“For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.“ Romans 8:29,30

Broadly speaking there have been two general views as to the meaning and use of the word “foreknew” in Romans 8:29. One class of commentators (the Arminians) maintain that Paul is saying that God predestined to salvation those whom He foreknew would respond to His offer of grace (i.e., those whom He saw would of their own free will repent of their sins and believe the gospel). Godet, in commenting on Romans 8:29, asks the question: “In what respect did

God thus foreknow them?” and answers that they were “foreknown as sure to fulfill the conditions of salvation, viz. faith; so: foreknown as His by faith.” ¹ The word “foreknew” is thus understood by Arminians to mean that God knew beforehand which sinners would believe, etc., and on the basis of this knowledge He predestined them unto salvation.

The other class of commentators (the Calvinists) reject the above view on two grounds. First, because the Arminians’ interpretation is not in keeping with the meaning of Paul’s language and second, because it is out of harmony with the system of doctrine taught in the rest of the Scriptures. Calvinists contend that the passage teaches that God set His heart upon (i.e., foreknew) certain individuals; these He predestined or marked out to be saved. Notice that the text does not say that God knew SOMETHING ABOUT particular individuals (that they would do this or that), but it states that God knew the individuals THEMSELVES – those whom He knew He predestined to be made like Christ. The word “foreknew” as used here is thus understood to be equivalent to “foreloved” – those who were the objects of God’s love, He marked out for salvation.

The questions raised by the two opposing interpretations are these: Did God look down through time and see that certain individuals would believe and thus predestine them unto salvation on the basis of this foreseen faith? Or did God set His heart on certain individuals and because of His love for them predestine that they should be called and given faith in Christ by the Holy Spirit and thus be saved? In other words, is the individual’s faith the cause or the result of God’s predestination?

God has always possessed perfect knowledge of all creatures and of all events. There has never been a time when anything pas, present, or future was not fully known to Him. But it is not His knowledge of future events (of what people would do, etc.) which is referred to in Romans 8:29,30, for Paul clearly states that those whom He foreknew He predestined, He called, He justified, etc. Since all men are not predestined, called, and justified, it follows that all men were not foreknown by God in the sense spoken of in verse 29.

It is for this reason that the Arminians are forced to add some qualifying notion. They read into the passage some idea not contained in the language itself such as those whom He foreknew would believe etc., He predestined, called and justified. But according to the Biblical usage of the words “know,” “knew,” and “foreknew” there is not the least need to make such an addition, and since it is unnecessary, it is improper. When the Bible speaks of God knowing particular individuals, it often means that He has special regard for them, that they are the objects of His affection and concern. For example in Amos 3:2, God, speaking to Israel says, “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” The Lord know about all the families of the earth, but He knew Israel in a special way. They were His chosen people whom He had set His heart upon. See Deuteronomy 7:7,8; 10:15. Because Israel was His

in a special sense He chastised them, cf. Hebrews 12:5,6. God, speaking to Jeremiah, said, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you,” (Jeremiah 1:5). The meaning here is not that God knew about Jeremiah but that He had a special regard for the prophet before He formed him in his mother’s womb. Jesus also used the word “knew” in the sense of personal, intimate awareness. “On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers’ “ (Matt. 7:22,23). Our Lord cannot be understood here as saying, I knew nothing about you, for it is quite evident that He knew all too much about them – their evil character and evil works; hence, His meaning must be, I never knew you intimately nor personally, I never regarded you as the objects of my favor or love. Paul uses the word in the same way in I Corinthians 8:3, “But if one loves God, one is known by him,” and also II Timothy 2:19, “the Lord knows those who are His.” The Lord knows about all men but He only knows those “who love Him, who are called according to His purpose” (Rom 8:28) – those who are His!

