The Meaning of 'foreknew' in Romans 8:29

“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.

Not to put too fine a point on it -- for all theological purposes, Jesus is condemning Arminians. With the harshest language He ever uttered during His Incarnation upon this Earth. Jews who falsely claim to be His Disciples, but who refuse to acknowledge that the Unregenerate Man is utterly enslaved to Sin.

Not to put too fine a point on it, OP, but what you describe above is not Arminianism, generally, but more accurately, Pelagians. xzins can confirm or deny this, but most self-described Arminians I've met will generally affirm that man is enslaved to sin. Their position may be inconsistant with that belief, but they certainly do not deny man's depraved status.

It's my opinion that we Calvinists do ourselves a misservice when we overstate our objections to Arminian theology.

Not to put too fine a point on it, OP, but what you describe above is not Arminianism, generally, but more accurately, Pelagians. xzins can confirm or deny this, but most self-described Arminians I've met will generally affirm that man is enslaved to sin. Their position may be inconsistant with that belief, but they certainly do not deny man's depraved status. It's my opinion that we Calvinists do ourselves a misservice when we overstate our objections to Arminian theology.

Jude, you are yet again entirely correct when you say that "Calvinists do ourselves a misservice when we overstate our objections to Arminian theology". We often do ourselves a mis-service, just as you state.

But, with all due respect, look at John Chapter 8.

Pelagianism is the belief that Man is able to respond to God even without Prevenient Grace.

But as John 8:30 makes clear, these False Disciples had received Prevenient Grace. They were Convicted. They even claimed to follow Jesus.

One thing only was lacking -- they claimed that the Unregenerate Man was not absolutely and utterly Enslaved to Sin.

And for this Error -- this fundamental, Satanic error -- Jesus Christ employed His harshest language EVER.

NOT PELAGIANS. These people were Convicted. They had received Prevenient Grace.

Let me repeat that: They had received Prevenient Grace. And yet -- Jesus called them Liars, Murderers, Children of Satan.

They had received Prevenient Grace. This is the bonafide Truth of John 8:30.
Jesus was condeming Arminians.

It is true that this is a totally depraved moment because Paul indicates salvation is yet a future issue for this man. Therefore, since salvation is at the same time as regeneration, this is an indication of convicting grace, prevenient grace.

Calvinists do not deny Prevenient Grace. Prevenient, Convicting Grace is a FACT of Scripture -- it brings JUDGMENT upon those who reject God:

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. (Acts 7:51)

But the Philippian Jailer (What must I do?) believed, whereas Pontius Pilate (What is Truth?) did not. What's the difference? Sovereign, Efficacious Regeneration from Above.

That's the Difference.

That's why one man Believes, and another does not.

God is in control.

Anything you write, I'll respond to tomorrow. I'm beat. (And I went deer hunting today, crossbow. Nothing.)

Take your time. My hunting experience is limited to game-birds at the business end of a .22 and a 20-guage -- if you are hunting deer, then may God bless your barbecue to the enjoyment of your children and grand-children (hearken not to these Calvinist Texans; Carolina mustard-based is the only way to go. DEEP DIXIE, HOO-AHH!!)

Return at your leisure, and God bless.

best, OP

Dear Steve:

Having (tentatively) announced "The Big Reformed Ping List" on a few of my posts, I am already receiving indications of interest from Reformed FReepers whose Screen Names are not even known to me.

I advise that we cannot wait for your Formal Encyclical, Pope Piel. I think that it is high time that we provided the Free Republic Reformed Caucus a designated gathering-place. It is good for the Brethren to join together in Unity.

With your permission, I shall post the following Thread:

**********

"DRSTEVEJ and OP's BIG REFORMED PING LIST!!"

The following WILL NOT be a high-volume Ping List. It is intended only for SERIOUS Reformed Business (once-a-year matters for ONLY Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed Baptists, and Independent Calvinists).

DrSteveJ, a Four-Point Calvinist of the Amyrauldian sort (being somewhere betwixt Lutherans, Calvinists, and Independents) has volunteered himself as Thread Pope. He welcomes ALL -- Lutherans, Calvinists, Episcopalians, Baptists, or what have you -- who celebrate October 31 as REFORMATION DAY, not "halloween". Other than that, he's pretty easy-going.

Ortho-Presby, or "OP", thinks that a "Big Reformed Ping List" would be a Good Idea. But other than that, he exercises no discretion, and recognizes "DrSteveJ" as the "Thread Pope".

"CCWoody" has been elected by DrStevej and OP as the Chief Archivist. He keeps track of the Respondents to the "Big Reformed Ping List" Thread. He has no other duties.

