Rom 4:17). Dead people do not allow themselves to be anything. And, if such a thing were possible, if one did allow oneself to be saved, it would be a “work,” (ergon) because he would be DOING something (energeo). (Pardon the caps; I don’t know how to italicize.)
I think the best illustration of our utter inability to contribute anything to our salvation — even our inability to acknowledge that we can do nothing — is the one our Lord gives: rebirth. Can a baby allow himself (or refuse) to be born? Jesus picks this perfect analogy because man has absolutely no say in whether or not He is born. It’s a decision made entirely independent of him, indeed, before he exists. Our physical birth depends on the decision of our parents. Similarly, our spiritual birth depends on the decision of our Father. Bringing it back: a baby cannot acknowledge that he cannot be born on his own. He doesn’t exist to make that acknowledgement. Neither do we exist to make that acknowledgement (Rom 4:17).
*********************
As for “irresistible grace”, consider Cain in Genesis 4.
After a direct appeal from the Almighty! “If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”.. The next thing we see him doing is murdering his brother. Was that “resistible grace” or “Irresistible Grace, Beta Version”…or did Cain chose his OWN way? Why would God admonish Cain to “rule over it” and then not give him the ability to do so. Obviously he had the ability, but chose not to.
*********************
Cain was not of the elect. Therefore, his heart and mind were darkened so that he could not see what was right in front of him. Even in the presence of God Himself, Cain could not see Him as the glorious God He truly is/was. John says “For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, ‘HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM’” (Jn 12:39-40). Cain could not see, because God had blinded his eyes and hardened his heart. This is done, “so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN” (Mk 4:12). It is also done “so that You are justified when You speak And blameless when You judge” (Ps 51:4). Those who are unbelieving prove God just in His wrath. “Why would God admonish Cain to ‘rule over it’ and then not give him the ability to do so?” Answer: so that the unbelieving would be ‘ever seeing, but never perceiving,’ and so God would be ‘justified when He speaks and blameless when He judges.’
To answer your sarcastic question, it was not irresistible grace because that is given only to the elect. There’s no such thing as ‘resistible grace.’ Either the gift is given or it’s not. In Cain’s case it was not. Cain did choose his own way, and was free to do so within the bounds of his nature. However, his nature was one that could only have made the choice he made.
Just in case that’s hard for you to swallow, let me illustrate crudely. Just like man, a fish is created with a nature. A fish can choose freely to go anywhere it wants……. provided that it swims. A fish cannot get up and walk on land, for it is not in its nature to do so. It has not been created with a nature that can do this. It can freely choose its course within the bounds of its nature, but no farther. So it is with man. We are free to choose within the bounds of our nature, but our nature is one that will always choose sin, and never choose God. (That’s just what it means to be dead. helpless, ungodly, sinning, enemies [Eph 2:4-5, Rom 5:6-9].) Cain freely chose to disobey, which was entirely in the bounds of his nature. But his nature was sovereignly created by God.
I sincerely hope this helps, is edifying, and points to the glory of sovereign grace. Like I said with Kent, I’d love for God to present His Truth through me such that you brothers would see it for what it is (not my words, but His). But if this simply will not be the case, I don’t want to be academic, polemic, or merely intellectual with the Word of Truth.
MIKE
2 Thes 2:11-02
“And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”
He blinds them certainly enough but, apparently, because they love darkness rather than light. Since that is a natural state, it seems there must yet be “natural revelation” to counter this as in Romans 1, giving them a choice:
“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”
Even MacArthur suggests that this blinding is a strange act of mercy to save them from “greater damnation” at having rejected even MORE revelation.
Because, when I called, no one answered, When I spoke they did not hear; But they did evil before My eyes, And chose that in which I do not delight.” (Isaiah 66:4)
A few points worth considering.
First, contrasting this form of Reformed compatibilism against “Arminian foreknowledge” presents both a straw man argument and false dichotomy. I don’t think Arminian theology is quite as simplistic as presented and “Arminian foreknowledge” is not the only view opposed to this form of compatibilism. Many Christian philosophers ascribe to either simple foreknowledge or Molinism which offers better explanations that include libertarian free-will.
Second, as a theologian and Christian philosophy, my primary problem with the doctrine of predestination and compatabilist freewill (the idea that human free will is limited within the will of God for us)is the problem of evil. I think this is true of most Christian philosophers. This view does not seem to adequately answer the the problem of the existance of evil. If all is predestined, God is the author of evil. If libertarian freewill is allowed, there is a more adequate explanation of how evil came to be.
Finally, and I won’t go into to much detail here, but having human will being limited within the scope of God’s will or an Augustinian idea of being unable not to sin and being predestined and foreknown by God implies, in my view a specific view of the nature of time. Specifically, it seems to imply that God view all moments of time at once and implies the nature of time as being static, that is to God all events of time have already transpired. This results in huge theological problems in our understanding of such things as the incarnation of Christ and the perichorisis of the Trinity.
Personally, I’m am undecided on this issue but I think it is much more complex than many think.
I’ll leave the Theological debate to you more learned fellow Christians. All I know is that this debate has gone on for centuries. I’m pretty sure none of you will convince the other side in this forum. The preponderance of the scriptural evidence in my mind points towards God’s absolute election based on His grace alone. Romans chapter 9 ispretty clear about this. That being the case, I look at my own Salvation through glasses of complete and total thankfullness for God deciding to choose one like me. As far as God’s not choosing others and their ending up in hell for eternity, had God not chose me I would be going there as well. Not because God did not choose me, but because in my own heart I know I deserve it.
God Bless.