"The Meaning of Foreknew in Romans 8:29"

[Dan Perez]

I like to keep things simple and rely on the obvious hermeneutic. The word is proginosko which is only used 5 times in the NT and all relate to knowing in advance. The OP posted some of them. Knowing that God is omniscient with perfect knowledge and since the verse relates to people then God has always known who would choose Him. It is simply foreknowledge. If anyone believes in an omniscient God then it follows that He has always known the totality of history and everyone’s decisions.

THANK YOU , dan p

 

[Dave...]

AND I. still say FIRST and I know that PROTOS. can. be Translated by CHIEF or FIRST !!

AND anyone that reads 1 Tim 1:16 the HOLY SPIRIT had Paul write the word " me. " which in. the Greek text means

ME is EMPHATIC. meaning PAUL and no one ELSE and Paul is the PATTERN TO ALL WHO ARE SAVED

and was the. ONE whom was given the DISPENSATION of the MYSTERY in. Rom 16:25

and to be in. the FAITH. better know Rom 16:26. is my recommendation. !!

dan p

I think that Paul is just being humble. He's using himself as an example that anyone could be saved if they repent and believe. Paul is "chief", or "foremost" in that regard, is basically saying that he's an example of the depths that God can go to save someone.

Dave

 

[Dave...]

I like to keep things simple and rely on the obvious hermeneutic. The word is proginosko which is only used 5 times in the NT and all relate to knowing in advance. The OP posted some of them. Knowing that God is omniscient with perfect knowledge and since the verse relates to people then God has always known who would choose Him. It is simply foreknowledge. If anyone believes in an omniscient God then it follows that He has always known the totality of history and everyone’s decisions.

Hey @Hentenza

Acts 26:5, Romans 8:29, Romans 11:2, 1 Peter 1:20, and 2 Peter 3:17,

None of these are speaking of foreknowledge except 2 Peter 3:17. The others are speaking of a specific people. Thus "Whom He foreknew" of Romans 8:29 is speaking about a people, not an event seen before it happened. Nowhere in this passage does it say from the foundations of the world, like it did in 1 Peter 1:20. Romans 11:2, and 8:29, in context, are speaking of OT believers, Spiritual Israel. "Whom Hew foreknew". The context defines it.

Dave

 

[Hentenza]

Hey @Hentenza

Acts 26:5, Romans 8:29, Romans 11:2, 1 Peter 1:20, and 2 Peter 3:17,

None of these are speaking of foreknowledge except 2 Peter 3:17. The others are speaking of a specific people. Thus "Whom He foreknew" of Romans 8:29 is speaking about a people, not an event seen before it happened. Nowhere in this passage does it say from the foundations of the world, like it did in 1 Peter 1:20. Romans 11:2, and 8:29, in context, are speaking of OT believers, Spiritual Israel. "Whom Hew foreknew". The context defines it.

Dave

Hi @dave,

Hope you had a wonderful Christmas and I pray that you and yours have a blessed next year.

I’m going to agree with you about Acts 26:5 since this refers to people that knew Paul for a long time. However, the other verses do speak of foreknowledge. Since God is an infinite, all powerful and omniscient being then it follows that all foreknowledge is also eternal. He has always known so from the foundation of the world is implied by His attributes.


“God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭11‬:‭2‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Romans 11:2 (NASB2020) - God has not rejected His people who | YouVersion

God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?

bible.com

This passage refers to Israel which He clearly foreknew as the verse states.

“For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.”
‭‭1 Peter‬ ‭1‬:‭20‬-‭21‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

1 Peter 1:20-21 (NASB2020) - For He was foreknown before the fou | YouVersion

For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory,

bible.com

This verse refers to Christ which, of course, God the Father foreknew that He would send to the world as the sacrificial lamb to die for us. This verse does speak about foreknowledge and God always knew this. It was always part of His plan.

“For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters;”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭8‬:‭29‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Romans 8:29 (NASB2020) - For those whom He foreknew, He also | YouVersion

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters

bible.com

Those that He foreknew were people that He knew would have faith in Him. This does not preclude an option or decision but only that He knew it from eternity. And then the rest of this verse and the next flow from there.

 

[Dan Perez]

THANK YOU , dan p

Thank you and just love EPH 1:4 !!

dan p

 

[Dave...]

Hi @dave,

Hope you had a wonderful Christmas and I pray that you and yours have a blessed next year.

Thanks, right back at you.

I’m going to agree with you about Acts 26:5 since this refers to people that knew Paul for a long time. However, the other verses do speak of foreknowledge. Since God is an infinite, all powerful and omniscient being then it follows that all foreknowledge is also eternal. He has always known so from the foundation of the world is implied by His attributes.


“God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭11‬:‭2‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Romans 11:2 (NASB2020) - God has not rejected His people who | YouVersion

God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?

bible.com

This passage refers to Israel which He clearly foreknew as the verse states.

Here it's saying that these are people who God foreknew, rather than Paul. I think this verse points right back to Romans 8:28-29.

“For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.”
‭‭1 Peter‬ ‭1‬:‭20‬-‭21‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

1 Peter 1:20-21 (NASB2020) - For He was foreknown before the fou | YouVersion

For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory,

bible.com

This verse refers to Christ which, of course, God the Father foreknew that He would send to the world as the sacrificial lamb to die for us. This verse does speak about foreknowledge and God always knew this. It was always part of His plan.

Again, this is not speaking of foreknowledge, but foreknown, or foreknew means more here. It's pregnant meaning, as people from the reformed side of things will point out. And I agree. It is unnecessary to ad to the meaning of "He was foreknown before the foundations of the world".

“For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters;”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭8‬:‭29‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Romans 8:29 (NASB2020) - For those whom He foreknew, He also | YouVersion

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters

bible.com

Those that He foreknew were people that He knew would have faith in Him. This does not preclude an option or decision but only that He knew it from eternity. And then the rest of this verse and the next flow from there.

Again, it's speaking of 'whom' God foreknew. It is unnecessary to ad to that simple meaning. Ephesians 1:9-14 should be considered a parallel passage to Romans 8:28-29.

John 14:6-7 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.

John 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

He *knew them*, before Pentecost, before they were indwelt with the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17) Before the Promise of the Father was given (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:4) - Pentecost), before they were 'in Christ' and born again (Ephesians 1:13-14, 1 Peter 1:3). OT believers were not even yet justified, except by promise (Romans 3:25). romans 8:28-29 it specifically says that they are predestined to be conformed to Christlikeness. That's a message aimed directly at OT believers.

Romans 8:29-30 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 (John 10:27-28); whom He called, these He also justified (Romans 3:25); and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

OT believers, are predestined to be conformed to Christ's image, beginning with the indwelling which places them in Christ. OT believers had to wait until Christ was lifted up and the Promise of the Father was given. They were already declared righteous by their OT faith. they needed to hear the Gospel and upgrade their faith, for lack of a better way to say it.

Cornelius in Acts 10 was a man known by God before he came to faith in Jesus Christ. You can see God taking that OT faith and as predestined, seeing it through to a NT faith in Jesus Christ. Just like with Lydia. That's what I believe Romans 9 is speaking of. They were already known by God, intimately, but predestined to come to faith in Jesus. All that the Father gives Me, I shall not lose one of them.

 

[Hentenza]

Thanks, right back at you.



Here it's saying that these are people who God foreknew, rather than Paul. I think this verse points right back to Romans 8:28-29.

I don’t have that interpretation since Acts 26 is Paul’s defense to King Agrippa. In verse 5 “they” are the Jews and “me” is Paul. The Jews knew Saul as a Pharisee and prosecutor of the church which are two themes that he talks about in the next verses. I only see a straight forward hermeneutic in this verse.

Again, this is not speaking of foreknowledge, but foreknown, or foreknew means more here. It's pregnant meaning, as people from the reformed side of things will point out. And I agree. It is unnecessary to ad to the meaning of "He was foreknown before the foundations of the world".

Ok. I don’t like pregnant meanings because they tend to spiritualize scripture. I tend to use the simple interpretation if it makes sense with the context.

Again, it's speaking of 'whom' God foreknew. It is unnecessary to ad to that simple meaning. Ephesians 1:9-14 should be considered a parallel passage to Romans 8:28-29.

Agreed.

John 14:6-7 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.

John 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

He *knew them*, before Pentecost, before they were indwelt with the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17) Before the Promise of the Father was given (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:4) - Pentecost), before they were 'in Christ' and born again (Ephesians 1:13-14, 1 Peter 1:3). OT believers were not even yet justified, except by promise (Romans 3:25). romans 8:28-29 it specifically says that they are predestined to be conformed to Christlikeness. That's a message aimed directly at OT believers.

Romans 8:29-30 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 (John 10:27-28); whom He called, these He also justified (Romans 3:25); and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

OT believers, are predestined to be conformed to Christ's image, beginning with the indwelling which places them in Christ. OT believers had to wait until Christ was lifted up and the Promise of the Father was given. They were already declared righteous by their OT faith. they needed to hear the Gospel and upgrade their faith, for lack of a better way to say it.

Cornelius in Acts 10 was a man known by God before he came to faith in Jesus Christ. You can see God taking that OT faith and as predestined, seeing it through to a NT faith in Jesus Christ. Just like with Lydia. That's what I believe Romans 9 is speaking of. They were already known by God, intimately, but predestined to come to faith in Jesus. All that the Father gives Me, I shall not lose one of them.

Again, I prefer the simple interpretation. I don’t see the message being directed at the OT believers but to all in Christ as verse one clearly states. Those whom He foreknew will also include OT believers whom by faith He will conform to Christ just as He did with Abraham.

 

[Dan Perez]

THANK YOU , dan p

I HENTENZA. and I had to eat dinner and lets answer what GOD FOREKNEW !!

# 1. ACCORDING. AS ///. KATHOS is an ADVERB

# 2 HE HAS CHOSEN. // EKLEGOMAI. is in. the AORIST TENSE in. the MIDDLE VOICE and in. the the INDICATIVE MOOD

which means YOU BELIEVE IT THAT CHRIST HAS CHOSEN those saved by ROM 10:9 and 10. in. the SINGULAR

# 3 US ///. HEMAS. is a PERSONAL POSSESSEIVE PRONOUN. in. the PLURAL

# 4 IN ///. EN is a PREPOSTION

# 5 HIM. ///. AUITOS. is also PERSONAL POSSESSIVE PRONOUN. like we know very well. in the GENITIVE CASE in the SINGULAR

# 6 BEFORE. ///. is a PREPOSITION

# 7 THE FOUNDATION. ///. KATABOLE. in. the GENITIVE CASE in. the SINGULAR

# 8 OF THE WORLD. ///. KOSMOS. in. the GENITIVE CASE in. the SINGULAR

# 9 THAT WE ///. HEMAS. is also PERSONAL POSSESSETIVE PRONOUN. in. the PLURAL

# 10 SHOULD BE ///. EINOI. in. the PRESENT TENSE

# 11. SHOULD BE /// EINOI. is in. the PRESENT TENSE

# 12. AND ///. KAI. is a CONJUNCTION

# 13 WITHOUT BLAME // AMOMOS. in the ACCUSATIVE CASE.

# 14. BEFORE. /// KATENPION. is a PREPOSTION

# 15 HIM ///. AUTOS. is a PERSONAL POSSESSETIVE PRONOUN

# 16 IN. ///. EN is a Preposition

# 17. LOVE. /// AGAPE. in. the DFATIVE CASE in. the SIGNULAR.

And the word FOREKNEW. are all. the same GREEK WORD PROGINOSKO

dan p

 

[Dan Perez]

I think that Paul is just being humble. He's using himself as an example that anyone could be saved if they repent and believe. Paul is "chief", or "foremost" in that regard, is basically saying that he's an example of the depths that God can go to save someone.

Dave

And I have yet to see REPENT in Rom 10:9. and 10. , nor in Eph 2:8 and in Gal 6 :17 Paul says he bears the BRANDS

OF the Lord Jesus in my BODY as God kept him HUMBLE !!

dan p

 

[Dave...]

And I have yet to see REPENT in Rom 10:9. and 10. , nor in Eph 2:8 and in Gal 6 :17 Paul says he bears the BRANDS

OF the Lord Jesus in my BODY as God kept him HUMBLE !!

dan p

I'm not sure what your getting at here, Dan, maybe you can elaborate.

Dave

 

[Dave...]

I don’t have that interpretation since Acts 26 is Paul’s defense to King Agrippa. In verse 5 “they” are the Jews and “me” is Paul. The Jews knew Saul as a Pharisee and prosecutor of the church which are two themes that he talks about in the next verses. I only see a straight forward hermeneutic in this verse.

Ok. I don’t like pregnant meanings because they tend to spiritualize scripture. I tend to use the simple interpretation if it makes sense with the context.

Agreed.

Again, I prefer the simple interpretation. I don’t see the message being directed at the OT believers but to all in Christ as verse one clearly states. Those whom He foreknew will also include OT believers whom by faith He will conform to Christ just as He did with Abraham.

Adding one of the two examples given below to "Whom He foreknew", is adding to the text.

"Whom He foreknew" [would believe]. Adding to the text.

"Whom He foreknew" [from the foundations of the world] Adding to the text.

"Whom He foreknew". Not adding to the text. "Whom" tells us it's not and act but a people. This IS the simple interpretation.

Here's how I see it. Just for the record.

It doesn't say foreknew from the foundations of the world. Just as the Calvinist writer/s of that article in the OP claim that the Arminians add to that that word "foreknew" from some notion that is not contained in the text, quote: "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." I'm making that same claim about the Calvinist position on that same passage. It doesn't say whom He foreknew from the foundations of the world. It just says whom He foreknew.

It seems that at least most, if not all of the main Calvinist proof texts assume that very same thing, when the context always shows those same proof texts to be speaking of OT believers. Lydia? OT believer. Gentiles in Acts? OT believers. Jews? In Romans 8:29 and elsewhere? OT believers. Mathew, Mark, Luke and John before the cross? OT believers.

Also, the point that I'm making does not rely on what was done from the foundations of the world. Calvinist's TULIP does, not the Bible. God, from His omniscience, can decree from eternity, and positively ordain (allow) OT believers to come to faith. Decreeing that from foreknowledge. Then knowing this, predestine them from that first faith in Adam (Allowed), to a living faith in Christ (caused). Thus, He would not lose one of them. In other words, the only ones guaranteed to be predestined (caused), were OT believers who were already saved by their OT faith, which they came to not by being predestined (caused), but ordained (allowed). All of this decreed from the foundations of the world. I believe that the term predestined in romans 8:29 is used in the smaller context, from OT faith to NT faith. The first faith (OT) ordained, the second faith (NT) predestined, all decreed from the foundations of the world.

Those whom He foreknew intimately, believing Israel, He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers.

This last part is very significant. OT Jews had to wait for Jesus, that's what "firstborn among many brothers" means. Jesus was the first fruits of those Promises that the writer of Hebrews spoke about. It appears to me that this is a message mostly significant to Spiritual Israel.

Remember, "ordain" can mean positively cause (predestine), or positively allowed. BTW, this is not bare permission, as the Arminian believes. Ordain is an umbrella word that, under it, can have God both positively allowing and and causing (predestine).

Think about it. How could God guarantee that the all that He gave the Son, that the Son would not lose one of them? Because they were predestined to be conformed to Christlikeness. Nobody is saved but by Jesus. One must be "in Christ" to be saved. Predestine=cause. There must be a death and resurrection to be saved by. There must be and agent that places us into Christ, that's the Holy Spirit. All this waited for Christ to be lifted up. At Pentecost, these OT believers were now made saved, officially, not just by promise, but actually saved. That's what Romans 8:28-29 is saying.

Romans 8:29-30 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 (John 10:27-28); whom He called, these He also justified (Romans 3:25); and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

This next passage in John is saying the same thing. It parallels Romans 8:29-30. This is still before the cross and still OT.

John 6:37-39 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.

6:44 No one (OT believer) can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him (predestined-caused); and I will raise him up at the last day.

 

[Dave...]

Some more, for the record.

Calvinist claim is that "whom He foreknew" is speaking of a specific people because of the "whom". I agree with that. The claim by them is that the Arminian view changes that to 'whom He foreknew would come to faith'. In other words, they claim that Arminians changed the "whom He foreknew" into a "what He foreknew". Although, I think it's fair to say that Arminianism qualifies 'Whom He foreknew' with someone coming to faith. In other words, "whom" cannot be separated, or put before faith, because faith is the qualifier that determines the "whom". It's not adding to the Word, it's doing what Calvinism does, seeing through a different lens. Calvinism adds 'whom He foreknew from the foundations of the world' in that same way. It's not in the text, but it's added because in the Calvinist mindset, that's the context that they see it in.

