UP

The Order of Salvation and Divine Foreknowledge

May 15, 2017
Copyright © 2003 Ronald W. Leigh
Bible quotations are from the New International Version unless otherwise noted.

A.  Introduction

For centuries theologians have discussed the order of salvation, referred to by the Latin phrase ordo salutis.  Their focus has been on the mind of God in planning salvation and on the work of the Holy Spirit in applying salvation to the individual.

Even though many theologians concentrate on logical order, the Bible indicates both logical and chronological order in salvation.  Thus, this paper attempts to answer the question:  What is the logical and chronological order of steps taken by God in his planning, execution, and application of salvation?

B.  Historical Schemes, One-dimensional and Incomplete

Some schemes regarding the ordo salutis focus strictly on chronological order.  For example, Culver's ordo salutis contains 11 elements organized around the life of the believer – two elements before faith, six at the point of faith, two after faith, and one subsequent to earthly life  (Robert Culver, Systematic Theology: Biblical and Historical, Mentor, 2005, p. 653).  In fact, his scheme is so focused on the chronological life of the believer that it does not even include the death of Christ.

However, historically most ordo salutis schemes have focused on logical order.  They attempt, as it were, to sort out the mind of God.  In other words, the ordo salutis is a list that tries to explain which things were most basic in God's mind when he planned salvation.  You will find many different listings of the order salutis by different theologians and nearly every listing is unique.  In view of this wide variety, we will present here only key portions of four representative examples (you will find various listings even of these four examples).  I have placed the four examples in order from left to right according to how "early" election appears in each example.

The Calvinistic schemes, which developed for the most part after Calvin, differ in their relative placement of two key elements: election (God's decision to select some for salvation) and the fall (God's decision to permit the fall).  The scheme called "supralapsarian" (using the Latin supra, above or before, and lapsus, to slip or fall) places election logically prior to the fall.  The scheme called "infralapsarian" places election logically after the fall (using infra, below or subsequent).  Both Calvinistic schemes have a limited atonement ("for the elect"), what some prefer to call particular redemption.

Notice that calling (enlightening, convicting, etc.), belief (faith), and foreknowledge are all missing from the first three listings.

There are many variations on these schemes, but they all attempt to use a simple one-dimensional model, which we will show later to be inadequate.

C.  The Re-definition of Foreknowledge

Many of the modern discussions of the ordo salutis are driven by Calvinistic assumptions regarding the nature of foreknowledge.  Unfortunately, foreknowledge is often understood, not as pure prior knowledge (that is, simply knowing a fact or event ahead of time) but as something more – fore-favoring or fore-loving, and thus, in effect, fore-choosing.  This Calvinistic re-definition of foreknowledge has the effect of eliminating pure foreknowledge from the discussion by essentially equating foreknowledge with election and thus reducing the discussion of the ordo salutis to a restatement of the distinctive teachings of Calvinism.

The Calvinistic re-definition of foreknowledge is seen in the following quotations:

Foreknowledge is the synonym of "forelove" and so "whom he foreknew" (Rom. 8:29) is equivalent to election in Christ (Eph. 1:4)  (John Murray, article on "Elect, Election" in Baker's Dictionary of Theology,1960)

Foreknow is synonymous with fore-love.  (Clarence B. Bass, article on "Election" in The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, Zondervan, 1967)

"To foreknow" anyone is to enter into communion with a view to conferring special favor upon him .... Foreknowledge according to the biblical usage of the verb 'know' [citation of 8 references here] implies favor or grace as the eternal beginning of all the other processes of salvation ....  (G. T. Thomson and Francis Davidson, commentary on Romans 8:28-30 in The New Bible Commentary, 2d ed., Eerdmans, 1954)

Knowledge in Scripture frequently has reference to establishment of a relationship rather than information possessed, as in 'Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived' (Gen. 4:1 NKJV). Here 'to know' is to establish the most intimate of all human relationships. So when Peter used the word again (1 Peter 1:1,2) he was thinking not that some certain people in time to come would be saved, but that they had always been 'elect … according to the foreknowledge', i.e. according to an eternally established relationship.  (Robert Culver, Systematic Theology: Biblical and Historical, Mentor, 2005, p. 139)

… given the strongly relational Hebrew background to the word [proginōskō], the unambiguous sense of proginōskō in 1 Pet 1:20 … and prognōsis in Acts 2:23 and 1 Pet 1:2 … , and the whole tenor of Paul's theology, the probable meaning of proginōskō with God as subject is to "know intimately" or "forelove.  (Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation, Crossway, 1997, p. 128.  Demarest then cites F. F. Bruce to support his view.  He also, in footnote 114, p. 490, cites a number of additional theologians, lexicographers, and translations to support his view.)"

