Originally Posted by CmRoddy 
I can see his point, but this can only stand if foreseen faith is the means by which God predestines. But we all know that "foreknown" in v. 29 does not mean that God used foreseen faith as conditions/qualifications for choosing. Doveaman has to add a human action into the passage in order to escape the implications, but there is no such human action anywhere in Romans 8:29-30. That makes his argument moot.
Um, turning this back to doveaman, I'd also wonder -- if this were reliant on what someone would do or not do -- whether this whole chapter would be subverted. Paul's talking about how secure we really are, that "
neither life nor death ... can separate us from the love in Christ Jesus."
How's it if our continued life
could separate us from the love that is in Christ Jesus? Are we accepting Perseverance shall occur for all, regardless?
It bothers me because the logic that Paul seems to me to be using, doesn't apply. But I'd be interested in what logic would apply to make this exposition significant for forseen faith. Granted of course, that there are already two consistency arguments against this interpretation, I've always been interested in what the passage actually concludes, to those who read it in this way. Those I know either embrace perseverance of the saints and thus initial faith bringing perseverance, or don't have a strong meaning for the second half of Romans beyond, "Gee God loves you alot [but only if you keep trusting Him]." I've heard all these influences bear on Presbyterians as well -- a theology isn't immune to these issues, I'm certainly not, it takes a lot of focus to push them back and read Scripture for what it's saying.
Linear Mode
