Berkhof's Systematic Theology (Part One Chapter Six): The Incommunicable Attributes

Part One
The Doctrine of God (The Being of God)
VI. The Incommunicable Attributes (God as the Absolute Being)
A. The Self-Existence of God
B. The Immutability of God
C. The Infinity of God
D. The Unity of God

"It has been quite common in theology to speak of God as the absolute Being" (p.57), though the term "absolute" is more common to philosophy than theology. In philosophy, the Absolute is "regarded as that which is free from all conditions (the Unconditioned or Self-Existent)...When the Absolute is defined as the First Cause of all existing things, or as the ultimate ground of all reality, or as the self-existent Being, it can be considered as identical with the God of theology. He is the Infinite One, who does not exist in any necessary relations, because he is self-sufficient, but at the same time can freely enter into various relations with his creation as a whole and with his creatures. While the incommunicable attributes emphasize the absolute Being of God, the communicable attributes stress the fact that he enters into various relations with his creatures" (p.57-58).

A. The Self-Existence of God
"God is self-existent, that is, that he has the ground of his existence in himself...As the self-existent God, he is not only independent in himself, but also causes everything to depend on him" (p.58).

"Additional indications of it are found in the assertion in John 5:26 'For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself'; in the declaration that he is independent of all things and that all things exist only through him, Ps. 94:8 ff.; Isa. 40:18 ff.; Acts 7:25; and in statements implying that he is independent in his thought, Rom. 11:33,34, and in his will, Dan. 4:35; Rom. 9:19; Eph. 1:5; Rev. 4:11, in his power, Ps. 115:3, and in his counsel, Ps. 33:11" (p.58).

B. The Immutability of God
Berkhof defines God's immutability as "that perfection of God by which he is devoid of all change, not only in his Being, but also in his perfections, and in his purposes and promises" (p.58). This divine immutability is clearly taught in Scripture, but the question naturally arises concerning the incarnation and God's apparent changes of mind toward his creation in certain passages of Scripture. To give an answer Berkhof says "The divine immutability should not be understood as implying immobility, as if there were no movement in God" (p.59). He argues that the incarnation brought no change in God's Being, perfections, or purposes and when Scripture speaks of God changing in some way (repenting, relation to creatures, intention) he reminds us "this is only anthropopathic way of speaking. In reality the change is not in God, but in man and in man's relations to God" (p.59).

C. The Infinity of God.
To say that God is infinite is to say that he is free from all limitations. When we ascribe to God infinity we deny that he can be limited, though Berkhof says it should not "be regarded as a merely negative concept" (p.59) though he admits "that we cannot form a positive idea of it" (p.59). "The infinity of God must be conceived as intensive rather than extensive, and should not be confused with boundless extension, as if God were spread out through the entire universe, one part being here and another there, for God has no body and therefore no extension"(59).

1. His Absolute Perfection. 
"This is the infinity of the Divine Being considered in itself. It should not be understood in a quantitative, but in a qualitative sense; it qualifies all the communicable attributes of God...In this sense of the word the infinity of God is simply identical with the perfection of his Divine Being"(p.60).

2. His Eternity.
God's infinity in relation to time is called his eternity. The Bible represents God's eternity in a way that is a duration through endless ages. This is the way we often conceive of eternity. "But this is only a popular and symbolic way of representing that which in reality transcends time and differs from it essentially. Eternity in the strict sense of the word is abscribed to that which transcends all temporal limitations...He is the eternal 'I am.' His eternity may be defined as that perfection of God whereby he is elevated above all temporal limits and all succession of moments, and possesses the whole of his existence in one indivisible present"(p.60).

3. His Immensity.
God's immensity is is defined as "that perfection of the Divine Being by which he transcends all spatial limitations, and yet is present in every point of space with his whole Being"(p.60). He adds the last words to avoid the idea that God's being is diffused through space. He says that though sometimes immensity and omnipresence are used synonymously, the two terms should be understood as distinct. Immensity points to God's transcendence while his omnipresence points to his immanence.

D. The Unity of God.
There is a distinction to be made in God's unity quantitatively and qualitatively.

1. The Unitas Singularitatis.
In this we understand that God is single, that there is one God and no other beside him. "This excludes all polytheistic conceptions of God"(p.62). See I Kings 8:60; I Cor. 8:6; I Tim. 2:5; Deut. 6:4.

2. The Unitas Simplicitatis.
This refers to the simplicity of God, meaning that God is free from division into parts. Berkhof says that "in recent works on theology the simplicity of God is seldom mentioned"(p.62). "This implies that among other things that the three Persons in the Godhead are not so many parts of which the Divine essence is composed, that God's essence and perfections are not distinct, and that the attributes are not superadded to his essence...Scripture does not explicitly assert it, but it implies it where it speaks of God as righteousness, truth, wisdom, light, life, love, and so on..."(62).

Berkhof’s Systematic Theology (Part One, Chapter Five): The Attributes of God in General

Part One
The Doctrine of God (The Being of God)
V. The Attributes of God in General
A. Evaluation of the Terms Used.
B. Method of Determining the Attributes of God.
C. Suggested Divisions of the Attributes.

A. Evaluation of the Terms Used.

Berkhof prefers the term “properties” over against “attributes” as pointing to that which is proper to God alone. However, even this term has its own weakness as some of the attributes are communicable and not proper to God alone. Even more so, he likes the terms “perfections” or “virtues” though in using the latter it must be clear that these virtues are not added to the being of God but that his virtues reveal his Being. “They may be defined as the perfections which are predicated of the Diving Being in Scripture, or are visibly exercised by Him in His works of creation, providence, and redemption” (p. 52).

B. Method of Determining the Attributes of God.

The scholastics sought to determine the attributes of God in their understanding of natural theology and did so largely in three ways:

via causalitatis - determining the ultimate cause from the effects we see in the world.
via negationis - removing from God all of the imperfections seen in his creatures to understand him as the perfect Being.
via eminentiae - the relative perfections found in man are ascribed to God in absolute perfection.

Modern theologians seek to understand the attributes of God through experimental theology. In this concept “we may begin with our intuitions of the reality of God, those unreasoned certitudes which are firmly rooted in immediate experience” (p. 53). One way of doing this is to understand man’s needs and see God as the one who meets those needs.

To these methods Berkhof writes that they “take their starting point in human experience rather than in the Word of God. They deliberately ignore the clear self-revelation of God in Scripture and exalt the idea of the human discovery of God…the only proper way to obtain perfectly reliable knowledge of the divine attributes is by the study of God’s self-revelation in Scripture” (p. 53-54).

C. Suggested Divisions of the Attributes.

There have been many suggestions by theologians as to how to divide the attributes of God. “The most common distinction is that between incommunicable and communicable attributes. The former are those to which there is nothing analogous in the creature, as aseity, simplicity, immensity, etc.; the latter those to which the properties of the human spirit bear some analogy, as power, goodness, mercy, righteousness, etc” (p. 55).

Concerning Berkhof

In posting the outlines and brief summaries of Berkhof's points from his classic theology text, my purpose is to do just that; to give a summary of what he is saying. I'm not seeking to interact with Berkhof so much at this point, but to boil it down to his main ideas. In doing so I hope to use it for a frame of conversation to speak about these topics with my family, to have a short and concise treatment at hand, and to help my own memory as to what I have read by writing these summaries.

If Berkhof's work is a sum of Bavinck's dogmatics, then what I am posting is a sum of that sum ;)

Berkhof’s Systematic Theology (Part One, Chapter Four): The Names of God

Part One
The Doctrine of God (The Being of God)
IV. The Names of God
A. The Names of God in General.
B. The Old Testament Names and their Meaning.
C. The New Testament Names and their Interpretation.

A. The Names of God in General.
“While the Bible records several names of God, it also speaks of the name of God in the singular…In such cases ‘the name’ stands for the whole manifestation of God in his relation to his people, or simply for the person, so that it becomes synonymous with God” (p. 47).

“In the most general sense of the word, then, the name of God is his self-revelation. It is a designation of him, not as he exists in the depths of his divine Being, but as he reveals himself especially in his relations to man” (p. 47).

B. The Old Testament Names and their Meaning.

1. ’El, ’Elohim, and ’Elyon.
These names speak of God as being first, lord, strong and mighty, the object of fear, or the elevated one. It should be noted that these names are not proper to Jehovah alone, for they are also used of pagan deities and rulers.

2. ’Adonai
“This name is related to the preceding ones…points to God as the almighty Ruler, to whom everything is subject, and to whom man is related as a servant” (p. 48).

3. Shaddai and ‘El-Shaddai.
This name of God reveals God as the one who has condescended to enter into relations with his creatures. This is the God who has all power in heaven and earth. This name “while it stresses the greatness of God, it does not represent him as an object of fear and terror, but as a source of blessing and comfort” (p. 49).

4. Yahweh and Yahweh Tsebhaoth.
“It is especially in the name Yahweh, which gradually supplanted other names, that God reveals himself as the God of grace. It has always been regarded as the most sacred and the most distinctive name of God, the incommunicable name” (p. 49).