Murray’s argument in favor of this meaning of “foreknew” is very good. “It should be observed that the text says ‘whom He foreknew’; whom is the object of the verb and there is no qualifying addition. This, of itself, shows that, unless there is some other compelling reason, the expression ‘whom he foreknew’ contains within itself the differentiation which is presupposed. If the apostle had in mind some ‘qualifying adjunct’ it would have been simple to supply it. Since he adds none we are forced to inquire if the actual terms he uses can express the differentiation implied. The usage of Scripture provides an affirmative answer. Although the term ‘foreknew’ is used seldom in the New Testament, it is altogether indefensible to ignore the meaning so frequently given to the word ‘know’ in the usage of Scripture; ‘foreknow’ merely adds the thought of ‘beforehand’ to the word ‘know’. Many times in Scripture ‘know’ has a pregnant meaning which goes beyond that of mere cognition. It is used in a sense practically synonymous with ‘love’, to set regard upon, to know with peculiar interest, delight, affection, and action (cf. Gen 18:19; Exod. 2:25; Psalm 1:6; 144:3; Jer. 1:5; Amos 3:2;

Hosea 13:5; Matt 7:23; I Cor. 8:3; Gal. 4:9; II Tim. 2:19; I John 3:1). There is no reason why this import of the word ‘know’ should not be applied to ‘foreknow’ in this passage, as also in 11:2 where it also occurs in the same kind of construction and where the thought of election is patently present (cf. 11:5,6). When this import is appreciated, then there is no reason for adding any qualifying notion and ‘whom He foreknew’ is seen to contain within itself the differentiating element required. It means ‘whom he set regard upon’ or ‘whom he knew from eternity with distinguishing affection and delight’ and is virtually equivalent to ‘whom he foreloved’. This interpretation, furthermore, is in agreement with the efficient and determining action which is so conspicuous in every other link of the chain – it is God who predestinates, it is God who calls, it is God who justifies, and it is He who glorifies. Foresight of faith would be out of accord with the determinative action which is predicated of God in these other instances and would constitute a weakening of the total emphasis at the point where we should least expect it….It is not the foresight of difference but the foreknowledge that makes difference to exist, not a foresight that recognizes existence but the foreknowledge that determines existence. It is a sovereign distinguishing love.” ²

Hodge observes that “as to know is often to approve and love, it may express the idea of peculiar affection in this case; or it may mean to select or determine upon….The usage of the word is favourable to either modification of this general idea of preferring. ‘The people which he foreknew,’ i.e., loved or selected, Rom. 11:2; ‘Who verily was foreordained (Gr. foreknown), i.e., fixed upon, chosen before the foundation of the world.’ I Peter 1:20; II Tim. 2:19; John 10:14,15; see also Acts 2:23; I Peter

1:2. The idea, therefore, obviously is, that those whom God peculiarly loved, and by thus loving, distinguished or selected from the rest of mankind; or to express both ideas in one word, those whom he elected he predestined, etc.” ³

Although God knew about all men before the world began, He did not know all men in the sense that the Bible sometimes uses the word “know,” i.e., with intimate personal awareness and love. It is in this latter sense that God foreknew those whom He predestined, called, and justified, as outlinsed in Romans 8:29,30!

As was pointed out above, it is unnecessary and therefore indefensible to add any qualifying notion such as faith to the verb foreknew in Romans 8:29. The Arminians make this addition, not because the language requires it, but because their theological system requires it – they do it to escape the doctrines of unconditional predestination and election. They read the notion of foreseen faith into the verse and then appeal to it in an effort to prove that predestination was based on foreseen events. Thus particular individuals are said to be saved, not because God willed that they should be saved (for He willed the salvation of everyone) but because they themselves willed to be saved. Hence salvation is make to depend ultimately on the individual’s will, not on the sovereign will of Almighty God – faith is understood to be man’s gift to God, not God’s gift to man.

Haldane, comparing Scripture with Scripture, clearly shows that the foreknowledge mentioned in Romans 8:29 cannot have reference to the foreseen faith, good works, or the sinner’s response to God’s call. “Faith cannot be the cause of foreknowledge, because foreknowledge is before predestination, and faith is the effect of predestination. ‘As many as were ordained to eternal life believed,’ Acts 13:48. Neither can it be meant of the foreknowledge of good works, because these are the effects of predestination. ‘We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works; which God hath before ordained (or before prepared) that we should walk in them;’ Eph. 2:10. Neither can it be meant of foreknowledge of our concurrence with the external call, because our effectual calling depends not upon that concurrence, but upon God’s purpose and grace, given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, 2 Tim. 1:9. By this foreknowledge, then, is meant, as has been observed, the love of God towards those whom he predestinates to be saved through Jesus Christ. All the called of God are foreknown by Him, - that is, they are the objects of His eternal love, and their calling comes from this free love. ‘I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore with lovingkindness I have drawn thee,’ Jer. 31:3.” ⁴

