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.
It's a simple conditional statement, xzins. There's nothing tough about it. Anyone who believes will be saved.
Just like anyone who jumps off a cliff will fall.
I notice that you couldn't find a statement that said the man had not yet been Regenerated.
Sheesh, this even matches up perfectly with Calvinism:
xzins, it's simply unbelievable how much you are reading into this passage that is not remotely there.
Jean
See #481
Jean
Sorry Jean, but the burden is on you to prove that he was regenerated before he asked the question and not for others to prove that he wasn't. The question comes down to this, Would a non-regenerate man ask such a question?
Well a lot of people ask that question. Are all those who ask that question regenerate?
And wouldn't a more honest (Calvinistic) answer have been, "If you go ahead and believe in Jesus now then you have been (past tense - from the foundation of the earth) saved," rather than "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (present tense) and you will be (conditional future tense) saved?"
Why would Paul use a conditional future tense in describing the method of salvation, if his salvation was not actually conditioned on his belief, but his future belief was nothing but the confirming evidence of his pre-determined salvific state?
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Think there just may be a connection?
No one is righteous and no one seeks God..
The occasion in scripture is interesting Note the jailer has just been in the presence of a work of God.
Then
Act 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Gill puts it this way
and came trembling; not as before, because of the prisoners and their escape; nor merely or so much on account of the earthquake, though the terror of that might not be as yet over; but chiefly through the horror of his conscience, and the dreadful sense he had of himself as a sinner, and of his lost state and condition by nature; the law had entered into his conscience, and had worked wrath there; the Spirit of God had convinced him of his sin and misery, and there was a fearful looking for of fiery indignation in him:
Well xzins there are some things that God simply can't do and working on the heart of a depraved man before he becomes a believer is obviously one of them. </sarcasm>
That is probably why the Calvinists have an aversion to God "working on the heart". Because in the Calvinist perspective the heart must be replaced before any work can be done.
I think I can answer that question in two passages...
Acts 16:25 But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns of praise to God, and the prisoners were listening to them;
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Simply said, the jailer certainly heard the message preached through the prayers and hymns. (Clearly Paul was not singing "choruses" or wearing a pithy T-Shirt) Then there was an earth-shattering moment of confirmation that the LORD of All was watching over Paul And Silas.
Billy Graham uses several hundred repetitions of "Just as I Am". God literally shakes heaven and earth.
That is correct. Calvinists believe the Word of God
Ezek 36:26-27 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
One thing that I have observed in these threads 'P', is that you are immune to "proof". A hotel full of Gideon Bibles has virtually been printed from all of the passages in Scriptures that you have been given for your consideration regarding the state of the unregenerate and their manifest enmity to God.
The question comes down to this, Would a non-regenerate man ask such a question?
Of course a non-regenerate man asks that question all the time. In Matthew 19:16 the question is asked of Jesus, "how may I have eternal life?" Did he walk away "saved"? I can pay a reprobate to ask that question and merely uttering those words is no magic formula for salvation, likewise paying a person to pray a prayer of repentance will not save that person.
Evangelist Ray Comfort often tells the illustration of an airtraveller being told that if he puts on this parachute, then his life will be much better. Wanting this better life, he quickly dons the parachute and tries to make himself comfortable. Others on the plane snicker at the man's discomfort as the parachute, over time, weighs heavier and heavier on his shoulders. Unable to even sit back in the chair to be comfortable, he throws off the parachute as it didn't make his life any better. Another passenger was told that the plane would lose its ability to fly and if he wanted to live, he should put on the parachute. Despite the same hardships the other man had, the passenger who knew why he had the parachute on was able to withstand the trials, and was later rewarded as the information proved true.
The Arminian movement is apostate for it teaches another gospel that is not the gospel. It tells lies about who Christ is and tells even more lies about the nature of man. If a person has been spoon fed this dreck about a caricature of a god named "Jesus" who is not much more than a foot servant of man, then of course the person who wants a plush-toy Genie Jesus will ask the question "How can I have this?"
And wouldn't a more honest (Calvinistic) answer have been, "If you go ahead and believe in Jesus now then you have been (past tense - from the foundation of the earth) saved," rather than "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (present tense) and you will be (conditional future tense) saved?"
LOL! I love you deconstructionalists! Apparently you have forgotten the setting. Here we have an earthquake in the middle of the night that destroys a building - prisoners are fleeing the prison and the jailer is scared to death that his superiors will severely punish him for their escape. You picture this scene where Paul, Silas and the jailer have found a cozy sun-filled booth at the local Starbucks and as they leisurely sip their cappuccinos and lattés they are discussing every aspect of Biblical soteriology.
The best answer is the short answer Paul gave. If the man could believe, then he would believe, otherwise he would say "that's all? Are you kidding?". The jailer knew why Paul and Silas were in prison, and asking the question took an enormous amount of fortitude since the jailer would be inviting persecution to his household. Regardless, one needs a starting point, and placing the proverbial stake behind the barn is a usefull device for Paul to return to when it came about to test the man's declaration of faith.
Matt 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
Note, it is not - "You will know them if they profess my name." as we would have a conflict with Matthew 7:21-23.
You may ask your pointless questions, but it means nothing when the Bible says over and over again that the natural man is in enmity with God, can't understand Scripture, and considers it foolish.
Funny, many of the Calvinists on these threads have admitted that they came to the Lord at the preaching of "an Arminian" (i.e., false) gospel messsage.
If someone responds to an Arminian preacher's call to Jesus, and Arminians are preaching their brand of the Gospel, then are they not saved or are they saved?
If an Arminian repeats Paul's message and states "Believe on the Lord Jesus and you WILL BE saved," (as opposed to the Calvinist Gospel of "if you can believe on the Lord Jesus you HAVE BEEN or ARE ALREADY saved") will that person still be saved IF he believes?
And if so, the what possible difference does it make whether or not someone is an Arminian or a Calvinist?
This particular non-regenerate Jailer asked that question and was told he had to believe first, and then he would be saved.
So now YOU are admitting that totally depraved, non-regenerate humans can ask a perfectly holy and proper question: "What must I do to be saved?"
That is inconsistent with what you all had been telling me.
It seems much more consistent with the theology that says God enlightens (the grace that comes before salvation) prior to believing which logically precedes regeneration/salvation.
I can't imagine why I didn't see this before.
You're being obtuse and dishonest. What's the point of posting if you refuse to read? Apparently you think caves open when someone says "Open Sesame", rabbits must jump out of tophats when the word "Abracadabra" is uttered, and a person actually wants the true gospel when they mouth the words "What must I do to be saved."
At least thats how I understand it.
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.