Foreknowledge
Traditional definition:
Calvinist Defintion:
"To have previous knowledge of; know beforehand especially by paranormal means or by revelation" (Merriam Webster"). The original greek is προγινώσκω (proginosko) which is a compound word comprised of πρό (pro) – meaning "before" and γινώσκω (ginōskō) – meaning "to know." When the Bible state that God foreknows a person, it means that God actually knows someone in advance — He is aware of them, their existence, their thoughts and their actions before they happen.
Calvinits do not have clear agreement on the meaning of "foreknowledge" other than to be certain it does not mean to have the traditional meaning of prior knowledge or to know beforehand.
Calvinism argues that foreknowledge means to love first or choose first and such attribute of love moved God to choose the elect without regard to their existence, their thoughts and their actions. Of course this definition simply removes what we normally think of as "knowing" a person and replaces it with "choosing" or "determining." So instead of God actually having knowledge of people before they exist, it is more like He pre-decides their existence and destiny before they exist.
Generally Calvinism shifts the focus of "foreknowledge" from what it does mean to what it does not mean, redefining "knowledge." Calvinism may claim that their defiinition actually means more than to "know." However, what is clear is that Calvinism removes what it means to know and changes the focus from what any non-Calvinist, theologian otherwise, would claim that it means to know someone and, instead, claims that it means to pre-determine what someone will do.
1) It is not knowledge.
2) It is not awareness.
3) It is not relational.
4) It is not personal.
5) It is a deliberate refusal to consider what God fully knows.
Uses in Scripture:
1 Peter 1:2
"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."
| Literal Understanding |
God's election was based upon His foreknowledge of future events. In the context of the passage the basis upon which God chose humans to salvation was based upon His knowledge of their obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ. | |
| Calvinist Understanding |
God's election was not based upon foreknowledge of human response to the gospel; God chose to elect some portion of humanity to salvation for reasons that we do not know - other than to be sure His decision had nothing to do with God's knowledge of future human response. | |
| The Calvinist argument is similar to the Calvinist interpretation of 1 John 4:19 - "We love him, because he first loved us." Although the word "because" expresses causation, Calvinism denies that the primary cause of a believer's love of God is the believer's loving response to God's love. Rather, Calvinism argues that the primary cause of a believer's love is God's decree that believer's love Him - in essence, denying the causation expressly stated in 1 John 4:19. |
Romans 8:29
"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren."
| Literal Understanding |
Those whom God foreknew to respond with obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ, He conforms to the image of Jesus, so that many may bear the character of Jesus who is the Heir and Head of the church. | |
| Calvinist Understanding |
Similar to the Calvinist understanding of 1 Peter 1:2, Calvinism argues that God's election was not based upon foreknowledge of human response to the gospel or any other prior knowledge; God chose to elect some portion of humanity to salvation for reasons that we do not know other than to be sure it had nothing to do with God's consideration of human response. As noted above, this interpretation is necessary to the Calvinist teaching of "Unconditional Election" which claims God chose without considering the future response of individuals to the gospel message - though He has complete knowledge of the future, He deliberately refused to consider such knowledge. Rather, He decided each individual's future eternal fate based upon what can only be described as part of what He knows, clearly something less than His complete and perfect knowledge. |
Hate
Traditional |
To have a strong adverse disposition toward someone or something. Hate does not necessarily mean sinful malice, but it is far more than merely placing something in second position. In Scripture, hate may include moral revulsion, opposition, separation, disfavor, judgment, or drastic action against that which is opposed to God. When Scripture commands believers to hate evil, it is not commanding either petty spite or sinful ill-will. Rather, it is commanding a serious moral opposition to evil. Likewise, when Jesus speaks of hating father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and one's own life also, He is not commanding contempt for family. Rather, He is teaching that every rival claim, even the most natural and powerful human attachment, must be renounced when it competes with loyalty to Him. |
|
Calvinist |
Calvinism often reduces "hate" to "loved less," "not chosen," "passed over," or "rejected." But these definitions are incomplete. Rejection may be involved in hate, but rejection is not the same thing as hate. A father who gives one child an inheritance and gives no inheritance to another has not explained the word "hate" merely by pointing to the unequal inheritance. The word "hate" implies a real adverse posture, not merely an administrative decision to select one and not the other. Calvinist Hate is actually "Not-Chosen." In Romans 9, Calvinism often argues that "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" means that God chose Jacob as an individual for salvation and did not choose Esau as an individual for salvation. But the Romans 9 passage is dealing with nations, promise, service, and the line through which God's purpose would be carried out. Turning "love" into election and "hate" into non-election does not explain either word; it simply replaces both words with Calvinist conclusions.
