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.
But HOW, at this point in time, could he have to still believe, IF it is true that an unregenerate man cannot even SEE the kingdom of God?
Because there is a logical difference between regeneration and faith. Regeneration is the renewing of the heart...the spiritual rebirth of the individual. Faith is a response by that heart through that will. Dead men don't respond to much. The Calvinist view is regeneration -> faith. They are logically separate events. As such, it is entirely possible that the man was regenerated, and as such saw the kingdom and asked how one could be saved (which itself is a response of faith, for the unregenerate has no interest in being saved). Such a response is the natural response of the reborn to the Gospel/Kingdom.
Where the Calvinist has the biggest issue with the Arminian "prevenient grace" is its supposed univeral application. Faith is the natural response of the regenerate heart to the Word. It is the perfect cooperation of the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity in fulfilling the decree of the First. When one says that this grace is universally applied, the only possibilities are that all men come to faith, or that the Son and the Spirit are unable to bring about that which has been decreed by the Father. For man to reject the Gospel in such a condition (regenerate) he would quite simply have to act contrary to his nature.
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.
Ahh...I see it. You are defining regeneration as something different from prevenient grace. We define it as the same thing (though disagreeing on both its extent and result). So to us you have a Catch-22 because one has to be regenerate in order to believe in order to be saved in order to be regenerated.
You have misunderstood the logical order of salvation that Calvinists hold. It seems our focus should once again return to regeneration/"prevenient grace" and how it all factors in.
I indeed do think this will change the way you've been thinking:)
Yes.
In this instance, the Jailer is not yet saved. Nor has he yet believed. This is evident because Paul tells him "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you WILL BE saved." In other words, believer precedes salvation.
OK...so in the process, given the above, he would be here:
regeneration -> faith -> salvation
But this man hasn't even believed yet. Nonetheless, he asks a very holy and proper question, "What must I do to be saved?" Paul tells him to believe.
OK...I don't see how this conflicts with the order given above since clearly he is "between" regeneration and faith. Only a regenerate person would ask such a question, because only a regenerate person would seek the Kingdom.
As I see it, the jailer sees the embers of his heart reignited, and his interest is piqued -- "What must I do to be saved?" he asks, because he sees himself as not the hard-core corrections officer that he previously thought himself to be. He is confronted with his mortality, and the Holy Spirit works in his heart. So, he goes to the guys who were singing praise and worship in their cell.
The way I see it, the moment he asked, "sirs, what must I do to be saved," that is the indication that he was regenerated. You can call it prevenient grace, I really don't care. But the fact is, the conversion of the jailer was a foregone conclusion from God's perspective. That's how I see it, anyway.
How can you be convicted by the Holy Spirit and come to that realization without being regenerated if, in fact, a non-regenerated man has no spiritual conscience at all and is, in fact, spiritually "dead"?
You seem to be speaking of a previenient grace, i.e., God working on the heart, before regeneration ( when God replaces the heart). I have no problem with that inasmuch as I believe the Bible clearly teaches that man is not regenerated until after he surrenders to Christ and that he comes to Christ a broken (natural) man and Christ then makes him a new creation IN Christ (he is not made a new creation OUTSIDE of Christ. The words clearly state that we are made a new creation in christ and thus it is clear that before we are made a new creation we must already be "in Christ").
Contrary to what you say, Jean seems to think that natural man is fully capable of asking "what must I do to be saved" and reaching that point without any hope of salvation or regeneration. I would agree with him there. But for different reasons. It seems that if we follow Calvinist theology, then no man would ever even desire to know what he must do to be saved before he is regenerated (i.e., the natural man has no desire or want to be saved, so the question would never enter into his mind (see OP's usual and customary boiler plate rebuttal)). But since it is obvious that natural men (who never ever become regenerated) ask that question every day and that churches are filled with unregenerate people who seem to ask that question regularly and cults are filled with people who HONESTLY REALLY want to be saved, what apparently looks good on paper for Calvinist theology does not work in real life.
It is only after we surrender to the Call of the Holy Spirit that salvation occurs. Regeneration is not a condition precedent to salvation (as many are called), but is a biproduct of salvation (few are chosen).
You seem to be at loggerheads with Jean Chauvin. Jean has indicated that an unregenerate man is perfectly capable of asking that question. Maybe its time you guys had a pow-wow on the Christian Forums e-mail system and come to a concensus on this issue. :-)
What you call 'prevenient grace' I call regeneration. We may disagree on its extent and efficacy, but it is the same thing in general function.
OK...I don't see how this conflicts with the order given above since clearly he is "between" regeneration and faith.
He cannot be at the regeneration step. It is SIMULTANEOUS with faith and salvation.
He has not believed yet because Paul tells him he STILL needs to do that and THEN he will be saved.
You are allowing a time GAP between his regeneration and his believing. This is contrary to the information I have been given that it is SIMULTANEOUS.
Therefore, we either have a regenerated man who is not a believer. Or we have a totally depraved man who is convicted by the Holy Spirit prior to believing.
I think I see the problem here. You don't know what salvation is.
'Sozo' (the verb form) means to 'preserve' or 'save from destruction'. It is NOT a synonym for 'regeneration'.
'Soteria' (the noun) means 'deliverance, preservation' both material and temporal.
Our jailer saw God's power through an earthquake, and now wants to be delivered from God's Wrath. I don't see some tutorial on regeneration or ordo salutis, an objective assessment on the man's heart, nor do I see a case for or against "Free Will". What we do know is that the man trembled before Paul and asked what he must do to avoid danger.
I will consider any reasonable answer that TRULY takes all this into account without tap dancing and gyrating around the sequence of the story.
The problem here is that you have created an absurd proposition by inventing new and personal definitions out of thin-air and by demanding as axiomatic that you know the state of the man's heart at the time - making a "reasonable answer" impossible.
But then again, perhaps that was your intent.
Here's a start:
John 1:12 "to those who believed (past tense - condition precedent -- antecedent event) in his name, he gave (consequent event) the right to become children of God—".
Exactly when were they given the right to become children of God? Was it before they believed or after? What does it say? If what you claim is true the verse is backwards and should read: "those to whom he gave the right to become children of God, he then caused them to believe.
Gal 3:2 "I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?"
Did these people receive the Spirit before believing or after? If before, then why didn't Paul answer by saying something like, "Neither! I received the Spirit before I believed. I didn't receive it by observing the law nor by believing!"?
Ac 2:38 "Repent and be baptized, (condition precedent) every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive (consequent event) the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Now, did they receive the Holy Spirit before they believed or after?
Ga 3:26 "You are all sons of God (obviously through the new birth) through faith (condition precedent) in Christ Jesus,"
If a person is born of God through faith, then how could a person be born of God before believing?
Ephesians 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed (condition precedent), you were marked (consequent event) in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,
How was the jailer different 10 minutes before he sought guidance? Because he WAS different the hour before, the day before he fell to his knees.
Is it something inside of the man himself that percolated to the surface and allowed him to realize his own fallen state and his need for salvation? This is the stuff of John Roger and New Age enlightenment.
Instead, perhaps it was the Holy Spirit who contronted the man's sinful nature and turned it around; transforming the man from a carnal being into one who seeks after God.
And in that search, the jailer falls to his knees and says, "What now? Now that You have shown Yourself to me and humbled me to my knees, something I did not and could not do before You came upon me, what do I do now?"
That's a question the righteous pose every day. "What do you ask of me today, Lord?"
Amen!
Not quite... many an unregenerate person asks the same question, but for them it doesn't accomplish diddly-squat. "What must I do to be saved" is not an "open-sesame" formula that guarantees regeneration; rather, if a regenerate heart asks "What must I do to be saved," it will find the answer.
Ahh...I see the distinction. Now Jean makes sense:)
I think Warmoose is correct in that this passage is very difficult to peg as being solidly for one side or the other. The sign of regeneration is less in the question and more in the response to the answer (juxtapose the jailer with the rich young ruler).
Regeneration is not a process.
It's a lightning bolt. It is instantaneous, because it is founded on God's fixed knowledge of the universe He created from before time and accomplished on the Cross; the effects of which are seen as we are sanctified.
At the very moment God wills it, a particular human being is transformed from one who is dead in sin to one who is regenerated, seeks after God and desires to glorify His name.
It's a one-time I.V. of blood, pumped into a dead corpse, which miraculously brings the cold flesh to life -- for the very first time.
That's because it is all about Him. Not us.
Show me where I said it was. I'm not the one arguing that a man can be regenerated before he acknowledges his sin and believes in Jesus. You are. So you are the one who apparently insists that the regeneration can or must occur over time.
Regeneration occurs at the very instant that a man puts his trust in Jesus. At that time, not before, but following that event, (believe and then receive) the man is made a new creature "IN" Christ. You guys have the man becoming a new creation "outside of" Christ, a new creation without any acknowledgment of the Lordship of Christ or his death for our sins; i.e, that he is a new creation while he is yet an unbelieving, unrepentant sinner.
That's only with a resisitble, prevenient grace. If you believe in irresistible grace, as all Calvinists I am aware of do, then once a man is regenerate, conversion is a foregone conclusion.
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.