THE MEANING OF FOREKNOWLEDGE

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

THE MEANING OF FOREKNOWLEDGE

            One of the most polarizing topics in Christian theology is that of election, foreknowledge, and predestination. Having wrestled with this important but difficult doctrine (the doctrine of sovereign grace) in my early twenties, I have made several conclusions on the matter; yet, I remain open to other perspectives. Nothing, however, has convinced me more than what Scripture says plainly and clearly. As much justifying as I did to prove a friend wrong about election, it proved futile except that it brought me to a place of acknowledgement and belief in election. After approximately six months of anger and not knowing how to handle the fact that the God whom I was taught growing up was not the God I was seeing in the Bible, I finally rested in and trusted the Lord that he is sovereign, I am responsible, and the two are compatible.

            One of the primary justifications I used during that time and, to this day, hear others use is a feeble explanation of foreknowledge. I could not deny that predestination and foreknowledge is biblical. It is there plainly; Scripture is also replete with the concept in both the Old the New Testament. What I did was misrepresent foreknowledge as many do today. I tried to give a definition of it that was not true because, in my mind (and in others’), it made sense. Part of the problem, however, is that we often look for what makes sense to us when we should merely trust what God has already said.

            My aim here is to define foreknowledge in a biblical manner, which is only one manifestation of a manifold doctrine. Nevertheless, I believe that a greater understanding of foreknowledge to yield a greater understanding of sovereign grace.

Foreknowledge Is Not Merely Knowing the Future

            Before stating what foreknowledge is, I should state what it is not. My thoughts here are derived from arguments I used to make and arguments many now continue to make. I will soon discuss linguistic evidence for foreknowledge; fundamentally, however, I want to begin by discussing the antithesis of the word.

First, foreknowledge is not merely knowing the future. That, in fact, is not foreknowing but rather foretelling. The problem with this view is that it assumes God foreseeing his people’s salvation based upon their own work rather than his.[1] Certainly, God knows the future. The reason, however, is because he designs and controls it. To the human mind, this is illogical because we are sovereign[2] beings ourselves and are perfectly capable of making our own decisions. That is what we think at least so a God who controls everything is not logical even though all things were created by God and exist through him and for him (Rom 11:36). If we think in such a way, it not only confuses us but may even anger us that someone else would dare control everything. Surely, we are left with something to control right? As the common question goes, does that mean that we are essentially robots? My response is that it is worse. In fact, the Apostle Paul refers to us as clay instead of robots (Rom 9:21). It may sound like an overreach to say that God controls everything including every roll of the dice in Las Vegas; yet, that is precisely what the Bible says. Beyond that, God does not only control everything, but everything is held together by him (Col 1:17). We either believe in God’s complete sovereignty or we hold to a self-gratifying idea that we are left with some control. If God is completely sovereign, foreknowledge then is not merely knowing the future.

Foreknowledge Is Not Mental Knowledge

            Secondly, foreknowledge is not merely mental knowledge. To start the support for this statement, the following are scriptures which use a version of the word, know:

“Adam knew his wife, Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain…” (Gen 4:1 ESV)

“The righteous know the needs of their animals…” (Prov 12:10 NRSV)

“Do you think you are a king because you compete in cedar? Did not your father eat and drink and do justice and righteousness? Then it was well with him. He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well. Is not this to know me? declares the LORD.” (Jer 22:15-16 ESV)[3]

It should be apparent that the word, know, is used in varying contexts. When Paul says that for those God foreknew, he also predestined, the Greek word is proginosko. The word is a combination of the prefix, pro, meaning beforehand or prior to, and ginosko, meaning know or knowledge. Proginosko is from where our English word, prognosis, comes. The word could still seemingly mean mental knowledge until we realize that Jesus uses gnosko in Matthew 7 when he says that to some he will say, “I never knew you; depart from me…” (Matt 7:23 ESV) Surely, God knows who they are mentally; he is not referring to a mere knowledge of them. It must be something other than mental knowledge then, for the same word, in Matthew, refers to a relationship. Jesus is not saying that he has no recollection of them but rather that he had no relationship with them. Foreknowledge, as Paul uses it, then is not mental knowledge.

Foreknowledge Is Not out of Control

            The suggestion that God’s foreknowledge is the equivalent of a prior seeing or knowing who will choose him implies a lack of control or sovereignty. From the scriptures, however, we know that God is supremely in control. Not only the previously given examples of God as a potter and the fact that all things are from him, through him, and ultimately to him, but the Bible is replete with references to his authority and control over every single detail. The idea that someone else controls humanity could be offensive to some; yet, we are told that “the plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord.” (Prov 16:1 ESV) How can it be that we are not in control of something like our own tongue? This speaks highly toward the supreme reign of God.

            Sovereignty, as we would consider it, is disparate from biblical sovereignty, i.e. the sovereignty of God. The United States of America, as a sovereign country, makes its own decisions. The United States of America, however, does not control every single act that occurs on its own land in that there are surely people who do what they want including breaking the law. God, however, does only allow acts to happen; he also controls them and the motives by which we make our choice. Paul tells us that “those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified,” (Rom 8:30 ESV)[4] i.e. all who God calls to salvation are saved. The implication then is that while humankind is held responsible and either chooses or rejects Christ, God controls the motives by which we make that choice. Our natural choice is always sin. For those who belong to the Lord, however, the effect of his call is always salvation.

            The word, sovereign, is used sparingly in Scripture and holds various meanings when it is employed. In Acts 4:24 and Revelation 6:10, the term means a possessor. In 1 Timothy 6:15, however, the word is rendered sovereign but refers to a king or one who makes decrees. In either case, the idea is that God is the one in control. Moreover, from the scriptures already mentioned, we can and should assume that God is not only in control by allowing acts to occur; he also controls those acts. How could a loving God be in control of such a terrible world? This we cannot answer with certainty; we can, however, know that he is in control and that something better is coming for those who love him. When we speak of foreknowledge, we should not dethrone God by feebly thinking that he is out of control, for he still sits on the throne and leads in his sovereignty.

Foreknowledge Is Foreloving

            Now that I have covered what foreknowledge is not, I will submit what foreknowledge is. Relating foreknowledge to mere mental knowledge or foretelling the future is incorrect. We can and should say that God knows the future; nonetheless, the reason he knows the future is because he ordains it. John Piper has suggested that foreknew would be more correctly rendered foreloved.[5] To be clear, this, in no way, suggests that God does not love everyone but that he has a relationship with those who are his, i.e. his church. It could be offensive to some that God predestines some for salvation; yet, we should not be angry about who God does not elect but rather rejoice in the fact that he elects anyone at all. Beyond that, we do not know the mind of God and, thus, do not know why he employs salvation in the manner he does except that everything he does serves his own glory and satisfaction. Foreknowledge then is relational; it is not mental knowledge or foretelling. To say God foreknew is to say that he foreloved. Giving linguistic and biblical evidence for this, my aim is that we would trust the text of Scripture and further rejoice in the saving atonement of Jesus Christ.

---

[1] John Piper, “Foreknown, Predestined, Conformed to Christ,” Desiring God, accessed February 10, 2019, https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/foreknown-predestined-conformed-to-christ.

[2] The meaning and concept of sovereignty will be discussed later.

[3] The previous three scriptures use the same Hebrew word: yada.

[4] Romans 8:30 is one of many scriptures from which the concept of irresistible grace comes.

[5] Piper.

ARE SOME NON-BELIEVERS MORE "CHRISTIAN" THAN MOST CHRISTIANS?

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

ARE SOME NON-BELIEVERS MORE “CHRISTIAN” THAN MOST CHRISTIANS?

            Perhaps you are like me and have heard a phrase like the following at some point in your life and perhaps even recently: I know many non-believers (or non-Christians) who are more “Christian”[1] than most Christians. While I understand the sentiment behind such a statement, it is simply not true. Without negating the responsibility of all Christians to live morally upright lives, we should understand that everyone fails. If we did not fail, we would not need a savior; yet, we do so in that way, we are all hypocrites. What people usually mean, in a statement like this, is that there are some people who do not profess Christ as their Lord yet live lives seemingly more righteous than many people who do profess Christ as Lord. The problem in such a statement, however, is threefold under the umbrella of answering with a resounding no! I will discuss the most protruding three problems in that statement, all of which are derived from what the Bible says about humanity and about Jesus Christ.

No Because Everyone Is Radically and Totally Wicked by Nature

            First, the answer of whether some non-believers are more “Christian” is no because every person throughout history is radically and totally wicked by nature. Some might say it is by choice; yet, we choose evil because our nature is evil. There exists (and perhaps always has existed) a train of thought that suggests humanity is mostly good by nature. Scripture, nevertheless, says otherwise. Not only have all sinned and fallen short of God (Rom 3:23), i.e. righteousness, the Apostle Paul says that we are/were dead in our trespasses (Eph 2:1). Moreover, the psalmist says that we are conceived in sin (Ps 51:5). Such an idea might not seem logical to many; nonetheless, when reasoned, it becomes clear. Consider how prone humanity is to making evil decisions not only in the most extreme circumstances but also in our daily lives. We do not need help sinning; we do not need to be taught to sin; it is not learned but is natural. It does not take long for a child to make bad decisions. In fact, from the moment a child is born, they begin a path of selfishness. No one is innocent. All are totally and radically depraved and in need of Christ. Thus, to say that some non-believers are more “Christian” than most Christians is false.

Those who are Christians[2] are found in the righteousness of Christ. One is never saved by their works; no one’s works could ever be good enough for salvation. It is only through Jesus that anyone is saved so even if someone acts better than another person (which is completely possible), if such a person is not atoned through a personal Lordship relationship with Jesus Christ, their works are not good enough. We must understand that Christians are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. It is upon salvation in Christ then that our lives begin to change and become more like him. We will still make many mistakes and some quite terrible, in fact; we are covered, however, before the Father, in the righteous blood of Jesus Christ. The answer to the question then is no: there is no such thing as a non-believer who is more “Christian” than most Christians. You either are a Christian, or you are not; you either hold the imputed righteousness of Jesus, or you hold the completion of sin.

No Because No One Is Saved by Works but Only by Christ

            In continuation, our works are not good enough for salvation. The Bible tells us that we are saved by grace through faith and not of ourselves (Rom 6:23). A problem with a statement that suggests non-believers are more “Christian” than most Christians is that it fails to realize humanity’s complete dependence on God and inability to choose God or do enough good for him to accept us. It is only by the calling and awakening of the Holy Spirit that we may receive Christ and choose righteousness. The fruit of the Spirit is “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control” (Gal 5:22-23). Such characteristics are impossible to exist without Christ. Even those who are not Christians but perhaps exude behaviors that could be considered as such do not do so on their own merit. Anything good is only from God. When a non-believer does good, that good only exists because of the good of God. If good and evil exist in our world, there is an obvious source of each. God is the source of good so even good exemplified in a non-believer employs God as the source usually without realizing or understanding it. For the Christian, however, it is understood that humanity is evil by nature and in need of a good God. The fruit of the Spirit then is supernaturally and perpetually possessed by God’s people but not by non-believers. No one is good enough to be considered righteous so the answer to the question again is no.

No Because Even the Innocent Are Not Innocent

            The third problem with stating that many or some non-believers are more “Christian” than most Christians is that an innocent person does not exist. Again, in continuation of what was previously stated, any innocence from any person is not from themselves. One might ponder what might happen to the innocent man from an indigenous tribe who has never been able to hear the gospel. Inclusivists would suggests that some people are saved and do not even know it because “God is love.”[3] On the contrary, exclusivism suggests that “redemption is possible only through faith in the gospel. This has been the predominant Christian position throughout church history and remains so among Bible-believing evangelicals today.”[4] Foundationally, as already mentioned, there is none who are good. God certainly is love; yet, his wrath is necessary to atone for sin and either has been paid through Christ or will be paid by eternal damnation for those who do not receive Christ. The Bible tells us that no one is without excuse (Rom 2:1) and that the law reveals our depravity and nature reveals God’s attributes making them clearly perceived (Rom 1:20). To answer the question of what happens to the innocent man from an indigenous tribe who has never had access to the gospel, such a person does not exist. This truth should 1) cause our hearts, as Christians, to be spurred in love to go and send to the uttermost parts of the earth so that all nations (ethnicities) may see and know Christ and 2) comfort us in knowing that we have no ability to save anyone including ourselves, for it is only by faith in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit that we may come to him. Building upon my foundation here, the answer of whether any non-believer is more “Christian” than most Christians is a further resounding no.

