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.
If it is truly God's desire that all men individually be saved, and it is true that God can interact within time free of the bondage of being set in static motion from within it as we are (unable to move any direction except forward and any speed except that which is constant), then why is the salvation of all men not accomplished?
Calvinists actually do understand what you're talking about. Most of us had these discussions in junior high.
And although you protest, your postulate is exactly like God creating a rock too big for Him to lift. So what? It's simply a word-game trying to get around God's authority.
The over-arching truth of all existence is that God, whether He inhabits past, present, future or a bunny suit, is aware of and omnipresent over every nano-second we live because it is ALL His creation, according to His will, as He determines because it pleasures Him and brings glory to His name.
You fail to see that all your posturings come down to you wanting to effect God's plan. You want Him to respond to you. It's an understandable mistake; Eve made it, too. And so you want the concept of time to bend to your will; to make time mallable in your hands so that God can actually change time and events according to your actions.
While time may well bend, it does so as God instructs. And that instruction has been known to God from before time.
Bottom line -- God knows your questions. He gave them to you. He watches as you struggle with them, and I pray He gives you insight.
My theory is that your theory is based on a misuderstanding of Scripture.
If you look at the Greek, the better translation of the word given as "know" is almost certainly "make known".
See this analysis: Did Jesus Not Know the Hour of His Second Coming?
That said, of course, it is a given that Omniscience is a function of Christ's Divine Nature, not a function of His Human Nature.
However, when -- at any time during the Incarnation -- was the Person of Christ separate from His Divine Nature? Answer: NEVER.
He was fully God. He was fully God dwelling within the constrictures of time. Thus he could know the past (which he demostrated quite aptly) but could not know the future, except that which was revealed by the father (who was dwelling in eternity).
If Christ was fully God and fully Man... then your theory would appear to suggest that Christ was incarnate before Christ was incarnate.
The statement that he was crucified before the foundation of the earth would make that implication a lot stronger than any statement that I have made. Christ was not incarnate until the moment of his incarnation. That, from our view occurred 2000 years ago. But from the point of view of God dwelling in eternity, that event would been observed from before the foundation of the earth, since in God's eternity all events past present and future are within his realm simulatanously. There is no point, past, present or future that God does not inhabit.
Our limitation is that we, as creation, must view the universe as being linear, starting at one point and going forward from there. But God, being the creator of all things, would obviously view it as circular, starting nowhere in particular and never ending.
Methinks you are engaged in a bit of scripture twisting ala 1 Tim 2:4.
From Albert Barnes Commentary:
Mar 13:32 -
Neither the Son - This text has always presented serious difficulties. It has been asked, If Jesus had a divine nature, how could he say that he knew not the day and hour of a future event? In reply, it has been said that the passage was missing, according to Ambrose, in some Greek manuscripts; but it is now found in all, and there can be little doubt that the passage is genuine. Others have said that the verb rendered “knoweth” means sometimes to “make” known or to reveal, and that the passage means, “that day and hour none makes known, neither the angels, nor the Son, but the Father.” It is true that the word has sometimes that meaning, as in 1Co_2:2, but then it is natural to ask where has “the Father” made it known? In what place did he reveal it?
After all, the passage has no more difficulty than that in Luk_2:52, where it is said that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature. He had a human nature. He grew as a man in knowledge. As a man his knowledge must be finite, for the faculties of the human soul are not infinite. As a man he often spoke, reasoned, inquired, felt, feared, read, learned, ate, drank, and walked. Why are not all these, which imply that he was a “man” - that, “as a man,” he was not infinite - why are not these as difficult as the want of knowledge respecting the particular “time” of a future event, especially when that time must be made known by God, and when he chose that the man Christ Jesus should grow, and think, and speak “as a man?”
Calvinists actually do understand what you're talking about. Most of us had these discussions in junior high.
And although you protest, your postulate is exactly like God creating a rock too big for Him to lift. So what? It's simply a word-game trying to get around God's authority.
