Posted on 07/17/2003 9:53:46 AM PDT by Frumanchu
“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.
There must be a determinate causal factor in coming to faith. If it is just a random impulse or response, it is not a moral choice. The question is then whether or not it is identifiable by God. I would assume that, given God's omniscience, He would be aware of the causal factor of the faith of any particular individual. Furthermore, given His omniscience, I would presume that He knows what factors would be necessary to bring an individual to faith. The question then, given not only God's omniscience, but also His omnipotence, is why given such knowledge God does not act according to it to bring about the salvation of all individuals.
Do you see my point?
There's a huge piece of me that gives assent to what you say. Absolute Foreknowledge assures that God knows everything at the time he sets "the world" into motion. Therefore, He begins the world knowing who will and who will not be ultimately saved.
However, then there's P-Marlowe's view about God's eternal nature; that is, God can equally inhabit the past, present, and future. And thus, P'M's comment: BTW I believe that you can pray that prayer (of salvation) now and God can STILL predestine him from the foundation of the earth.
In other words, new things can happen in the present and future because God also inhabits the past. He is "from everlasting to everlasting."
P-M makes an awesome point.
We search for the right words to distill and convey the immensity of God. Your post is one of the best.
If God could have created the world differently (which He could have), then the world He did create is exactly as He wants it to be.
Those who are saved are saved because their lives wherein their salvation occurs are exactly the lives God granted them.
I found that once I began to understand the enormity of predestination, there was no turning back. It became self-evident; I saw its truth everywhere I looked.
While I trust that those who believe in Christ and follow His path are saved, I've come to see a belief in predestination as an added bonus of God's benevolence. He's given us the gift of true assurance that He's in control of everything, the good and the bad, and that nothing can hurt us forever, nothing can separate us from Him.
It's like what Dustin Hoffman, father of six, said to Warren Beatty when he was still a bachelor -- "Why do you want to deprive yourself of all this love?"
That's how I see a belief in predestination. Why deprive yourself of the comfort of knowing that God isn't your co-pilot; He's the only pilot.
Since this world is not through yet, then the eternal God could, because He is eternal/timeless, go back (our perspective) and make something be incorporated in the movie that hadn't yet been there.
As if the editor of Bruce Almighty could edit it even WHILE YOU WERE WATCHING it on the screen.
Again, the question stands...if such a thing occurs, why does God not bring all individuals to salvation? Consider the following:
"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you." - Matt 11:21-24 (NKJV)
This line of reasoning you're following removes one of the primary objections often raised to the Calvinist position: that it is unfair or unjust for God to willfully withhold salvation from individuals when it is possible to save them.
New to us, certainly.
Nothing is "new" to God.
You seem to struggle with the idea of prayer and the hope that prayer can actually change problems, life, God's attitude. A pastor probably spends a lot of time nudging people to bring their problems to God so that their prayers can be answered.
But God knows our problems; He arranged for them. He knows our prayers before they're offered; He put them on our lips.
And He created you to be the light for your flock to follow towards Him.
While you think you and He are exchanging turns, God has already finished the game. He wins.
If God chooses to jump in and "edit" the film, that "edit" has been known and foreseen and ordained by God from the beginning of time.
Nothing is unknown to Him.
That's the "click" you struggle with. It's human nature. It's the fear of letting go. It's the ultimate sin of "pride." It's what the Snake whispered to Eve. "God doesn't really mean what He says. You can do it anyway; you're in control. Eat up."
If there is no real "if," (if all is irrevockably and unchangeably predestined by decree) then the Bible verses which speak of "ifs and thens" are not true. They are illusory statements. But in those verses where God uses if-then statements, God's actions are clearly conditioned upon the actions of men. So, unless God was intending to mislead the readers of the Bible, the If-Then statements of God (all 300+ of them) attest to that fact.
Now the question is how do you deal with that fact?
No you're attempting to view this in a perspective of "time." Whatever decisions God makes have been made from the foundation of the earth. But the scripture goes even farther than that. It states that Jesus was the lamb who was slain from before the foundation of the earth. That means that in the eternal eyes of God, that event took place before the foundation of the earth, but in our perspective it only took place 2000 years ago. But we must remember that God dwells right now at the foundation of the earth and he concurrently dwells at the end of creation. Wherever we go or wherever we have been God is there.
Now "if" God chooses to answer your prayer, then his decision to answer that prayer was made in eternity and was in fact made before the foundation of the earth. But that doesn't mean that he is not answering that prayer in response to your prayer, does it? If he answers your prayer then he is in fact responding to something that you are doing. And if you didn't make that prayer, then he wouldn't have answered it, would he?
