The omniscience of God

The omniscience of God

ronathanedwards	# February 21, 2010, 4:47 pm \| Post: 1
Group: Member Posts: 192 Status:	Quote The term 'Election' occurs frequently in the New Testament, referring to God's choice of some for salvation. All Christians hold to a doctrine of election since it is a biblical word. The notion of God choosing some for salvation and not others is so clear throughout the entire Bible that no serious student of Scripture denies it. Contention occurs, however, when we ask what is basis of God's choice. Two answers exist within the Christian community The first view holds that Election has no basis whatever in man. It is a mystery, hidden forever in God's sovereign will. Though God is not arbitrary in his decrees, nevertheless the decree of Election is a righteous one since no one deserves salvation anyway. This view is frequently called 'Reformed', because it was prominent during the Reformation period and is held today by those churches who identity their theology as 'Reformed.' The second view claims divine 'foreknowledge' as the basis for Election. God supposedly looks into the future and notices who will accept Christ and 'elects' those. This view is normally called 'Arminian', after the Dutch pastor in the 16th century, Arminius, who invented the doctrine toward the end of the Reformation period. The meaning of foreknowledge, when used of divine decisions, it carries the connotation of 'appointed.' It therefore means something like 'foreordained' in connection with Election. It is the person who is 'foreknown', or 'appointed' to salvation, not some quality in the person. The evidence is: Foreknowledge was determinative and not merely predictive in the coming of Christ. Acts 2:23, "Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, ...." Here, "determined purpose" and "foreknowledge" are linked by a greek grammatical form called the Granville-Sharp Rule. This makes the two nouns synonymous for emphasis, like saying "right and good" or "evil and wrong." The word "determined" here is formed of the same verb from which "predestination"is derived. Peter declares the coming of Christ was both arranged and appointed by God. I Peter 1:20, "He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world..." The word "foreordained" here is PROGINOSKO - "foreknow". Note that in the case of Christ that God's foreknowledge was more than merely predictive. It would be absurd to say that the Father merely "foreknew" the coming of Christ. Jesus was appointed to the office of Christ. All circumstances relating to His coming were arranged in advance. History was made for Him, not He for history. Acts 4:27-28 "For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate,with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done." The same principles apply to the election of thebeliever. A favorite text of opponents to Election is I Peter 1:2. "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father....." (verse 2). "Foreknowledge" in verse 3 and "foreordained" in verse 20 are the same word, and mean the same thing. In verse 20, it refers to Jesus himself in his appointment as redeemer. In verse 2 it also refers to an appointment, in this case of believers appointed to obedience. Notice he says for obedience, not because of obedience. Peter wishes all to understand that God has appointed the elect for obedience just as he appointed Jesus as redeemer. Any other interpretation fails to explain the usage of the same word in the same context, and would create an absurdity with regard toChrist. Foreknowledge means "foreordained" with regard to Israel, because God ignored Israel's persistent rebellion. Romans 11:2 "God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew". What was it that God "foreknew" about the Jews? That they would respond favorably to Him by their free will? Hardly! Notice the context. "But to Israel he says: 'All day long I have stretched out My Hands to a disobedient and contrary people.'" Romans10:21 If the foreknowledge view were correct, then God should have rejected the Jews as candidates for Election. Foreseen obedience had nothing to do with God's election of Israel. Lexicon Evidence: Foreknowledge: The Greek terms are PROGINOSKO (verb:to know or ordain before hand) and PROGINOSIS (noun: foreknowledge or foreordination). It is common for words in any language to have two or more meanings, usually a primary meaning and then a secondary. Such is the case with PROGINOSIS. The primary is "foreknowledge", the secondary is "foreordination". How do we distinguish the difference? It is "foreordained" when Divine appointments and activity are in view, as in the above scriptures. This holds true also to our appointments as believers to the office and function of God's elect. 1.Gingrich's Shorter Lexicon: PROGINOSKO: Know beforehand or choose beforehand. 2.Newman's Greek-English Dictionary: PROGINOSKO: know already; choose from the beginning, choose beforehand. 3. Louw & Nida: PROGINOSKO: Know beforehand or Chose beforehand. There exists no good quality in man to foresee. The foreknowledge view normally asserts that God foresees one of several qualities in man which attract His grace. Was it faith He foresaw? Hardly! Faith itself is a work of grace based on election according to Acts 13:47 And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. Acts 18:27 those who had believed through grace; Jesus Christ himself is the source of our faith. 1Tim. 1:14 And the grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant, with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Was it perhaps our sanctification that God foresaw? It depends on who does the sanctifying. According to Jude 1, God the Father does it. To those who are called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ Circular reasoning would come into play here if foreknowledge of our sanctification were the cause of election. What about a willing heart? Paul explicitly denies this in Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him who wills,nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. Could some goodness or righteousness in man be the quality God foresaw? Paul goes to great lengths in Romans 3 to kill this notion. There is none who does good, no, no one." "There is none righteous, no, not one;" V.10 "There is none who does good, no, not one." V.12 Was it because God foresaw some would seek him and some would not? "There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God." Ro.3:11 It is persons God foresees (appoints), not some good quality in them. Because foreknowledge does not tempt people to blame God for unfairness. Any doctrine which fails to do this must be rejected according to Romans 9:19-20. The very reason why many accept foreknowledge as an explanation of Election is actually strong reason for rejecting it. We call this a 'paradox proof.' Its intent is to refute