My thoughts around Romans 9

[Mark Quayle]

Your free will is not the same free will put forward by the early church. It is limited by your doctrine, but not by them. Justin Martyr is addressing the very false teaching your doctrine presents, which is fatalism based upon a supposed foreknowledge, one that cancels man's genuine choice. In the passage below he is essentially fighting the idea of predestination.

Justin Martyr - First Apology - Ch 26-50
But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate.

Your "appeal to authority" not withstanding, if one's reward or condemnation are dependent on their decisions and acts alone, and not on God's then you have yet to answer how it is possible for one to choose well and another to choose badly, unless one person is better than another at some level.

Is that your contention? And if so, then how is that possible, but that circumstances and other motivations —all of which are causes— drive them to decide as they do, i.e. cause them to be one better than another? And where do those causes come from?

Or if you claim God made one simply better than another, there you have cause, and you have explained nothing to support your stance. And would you not then claim that God is not fair, giving one more ability to obey than another?

Or do you subscribe to chance?

 

[Brightfame52]

What you are saying is not in Ro. 9.

I didnt. Im saying Rom 9 is about Gods Sovereignty in determining whose saved and whose damned for their sins.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Your "appeal to authority" not withstanding, if one's reward or condemnation are dependent on their decisions and acts alone, and not on God's then you have yet to answer how it is possible for one to choose well and another to choose badly, unless one person is better than another at some level.

Is that your contention? And if so, then how is that possible, but that circumstances and other motivations —all of which are causes— drive them to decide as they do, i.e. cause them to be one better than another? And where do those causes come from?

Or if you claim God made one simply better than another, there you have cause, and you have explained nothing to support your stance. And would you not then claim that God is not fair, giving one more ability to obey than another?

Or do you subscribe to chance?

As stated I 100% believe in the free will of man. His ability to choose, right from wrong. As we see in some examples:

1 Ch 28:9 And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind; for Jehovah searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: If thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever.

Isa 1:19-20 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword; for the mouth of Jehovah hath spoken it.

Gen 4:6-7 And the Lord said to Cain, Why are you angry? and why is your face sad? If you do well, will you not have honour? and if you do wrong, sin is waiting at the door, desiring to have you, but do not let it be your master.​

But your question is how can people not be affected by their environment or other factors.

God restricting the ability of evil
1Co 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.​

Firstly all are tempted in the same way. Others given comfort by God if situations need it.

God comforting those troubled
Gen 21:16-20 Then she went and sat down across from him at a distance of about a bowshot; for she said to herself, "Let me not see the death of the boy." So she sat opposite him, and lifted her voice and wept. And God heard the voice of the lad. Then the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said to her, "What ails you, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad and hold him with your hand, for I will make him a great nation." Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water. And she went and filled the skin with water, and gave the lad a drink. So God was with the lad; and he grew and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer.
​

God appears to put limits on man's actions, again so they will find him, calling men everywhere to repent.

Act 17:26-31 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.' Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising. Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead."​

 

[bling]

I didnt. Im saying Rom 9 is about Gods Sovereignty in determining whose saved and whose damned for their sins.

That is not what Ro. 9 is about.
It is about the Jew Gentile issue and how even though the Jews were given a more responsible position, to begin with and now we are all equal.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Then is the God you know that God which Paul the apostle knows?
For it is the apostle who received his gospel from Jesus Christ personally (Galatians 1:11-12) that presents vessels of honor and vessels of wrath, who are so by their own choice.

To avoid confusion regarding them, let me present my over-all view on the matters of Romans 9.

1) Election (choosing) is presented in Romans 9:11-12--the case of Jacob and Esau. . .based on nothing but God's sovereign right to choose whom he pleases to fulfill his purposes.

2) Then I understand God's "call" to be effective--not just a kind invitation, according to the purport of the following:

"No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." (John 6:65)
"All that the Father gives me will come to me," (John 6:37)
"I shall lose none of all that he has given me." (John 6:39).
Making "Paulism" and "Calvinism" the doctrine of Christ.

3) Then I understand divine "foreknowledge" in the sense of executing in the present the purpose and choice God (not man) made before the foundations of the world:

"Divine foreknowledge, as used in Scripture, does not refer to God knowing in advance what men are going to do, but refers to God knowing in advance what he is going to do. . .because he has decreed that he shall do it.
Acts 15:18 - "Known to the Lord for ages is his work."

Isaiah 48:3 - "I foretold (predestined) the former things of long ago,
my mouth announced (decreed) them, and I made them known;
then suddenly I acted, (foreknowledge executed), and they came to pass.

See Acts 2:23, 4:28; Isaiah 37:26.

