Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Meaning of 'foreknew' in Romans 8:29
The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented | 1963 | David N. Steele/Curtis C. Thomas

Posted on 07/17/2003 9:53:46 AM PDT by Frumanchu

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?

 

A. The meaning of “foreknew” in Romans 8:29

            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!

 

B. Romans 8:29 does not refer to the foresight of faith, good works, etc.

            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.

4 Robert Haldane, Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, p. 397.

5 Murray, Romans, Vol. I, p. 316.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; Mainline Protestant; Theology
KEYWORDS: calvinism; election; foreknowledge; predestination
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 581-585 next last
To: drstevej
No, there are many good Scriptural arguments presented by Calvin, but IMHO, his theology is far from being Scripture or substituting it righteously.

There are also many who study Calvin and worship him more than exhibiting faith through Christ and turn Calvinism into a religion, good for nothingness.
141 posted on 11/30/2003 8:46:55 PM PST by Cvengr (0:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
There you go again, insisting He couldn't have atoned for ALL sin,...only the sin of those He decides to choose. So tell me, which sins were OK to impute upon Christ and which ones he decided not to impute?

If He died for all the sins of all men then God is demanding a double payment from those He sends to hell.

Jesus paid once and then God demanded the man be punished for what was purchased by the blood of Christ.

Do you really think He would sacrifice is only Son simply to go choose those he simply wanted for salvation? He could have chosen some without all of that.

Do you really think Christ would have shed His most precious blood on those that hate His Father?

Jhn 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

142 posted on 11/30/2003 8:47:09 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
***There are also many who study Calvin and worship him more than exhibiting faith through Christ***

Names ????
Give me five names of people who worship Calvin.

143 posted on 11/30/2003 8:53:08 PM PST by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
"God could save all if that were His purpose."

I suspect we both know this is false.

His Holiness demands that His Justice take action in maintaining His Righteousness. Where unrighteousness occurs, He demands justice. If a person has nothing to be claimed as divine righteousness, then that person may not occupy fellowship with God in heaven for His Justice to remian immutable.

Those who reject even faith in Him through Christ, have no basis for Divine righteousness in anything they say, think or perform. Accordingly, in His justice, they are already destined for the Lake of Fire everlasting.

144 posted on 11/30/2003 8:54:12 PM PST by Cvengr (0:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Any Calvinist who asserts a man who exercises free will in faith isn't sufficient to receive salvation by the work already performed by Christ and the efficacious grace of the Holy Spirit upon that faith of man.

I'll let you pick the names. I suspect many of them comprise the Calvinist Pox here on FR (they think they are a swarm).
145 posted on 11/30/2003 8:58:33 PM PST by Cvengr (0:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Christ paid the price for all sin. Sin is no longer the question regarding salvation. Identifying the individual man with that sacrifice is the issue for salvation. That identification is only performed by the Holy Spirit, and made when our faith in Him is made valid by the Holy Spirit for salvation.

The body is still sinful and will suffer death. That portion of regeneration will await the Resurrection.
146 posted on 11/30/2003 9:02:47 PM PST by Cvengr (0:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
The Father makes the call, the Holy Spirit makes the salvation efficacious for those with faith, those receiving salvation are given to the Son.
147 posted on 11/30/2003 9:04:53 PM PST by Cvengr (0:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
****I'll let you pick the names.***

Easier to spout lies than to come up with actual names?

***Any Calvinist who asserts a man who exercises free will in faith isn't sufficient to receive salvation by the work already performed by Christ and the efficacious grace of the Holy Spirit upon that faith of man.***

What in the heck does this mean?
148 posted on 11/30/2003 9:37:38 PM PST by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
What in the heck does this mean?

It means we're more Calvinist than he feels comfortable with.

Sad thing is... I remember a time when I would have been Cvenger. At one point four years ago, my CIT instructor and I earnestly discussed whether Calvinism was a hersey or an error. (We came out on the "severe error" side of things.)

149 posted on 11/30/2003 9:58:03 PM PST by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
the Holy Spirit makes the salvation efficacious for those with faith

How do dead men have faith? We were dead in our transgressions and sins, dead to God. "In Adam, all died."

Praline: It's not pining, it's passed on. This parrot is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker. This is a late parrot. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If you hadn't nailed it to the perch, it would be pushing up the daisies. It's rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. This is an ex-parrot.

150 posted on 11/30/2003 10:04:29 PM PST by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: nobdysfool
My appologies for not using HTML to make this a bit easier to read.

What is the Word? The scriptures, the Gospel.

Who is the Word? Jesus, the Son of God.

Does anything in that verse address the ability of "whoseover" to believe? No.


Is the world being saved? the world should be saved through him.


Is the term "world" to be understood in an all-inclusive, every-last-man-woman-child sense? The opportunity, the gift, God's grace is sufficient for the salvation of every last man woman and child.

