Some words in the Bible can be somewhat ambiguous. Usually it has more to do with the modern context of the word than the author’s use. Either way, we often end up with a problem reading the Bible today. What does this word mean in it’s context?

Sometimes the problem can be huge, and can send your theology in a completely wrong direction. As a matter of fact, some cults are built entirely on a few words being misunderstood to mean something they don’t.

Today we’ll concentrate on a word that makes a big difference. If it’s understood one way, God is completely reactionary to what human beings do; and the other way, makes God the proactive initiator of salvation based on nothing in man.

That word is “foreknow”.

Foreseen Faith

There is a theological system that hangs on a doctrine of foreseen faith. That is that before creation, God looked into the future and saw who would believe in Jesus. The ones whom He saw would believe are the ones He chose to save. This, according to the subscribers of the doctrine (we’ll call the doctrine “simple foreknowledge”), is what the Bible means when it talks about “the elect”. So election is not based on God’s sovereign unconditional choice, but election is a conditional reaction to God’s foreknowledge of future events.

I’m convinced this doctrine would not exist if it weren’t for two texts:

“To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood:” -1 Peter 1:1-2

“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” -Romans 8:29

In both of these texts the proponents of simple foreknowledge believe that “foreknowledge” and “foreknow” are actually shorthand for “foresee who would believe in Jesus”.

Defining Our Terms

Let’s look at the word foreknow. What does the word mean? Can it have multiple meaning? Is there a more obvious meaning in the contexts? Let’s do a little work (Though this study would be better done in the original Greek, I think the translated word is straightforward enough for those who don’t know Greek, like myself, to grasp the issues.)

Simply defined ‘fore’ means previous, and ‘know’ means have knowledge of. So the simplest definition we can conjur is ‘previously have knowledge of’. Good start.

Biblical data also shows us that ‘know’ can also have a few other connotations.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.” -Jeremiah 1:5

Here the parallelism demonstrates “before I formed you in the womb” is to “before you were born” as “I knew you” is to “I consecrated you”. So we see that know can mean set aside, or consecrated.

“It was I who knew you in the wilderness, in the land of drought…” -Hosea 13:5

Here the Bible uses ‘knew’ to speak of God’s providential care for Israel in the wilderness. Know can mean ‘care for’.

“I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.” -Matthew 7:23

In this text Jesus certainly isn’t talking about bare knowledge, but some kind of intimate relational knowledge. It’s not that He didn’t know of the false professors that cast out demons in His name, it’s that he wasn’t their Savior by relationship. So know can also mean ‘intimate relationship’

The Bible uses this word often to portray sexual intercourse as well. “Adam knew Eve”(Genesis 4:1), “Cain knew his wife” (Genesis 4:17), “Elkanah knew Hannah his wife” (1 Samuel 1:19).

I’m comfortable collapsing all of these alternate definitions into a general concept of intimate, relational, love.

So here are the definitions we have to work with for foreknow:
1. have previous knowledge (simplest definition)
2. previously have intimate love for (more complex, but very Biblical)
3. previously see faith exercised in (not a definition of the word, but believed to be shorthand)

Working With Our Definitions

Since 1 Peter 1:1-2 simply states that election is based on foreknowledge, we’ll concentrate on Romans 8:29, since the text gives us an order, and a result. Whatever conclusion we arrive at will also apply to 1 Peter.

“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” -Romans 8:29

Let’s replace the word foreknew with out definitions, and see how each one fares.

1. For those whom he [had previous knowledge of] he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son…

Ok, so we have an omniscient God who can see all things, and all people. Good. The obvious problem is that that God had previous knowledge of everyone, and since there is no delineator to narrow it down, we’d be saying that all people are predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus. Unless we’re Universalists, this will not do. Next!

2. For those whom he [previously had intimate love for] he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son…

Now we see a cohesive, if not offensive, thought. It would appear, as in Matthew 7:23 that God has an intimate love for a specific group of people, that he doesn’t share with all people (depart from me I never knew you). If this is the correct understanding it would gel very well with God’s election of Israel over against all other nations, and the New Testament talk of the Church being God’s “elect”. Look what Paul says about the same predestination in Ephesians:

“In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will…” -Ephesians 1:5

3. For those whom he [previously saw would believe in Jesus] he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son…

Again, unlike the first definition, we have a mostly cohesive thought. The first problem is just the simple flow of the sentence. We’re coupling a completely passive verb (observing) with an active verb (predestining) and linking them with “also”. This is not the way cause and effect is communicated. We don’t say “those whom he observed, he also did something with”, we’d say “those whom he observed, he in turn did something with.”

Secondly we’re trying to force the idea of foreseen events (personal excercise of faith) into a context of foreknown people. It doesn’t say God would know what they would do (true as that may be), it says He knew them.