This name is often referred to as Jehovah. The original meaning and pronunciation of this name is not known. God reveals himself to Moses in the burning bush with this name and its meaning “I am that I am” (Ex. 3:14). This name is used of no one but Israel’s God, for it is proper to him alone, stressing his covenant faithfulness to his people.

“The name Yahweh is often strengthened by the addition of tsebhaoth [Lord of Hosts]. It is rather hard to determine to what the word tsebhaoth refers. There are especially three opinions:” (p. 49).

a. The armies of Israel. 
Berkhof thinks this interpretation is highly doubtful. The prophets, in using this name “Lord of hosts” do not refer to Jehovah as the God of war. The armies of Israel are referred to in the singular but the Lord of hosts in the plural

b. The stars.
Again, Berkhof says that when speaking of the host of heaven Scripture always uses the singular and never the plural. He says “while the stars are called the host of heaven, they are designated the host of God” (p. 50).

c. The angels.
“This interpretation deserves preference” (p. 50) according to Berkhof. This name is often found in connection with angels, those who surround the throne of God. “Jehovah of hosts, then, is God as the King of glory, who is surrounded by angelic hosts, who rules heaven and earth in the interest of his people, and who receives glory from all his creatures” (p. 50).

C. The New Testament Names and their Interpretation.

1. Theos.
According to Berkhof the New Testament has the Greek equivalents of the Old Testament names. Theos, like ‘El, ‘Elohim, or ‘Elyon is the most common name for God and at times is used of heathen gods.

2.Kurios.
The basic meaning of kurios is Lord. It is derived from kuros, which means power. “This name designates God as the Mighty One, the Lord, the Possessor, the Ruler who has legal power and authority. It is used not only of God, but also of Christ” (p. 50).

3. Pater.
Berkhof argues against the notion that the New Testament introduced a new name for God in the use of Pater (Father). Heathen religions applied father to their gods and the Old Testament presents God as the Father of Israel.

The New Testament uses the title to refer to God as the originator and creator of all things, as the relation in which the first Person of the Trinity stands in relation to the second, and as the relation of God “to all believers as his spiritual children” (p. 51

Berkhof’s Systematic Theology (Part One, Chapter Three): Relation of the Being and Attributes of God

Part One
The Doctrine of God (The Being of God)
III. Relation of the Being and Attributes of God
A. The Being of God.
B. The Possibility of Knowing the Being of God.
C. The Being of God Revealed in His Attributes.

Some dogmaticians have separated the being of God and the attributes of God. “Others prefer to consider the Being of God in connection with His attributes in view of the fact that it is in these that He has revealed Himself” (p. 41).

A. The Being of God.
“It is quite evident that the Being of God does not admit of any scientific definition…At most only an analytical-descriptive definition is possible. This merely names the characteristics of a person or thing, but leaves the essential being unexplained” (p. 41).

“The Bible never operates with an abstract concept of God, but always describes Him as the Living God, who enters into various relations with His creatures, relations which are indicative of several different attributes” (p. 41).

To speak of the being of God is to speak of his essence. While our knowledge of his essence is most limited, Berkhof points to two passages in Scripture where his essence is defined: “An indication of the very essence of God has been found in the name Jehovah, as interpreted by God Himself, ‘I am that I am.’ On the basis of this passage the essence of God was found in being itself, abstract being. And this has been interpreted to mean self-existence or self-contained permanence or absolute independence” (p. 42). He also points to the words of Jesus in John 4:24 where Jesus speaks of the spirituality of God. “God is Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

B. The Possibility of Knowing the Being of God.
“The consensus of opinion in the early Church, during the Middle Ages, and at the time of the Reformation, was that God in His inmost Being is the Incomprehensible One” (p. 43).

Can we truly give answer to the following questions? “What is God? What is the nature of His inner constitution? What makes Him to be what He is?” (p. 43). We as creatures are finite and unable to comprehend the infinite. Berkhof goes on “Apart from the revelation of God in His attributes, we have no knowledge of the Being of God whatsoever. But in so far as God reveals Himself in His attributes, we also have some knowledge of the His Divine Being, though even so our knowledge is subject to human limitation…We know God only in so far as He enters into relations with us” (p. 43). The Reformers held that the Divine essence is incomprehensible.
Calvin’s take on the matter is considered and Berkhof speaks of his understanding when he says “this knowledge cannot be obtained by a priori methods, but only in an a posteriori manner through the attributes, which he regards as a real determination of the nature of God” (p. 44).

“The question, therefore, is not as to the possibility of a knowledge of God in the unfathomableness of His being, but is: Can we know God as He enters into relations with the world and with ourselves? God has entered into relations with us in His relations of Himself, and supremely in Jesus Christ; and we Christians humbly claim that through this Self-revelation we do know God to be the true God, and have real acquaintance with His character and will” (p. 44).

C. The Being of God Revealed in His Attributes.
Some have gone so far as to say that God’s attributes are God himself. While this safeguards “the unity and simplicity of God by maintaining that the whole essence is in each attribute” to do this “is a very dangerous extreme…moving in the direction of Pantheism” (p. 45). This rules out all distinctions in God. “Thomas Aquinas….asserted that the attributes do not reveal what God is in Himself, in the depths of His Being, but only what He is in relation to His creatures” (p. 45).

“Naturally, we should guard against separating the divine essence and the divine attributes or perfections, and also against a false conception of the relation in which they stand to each other” (p. 45). Berkhof quotes Shedd who speaks of the divine attributes as “an analytical and closer description of the essence.” Berkhof will say that “”because of the close relation in which the two stand to each other, it can be said that knowledge of the attributes carries with it knowledge of the Divine Essence…These qualities cannot be altered without altering the essential Being of God. And since they are essential qualities, each on if them reveals to us some aspects of the Being of God” (p. 46).

Berkhof's Systematic Theology (Part One, Chapter Two): The Knowability of God

Part One
The Doctrine of God (The Being of God)
II. The Knowability of God
A. God Incomprehensible but yet Knowable.
B. Denial of the Knowability of God.
C. Self-Revelation the Prerequisite of all Knowledge of God.


A. God Incomprehensible but yet Knowable.
“The Christian Church confesses on the one hand that God is the Incomprehensible One, but also on the other hand, that He can be known and that knowledge of Him is an absolute requisite unto salvation” (p. 29)

“Reformed theology holds that God can be known, but that it is impossible for man to have a knowledge of him that is exhaustive and perfect in every way…it is maintained that man can obtain a knowledge of God that is perfectly adequate for the realization of  the divine purpose in the life of man. However, true knowledge of God can be aquired only from the divine self-revelation, and only by the man who accepts this with childlike faith” (p. 30).

B. Denial of the Knowability of God.
Berkhof takes up the arguments of agnoticism and defines it as follows: “The fundamental position is that the human mind is incapable of knowing anything of that which lies beyond and behind natural phenomena, and is therefore necessarily ignorant of supersensible and divine things” (p. 30). Agnosticism allows for the possibility of God’s existence, but not for knowledge of him.

Four of the arguments he takes on are:

(1) Man knows only by analogy.
To this argument Berkhof replies: “while it is true that we learn a great deal by analogy, we also learn by contrast. In many cases the differences are the very things that arrest our attention” (p. 32).

(2) Man really knows only what he can grasp in its entirety.
“This position proceeds on the unwarranted assumption that partial knowledge cannot be real knowledge, an assumption that would really invalidate all our knowledge, since it always falls far short of completeness” (p. 32).

(3) All predicates of God are negative and therefore furnish no real knowledge.
This is false. There are positive ideas of God including “love, spirituality, and holiness” (p. 32). Even in that what we know of God may be in negative form, what we know may also convey something positive.

(4) All our knowledge is relative to the knowing subject.
“It is said that we know the objects of knowledge, not as they are objectively, but only as they are related to our senses and faculties…because we know things only through the mediation of our senses and faculties, we do not know them as they are. But this is not true; in so far as we have any real knowledge of things, that knowledge corresponds to the objective reality” (p. 32-33).

C. Self- Revelation the Prerequisite of all Knowledge of God.

1. God communicates knowledge of himself to man.
“In the study of all other sciences man places himself above the object of his investigation and actively elicits from it his knowledge by whatever method may seem most appropriate, but in theology he does not stand above but rather under the object of his knowledge…Without revelation man would never have been able to acquire any knowledge of God. And even after God has revealed himself objectively, it is not human reason that discovers God, but it is God who discloses himself to the eye of faith” (p. 34-35).

I Corinthians 2:11 tells us that there is an archetypal knowledge of God that no man can know. There is also an ectypal knowledge of him given to man by revelation.

2. Innate and acquired knowledge of God.
Innate knowledge of God (called by some ingrafted or implanted) is that knowledge of God implanted in man be his creation in the image of God. Acquired knowledge is  “obtained by the study of God’s revelation” (p. 35).

3. General and special revelation.
Berkhof contrasts what these two distinctions have been called throughout Christian history. He argues that all revelation is supernatural if it comes from God so natural and supernatural may not be the best ways to describe them. General revelation is God’s revelation of himself in creation, providence, and the human conscious (innate knowledge), while special revelation is what is revealed to man in history of God’s redemptive purpose, that which we find in Christ and in Scripture.

