- Apr 20, 2002
- 7,477
- 462
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
In regards to Romans 8:29 I have often heard the argument made that the word "foreknown" means that God foresaw who would believe and elected his people based upon that knowledge. I am not at all convinced this is what the word is supposed to mean but rather it means that God would elect his people based upon an intimate knowledge of a people he chose to save before creation.
The "foreknown" based upon "fore-knowledge" argument just doesn't make sense in light of what is being pointed out by the apostle - namely that those predestined were done so "to be conformed to the image of his son in order that he might be the first born among many brothers." I don't see in the text any indication of a fore-knowing event that happened before time. Instead I see an active choice made before time which is hammered home in the following verse.
Seems to me that if God fore-knew who would believe and based his choice upon that action then it would plainly say so. Wouldn't it make sense for Paul to plainly say in the text - "God knew who would believe so he predestined them based on that knowledge" if that is what he meant? Instead the passage just simply states "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined..." If he was saving someone based upon fore-knowing their future actions why is the word "also" there? Wouldn't it make sense for that word to be something along the lines of "would" and the word "predestined" to be present tense rather than future tense? Why does Paul not simply say "For those whom he foreknew he would (one day in the future) predestine"? The fact of the matter is that is not what is said and as you can see it takes quite a bit of manipulation to get it to mean that - whereas if you let the verse stand on its own you see that God is not basing his actions upon a future known event at all. If he is then verse 30 doesn't make much since.
Just something to think about folks... Blessings to you al...
The "foreknown" based upon "fore-knowledge" argument just doesn't make sense in light of what is being pointed out by the apostle - namely that those predestined were done so "to be conformed to the image of his son in order that he might be the first born among many brothers." I don't see in the text any indication of a fore-knowing event that happened before time. Instead I see an active choice made before time which is hammered home in the following verse.
Seems to me that if God fore-knew who would believe and based his choice upon that action then it would plainly say so. Wouldn't it make sense for Paul to plainly say in the text - "God knew who would believe so he predestined them based on that knowledge" if that is what he meant? Instead the passage just simply states "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined..." If he was saving someone based upon fore-knowing their future actions why is the word "also" there? Wouldn't it make sense for that word to be something along the lines of "would" and the word "predestined" to be present tense rather than future tense? Why does Paul not simply say "For those whom he foreknew he would (one day in the future) predestine"? The fact of the matter is that is not what is said and as you can see it takes quite a bit of manipulation to get it to mean that - whereas if you let the verse stand on its own you see that God is not basing his actions upon a future known event at all. If he is then verse 30 doesn't make much since.
Just something to think about folks... Blessings to you al...