# Foreknowledge vs Predestination Help



## monoergon (Nov 24, 2012)

Grace and Peace,
I am fairly new to Reformed Theology and have been writing for the past month or so a refutation to arminian arguments. 
Can anyone help to write a logical and rational refutation to the foreknowledge argument?:

(1) In Romans 8:29-30, and everywhere else, God's election and predestination is based on His Foreknowledge.

(2) By the way, which one comes first? Foreknowledge, election, predestination etc.?

(3) Concerning Judas:
On John 6:37,39,44 Jesus says only those that come to Him are those that the Father gives Him. Then Jesus says in John 10:27-29 that His sheep hears His voice and follows Him and that no one will take His sheep from His hands.

The difficulty I'm having concerns Judas and the following verses:
Can Jesus lose any person God gives Him according to John 18:9 and 17:12? How about losing Judas? Wasn't he one of the elect?

In Christ,
Nathan


----------



## Claudiu (Nov 24, 2012)

Foreknowledge does not mean that God looked through the corridors of time, learn all the possible outcomes, and then proceed to predestine everything. On the contrary, foreknowledge is more akin to the intimate act of God choosing. Then, those whom God has chosen are predestined, and so on.

In terms of what comes first, it depends what you mean! Are you talking in the temporal sense, or the logical sense? Temporally, the question doesn't make sense (God's choosing and decree was before the foundation of the world). Logically, the Reformed Confessions and historic Reformed theology speak in terms of the _ordo salutis_ (the order of salvation).


----------



## Gforce9 (Nov 24, 2012)

Sinclair Ferguson gave a most masterful defense of the knowledge of God in Ligonier's 2004 conference, _A Portrait of God_. The message is called _A Knowledge With No End: The Omniscience of God_. It is the best I've ever heard. It isn't a matter of prior knowing, but in _how_ God knows. 


http://www.ligonier.org/learn/conferences/orlando_2004_national_conference/omniscience-of-god/


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 24, 2012)

Here's a pithy quote from Calvin on Eph 1:4 :

*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.*


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 25, 2012)

Gforce9 said:


> Sinclair Ferguson gave a most masterful defense of the knowledge of God in Ligonier's 2004 conference, _A Portrait of God_. The message is called _A Knowledge With No End: The Omniscience of God_. It is the best I've ever heard. It isn't a matter of prior knowing, but in _how_ God knows.
> 
> 
> Message 7, A Knowledge With No End: The Omniscience of God from A Portrait of God: 2004 National Conference Conference by Various Teachers from Ligonier Ministries



Very helpful. It seems the issue comes down to the independence of God's knowledge--that God's knowledge is not dependent on any of His creatures, whether in the past, present, or future.


----------



## KaphLamedh (Nov 25, 2012)

Well, when I was fresh calvinist, it was important to refute arminians, but that's not our purpose or ultimate goal. You probaply know that.

The Bible is very clear on Romans 8. God know whom He is going to save and He knows who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

John Greer on sermon series on dispensationalism, he teaches very clearly on the issue. I highly recommend you to listen it from SermonAudio.
Ballymena Free Presbyterian Church - SermonAudio.com


----------



## JimmyH (Nov 25, 2012)

brjesusfreak said:


> How about losing Judas? Wasn't he one of the elect?


In the first volume of his trilogy, "Christ In His Suffering", Dr. Klaas Schilder has some very interesting observations on Judas Iscariot. In chapter XI, 'Christ Constraining Satan', he says ,"Remember, Judas was a man of Judea, and Judea was the home of orthodox Jews. In comparison with Galilee it could justly be called the fortress of Jewish orthodoxy. It was the country of the scribes and rabbis."

Dr. Schilder goes on to say that Judea was the "cultural seat of the nation, the center of theological and political thought." Dr. Schilder postulates that Judas saw a Messiah who would overturn the Roman yoke of oppression and restore a Davidic Kingdom in this world of time. Judas was the only one of the twelve who was from Judea, and his nationalistic and ultra orthodox religious views caused him to be disappointed in Jesus and eventually to resent Him. Then Satan, seeing the opportunity came into him.

My brief explanation doesn't come near doing justice to Dr. Schilder's book. If you can get a copy it has been very instructive for me. It is the first book that I've read which really drove home to me the humanity of Christ Jesus. That He was indeed both man and God.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 25, 2012)

Even if "foreknowledge" meant "knowing beforehand" , which it does not, it would still mean that, if God was able to know beforehand who would believe, that it was fixed in advance who they would be that were going to believe. That leaves the problem for the Arminian, that if it wasn't God that chose those who were definitely going to believe, who or what did? Chance, fate, or something else?

*A.W. Pink on "Foreknowledge"*
The Attributes of God by A.W. Pink-The Foreknowledge of God

*Nathan*


> How about losing Judas? Wasn't he one of the elect?



Judas wasn't one of the elect, but he was chosen by Jesus to be one of the twelve disciples. That's different from election/choosing unto salvation.

That leaves the Q of why Jesus chose Judas.

(a) In His humanity _per se_ Jesus wasn't/isn't omniscient. Did the Lord know from the beginning when He chose Judas to be His disciple that he was the one who was going to betray Him?



> Although there is no record of His being in error, there were apparently things He did not know. When He wanted to feed a crowd of people, He asked His followers, "How many loaves do you have?" When a distraught father brought his demon-possessed son to Him, He asked, "How long has he been like this?" When He visited Bethany four days after a friend had died, he enquired, "Where have you laid him?" ("Does God Believe in Atheists" by John Blanchard, Evangelical Press)



or 

(b) Jesus full well knew, both in His divine and human natures, from the beginning, when He chose Judas, that He was going to be the betrayer, but in the mystery of God's providence it was thus to be that He would choose Judas, knowing that he might well produce some apparent but not real fruit for a time, and then turn against Him and betray Him.



> And as he sowed, some seed fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured it. Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and immediately it sprang up, since it had no depth of soil. And when the sun rose, it was scorched, and since it had no root, it withered away. (Mark 4:4-6, ESV)


----------



## MW (Nov 25, 2012)

brjesusfreak said:


> (1) In Romans 8:29-30, and everywhere else, God's election and predestination is based on His Foreknowledge.



Grant, for the sake of the argument, that this is a foreknowledge that some people would believe in Christ and be saved, and others would not believe in Christ and perish in their sins. It still establishes the Reformed doctrine of predestination. For, with this foreknowledge, God still chose to create the world, so that the salvation of some and damnation of others manifestly rests on His choice. The Arminian argument from foreknowledge accomplishes nothing. It only pushes the issue of divine choice back another step.

But to move from polemics to positive statement, it is clear that the use of foreknowledge in Romans 8 pertains to people, not actions. It is WHOM He foreknew, not WHAT He foreknew. Just as in chapter 11, Israel, as a people, is the object of foreknowledge. And it is clear from the Old Testament that Israel was known because she was loved, and she was loved without respect to any condition -- past, present, or future -- which commended her to the Lord. As the apostle demonstrates, the election is of grace; and if it is of grace, then it cannot be of works; the two schemes are mutually exclusive.



brjesusfreak said:


> (2) By the way, which one comes first? Foreknowledge, election, predestination etc.?



First, there is knowledge of all things possible. Secondly, there is a decree, unconditioned by anything outside of God, determining all things which shall infallibly come to pass. Thirdly, "foreknowledge," in the biblical sense, depends upon this absolute decree. So, depending on what one means by foreknowledge, it might come before or after predestination. If it is knowledge of things possible, it comes before predestination; if of things actual, it comes after. It should also be pointed out that we can only use the words before and after in the sense of logical order, as all things are known to God immediately and at once, so there is no succession in His thoughts.



brjesusfreak said:


> Can Jesus lose any person God gives Him according to John 18:9 and 17:12? How about losing Judas? Wasn't he one of the elect?



It depends on what translation is being used for John 17:12. The original should be translated ", but," as in the AV. This leaves room for the sense that the son of perdition is outside the group of those who have been given to and kept by Christ. Modern translations have opted for "except," and fixed on the sense that Judas is an exception to the fact that none are lost. Comparing with John 18:9, it appears that the inspired Evangelist regarded the statement of our Lord as admitting of no exceptions.


----------



## monoergon (Nov 26, 2012)

Thanks everyone for the help. God bless you!


----------



## Gage Browning (Nov 26, 2012)

Best idea that helped me when working through the same passages, was a better way to say "foreknew" is "Foreloved". The knowing is intimate.


----------



## monoergon (Nov 26, 2012)

I read the following commentary John Gill made on John 18:9 which says "... the saving clause, "but the son of perdition", is here left out, because Judas, who is designed by that character, was now openly declared to be what he was; he was no longer among the disciples; he was separated from them, and had betrayed his master, and was not of the number of those Christ insisted upon might be let go.";

What does he mean when he says "and was not of the number of those Christ insisted upon might be let go"? 

Perhaps I don't understand because English is my second language.


----------



## monoergon (Nov 26, 2012)

thanks for that comment Gage Browning, it was really helpful to me.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 26, 2012)

> While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. (John 17:12, ESV)





> Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go.” This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: “I have not lost one of those you gave me.” (John 18:8-9)



This points to the physical protection of the disciples apart from Judas, at this time, as much as their spiritual protection. But maybe their physical protection under Jesus' care was redolent of their spiritual protection. 