Murray, in rejecting the view that “foreknew” in Romans 8:29 refers to the foresight of faith, is certainly correct in stating that “It needs to be emphasized that the rejection of this interpretation is not dictated by a predestinarian interest. Even if it were granted that ‘foreknew’ means foresight of faith, the biblical doctrine of sovereign election is not thereby eliminated or disproven. For it is certainly true that God foresees faith; he foresees all that comes to pass. The question would then simply be: whence proceeds this faith which God foresees? And the only biblical answer is that the faith which God foresees is the faith he himself creates (cf. John 3:3-8; 6:44;45,65; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; II Pet. 1:2). Hence his eternal foresight

of faith is preconditioned by his decree to generate this faith in those whom he foresees as believing, and we are thrown back upon the differentiation which proceeds from God’s own eternal and sovereign election to faith and its consequents. The interest, therefore, is simply one of interpretation as it should be applied to this passage. On exegetical grounds we shall have to reject the view that ‘foreknew’ refers to the foresight of faith.” ⁵

¹ Frederic Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, p 325. Italics are his.

² John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, Vol. I, pp. 316-318. Italics are his.

³ Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, pp. 283, 284. Italics are his.

It is interesting that you would attack me or xzins on the basis that we are dealing with the facts of physics as stated by Einstein and Hawking. Then you imply that since Hawkins can use the physical data and scientific information to form some philosophical argument against the existence of God, that therefore the Scientific data must be science fiction and xzins and I are arguing points based upon fiction.

The fact of the matter is that the theory of relativity has been confirmed in scientific experiments. So the fact of the matter is that we have to deal with the theory of relativity as a fact and then deal with the theological implications.

I obviously disagree with Hawking's philosophical and theological implications. To me the theory of relativity confirms my belief in God inhabiting eternity and gives me insight into what that means and why God would have identified himself the title of "I AM".

Your attempt to poison the well by linking my theories about God's nature to Hawking's theories of God's non-existence is a "guilt by association" logical fallacy combined with a false analogy and a Non Sequitur. "Since Atheists believe the sky is blue and they believe this proves that there is no God, therefore anyone who believes the sky is blue must be an atheist. Jean believes the sky is blue, therefore Jean is an atheist."

I had assumed you were above that. I'm not so sure anymore. But when you resort to irrelevant logical fallacies to prove your point, you provide evidence that you have no point to make.

BTW, prior to your post, I don't think I've never read even a word from a Steven Hawking book.

My reply: I have a sincere and heartfelt confession to make. When I wrote "when He began to be the Eternal God" I had my tongue in cheek.

Ahh... very good, and I beg your pardon. I intended no offense, I just failed to apprehend your dry humor. Forgive my obtuseness. ;-)

Before I answer your question, please advise whether it is mandatory for believers in Christ to belong to a "denomination"?

Your question is thoughtful, and I shall answer directly -- NO, it is not specifically mandatory for believers in Christ to count themselves as members of any particular "denomination". You are quite correct.

Although, I would say that, as a methodology of classification (theological cladology, if you will) I think that a measure of denominationalism is to some extent unavoidable -- even the Roman Catholics, who sometimes consider themselves immune from "denominationalism", are in fact divided into at least three great "denominations" (the Molinists, Thomists, amd Augustinians -- of whom Classical Protestants are closest to the latter of the three).

All that said, however, I would advise from my own personal experience -- Denominationalism aside, it is desirable for purposes of fraternity and accountability that a Christian should covenant himself to a Bible-believing Local Church -- whether Orthodox Presbyterian, Reformed Baptist, Reformed Episcopal, Calvinist Congregational, Orthodox Lutheran, or what have you.

I say this, because I know that I have tried to exist on my own without the Local Church -- and I have found, to my own detriment, that the bonds of fraternity and accountability suffer without the ministrations thereof.

