The Meaning of “Foreknowledge”

Article: “Foreknowledge”Its New Testament Meaning
James White – original source: https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/1989/10/01/foreknowledge-its-new-testament-meaning/

“For whom He did foreknow, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He might be the firstborn of many brothers. And whom He did predestine, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He Justified, these He also glorified.” (Romans 8:29-30).

This incredible passage, known as the “Golden Chain of Redemption”, has long held great fascination for men and women of God. Yet, the truth it proclaims has, for the most part, been obscured by a misunderstanding of one of the very first terms encountered, that being “foreknow”. What does this term mean? Roman Catholic theologians, lacking the concept of salvation by grace through faith, and the attendant concept of the sovereignty of God in salvation (election) view the term as referring to God’s “foresight” of future events; that is, God, knowing the future, “chooses” those whom He knows will be pliable to His will and who will repent from their sins and turn to Him. This is the same position held by Arminians as well. For example, Dr. Curtis Hutson, editor of The Sword of the Lord, has written a small booklet entitled “Why I Disagree with All Five Points of Calvinism.” While we would not wish to make this booklet representative of responsible Arminianism, on this point Dr. Hutson’s comments are very representative of this perspective: “God in His foreknowledge knows who will trust Jesus Christ as Saviour, and He has predestined to see that they are Justified and glorified.” In other words, God elects on the basis of the actions of man (though seen in the future) rather than on the sole basis of His own will and purpose. This, we are told, is what “foreknowledge” means—a simple knowing of future events, with the result that certain actions can be taken on the basis of those future events.

But, we must ask, is this what the Bible teaches? Are we taught in Scripture that God responds to the actions of men, even when those actions are future? Or does the term “foreknowledge” mean this at all?

We might approach this question from the perspective that it is an established fact that the Bible teaches that God is eternal and immutable (unchangeable). If this is true, then surely God’s decrees cannot possibly be derived from the actions of men; God’s actions cannot be based upon what happens in time, for this would indicate a progression and change in the being of God. To assert that God’s actions are dependent upon or based upon man’s creates incredible difficulties in regards to the nature of God. But, someone might assert, the Bible presents God’s knowing of future events as the basis of His actions, so shouldn’t we go with the Bible? Of course we should, but we must never interpret Scripture so as to make the Word contradictory to itself. Then what does foreknowledge actually mean? Is it used consistently in Scripture? Is its meaning in line with the nature of God as revealed by the Word?

To answer these questions, we must first understand the process of determining what a word in the New Testament actually meant to the writer and his audience. Frequently modern writers assume that the English translation carries all of the range and depth of meaning of the original Greek or Hebrew term when in fact it does not. Also, there is great danger in “pushing” the meaning of the English term back onto the Greek or Hebrew word. What matters is not what an English word means today, but what a Greek or Hebrew word meant back then!

So, to find out what the Bible means when it speaks of God’s “foreknowledge” we must look at the usage of the Greek term itself; we must see how it functions in the New Testament, and. Just as importantly, we must discover whether it has been influenced by the Old Testament as well.

The Greek term translated by the noun “foreknowledge” is πρόγνωσις (prognosis). The verbal form, προγινώσκω (proginosko) is the term found in Romans 8:29 above, as well as in Romans 11:2, and 1 Peter 1:20 (this study will focus only on the usage of these terms in regards to God). The noun form is found in Acts 2:23 and 1 Peter 1:2. On first glance the meaning, as the Greek term is a compound of προ (before) and γινωσκω (to know), seems fairly simple: to know beforehand. But before such a simple answer is accepted, let’s look at what it means “to know.”

Anyone familiar with the range of meaning and usage of the terms γινώσκω and οἶδα (another term meaning “to know”) in Paul’s writings knows that the nuances of meaning found in these terms is anything but easily defined. Therefore, the better part of wisdom is to ask, “is the term ’to know ’ in the Old Testament relevant to the meaning of the same term in the New?” To find out, let’s look at the OT term “to know”.