He quotes Warfield on the two forms: “The one is addressed generally to all intelligent creatures, and is therefore accessible to all men; the other is addressed to a special class of sinners, to whom God would make known his salvation. The one has in view to meet and supply the natural need of creatures for knowledge of their God; the other to rescue broken and deformed sinners from their sin and its consequences” (p. 37 - quoted from Revelation and Inspiration).

Berkhof's Systematic Theology (Part One, Chapter One): The Existence of God

Part One

The Doctrine of God

(The Being of God)

I. The Existence of God

   A. Place of the Doctrine of God in Dogmatics
   B. Scriptural Proof for the Existence of God
   C. Denial of the Existence of God in its Various Forms
   D. The So-Called Rational Proofs for the Existence of God

Berkhof''s Systematic Theology has been heralded as the standard textbook for the seven loci of theology. Louis Berkhof (1873-1957) was born in the Netherlands and (like so many others) moved to Grand Rapids, Michingan in 1882. He was a graduate of Calvin and Princeton Seminaries, pastored two Reformed churches, and eventually became president of Calvin Theological Seminary.

A. Place of the Doctrine of God in Dogmatics
According to Berkhof, we begin theological study with two presuppositions, (1) that God exists, and (2) he has revealed himself in his divine Word. Systematic theology is the study of God throughout in all its ramifications, from the beginning to the end. Without these presuppositions the study of theology cannot commence. The study of theology should begin with the doctrine of God and this was the norm until Schleiermacher introduced his new method by beginning with the religious consciousness of man. This reverses the order and leads to a rational search for God instead of God's own self disclosure to man. He writes, "Faith in Scripture as an authoritative revelation of God was discredited, and human insight based on man's own emotional or rational apprehension became the standard of religious thought. Man ceased to recognize the knowledge of God as something that was given in Scripture, and began to pride himself on being a seeker after God." (p.20)

B. Scripture Proof for the Existence of God
Scripture proves the existence of God is this way, namely that it assumes God's existence. "The assumption is not merely that there is something, some idea or ideal, some power or purposeful tendency, to which the name of God may be applied, but that there is a self-existent, self-conscious, personal Being, which is the origin of all things, and which transcends the entire creation, but is at the same time immanent in every part of it." (p. 20-21) The God of Scripture must be received by faith, this is what Scripture sets forth. Surely, there are evidences of God in creation (Rom. 1) but there is no natural proof that leads natural man to embrace God's existence beyond all doubt.

C. Denial of the Existence of God in its Various Forms
The idea of God is practically universal in the human race even in the most uncivilized nations and tribes, yet there are those even in Christianized lands who deny the existence of God as he is revealed in Scripture.

     1. Absolute denial of the existence of God.
There are two types of atheism; theoretical and practical. We are familiar with both. The former deny God based upon some scientific or philosophical reason. The latter deny him in their lives though giving assent to his existence. Theoretical atheists can be distinguished in at least three categories which often overlap, (1) dogmatic, (2) skeptical, and (3) critical. Berkhof notes that agnosticism respecting the existence of God, while allowing the possibility of reality, leaves us without an object of worship and adoration just as much as dogmatic atheism does." (p.23)
 
     2. Present day false conceptions of God involving a denial of the true God.
There are many false conceptions of God "which involve a denial of the theistic conception of God." (p.24) By "theistic" Berkhof means the Christian conception of God or that which is revealed in holy writ. Theism has always believed in a God who is both transcendent and immanent.

     a. An immanent and impersonal God. While Deism removed God from his creation and denied his immanence and Pantheism failed to recognize God's transcendence, Schleiermacher's focus on man's religious experience ignores God's transcendence and also does away with God's immanence in that man's religious conscience is dependent attributes of God that are merely symbolic with no reality.

     b. A finite and personal God. The concept of finite gods are nothing new. For those who believe in a God who is personal but finite, certain realities make it impossible to believe in an infinite or omnipotent God, namely the miserable condition of the world. "Because of the evil that is in the world, he [God] must be thought of as limited in knowledge or power, or in both. The existence of a larger power which is friendly to man and with which he can commune meets all the practical needs and experiences of religion." (p.25). Berkhof notes the idea of a struggling and growing God, which seems to be the understanding of proponents of today's open theism.

     c. God as the personification of a mere abstract idea. The old statement is given that God created man in his image and man has thus returned the favor ever since. Many who profess faith in God, create a god of their own imaginations. I see how this is possible in both theoretical and practical atheism. God may be seen as a quality, a goal, the spirit of some great desire or hope. God is seen by some to be needful for human evolution but that mankind is approaching a time when God will no longer be necessary. In this view God is a projection of the human mind.

D. The So-Called Rational Proofs for the Existence of God.
Berkhoff gives the five most common rational proofs of God, some of which, he says, were in essence suggested by Plato and Aristotle but added to and developed later by students of philosophy and religion. These so-called "proofs" cannot by themselves prove anything, they may be more accurately labeled "testimonies" rather than arguments, yet he acknowledges that they have some value for believers as testimony to divine revelation and while they do not prove beyond doubt the existence of God "they can be so construed as to establish a strong probability and thereby silence many unbelievers." (p.28)

     1. The Ontological Argument.
Credit for developing this argument is generally given to Anselm. The basic argument is that man can conceive of a perfect being, therefore a perfect being must exist. This is true in that all men have some knowledge of God by virtue of being made in his image, but of course conception cannot prove absolute existence. The argument cannot stand alone.

     2. The Cosmological Argument.
Every effect must have a cause, though some would argue this point given certain supposed discoveries at the quantum level, but nevertheless we understand cause and effect. The universe is an effect of something, there must be a cause and it is reasonable to assume an adequate cause, that being God. Again, this is a true testimony to Scriptures account of creation, but the push back to this argument when standing alone is that we cannot assume that God is eternal and that the universe is not. If everything must have a cause, as Kant pointed out, then God must have a cause which results in an endless regress.

     3. The Teleological Argument.
This argument seems to be the best of the five, that the order we find in the universe proves a grand architect, but again according to Kant this does not lead an orthodox understanding of God.

     4. The Moral Argument.
This is a popular one today, that man's moral standard is derived from a moral being. The law of God is written upon the heart of man and he is therefore accountable to it. This presupposition is necessary. The new atheists seem to have no problem harmonizing their denial of God and their own moral standards. Berkhof writes, "While this argument does point to the existence of a holy and just being, it does not compel belief in a God, a Creator, or a being of infinite perfections." (p. 27).

     5. The Historical or Ethnological Argument.
To every place one may go and find man throughout history, one will find religion. Man is a religious being.

To these arguments, Berkhof says that believers do not need them. Though this may sound harsh, he does not trash them completely (as I previously commented). His point, and I think a right one, is that if believers are willing to stake their faith on rational arguments they refuse to accept the testimony of God's Word. These arguments are not to stand alone and cannot by themselves lead to faith in the God of Scripture, but can be seen as accurate interpretations of general revelation and supplements to special revelation. As Schaeffer rightly said, "all truth is God's truth."

The Foreknowledge View of Predestination

We know that election is taught in the Bible, and the fact that God said He is not willing that any should perish. It is mind boggling to think how these two fit together; how God desires that all men be saved but chooses to save some and pass over others.

One of the views that attempts to settle the matter is the foreknowledge view of predestination. This view says that God offers salvation to all men and that He knows beforehand who will accept His free offer and who will reject, and God makes His choice based on man’s choice of Him. This view seems credible because it does not deny that the Bible teaches election but it also is faithful to the Scriptures that tell us that God wills that all be saved.

There are two main reasons, I believe, people develop this view. The first is a personal reason and the second a Biblical. This view seems to “get God off the hook” by electing sinners to salvation but honoring their choice and helps to answer the question of how it all lines up. There are a couple of Bible verses that mention predestination in accordance with foreknowledge that leads people to assume this as well. The two passages are Romans 8:29 and I Peter 1:2. Though these verses seem to make sense with this view at first glance, deeper treatment of these texts show that this belief is not backed by Scripture.

In Romans 8:29 we are told that God predestined those whom He foreknew. It does not say that He foreknew their choice but that He foreknew them. It is not “what” He foreknew (meaning a choice they would make) but it is “whom” He foreknew (meaning the elect). The word know doesn’t just mean an awareness. It is not that God just had an awareness of the elect. The word know means a relationship.

When Adam knew Eve it doesn’t mean that he was aware of her, but when he knew her, she conceived and gave birth to a son. When God said Israel was the only family of the earth He had known (Amos 3:2), of course it didn’t mean that He wasn’t aware of the other nations. It meant that Israel was the only nation He had a covenant with, a special relationship, the only one God had set His sights on.

So when God says He foreknows us, it means He knows (has a relationship with, or covenant with) beforehand, not that He knew what choice we would make.

The other passage is I Peter 1:2. This verse is a stronger case for the foreknowledge view, but again, this idea cannot stand the closer examination of the Biblical text. If this text teaches that God elects us based on a prior knowledge of a decision we would make when we heard the Gospel, then we must say the same of verse 20 in the same chapter. We are told that Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world to be the Lamb of God. The word foreordained is the same word as foreknew in Romans 8:29, and the verb form of foreknowledge in I Peter 1:2.