So, no -- Denominationalism is not strictly necessary. However, the Local Church is both Necessary and Beneficial, IMHO -- if you have not found a suitable Local Church already, I pray (in friendship) that you soon will.

People sometimes ask me if I am a "Calvinist." My reply is that it is immeasurably preferable to be unconditionally and completely committed to Biblical truths and principles in their entirety, and having attained to that place of total commitment, let the "labels such as "Calvinism" or "Presbyterianism" or "orthodoxy" or "reformed faith" fall wherein they may.

Well, as for myself, I am a strictly-denominational Orthodox Presbyterian (hence the screen name). But I should like to introduce you to my friends DrSteveJ and CCWoody.

DrSteveJ is well-respected by Calvinists, Catholics, Lutherans, and Orthodox alike -- he is a Non-Denominational "4-Point Calvinist" (or "Amyrauldian") to whom we sometimes refer as "Pope Piel, the pocket fisher of men". He represents, I think, the better sort of Ecumenicist -- Dialogue, without Compromise. He loves common ground; but he abhors surrender.
CCWoody is a fellow with whom you may have some things in common.... he knew little of denominations; rather, he read the Bible first, and only later found out that the Truths which the Spirit had taught him were subject to a label commonly termed "Calvinism". Like yourself, neh??

Welcome to the Reformed Caucus of the Free Republic Religion Forum.

DrSteve and I will shortly be assembling a "Big Reformed Ping List". We'll make sure to include you... and may God bless you richly.

best, OP

Chapter 3 in Book IV (Beyond Personality) of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