The basic Hebrew term translated “to know” in the Old Testament is יָדַע (yada). Both Greek terms noted above (γινώσκω /οἶδα) are used to translate this one Hebrew word; γινώσκω is used over 500 times as the translation of יָדַע in the Septuagint (LXX). And what does this term mean in Hebrew? Does it refer simply to having intellectual knowledge? No indeed! When the Hebrew speaks of God’s knowledge, something far more than just bare cognizance of facts is in view. Let’s look at some passages where this will be seen, and see if some of the fuller meaning of יָדַע can be discovered.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew (יָדַע) you, before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5) Here God says that He “knew” Jeremiah even before He formed the prophet in the womb. Does this mean that God simply had knowledge of the future actions of Jeremiah? Clearly not, for the parallelism of the passage indicates that the knowing is to be understood as being synonymous with God’s consecration of him and His appointing him as a prophet to the nations. Hence, the term refers to an action on God’s part in choosing Jeremiah. God is active in this knowing, this choosing. The object of His knowing is not a fact, but a person. God’s יָדַע of Jeremiah is personal. Is this kind of understanding a common feature of Hebrew thinking? Indeed it is! For the Jewish person, knowledge is very personal. One cannot know something truly in the Hebrew system of thought simply by standing afar off and thinking about an object. When Adam knew Eve in Genesis 4:1, the result was the conception of a child. Obviously, then, this “knowing” of Eve by Adam was far more than a simple understanding of her existence—his יָדַע of his wife was intensely personal. And when we speak of God’s knowing someone, we are speaking of His entering into personal relationship with that individual.

This is seen very clearly in Yahweh’s encounter with Moses in Exodus 33. In verse 17 we hear God saying to Moses, “I will also do this thing of which you have spoken; for you have found favor in my sight, and I have known (יָדַע) you by name.” Earlier Moses had indicated that God had spoken these words to him before (v. 12). Surely we here see that God is not simply saying ” I know your name” but that something far more personal is in view here. The knowing of Moses’ name is very personal; God is indicating His gracious decision to enter into a very special and personal relationship with Moses. The fact that this passage figures so prominently in Paul’s discussion of election in Romans 9:15 is surely significant as well, for if Paul connects verse 19 of this chapter with God’s predestination in Romans 9, surely his usage of “foreknow” in Romans 8 is drawn from here as well.

The continued emphasis upon the personal nature of the object of God’s knowledge is seen as well in Amos 3:2, where the nation of Israel, as God’s special covenant people, is addressed: “You only have I known (יָדַע) among all the nations of the earth.” Here God asserts that He has known only the people of Israel. Again, bare factual knowledge cannot possibly be the meaning, as God surely knows that other peoples exist, for He created them! Instead, the word “know” means “to choose”. Both the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version render יָדַע here as “chosen”. So prevalent is this sense of the Hebrew term when in reference to God that the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament comments, “We find yd’ in Am. 3:2 as an expression for the special relationship between Yahweh and Israel or election to service… In Ex. 33:12, 17.. .yd’… character- ize(s) the special election (and call)…In Jer. 1:5, the appointment of Jeremiah to prophetic office is characterized by yd’ (יָדַע). . long before his birth…Jeremiah had been chosen as a prophet.” (5:468).

Does the emphasis upon the active choice of God to enter into a personal relationship with an individual as an emphasis of the concept of “knowing” in the Old Testament come through in the New? It most certainly does! For example, when the Lord Jesus refers to His sheep, He asserts, “I am the good shepherd; and I know My own, and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.” (John 10:14-15) Again, simple knowledge of data is surely not what is in mind. Here “knowing” refers to personal relationship. The same is to be found elsewhere; in Matthew 7:23, when the Lord Jesus dismisses the ungodly from before the judgment seat with the words, “And then I will declare to them, ’I never knew you; depart from Me, you who work lawlessness.” Again, Jesus had intellectual knowledge of these people, but they did not have a personal relationship with Him. And the “firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, ’the Lord knows those who are His.’” (2 Timothy 2: 19). Hence, we have seen that “to know” in Scripture, especially when it is God who is doing the “knowing” and when the object of this “knowing” is personal (a person, or a people, as in Israel), refers not to a knowledge of data and facts, but a personal relationship between God and the “knowee”. With this concept in mind, let us now look at the concept of God’s foreknowledge in the New Testament.

Hence, we have seen that “to know” in Scripture, especially when it is God who is doing the “knowing” and when the object of this “knowing” is personal (a person, or a people, as in Israel), refers not to a knowledge of data and facts, but a personal relationship between God and the “knowee”. With this concept in mind, let us now look at the concept of God’s foreknowledge in the New Testament.

Above we cited Romans 8:29-30. As we look at this passage we note that again the object of God’s action of foreknowing is a person (or a people if we take the plurality of all men and women who are to be saved). We do not here see God knowing actions but rather people. God is not the passive recipient of knowledge of future events, but the active one who is foreknowing. This is God’s choice, God’s action in entering into a personal relationship with His creation. In this context, προγινώσκω refers to God’s gracious choice to enter into the special relationship of Redeemer to those who are the object of His love, the elect (v. 33).

