Foreknowledge- Arminian argument

[Henoch]

I just heard somebody explain Romans 8:29-30 saying God elects but that election is based on his foreknowledge(of our faith, etc.?)

What are the best Scriptural arguments defending God's sovereign, free choice against such a view?

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

Romans 9:11-16
Ephesians 2:8-9

Looking forward and seeing our faith is seeing something that is "of ourselves". This also describes a reactionary God regarding His election - he is choosing us based on something we will do, making him dependent on our decision. It defies His sovereignty.

John Murray (The Epistle to the Romans Vol 1. 306-307, 307-308) on Romans 8:29 and rejecting this view of foresight (emphasis and typos mine):

It needs to be emphasized that the rejection of this interpretation is not dictated by a predestinarian interest. Even if it were granted that "foreknew" means the foresight of faith, the biblical doctrine of sovereign election is not thereby eliminated or disproven. For it is certainly true that God foresees faith; he foresees all that comes to pass. The question would then simply be: whence proceeds this faith which God foresees? And the only biblical answer is that the faith which God foresees is the faith he himself creates (cf. John 3:3-8; 6:44,45,65; Ephesians 2:8; Philippians 1:29; 2 Peter 1:2). Hence his eternal foresight of faith is preconditioned by his decree to generate this faith in those whom he foresees as believing, and we are thrown back upon the differentiation which proceeds from God's own eternal and sovereign election to faith and its consequents. The interest, therefore, is simply one of interpretation as it should be applied to this passage. On exegetical grounds we shall have to reject the view that "foreknew" refers to the foresight of faith....

.... "foreknow merely adds the thought of "beforehand" to the word "know". Many times in Scripture "know" has a pregnant meaning which goes beyond that of mere cognition. It is used ina sense practically synonymous with "love", to set regard upon, to know with peculiar interest, delight, affection, and action (cf Gen. 18:19; Exod. 2:25; Psalm 1:6; 144:3; Jer. 1:5; Amos 3:2; Hosea 13:5; Matt. 7:23; 1 Cor. 8:3; Gal. 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:19; 1 John 3:1). There is no reason why this import of the word "know" should not be applied to "foreknow" in this passage, as also in 11:2 where it also occurs in the same kind of construction and where the thought of election is patently present. (cf 11:5,6).... It means "whom he set regard upon" or "whom he knew from eternity with distinguishing affection and delight" and is virtually equivalent to "whom he foreloved". This interpretation, furthermore, is in agreement with the efficient and determining action which is so conspicuous in every other link of the chain—it is God who predestinates, it is God who calls, it is God who justifies, and it is he who glorifies. FOresight of faith would be out of accord with the determinative action which is predicated of God in these other instances and would constitute a weakening of the total emphasis at the point where we should least expect it... It is not the foresight of difference but the foreknowledge that makes difference to exist, not a foresight that recognizes existence but the foreknowledge that determines existence. It is sovereign distinguishing love.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Is election by foresight? No! Consider: John 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” but our eternal misery.

Charles Hodge: “If men are chosen to be holy, they cannot be chosen because they are holy [foreseen to be such].” (Commentaries on Ephesians 1:4)

 

[Elias_Amare]

Francis Turretin, Fourth topic: The decrees of God in general and predestination in particular, Election is not from foreseen faith, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol. 1)

The arguments by which they establish this are principally these: (1) Faith and obedience are the fruit and effect of election. Therefore they cannot be the cause or previous condition. The same thing cannot be at once the cause and effect; to be elected from faith and to be elected to faith. Moreover, that faith and obedience are the fruit of election is proved in various places: “Whom he predestinated, them he also called” (Rom. 8:30*). Now calling is to faith and faith is its end, so that calling is the effect of predestination. “He hath chosen us, that we should be holy” (Eph. 1:4); therefore not because we were. “Having predestinated us unto adoption” (eis hyiothesian, Eph. 1:5); therefore unto faith by which that adoption is secured to us (Jn. 1:12). “As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed” (Acts 13:48). Therefore precisely they believe who are elected and because they were elected. However they were not elected because they believe—hence it is called “the faith of the elect” (Tit. 1:1) because it is given to the elect alone. Hence Augustine: “We understand calling by which they become the elect, not who are elected because they believed, but are elected that they might believe. For if on that account they were elected, since they believe, they assuredly had elected him first by believing in him, so that they deserved to be elected” (On the Predestination of the Saints 34 [17] [NPNF1, 5:514–15; PL 44.985]).