If verse two says that God chose us based on our decision that He foresaw then it means that Christ was made the Savior because God just saw that it would happen in the future. This would be the position of the open theists who believe that God does not know the future but makes the best out of a bad situation and when He saw Jesus dying an awful death on the cross He decided to make Him the Savior. These words are virtually the same. Jesus was foreordained in verse 20 and that is what verse two means, that we are elect based on God foreordination.

This view is not consistent with what we learn about God. This view would teach that God looked down through time and learned something. It would teach that God’s sovereignty is bound by what man will do. It would teach that we are saved by God foreseeing merit in us that He didn’t see in others but Romans 9:16 says that salvation is “…not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.” We are not saved by anything in us, not our running (works) or our willing (choice). It is all by God’s mercy. Paul is saying that no human exertion makes us right with God.

This would mean that when Paul told the Thessalonians that he knew their election of God that Paul knew that God knew that they had chosen God and because of this God chose them. This would also mean when Paul said to make your calling and election sure to make sure that you know that God knew that you would choose Him and because of this He elected you to salvation. Furthermore, if God chooses us based on our choosing of Him then when Jesus told the disciples they had not chosen Him but He had chosen them He was either lying, or telling them that you did not choose me but I chose you because you chose me. This view would also enable us to say that He chose us because we first chose Him, which sounds like a slap in the face to John’s words that we love Him because He first loved us. The more we see the Biblical evidence and the logical conclusion of this “foreknowledge view” it is clear that it doesn’t line up with the entire context of the Bible.

Charles Spurgeon said that if God looked down through time to see who would choose Him He would see no one. We are a valley of dry bones, dead in our trespasses and sins and unable to come to God unless the Spirit of God breathes on us and grants us regeneration.

The Bible in its entirety teaches that God is a choosing God. The Father has given a people to His Son (which Jesus speaks of all throughout John’s Gospel) which He placed in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4) and this is His bride which He has purchased (Eph. 5:25), the church.

It is not that God was sitting in Heaven, as some would see it, saying to Himself, “This one is going to Heaven and this one is going to Hell.” But when God looks out over the sea of lost humanity they all are deserving of His wrath but He places individuals in Jesus Christ, gives them as a love gift to His Son, and predestines them for glory. The elect get mercy, the non elect get justice, and no one gets injustice. We chose Him because He chose us, and not vice versa.

Is Repentance Necessary for Salvation?

In one word, absolutely! I thought the note on repentance from the Reformation Study Bible was helpful:

Repentance means changing one's mind, so that one's views, values, goals, and ways are changed, and one's whole life is lived differently. Mind and judgment, will and affections, behavior and lifestyle, motives and plans: all are involved. Repenting means starting to live a new life.
The call to repent was the fundamental summons in the preaching of John the Baptist (Matt. 3:2), Jesus (Matt. 4:17), the Twelve (Mark 6:12), Peter at Pentecost (Acts 2:38), Paul to the Gentiles (Acts 17:30; 26:20), and the glorified Christ to five of the seven churches in Asia (Rev. 2:5, 16, 22; 3:3, 19). It was part of Jesus' summary of the Gospel that was to be taken to all the world (Luke 24:47). It corresponds to the constant summons of the Old Testament prophets to Israel to return to the God from whom they had strayed (e.g., Jer. 23:22; 25:4, 5; Zech. 1:3-6). Repentance is always set forth as the path to remission of sins and restoration to God's favor, while impenitence is the road to ruin (e.g., Luke 13:1-8).
Faith and repentance are themselves fruits of regeneration. But as a practical matter, repentance is inseparable from faith. Turning towards Christ in faith is impossible without turning away from sin in repentance. The idea that there can be saving faith without repentance, and that one can be justified by embracing Christ as Savior while refusing Him as Lord, is a dangerous error. True faith acknowledges Christ as what He is, our God-appointed king as well as our God-given priest, and faith that trusts in Him as Savior will submit to Him as Lord also. To refuse this is to seek justification with an impenitent faith, which is no faith.
The Westminster Confession says that in repenting

a sinner, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God, and upon the apprehension of His mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for and hates his sins as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with Him in all the ways of His commandments (Westminster Confession, 15.2).

Feelings of remorse, self-reproach, and sorrow for sin generated by fear of punishment, without any wish to resolve to forsake sinning should not be confused with repentance. David expresses true repentance in Ps. 51, having in his heart the serious purpose of sinning no more, and of living a righteous life (Luke 3:8; Acts 26:2).