This understanding of προγινώσκω is confirmed by its usage in Romans 11:2. “God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.” This is spoken about the people of Israel. Surely no truth is more clearly proclaimed In the Old Testament than that found in Deuteronomy 7:6-7: “For you are a holy people to Yahweh your God; Yahweh 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. Yahweh did not set His love on you or choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples…” God chose Israel freely and without any reference to their actions, merits, or anything else. But, if the common meaning of προγινώσκω as seen in most modern understandings is used here, we would be forced into the absurd statement that God chose Israel because He foresaw that Israel would choose Him! Can anyone with even the slightest familiarity with the history of the nation of Israel make such a statement? Surely not! God’s election of the people of Israel was based upon His own gracious decision to enter into covenant relationship with them, not on the basis of His foreseeing their actions or attitudes.

The personal nature of προγινώσκω is seen as well in 1 Peter 1:20, where Christ is said to have been “foreknown” before the foundation of the earth. Here again, election, choosing, personal relationship—all these elements that we have traced through the Old Testament are found to appear in the New.

The noun πρόγνωσις is found in two places in the New Testament: 1 Peter 1:2 is the first of these: “(who are)…chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, unto the obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ; grace and peace be multiplied to you.” Just as it is revealed in Romans 8:29, the Biblical order is foreknown, then elected (predestined). But, as we have seen, this is a sovereign decision by God wherein He enters a personal relationship with the object of His foreknowledge. Before we even existed, God graciously entered into relationship with us. What incredible mercy!

The second passage in which God’s πρόγνωσις is found is Acts 2:23: “this One, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.” At first glance it might seem as if this usage contradicts what has been seen before; that is, it looks as if here the action of the delivering up of Christ is what is foreknown, not Christ Himself, in opposition to what has been said, that God’s foreknowledge is always in regards to people, not things or actions. But, a closer look at the passage reveals that the object of God’s foreknowledge is indeed Christ. Hence it was according to God’s will and choice that Christ was delivered up. Surely we are not going to say that God simply looked into the future and saw what Christ would do; God is the very origin and source of Christ’s work; it was His will and plan. He is not reacting to some future event in sending Christ; God is the one who decided to send Christ.

So what have we seen? We have discovered that the Biblical presentation of God’s knowledge is consistent between the Old and New Testaments; that in the OT God’s יָדַע involves His gracious choice and selection of a person or people; that this continues on in the NT when we find that God’s πρόγνωσις refers to God’s gracious, merciful and solely sovereign choice to enter into personal relationship with a person. In the case of Christ, this is referred to His work in providing for salvation; He is “known” as the Redeemer. In reference to the elect, this is referred to God’s action in bringing them into relationship with Him. As Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says, “In the NT προγινώσκειν is referred to God. His foreknowledge, however, is an election or foreordination of His people…or Christ.” (I:715). The bare concept of simply having knowledge of future events has been seen to be inconsistent with the NT usage, and hence to be rejected.

What then can we conclude? That God’s election of individuals to salvation is free and sovereign; His action is not based upon anything in the creature either of merit or action. God’s action in predestination is based solely on Himself and His own will. This is vitally important in many ways; our theology of God will be seriously compromised if we accept the concept of God’s being dependent upon the actions of creatures in the creation of His decrees. Not only this, but a gospel that bases salvation upon the choice and action of man dishonors God and debilitates the church. Let us stand firm in the proclamation of the Apostle Paul, “It is from Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that just as it has been written, ‘Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.’” (1 Corinthians 1:30-31).

The manner in which God knows the future…

In response to the Calvinist assertion that God decrees all the events of time, Roger Olson (an Arminian) suggests that “Divine foreknowledge is no more causative than human foreknowledge.”

Doug Wilson (a Calvinist) responds:

Douglas-Wilson-2This misunderstands the objection entirely. If we could isolate divine foreknowledge, detaching it from God’s other attributes and actions, then this could be a reasonable point. If God’s foreknowledge were just like mine, only vast, then what is true of my foreknowledge at a given instant would be true of God’s foreknowledge at all those other instants. Fair enough. If I see a bicyclist hurtling toward a tree, I can have certain foreknowledge that he will hit that tree, and yet, because I am fifty feet away, my knowledge is in no way responsible for the collision. Why would this be different just because God can see ten bicyclists, or a thousand of them?

The answer is that He is the Creator of these bicyclists, and His foreknowledge includes all contingent foreknowledge. Contingent upon what? Upon His decision to create. That means that He knows what will happen on Planet Xtar if He decides to create it. The decision to create is therefore causative. The decision to create is causative of all the things that the Creator knows will follow from that particular creation.

This means that divine foreknowledge is not — as mine is — the knowledge of a mere observer. You cannot grapple with the implications of this point unless you combine two points together. God knows exhaustively what will happen in this world if He creates, and because He created it, that act of creation was a decision that willed everything contained within the bundle.

God knows what will happen if He creates the tree and if He creates the bicyclist, and therefore the decision to create is nothing more nor less than predestination in a cheap tux.

Election: Conditional or Unconditional?

In an article entitled pick me: Unconditional Election” Clint Archer writes:

Everyone who believes the Bible does believe in election. Ooh, them be fight’n words. Let me explain…

The Greek word for elect means chosen or called out from a group. Used eighteen times by six NT authors. Yes, even in the NIV. So it cannot be ignored or denied. The debate pivots only on the matter of election being conditional or unconditional.

Arminians say ‘I owe my election to my faith.’

Calvinists say ‘I owe my faith to my election.’

One says God elects those who will believe. The other says God elects, so they will believe.

I’m not putting words in their mouths. In the Articles of Faith of the National Association of Freewill Baptists, Article 9 states:

God determined from the beginning to save all who should comply with the conditions of salvation. Hence by faith in Christ men become his elect.”

i.e., your salvation is conditional on your faith.

So, does God elect you and therefore give you faith that saves, or does he recognize those who have faith, and therefore elects to save them? These questions must be answered by God’s word.

Is election conditional upon faith?

Let me ask you this: Did God, according to the Bible, chose you before or after you had faith?

Ephesians 1:4-5 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will…

Pop quiz: Did God choose you at the time you believed in Jesus, or before? Let me make it easier: did he chose you before or after you were born? “…even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world …”

God chose who he would save before they believed in Jesus, before they repented, before they prayed a prayer, before they were born, or before the world was created. (To be clear, I’m not saying he saved them before they had faith, only that he chose them to eventually be saved before they had faith.)

Election cannot be conditional on faith, because it happens before you believe and before you are born.

Romans 9: 11-13 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad- in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call- she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Why do Arminians not tap out when they read Romans 9?

Let me start by asserting categorically that Arminians are believers. They believe in grace by faith alone, they trust in Jesus alone to save them. But the explanation of how that happens they base on their experience and emotional reactions, instead of on Scripture. They say, ‘I remember choosing God. I’m not just a robot!’ And they feel that the doctrine of election makes God out to be callous in that he doesn’t elect everybody, and they say that predestination makes us puppets with no free will. They fear that the doctrine will dampen evangelism and curtail missions.

But all of these are straw men arguments. No true Calvinist is fatalistic or indifferent to evangelism and missions. History proves otherwise. Think of Charles “the Soul-winner” Spurgeon, Jonathan “Spark of Revival” Edwards, George “the Evangelist” Whitefield, George “Orphan Savior” Mueller, and our contemporary champions of missions, John “Let the Nations Be Glad” Piper, John “Grace Advance” MacArthur. Time would fail to mention Westminster, every Puritan, and Sproul, Lloyd-Jones, Stott, Machen, Mohler, Dever, Mahaney, and pretty much everyone whose sermons inspire a love for deep doctrine and evangelism. Oh, and I forgot one…Paul.

Romans 8: 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son,…

How do Arminians side-step foreknowledge and predestination?

The way Arminians get around it is to postulate that, ‘God looked down through the corridors of time and elected those whom he saw would believe in Jesus of their own free will; he then elected them based on the condition of their faith. That is predestination.’

I.e. God knew who would choose him, and the responded by choosing them first.

Two problematic speed bumps hinder that view: 1) what the word foreknew means. The Greek word progvwsis or foreknow used 5x in the NT, means ‘to intimately know beforehand.’

It is not used to speak of a prediction, but of a pre-ordination. What does that mean? Listen to one of the other clear uses of foreknowledge…

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

Jesus’ death was man’s doing, but it was the “definite plan of God.” Foreknowledge = plan. God didn’t predict that Jesus would be crucified; God ordained that Jesus would be crucified for our sins. It wasn’t a response to what he knew we would do to Jesus, it was the master plan all along. So was your salvation! So, that is the first problem with the “corridors of time” theory. It’s not what foreknow means. There is another problem…

2) The logical fallacy. Arminians say God knew who would choose him, so he chose them. But this mocks God’s use of language. It’s verbal gymnastics of RobBellian proportions to say that.

Charles Spurgeon explains:

God gives faith, therefore He could not have elected them on faith that he foresaw. There shall be twenty beggars in the street, and I determine to give one of them a shilling; but will anyone say I determined to give that one shilling, because I foresaw that he would have it? That would be talking nonsense.

When Arminians, say that “God foreknew who would elect him, so he elected them,” they reverse the meaning of election. That’s analogous to saying “Shakespeare knew MacBeth would kill king Duncan, so he wrote the play that way.” If he knows that is how it will turn out, and he writes the play, that is the same as saying he made it turn out that way.

Loraine Boettner agrees:

Foreknowledge implies certainty and certainty implies foreknowledge. If God knows the course of history, then history will follow that course as certainly as a locomotive on its tracks.

What about free will?

The Bible doesn’t say there is no free will. It says your will is only free to choose what it is able to choose. (What Luther called the Bondage of the Will; your will is bound to choose sin.) Like a leopard who has free choice to elect eating the vegan salad or the juicy tourist. Its free will is spring-loaded to choose according the nature of a carnivore.

Remember what we learned in Despicable Me: the Doctrine of Total Depravity? …

Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.

I am can choose between Coke and Diet Coke. But I can’t choose to fly like a bird.

One of the grammar lessons my mom used to drill home to me was the difference between may and can.

‘Mom, can I have a cookie?’

‘I don’t know can you? Is it too big for your mouth? Oh, you mean “May I have a cookie?”’

I thought, why do I need to know that? Turns out it’s important in theology.

It’s not a matter of may a person choose Christ (everyone in the world may come to Christ at any moment to be saved); the question is can they choose Christ (are they able to without help)?

Here’s what the Bible says…

John 6:44 No one can [is able to] come to me unless the Father draws him. (see also 37 …all the Father gives me will come.)

Is 46:9-11 …I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass.

John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father draws him. [Which comes first, coming or drawing?]

1 Cor 1:28-29 God chose what is low and despised in the world, … so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.

Election gives all credit to God.

Matt 13:10-11 Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.

Apparently God decided who should respond and who not.

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

A crowd heard Paul’s preaching and who believed? Those “appointed to eternal life.”

Clincher: John 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit.

Jesus elected his apostles, so apparently their free will was not consulted.

Your objection might be this: I don’t believe that God would chose some and not all. That’s fine, but don’t say “I don’t believe in election.” Say, “I don’t believe the Bible.”

A Response to the Foreknowledge View of Election

A response to Dr. Gaines (1)

In a full program covering a number of issues, Dr. James White begins an examination of Dr. Steve Gaines’ sermon on the sovereignty of God from back in September. It is a very useful response to what is known as the “foreknowledge view of election” (the idea that God chooses people in eternity past based on His knowledge of their future actions in time – looking through the corridors of time He sees certain people responding positively to the gospel and then elects them on that basis). Dr. White shows this to be a completely unbiblical position. The response to Dr. Gaines’ sermon begins around the 1 hour mark of the show:

A response to Dr. Gaines (2)

As Dr. James White noted on his blog. “We continued our review of the September 8th sermon by Dr. Steve Gaines, and also noting the disastrous results of refusing to recognize the difference between the prescriptive will of God and the decretive will of God.”

Response (3)

Dr. White writes, “Continued our review of Pastor Steve Gaines’ sermon on election from 9/8/2013 today. Started off, though, with about 20 minutes on the will of God, the divine decree…”

Response (4)

James writes, “Had to start off with a little Caner news (specifically, materials from the police report of the criminal complaint Ergun Caner tried to use to stop us from giving our presentation in Lindale last year). The wave of documentation continues to grow and grow, and the shrill attacks of Caner and his defenders (Lumpkins, Rogers, Penn, et al) only show they well know the truth. But I got through that fairly quickly and managed to finish up my review of Pastor Steve Gaines’ sermon from September of 2013.”

Foreknowledge

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?” Continue reading

For those whom He foreknew

28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, 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, 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: 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?

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. Previously, I also pointed to 1 Peter 1:1-2 which talks of those who are “chosen, 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 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). Outside of Christ, man is the 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.”

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.
Continue reading