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.
Just give me a rhetorical answer. :-)
He knows God's requirements. Sinner, whatever it is God requires of you, Christ knows what they are, and he is ready to meet them.
This seems to apply to all sinners. Christ is ready to meet what God requires of all sinners, not merely a select few.
He is fully equipped for the discharge of his mediatorial office, and those that put their trust in him shall find that he will bear them through.
Seems to me that if the Father regenerates people before they come to Christ, then what does the sinner need a mediator for? Seems to me that if regeneration occurs before we come to Christ, then the mediator is superfluous as we are already approved by the Father before we even go to the Son.
I thought it was because we have come to Christ that we can now go to the Father. Isn't that the order? Or are we somehow made holy by the Father so that we can come to Christ?
Paul replied, You stupid Pelagian heretic, you can't save yourself. There is Nothing you can personally do that will have any effect on your salvation. You are either doomed from before your birth because you were chosen to be a reprobate or you were saved from before your birth because you were chosen for salvation for no particular reason. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved..."
Surely you are daydreaming. Given the overwhelming dominance of the Anglicans by low-Church individuals (don't you know how infrequently these folks even celebrated the Eucharist in most of their Churches until very recently???), this was an obvious "not at all close to reunion" situation. The High Church party attracted to Orthodoxy and Rome has always been a distinct minority, even since the so-called Catholic revival of the 1840's. Please give me credit for knowing my ex-Church.
After that we have focused primarily on the oriental orthodox
Oriental Orthodox = "Monophysites" = Copts and Syrians and Armenians. I mentioned them.
We have an ongoing and strong dialogue with the evangelicals, though I know you find this to be shocking.
No MM, I'm not shocked. In fact, I've read most of the work of Fr. John Romanides regarding his role in this dialogue, and how much distance he felt there was. Its obvious from reading the work of Orthodox theologians involved in these endeavours that they feel that the greatest chance for any success at reunion is with the Copts and Syrians, while the greatest disgust about ecumenism ("The Pan-Heresy") is aroused by participation in the WCC with the Protestants and the rest of the deniers of ecclesiastical order and sacramental grace.
This is still a TOTALLY DEPRAVED, TOTALLY INABLE man. How can he even ask the POSITIVE, HOLY QUESTION, "What must I DO to be saved?"
The cannot be regenerated yet, because he is not a believer yet. Paul tells him he has only to believe and THEN he will be saved. As yet, he is not saved, therefore, he cannot be regenerated. Therefore, he MUST still be totally depraved.
But also, he must be under "enlightening conviction." He must be under prevenient grace that opens his eyes to see and to ask the proper, holy question, "What must I do to be saved?"
These stories are changing everything I had been thinking.
There is no way around it. In this story convicting, prevenient grace PRECEDES believing and salvation, and, therefore, regeneration. It's obvious, plain common sense.
xcept, xzins, there "ain't no such thing" as "Prevenient Grace".
You guys just made it up out of thin air.
Jean
Did I make an argument that Wesley made? What straw man argument did I make that Wesley also made? Great minds must think alike, eh?
But here this totally depraved person is asking a perfectly holy and proper question BEFORE he is regenerated.
"What must I do to be saved?" is the question.
The word trinity doesn't appear in scripture either. Prevenient grace simply means that God enlightens and convicts you prior to your believing unto salvation.
I'd never looked at this story like that before. It change A LOT of what I'd been thinking.
Good point. If he was enlightened enough to ask the question and he wanted to be saved, then he was regenerate. If he was regenerate he could see the Kingdom. If he saw the kingdom he would not have needed to ask the question, because he would have already known the answer... Which was... He was ALREADY SAVED!
I said you utilize the "straw-man".
Jean
Where does scripture say that he was not yet Regenerated when he asked that question?
It doesn't. You're desire to hold on to your Arminian "Free-Will" Philosophical Paradigm causes you to eisegetically see that. It's ain't there xzins.
Jean
How did I do it, and how did Wesley do it?
Wesley did the same thing.
Read Wesley's sermon titled: Free Grace
Then read George Whitefield's response to this sermon in his: No, dear Sir, you mistake
Jean
"Either"???? Where did I say that the words "Prevenient Grace" do not appear in the Bible. (Do you have to start back up with your reading comprehension classes?)
No, xzins, the doctrine you guys call "Prevenient Grace" is no where to be found in Scripture. It is merely an invention of Arminian theology to make their "Free-Will" philosophical paradigm jive with the Bible.
"Let's see, how can we Arminians keep both Total Depravity and our beloved Free-Will philosophical paradigm???""Oh, yes, we can say that the Holy Spirit "enlightens" the natural man."
"Quick, somebody go find some Bible verses that might appear -if we really stretch things- to teach this. And let's call it "Prevenient Grace"."
That's called Eisegesis, xzins. Prevenient Grace was contrived to support Free-Will. It was not deduced from the Scriptures naturally.
Jean
What belief do you not hold that you think that I think that you hold?
And why don't you just tell me in your own words what Wesley said that was wrong and how Whitefield corrected him.
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.