1) It is not ordinary hate. |
|
Uses in Scripture: |
"As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." |
|
Romans 9:13 |
Literal Understanding |
Paul's quote must be read with the context of Romans 9 and the Old Testament passages Paul cites. Verse 12 quotes Genesis 25:23: "Two nations are in your womb, two peoples shall be separated from your body; one people shall be stronger than the other, and the older shall serve the younger." Thus Jacob and Esau represent two nations, Israel and Edom. As individuals, Esau never served his twin brother Jacob; rather, as nations, the Edomites later served the Israelites. The fuller discussion is cross-referenced here: Romans 9. |
| Calvinist Understanding |
God loved Jacob because He elected Jacob and God hated Esau because He did not elect Esau. The word "hated" is softened to mean "loved less," "passed over," or "not chosen for covenant favor." Under this definition, hate does not mean a strong adverse posture toward evil; it means simply that God chose one and not the other. | |
| This interpretation empties the word "hate" of its force and also ignores the national context. Malachi was written long after Jacob and Esau had died and speaks of God's judgment upon Edom: "I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert." Israel was restored, while Edom was judged. Applying this to Esau personally, and then extending it to every person Calvinism labels non-elect, is out of context. God's hatred of Esau/Edom has moral and historical content: God foreknew and judged the sinful character and hostile ways of Edom. | ||
Luke 14:26 |
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." |
|
| Literal Understanding |
Jesus is not commanding sinful malice toward family. He is commanding decisive renunciation of every rival claim that competes with loyalty to Him. This is stronger than merely putting family "second." Any attachment, relationship, or desire that pulls a disciple away from Christ must be opposed, denied, and, where necessary, separated from. | |
| Calvinist Understanding |
Calvinism often appeals to passages like this to argue that "hate" may mean "love less." But this explanation is too weak. Jesus is not merely arranging affections in descending order. He is calling for drastic action against any claim that competes with discipleship. | |
Sovereignty
Traditional definition:
God is the supreme authority with ultimate control. He is all-powerful and all-knowing, and the Creator of everything. He can act as He pleases.
However, Scripture does not teach that God is obligated to directly control every human decision for His sovereignty to remain intact. God may allow humans to choose and still remain fully sovereign (Deuteronomy 30:15–19). He may respond, warn, be grieved, or be pleased by human decisions (Numbers 25:3; Luke 7:30). Thus, while God is sovereign and in ultimate control, He has sovereignly chosen to create human beings with:
- an ability to obey and an ability to disobey,
- an ability to believe and an ability to disbelieve,
- an ability to accept Him and an ability to reject Him.
This act of creation is not a threat to His sovereignty; rather, it is an expression of His sovereignty.
1a) Ability to Obey: Scripture teaches that obedience is possible and expected.
Joshua 24:24: “And the people said to Joshua, ‘The LORD our God we will serve, and His voice we will obey!’” Deuteronomy 30:11–14: God says His commandments are not too difficult for them; obedience is possible. John 14:21: “He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me.”1b) Ability to Disobey: Scripture also affirms the real possibility of rejecting God’s commands.
Luke 7:30: “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.”These passages assume real human moral responsibility, not predetermined behavior.
2a) Ability to Believe: Scripture presents belief as a genuine human response.
John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish…” John 6:29: “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” Acts 16:31: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”2b) Ability to Disbelieve: Scripture equally presents unbelief as something a person may choose.
John 5:40: “But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” John 3:18: “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already…”Belief and unbelief are presented as genuine options, not predetermined outcomes.
3a) Ability to Accept: Scripture treats acceptance of God as a meaningful decision.
John 1:12: “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God…” Acts 2:41: “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized…” 2 Corinthians 5:20: “We implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.”3b) Ability to Reject: Scripture also affirms that people may refuse or resist God.
John 1:11: “He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.” Matthew 23:37: “How often I wanted to gather your children together… but you were not willing!”These are not merely hypothetical invitations. Scripture consistently treats acceptance and rejection as real human responses to God’s grace.
Calvinist Defintion:
Calvinism begins with the basic traditional definition that God is all powerful and can do as He pleases. But it then proceeds to add a philosophical premise to the definition. The added philosophical premise is not based upon a search of Scripture. Rather the premise is added solely because Calvinism fails without ths premise:
If God is sovereign, then human choice cannot play any role in salvation.
Nowhere does Scripture make any statement of this sort. Rather, it is a definition required to uphold the Calvinist doctrine of "Irresistible Grace."
Calvinism constructs its own definition of “sovereignty,” one that leaves no room for free will to have any role in salvation. If God granted humans the ability to respond (to choose to accept or to reject the gospel), then, by definition, grace would be resistible, which directly contradicts the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace. Because Irresistible Grace denies any genuine exercise of human will regarding belief or rejection, Calvinism must draw a firm line: God may allow some degree of human freedom in life, but absolutely never with regard to salvation. If humans could choose to either believe in or accept Jesus or not to believe or not to receive, then grace would no longer be irresistible; by definition, it would be resistible.
In addition to the conflict between the doctrine of Irresistible Grace and a definition of "sovereignty" which allows even the slightest exercise of human free will with regard to salvation, almost the entirety of Calvinism fails if sovereignty creates a human ability to respond to or reject the gospel:
If God could grant humans an ability to choose to respond to or reject Jesus, then the Calvinist doctrine of "Total Depravity" is incorrect.
If God could grant humans the ability to choose to respond to or reject Jesus, then His election must take into account each individual’s decision before choosing whether to elect or condemn (or, for those who reject double predestination - before choosing whether to elect or to "pass over" and not elect). Thus, the Calvinist doctrine of "Unconditional Election" is incorrect.
The conflict between the core teachings of Calvinism and the slightest exercise of human free will to believe in the gospel or to reject the gospel fully slams the free will door shut. Is it any surprise that Calvinism alters the definition of “sovereignty” by adding a philosophical premise which entirely prohibits human free with regard to one subject: the choice to believe or reject the gospel of Jesus Christ. But search the Bible and we find no definition of sovereignty that has anything to do with preventing human choice or denying the ability of humanity to believe or reject Jesus or His gospel. Rather Calvinism pursues a philosophical definition of “sovereignty” which is a theological construct, not a biblical definition. In essence, “because we believe in ‘Irresistible Grace’ we conclude that any ability to resist God’s grace conflicts with God’s ‘sovereignty’.” And so Calvinism creates another unholy definition, not because it is rightfully set forth in scripture, but because it is a necessity in order to uphold the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace.