If you rake you get leaves but...

If you dig then you get diamonds. In this article we are going to dig into the question; (excellent article by Jay Bennett)

Is election based on simple foresight?

The simple foresight view states that God's predestining some to eternal life and some to eternal death is based on his looking forward into history prior to creation in order to see what we would do. In other words, it is asserted that God, prior to creation, looked down through the corridors of time to see who would believe in him and who would not. Based on that information, he chose those whom he knew would choose him. I would like to offer some problems with this view prior to sharing a pertinent quote from Jonathan Edwards. I will begin with a biblical examination and then finish with Edwards's insight.

First, let's consider the biblical doctrine of foreknowledge. A couple of key texts that deal with the doctrine of divine foreknowledge are Amos 3:1-2 and Romans 8:29. In Amos 3:1-2 we read:

Hear this word that the Lord has spoken against you, O people of Israel, against the whole family that I brought up out of the land of Egypt: “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities." (ESV)

The NIV translates Amos 3:2:

"You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your sins.”

Why the difference? Why does the ESV translate a word as "known," while the NIV translates it as "chosen"? Because the idea of "knowing" another person (cf. Gen. 4:1, "Adam knew his wife Eve.") is used in this context to refer to an intimate covenantal love, a special promised loyalty, not a mere awareness. So when God says to Israel through the prophet Amos, "You only have I known of all the families of the earth," he is not referring to simply being aware of them and their actions. If that were true then the text would be implying that God is not aware of the other nations, which is unthinkable. Much more is involved in the biblical doctrine of foreknowledge than simple awareness or foresight. God is saying through Amos that, of all the nations in the world, he has loved Israel with a special, covenantal, loyal, electing love. That is why the NIV translates the word as "chosen" rather than "known."

Let's move forward to Romans 8:29 which reads:

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

Many understand the word "foreknew" in this verse to mean simple foresight. In other words, they understand it to refer to God being aware, before he created, who would or would not believe in him and then predestining to save them based on that awareness. One problem with this view is that, as we have already seen, the idea of knowing or foreknowing has a special meaning in Scripture that isn't readily communicated through our English translation. Another problem is that taking the use of the word "foreknowledge" in this passage as foresight of future human decisions contradicts what the text actually says. The text does not say that God foreknew future human decisions. It says that he foreknew certain people, which militates against equivocating foreknowledge with foresight. Surely we don't think that God was aware of some people prior to creation and not others? God has always been aware of all people past, present, and future. But he has foreknown (or loved with a special, intimate, electing love) only some. Those are the one's he predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.

But let's take the idea of simple foresight a bit further. If Paul truly has simple foresight in view in Romans 8, then shouldn't we expect him to have the same view in Romans 9? If Paul understands election as God choosing those whom he foresees will choose him, why doesn't he offer that as the solution to the dilemma raised by the doctrine as it relates to God's justice?

After presenting a clear doctrine of unconditional election In Romans 9:1-13, Paul anticipates the typical objection raised against it. Interestingly, it is the same objection raised by those who oppose the Reformed doctrine of unconditional election. Paul writes:

"What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy (Rom. 9:14-16)."

If Paul truly had in mind a simple foresight view of election, it would seem that the easiest way for him to answer the question "Is there injustice on God's part?" would be to say, "Of course not! God chooses you based on your choice of him." That would clear up the issue quite well. But he doesn't reply that way. How does he reply? "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." He replies with the affirmation that God's election of some rather than others has nothing to do with human will or exertion. It has nothing to do with God foreseeing what we will do. It is a matter of God's sovereign decision alone.

Later Paul raises the same question. In Rom. 9:19-21 he writes:

"You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?"

Again when challenged with the question of how God can find fault with those he hasn't elected since they cannot resist his will, how does Paul respond? If he truly understood election as based on simple foresight why wouldn't he just say, "No, you've misunderstood me. It is not as though people cannot come to God because he did not choose them. He chooses people, if they choose him." That would have cleared up the whole charge. But Paul doesn't respond that way. What does Paul appeal to? He appeals to the sovereign right of God to do whatever he wants with his creatures. He appeals to the sovereign decision of God in election writing, "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?"

Let's move on to Edwards's insight. Even if we admit a doctrine of simple foresight, in the end the doctrine of election is still just as certain as if it were unconditional. Listen to Edwards:

This is all that follows from an absolute, unconditional, irreversible decree, that it is impossible but that the things decreed should be. The same exactly follows from foreknowledge, that it is impossible but that the thing certainly foreknown should precisely come to pass (The "Miscellanies" no. 74).

Here we see Edwards demonstrating that the idea of simple foresight prior to creation ultimately leaves us with the same result as an unconditional divine decree issued prior to creation. A popular argument mounted against the doctrine of unconditional election is that it teaches that God has created some people for the purpose of damnation. And that is true. The doctrine does include that teaching.

Those who hold to unconditional election see it playing out basically like this:

Prior to creation . . .

(1) God decrees to elect a people out of the total population.
(2) That election is not based on any merit in those people.
(3) Those God elects will, by the appropriate means in due time, come to faith in Christ and be saved.
(4) Those God does not elect will never come to faith in Christ. They will be damned.

. . . then God creates.

Those who hold to simple foresight see election playing out like this:

Prior to creation . . .

(1) God decrees to elect a people out of the total population.
(2) That election is based on his foreseeing who will come to faith in Christ.
(3) Those he elects will come to faith, as he has foreseen, and be saved.
(4) Those God does not elect will never come to faith in Christ. They will be damned

. . . then God creates.

Do you see the how both views lead to the same conclusion? According to the simple foresight view, God knew prior to creation who would not come to faith in Christ, and yet he created those people anyway. Their condition could properly be described as "an inability to believe" since there is no possibility that they will ever believe. What God has foreseen must come to pass just as he has foreseen it. So, the doctrine of simple foresight really does nothing to resolve the "problem" of reprobation, i.e. that there are a non-elect people who are bound by necessity to never believe in Christ, and therefore be damned. Edwards's insight on this point is quite helpful.

Ultimately, in order for a system to resolve the problem of "reprobation," it must deny that God foresees moral human decisions. It must assert that the future is in some sense "open." The Socinians of the 17th century and the Process theologians of the late 19th to mid 20th century recognized this problem and did just that. They denied that God could know future moral human decisions. Today, the same is being asserted by a theological system called Open theism.