Time and Beyond Time

        IT IS A VERY SILLY IDEA that in reading a book you must never "skip." All sensible people skip freely when they come to a chapter which they find is going to be no use to them. In this chapter I am going to talk about something which may be helpful to some readers, but which may seem to others merely an unnecessary complication. If you are one of the second sort of readers, then I advise you not to bother about this chapter at all but to turn on to the next.
        In the last chapter I had to touch on the subject of prayer, and while that is still fresh in your mind and my own, I should like to deal with a difficulty that some people find about the whole idea of prayer. A man put it to me by saying "I can believe in God all right, but what I cannot swallow is the idea of Him attending to several hundred million human beings who are all addressing Him at the same moment." And I have found that quite a lot of people feel this.
        Now, the first thing to notice is that the whole sting of it comes in the words at the same moment. Most of us can imagine God attending to any number of applicants if only they came one by one and He had an endless time to do it in. So what is really at the back of this difficulty is the idea of God having to fit too many things into one moment of time.
        Well that is of course what happens to us. Our life comes to us moment by moment. One moment disappears before the next comes along: and there is room for very little in each. That is what Time is like. And of course you and I tend to take it for granted that this Time series—this arrangement of past, present and future—is not simply the way life comes to us but the way all things really exist. We tend to assume that the whole universe and God Himself are always moving on from past to future just as we do. But many learned men do not agree with that. It was the Theologians who first started the idea that some things are not in Time at all: later the Philosophers took it over: and now some of the scientists are doing the same.
        Almost certainly God is not in Time. His life does not consist of moments following one another. If a million people are praying to Him at ten-thirty tonight, He need not listen to them all in that one little snippet which we call ten-thirty. Ten-thirty—and every other moment from the beginning of the world—is always the Present for Him. If you like to put it that way, He has all eternity in which to listen to the split second of prayer put up by a pilot as his plane crashes in flames.
        That is difficult, I know. Let me try to give something, not the same, but a bit like it. Suppose: I am writing a novel. I write "Mary laid down her work; next moment came a knock at the door!" For Mary who has to live in the imaginary time of my story there is no interval between putting down the work and hearing the knock. But I, who am Mary's maker, do not live in that imaginary time at all. Between writing the first half of that sentence and the second, I might sit down for three hours and think steadily about Mary. I could think about Mary as if she were the only character in the book and for as long as I pleased, and the hours I spent in doing so would not appear in Mary's time (the time inside the story) at all.
        This is not a perfect illustration, of course. But it may give just a glimpse of what I believe to be the truth. God is not hurried along in the Time-stream of this universe any more than an author is hurried along in the imaginary time of his own novel. He has infinite attention to spare for each one of us. He does not have to deal with us in the mass. You are as much alone with Him as if you were the only being He had ever created. When Christ died, He died for you individually just as much as if you had been the only man in the world.
        The way in which my illustration breaks down is this. In it the author gets out of one Time-series (that of the novel) only by going into another Time-series (the real one). But God, I believe, does not live in a Time-series at all. His life is not dribbled out moment by moment like ours: with Him it is, so to speak, still 1920 and already 1960. For His life is Himself.
        If you picture Time as a straight line along which we have to travel, then you must picture God as the whole page on which the line is drawn. We come to the parts of the line one by one: we have to leave A behind before we get to B, and cannot reach C until we leave B behind. God, from above or outside or all round, contains the whole line, and sees it all.
        The idea is worth trying to grasp because it removes some apparent difficulties in Christianity. Before I became a Christian one of my objections was as follows. The Christians said that the eternal God who is everywhere and keeps the whole universe going, once became a human being. Well then, said I, how did the whole universe keep going while He was a baby, or while He was asleep? How could He at the same time be God who knows everything and also a man asking his disciples "Who touched me?" You will notice that the sting lay in the time words: "While He was a baby"—"How could He at the same time?" In other words I was assuming that Christ's life as God was in time, and that His life as the man Jesus in Palestine was a shorter period taken out of that time—just as my service in the army was a shorter period taken out of my total life. And that is how most of us perhaps tend to think about it. We picture God living through a period when His human life was still in the future: then coming to a period when it was present: then going on to a period when He could look back on it as something in the past. But probably these ideas correspond to nothing in the actual facts. You cannot fit Christ's earthly life in Palestine into any time-relations with His life as God beyond all space and time. It is really, I suggest, a timeless truth about God that human nature, and the human experience of weakness and sleep and ignorance, are somehow included in His whole divine life. This human life in God is from our point of view a particular period in the history of our world (from the year A.D. one till the Crucifixion). We therefore imagine it is also a period in the history of God's own existence. But God has no history. He is too completely and utterly real to have one. For, of course, to have a history means losing part of your reality (because it had already slipped away into the past) and not yet having another part (because it is still in the future): in fact having nothing but the tiny little present, which has gone before you can speak about it. God forbid we should think God was like that. Even we may hope not to be always rationed in that way.
        Another difficulty we get if we believe God to be in time is this. Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow. But if He knows I am going to do so-and-so, how can I be free to do otherwise? Well, here once again, the difficulty comes from thinking that God is progressing along the Time-line like us: the only difference being that He can see ahead and we cannot. Well, if that were true, if God foresaw our acts, it would be very hard to understand how we could be free not to do them. But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call "tomorrow" is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call "today." All the days are "Now" for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday; He simply sees you doing them, because, though you have lost yesterday, He has not. He does not "foresee" you doing things tomorrow; He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him. You never suppose that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your tomorrow's actions in just the same way—because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already "Now" for Him.
        This idea has helped me a good deal. If it does not help you, leave it alone. It is a "Christian idea" in the sense that great and wise Christians have held it and there is nothing in it contrary to Christianity. But it is not in the Bible or any of the creeds. You can be a perfectly good Christian without accepting it, or indeed without thinking of the matter at all.

OP, There is nothing red herringish about the idea of God and time. As always it is simply a biblical question. I can't say that I've ever read anyone who studied it.

I never said that it was a "red herring".

Atomic scientists have, in the most extreme conditions which our particle accelerators are able to create, observed the existence of sub-atomic particles which have been termed "Tachyons" -- particles which appear to exceed the Speed of Light, and whose atomic-decay appears to proceed in reverse compared to the normal measurement of Time.

I never said that was a "red herring".

I said that it is fundamentally irrelevant to the Central Question of Man's Standing before God:

The Natural Man never, ever Wants to perform any God-pleasing action, including Repentance to the Son; and so, if he acts by Free Will, he never, ever Will perform any God-pleasing action, including Repentance to the Son.

At the End of the Day, that is ALL and ONLY what the Arminian is trying to accomplish -- a theological construct in which the unregenerate Fallen Man is STILL IN CONTROL.

This is what Pelagius sought, with his denial of Original Sin.
This is what Arminius sought, with his denial of Spriritual Death.
This is what De Molina and Wesley sought, with their interpolation of "Prevenient Grace".
And this is what the Arminian "Openness Theologians" of non-compatibilism seek.

The Construction of a Theological System which results in Unregenerate Man being in control of his own Salvation.

As I said, let's Cut to the Chase. Let's stop mucking around.

That, and only that, is all that Marlowe (and yourself, Xzins, though I say this without malice) are aiming for -- a Theological System in which the Unregenerate Man decides his own Salvation.

And that, exactly that, is what Calvinists and the Bible cannot permit you -- Calvinists must affirm the Truth of the Bible:

If he acts by Free Will, the Natural Man never, ever Will perform any God-pleasing action, including Repentance to the Son.

He must be Regenerated FIRST. He must be Born Again in order to Believe.

Everything else is adiaphora.

best, OP

To Orthodox Presbyterian, An excellent and forthright post, OP, straight from the hip. Take no prisoners :-) Much appreciated. Regards, Michael

Thank you, Michael... and I appreciate your kind words.

But right now I feel like Alice Through the Looking Glass...

I feel as though I have entered a strange and curious "alternate world" in which Calvinists don't get to the Point.

My dear FRiend Jean Chauvin is wasting his valuable time and energy pontificating upon Quantum Physics... as if that mattered.
My dear friend Dr. Eckleburg (who IS a Doctor, whereas I am NOT) is wasting his valuable time and energy piddling around with Einsteinian Relativity... as if that mattered.

Have not the Calvinists apprehended the fact that the Arminians don't really care about Quantum Physics and Einsteinian Relativity?

Has it escaped them that all this Arminian tachyonic bloviation is nothing but an excuse to deny the Central Truth of the Reformation?

To me, the matter is quite simple. I think that the whole affair is quite bloody obvious, when you boil it down.

But I am content to be the Cheshire Cat. If my Comrades do not comprehend the matter... I shall simply smile, and disappear, and return again.

best, OP

For the next four decades, until his death, Einstein struggled to develop a Unified Theory of Existence based on his earlier speculations. -- He could have saved himself a lot of trouble by accepting that the Lord Jesus is the reality of existence - no theory needed. ~~ Hermann the Cherusker

That is far too simple a solution (pride is one of the 7 deadly sins you know) ~~ CARepubGal

As for myself -- I happen to disagree, my sister. I think that you are wrong; and I think that Hermann is right.

In this matter, I must affirm the virtuous Scientific Rigor of Medieval Christendom. It is a matter of Publik Skool Falsehood that the Roman Catholic Age was a "Dark Age"... in fact, the Roman Catholic Age in Europe did not hinder the Scientific Revolution, but rather set the stage therefore.

And I should further note, against all the claims of Islam ~~ Islam never accomplished anything of any value. The truth of the matter is, the Crusaders (who fought a legitimate Defensive War, according to a certain interpretation; though some committed War-Crimes) brought back to Europe the Wisdom of the Assyrian Orthodox and the Chaldean Catholics.

NONE of this Wisdom is the Heritage of Islam -- NONE of it. Arabic numerals, Geometry, Algebra ~~ ALL of this is the Heritage of the Assyrian Orthodox and the Chaldean Catholics. All of it.

The Muslims merely usurped their heritage. And the Crusaders brought it back to Europe.

I am still, myself, trying to make sense of it all -- because the Truth of the Matter, is that Protestantism siezed upon the Roman Catholic tradition, and exceeded all heights of human imagination: the German Lutherans, the British Anglicans, the American Calvinists -- these Societies have far surpassed all previous measures of calculation in Trade and Treasure and Conquest and Scientific Advancement and World Dominance.

All the Promised Dominion of Solomon has been given, world-wide, unto the Protestant Religion. And yet, like Solomon, we have very nearly thrown it all away. Plus ca change...

We live... in interesting times. Best, OP

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

THE MEANING OF “FOREKNEW” IN ROMANS 8:29

Chapter 3 in Book IV (Beyond Personality) of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis Time and Beyond Time

Chapter 3 in Book IV (Beyond Personality) of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

Time and Beyond Time