Thanks for drawing our attention to this, Nathan, I'd never noticed it before.



> And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. (Gen 4:1)



"Knew" here means Adam loved Eve in a special way. God's foreknowledge of His people is His loving them in a special - electing - way from all eternity.


----------



## Gage Browning (Nov 27, 2012)

Your welcome Nathan... Blessings... Most of what I write below is what I learned from my Dad in his lesson on Rom 8 and are from notes from his lesson. Just so you know not my ideas...

I think the word “foreknow” is used two ways in the NT. Theologically, this idea is referred to as God’s “prescience” and you can see why that word is used. The word “prescience” is formed of two parts, the prefix “pre” and the word “science” and the idea is that God “pre‐knows” or “foreknows” whatever is going to happen. Historically, that view is called the Arminian view of God’s prescience. It's used that way in Acts 26:5 which explains “You knew me back when...so speak truthfully about the way I was.”and 2nd Peter 3:17 Peter says something to the effect of ..."since they know these things, that is since they “foreknew” these things in advance, they ought to be prepared to react to them rightly.". I would argue that the word “foreknow” here in Romans 8:29 does not mean, “pre‐know the facts” but rather to “pre‐love the person.” Looks like the "foreloved" use of the word "foreknow" is used several times in the NT. For instance- 1 Peter 1:20 translated "was chosen" in the NIV is the word "foreknow" - the reason for that is pretty obvious. Peter is referring to the fact that Christ was known relationally by the Father before the foundation of the world but that He has only been revealed to us who love Him now fully in these last days..Listen to the way Calvin puts it

"But the foreknowledge of God, which Paul mentions, is not a bare prescience...but rather the adoption by which he had always distinguished his children from the reprobate." - John Calvin, Commentary on Romans, 8:29.

Listen to what James Dunn says here:
Paul has in view the more Hebraic understanding of “knowing” as involving a relationship experienced and acknowledged. -James D.G. Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 38a: Romans 1‐8, (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, Publisher) 1998. 

And listen to John Stott:
Other commentators have therefore reminded us that the Hebrew verb ‘to know’ expresses much more than mere intellectual cognition; it denotes a personal relationship of care and affection. Thus, when God ‘knows’ people, he watches over them, and when he ‘knew’ the children of Israel in the desert, what is meant is that he cared for them. Indeed, Israel was the only people out of all the families of the earth whom Yahweh had ‘known’, that is, loved, chosen and formed a covenant with.
- John Stott, Romans: God’s Good News For the World, (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 248‐9.

So I am arguing that when Paul applies the word “foreknowledge” to God, he is not talking about God’s prescience, but rather about the fact that God sets His affections on certain individuals and “knows” them in a relational way.
God’s predestination of a certain individual comes out of the fact that God pre‐loved that individual.

Hope this helps you as much as this study helped me.


----------



## KaphLamedh (Nov 27, 2012)

Gforce9 said:


> Sinclair Ferguson gave a most masterful defense of the knowledge of God in Ligonier's 2004 conference, _A Portrait of God_. The message is called _A Knowledge With No End: The Omniscience of God_. It is the best I've ever heard. It isn't a matter of prior knowing, but in _how_ God knows.
> 
> 
> Message 7, A Knowledge With No End: The Omniscience of God from A Portrait of God: 2004 National Conference Conference by Various Teachers from Ligonier Ministries



Thanks GForce!


----------



## NB3K (Nov 28, 2012)

Gage Browning said:


> Best idea that helped me when working through the same passages, was a better way to say "foreknew" is "Foreloved". The knowing is intimate.



I think Ephesians 1:3-13 is Paul's key to understanding those whom God foreknew in the sense that Paul uses it in Romans 8.


----------



## jwithnell (Nov 28, 2012)

If God simply knows in advance, you are still left with man being the principle mover and God being the passive observer.


----------



## monoergon (Nov 30, 2012)

Wow, I just happened to understand Calvin's quote on Ephesians 1:4 posted by Jerusalem Blade which says
"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."

I believe God gave me the understanding of that quote. I so happy!


----------



## Tim (Nov 30, 2012)

Nathan, welcome to the Puritan Board. We have a few Brazilians on here already, but, to the best of my knowledge, you are the first from the city of Brasilia. We are glad to have you.


----------



## monoergon (Nov 30, 2012)

Tim said:


> Nathan, welcome to the Puritan Board. We have a few Brazilians on here already, but, to the best of my knowledge, you are the first from the city of Brasilia. We are glad to have you.


Thank you for the warm welcome Tim!


----------



## arapahoepark (Nov 30, 2012)

Welcome as well!


----------

