Election

Linda64,

My reply was lengthy because I was asked to expound more when I replied with a short answer. I am not quoting a commentary I spent a long time putting that information together and I had to do a lot of studying and scripture hunting. If you don't want to read and consider a reply because it's to long then don't, but I don't see any reason to accuse people of quoting from commentaries when you don't know anything about the person that you are accusing.

By His Grace,
Preacher @ Bethel

 

Linda,

What does "foreknowledge" mean, in context?

 

Here is Nelson's definition - I think it's right and there are scriptures to confirm it:

FOREKNOWLEDGE - the unique knowledge of God that enables Him to know all events, including the free acts of people, before they happen.
God’s foreknowledge is much more than foresight. God does not know future events and human actions because He foresees them; He knows them because He wills them to happen (Job 14:5; Ps. 139:15-16). Thus God’s foreknowledge is an act of His will (Is. 41:4; Rev. 1:8, 17; 21:6).
In Romans 8:29 and 11:2, the apostle Paul’s use of the word "foreknew" means "chose" or "to set special affection on." The electing love of God, not foresight of human action, is the basis of His predestination and salvation (Rom. 8:29-30, 33). This same idea is used to express the nation of Israel’s special relationship to God (Acts 2:23; Rom. 11:2; 1 Pet. 1:2, 20).

Youngblood, R. F., Bruce, F. F., Harrison, R. K., & Thomas Nelson Publishers. (1995). Nelson's new illustrated Bible dictionary. Rev. ed. of: Nelson's illustrated Bible dictionary.; Includes index. Nashville: T. Nelson.

 

matthewhenry:

Let's look at your verses and see if your conclusion is acceptable:

One at a time:

a. The Bible says that God wants all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2:3-5; 2
Pet. 3:9).

Yes, the Bible says God wants all to be saved. In fact, I'll add Ezekial 18:23 and 32. However, God's desire is not the same as His decree. I'll explain.

Would you agree with this statement:

God desires that all men honor and worship His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

I think the answer is clear; yes, He does. However, notice this:

"this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men." (Acts 2:23, ESV)

The Holy Spirit shows here that God had planned for His Son to be delivered up, crucified and killed by sinful men. This was God's plan, even though He desires that all men worship Him. The decree was for Jesus to be killed by sinful men but I can't imagine anyone arguing that God "desired" that to happen.

God didn't choose to save every one who ever lived. He only chose to save the elect. Here are passages that show this:

"What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened," (Romans 11:7, ESV)

"What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 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 depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills." (Romans 9:14-18, ESV)

He certainly didn't choose "all" for salvation, as the above passage shows. Just as He elected Israel (Deut. 7) to be His special people and therefore passed over all other nations of the world, so He chose us before the foundation of the world.

The passage in 2 Peter 3:9 doesn't have anything to do with the unredeemed. If you read that verse in context of the chapter, you'll see that Peter is encouraging the believers that they should be saved from the coming wrath. Read the whole chapter and you'll see what I mean. Context is key here...

 

The greek for foreknowledge means just that...to know beforehand.

This is correct.

This is correct.

???This makes absolutely no sense! God does not know furure events....because He forsees them???

If this is true, God wills all sin, too. This makes God the author of sin. This is false doctrine. Every rape, murder, abortion would be "willed" by God.

ROM. 8:28-30...The key progression here: foreknow = predestined = called = justified.
The greek word for foreknow, proginoceko, simply means to "know beforehand". Notice
everything here in this progression stems from "proginoceko", so the word "foreknew" cannot mean "chose".

 

This is a circular statement. This is like saying only red firetrucks are red.

 

1st Tim 2 v 4 clearly states that God wants all people to be saved; that one verse contradicts Calvinism. Calvinists answer by saying that God's desire is not the same as His decree; that is simply playing with words.

I used to hold to unconditional election but could never reconcile 1st Tim 2 v 4 with that view and have acknowledged this by abandoning Calvinism. If anyone wants to see how ridiculous it is to try and reconcile verses such as 1st Tim 2 v 4 with unconditional election then I suggest reading Dave Hunt's demolition job in the book Debating Calvinism.

Kind regards to all.

Bob

 

Its not a play on words at all. Here is a differnt example of God's desire being different than His decree. Some call this a will of desire and a will of command, or a revealed will and a secret will.