(The Reformation Study Bible, pg. 1603)

Election and the Logic of Grace

There are basically two ways of viewing the doctrine of election; conditional election and unconditional election. Conditional election says that God looked down according to His foreknowledge and saw something, namely faith, that caused Him to choose them. I believe Paul dealt with that argument in Romans chapter nine and Peter tells us that Jesus was foreordained, the same word as "foreknowledge" earlier in the chapter when he says we are elect according to God's foreknowledge. From this and the context of the entire Bible I would argue that God's foreknowledge of His elect is not Him knowing that they will choose Him but predetermining a relationship with them.
In the Bible when a man knows his wife it doesn't mean he knows about her; it is that he is intimate with her. When God said in Amos that Israel was the only nation He knew it didn't mean that He didn't know about the other nations of the world, it meant that Israel was the only one He had that relationship with.
The same is true with Jeremiah. In chapter one when God told Jeremiah He knew him before He formed him in his mother's womb, He meant that He foreknew Him, He specifically chose to have a relationship with Jeremiah and call him as a prophet. So God foreknowing individuals means He knows (has a relationship) with them before they are born, not that He merely knows the choices they will make.
Unconditional election means simply that God's electing of sinners to salvation is all of grace and nothing that is deserving in the individual, not even their faith (Romans 9:16). Think of it, if there were only one area for boating then logically salvation would only be partially of grace. God's election is only of His grace,mercy, and love and is totally undeserved and unconditional.
Most people know that Hank Aaron hold the career record for most home runs (if Barry Bonds has not broken it yet at the time of this post) but few know that he holds a home run record with his brother, Tommy. Together they hold the record for most home runs by brothers. The record is 768. Hank hit 755 but Tommy only hit 13. Tommy can still claim part of the record even though his home runs don't compare to that of his brothers. Therefore, Hank as to share the glory of at least one record. Even if Tommy only hit one home run he could still claim the record with Hank.
Friend, if we add one work, whether it be of the flesh or the will, God does not get all the glory in salvation. We must realize that God's Word teaches salvation is all of grace and nothing more or less! It is all of God! He gets all the glory for He opened our hearts to the Gospel with repentance and faith! When we look at our election of God we have nothing to throw in. We were undeserving but fore some unknown reason, God loved us and chose us according to the good pleasure of His will and purpose! Hallelujah! That is why grace is so amazing!
Romans 11:36 says, "For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen."
When Paul wrote this, he had just finished up his section on God's sovereignty and election.
I will say with Martin Lloyd Jones that if you are still arguing God's sovereignty in salvation, if you are still arguing against election, then you cannot and are not saying "Amen" at the end of this verse!
Let God be God and let grace be grace for if it is of works it is no more grace!

Chosen in Christ only by God's grace and not anything He deservedly saw in me,
Brother Josh

The Shocking Doctrine of Election

Why does someone get so caught up in the doctrine of election? Probably in most cases it is because they have never heard of it. All they have heard is that "Calvinism" is bad and steer clear from the doctrine of election.
I was raised in a church that was faithful to the preaching of the Word of God and I had never heard of the doctrine of election. I am finding this to be true in the lives of many others as well. Then they stumble over Ephesians chapter one or Romans chapter nine or hear something of it from a Christian friend, and they are astonished at this doctrine! They are amazed that they have not been taught such a divine truth as this! Their eyes are opened further to the grace of God and His love for them and they must tell someone else about it!
But why is this precious truth never mentioned in many Bible believing churches in our day? Is it because it is controversial? So is the deity of Christ. Is it too hard to understand? I don't know about you but the concept of the Trinity still boggles my mind.
The truth is that we should be shocked when people haven't heard of election the same way we would be shocked if church members had never heard of the virgin birth or the Holy Ghost.
Like the Catholic Church of old, we are hiding this truth from the people who long to hear the Word of God. Let us be like Isaac and uncover some old wells that have been covered up over the years and let our people drink from the fountain of living water!
Lord, let us see your grace and love in the fact that you chose us from the beginning to salvation! Let us understand your grace more and more with each passing day! Let us have no room for boasting knowing we did not deserve your choice, but let us humbly crawl underneath a pew in humility understanding how unworthy we are to be among your elect and cause our hearts to worship you because of it! Then put a fire in our bones and a confidence in your sovereignty that we would go out and share the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that men, women, boys, and girls whom you have chosen for yourself will come unto you! Praise God for this wonderful truth!

(After I posted this morning I read from Spurgeon and thought you might be interested in what he had to say in Morning and Evening )

"Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the beloved" (Ephesians 1:5-6).