Election and the
Foreknowledge of God
By Mark W. Fenison
“Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the
Father, through sanctification of the
Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ; Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.” – I Pet. 1:3
Every denomination that rejects eternal
security and believes in justification by works assumes that this text teaches
that election is merely the reaction of God the Father to foreseen choices made
by men. A rubber stamp if you please. God looks ahead by omniscience in order
to see what man is going to do and then merely second’s the motion as He has no
other choice since His foreknowledge cannot err.
But why would God have to elect to
salvation what His foreknowledge infallibly saw would be saved anyway???? Those foreseen to be saved would be saved
whether God elected them or not unless God’s foreknowledge can err? Such a view of election cannot change or add
to anything God foresaw. This view makes election absurd and ridiculous and
void of any real meaning or value. Nor does this view help relieve difficulties
concerning the non-elect. If God foresaw who would believe, He also foresaw who
would not believe. The eternal damnation of the non-elect is just as certain as
the eternal salvation of the elect unless God’s foreknowledge can err. Why would
God bring into existence those whom He foreknew could never be saved? The
“rubber stamp” view of election makes God a helpless observer of events with no
power to change anything He foresaw good or evil. According to this view He
does not rule over providence but providence rules over Him and dictates to Him
what will be will be. He is a helpless observer and we are but what foreseen
fate has dictated we will be.
I. The Great
Assumption
Many quote I Peter 1:3 triumphantly assuming
this text supports their “rubber stamp” theology.
However, this text makes no such assumption. This texts
does not say what it is that God foreknew. It only says that election is
according to God’s foreknowledge. The great assumption placed upon this text is
that God supposedly foreknew that some would believe and thus God elected them.
However, this text says no such thing. Such an assumption is not warranted by
this text or any other text of scripture. Indeed, such an assumption is in
direct contradiction to the Scriptures and the nature of saving faith. The only
passage in Scripture that speaks of God looking down through time in order to
see how mankind would respond to him is found in the Psalms and quoted by Paul
in Romans:
”God LOOKED DOWN from heaven upon the
children of men to see if there were ANY that did understand, that did SEEK
God. EVERY ONE of them is gone back; they are altogether become filthy; there
is NONE that doeth good, NO, NOT ONE.” – Psa.
53:2-3
The
significance of this passage is underscored by the fact that this is the second
time it is repeated by the Psalmist (Psa. 14:2-3).
However, even more significant is the fact that it is this very passage that
Paul quotes in Romans 3:9-23 when he considers every last son of Adam.
According to Paul this quotation has in view every single human being that will
ever come into existence.
“What then? Are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before
proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; AS IT IS WRITTEN,
There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none that understandeth,
there is none that seeketh after God….all have sinned and come short of the glory
of God” – Rom. 3:8-9, 23
Paul quotes this portion of the Psalm as proof
that all mankind comprehended under the terms “Jews and Gentiles” will reject
God and will not of their own free will come to him or “seek” Him. According to
Paul’s inspired understanding of this Psalm, the words “God looked down” refer
to God’s foreknowledge of every last son of Adam. What God foresaw was complete rejection of God
by men with not even one that would of their own accord “seek” after God. Instead of “foreknowledge” consisting of
foreseeing some men would come to God by faith the Bible states the very
opposite. There is no passage in the Bible that says God looked down and saw that
even one person would seek Him.
The real truth of God’s foreknowledge is
that it refers to FORESEEN REJECTION by all men. It is this foreseen rejection by
all men that is the basis for God’s election. God’s election is of grace (
Nothing prevents the salvation of the
non-elect but their own depraved resistance to the gospel. They will go to hell
in spite of God’s provision for their salvation. They will go to hell in spite
of God’s gracious invitation to save them. They will go to hell in spite of the
inward and outer witness of God’s existence and knowledge of their sin. They
will go to hell due to their own depraved resistant will. If God’s
foreknowledge of the non-elect cannot be wrong, then, they will go to hell
rejecting Him because God foresaw they would reject Him and go to hell. The
non-elect are those whom God simply leaves to their own depraved will which God
foresaw would reject Him. To demand
that God must save them in spite of their foreseen resistance is to deny
salvation is by grace – unmerited – undeserved favor.
Election is not only according to God’s
foreknowledge of universal rejection but it is also according to God’s
foreknowledge of His eternal purpose in Christ Jesus to save a great number
that no man can number. Romans
“Elect
according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the
blood of Jesus Christ; Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.” – I Pet. 1:3
We are not only elect “according to” God’s
foreknowledge but we are elect “through” sanctification (setting apart) of the
Spirit. God has not only elected the
persons unto salvation but He has elected the MEANS for the salvation of those
persons. The Holy Spirit is sent to
effectually apply the atonement to the elect. He does this by working in them
“both to will and to do of His good pleasure” (Philip.
II. The Great
Contradiction
The rubber stamp theory of foreknowledge
declares that God foresaw that some would exercise saving faith while others
would not and upon this distinction they were elected unto salvation. However,
this theory conveniently passes over the question as to what is the efficient
cause of faith in some and not in others. Moreover, this theory demands that
saving faith is a universal commodity that all possess
and all equally can either exercise or refuse to exercise. Where does the Bible teach this???????
The Bible clearly states that “not all men
have faith” (2 Thes. 3:3). In fact, the Bible clearly teaches that the
lost man’s unregenerate mindset cannot exercise faith but is at enmity with God
and is not subject to the law of God and neither indeed can be (Rom. 8:7). The
Bible clearly states that saving faith is a “gift” of God (Eph. 2:8) and a “fruit” of the Spirit
(Gal.
Acts
The rubber stamp interpretation of God’s
foreknowledge makes saving faith at one and the same time the merited cause for
election of some over the non-elect as well as the unmerited cause of salvation
in the elect over the non-elect. Which
is it? It is either unmerited or merited but it cannot be both at one and the
same time. If the exercise of saving faith is what merits election of some over
others then it cannot be a product of unmerited favor unless words lose their
meaning. If it is due to the unmerited favor of God then God is the cause of
saving faith in some and not in others.
What does the Bible say?
“For by GRACE are ye saved THROUGH faith and THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES it
is a gift of God not of works lest any man should boast.” – Eph. 2:8-9
“It is of faith that it might be of grace…” – Rom.
“For unto you it is given in
behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him but also to suffer for his sakef” – Philip.
However, the “rubber stamp” theory of
foreknowledge demands that foreseen faith is what merits election by God over
the non-elect. The truth of the matter
is that all men are void of faith and according to God’s foreknowledge are bent
on steadfast resistance to God heading for a devils hell full steam ahead. It
is the elective grace of God that intervenes and makes the difference when no
man wants God or salvation. Paul’s case is the case of every man on their way
to
III. A Matter of
Inspired Grammar
“Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge
of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain”
There is a common and well recognized rule
of Greek grammar that applies to the above text. It is called the “Grandville
Sharp” rule. Basically, this rule states that when there are two nouns in a
sentence and both share the same case and number but the first one is
accompanied with the definite article (“the”) but the second on is without the
definite article then the rule is that the second one is merely a restatement
of the first. In plain language the words
“foreknowledge of God” in the above verse are merely a restatement of the words
“the determinate counsel of God.” They
are synonymous according to this well known Greek rule of grammar. The essence of this verse is that the
crucifixion was not an accident but was purposely planned and executed by God
at the appointed time. This text makes it clear that God’s foreknowledge is
inseparable from His eternal purpose by which He works all things according to
His will. This text also makes it clear that God’s sovereignty is not
antagonistic to human responsibility. Peter claims that although God purposed
the crucifixion before the world began, He did it so that men would be held
responsible. He permitted sinful men to vent their enmity upon Christ in order
to carry out His eternal purpose. Such permission does not excuse them but only
uses their enmity for His ultimate glory (Psa.
76:10). God’s eternal purpose was carried out exactly as planned both as to the
precise timing and manner. God merely used the depravity of men to carry out
His plan.
In
regard to redemptive foreknowledge it can be easily and Biblically explained as
follows. An archetech sits down and draws the plans
for a house. Everything He wants in that house is written into those plans.
Before the house is built the blueprints are made. Because the blueprint exists
first, then everything about that house can be foreknown before the house comes
into actual being. In Romans 8:28-31 Paul begins first with God’s eternal plan
or purpose – His blue print
“And we know that all things work together
for the good of those who love God to those who are the called ACCORDING TO
GOD’S PURPOSE.” – Rom.
Why is it that “all things” are made to
work “according to God’s purpose” for “the called”? Very simply it is because God works all
things according to that “purpose” so that nothing works against that
“purpose.” Only because of this can we
say with Paul “And WE KNOW that all things work together for the good.”
After laying down the eternal blue print of
absolute soverign purpose in verse 28 Paul then
proceeds to those things that are consequences of such an unchangeable
unalterable eternal soverign purpose:
“…according to
His purpose. For whom He did
FOREKNOW he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his dear son.”
How did God “foreknown” them? He foreknew them “according to His purpose.
He included them in his blue prints – his eternal counsel – his eternal
purpose. Redemptive foreknowledge is according to His eternal purpose. They are
pre-known because they are pre-planned in His eternal purpose whereby all
things work for their good. How can we be sure all things will work as planned?
“For whom He did foreknow he also did
PREDESTINATE to be conformed”
God predetermines that everything in his
plan will be carried out as purposed. He purposed to save them thus he
predestinates them to be conformed to the image of His son. How does he do that
“For whom he did predestinate he ALSO called
and whom he called he ALSO justified and whom he justified he ALSO glorified”
Now who is it that will be glorified? Only
those he justified? Now who is it that
will be justified? Only those He called.
Now who is it that he called?
Only those he predestinated to be conformed to the image of His son. Now
who is it that He predestinated to be conformed? Only those he foreknew? Now who is it that he foreknew? Only those he
works all things together for their good ACCORDING TO HIS PURPOSE. Can these things be said of all men without
exception or only of the elect? Let Paul answer this in the same context:
“What shall WE then say to these things? If
God be for US, who can be against US…delivered him up for US ALL…give
US all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s ELECT” – Rom.
IV. A Matter of Application
Who would argue that Paul
believed in the wrong doctrine of election?
Certainly, no one in their right mind would argue that point. They may
argue that Paul believed in their particular view as opposed to another view
but none would charge Paul of teaching a false doctrine of election.
Now lets put this
“rubber stamp” theory to the real test. In Romans chapter nine Paul is
responding to an imaginary objector concerning the doctrine of election (vv. 14,19-20). The imaginary objector believes in the wrong view
of election while Paul is defending the right view.
Now here is the question. Does your view
correspond more with the objections that are being thrown at Paul by the
imaginary objector in chapter nine or does your view correspond more to the
responses given by Paul to the objector?????
If your view aligns more with the objector than you do
not believe in the Biblical doctrine of election. If your view responds
as Paul does to these objections then you believe the Biblical view. It’s a
very simple test but very accurate. Let’s begin with some objections.
First argument: Many dismiss Romans chapter nine as only teaching
national election rather than personal redemptive election. Is this your
position? However, isn’t this position of
national election exactly what Paul is refuting in Romans 9:6-8?
“Not
as though the word of God has taken none
effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.
“Neither, because they are the seed of
Abraham, are they all children; but in Isaac shall thy
seed be called.”
“That is, they which are children of
the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of promise are
counted for the seed.”
Isn’t Paul’s argument against the idea that
election as God’s people merely means being born into national
“For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son”
“And not only this; but when Rebecca
also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being
not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God
ACCORDING TO ELECTION might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.”