It's not leap frog. Its eternal reality. God is here. But God is also waiting for us in the future. He is there. He is everywhere.
The Bible is written for human beings to understand and follow. If we had no language, it would be a picture book, telling us the same things -- how to live and what God expects of us.
The greater reality is that God, creator of heaven and earth and all else for all time and beyond, knows EVERYTHING. Always has. All ways; always.
If you blink, He knows it. He fashioned your eyelids; He created the breeze that blows by your face, causing you to squint in the sunlight and BLINK.
If you stifle a sneeze, it isn't because God changed His mind. You were never going to sneeze in the first place.
God bless you (just in case).
Conditional statements can work for illustrative purposes as well as instructive. The verses above readily demonstrate that. The destruction of Sodom occurred hundreds of years before these statements. It was a done deal, and yet Jesus gave a conditional statement regarding something that had no possibility of happening. It was used illustratively.
If I follow your reasoning regarding conditional statements, then I must necessarily believe that it is actually possible for a man to live a completely sinless life. After all, if one perfectly keeps the Law, one has no need for a Savior.
Conditional statements in and of themselves do not comment on a particular individual's ability/inability to meet the condition. They are simple statements of fact.
If the Bible were true and God had decreed all that will happen exactly as it will happen, then there would be no "if-then" statements in the Bible. There would be no implication that IF we do something, such as repent, THEN God will do something, such as save us. Calvinists seem to view the "if" as evidence of the "then" rather than as a condition to the "then". But I do not think that the language of the Bible truly allows for that interpretation.
The IF-THEN statements are clear language that the actions of God in certain circumstances are truly and actually conditioned upon the actions of men where those statements are made.
If God wanted to convey some different fatalistic message, then he would not have used conditional language. That would be dishonest.
Then Jesus was being dishonest. His words there have to be taken literally. If Jesus talked about "ifs" that were not possible, then there could be no "ifs" and Jesus would then have been lying about a possibility that could never have existed.
So in order to believe your interpretation, I would have to believe that Jesus was a liar. Even if it were used illustratively, it had to be taken literally. If it were not a literally true statement, then it would have to be a factually false statement. You can't get around that.
You mouth the words but draw an absurd conclusion.
For whatever reasons God has desired, everything in existence has been detailed to the tiniest nano-particle from before time.
If you pray today, God has ordained that prayer and "answered" it already from before time.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't pray. Prayer is for our benefit, not God's. It's a gift from Him to help us clarify our faith and become closer to Him.
God doesn't send us post-cards or secret vibrations or psychic messages. He gives us prayer, wherein we can speak to Him and He to us.
And all the "if-thens" in the Bible are accurate, from our perspective. But nothing about God is conditional.
There's no "if" in God's vocabulary. There's only "is."
Not so, Marlowe. Conditional statements ARE statements of fact. They show cause and effect. The conditional statement is valid. IF they had seen the miracles, THEN they would have repented. The fact that they did not see the miracles does not therefore invalidate the statement. However, the event has passed. They did not see them, and time would have to be altered for them to see them and repent. Therefore, it is not possible for them to do so.
Marlowe, if gravity suddenly ceased to exist yesterday then you would have flown right off this planet as it spun.
The fact that this has no real possibility of happening does not invalidate the factual conditional statement I just made, nor does it make me a liar for stating it (illustratively I might add). You can't get around that :)
You are talking nonsense here and then you equate Jesus' statement of FACT that IF they had seen the same miracles, THEN they would have repented with your nonsensical statement of natural impossibility. I think you are trivializing what Jesus was saying there.
According to you Calviniststs, the people that Jesus was speaking to had a negative attitude towards the miracles because it was Gods perfect will that they respond negatively to the miracles. According to you Calvinists, the People of Tyre and Sidon were judged because it was God perfect will that they not repent and that they be judged. It was nothing in them, but it was what was in God. Therefore there was no "if" because the "if" that Jesus spoke of was a factual impossibility. That is dishonest. It could not be a true statement under any circumstances.
It is....
....and that reminds me -- I need to ask CCWoody if he has a "big book of OP quotations" saved to disk somewhere. It's not at all uncommon for me to be perusing a thread, begin composing a ludicrously extensive and detailed response to some posting -- and then see CCWoody save me the trouble (usually when I'm about halfway through, natch) by pasting up some old screed of mine from the dusty ages of FreeRepublic Past, thus reminding me: "oh, yeah... I already wrote a book on that subject".
What say, CCWoody? Have you, perchance, an anthology of "Uriel" and "OP" citations you've squirreled away for future reference? If so, FReepMail me for my Email address (you may have it already), I'd like a copy if you have one.
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.