God’s Foreknowledge: Errors and Ignorance – Pink #4
A.W. Pink’s book The Attributes of God is a classic work on the being and essence of God. Each month we’ll explore one chapter, summarize the main ideas, and discuss our favorite passages. Today we examine chapter four: The Foreknowledge of God.
Summary
In Chapter 4, “The Foreknowledge of God,” Pink brings addresses the meaning and scope of God’s foreknowledge. He dispels common misunderstandings, and defends the theological importance of this doctrine.
Pink begins by noting that foreknowledge, though controversial, should be treated with the same openness as other debated doctrines.
Many misunderstand foreknowledge as mere foresight of future events, especially human decisions like faith or repentance, but Scripture consistently uses the term regarding persons, not actions.
Pink shows from passages such as Acts 2:23, Romans 8:29, Romans 11:2, and 1 Peter 1:2 that God’s foreknowledge reflects His sovereign love and choice rather than passive observation. He argues that God elects and predestines individuals according to His own purpose, and their conformity to Christ is the effect, not the cause, of His foreknowledge and predestination.
Misinterpretations that make election depend on foreseen human belief undermine the doctrines of total depravity and God’s independence.
Scripture teaches that faith itself is God’s gift, and believing is the result of His gracious election. A biblical understanding of foreknowledge upholds God’s glory, highlights His grace in salvation, and leaves no room for human boasting.
Discussion
Pink brings up an interesting point at the beginning that while this topic can be difficult because it’s controversial with some, there are plenty of other topics that are also controversial, the virgin birth, baptism, the nature of the Lord’s Supper, and we aren’t afraid to discuss and defend those, so we shouldn’t be afraid to defend this one either.
I think we might be reluctant to discuss and defend this doctrine because it strikes more closely at people’s pride and elicit’s stronger reactions, and possibly because we don’t understand it well enough.
Pink says there is a widespread ignorance of the meaning the term, foreknowledge. And because of this ignorance it’s easy for preachers and teachers “to palm off perversions of this subject” on people.
He later talks about how people assume they understand the term, but probably don’t and should investigate the use of the term throughout Scripture to truly understand what it means.
To know means to regard with favor. It always refers to people, not decisions or actions of people. God foreknows persons, not just their actions.
Jeremiah 1.5
Amos 3.2
Matthew 7.23
II Timothy 2.19
Romans 8.29,30
Their conformity to Christ is not the cause, but the effect of God’s foreknowledge and predestination.
Now in view of these passages (and there are no more) what Scriptural ground is there for anyone saying God “foreknew” the acts of certain ones, viz., their “repenting and believing,” and that because of those acts He elected them unto salvation? The answer is: None whatever. Scripture never speaks of repentance and faith as being foreseen or foreknown by God.
God’s foreknowledge is dependent only upon His own will and decree, not the actions of the creature.
If it were true that God had elected certain ones to be saved because in due time they would believe, then that would make believing a meritorious act, and in that event the saved sinner would have ground for “boasting,” which Scripture emphatically denies (Eph 2:9).
Reversing the Scriptural order to say that God elects because He foreknew an action, not only ignores the Scriptural scope and use of the term, but it reverses the order, making the creature’s believing an act of merit upon which God’s decree of election is dependent.
Erroneous conceptions about it [foreknowledge] lead inevitably to thoughts most dishonoring to Him.
The popular explanation that God looked down the corridor of time, saw who would believe, and therefore predestined them, is dishonoring to God in multiple ways.
It undoes total depravity and argues that there is something good in the person, they chose apart from God’s saving grace.
It traps God in the present if He has to look forward in time like some sort of super prophet. The prophets were given visions of the future while they lived in the present. God gave them those visions because He is the Lord of time. It’s His creation and He is not bound by it the way we are. So this idea makes God less than time, and therefore less than God.
It also makes God’s decree dependent rather than independent, therefore God is no longer God, man is inherently good, and God is dependent upon man. Who’s god in this scenario?
It’s no wonder Pink calls this a perversion and dishonoring to God.
We need to do this sort of careful study to safeguard ourselves against error. Ignorance of doctrine is always dangerous.
Defining Theology
When discussing theology, defining your terms is important. Brance and Lauren take a look at the theological term Subordinate Standards, define what it is, give examples, and discuss how they function in the life of the local church.
Resources Mentioned: