FOREKNOWLEDGE: There's More Than Meets God's Eye

http://www.flash.net/~thinkman/articles/foreknow.htm ^ | 4/25/02 | Rev. James M. Harrison

[RnMomof7]

It seems we have frequent discussions on what God's Foreknowlege means..thought this might be an interesting read to the non reformed for information and understanding

[RnMomof7]

An informational flag

[sola gracia]

Excellent, excellent article!! He sets forth some arguments I hadn't thought of before. This one will be copied and saved. Thanks Mom.

[Matchett-PI]

I see he mentions Sanders and Pinnock.

In Ron Nash's book entitled, "Is Jesus The Only Savior?", under the heading, "Why I Am Not An Inclusivist" here are excerpts from Chapter Eleven, beginning on page 163:

"Inclusivism can have a strong emotional appeal for many evangelical Christians. Many could sleep better if there were less urgency or no urgency in getting the gospel to the unevangelized. Many of us have loved ones who died with their relationship to Christ uncertain or whose prospects for eternity appear bleak. Some comfort, however false it might prove to be, could be derived from various inclusivist theories noted in this book.

However, wise Christians know better than to confuse the truth with the way they would sometimes like things to be. Whatever the appeal to the heart, we must evaluate exclusivism with our minds. How inclusivism squares with Scripture is more important than how it make us *feel*. [snip]

THE INCLUSIVIST AS ROMANTIC. We sometimes refer to people as romantics when they give _priority_ to feeling and emotion. Luthern theologian Marc Mueller has described CLARK PINNOCK'S inclusivism as a "romantic project" that fails to reflect "a truly biblical understanding of the awesomeness of God's sovereignity over history, the nations and the world of men." J.I. Packer believes inclusivists are more influenced by the "AMERICAN IDEA OF FAIRNESS" than by anything they have learned from Scripture.

According to some, what we find in inclusivism is a troubling example of how good and sincere people allow their feelings to get the better of them. Once they convince themselves emotionally that a certain belief *must* be true, they conclude that it *is* true and must therefore be in the Bible. It is a matter of doing theology by imagination. Step by step, inclusivists indulge in heavy speculation. One speculation is laid on another until we have what is supposed to be an elaborate theological structure. Upon careful analysis, however, the system turns out to be a house of cards.[snip]

DO INCLUSIVISTS TEACH SALVATION BY HUMAN WORKS? Once again we confront an issue on which it appears that inclusivists want to walk down both sides of the street at the same time. On the one hand, John Sanders takes the historic evangelical position that no humans "are saved by their own moral efforts". On the other hand, he ignores inclusivist implications to the exact opposite. Saunders affirms PINNOCK'S understanding of the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matt. 25:31-40 as an indiction that *serving the poor is an adequate substitute for faith* and may count as one ground on which God saves the unevangelized. [snip]

In other words, Pinnock is suggesting that a person who lacks New Testament faith -BUT- produces good works of a certain kind may still be saved on that basis. PINNOCK even goes so far as to speculate about God's saving "even the atheist who, through rejecting God (as he understands God), responds positively to Him implicitly by acts of love shown to neighbor."

*****The reader should reflect on these words and the meaning they give to salvation. The reader should also meditate upon the negative effect these convictions are bound to have on the future shape of Christian thought and action.****** [snip] Now we find PINNOCK suggesting that not even faith is necessary and that perhaps certain kinds of *decent* human conduct will serve just as well."

~End of excerpts ~

Ronald H. Nash (Ph.D., Syracuse) is a professor of philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida. He previously served twenty-seven years as professor of philosophy and department chairperson at Western Kentucky University. He is the author of and editor of more than twenty-five books, including Worldviews in Conflict, Faith & Reason, and The Concept of God.

[drstevej]

"From this follows the fourth decree to save certain particular persons and to damn others, which decree rests upon the foreknowledge of God, but which he has known from eternity which persons should believe according to such an administration of the means serving to repentance and faith through his preceding grace and which should persevere through subsequent grace, and also who should not believe and persevere." -- Works, I:247-248

Here is a quote that documents Arminius' teaching that election is based upon forseen faith and perseverence.