We Should Be Both Comforted and Convicted That No One Is Righteous

            Concluding, I will reiterate what I just said: we, as believers in and followers of Jesus Christ should be both comforted and convicted that no one in righteous. It is only by and through Jesus Christ that anyone has access to the Father. In fact, without the mediation of the Son, our prayers go nowhere, for God does not hear us unless through Jesus; he alone is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him (John 14:6). The idea that we are all striving toward the same goal, that God is love and knows who is good, and that all ways are basically the same is false. As Christians, this truth should cause our hearts to be overwhelmed with joy that there is a way at all and concurrently spur us to love others and faithfully preach the gospel. Certainly, we make mistakes; thus, it might seem that some who do not profess Jesus live more morally upright lives than some Christians. Nonetheless, nothing is further from the truth, for their morality is in vein if not in Jesus Christ. Even our best is nothing but filthy rags compared to God’s righteousness and holiness (Is 64:6). When we make mistakes and when we fall, it is vital that we get right back up and continue serving God, for we are continuously being made into his image from one degree to another (2 Cor 3:18). Are we hypocrites? Yes; so is everyone else. God calls and changes imperfect people because he alone is perfect. The answer then to whether non-believers are more “Christian” than any Christian at all is no. Let us rejoice in the righteousness of Christ, strive for excellence with the realization that we will still fail, and faithfully preach and execute the gospel throughout our lives.

---

[1] This is often the precise term used by those who might present such a statement.

[2] This implies not only by profession but by sincere life-change. Christians are not perfect; yet, there is a progression of sanctification (which looks different for everyone) throughout their lives from the moment Christ began to change them.

[3] Matt Smethurst, “What Happens to Those Who Never Hear the Gospel,” The Gospel Coalition (September 7, 2016), accessed January 23, 2019, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-happens-to-those-who-never-hear-gospel/.

[4] Ibid.

SHOULD ALL OPINIONS BE RESPECTED?

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

SHOULD ALL OPINIONS BE RESPECTED?

            In our current societal discourse in many facets, e.g. political, theological, cultural, etc., the church should be an agent of unity rather than disunity. Often, the opposite is true; yet, God calls us to primarily exemplify the unity of Christ among each other but also to love our neighbors as ourselves (Mark 12:31). Jesus’ command here is in the greater context of giving us what to what he refers as the two greatest commandments. The Greek word for neighbor here, plesion, simply means someone who is near and does not suggest a specific group of people such as other Christians, i.e. Jesus implies that everyone is our neighbor. Our love for others is derived from the greatest commandment: to love God above all else with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30), for when we love God above all else, our love for others increases because we begin to view others in the same light as God himself. How then are we to handle dissonant discussions of vital material among all people in our society? The church is given the responsibility to love everyone so we are not exempt from that command in any situation including tense dialogue. The question at work here is this: should all opinions be respected? I shall argue that all opinions should be respected in scope but limited in application, i.e. everyone is to be loved, heard, and even understood while absolute agreement is not necessary. Before continuing, it should be noted that everyone is different and, thus, possesses different opinions, which is okay and good. Without diversity, we would not need to have important discussions as we so often do. We should enter our dialogue with other believers and even non-believers realizing this fact. To properly engage in tense dialogue as Christians, I have three imperatives to bear in mind.