I think that Arminianism is on track with that thought of not separating our faith from God knowing us personally, intimately. So in a sense, it is foreseeing that qualifies the foreknowing, if we qualify our being foreknown by Him with that faith, while holding to the original meaning of 'whom He foreknew', meaning intimately. So, in Arminianism, faith qualifies God foreknowing someone intimately. Calvinist will argue that foreknown is changed from a who to a what, but I disagree. It's just qualified with faith. Still, "whom He foreknew" is not speaking of foreknowledge. foreknowledge is implied because in "Whom He foreknew", it's qualified by the faith of that person.

Does that make sense?

 

[Dan Perez]

Hey @Hentenza

Acts 26:5, Romans 8:29, Romans 11:2, 1 Peter 1:20, and 2 Peter 3:17,

None of these are speaking of foreknowledge except 2 Peter 3:17. The others are speaking of a specific people. Thus "Whom He foreknew" of Romans 8:29 is speaking about a people, not an event seen before it happened. Nowhere in this passage does it say from the foundations of the world, like it did in 1 Peter 1:20. Romans 11:2, and 8:29, in context, are speaking of OT believers, Spiritual Israel. "Whom Hew foreknew". The context defines it.

Dave

And here is what Rom 8:29 means !!

# 1 FOR ///. HPTI. is a CONJUNCTION

# 2 WHOM. ///. HOS is a RELATIVE PRONOUN. is a ACCUSATIVE VCASE in. the PLURAL

#3 HE DID FOREKNOW. ///. PROGINOSHKO. in the AORIST TENSE in. the INDICATIVE MOOD in. the SINGULAR

#4. HE /// PROORIZO. in the AORIST TENSE in AORIST TENSE in. the INDICATIVE MOOD and means

you better BELIEVE IT in. the SINGULAR

#5. ALSO ///KAI. is a CONJUNCTION

#6. DID PREDESTATE ///. PROOZIZO. in. the AORIST TENSE in. the ACTIVE VOICE. in. the INDICATIVE MOOD. in the SIGNULAR

#7 (. TO BE ) CONFORMED /// SYMMKPHOS. in. the INDICATIVE MOOD in. the SINGULAR

#8 TO THE ///. HO is a DEFINITE ARTICLE. in. the GENITIVE CASE. in. the SINGULAR

# IMAGE. ///. EIKON. in. the GENITIVE CASE in. the SIGNULAR.

# A And # 3 IS SPEAKING ABOUT FORE-KNOW

#B AND your other verse. are not speaking to the BODY of CHRIST

dan p

 

[Dave...]

And here is what Rom 8:29 means !!

# 1 FOR ///. HPTI. is a CONJUNCTION

# 2 WHOM. ///. HOS is a RELATIVE PRONOUN. is a ACCUSATIVE VCASE in. the PLURAL

#3 HE DID FOREKNOW. ///. PROGINOSHKO. in the AORIST TENSE in. the INDICATIVE MOOD in. the SINGULAR

#4. HE /// PROORIZO. in the AORIST TENSE in AORIST TENSE in. the INDICATIVE MOOD and means

you better BELIEVE IT in. the SINGULAR

#5. ALSO ///KAI. is a CONJUNCTION

#6. DID PREDESTATE ///. PROOZIZO. in. the AORIST TENSE in. the ACTIVE VOICE. in. the INDICATIVE MOOD. in the SIGNULAR

#7 (. TO BE ) CONFORMED /// SYMMKPHOS. in. the INDICATIVE MOOD in. the SINGULAR

#8 TO THE ///. HO is a DEFINITE ARTICLE. in. the GENITIVE CASE. in. the SINGULAR

# IMAGE. ///. EIKON. in. the GENITIVE CASE in. the SIGNULAR.

# A And # 3 IS SPEAKING ABOUT FORE-KNOW

#B AND your other verse. are not speaking to the BODY of CHRIST

dan p

Dan,

I hope one day that you realize that the original languages are not the silver bullet that you think they are. Ask those who actually know. They will tell you that the original languages are abused more than the English. They require context also. Most people get the original languages wrong because they google a word, or a sentence. Their words, not mine. It takes a little bit more than that. Context helps in the original languages also.

Dave

 

[Dan Perez]

I'm not sure what your getting at here, Dan, maybe you can elaborate.

Dave

And you brought up. the word HUMBLE. and Paul under the LAW was BLAMELESS. and SPOKE MORE LANGUAGES

then anyone else and was THE APOSTLES to the GENTILES and was chosen to preach GODS GOSPEL. and was the

saved by GRACE. and the FIRST in. the body of CHRIST. and was the PATTERN of the ONE coming to everlasting life !!

And if you can not trust that GREEK TEXT , then what can we then TRUST. and should all the know that

nothing will be ADDED or SUBTRACTED from the GREEK TEXT and Paul was first one SAVED BY GRACE

dan p

 

[Hentenza]

Adding one of the two examples given below to "Whom He foreknew", is adding to the text.

"Whom He foreknew" [would believe]. Adding to the text.

"Whom He foreknew" [from the foundations of the world] Adding to the text.

"Whom He foreknew". Not adding to the text. "Whom" tells us it's not and act but a people. This IS the simple interpretation.

Hi Dave. Here is the issue I have with this. God’s attributes are absolute which means the omniscient, for example, is always from and for eternity. So when a verse says the He “knew” or “foreknew” it means that He knew it before the foundation of the world (eternity) so adding that to the verses that we have been discussing is not adding to the verses. Also if He knows someone then He knew someone from eternity so He foreknew is not an addition to the verses. It would be the same as if I added Son of God to every instance of the mention of Jesus. It is absolutely correct just as for knowledge is always absolutely correct.

Here's how I see it. Just for the record.

It doesn't say foreknew from the foundations of the world.