It is not uncommon for those who hold this Calvinistic view of foreknowledge to attempt to gain support from the usage of the word "know" in scripture, as do Thomson, Davidson, Culver, and Demarest in the above quotations.  The argument is that "know" in the Bible is really an understatement or euphemism for something much more significant or more intimate.  But despite the above barrage of "scholarship," this is a bogus argument for two reasons.

Reason one

The word "know" occurs well over 700 times in the Bible, most commonly in the Old Testament as a translation of the Hebrew word YADA.  Based on the context of all of those occurrences, only about twenty (3%) are euphemistic, referring to something more intimate or more significant than simple knowledge.  And in those twenty passages it is the context which shows that "know" (YADA) is being used as an understatement.

For example, see Genesis 24, the story of Abraham's servant finding Rebekah as a wife for Isaac.  There are two occurrences of YADA here.  In verse 14 the servant says "I will know … ."  In verse 16 it is recorded of Rebekah that "no man had ever lain with her."  (The King James and a few other version use "know" and "known" in these two places.)  Most modern translations, based on the context, use different wording to show that one occurrence is simple knowledge while the other is more intimate knowledge.

The euphemistic meaning is not built into the word "know"; it comes from the context.  These twenty occurrences are the pool of passages from which the Calvinistic writers always draw their examples – a bad case of selective sampling.  The "strongly relational Hebrew background," referred to by Demarest above, simply does not exist.  So it is certainly not the case that the word "know" in the Old Testament typically means favor or love.

And we observe the same thing for the Greek word ginōskō (γινωσκω), which occurs 223 times in the New Testament.  Its normal, straightforward meaning is simply to know (to learn, understand, realize, be aware of, recognize, find out).  Only 1% of the time is it used of intimate, marital knowledge (when discussing the relationship between Joseph and Mary in Matthew 1:25 and Luke 1:34).  And only about 15% of the time is it used euphemistically to describe a deeper knowledge (more than mere "knowledge about") such as the believer's knowledge of God or God's knowledge of the believer (see, for example, Galatians 4:9).  Thus in the vast majority of cases (84%) ginōskō simply means ordinary knowledge.  But here again it is important to realize that it is the context which brings out these deeper or more intimate meanings.  The only idea that is inherent in the word itself is normal, straightforward knowledge.

Reason two

The words "know" and "foreknow" are two different words, in English as well as in Greek.  Even if it were true that "know" was commonly used euphemistically, the question would still be open regarding "foreknow."  As Greek grammarians point out, compound verbs (two roots) do not necessarily have a meaning that is equal to the combination of the etymologies of the two roots. 

Thus it would be unwise to assume that the biblical meaning of "foreknow" can be based on the biblical meaning of "know," even if "know" were usually used euphemistically (which it is not, as noted above).  Carson, for example, warns against the "root fallacy" in which "meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word," referring to the practice as "linguistic nonsense" (D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed., Baker Books, 1996, p. 28).

Mickelsen concurs:

Beware of all etymological pronouncements that are not well supported by contemporary usage. … Etymology may sound erudite but when wrongly handled it leads to mistakes. (A. Berkeley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible, Eerdmans, 1963, p. 128-129)

Machen also concurs:

Prepositions are frequently prefixed to verbs. The meaning of the verb is modified by the preposition in a way that is often easily understood from the common meaning of the preposition. Sometimes, however, the matter is not so simple; sometimes the meaning of the compound verb cannot easily be determined from the separate meanings of its two component parts.  (J. Gresham Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners, MacMillan, 1923, p. 61)

Machen then cites the word αποκρινομαι (apokrinomai) as an example.  Here the verb relates to judging, but the compound word simply means "I answer."

