Confusing Foreordination With Election

Calvinists cannot admit that foreknowledge means to know in advance what man will do of his free will, because that would disprove their theory. Pink writes, "God foreknows what will be because He has decreed what shall be." Calvin said, "God foreknew what the end of man was to be...because he had so ordained it by his decree." Piper says, "Foreknowledge is virtually the same as election.... He foreknows--that is, elects--a people for himself." Likewise, MacArthur says, "God's foreknowledge, therefore, is not a reference to His omniscient foresight but to His foreordination." But what is "foreknowledge" if not "omniscient foresight"? Moreover, to know in advance is clearly different from ordaining in advance.

Romans 8.29 clearly distinguishes between foreknowledge and foreordination: "For whom he did foreknow [proginosko], he also did predestinate." Without this distinction, Paul would be saying redundantly, "For whom he foreordained [i.e., predestined] he also predestined." 1 Peter 1.2 makes the same distinction: "Elect according to the foreknowledge [prognosis] of God." Is Peter really nonsensically saying, "Elect according to the election of God"?

Prognosis is found twice in the New Testament (Acts 2.23 and 1 Pet. 1.2), and both times it is rendered "foreknowledge." Proginosko is found five times respectively: knew me from the beginning; foreknow; foreknew; foreordained; know before. 1 Peter 1.20 is aberrant rendering in the KJV (the NASB has "foreknown"). Yet to save his theory, the Calvinist insists on "foreordained" for all five passages, in spite of the redundancy it produces.