223 – Election is According to Foreknowedge – Not Foreseen Faith

SEMESTER 2

223 – Election is According to Foreknowedge – Not Foreseen Faith

BIBLE INSTITUTE OF CORRESPONDENCE

COURSE:  SOTERIOLOGY II LESSON # 23
ELECTION IS ACCORDING TO FOREKNOWLEDGE NOT FORESEEN FAITH

Read Rom 11:2, Rom 8:29, Act 2:23, 1Pe 1:2, 1Pe 1:20.

INTRODUCTION:

1. Few people, who profess to believe the Scripture, totally deny election, they just avoid it.
2. When forced to discussion, by confrontation or inquiry, the most common shelter is “election is according to foreknowledge.”
3. What they usually mean and explain, however, is foreseen faith.
4. Three things are absolutely and equally certain as pertaining to this notion:

i. Election is according to foreknowledge. (1Pe 1:2)
ii. God eternally foresaw all things. (Act 2:25)
iii. Foreknowledge and foresight are not the same thing.

I. DEFINING YOUR TERMS

If you would know divine truth, never give your own definition to a Bible word. Find out what God is conveying by it.

1. The words foreknew, foreknow and foreordained each appear once in Scripture, and they all come from the same Greek word (proginosko).

i. This Greek word means to know, or see beforehand, in an affec­tionate or approving sense, i.e., as in ordaining.
ii. Note this word is translated foreordained but never foreseen or foresaw.

2. The word foreknowledge appears twice in Scripture and is the noun form of the above. It is in the Greek (prognosis). It means fore­thought, in the sense of planning or purposing just as prognosis is used today.
3. The word foresaw appears once, it is (proorao) in the Greek. It means to behold beforehand in the sense of observation.
4. The word foreseeing appears once and is (proeido) in the Greek, and means to have seen (as in observation) beforehand.
5. The words rendered foreknow etc., are never cross-translated with those meaning foresee, etc.

II. LOGICAL OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY THAT ELEC­TION IS ACCORDING TO FORESEEN FAITH

1. It denies that faith is a divine gift and acclaims it a natural exercise.

i. It implies that cleanness can come out of uncleanness.
ii. That one accustomed to do evil may do good.
iii. That one who is in the flesh can please God.
iv. That the natural man can receive the things of God.

2. This theory makes election depend on the running and willing of man.
3. It denies salvation by grace and gives glory to man.

III: What ultimately makes the saved and the lost to differ?

4. The theory makes a farce out of election

III: I can foresee the rising of the sun.

5. It represents us as having inherent goodness (i.e., repentance and subsequent works) of ourselves which may be foreseen.
6. This theory denies the sovereignty of God in salvation

III. THE FUTILITY OF THE THEORY

It simply answers none of the objections lodged by its promoters against sovereign election.

1. The certainty of unconditional election would not change if it were by foresight.
2. The idea that men are born with no hope of change, is not altered by this theory.
3. The objection that it places the responsibility of condemnation upon God is not changed if we view God as eternally omniscient and omnipotent.

IV. THE TRUE NATURE OF FOREKNOWLEDGE

1. It is forethought in the sense of purpose.
2. It is foreordination, i.e., pre-arrangement.