Which does not matter because God’s knowledge is eternal.

Just as the Calvinist writer/s of that article in the OP claim that the Arminians add to that that word "foreknew" from some notion that is not contained in the text, quote: "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."

In my opinion adding anything just makes it redundant. I’m not a Calvinist but lean toward reformed doctrines. I’m more concerned with Arminians crossing the line into open theism by denying God’s omniscience.

I'm making that same claim about the Calvinist position on that same passage. It doesn't say whom He foreknew from the foundations of the world. It just says whom He foreknew.

But whom he foreknew He would have known from eternity so from the foundations of the world is implied and not adding to the verse.

It seems that at least most, if not all of the main Calvinist proof texts assume that very same thing, when the context always shows those same proof texts to be speaking of OT believers. Lydia? OT believer. Gentiles in Acts? OT believers. Jews? In Romans 8:29 and elsewhere? OT believers. Mathew, Mark, Luke and John before the cross? OT believers.

You lost me here. Very few gentiles were believers in the OT since God elected Israel as His people. The law of Moses including the 10 commandments were given to Israel not to the gentiles. However, all gentiles that became Christians after Jesus resurrection (and even before) were not OT believers since they were never under the law. Maybe you could clarify what you mean.

Also, the point that I'm making does not rely on what was done from the foundations of the world. Calvinist's TULIP does, not the Bible.

Again not defending Calvinism but God is indeed omniscient so all of His knowledge is eternal (from before the foundations of the world).

God, from His omniscience, can decree from eternity, and positively ordain (allow) OT believers to come to faith. Decreeing that from foreknowledge.

He can decree anything from eternity to include everyone not just OT believers. Since His foreknowledge is from eternity then your argument here is saying the same thing so no argument really.

Then knowing this, predestine them from that first faith in Adam (Allowed), to a living faith in Christ (caused).

Why is faith in Christ caused? Who caused it?

Thus, He would not lose one of them. In other words, the only ones guaranteed to be predestined (caused), were OT believers who were already saved by their OT faith, which they came to not by being predestined (caused), but ordained (allowed). All of this decreed from the foundations of the world. I believe that the term predestined in romans 8:29 is used in the smaller context, from OT faith to NT faith. The first faith (OT) ordained, the second faith (NT) predestined, all decreed from the foundations of the world.

The problem here is that God can predestine to salvation or to destruction. For example, pharaoh was predestined to destruction as he did not have a choice but to oppose Moses and God. The same as God predestined the apostles to be followers of Christ. But again predestination is simply God’s foreknowledge of every action and decision of those He “chose”. God knew from eternity what Pharaoh’s decisions and actions were going to be. God’s knew from eternity that the apostles would follow Christ. Christ will never loose one because He knows them from eternity.

Those whom He foreknew intimately, believing Israel, He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers.

He definitely knew Israel and knew what turn Israel was going to take and from what people Jesus would come from.

This last part is very significant. OT Jews had to wait for Jesus, that's what "firstborn among many brothers" means. Jesus was the first fruits of those Promises that the writer of Hebrews spoke about. It appears to me that this is a message mostly significant to Spiritual Israel.

Israel is just Israel. I don’t believe in a spiritual Israel. Jesus is indeed the first fruits of the promise but that promise is literal not spiritual. Israel had the opportunity to welcome their eagerly awaited Messiah but instead rejected Him and in turn rejected the promise of the gospel of good news.

Remember, "ordain" can mean positively cause (predestine), or positively allowed. BTW, this is not bare permission, as the Arminian believes. Ordain is an umbrella word that, under it, can have God both positively allowing and and causing (predestine).

Agreed.

Think about it. How could God guarantee that the all that He gave the Son, that the Son would not lose one of them? Because they were predestined to be conformed to Christlikeness.

Ok but are you now saying that God predestines some to believe and some to not believe? Or does God merely just knows from eternity? Even in Calvinism the call goes out to all, do you agree?

Nobody is saved but by Jesus. One must be "in Christ" to be saved. Predestine=cause. There must be a death and resurrection to be saved by. There must be and agent that places us into Christ, that's the Holy Spirit. All this waited for Christ to be lifted up. At Pentecost, these OT believers were now made saved, officially, not just by promise, but actually saved. That's what Romans 8:28-29 is saying.

All believers, not just the OT believers, are partakes of Jesus redemptive sacrifice. Romans 8:28-29 states that all that God knew from eternity that would have faith in Christ would be predestined to conformed to Christ’s image. It’s all about His knowledge from eternity. The opposite statement would be that those that He knew from eternity that would not have faith in Christ He did not predestine to conform to Christ image. It’s all about Gods eternal knowledge.

Romans 8:29-30 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 (John 10:27-28); whom He called, these He also justified (Romans 3:25); and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Right. It’s all about Gods eternal knowledge.

This next passage in John is saying the same thing. It parallels Romans 8:29-30. This is still before the cross and still OT.

The OT is in tension with the NT until the resurrection. I can make the argument that since John the Baptist announced the Messiah that the NT was in progress. Once the new message began to conflict with the OT message the NT was in progress. Jesus corrected the leaders of the Jews. Jesus convinced people to follow Him including gentiles. So I’m not sure that before the NT is accurate.

John 6:37-39 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.

6:44 No one (OT believer) can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him (predestined-caused); and I will raise him up at the last day.

Yep. Except for your OT believers reference. The message is for all (past, present, and future).

 

[Hentenza]

Some more, for the record.

Calvinist claim is that "whom He foreknew" is speaking of a specific people because of the "whom". I agree with that. The claim by them is that the Arminian view changes that to 'whom He foreknew would come to faith'. In other words, they claim that Arminians changed the "whom He foreknew" into a "what He foreknew". Although, I think it's fair to say that Arminianism qualifies 'Whom He foreknew' with someone coming to faith. In other words, "whom" cannot be separated, or put before faith, because faith is the qualifier that determines the "whom". It's not adding to the Word, it's doing what Calvinism does, seeing through a different lens. Calvinism adds 'whom He foreknew from the foundations of the world' in that same way. It's not in the text, but it's added because in the Calvinist mindset, that's the context that they see it in.

Mmmm if God is omniscient and if all of His knowledge is eternal then whether it is whom He foreknew or what He foreknew is irrelevant because He knows all events and decisions. Your argument unfortunately is not an argument since there is no tension between whom or what in relation to eternal knowledge. Does that makes sense?

I think that Arminianism is on track with that thought of not separating our faith from God knowing us personally, intimately. So in a sense, it is foreseeing that qualifies the foreknowing, if we qualify our being foreknown by Him with that faith, while holding to the original meaning of 'whom He foreknew', meaning intimately. So, in Arminianism, faith qualifies God foreknowing someone intimately. Calvinist will argue that foreknown is changed from a who to a what, but I disagree. It's just qualified with faith. Still, "whom He foreknew" is not speaking of foreknowledge. foreknowledge is implied because in "Whom He foreknew", it's qualified by the faith of that person.

Does that make sense?

I’ll let my previous responses address this. The reason why I lean toward reformed theology is that God’s attributes are absolute and non negotiable. God is supreme and His “will” will be done so Arminianism has to rely on a theology which attempts to explain a God with lack of knowledge as far as our decisions are. If God knows our decisions from eternity then Arminianism has no defense.

But let me clear the air, I believe that both are taught in scripture to a certain extent which creates tension. I don’t like tension because it points to a lack of understanding on my part. I have then decided that there is a third option that we, as mere humans, can not fully comprehend. After all there is an infinite difference between a finite, created being and an infinite, uncreated being.

 

[Dave...]

Hi Dave. Here is the issue I have with this. God’s attributes are absolute which means the omniscient, for example, is always from and for eternity. So when a verse says the He “knew” or “foreknew” it means that He knew it before the foundation of the world (eternity) so adding that to the verses that we have been discussing is not adding to the verses. Also if He knows someone then He knew someone from eternity so He foreknew is not an addition to the verses. It would be the same as if I added Son of God to every instance of the mention of Jesus. It is absolutely correct just as for knowledge is always absolutely correct.

Hi Hentenza

I agree that God is omniscient, but disagree with the conclusion that "whom He foreknew" must be from the foundations of the World. That's assumed into the text because He foreknows everything. But "whom He foreknew" means an intimate relationship that begins when they first believe.

John 3:18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Think of the implications of that passage. Calvinism, (not saying you), believes that they are saved from the foundations of the world because God foreloved/foreknew them from the foundations of the world and they were predestined already, even before they believed. That verse says that non believers are "condemned already" until they believe.

True OT believers were ordained/positively allowed from the foundations of the world. But they were predestined (also ordained from the foundations of the world) as true OT believers to believe the Gospel and receive the indwelling, called the baptism with the Holy Spirit, which places them in Christ so they could receive all those OT promises owed to them. The promises, being born again and being justified. None of which they have in the OT, except by promise. It's not until they are placed into Christ that they receive those promises. they cannot be placed into Christ until He is lifted us, and glorified.

In short, everything is ordained from the foundations of the world. Including the predestination that is given to OT believer to become a NT believer in the Gospel.

14:7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him."

God may have known about everything from the foundations of the World, but He didn't "know them" from the foundations of the world. Knowing them speaks of an intimate knowing. That's how Scripture uses that term. Look at the link given in the OP. It goes over all that stuff. I don't agree with the conclusion, because they assumed " foundations of the world" into that statement. The only people predestined are OT believers. They are predestined to believe the Gospel, and thus, they will receive all the OT promises made which can only be received "in Christ".

Which does not matter because God’s knowledge is eternal.

In my opinion adding anything just makes it redundant. I’m not a Calvinist but lean toward reformed doctrines. I’m more concerned with Arminians crossing the line into open theism by denying God’s omniscience.

But whom he foreknew He would have known from eternity so from the foundations of the world is implied and not adding to the verse.

I went round and round with a guy on another forum in the same way. Basically, his argument was that the OT was the same as the NT because God is eternal and not bound by time. He then used that logic to (at least in his mind), over ride all time sensitive Scripture, thereby making any Scripture that was time sensitive a non factor. I'm sensing that you're heading in that direction? I would disagree with that. OT believers were saved by promise only. The realization of those promises comes when we are placed "in Christ". One could not be placed into Christ, until Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit, the agent of that placing into was made available.

You lost me here. Very few gentiles were believers in the OT since God elected Israel as His people. The law of Moses including the 10 commandments were given to Israel not to the gentiles. However, all gentiles that became Christians after Jesus resurrection (and even before) were not OT believers since they were never under the law. Maybe you could clarify what you mean.

These Gentiles were True OT believers, just as some of the Jews were. They were due the Promise of the Father which would place them 'in Christ' just like the Jews. Remember Nineveh? I always believed that Nineveh (Along with Jonah) was a OT type of what happened at Pentecost. Anyways, those were true OT believers. I believe that while the Gentiles were 'officially' grafted in at Pentecost, that the grafting, in promise, as all OT believers had in promise only, happened long before that. Nineveh, Gentiles, Jonah's Gentile revival happened way before Pentecost. God specifically sent Jonah there to save them.

Jethro, Rahab, Caleb, Naaman, to name a few. These are all Gentile believers in the OT. But my point was that proof texts often pointed to with the claim that they prove predestination from the foundations of the world actually only prove that they were predestined from an OT belief to a NT belief. Lydia (Acts 16:14) "who worshipped God", being predestined to be "in Christ" as a true OT believer, God opened her heart to hear the Gospel. In Acts 10, Cornelius, a devout Gentile and a God fearer. You can see God's predestination in action as Peter was sent to share the Gospel to him and his household.

But it's not just the Gentiles. All true believers in the OT were predestined to believe the Gospel, and thus be conformed to Christ likeness. That's who was predestined. This was all ordained from the foundations of the World. Meaning, God's foreknowledge of all things is not being overlooked.

Why is faith in Christ caused? Who caused it?

Predestined means positively caused. Examples are given above with Lydia and Cornelius.

The problem here is that God can predestine to salvation or to destruction. For example, pharaoh was predestined to destruction as he did not have a choice but to oppose Moses and God. The same as God predestined the apostles to be followers of Christ. But again predestination is simply God’s foreknowledge of every action and decision of those He “chose”. God knew from eternity what Pharaoh’s decisions and actions were going to be. God’s knew from eternity that the apostles would follow Christ. Christ will never loose one because He knows them from eternity.

I don't believe that predestination speaks of an eternal decree. It could be part of the decree. In other words, all things are ordained, but not all things are predestined. And predestination doesn't need to begin from the foundation s of the world. Ordain does. It was decreed from the foundations of the world, but the decree is ordained. The predestined part, as has been said already, is an OT to NT conversion.

God never positively causes one to sin, or fall. It's a positive allowing (not bare permission), not a positive causing, as Predestination is. Predestination is specifically God bringing something to pass. Making it happen. You'll never find a verse that says God predestined anyone to hell, or to sin. It may appear that way sometimes because of the translation, but He cannot be the Author of sin, or evil, as that would make Him a house divided against itself. Ordain is kind of an umbrella word. It can include predestination, but also, it can include God positively allowing things to happen. All from an eternal decree.

He definitely knew Israel and knew what turn Israel was going to take and from what people Jesus would come from.

Israel is just Israel. I don’t believe in a spiritual Israel. Jesus is indeed the first fruits of the promise but that promise is literal not spiritual. Israel had the opportunity to welcome their eagerly awaited Messiah but instead rejected Him and in turn rejected the promise of the gospel of good news.

Not all Israel is Israel. Romans 9:6. Some would say that Jacob represents Spiritual Israel, and Esau represents physical Israel. In Romans 11:2, it used foreknew in an intimate way, basically it means foreloved. That's how we should understand Romans 8:28-29.

Ok but are you now saying that God predestines some to believe and some to not believe? Or does God merely just knows from eternity? Even in Calvinism the call goes out to all, do you agree?

From an OT belief, God predestines those to a NT belief. Initially, they came to faith in the OT by other means, not from being predestined. The predestined begins after they come to faith in the OT. They are predestined to be conformed to Christlikeness, which happens in Christ only, where all the promises of the Father are fulfilled. They were predestined to take the next step in faith. All that the Father gave the Son, He should not lose one of them. This promise is guaranteed through God's predestination. These OT believers were already due the promises by faith and declared righteous by promise. Those who are not OT believers can still believe in the Gospel, it's just not predestined. Only OT believers were predestined to believe the NT Gospel.

All the verse used by Calvinism assumed "from the foundations of the world". But that's Tulip defining Scripture, instead of the other way around. None of those "proof passages" are speaking from the foundations of the world. That's always assumed. It's a false assumption in my opinion.

All believers, not just the OT believers, are partakes of Jesus redemptive sacrifice. Romans 8:28-29 states that all that God knew from eternity that would have faith in Christ would be predestined to conformed to Christ’s image. It’s all about His knowledge from eternity. The opposite statement would be that those that He knew from eternity that would not have faith in Christ He did not predestine to conform to Christ image. It’s all about Gods eternal knowledge.

Right. It’s all about Gods eternal knowledge.

God foreknew what would happen, even ordaining it (allowed), and decreed that from the foundations of the world. But God did not "know them" intimately until they came to faith in the OT. At that point, He predestined them to receive the promises made and finalize their salvation. That happens through the Gospel, and through Jesus, which they did not know when they initially came to faith and were declared righteous by promise. They were owed all the Promises of the OT that were fulfilled in the NT. All that was ordained from the foundations of the world, including their being predestined to be conformed to Christlikeness from their OT faith. Foundations of the world all things ordained including OT faith to NT faith=predestined). Ordained (predestined) ordained). Predestination is part of ordained, but is distinct from it.

The OT is in tension with the NT until the resurrection. I can make the argument that since John the Baptist announced the Messiah that the NT was in progress. Once the new message began to conflict with the OT message the NT was in progress. Jesus corrected the leaders of the Jews. Jesus convinced people to follow Him including gentiles. So I’m not sure that before the NT is accurate.

The New Testament/Covenant begins when at the death of the Testator/Covenanter Hebrews 9:16-17. That why we call Pentecost the birth of the Church. It's the first placed into Christ. John the Baptist prophesied about Jesus, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, called the baptism with the Holy Spirit (John 3:11). This was even acknowledged by Luke in Acts 1:5.

Yep. Except for your OT believers reference. The message is for all (past, present, and future).

The John 6:37-39,44 is speaking specifically of OT believers. That passage is still the OT. God the Father gave them to the Son (OT believers). They will hear His voice and follow because they are predestined to do so. To make the transition from OT faith to NT faith. They had already heard and learned from the Father (John 6:45), making them OT believers. The true OT believers were given to the Son from the Father.

I'll try to get your next post before I run out of time....

 

[Dave...]

Mmmm if God is omniscient and if all of His knowledge is eternal then whether it is whom He foreknew or what He foreknew is irrelevant because He knows all events and decisions. Your argument unfortunately is not an argument since there is no tension between whom or what in relation to eternal knowledge. Does that makes sense?

It's very relevant. He foreknows everyone and everything with respect to knowledge. The "whom He foreknew" is speaking of those who He knows intimately. I believe that's the tension that results from your definition of "whom He foreknew". To know someone in Scripture often carries with it more than just mere knowledge of that person or an event. It's an intimate knowing. Like God knowing Israel, or Adam knowing Eve. Jeremiah 1:5 (a prophetic personal calling).

I’ll let my previous responses address this. The reason why I lean toward reformed theology is that God’s attributes are absolute and non negotiable. God is supreme and His “will” will be done so Arminianism has to rely on a theology which attempts to explain a God with lack of knowledge as far as our decisions are. If God knows our decisions from eternity then Arminianism has no defense.

My point was that the while I agree with the Arminian idea that being known by God is a result of faith. I disagree with them that it's from God foreseeing that faith from the foundations of the world. It's the faith that makes us known by God when that faith happens. And yes, God knew it would happen from the foundations of the world, and even decreed it. So He did fore see it because He foresees everything. But the predestination is from faith to faith. Ordained from the foundations of the World, but the initial OT faith was not predestined. In other words, the Arminian view is a half truth. One that Calvinists will find irresistible to attack, but it's a moot point. God does not predestine/cause OT faith, He predestines an already positively allowed OT faith to be realized in a NT faith. This is not speaking of atheists or anyone else coming to faith in the NT. They are not predestined to come to faith. Only OT believes are predestined to come to faith in Jesus Christ.

But let me clear the air, I believe that both are taught in scripture to a certain extent which creates tension. I don’t like tension because it points to a lack of understanding on my part. I have then decided that there is a third option that we, as mere humans, can not fully comprehend. After all there is an infinite difference between a finite, created being and an infinite, uncreated being.

I don't see the tension. We are elect in Jesus. Jesus is the One who is elect from the foundations of the world. We became elect with Him when we are placed 'in Him'. That's what the indwelling does. That's the result of our coming to faith. If you look at Ephesians 1:1-14ish, you'll see that this election is "in Him", or "in Christ". So you have a choice. Either we are "in Christ" and saved from the foundations of the world, as the Calvinist believes, or we are saved as a result of coming to faith in Jesus Christ as the Bible teaches. Believe, and be saved is the Gospel message. If you look closely, most of the tensions come from the Tulip system, not the Bible. No more do we need to say God's desire is different from His decree. When God says that after He's lifted up, He will draw all people to Himself. I can believe it It's a simple Biblical truth. Just like much of the rest.

What gets in the way is called reverse engineering. When the system, assumed to be true, begins to define Scripture. That's a problem that I could not turn away from any longer as a reformed believer myself. TULIP is wrong. It's built on half truths and assumptions. For whatever reason, when many of the reformed greats did most of their work, it was mysteriously absent of the transition from the OT to the NT. Even more so with the baptism with the Holy Spirit. I believe there is a reason for this, but I can only assume it was the powers that be who guarded false ideas about water baptism to hold their perceived power over the people leaving them feeling a need for the hierarchy to be water baptized and saved, which is obviously false.

Anyways, I have no problem with God's Sovereignty. In fact, my position probably would not be so radical form the reformed perspective in years past. But recently what is now called reformed is actually become very narrow in it's thinking and what we used to call hyper Calvinism. It's become very attractive to new believers who cannot see context so well. That why I was initially attracted to it. I wanted to see as much Scripture as possible in context. Tulip appeared to solve that problem. But after a while I could not brush aside the "tensions" as you say. I decided to test myself, and my own beliefs to Scripture. Who better, right? I couldn't trust in the Arminains to do that because most of their theology is driven by humanism. Even if some of it actually was right.

Anyways, as I said earlier, most of the proof texts used by Calvinism can be easily shown not to be what they claim. Especially the idea of total depravity. But all these proof texts, including Romans 8:28-29 have a place. I cannot ignore them. It took me most of my life to figure this stuff out. The transition from OT to NT is key. When the NT actually begins. What it means to be born again and how it happens. The baptism with the Holy Spirit, when understood correctly under this transition, explains a lot. I never believed that man must be born again to believe. That never lined up with Scripture for me. Anyways, if you look at my posting history, I've been working my way through all that stuff. All I can say is test it. I dare you.

Dave

Dave

 

[Hentenza]

Hi Hentenza

I agree that God is omniscient, but disagree with the conclusion that "whom He foreknew" must be from the foundations of the World. That's assumed into the text because He foreknows everything. But "whom He foreknew" means an intimate relationship that begins when they first believe.

I think the crux to our arguments rests here so we need to address this before continuing with the rest of your post because this is the foundation to your argument. Even though we agree that God is omniscient it seems that we have different definitions of omniscience and what it means with regards to human agency. I hold to the traditional definition of omniscience which is as follows:

“The traditional Christian understanding maintains that God possesses complete and infallible knowledge of everything—past, present, and future. More precisely, divine omniscience is understood as the perfection by which God knows all things, with some theologians specifying that God knows all propositions and which ones are true or false. This omniscience is considered necessary rather than contingent—it cannot fail or waver, and God possesses it in every possible world, meaning there is no conceivable scenario in which God lacks complete cognitive excellence.”
From Holman Bible Dictionary.

Since God knows everything from eternity then I contend that “whom He foreknew” is a priori and not adding to the verse since it is true in all circumstances. God knows from eternity that a particular person would have faith so the relationship has always existed. Is like adding Son of God to every instance of Jesus. It doesn’t add to the verse. It merely states what has already been established. Does that make sense? Do you agree? If not please explain your definition of omniscience.