Determine the Essentials

            In answering the question of whether all opinions should be respected, we must first determine the essentials. At the core of our opinions, essentials are usually few and far between, i.e. people are often more passionate about secondary issues than perhaps they ought to be and not as passionate about those few issues that matter above all else. What then is essential? For this discussion, let me suggest that essentials are those issues which are absolute and from which we must never waver. These are issues that define us as humans, not as particular religions, denominations, or political parties. Life, for example, is essential. I will even suggest that issues like healthcare are not. It is certainly good and important to have informed opinions on secondary issues; yet, they are still just that: secondary.

            Essentials could seem ambiguous; yet, again, I will clarify that essentials are few and far between; therefore, the chances of an issue actually being essential are not high. As we engage in cultural discussions with people, we should understand that we will likely have disparate opinions from even those within our same affinity circles such as local churches and political groups. What unites us, however, are those items that we find essential to humanity. We should not waver from loving everyone; we should not waver from respecting life; and we should not waver, as Christians, from proclaiming Jesus Christ as the only way with a love and respect toward all people. That from which we may waver, are the non-essentials; essentials, however, once determined must be of utmost importance.

Determine the Non-Essentials

            If essentials are few and far between, non-essentials are most issues we tend to discuss. I do not intend to negate the importance of forming a valuable opinion on issues; I do submit, nonetheless, that the issues which cause the most division in our society are non-essential. Indeed, the issues about which we find ourselves most passionate are usually non-essential, e.g. healthcare, immigration, and even the type of government which we have such as democratic, socialist, etc. These are crucial issues but still non-essential; thus, there should be room for disagreement and mutual respect for all opinions, although there often is not. When an issue is determined to be non-essential, as people of God, it is our responsibility not to engage in more division. An example of division here is a dissenting response on an online social media post, which is fueled by our (usually ignorant, immature, and unnecessary) growing anger over a topic. Keep in mind that most issues are non-essential. In fact, I would challenge you to find many essential issues about which people are often upset on social media. When reasoned, we quickly realize that most of the divisiveness in our society is unnecessary. Perhaps, the best approach is to usually stay out of these fly-by discussions and to only have tense conversations in person with a limited group of people. In such a case, we can clearly express our opinions but also leave room for mutual respect toward those who hold different beliefs. When we reason what is essential and what is non-essential before engaging in discussions, it should affect the way we proceed and communicate (or do not communicate) with others.

Always Respect People

            Concluding, we should perpetually respect everyone. This does not mean, however, that we must always agree with everyone even (and especially) when it is attempted to guilt us into agreeing. It also does not mean that all opinions are valid; yet, even one with an invalid opinion should be respected. The reasons for one’s invalid opinion are vast, e.g. misinformation, wrong beliefs, family upbringing, etc. There is certainly wisdom in seeing and hearing another perspective even if you are sure that you will not agree with that perspective. You could be surprised and change your view, as happens more often than you may think so at least try to see another side. We must remember that our disagreement is also an opinion so why is ours more valid than another’s? It might truly be more valid; nevertheless, it is impossible to know unless we understand another’s perspective. If, after hearing another perspective, which requires mutual respect, we still disagree, it validates our opinion perhaps even more. Enter these discussions with an open and neutral mind, for that is the only way to begin to see another point of view. When our opinion is informed then, we should realize the foundation of what we believe and respect those who believe differently, particularly on non-essential issues.

I suggest that respect for all opinions is necessary in scope but limited in application. In general, most issues which we discuss are non-essential so respect is vital in those conversations. Essential issues are few; yet, these are the issues from which we must not waver. In these cases, e.g. human life, any opinion that blatantly contradicts basic human rights is not worthy to be respected. Certainly, respect the person; they must know, however, why their view is wrong. In general, I should caution, however, against engaging in these conversations unless prompted and among a limited group of people. As people of God, we are called to love everyone, which also encompasses respecting everyone. Contrary to popular belief, respect should not be earned; it should be something that we, as the church, give out of love for Christ. Do not waver on essential, issues; yet, because they are so few, we should mutually respect everyone and their opinions on non-essential issues. Should all opinions be respected then? No, but most should; moreover, all people should be respected. If we abide by these principles, we might live in a more fruitful and productive society even among non-believers.