God commands men not to committ murder, this is His desire. But God also willed that Christ be murdered. Now He did not approve of the actions of the Jews, Romans etc. but He nevertheless willed that Christ be murdered.

Also if you say that 2Tm. 2:4 is not God's desire rather than His command, then you are a universalist (I am not calling you a universalist personally ). There is no way arround that. The implication is that if God's desire in this passage is what He ordains to come to pass then all men will come to the knowledge of the truth. Yet we know this is not the case therefore we concluded that indeed God's has two wills.

 

Dave Hunt is very dishonest in his treatment of Calvinism in "What matter of Love is This". Its one thing to write a book that I disagree with, its another all together to be dishonest in the writing of that book.

I have not read debating Calvinism, but I wouldn't give Dave much credit since he has already discredited himself.

 

webdog,

First of all, I appreciate this discussion and I hope and pray we can stay kind and respectful toward one another. You have certainly been kind in your answers and I hope you find my attitude to be proper as well.

Having said that, I must say that I disagree with you firmly because the Bible cannot support your view. Let me show you why...

You say God is the author of sin if He wills all things to happen. God is not a sinner and no one would agree that He is. We need to understand that if He is sovereign then He must be in control, however, and that includes all things that happen, good or bad. Here are some examples of God controlling evil events:

I think Wayne Grudem does an excellent job with this difficult subject:

"In approaching this question, it is best first to read the passages of Scripture that most directly address it. We can begin by looking at several passages that affirm that God did, indeed, cause evil events to come about and evil deeds to be done. But we must remember that in all these passages it is very clear that Scripture nowhere shows God as directly doing anything evil but rather as bringing about evil deeds through the willing actions of moral creatures. Moreover, Scripture never blames God for evil or shows God as taking pleasure in evil and Scripture never excuses human beings for the wrong they do. However we understand God’s relationship to evil, we must never come to the point where we think that we are not responsible for the evil that we do, or that God takes pleasure in evil or is to be blamed for it. Such a conclusion is clearly contrary to Scripture.
There are literally dozens of Scripture passages that say that God (indirectly) brought about some kind of evil. I have quoted such an extensive list (in the next few paragraphs) because Christians often are unaware of the extent of this forthright teaching in Scripture. Yet it must be remembered that in all of these examples, the evil is actually done not by God but by people or demons who choose to do it."

Grudem, W. A. (1994). Systematic theology : An introduction to biblical doctrine (Page 322). Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House.

Here are some examples where God controls evil:

"Now the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him." (1 Samuel 16:14, ESV)

"And the Lord raised up an adversary against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite. He was of the royal house in Edom." (1 Kings 11:14, ESV)

"Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has declared disaster for you.”" (1 Kings 22:23, ESV)

"Is a trumpet blown in a city, and the people are not afraid? Does disaster come to a city, unless the Lord has done it?" (Amos 3:6, ESV)

Compare these two from Jonah:

"So they picked up Jonah and hurled him into the sea, and the sea ceased from its raging." (Jonah 1:15, ESV)

"For you cast me into the deep, into the heart of the seas, and the flood surrounded me; all your waves and your billows passed over me." (Jonah 2:3, ESV)

Finally, notice this from 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles 21:

", Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”" (2 Samuel 24:1, ESV)

Here we see that the Lord incited David to perform a census, but the Lord used Satan to influence David as the parallel passage in 1 Chornicles illuminates:

"Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel." (1 Chronicles 21:1, ESV)

So yes, webdog, God does decree that sin occurs and He is in charge of it. But, He is not a sinner. Jonathan Edwards described this as "primary vs. secondary" causes of evil.

We serve a God Who is sovereign overall - and yet without sin.

 

Robert,

No, 1 Timothy 2:4 does not do away with Calvinism. I have already posted a reponse to the idea that God can express His desires but His decrees don't always match.

And, Dave Hunt's book is simply inaccurate and bad, frankly. I have read his "Debating Calvinism" book and was shocked over and over again when he refused to even respond to James White's rebuttals or questions. He also misquotes Spurgeon of all people in order to make his point. Here is more on Hunt and his bad scholarship:

http://www.aomin.org/index.php?query=hunt&amount=0&blogid=1

 

It simply doesn't make sense to decree one thing and desire another. Moreover, for the Bible to say that God commands all men, everywhere, to repent, and then make it teach that God unconditionally selects some to salvation makes the Bible a charade.