Thus, the meaning of "foreknow" and "foreknowledge" in the Bible must be determined by the passages that use these terms.  The meaning should not come from a mistaken analysis of their component parts, nor from a few select passages that use those parts, nor from one's theological predisposition.  And the key to the interpretation of those passages must be, as always, the context.

D.  The Nature of Divine Foreknowledge, Based on Seven Passages

What is the nature of God's foreknowledge?  And what is its place in God's planning process?  The words "foreknow" and "foreknowledge,"  that is, the Greek verb proginōskō (προγινωσκω) and the noun prognōsis (προγνωσις) are used in seven passages in the New Testament.  The following two tables cite these seven passages with the English translations of proginōskō and prognōsis highlighted.

All seven of these passages make perfectly good sense in their contexts when a straightforward meaning, pure foreknowledge, is used.  There is no need to adopt specialized meanings for these words.  The first two passages apply to human foreknowledge.

New American Standard Bible		New International Version
So then, all Jews know my manner of life from my youth up, which from the beginning was spent among my own nation and at Jerusalem; since they have known about me for a long time previously, if they are willing to testify, that I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion.	Acts 26:4-5	The Jews all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem.  They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee.
You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard	2 Peter 3:17	Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard

In the first passage, Paul is making his defense before King Agrippa.  The knowledge that the Jews had about Paul was foreknowledge in the sense that the earlier events of Paul's life and the Jews' knowledge of those events both occurred prior to the present time (when Paul is making his defense).

In the second passage, two different interpretations of the foreknowledge are possible.  One interpretation is this:  Peter is reminding his readers that the information he has just written them is not new.  They have known this information from his own previous letter (2 Peter 3:1) and from Paul's writings (3:15-16).  Thus, in this interpretation (similar to Acts 26:4-5), his readers had foreknowledge in the sense that the information and the knowledge of that information were both prior to the present time (when Peter is writing this second letter.)  A second possible interpretation is this:  Peter is forewarning his readers.  Notice that his focus is squarely on the future in verses 10-14.  So, in this interpretation, when he indicates in verse 17 that his readers foreknow this, he means that they have present knowledge of future events.  Of course, it is knowledge which comes by means of instruction from the divinely inspired writers rather than from their own direct perception or observation.

Thus, human foreknowledge, far from being miraculous, is merely knowledge which has existed for some time and is thus prior to the present time, or knowledge about the future which is learned from God's messengers.  The fact that the word proginōskō is used (as it is in the above two passages) about human foreknowledge clearly establishes that there is nothing in the word itself that requires inclusion of the ideas of determining or favoring.  Therefore, if these extra ideas are to be included in one's interpretation of the remaining five passages, they must come from the context.  We will see that there is nothing in the context of these remaining passages which requires these extra ideas.  When an interpreter "finds" such ideas in these passages, they come from his own theological bent, rather than from the passages.

In contrast to human foreknowledge, divine foreknowledge is both direct and prior to the events.  God directly "observes" or perceives the events ahead of time.  The five remaining passages illustrate this divine foreknowledge.

New American Standard Bible		New International Version
Jesus the Nazarene, ... delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.	Acts 2:22-23	Jesus of Nazareth ... was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.
For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren;	Romans 8:29	For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.	Romans 11:2	God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood:	1 Peter 1:1-2	Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood:
Christ ... was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you	1 Peter 1:19-20	Christ ... was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

When we consider the usage of the words "foreknow" and "foreknowledge" in these five passages, we find nothing in the context that would require us to re-define foreknowledge.   Each passage can be easily understood by adopting a straightforward meaning – divine foreknowledge is simply direct knowledge ahead of time.  This is obviously a miraculous knowledge – something which God does but which humans cannot do.

Acts 2:22-23 simply expresses the idea that God had long planned to have Jesus suffer for our sins, and God knew ahead of time how the Jews (using "godless," "wicked" men, the Romans) would treat Jesus.  And Jesus predicted this treatment during his earthly ministry (Matthew 16:21).  On the one hand, if we adopt the Calvinistic understanding of foreknowledge, these men were not free agents and their actions were directly caused by God, that is, God directly caused what is characterized here as godless and wicked.  On the other hand, when we understand the "predetermined plan" as applying simply to God 's loving plan to provide a savior, and when we understand the foreknowledge as non-determinative, the passage makes perfectly good sense.