the other view, but it refutes itself instead. Foreknowledge does not lead a person to ask "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" verse 19 NIV. If Paul felt that foreknowledge were a factor, then why didn't he say so instead of concluding that it is none of man's business to ask such questions? "But who are you, Oh man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, Why did you make me like this? Verse 20 NIV. To discover which of these two viewpoints,foreknowledge or Election, is the correct one, we need only to ask ourselves which of these two seems to be the least "fair", and we have the correct one. The Arminian foreknowledge perverts the literal meaning of Election "Election"means chosen of God, not chosen of self. Many verses confirm this such as: Mark 13:20 "And unless the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake, whom He chose, He shortened the days." I Thessalonians 1:4 "knowing,beloved brethren, your election by God." Colossians 3:12 "Therefore,as the elect of God, holy and beloved," Titus 1:1 "....according to the faith of God's elect..." The foreknowledge view renders meaningless the scriptural examples of Election which the Apostles gave to prove the sovereignty of God's choice. Examples: 1. The 7000 who did not bow the knee to Baal. Romans 11: 4-5 "But what does the divine response say to him? 'I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.' Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace." Notice that God did not merely "find" 7000. He "reserved" them. It was He who was in charge of their choosing, not they themselves. Paul uses this incident as an example of election by grace. If this is not the intent of the passage, then what purpose does the illustration serve? 2. Jacob and Esau. Romans 9:11- "(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls)," 3. The notion of self-election is absurd. Foreknowledge assumes that man's will is free with regard to his ability to accept Christ and submit to God's law. The Bible denies this. Man's will is bound in sin and cannot submit to God without His grace. Romans 3:11 There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. Romans 8:7 "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Romans 9:16 "So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy." Coming to Christ is a gift of the Father. John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,..." John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; John 17:9 "I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours." 1.Faith is a gift from God, not something generated by the believer's own will. Romans 12:3 "...as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith. " Philippians 1:29 "For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake," Hebrews 12:2,"looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith,..." Repentance is a gift, not something man is able to generate in himself without grace. Acts 11:18 "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life." II Timothy 2:25 "....if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth,..." Foreknowledge renders the term "predestination"meaningless. It makes it passive rather than the active verb that it is. "Predestination" is the greek word PROORIZO. PRO means "before" and "ORIZO" means to establish boundaries. Thus it means "to establish the boundaries beforehand".God set up the limitations of the circumstances surrounding our lives to ensure the fulfillment of our foreordination as the Elect. If God merely "foreknew" who would accept Him, why would He to set up any limits beforehand? This proves the choices were His and not ours. "Foreordain" refers to our appointment as His elect, whereas "Predestinate" refers to the outworking of God's elective decree. Do the following verses sound passive? Ephesians 1:5 "having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will," Romans 8:29 "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." Romans 8:29 merits special comment. The term "foreknew" here carries the meaning of "foreordain" because of the context. In verse 28 Paul has just explained that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are called according to His purpose. But what is the grounds for believing this? God has already done His appointing and preparing before the world began, to ensure the accomplishment of our salvation. That's why we can believe that everything works together for our good. The Lexicon of Louw & Nida translate this verse as: 'those whom he had chosen beforehand, he had already decided should become like his Son' Ro 8:29. Foreknowledge assumes that God is either unwilling or unable to transgress the limits of man's will Bible examples to the contrary are: 1.Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel 4:28-35 As a result of this Babylonian king's pride, God removed his sanity for seven years, his reason, "free will" and all. Did God ask permission to do this? Nebuchadnezzar learned that "...He does according to His will in the army of heaven And among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand Or say to Him, "What have You done?" 2.The Antichrist and the Ten Nations. Rev.17:17 "For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled." 3. The Egyptians, "And I indeed will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them. So I will gain honor over Pharaoh and over all his army, his chariots, and his horsemen." Exodus 14:17 4. The Kings of the Earth. "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes." Proverbs 21:1 5. Foreknowledge puts the ultimate choice on man rather than God, which the Scriptures categorically deny. Romans 9:16 "So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy." John 15:16 "You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you..." 6. Foreknowledge implies that God's control over all things is merely passive rather than active. Isaiah 46:10 "'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,'" Philippians 3:21 "...according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.." Hebrews 1:3 ".....upholding all things by the word of His power." 7. Foreknowledge assumes that faith precedes election. This is an error. We believe because we are His sheep. It is not our faith that makes us sheep. John 10:26 "But you do not believe,because you are not of My sheep,..." 8. Ordaining to eternal life comes before faith, not vice verse. Acts 13:48 And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. 9. The promise of salvation is available only to as many as the Lord calls. Acts 2:39 "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." 10. Jesus reveals the Father to those whom He wills to do so. Matthew 12:27 "...and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." See John 5:21, 6:37, 44, 45, 65;17:6, 9, 11, 20. ----------------------- Truth invites scrutiny, only error fears close examination. ~ Atruro Azurdia
IP: --