The over-arching truth of all existence is that God, whether He inhabits past, present, future or a bunny suit, is aware of and omnipresent over every nano-second we live because it is ALL His creation, according to His will, as He determines because it pleasures Him and brings glory to His name.
You fail to see that all your posturings come down to you wanting to effect God's plan. You want Him to respond to you. It's an understandable mistake; Eve made it, too. And so you want the concept of time to bend to your will; to make time mallable in your hands so that God can actually change time and events according to your actions.
While time may well bend, it does so as God instructs. And that instruction has been known to God from before time.
Bottom line -- God knows your questions. He gave them to you. He watches as you struggle with them, and I pray He gives you insight.
Then you don't believe in Calvinism. If you did, then you would have to say it happened because it God declared it from the foundation of the earth and God made you do it. Am I right?
Or were you simply predestined to do it because God had foreknoweldge of the event?
It happens all the time. 8~)
It's also possible for you to have done the mistake entirely on your own pursuant to your own free will and yet it was absolutely predestined and pre-ordained to happen not because God CAUSED it to happen, but because God KNEW it was going to happen exactly as it did and he did nothing to interfere or intervene in your personal screw up. Thus while it was predestined, you yourself are entirely to blame and you can't claim that "God made me do it."
Don't look now, Marlowe...but you're starting to sound like a Calvinist. As soon as you understand and accept the real implications of total depravity on man's will, all the pieces will fall together :)
Pout, pout, pout. It's amusing to me that the Arminians are still sore over my demolition of their favorite "Timothy" argument (from two different angles, no less -- first demonstrating that the verse does not attend to all men individually, and that such an interpretation is at odda with Revelation; and secondly demonstrating that even if such an illegitimate interpretation was admitted, thise passage -- pertaining to the Son's recipience of all who come to Him -- has nothing to do with the Father's causational Election of those whom actually will come).
From Albert Barnes Commentary: Mar 13:32 - Others have said that the verb rendered “knoweth” means sometimes to “make” known or to reveal, and that the passage means, “that day and hour none makes known, neither the angels, nor the Son, but the Father.” It is true that the word has sometimes that meaning, as in 1Co_2:2, but then it is natural to ask where has “the Father” made it known? In what place did he reveal it?
The answer is that the word does have that meaning ("to make known"); and that the Father has not revealed the Time of the Second Advent yet. (That was easy enough).
After all, the passage has no more difficulty than that in Luk_2:52, where it is said that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature. He had a human nature. He grew as a man in knowledge. As a man his knowledge must be finite, for the faculties of the human soul are not infinite.
To "increase in wisdom" can be understood in the manner that Clarke's Commentary explains:
But I am not herein arguing that MacKnight's commentary on Mark 13 or Clarke's commentary on Luke 2 must be assumed to be the only possible reading; rather, I am simply pointing out that we cannot positively assert that Jesus Christ did not possess awareness of the time of the Second Advent, given that there is a perfectly valid reading of the Greek as "But that day and hour no man maketh known" which J.S. White has reported in some older English translations.
And since we cannot positively assert that Jesus possessed no awareness of the Time of the Second Advent, we cannot attempt to build a positively-definite doctrine upon such an unproven assumption.
From a Calvinist viewpoint, your argument is a non-sequitor. If Calvinism is true, then I can never accept the implications of anything, since God has caused me to believe exactly as I do.
Perhaps I sound like a Calvinist because I accept some of what Calvinism asserts. I accept predestination. I accept pre-ordination. But I also assert that both predestination and fore-ordination are fully compatible with previenient grace and the exercise of free will. In that sense the pieces have all fallen together.
God caused you to believe exactly as you do? Hardly. Allowed you, perhaps...maybe caused in the formal sense, but certainly not in the instrumental sense. Our sanctification is a synergistic process.