[RnMomof7]

This dilemma in which the Arminian finds himself can be avoided in one of two ways. One is to submit to the Biblical teaching concerning God's ultimate sovereignty in election. The other choice, which is gaining a foothold in evangelicalism in our day, is to give up God's sovereignty all together and stake out the position of men such as Clark Pinnock and Greg Boyd. These men are moving in the direction of Process Theology and have openly denied that God has any foreknowledge whatsoever. They represent the modern version of the Socinians. At the point of foreknowledge, they are at least more consistent than Arminians. They deny that God has foreknowledge. God cannot know the free acts of free agents.

This is the position of alot of the Pastors in the Church of the Nazarene (including mine) My Pastor says that foreknowlege = predestination

[drstevej]

Open Theology is finding fertile soil in believers steeped in Arminian concepts. I think the argument that foreknowledge = foresight leads to the position of Pinnock, Boyd et al. that God's foresight is limited because man is truly free.

BTW Boyd's denomination brought the statement "that He foreknows infallibly all that shall come to pass" to a vote.

It was voted down 275 to 251 (52% to 48%)-- June 1999.

Boyd and his fellow open theists then posit a God who fulfills prophecy by being shrewd enough to checkmate free choices by anticipating options and contingency planning. Wild stuff. Might be an intersting thread: Does Arminianism lead to Open Theism?

[RnMomof7]

Boyd and his fellow open theists then posit a God who fulfills prophecy by being shrewd enough to checkmate free choices by anticipating options and contingency planning. Wild stuff. Might be an intersting thread: Does Arminianism lead to Open Theism?

I recently completed a class on creation at a local Bible college..Interesting the teacher when speaking of the awesome power of God said something to the effect

Think of this..God knows every possible choice of every person and He has alternative plans for every one of them..

Ya know Steve man will go to no end to rob God of His power and authority.. You have to wonder how the prophesies ever got written:>)

[good1]

Thank you for the ping. This is one of the very best treatments of this subject that I have read.

His arguments are biblically sound, solidly reasoned, and logically presented.

His definition of foreknowledge is proven right by understanding that in light of the persecution faced by the Christians to whom Peter was writing in 1 Peter, Peter's entire basis of encouragement to them is based upon this understanding that God had "pre determined to have a love relationship" with them and that none of the sufferings they faced could ever affect their sure standing before God in any way.

The Arminian view destroys Peter's real source of support and encouragement to these people.

[RnMomof7]

The Arminian view destroys Peter's real source of support and encouragement to these people.

"God does not say that He foreknew the decisions that individuals would make, but rather, He foreknew the individuals themselves."

This is a conmmonly expressed thought here on FR..that God foreknew the actions and then He predestinated them...It is entirely silly good..Do the English "Elect" their King? And even if they did what difference would it make, he was born Royality and was born to be King? Same with the "elect". And it is usually the Arminians that say hell they decided for Christ so He decided for them...

[CCWoody]

Here is a quote that documents Arminius' teaching that election is based upon forseen faith and perseverence.

I'm just so used to reading scripture with the understanding that foreseen faith is foreseen due to God's foreknowledge of His gift of believing and saving faith to his foreknown people that I must read Arminius' teaching without the assumption that it is entirely the work of God.

It is apparent, though, from reading the Canons of Dort that they were rebutting the teaching that the foreknowledge is of our actions toward Him and not His actions towards us. It is also aparent that todays Arminians are "super-Arminians" in that they continue to walk down the path that Arminius opened towards its logical end.

[RnMomof7]