Kind regards to all.

Bob

 

a. Debating Calvinism is simply a hack job. Dave Hunt even ignores the standard commentaries from his own tradition when dealing with Calvinism. This is a man who says Spurgeon believed in general atonement. He wrote "What Love is This?" 6 months after telling everybody he had never read the Reformers. He isn't a person from whom you should draw your information.

b. Interpreting "all men" as "every man without exception" commits the extensional fallacy of exegesis.

Christians who deny special redemption typically appeal to the “pantos” (“all”) passages of Scripture. But this confuses extension (referent) with intension (sense). A universal quantifier has a standard intension, but a variable extension. And that follows from the nature of a quantifier, which is necessarily general and abstract rather than specific and concrete marker. That’s what makes it possible to plug in concrete content. A universal quantifier is a class quantifier. As such, it can have no fixed range of reference. In each case, that must be supplied by the concrete context and specific referent. In other words, a universal quantifier has a definite intension but indefinite extension. So its extension is relative to the level of generality of the reference-class in view. Thus, there is no presumption in favor of taking “all” or “every” as meaning everyone without exception. “All” or “every” or "any" is always relative to all of something.

Why is there a presumption here for taking this to refer to all men without exception? The onus is on you and Dave Hunt to show us the warrant for that in the text itself.

What is the referent for "men?" The Greek text reads: pantan anthropoun.

Men could refer to males without exception.

Men could refer to males without distinction (class or ethnicity).

Men could refer to people in general without exception or distinction. If the latter, then gender is another distinction added to the others)

What markers are in the text?

In chapter one, Paul references "some men," and distinguishes them by the kinds of sins they have committed and promote.

Here, in this text, he speaks about "all men." What men? God desires we pray from kings and authorities not just men like ourselves, because He desires those who are kings and in authority, not just ordinary people or "righteous" people by saved. All kinds of men are in view here. Paul is not speaking of all men without exception. He is speaking about all men without distinction by class, specifically kings and authorities. 2:1 directly defines "all men" in this text.

If “all” is always extensive, then in 6:10 where money is the root of all evil, the text would mean money was at the root of the Fall of both Satan and men. If you affirm that all men without exception" is in view in 2:4, then do you believe money is at the root of all evil without exception? Such a notion would be absurd. Money did not exist when Adam and Eve fell.

 

An interesting take on election from Scripture:

Acts 13:48 {KJV] And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Acts 13:48 [NASB] And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Acts 13:48 [NIV] When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honoured the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

John10:26, 27 [KJV]
26. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

 

a. What you are saying is that it would wrong for God to command us to do something we can't do. Nothing can be deduced about abilities from a command. One can command someone to do something to show them their inability and increase their guilt.

b. What you are saying is unbiblical. Scripture is littered with examples of people being commanded to repent and God hardening them. God commands men to repent in Isa. 6, yet He also told Isaiah that, in issuing that command, He would harden men through this action, confirming them in their sins according to their own sinful natures. The entire free will position revolves around the notion that God must give man what he chooses. Why then is he objecting to God giving men what they desire and are already doing anyway? What is the default position for men?

c. You said, "It simply doesn't make sense to decree one thing and desire another." But the Arminian believes this too. The Synergist holds to the view that God foreknows who will choose Him and elects them based on His prior knowledge of their choice. But here is where the problem arises in their system. No one could consistently say that God foreknew which sinners would be lost and then claim that it is not within God's will to allow these sinners to be lost. Why did He create them? He knew what their final destiny was even before He created them. With full knowledge that they would not choose Him, it is evidently within God's providence that some sinners be lost, so He obviously has some purpose in it which we human beings cannot fully discern. The objection you make applies to the free will position with equal force.

d. The desire for all men to be saved follows the desire of a command, not a secret decree. With respect to His decree: If God desired all men to be saved, all men would be saved. If God desired all men to not sin, they would not sin.

We already know that God predestines things that do not follow His moral law: Jesus murder for example. We know that God used Isaiah to call people to repentance, and promised to harden their hearts to keep them from repenting. We know that God commanded Moses to command Pharaoh let His people go, yet God hardened Pharaoh's heart. So, there is a sense in which God desires some thing with respect to His decrees that He does not desire with respect to His moral will.

"This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ...”1 John 3:23

If God commands all men everywhere to repent and His commandment is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, then there is no other possible conclusion than to say God desires all men, elect and reprobate, to obey His commands, including the command to believe. In this way, God desires all men to be saved in the same way He desires all men to obey His commands.

