Like Button

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Elect according to Foreknowledge

Peter writes his epistle "To those who are elect ... according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood ..." (1 Peter 1:1-2). It's an interesting phrase, suggesting that foreknowledge precedes election. (Note: There is a possibility that the "according to the foreknowledge of God" references "those who are scattered abroad" -- that their scattering was according to the foreknowledge, but we won't go there now.) And to those who disagree with Reformed Theology, it is the proof that God elects based on foreknowledge. You see, Reformed Theology holds that God elects based on God's own reasons without reference to the elect. He does not choose who will be saved because someone will choose Him. That gives a reason to boast. No, no, He chooses apart from the elect as indicated in Romans 9. And those who disagree will simply point to Peter here and say, "See? Election is based on God's foreknowledge."

Here's the difficulty. Predicating election on God's foreknowledge doesn't help the problem. What's the problem that is trying to be avoided when we argue that election is based on foreknowledge? The problem is that if God chooses whom will be saved apart from our choice of Him, then our free will is violated. That is, if we would not be saved unless God first chooses us, then how is it free will? Those who never choose Christ never had the option, right?

I'm sorry, but foreknowledge doesn't help. It doesn't help at all. Here's why. God is omniscient. He knows everything, beginning to end. He declares the end from the beginning. David said He wrote down every day of his life in a book before David was born. God knows all contingencies, but knows nothing contingently. He has no "what ifs", no "Plan B". He knows everything that will happen and He knows it correctly. Now, if He knows everything that will happen and knows it correctly ... what is the possibility that something else will happen? Well ... zero, actually.

Here, imagine this. Someone offers you a cup of coffee. In a momentary suspension of time between "Would you like a cup of coffee?" and your answer, the perception is that you have a choice and can choose either one. It is, in fact, true. However (and it's a big "however"), God already knows which you will choose and it is impossible that He could be wrong so it is impossible for you to choose something else. So without coercion or force of any kind, your choice is predetermined simply because God knows what it will be. See?

Take that down to an important choice like "Repent!". Will you or won't you? Because God already knows, it is already determined. Your choice appears to be free, but you cannot choose anything but what God already knows. So how free is it?

For those who throw up a nice "foreknowledge" screen against election, it doesn't really help. If God chooses in advance whom He will save or if God simply knows in advance who will choose Him, the outcome is inevitable either way. He would make no other choice, and the elect could make no other choice. It is ... predestined.

2 comments:

Ryan said...

That's a great observation. In addition, many of the same people who like to think God elects according to foreknowledge (as in, 'prescience') suggest that the role of the Holy Spirit is to woo the unbeliever, in hopes that he will choose Christ, but according to their line of thinking, why would God bother, knowing full well that they won't, and knowing full well that he's not one of the elect? It completely renders their concept of the Holy Spirit's role in salvation impotent. Great post.

Stan said...

A Spirit reduced to wooing people He knows won't respond is impotent indeed.