 

[Stargazer65]

That is a common evangelical view of election (elected based on foreseen faith). But it seems to go against the plain sense of the Romans 8 and 9 scripture, as well as others. It also doesn't logically follow (for those who have a view of God as an omniscient creator). Romans 8:29-30 says "those whom he foreknew". If God is the omniscient creator, how can his foreknowledge not be causative? The only way the view of "elected based on foreseen faith" can work is if something outside of God created us (independent of God), which is obviously wrong.

 

[EvanF]

The next verse (Romans 8:30), says that whom he fore-ordained he also called. If in verse 29, "also" (καὶ) is taken to mean "consequently", then it must mean the same thing again here and the call must be consequent to fore-ordination. So if God foreknows that someone will respond to his call in faith, it is only because he called them on the basis of his fore-ordination. Of course the assumption that "καὶ" in these verses shows consequence makes them circular - fore-ordained because of foreknowledge of faith when called, but called according to fore-ordination. However, there is no reason to read these verses as if they reveal a sequence.

Jesus plainly, and to the offense of many, taught that no man can come unto him, except it be given unto him of the Father (John 6:65). So there can be no faith to be foreknown unless that faith is also given by God in the first place and Arminian ideas about foreknown faith being the basis of election are precluded.

 

[CWrigley]

I just heard somebody explain Romans 8:29-30 saying God elects but that election is based on his foreknowledge(of our faith, etc.?)

What are the best Scriptural arguments defending God's sovereign, free choice against such a view?

I can't really add to much of what everyone else is saying here but if you want an in-depth study of this you should check out James White's book The Potter's Freedom. He talks about this while citing scripture extensively.

 

[Eyedoc84]

Election is not according to the will of man Romans 9.
Predestination based on foreseen faith is not predestination but postdestination. It’s not called foresight but foreknowledge.

 

[Gforce9]

Romans 9:11-16
Ephesians 2:8-9

Looking forward and seeing our faith is seeing something that is "of ourselves". This also describes a reactionary God regarding His election - he is choosing us based on something we will do, making him dependent on our decision. It defies His sovereignty.

John Murray (The Epistle to the Romans Vol 1. 306-307, 307-308) on Romans 8:29 and rejecting this view of foresight (emphasis and typos mine):

Great Murray quote, Joel!

 

[MW]

One should insist on the language as it is used by the apostle. It says "whom," not "what" he foreknew. He foreknew the persons, not what the persons would do. Whom οὓς (hous) is personal and masculine. It is in the accusative case because it is the direct object of the verb προέγνω (proegnō), "he foreknew." The action is directed at the persons. If Paul intended to say "what he foreknew," referring to an impersonal thing, event, or quality, he would have used the neuter singular relative pronoun ὅ (ho).

The golden chain of salvation -- foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, glorification -- has people as its direct object. It explains why all things work together for good to them who love God. Their salvation originates in God's sovereign and gracious purpose toward individuals, not based on foreseen actions in them, but based on His own love for them.

This is supported by the use of the verb προγινώσκω (proginōskō), "to foreknow" in the NT, especially when God is the subject. It signifies much more than simple prescience or advance knowledge of facts. It carries the Hebraic background of knowing intimately, choosing, setting one's affection upon, or entering into a loving relationship with a person. It is used in Rom. 11:2 of Israel and refers to the nation as a people in covenant relationship with Him. In 1 Pet. 1:20 it is used of Christ, who is said to be "foreknown" before the foundation of the world. The traditional translation "foreordained" captures the proper sense. It is not a fact that God knew about the sacrificial lamb. It is a pre-temporal choice and appointment of Christ to be the lamb.