Yet, not all men do believe, just as not all men do not sin. God does not decree that all men be saved, nor that all men not sin.

Deut. 29:29: "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever."

"...this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death." Acts 2:23

God, in this text, predetermines that Jesus will be crucified by the hands of godless men. Now it is clear that God does not desire or will evil, yet he here actually preordains it through godless men. God both desires (in one way) and does not desire (in another way) this redemptive historical event to happen. According to this text, God eternally decreed the crucifixion redemptive historical event, yet when it was carried out in time by sinful men, it was clearly contrary to the moral law, that is, God's commands, for God held them responsible for the sin of murder.

 

This is simply false. Foreknew here means "Foreloved, chose, elected, determined, thought of in covenant relationship, eg. those whom he long ago thought of in a saving relationship to himself."

No lexicon supports your definition of "foreknow" in this passage. Some even note that your reading is not even possible for this text.

The verb proginksko is used 3 times in the NT with God as the subject. Romans 8:29, Romans 11:2; and 1 Peter 1:20.

The verb stem for this word, ginsosko, is built on the Hebrew "yada," to know intimately. "Yada'" is used in reference to Adam knowing Eve sexually and intimately. In this text, it also recalls Jeremiah 1:5. Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." This same verb is translated as "chosen" in Amos 3:2 (NASB/NIV); "know" (as in "know intimately, be in relationship with) in the KJV. In the LXX, it shows up as ginsosko, the stem of "proginsosko" you cite above. The order here is conditional and causal. They are foreknown and predestined and called in that order. All those called are justified and glorified. Predestination to conformity to the image of Christ is so that He (Christ) might be the firstborn among many brethren. The people called, justified, and glorified and predestined are foreloved as brethren of Christ. The verb is active, not passive. God's foreknowing ahead of time men's free choices would render the verb passive voice, not active voice. God is actively foreknowing in Romans 8:29. He is foreknowing people. He is loving them ahead of time as His children by adoption.

Where do you think Paul got his doctrine of election? How about God's reasons for chosing saving His people in Deuteronomy:

Deut. 7: 6"For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

7"The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples,

8but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the LORD brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

--Will anybody seriously argue that we could insert "foreseen faith" or "your faith" or "your faithfulness" or any such thing into this text as a reason that God delivered Israel? No. It would be alien to the text. Paul thinks of believers as "the elect," chosen by God the same way, not because of foreseen merit, numbers, faith, faithfulness, wealth, prestige, power, etc...nothing at all except God's covenant love which God Himself says is based on His faithfulness to His covenant and His love alone, not any of those things.

God delivered the nation out of His faithfulness to his covenant with the Patriarchs, not because of foreseen faith or their faithfulness to Him in Egypt. In fact, it is manifestly true from the text that the majority of the Hebrews, while slaves, were all idolaters. They took the household gods of Egypt with them when they left, didn't they. Most of them had forgotten God. The Old Covenant is a visible model of the New Covenant, picturing God's work today. In the New Covenant, the Father gives the Son a people, just as God gave Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob a people. The Son purchases their salvation, and the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son to apply the benefits of redemption to that people. They are delivered from their sins and brought to their inheritance the same way that God was faithful to His covenant with the Patriarchs and delivered Israel from Egypt into the Promised Land, not because of Israel's faith, numbers, wealth, etc., but based on His covenant with the Patriarchs and His faithfulness to that covenant alone. --This is the image that Paul is drawing from in this text, not the idea that God looks into the future and choses and predestines those whom He knows beforehand will believe.

In 1 Peter 1:2, "foreknowledge" there means simply "plan" or "determination." It says nothing about "foreknowing foreseen faith." To allege it does, you have to smuggle in a defintion of foreknowledge not found in the text. There is no text of the Bible that says God elects based on foreseen faith. In fact, Acts 2:23 tells us that this foreknowledge is determinate counsel. In I Peter 1:20 we see that Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world. The NIV translates this as "chosen." Will you seriously argue this means that God simply knew His identity or something He would do? That makes no sense.

A.W. Pink:

You have committed a category error. You have conflated responsibility and blame. Responsibility is a necessary, but insufficient condition of moral blame. A moral motive contrary to the Law is required to make one blameworthy.