Is that not obvious? It is not obvious. Christ's work is a total success. The gift is freely given but not all will accept it.

Or are you going to tell me that it is the Christians of the world who are to blame for Christ not being able to save more? The offer stands. The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Now if I may parse some of your earlier comments and ask a few question...

If He is truly Sovereign, He is and I think the doctrines of Calvin agree.

then He has the right to demand of us that which He requires, He does but now I start to get a bit fuzzy here with Calvin. I don't think demand would be the correct word because it is God who makes or causes us to do that which He requires. We certainly won't do it on our own. Not in our nature.


and we have the responsibility to obey, We do but Calvin would say that we can't obey unless God calls us and we can't refuse his calling so saying we have a responsibility is wrong. God has the responsibiblity to make us obey because we can't and wont do it on our own.


or suffer the consequences. That is the choice we have but under Calvinism there are no consequnces. Either we are the elect and can not refuse the calling or we are unregenerate and these consequences are really just out fate or our predestination.



We do not have the right to pick and choose what parts of His Word we will obey and follow, and to set aside that which we find difficult, inconvenient, or offensive. I would agree but with Calvinism those who are elect would not pick and choose and those unregenerate would never consider spiritual things so His Word and His will are of no import.



He does not ask anything of us that he will not enable us to obey. Agreed and I believe Calvin would as well.

He has provided not only the map, but the means to follow the map. That map is the ONLY one that will lead Home. All others lead to destruction. Agreed and I believe calvin would as well.

You responded earlier to a post quoting...

"You need to hear the Gospel, realize you're a sinner, repent, and ask Jesus to come into your heart and make you a new creation in Him. Your theology (or lack thereof) marks you as someone who is lost and on his way to Hell unless you repent and receive the Gospel with all your heart."

What good does hearing the Gospel do to the unregenerate?
What does the realization of one's sinful nature do for the unregenerate?
What does repentance do for the unregenerate?
Why would an unregenerate person ask Jesus to come into his heart and make a new creature in him?
151 posted on 12/01/2003 12:02:43 AM PST by PFKEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

Comment #152 Removed by Moderator

To: jude24; RnMomof7; the_doc; CCWoody; xzins; Frumanchu; nobdysfool; drstevej; lockeliberty; ...
~"I remember a time when I could have been Cvenger..."~

Amazingly, I stumbled on this thread from more than two years ago. I'd heard about the fabled, heated exchanges between yourself and RnMom against the_Doc, Woody, Jerry_M, etc.

There's even a part where RnMom and White Mountain are defending each other! Whew!

But to read these posts is to witness a path glorified by God Himself.

http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3b93a7216493.htm
153 posted on 12/01/2003 11:02:40 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg (There are very few shades of gray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; the_doc; CCWoody; RnMomof7
Let no one ever say that the FR discussions don't accomplish anything. The Calvinist Swarm exists largely because of the_doc and CCWoody's discussions. They might have gotten heated, but hey: they changed both my and RnMomof7's minds. We've passed on what we've learned.
154 posted on 12/01/2003 11:09:54 AM PST by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Wow! I've been around here for a while, but missed much of the theology debates.

That thread should come with a disclaimer: " Warning, not for the weak of heart!"
155 posted on 12/01/2003 11:14:59 AM PST by Gamecock (Paul was a Calvinist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: jude24; RnMomof7; Gamecock
And I continue to learn from all you fellow-swarmers.
156 posted on 12/01/2003 11:24:12 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg (There are very few shades of gray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: jude24; CCWoody; RnMomof7; snerkel
daisies

Didn't I once see the Doctrines of Grace explained by D.A.I.S.Y.?

157 posted on 12/01/2003 11:31:04 AM PST by Gamecock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
***And I continue to learn from all you fellow-swarmers.***

Ditto, but in the swarm, I am just a dropping of ignorance.
158 posted on 12/01/2003 12:40:04 PM PST by Gamecock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
Did I hear my name? Snerkeling Daisy at your service, sir.


Definitely we are Totally Depraved!
All Election is Unconditional!
I believe in Limited Atonement!
So then, Grace is Irresistable!
Yes! The Saints will Persevere!

159 posted on 12/01/2003 1:49:30 PM PST by snerkel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: xzins; jude24; drstevej; CCWoody; RnMomof7
The question is this: Is God Omniscient? Is that a bible doctrine or is it not? Does he know everything or doesn't he?
Yes, he does. And here's one more idea to chew on: In Rom 8:29 proginosko is in the 3rd person singular aorist active indicative - as are the other verbs. They are active verbs. The subject (God) acts on the object (man). Foreknowlege is not a passive act on God's part. He actively and personally knows His own - and decrees it.
160 posted on 12/01/2003 4:54:11 PM PST by RochesterFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 581-585 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson