Two Views of Foreknowledge

[JonC]

In Ex-Calvinism (Why I am no longer a Calvinist) this observation was made:

Foreknowledge means to know beforehand. I have no idea what "God having a type of relationship via Christ" is supposed to mean because such language is foreign to scripture. An individual is either in Christ or he is not in Christ. God's foreknowledge in this regard is simply "a dimension of God's omniscience.

I agree with @Reformed that foreknowledge is grounded in divine omniscience.

But I have also see it argued that “foreknowledge” is relational, not a matter of omniscience but on the grounds of “knowing” as used to reflect an intimate relationship (here, love).

In an article on Ligonier Ministries “foreknowledge” is defined in this way: “A study of the idea of knowledge in the Bible will show that it usually involves a choice of intimate relations, as when Adam “knew” his wife Eve and she conceived. Romans 8:29 means that God “fore-loved””

Foreknowledge

Here is an article on these two views on foreknowledge:

Two Views on Foreknowledge | Monergism

So we have two views – one is that foreknowledge means to “know beforehand” in terms of cognitive knowledge (John Calvin used the word “prescience” and based this prescience on the idea on divine decree). The other is that “foreknowledge” is relational and involves a choice of intimate relations, as when Adam “knew” his wife Eve, and means “fore-loved”.

What is your understanding of “foreknowledge” and why do you hold that position?

 

[Yeshua1]

In Ex-Calvinism (Why I am no longer a Calvinist) this observation was made: I agree with @Reformed that foreknowledge is grounded in divine omniscience.

But I have also see it argued that “foreknowledge” is relational, not a matter of omniscience but on the grounds of “knowing” as used to reflect an intimate relationship (here, love).

In an article on Ligonier Ministries “foreknowledge” is defined in this way: “A study of the idea of knowledge in the Bible will show that it usually involves a choice of intimate relations, as when Adam “knew” his wife Eve and she conceived. Romans 8:29 means that God “fore-loved””

Foreknowledge

Here is an article on these two views on foreknowledge:

Two Views on Foreknowledge | Monergism

So we have two views – one is that foreknowledge means to “know beforehand” in terms of cognitive knowledge (John Calvin used the word “prescience” and based this prescience on the idea on divine decree). The other is that “foreknowledge” is relational and involves a choice of intimate relations, as when Adam “knew” his wife Eve, and means “fore-loved”.

What is your understanding of “foreknowledge” and why do you hold that position?

God foreknows His own in the sense that He has already chosen them out and determined that they shall be His people!
So he knows that truth, due to Him causing it to be true.

 

[Reformed]

There are two separate issues here. 1. What foreknowledge is. Its definition. 2. How foreknowledge works in soteriology. What is foreknowledge? A textbook answer is provided by Donald McKim in his Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms:

"(Lat. praescientia) Knowing a thing or event before it has happened. It is applied to the God who knows all things—including their causes—prior to their occurrence in time (Ps. 139:4). As a dimension of God’s omniscience. God eternally knows all things that to humans appear to be “in the future.”"

The predestination of the Elect occurs within the realm of God's foreknowledge. God knows about it because God caused it. God is active in predestination, not passive as in the false foreknowledge of faith view.

What you presented in your opening post is foreknowledge operating within different contexts. You posted this thread in the Calvinism and Arminian debate forum, so that is a tacit acknowledgment that foreknowledge is typically used soteriologically. But God knows all things because He is omniscient. Ergo, it can be said that all things occur in accordance with his foreknowledge.

 

[JonC]

There are two separate issues here. 1. What foreknowledge is. Its definition. 2. How foreknowledge works in soteriology. What is foreknowledge? A textbook answer is provided by Donald McKim in his Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms:

"(Lat. praescientia) Knowing a thing or event before it has happened. It is applied to the God who knows all things—including their causes—prior to their occurrence in time (Ps. 139:4). As a dimension of God’s omniscience. God eternally knows all things that to humans appear to be “in the future.”"

The predestination of the Elect occurs within the realm of God's foreknowledge. God knows about it because God caused it. God is active in predestination, not passive as in the false foreknowledge of faith view.

What you presented in your opening post is foreknowledge operating within different contexts. You posted this thread in the Calvinism and Arminian debate forum, so that is a tacit acknowledgment that foreknowledge is typically used soteriologically. But God knows all things because He is omniscient. Ergo, it can be said that all things occur in accordance with his foreknowledge.

What I am speaking of is foreknowledge in the context of salvation.