Did CCWoody ask us for this burden? OF COURSE NOT!! We're just schlepping the duty off on him, without his permission. Why? Because he's a good Archivist, that's why. Hello, Woody -- welcome to the BIG REFORMED PING LIST!!

Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed Baptists, and Independent Calvinists -- Come one, come all!!

**********

I'll clean it up first (I have some very-cool things to say about Amyrauldian Robert Baxter, for example), but how does that strike you gentlemen?

Let me know... OP

"Where do we sign up?" ~~ Dr. Eckleburg

I have already asked DrSteveJ to be the official Thread Pope of the "Great Reformed Ping List" (and though CCWoody does not know it, I have already volunteered him as "Chief Archivist" -- hello, Woody, surprise surprise!!)

I think that DrSteveJ will make an Excellent Thread Pope... as a diligent 4-Point Amyrauldian Calvinist, I think that DrSteveJ strikes a very nice balance between the Episcopalians and the Lutherans and the Presbyterians and the Reformed Baptists and the Independent Congregational Calvinists... come one, come all!!

But I must plead with Pope Piel DrSteveJ -- we cannot wait forever for a former Encyclical.

With his permission, I am prepared to advance the "Great Reformed Ping List" on my own -- reserving, of course, the finest accolades for the Amyrauldian Tradition of Puritan Robert Baxter and our own dear Pope Piel!!

Say the word, DrSteveJ. As an Ecumenical 4-Point Amyrauldian Calvinist, you enjoy the respect of all Reformed Episcopalians and Orthodox Lutherans and Covenant Presbyterians and Protestant Congregationalists and Independent Calvinists together.

Jean Chauvin and I don't actually need you to call together the Dutch Reformed and the Presbyterians -- we can accomplish that on our own.

But who will speak to the Reformed Episcopalians, DrSteve? Who will speak to the Orthodox Lutherans? Who will speak to the Reformed Baptists and the Congregational Calvinists?

YOU enjoy their respect.

So... you wanna make something of it? (in the best possible way?)
If so... let us know.

Minister of Diplomacy,
OP

I really don't see "What must I do to be saved?" being the same as "What must I do to have life?" It just doesn't work for me. It really seems to be trying to hard to get around to a desired location rather than just taking it at face value.

Really? What is the "face value" of being saved? Is it merely just an eschatological hope? Is it merely an avoidance of pain? Is that all we have to offer to the unbeliever? Is that all that Jesus, Paul, Peter, and James claim is involved?

I would suggest, my FRiend, that life is exactly what we are being offered, it is the good news. The offer is a union with God that Adam and Eve enjoyed. Jesus came to give life so that we may have it abundantly. (Jn 10:10) Paul speaks about the new Creation (2 Cor 5:17) and the supernatural new life (Rom 6:4) Peter speaks about being "born anew" (1Peter 1:23) and James tells us that "in fulfillment of His own purpose he gave us birth by the word of truth". (James 1:18)

So, again I ask you. What is the "face value" of being saved? Perhaps we are being saved from a kind of life unto a new kind of life that includes union with God. If you think about it... isn't that exactly what Nicodemus tripped over? He thought he was all cool and collected by coming up to Jesus and complimenting him and yet at the same time complimenting himself on his good sense of recognizing God's work. And what was Jesus' response? Dude, you don't have a clue about God's work! "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born anew.'

Your job is to move the sheep from communication with God, something which occurs from a distance, to communion with God, in which we share mutual objectives, to union with God, in which we become one with God and Christ lives in us. This is the kind of life that Christ showed us and we are being saved from a kind of life absent this union with God

We've had a few rounds on this one, and it's time to go.

This last word from me, and then you all feel free to close it out.

The Philippian Jailer has confirmed a few issues for me.

1. It is clear that the man was under conviction by the Holy Spirit and was unsaved. Conviction is a sign of God's grace working with an individual prior to their salvation.

2. It is clear to me that the salvation must have been contemporaneous with the regeneration. (Add into that, of course, the justification, sanctification, indwelling of the Spirit.)

3. Although convicted, the man was not yet saved per Paul's words. It is not possible to be unsaved and regenerated at the same time. Nor is it possible to be an unbeliever and regenerated at the same time.

4. It is possible to ask a holy, proper question before one is regenerated. This man, under conviction, asks "What must I do to be saved?" Since he is obviously not saved, and since salvation is at the same time as regeneration, then a man is able, under prevenient grace, to be sufficiently enlightened by the Holy Spirit to ask, "What must I do to be saved?"

4. It is possible to ask a holy, proper question before one is regenerated. This man, under conviction, asks "What must I do to be saved?" Since he is obviously not saved, and since salvation is at the same time as regeneration, then a man is able, under prevenient grace, to be sufficiently enlightened by the Holy Spirit to ask, "What must I do to be saved?"