Quote

Quote Romans 8:29 merits special comment. The term

"foreknew" here carries the meaning of "foreordain" because of the

contextBut then quoted the lexicon and said:

Quote Ro 8:29. In Ro 8:29 προγινώσκω may also be understood as
meaning ‘to

know beforehand’ (28.6).

I am confused why you would do such a thing.

It is not confusing at all. The word CAN MEAN to know beforehand. But the context of Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:20 (because of the PERSONAL references) it means that He has chose to enter into a relationship with that person by ordainment/purpose. God foreknew Christ. The father ordained Christ to be Saviour. In the like manner He ordained certain men to be glorified. It is not facts, you have yet to make that distinction. It is a relationship.
gnosis is not the subject, progiwskw is,

Quote

However select in advance was not any of the verses that I quoted. I had
three main verses..

"Select in advance" is the DIRECT reference by Louw Nida for Rom. 8:29 AND 1 Peter 1:20. Lexically it can be understood as "foreknown facts" but exegetically it can not be. Because whenever it is personal it speaks of a "relationship based on fore-ordination. That's the whole point. You can not fit "knowing of facts" in with Foreknowing Christ. It's an absurdity.

The foreknowledge in 1 Pet. 1 is again in reference to ordain someone FOR something... in this case it is FOR Obedience. The word FOR means something. It doesn't say God foreknew them BECAUSE of their obedience. The word FOR implies PURPOSE. Again, God is ACTIVE in History NOT passive. The only way foreknowledge would work is if it said BECAUSE of some THING, some ACTION. But it doesn't, it say "FOR". God elected them for a purpose, one of those is FOR obedience.

Again in reference to Rom. 11 Israel was the ONLY nation God "knew". If you take that for "factual knowledge" then God didn't "know" about the Egyptians?
Again it is a God "entering into a RELATIONSHIP" based on election which is based on his decree... further down in the same chapter in Rom 11 Kittel gave the commentary that I highlighted, I will do so again:

R. 11:33: ὦ βάθος πλούτου καὶ σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως θεοῦ. The expression
is OT and Jewish, though there is no direct parallel.69 It best fits
the context to take it on the analogy of יָדַע in the sense of election.
That is, the reference is to the gracious will of God directing
history according to His plan.

God is ACTIVE, he DIRECTS history, He doesn't passively take in knowledge.
You will in your academic journey come to a cross roads here. Those who pursue this deeply and HONESTLY and to be CONSISTENT only have two options. God decrees and therefore history will be as HE directs OR God is PASSIVE in his knowledge. In other words those who are serious and know the subject VERY well either become Reformed or they will become Open Theists.
There is no middle ground on the knowledge of God. The Question EG asked is the crux of the matter. And that is the VERY foundational question that can not be answered seriously by an Arminian that doesn't believe in Open Theism.

Through academic history the reformed thought has cornered Arminians to answer the very same question they ask reformers. For the reformer, the answer is quite simple. God does ALL things according to the WISE Council of His will.

Therefore, when God decrees who He will have Grace on and whom he leaves to follow their own reprobate wills is not arbitrary, but according to His wisdom.

