The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Election & the Love of God

You can say that but you would be in error in doing so.

1. Can you offer any biblical passages which specifically show that God chose certain individuals to salvation based upon His for-seeing them as believing upon Christ?

2. Rom 8:29 is a corollary to verse 28 since it begins with "For whom He foreknew..." Thus we must look at what precedes vs 29:

Romans 8:28 (KJV) "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose."

Thus, the election/foreordination to salvation precedes foreknowledge and predestination follows there after.

3. Let's follow your view through for the sake of argument to see if it works.

I believe the argument goes much like this:

a. Those whom God foreknew as believing, having looked down the corridors of time, or peering into the future, or some such thing, those He predestinated. And those whom He predestinated He also called... etc.
b. Now, what did God call them to? The answer is always, "He called them to faith; to believe upon Christ."
c. So, God saw some as having already believed, yet He calls them to believe?
d. Conclusion... illogical! It simply doesn't work. Why would God call men to believe if He had already seen them as having believed? Secondly, if God did see some as believing and predestined them to salvation, then doesn't this mitigate and totally eliminate any possibility that these people could choose otherwise? I mean, where does the "free-will" come in that would allow Joe Smith to not believe if he didn't want to if he was predestined to believe?

4. Now, the problem with this view of foreknowledge determining God's foreordination of things is that it denies the very definition of the biblical God; particularly the three major incommunicable attributes: Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnipresence. Let me demonstrate how this is so:

1. Omnipotence: by the simple definition, it means all power and authority over all things. The problem with this view is that God responds to what He allegedly foresees. That which he allegedly perceives as taking place is not something He has determined nor authority over as they are allegedly the free-will actions of men.

2. Omniscience: by simple definition, it means prescience; knowledge of facts. The problem here is that God had to learn something which He was not always privy to. Since the "believing" which it is alleged that God "saw" was done freely and outside of an eternal decree and of necessity not according to His authority. The actual believing could not have been known until the believing actually took place. It matters not whether the element of "time" is considered or not. The fact remains, God did not know who was going to believe since He had to perceive it as taking place and upon that basis, predestine/decree it to happen. Consistent Arminians/semi-Pelagians admit to this being true and assert a view known as "Middle Knowledge" or "Open Theism". They admit that logically, if man is in possession of a "free-will" it is impossible for God to have all knowledge.

3. Omnipresence: by simple definition, it means God is everywhere He being pure spirit and infinite in His being. The problem here is that God had to gain additional knowledge of facts from a source which He did not create. Or, put another way, what God allegedly perceived existed outside of Himself. Thus what He allegedly saw had to exist where He was not. This "place" where this pre-created populated earth existed could not have existed within the mind of God such as what we call a dream, for this would also violate #1 Omnipotence and #2 Omniscience.

Bottom line... This view that purports that foreordination follows foreknowledge denies the very definition of the biblical God.

Quickly now... as I suspect you are going to ask how it is possible that God's foreknowledge follows foreordination, it is easily explained aside from the myriad biblical passages supporting it, by an earthly illustration; arguing from the lesser to the greater:

It is more than reasonable and logical to assert that a human being can relay future events with absolute certainty. And this proves the case that "foreknowledge" follows "foreordination". How? What if the man is an architect? He can drive to a vacant lot and explain in full detail that on this site will be a 100 story building, built out of granite and brick with walnut paneled walls, 383 offices, 5 elevators, etc., etc. How can he do that? He can simply because he is the designer. He had it all planned out long before the construction would begin. He didn't look into the future to see how some construction company was going to erect a building and then decide to copy it. No! He, himself pre-determined what he wanted to build and all its details. And because he specified all things according to his own desires, he "foreknew" what that building was going to be.

Thus, if a measly created being can claim to "foreknow" things because he "foreordained" them as their designer, then how much more is it possible that God foreknows all things because He has foreordained them?