The phrase "the determined plan and foreknowledge" (NASB) has a particular construction in the Greek.  The construction uses the definite article, a noun, "and," then another noun: tē hōrismenē boulē kai prognōsei (τῇ ὡρισμένῃ βουλῇ καὶ προγνώσει).  Some have suggested that this construction equates the two nouns – in our passage equating "determined plan" with "foreknowledge."  However, after examining occurrences of this construction both in and out of the New Testament, Olson concludes that such wording does not require these two nouns to be equated.  Rather, he found a variety of relationships between the first and second nouns, including instances in which the first noun is dependent upon the second.  In our passage this would make "determined plan" dependent on "foreknowledge," an interpretation which fits perfectly with the straightforward understanding of foreknowledge  (C. Gordon Olson, Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism: An Inductive, Mediate Theology of Salvation, Global Gospel Publishers, 2002, p. 158-160).

Romans 8:29-30 is a passage of reassurance.  It teaches that there is an unbroken chain that starts with God's prior knowledge of every person who responds positively to the gospel.  Based on that prior knowledge, every such person is predestined to be conformed to the likeness of God's Son, and, in time, is called, justified, and finally glorified.  There is a typical Calvinistic argument against the idea that this verse supports foreknowledge as a basis for election.  The argument states that this verse (like Romans 11:2) speaks of a knowledge of persons, not a knowledge of facts (again, calling on the false notion that foreknowledge is fore-loving).  After Grudem presents this argument he summarizes,

The text [Romans 8:29] actually says nothing about God foreknowing or foreseeing that certain people would believe, nor is that idea mentioned in any other text of Scripture.  (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Zondervan, 1994, p. 677, italics added)

Demarest concurs:

… the biblical language of foreknowledge is always used of saints, never of the unsaved (Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation, Crossway, 1997, p. 128, italics added)

Both Grudem and Demarest seem to have forgotten about John 6:64, which says that "Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe."

Romans 11:2 indicates that God did not reject his people whom he foreknew.  The context is crucial in helping us understand what this passage is teaching.  God's people, the ones he foreknew and did not reject, are the spiritual descendants of Abraham, not his physical descendants.  These are believing Jews, and Paul is one of them (verse 1), as were the 7,000 during the time of Elijah (verses 2-4) and the remnant in the time of Paul (verse 5).  This is in keeping with the point Paul made when this same issue was raised earlier in 9:6 – "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel."  It is also in keeping with Romans 2:28, "a man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly ... a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly."  It is also in keeping with Paul's clear teaching in Romans 4:11-12 that Abraham is the father of both believing Gentiles and believing Jews.  Once it is understood that "his people" refers to believers, not the nation of Israel, it is easy to see how the foreknowledge here is the same pure foreknowledge found in Romans 8:29.

1 Peter 1:1-2 simply teaches that the recipients of Peter's letter were elect, chosen according to God's direct foreknowledge of each believer's repentance and faith.  There are some Calvinists who deny that this passage teaches that election is based on foreknowledge.  For example, Buswell points out that the Greek preposition kata (translated “according to” in this passage) actually means “in harmony with” rather than “on the basis of” or “on account of,”  and thus does not indicate that election depends on foreknowledge (J. O. Buswell Jr., A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, Vol 2, p 140).  However, even without a strong connecting word between these terms, the terms themselves imply that one is based on the other.  Whenever a person's action is said to be in harmony with that person's knowledge, it is a safe assumption, based on the nature of action and the nature of knowledge, that the action stems from the knowledge, or that the knowledge forms the basis of the action, even when the weakest preposition is used.  There are several phrases suggested in standard Greek dictionaries for translating kata with the accusative, including “according to,” “corresponding to,” and “with reference to.”  Any of these phrases substituted for kata in the above passage yields the same basic meaning.  And that meaning is the same in Matthew 9:28-29 where kata is used in connection with Jesus' healing of two blind men.  Here, as in 1 Peter 1:1-2, the result is conditioned upon, or based on, their belief for he said, "according to your faith will it be done to you."

1 Peter 1:19-20 simply indicates that, although the Father (indeed, all three members of the trinity) knew before the foundation of the world that it would be the second person of the trinity, the Son, who would come to earth as our savior, that fact was not known by man until "these last times."  Notice that not all translations preserve the Greek proginōskō in this passage.  The NIV uses "chosen," the King James Version uses "foreordained," the Revised Standard Version uses "destined," and the New English Bible uses "predestined," as though knowing ahead of time and choosing or determining are the same thing.  But they are certainly not the same thing.  These faulty translations appear to stem from the theological position of the translators rather than the requirements of the wording in the Greek.  This is borne out by the fact that not all translations substitute these stronger words for "foreknown" (besides the NASB quoted above, see, for example, the American Standard Version, and the English Standard Version).

Craig, in a section entitled "The New Testament Doctrine of Foreknowledge," discusses the difference between the verbs "foreknow" and "foreordain" found in various translations of 1 Peter 1:19-20.  He concludes that

… there is simply no linguistic evidence, biblical or extrabiblical, that these words can be used as synonyms.  (William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999 [previously published by Baker, 1987], p. 33)

… foreknowledge and foreordination do not mean the same thing …  (Craig, op. cit., p. 34)

Also, notice that whenever foreknowledge is mentioned in the same sentence with other divine acts, it is always separated from those other acts:

• in Acts 2:23, "foreknowledge" is distinct from "the determined plan"
• in Romans 8:29, "foreknown" is distinct from "predestined"
• in 1 Peter 1:2, "foreknowledge" is distinct from "chosen"

This is another indication that foreknowledge should be thought of as "pure foreknowledge," that is, simply knowing beforehand, without including the concepts of determining, choosing, or predestining.  Thus, each passage makes perfectly good sense when foreknowledge is understood purely as knowledge ahead of time.

E.  The Nature of Divine Foreknowledge, Based on Theological Considerations

God is sovereign.  Some things happen because God determines ahead of time that they must happen, and he directly causes them to happen.  As part of God's sovereignty, he created man in his own image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-27), making man a free agent, able to make choices for which God holds man accountable.  Thus, besides those things which happen because God directly causes them to happen, there are other things which God, in his sovereignty, allows to happen (see, for example, Exodus 21:13. "God lets it happen").  These things are caused directly by free human agents who make genuine decisions.  (Of course, God is their ultimate or indirect cause since he is the creator of the agents who cause them.)

God knows these human decisions ahead of time but does not directly cause them.  Severe problems in one's theology would arise if one held the view that God did directly cause every event.  For one thing, there would be no such thing as genuinely free human agents.  Also, since many of these decisions and actions are evil, God would be the direct cause of evil.  This would completely contradict the rest of the Bible's teachings regarding God's holiness and his complete separation from sin (Isaiah 6:3;  59:2; Habakkuk 1:13;  James 1:13-15;  1 Peter 1:15-16). 

The fall of mankind is an example of something which God allowed, but did not directly cause.  Remember that God instructed Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17), and he punished Adam after he did eat of that tree (Genesis 3:17-24).  Accepting the story of the fall as factual, we must say that God allowed the fall.  To say that he directly caused the fall would make God the author of sin.  It would also make God's prohibition ("you must not eat of it", verse 17) meaningless.  And it would make God's punishment of Adam unjust.

A similar argument applies to individual salvation.  God is sovereign, and his sovereignty is exhibited in his determination that there is only one plan of salvation and his determination of exactly what that plan is.  Within that sovereign plan, God requires all men to choose for or against Christ.  And God makes such a choice possible by enlightening all men, drawing all men, and convicting all men.  God knows beforehand whether an individual will accept or reject Jesus Christ as savior, without causing him to do either.

God knows both good and evil events ahead of time.  Before the creation of the world he know that Jesus would die for man's sins (Acts 2:23;  1 Peter 1:19-20), so he also had to foreknow that Adam would fall.  If, as Calvinists insist, foreknowing and fore-determining are to be equated in connection with good events, such as the atonement of Christ and the salvation of individuals, then these two concepts must also be equated in connection with evil events.  Remember that the Bible explicitly states that Jesus knew ahead of time that many of his initial followers would not believe in him (John 6:60-66), that Judas would betray him (John 6:64; 13:11, 19, 26-27), and that Peter would deny him (John 13:39;  Luke 22:31-34), all of which are evil events.  In these cases, it seems like nonsense to equate foreknowledge with fore-favoring or fore-determining.

Thiessen expands the argument:

If God could foreknow that man would sin without causing him to sin;  if he foreknew that the inhabitants of Keilah would betray David into the hands of Saul before they had had the chance to do so (1 Samuel 23:11-12);  if Jesus could know that the fate of Tyre and Sidon, and of Sodom and Gomorrah, would have been different had they had the manifestations of His works which were granted to Chorazin and Bethsaida and to Capernaum (Matthew 11:21-24);  if God could foreknow that the Jews would kill Christ without causing them to do so and before he had created man (Luke 22:22;  Acts 2:23;  4:27-28);  then He can also foreknow what man will do in response to prevenient grace, whether or not they will receive "the grace of God in vain" (2 Corinthians 6:1-2).  The Scriptures teach that election is based on foreknowledge (Romans 8:29;  1 Peter 1:1-2).  (Henry Clarence Thiessen, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Eerdmans, 1949, page 156)

Those who insist that foreknowledge must be equated with election are letting their theology determine their interpretation of scripture.  In the fields of philosophy and theology, arguments are often deductive, that is, they proceed from the general to the specific.  Certain grand assumptions are adopted and all the evidence is then interpreted in the light of these assumptions.  Sanday offers this relevant observation as part of his comments on the relationship between foreknowledge and predestination in Romans 8:29-30:

These two phrases indicate two distinct steps.  God, in His infinite foreknowledge, knew that certain persons would submit to be conformed to the image of His Son, and He predestined them for this.  When we argue deductively from the omniscience and omnipotence of God, human free-will seems to be obliterated.  On the other hand, when we argue deductively from human free-will, the divine foreknowledge and power to determine action seem to be excluded.  And yet both truths must be received without detriment to each other.  (W. Sanday, Commentary on Romans, in Ellicott's Commentary on the Whole Bible, Zondervan, 1959 printing, page 238)

For further discussion of related theological topics, see the paper Calvin and Arminius.

Erickson's alternate solution

Millard Erickson believes that there is a "Conflict of Foreknowledge with Human Freedom" – the heading of a section in his book God the Father Almighty, (Baker Books, 1998, p. 197).  He discusses several "solutions" from others then suggests an "alternate solution," which is "a Calvinistic approach."  Erickson's so-called solution tries to allow more room for free choice than Calvin, but both Calvin and Erickson are plagued by the misguided notion that God's certain foreknowledge must fix all future events.

God knows the future in its entirety because he has rendered it certain. He knows what free human beings are going to do because he has foreordained their actions.  (Millard Erickson, op. cit. p. 203-204)

Notice that Erickson labels the event certain.  It would be far better to locate the certainty in the mind of God, not in the event.  God's foreknowledge of all future human decisions is certain because of the unfailing accuracy of his foreknowledge, which is merely knowledge ahead of time.  It is the human choice that determines the content of God's foreknowledge.  The human decision, as it occurs, remains open to both positive and negative possibilities.  The decision is made freely by the individual, and whichever way it goes God, by means of his foreknowledge, is certain ahead of time which choice the individual will freely make.  To call the event itself certain and "foreordained" is to surrender to the Calvinistic redefinition of foreknowledge as explained earlier.

Erickson attempts to explain God's method:

… God works in numerous ways to bring about his will by rendering it certain that I and each other individual will freely choose what he foreordained. He does this through placing circumstances such that I will want to act in a certain way.  (op. cit. p. 207)

Most unfortunately, Erickson then refers to God as

the supreme salesperson, who also knows completely and perfectly the psychology of the person whom he wishes to influence (loc. cit.)

He mentions several different types of influence which God orchestrates in such a way that

He has control over all sorts of circumstances that most humans could not control or even influence. And out of this he does not coerce but renders his will certain.  (loc. cit.)

