Ghost,
If this is your view, then you do not understand the meaning of
foreknow/foreknew from Scripture. Briefly, when the word is used, it is in the intimate sense, just as in Adam
knew Eve. See, for example, Amos 3:2; Deuteronomy 7:7,8; 10:15; Hebrews 12:5-6; Jeremiah 1:5; Matt. 7:22-23; I Corinthians 8:3; II Timothy 2:19; Romans 8:28.
Murray sums it up succinctly:
.“It should be observed that the text says ‘whom He foreknew’; whom is the object of the verb and there is no qualifying addition. This, of itself, shows that, unless there is some other compelling reason, the expression ‘whom he foreknew’ contains within itself the differentiation which is presupposed.
If the apostle had in mind some ‘qualifying adjunct’ it would have been simple to supply it. Since he adds none we are forced to inquire if the actual terms he uses can express the differentiation implied. The usage of Scripture provides an affirmative answer. Although the term ‘foreknew’ is used seldom in the New Testament, it is altogether indefensible to ignore the meaning so frequently given to the word ‘know’ in the usage of Scripture; ‘foreknow’ merely adds the thought of ‘beforehand’ to the word ‘know’.
Many times in Scripture ‘know’ has a pregnant meaning which goes beyond that of mere cognition. It is used in a sense practically synonymous with ‘love’, to set regard upon, to know with peculiar interest, delight, affection, and action (cf. Gen 18:19; Exod. 2:25; Psalm 1:6; 144:3; Jer. 1:5; Amos 3:2; Hosea 13:5; Matt 7:23; I Cor. 8:3; Gal. 4:9; II Tim. 2:19; I John 3:1).There is no reason why this import of the word ‘know’ should not be applied to ‘foreknow’ in this passage, as also in 11:2 where it also occurs in the same kind of construction and where the thought of election is patently present (cf. 11:5,6).
When this import is appreciated, then there is no reason for adding any qualifying notion and ‘whom He foreknew’ is seen to contain within itself the differentiating element required. It means ‘whom he set regard upon’ or ‘whom he knew from eternity with distinguishing affection and delight’ and is virtually equivalent to ‘whom he foreloved’. This interpretation, furthermore, is in agreement with the efficient and determining action which is so conspicuous in every other link of the chain – it is God who predestinates, it is God who calls, it is God who justifies, and it is He who glorifies. Foresight of faith would be out of accord with the determinative action which is predicated of God in these other instances and would constitute a weakening of the total emphasis at the point where we should least expect it….It is not the foresight of difference but the foreknowledge that makes difference to exist, not a foresight that recognizes existence but the foreknowledge that determines existence. It is a sovereign distinguishing love.” Src: John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, volume I, pp. 316-318.
Similarly, Hodge observes that
"as to know is often to approve and love, it may express the idea of peculiar affection in this case; or it may mean to select or determine upon….The usage of the word is favourable to either modification of this general idea of preferring. The people which he foreknew, i.e., loved or selected, Rom. 11:2; Who verily was foreordained (Gr. foreknown), i.e., fixed upon, chosen before the foundation of the world. I Peter 1:20; II Tim. 2:19; John 10:14,15; see also Acts 2:23; I Peter 1:2.
The idea, therefore, obviously is, that those whom God peculiarly loved, and by thus loving, distinguished or selected from the rest of mankind; or to express both ideas in one word, those whom he elected he predestined, etc. Src: Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, pp. 283, 284.
Moreover, faith cannot be the cause of foreknowledge, since foreknowledge is before predestination, and faith is the effect of predestination.
As many as were ordained to eternal life believed (Acts 13:48). Indeed, even if one adopts the Arminian view of
foreseen faith, this faith foreseen by God is the faith God Himself creates (e.g., John 3:3-8; 6:44;45,65; Eph. 2:8; Philippians 1:29; 2 Pet. 1:2). Thus, even the Arminian will claim that God's eternal foresight of faith is preconditioned by his decree to generate this faith in those whom God foresees as believing. Which leads to my next point.
All readers should note: From the above, this is clearly not a Calvinism issue nor an Arminian issue, for
both camps fully agree that God
knows specifically each and every person who will be re-born. Instead the differences between both camps lie with the
basis of God's knowledge: whether God knows what will happen because He ordains it certain or whether God knows what will happen because His creatures render it certain--all of which is a topic for other threads to discuss and not relevant here.
But what is relevant is that Ghost's (
a.k.a., Sozo, Mystery, madman, outlaw) view is that of the
open theist. In the past Ghost has skirted around fully appropriating the openist label for himself, but he might as well come clean and own it now, given his view that God does not know beforehand who will or will not "be in Christ".
From an openist's position, Ghost's post above probably resonates.
Unfortunately, the position is built upon faulty assumptions of the attributes of God, in particular for this situation, God's omnscience. Not surprisingly, all aberrant theological views will inevitably lead back to the root error of lack of proper understanding of
theology proper (the study of the doctrine of God's nature from Scripture).
There are only two important questions in life, "
Who is God?" and "
Who is Jesus Christ?" Get them wrong, and you will potentially go off worshiping an intellectual idol of your own making at your temporal and/or eternal peril.
AMR