The much bigger problem is that the word “foreknow” simply can’t be defined by such a loaded definition. It would have to be proven with more Biblical data, that the author was implying something so in-depth as a foreseen decision, and uses a single word for brevity. But again, there is no other Biblical data to build this doctrine. The expanded definition is built, circularly, on the very texts that require the expanded definition to give the desired result. Until it can be proven that ‘foreknow’ should actually be understood as ‘foreknow who would have faith’, it makes no sense to understand it that way. The only reason anyone would do so is because of a tradition passed down to them by a theology needing the word to have such a definition.

Definition 2 is the only one that can be used meaningfully. Now let’s try this definition in the other text, 1 Peter 1:1-2.

“To those who are elect… according to the [previous love] of God the Father…”

Perfect. We see God actively electing a people based on the love He had before the foundation of the world. Sounds very similar to:

“But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— …” -Ephesians 2:4-5

The Killer Text

I’ve demonstrated that only one definition of the word ‘foreknow’ can confidently be used in this context. Now you may ask if the actual word ‘foreknew’ is used in any other place in the new testament in a way that can support the definition I’ve concluded.

Paul, only 3 chapters later in Romans uses this exact same word in a way that makes it abundantly clear that this is the proper way to understand this word in context.

“I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.” -Romans 11:1-2

Paul is not talking about foreseen faith. As a matter of fact he’s talking about national Israel who largely DO NOT believe. Paul is explaining that God has not turned His back on His fore-loved people.

Now, it should be noted that while this demonstrates the meaning of the word, it’s not being used in the same context. One group He’s fore-loved and elected as His chosen people under the old covenant (and has not abandoned them now). The other group He’s fore-loved and elected for salvation in Christ. Those “who are loved by God and called to be saints…” -Romans 1:7.

Romans 11:1-2 demonstrates that Paul does not use ‘foreknew’ as shorthand for ‘foreseen faith’, but that he is speaking of unconditional electing love. He is referring to a special kind of love that God does not have for all people. He is referring to a purposed choice God made before the creation of the world to love a people because of “nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls-” -Romans 9:11

Now with this amazing fore-love in mind, let’s see what God does with these people.

“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” -Romans 8:29-30

God chose a people based solely on His good pleasure and love, then he guaranteed those people would never see the flames of Hell. All of salvation is the active work of the Lord, alone. Even His foreknowledge.

Balance and Mystery

There is much talk in today’s Church about being balanced. While this is a healthy idea, there are many ways to understand balance. Do we mean balance in terms of giving room to both sides of Biblical teachings, or are we recommending some idea of doctrinal agnosticism?

It’s nearly impossible to get into any kind of meaningful conversation about doctrine today without hearing something like, “People have been arguing about these things for centuries. Who are we to think we’ve figured it out.”. Is God mysterious?

“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever…” -Deuteronomy 29:29

While appealing to mystery is necessary when we talk about God and His ways (The secret things belong to God.), we have to be careful not to pull the mystery card prematurely. We have to look at all that the Bible tells us about a topic, so we’re sure we understand what’s being said (The things that are reveled belong to us). Then, where the Bible stops, we stop and worship the God who is beyond our comprehension.

Human Responsibility and God’s Sovereignty – the Seeming Paradox

The issue at hand is the idea that while God is sovereign, meaning that he orchestrates all events in time for His purposes, man is also held accountable for what he does or doesn’t do. This should strike us as paradoxical.

If God is making everything happen, how are we still doing anything? Or conversely, if our choices are real, and subject to God’s judgement, how can God be orchestrating those choices and events? The Bible seems to simply present both of these ideas, says they’re true, but doesn’t tell us how exactly they work together. So we’re left with an appeal to the mysterious power of God.

Human Responsibility and God’s Sovereignty in Salvation – The Misunderstanding

This correct doctrinal paradox of responsibility and sovereignty seems to have flowed over into categories today, that it was never intended for. And it appears, for the sake of political correctness, mystery is being appealed to in areas that the Bible is not mysterious.

Today’s ‘autonomous free will’ oriented Church has taken historic orthodox language and misused it to help it’s own faulty theology. A misrepresentation of the conversation is the result.

Today we find preachers teaching that since the Bible teaches that we have to come to Christ to be saved, this means that man has a free will, but the Bible also teaches that God is in control… and this is mysterious. They’ll produce verses that indicate a universal gospel call, commanding all men to come, using them as proof texts to demonstrate free will.

“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” -Matthew 11:28

“And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve…” -Joshua 24:15

“…And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.” -Revelation 22:17

So, there is undoubtedly a free offer to all men to come to Christ. And they go on to demonstrate that God is also in control of these things:

“…having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.” -Ephesians 1:11

“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” -Romans 8:29

Some will rest here, simply saying “Man has free will, and God is sovereign… we just have to deal with it.”(which is admirable, especially when we consider the more common alternative).

Usually at this point the ‘free will’ preacher will redefine predestination and election, and teach that God simply foreknew who would believe, and elected them based on their choice. Sadly, they don’t realize that they’ve actually left their original argument at this point, they’ve rejected mystery, removed God’s choice and set up man’s choice as the sole deciding factor. No more paradox… just an unbiblical doctrine of foreknown decisional salvation.