Argue what you will, but does not Paul
clearly give here two PERSONAL examples of election by God rather than
defending NATIONAL election? Those who
argue that Paul is teaching NATIONAL rather than PERSONAL election
are obviously wrong if words mean anything. Paul is clearly rebuking and
refuting the idea that being born a Jew “after the flesh” makes one a child of
God. His point is that children of God must be born “by promise” pictured by
the birth of Isaac. A supernatural birth where no human
effort whatsoever could account for that birth.
Second Argument: Paul argues that God’s purpose of election is not a
result of foreseen merit but is the result of the sovereign choice of God
whereby he sets upon one His redemptive love but not on the other.
“(For
the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the
purpose of God ACCORDING TO ELECTION might stand, not of works, but of him that
calleth…As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but
Esau have I hated.”
What
is your response to this statement? Is your response more akin to the imaginary
objector or more aking to Paul’s? Here is what the objector would say:
“What shall we say then? Is there
unrighteousness with God?”
The objector, the one who believes in
election wrongly will say such a statement is UNFAIR – God cannot be JUST if He
just sovereignly chooses one over the other without
giving any regard for anything they might do good or bad in their lives? Is
that your position to such words? If it
is then you know you are wrong.
What is Paul’s response to this
objection? Would you respond like Paul
if someone stated what Paul stated about election in regard to Jacob and Esau?
“God forbid! For he saith to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I will have
mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So
then it is not of him that WILLETH or him that RUNNETH but of God that showeth mercy”
Would your position of election cause you
to respond in this way to the charge that God is unjust if he elects whom He
wills without regard to foreseen goodness or badness? If not, then you certainly do not believe
election like Paul. Paul goes on to
give a personal example (not national) of a non-elect
in the person of Pharaoh:
“For the scripture saith
unto Pharoah, Even for this same purpose have I
raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be
declared throughout all the earth.” – v. 17
Now you explain why Paul uses Pharoah any way you please but will your explanation be in
harmony with the explanation Paul gives in the very next verse:
“THEREFORE hath he mercy on whom he will have
mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth” – v. 18
If your extended explanation does not
conclude with and harmonize with Paul’s own explanation then it is clear you do
not believe in election like Paul does. He conclusive explanation in verse 18
is merely a repetition of what he said in verse 15 is it not?
Third Argument: Paul concludes that a person who does not believe
in election as he is teaching it will argue that if no one can resist God’s
sovereign will than how can God hold anyone accountable for resisting it?
“Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath
resisted his will?” – v. 19
In other words, if Abraham and Sarah had
no say so in the birth of Isaac, only God’s will determined it. If Esau and Jacobs good or evil had no say so
in the preeminence of Jacob over Esau but God’s will determined it before
birth. If election is not due to anyone who “willeth”
or anyone who “runneth” but is solely due to God’s
will of purpose. If God can have mercy on whom he will and harden
whom he will as in the case of Pharaoh. Then the question of the objector is
HOW CAN GOD HOLD ANYONE PERSONALLY ACCOUNTABLE if personal election is
ultimately determined by God’s will in total disregard
to personal ability or personal good or evil?
Now what kind of answer would you give to
this objection? If you would not give
the answer Paul gave it is evident you do not believe in election as Paul did.
How did Paul answer this objection:
“Nay but O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him
that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not
the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor,
and another unto dishonor?
What if God willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known,
endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.:
And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy,
which he afore prepared unto glory? Even us, whom he hath called, NOT OF THE JEWS ONLY, but also of the Gentiles.” – vv. 20-24
Would this be your response or does this
response cause even more trouble and discomfort for your position of
election?????? Notice Paul ends by
proving that what he is saying is not to be restricted to NATIONAL JEWISH
ELECTION but to the election of all who are called both Jews and gentiles.
CONCLUSION:
Dear brother or sister, when you can answer these objections the way Paul did,
then you can know what you belief about election is Biblical. However, if your
responses are more akin to the objectors than to Paul’s responses, you can
clearly know that you neither understand nor believe in the Biblical doctrine
of election.