Chapter 7 of my book, “Twelve What Abouts – Answering Common Objections Concerning God’s Sovereignty in Election.”

What about Foreknowledge?

Romans 8:28-30: And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

In what theologians refer to as “The Golden Chain of Redemption,” God is revealing to us an unbreakable chain that starts in eternity past, goes through time, and on into eternity future. This chain is forged by God Himself, and has five unbreakable links: God foreknows, predestinates, calls, justifies and glorifies.

Notice that there is one ambiguity in the text; something that is not actually stated but is definitely implied – that being the word “all.” Let’s see this clearly by inserting another possible implication by way of contrast, the word “some.”

“For (some) whom He foreknew, He predestined; (some) He predestined, He called; (some) He called, He justified; and (some) He justified, were glorified.” What kind of comfort and security would that give to us? Would we be able to say “Who can separate us from the love of Christ?”

I think our answer would have to be that many things could separate us (if the intended implication was the word “some” in this passage). It would make absolutely no sense whatsoever and certainly would not give us any kind of security in Christ, the very thing Paul is seeking to do in this Romans 8 passage.

I believe 100 out of 100 Bible scholars would all agree that the implication of the text is that all He foreknew, He predestined; all He predestined, He called; all He called, He justified; and all He justified, He glorified.

FOR THOSE WHOM HE FOREKNEW…

In Romans 8:29, the text reads “For those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son…”

Does this not therefore suggest that because foreknowledge comes before predestination in the text, then predestination is simply based on God’s foreknowledge? In other words, because God foreknows or sees in advance (with full and complete knowledge) what a person will do, and who it is that will respond in faith to the Gospel, He simply predestinates those whom He knows will believe. Right?

Certainly this is how I understood this passage for many years and it is the way that many deal with the issue of predestination in our day.

I also pointed to 1 Peter 1:1-2 which talks of those who are “elect … according to the foreknowledge of God the Father…” and assumed that this verse would add weight to my argument that election and predestination is based on God knowing ahead of time what we will do.

At first glance, it certainly seems to be a legitimate interpretation, because the word “foreknew” comes before “predestination” in the text of Romans 8:29.

However, the fact that foreknowledge comes before predestination should in no way surprise us. That’s because God would need to foreknow a person He is going to predestinate to something. God does not predestinate unknown persons, but specific individuals whom He knows.

So this is not really an argument for either side in this debate. In both systems, foreknowing would need to come before predestination.

The real question then is, “What exactly does it mean for God to foreknow somebody?”

Actually there are a number of problems with the way I once understood “foreknowledge” — not the least of which is that scripture reveals very clearly that, left to himself, man will always choose against Christ, because of his hostile disposition to God. Man is dead spiritually and needs his heart of stone to be removed and a heart of flesh put in before he has any interest in seeking the God of the Bible. (Rom 3:11; Rom 8:7, 8; 1 Cor 2:14) Apart from regeneration, man is the sworn enemy of God.
As A. W. Pink once stated, God did not elect any sinner because He foresaw that he would believe, for the simple but sufficient reason that no sinner ever believes until God gives him faith, just as no man sees until God gives him sight. (Pink, The Nature of God)

The interpretation also falls down because the word “foreknew” does not merely mean to know future actions beforehand. It has a much more precise meaning. The word “foreknew” (Greek: proginosko) in Romans 8:29 is a verb rather than a noun. It is an action word. And as the text informs us, it is something done by God. What exactly does God do then? The text says that “those whom he foreknew…”

To gain a correct biblical definition of this word foreknew, rather than assume its meaning, (which is what many do) we need to do some homework and study. In this case it means we need to go to passages of Scripture that have God as the subject of the verbal form (as here in this passage). This is because passages that have humans as the subject would differ substantially in their meaning from the ones where God is the subject. I am sure we will all agree, we as creatures “know” things on a very different basis to the way God does.

When we do this we find the verb proginosko is used three times in the New Testament with God as the subject – here in Romans 8:29, then also in Romans 11:2, and lastly in 1 Peter 1:20.

This proves to be significant when we ask the question, “What, or who is foreknown by God?” In Romans 8:29, the direct object of the verb is a pronoun that refers back to the called of the previous verse (v. 28). In Romans 11:2 the object the verb is referring to is “His people.” And in 1 Peter 1:20, the object is Jesus Christ Himself.

Each reference then portrays God as foreknowing persons rather than actions. 1 Peter 1:20 says, “He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you.” When God foreknew Christ, did that mean that God simply knew that Jesus would make correct decisions or have faith in His Father? Hardly! It speaks of the Father’s personal intimacy and affection for His beloved Son.

To say that God foreknows acts, faith, behavior, choices, etc, is to assume something about the term that is not witnessed in the biblical text. God “foreknows” persons not actions. Of course, God does know the future actions of people, but that is not how the word “foreknow” is used biblically – ever.
How does this relate to what we see in the Old Testament? Well there, we encounter a similar word use to “foreknew” in the New Testament, found in the Hebrew word “yada.” It refers in a number of instances to God’s “knowing” of individuals.

For instance in Jeremiah 1:5, God said to Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
We see this same concept in God’s “knowing” of Moses. Exodus 33:17 – “And the LORD said to Moses, ‘This very thing that you have spoken I will do, for you have found favor in my sight, and I know you by name.’” Again we see the personal nature of God’s knowing of an individual. This refers to a personal intimacy and affection God had for Moses in that he had found favor in the eyes of the Lord. God had chosen Moses to be a recipient of His tender mercy.