Human Responsibility and God’s Sovereignty in Salvation – All the Biblical Data

We’ve already established the parts that modern free will Christianity has right:

1. Christ has made a free offer to all men to be saved, and man must come to be saved.

2. God is in control (to varying degrees, depending on tradition), and he is working all things to the council of his will.

But we can’t simply rest here and attribute to point 1 the idea that man is free to choose, until we’ve weighed all the data. Is man free to accept or reject this offer? Jesus says no.

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” -John 6:44

“…no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” -Matthew 11:27

Paul supports this idea of man’s inability to obey God and come to Christ:

“For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” -Romans 8:7-8

“…no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.” -1 Corinthians 12:3

The Bible’s ACTUAL teaching is that yes, a free offer is made, but no one CAN come unless they’re first chosen, enabled, drawn, and enlightened to truth of the gospel. An inward change, by God, is necessary. And until that change occurs man is unable to come.

Is man responsible for the choice he makes concerning Jesus? Yes.

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” -John 3:18

Is man able to actually choose Christ, apart from the electing, regenerating grace of God? No.

“This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” -John 6:65

“…but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.” -John 10:26

Conclusion

We need to clarify terms that seem to have been cross. Human responsibility to believe (clearly taught in scripture) is not the same as human ABILITY to believe (strictly taught negatively in scripture). So as far as free will… we have none. We make choices, but our will is bound to our sinful nature.

The question of how God and man work together in salvation is not a paradox. ALL of salvation is God’s doing, as man is incapable of contributing. Every part of our responsibility being fulfilled is a gift from God to His people. Man and God DO NOT work together in salvation. Man is a passive recipient of God’s free gift, then man exercises the faith he’s been gifted.

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” -Ephesians 2:8-9

The paradoxical discussion of mans’ responsibility and God’s sovereignty was never about ‘free-will’. it’s about how we can keep from being puppets, when God is the orchestrator of everything. How are we accountable, when God makes everything happen? When we correctly understand the argument we ask the obvious (Biblical) question:

“You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” -Romans 9:19

The question is profound… but the answer is heavy and glorious, and should press the unbiblical concept of free will in salvation out of us, as we’re humbled like the creatures we are.

“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 honorable use and another for dishonorable use?” -Romans 9:20-21

Here, my friends, is where we rest. In God’s right to do what He wants with what’s His. Mysterious as it all may be.

The rickety wooden door swings open and the blinding sunlight shines onto your face. You quickly raise your hand to cover your eyes, but you’re looking, squinting, terrified, past your hand to see who’s breaking into your room.

The figure in the doorway doesn’t hesitate, it starts walking toward you. He’s walking strongly, he’s intent, he’s confident. When he comes close enough to block the glaring light, he looks down at you and you can see his face. He looks strangely familiar. He sort of looks like the Jesus you’ve heard about, but you know he was a myth. There’s something different about him, this man is strong, he has a mission, and, well, he’s real.

He kneels down and looks into your face. You’re afraid to the point of shaking, but you’re not shaking. Your mouth hangs open and your eyes don’t blink. Your mind races, ‘Will he destroy me? Will it be worse than that?’.  But he smiles kindly and a rush of trust comes over you. You know you’re in good hands.

The air in the room gets thicker, pressure builds, you can almost hear wind rushing into the room as the moment becomes very intense. The man slowly lifts his hand as he continues to kindly smile at you. Then it happens… He quickly and violently plunges his hand into your chest. In shock you look down and see the blood as he wraps his fingers around your heart. You can feel the tightening as he firmly grasps it, and in one quick  motion he tears your still beating heart from your chest. Blood flies everywhere.

He holds your heart a few inches from your face. It’s black, it’s diseased, it’s absolutely disgusting.  It’s still beating, attempting to circulate it’s black poisonous blood through you. For the first time, you see what was inside you, and you hate it.

The man then pulls out a hammer and large nail. A cross appears in the room and the man drives the spike through your filthy, sinful, prideful, God-hating heart. Black ooze pours down the cross. You hear the heart screaming blasphemous sins. It’s telling you to put it back in, it’s telling you to continue in the life you’ve enjoyed for so long. Your arms and legs twitch as they hear commands from the only master they’ve ever known, but you hold them back, you know that wretched thing is no longer your king.

The man turns back to you, and you anxiously await his next move. You’re in pain, but you’re breathless with anticipation. Even if it’s equally as violent, you are convinced it will be for your good.

He glances down and reaches his hand slowly into his own chest. He pulls out a duplicate of his own heart and holds it out for you to see. It’s beautiful. The heart shines with purity, it’s spotless and perfect. He gently places it into the gaping hole in your chest and when he removes his hand the wound perfectly heals around it.

Immediately you feel the holy blood pumping through your veins. Your desires are changed. Everything is new, and your allegiance is inextricably linked to this man. You are a new creation.

Together, you walk out of the room, into the light.

“The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.” -Genesis 6:5

“The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” -Jeremiah 17:9

“And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh,” -Ezekiel 11:19