We must ask, What sort of free choice is this?  Erickson, along with many others, seems to think that simply by labeling a person's choice or action as "free" (or saying that God "does not coerce") he can include genuine human freedom of choice in his system.  But it takes more than merely using the word "free" when discussing human choices; it takes a concept of foreknowledge, based on the Bible, which is not determinative.

Also consider these problems with Erickson's solution.  Does this concept of foreknowledge of future decisions apply to sin?  If so, God is the cause of all our sin!  Also, if our choices are so foreordained, how is it that we can, as Paul warns in Ephesians 4:30, grieve the Holy Spirit?  Erickson's solution is no solution at all.

F.  Key Passages on Order, and the Problem with a One-dimensional Diagram

The  following passages identify several elements in salvation, and imply a certain order among those elements.  The elements are highlighted in the following quotations.

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.  (Romans 8:29-30)

And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession – to the praise of his glory.  (Ephesians 1:13-14)

The above passages place certain elements in order.  Some of this order is chronological.  For example, in Romans 8:28, the very concept of foreknowledge (because of the "fore") requires some passage of time.  (The same can be said for predestination.)  And in the Ephesians passage, a certain amount of time is implied by such phrases as "having believed," "a deposit," and "until the redemption."  Some of the order is also logical in the sense that certain elements are basic to other elements.  For example, justification is certainly basic to (a prerequisite for) glorification.

We interpret the call mentioned in Romans 8:30 to be the specific call to salvation (rather than the general invitation to all men which is part of prevenient grace), since all who are called are also justified and glorified.  Thus, we place that call together with justification and sealing, which also pertain to positional aspects of salvation.  We also place together the inheritance and the glorification as obviously future aspects of salvation.  Thus we arrive at the following six steps as a preliminary order of salvation.

foreknowledge

predestination

hearing

belief

calling, justification, sealing

inheritance, glorification

The two passages which form the basis of this diagram focus on the individuals who become saved.  Such elements as hearing, belief, and calling are repeated over and over again throughout history with each individual.  But such a one-dimensional diagram becomes quite inadequate when we attempt to add other elements to the sequence.  For example, consider John 3:16.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.  (John 3:16)

In this passage we have two additional elements which are not repeated over and over again.  God's love is continuous through all eternity, so it is difficult to place it on a simplistic diagram like the one above.  Also, God's giving of his Son is a one time event in history upon which the salvation of all believers (both those before and after Christ) is based.  It is difficult to place this Christ event on a diagram which focuses on the chronology of individual salvation.  Clearly, a different type of diagram is needed.

G.  The Order, Using a Two-dimensional Diagram

The following diagram is two-dimensional and attempts to combine both chronological order and logical order.  Also, with this diagram we expand the above preliminary six steps by adding elements from other passages, as explained below the diagram.

The chronological is shown horizontally with the left side of the diagram occurring first, the right side later.  The primary chronological issue is the foreknowledge of God from before the foundation of the world whereby he knows long ahead of time what decisions and actions all free agents will make.  Of particular concern, of course, are those decisions individual human beings make in response to the gospel – the decision to accept or reject Jesus Christ as savior.

The logical is shown by vertical relationships between the building blocks in the right half of the diagram.  Each level depends on the level underneath it and each level serves as a prerequisite for the level above it.  For any level to be true, the level below it must be true.  For example, the fall (level 2) cannot occur unless man is created with the ability to choose (level 1).  Similar prerequisite/dependency relationships exist at all higher levels of the diagram.  (Of course, some of the logical relationships are also chronological.  In some cases, one level must occur some time before the next level.)

The dashed arrows point to the left to indicate that even though God's foreknowledge occurs chronologically before the events in the right half of the diagram, that foreknowledge is logically based on those events.  Craig explains:

Although God's foreknowledge is chronologically prior to the events foreknown, the events are logically prior to God's foreknowledge of them.  (Craig, op. cit., p. 114-115)

Level 1 — Creation

God creates man in his own image (Genesis 1:26-27), which includes the ability to make free moral choices (see the paper The Imago Dei).  This ability is a prerequisite for the fall. 

Level 2 — The Fall

Adam and Eve sin (Genesis 3:6).  God punishes Adam and Eve for their sin, which includes discomfort and eventual physical death, as well as banishment from the garden of Eden (Genesis 3:16-19, 22-24) and personal separation from a holy God (Isaiah 59:2), which is spiritual death.

Sin and death are passed on to all men (Romans 5:12-19, especially verse 12).  There is no one who can claim to be free of personal sin (Psalm 14:2-3;  Romans 3:10-12).  This is the problem:  God is holy, but man is sinful.  God is just, and man must suffer the consequence of being separated from God.  But God's loving solution is the incarnation and substitutionary death of Jesus Christ.

Level 3 — Jesus' Incarnation and Substitution

God, who loves all people, creates a solution by sending Jesus to earth where he lives as a man, lives a holy life, and then takes the punishment for our sins (John 3:16;  Romans 5:8;  1 Peter 3:18).  Jesus, the "lamb" who shed his "precious blood" for us, is foreknown (1 Peter 1:19-20).

Level 4 — Invitation

Paul teaches that one cannot believe without hearing the gospel (Romans 10:14).  But on his own, man wants nothing to do with God or the gospel (Romans 3:10-12).  He is dead in his sins (Ephesians 2:1).  But God does not leave man in this helpless state, he enlightens all men (John 1:9), convicts all men (John 16:8; Jude 15), and draws all men (John 12:32; compare John 6:44).  Then, when they hear the gospel message of Christ's death on their behalf, they are free (due only to God's grace) to receive Christ.

Level 5 — Repentance and Faith

The entire New Testament teaches that the condition of salvation is repentance and faith (John 3:16-18;  Acts 16:30-31;  17:30;  Romans 3:22;  Ephesians 2:8-9).  This is termed receiving Christ, or believing on Christ, and is the logical prerequisite to being included in God's family (John 1:12).  Thus, level 5 is prerequisite to level 6.

God knows long ahead of time how each individual will respond.  This foreknowledge is the basis for God's actions of electing or choosing (1 Peter 1:1-2) and predestining (Romans 8:29).  Predestination is the divine act which, for the individual who responds in repentance and faith, "locks in" his salvation (level 6) and his eventual glorification (level 7).

Level 6 — Positional Salvation

The individual who has turned from his sin (repentance) and has trusted (faith) in Jesus Christ as his savior, is thus forgiven of his sins, justified, regenerated, given eternal life, adopted into God's family, and given the Holy Spirit (John 1:12-13;  3:16;  Acts 10:43;  Galatians 2:16;  Ephesians 2:4-5;  Colossians 1:13-14;  1 John 2:12;  Ephesians 1:13-14).  In the words of Jesus, "he has crossed over from death to life" (John 5:24).  This is positional:  he is no longer lost, but is now saved;  no longer dead in sin, but alive to God; no longer the enemy of God, but God's child.

Level 7 — Sanctification and Glorification

Although there are several aspects to sanctification, at level 7 we are referring to the gradual growth of the believer towards Christlikeness.  This involves both the faithful help of the Holy Spirit and the unpredictable daily responses of the individual.  Thus the individual may make rapid progress in his sanctification, or slow progress, or may even lose ground and act "like mere men" (1 Corinthians 3:1-3;  11:27-32).

Glorification, however, is certain (Romans 8:16-18).  It is not based on sanctification, but on positional salvation and upon God's predestination.  It is the guaranteed inheritance of all believers (Ephesians 1:13-14).

Grace and Responsibility

It is clear from the above diagram that our salvation is due to God's grace.  Apart from God's grace no one would be saved.  His grace is obvious especially at levels 3 and 4.

It is also clear that we have responsibility at three places on the diagram.

• At level 2, each of us has personally sinned and is personally guilty and separated from God.  (Isaiah 53:6;  59:2;  Romans 3:10-12)
• At level 5, each of us must respond to the gospel message with repentance from sin and faith in Christ and his substitutionary death.  (John 1:12;  3:16-18;  Acts 17:30)
• At level 7 each of us must yield to the Holy Spirit and obey our Lord's commands, growing toward Christlikeness.  (2 John 6;  Philippians 1:9-11;  Ephesians 4:13;  5:18;  1 Peter 2:2)