I’ll quote just one more passage where we see this word yada used to refer to God possessing a personal intimacy and affection. Amos 3:2 in speaking of Israel says, “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” Though the ESV translates the word “yada” here as “known,” the NASB actually translates it as “chosen,” and there is a very strong basis by way of context for this word to be translated in this way. Literally it says, “You (speaking of Israel) only have I known…”

It should be obvious to us that God did not merely know about Israel and possessed no such knowledge of other nations, nor that God merely knew the future actions of Israel and did not know the future actions of the other nations. This “knowing” of Israel is deeply personal and intimate. It speaks of God’s grace in choosing them to be His people for His Sovereign purposes alone. The word yada is used also in Genesis 4:1 when it says that Adam “knew” his wife Eve. The result of this “knowing” was a child, revealing a deep personal relationship.

All this is important because it presents a consistent pattern. Understanding how the verb is used in the New Testament, along with these insights from the Old, provides a very strong basis for understanding what foreknew actually means.

Dr. White in his book The Potter’s Freedom states, When Paul says, ‘those whom He foreknew’ Paul is speaking about an action on God’s part that is just as solitary, just as God-centered, and just as personal as every other action in the string: God foreknows (chooses to enter into relationship with); God predestines; God calls; God justifies; God glorifies. From first to last it is God who is active, God who accomplishes all these things.

Foreknew therefore does not merely suggest “a passive gathering of infallible knowledge of the future actions of free creatures,” but rather reveals that from start to finish, salvation is a Divine accomplishment. It is God and God alone who saves, to the praise of His glory alone.

To quote Dr. James Montgomery Boice in his comments on Romans 8:29, “those whom God foreknew: The verse does not say that God foreknew what certain of his creatures would do. It is not talking about human actions at all. On the contrary, it is speaking entirely of God and of what God does. Each of these five terms is like that: God foreknew, God predestined, God called, God justified, God glorified. Besides, the object of the divine foreknowledge is not the actions of certain people but the people themselves. In this sense it can only mean that God has fixed a special attention upon them or loved them savingly.

ESTABLISHING THE MESSAGE OF GRACE
Romans 11:5, 6 declares, “So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.”
Allow me to quote Mark Webb here:

The most casual Bible student admits that Scripture indeed employs the language of election when speaking of God’s eternal purposes. Yet most seek to dodge the implications of that language by fleeing to the refuge of ‘conditional’ election (i.e. that God’s choice, or election, of certain men to salvation is “conditioned” by his foreseeing faith in those men)…

If “conditional” election is true—if God’s choice of me is determined by my choice of Him—the practical effect of this teaching is no different than if there were no election at all! The proof of this assertion is seen in the fact that the groups who hold this view seldom, if ever, mention the subject. And why should they? To what purpose? Since it’s taught that God has done all He can do to save, and now it’s up to man, the will of man becomes the determining and dominant factor in salvation. Whenever you make God’s choice of men to salvation hinge upon what He foresees in man—be it his work, his faith, or his choice—you have effectively undermined the whole concept of salvation by grace alone! Either salvation depends upon God’s free choice and good pleasure, which is the principle of “grace,” or it depends upon something man himself produces, which is the principle of “works.” It really matters not whether this “thing” which God foresees is something tangible, seen outwardly in the man’s life, or something intangible, seen inwardly only by God. It matters not whether it’s a huge thing, or whether it’s a tiny thing. So long as man’s part is the critical, determinative part, you have a system based upon “works” not grace.

Let me illustrate. Suppose you came to me and said, “Mark, I have a $15,000 car here. If you’ll pay me $15,000, I’ll give you the car.” We’d all agree, that’s not “grace,” that’s “works.” But suppose you said, “Mark, I’ve a $15,000 car here, and I’ll simply give you the car.” We’d all agree, that’s “grace,” not “works.”

But now let’s try to mix the two concepts. Suppose you said, “Mark, here’s a $15,000 car. I’ll be $14,999 gracious to you if you’ll simply pay me $1.” Have we succeeded in mixing “grace” and “works?” No! For what’s the practical difference between that last offer and you simply saying, “Mark, here’s a $15,000 car—I’ll sell it for $1?” Do you see? You’re still coming to me on the basis of “selling,” not “giving.” You’ve not changed your principle, you’ve simply lowered your price!

This is precisely Paul’s point in Romans 11:5-6. An “unconditional” election is the only concept of election consistent with salvation by free grace!… God intentionally designed salvation so that no man could boast of it. He didn’t merely arrange it so that boasting would be discouraged or kept to a minimum—He planned it so that boasting would be absolutely excluded! Election does precisely that. – What Difference Does it Make? A Discussion of the Evangelical Utility of the Doctrines of Grace.

Before we move on, let us also look at this from a logical perspective of what God knew from eternity. As John Hendryx has stated, If God knew someone would choose hell even before He created them, then this was a fixed certainty (even before their creation), so why did God go ahead and create them? It was obviously, in their view, still within His Providence that these people be lost… or if God already foreknew who would be saved then how can they continue to argue that He is trying to save every man? Certainly God already knows who the persons will be, so why should He send the Holy Spirit to those He knows will reject him? (monergism.com) Ultimately, when this view is subjected to scrutiny, it logically undermines the very position it is seeking to assert.

_ _ _ _

“But,” say others, “God elected them on the foresight of their faith.” Now, God gives faith, therefore he could not have elected them on account of faith, which he foresaw. There shall be twenty beggars in the street, and I determine to give one of them a shilling; but will anyone say that I determined to give that one a shilling, that I elected him to have the shilling, because I foresaw that he would have it? That would be talking nonsense. In like manner to say that God elected men because he foresaw they would have faith, which is salvation in the germ, would be too absurd for us to listen to for a moment. – C. H. Spurgeon, from the sermon “Election,” preached on September 2, 1855, at New Park Street Chapel, Southwark.