OK. Given this point, I have to turn to the rich young ruler. He asked a similar such question, but when presented with the answer rejected it. There is still the question of why the rich young ruler rejected it and the jailer accepted it.

I think regeneration has less to do with the asking of the question and more to do with the response to the answer received.

Well there are a number of differences, none of which, I believe, confirm the Calvinist position. First of all the Jailer was in a position where he had nothing to lose by following Jesus. Indeed he was ready to commit suicide, so he was essentially at the end of his rope. Generally speaking that is a good place to be when confronted with the Gospel, as the consequences to following Jesus don't look so bad at that point.

The rich ruler though had everything to lose. Jesus sort of put the cart before the horse. He could have said merely, "Follow me and you shall have eternal life" but Jesus wanted to make sure that the ruler knew the consequences of following Jesus. It was essentially the same consequence that faced all of Jesus disciples at that time. They would all die penniless and suffer persecution. So Jesus told him that if he wanted eternal life he would have to sell all that he had and give it to the poor. He was faced with an eternal decision. A CHOICE if you will. Surrender all, including his riches, or die in your sins. He chose to die in his sins rather than suffer the consequences of his choice to follow Jesus.

As a general rule Jesus does not advise us as to the negative consequences of following him, but he does note that if you follow him there will be negative consequences. One has to be at a point where the idea of the negative consequences does not negate the desire for the eternal rewards before one can truly follow Jesus. The rich young ruler was not there.

Now it is interesting to note that Jesus, who is God, loved this man. Now a lot of Calvinists insist that God does not love those who are not his sheep. But here we have a man who first of all lies to Jesus face when he says he has kept all of the commandments since his youth and yet immediately it is noted that Jesus, beholding him in this sinful reprobate state "loved him." Clearly Jesus desired that this man have eternal life and thus it cannot be said that God loves only the elect, since this man clearly was not going to be one of the elect, but one of the lost. Jesus gave the man the instructions for him to have eternal life and despite the fact that Jesus loved him, this man went away rejecting him. He was not one of Christ's sheep, yet God still loved him and was desirous of his salvation (1 Tim 2:4).

So the question is, how can this man, whom Jesus loved, have rejected him? I thought Jesus only loved those whom he came to die for?

I think regeneration has less to do with the asking of the question and more to do with the response to the answer received.

I totally agree!!! If you give the correct response to the answer, then you will be saved; then you will be born again; then you will become a Child of God. Scripture makes that clear in dozens of places. So what does it mean? It simply means that regeneration is the consequence of the correct response to the answer, not the cause.

feel free to close it out

On to something more important, eh?

For my last two cents (until I think of something else) the problem is that we live in a world that's drunken with Aristotelian logic.

Secular society indoctrinates us from birth to define existence in binary terms -- if this; then that. A and B, or ~A and B, or A and ~B, or ~A and ~B.

However, the Christian world view takes in a third force -- the seemingly contradictory, yet completely sovereign and omnipotent mind of God.

It's no coincidence that the Trinity is threefold, and that the third part of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, is the one which gives most people pause.

The very essence of Christianity is an affront to Aristotelian logic since it requires that we hold two, apparently contradictory beliefs, at the same time. And this third belief is not a synthesis of the first two. It is an entirely separate belief, i.e. "Christ is God. Christ is man. Christ is both God and man." Not a blending of the two, but an third entity.

So the basis of Christianity IS NOT LOGIC, although it is very logical, as barristers John Calvin and P-Marlowe often assert.

Thus, from before time, God knew the names of the elect, even though those names were still fallen and damned by original sin.

How can this be? Logic tells us that those factors are mutually-exclusive, that those names are either/or, damned or elect. But they are both, at the same time. As God wills.

So your search, xzins, for the logic behind Predestination is futile. Just as proving the logic of the Trinity is impossible.

"Regeneration" is a human description for the supernatural edict of God's will, known by Him from before time. There is a moment on Earth when man understands he's been regenerated (sometimes instantaneous; sometimes progressive, like Marlowe describes). But God has known it always. Any "gap" is from our perspective. The gift of eternal salvation is not just future tense salvation; it's also past tense. Our salvation will last forever and was written by God from before time -- eternal.

So all the logic in the world cannot ease your discomfort because the truth lies outside A and B. Ultimately, what gives us assurance are the questions with no logical answers except "God's ordained, holy and divine will."

Maybe as an exercise, since it runs counter to everything we're taught from day one, you could try answering all your questions and concerns with "It's God's will."

See how it goes.

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