Perhaps I sound like a Calvinist because I accept some of what Calvinism asserts. I accept predestination. I accept pre-ordination. But I also assert that both predestination and fore-ordination are fully compatible with previenient grace and the exercise of free will. In that sense the pieces have all fallen together.
Again, when you come to understand the effect of man's depravity on his will, the pieces will all fall together. The definitions you and I have for the "prevenient grace" compatible with predestination/fore-ordination are quite different, both in scope and efficacy.
Well, if that is true, then Jesus is not omniscient, and thus cannot make a claim to being "God", unless you wish to qualify the statement in the Bible about his omniscience to apply OINLY to God the Father.
It seems to me to make a lot more sense if Jesus did not possess Omniscience while he was in a temporal state. Thus the question is why would he lack that ability to see the future, and the question would be answered by noting that he did not know the future because it hadn't happened yet. And that God the Father knew it because he was inhabiting eternity while Jesus was inhabiting his temporal body in the dimesnion of time.
So, to repeat myself, is Jesus Christ still ignorant of the day and hour of his coming?
To foreknow, here signifies to design before, or at the first forming of the scheme; to bestow the favour and privilege of being God's people upon any set of men, #Ro 11:2. This is the foundation or first step of our salvation; namely, the purpose and grace of God, which was given us in Christ Jesus, before the world began, #2Ti 1:9. Then, he knew or favoured us; for in this sense the word to know is taken in a great variety of places, both in the Old and New Testaments. And as he knew the GENTILES then, when the scheme was laid, and before any part of it was executed, consequently, in reference to the execution of this scheme, he foreknew us. This is the first step of our salvation, and the end or finishing of it is our conformity to the Son of God in eternal glory, #Ro 8:17, which includes and supposes our moral conformity to him. When God knew us, at the forming of the Gospel scheme; or, when he intended to bestow on us the privilege of being his people; he then destinated or designed us to be conformed to the image of his Son; and, as he destinated or determined us then to this very high honour and happiness, he pre-destinated, fore-ordained, or pre-determined us to it. Thus we are to understand the foundation and finishing of the scheme of our salvation. The foundation is the foreknowledge, or gracious purpose of God; the finishing is our being joint heirs with Christ. Now, our calling or invitation (see Clarke on "Ro 8:28") stands in connection with both these. 1. It stands in connection with God's foreknowledge; and so it is a true and valid calling: for we are called, invited, or chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, who may bestow his blessings upon any people, as may seem good in his sight, #1Pe 1:2; consequently, we have a good title to the blessings of the Gospel to which we are called or invited. And this was to be proved, that the Jew, to whom the apostle particularly wrote, might see that the Gentiles being now called into the Church of God was not an accidental thing, but a matter which God had determined when he conceived the Gospel scheme. Thus our calling is connected with God's foreknowledge. 2. It stands also in connection with our being conformed to the image of his Son; for we are invited by the Gospel to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, #2Th 2:14. And therefore, supposing, what the apostle supposes, that we love God, it is certain, from our being called, that we shall be glorified with the sons of God; and so our calling proves the point, that all things should work together for our good in our present state, because it proves that we are intended for eternal glory; as he shows in the next verse. For we must understand his foreknowing, predestinating, calling, and justifying, in relation to his glorifying; and that none are finally glorified, but those who, according to his purpose, are conformed to the image of his Son." Taylor.
You responded: Seems to me that what you are saying is that Jesus STILL has no clue as to when he is supposed to return. That is somehow secret knowledge that only the Father has.
Let me repeat myself V-E-R-Y S-L-O-W-L-Y for your benefit:
So where on the outer moons of Uranus did you get the idea that I contended anything like "Jesus STILL has no clue as to when he is supposed to return"? My contention is quite the opposite of that.
Unless you can plausibly explain where you came up with the idea that I was maintaining anything like the position you have (falsely) attributed to me, I must advise you to purchase hooch in excess of 80-proof from licensed and reputable liquor stores... I'm sorry, Marlowe, but you really can't trust them fellas down in the holler with a still out back.
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.