# An argument for Election based on God's omniscience



## Goodcheer68 (Mar 28, 2016)

Wanted to get feedback on the following argument.
God is omniscient and always has been. There was never a time he came to be omniscient. That would entail that God changed which would imply a lack of perfection among other things. Now apply this to God's eternal plan and sovereignty. It must be the case that God Himself chose what and how all things would come to pass apart from foreseeing. Foreseeing implies learning- transitive verb: to see (as a development) beforehand. Therefore any foreseeing that went into God's eternal plan (including looking down the corridors of time to see who would believe) would mean that God learned or acquired knowledge He lacked prior to foreseeing. This would mean there was a time God was not omniscient and therefore changed. If God was at anytime not omniscient He would have ceased to be God.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 28, 2016)

I understand what you are getting at, but I think when people make the claim that "God looked down the corridors of time" they don't really mean that literally, but that he simply knew it as a function of his omniscience. That is not to say that you are wrong in connecting foreknowledge with providence, just that the way you framed your argument might not be valid.


----------



## rickclayfan (Mar 28, 2016)

Personally, I think the argument is excellent. Haven't really delved into foreknowledge, omniscience, and the like too deeply, but from the sound of it, it seems solid. He remains unchanging in His knowledge of things and events because they ultimately flow from His will.

"He knows them not by viewing the things things, but by viewing himself.... He knows all things in their first and original cause; which is no other than his own essence willing, and his own essence executing what he wills." ~ Stephen Charnock


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Mar 28, 2016)

Hi Bill, thanks for responding. It may be true that some do not actually mean it literally, but I do believe, based on conversations and sermons I have heard, that many do see God basing election on those He knew would choose Him. Many in the Calvary Chapel circles argue this way. 

"He remains unchanging in His knowledge of things and events because they ultimately flow from His will." That is a great way to put it. The Charnock quote is great too!


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 28, 2016)

Goodcheer68 said:


> Hi Bill, thanks for responding. It may be true that some do not actually mean it literally, but I do believe, based on conversations and sermons I have heard, that many do see God basing election on those He knew would choose Him. Many in the Calvary Chapel circles argue this way.
> 
> "He remains unchanging in His knowledge of things and events because they ultimately flow from His will." That is a great way to put it. The Charnock quote is great too!



You are absolutely correct that many believe this is how election works, but I don't think they would look at it as God "learning" something. Rather they would probably think that God knows who will freely choose him before he created them and thus he "elects" them from the foundation of the world.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Mar 28, 2016)

That's the point of my argument, to show them that foreseeing involves gaining knowledge one did not have.


----------



## MW (Mar 28, 2016)

Goodcheer68 said:


> That's the point of my argument, to show them that foreseeing involves gaining knowledge one did not have.



The question is whether even an omniscient being can foresee as future something which has not been determined as future. Without determination there is no way of saying it is future. So it doesn't come back to omniscience so much as the nature of future contingents.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 28, 2016)

This brings to mind a couple of sayings on Eph 1:4 I collected a while back:

ELECTION BY FORESIGHT?

*Calvin:*

*We are all lost in Adam, and therefore, had not God rescued us from perishing, by His own election, there was nothing to be foreseen.*

*Hodge, C.:*

*If men are chosen to be holy, they cannot be chosen because they are holy* [foreseen to be such].


----------