What God decrees for His glory, men do with their own motives. For example, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart in order to judge Egypt’s gods. Pharaoh’s will was not violated, in that God allowed Pharaoh’s love of evil, which was his natural state, to increase, keeping Israel from leaving. Pharaoh did not keep them from leaving in order to glorify God and worship Him. He did it because he hated God, Moses, Aaron, and the slaves. What God did for a righteous motive, Pharaoh did out of hatred for God. The motive behind an act, therefore, determines whether or not it is truly sinful. In theory, if Pharaoh had done what he did to glorify and worship God, he would not have been condemned, however, a man that does such a thing is, in reality acting in faith and love for God and would have to be regenerate. Such a man would not hold Israel back; he would have released Israel and taken down Egypt’s gods. That was not God’s purpose for Pharaoh. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

God is the author of evil, in the sense that He is first cause of all things. This simply goes with pay grade. His decrees, through either action or inaction render events necessary, but, evil is the result of permission, not His direct causation, or a result of His judicial hardening of sinners, an act of justice Scripture supports repeatedly, as in the above text and in Romans 1. Nothing happens that compels a man or demon to act in a way it does not wish to act or against its nature. He may withhold constraining grace, as in the fall, in order to render a thing certain, but the agent of the evil, in this case Adam simply acts in accordance with his nature as a second cause, for reasons and motives sufficient for himself and arising from his own nature. Men thus do what God decrees, but for motives all their own. In so doing, they may incur judgment. See for example, the predestination of Judas betrayal and Jesus crucifixion. These men did, with evil desires, what God desired and planned to happen since before creation, for Jesus is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world itself.

 

Thanks for all the verses pastor. All of them have been refuted on this forum time and time again. What I wanted to know was not answered.

How can a calvinist say praise God about their loved ones going to hell? I mean that as an honest question. Think about your kids, wife or loved one that is not saved. Do you say what a glorous Lord we have that has created man to sin. And then left MOST of them trapped. Over sin committed by another? And you have a son or daughter that is not saved. How, explain that you can say praise God even though my child or loved one is not given the ability to recieve the gift of eternal life.?!!!
If you feel you have that kind of super faith that says "so be it" then my hats off too you. But in my heart I don't believe you really feel that way. I am asking how do you feel or deal with that personally, or do you not, but just ignore it?

 

προγινώσκω
proginōskō
prog-in-oce'-ko
From G4253 and G1097; to know beforehand, that is, foresee: - foreknow (ordain), know (before).

You can try to intellectualize the meaning to fit your doctrine...but the fact remains it means simply to "know beforehand".

How can's man's faith not be a requirement for salvation...but man's sin be judged against the reprobate? It can't, as the fair, just God talked about throughout Psalms and Scripture would be monsterous.

I do not have the time to respond to the rest of your post, as I have exhausted these same replies on the old C/A forum now under the 2005 archives.

 

Lets see what Kittle has to say about proginosko.

On page 715 of volume 1 he states that God's foreknowldge is "an election or foreordination of His people (Rm 8:29, 11:2) or Christ (1Peter 1:20).

It is used in the LXX with a referance to the predeterminative knowledge of God.

Mr. Bridges is right, the majority of recognized experts in the Greek language agree that there was a predestination involved with the word proginosko.

 

Thanks for all the verses pastor. All of them have been refuted on this forum time and time again. What I wanted to know was not answered.

How can a calvinist say praise God about their loved ones going to hell? I mean that as an honest question. Think about your kids, wife or loved one that is not saved. Do you say what a glorous Lord we have that has created man to sin. And then left MOST of them trapped. Over sin committed by another? And you have a son or daughter that is not saved. How, explain that you can say praise God even though my child or loved one is not given the ability to recieve the gift of eternal life.?!!!
If you feel you have that kind of super faith that says "so be it" then my hats off too you. But in my heart I don't believe you really feel that way. I am asking how do you feel or deal with that personally, or do you not, but just ignore it? </font>[/QUOTE]Tim,

I understand your question but you need to be aware that it is asked from a fallen position. Our idea of fair is not the issue. God is the Potter; we are the clay. The objection of "God isn't fair if He unconditionally elects" was anticpated by Paul in Romans 9. Please read this carefully and hear what the Holy Spirit says about questioning God's right to show mercy to whomever He wills:

"What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 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 depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?" (Romans 9:14-21, ESV)