The Meaning of 'foreknew' in Romans 8:29

The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented | 1963 | David N. Steele/Curtis C. Thomas

[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.

[PFKEY]

Explain what you mean. Good intentions are useless. "Should" is an abstract. I should watch what I eat. I should get enough sleep. I should look both ways before crossing the street, or pulling out into traffic. Will I, or Do I? Not always.

The alternative has God sitting on His throne at the end of the Judgment, shaking His head, saying, "I don't understand...ALL of the world should have been saved by what you did, Son. Why weren't they? Why didn't they all accept you?" I don't think either of us believes that would be a likely scenario.

I was quoting scripture...

John.3
[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John.3
[17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him should be saved.

Some translations use the word might.

Take a look at other Scriptures that use the would should and see if your argument holds.

Acts.2
[47] Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Using your agruement of God sitting on His throne at the end of the Judgment, shaking His head, saying, "I don't understand...Those I added to the Church should have been saved by what you did, Son. Why weren't they?

My answer is that God has done his part and now it is up to man to accept the gift of Grace.

You might argue that those the Lord added to the Church are saved and connot fall away.

If that is so why then the admonitions?

2Pet.3
[17] Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

Col.2
[8] Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ

[RnMomof7]

Moses didn't get to go into the promised land because of his sin at Meribah. I can either believe that that sin was pre-programmed or I can believe it was spontaneous.

When did God stop ordering the life of Moses?

He ordained the parents, and the sister,He ordained the saving of moses in the waters , and the adoption of Moses into the house of the Pharaoh so He would be an educated man

He ordained the murder of the egyptian so that Moses would go into the desert and mature and become prepared for the time to come.

He ordained that Moses be at the rock..

What makes you think that God did not care as much for the end of his life as for the beginning.

Steve , Moses did sin, and all sin has consequences..but even those consequences have a purpose..God had prepared the one for many years that He intended to lead the people into the promised land.

It was much like the later event when David got right to the edge and yet was not allowed to build the temple.

Moses accomplished exactly what he was intended to , not a step more.

The one that was to save was Joshua   An ordained type of Christ ("Jehovah is salvation") It was he that would lead them into the promised land and divide the land to the tribes not Moses

Moses was taken to the promised land Steve..he appeared in the transfiguration , as promised by God he was at last in the land that was promised to him.

[Cvengr]

If Jesus Christ knew Judas would betray Him, it would have been from Christ's Divine nature. As you have stated, everything He did was an example to man in how we are to have fellowship with Him.

Likewise, I find more significance in following Jesus Christ's example from the position that only picked Judas and the other diciples from His human nature by faith and obedience to God.

[Cvengr]

I find a word study of Pistis is Scripture to be far more worthy than the Institutes in discerning His plan and will.

I'll try to get back on this with you this weekend. There are some 245 variants of the term in the New Testament. My disagreement with the arguments employed have been because of these discernible meanings. However, a good word study amongst other usage is appropriate.

[PFKEY]

In reply to the reaminer of your response I will post the parable of the Sower and his seed...

Luke.8

[4] And when much people were gathered together, and were come to him out of every city, he spake by a parable:
[5] A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.
[6] And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture.
[7] And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it.
[8] And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
[9] And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?
[10] And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
[11] Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
[12] Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.
[13] They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.
[14] And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.
[15] But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

[PFKEY]

Man freely chooses his fate, there is no coercion either way!

Coersion might not be the correct word either.

Let me state my understanding of Calvin and correct me where I misstate the doctrines.

Unregenerate:

By his freewill he choses sin.
His nature is such that he would never consider spiritual matters. So there is no coersion here he is filth that seeks filth.

Regenerate:

Called of God.
The elect.
Seeks after God.
Will not seek after filth because God has changed his nature.
Is faithful and obedient towards God. This is now his nature.
Can not lose his election/salvation.

Based on my understanding I ask...

Are all who attend church, read the Bible, believe that Jesus is the Son of God and strive to live a Christian life counted amoung the elect?

[PFKEY]

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 post are you referring to? You did not cite it in your reply, and you attribute it to me.
Post #64 you made to stranger and pilgrim.

It appears that you would attempt to trip me up with my own words, if that is, in fact, what they are.
It was not my intention to trip you up. My appologies if that is how you feel.

You attest that the unregenerates hearing of the Gospel is a witnesss to their wickedness and sinful nature and causes them to be without excuse.

If this is the case I would argue that their excuse is their very nature. They were born sinful and had no power or no deisire to seek after God according to their nature.

Had God seen fit to regenerate them then they would not require the witness of the Gospel.

So, the unregenerate need to hear the Gospel as a witness to their sinfulness. But the regenerate don't need to hear the Gospel.

[Jean Chauvin]

"I think that there is substantial biblical evidence to back up my thesis. First of all, do you doubt that God exists outside the parameters of time itself?"

No doubts. God is not subject to anything except his own nature.

"Is God limited by time?"

Nope.

"If God is indeed omnipresent, does he not exist in the past, present and future simultaneously?"

