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.
Hence the appropriate Title: I AM.
Did anyone say he was? He is not subject to his creation, his creation is subject to him.
If God can (and in fact does) make physical particles that travel into the physical past, then God must be there to observe it, eh?
Thanks. :-)
You did -right here:
Quantum physics postulates that an object traveling faster than the speed of light would travel backwards through time relative to the rest of the universe. So we are not speaking of nonsense here. We are speaking of the attributes of God and what it means to say he is the I AM.
"He is not subject to his creation, his creation is subject to him."
Then why on earth are you attempting to define and explain his attributes by your naturalistic philosophical speculation which is also a part of his creation?
"If God can (and in fact does) make physical particles that travel into the physical past, then God must be there to observe it, eh?"
Not only does he create these physical particles, he is the source of their motion. Without his declarative will, they would not move let alone exist.
Jean
Can that which is created (everything except God) exist without the continual proactive sustaining power of the Will of God?
Jean
I don't give a tinker's damn what the Critics say... it's a great movie.
(Immediately followed by the last recitation of the Viking Death Chant)
Buliwyf: Lo, there, do I see my Father.
Buliwyf: Lo, there do I see my Mother and my Sisters and my Brothers.
Edgtho: Lo, there do I see the Line of my people...
Herger: ...back to the beginning!
Weath the Muse: Lo, they do call to me... They bid me, take my place among them!!
Buliwyf: In the Halls of Valhalla!
Ahmed Ibn Fahdlan: Where the Brave shall live.... Forever.
Great movie. I haven't even begun to exhaust the great lines.
best, OP
Meaning no offense, Michael... but even Marlowe (who occasionally amazes me in his capacity for misinterpretation of Basic English -- see Post #320) can easily recognize this as extremely poor theological word-choice... "when He began to be the Eternal God"?? That's just wrong.
Obviously, the Eternal God did not "begin" at any point. Nor did He begin to "be the Eternal God" at any point.... unless one admits the nonsensical Mormon idea of a Finite Being becoming an Infinite God (which is just plain Bad Mathematics -- the Mormons can add as much as they want to a Finite Being; addition will never result in an Infinite God).
Meaning no offense, Michael Townsend, but may I inquire as to your Christian Denomination? This is not the "third-degree", this is not some "witch-burning", it's just a personal curiosity on my part. I immediately apologize in advance for any offense given, and I assure you that I mean no offense -- but I should appreciate an understanding of your theological point of view, if you would care to share. I am, of course, equally willing to explain my own soteriology, ecclesiology, eschatology, and whatever else you might ask of me.
But, respectfully, may I inquire as to your Denomination? As for myself, I wear mine on my sleeve (in fact, upon my screen-name).
Best, OP
My bet is that he's High Church Chickite
Last I checked, the Honorable Jack Chick (Patron Saint of Absurd and Violent Cartoons for Children) was entirely opposed to any form of the High Church.
We Magisterial Protestants (who respect Tradition, provided that it is judged by Holy Scripture) are, according to the Honorable Jack Chick, nearly as Apostate as you Traditionalist Roman Catholics (who respect Scripture, provided that it is judged by Holy Tradition).
"High Church Chickite"? An amusing idea. No, I think that the Honorable Jack Chick (who has proclaimed his Abstention from Sunday Worship in ANY Church) has no use for the "High Church", whether Protestant or Roman Catholic...
He is, or at least seeks to be, a Bishop unto Himself.
A million tracts, a few radio stations, and endless self-promotion -- you, too, can be a Bishop... in all but name.
Not that I would dare to question Jack Chick's sincerity, of course. I'm sure that it is purely a coincidence that he can raise a few million dollars a year from gullible Fundamentalists by publishing comical screeds indicting both the Roman Catholic Church, and the Magisterial Protestant Tradition.
And if Jack Chick himself pockets a few hundred thousand a year off the scam? Purely a coincidence, as I told you before... purely a coincidence.
I didn't know all that about Chick, just that he was a studied anti-Romanist, who Mr. Townsend somewhat reminded me of, but Mr. Townsend seemed more polite, thus the High Church adjectives.
Really? Does he publish tracts condemning Luther and Calvin too?
I consider that a pretty good place to start... but I'll look for the Lawhead book.
best, OP
Especially the "butt" part.
Ahmed Ibn Fahdlan: "Have we anything resembling a plan?"
Herger the Joyous: "Hmm. Ride till we find them...and kill them all."
Ann Coulter would like this movie.
And the bear-hooded Mist Monsters are some of the scariest-looking bad guys since "Predator," which, like "13th Warrior," was directed by John McTiernan.
Not by name, to the best of my knowledge (although I will look, if you want me to).
But it is said that the most sincere form of Flattery is utter, unmitigated plagiarism... just as the Soviet Russians deliberately reverse-engineered the Boeing B-29 SuperFortresses which crash-landed in Vladivostok as the basis of their strategic bomber fleet.
By the same token, one might say that the most sincere form of Contempt is the denial of one's own Parents... and Jack Chick never gave a tinker's damn about the Reformation.
But Jack Chick doesn't understand the Reformation, couldn't explain Luther's "95 Theses" if his life depended on it, and Calvin's "The Institutes of the Christian Religion"? Has he even read the Introduction? Don't make me laugh!! The most sincere form of Contempt is the denial of one's own Parents...
For Jack Chick, the Reformation has never been anything but an excuse to peddle horrifically-incompetent "interpretations" of Revelation (Never mind that most of Revelation was fulfilled in AD 70, and Babylon is NOT Rome) and to make a lot of money for himself by bashing Roman Catholics.
That ain't the Reformation. That's never been the Reformation. Sorry, Jack Chick.
The Reformation is, and has always been, about One Fundamental Truth:
To Calvinists -- whether "Dutch Reformed" or "Scottish Old-Orthodox Presbyterian" or "Primitive Baptist" or what have you -- the Reformation is about One Thing...
This is basic, fundamental, hard-core Augustinianism. This is the Truth of Augustine, and Peter, and Paul, and John, and Jesus Christ. And where Truth is involved, there can be no compromises.
Give us this... and perhaps we will consider permitting you Roman Catholics to re-enter Communion with the 6,000-year-old Predestinarian Church of God Almighty. We are prepared to overlook your adoration of the Bishop of Rome, your Prayers to Icons and your other theological Errors.
But as it comes to the Gospel, there can be no compromises. The Bishop of Rome must submit to the Truth. Or we shall not permit you Romanists to re-enter into the Communion of Jesus Christ.
The false, Synergistic Theologies of Satan must be absolutely rejected, and the One Truth of Scripture must be resolutely affirmed:
THIS, and only this, is the Truth of Saint Augustine, and of the Apostles, and of God and Christ.
Affirm this from your pulpits -- and we may PERMIT you to re-enter the Communion of the Church of Jesus Christ.
Otherwise, your "infallible" Church has decided to "infallibly" permit the teaching of satanic error -- meaning that you are no True Church at all.
And Outside the True Church, there is No Salvation.
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.