Foreknowledge and Predestination/Election

[Churchwork]

In Scripture, the basic meaning of the terms predestination and election is the same: to mark out beforehand for a special purpose and blessing. On what basis? The sole reason that is always given is foreknowledge. So declare both Peter and Paul: "For whom he did foreknow [Greek: proginosko], he also did predestinate [proorizo] to be conformed to the image of the Son..." (Rom. 8.29); "elect according to [kata] the foreknowledge [prognosis] of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience..." (1 Peter 1.2). "That in the age to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus (Eph. 2.7).

Calvin shuts his mind down because he is compelled to by his belief system as he declared, "...the Lord has created those who...were to go to destruction, and he did so because he so willed. Why he willed, it is not ours to ask..." To know the real reason is to find out he was never born-again, because Calvin never received repentantly the cross first by choice-the condition for salvation to be saved by grace through faith.

Pink calls it God's "predestinating grace" to send people to Hell. Grace preordains multitudes to Hell? Calvin says, God "is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children..." It is libel on the character of God to say that damning billions pleases Him! This distasteful doctrine is the inevitable result of Calvinism's extreme view of sovereignty. The Calvinist thrusts his doctrines of election and predestination into every conceivable Scripture text. But here and there we can show such forced interpretations are contradictory, constrictive and way out of context.

[Churchwork]

Vance points out the obvious error of calvinism:

And finally, if you make an exact parallel between a physically dead man and a spiritually dead man...then you likewise have to say...[if] he can't accept Christ because he is dead then he can't reject Christ either. A [physically] dead man cannot believe on Jesus Christ, but a [spiritually] dead man can."

The physically dead can do nothing, not even commit sin; so they could hardly present a proper analogy of spiritual death. The spiritually "dead" are able to live active lives, get an education, earn a living, defy God, and continue to sin-or submit to the conviction of the Holy Spirit, repent of their sins, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior.

MacArthur reiterates:

How can a person who is dead in sin, blinded by Satan, unable to understand the things of God, and continuously filled with evil suddenly exercise saving faith? A corpse could no sooner come out of a grave and walk.

On the contrary, to the spiritually dead, Isaiah writes: "Everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters.... Let the wicked forsake his ways, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon: (Is. 55.1,7).

He calls upon all who thirst to come to Him and drink, and upon all who are wicked to turn unto Him in reliance on His mercy. God gives the gift of faith, but we can obtain that faith because it is a free gift available to everyone, otherwise Paul and Silas would not encourage you to "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16.31), that is, regenerated.

[Churchwork]

Peter says we are "elect according to [kata]" God's foreknowledge (1 Peter 1.2). The Greek kata carries the meaning of homogeneity or harmony. Thus God's election/predestination was in agreement, or harmony, with something He foreknew about those whom He predestinates to partake of the declared blessing. What could that have been? Surely the most obvious possibility would be that God foreknew who would repent and believe the gospel, and on that basis He predestinated them "to become conformed to the image of the Son" and "unto obedience."

In order to escape foreknowledge as the basis of predestination, the Calvinist must establish another meaning for foreknow/foreknowledge that fits his theory. Generally, this attempt has taken two forms. Most try to maintain that foreknow/foreknowledge, instead of meaning in advance (the most obvious definition), means to determine in advance, or to foreordain. Piper writes, "he [God] foreknows-that is, elects-a people for himself..." and MacArthur stated, "God's foreknoweldge...is...His foreordination...He ordains it." Others suggest that it means to love beforehand. There are, however, several reasons why neither of these stratagems will work.

The word proginosko means to know beforehand in the sense of foreseeing. The Calvinist is desperately twisting the Scripture in order to maintain his theory. Peter very carefully distinguishes counsel or determination as well as election from foreknowledge: "him [Christ], being delivered by the determinate [horizo] counsel and foreknowledge [proginosko] of God..." (Acts 2.23). If these are the same, then Peter is saying nonsensically that Christ was "delivered by the foreknowledge and foreknowledge," or by "the determined counsel and determined counsel" of God. Paul likewise makes a clear distinction: "For whom he [God] did foreknow, he also [kai] did predestinate..." The Greek kai denotes a differentiation, thus making it clear that foreknowledge could not be the same as predestination, or Paul would be redundantly saying, "whom he did predestinate he also did predestinate".

This word "foreknowledge" is used elsewhere "to know beforehand". In referring to Jewish leaders of his acquaintance who he says "knew me from the beginning [i.e., before that day]" (Acts 26.4-5), Paul uses the same words proginosko, translated in Rom. 8.29 "for whom he did foreknow." Peter uses the same word in a different context but with the identical meaning: "ye know [proginosko] these things before..." (2 Pet. 3.17).

Whereas the word yada at times denotes a special relationship, never does it mean to know in advance, whereas that is the principle meaning of proginosko or prognosis. There is no relationship between these two words that would be of any help supporting calvinism. This strained effort reveals the lengths to which the calvinist is both forced and willingly to go to protect his theory.

[B]Why not accept the simplest meaning?

Election is not unto salvation, but unto obedience. Predestination is based on the foreknowledge of God and its object is not salvation but conformity to the image of Christ. Paul and Peter are encouraging Christians with what God has in store for those who believe the gospel. "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit..." (1 Cor. 2.9-10).

Predestination is carefully separated from salvation: "whom he did predestinate, them he also [kai] called...them he also [kai] justified...them he also [kai] glorified" (Rom. 8.30). Hobbs comments, "Predestination...simply means that God has predetermined that those who respond affirmatively to His call...will be justified...and furthermore will be glorified. All of this is 'according to His purpose'..." The plain meaning of the text is clear.

[Churchwork]

Because the Calvinist interpretation of "foreknowledge" rejects knowing what man can and would do (i.e., repent and believe the gospel) it can involve nothing more than God knowing what He would do, which is a problem, because that means no Calvinist has fulfilled the condition which is to repent and believe the gospel.

If there is nothing more than God knowing what He would do, then it is impossible for God to "foreknow" what He purposed to do, because His purpose would have always existed. But what does the Bible say? "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world [aion]" (Acts 15.18).

Piper is a true blue calvinist right? He said, "God does not foreknow the free decisions of people to believe in him because there aren't any such free decisions to know." If so, man is a puppet with God pulling the strings, making foreknowledge meaningless. White actually believes, "Foreknowledge of God is based upon His decree, plan, or purpose which expresses His will, and not upon some foreseen act of positive volition on the part of man."

There is no point in saying God foreknew His eternal decrees-nor could He. Since His decrees have always been, and thus were never future to Him, there is no way in which He could know what they would be before they were decreed. Foreknowledge is very clearly the reason given for election and predestination, not the other way around.