Replies

You both should read +John Chrysostomos' Homily XVI on Romans, which deals with Rom:ix. Its far too long to copy here, but +John Chrysostomos speaks of how "election" is a fact meaningful only in terms of God's perfect "foreknowledge" of everything. And of course "foreknowledge" itself is a human term which is of necessity innappropriate when dealing with an ineffable and eternal God.

I'll give you just a snip here:

"For “the children,” he says, “being not yet born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, it was said unto her that the elder shall serve the younger:” for this was a sign of foreknowledge, that they were chosen from the very birth. That the election made according to foreknowledge, might be manifestly of God, from the first day He at once saw and proclaimed which was good and which not. Do not then tell me that thou hast read the Law (he means) and the Prophets, and hast been a servant for such a long time. For He that knoweth how to assay the soul, knoweth which is worthy of being saved. Yield then to the incomprehensibleness of the election. For it is He alone Who knoweth how to crown aright. How many, for instance, seemed better than St. Matthew; to go by the exhibition of works then visible. But He that knoweth things undeclared, and is able to assay the mind’s aptitude, knew the pearl though lying in the mire, and after passing by others, and being well pleased with the beauty of this, He elected it, and by adding to the noble born free-will grace from Himself, He made it approved. For if in the case of these arts which are perishable, and indeed in other matters, those that are good judges do not use the grounds on which the uninstructed form their decision, in selecting out of what is put before them; but from points which they are themselves well aware of, they many times disparage that which the uninstructed approve, and decide upon what they disparage: and horse-breakers often do this with horses, and so the judges of precious stones, and workmen in other arts: much more will the God that loveth man, the infinite Wisdom, Who alone hath a clear knowledge of all things, not allow of man’s guesses, but will out of His own exact and unfailing Wisdom pass his sentence upon all men. Hence it was that He chose the publican, the thief, and the harlot; but dishonored priests, and elders, and rulers, and cast them out. And this one may see happening in the martyrs’ case also. Many accordingly of those who were utterly cast aside, have in the time of trial been crowned. And, on the other hand, some that have been held great ones by many have stumbled and fallen. Do not then call the Creator to account, nor say, Why is it that one was crowned and another punished? For He knoweth how to do these things with exactness. Whence also he says, “Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated.” That it was with justice, you indeed know from the result: but Himself even before the result knew it clearly. For it is not a mere exhibition of works that God searcheth after, but a nobleness of choice and an obedient temper (gnwmhn eugnwmona) besides. For a man of this kind, if he should ever sin through some surprise, will speedily recover himself. And if he should even stay long haply in a state of vice, he will not be overlooked, but God Who knoweth all things will speedily draw him out. And so he that is herein corrupted, even if he seem to do some good things, will perish, in that he doth this with an ill intention. Hence even David, after committing murder and adultery, since he did this as being carried away by surprise, and not from habitual practice of wickedness, speedily washed it out. The Pharisee, however, who had not perpetrated any such crime (Luke xviii. 11), but even had good deeds besides to boast of, lost all by the bad spirit he had chosen.

Comments?

There are problems with the "foreknowledge" perspective. Please note these problems below by John Hendryx:

The Inconsistency of Synergists on Election & Foreknowledge

Synergists teach that ELECTION is as follows: God foreknew who would yield to the Spirit, and therefore elected to salvation all those whom He foresaw would do so. In this scheme the absolute free will of the natural man is necessary to preserve human responsibility. But this concept of foreknowledge actually grinds itself into nothing. There is no synergist living who can consistently believe this theory of foreknowledge, and still go around teaching his views as to salvation. Why so? Consider the following:

1. No Synergist can consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then preach that God is trying to save every man. Surely if God knows whom He can save or who will be saved, then who would say that He is trying to save more? Certainly, it is foolish to assert that God is trying to do something which He knew never could be accomplished. I have heard some synergists charge those who believe monergism that the Gospel preached to the non-elect is mockery since God has not elected them. If there is any validity in that objection, then it equally applies to them as well who preach to those who God knows won't be saved. God commands that the Gospel be preached to all, whether we clearly understand or accept His reasoning in the matter.

2. No Synergist can consistently say that God foreknew which sinners would be lost and then say it is not within God's will to allow these sinners to be lost. Why did He create them? Let the Synergist consider that question. God could have just as easily refrained from creating those that He knew would go to Hell. He knew where they were going before He created them. Since He went ahead and created them with full knowledge that they would be lost, it is evidently within God's providence that some sinners be lost, He evidently has some purpose in it which we human beings cannot fully discern. The Christian humanist can complain against the truth that God chose to allow some men a final destiny of Hell all they want, but it is as much a problem for them as for anyone. As a matter of fact, it is a problem which synergists must face. If he faces it, he will have to admit either the error of his theology or deny foreknowledge all together. But he might say that God had to create those that perish, even against His will. This would make God subject to Fate.

3. No Synergist can consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then teach that God punished Christ for the purpose of redeeming every single man that ever lived. Surely we should credit God with having as much sense as a human being. What human being would make a great but useless and needless sacrifice? Synergists say that God punished Christ for the sins of those whom He knew would go to Hell. This theory of the atonement--although synergists do not mention this--involves the matter of Christ's suffering exclusively for the purpose of man's salvation--the substitutionary aspect. They fail to have any appreciation for aspect of propitiation.

4. No Synergist can consistently say that God foreknew who would be saved and then preach that God the Holy Spirit does all He can do to save every man in the world. The Holy Spirit would be wasting time and effort to endeavor to convert a man who He knew from the beginning would go to Hell. You hear Synergists talk about how the Spirit tries to get men to be saved and if they don't yield to him they will "cross the line" and offend the Spirit so that He will never try to save them again. Bottom line, the Synergist makes a finite creature out of the Divine Godhead.