This can be a challenging topic for Christians to hear and understand. But, understood well, it is a tremendous comfort. The comfort is not just for the confidence of individual Christians in the faith. But, the confidence also is in Christian witness, that what we perceive as success and failure are not ours but the Lord’s.
First, it is good for us to understand that’s foreknowledge and election are different attributes of God. This distinction is not for God’s benefit or to contain His action or His will. This distinction serves us by preventing us from applying our own reason to fill in gaps what God has revealed to us of himself. The revealed aspects of God and those hidden things can deliver us truths which seem to be in paradox. Our duty as Christians is to embrace and hold fast to those seeming paradoxes in the confidence that we have received what we need to know.
God’s foreknowledge is his knowledge of all events of history, the current time, and the future prior to their occurrence. The prophets are all examples of this attribute of God. This is not to say that they possessed the attribute of God of which we speak. But rather, God revealed to them some of his foreknowledge, allowing them to prophecy correctly. And, that is the mark of a true prophet. What a prophet says, if they are from God, must come true.
“But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:20-22)
God’s foreknowledge includes Christians and unbelievers alike. But it is not given to us to understand this as a causal relationship. That is to say that the foreknowledge of God does not cause sin or evil. The cause of evil and sin is the Devil himself, and mankind’s evil inclination to do sinful things. God’s awareness of all things does not cause bad things to happen.
There are two errors of human reason concerning predestination/election that arise from our discomfort with those things revealed to us that seem to be in paradox.
The first is that there is no predestination/election. This is the Arminian teaching commonly referred to as decision theology (teachings rising from: Jakobus Arminius 1560-1609). Decision theology lays hold of the truth that damnation is a result of mankind’s sin and hatred of God. Then, the Arminians make the intellectual extrapolation that salvation must also be a result of the will of man. The assumption that I can choose God simply does not stand in the face of the scriptures. St. Paul say we were dead in sin. Dead things don’t do things apart from the external, life-giving work of the Holy Spirit.
“And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” (Ephesians 2:1-3)
The second error is that God chooses both the salvation of some and the damnation of others. This is a Calvinist error that rises from applying human reason to the hidden things of God and in mingling together foreknowledge and election (teachings rising from: John Calvin 1509-1564).
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.” (Ephesians 1:3-6)
Reason says, “if God chooses some for salvation, then He must choose not to save others.” Reason is wrong. He is uncomfortable with incomplete understanding God reveals to us. The rest may be revealed to us at the eschaton, the resurrection of all flesh. But, for now, it is not give to us to know or understand.
There is a simple gap in our understanding between what is revealed and what is not. Those are not given to us to fill-in or to work-out in our own understanding. Rather, God has revealed what He wants us to know. It is sufficient for our salvation by faith in Christ Jesus.
Rev. Jason M. Kaspar
Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church & Preschool
La Grange, TX
©2022 Jason Kaspar. All rights reserved. Permission granted to copy, share and display freely for non-commercial purposes. Direct all other rights and permissions inquiries to cosmithb@gmail.com.
My wife and I could adopt a group of orphans without their consent or knowledge if they weren’t of age. Later at age 18 they could of their own free will disown us.
Before the creation God, being outside time, chose to plan our salvation at the cross and empty tomb. Abraham’s, Moses’, David’s sins were atoned for before Jesus was born. Yours and mine were atoned for before we were born.
He has adopted all His children and wants not one of them be lost.
By free will we are allowed to blaspheme the HS and deny Christ and the free gift. Being outside time the Father knew this, He did NOT plan/cause it.
You’ve got me at a loss here. could you open up that seeming non sequitur a bit more?
I so agree with this writing. Except I hold to the truth that the KJV was preserved for the Saints.
From a Facebook conversation concerning the same comment:
From the Author, I don’t recall addressing any translation issues in this article. That notwithstanding, what’s your opinion of the hundreds of years of Christians preceding the 1611 completion of the Authorized Version?
From Diane London, No you didn’t but I couldn’t say I agree if I didn’t agree on all. Since another version was used I had to say that. I was speaking of the English bible. Anglo Saxon was [spoken] before that.
From the Author, First, for comparison:
Deut 18:20-22 (KJV) But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. 21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? 22 when a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Eph 2:1-3 (KJV) And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
Ephesians 1:3-6 (KJV) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 4 according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
I see no variation in text of translation here that affects the points in my article. You’ll have to let me know if you disagree.
Second, as far as Early Modern English translations go, the Tyndall (1533), Cloverdale (1535), Geneva (1560), and Douay-Rheims (1609) Bibles all precede the Authorized/King James Bible (1611). All of those contained archaic, inconsistent English spellings. Concerning modern, standardized spellings, the Douay-Rheims (1752) & Quaker (1764) Bibles still precede the King James Bible (1769). It’s historically inaccurate to claim that the KJV was the first English Bible.
Please forgive the tardiness of my response, you know… Sundays and Pastors and stuff. And, you’re in good company. I’m a non-college graduate.
So, I’ve never noticed that phrase variance between KJV/NKJV and ESV in Eph 2:1 until now. But, there’s a problem here. The Textus Receptus, the Annotated (drawn from Vaticanus Sinainaticus, and Alexadrinus), and the Byzantine Majority texts are nearly identical.
Ephesians 2:1 Καὶ ὑμᾶς ὄντας νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις [ὑμῶν,]
“And y’all having been dead in [y’all’s] missteps/misdeeds/trespasses and guilts/faults/failures/sins,”
– translation mine
The additional possessive plural “you” in brackets is the only variation. There is no extra “y’all’s” in the Textus Receptus. Curiously, the phrase, “hath He quickened/He made alive,” from KJV/NKJV isn’t in any of the Greek texts. Moreover, I have yet to find a single textual or studious note indicating why or even acknowledging it. So, I’m at a loss on the inclusion of this innovation in the English at all. We trust inerrancy and preservation of the scriptures. But, a flash of language appearing in English translations without a basis in the Greek or a parallel example in translations into other languages is highly suspect in my mind.
I’m generally very favorable towards KJV. The force of translation is usually on the mark, or very close. Now, I tend to prefer the smoothness of NKJV. But it’s source text is more important to me. KJV is a Textus Receptus translation. NKJV is the only Byzantine Majority Text translation to my knowledge. Most every other English translation comes from the Annotated Text, which favors Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus Texts. I don’t care for that preference.
But, Textus Receptus is also suspect. Receptus, the received text, is a very optimistic name. The Roman Catholic scholar, Erasmus, who solely produced the Textus Receptus was working from incomplete Greek manuscripts to which he added from the Vulgate, Latin translation of the NT from Greek (384 AD), completing a full Greek text.
You and I would agree that the omissions and variations of the annotated text are suspicious. The origin of the Codexes offsets their age in my mind. Prioritizing age of text without regard for the sources can propagate ancient heresies.
I find the Byzantine Majority text more reliable. It has a more consistant historical pedigree. And, there are many, many more examples of this complete text. Erasmus didn’t have access to the whole thing. We do.
Now, the KJV was certainly more popular and more widely accepted. But, popularity and commonality on their own are poor standards for correctness. Accuracy and faithfulness of translation should be more suitable standards for our judgement.
Diane London via Facebook,
Now look 👀 Cousin, you know I’m not a scholar, your making me have to think really hard. This could be dangerous. The one thing I noticed when I was reading the scripture in your article was the verse Ephesians 2:1 because I knew it from memory. It left out “And you hath he quickened” That’s really Important because it shows the Spirits work.
I agree with you popularity and commonality would be poor standards for truth. To. let you know the truth in me, I trust it by faith, that it is the inspired Word. It was translated from the Textus Receptus. Not another version. And Not the Sianatius and Vaticanus manuscript. I honestly can’t remember what I had learned about the Hebrew manuscript.I know when the KJV was allowed by King James to be translated, there were Greek scholars that translated and was passed from table to table for correctness In the translation.