BUT, for the Arminian, if you look at EG's honest question, He/you are stuck in the same exact dilemma. If you want to say God "knows" and chooses based on what he knows (mind the fact that this also flies in the face of God "respecting someone") He STILL knows those who WILL NOT choose Him. AND He creates them anyways! You still have a God who is going to create someone knowing there is NO CHANCE for that person for going to heaven. He is creating them in order to go to hell.

The academic Arminians through time unfortunately didn't repent of their gross errors but instead "found something else that 'tickled their itching ears' which would answer the problem. That being "Open Theism". In actuality, it only makes things WORSE (Biblically AND Philosophically) and confuses people even more.

That brings me to EG:

Quote

Again, Ron, are you serious when you said God did not know jesus
before jesus??

I'm stating what would be meant if you took foreknow to be a factual knowledge and not an ordination. It doesn't mean and can not mean God "knew" what Jesus was going to do "before" creation. You are implying that. It is in reference to before time, God decreed and ordained that Jesus WOULD DO what was decreed. THIS is Jesus' subservient role to the father. It is relational, NOT factual. You are caught in an endless tautology of chicken and egg. God is ACTIVE and CREATES History, He doesn't passively understand it.

Quote

If they were saved based on Gods foreknowledge of CHRIST'S DEATH.. Then
why is it so hard to believe We are saved because of God's foreknowledge
that we would have faith. and those who are not saved are not saved
because God knew beforehand they would reject?

This is a faulty premise. God Foreknew CHRIST as in ordination of His role. This is the DECREE that CREATED the cause effect of History. It is a relational term, it isn't WHAT He knew Christ would do, but a DECREE IN ORDER THAT what WOULD happen in time would BE CERTAIN.

Quote

I agree with DS here, To reject salvation based on God's
forknowledge is to reject the omnisceince of God.

What came first? His knowledge of what would happen in time or His decision to create that would be the CAUSE of that History to take place? Did he create ALL THINGS for HIS PURPOSE? Or is everything (especially evil) purposeless?

Quote

If you believe this. please explain why God chose some, and rejected
others??

Here is the beginning (if you are serious about God's Word) of your road to either Reformed theology or Open Theism... have fun.

The very word "why" evokes an answer for a cause or purpose.
This implies that there is an INITIAL CAUSE FOR all things.

YOU have to answer the same question EG.

My answer is that God does ALL things according to the WISE COUNCIL of His WILL. He does NOT respect anyone. This is explicit in scripture. He does not choose people according to WHAT they DO. This is the very definition of RESPECTING someone. He is NOT OBLIGATED to anyone to give man anything. If He desired, He could send every person to hell and He would be just in doing it.
If He choses to save ONE PERSON He could do so FREELY and He would NOT be OBLIGATED to anyone else, because HE is FREE, the people that He overlooks are STILL condemned in their sin, so He is still just in sending everyone to hell except for the one. This "choosing" based on His free will is what grace IS. It is God's electing a people NOT BASED ON ANYTHING they DO (actions) or who they are or where they live, but solely based on His wise council. He chooses people according to HIS PURPOSE and PLAN.The chief purpose in God is to Glorify himself in all things.

You however are in a predicament. You yourself said that God chooses ACCORDING to what He KNOWS that people are GOING to do. (Choose or not choose). THAT is the very definition of "respecting" someone. It also puts God in the place of being "obligated" according to your choice. Grace isn't under ANY obligation, rather it is FREE. FREE in being in GOD'S free choice to give to whomever he chooses.

Your predicament however is asking yourself your own question. With your theology in mind (God knowing who would NOT believe) you have a GOD who knows who is NOT going to believe and He still creates them with the FULL KNOWLEDGE that they WILL NOT BELIEVE. Therefore, they have NO possibility (in reality) of going nowhere but to hell, and YET God still makes them ! How is that "loving"? Saying the mantray "free will" isn't an answer. He already knew what choice they would make.

So Submit to God's Sovereignty or dive into Open Theism.

God is more than love also. He does all things for His GLORY. Not for His Love.

God is Holy. He is glorified in manifesting ALL of His attributes. Holiness is expressed by His Justice and wrath. He not only gets glory for His grace, but also for His Holiness. This is manifested by displaying His wrath on sin. Therefore He creates for the purpose of glorifying Himself by manifesting His love/grace AND holiness/wrath.

-----------------------
Truth invites scrutiny, only error fears close examination. ~ Atruro Azurdia