God is indeed omnipresent. However, to suggest that means he exists in the "past, present and future simultaneously" is pure Philosophical speculation.

I have no idea how God exists in the "past present and future". Perhaps you could give me Scriptural evidence to support your claim?

"Or is he only present Now?"

Again, I have no idea, nor probably could I understand how God relates to time.

I think, though, that it is quite dangerous to speculate on this as you have done and then use such speculation in your hermenuetical approach as you have shown the desire to do.

"Does that not make a strong implication that God not only existed (past tense) before Abraham, but that he "exists" (present tense) before Abraham now?"

Again, this is pure speculation. I have no idea (and you really don't either) just how God relates to time. Your "exists before Abraham now" is self contradictory to our rational thinking. It is impossible for us to understand what "before Abraham now" means. This is simply a nonsensical sentence.

To be blunt, I think you've pulled this speculative idea out of the same place you pulled the idea that since God "forgets" our sins that they never happened.

Some people will do anything to deny the Biblical truth of Predestination!

I will note with respect to your claim "I think that there is substantial biblical evidence to back up my thesis" that you have presented absolutely NONE of this "substantial" evidence to back your speculation. That is pretty telling, I think.

Jean

[xzins]

That there is no exception.

[xzins]

Rn, you are a good student of your bible.

Your points, though, do not address what I'm considering.

If God "inhabits eternity" he is outside of time. What does it mean to be outside of time? Therefore, the issue succinctly: Does it mean the ability to time travel - past, present, future. And, if so, I must reconsider some of my assumptions about scripture.

In short, I've NEVER before imagined that ANYONE could BE in the past....even God..... And I've never imagined that anyone could BE in the future....but only have perfect knowledge of it.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Some people will do anything to deny the Biblical truth of Predestination.

Boy, is that the truth.

I struggled and debated and challenged and denied the concept for years. It simply went against EVERYTHING we're taught in today's secular society.

"Self-reliance" is seen as sacred; "free will" is supposedly so self-evident it becomes part of the dialogue in a Jim Carrey movie. The greatest Christian threat is perceived to be coming from reformed Protestants who actually believe in absolutes.

Eventually, as God wills, we hit our head on the wall of God's authority one too many times. We stop, relax and understand.

It's not as difficult as we want it to be.

[P-Marlowe]

Marlowe: "I think that there is substantial biblical evidence to back up my thesis. First of all, do you doubt that God exists outside the parameters of time itself?"

Jean Chauvin: No doubts. God is not subject to anything except his own nature.

Then the Conclusion that must be drawn is that God CAN exist outside any parameter of the physical universe, including time. This then is not the same as asking whether God CAN make a rock so big that he cannot move it, since that would be a nonsensical proposition as well as a physical impossibility.

 

Marlowe: "Is God limited by time?"

Jean Chauvin: Nope.

You fail to see the implications of your answer. I trust that you answer is honest, but if, in fact, God is not limited by the dimension of time, then he must in fact exist in all times as well as in all places. His presence encompasses all of the physical universe and his presence encompasses all of the properties of the physical universe including time. Obviously you believe that his power extends to controlling both the present and the future, but why would you limit his ability to control the past? Similarly if his presence covers the present and the future, then why would you preclude or limit his existence in the past.? To do so is to deny his infinite omnipresence.

Marlowe: "If God is indeed omnipresent, does he not exist in the past, present and future simultaneously?"

Jean Chauvin: God is indeed omnipresent. However, to suggest that means he exists in the "past, present and future simultaneously" is pure Philosophical speculation.

I have no idea how God exists in the "past present and future". Perhaps you could give me Scriptural evidence to support your claim?

 

"Before Abraham was, I AM." What does that mean to you? He didn’t say, before Abraham was, I was, too. He used the present tense, signifying that not only was he there, but that he is there.

 

Marlowe: "Or is he only present Now?"

Jean Chauvin: Again, I have no idea, nor probably could I understand how God relates to time.

That’s because you’re not God. Nobody knows how God relates to anything except in the manner in which he has revealed it.

I think, though, that it is quite dangerous to speculate on this as you have done and then use such speculation in your hermeneutical approach as you have shown the desire to do.

A witch! Can we burn her?

 

 

Marlowe: "Does that not make a strong implication that God not only existed (past tense) before Abraham, but that he "exists" (present tense) before Abraham now?"

Jean Chauvin: Again, this is pure speculation. I have no idea (and you really don't either) just how God relates to time. Your "exists before Abraham now" is self contradictory to our rational thinking. It is impossible for us to understand what "before Abraham now" means. This is simply a nonsensical sentence.

To be blunt, I think you've pulled this speculative idea out of the same place you pulled the idea that since God "forgets" our sins that they never happened.

Some people will do anything to deny the Biblical truth of Predestination!

I do not deny the Biblical Truth of Predestination. Indeed, I believe that because God exists outside of time, that everything is indeed predestined. But predestination is not at all incompatible with free will, since God knows exactly what is going to happen with that free will and if God knows something will occur, then it will occur exactly as God knows it will.

I will note with respect to your claim "I think that there is substantial biblical evidence to back up my thesis" that you have presented absolutely NONE of this "substantial" evidence to back your speculation. That is pretty telling, I think.

Here’s some scriptural evidence. The question is, are you willing to consider it? Or are you so tied to reformation ideas and Newtonian Physics, that you are incapable of viewing scriptures in light of Post Eisteinian discoveries regarding dimensions and time?

 

Does God Dwell In Time?

By Don Stewart

Time can be defined as the measurement of events that appear one after another. When God created the world He created time - He existed before the first event of creation. Therefore God dwells outside of time.

God Is Not Limited By Time

The Bible says that God is not limited to time. Scripture says that He is the one who inhabits eternity.

For thus says the high and lofty one who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy (Isaiah 57:15).

While God inhabits eternity, He deals with His creation in time. This is another example of an antinomy – two truths that seemingly conflict. Consequently we can only approximate the truth when we speak of God living outside of time, yet interacting with His people in time. The Bible says.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts (Isaiah 55:8,9).

Time Is Relative To God

We find that time is merely relative to God. The Bible says.

But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day (2 Peter 3:8).

Although we cannot totally reconcile these statements, we believe them because God has revealed these truths to us.

He Is The Alpha And Omega

God never had a beginning point and will never have an end. The Scriptures recognize that Jesus is the beginning and the end. At the beginning of the Book of Revelation we read.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty" (Revelation 1:8).

The same truth is restated at the end of Revelation.

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End (Revelation 22:13).

Isaiah wrote.

This is what the LORD says – Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God (Isaiah 44:6).

Again Isaiah recorded God saying.

Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last. My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together (Isaiah 48:12,13)

Summary

Time and space were part of God’s creation. He existed before there was such a thing as time. Consequently God dwells in eternity not in time. Because he dwells in eternity he sees both the beginning and the end. While God does not dwell in time, He interacts with His creation in time. Although humankind cannot completely comprehend how this is true, nevertheless this is the biblical teaching on the subject.

[xzins]

Absolutely thought-provoking post.

And a sincere desire to be biblical.

Post-Einsteinian metaphysics......are we really in this deep? Amazing.

[lockeliberty]

Was Christ incarnate before Christ incarnate?

[P-Marlowe]

Post-Einsteinian metaphysics......are we really in this deep?

Actually its Post Einsteinian quantum physics. Apparently as you approach the speed of light time slows down, and at the speed of light, time stops. If you exceed the speed of light, there is postulation that time would reverse.

Consider for a moment the fact that the light from distant stars, from your point of view, is thousands of years "old". But from the point of view of the light, or a being travelling on the beam, the light got there instantly. In other words, the light is not thousands of years old. Its brand new. It never actually existed "in time", but only in space.

I await the reaction of those who think only in terms of Science as it existed at the time of the Institutes.

VILLAGER #1:

If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.

BEDEVERE:

And therefore?

VILLAGER #2:

A witch!

VILLAGER #1:

A witch!

CROWD:

A witch! A witch!...

VILLAGER #4:

Here is a duck. Use this duck.

[quack quack quack]

BEDEVERE:

Very good. We shall use my largest scales.

CROWD:

Ohh! Ohh! Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Ahh! Ahh...

BEDEVERE:

Right. Remove the supports!

[whop]

[clunk]

[creak]

CROWD:

A witch! A witch! A witch!

WITCH:

It's a fair cop.

VILLAGER #3:

Burn her!

CROWD:

Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn! Burn!...

[xzins]

slain from the foundation of the world

Our God is so amazing.

He can be anyplace, anytime, ....

[P-Marlowe]

Was Christ incarnate before Christ incarnate?

Here's my theory:

Christ's incarnation existed in an instant in time. By taking on physical properties, Christ was not "omnipresent" during his sojurn on earth. The Father and The Holy Spirit remained in "eternity" and thus were possessed with all knowledge and all power. When Christ said that he only knew what the Father revealed to him, was he telling the truth? When Jesus said that he did not know the day or the hour of his return, was he telling the truth?

So the question is why, at that moment "in time" did Christ not know the future? Because at that moment he was dewelling "in time" and not in eternity. Thus he could not independently know the future, because from his point of view, it had not yet happened. But from the Father's point of view, from the eternity point of view, the future was certain because the Father was there and the Father knew it.

What's your theory?

[xzins]

I believe that the classical view is that while incarnate Christ gave up INDEPENDENT use of His attributes.

[lockeliberty]

What's your theory?

I don't have a theory... just a lot of questions. Your theory I think does damage to the incarnation. If Christ was fully God and fully Man... then your theory would appear to suggest that Christ was incarnate before Christ was incarnate. I tend to lean toward a kenotic view of the incarnation for those reasons you expressed and others. Yet, we must be careful not to divorce Christ's Godhood from his Manhood. Interesting theory.