The way it was explained by me to me by one professor is that he believed foreknowledge in this context refers to a relationship between God and the elect in Christ. Another way of viewing this is how Calvin explains the issue as cognitive pre-knowledge, but links this to God's decree to save (to elect). Both were in reference to Romans 8. Robert Pricilli (Reformation Arminianism) in Grace, Faith, Free Will defines foreknowledge as God's omniscience (God "sees" what is going to come and chooses those who will be saved).

 

[Yeshua1]

What I am speaking of is foreknowledge in the context of salvation.

The way it was explained by me to me by one professor is that he believed foreknowledge in this context refers to a relationship between God and the elect in Christ. Another way of viewing this is how Calvin explains the issue as cognitive pre-knowledge, but links this to God's decree to save (to elect). Both were in reference to Romans 8. Robert Pricilli (Reformation Arminianism) in Grace, Faith, Free Will defines foreknowledge as God's omniscience (God "sees" what is going to come and chooses those who will be saved).

Did God know that I would beone of the elect due to Him determining that, or did I choose that for myself?

 

[Reformed]

What I am speaking of is foreknowledge in the context of salvation.

In that case, I will allow post #3 to be my detailed response.

 

[Iconoclast]

In that case, I will allow post #3 to be my detailed response.

Reformed did you notice that the article by John Samson although entitled "two views" only offers one view that is biblical. The first view is pure error..

 

[JonC]

In that case, I will allow post #3 to be my detailed response.

We agree on foreknowledge.

 

[Reformed]

Reformed did you notice that the article by John Samson although entitled "two views" only offers one view that is biblical. The first view is pure error..

I have not seen that. Do you have a link to the article?

 

[JonC]

I have not seen that. Do you have a link to the article?

It is in the OP.

And that is the whole point. He is offering two competing views.

 

[Iconoclast]

Reformed did you notice that the article by John Samson although entitled "two views" only offers one view that is biblical. The first view is pure error..

Two Views on Foreknowledge | Monergism

 

[Reformed]

Two Views on Foreknowledge | Monergism

Yes. OK. The Prescient View is what Donald M. McKim calls "foreknowledge of faith". It is the "God looks down the corridor of time view". The Prescient View fails because there is no biblical warrant for it.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Generally, I define it as a function of omniscience. It is to "know" before-hand, not "forelove".
However, I do not think of it as any form of "seeing before-hand" or "looking down the corridors of time" et. al.

God's foreknowledge is best defined as propositional, not perceptual.

God doesn't have a perfect crystal ball, perceiving what will happen in the future.
More adequately, Omniscience means: God knows all true propositions and believes no false ones.
Fore-knowledge that is based on essentially "foresight" is inadequate.

Any tensed proposition can be expressed a-temporally. For example:
1.) Trump is reelected president November 2020
2.) Trump will be reelected president in November 2020
3.) Trump was reelected as president on November 2020

All of these express exactly the same proposition with the same truth value. The difference is only from the temporal relation of the speaker to the events in question.
Omniscience based on what is essentially "fore-perception" is not really omniscience but simple a-temporality. I do not assume this, and similarly do not make statements like God is "outside of time" etc...to explain fore-knowledge (even if what is meant by that is true).

I believe God knows all true propositions, believes no false ones and furthermore, I happen to believe he possesses Middle-knowledge as well. Knowing, for instance, what would occur given different circumstances.

I do not think Calvinists are "wrong" to see that there is truly a relational aspect to "fore-knowledge" in a soteriological sense. They are quite right to see it, but I do not think it should be redefined as "fore-loving" or restricted to what is essentially "fore-love".

Proginōskō means knowledge beforehand....not previous relational intimacy. I think our Calvinist brethren are all too quick to supplant the primary and denotative meaning of the term for a connotative meaning for the term. This, I believe to be erroneous. The connotative meaning (which is fairly and rightly observed) does not supplant the literal (or denotative) meaning of the term, which must be accounted for.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. OK. The Prescient View is what Donald M. McKim calls "foreknowledge of faith". It is the "God looks down the corridor of time view". The Prescient View fails because there is no biblical warrant for it.

That would probably be the prominent viewpoint today though among the saved! I agree that it is wrong...

 

[Yeshua1]

Generally, I define it as a function of omniscience. It is to "know" before-hand, not "forelove".
However, I do not think of it as any form of "seeing before-hand" or "looking down the corridors of time" et. al.

God's foreknowledge is best defined as propositional, not perceptual.

God doesn't have a perfect crystal ball, perceiving what will happen in the future.
More adequately, Omniscience means: God knows all true propositions and believes no false ones.
Fore-knowledge that is based on essentially "foresight" is inadequate.

Any tensed proposition can be expressed a-temporally. For example:
1.) Trump is reelected president November 2020
2.) Trump will be reelected president in November 2020
3.) Trump was reelected as president on November 2020

All of these express exactly the same proposition with the same truth value. The difference is only from the temporal relation of the speaker to the events in question.
Omniscience based on what is essentially "fore-perception" is not really omniscience but simple a-temporality. I do not assume this, and similarly do not make statements like God is "outside of time" etc...to explain fore-knowledge (even if what is meant by that is true).

I believe God knows all true propositions, believes no false ones and furthermore, I happen to believe he possesses Middle-knowledge as well. Knowing, for instance, what would occur given different circumstances.

I do not think Calvinists are "wrong" to see that there is truly a relational aspect to "fore-knowledge" in a soteriological sense. They are quite right to see it, but I do not think it should be redefined as "fore-loving" or restricted to what is essentially "fore-love".

Proginōskō means knowledge beforehand....not previous relational intimacy. I think our Calvinist brethren are all too quick to supplant the primary and denotative meaning of the term for a connotative meaning for the term. This, I believe to be erroneous. The connotative meaning (which is fairly and rightly observed) does not supplant the literal (or denotative) meaning of the term, which must be accounted for.

Since God is Sovereign though, and in control over all things, can there be but one possible result, that which actually does happen?

 

[Iconoclast]

Generally, I define it as a function of omniscience. It is to "know" before-hand, not "forelove".
However, I do not think of it as any form of "seeing before-hand" or "looking down the corridors of time" et. al.

God's foreknowledge is best defined as propositional, not perceptual.

God doesn't have a perfect crystal ball, perceiving what will happen in the future.
More adequately, Omniscience means: God knows all true propositions and believes no false ones.
Fore-knowledge that is based on essentially "foresight" is inadequate.

Any tensed proposition can be expressed a-temporally. For example:
1.) Trump is reelected president November 2020
2.) Trump will be reelected president in November 2020
3.) Trump was reelected as president on November 2020

All of these express exactly the same proposition with the same truth value. The difference is only from the temporal relation of the speaker to the events in question.
Omniscience based on what is essentially "fore-perception" is not really omniscience but simple a-temporality. I do not assume this, and similarly do not make statements like God is "outside of time" etc...to explain fore-knowledge (even if what is meant by that is true).

I believe God knows all true propositions, believes no false ones and furthermore, I happen to believe he possesses Middle-knowledge as well. Knowing, for instance, what would occur given different circumstances.

I do not think Calvinists are "wrong" to see that there is truly a relational aspect to "fore-knowledge" in a soteriological sense. They are quite right to see it, but I do not think it should be redefined as "fore-loving" or restricted to what is essentially "fore-love".

Proginōskō means knowledge beforehand....not previous relational intimacy. I think our Calvinist brethren are all too quick to supplant the primary and denotative meaning of the term for a connotative meaning for the term. This, I believe to be erroneous. The connotative meaning (which is fairly and rightly observed) does not supplant the literal (or denotative) meaning of the term, which must be accounted for.

The biblical usage informs us as to what it means.
What is being said about the whom in romans 8:20-30 cannot be said of the ungodly

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Since God is Sovereign though, and in control over all things, can there be but one possible result, that which actually does happen?

I do not think certainty implies necessity, no.
If God decrees something, sure....that he foreknows something is different.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

The biblical usage informs us as to what it means.
What is being said about the whom in romans 8:20-30 cannot be said of the ungodly

The Bible is not a Lexicon which habitually redefines words in common usage.
If the Scriptures use the word "foreknow" or proginosko in this instance, it means by it what anyone meant by it at the time. Proginosko did not mean "forelove". It meant "foreknow". It is bad hermeneutic to treat the Bible as though it regularly repurposes words. It is dangerous to treat it that way.

So long as you treat the Bible like a Lexicon, you will be in confusion.

 

[JonC]

Did God know that I would beone of the elect due to Him determining that, or did I choose that for myself?

Both.

 

[Yeshua1]

I do not think certainty implies necessity, no.
If God decrees something, sure....that he foreknows something is different.

But how can there be alternate endings even possible, or so called Middle Knowledge, since the Lord either determines and causes or permits all that actually ever really happens?