I just posted this on another thread Woody..it is appropriatte here too

Comparison of Calvinism and Arminianism

Arminianism	Calvinism
Free-Will or Human Ability Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does not interfere with man's freedom. Each sinner posses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man's freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God's Spirit and be regenerated or resist God's grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit's assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man's act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner's gift to God; it is man's contribution to salvation.	Total Inability or Total Depravity Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not - indeed he cannot - choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit's assistance to bring a sinner to Christ - it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation - it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner's gift to God.
Conditional Election God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. Election therefore was determined by or conditioned upon what man would do. The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based His choice was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man's will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. Thus the sinner's choice of Christ, not God's choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation.	Unconditional Election God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will. His choice of particular sinners was not based on any foreseen response of obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. These acts are the result, not the cause of God's choice. Election therefore was not determined by or conditioned upon any virtuous quality or act foreseen in man. Those whom God sovereignly elected He brings through the power of the Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ. Thus God's choice of the sinner, not the sinner's choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation.
Universal Redemption or General Atonement Christ's redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe on Him are saved. His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe, but it did not actually put away anyone's sins. Christ's redemption becomes effective only if man chooses to accept it.	Particular Redemption or Limited Atonement Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ's redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation, including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, therefore guaranteeing their salvation.
The Holy Spirit Can Be Effectually Resisted The Spirit calls inwardly all those who are called outwardly by the gospel invitation; He does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation. But inasmuch as man is free, he can successfully resist the Spirit's call. The Spirit cannot regenerate the sinner until he believes; faith (which is man's contribution) proceeds and makes possible the new birth. Thus, man's free will limits the Spirit in the application of Christ's saving work. The Holy Spirit can only draw to Christ those who allow Him to have His way with them. Until the sinner responds, the Spirit cannot give life. God's grace, therefore, is not invincible; it can be, and often is, resisted and thwarted by man.	The Efficacious Call of the Spirit or Irresistible Grace In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By means of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man's will, nor is He dependent upon man's cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God's grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended.
Falling from Grace Those who believe and are truly saved can lose their salvation by failing to keep up their faith, etc. All Arminians have not been agreed on this point; some have held that believers are eternally secure in Christ - that once a sinner is regenerated, he can never be lost.	Perseverance of the Saints All who are chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of Almighty God and thus persevere to the end.

• According to Arminianism:

  Salvation is accomplished through the combined efforts of God (who takes the initiative) and man (who must respond) - man's response being the determining factor. God has provided salvation for everyone, but His provision becomes effective only for those who, of their own free will, "choose" to cooperate with Him and accept His offer of grace. At the crucial point, man's will plays a decisive role; thus man, not God, determines who will be recipients of the gift of salvation.

• According to Calvinism:

  Salvation is accomplished by the almighty power of the Triune God. The Father chose a people, the Son died for them, the Holy Spirit makes Christ's death effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance, thereby causing them to willingly obey the gospel. The entire process (election, redemption, regeneration) is the work of God and is by grace alone. Thus God, not man, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation.

The following material, taken from Romans: An Interpretive Outline, by David N. Steele and Curtis Thomas, Baptist ministers in Little Rock, Arkansas, contrasts the Five Points of Calvinism with the Five Points of Arminianism in the clearest and most concise form found by Mr. Loraine Boettner. It is also included as an Appendix in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, by Mr. Boettner. Each of these books is published by the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Phillipsburg, N.J.

[RnMomof7]

Oppppss And it is usually the Arminians that say they decided for Christ so He decided for them...

no hell there:>)

[Jerry_M]

Great article!

I have bookmarked the source, just in case this thread gets pulled as a result of the actions of the haters of this fundamental Biblical doctrine.

[Jerry_M]

"It was voted down 275 to 251 (52% to 48%)-- June 1999."

LOL!

Theology by "focus group" polling! God sits in the heavens and laughs as well.

[Jerry_M]

Re. 13.

I actually heard a minister say: "God votes for you, the devil votes against you, and you cast the deciding vote."

Nauseating, simply nauseating, that the Sovereign of the universe would have no more "vote" than either the devil or an insignificant worm of a sinner like me.

[CCWoody]

Thoughts on this thread...

[CCWoody]

I actually heard a minister say: "God votes for you, the devil votes against you, and you cast the deciding vote."

I think I head ShadowAce say the same thing with his courtroom analogy.

BTW, Jerry, aren't you suppose to be out and about?

[Jerry_M]

Can't a guy get 45 minutes in front of the computer prior to being busy all weekend?

[drstevej]

It is my understanding that a number of people voting against the inclusion of this in the denominational doctrinal statement did so not because they disagreed with the statement but because they realized it's inclusion would result in Greg Boyd's, along with other open theists, leaving the denomination.

That, if true, is a sad choice.