Like Button

Monday, August 25, 2014

The Foreknowledge Dodge

One of the key components of "Reformed Theology" is the doctrine of Predestination. Now, to be perfectly clear, Predestination is not about Election. Election is the idea (and it is thoroughly biblical -- we just differ on particulars) that some are chosen for salvation. It is a principle throughout the Old and New Testaments. But Predestination is not Election. Predestination is much, much more. Predestination covers everything.

In Romans 8 we have that wonderful 8:28 verse where all things work together for good. The "good" for which all things work together for those who love Christ is in the following verses.
For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified (Rom 8:29-30).
There is that "predestined" word. And it is not Election. It is a fore-ordaining that those whom He foreknew would become conformed to the image of His Son. In 1 Cor 2:7 we read of "the hidden wisdom, which God predestined before the ages to our glory." God predetermined Judas's betrayal (Luke 22:22) and the murder of His own Son by "Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel" (Acts 4:27-28). In Ephesians Paul writes, "He predestined us to adoption as sons" (Eph 1:5). Again, not Election. The principle behind Predestination is found a few verses later when Paul writes that God "works all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph 1:11). Thus, Predestination refers to all things. The Bible is full of God predetermining what will happen.

I will always get the inevitable push-back from fellow believers. "God has foreknowledge," they will tell me. "Foreknowledge is not foreordination." Well, now, is that true?

It is true that the two terms mean different things. One is regarding what is known and one is regarding what must happen. But I suspect that "ordained" means something different to me than to those who object. Here's why I say that. If God has foreknowledge -- perfect, correct knowledge of what happens in advance -- and God is Omnipotent -- able to do as He pleases -- then we have a problem. If God knew, in advance, when He made Adam that Adam would sin and God did nothing to prevent it (did not exercise His Omnipotence), then knowing perfectly what would happen and doing nothing to change it would be to foreordain Adam's sin.

Now, clearly that sounds wrong. So we need to examine just what "foreordain" means before we conclude anything else about it. If, by "ordain", we mean, "to invest with ministerial or sacerdotal functions" (the first definition in my dictionary), we're just being silly. No, it's not about an "ordained minister". So ... what? Maybe it's "to enact or establish by law, edict, etc." That might be closer to it. But when I use the term, I use it in this sense (my dictionary says it is in the sense of God): "to destine or predestine". Ah, now, see? Now we've run into that "Predestination" thing. My point here is that "ordain" does not carry with it the necessity of "cause". It simply means to "establish". To "foreordain", then, would mean to establish in advance.

So where are we? If God knows in advance that X will happen, has the capability of preventing X, and does nothing about it, He has established -- before the fact -- that X will happen. He doesn't have to cause it. Indeed, by not exercising the power to prevent it, He does nothing to cause it. But because He knows it perfectly and allows it willingly, it cannot be avoided that He foreordains it. It's the nature of the Omniscient and the Omnipotent.

Yes, indeed, to foreknow is not to foreordain. One is knowledge; the other establishes something. But to know perfectly in advance and to have the power to change something means that if He does not, He has ordained that the something happens. That is foreordination. So if you'd like to get around foreordination by claiming that foreknowledge is not the same thing, you'll have to do it by removing either perfect knowledge or absolute power.

14 comments:

David said...

I've often wondered what the response of those who believe that election is corporate rather than individuals is to Romans 8:29. "Predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son" that some have been selected in advance to be followers of Christ. I mean fine, you may have an impotent God who foreknew, but how do you get around predestined to be Christians? It would also seem that the calling isn't universal either since He apparently called only those whom He predestined. If everyone was called, it would be rather redundant to include that in the list of things He did in advance.

And then to counter and accuse is of not being able to know if we're saved is bogus because we have an entire epistle telling us we can know.

Stan said...

I have frankly never understood the concept of "It's corporate, not individual!" What's the point of ordaining a container without ordaining that something would go in it? Of course, those who buy into individual election also believe in corporate election (because individuals make up the corporate group), but I can't figure out the reverse. Especially when you read such things as "as many as were appointed to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48). Can that be understood as anything BUT individual election?

Josh said...

Why doesn't God stop certain things if he has the power to? (i.e. save everyone, stop the Holocaust, prevent a child from being raped)

Stan said...

I'm always amused at people (myself included when I do) who ask "Why does God ... do what He does?" Whatever "He does" is in view. As if we have the full capability of answering why the Eternal God would do what He does and the wisdom to judge it fairly and rightly.

Actually, Josh, I have an answer to that (an answer that satisfies me -- from Scripture and from logic), but I'm wondering about you. Why doesn't God stop certain things if he has the power to? You have to answer the same question, don't you? I mean, "He didn't know" isn't an answer because the question remains. It is the question most often raised by atheists and anti-theists (and even believers at times). What would your answer be? Either He lacks the will or He lacks the ability. Which is it?

Josh said...

I also have an answer that I am satisfied with -- from scripture and logic. I am pretty sure I have expounded on this before. I was wondering what your answer was.

Stan said...

If I knew your answer, I wouldn't ask.

Josh said...

God limits his own power for the sake of genuine love and obedience. In order that it be genuine the option must be available for people to choose for or against God.

Deut. 30:15-19 is a good passage that seems to demonstrate this.
Ezekiel 18 as well.

Luke 6:45 and Matt. 15:19 seem to show it is out of our own heart that good and evil are produced. This seems to be a result of our choices.

So now let's hear your answer.

Stan said...

Don't worry; I wasn't asking for proof. Just wasn't clear what your answer was. And it appears to be that He has willed Himself to be unable to stop evil "for the sake of genuine love and obedience."

I would say He is able but unwilling because He has a higher purpose (Rom 9:22-23). Since terms like "good" and "justice" and "love" and "wrath" and ... well, a lot of God's character ... are meaningless without evil, He is demonstrating His wrath and power on vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. A full display of His nature. A full display of His glory.

I should note that the dilemma of "Why doesn't He do something?!" comes from a Humanist perspective, not a God-centered one.

Josh said...

Would you say then, when it is all said and done, the holocaust fully displayed the glory of God?

Stan said...

I would say that God works all things together for good. Would you say that the Holocaust was a black eye for God? "Oops! Oh, man, I wish I could have done something about that!"

Josh said...

I wouldn't say it is a black eye for God, it is a black eye for humanity. It shows the extent of evil humans can accomplish. I would also say the holocaust was against God's will, and in fact it broke God's heart.

Stan said...

Right, that's what I said you meant. He didn't want it, couldn't stop it. It was not His will. He would have stopped it if He could, but He couldn't. Man's evil overran God's will. He does not work all things after the counsel of His will. Clearly it was man's evil, but since God couldn't stop it, it is also a black eye for God. 6 million people dead and there was nothing He could do to stop it.

I have to say, if I believed as you do, I would have little hope. No reflection on you and your beliefs. It's just that I am hanging all my hopes on God's ability to completely accomplish His will and your beliefs would erase that for me. But, hey, that's just me.

Josh said...

I have to say, if I believed as you do I would be terrified. God would see the torture and genocide of 6 million people as good, and not only that he condemns most of them to eternal torment in hell, and not only that but they could have done nothing to prevent it because by choosing to create them, and by knowing/choosing each of their steps he knew the outcome of creating them was torture and eternal torment.

My biggest concern with this is that it looks nothing like the God revealed in Jesus Christ. If we have seen Jesus we have seen the Father, and Jesus was the exact representation of the Father. Why does Jesus ask God to forgive those staking him to the cross? It seems God in your view would find Glory in their annihilation.

Stan said...

Yes, of course I understand that you prefer your view to mine. (And, by the way, preference -- either yours or mine -- doesn't determine truth. I was just expressing my feelings on the subject, not for proof of concept.) You prefer a God who is limited and I prefer a God who is not. You prefer a God who is absolved and I prefer a God who has a better notion of what is good than I do. You prefer a God who saves as many as He can but not as many as He would like and I prefer a God who saves more than justice would expect and every one He intends. You prefer a God who takes people into more account than His own will and I prefer a God who views people as creatures and majors on His own (obviously better) interests.

As for your "biggest concern", I have to point out that nowhere -- either in Scripture or in anything I've suggested (which I believe comes from Scripture) -- is there the suggestion that God is glorified when every single miserable sinner is crushed under His boots. "God in your view would find Glory in their annihilation." No, God is glorified where He is glorified. He demonstrates His power and wrath to vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (Rom 9:22) and He demonstrates His glorious grace and mercy to vessels of mercy which He prepared beforehand for glory (Rom 9:23). To me the souls that go to Hell due to their Cosmic Treason (not God's forcing them) glorify God as much as those who don't. To you they represent a tragic loss and, though you deny it, a failure of God's power and sovereignty.