God executed in their present the purpose and choice he made before the foundations of the world; i.e.,
God executed/accomplished (acted according to) his foreknowledge (his previous purpose and choice)," as in Jacob (Romans 9:11-12).

4) which brings me to Romans 8:29, "those God foreknew:"
In light of Matthew 7:23, "I never knew you," (which I see as meaning those not of John 6:37, above; i.e., not given to Jesus), I understand those God

"foreknew" to be those whom God lovingly knew (elected for regeneration and love of him) before the foundations of the world, whom he then

"predestined" (determined beforehand, foreordained) to be conformed to the image of his Son, whom he then

"called" with an effective call which accomplishes (John 6:37, above), whom he then

"justified" with the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21-22), and whom he then

"glorified" with the shared glory of Christ's inheritance (Romans 8:27),

and both the vessels of wrath and the vessels of mercy "qualifying" by their preference and free choice of unbelief and non-submission, or belief and submission.

I know the scriptures you provided below, that I have placed for reference, can be used to support your case.

"No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." (John 6:65)
"All that the Father gives me will come to me," (John 6:37)
"I shall lose none of all that he has given me." (John 6:39).​

But what is the logical outworking of this revealing? Jesus presented the idea that there was a “response” needed before the Father reveals Himself.

Joh 14:21-23 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.​

My idea, supported by the Church Fathers, who I continually quote, is that God gives his goodwill to all men, and they either receive the light or push it away of their own choosing.

Iranaeus - Against Heresies - Book 4 Ch 39-End

4. But God, foreknowing all things, prepared fit habitations for both, kindly conferring that light which they desire on those who seek after the light of incorruption, and resort to it; but for the despisers and mockers who avoid and turn themselves away from this light, and who do, as it were, blind themselves, He has prepared darkness suitable to persons who oppose the light, and He has inflicted an appropriate punishment upon those who try to avoid being subject to Him.​

Note Jesus mentions two groups, those who “see Jesus” and receive Him, and those who “see Him”, and deny Him.

Joh 6:36-40 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."​

It is true that the Father gives people to Jesus, and enables them to see, but based upon whether they respond genuinely to God’s promise. As we see in Joh 14:21-23 quoted above.


Jesus said he had come into the world to let people see the light, and make blind those that “see”, know, but do not keep the word.

Joh 9:39-41 And Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind." Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these words, and said to Him, "Are we blind also?" Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, 'We see.' Therefore your sin remains.​

Note Jesus also said that if they “did not see” they would have no sin. This fits with the Early Church Fathers. Which state that man could not be accountable for their sin if they did not have a free will choice.

Justin Martyr - First Apology - Ch 50-56

Chap. XLIII — Responsibility Asserted.

….For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made….​

Note even on the last day God needs to blind some. They did not start out blind.

2Th 2:9-12 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.​

And why were they blinded, they did not receive a love of the truth.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Do you have any Scriptural support for whatever this early church view is?

I have plenty of evidence, but you are not open to it.

I have no "doctrine," I have NT apostolic teaching.

No, you have a view of it, and it is not the view of the Early Church.

But predestination is NT apostolic teaching in Romans 8:29; Ephesians 1:5, Ephesians 1:11.

I will address these scriptures in another post.

Why does he deny it? . . .And why would I ever agree with his denial of NT apostolic teaching?

If you actually take the time to read what I have you will know what the Early Church taught. They taught free will choice.

Is it possible that there were misunderstandings of the scriptures (due to the way they had been written), even Peter states of Paul’s writings:


2Pe 3:15-16 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.


The writings of Justin and Irenaeus address the issue of fatalism (which had crept into the church), stating that man has genuine free will. So who are the Church Fathers I have been quoting? Irenaeus was the last know living connection to the Apostles, having been a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. Justin Martyr has written writings considered the most important from the second century. They are some of the earliest writings since the Apostles, and the earliest writings that address the topic of an early form of Predestination, called fatalism, and they present the argument that man has free will.

Justin Martyr (c. AD 100 – c. AD 165) was an early Christian apologist and philosopher. Most of his works are lost, but two apologies and a dialogue did survive.​

The writings of Justin Martyr are among the most important that have come down to us from the second century. He was not the first that wrote an Apology in behalf of the Christians, but his Apologies are the earliest extant. They are characterized by intense Christian fervour, and they give us an insight into the relations existing between heathens and Christians in those days. His other principal writing, the Dialogue with Trypho, is the first elaborate exposition of the reasons for regarding Christ as the Messiah of the Old Testament, and the first systematic attempt to exhibit the false position of the Jews in regard to Christianity.​

Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202 AD) was a Greek bishop noted for his role in guiding and expanding Christian communities in the southern regions of present-day France and, more widely, for the development of Christian theology by combating heresy and defining orthodoxy. Originating from Smyrna, he had seen and heard the preaching of Polycarp, who in turn was said to have heard John the Evangelist, and thus was the last-known living connection with the Apostles.​

 

[Clare73]

I know the scriptures you provided below, that I have placed for reference, can be used to support your case.

"No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." (John 6:65)
"All that the Father gives me will come to me," (John 6:37)
"I shall lose none of all that he has given me." (John 6:39).​

But what is the logical outworking of this revealing? Jesus presented the idea that there was a “response” needed before the Father reveals Himself.

Joh 14:21-23 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.
​

My idea, supported by the Church Fathers, who I continually quote, is that

God gives his goodwill to
all men, and they either receive the light or push it away of their own choosing.

Agreed. . .all choose whether or not to receive and believe God's revelation proclaimed in the gospel.

Iranaeus - Against Heresies - Book 4 Ch 39-End

4. But God, foreknowing all things, prepared fit habitations for both, kindly conferring that light which they desire on those who seek after the light of incorruption, and resort to it; but for the despisers and mockers who avoid and turn themselves away from this light, and who do, as it were, blind themselves, He has prepared darkness suitable to persons who oppose the light, and He has inflicted an appropriate punishment upon those who try to avoid being subject to Him.​

Note Jesus mentions two groups, those who “see Jesus” and receive Him, and those who “see Him”, and deny Him.

Joh 6:36-40 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."​

It is true that the Father gives people to Jesus, and enables them to see, but based upon whether they respond genuinely to God’s promise. As we see in Joh 14:21-23 quoted above.

No one can come to the Father in the first place, to be given to Jesus, unless the Father has enabled them to come (John 6:65)

Jesus said he had come into the world to let people see the light, and make blind those that “see”, know, but do not keep the word.

He makes blind those who think they see, but in reality they deny the truth. . .regarding him.

Joh 9:39-41 And Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind." Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these words, and said to Him, "Are we blind also?" Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, 'We see.' Therefore your sin remains.
​

Note Jesus also said that if they “did not see” they would have no sin. This fits with the Early Church Fathers. Which state that man could not be accountable for their sin if they did not have a free will choice.

Everyone chooses whether or not to receive and believe the gospel.

Justin Martyr - First Apology - Ch 50-56 Chap. XLIII — Responsibility Asserted.
….For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made….​

Note even on the last day God needs to blind some. They did not start out blind.

2Th 2:9-12 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.​

They perished because they did not receive the love of the truth, they rejected it and, therefore, God blinds them.

And why were they blinded, they did not receive a love of the truth.

Precisely. . .they chose to reject the truth, so God blinded them.

 

[Clare73]

I have plenty of evidence, but you are not open to it.
No, you have a view of it, and it is not the view of the Early Church.

But the only view that matters is the one that can be demonstrated from Scripture.

I will address these scriptures in another post.
If you actually take the time to read what I have you will know what
the Early Church taught. They taught free will choice.

I agree with free will.

Is it possible that there were misunderstandings of the scriptures

By the early church, I don't know.

We have the same Scriptures to understand in the light of all Scripture, just as they did.

(due to the way they had been written), even Peter states of Paul’s writings:

2Pe 3:15-16 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Peter did not say they could not be understood, only that they were hard to understand.
It's possible that some misunderstand it today, mostly because it is contrary to their personal notions, and then also because it requires familiarity with the whole counsel of God to do so.

The writings of Justin and Irenaeus address the issue of fatalism (which had crept into the church), stating that man has genuine free will. So who are the Church Fathers I have been quoting? Irenaeus was the last know living connection to the Apostles, having been a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. Justin Martyr has written writings considered the most important from the second century. They are some of the earliest writings since the Apostles, and the earliest writings that address the topic of an early form of Predestination, called fatalism, and they present the argument that man has free will.

And we have the words of the apostles themselves, as well as of Jesus himself.
We can study them in the light of all Scripture to understand their meaning.
Understanding of the Scriptures didn't cease with the Apostolic Age.

Justin Martyr (c. AD 100 – c. AD 165) was an early Christian apologist and philosopher. Most of his works are lost, but two apologies and a dialogue did survive.
The writings of Justin Martyr are among the most important that have come down to us from the second century. He was not the first that wrote an Apology in behalf of the Christians, but his Apologies are the earliest extant. They are characterized by intense Christian fervour, and they give us an insight into the relations existing between heathens and Christians in those days. His other principal writing, the Dialogue with Trypho, is the first elaborate exposition of the reasons for regarding Christ as the Messiah of the Old Testament, and the first systematic attempt to exhibit the false position of the Jews in regard to Christianity.
Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202 AD) was a Greek bishop noted for his role in guiding and expanding Christian communities in the southern regions of present-day France and, more widely, for the development of Christian theology by combating heresy and defining orthodoxy. Originating from Smyrna, he had seen and heard the preaching of Polycarp, who in turn was said to have heard John the Evangelist, and thus was the last-known living connection with the Apostles.​

​

 

[Mark Quayle]

But your question is how can people not be affected by their environment or other factors.

No. That was NOT my question. My question is, how do you explain how one person makes a good decision when another does not, if it is not God himself that makes the difference?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Ok these scriptures on the surface appear to support a Predestination, fatalism kind of argument. But they need not have the meaning.

1Pe 1:20-21 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.​

We know that the cross was foreordained, it was chosen as the method of salvation. In that sense we are Predestined to receive adoption as sons. I am going to paraphrase the verses to take on this meaning.

Rom 8:29-30 For whom He knew beforehand [would respond in faith], He also predestined [according to His plan in Christ] to be conformed to the image of His Son [ that we might share in Christ’s nature], that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined [in Christ], these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.


Eph 1:4-5 just as He chose us in Him [selecting those who would have faith, faith as it were being the method of salvation] before the foundation of the world [ was the plan made of how salvation would occur], that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us [according to his pre-made plan] to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,​

I think you get the idea where I am going with this.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

No. That was NOT my question. My question is, how do you explain how one person makes a good decision when another does not, if it is not God himself that makes the difference?

As with Adam and Eve, you put before them a choice. Man then makes the choice, to obey, or disobey. Continual disobedience leads to death, and continual obedience leads to life.

 

[renniks]

Sorry but its the Truth, whether you like it or accept it or not !

If it were true, why would it even matter if I accepted it or not?

 

[Mark Quayle]

As with Adam and Eve, you put before them a choice. Man then makes the choice, to obey, or disobey. Continual disobedience leads to death, and continual obedience leads to life.

Obviously. But that doesn't answer the question.

What makes the difference? Why does one choose right, and the other choose wrong? Is one person better than the other?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Why a person chooses as they do is not important, God has made us with the capacity to choose, a capacity to form a nature.

Rom 2:5-11 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who "WILL RENDER TO EACH ONE ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS": eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Why a person chooses as they do is not important, God has made us with the capacity to choose, a capacity to form a nature.

Rom 2:5-11 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who "WILL RENDER TO EACH ONE ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS": eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.

So, then, you stand with the position that some people are just better than others...

 

[zoidar]

So, then, you stand with the position that some people are just better than others...

I think he is saying some are choosing better than others not because they are better, but because they choose it by free will.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think he is saying some are choosing better than others not because they are better, but because they choose it by free will.

That explains nothing. How does 'free will' of the creature (as he describes it), result in some choosing well and others badly? Is it random / mere chance? Or are some better than others? Or what?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

God determines before a person is born to do good or evil, what their destiny will be, heaven or hell.

Isn't that Muslim fatalism?

 

[Clare73]

Ok these scriptures on the surface appear to support a Predestination, fatalism kind of argument. But they need not have the meaning.

1Pe 1:20-21 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.​

But "foreordained" is not predestination, it is "foreknowledge," a completely different thing.

We know that the cross was foreordained, it was chosen as the method of salvation. In that sense we are Predestined to receive adoption as sons. I am going to paraphrase the verses to take on this meaning.

Rom 8:29-30 For whom He knew beforehand [would respond in faith],​

"Knew beforehand" here is divine foreknowledge (which is not "predestination") and which foreknowledge as previously explained, has nothing to do with what men are going to do and, therefore, alters nothing about the Biblical meaning of "predestination."​

​

You haven't really dealt with Biblical predestination here, showing it to mean anything other than the definition of the word itself.​

He also predestined [according to His plan in Christ] to be conformed to the image of His Son [ that we might share in Christ’s nature], that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined [in Christ], these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Eph 1:4-5 just as He chose us in Him [selecting those who would have faith, faith as it were being the method of salvation] before the foundation of the world [ was the plan made of how salvation would occur], that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us [according to his pre-made plan] to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,​

 

[Mark Quayle]

Rom 8:29-30 For whom He knew beforehand [would respond in faith], He also predestined [according to His plan in Christ] to be conformed to the image of His Son

That's not a paraphrase, it is a mistranslation.

Notice the word, "whom". You do not grammatically say, "...those whom he knew would do (thus and such)." Romans is not saying here that he knew beforehand what these people would do, but that he knew these people beforehand.